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

June 27, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

Mr Callahan moved resolution 18:

That in the opinion of this House, the legislative process must be reformed to allow individual members the ability to vote for or against a measure as the majority of their electorate wishes, without it triggering a dissolution of the Legislature. It is also fundamental to a true democratic process that every individual member have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the policy decisions of the Legislature and this House calls upon the government to reform the parliamentary process in a way which would make the contribution of all members more meaningful.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Callahan: First of all, I would like to say that 10 minutes is hardly enough time to debate an issue as fundamental and as important as this is to the continued respect that people of this province and, perhaps if it is taken up, other parliaments of this country have for the electoral process. I would hope that at some later stage there would be a full day or more devoted by this government to debating this very important issue.

I might also say that anything I am going to say in my remarks will not be partisan. It will refer to all governments that have operated in this House.

The interesting thing is that each one of us is elected by the people in our riding with great expectations. They anticipate that when we come down here to the Legislature, we will in fact be representing their views at all times.

I think anyone who has been in a majority government recognizes that this is not the case. There were catcalls from your side when you were in opposition; there are catcalls from this side when in fact everyone is applauding and voting exactly the same way. It is almost like pushing the button on a cash register; sometimes it registers a sale but more often than not it is a no sale.

I suggest that this issue is as important as the constitutional issue. Interestingly enough, Mr Spicer's report will be made public today. This issue is at the heart of the whole democratic process. For some reason, we have adopted a parliamentary process in this country that requires that party loyalty and party vote be the same on every occasion. I suggest to you that this does nothing but weaken the democratic process and in fact tells the person who has voted for the local member that he or she has absolutely no power here at Queen's Park.

That is a bad message to be sending out to the public. In fact, there should be, as I said in my motion, a reform of this process allowing for greater participation.

At the present time, we for some reason seem to think that if the party in power does not vote unanimously for a particular issue, the government will fall. That is not the case. In Great Britain for seven years, between April 1972 and 1979, there were 65 defeats of government measures. In fact, in recent British history there have been defeats of financial matters where the government has not fallen either.

In taking our parliamentary history from England, it is interesting as well to note that the purpose of the whip was not to handcuff people and bring them down and make them vote in a particular way. The purpose of the whip was to be a liaison between the private member and the minister, and if the whip could not convince the private member that his or her views had been heard by the minister in formulating policy, that person would not show up for the vote.

As you can see, we have a sort of aborted version of that which results in a situation that I am sure is recognized by people who watch a vote in this House on television.

I suggest there are ways this could be reformed. In the Northwest Territories -- and this would be the most absolute way -- there are no party affiliations whatsoever. People are elected at large, similar to a municipal election. At their first sitting in the House they choose their cabinet ministers and their leader and the Premier. If they are not happy with the cabinet ministers or the Premier somewhere along the way, they can change them at any time. I suggest that this is true democracy. I do not expect we are going to move to that system this rapidly, but I do suggest to members one thing that could happen.

In the processing of bills, as you know, we debate second reading in this House, which establishes the principle of the bill. Then when we go out to the committees and travel this beautiful province and spend taxpayers' dollars to find out the views of interested Ontarians, because the principle of the bill is already in place, it is like going out and listening to nothing. None of their views will be taken into consideration in terms of amending that bill. We have all seen it happen. When it comes back to the committee and we go through it clause by clause, very few, if any, amendments are made to that bill.

I suggest that if we change just this small thing, if instead of sending a bill out after second reading we send it out after first reading, before the principle of the bill is established -- let it go to a committee, empower the committees to travel the province, to take the views of the citizens, to take the views of their own constituents, entitle and empower them to introduce amendments to that bill -- we may get a whole series of amendments from various party members on that committee, but the United States does not seem to have difficulty with that. What you do is you give and you take and you come up with a bill that eventually is meaningful.

At present what we have is a system of government which is really ruled by the cabinet and, in most cases, not even the cabinet but a select group in the cabinet and the civil service. If that is the totality of the ideas that we can put into place in public policy in this province, we are bankrupt and I am surprised that we have survived as well as we have.

We are going into very bad times. Ontario is under a great deal of pressure constitutionally but also under pressure in terms of citizens of this community becoming very cynical about politics. So I suggest to you that this is a very important issue. It is as important as the constitutional issue on which we have about five committees travelling this country and taking the views of the electorate. I issue a challenge to the government of the day.

If they are truly democratic, which is part of their name, they will establish a couple of days for us to debate this even further, perhaps to set up a select committee to travel this province and gain the views of the electorate as to whether or not they would like to see the process changed. I issue that challenge to this government. If it is not prepared to do it during its mandate, it is missing out on one of the most important items that we as elected people can expect.

I know when I go back to my riding, I want to be able to tell my people that I took their very distinct views, their very distinct problems to Queen's Park and had some ability to solve them.

I understand what the members opposite are going through. They have got a large majority. We call them clapping seals, and that is perhaps unfair, but in fact every one of them stands up on every measure that the government puts forward. Surely to heaven that cannot be because the members opposite believe in every measure. It is because they are forced to do it. They are forced by perks that are within the power of the Premier's office. That also has to stop. The powers that the Premier has to enforce a total vote have to be taken away.

Members of this Legislature, when an election is called, are going to have to go back to their ridings and ask for the trust of their electorate. If all they can say to them is, "Every time the government put forward an issue, I stood up and voted for it," they are going to have to defend those policies. Some of those policies are going to be contrary to the beliefs of the people in their riding, and they are going to find it very difficult to establish those.

The chicken way out, of course, is not to show up for the vote. I think that is an even bigger fraud on the public because these people have elected the honourable members and are paying their salaries to be here to deal with issues that are very important to them.

I am going to reserve the last two minutes. I would like to hear the statements by other members of the House. I would like to reserve the last two minutes, or whatever I have left, for response.

Mr McLean: I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution brought forward by the member for Brampton South, a resolution that calls for a reform of the legislative process to allow individual members to vote for or against, as the majority of their electorate wishes, without triggering a dissolution of the Legislature.

This resolution also notes that it is fundamental to a true democratic process that every individual member have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the policy decisions of this Legislature. It calls upon the government to reform the parliamentary process in a way which would make the contribution of all members more meaningful.

I would like to assure the member for Brampton South that I support the spirit of this resolution because it would allow all elected members to exercise more fully their speaking and voting freedom in this Legislature. It would also ensure that elected members adopt a philosophy I have always embraced, which is to be accountable to the people who have so much faith in us that they elected us to represent them in this Legislature.

However, I am puzzled about the source of this resolution. I am curious because it has come from an opposition Liberal member, and I know the previous Liberal government would never have supported this resolution. I suspect the current NDP government will not support it either.

That saddens me, because I remember a time when my party was in power and there was a proposal to close Ontario Hydro's regional office in Orillia and shift operations to Bracebridge. I recall this event very clearly because I, as a member of the governing party, took on Ontario Hydro at a public meeting which was attended by over a thousand of my own constituents who were opposed to this move. Needless to say, Ontario Hydro still has a strong presence in the sunshine city, and I feel it was people representation that made that happen.

I urge my colleagues here in the Legislature to give some serious thought to this resolution. Let us reform our process of democratic government and strengthen representative democracy here in Ontario.

In many cases, issues are currently dealt with in a partisan manner. It is my hope that by passing this resolution to reform the existing system, we will see some cross-party, issue-based coalitions formed that will deal with matters that are really relevant to our constituents. It would result in a true reflection of the views, the opinions and the concerns of the people who elected us to represent them. This is something I have sincerely tried to do since the people of Simcoe East first chose me to represent them back in 1981.

As I said earlier, I support the spirit of this resolution. However, I do not think it goes quite far enough. I personally believe the processes for dealing with private members' bills requires some reform. We all know that private members' bills that do not have the active support of ministers will not go very far, even though they may have the overwhelming support of the people of Ontario or those in this elected assembly. Ministers prefer to draft their own legislation according to the cabinet's will.

It is a known fact that the current procedure for private members' bills contains an implicit veto of the government House leader. This veto need not be explained or justified to elected representatives or to their constituents. For example, my private member's Bill 37,

an Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators, was killed when the government members approved second reading and sent it to committee of the whole House rather than having it sent to the standing committee on resources development as I had requested. The government simply must fail to act. My private member's bill, when they failed to act on it, will now die on the order paper because the government never brings forward legislation that is sent to the committee of the whole House.

We have become so accustomed to the silent demise of private members' bills that the people of Ontario just assume it is going to happen. I believe that by broadening and passing this resolution, the people of Ontario will ultimately emerge as the winners, because they will be able to participate through their elected members more directly and fully in the province's democratic process.

That is what the new party, the Reform Party, is saying: "Our members will have freedom of choice. They will be able to go and express their opinions and the views of their constituents in the House of Commons."

To me, that is what should happen here, what should happen in all legislatures, because I believe in those people of the majority. I can say that is the reason I am still here today. I was re-elected through two difficult elections because I expressed the views of my constituents in this Legislature. I make it well known in my riding that I am available, that I will bring their views here. I have public meetings with my people, and the views that are brought to me are brought to this House.

When you look at the functions of a backbencher in some of the material we have through legislative services, it indicates that the backbenchers' duties are important, the opposition parties' duties are important. I believe this resolution, if the government would see fit to implement it, proceed with it and have public hearings on it, would be of benefit to all of us.

The problem is that cabinet ministers have legislation they want passed and members of that party must support it. The standing committee on government agencies has been reviewing appointments. We have seen a full complement of the government party there. I have not ever seen one vote against any of the government's recommendations. We have seen members come in and interview them, sit and listen, and then new members come in the next day and vote for them without even knowing what took place in that interview.

I support this resolution very strongly. It is my type of resolution. I am glad the member brought it forward. I compliment him for doing that. It allows us to have a good discussion of what a lot of us feel, but what the government members fail to do: listen to their constituents and bring those points of view here.

I remember one time in committee where about 84% of the people who came before us were opposed to what the government was doing; 84% of those delegations were opposed to it, yet the government went ahead and did it. That, I believe, is where we have gone wrong in this democracy, when we are not listening to the people and points of view of the people and expressing them and doing what the people of the province want. That is why we are today having the problem we have in all governments with regard to the people, why they are upset and unhappy.

I support this resolution very strongly. I know my colleague who will be speaking later will be indicating his views on it. I want to thank the member for Brampton South for bringing this forward.

Mr Drainville: It gives me great pleasure today to stand in this House and speak about the resolution that has been put forward by the member for Brampton South.

It says in the resolution, "That in the opinion of this House, the legislative process must be reformed to allow individual members the ability to vote for or against a measure as the majority of their electorate wishes, without it triggering a dissolution of the Legislature." Let me address that first.

I have to say there is no question in my own mind that there is a need to be more responsive to the electorate in Ontario and indeed our own constituents. To that end, I agree there needs to be great reform. We have a system of party discipline in Canada and in Ontario which is one of the most extreme in the world in how it operates. I grant there are different approaches, different reasons they have this rule, but in Westminster in London, the Mother of Parliaments, we have a situation in which members of the government can vote against a government bill and still not bring down the government if the government bill falls.

I think that understanding has to be brought here to this country. There has to be a means by which government members themselves can show they do not support a particular government measure. The reason for that is twofold.

Not only is that responsiveness to the electorate, which I think has to fundamentally undergird any decision made by this Legislature, but I think also it indicates that the cabinet, the executive council, has to ensure that when a bill is going through the House it has the support of the House, which is in itself a fundamental principle of responsible government, that the executive or the cabinet stands or falls by the will of the House.

In that sense, rather than breaking down the system, it will be a reinforcing element to ensure that our democratic freedoms are maintained in this place if such a change were to take place.

As I look at this, though, I would quibble with the words. I am going to support the resolution, but I want to deal with the words. It says in the resolution, "to allow individual members the ability to vote for or against a measure as the majority of their electorate wishes." I spend a lot of time in my riding. I am there every weekend. I am going to functions, I am talking to people, I see people in my office, but at any given time I do not know what the majority of the electorate really feels on any particular bill or issue. I certainly have a sense of some people or some groups in the riding, but I cannot say I have an understanding of the majority of the electorate.

We have to be realistic here, and we have a fine line to walk. On one hand, we have to be far more responsive than we have been to the needs and the aspirations of our constituents, and it means we have to work very hard to understand what they are saying to us and to bring those needs and concerns here to this House. On the other hand, we still have the system of party discipline. It needs to be changed, but the reality is that even with changes we have party discipline.

The government is putting forth a platform and saying, "This is the direction we want to go and we're asking the people of this province to support us in that." Understanding that there is that balance, we have to decide on reforms which will be constructive and helpful to maintaining that balance. Although we need to change, we need to keep that balance.

I would like to speak about question period. I approach this issue with a great deal of trepidation, because any comment I make might be construed as a comment that would be very critical of the opposition, and I do not intend to be critical of the opposition. In fact, I intend to be critical of all members of the House, and I want that to be very clearly understood by members of the opposition who are here today.

Our question period has to change. To say this is a zoo during question period is the understatement of the year. It is not acceptable. I am ashamed at times to have constituents of mine come into this House and see the kinds of behaviour that go on in this place. I say this about members on both sides of the House; I am not accusing the opposition. When someone is up speaking in the House, very often we are incapable of hearing it.

That is in terms of the climate, and I just want to make that statement because I think it needs to be said. But in terms of the structure of Parliament and the ability in question period for the opposition to exercise its responsibilities in ensuring accountability on the part of the government, there needs to be a change in the standing rules here in the House, for instance, a time limit on the asking of questions and a time limit on the answering of questions. In asking questions, no matter who is on the other side of the House, whether it is our party in the past or the parties there now, what we see is that the

preambles to questions go on and on and on, and basically they are

preambles which naturally are inflammatory, because it is the opposition, whoever is there, and they are

preambles that do not edify in the least and do not help the question in the least. They are made to make political points. That becomes a problem because it goes on and on and does not help in finding out the information or maintaining the accountability of the government.

In terms of the response by ministers, whoever is on this side of the House, no matter what party, the responses tend to be long, maybe even at times to talk out the clock. They tend to be convoluted and they tend very often to deflect from the issue at hand.

I am sure we cannot stop the members on either side of the House from couching their questions and responding to those questions in the particular way chosen by the people at that time, but what we can do, what is within our power, is to change the standing orders of the House to ensure that more people get up and ask questions, that there is a limit to the time taken to ask questions and a time limit to answer those questions, therefore providing opportunity for more members of the House to get into the act.

The present system, whereby the leaders of the two opposition parties take up half the clock, to me is not acceptable because there are so many members in the House who have very legitimate concerns they want to bring to this House, having to do not only with the great issues of the day but the issues that affect in minute ways their constituents and the needs and aspirations of those particular people.

What I am saying is that in question period we have to have legitimate changes.

The last point I want to bring up has to do with the standing committees of this Legislature. The present system we have does not work. It has to do with how the government brings in legislation for first reading and then after second reading, that is, agreement in principle, it goes out to committee.

The reality, as we all know -- again, whoever is on this side of the House as government -- is that when a bill is put forth it has received agreement in principle and the chance of changing that bill in any substantive way is impossible. It just does not happen, and we know that by history, so we need to change that system.

There are a couple of ways of changing the system. There are models out there that are worth looking at. For instance, I ask the members of the Legislature to think about the model in Quebec or the model they have in Sweden. In both cases we are looking at the bills going out at an earlier stage, at a stage when there is still some flexibility and the government is not tacking on its colours to that particular bill.

It goes out into the community where hearings are held, where people are able to give their points of view, then it is brought back and it receives its formal crafting, then goes into the House to receive that agreement in principle. In my view we need to make substantive changes to the way the standing committees operate.

Two other aspects about the standing committees: I believe the committees need more power. I believe the committees need the leeway to be able to make investigations and pursue the lines they believe are important. Presently the system for funding those committees is through the Board of Internal Economy. That needs to be changed. There needs to be a budget which is a lump sum, global budget, given to the committees of the Legislature and, within that framework, they need to be given the opportunity to decide their agenda and their direction.

It is by doing that that we can ensure, again, that there is good input in all the legislation that is brought to this House. So we need to see those kinds of changes.

It is my pleasure to support this resolution. It is my pleasure to serve in this place, but it is my duty to represent the people of Victoria-Haliburton and to ensure that the work we do here is not only edifying to the members so that they can do the work they need to do, but that we begin to give the kind of leadership people in Ontario are expecting of us. If we begin to make these changes we will see a Legislature which not only functions well but does everyone proud.

Mr Cordiano: I am very pleased to rise and speak to the resolution brought forward by my colleague the member for Brampton South. I happen to believe, along with my colleagues who spoke on this at this time, that this is perhaps the most fundamental issue we face with respect to the House and its workings.

I believe the time has come for fundamental reforms. We had a period of reforms prior to this. We did some tinkering with the role that members would follow and pursue in this House, but I think fundamental change is required here. We need to do that in order to become more accountable, in order to become more responsive to the needs of our constituents.

There was a clear message sent in the last election. At least to me it was rather clear. What people said was that they wanted a minority government, and that was a very clear signal at door after door and I got this over and over again, and I would venture to guess that a lot of members heard that.

I think it is a crying out for greater representation in this House on the part of individual members who would then be more responsive to the needs of their constituents, who would perhaps at times bring forward alternative views on a variety of issues, the great issues of the day which are rather controversial, and have been. We have dealt with a number of them over the period of time I have been a member of this Legislature. They cannot be given full expression, not when members are shackled by the constraints of partisan party politics.

It is rather difficult to do without paying a supreme price here as a member.

As we are set up in the party system in this Legislature it is rather difficult to have that freedom of expression, as I say, without the consequences that go along with it, not because you are going to lose your seat and not because you are going to be ousted from your party, but oftentimes you will be an outcast. You will be on the fringes, and I do not think that is the price members should have to pay for disagreeing with the party line.

On the contrary, I think we have to reward the kind of independence and individuality and creativity that all of us can bring to this Legislature, that all of us can offer in terms of crafting legislation and bringing forward alternative views, better views perhaps, that would bring about better legislation.

I want to deal with a number of issues which were brought up by previous speakers. I think standing committees are the route by which members can be empowered. The standing committees of the Legislature must be given that independence that the previous speaker, my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton, spoke so well about. Standing committees ought to be given free rein with respect to financial setup. The budgeting of those committees must be given consideration on an independent level or on an independent format.

Allowing committees to set their own agendas and have the funds to do it with would allow them the freedom and flexibility that is required to make this place more effective.

In addition to that, standing committees being able to deal with legislation before it is brought to second reading is a good thing and an essential thing if we are going to bring about the necessary reforms we are talking to here today.

With respect to the whipping that takes place in each of our parties, I think the British model is something we should look to. As my colleague the member for Brampton South, who brought this resolution forward, mentioned earlier, we should set up a select committee to look into these matters further. It requires further study. None of us here today would suggest that we have all the answers on the way in which this could work most effectively. By working together, all members on a select committee would be given the opportunity to examine the best alternative in the end that would make sense.

But this must be a non-partisan approach that we must take in order to bring about these fundamental reforms. Nothing is going to happen with respect to balance, which the previous speaker, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, spoke about. The scales are tipped right now in favour of the cabinet, in favour of the executive branch of the Legislature. It is inevitable that the executive branch will exercise its authority. It has to in order to function in the way we are set up in this House. But we have to separate, to a greater extent than we have currently, the executive branch from the legislative branch.

That is essentially what we are talking about here today. We do not have that separation. We do not have that arm's-length approach that is required. The balance is not there; it is far from it.

The previous speaker spoke to decorum and the antics, the charades perhaps, that take place in question period. I would agree that the decorum of the House is important because we are watched on a daily basis by the public. I think we should be a model for other public institutions that carry on public business. That certainly has not been the case in this House, but members must remember this is a highly charged political place with radically different views on either side of the House. All three parties have different views.

We see that now; we see there are perhaps three divergent opinions on a number of issues. I do not think that is going to change. I think people bring to this place their heartfelt principles and deal with those in a very partisan way. I do not have a problem with that.

The way people comport themselves in this House is another story. I think it behooves all of us to deal with that on an individual, personal basis, but with respect to this resolution that is a side issue, quite frankly. It is important to deal with time limitations on members, for all members to have an opportunity to ask questions. I agree with that.

I am running out of time and I would like to give my colleague his due so I am going to sit down. But this, I believe, is of fundamental importance and I call on all members to support this resolution and to move forward with it and to encourage those of our party colleagues who perhaps have the reins of power to deal with this resolution and bring it to their caucuses.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to rise today to speak to private member's notice of motion 18, sponsored by the member for Brampton South:

"That, in the opinion of this House, the legislative process must be reformed to allow individual members the ability to vote for or against a measure as the majority of their electorate wishes, without it triggering a dissolution of the Legislature." Then it goes on.

I would like to compliment the member for Brampton South for this initiative. I have tried to capture something of the same line of thought within my own private member's ballot item, Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act. I will briefly speak about what mine will do when it comes for second reading.

I hope to amend the oath of office members of the Legislature take so that right in the wording of the oath it will be that we represent our constituents to the best of our ability within the confines of our conscience. That is a very important measure we must take in this Legislature and indeed all the legislatures and in the House of Commons. I think it has been lacking. As has been said by other speakers in this debate, the executive branch does have too much power. Our system is set up such that the parties' leadership can dictate to a large extent how all of us act and comport ourselves.

I think all of us come here initially with a great deal of ambition to represent our people. All of us attempt to do that. I certainly have tried as best I can to voice the views of my constituents in this House and in caucus. I came here, and probably others might feel this way as well, with some measure of naïveté about how the process works. There are times when forces restrict our ability to speak publicly on behalf of our constituents in spite of our best efforts.

We all have the freedom to speak freely in caucus. I hope the other two caucuses are as lively and spirited as ours. There is a lot of passion in our caucus when members try to bring forward the views of their constituents and that is very important, but the public does not see that and the public has to see what is going on. If we can get that sort of exchange going in the public's eye, they would have a lot more respect for the process, for the structures of government and for the members of the Legislature themselves.

So I think it is absolutely imperative that all three parties support this initiative today, because we have to send a message to the executive branch of all governments that the private members need more power to speak in favour of their constituents without that sort of restrictive framework.

I was heartened to see in the last federal government throne speech of a few weeks ago some lipservice to the fact that all members of the House of Commons would be given more ability to speak on behalf of their constituents, more ability to vote the way their constituents wish. I wish I could say I am confident that is going to occur in the federal House, because I do not think it is. Given the things that have happened in Ottawa in the last little while, I have been very disappointed with a lot of the initiatives coming forward there and I just cannot see it. But we in our own place have an opportunity to try and push for this and I hope that all members do.

I am disappointed that the media is substantially not here on private members' hour, because I think a lot of views come forward. If some of the things that happen here were reported more, the public's perception of and respect for this place would be enhanced considerably.

When I was first elected to come here and the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brant-Haldimand, gave a very eloquent response to the speech from the throne back last fall and there was no media here, I was surprised. They left after question period and I was stunned by that, because I was sitting here listening to the Leader of the Opposition, the member who has been here for 29 years, I guess it is, and the respect that I have for him and the enjoyment that his speech gave me, and the media was not here. I find that shocking and I do not quite understand it.

I think the media tends to distort some of the things we do here. If a member does speak against his own party or his own party leader, the media explodes it as a sign of weakness in the party and it is not the case. The media has a big role to play in changing this perception.

The member for Lawrence talked about the call in the last election for a minority government. I heard that constantly at the door and I think that was one of the reasons some people supported me, because they did not want a majority government and they wanted an opposition member to be sent from Wellington.

As it turned out, we did not get the government we all thought we were going to get. We did not get a minority government either. We have not got a minority government in Ottawa. In spite of the fact that 39% of the Ontario public voted for the NDP, we have a majority NDP government, and in Ottawa we have a majority federal government, a Conservative government naturally, and it did not get a plurality of the popular vote in total.

So I think there is a lot of room for this sort of initiative and I want to once again compliment the member for Brampton South for this and urge all members of the House to support it.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure to rise here this morning and speak to the resolution of the member for Brampton South. I know that he speaks passionately on this issue. I am just wondering why he was not so passionate about the issue when his party formed the government with such a massive majority that they could have done something about this.

I find interesting the comments from the third party members who support it. I would just like to remind the member for Simcoe East, whom I respect a very great deal, that when he says he is quick to speak out for his constituents, I think most of us here are, in one form or another. I suspect that when the honourable member for Simcoe East was a member of the Conservative government, in those days he was marching to the tune of a different drummer.

I mailed out 50,000 questionnaires to my constituency just recently, asking their opinion and what they thought about the current situation. I must say that the answers about how I could represent them best were just unbelievable. They covered the whole spectrum of reducing taxes and making beer cheaper and making cigarettes cheaper. If we are trying to represent our constituencies here on that sort of a basis, I think it is rather impossible. I think we have to go along with the basis of why we were elected and the party that was elected.

Everybody out there knows the philosophy of the party we belong to, and they know the position we take on a number of issues. I think when they cast their ballot they are fully aware of what the people and the party represent. To say that you come here to change the point of view of the government of the day I do not think is practical and I do not think it is possible. It is enough just on Thursdays when we have private members' bills, the variety of the bills that come up. If that were the process in this House, we would have so many ideas and thoughts before this House that I doubt very much we would get anything done at all.

As for taking up issues for constituents, I think there is a good forum here for taking up the positions of constituents, and I do it constantly. I go to the minister involved and lobby him; I go to the departments and speak very forcibly for my constituents. I think the answers that get back and the things that we do in the government for our constituents are not necessarily public knowledge, only to those people who are here who know about them.

As far as being here in the government, I think we are here to represent the policies of the government that we were elected to pursue, and I am very pleased to be able to do that.

I support the spirit of the resolution to a degree, but I am afraid I cannot support it based on the fact that I think people know and expect people to respect the party and the philosophy of that party they elected.

Mr Henderson: This is an outrageous debate. It is outrageous because we should not need to be having it.

Four and a half years ago, this Legislature almost unanimously adopted a resolution of mine which urged that private members should vote more freely in this House, because government does not become unworkable and the legislative process does not grind to a halt when private members really do debate and decide on matters of public policy.

It is now four and a half years since this Legislature almost unanimously asked the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to change the way we operate and to report back to the House about ways of achieving significant changes. What is shocking is that four and a half years after this Legislature almost unanimously and very clearly expressed its views on the subject, we are here today voting and debating on very much the same matter. That somehow proves the point. If proof is needed of the need for legislative process reform, the very fact that we are here today doing it all over again shows that something is seriously amiss.

I know that voices are occasionally raised in opposition to reformist views. There are those who argue that responsible government in the British parliamentary tradition depends on caucus unanimity. Those voices argue that our legislative process will fail and government will become unworkable if authorities cannot command the loyalty of elected members.

Analogous arguments may have been made, I suspect, against the Magna Carta and probably against the very conception of democracy thousands of years ago. But what kind of democracy argues against legislators' freedom to speak and vote? What kind of democracy do we have if elected representatives of the people do not have the prerogative to balance the views of their constituents against personal conscience and against the position of a party in their legislative role? What kind of democracy and what kind of leadership do we have if a party leader has to order his caucus to follow his or her lead?

A few members will recall Bill 94, the extra billing debate, when I shocked and upset some of my caucus colleagues by arguing for a middle ground and by speaking -- although, incidentally, not by voting -- at variance with the official caucus view.

I went to Montreal for some advice back then and I spent three quarters of an hour with Pierre Trudeau in his office, agonizing about what I should do in that, for me, very difficult situation. Trudeau's observations were crystal clear. In fact, I think he hardly even saw an issue. He told me that as an elected representative I should follow the dictates of my conscience, and that was that. I told him of my concern for the reaction in my party and he dismissed that with a wave of his hand and a simple observation that the party would sooner or later respect me for what I was doing.

His advice was so very different from what I was hearing around Queen's Park from all but a very few of my legislative colleagues that I asked him whether he would have given me the same advice were I a member of a caucus of which he was the current leader. He replied without a moment's hesitation that he would, and he listed a dozen examples of individuals who had voted independently during his leadership. Then he added a substantial list of them that he had subsequently appointed to cabinet.

For me, Trudeau's attitude was the attitude of a true political leader and statesman. That is the kind of leadership that attracts support and does not need to command it. That is the kind of leadership that we should be endeavouring to enshrine in our reform of the legislative process. I wish I could ask Pierre Trudeau now what kinds of reforms, in his view, would bring Canadian legislative practice in line with those clear and unequivocal views that he expressed in 1987.

It should not depend on the whim of a particular leader to allow the members of a caucus to state their point of view. That is what we are elected for; that is just the way it ought to be. While I am shocked at the necessity to have this debate again today, I am also delighted that we are doing it, for reform has come of age in Ontario and Canadian politics. In 1987 I was regarded as, at best, a maverick, for the views that I uttered on behalf of private members' speaking and voting freedom, let alone for doing it. Somehow in 1991, the worm has turned and we are all talking about reform of legislative process in Canada.

Let's go back to the drawing board and decide what really makes sense in a Canadian context. Let's ensure that representative democracy really is representative democracy. Let's remind ourselves of the travesty of democratic process when apparent unanimity is based on enforced groupthink. Let us remind ourselves that legislators doing as they are told are not involved in democratic government. Let us remind ourselves that discipline that does not respect rational evaluation and discussion of alternatives in our assembly is not discipline at all in a democracy, and that agreement is not agreement if not freely given.

Let us remind ourselves that reasoned voices of constructive dissent are a matter for caucus pride, not a matter for embarrassment. Very clearly, governments do not fall and legislatures do not become unworkable when the executive bows to the wishes of the House on a wide variety of legislative matters and under a wide variety of circumstances.

We must restore the autonomy and authority of private members. If I have any criticism of this resolution, it would be that it does not go far enough. In my opinion, there is much more that we should do. We should expand the authority and freedom of committees, tenure their members, much reduce the influence of party whips in committees and ensure that voices of real democracy are brought to bear on committee work.

We should look very carefully at my own Bill 21,

An Act to establish a Committee respecting the Direct Election of the Premier. That bill proposes consideration of a fixed term of office, general elections at specified intervals and freedom of electors to vote for a personal representative as well as for a leader of a government.

I invite my legislative colleagues to join with me in reaffirming our commitment to representative democracy and to show that free speech lives and thrives with Ontario legislators of all three parties.

Mr Callahan: I want to thank members of the Legislature for speaking as they have. I would like to indicate to the member for Durham East, who is a good friend, that we can see the passion -- that both of the gentlemen who spoke on my bill were very much involved in trying to reform this process, as were many members of our caucus. This is not something that has just arisen since the members opposite came into government.

I can tell them that Bill 111, which the member for Wellington brings and which would require us, in our oath, to represent the constituents in our riding to the best of our ability and the best of our conscience, should hardly be required. If as we start the legislative day in this chamber each occasion that the House is sitting, if truly when we are speaking the opening prayer we know what we are saying and we believe what we are saying, there is no need for Bill 111. In fact, we are sworn by this to do it. I would like to read it to you because I think it is something that each and every member should reflect on:

"Give to each member of this Legislature a strong and abiding sense of the great responsibilities laid upon us. Guide us here in our deliberations. Give us a deep and thorough understanding of the needs of the people we serve. Help us to use power wisely and well. Inspire us to decisions which establish and maintain a land of prosperity and righteousness where freedom prevails and where justice rules. Amen."

If we truly believe those words and if we wish to maintain democracy and represent our electorate in the fashion that they have given us by way of trust -- if these words mean something -- I suggest there should be a unanimous decision to support this motion. In fact, the government should take the opportunity to either put a select committee in place or at least have a full day or two of debate in this House on the question of reform.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mrs Cunningham moved second reading of Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mme Cunningham propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 124, Loi portant modification du Code de la route.

Mrs Cunningham: Naturally I am very supportive of the legislation that we find necessary to present before this House today. I very much appreciate the members being present and the interest they have shown over the last few weeks and months with regard to legislation that will make it mandatory for people to wear helmets when they are riding bicycles.

This bill is a very simple amendment to the Highway Traffic Act and adds the word "bicycle." What we are saying to people is, "You are now wearing helmets when you are riding on our highways on motorized vehicles such as motorbikes and motorcycles, and now, although education has been important, it has come to our attention that the statistics are so significant with regard to injuries, especially head injuries, that we are presenting this motion today."

I would like to begin by thanking the members of the Ontario Head Injury Association who are visiting today in the members' gallery, with special attention to Debbie Kerslake who is in the Speaker's gallery.

I would like to also thank Dr Brian Morris, a physician from Barrie and a member of the Coalition for Head Injury Prevention in Barrie, and Laura Spence and Dr David Wesson, both from the Hospital for Sick Children and members of the Kiwanis injury prevention and research program, as well as Sarah Hood, who has given information to us from the Toronto City Cycling Committee, Chris Anerchek from the Ontario Nurses' Association, and Richard Greco for the Head Injury Association of Toronto.

All of these people have not only assisted me in my work over the last few years but, of course, have assisted the citizens of Ontario and especially children when it comes to the prevention of serious injury due to the fact that people are not wearing bicycle helmets.

As we know, the riding of bicycles in urban Canada is increasingly popular with regard to sport, leisure and transportation. It happens to be Canada's favourite summer recreation and the second most popular year-round activity. Regrettably, the trend has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in the number of bicycle-related injuries, particularly among children and adults, and for this reason we are presenting my private member's Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Each year in Canada, more than 5,000 children will be seriously injured and more than 60 children will die in bicycle accidents, most from head injuries. Bicyclists with helmets have an 85% reduction in the risk of a head injury and an 88% reduction in the risk of a brain injury. Although 93% of children six to 16 years old ride a bicycle, only 2% to 3% wear helmets. The Canadian Paediatric Society strongly endorses wearing a helmet while cycling.

In spite of all of this, a study at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in 1988 found that even after an accident, few children wear them. Of 517 children admitted to emergency that summer following a bicycle accident, approximately 100 had head injuries and were admitted to the hospital. As a parent, I was shocked to learn that of the 517 youngsters only 13% owned helmets but, even more shocking, only 2.5% wore them.

A bicycle helmet, as we all know -- it has been proven -- is the most important single piece of equipment for reducing the incidence of serious head injury. Physicians, health care workers and family members are too familiar with the immediate and long-term effects of head injuries. Apart from the tragedy of death, many victims who survive with brain injuries also suffer from physical disabilities, seizures, intellectual and memory impairment and personality changes. Their lives and those of their families are changed for ever.

Physicians, the Ontario Head Injury Association and the Ministry of Transportation all want to heighten the public awareness of the benefits of wearing an approved safety helmet when riding a bicycle. I commend all of them for their present and past bicycle safety campaigns. We know they must continue, with or without legislation. The most important prevention of injury is the tool of education.

The Minister of Transportation has recently announced public meetings to give motorists, cyclists and pedestrians a chance to express their comments on the ministry's current bicycle policy review. It begins today in Ottawa. I thought, "How timely." I am certain the minister will seriously consider the public's recommendations. I should also say they will be meeting in London and other cities throughout the summer, and I urge the members of this Legislative Assembly and people listening to us today to find out exactly when those hearings will take place. It takes all of us working together to make good legislation and good rules in this province for our citizens.

There is another young man we are all indebted to, a head-injured young man -- by the way, when he was only 10 years old, riding his own bicycle. He could not come today, he is so busy helping out. His name is Jeremy Rempel, and just yesterday he was in St Catharines to support Project Headgear. The official opening was in St Catharines, and it was the Niagara launch. I am sure it will be happening all over Ontario. The two goals are, first, to promote awareness of the dangers of riding a bicycle without a helmet and, second, to promote the wearing of helmets.

At this time, as a person who is always speaking against legislation that permeates our lives as citizens, I find myself, given the statistics I have just introduced to this debate today, saying we have to go a step further. An example of preventive medicine, I would think, is to support our private member's bill today. A bike helmet cannot keep someone from falling off a bike, but it can prevent the majority of head injuries. We know how much seatbelts have helped us deter injuries and deaths. Also, our role models for our young children are football and hockey players, police and construction workers, who all think it important to keep their heads safe.

As a matter of fact, here in Toronto the city police have a force of cyclists, as we do in London, Ontario. I thought it would be important to show the House today some pictures of the helmets being worn by 12 members of the city police in London, of which I and my colleague sitting across from me, the member for London South, are very proud. We like being from a city that shows leadership, and here we are today once again. After a conversation with the chief of police, Mr Shipley, he said he would not even consider putting officers on the street without a helmet.

We have made a lot of progress in the last two or three years with respect to the acceptance of this piece of legislation, I am sure.

I would like to tell parents it is important that they not only encourage their children to wear helmets but that they show them how to wear them. I would also like to let my colleagues know there are approximately seven companies that manufacture CSA approved helmets in various sizes. In fact, Leader helmets, manufactured in Montreal, have standards which are apparently higher than the CSA standard. So we have lots of choices. I can go into detail about that afterwards if the members so request.

In Hamilton, the Earl Kitchener Parent-Teacher Association just last week ran a special program so that helmets could be made affordable to the students in that school. I think that is good leadership in our province. In fact, they have a special program so the students can buy them very inexpensively, and some will receive them for nothing.

Also, Sandoz Triaminic is sponsoring a special offer to encourage the wearing of bicycle helmets. If members have an opportunity to read this pamphlet, we would all appreciate it. Family doctors and paediatricians have distributed some 23,000 of these brochures. We have to say hats off to people who are involved in family medicine in the prevention of head injury, because they have done a wonderful job. There is a toll-free number here. Yesterday I was informed by Dr Morris that over 4,000 helmets have been ordered in the first three weeks of this campaign. I think that is good news for our province.

I am very aware of the problems with enforcement. If I am given more time today during this speech, I will talk about the enforcement practices in Australia and in the state of New Jersey. I understand that the reason for asking this to be referred to committee is so that we can come up with some good ideas and practicable ones around the idea of enforcement.

Mr Wessenger: I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of this legislation. First, I would like to acknowledge Dr Brian Morris, who is a constituent of mine and who also happens to be my family doctor, for making me aware of the extent of this problem with respect to head injuries. Also, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the local head injury association in making me aware of the extent of this problem.

Accidents are the leading cause of loss of life before the age of 65 in our society. This statistic is from the US National Centers for Health. In the past, we have taken legislative steps to prevent injuries in the accident area. We have seatbelt legislation, we have child-proof medicine containers, we have bars or restraints on upper-storey windows and we have the requirement for wearing helmets while riding motorized vehicles. This legislation adds the bicycle helmet use to legislative requirements.

Head injuries account for over 60 deaths per year and over 5,000 children seriously injured. In terms of percentage, 14% of all children's injury deaths are attributable to bicycle accidents. That is a high percentage, so we must address this problem.

And look at the human cost of head injuries: first, the loss of life and, second, the loss of quality of life for individuals suffering head injuries and the effect on their families. There is no effective treatment for brain-damage injuries. From a preventive health care position, it is very important that we do everything we can to prevent these types of injuries, for the individuals involved and their families and, second, for the effect on the health care system.

In my community, Dr Morris has worked very extensively to promote the use of bicycle helmets. He promoted an educational campaign in the school system on a pilot basis to encourage the use of helmets. What he found from that experiment is that education alone is not enough to promote the use of helmets. That is why he came to the conclusion that we need legislative action in this area, and I support him in that position.

He also indicated that he did a recent survey in the community which is somewhat encouraging with respect to the use of bicycle helmets. Looking at the use of helmets by schoolchildren, in the spring of 1990, 5% of children were using helmets; in the fall of 1990 it had gone up to 7%; and the recent survey he did showed an increase of 17.8% in the use of helmets by schoolchildren. I think that is very commendable, to show what can be done when an effort is made to promote the use of helmets.

Therefore, I would ask that the House support this legislation and send it to the standing committee on resources development. I would also suggest that we need public education programs to go along with this legislation. Also, I think we have to look at the question of encouragement or incentives with respect to the purchase of helmets.

Mr Mancini: I have a great deal of difficulty in dealing with this particular private member's legislation. My difficulty stems from the fact that in principle it is good legislation in that it creates a public policy whereby we protect a large segment of our population. The difficulty I have with the legislation is that while it creates this public policy, it does not assist the general public in acquiring the protective gear that is going to be mandated by law.

As my colleague said earlier, we have passed innumerable pieces of legislation which are for the public good, which help protect the public from physical injuries. I believe he mentioned seatbelt legislation and the mandatory wearing of helmets for people who ride motorcycles.

Automobile companies today have moved not only from seatbelts but to air bags. This has been a slow process, and the reason the process has been slow, rightly or wrongly, is the cost involved. The cost of an air bag is substantial. Most vehicles have air bags on the driver's side only. You have to get into the luxury vehicles or expensive vehicles before you get air bags for the driver and the passenger.

Many injuries are caused because air bags are not in all vehicles, yet we do not see the mandatory legislation that is necessary to have these air bags put throughout the vehicle, which would prevent innumerable injuries. The reason we do not see it is because of the cost. Excessive cost would affect the sales of the automobiles, which would affect jobs in that particular industry.

I say this not in any way to diminish the very good work that has been done by the member for London North or in any way diminish the needs that she so eloquently described earlier today. I bring this out in order that we may face the situation and all of its circumstances. All of the statistics that my two honourable colleagues before me spoke of are true. They have been documented by individuals expert in their field. They have been documented in journals which we can find in our libraries.

As a matter of fact, in short order I was able to receive innumerable pieces of information which would clearly document for all to see the benefits of helmets worn by cyclists if cyclists decided to wear them.

We could obtain the same documentation, as I said, in regard to automobile traffic and air bags. I am not fundamentally opposed to the legislation. I think the legislation should go to committee. It should be discussed and the problems surrounding the legislation should be resolved. Only yesterday I received a phone call from an individual who said he has four small children in his family and all of them have bikes but he cannot afford the $40 each that it costs to have helmets. That is a personal decision being made by the family.

I believe, and I think all members would agree with me, that there are probably thousands of families who cannot afford helmets. They cannot afford it. Just as many families cannot afford to buy winter coats for their children but the province assists those particular families, are we going to extend public policy to assist these families in buying helmets? If we are, I want to know how much it will cost and how we will fund it and how that squares with a lot of the things we have heard in the Legislature in this past session about restraining government expenditures.

My other concern is the enforcement of this particular public policy. I, like you, Mr Speaker, represent a constituency where there are a number of police departments because of the nature of the constituency, because the constituency is made up of numerous municipalities. The police chiefs of this province have commonly told me over the last period of time and I am sure have commonly told members from all sides of this House that they cannot carry out the services that are being required of them by their citizens because of budget restraints.

We know how police chiefs and local municipal leaders felt towards providing security in courtrooms. They have told us this has placed a great burden on their budgets and how they can operate.

We are now going to place on them, I am assuming, another burden because there is no sense in having this particular public policy become law unless it is going to be enforced. I would like to know from the member who has proposed the legislation whether or not we are going to make the funds available for the police chiefs and their departments and the municipalities so that they can enforce the law. Then I would like to know what it will cost, how it will be funded and how that squares with the difficulties we face today regarding the enormous budget deficit that was presented to the House only a few short weeks ago.

I might add that I understand a very large group of people, maybe into the thousands, will be in front of the Legislature later today demanding of the government, and I am assuming demanding of all members of the Legislature, that we be careful with our expenditures. So I would assume that if we are going to increase spending in one area we are going to have to decrease spending or raise taxes. I would like to know what decreases are being proposed and where. If tax increases are necessary, I would like to know on what and how much.

Once that problem is resolved, if we get to that point, I would like to know how police departments are going to deal with the young people, particularly under 14 years of age, because those young people very rarely have summer jobs that allow them to make any kind of income at all, if they are caught in violation of this public policy. Are they going to be ticketed? Are they going to be personally taken home by the police? Are they going to be expected to appear in court if they do not wish to plead guilty or cannot afford to pay the fine?

These are all questions of a practical nature which arise from the reality of such a public policy. While I have to say that the intent is admirable and its full implementation would in fact alleviate many of the terrible things that some members of the Legislature have described, the reality of the situation is that this public policy, along with all other public policy that we debate and bring forward in the House, must be affordable and workable.

Just to bring up another point, there are innumerable groups across the province of Ontario who have lobbied individual members and school boards to have mandatory seatbelts on school buses. As far as I know, there is no public policy enforcing such a rule. I am sure that such a public policy would save lives and reduce injuries. But there is a reason why that public policy has not been passed through this Legislature or adopted by school boards across the province. The reason is the cost involved and the demand for other services within the school system and from the provincial government.

Regretfully, I am going to vote against this piece of legislation, but I intend to keep an open mind when it is referred to committee.

Mr White: You said there was a reason. What is it?

Mr Mancini: I have outlined the reasons in great detail, if the honourable member had only listened.

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the Chair.

Mr Mancini: I will await the answers to all of the questions that I posed this morning. Particularly I will await the answers from the honourable member for Durham Centre. He is so concerned and appears to have all the answers. When we go to committee, I will await his specific answers on these matters, and then I will await the appropriate government ministers, because we will need money from several ministers to make this work.

I am sure that with all of the influence the honourable member for Durham Centre has been able to muster over his few short months here as a new member he will be able to, through the Management Board of Cabinet and through the full cabinet itself, resolve all the practical problems and funding problems that exist around this public policy.

If we are going to be honest to the people who want such legislation passed, then it is incumbent upon us to show these individuals -- and I believe they number in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands -- how the government of the day is going to make such a public policy work, work well, and meet the needs described by members earlier.

Mr McLean: I appreciate having this opportunity to make a few brief comments on private member's Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, which would require bicyclists to wear helmets.

I want to compliment my colleague the member for London North for her attempt, and I hope success, to amend subsection 88(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, which, if passed, would read, "No person shall ride on or operate a motorcycle, motor-assisted bicycle or bicycle on a highway unless he or she is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin."

This legislation was previously brought in some time ago by the same member, and I am pleased to see her bringing it back in today. I believe the member for London North has put a great deal of thought and consideration into this piece of legislation. In fact, it is my understanding that she has the support of the Ontario Head Injury Association, the Bicycle Helmet Coalition, the Hospital for Sick Children and Kiwanis Injury Prevention and Research Program, and the Coalition for Head Injury Prevention, to name but a few distinguished groups.

I think the statistics contained in a brochure published by the Ontario Head Injury Association should make all of us in this Legislature sit up and take notice of the importance of this bill. According to the association, a child is four times more likely to be seriously injured in a bicycle accident than to be kidnapped by a stranger. Bicyclists wearing helmets have an 85% reduction in the risk of a head injury and an 88% reduction in the risk of a brain injury.

More than 80% of accidents causing injuries to children occur less than five blocks from home, and more than 50% of injured children receive no specific safety instructions about bicycling. Seventy-five per cent of all cyclist deaths involve head injuries. That is quite a percentage; a very large number. Ninety-three per cent of children aged six to 16 years ride a bicycle, but only 2% or 3% wear helmets.

It is a known fact that annually in Canada more than 5,000 children are seriously injured and 60 children die in bicycle accidents, most from head injuries. I realize there is no way to predict when an accident will happen, but we can prepare for one. Falls from bicycles can happen anywhere and at any time so it is important to wear a helmet anywhere and at all times, even if it is just in the driveway or just down the street.

We can prepare for accidents by giving private member's Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, second reading, and perhaps refer it to the standing committee on resources development or whichever committee is deemed appropriate for fine-tuning.

When this legislation was brought in before, there were reservations because of the mandatory aspect. Issues were brought up by the member for Essex South this morning with regard to people who cannot afford helmets. I have come to the conclusion that we cannot afford not to have helmets nor to assist people to have them.

I know the old railway line that runs from Orillia. Dr Josiah Lawry in Orillia showed some very strong leadership to have this old abandoned railway become a bicycle path or a path for walking which cyclists could use -- a super idea. I think we will see more of this take place across the province.

My wife and I have bicycles. I have not had a helmet, but I am not taking my bicycle out until I get one. The other day I could not find one in the city of Orillia; they had been sold out. So the need is there and I think the people are saying, "Yes, we realize it's time to make this mandatory."

Members should not forget we went through the seatbelt legislation. Nobody wanted to wear seatbelts -- "We don't have to wear seatbelts" -- but statistics proved that great need was there. I never get in my car now without automatically putting my seatbelt on, and I think most people do that. I think bicycle helmets are the same. But it is just as important that helmets be worn in motorized vehicles and all-terrain vehicles, as well as by motorcylists.

When we talk about prevention, that is number one: prevent the injuries and the costs of these head injuries I gave statistics about. What has it cost us in medical expenses over the years? We could buy every child in the province a helmet for what we spend today on the lives of these people who are injured. We cannot afford not to assist them.

I want to compliment the member for bringing this legislation forth and I plead with members to have this sent to committee so we can deal with it there. If they do not like it the way it is, let's change it, but let's put it in place so we can have this legislation approved by this Legislature. Do not think that because it is an opposition bill it is not right. It is right, it is proper, it is appropriate and the time to do it is now.

Mr Lessard: I want to tell the member for London North what a good idea I think this private member's bill is. In fact, I thought it was such a good idea that I was going to steal it and use it myself. However, she beat me to it and I am happy she did, especially now when summer is upon us and there are going to be a lot of people out on their bicycles in the coming weeks and months.

Just to give the House a bit of my background, before coming here I was a member of the Windsor Bicycle Club, a member of the Ontario Cycling Association and also the chairperson of the cycling committee at the city of Windsor. In fact, before the unexpected -- for a lot of people -- events took place on 6 September, I had committed myself to advancing the interests of cyclists. That was going to be what I planned to do in the future, but those plans took a bit of a turn. Now I find that I have an even better opportunity to advance those interests and I am thankful for being given that opportunity here today.

When I was speaking to various individuals and groups involved in cycling, including the Toronto city cycling committee, the Toronto Bicycling Network, the Hospital for Sick Children, the Metro Toronto Safety League and the Ontario Cycling Association, one thing I did find was that there was strong agreement with respect to the fact that cyclists should be encouraged to wear helmets while they are cycling. There is just no doubt about that. The reasons have been advanced here this morning by other members. Quite simply and succinctly, it is based on the statistics.

In Ontario, there are at least 15 children who die as a result of cycling accidents every year and there are 150 children who end up in hospital with serious head injuries. Much of this death and injury would be avoided if only there were an investment of about $30 in a helmet that meets the Canadian Standards Association's approval.

There are various ways to encourage cyclists to wear helmets while they are cycling. Of course, we are debating one of the ways this morning, that is, to pass a law making it mandatory for cyclists to wear helmets when they are cycling. There are also other ways this could be done, because as many will admit, and I am sure the member for Essex South would agree, mandatory helmet laws are not always the most popular way to get people to comply with government policy.

Other ways could involve a sales tax rebate or some other type of tax rebate to encourage people to purchase helmets. Another way is that helmets be mandatory accessories at the time a bicycle is purchased. An issue which needs to be addressed as well is ensuring there is an available supply of helmets in the event that a law is passed, because if a law were passed there would, of course, suddenly be a tremendous demand for helmets. Perhaps the implementation of such legislation should be given a long time period to ensure there is that availability.

The issue of law enforcement also has to be taken into consideration. Perhaps there is some room for innovation there as well, and this is something I would encourage the Attorney General to look into: a means to enable people who were caught not wearing helmets to avoid paying a fine if they were to provide proof of the purchase of a helmet within a certain time period, perhaps 48 hours or something like that. It needs to be recognized that if fines were imposed for not wearing a helmet this would not be a means of gaining income for the government; the aim of this type of legislation is to encourage people to wear helmets when they are riding their bicycles, and it is simply that.

One of the most important ways of encouraging people to wear helmets while they are riding bicycles is through education. It should be a requirement in the educational system, part of the curriculum, to teach cyclists responsible riding skills and also to point out to them the benefits of wearing a helmet when they are riding. It also could involve promotion by the Ministry of Transportation, and I would suggest that should also include the Ministry of Health, because this is not strictly an issue involving the Ministry of Transportation -- it is a health concern.

The member for Essex South went on at length about the costs that might be incurred by the government to implement mandatory helmet programs, but I would ask him to consider the costs that are incurred for health care by persons who are seriously injured as a result of not wearing helmets. That is something we need to consider. Promotional activities could also be co-ordinated with various retailers.

Of course, what we are doing here today is to educate and encourage people about the importance of hearing a helmet while they are cycling. In that regard, I just want to provide a little demonstration. I would like Hansard to show that I am holding in my hand a hard-shelled plastic helmet. It is an Ansi helmet or a Snell-approved helmet. It is important that a helmet like this is worn properly when riding a bicycle, firmly on top of the head with the chin strap attached underneath fairly snugly so that you can only put a few fingers underneath that chin strap.

It is also important that it be down low enough on the forehead so that in the event you go over the handlebars, you would not get an injury to the forehead when you went down.

I think it is important for cyclists to know that when out on their bicycle anything can happen. I can tell members about a personal experience that happened to me. When I was riding my bicycle one day with my wife, I happened to be assaulted.

An hon member: By your wife?

Mr Lessard: Not by my wife. I was assaulted by an inconsiderate motorist who actually ended up spending 20 days in jail as a result, but I did fall on my head. Luckily, I was wearing a helmet and was prevented from injury.

My message to cyclists is that anything can happen. You really need to be prepared out there, and I urge all cyclists to buy a helmet and wear it when they are cycling.

Mr Arnott: I am pleased to again rise today to speak to second reading of Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, sponsored by my colleague the member for London North. The intent of this bill is to make the wearing of helmets mandatory by bicyclists on our streets and highways.

I concur with many of the points that have been raised so far in this debate, but I would like to broaden it somewhat and talk about the whole issue of transportation safety. As our party's Transportation critic, I have a great deal of concern that the provincial government could be doing more to promote the cause of transportation safety.

We have to reduce the number of fatalities and accidents on our roads and highways. This bill takes one step towards that end. I am somewhat surprised. When a private member's bill comes forward to this Legislature, generally we have comments from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I have not heard his comments yet, and I am not sure whether he is going to make comments, but generally he reads a speech that has been prepared for him that gives some measure of indication of what the ministry's position is going to be. Frankly, we have not seen that today and I am perplexed. I do not know what the ministry's position is on this.

Something I raised in the House a little while ago that I think pertains to this is that the ministry could provide more incentive towards transportation. The Insurance Bureau of Canada is often involved in the promotion of safety. Quite recently, they committed $100,000 towards radio ads in a campaign towards reducing accidents, a slow-down-and-survive campaign. The ministry contributed $6,000 towards the publication of some brochures; that was, in a way, an endorsement of the campaign and lent it some credibility.

But the ministry commitment was very minimal: $6,000 as opposed to $100,000 being put forward by one of the major interest groups who have a considerable interest in transportation safety.

It has come to my attention fairly recently that in a meeting with the Minister of Transportation the insurance bureau indicated its commitment towards another promotional campaign, once again towards the end of increasing highway safety. The ministry has not responded but I hope it will very soon. That was with respect to enhancing seatbelt usage.

If you rank the provinces according to seatbelt usage, right now Ontario is ninth across the country. That is absolutely pathetic and abysmal and I think the ministry has a great deal of work to do in that respect to enhance seatbelt usage across the province.

I would like once again to thank and congratulate and commend the member for London North for her sincere commitment and her sincere approach to this issue. I hope all members will give consideration to supporting it.

Mr Mills: I am going to be very brief to give my colleague an opportunity to comment on this bill. I commend it.

In my retirement plans, which somehow got untracked, I intended to go to Vancouver and buy a bicycle and cycle completely across Canada. I bought this book to do that, to learn about it. It is interesting to read that rider error causes 75% of the accidents. Vehicle driver error causes 10%.

The author of this book is a very famous person and an authority on bicyling, Eugene A. Sloan. He talks about a helmet, saying, "I would not go two feet on my bicycle without a helmet on my head." I think that speaks for all of us here.

I rode a bicycle in England. I was brought up on a bicycle when it was not the cool thing to do. We rode the bicycle out of necessity, to work, to church, to court. We went everywhere on a bicycle. I must say that I took a number of spills. There are tram lines in England, and I have been down for the count from two hours to three days. Some people may think that all those blows on the head account for my behaviour here today. Nevertheless, I endorse the bill.

I have some concerns about enforcement. I have some concerns about poor people not being able to afford it, as the member for Essex South said. I am very concerned about that. I am confident we can work all these things out when it gets to the resources committee.

With that, I will sit down and let my colleague, who is also a keen cyclist, finish off our time.

Mr G. Wilson: Thanks to my colleague for allowing me a bit of time. As he suggested, I am a keen cyclist. In fact, I cycled to work in Kingston for 10 or so years and certainly raised our two kids on the back of a bicycle, as it were.

I am glad to stand in support of this bill because of its drawing attention to the need for helmets. I went for a number of years without a bicycle helmet and have reformed to the extent of buying one recently. I am no longer going two feet without a helmet, either, and have arranged to get helmets for the rest of the family as well, because we think it is a very important step to be taken to make bicycling safer.

However, while this bill certainly points to what an individual can do to make bicycling safer, I do want to mention what we as a society have to do to make it safer, and that is to create space on our congested roads for bicyclists. To that end, I am pleased to say that the city of Kingston has established a bicycling advisory committee to look to promoting the use of the bicycle as a major form of transportation in Kingston and area for reasons of health, fitness, pollution reduction, energy conservation and even to create more parking space.

They also see it as a way of promoting tourism, that the safer our streets are, the more congenial it is to ride bicyles. It is a very good way of seeing the city, on a bicycle. However, as the member for London is pointing out, one should do it with a helmet. Making sure that helmets are available when we rent bicycles would be one way of doing it.

Mrs Caplan: We just have about a minute left on this debate. I want to congratulate all the members in the House for participating in this discussion.

There are a couple of issues, however, of real concern. It is easy to vote in principle for things that make a lot of sense, like protecting children who are riding on bicycles. One question I would have is that of enforcement. How would you enforce this? I think that is something that has to be asked as the bill goes forward.

Second, how would you provide helmets to those children who simply cannot afford one? That is a real problem. We have children today in difficult situations. I would not want to see a bill like this go forward unless there was some debate and discussion around ensuring that no child was going to be told he could not ride a bicycle because he could not afford a helmet. That is an extremely important part of the debate and I did not hear a lot of discussion on that today. I would hope before we all stood up in principle to say that this is a great idea, we realize it will have a negative impact as well.

Mr Turnbull: I very much wanted to speak today to compliment my colleague the member for London North and the other speakers. This is a very important subject in my estimation.

I remember around 1965 when Volvo brought out a car in which safety belts and headrests were to be standard equipment. That was a peculiarity in the auto world at the time. Slowly, other auto makers were encouraged to do this, and then finally we had legislation. Since the legislation mandating car seatbelts was introduced, we have seen a singular drop in the number of fatalities and serious injuries in cars. I think we have to apply the same sort of rule to the head injuries which occur when people fall off bicycles for whatever reason.

With regard to the cost, I do not think we can afford not to make sure that this is mandated. It costs approximately $500 a day for those children who go to the US to have head injuries treated. We send literally hundreds of children each year to the US for treatment of head injuries, so this is money that would be well invested. When we look at hockey nowadays, it is against the rules for children to play without helmets, and that has been a significant fact or in reducing injuries.

I want to applaud my colleague for bringing in Bill 124 amending

section 88 of the Highway Traffic Act. I hope we can send this quickly out to committee to make sure that any problems there may be with the bill can be ironed out.

Mrs Cunningham: In the short time left, I would like to add a few comments with regard to the great concerns of the member for Essex South. I shall try very hard to get his support today, and certainly that of the member for Oriole.

When one talks about affordable and workable, all I can say as the mother of a head-injured son -- there is only one thing to say: You cannot afford not to wear a bicycle helmet. The amount of money that goes into rehabilitation, and the quality of family life and of that child's life or adult's life, no one could ever put a price on. That is the simple answer. The statistics are there now. Even seven years ago or five years ago I would never have asked for the members' support, but this year I ask for it because we have done our homework.

As far as workable, I can tell members right now that we have to make it work. The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations has written me a letter, along with many, many others. I could not begin to read them into the record. The association's very first resolution says,

"Be it resolved that the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations adopt the policy that all cyclists regardless of age and passengers transported in bicycle-mounted child carriers be legislated to wear bicycle helmets." This is their very first resolution, number 9, 1991.

We do have some precedents that we can look at when this bill is in committee, and I sincerely hope we can get it into committee. I will pass those comments to the member for Essex South, who has been here a long time. I cannot solve problems if we do not have a committee to look at the enforceability. Let's at least get it to committee so we can talk about it seriously.

In New Jersey, for a person 16 years of age or older who violates the act, there is a maximum $25 fine for the first offence and $100 for a subsequent offence. That is 16 or over. Under 16, interestingly, they may be fined, but really it is the responsibility of the legal guardian, and for subsequent offences after the first or second warning it is $100. That money goes into a bicycle safety fund for two reasons: education programs and to support children who cannot buy their own helmets. That is something for us to look at.

We will talk about the phasing in. In Australia, a plan started on 1 January 1991 and is now in effect for adults older than 16. There is a phase-in period of six months to see how it works. I think we have to talk about these kinds of things in committee.

I have to tell the members that I really appreciate the support of the members today, especially the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who did a wonderful demonstration that we can use on tape. In the future, we will not have to spend any money putting a tape together around how one puts on a bike helmet.

I will also say that I really appreciate the support of the members for Durham East, Simcoe Centre, Kingston and The Islands, Simcoe East, Wellington and York Mills, as well as many other members who have come to support this legislation and have told me that they really are looking forward to the opportunity to discuss this in the standing committee on resources development.

I am looking right at the member for Essex South and saying, "Give us that opportunity," because we will not go any further if we do not get it. This bill went to committee of the whole this time last year and died. We cannot afford to have that happen this time.

I will tell members that the Premier called me yesterday morning and wished me the best and said he would be supporting the legislation as well. I really very much appreciate that kind of support.

Since I still have a minute and 55 seconds, I will go to work on the member for Essex South. I will give him some more information. First of all, I have to have a bit of fun here right now. One of the things I was against when it came to the costs for policing in this province last year was the bill that the member and his government supported with regard to courtroom supervision. So it is very difficult to stand up today and say that some of the acts that we pass in this Legislative Assembly will in fact pass responsibilities down to the local councils. This one passes the responsibility on to families.

I would hope in committee that we can take a look at the member's very real concerns. In fun, I ask him for his support because I really think the only way we are going to get answers to his questions is for all of us in this Legislative Assembly to ask the experts and to ask families and children to come to us and tell us what the great barriers will be. One group that I would really like to point out is the Toronto city cycling committee that has already put forth some seven concerns that we should be considering in committee.

Our approach in this Legislative Assembly is to answer people who have positive criticism, because I think in Ontario we want the best legislation, legislation that will prevent head injuries, that will support families, that will be affordable and that will be workable. The process I ask all members to support today is one of openness, one with integrity and one where we can find solutions to a very real problem, the problem of young people suffering head injuries because they do not wear helmets in the province of Ontario.

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

The House divided on Mr Callahan's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 44

Arnott, Bisson, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Fawcett, Frankford, Harnick, Haslam, Hayes, Henderson, Huget, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Lessard, Mammoliti, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch, B., O'Connor, O'Neil, H., Poirier, Poole, Ruprecht, Silipo, Stockwell, Sutherland, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, B., Waters, White, Wilson, J., Wiseman.

Nays -- 19

Abel, Cooper, Coppen, Ferguson, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hope, MacKinnon, Martin, Mills, Owens, Pouliot, Sterling, Ward, M., Wessenger, Wilson, G., Winninger.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

The Deputy Speaker: We will now deal with ballot item 30, standing in the name of Mrs Cunningham.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill referred to the standing committee on resources development.

Le projet de loi est déféré au Comité permanent du développement des ressources.

The House recessed at 1209.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KEN GRANT

Mr McGuinty: It is my special pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to a most remarkable constituent of mine, Ken Grant.

Ken "The General" Grant is the morning show host for CFRA, a radio station serving Ottawa and the valley. On 23 June 1991, Ken marked his 30th anniversary with CFRA, making him the second longest running morning show host in Canadian history. That, in and of itself, is a remarkable feat but there is much more to Ken than his radio work.

Ken is a dedicated community volunteer. Ken was instrumental in bringing the Jerry Lewis Telethon to Canada in 1970. He has been the Ottawa segment host each year since then, and his efforts have played a major

part in raising the more than $7.5 million in contributions raised to date.

Ken founded the CFRA Happy Blunderers softball team in 1961, which has raised over $250,000 for charities over the years. Ken has also worked in a fundraising capacity for the Canadian Cancer Society, the Amethyst Women's Addiction Centre, Big Brothers, the Royal Ottawa Hospital Foundation, the Canadian Hunger Foundation, St Brigid's Soup Kitchen and the Shepherds of Good Hope, to name but a few.

Ken makes over 200 public appearances each year, and all fees raised by him are turned over to local charities. Through his work on radio and as a volunteer, Ken has become much more than an Ottawa personality. He has in fact become part of Ottawa's personality, a part that is kind, warm, gentle and full of good humour.

I am honoured to have Ken as a constituent, and I am sure the members of this House will join me in congratulating Ken for the outstanding contribution he has made to the Ottawa community.

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

Mr Sterling: The occasion that prompted me to make a member's statement today is one that every parent in our province and every member of this Legislature who is a parent can easily relate to, that moment when your heart swells with pride as you see your child walk across the stage to receive his or her high school diploma.

For the second and last time in my life, I experienced that feeling last night, when my daughter, Sara, graduated from South Carleton High School in Richmond, Ontario. I could not help but think how much better prepared young people are today than we were when we walked across a similar stage many years ago.

We in this Legislature think about the recession and our country splitting apart, yet I could not help but feel confident about our future when I experienced the maturity of our young people last night. On behalf of all parents, I would like to congratulate our high school graduates, the class of 1991. I wish them every success and happiness in the future.

EVENTS IN DURHAM WEST

Mr Wiseman: I rise today to inform the House of two important events that happened in my riding. The first event was the graduation ceremonies of nine women from the Canadian Jobs Strategy program, a training course in Oshawa. This event is significant because it was a program funded by the government to help women on government assistance develop computer skills that would enable them to return to the workforce in a meaningful way. For these women, this was achieved by overcoming considerable hardship. These women should be applauded and their success emulated by others.

They had to work hard to reacquire the skills associated with going back to school. I wish them every success in the future.

My second event has to do with the annual Ajax Home Week. This is a week of fun-filled events for all members of the family, from kite-flying to parades, pancake breakfasts and culminating in an excellent fireworks display. None of these events can take place without an array of volunteers who work behind the scenes to make them happen.

On behalf of myself, my family, all the residents of Ajax and those who returned to Ajax or visited Ajax during the week, I would like to thank the volunteers from the service clubs and in particular Sue Bland, who was this year's chair.

LABOUR POLICY

Mr Offer: The Minister of Labour has finished his first nine months in office, nine months of turmoil, mismanagement and disappointment for everyone in the province. During the election the member for York South, the then Leader of the Opposition, promised a minimum wage geared to 60% of the average industrial wage. The Minister of Labour is the minister charged with implementing pay equity for women, which his leader promised to extend to every woman in the province. Yet he is now hoping only to implement a plan that would still exclude over 100,000 women across the province.

Now the Minister of Labour has made the whole province panic with his package of labour law proposals, in which he refuses to allow public input. He will not allow consultations this summer. Instead, he will keep them clutched guardedly to himself until the legislation is presented to the House and another backlash develops like the one against Bill 70.

Bill 70 sums up exactly the problem with this NDP government. To the detriment of the provincial economy and the people who want to be part of it, they are fixated on job compensation when the problem is job loss. The Labour Minister introduced wage protection legislation without precedent and without consultation with affected sectors that was so punitive against private individuals and charities that the government had to recant. People in Ontario who work for a living want paycheques more than severance cheques. When is this Minister of Labour going to make this his number one priority?

DEFIBRILLATION EQUIPMENT

Mr Eves: In March of 1991, the base hospital program of Sarnia was funded $120,000 by the Ministry of Health to provide a semiautomatic defibrillation program for victims of cardiac arrest in Lambton county. Today this equipment still sits idle because after the equipment was purchased and approved by the Ministry of Health, the ministry is now demanding that Lambton county adopt a 911 number, even though a public access emergency number already exists and all requirements were met when the equipment was purchased in March. Surely the minister agrees that as long as this equipment sits unused, this is another example of waste within her ministry.

The only requirement by the Ministry of Health was that Lambton county have "an efficient communications, user-friendly emergency telephone access such as 911." Those were the instructions given and one of the conditions upon which the purchase of this equipment was approved. Part of the area served by this emergency service does have a 911 number, ie the city of Sarnia, and the other part of it has an emergency access number, which is widely publicized. Will the minister please look into this matter and ensure that this equipment does not sit idle any longer?

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr White: I rise to speak of the trilateral free trade negotiations. The economic risks of these potential arrangements are horrendous, yet those negotiations are being fast-tracked. The economy of Ontario has been decimated as a result of the bilateral free trade. Mr Mulroney rolled the dice and Ontario lost big. Many business people and politicians who were formerly neutral or even supportive of bilateral free trade have changed their minds significantly.

In early 1988, Oshawa city council voted by a very narrow margin to support the bilateral free trade negotiations. The councillors and people of Oshawa now know the results of free trade. They know from the plant closures and job losses in their community. The city of Oshawa, other municipalities and the regional municipality of Durham voted most unanimously, and one only overwhelmingly, to oppose the trilateral free trade negotiations.

The councillors of Oshawa have the wisdom and maturity, even the courage, to acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them. The city of Oshawa wishes the federal government could learn from its mistakes rather than simply repeating them time and again.

ONTARIO-QUEBEC PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION / ASSOCIATION PARLEMENTAIRE ONTARIO-QUÉBEC

Mr Morin: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to announce the first meeting of the Ontario-Quebec Parliamentary Association. This meeting will take place tomorrow morning, Friday 28 June, in Ottawa. This association is unique. It brings forth members of the legislatures of Ontario and Quebec with the aim of fostering friendship, goodwill and mutual understanding between both provinces. It seeks also to enhance co-operation with regard to common areas of concern. The fields of legislation, culture, economics, science and technology will undoubtedly benefit from such co-operation.

We can learn many things from our neighbours to the east, as they can also from us. Both Ontario and Quebec are committed to improving their citizens' standard of living.

Toute initiative visant un rapprochement entre l'Ontario et le Québec mérite d'être soulignée. L'ouverture des voies de communication entre les deux provinces permettra une plus grande concertation en matières législative, sociale, économique, bref, en toute matière pertinente à nos intérêts. L'Association parlementaire Ontario-Québec est appelée à jouer un rôle important dans les relations entre le Québec et l'Ontario.

For these reasons, the creation of the Ontario-Quebec Parliamentary Association is long overdue. Friday's meeting will provide us with a first opportunity to get know each other in a spirit of friendship and conviviality.

MINISTERIAL PERFORMANCE

Mr Stockwell: Here is a brief assessment, a report card, if you will, on the NDP government at the end of the first session.

The Premier gets an F though his term paper, An Agenda for People, was a solid effort at political fiction; performance hampered by poor leadership skills, lousy memory and convenient double standard; will soon be expelled.

The Treasurer: Needs a refresher course in economics and remedial work in math. His marks, like our credit rating, have been downgraded.

The Solicitor General: Has trouble accepting responsibility; keeps telling us that the dog ate his homework.

The Minister of the Environment: Very weak in the 3Rs; seems to think they mean recant, reverse and retreat; has to improve or will be recycled.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: We were not expecting to have to have to evaluate her today. We will have to get back to you tomorrow.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation: Always appreciates being questioned; unfortunately never knows any of the answers.

The Minister of Community and Social Services: A neat appearance does not hide a mouldy performance that has pulled the rug from under her playmates.

The Minister of Education: Has a real fear of tests; would not win an Ontario scholarship even if she had not wiped them out.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities tells tales out of school.

The Minister of Labour: Failure to listen resulted in massive rewrite of first major assignment; likely will not be promoted.

The Minister of Transportation: A Rhodes scholar on the road to nowhere; must do better or will be ditched.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology: Very good at nap time and recess.

JIM GREY

Mr Hope: Today I would like to bring the attention of this House to a local hero in my riding, a young local hero I must add, whose name is Jim Grey and his age is 93. Through the years he has been fighting in the county of Chatham-Kent for a 911 system. This young gentleman has spent numerous hours and a large amount of money to give the people of Kent county a 911 system.

He began a personal campaign in the early 1980s to lobby the public officers in the local area. He spent $7,000 of his own money on advertisements for public awareness. Most recently, Mr Grey pushed for Kent county to study the implementation of a 911 plan.

Finally his contributions have been noticed. Last week I had the pleasure of presenting him with the National Emergency Number Association service award in honour of his dedication towards 911 and its promotion.

There are people in our community who have the capability of performing such worthy jobs, and not for political gain. I am sure that at the age of 93 Mr Grey has identified his concerns in making sure that the public's interest is well in hand and that in times of frustration the citizens can easily push 911 instead of going through the yellow pages to try to find the number.

ESTIMATES

Hon Ms Lankin: I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

The Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1992 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Turnbull: With your permission, Mr Speaker, do I have unanimous consent of the House for a statement on Terry Fox?

The Speaker: Unanimous consent is required. Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

TERRY FOX

Mr Turnbull: Tomorrow, Friday 28 June, is the 10th anniversary of the death of Terry Fox.

It is an honour to rise in the House today to pay tribute to the memory of this young man who has come to exemplify the word "courage," not only for Canadians but for people around the world. Members will recall the courage that Terry Fox showed the world as he ran from Newfoundland to Thunder Bay before cancer brought to a halt his Marathon of Hope.

His determination to do something about a cause he believed in has meant that his name will live for ever whenever heroes are mentioned. Terry believed that anything is possible, that "dreams are made if people only try."

Well, he tried. He had a dream that some day he and thousands of others could be cured of cancer. He wanted to raise enough money so that researchers could find a cure. The challenge was completely daunting, but still he went ahead. Terry Fox believed anything is possible. He said of cancer, "Somewhere the hurting must stop."

Members will recall his lonely run across the country, starting in Newfoundland and ending tragically in Thunder Bay when cancer finally overcame him. That was his Marathon of Hope.

The Marathon of Hope continues today in the form of the Terry Fox Run which takes place every September around the world. In this way, dedicated individuals and organizations have kept Terry's dream alive. Over the past 10 years they have raised the incredible amount of over $90 million for cancer research.

In paying tribute to Terry Fox as a truly outstanding Canadian, I want to quote some of his own words. He said:

"I guess that one of the most important things I've learned is that nothing is ever completely bad. Even cancer. It's made me a better person. It's given me courage and a sense of purpose I never had before. But you don't have to do like I did, wait until you lose a leg or get some awful disease before you take the time to find out what kind of stuff you're really made of. You can start now. Anybody can."

Terry was only 22 when he died of cancer, the dreaded disease which strikes indiscriminately at young and old, rich and poor, but he changed people's attitudes towards cancer and the disabled. He showed that while cancer had claimed his leg, it could not break his spirit.

I encourage all members to participate this September in the Terry Fox Run to raise funds for cancer research and especially to honour the memory of Terry Fox, a great Canadian and a great inspiration to us all.

Hon Ms Lankin: On behalf of my colleagues, I would also like to mark the memory of a fine young Canadian, one who in dying young still left us with a remarkable legacy of courage and tenacity that is remembered throughout the world.

Terry Fox blazed a trail across Canada and into our hearts. Today is the 10th anniversary of the day Terry succumbed to cancer. It is hard to believe. He seems so close to us. I think that is an indication of the important, continuing and, yes, living contribution to our awareness of the need for cancer research and an eventual cure.

Terry Fox had the courage to give a face to cancer, to help humanize the plight of cancer patients, and in doing so he has left an indelible legend. Although his time with us was short, he provided his parents and the rest of Canada with a source of inspiration and pride. Perhaps at the end of these statements, I could ask the House to join with me in a moment of silence commemorating Terry Fox's contribution to all of us.

Mr Phillips: I am honoured to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of our party.

It is rather a unique name. When you say "Terry Fox," it instantly conjures in each of us, I think, some very positive memories. There are very few people in this world who do that. Certainly when I heard that I would have this opportunity, I thought about the things I remember about Terry Fox. There was a line in the paper just last week that caught part of the flavour, and it said, "The haunting vision of the handsome, one-legged athlete, his face set in determination as he runs alone down the country's highways still lives with most of us." Certainly I think how the courage he displayed lifted me at the time.

I think he chose the term "Marathon of Hope" quite deliberately. One of his famous sayings was that dreams are made if people try, certainly for people with physical disabilities.

I remember when he went through Scarborough. There were a number of young people with physical disabilities. As they watched him go by, you could almost see their attitudes changing. They said, "Certainly if he can do it, I can do it." I think he made a substantial difference in that respect. His vision of the country, the fact that he started in Newfoundland and planned to head to British Columbia, for all of us was almost a visual demonstration of this country. As my colleagues have said, his contribution to cancer research, of course, was well known.

There is a saying that I carry with me. If the House will indulge me, I would like to read it. It is in the male gender. If members would interpret it in both genders I would appreciate it, because this is how it was written. It says: "It is not the critic who counts, nor the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." Certainly Terry Fox knew victory.

The Speaker: I invite all members, and indeed our visitors in the galleries, to join in a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment of silence.

The Speaker: I would inform members that the kind and thoughtful remarks as expressed today will be forwarded to Terry Fox's family, and of course our deepest sympathies along with them.

VISITOR

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I know the members would like to recognize the presence in the members' gallery of Mayor Hazel McCallion of the city of Mississauga and regional chairman Frank Bean from the region of Peel.

Mr Sola: Mr Speaker, I would like to request unanimous consent to make a statement on the declaration of independence by Croatia and Slovenia on 25 June.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I am afraid there is not.

Mr Sola: I will then ask for a point of personal privilege to make the statement, because this is something that touches me personally, it touches my riding, it touches many people of various ethnic backgrounds in Ontario and in Canada. One can check Hansard on a daily basis and see similar statements made for various other communities.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga East, I certainly understand and appreciate the issue that he feels most strongly about. The precedents and the standing orders in this House dictate that we have unanimous consent for these types of statements, so unfortunately I am not able to grant your request on this occasion.

Mr Sola: I would like to ask one more time for unanimous consent.

Agreed to.

CROATIAN AND SLOVENIAN INDEPENDENCE

Mr Sola: I thank members very much. Any controversial statements that may be in here, I will try to leave out. I have tried to make this a statement that will not be offensive to any community in Ontario or in Canada.

As a Canadian with Croatian roots, I am compelled to comment on the historic happenings in the land of my birth. It is with great pride that I report to this House the declaration of independence by the republics of Croatia and Slovenia on 25 June.

This is the culmination of a series of events beginning with the first free, democratic elections in these republics last year, observed by members of this House, when the forces of democracy and independence won an overwhelming mandate. A referendum in both republics last month resulted in a resounding vote of confidence, over 94%, for the democratic governments and their quest for independence. It is time for all who uphold democratic rights and freedoms to come forward to cheer the triumph of democracy as expressed in Croatia and Slovenia.

Can Yugoslavia survive when it has blocked Stipe Mesic's assumption to the rotating presidency, cancelled the autonomy of the provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina while retaining their vote, and abused human rights in every republic and province?

There are several other statements I had prepared that I will leave out just in case they may be too controversial.

Yugoslavia, like all nations, if it intends to survive, must comply with its own Constitution. The above list clearly demonstrates it has not. This has propelled Croatians and Slovenians towards their independence.

By giving recognition to Croatia and Slovenia, we are not taking sides, only stating the obvious: the right of people to self-determination. Free and democratic societies provide the right atmosphere in which people can live as neighbours seeking their destiny to raise families and work in harmony with others. For example, prior to the forced creation of Yugoslavia, Croats and Serbs lived for centuries as good neighbours.

We cannot turn back the clock of history. We must accept the challenge of independence and encourage the peaceful resolution of all disputes that have festered too long in these proud communities. How we handle this challenge will foretell how we resolve similar movements towards democratic and free societies.

I urge support from all members for the democratic movement that we are witnessing in Slovenia and Croatia. For us, earlier signals of self-determination displayed in Tiananmen Square and in the Baltics were lights of hope. Let this hope remind us of the need to continue to promote freedom for all peoples of the world.

I thank the members of this House for their generosity.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINIMUM WAGE

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As the House knows, this government has worked hard to introduce fairness and equality into all of our initiatives. This commitment includes an attempt to eliminate poverty in Ontario. We believe it is only when all the people have better access to everything this province has to offer and an equal chance to participate in the life of the province that we will live in a just and equitable society.

To achieve this, our government has undertaken an important antipoverty strategy. Elements of this have already been announced in the budget. For example, the Treasurer has already announced the largest enrichment in the history of the Ontario tax reduction program, which will result in an additional $50 million in reduced taxes for low-income earners. These tax reforms are designed to achieve greater equity in the tax system and to provide tax relief for low-income families.

Another important component of our antipoverty strategy is the revision of Ontario's minimum wage rates. Historically, minimum wage revisions have attempted to compensate our province's lowest wage earners for their loss of purchasing power. Ontario's current minimum wage of $5.40 an hour, however, does not reflect consumer price increases that have taken place over the last 15 years.

Between 1975 and 1990, the consumer price index for Ontario rose by 179% while the minimum wage increased by only 125%. This has meant not only that minimum wage earners have been unable to keep up with increasing costs, but also that their purchasing power has slipped further and further behind. Clearly, this situation cannot be allowed to continue.

There are currently more than 160,000 workers at or near the minimum wage in this province; that is, more than 4% of our workforce. Minimum wage earners make only 48% of the 1989 average wage. If I can put that in perspective, that means these workers are trying to take care of themselves, and in many cases their families too, on less than $12,000 a year.

Minimum wage earners are not only struggling to survive on an income that most of us would find impossible to live on; they also tend to be among the most vulnerable members of the workforce in the province. Revisions to the minimum wage provide these workers with practically the only means they have of getting a wage increase, because they generally find it impossible to negotiate increases for themselves.

The increases I am about to announce will, we believe, have an important impact on working women as 57% of minimum wage earners today are women, 5% of the total female workforce. This increase will reach some women before pay equity increases by other means can be achieved and will directly benefit those not covered under the legislation.

In addition, more than 20,000 people who are currently working and receiving social assi