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

November 25, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Nov-25 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 25 November 2004 Jeudi 25 novembre 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

TRANSIT SERVICES

WEARING OF RIBBONS

PORT DOVER

SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

DIABETES

ONTARIO FILM AND

TELEVISION INDUSTRY

RIDE PROGRAM

LEARNING FOR A

SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CERTIFICATION), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(ACCRÉDITATION)

LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (SUCCESSOR RIGHTS), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL (SUCCESSION AUX QUALITÉ

S) MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WOLF STRATEGY /

STRATÉGIE SUR LES LOUPS

DEFERRED VOTES

GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO GENERATION CONTRACT

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

CHILD CARE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

HIGHWAY 60

SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

GAMBLING

EATING DISORDERS

GREENHOUSE INDUSTRY

VISITORS

PETITIONS

OPTOMETRISTS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

WEARING OF HELMETS

EYE EXAMINATIONS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

TUITION

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND

BUSINESS SERVICES STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE

DES SERVICES AUX CONSOMMATEURS

ET AUX ENTREPRISES

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I move that, in the opinion of the House, the government of Ontario should:

1. Take action to develop a comprehensive strategy in order to reform our first-past-the-post electoral system, including consideration of proportional

representation, preferential ballots, a form of mixed systems or others, in the election of Ontario's parliamentarians;

2. Fully engage the citizens of Ontario in the decision-making on a preferred method of electing Ontario's parliamentarians; and

3. Establish a citizens' assembly, the purpose of which would be to provide advice on public policy issues on a continuing basis.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Arthurs has moved ballot item number 41. Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr Arthurs, you have up to 10

minutes.

Mr Arthurs: I'm particularly pleased this morning to be able to present to this assembly during private members' time a resolution on democratic

renewal. I look forward to hearing during the next hour from other members on what I believe to be an important matter for this House and the people of Ontario.

The resolution does come in three parts, and I will be speaking to each one during the course of the next 10 minutes very briefly.

But first, Mr Speaker, if I could, let me pose to you and the Legislature the following propositions: (1) that in forming a government, it should be the

objective of the electorate to create such a government with the support of less than 50% of those eligible to vote and cast ballots; and (2) that a majority of the members elected to the

Legislature should be elected with less than a majority of the votes cast, that is, less than 50% of the votes cast. If our electoral system were other than it is and such propositions were made, I

would hasten to suggest that they would meet with some scepticism. But we know that is exactly the current situation.

In forming a government, the last earned majority, the government that had more than 50% of the popular vote, was in 1937, some 67 years ago. On the election of

members to this House in the most recent election in 2003, 60 seats, a majority, were won with less than a majority of the votes cast, thus to say that a majority of the members of this Legislature

had the electoral support of less than 50% of the votes cast in their ridings. I can include myself among that group.

It's for those types of reasons that I believe it's important for us to explore and engage the citizens of Ontario in debate on democratic renewal. It may well

be at the end of the day that our first-past-the-post system best serves the province, but I believe we have a responsibility and an obligation to put matters of democratic renewal before the

citizens of this province, all of them, from our First Nations to our most recent immigrants, those of all ages, whether they're wealthy or destitute, whether they come from rural or urban

communities.

More specifically to the resolution at hand -- and I'm just going to repeat a part of it -- it speaks to what the government should undertake, some direction:

first, to develop a comprehensive strategy to consider reform of a variety of sorts, everything from proportional representation, preferential ballots, some mixed form, or others that may not be

included in that rather limited list; second, to encourage the full engagement of the citizens of the province on a preferred method of electing those of us in this assembly; and third, the

establishment of a citizens' assembly to provide advice on public policy on a continuing basis that goes beyond the date of an election.

With regard to the first part of the resolution, the most recent process launched by the government must be comprehensive. It must provide for the exploration,

examination and consideration of various models, including the current first-past-the-post system. In the last generation alone, the pace of change has accelerated socially, economically,

technologically and demographically. We're a different province. Our political traditions, though, are firmly planted in the past and need to be wrested from their slumber. We have an obligation to

question a system -- our system -- which is failing to respond to the changes in Ontario.

In 1865, Ernest Naville, a Swiss political scientist and philosopher, wrote: "In a democratic government, the right of decision belongs to the majority, but the

right of representation belongs to all." I think it's a poignant quote in speaking of what democratic governments are about, both in decision-making and in representation, and I would suggest that

in many cases not only aren't the majority in the decision-making, but certainly all of Ontarians are not effectively and adequately represented.

The second part of the resolution speaks to the involvement of Ontarians in this process, to "fully engage the citizens of Ontario." This is intended to ensure

not only the broadest range of consultation and public input, dialogue, debate, but also inclusion in the decision-making process. It's intended, as Minister Phillips often refers to, to challenge

ourselves to maximize public involvement.

With an ever-declining turnout at the polls, those of us who have served municipally, provincially and those who serve federally are more than aware that the

need is self-evident. The percentage turnout continues to decline, election after election. Full participation is healthy. A transparent, constructive democracy allows for open and honest debate.

We need to maximize opportunities for all Ontarians to learn about all systems that might be available. We need to draw on the public for their ideas, their suggestions and their participation.

Broadening citizen engagement in these processes and revitalizing the democracy will also resonate with the young people in our communities. By utilizing the new

media, on-line dialogues and enhancement of e-government, we'll modernize a democracy we all share in, but more importantly, encourage and involve the young people in our community who are far more

conversant with those technologies than I. I've said on more than one occasion, I believe, that I am part of the last generation of Luddites.

Part three of the resolution speaks to public policy issues. Its intention is to engage the public through a citizens' assembly on an ongoing, continuing basis,

not a short-term basis, to provide advice on public policy.

It's my view that too often we are encumbered by the partisanship, the partisan nature, of our democratic system. We need to find better ways to seek the advice

of the citizens of Ontario. We need to find better ways in which the development of public policy and advice on public policy are more broadly ranged and have the opportunity to be less partisan,

particularly in that time frame between elections.

There are key portfolios that are of concern to all Ontarians and some portfolios that are of greater concern to fewer Ontarians with more specific interests.

But in areas such as health, education and public safety, I would pose to you that an ongoing process of advice in a less partisan nature, but broadly representative and not just consultative on

issue-specific matters, will well serve this Legislature and the people of Ontario.

There will be those who might want to ask why at this time, in light of the government's actions a few weeks ago, this matter would be before the Legislature in

the form of a resolution. Well, those of us who are here and have been here will fully understand the process by which private members' hours are balloted well in advance and the necessity and

requirement that the members provide to the Clerk of the Assembly and the table their intentions specifically in regard to private members' bills, resolutions or matters of private business. In

doing that, private members are not necessarily aware of the actions being proposed by government or its ministers. In as much as this, I believe, is consistent with the actions currently being

taken by the government, they were prepared in the absence of that activity, but I think with an understanding that there is a need for democratic renewal. Having served in elected office for some

20-odd years now, I'm a strong proponent.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): We have a great number of citizens in our camp with respect to this particular motion. We're being

given 15 minutes, our caucus of 24 members, to debate an issue that may change the history of Ontario politics for the next 100 years. Our old system has been in place for 137 years, yet we see the

government members bring forward motions to try to restrict the opposition's ability to debate this particular matter.

A member of the opposition could have brought forward an alternate motion. We agree to changing the structure of this particular part of our legislative process

all the time. We have eight members who are going to speak on this for less than two minutes each, because all of them want to have their say. We cannot condone this motion in front of this

Legislature under this particular part of our legislative process.

We have 15 minutes for our party, 15 minutes for the New Democratic Party and 10 minutes for the backbenchers of the governing party. We cannot consider this

kind of issue and this motion and come to a conclusion in this short period of time.

I have called on the government to set up a select committee with equal representation of all parties to sit down and figure out what this process should be. We

should have the elected representatives of Ontario, as we now have, decide on how this process should take place so that when the results come out, they will have credibility.

As it now stands, the government refuses to do this. They want to set the framework for this committee. They want to tell the committee how to report. They want

to select the committee.

We cannot stand this. We must not give sanction to this resolution, because of the lack of time for members to participate. This is a most undemocratic process,

when the government is talking about doing something of a renewal for our democratic process here in Ontario.

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It's my pleasure as well to speak to the motion this morning. I was listening to the honourable

member from the other side who proposed the motion and I certainly have some questions that I don't think we'll be able to ask or answer in the time given to us.

However, I noticed he talked about proportional representation, and I certainly have some grave concerns about our moving in that direction. He talked about the

last time there was a majority of the popular vote in this province, in 1937. We didn't hear concerns about whether people were being represented for a long time. It's only in the last maybe three

or four terms of government that we've started to hear this being talked about. I think it goes more to what has happened after people are elected than the process by which they are elected. I

think where we need some real reform is in what goes on in this House and how we do our job once we're elected.

As for the right of representation, I can tell you that when I was elected as the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, I became the representative of every

citizen of that riding, not just of those who voted for me. I represent the rights and aspirations of every citizen in my riding and I will speak on their behalf in this House.

It seems to me that some people are thinking this idea of proportional representation is the panacea to all that ails this system. Well, it goes a lot deeper

than that. It's about what happens in the House and elsewhere after we're elected.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I too want to just very quickly speak to the motion that's before us. Obviously, the government has been talking

about introducing this type of thing for some time. I find it rather strange that we would have a motion like this to be debated here with really no information or help to help me make the

decision.

One of the things I find very curious is, this is called democratic renewal. I heard the member who introduced the motion suggest that we're getting less and

less participation in our democracy to elect us to this place. I think what's causing that is not the way we're voted for but the fact that they don't have confidence that when they have elected

someone, that individual will come and do what they said they were going to do.

I think there's no greater example in Ontario's history than what we have with the present government. They made all kinds of promises to get elected, and the

people who voted for the members representing that government thought they would come here and implement those things. Now we find that that's not what happens at all. I think if we were going to

do some democratic renewal, we would take a stand on that.

A number of weeks ago, I introduced a motion in this House on opposition day. It was the type of motion to give rural Ontario and the farmers of Ontario some

support that the government, before the election, had promised, and after the election had taken away. Members from the government side had stood and told their people, "We disagree with what the

government is doing," and yet when they got in here, they voted against putting those programs back.

Rather than putting a new program in place or putting a process in place to make changes, I think we need to make some changes in how we operate in this place on

behalf of our citizens. That's why I will not be supporting this motion. I think much more work needs to be done on each member individually, rather than trying to tell us all how the people should

elect differently.

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I intend to support this motion because I think it's important in the evolution of the democratic system in the

province of Ontario.

I look at this from a bit of a historical context. When you go back to the 19th century in Ontario, we think of William Lyon Mackenzie challenging the Family

Compact of the day and meeting with his colleagues in Montgomery's Tavern to think about a reform process in Upper Canada to make sure that the people were indeed represented, so their ideas and

concepts could be brought forward in an assembly to have a dialogue, to have a debate on the issues of the day.

We think of George Brown, if he were around today as the owner and the editor of the Globe and Mail, who epitomized at that time what it meant to be a reformer.

I can see what he would say today in his editorials in the Globe and Mail, clearly supporting a group of citizens coming together to examine the electoral process in the province of Ontario.

We think of Lord Baldwin, who designed the structure of municipal government with the Baldwin Act in 1843, which is essentially still in effect in Ontario today

in the 21st century.

You look at former people who were in this Legislature. We think of Donald C. MacDonald of the NDP, and Stephen Lewis, who, if they were in this chamber today,

would no doubt support this motion to look at electoral reform and other important public policy issues in Ontario.

I look across the aisle and I think of when Tom Wells and Bette Stephenson were here, two reform-minded people, whom I can see being very involved to present

some ideas into this process. I think of the people who were on our side of the House at one time: Robert Fletcher Nixon, the man who was described in an

article at one time as "the best Premier

that Ontario never had." We think of Sean Conway, who was an institution in this place from 1975 to 2003. We think of those individuals, and if they were here today, collectively, they would want

to share in this debate about looking at ways to make the electoral system in Ontario responsive to Ontario in the 21st century.

There are a number of articles that have been put together lately by a number of scholars who have reviewed this area, and I would just like to get on the record

an

article that was written by Kent Weaver called "A Hybrid Electoral System for Canada." Even though he refers in this

article to our federal system, I believe it does have some bearing on what we

might be looking at here in Ontario.

"Given the trade-off between single-party majority government and representational equity for political parties -- and the political sensitivity of the former

for politicians in power -- the most practical objective for electoral reform is to lessen inequitable treatment of voters and parties rather than eliminating them entirely. A hybrid electoral

system specifically tailored to Canadian" -- or Ontario's -- "conditions can successfully marry the Westminster-style parliamentary system's concern for stable single-party majority government with

the representational concerns of more proportional systems. Specifically, the federal government could institute a reform that:

"(1) increases the number of seats in the House of Commons" -- or the Ontario Legislature, you could insert there -- "by 10%, with those seats distributed among

the" ridings "according to population" -- each riding "receiving roughly 10% more seats than it does now;

"(2) gives priority in awarding compensation seats within each" -- they're referring federally -- "province to the party that finishes first in a nationwide vote

until giving that party another compensation seat would take its provincial seat share over that of its provincial vote share, at which point it passes to the second party in national vote share,

then the third largest etc;

"(3) fills compensation seats from party lists established before the election. Candidates on these party lists may, but need not, also be candidates in

individual constituencies."

That is an example of Mr Weaver looking at a hybrid electoral system for Canada. But as I said, it could equally be applied in the province of Ontario, and it's

something that the citizens' jury or the citizens' assembly, as has been suggested by my colleague from Ajax-Pickering-Uxbridge, could indeed look at.

There's no question in my mind, when I chat with people in the riding of Peterborough, that there is some concern that in today's Ontario Legislature there's an

underrepresentation of females, there's an underrepresentation of individuals from our First Nations community, and there's an underrepresentation of those other individuals who make up the

wonderful cultural mosaic that is Ontario today.

There are pros and cons. This is an

article that I picked up the other day from Herbert Grubel. Mr Grubel is a former Reform MP for the riding of Capilano-Howe

Sound from 1993 to 1997. In his article, he flags that indeed there may be some pitfalls with proportional representation, but he does highlight the fact that through his experience as an MP from

British Columbia and then subsequently on the citizens' jury in British Columbia, there is a need. It's helpful for democracy to look at its mechanism, along with a series of other options, to in

fact -- what we'd all like to see is increased voter participation in Ontario.

For the life of me, from my way of thinking -- I think we all should be concerned about this: The turnout for provincial elections in Ontario should be in excess

of 90%; people should be fully engaged in the democratic process in the province of Ontario. Obviously, there's something that's restraining these individuals from participating fully in our

democratic process in Ontario.

If you look at the municipal level, it's considered now, in many jurisdictions in Ontario that a high turnout is something in the neighbourhood of 43% to 45%.

That indicates to me that more than half of the citizens in any given municipality in Ontario now are no longer participating in the process. I think it's a real opportunity, through the proposal

that was put forward by my colleague, to look at a number of options.

This is part of a legacy. When we look down the road, during the time that you and I, Mr Speaker, will get to spend in this great place, what legacy do we want

to leave for the next generation of Ontarians? Our legacy, I think, should be that we want to look at ways that we can re-engage people in the democratic process in the province of Ontario by

embarking on a citizens' jury or a citizens' assembly to look at a number of issues. I think it's vitally important for us in the 21st century in Ontario.

It's not just electoral reform that we want to look at. I know my friend from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge wants to look at election financing in Ontario and how we

finance our campaigns: perhaps just in time, reporting on individuals who contribute to political parties to make it much more transparent to the people of Ontario; perhaps looking at people who

give to candidates during leadership campaigns -- that's not transparent now and it's not reported -- to eliminate that veil of secrecy that has shrouded the whole activity with regard to

leadership campaigns in Ontario.

We have a real opportunity to look at all aspects of how we operate our democratic mechanisms here in Ontario. I think it's what people are looking for. We're

looking for leadership, and I think this motion will add to that as we look forward.

I'll be sharing my time with my colleague from Etobicoke Centre.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to be a part of the debate here today. I think as Mr Sterling, our critic on

democratic renewal, said, this is certainly premature in terms of what's going on. The government has already announced through the Premier that they're going to conduct an exercise with respect to

what's before us in this motion. Why would we be dealing with this today, when in fact the process has been announced by the democratic renewal minister, the Attorney General, and we have no idea

what's going to come out of that process?

What the member is asking today is for the Legislature to adopt the process that is now under consultation with respect to democratic renewal, which is a part of

their agenda. I think it's correct to say that it doesn't matter what system we have if the Legislature isn't working the way it should work.

An example was yesterday in the government agencies committee, where I put forth a motion to open up the process with respect to appointments, not only reviewing

Premiers' appointments but also ministerial letters, which make up 33% of the process. It was voted down by the Liberal-backed majority of that government agencies committee, and they broke their

promise to make government agencies more transparent and accountable to the public.

The process, in terms of how we work in this Legislature, is just as important. I think our leader, John Tory, has put forth a platform that should be adhered to

by the members in this Legislature: to bring greater democratic renewal today. So I won't be supporting this.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): It's quite interesting to listen to this debate so far, and the different positions being taken. I think

it's an important resolution, or motion, before us today. It doesn't give a lot of detail, as the government's announcement last week, which I attended, didn't give a lot of detail, therefore I'm

jumping into the void that's been left in terms of making some suggestions about process.

I want to say very clearly to the Conservative members, indeed to all the members here -- I've been in this place since 1990. I've been in government, I've been

a backbencher for a while in government, I was a cabinet minister and I've sat in opposition. I now sit as the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party. I say to those who think that fiddling with

the existing system is going to make the changes we need to update democracy in this province, it is not going to work.

They've been in government as well; you're in government now; we've been in government. We all see, when a majority of any party gets into government, that when

slamming any particular party here. It's happened under all our parties, and I believe it will continue to happen as long as we keep this system, which worked for its time.

Let's keep in mind that this system, which has been in place for, what, 137 years, was brought in before women had the vote, let alone the lack of women we have

as representatives still. I think it's something like 21% now in 2004. The lack of our aboriginal people and other visible minorities is a disgrace, really, when you think of it. We have to change

the system. The idea of trying to fiddle around the edges is just not going to work.

What I said -- and it's true; I don't have a lot of time, but I'm sure we'll have more opportunities to talk about this -- is that part of the strategy we're

talking about here today must ensure that the citizens' assembly is independent and accountable, and that a set of principles and terms of reference and mandate are absolutely key, because what is

set out in that set of principles will determine how the citizens' assembly looks at the problem and will focus their recommendations.

What happened in BC, in my humble view, from looking at what happened there -- I don't believe the mandate and the terms of reference allowed that broader

discussion. It was very clear. You couldn't increase members in the assembly, for instance. That, right away, limits some of the directions the committee might have recommended. It also didn't look

at, as one of its principles, getting more women elected.

I see here today that there are all kinds of girls and boys from different schools up in our galleries. This may sound like a little bit of a boring debate to

them about democracy, but I'm really glad you're here for this today. I say to the girls who might want to run some day that right now in this place only 21% of the people sitting here are women,

and we want to change that. That's one of the things that proportional representation can change.

I'm sure each party leader received a letter from Rosemary Spiers, the chair of Equal Voice. She's talking about that same issue and says that, right now, as I

pointed out, "...only 21% of the seats in the Legislature are held by women. At the present rate of change" -- to the girls here today, it's going to take a long time if we don't change the system,

because Equal Voice has calculated -- "it will take four more generations before our half of the population can hope to achieve equal representation in the Ontario House."

That letter goes on to point out that they have a preference. They've looked at all of the different kinds of proportional representation and they saw that

"the mixed member proportional voting system" which they have in Scotland, Germany and New Zealand "has substantially increased the number of elected women."

In the NDP, as you know, we have an affirmative action process, unlike the other parties, and we do better overall proportionately, but still not good enough.

What Equal Voice is saying is, we need both: We need to change the system to a kind of proportional representation that includes that in it, but also that parties have an affirmative action

program. When you put the two together, you will increase the number of women much more quickly, which in my view is absolutely critical.

I've talked to the Attorney General -- I'm the democratic renewal critic for my party -- about our involvement in this process. In order for the integrity of

this government process that has been put in place to be kept, it absolutely has to be transparent and agreed to by all parties in this Legislature. That is absolutely critical. Whether or not the

Conservatives believe in proportional representation, we do, although not every person in our party does, but overall our party does support proportional representation. I know I do.

I believe, for instance, that it is absolutely critical that, if there's a citizens' assembly, we look at what worked in BC and what didn't work: that it is

absolutely transparent, that it's agreed upon by all of the members, and that it reports back to the Legislative Assembly, not the Attorney General's office, which was, I think, what the Gibson

report in BC had recommended. I think they had their assembly report back to the AG's office there. We shouldn't do that; we should make sure it reports back to the Legislative Assembly here. We

also want to make sure that the budget and all of the other components, if a citizens' assembly is put together, goes through a real legislative process, not through the Attorney General's

office.

Some of the things I'd like to see happen immediately include real-time disclosure. The minister mentioned that election finance reforms etc will be dealt with

by something called a citizens' jury. I believe that's the kind of thing the Liberals promised they'd deal with, that they'd do. I've been on my feet in the House saying, "Do that now." There are

certain things within the system that we need to fix. That was a promise that shouldn't wait to be part of this.

I've got to ask the question, if you cherry-pick a fixed date for elections, which the Liberals have done, to do now but, at the same time, put aside something

like the importance of real-time disclosure as part of this whole committee makeup, why do that? I would say, put the fixed election date in the whole mix, because once you start fiddling with the

system and talking about changing the system, that should become part of the discussion or, at the very least, pick out some of these other components like real-time disclosure, which is not a

problem. You'll recall that I brought a fax machine into the House one day and said, "This is a real-time machine." It's not hard to disclose the donations that the Liberals, or any of the parties,

are getting when they have these high-priced dinners. So I think the government should take a look at some of those smaller issues, things like that, which can be reformed now and dealt with as the

Liberals promised.

Overall, changing the system, as has been recommended by this resolution today, is going to involve the citizens of this province. I would say to the

government that one of the issues you brought forward was enumeration. We all know from our ridings in the past several elections that those lists are a mess. If people are going to be chosen to be

on that citizens' assembly from the voters' list, then I would say we've got a problem. A whole bunch of people will be left off because they're not on the voters' list. So when the government

talks about targeted enumeration, let's make the target all of Ontario; let's start a proper enumeration process again.

I want to leave a little time for our former democratic renewal critic, Gilles Bisson, but those are just a few of my thoughts about the process that I, of

course, plan and hope to be very much involved in. We will be suggesting a number of principles and ideas for terms of reference for this process to proceed.

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I'm pleased to join in the debate on what I think is a very important issue, and that is the

re-engagement of citizens across this province in their democracy. I think it involves something that is somewhat difficult for politicians -- some more than others -- and that is to listen rather

than talk. If we can encapsulate what we believe and what this private member's resolution that my colleague Mr Arthurs has brought forward is all about, it is really about listening to the

citizens in this province about why they do or do not feel engaged in our current democratic process.

Over the last number of months, I've had a lot of opportunity to do some of that listening, and I want to share with the members of the Legislature some of

what I have heard. I recently had an opportunity to listen to a group of youth in this province, who advanced a report called Just Listen to Me, again building on the idea that "We need to be

listened to; our voices need to be heard." These youth were reflective of a variety of backgrounds. Some of the young people had been wards of the state, some of them had had issues with the CAS,

some of them had lived on the street, and others had had lives that would maybe reflect a little bit more the lives that we're familiar with. But at the end of the day, one of the key things that

they asked the government was, "Please listen to us. Listen to our perspective, listen to what we have to say and please acknowledge that we do need to be engaged."

What this resolution is about is, in part two, to "fully engage the citizens of Ontario." That is something that we are currently undertaking, and I think the

stars are becoming aligned. We are hearing a lot more about why citizens want to see their faces reflected in this Legislature. I agree with my colleague from across the House who talked about this

place needing to be more reflective. It needs to be more reflective of the variety of faces across Ontario.

With respect to women, we have reached a cap, somewhat, in this country, of 20%, 21%. We used to talk a little bit more about, "Let time pass. We will see more

women." Well, why are we not seeing more women and why are we not seeing more representation in the Legislature?

Those are questions that those of us who believe in democracy -- and certainly, if we're here and we put our name on a ballot and we wanted to participate in

this process, we need to see that reflective nature here, because, as I stated at the beginning, there are many, many voices that are not being heard in this Legislature.

In this private member's bill, to talk about going out and listening -- and I want to also share a little bit more about, yes, the government has started on

some of these initiatives, because we all agree that it's very important and we do need to have more engagement.

I had an opportunity to participate in the Democracy Challenge that was launched on November 19 by the minister responsible for democratic renewal. The tag

line of the Democracy Challenge was very interesting. We really wanted in that Democracy Challenge to inform, inspire, engage.

When I had an opportunity to sit and listen to the young people who were collected in that room, I heard from them the very same message that I heard from high

school students in my own riding when I'd gone and participated at a leadership forum at Father Redmond, from the students and the young people who launched the Just Listen to Me report who were

working with the child advocate in the province, and that was, "Our voices need to be heard. We want to be inspired. We want to see our ideas reflected in the work that takes place in this

Legislature."

But in order to figure out what we need to do and what needs to be changed, we first have to figure out what will engage and how we can bring those voices

forward. By starting with the voices of those who are engaged in projects like Kids Voting and the other great projects that are taking place across the country, we are going to be able to inspire

others to participate. The youth who were at the Democracy Challenge talked a lot about how to get those youth who do not see their face reflected in anything that we do in this Legislature, who do

not see the importance of it, to participate. We need to build that snowball. We need to get everyone interested and willing to participate in our democratic process. That responsibility lies with

us, and it starts by stopping talking and starting listening.

The Deputy Speaker: One second. Speaking of that, the chatter has been a little loud in here this morning, making it difficult to hear. So if

the members would just keep that in mind while there are speakers on the floor.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): It's regrettable that time in private members' hour is being utilized for this purpose. We

know the government made an announcement, and the opposition, in terms of this substantive motion, has the total of 15 minutes to participate in this kind of debate. So it's something of an

unfortunate joke, but I think it's indicative of the way the members of the Liberal Party treat this place.

They made the announcement with respect to their own initiative in this regard, outside of the assembly. We see it on a day-to-day basis by the ministers in

the Liberal government refusing to answer direct questions from opposition members, who represent a majority of the population in this province, and we're still not getting substantive and

meaningful answers to questions posed.

I think the first step in any initiative like this should be to determine the root causes of disillusionment among the non-voters in the province. There should

be a select committee of this Legislature to try and determine why people are not participating, why they're not voting.

I think you might find out one of the significant reasons is when you have the leader of a political party, Mr McGuinty, basing an election campaign,

significant television advertising on standing in front of the people of Ontario and promising, "I will not increase your taxes. If there's one thing you can count on, I will not increase your

taxes if I'm the Premier of Ontario," and within two months, what did he do? He brought in the largest tax increase in the history of the province of Ontario. Does that have an impact on people

being disillusioned? They went out and voted for this man based on a very significant promise, and within two months he broke it. Does that not have an impact on voters? Does that not disillusion

the people of the province of Ontario? It certainly does. It's a sham. This motion is a sham. It's wasting the time of private members and we will vote against it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I first of all want to put on the record my personal view and also the view of the party, which is that

we believe this current system, first past the post, has to be modernized. The reality is that when one of the few British parliamentary systems that still operates on a system where a government

that gets elected with 35% or 45% of the popular vote could end up with 60%, 70%, 80% of the seats in the House, it seems to us, and I think to many people, it doesn't make a lot of sense. We need

to have a system in this province that says once the election is over, if a particular party got 48% of the vote, they should have 48% of the seats. The litmus test is that if you can't --

Mr Yakabuski: Disaster.

Mr Bisson: I listen to the Tories next door say, "Disaster." It's a big disaster in Germany, where they've operated with first past the post

since after the Second World War, along with most other countries in Europe, and their economies are outperforming the economy of North America. They're politically more stable than a whole bunch

of other places. So the argument that proportional representation is a disaster is a stretch beyond the imagination. It certainly is not.

The other issue --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: No, they are a mixed system.

Mr Sterling: There's 9% unemployment.

Mr Bisson: Now the Tories are saying the economic union isn't working and that the economy of Europe isn't working. Look at the Eurodollar as

compared to the Canadian and American dollars, and you'll find that the European economy is doing quite well. Anyway, I'm not debating you; I'm debating the House.

I would just make this other point. We believe that if the government goes ahead with this process they've put forward and actually does the right thing as far

as the process of trying to figure out how to move forward with democratic renewal, it could be a good thing.

The basic problem we have in this Legislature is that it has evolved into a system where the Premier and a few unelected advisers who are around him or her,

normally him, basically make all the decisions. The members become more and more irrelevant as time goes by. Was it the Liberals who created this issue? No. Was it the Tories? No. Was it us? It

started with all of us. At one point or another, there's been an evolution over the last 20 years in this place, as in other Parliaments across Canada and at the federal level. The Premier and a

few unelected people make decisions in the Premier's office. They come into caucus and say, "Boys and girls, this is what you're going to do," and all the trained seals have to follow in behind.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. We have to say yes, a government has to have the right to have its legislation, but it has to have that right based on what the actual representation of the vote

should have been, and that's why I believe that a PR system of some form would be better.

I particularly like a mixed system that says you have two votes, one where you vote for the party of your choice to be the government, the other one for the

local member. At the end of the day, you make the adjustments. That's what Germany and a whole bunch of other places do.

In Ontario, we have a tradition of constituencies and you can't do away with that. I don't think anybody in Ontario would stand for a PR system that would say

the parties will put a list and the list people are the ones who get elected. That would never fly. You have to have a constituency-based system, but you have to have a mixed proportional system,

in my view.

On another issue, in regard to fixed-date elections, this is an initiative the government has put forward that I support. I think it makes sense. But there are

some dangers with this. One is, the current bill as it stands will put us in virtual election, as the Americans are. You have to have that bill amended so that there is a real, fixed period of

elections where parties, candidates and third parties -- in other words, people who support candidates -- can't spend money until 27 or 30 days before the actual election. If we don't put that kind

of proviso in your current legislation, it will mean you're going to have all kinds of third-party advertising and the parties themselves going out and campaigning virtually for a year or a year

and a half before the next provincial election. That won't serve anybody well. Members need to understand that the current bill, as it stands, is flawed.

Do I support a fixed-date election? Certainly; not a problem. But we need to make sure that the election is set in such a way that nobody can campaign until 27

days before the election, nobody can spend money until 27 days before an election and there can be no third-party advertising.

As well, we have to take a look at campaign limits. That's why I favour what the federal government has done, which is to get rid of union and corporate

donations. Not a bad idea. The question is, how do you come up with a formula that's fair for all parties? How do you allow, for example, the Green Party, which has something to say in this

province, to run candidates, and how do you make sure the existing parties can fare well enough to be able to run a full slate of candidates in those elections? If we are to deal with that as well,

I think we're on our way to making some pretty good reforms when it comes to democracy in Ontario.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in private members' business debate this morning. Unfortunately, I don't think

this is the spot where we should be discussing this important motion when we, as individual members in the opposition, have all of a minute and a half to talk about this issue. I would mention that

the member for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge said that he introduced this before the government made their recent announcement. I would have gladly traded my private member's bill, I think it's number 70

on the ballot list, the deposit return system. We could have been talking about something that's very important and maybe looked at solving the trash problems in this province.

I do have concerns about rushing into changing our whole system. We have a system that has worked well for 137 years. We've had stable government for 137

years. I think we should take our time and look at other systems. The member for Timmins-James Bay raised some valid concerns with our existing system, but I think what our system needs is a

tune-up. It doesn't need a major overhaul; it needs a tune-up to get more involvement with the members to make it work a little bit better. But we should be very careful about rushing into a new

system that may, from a distance, from a high level, look good but does have many problems, especially when our system has worked very well.

So that, in the limited time I have, is what I would like to add to this discussion. We should look at ways of making the current system work better before

making radical changes.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This morning's motion -- and it's merely a motion in private members' hour -- raises a question in

my mind: This is it? This is all there is to this, a private members' motion? I really raise the question, is this it? Where is the government bill? Where is the legislation? All we have here is a

motion indicating that we should consider proportional representation. Where is the government legislation for us to debate? To the Liberals across the way, this was your election platform.

I know in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, it was raised in every single all-candidates debate, raised by local Liberals. Granted, the Liberals dropped by

3,000 votes in my riding in the last election. But local Liberals, regardless, still presented this as one of their most important new initiatives.

As the member for Leeds-Grenville has indicated, what we have this morning is a sham. I'd put an "e" on the end of that word. It's a shame; it's a sham and a

shame. And I ask, where's the government? Do we not get to debate a government bill? What are they afraid of? Is this going to be, perhaps down the road, slid in underneath the back door?

As with my colleagues, I just have a couple of minutes to address this issue today, to speak on the often touted, certainly during the last election, concept

of proportional representation. It's a Liberal move that, as the member for Lanark-Carleton pointed out, will change the history of this province and representation in Ontario over the next hundred

years. As the member indicated, 24 members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition get a total of 15 minutes to raise their constituents' concerns about what I consider this morning as an affront to

democracy, this suffocation of debate, the muzzling of any detailed opposition comment this morning.

Last week, the Premier of Ontario bypassed duly elected representatives in the Legislature, making an announcement about electoral reform at a location

somewhere outside of the assembly. We as opposition members were not consulted, there was no legislation presented for debate, and what we have this morning is an afterthought, shamelessly trying

to cleanse this initiative of its partisan stench by holding a very brief debate in private members' --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Barrett: Obviously, I've run out of the very short time I was allocated.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Arthurs, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Arthurs: I would like to list all the members who spoke in this rather limited debate of an hour -- and with that I can agree. But I'm

pleased that on a Thursday morning we had some dozen members of this Legislature engaged in this particular debate.

I do agree with some of the comments made by members opposite, but let's recall that this is private members' time; this is not government time. I agree that

the time available in this modest bid, an hour, is not enough to engage us all fully in the debate on democratic renewal. What I don't agree on is that the issue of getting elected is not an issue;

that's one of the issues.

I agree particularly with the member from Toronto-Danforth, who made reference to the need to have terms of reference and processes well defined and structure

done upfront to provide legitimacy to the process. I am in concurrence and have commented on that in other places. This particular motion is intended to set the stage, to create a process; it's not

intended to establish an outcome.

It really is three parts. The first one is about how this assembly gets elected, and there's obviously a need for consideration of whether or not what we do

now is the most effective means of doing that. Second, it talks about public engagement. It talks about public engagement in the context of how we get elected, but, beyond that, it creates the

opportunity of a template in regard to how we engage the public on public policy issues. If we do it well on this issue, then we'll have set a template on how we're going to engage the public

generally. The third part speaks about public policy and seeking advice on public policy on an ongoing basis. I think this Legislature and province would be well served by doing that.

I'm very pleased with the debate this morning and am pleased that I had the opportunity to bring this resolution forward.

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

Mrs Jeffrey moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Building Code Act, 1992 respecting home fire sprinklers / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1992 sur le code du

bâtiment en ce qui a trait aux extincteurs automatiques domiciliaires.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mrs Jeffrey, pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I rise in the House today in order to present Bill 141, the Home Fire Sprinkler Act, 2004, for second

reading.

This week marks Home Fire Safety Week. It is a time when Canadians are asked to reflect on how best to protect their homes from fire. The purpose of the bill

is to prevent the devastating loss of life and property that is caused by fire every year. This bill will require the installation of fire sprinklers in new detached, semi-detached and row

houses.

Between 1999 and 2003 in Ontario, fire took the lives of 533 people and was responsible for almost $1.6 billion in property damage. Last year alone, fire

claimed the lives of 110 people and destroyed an estimated $457 million in property. However, none of these figures adequately represents the human cost endured by families and friends whose loved

ones are lost or injured due the fire.

This bill is the culmination of over a decade of work by a dedicated firefighter. His mission: to bring proven technology of residential fire sprinklers to the

Canadian public. Brian Maltby is the fire prevention division chief in Brampton, and he's the first Canadian ever to be elected to the board of directors of the fire and life safety

section of the

International Association Of Fire Chiefs.

There is compelling statistical evidence of the need and effectiveness of residential fire sprinklers. Residential sprinklers add fire suppression and

complement the early warning capability of smoke alarms. When a fire starts, a heat-sensitive element, called a fusible link, detects the heat. Each sprinkler head responds independently, resulting

in fires rarely spreading beyond the room of origin. In roughly 95% of all documented sprinkler activations, one sprinkler has been sufficient to control the fire.

At first I didn't understand why Brian was so driven, until he told me the reason why the issue of residential sprinklers had become so personal. In 1993,

Brian Maltby had the unenviable task of having to tell a young mother that her two children had perished in a fire. In vain, he tried to comfort the distraught young woman. For months after that

tragedy, Brian would lie awake at night thinking about that young mother and her loss and about how those two young lives were prematurely lost.

The construction of a new monument for the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association just south of the Legislature will be completed next month. It's a

beautiful structure and recognizes the ultimate contribution of many brave firefighters. However, I believe that the best way to honour those fallen heroes is by ensuring that we minimize the risk

for current and future firefighters.

In September 2000, Brampton firefighters responded to a residential fire. Upon arrival, the crew found the house fully engulfed. Fortunately, all of the

residents were out. Larry Brooks, a 19-year career firefighter, stretched an attack hose line around the east side of the house, when suddenly the roof, east wall and block chimney collapsed,

trapping Larry in the rubble.

The crew worked feverishly to pull Larry out from underneath the debris, and for a while, it was uncertain whether Firefighter Brooks would survivor his

injuries.

This summer, after four years of trying to save Larry's left arm, the doctors finally had to amputate it.

Today, dozens of firefighters and others affected by fire have come from all over the province to express their support for the installation of residential

fire sprinklers in new homes.

In the members' gallery, we have a tireless advocate for residential fire sprinklers, Firefighter Brian Maltby. We have Al Speed, the former fire chief of the

city of Toronto, and William Stewart, the current fire chief of the city of Toronto. We have Deputy Fire Chief Terry Boyko of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, Deputy Fire Marshal Doug

Crawford, and Firefighter Chris Arthey, whose home was destroyed in a fire and who installed home fire sprinklers when rebuilding his home.

Sometimes it's easy to become desensitized to the weekly reports about the number of fire deaths or injuries or the extraordinary damage that occurs in this

province ever year. But it's impossible to ignore the stories of people who have been affected by fires, individuals like Mr Gyamfi.

In 1999, Mr Gyamfi lost his daughter in an arson house fire in Brampton. Despite the fact that his loss is still relatively recent, he has chosen to come here

today in order to show his support for residential fire sprinklers. Mr Gyamfi joins us in the members' gallery.

Applause.

Mrs Jeffrey: Thank you.

The question before us today is: How much value do we attribute to the lives of our firefighters, the lives of Ontarians and the lives of our families? I

believe that we, as legislators, have a responsibility to ensure that we take a leadership role to protect Ontarians.

Fire sprinklers in new homes are affordable. On average, home fire sprinklers add only 1% to 1.5% to the total building cost in new construction. We need to

encourage the same consumers who demand air bags in their cars and who spend several thousand dollars to protect their homes with electronic alarm systems to demand homes with sprinklers. The cost

is insignificant when compared to the possibility of losing a loved one in a fire.

Just over two weeks ago, Ontario endured one of this year's most tragic fire incidents, in West Lincoln, Ontario. On November 8, 2004, a 39-year-old expectant

mother named Monika Woerlen died from smoke inhalation with her 7 children. By the time a fire truck was able to arrive on the scene, their home was already engulfed in flames.

I'm sure I express the sentiments of this Legislature when I offer our sincere condolences to Mr Woerlen, his family and the constituents of the member for

Erie-Lincoln.

Some would propose that homes in rural areas do not need fire sprinklers. However, homes that are located in remote or isolated areas are less likely to have a

quick response time from emergency services, and they're the ones who most need fire sprinklers.

It's important to understand that in most fires it's the smoke that kills, not the fire. As well, most residential fires occur when people feel the safest,

asleep in their beds, usually between the hours of midnight and 6 am.

The vast majority of all residential fires today are due to behavioural causes: careless smoking, unattended cooking or children playing with fire. While we

cannot prevent these behaviours, we can design sprinkler systems to control the outcome.

By the time an individual realizes their home is on fire, it's often too late to find a safe exit from the home. The smoke is blinding, you're choking and

you're disoriented. Imagine the terror that faces you: the prospect of blindly trying to find a safe exit out of your home and ensuring that everyone else you love is safe.

There is now a significant body of evidence in California, Georgia, Maryland, Arizona, Washington and Vancouver. There has never been a single fire fatality in

a residence with a sprinkler system where the occupants have not been in direct contact with the fire. It is time for Ontario to take a leadership role and become the first province in Canada to

mandate fire sprinklers.

When I first came to Queen's Park, I remember something Premier McGuinty said to members when speaking about private members' legislation. He asked us to be

courageous and to bring legislation to the table that was meaningful. I took his words to heart. I cannot think of anything more important than showing our commitment to civilian and firefighter

safety.

In conclusion, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my friend Firefighter Brian Maltby. I know Brian has a dream of a day when

firefighters will respond to a house fire by running into a house, turning off the water, mopping up the floor and returning safe and sound.

A wise man once said that the best time to plant a tree was 25 years ago; the second-best time is today. The best time to include residential sprinklers in the

building code would have been 25 years ago. The second-best time to install residential sprinklers is today. Please join me in supporting this bill.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to respond. I know my colleagues from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and maybe

some others will speak to this bill as well.

First, we welcome the opportunity to debate this bill, and congratulate the member for bringing it forward for debate. The member for Brampton Centre obviously

has the best of intentions with her legislation. We welcome our guests, the fire chiefs and the distinguished men and women in the gallery here today, as part of our debate.

My third introductory comment is that I sincerely appreciate the kind words from the member on behalf of the Woerlen family and the people of Erie-Lincoln. I

am proud to be a resident of West Lincoln, where the firefighters bravely tried to assist the family as best as possible, as well as the firefighters from neighbouring Pelham, who have an agreement

to protect that part of West Lincoln as well.

This legislation has good intentions. We support the notion of doing whatever we can -- obviously an admirable goal -- to eliminate any fatalities or injuries

caused by residential or business fires and, in addition to that, whatever we can do to protect our brave men and women firefighters. We had a gathering here yesterday of firefighters from across

the province; the association of the chiefs are here today.

I think the question for the assembly is, if you're making an investment in protecting home safety, if you're making an investment in terms of assisting and

protecting our firefighters, what is the best way to do so? Certainly, the firefighters who visited with me yesterday -- from Welland, St Catharines and Niagara Falls -- talked about 1710 and 1720,

two initiatives to increase the number of firefighters who can make a call on time, protect themselves and get to the property as quickly as possible. The chiefs, in their release, and the

firefighters I spoke with yesterday as well, talked about the importance of smoke detectors and the fact that, sadly, some 30% of the smoke detectors aren't functioning or aren't maintained on a

regular basis. Definitely an initiative in that respect would be an admirable one as well.

Similarly I do believe -- and I know the member is but one of her caucus -- if they were to move forward with this initiative, as part of their building code

reform or by passing this particular bill through third reading -- obviously we feel the government should put its money where its mouth is as well. Hopefully members opposite would support either

some sort of tax credit or some sort of benefit, if this legislation passes, to assist with that cost. While a 1% to 1.5% increase in costs may not seem like a lot, I think to a good number of

homeowners it could be up to $3,500 per home, as estimated by the Canadian Home Builders' Association in a study a few years ago. For a lot of middle-class families, working families or young

couples buying their first home, an additional $3,500 could be quite expensive. I wonder if that $3,500 -- if society is paying that cost -- should be best invested in sprinklers, a better job of

smoke detectors or a better job of hiring and training our firefighters to maintain the high quality of our service and getting more firefighters to the scene on time.

I'll stress that again: $3,500, to a family, if that is the accurate number, can be quite expensive. The government, therefore, should support that, if this

initiative does move forward, with the requisite tax break, a grant or some assistance in that regard.

Often a challenge too in these instances is when a private member's bill comes forward and there's also a government initiative underway. I know the Minister

of Municipal Affairs and Housing is currently reviewing the building code and undergoing consultations. We believe that this bill should be part of those consultations, so that they look at the

entire change and updating the building code in one fell swoop.

I hope, in the rest of the debate this morning, that I will hear a bit more about potential costs. If you're going to invest that sum of money across the

province, is that the best way to support our firefighters and prevent fire damage, fatalities and injuries? Hopefully, there has been some cost-benefit analysis work done in terms of the dollars

invested versus benefits, as opposed to investing those dollars in more firefighters, more training and a better education program with smoke detectors.

Those are my remarks. I look forward to my colleagues in the assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? Oh, the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): How can you miss me?

The Deputy Speaker: Good question. I don't know.

Mr Bisson: I just want to say to the member across the way, I have no problem supporting this particular initiative. However, I think there'll

probably be some -- not so much in the construction industry but in the realty industry, who will probably have some concerns. They'll argue, I'm sure, that this is going to push up the average

cost of houses in Ontario and make housing unaffordable. To them, I say, God, have you looked at the price of housing lately? I don't think a fire suppression system is going to make all that much

difference.

We were talking to a number of firefighters last night at the reception about the prices of housing in, I think it was, the Stratford area. I couldn't get over

what a single-family house, a three-bedroom bungalow, is going for in that community. I thought that housing was reasonable in that area. The price of houses is quite high.

I don't have a problem supporting this. I understand why the member is doing it. It's certainly a good safety initiative. I just clarified with her -- I wanted

to make sure, and she said yes, that in fact this would only apply to new construction. You wouldn't be talking about trying to retrofit existing housing because obviously that would be a great

difficulty. You'd have to start ripping ceilings apart, which probably would not be very practical, considering that most of us don't want to take the drywall down once it's up. So it's obviously

not a problem.

I do want to take this time, and I've got a bit of time, to talk about fire services generally, and I want to talk about it from the perspective of First

Nations -- a perspective we don't hear very often in this House.

We have a situation right now in the community of Attawapiskat where there is a primary school, J.R. Nakogee, that deals with all the education needs of all

those kids from JK all the way up to grade 8. It's currently closed. It has been closed for four years. Why? Because there has been a diesel spill.

A big, long story: The federal government used to operate the power plant in that community because most of those communities were not on the hydro grid. They

had to generate electricity by way of diesel generators. They had a huge spill. Diesel fuel ended up in the ground and migrated to the ground underneath the school. The federal government kept on

studying it and wouldn't do anything. Those kids kept on getting sicker and sicker and, finally, the families of those children had to take the conditions into their own hands. It's pretty sad when

the federal government won't respond to something as serious as that. The community had to make a decision to shut the school down. Now the situation is, for four years we've had the J.R. Nakogee

Elementary School in the community of Attawapiskat shut down. Why? Because it is contaminated with diesel fuel and it is unsafe for human habitation.

Here's an interesting point -- it's all going to relate, Speaker. I promise you it's going to come back to fire suppression systems, because that completes

this story. The interesting thing is that when the federal government finally got around to taking a look at what was dangerous in the community when it came to the diesel spill, they decided to

rip down the three teachers' houses that were owned by the federal government because the contamination levels were such that it put human habitation at risk. Interestingly, the level of

contamination in the school was higher, and is higher, than it was inside those teachers' houses. It's interesting that the federal government saw fit to tear down the three houses occupied by

teachers because it was unsafe for human habitation but was unwilling to rip down the school and remedy the current situation at the school where the pollution levels were even higher. So that sets

up the first part of the story.

Now the second part of the story: They have a high school, it's called Vezina Secondary School. It houses around 300 to 400 secondary students in that

community. Guess what? The fire suppression system malfunctioned and the entire school basically was destroyed because the fire suppression system, as firemen would know, has to be operated dry.

You don't keep water in those things, especially in northern Ontario where it's up in the unheated attic. You pressurize the system in good weather, make sure there are no leaks, turn the system

off, drain the system out and leave the water out of the system.

As a result, what happened for some reason, the system malfunctioned when they tested it last spring. We got the first frost this winter and guess what

happened? The water system froze up in the attic, the pipes burst, the entire fire suppression system went off in the attic above the drywall -- could you imagine? Firefighters, you know what I'm

talking about. The water built up in the insulation, built up over the joists and the entire ceiling of the school started to leak in every conceivable spot. If you could think of putting a pail in

that school, water was coming through the roof. As a result, they had to evacuate the school and the school has been basically demolished.

So now we've got JR Nakogee school in Attawapiskat, a community of 3,000 people, where they've got no primary school and a federal government that's done

nothing and has been missing in action. I am fed up with the situation, I'll tell you, beyond means. We now have the secondary school that's been destroyed because of a fire suppression system that

malfunctioned, and that school is now shut down. So the response is, "Let's find other places in the community to put the students while we study what to do."

A few members in this House have been to Attawapiskat and would know that, like most northern reserves, you've only got 15 to 20 people per house. Can you

imagine having your children in your house? How many children do you have? Two, three?

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: OK, so you and your husband have three kids. So you have your daily lives going on as you live in your house. All of a sudden in

your community, because there isn't enough housing, your sister doesn't have a place to live, so she's got to move in with her boyfriend or husband and their kids. And by the way, your parents

don't have anywhere to live either because there's no housing in that community, so they have to move in with you as well. It is that bad.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: It's damn serious and that's not to be laughed at.

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I'm not laughing.

Mr Bisson: How we accept that kind of situation today is unbelievable, that in the country of Canada we put citizens in that situation. I

won't have people in this House thinking it's funny. I invite you to Attawapiskat, sir, I invite you to Fort Albany, and I invite you to all communities across the north to go see for yourself.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: Don't come in here and start laughing --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Timmins-James Bay, please direct your remarks through the Chair. At some point you should be speaking to

the bill, as well. I understand, but you should be speaking to bill.

Mr Bisson: I am speaking to the bill because it's related to the fire suppression system in that school. My point is -- and I'm saying to the

member across the way, I know there's a certain sympathy within the government because we've had a number of your members come up to that community and look at it.

So imagine, now you have you, your three kids, your sister-in-law, her husband, their two kids, your mum and dad and, by the way, your oldest son just got

married and he's moving in with his wife. How do your children study in that environment? How does a child find the quietness they need to study and compete with other kids in this country when it

comes to education when you've got that kind of activity going on in the home? That happens each and every day in those communities, and our federal government does nothing.

I've been reading the papers lately -- it's related to the fire suppression system. I want to get back to the Vezina Secondary School and the fire suppression

system. I've been reading in the paper lately, in the Star and other places, there have been editorials about the Auditor General, or whatever they call Sheila whatever her name is in Ottawa --

Interjection: Fraser.

Mr Bisson: Fraser -- that they're not doing a very good job managing money at Indian Affairs, INAC, when it comes to servicing those

communities and that we're somehow spending more money than we should in the education system and not getting any results.

We're not getting results because these kids have nowhere to study. They can't go to their houses. Why? Because the houses are overcrowded. They have to live

with extended families. There's dysfunctionality in those communities because of the residential school syndrome and everything else that has gone on. It's quite complicated. The communities will

admit it. There's a high level of abuse when it comes to alcohol, drugs and gas sniffing.

I have a resident in the community of Attawapiskat. He and his wife moved out to live in a tent all winter with their two younger children. Why? Because they

don't feel secure living in the house with their older children, who are now sniffing gas. It's pretty serious stuff.

Coming back to how this relates to the Vezina school, we now have the only secondary school in the community, where those kids had some hope of trying to break

the cycle and study, shut down because the fire suppression system was faulty and it has basically destroyed the school. So now we have kids in the entire community who don't have a school. They're

now working out of portables on shift work, and the federal government is still studying the situation.

I want to make one call in this House. If the federal government can't do the job, they should just get the hell out of the way. It's clear that they've

abandoned the First Nations in this province. They are not doing their job. I look at any other child in Ontario. You have a school that is properly built according to building codes, that has fire

suppression systems that are well maintained so you don't have the kind of situation that has happened with our school up in Attawapiskat, and you have a system that says we need to make sure all

children have an equal opportunity for education. At the end of the day, the only chance those kids have to break the cycle is to compete, along with every other child in this province and this

country.

These people don't want welfare. They don't want to be given a handout; they want to be given a hand up, as Mike Harris used to say, to a certain extent. I'm

not advocating for everything Mike Harris said, but the saying is right. Those kids want to be given an opportunity to compete with every other child out there, but we can't do that because we

don't have some of the basic infrastructure.

As we stand in this Legislature today and talk about your private member's bill, which I think is really important -- it's a great idea and I'll support it.

Putting fire suppression systems in individual homes, new construction and semi-detached homes makes a lot of sense. I want people to remember that there is a whole segment of our society -- God,

they'd just be happy to have a house; they'd be happy to have an apartment. They have none.

I see my good friend the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal is here. He's had the opportunity to meet, along with myself, with a few of the chiefs from

up north. We talked about the need to find some way to provide housing dollars for those communities because it's clear the federal government is not doing it.

Am I saying we should let the federal government off the hook? Certainly not. They have a fiduciary responsibility to First Nations and, as such, have to make

sure they go through with their responsibility to those communities. But we need to figure out as a province how to make those First Nations people in the northern and other parts of our province

real citizens, active citizens, equal citizens.

Now I want to get to fire services. I want to tell the firefighters who are here, imagine that you work in a fire department up in Fort Albany, Attawapiskat,

Peawanuk, wherever it might be. You haven't got a fire truck -- no such thing. You probably don't even have a uniform. You have a fire. All you have is the goodwill of a lot of volunteers trying to

do the right thing. In some communities there may be a water distribution system that allows you to have a fire hydrant. There may not be a maintenance department within the community because they

don't have the budget to make sure the fire hydrants are working properly.

You know, in your communities, that you have public works people who go out and check to make sure the fire hydrants are functional so that if there is a fire,

they can actually plug your pumper truck into it and use the water to put out the fire. In most of those communities, (

a) you don't have a fire truck; (

b) if you have a fire truck, you don't have

the fire hall to put it in -- can you imagine that? You'll go and get your fire truck, it's 40 below zero outside and it's full of snow, and you're going to go out and fight a fire. And (c), in

most cases the basic infrastructure doesn't work.

When First Nations fire departments try to get money to train their firefighters -- you know that for professional and volunteer firefighters, firefighting is

a very serious business. It's very technical. It's not a job where somebody can walk in and say, "I'm a fireman. Give me a hat, give me my hose and I'll go out and fight a fire." It's a very

scientific, very technical thing and people need to know what they're doing. We don't even have the basic dollars to train the firefighters to do their jobs. I'm not saying that all First Nations

firefighters are no good. They're very well intentioned, and some communities are more organized than others. I look at Moose Factory, a very different situation than, let's say, Kashechewan or Big

Trout Lake.

The point is, again, a federal government asleep on the job, not paying attention to their responsibility to First Nations, and we have a fire marshal's office

in Ontario that has no jurisdiction. I say again, if the federal government doesn't want to do the job, get the heck out of the way. Those communities are in Ontario. Put them under the fire

marshal's act so that we have some real standards that we can then enforce in those communities and make sure their fire services are functioning.

Imagine that you're a police officer: same story. I was in one community and brought our critic, Peter Kormos, one day. I've forgotten where it was. It might

have been Ogoki or Martin Falls or wherever; I don't remember. He says that as a critic for justice he goes to the NAPS people; that's Nishnawbe-Aski policing. Those are the police officers in

those communities. He asked, "When you have an emergency where somebody has, let's say, drowned or is in danger and you've got to go out and get them, what do you have for emergency services?" Do

you know what they had? They had a boat -- no motor -- and it didn't even have paddles; they had a boat. Now tell me: As a firefighter, how do you save somebody who's drowning in a river because

they fell through the ice, or try to get some child off the ice in the fall or spring, when all you've got is a boat that doesn't have a motor, that doesn't even have oars? And why? Because they

didn't have enough money. The only thing they got shipped to them was a boat.

I'm just saying that if the feds don't want to do it, give us, as the province, the money, get the heck out of the way, and we will make sure we make First

Nations real partners when it comes to what we signed their treaties for in Ontario.

Am I upset? I apologize if I got mad at you. Maybe I didn't hear everything you said, but I take this really seriously. I am sick and tired, fed up, with what

the federal government is not doing for aboriginal people. Any opportunities that I have to stand up in this House and tell people just how shocking conditions are in our communities, yes, I am

going to take them and I make absolutely no apologies.

I do apologize to the member for one thing. I wish I could have spoken more on your actual bill, but you know you've got my support. I had to use this

opportunity.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join the debate with respect to this legislation. I noticed, though, that the

legislation is restricted to new detached houses, semi-detached houses or row houses. I'm not really clear on why the member has restricted it to those particular areas, considering that people

also reside in newly constructed apartment buildings. There's also the non-profit housing that is going to be constructed. There are also condominiums that people would live in.

She may have the answer. It may be that they are covered by that; I have no idea. I think that's something for her to answer in terms of why she has limited

the application of her bill to detached or semi-detached homes or row housing. By row housing, she may mean link housing; I'm not sure. I think that's correct. That's one area.

The other area that is important to look at is enforcement in terms of smoke alarms. I know they do have a mandatory requirement with respect to smoke alarms

in our city of Barrie, but on the same point, I don't know how well that's enforced. I don't know how well it's enforced all across the province. You can have as many laws as you want, but if

they're not enforced, then it doesn't make any sense to have them. You have to have laws that can be enforced no matter how much merit there is with respect to the law.

I don't know how much consultation she's had with city councils or municipalities. I don't know whether there's any endorsement in terms of whether they have

the funding, in terms of the bylaw enforcement officers or the fire marshal's office within the communities, whether they're going to be able to enforce this. It seems, from the comments I heard

from my friend from Erie-Lincoln, picking up on smoke detectors, which are a relatively simple technology to maintain, that a recent release by the fire chief stated that as many as 30% of

residential smoke alarms were not working in one region of Ontario.

A home sprinkler system would be more complicated, and the issue of whether it works or whether it malfunctions is serious, because we have to look at it from

the point of a resale. What's going to happen on the resale? We know that insurance companies have taken a much tougher line with respect to the technology and the state of the equipment that's in

your house, whether they are going approve providing insurance for certain types of plumbing systems, certain types of wiring systems, and now you add something else on to this in terms of whether

the insurance industry is going to be prepared to cover situations where it's not properly maintained. I think that's a fundamental issue.

There are issues with respect to enforcement. There are issues with respect to the insurance industry. There are certainly issues with respect to the limited

application of what she's trying to accomplish here. And I'm sure she's got answers. I know this is going to go to committee hearings.

Also, we should be looking at whether she would consider making it a mandatory purchase option, making it an option that builders have to offer their clients

so you have consent for this particular type of system that would be put into a new home, for example.

I have to look at this from the point of view of a cost-benefit analysis, with input from new homebuyers and the new home warranty system. A lot of

consultation needs to go into this. I'm sure the member is aware of this, and I'm sure that she's going to do that, because she's a former city councillor in Brampton and would understand how this

should be done.

Those are all the comments I have on this bill.

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I'll be sharing my time with the members from Oakville and Niagara Falls. I want to thank the member from

Brampton Centre for bringing this bill forward.

Since the amalgamation of Toronto seven years ago, our city has seen a total of 139 fire deaths. I had the opportunity to speak to our city of Toronto fire

chief, Bill Stewart, and deputy chief, Rick Simpson, yesterday. They told me that most, if not all, of these victims would have been saved had their homes or buildings been equipped with automatic

sprinklers. That's just Toronto. Looking across the province, close to 100 people on average die in fires every year.

A number of years ago, I had the opportunity, as chair of the city of Toronto's community services committee, to join Fire Chief Al Speed, who's also here

today, in launching our city's war on fire. This was a series of actions, recommendations and fire prevention strategies that helped bring about the turnaround in fire fatalities in Toronto,

including a recommendation to the province to consider making fire suppression sprinklers mandatory in all new buildings. The leadership of Chief Speed, and the continued leadership of Chief

Stewart, has made a difference in Toronto, but there's more that we have to do.

For the most part, fire fatalities have been decreasing but, as I said, there is more we can do. Automatic fire sprinkler systems work, plain and simple.

There's no denying it. I've seen no data to suggest anything otherwise. Lives are being saved in places like Vancouver, which has led the country by making automatic fire suppression sprinkler

systems mandatory. The results there speak for themselves: zero fire deaths in buildings that have had these sprinkler systems installed. In all, 220 jurisdictions across North America are

protecting their people and their families from the ravages of fire through the mandatory implementation of sprinkler systems in homes.

Nobody here is suggesting retrofitting current housing. That would be great, it would be desirable, but we know that it would likely be cost-prohibitive. But

if we can know that we can save lives by making sprinkler systems mandatory in new homes, surely that's something we should be considering.

This is not a new idea. Let me share with you the long and painful history of recommendations from coroner's inquest to coroner's inquest since 1989: December

1989, the Cann inquest; June 1992, the Deslaurier inquest; January 1994, the McNutt inquest; January 1995, the Florio inquest; May 1996, the Simmonds inquest; March 1995, the Pinkerton inquest;

January 1998, the McLeod inquest; June 1997, the Davis inquest; August 1998, the Fedoruk inquest; January 1999, the Benson inquest; April 2001, the Shaw inquest; January 2001, the Patrick inquest;

May 2001, the Wilson inquest; and I'm sure there are many more that I wasn't aware of.

Every one of these inquests concluded that the province should consider making sprinkler systems mandatory in homes. It's time to bring an end to this long

recession of inquests and deaths. It's time to give serious consideration to making automatic sprinkler systems mandatory.

Is cost a factor? Of course it is. We don't want to impose more costs on the building industry. This is a key industry in our economy. It creates thousands of

jobs. A healthy building industry leads to a healthy economy. So we must be sensitive to the concerns of the building industry. That's why we should consider doing something like they've done in

Vancouver, where they've been able to remove 30 pages of their building code, saving builders money by reducing building code requirements if sprinkler systems are in place. This has simplified

their building code and reduced the impact on the building industry caused by making sprinklers mandatory. It's something I think we should be considering.

Finally, I agree with Toronto Fire Chief Bill Stewart on the need to extend mandatory sprinkler systems not only to low-rise buildings but to high-rise as

well. But I recognize that we have to start somewhere, and this bill is an excellent way to focus that discussion and consideration of this important issue.

At the end of the day, there is no more important responsibility for any government than the safety and security of our people. Today we have a bill before us

that, if passed, will certainly save lives. I commend the member for Brampton Centre for bringing this to our attention and for bringing this bill forward, and I'm pleased to support it.

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Thank you very much for allowing me to speak to this bill this morning. I do want to commend

the member for Brampton Centre for bringing forth this piece of legislation. I don't happen to support it, but I do support her as a member. I know she's very passionate in what she does and she

represents her constituency very well.

I also want to welcome the members of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs here this morning. I understand that they support the member in what she's doing,

and we certainly support you in the good work that you and your membership do. However, I have some concerns and reservations about this bill.

Number one, I'm one who believes in a person's freedom to make choices. I've read the briefs that the member provided us with, and we appreciate that. She gave

a lot of evidence and statistics about why fire suppression systems would be a positive step. Having read all those and having had some previous knowledge of how the systems work, I could very

well, if I were building a new home, make the choice to go ahead and put a fire suppression system in. It would be my decision whether or not to invest that extra $3,500 or $4,000 to do so, but

that would be my choice based on the evidence as it's presented to me. I think a much better way of doing this would be, if there was a mandatory option offered, that if the association of home

builders or contractors in general had to offer this to all new home builders as a possibility or an option in erecting that new home, that would be more positive.

Also, if you have that much confidence in what you're offering, you should be able to sell it to people as a positive choice for them to make; not that it

should be legislated on them, but a positive choice for them to make, that they will be doing themselves and their families a service and also preserving the physical home itself, should a fire

break out.

Another thing I have a very significant concern about is the insurance aspect of what this might do. We might say that insurance companies are probably going

to be offering reductions in insurance premiums to homes that have these systems in place, but you know the old saying: for every action there's an equal reaction. The homes that don't have these

systems could end up paying a penalty for not having those systems in place -- the existing homes. It'll be a long time before we have more new homes erected than we have homes already in

existence.

On the sale of a home, oftentimes the insurance company doesn't kick up a big fuss about it. They've got a current customer in place. However, when that home

is resold, they go through an inspection process. They go through there with a fine-toothed comb, and there are lots of things they can look at in that home. Having been in the real estate

business, I know this very well. They go through the home and then they say, "We won't insure this home because of this, this and that." Sometimes they're rectifiable and sometimes it's much more

difficult to do just that.

We don't know that, a few years down the road, the insurance company is not going to look at this, because they do some strange things and they are driven by

the profit motive -- if they give a rebate on one side of the equation, they have to make up for that on another. They may go to home buyers and say, "Oh, I'm sorry, but we can't insure that older

home because it doesn't have a fire suppression system, which, as you know, is the law in Ontario now for all new homes." So I have a concern that those people are going to be left with the short

end of the stick. I don't know what the cost would be of a retrofit to put this into a home, but it would be astronomical. As you know, whenever you try to do something in an existing building, the

costs escalate dramatically.

Those are the concerns I have with this. I think we should be selling this on the basis of its merits. If a suppression system is a good thing, then wise home

builders will be marketing that and wise people who are building a home, on an individual basis, will give very strong consideration to whether or not they should put a fire suppression system in

their home. If they want to have all the best protection, that may be a choice they make.

I have a concern about young people today. Some of the things that this government has done have made the cost of owning a home go up dramatically. This will

add to that. Owning a home in this country and this province is getting tougher and tougher for people starting out in life because of the cost of development charges and all those kinds of things.

In rural Ontario, for example -- we passed Bill 26 yesterday. It's a disaster. It stops development in rural Ontario and puts a real noose around it, and it's going to add to the cost of building

new homes. If we add this to it, it only escalates that further.

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It's a pleasure to join this debate today. I think this is one of the better private members' bills I've

seen come forward, and I certainly want to compliment the member from Brampton Centre for bringing forward Bill 141, the Home Fire Sprinkler Act.

When you're creating legislation, there comes a time when you'd like to do everything. You'd like to protect every home, in this case, in Ontario. But what I

think the member has brought forward is a sensible and practical idea that says that, as we continue to build homes, we should pay attention to the expert advice that has been given to us by

inquest after inquest, telling us how we can save lives. The member's bill would accomplish exactly what the inquests have been talking about.

People have said that a retrofit to an existing home, to put a sprinkler system in, could be expensive, and I agree with that point of view. It could be

expensive in a lot of circumstances. But it's a good first step. I think we should at least join a jurisdiction like the city of Vancouver and over 200 other jurisdictions in North America that

have decided that it's in the best interests of their citizens and the taxpayers within their jurisdictions that a fire sprinkler system be installed in new housing. I think there can't help but be

insurance savings inherent in the installation of a system such as this. I don't have that fact in front of me, but it's something that just makes common sense and I think should be supported.

I think one of the key signs of a civilized society in this modern, urban era that we live in is the emergency services we provide to each other as a society.

One major component of that is in our fire protection and in the wonderful men and women who provide that fire protection: the firefighters of our community. I applaud them and I applaud their

presence here today.

Sometimes, points get driven home to you pretty hard. In my own community, in 1998, we had a horrible tragedy that I believe, and the inquest that followed

that tragedy believed, could have been prevented. It resulted in the deaths of three young people and one mother. It took place on August 15, 1998.

They talk about response times when they go into inquests and when you're planning fire protection and you want to know how quickly, from the time that an

emergency call is made, you can have a fire truck or a police car or an ambulance on the scene. In this case, we're talking about a fire truck.

What the inquest found out when it did the investigation was that a woman from the home called the fire department at 4:01 and said, "I have a fire in my

house," and then the line went dead. Fire trucks were on scene within four minutes. By 4:05, the fire trucks were on scene. The police officer who attended could hear the people in the house. The

fire protection personnel who were there were unable to rescue the people from the house, even though they knew, when they were on the perimeter of the fire on the outside of that house, there were

still live people in that house, and they couldn't reach them.

By the time 4:18 came along, they had two bodies on the front lawn. By the time 4:28 came along, they had two more bodies. They were able to perform CPR, they

were able to transfer them to some of the local hospitals and they were able to revive them. Within 36 hours, they all died. They didn't die from the fire; they died from the effects of smoke

inhalation.

This issue went on to inquest, obviously. I have first-hand knowledge of not only the traumatic experience that the family underwent, that the surviving

members of the family underwent, but also of the firefighters who attended at that scene, the firefighters who heard the voices and were unable to reach the people they dedicated their lives to

saving.

This clearly is an example of a situation where, had that home had fire sprinklers in it, those four people would still be alive today and that experience

would not be haunting the members of the firefighting profession in my community, who needed some degree of counselling after this event took place.

It simply is something whose time has come. Whether it comes by form of a government bill or whether it comes by form of a private member's bill I don't think

really matters any more. But what I'm standing here today to do is to implore you to support this bill and to applaud the member from Brampton Centre, who has had the common sense and the

compassion to bring this bill forward for your consideration and support.

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to be part of today's debate. The debate is quite simple: It's about

saving lives at no cost to the government. In fact, the government will make money on taxes and save money in health and social expenditures through Bill 141, the Home Fire Sprinkler Act.

As we all have heard today already, fire kills more people in Canada annually than all natural disasters combined. In fact, more than 100 individuals perish in

fires each year, and ironically, most fire deaths -- 75% -- occur in the very place where we feel the safest: our homes.

Home fires often happen at night when people are sleeping. In less than four minutes, a room can become engulfed in flames before anyone awakes, as we've just

heard. Those most at risk are the very young and the older adults, who have difficulty making a quick escape.

Although smoke detectors are essential in every household, they are designed to detect, not control, a fire. Home fire sprinklers complement a detector's work,

providing a way to fight flames immediately. In less time than it would take most fire departments to arrive on the scene, home fire sprinklers can contain and even extinguish a fire. There's less

damage, and less chance of deadly smoke and gases reaching your family. Home fire sprinkler systems save lives, reduce property loss and can even help cut homeowners' insurance premiums.

Not only do home fire sprinklers, used in combination with smoke detectors, dramatically reduce the risk of home fire deaths, they also decrease fire damage by

as much as two thirds in residences with fire sprinklers when compared to those without them. It's really like having your own firefighter standing by.

Recent sprinkler technology breakthroughs make sprinklers more affordable and easier to install in homes. With a variety of unobtrusive designs today,

sprinklers fit inconspicuously into interior design. And sprinkler systems usually operate off domestic water supply.

Home fire sprinkler systems often cost less than cabinet upgrades, new carpeting or other major purchases in new home construction. Estimated costs of home

sprinkler systems right now are about 1% to 1.5% of the total cost of home construction.

Fire sprinklers can also be installed in existing homes.

Because the fire sprinkler system reacts so quickly, it can dramatically reduce the heat, flames and smoke produced in a fire. Home fire sprinklers release

only 10 to 26 gallons of water per minute and only at the direct site of the fire. In a home without sprinklers, the fire department often arrives after the fire has grown to dangerous levels, and

at that point several hose streams must be applied to the fire at as much as 125 gallons per minute for each hose. The resulting water damage is actually much lower with home fire sprinklers.

In residences with sprinkler systems, 90% of the fires are contained by the operation of just one sprinkler. Sprinklers keep fires small.

It is a significant bill. In my community, I'm proud to say that because of my involvement on city council, I have had the opportunity to work with our

full-time fire department and volunteers. I have had the opportunity to discuss, back in my own riding, what their personal opinions of these systems are, and they have assured me without any

hesitation that it is the right thing, that it will make homes safer.

It is time we join with the other 200 jurisdictions and make sprinklers mandatory in our new homes, just like we already have in apartments, office buildings

and schools. Really, why should we not ensure that one of the places where we spend most of our time, where our children are, where our family are, where are friends and relatives are, is a safe

place to be at any time?

I too want to compliment my colleague from Brampton Centre, Linda Jeffery, for bringing forward this bill. It is significant. This is the place where it should

be brought forward and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Jeffrey, you have up to two minutes to reply.

Mrs Jeffrey: I would like to thank the members from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Erie-Lincoln, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and Timmins-James Bay for

their comments and their passion. I would also like to thank my colleagues from Scarborough Centre, Oakville and Niagara Falls. I'm grateful they took the time to talk so thoughtfully about the

legislation.

What I would like to do is focus on three messages that I would like people to think about following this debate.

This bill is designed to protect what we value most. We have a collective responsibility to protect the health and safety of Ontarians.

We know that sprinklers complement the early warning capability of smoke alarms by adding fire suppression.

We need to encourage and educate consumers about residential fires. Our future depends on it. We need to embrace this proven technology to protect all

Ontarians.

Last year we lost over 100 people. These were mothers, fathers, children. Over time, we have lost heroes in our communities -- firefighters. We need to ensure

that the risk for future and current firefighters is minimized.

I want to remind everybody that there has never been a single fire fatality in a residence with a sprinkler system where the occupants have not be in direct

contact with the fire.

I want to repeat myself: The best time to include residential sprinklers in the building code would have been 25 years ago. The second best time for this

Legislature to make a decision that would reflect on all of us forever would be to install residential sprinklers today.

I would appreciate your support on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will first deal with ballot item number 41, standing in the name of Mr Arthurs.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

There will be a vote on this, and we will deal with it after the next ballot item.

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 42, standing in the name of Mrs Jeffrey. Is it the pleasure of

the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Pursuant to standing order number 96, this --

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): Mr Speaker, I move that we forward this to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly,

please.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? It will be done. Agreed.

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 41. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Arthurs has moved private members' notice of motion number 30.

All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Caplan, David

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Patten, Richard

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Wynne, Kathleen O.

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Runciman, Robert W.

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 33; the nays are 13.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased to be here today and to have an opportunity to do a statement on a children's treatment

centre for York region and the county of Simcoe.

We had a rally last Monday at my office and 70 or 80 people showed up with signs in a very non-spirited manner. They were basically there to rally support

behind all the MPPs who sit for the county of Simcoe and the region of York.

I want to emphasize again -- and we've done this over and over again with petitions -- that this is the only area of the province that does not have a

children's treatment centre. The coalition has been formed up there and has done an extremely good job of working with all of the stakeholders to put a very good proposal before, originally, the

Ministry of Health; now, of course, that's been shifted to the minister responsible for children's services, Minister Bountrogianni.

With the growth in our area, I can't emphasize enough to the folks who sit in cabinet and all the MPPs how very, very important this is for our young people.

There are 23,000 children, as I said, who may require treatment; 6,000 of them are specialized. We have a number of careers at stake as well, with some of our pediatricians and other health care

stakeholders.

So I urge the minister responsible, Minister Bountrogianni, but primarily Minister Sorbara, who is handling the finances -- he is an MPP in York region, and

they are counting on him to work with the other MPPs to make sure that the young people receive the services they need with a children's treatment centre for York region and the county of

Simcoe.

I appreciate the opportunity to put this on the record today.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): This past Monday, the McGuinty government demonstrated its commitment to reducing gridlock by investing in public

transit and investing in our cities. Our government, in conjunction with GO Transit, will dramatically improve GO Transit services by building a new Milliken GO station and parking lot in my riding

of Markham.

The new and modern building will be built on Red Lea Avenue and will include close to 700 parking spaces. The new Milliken station will enable more passengers

to get on and off the train as a result of the strategic location. This much-needed solution will greatly ease traffic congestion, and it's welcome news for the people of Markham. By demonstrating

a strong commitment to public transit, the McGuinty government is making commuting more convenient.

The building of the new Milliken GO station and parking lot is also welcome news for the business community. The GTA is the economic engine for Ontario and

Canada. However, all too often traffic gridlock results in lost business, particularly in Markham, where traffic congestion is at an all-time high. The Markham Board of Trade has repeatedly echoed

this concern, citing "gridlock as having a negative impact on productivity and economic competitiveness."

Monday's announcement of the new Milliken GO station and parking lot for Markham shows our government is once again creating real, positive change for cities.

This is good news for the commuters and business community of Markham.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I

hope you might indulge members of the House who are coming in with white and purple ribbons today, both of them representing organizations that are supporting ending violence against women, and

that we could have permission to wear them today.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): You're asking for unanimous consent for members to wear the ribbons. Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Yes, we do, but on the same point of order --

The Speaker: We have unanimous consent.

You had a point of order?

Mr Bisson: Just to be clear, I would want to make sure that those ribbons are available in the opposition lobbies. I didn't see them when I

went through.

The Speaker: I'm sure that the minister will make them available.

Members' statements?

PORT DOVER

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My hometown of Port Dover has been snubbed. It's been dissed by the Liberals -- deleted. They've

been telling us that we are not memorable; we are not worthy.

You know, that doesn't matter, because 300,000 tourists came to visit us this year, and 300,000 tourists will come to visit us next year, just as millions of

visitors over the past century have travelled "over to Dover," by train from Brantford, by ferry from Erie, and down the plank road from Hamilton.

However, this government, through the Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership, has classified Dover as non-memorable. We have been erased from government memory,

deprogrammed. I think a McGuinty minion has pressed the delete button. Apparently, we don't exist and we never did: no beach, no perch, no foot-longs, no Harleys, no Lighthouse theatre, no dairy

bar, no Maple Leaf, no Harbour Museum, no hotels, no Golden Glow, no chips, no fish tugs, no sailboats and no July 1 parade, the longest-running Dominion Day parade in Canada.

In spite of what this government may think, we are memorable. I wish to thank the government for all the Port Dover media attention that this decision has

garnered.

Dover won't give up without a fight: Phone 1-800-699-9038 or e-mail tourism@norfolkcounty.on.ca. Thanks for the memories.

SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): November is woman abuse awareness month. Today I want to draw particular attention to the fact that the

Ontario Liberals have broken a promise to all women and children in this province who find themselves trapped in a nightmare of domestic violence. Before the 2003 election, the Liberals promised to

build second-stage housing. It appears to have been a cynical and empty promise.

The lack of second-stage housing is a huge concern in my city of Hamilton, as it is across the province. The McGuinty Liberals, like the Conservatives before

them, have not invested in the most important aspect of helping women escape the cycle of violence, and that is housing.

The member from Hamilton Mountain, when in opposition as a women's issues critic, was a staunch advocate of second-stage housing, but her support has fallen

like a house of cards. In 2002, the member said, "Under a Dalton McGuinty government, we will reinstate second-stage housing." Here, in 2004, it's just another broken promise.

Funding for second-stage housing in Hamilton is woefully inadequate. Phoenix Place will likely have to close its doors by December 31 of this year. This

outstanding service received $40,000, it's true, to hire staff and write reports. That's all very well and good, but what about the bricks and mortar?

Second Stage Services received nothing from this government. They have, in fact, had to downsize their units, notwithstanding the fact that they had been

repeatedly promised an introduction of strong programs of second-stage housing construction.

Last year, shelters in Hamilton turned away thousands of women seeking refuge from violence. I shudder to think how many more will be turned way because this

government has failed to keep one of its bedrock commitments to the women and children of Ontario.

DIABETES

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I rise today to speak about diabetes, a very serious illness that affects over

850,000 people in Ontario, approximately 85,000 of whom are insulin-dependent. November is Diabetes Awareness Month.

While people with diabetes only make up approximately 6% of Ontario's population, they happen to account for 32% of heart attacks, 30% of strokes, 51% of new

kidney dialysis patients and 70% of amputations.

Friends, these are alarming statistics, but there is good news: Diabetes complications can largely be prevented or significantly delayed with proper management

of the disease. I know; I am a diabetic.

As legislators, we can do this by taking steps to alleviate the financial burden of diabetes on individuals and families and by ensuring access to medication,

supplies and devices, as well as access to diabetes health care services. We're making progress but we have so much more to do.

This coming Monday, November 29, the diabetes association will be holding a reception and information session here at Queen's Park from 12 to 1:30 in committee

room 2. I am pleased to be co-sponsoring this reception with my colleagues Elizabeth Witmer and Shelly Martel.

I encourage all my colleagues to attend so we can find out more about the good work of the diabetes association and how to combat this combatable disease.

ONTARIO FILM AND

TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Everyone in Ontario knows we have a crisis in our film industry. The industry has been hard hit over the last

several years and this government has failed to keep its election promise to increase tax credits to 33%.

But the landscape in the last few months has begun to shift even more dramatically. The vastly increased Canadian dollar is a threat to film production in

Toronto. Many of the small businesses that supply the industry may not survive if production declines even further. Ontarians need to know from this Liberal government: What is your strategy to

preserve our film industry in the next six to 12 months?

We are talking about real people facing a crisis. I personally know set designers, caterers, hair dressers and a stunt man in my riding who depend on the film

industry.

Small businesses all over Ontario could be in trouble. Wayne Ford is the owner of Mar-Lyn Lumber in Ajax, a small business that employs 10 people. Mar-Lyn is

one of the largest suppliers of construction materials for movie sets in the Toronto area, working with about 85% of productions. Wayne and his employees do good work, yet Wayne is certain that he

is likely to go out of business with the current crisis in the film industry.

With Christmas a month away, I ask this Liberal government, what message should I give to Wayne, his employees and their families about what the government is

doing to save jobs in the film industry?

RIDE PROGRAM

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): The holiday season fast approaching marks the beginning of the annual holiday RIDE program, or Reduce

Impaired Driving Everywhere. In fact, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services was on hand earlier today at Variety Village in Scarborough to launch the holiday RIDE campaign for

the GTA.

Every holiday season, the fine men and women who make up Ontario's police forces are out in full force to ensure we all get home safe after celebrating with

family and friends. It is no longer acceptable to drink and then drive. The RIDE program has played a major role in deterring this behaviour by taking dangerous people off our roadways and

highways, not just during the holiday season but also year-round.

In the past nine years, provincially assisted RIDE programs have provided more than 57,000 police-hours for spot checks in Ontario. The Ministry of Community

Safety and Correctional Services provides $1.2 million in funding annually to supplement the RIDE spot checks.

MADD Canada will also be out spreading their message this holiday season through their red ribbon campaign that asks the public to tie a red ribbon to their

car antenna to spread awareness and to remember those who have fallen victim to drunk drivers.

The McGuinty government believes in being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. As such, this government is committed to working with MADD and other

road safety partners to combat impaired driving. I would like to salute the officers, as well MADD Canada, for these efforts.

LEARNING FOR A

SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

Mr Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): They say that youth are the leaders of tomorrow. Today I will