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

June 13, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Jun-13 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 13 June 2002 Jeudi 13 juin 2002

VISITORS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS

DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT

PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN DISABILITY

INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LE PROGRAMME ONTARIEN DE SOUTIEN

AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

(ÉQUITÉ DANS LES VERSEMENTS

DU SOUTIEN DU REVENU)

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS

DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT

PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN DISABILITY

INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LE PROGRAMME ONTARIEN DE SOUTIEN

AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

(ÉQUITÉ DANS LES VERSEMENTS

DU SOUTIEN DU REVENU)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

BIG SISTERS OF YORK REGION

WATER QUALITY

SENIORS' MONTH

WATER QUALITY

MENINGITIS C

SOUTH ASIAN WELCOME CENTRE

WATER QUALITY

ST MICHAEL'S MUSTANGS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT (ACCESS TO CHILD

ABUSE REGISTER), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

(ACCÈS AU REGISTRE DES MAUVAIS

TRAITEMENTS INFLIGÉS AUX ENFANTS)

MICHAEL MAXWELL ACT (HEALTH

INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENTS), 2002 /

LOI MICHAEL MAXWELL DE 2002

MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

DEFERRED VOTES

RELIABLE ENERGY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA FIABILITÉ

DE L'ÉNERGIE ET LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS

STUDENT PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ÉLÈVES

BUILDING CODE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DU BÂTIMENT

HERITAGE HUNTING

AND FISHING ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA CHASSE

ET LA PÊCHE PATRIMONIALES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

WATER QUALITY

ONTARIO WORKS

MENINGITIS C

WATER QUALITY

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

WATER QUALITY

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

WATER QUALITY

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

HIGHWAY 522

STUDENTS' IMMIGRATION STATUS

HYDRO ONE

HOMELESSNESS

EDUCATION FUNDING

ALTERNATIVE FUEL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HYDRO ONE INC. DIRECTORS

AND OFFICERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LES ADMINISTRATEURS

ET LES DIRIGEANTS DE HYDRO ONE INC.

Thursday 13 June 2002 Jeudi 13 juin 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

VISITORS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I would like to bring the attention of the House to a school group from Gore Bay, Ontario, C.C.

McLean. They are in the gallery up here. That is the school my four children attended, and we're pleased that Mr Wright is here. Even though he's retired, he has been coming here for many years,

and having retired, he is back with his class today.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a real point of order, Mr Speaker: I am rising to give notice that later today I will be requesting

leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. The matter relates to a genuine emergency which

was precipitated by the government's failure to ensure proper water testing and reporting by a private laboratory, therefore potentially endangering the lives of thousands of Ontarians.

So I am giving notice of this motion for this afternoon, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS

DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

Mr Hoy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses / Projet de loi 112, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en vue de

protéger les enfants lorsqu'ils sont dans des autobus scolaires.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Chatham-Kent Essex.

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Every school day, more than 810,000 primary and high school students and their parents put their faith in the

owners and operators of Ontario's school buses. Every school day, parents trust the traditional school bus to transport their children to a place of learning and to deliver them home safely. Every

school day, more than one family's confidence is shaken by more than one careless driver. Too many drivers are approaching a stationary yellow school bus with no more consideration than that given

to a yellow traffic light, and too many children are paying the price for such reckless behaviour.

In January of 1996, 17-year-old Ryan Marcuzzi, the youngest daughter of Colleen and Larry Marcuzzi, who are with us today in the members' gallery, was boarding

her school bus when she was struck and killed by a car travelling 80 kilometres an hour. The driver ignored the bus's flashing red lights, extended stop sign and blaring horn from the school bus

driver, who was helpless to prevent the impending tragedy.

Twenty-eight years ago, Ed and Ginny Loxton faced the same tragedy when their five-year-old daughter was killed by a reckless driver. I am deeply honoured that

both families are here at Queen's Park today.

I'm also pleased to have Paul Gordon, manager of Hull Bus Line Ltd, Petrolia, here today to support my bill.

With the encouragement and support of both families, the Marcuzzis and the Loxtons, I present Bill 112 for second reading.

Since October 1974, five children have died in my riding at the hands of careless drivers who have ignored the flashing red lights of a school bus. Since 1985,

13 children have died and more than 80 have been injured in school bus accidents here in Ontario. Those children were going to school to prepare for their futures. Instead, their futures were

tragically snatched away from them.

Ignoring school bus lights is not a rural Ontario-versus-urban Ontario problem. It is an Ontario-wide problem.

The last survey carried out by the Ministry of Transportation shows that when a car meets a school bus there is a better than one in 20 chance that the driver

will attempt to pass illegally. The barrier to a conviction is identification. Current law requires that the face of a driver passing a school bus be clearly identified before charges can be laid

under the Highway Traffic Act. School bus drivers and other witnesses can often identify the licence plate number, make, model and colour of the offending vehicle, but most cannot see the face of a

driver long enough to make a positive identification.

Last week, I received a letter of support from a bus transportation company in northern Ontario. It reads, "Most of the problem is simply because our drivers

were unable to identify the offender. In one incident this year, one of our local municipal telephone companies ran our lights. Knowing that driver identification is necessary, the telephone

company officials refused to identify the driver. Therefore, no charges under the current law. This is a disaster waiting to happen."

The province of Ontario claims to be tough on lawbreakers and crime. It's time for the Ontario Legislature to protect its children by sending a clear message to

drivers that violations of the law governing the passing of school buses will not be tolerated, and Bill 112 sends that message. Bill 112 attempts to correct the long-standing problem of

identifying the drivers of vehicles who recklessly endanger children boarding or leaving school buses. This bill imposes liability on the owner of any vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus

with the red lights flashing.

In 1997, in the midst of great publicity about my bill and pressure from parents and school boards, the Minister of Transportation introduced higher fine levels.

But with no conviction mechanism, higher fines are left meaningless. Officers know they do not have the resources to follow 16,000 school buses around their routes twice a day. The local police

chief from my riding said that for the safety of students, vehicle plate identification should be allowed to at least link some responsibility to the owner. The Ontario Police Association says my

bill "is a positive step toward ensuring the safety of children in Ontario."

The excuse the former Minister of Transportation has offered for refusing to protect children is not founded. The minister says he cannot give police powers to

school bus drivers, but bus drivers already have those powers under the existing law if they can see the face of the driver clearly enough to identify him. A police officer told me, "This is a red

herring." He said there is no reason bus drivers should not have the authority to identify careless vehicles that endanger the lives of our children.

School bus drivers tell us that they are passed illegally twice per shift. There are 16,000 school buses in Ontario. At two violations per shift, I'll let the

House do the mathematics. But you can see for yourself that the ministry does not have a hand on the problem; they barely have a finger on the pulse.

The principle of vehicle liability is not new to Ontario. All parking tickets and violations are issued under the principle of vehicle liability. Photo radar

works on this premise. The collection of tolls along Highway 407 works on the same principle, as do commercial vehicle infractions. The precedent has already been set by this government by the

implementation of red light cameras. Vehicle liability must be extended for the protection of our children.

In opposing the bill, the former Minister of Transportation, Mr Turnbull, said, "Vehicle liability targets the owner of the offending vehicle and does nothing to

identify the aggressive driver." But while in opposition, Mr Turnbull cited the examples of Arizona and California, where the problem of finding the offending driver can be overcome by having the

owner of the vehicle file an affidavit as to who was driving the vehicle at the time. Mr Turnbull said, "If the owner cannot remember or does not care to file an affidavit about who was driving,

then he or she will bear the responsibility."

The government's double standard must end today. Owning and operating a vehicle remains a privilege and not an automatic right in Ontario. With this privilege

comes responsibility and accountability. In instances such as those outlined in Bill 112, vehicle liability is both fair and just in asking the vehicle owner either to accept responsibility for

operating their motor vehicle or to identify the driver who was operating said vehicle at the time of the violation so that the province can seek accountability.

Bill 112 does not attempt to unfairly penalize a vehicle owner. Only owners who fail to identify a driver will face a fine. Drivers will face the government's

increased fine levels, plus the crown will be permitted to ask for application of up to six demerit points under the provisions of existing law. In either case there will be a conviction; there

will be a real deterrent.

Bill 112 is not an attack on civil liberties. Ask the parents of dead children whose liberties have been breached when an offending driver is shielded by an

inadequate law. Nonetheless, the bill has been carefully written under the exact same language as other government vehicle liability bills.

The law specifically states that when a vehicle approaches a school bus with red lights flashing from either the back or the front, the vehicle must come to a

complete stop. It does not say, "Proceed with caution," nor does it say that the driver may proceed if he or she believes the road to be clear. It says, "Stop." But the law is virtually

unenforceable without the changes in Bill 112.

It is time to give the same authority to the flashing red school bus light that we give to the stationary red traffic light. It deserves the overriding public

interest because it protects a particularly vulnerable group in our society. That is why the bill has received such strong support and endorsements from parents, teachers, school boards, the

Ontario School Bus Association, the Police Association of Ontario and many other local, provincial and national organizations.

Ontario's children are asking for protection. The public is asking for protection for our children. The government has seen this bill in this House before. It is

today their opportunity to ensure that this bill will pass, and I ask all members on all sides of the House to pass Bill 112 to protect the children of Ontario who ride our school buses each and

every day.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to take this opportunity to address Bill 112, comprising amendments to the

Highway Traffic Act that are designed to protect children who ride on school buses.

Before I came down here today I took my kids, as I do every morning, to the school bus. I'm very aware of what the member is dealing with in terms of vehicles

that go toward the bus and behind the bus. It's an area of major concern, obviously, to every parent and should be a concern of every citizen in this province in terms of respect for the law and

driving safely, not only when you're in a community safety zone but when you see a school bus that has stopped.

I commend the member opposite for the work he has done in this area. He's been very vigilant, since he was elected in 1995, with respect to this particular

issue. He is introducing this bill with the best interests of Ontario's school children in mind.

The government is always receptive to ideas on how we can achieve an even better record of road safety in Ontario. We know that the honourable member's bill

would impose vehicle owner liability for failure to stop for school buses with their red lights flashing. I understand that under this bill all drivers charged would be required to appear in a

court because the minimum fine is above the $500 limit for out-of-court convictions, and we know that the bill requires fines that range from $1,000 to $2,000 for a first offence and from $2,000 to

$3,000 for subsequent offences.

It would be useful to get a reaction, though, because there's one part of the bill that I think -- I understand what the member is talking about with respect to

the identity of the driver, and that's important because that is a very important issue.

One part of the bill, called "Limitation," subsection 1(12): "The owner of a vehicle shall not be convicted under this

section of an offence under subsection

175(17) if,

"(

a) the owner was not driving the vehicle at the time the offence was committed, and

"(

b) the driver of the vehicle has been identified to the police by the owner."

That's going to be a very interesting provision in terms of litigation, being a lawyer myself, in terms of how to deal with that issue. I understand what he's

trying to get at because certainly you have to deal with the identification issue if the driver is not the owner of the vehicle. I understand that issue clearly and I think that's going to be a

very important

part in terms of how we can deal with that.

It would be useful to get a reaction from the police community and other road safety partners as to how the proposal before us can help achieve its intent in

practical and effective ways.

I'm proud to tell the House that the Ministry of Transportation and this government have already been on the right path to promoting the safety of our children

when they ride on school buses. Consider, for instance, that Ontario has one of the best safety records in North America, and maintaining our excellent safety record continues to be a priority of

this ministry.

Research shows that school bus travel is one of the safest modes of transportation. Ontario's 16,000 school buses carry about 800,000 students to school every

day. Those school buses travel more than 1.9 million kilometres each and every day, and the school bus drivers who operate them have passed stringent tests in order to do their job.

I can tell the honourable member that this government is already doing its utmost to promote school bus safety. For instance, the ministry establishes and

reinforces safety standards and mechanical fitness requirements for vehicles; we develop policies relating to the rules of the road; we have implemented effective public education programs and

resources for driver and passenger safety in co-operation with our road safety partners; and we set stringent driver licence criteria for school bus drivers.

For instance, potential school bus drivers must be a minimum of 21 years of age, they must pass strict medical and vision standards, they must not be a

probationary or novice driver and they must have completed a driver improvement course and have no Criminal Code convictions within specified time frames.

The ministry also sets vehicle licensing standards and develops and delivers extensive, well-planned and thorough driver education resources that include the

Official Bus Handbook. We establish additional vehicle safety requirements beyond the federal standards and develop and distribute the School Bus Safety Resource Guide, which provides information

on school bus safety programs.

We know that other Canadian jurisdictions have vehicle owner liability provisions for violations of school bus stopping laws, including BC, Saskatchewan, New

Brunswick, Newfoundland and the Yukon. Some jurisdictions also require third party witnesses to provide evidence.

I can tell you that we clearly have some of the most effective laws surrounding school bus safety in any jurisdiction. What this government did with respect to

this issue was to take action. In 1997, we doubled the fines for illegally passing stopped school buses, regardless of whether or not there were bus passengers crossing the road.

We increased the maximum fine for a first offence from $1,000 to $2,000. The maximum fine for a second offence rose from $2,000 to $4,000.

At the same time, the Ministry of Transportation increased its links to our bus safety partners. The ministry works closely with them to promote the safe

transportation of Ontario's school children and to raise awareness about safe driving around school buses.

Clearly, the safety of our children is a priority for the ministry. As a member, I keep close tabs with respect to school bus operators in my riding -- Sinton

Bus Lines, for example. I can tell you that it's a very important issue within my riding.

I want to assure the member opposite and all the people of Ontario that our government continues to take the steps necessary to ensure a safer Ontario for future

generations.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I am particularly pleased to speak to this bill, having had a large number of children over the years

ride school buses and having been a member of a school board.

As the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has said, we have an incredible safety record here in Ontario for school bus operation. When you consider the number of

kilometres that are driven every day, we are second to none in terms of safety. But how much energy toward safety is enough? Well, never enough.

In my time as school board chair and as a trustee, I on two occasions attended the wakes and funerals of students who had been killed in school bus accidents.

One was one too many; two was extremely disconcerting for the community and for the families -- families that will never heal over this, and I understand that.

Our school bus drivers are first-rate. I have always been convinced of that. The funding formula that provides the compensation significantly underpays what

they're worth when we consider the job they do. We take a school bus driver, whom we will give a steel box that may have up to 80 students in it of all different ages. The driver is responsible for

driving that vehicle, often at highway speeds, making certain its stops and starts are safe and maintaining discipline on the bus. History has shown us they do an excellent job of that. The problem

is a factor they don't have control over, and that factor is cars coming toward them or from behind.

School bus drivers attempt wherever possible not to build up lines behind them. They attempt wherever possible to make sure the bus is stopped and the cars are

stopped before they let a student out. But that's simply not practical at times. There has to be a certain faith that individuals will do the right thing and stop, but there certainly are people

who go through and pass a school bus's lights by accident. That happens, but there's an increasing number who are late for work and in our rush, rush world are making the decision to speed past,

gambling that they will get past and not hit a child.

I will be introducing a private member's bill to help those who are going through by accident, by having orange lights come on first, to alert the community and

the other cars that the bus is about to stop before the red lights come on. This bill, put forward by our member, wants to make sure that no one wilfully goes past the bus, and I can hear the

rhetoric about how much the fines will be and whether or not they're right. This bill must go to committee because that can be determined there. These are the basic principles that we need to

protect our children.

There is some question about identifying the driver of the vehicle. I am not convinced that that is a problem. I would suggest that someone who doesn't know

who's driving their vehicle at a particular time in fact shouldn't own a vehicle. There's a responsibility on each and every one of us. Although the government may present that it's a problem to

know who the driver is and a problem in imposing the fine, let's think about Highway 407. It is a toll road that a private operator owns, but if someone drives through and uses 407 and doesn't pay

their bill, the government uses all the power it possesses to collect that money for their friends who own Highway 407. You can't renew the driver's licence and you can't renew the vehicle licence

until that fine is paid. If we can put the energies of this government into collecting fines for the 407 operators, surely we can put the energies into protecting our students out on a highway. We

have to look at priorities.

It will create some paperwork. If it prevents an accident, if it prevents an injury or, even more significantly, if it saves one young life, it was all worth

it.

We are watching the busing more and more, particularly where we see children who perhaps require special accommodation on buses that take a little bit longer to

wait for.

The climate of this rush, rush world is literally putting our children at risk. Our citizens understand the importance of that, and I urge support of this bill.

We have to use every mechanism available to us. We trust the bus drivers to look after our children. We trust them to operate that massive vehicle. Surely we can trust them to identify a car coming

toward them or going past them. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, if they can look after 80 children on a bus and we trust them with that, we can trust them with the whole package.

I urge support of this bill. If it saves one child's life, everyone in this Legislature will have accomplished something.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I stand this morning in gratitude to the member for Chatham-Kent Essex, who on a number of occasions now has

brought this bill before the House in the hope that the government would see their way clear to actually enacting it in law so that the many parents, and children, across this province might feel

safer when their children get on to school buses in the morning as they head off to their daily chore of learning and participating in the community and the society that we all hope they will grab

hold of and run with.

As we look at the evolution of how we deliver education in the province, this kind of initiative becomes ever more important. It used to be that children were

able to walk to their neighbourhood school. We had safety issues around that, but I don't think they were anywhere near as gripping on parents, as concerning to parents, as the issue we confront

now with the consolidation of schools, the regionalization of schools and the moving of students now by public transit and school buses. I think we have to forever be looking at new ways to make

sure, when our children get up in the morning and go to school, that they in fact come home at the end of the day.

I don't think any of us in this place would have to think too long or look too far for examples in our own community of very tragic circumstances, where parents

sent their children out the door in the morning or walked them to the school bus, only to hear moments or hours later that an accident had happened and their child was either hurt very seriously

or, in some instances, tragically killed. It's in those instances that communities are gripped with the necessity to do something to make those circumstances safer. But in the middle of everything

that comes with that kind of tragic circumstance, it's often difficult for any of us to be clear-headed and focused enough to do it immediately.

So here we are today with an opportunity, distanced a bit from a specific tragedy -- although focusing for the moment in some important and small way with the

family that the member from Chatham-Kent Essex has brought to the Legislature -- in an objective way, each of us taking responsibility for those people, those families and those children whom we

represent and speak on behalf of here, to put in place a law, a regulation, a regime that will go a distance to make people think, to challenge people, to let people know that if they decide

carelessly, recklessly or thoughtlessly sometimes simply to whiz by a school bus, they will be caught; that it will be no longer appropriate simply because they weren't seen or we weren't able to

identify definitely or clearly enough who was actually driving the car; that we will be able to, through some I think very simple and direct investigations, identify very quickly whom the car

belonged to and ultimately who was driving it and who should be held responsible, who should be called on the carpet and asked why they felt it necessary or appropriate to speed in that way and put

lives in jeopardy when they do that.

I don't think the member here is calling for anything extravagant or outrageous. As he suggested himself, there are other instances where in this province we do

virtually the same thing in different circumstances. Why we wouldn't be able to do this, I really don't know. I don't understand the thinking of the government in this instance in not moving

forward on this very important, and I think what will prove to be effectual, small step forward to protect school children in our communities.

When you consider the aggressive nature of the activity of this government when it comes to, or when it has been gripped with, the charge of reducing red tape in

this province, how quickly they've acted to get red tape out of the way, get rid of regulations and I guess free up our communities from those considerations that over the years have been put in

place -- many times in response to very tragic circumstances in the workplace or on our highways or in our communities -- to move aggressively to get rid of red tape and in some instances the

tragic consequences of that activity.

I don't have to remind anybody what happened in Walkerton when we got government out of the business of looking after our drinking water and the quickness with

which the government moved in response to that, to actually put things in place. It leaves one to wonder why it is that in this instance we can't get the government to move on what is obviously a

very important initiative to again protect people.

The government across the way is forever talking about how it is that they want to protect people, how they recognize that in our society today we need to have

all kinds of things in place to make sure that our society is secure, and yet in this instance something that really isn't going to -- that I can figure out anyway or see -- cost them anything of

any significance in terms of financing of this -- it simply enhances the ability of school bus drivers and the police officers in our community to actually do their job and find those people who

are acting recklessly or thoughtlessly where school buses are concerned and haul them on the carpet and talk to them and in some instances to fine them and charge them, in other instances perhaps,

if it's their first time -- I don't know; I'm not going to for a second suggest how a police officer or a police service will deal with some of these things, but at least to have in place some

provision that will allow us to identify very quickly what it is that we need to do to put an end to some of this very dangerous and reckless activity and behaviour that we see out there today.

I'm standing here today in support of and giving recognition to the member for Chatham-Kent Essex on this very important initiative and saying to him that our

caucus stands shoulder to shoulder in challenging the government to move on this very important initiative to protect the children of our province as they go to school and come home every day.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My compliments to the honourable member from Chatham-Kent Essex for bringing this particular bill forward. It's

certainly a very honourable intention and one that I can see where he's coming from and am able to support, particularly when it's related to the protection of children. I think there are a lot of

members here who would be very, very supportive of this particular bill.

I think that we have here in the province of Ontario a tremendous record for our children's safety on school buses. There are minimal numbers that are injured,

minimal numbers that are killed. Of course, any one is wrong; we can't afford to have that. But on record it is the safest method of transportation in the province of Ontario. Really, what he's

bringing forward is to make it one step better, and I understand where he's coming from.

But what I think is very unfortunate here in private members' bills is the fact that here's a good idea, a private member's bill, but it's probably going to

get blocked, typical of so many other private members' bills that come before this House, because of partisanship. When it comes to the last night in June and the negotiations of the day to get it

through second reading, which I hope occurs in this case, it'll get turned down, like my Bill 33, the outside riders act, brought forward because of two young men who were killed in my riding. It

was blocked by the House leader of the NDP back in June 2001. It was blocked again in December, and I expect it's going to be blocked again this time.

Here's an excellent bill coming forward with the concern of the safety of children, similar to my bill, the safety of people who may choose to ride in the back

of pickup trucks, which we're trying to discourage. I think that's unfortunate.

Similarly, we've spent two nights -- last night and the night before -- on Bill 81. The third reading was blocked. Here's one on nutrient management that is

desperately needed in rural Ontario but, again, is being blocked. I think that's carrying partisanship way beyond the level it should be at. What's good for the people of Ontario should indeed be

paid attention to.

Our government has been doing quite a bit to improve safety. As a matter of fact, in 1997 we doubled the fines for those who would illegally pass school buses.

That's a pretty big discouragement. For a first offence it's $1,000 to $2,000 and for a second offence, $2,000 to $4,000. Those are pretty significant dollars for most people. I think when that

kind of a fine is levied, there is no question that people are going to sit up and take notice.

I see programs like Bus Watch that are working very well. It's a co-operative effort of school bus operators, school boards and police workers, working

co-operatively to identify those drivers who go by school buses. Congratulations on a program such as that.

Also, there are additional enforcement areas like having the police visiting owners of vehicles to issue warnings when they can't identify who the driver was

but they can identify the vehicle that did illegally pass. Probably nine times out of 10, at least the owner of the vehicle should know. If he doesn't, he should have been aware of who had his

vehicle at that particular time. So those warnings are effective -- police laying charges, school bus drivers who can be positively identified, and also the increased police enforcement in problem

locations.

Again, I come back to complimenting the member for Chatham-Kent Essex and look forward to the speedy passage of this bill to second reading.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I'm pleased to stand this morning in support of my colleague from Chatham-Kent Essex and this very important Bill

We can't do enough when it comes to children's safety in this province, and this bill is a step to further address a problem that we have. We know

statistically, for example, that on rare occasions -- as rare as they might be -- drivers seem to simply disregard the lights that are flashing and the stop sign that's out on school buses, and I

think we have to do everything in our power to prevent that. That's why I support this bill and that's why my colleague from Chatham-Kent Essex has been so consistent in his effort to address this

problem.

I think if we just stand back and say, "Look, we have a problem here. We want to avoid injury and death to our children as they either exit from or enter their

school buses. What can we do about it?" this is a reasonable solution. We have red light laws now where the driver isn't necessarily identified and yet the owner of the vehicle can be fined. We

have the situation, a very simple one, where you can drive on a toll highway and be charged and yet the driver isn't identified. So that shouldn't be a problem with this legislation. The fact that

the vehicle can be identified, the owner contacted and given the opportunity to identify the driver should be enough. That is simply what this bill does.

Tragically, as I said, we've had deaths in this province because of drivers who just simply disregard the rules. Ryan Marcuzzi was killed in 1996. That

shouldn't have happened. There have been children injured; that shouldn't happen. This, I think, is a reasonable attempt to avoid this.

It's been suggested in earlier debate that maybe the fines are too high. I'm not so sure the fines could ever be too high when it comes to the safety of our

children in Ontario, but if there are members who feel that's the case, then the appropriate thing to do is to pass this bill, have it go to committee, and we can discuss some of the details of it.

The bottom line is that we want to be able to take those drivers and punish them and to take those owners who let someone who is so reckless drive their vehicle and punish them. This bill even

provides that we're not going to send an owner of a vehicle to jail if they weren't the driver. That isn't the case. We just want to put the public on notice that we won't tolerate this kind of

thing. That again is simply what this bill does.

I don't think -- in fact I can be reasonably sure -- that anybody would object to an effort to protect our children. The degree we go to to protect them may be

of some debate. Again, I'm one who says we frankly can't go far enough. If we have laws in effect that simply collect money, as I've said, from drivers on toll roads, surely to goodness there can

be no objection to attempting to apprehend and punish those who are responsible for disregarding the signals and stop sign on a school bus. Children's safety, children's lives, are at risk, and we

should take every possible step we can to protect them. That is what this bill does, and I think it does it in a very prudent way.

I would encourage all of our members in this Legislature to follow the advice of the member from Northumberland, which is that this is not a partisan issue;

this is one about children's safety on which we all should agree.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Jeez, this is like déjà vu. This is not the first, not the second but the third time we're

having this debate in the Legislature. Each time, this bill has been brought forward by the member from Chatham-Kent Essex. This is the third such debate we've had on a Thursday morning over the

last number of years. You know what's interesting? The previous two times, just for our new friend from Nipissing, just so you know, even though the House passed the bill the first time at second

reading and the second time at second reading, your government never allowed it to see the light of day at committee.

I want to say upfront that we will support this bill yet again because we think it's a good bill, but our words now are to the government. You have a

responsibility as a government to allow the business of this House to go ahead. One of the things that frustrates all members of this assembly -- because even government members have this problem

-- is that your government House leader, along with the cabinet, doesn't allow bills like the bill put forward by the member from Chatham-Kent Essex to go forward to committee.

Here's a bill that can speak to a real issue. We have with us today in the galleries the family of somebody who died in just such an incident that could have

been prevented by this bill. What do you say as a government to Mr and Mrs Marcuzzi, who lost their daughter, Ryan? You have an opportunity to do the right thing here. I know you're going to vote

at second reading. I'll predict this: when we stand here at 12 o'clock this afternoon on this vote, the government will support this bill -- no question. That's a given. But here's the real test:

allow this bill to see the light of day at committee so that it can have the time it needs to make the amendments necessary and bring this bill back for third reading.

I think it speaks badly of this assembly when governments use their majority to block good bills such as we have here this morning, and the bill that's going

to come after by Mr Martin from Sault Ste Marie that can make a real difference in people's lives. Just because it doesn't say it's a government bill doesn't mean it's bad. All members are

honourable. All members work on behalf of their constituents, government members and opposition members. The government's got to take its responsibility seriously and allow bills like this to see

the light of day.

I have said on a number of occasions that the problem we have in this assembly is it's dysfunctional. You have a government that has changed the rules over the

years such that the government can do what it wants. It controls all the cards. It's a little bit like walking into a poker game -- could you imagine? -- where the deck is marked and the only one

who ever touches the cards is the dealer. How in heck are you ever going to get a good hand at that particular game? Well, this is what you guys are doing.

So I, along with the NDP caucus, advocate that we need to change the way this assembly runs so that it does the business of the people of Ontario. This old,

antiquated system that we call "first past the post" has got to die. It's got to die a peaceful death. It's been around for 300 years. It's about time in this assembly in the province of Ontario

that we move to a more progressive system of electing members, such as proportional representation, so that when people elect their members, their members come into this House and have some ability

to pass the bills that are important for their communities, because we represent who? The people. Not the political parties and not the Premier's office.

So later on this fall, we are going to put forward a motion in this House in regard to adopting a system of proportional representation so that we change the

system of election. We would still elect people as we do now, but at the end of the day we'd look at the percentages of each of the parties and we'd adjust accordingly. So if the Tories got 41% of

the vote, as they did in the last provincial election, they would only have 41% of the seats; if the Liberals got 30%, they'd have 30% of the seats. If we had 20% or whatever, we'd get 20% or some

odd per cent of the numbers. What we've got now is a government that by way of 41% of the general popular vote in the last election has over 65% of the seats. It's nuts. So we end up in an assembly

where a member like the member for Chatham-Kent Essex brings forward a bill that can make a real difference and can't get it passed because the tyranny of the majority is ruling what happens in

this assembly.

So yes, let's vote at second reading. Let's support this bill. I know we will. But the real test is going to come when we get to committee.

On a little bit of a brighter note, I do want to point out something else that's very important in this assembly today. Students from O'Gorman Intermediate

High School in my riding are up in the galleries. I'd like us to take the time to applaud their welcome here.

I'll just say in the last two minutes I have on the bill itself that it's a good, well-thought-out bill. It's not as if this thing has not been given some good

thought. The bill is very simple. Basically, it says that if somebody is caught contravening the laws when it comes to school buses, passing the blinking lights or doing something that would put in

danger the lives or health of the children on a bus, if we can't stop the car, at least take the plate number down and report it. There's a mechanism to get back to the owner in order to get the

owner to cough up the culprit who committed the offence.

I commend the member for Chatham-Kent Essex on bringing forward this bill. As I said, we will vote in favour once again, but the real test is going to come,

that we have to get to committee.

I just want to say one other thing on a little bit of an unrelated matter, but it's just a bugaboo of mine: the condition of our highways. The government, in

its privatization agenda, as you well know, has privatized everything that moves in the province of Ontario. We just found out yesterday what happens with privatization of testing of water. We saw

that 60 communities are now at risk because we don't know, quite frankly, because the tests were not done at the private laboratory, if that water is safe to drink. Today we will be moving some

motions in order to be able to deal with an emergency debate on that issue here in the Legislature. In fact, we're trying to negotiate that with the government House leader as we speak. But on the

other issue of highways, we privatized the maintenance of our highways across this province. As people who drive the highways of northern Ontario, we used to be able to get from point A to point B

fairly well when the province of Ontario, through MTO, used to plough the highways. Now when you drive Highway 11 between Hearst and Kapuskasing, you're lucky if you can get through when it's

snowing. Why? Because the privatization hasn't worked. It costs more money and we get less service.

Mr Speaker, thank you for this time in the House. I look forward to voting and passing this bill at second reading and bringing it on to committee.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to rise today and support, first of all, Bill 112. The member for Chatham-Kent Essex has certainly

made this the Holy Grail of his issues. I respect that and hope that this time it not only is passed but is actually enshrined in legislation. It would be a credit to the work you've done on

that.

I have a few points. First, I want to be clear that over the years I have served as a school trustee and have been very involved in the education issue. This

issue has been around for a number of years -- many, many years. It's not particularly new. What is new is that Mr Hoy has made this attempt at legislation. I will say, at third reading, it's quite

a small bill modifying the Highway Traffic Act in a couple of sections.

there are a number of jurisdictions. I meet regularly with the boards and the trustees as well as the directors and I attend a lot of schools in my area.

In fact, the area is quite large. There's a large geographic component and, given that there's a large rural component, hence there is a lot of busing that

occurs within my riding. I get calls from parents, primarily in new subdivisions, who are concerned about the walking distances and the potential risks to children. When they're on the bus -- I've

spoken with the school bus operators of Ontario, who I believe are supportive of this. Mr Hoy would have to confirm that. Rick Donaldson has long supported a really progressive program with respect

to school bus safety. They take great strides in terms of trying to recognize the important part of training bus operators and indeed educating the children of their responsibilities to act

appropriately and follow the instructions of the school bus driver, who has a really important job.

I think this bill pays some respect, when they identify someone who is not obeying the current law, by identifying the driver of the vehicle -- it's almost

impossible because they're going past the vehicle. To get the licence plate number is what this legislation does. If you get the licence plate number, that licence will be tied to the owner of the

vehicle, and Mr Hoy is saying that the owner of the vehicle will then be charged. They won't be charged with the six demerits, but they will be charged with the fine. They can be exempted by

identifying who was driving the vehicle. In my case -- I have five children, all of whom have drivers' licences -- I would be educating my children and certainly I would rat on them, if you will,

or tell, because it is breaking the law.

It's important to recognize that in the current legislation, under the Highway Traffic Act, the school bus stop law, motorists are required to stop when

approaching a school bus with red overhead lights flashing and a stop arm extended. The only time a motorist doesn't have to stop is if it's a divided highway with a median and the motorist is

driving on the other side of the median. So it's very clear that the requirement is to stop, and that's what is important here: to educate the public. A motorist who fails to stop for a bus is

liable for a fine of $400 to $2,000 for the first offence, plus paying a victim fine surcharge of $85 to $500, plus six demerits. Consequently, their insurance goes up.

What's really at stake here is the right of the individual, if their car was stolen or if their car was taken without notice by a child, those kinds of things,

for years. It's not just this case of having to identify the driver, not the vehicle; that's the substantive problem the government has had in the past. But I'm confident that the enforcement

mechanism my friend from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, who is a lawyer and practises law -- not while he's here, of course. I hope not, anyway.

The government has instituted a number of important initiatives. School bus safety is important, but community safety zones primarily were brought forward by

this government to allow for zones around schools and park areas where children would be safe.

I can speak on behalf of my constituents of Durham. This is an important initiative and I thank Mr Hoy for bringing it forward.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I'm very pleased to stand today in support of the bill of my colleague from

Chatham-Kent Essex. It has already been noted this morning that the member is recognized in this Legislature and across the province for his valiant efforts in this particular area on behalf of

students.

I would suggest that the most important laws in our province, the most important laws that we consider in this Legislature, would be those that protect the

most vulnerable in our society. I think it would be very difficult to argue that our children can be considered very vulnerable and valuable cargo in school buses. The member for Chatham-Kent Essex

has recognized that as a legislator he has an opportunity and a responsibility to consider how we can, in our role as lawmakers, improve laws that are already in place.

There have been presentations this morning, certainly by members of the government, that within the body of the bill there may be some concerns about

application and whether it in fact can be managed. I know that my colleague from Chatham-Kent Essex would be very happy to have the bill go to committee and hear the views of people across Ontario

on how it can be improved.

Having said that, however, the member has also indicated a long list of constituency groups. They would be people who would have an interest, a vested

interest, in this piece of legislation: people who own and operate school buses, school bus drivers, school teachers, school boards, police associations. He has indicated that the Police

Association of Ontario is in favour of this particular legislation. So I believe that my colleague has been very comprehensive in terms of the work he has done to gain support and to demonstrate

that what is proposed here today is very sound.

He has also indicated today that he would be very happy to see the bill go to committee so that members of the Legislature -- there have been some concerns

raised here today. Let's talk about them. Let's consider, if the bill needs an amendment, how that might happen so that it can be enacted into law and provide a measure of safety and protection for

our children who ride school buses.

In my riding this bill is particularly important. I represent a rural riding, Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. I was a school board trustee, so I

certainly have some sense and understanding of the significance of school bus transportation, particularly in rural Ontario. When I was a trustee on the board, over 80% of the students in our

jurisdiction rode to school on a school bus. So for rural Ontarians certainly, it's important to know that we in this Legislature are taking our time to consider laws to improve the safety of 80%

of the students in some of the jurisdictions that we represent here today.

I also wanted to touch on the points raised by the member from Timmins-James Bay, where he indicated that this is not the first, it's not the second but the

third time that my colleague has had to bring this bill for debate on the floor of the Legislature, and it seems to get to committee and it gets stalled there. I really sensed that I heard some

positive comments from members of the government. It would be my hope that they were very serious in suggesting that this could and should be a law in the province and that they will do all they

can to expedite its journey to become a law. That of course means that when it goes to committee, that it is in fact considered and brought back to the floor of this Legislature so that it can

receive third and final reading. That is the challenge, I say to the government members this morning. You may pass it this morning at second reading, but I implore you to do all you can to ensure

that it receives third and final reading.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that everybody is watching this debate intently this morning and didn't get a chance to

watch the match between Italy and Mexico. Just to let you know, Italy is in the finals. They tied the game, and Croatia lost. So, viva Italia.

The Acting Speaker: Of course, it is not a point of order but it is useful information.

The member for Chatham-Kent Essex has two minutes.

Mr Hoy: I want to thank those who spoke to this bill this morning: the members from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Prince Edward-Hastings, Sault Ste

Marie, Northumberland, Essex, Timmins-James Bay, Durham, Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, and I hope I have included everyone there.

I want to respond to some of the government's comments, and particularly in one regard to the fine levels. I want to say to the government members opposite

that you raised the fine levels some time ago. We can discuss what the appropriate fine level is in committee. I think that would be excellent.

The point I'm trying to make is that the fine levels are a moot point when you have an inadequate law that has no conviction mechanism. You can make them as

high as you want or as low as you want, but you're not apprehending the many persons who pass school buses illegally, endangering the lives of our children.

You do, however, as a government, I say to the members opposite, use vehicle liability to collect money on the 407. You use it to collect money in a

safety-featured way with red light cameras. Let's have vehicle liability to protect the 810,000 children who ride over 16,000 school buses here in Ontario twice daily. Some routes are more than

that: three and four times a day.

The people clearly know what the law is because I have had reports from persons who would know that people are passing school buses illegally shielding their

faces because they know the driver has to identify the face of the driver. They're passing school buses with their hands up to their face to shield themselves. They also, the bus drivers, have

difficulty seeing persons through blacked-out windows in speeding cars. When a car is passing a bus from front to back, it's virtually impossible to see people passing school buses illegally while

the bus driver is watching its most cherished cargo, the children of our schools.

Let's pass this bill. Let's pass it now.

The Acting Speaker: The time allotted for this ballot item is now expired. We will deal with the questions at 12 o'clock noon.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT

PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN DISABILITY

INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LE PROGRAMME ONTARIEN DE SOUTIEN

AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

(ÉQUITÉ DANS LES VERSEMENTS

DU SOUTIEN DU REVENU)

Mr Martin moved second reading of Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 to require annual cost-of-living adjustments to

income support payments / Projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées en vue d'exiger des rajustements annuels relatifs au

coût de la vie en ce qui concerne les versements du soutien du revenu.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Sault Ste Marie has 10 minutes.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I wanted to start by first recognizing the work done by Sarah Jordison and Trish Hennessy in getting this

piece of work, this discussion, on the floor today.

I'd like to recognize as well all the people who have come here today from across Ontario to support this bill. People have come all the way down from Parry

Sound-Muskoka, they're here from Hamilton, Brampton, Oakville, Oshawa, Whitby, and the list goes on. Every community in this province has an interest in this bill. They are here today because this

bill is so important to hundreds of thousands of disabled people in this province and all the people who love and care for them.

I'd like to thank all the people in community organizations who have worked with us to bring this serious issue to the forefront of the minds of the people of

Ontario: Barbara Anello, the director of the DisAbled Women's Network Ontario; the Ontario Association for Community Living; the community living associations in Haliburton, London, Timmins and

Trenton, just to name a few; the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario; John Fraser and the Income Security Legal Clinic; the Ontario Social Safety Network; Helen Henderson; the Elementary Teachers'

Federation; Maria Kohan. I wish I had time to name the many people who have been so helpful over the last number of months.

As most of you know, a year and a half ago I stepped down from the Speaker's chair because I could no longer preside over a Legislature that would not debate

the issue that affected the most vulnerable people of our society. Since then I've toured the province with the People's Parliament on Poverty to hear what people without a voice had to say about

this issue. We're here today in response to one of the serious issues they raised: people with disabilities are being forced to live in poverty, and that's a shame, particularly in a province as

rich as Ontario.

Disabled people who are unable to work and must rely on the Ontario disability support program are being forced to live significantly below the poverty line.

The government has no more fundamental responsibility than to look after those most vulnerable in our society, and right now they're failing in that charge.

I stepped down from the Speaker's chair because I wanted to bring their voice to this Parliament. I'm here today doing that. It's time for this government to

listen to the many people who have come and are here today supporting this bill, both here in the House and in committee room. I'm also here speaking on behalf of literally thousands of people

across the province interested in watching what the government will do today on this bill.

Last fall this government made a big hoopla out of the release of their vision statement for people with disabilities. With it, they professed to be champions

for the disabled. The vision is a good one; it states that they believe that the dignity and worth of all Ontarians should be respected and valued, and that they believe people with disabilities

have the right to participate fully in every aspect of life in our province. These are great words. But that's all they are -- just words. Today is the day that we put those words to the test.

Today is the day that this government must actually prove its commitment to all the disabled people of Ontario.

Today, as I stand here, those words ring very empty for 192,000 disabled persons across this province -- Ontarians and their families, friends and caregivers.

This group of disabled people are unable to work and are forced to depend on the Ontario disability support program, otherwise known as the ODSP. For them, this vision statement is nothing more

than a slap in the face. They see little dignity in being forced to live below the poverty line. They find it impossible to participate fully in every aspect of life when they don't have enough

money for food, clothing, transportation or even many of the medications or supplies that they need. A single person living on ODSP receives a maximum of $930 per month, a yearly income of $11,160.

According to Statistics Canada, this is significantly below the poverty line, particularly for those living in our urban centres where they would need an additional $7,211 per year just to reach

the poverty line.

I ask every member of the government, every member of the House, to imagine trying to live on $11,160 a year. Now try to imagine living on $11,160 a year while

still having to cope with a disability. No one deserves to live like this; no one should have to live like this.

People living on disability benefits have had no increase since the Conservative government took office in 1995, and yet we've lived through some of the best

economic times in our history. Since they got elected, the cost of living has gone up by 12.8%. This means that not only have they not had an increase, but that $11,160 is worth $1,438 less than it

was worth in 1995. Over that same period of time, rents in this province have gone up over 20% in most of Ontario's cities. For many of those who live in Ontario's urban centres, their rent takes

up almost all of their ODSP cheque.

Did you know that 15% of people using food banks are on ODSP? And those are just the ones who are able to access food banks, food banks that are close enough

to get to. We cannot, we must not, let this continue. It is our responsibility to make sure that people with disabilities aren't falling through the cracks. My bill proposes to index ODSP to the

cost of living so that every April 1, people with disabilities get the increase they desperately need to maintain their income level. All this bill proposes is to stop people with disabilities from

falling further into poverty.

Quite frankly, this bill really isn't enough; it's a scratch on the surface. But since the government whip tried to have this bill ruled out of order on

Tuesday, I know what would have happened if I'd tried to introduce the legislation that is really needed here.

People who are already living with a disability do not deserve a life sentence of poverty. All I am asking this government to do today is to stop making their

lives worse. I ask, I beg -- whatever it takes -- the government on behalf of the 192,000 disabled people in this province and all of their families, friends and caregivers, please, today, you have

an opportunity. You're hearing the voice of people who are disabled and living in poverty in this province, here present and across the province, asking you to vote in favour of this bill so that

we can stop once and for all, at the very least, making the lives of these very important citizens of our province any worse than they already are.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Ontario Disabilities Support Act,

1997 to require annual cost-of-living adjustments to income support payments. I just want to address for a moment that that is not what the bill does. I think it's very important and I welcome all

the people who are here today to hear the debate, but as was ruled by the Speaker yesterday, the bill if passed would permit, not compel, the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make a regulation

which, if made, would constitute a charge on the consolidated revenue fund. So I think it's very important to recognize that this bill in fact does not do what it is purported to be doing in the

title of the bill.

But we all want the best advantage for those in our society who are disabled. This year the province and municipalities will spend an estimated $2.1 billion to

provide income support and related benefits for the families on ODSP. That's our government's strong commitment to the disabled community.

It's also worth noting that income support for single persons with disabilities remains the highest among all the provinces in Canada. You will also know we

changed the support program from the family benefits program to the Ontario disability support program. This again was to show our commitment as a government to the disabled community.

There were a number of changes made in the Ontario disability support program to again help the disabled community. The program recognizes that persons with

disabilities can and do want to work. Persons with disabilities are no longer labelled unemployable. Under the ministry's supports to employment program, the amount of earnings that a family can

keep without deduction was increased.

The Ontario disability support program also provides a broad range of employment supports to assist people with disabilities to prepare for, obtain and

maintain employment. Improvements were made on the ceiling of assets that they were allowed to receive and maintain during the time they were receiving the support.

Under ODSP, workers' compensation awards, inheritances and other compensation awards were allowed to be taken in without seeing a decrease in the support they

receive.

The disability program also provides incentives for family and friends to participate in providing additional support. For example, recipients are allowed to

keep an amount of up to $4,000 a year in the form of gifts for any purpose from any source.

These improvements were made in response to concerns raised by people with disabilities.

In addition to income support, individuals and families under ODSP also have access to an extensive menu of benefits including drug coverage; dental, vision

and hearing service for adults and dependent children; diabetic supplies, surgical supplies and dressings; medical travel and transportation; consumer contributions for assistive device and

eligibility assessments under the assistive devices program; batteries and necessary repairs for mobility devices; winter clothing allowance for dependent children; back-to-school allowance for

dependent children; community start-up benefits -- $1,500 for recipients with dependent children; guide dog benefits; employment start-up benefits; upfront child care costs; northern allowance --

$135 and up based on the number of dependants; chronic care items; necessary home repairs; and personal needs allowances to people who reside in chronic care facilities, nursing homes, psychiatric

hospitals, homes funded under the Homes for Special Care Act and facilities under the Developmental Services Act.

Much is being done. Would we all like to see more done for the disabled? Of course, we all would. But this bill is not a way to do it.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to bring members' attention to the members' gallery west. We have with us a former member, Drummond White,

from the former riding of Durham Centre.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind those in the galleries that we appreciate your being with us, but I need your assistance because we cannot

have any kind of demonstration or applause and the like. That behaviour is reserved for down here. Thank you.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Let me begin by saying how pleased I am to participate in this very important debate today.

As a long-time proponent of a cost-of-living adjustment for all Ontarians who must somehow survive on the present and wholly inadequate Ontario disability support program, I congratulate my

colleague from Sault Ste Marie for bringing this legislation forward.

I vigorously support this legislation, and I would like to call on all members of the House to look deep within their hearts as they ask themselves how they

could possibly not support this extremely reasonable and simply decent cost-of-living adjustment.

It's difficult to understand why we even have to justify this request. Certainly everyone in the Legislature knows how costs for just about everything have

gone through the roof over the past six years. We know that costs for shelter have increased dramatically across the province, particularly in large urban centres such as Toronto.

We also know that the cost of food has increased at an alarming rate over the past several years. As a recent report by the Daily Bread Food Bank confirmed,

when the already low incomes of disabled people fail to keep up with the cost of living, the food budget is often the first item to be cut. Food bank use has increased dramatically for ODSP

recipients, and what is clear is that the deterioration of real incomes for ODSP recipients is an unsustainable situation that leads not only to food bank use, but to the brink of homelessness.

I often find myself harkening back to the diet that former Community and Social Services Minister Tsubouchi trumpeted back in 1996 -- the dented tuna debacle,

as all members will recall. Even if one accepted this particular food plan as an acceptable diet, which I must say I didn't, the cost of that particular set of items has increased substantially

since that time. In fact, last year we went out and bought those exact items at a large no-name discount food chain and discovered the prices had risen by over 20% since the minister's Spartan diet

was first unleashed on the poorest citizens of our province.

Is it unreasonable for us to expect government members to support this legislation? I certainly don't think it is, and quite frankly I believe it is the least

we can do to begin to bring some measure of fairness to a deeply flawed program. And what a deeply flawed program this is; I wish I had more time today to describe how painfully user-unfriendly the

ODSP truly is.

At a forum held in Thunder Bay last week, co-sponsored by the Kinna-Aweya Legal Clinic and the Thunder Bay District Health Unit, we heard from a number of

front-line workers about the appallingly bureaucratic and cruel process applicants must go through in order to access benefits for which they are clearly eligible. How can this government speak

about the generosity of this program when the system is set up in such a manner that the vast majority of applicants are summarily turned down for assistance when they first apply? While a large

number of these applications are eventually granted through the appeal process, this only happens with the enormous help of dedicated legal aid clinic workers such as those who work at Kinna-Aweya,

as well as the concerned front-line workers who attended this forum.

How good-hearted is a system that is set up to cut off applicants rather than help them through the process? Without this help, people with mental health

issues, learning disabilities and literacy problems, and homeless people, have to get through this enormously complex process themselves. The ministry which administers the program provides no

assistance whatsoever. The municipal social services offices which do the financial assessment are not allowed to help the applicants with the forms. The forms that the doctors must fill out are so

bizarrely complex that many doctors have difficulty finding the time to fill out the application. And what do you do if, like 40,000 people in Thunder Bay, you don't have a family doctor?

We need a separate and thorough debate on how this program must be simplified, made truly accessible, and turned into a program that is not geared to turning

away our most vulnerable people from the assistance they clearly need and deserve. But the important aspect of today's debate is that we have a real opportunity to make a positive difference for

those needy individuals who are presently on ODSP. Today I call on -- indeed I beg -- the members of this Legislature to support Bill 118 as put forward by Mr Martin. It is a necessary adjustment

that is long overdue and one that, regardless of the outcome of today's vote, I will continue to fight for and support.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I am quite proud to stand in the House today and support this motion from our member from Sault Ste

Marie, Mr Tony Martin. People know Tony as a person who has done a lot of work not only in his life here in the Legislature over the last 12 years on behalf of many people in the disabled community

and generally the community in need, as I would describe it, but has also worked within the church and various organizations before that and brings a lifelong experience of really understanding

what people go through. I think far too often members of the Legislature tend to come from backgrounds that are pretty well-to-do. They don't have to worry about putting food on the table or paying

their bills at the end of the month and maybe don't quite understand in a real way, as the member from Sault Ste Marie does, the difficulty people face each and every day of their lives.

The bill that he puts forward is a very simple move that the government can adopt. As I said in the previous debate, I would expect -- I would hope -- that the

Tories will support it. We're going to pray at this point that they do. But if we do pass this bill at second reading, we want this bill to go to committee, and I would repeat the comments I made

earlier today that the government doesn't allow members to get their bills off to committee. That sometimes is quite unfortunate, because it's good public business that we do here on Thursday

mornings. Probably the most non-partisan part of our week is private members' public business, and I think there is something to be learned from that.

His bill is quite simple. It moves forward the idea that we should at least tie the cost-of-living index to the people who are on pensions from the Ontario

disability support program. We know, for example, that over the past number of years there has been an erosion in the amount of money that people receive, because since they carved the ODSP out of

the welfare system there has not been an increase in those basic benefits. So people who are on benefits haven't had any kind of increase and find themselves in a situation where they've actually

gone back. When you look at the cost of living, people are actually making 20% less today on an ODSP payment than they did back when the Tories first came to office. To try to pay your rent, try to

pay for your groceries and try to just stay alive on those benefits is very difficult. Imagine living in the city of Toronto. I don't know how people do it, quite frankly. I know it's hard enough

in Timmins, Kapuskasing and other communities.

I have a very close relationship with a number of people who are on disability pensions within my riding. My office's and my reputation as working with people,

trying to advance their causes when it comes to disability issues, everything from basic pension needs to other issues, is well known in our community. I just want to signal that there are a lot of

that is often forgotten when it comes to the really essential things such as making our community accessible to people with disabilities. I sit with them every month -- if not myself then somebody

from my constituency office is there each and every month at their meeting -- and one of the issues we've talked about is this very issue. I have said to them that our member from Sault Ste Marie

is bringing forward a motion and that motion is here to give them some breathing space when it comes to the amount of money they receive every month so that at the very least their benefits could

be tied to the cost of living.

I also think of other groups that I've been dealing with within the community, the Canadian Mental Health Association and others, who are bringing a message

back to us here through me today: please support this bill, because quite frankly it is very difficult for people to make do.

The only other point I want to make on this, and I think it's important, is that I want members of the assembly to think of what it would be like to try to

live on the amount of money that we get on ODSP. A single person living on ODSP would get a maximum of 930 bucks a month. That is not a heck of a lot when you really take a look at it. By the time

you pay your rent, your rent has pretty well chewed that up and it leaves you a very little bit of money to be able to buy groceries. Far too often we have people coming into our constituency

offices saying, "You know, I'm trying to pay my rent. I've had to disconnect my phone, I've had to disconnect my cable, because I can't afford those things." By the time they pay their rent, by the

time they pay their bus pass to be able to get around to the programs that support their health care needs and their social needs, and by the time they pay for their groceries, there's nothing

left. So they either don't have a bus pass or don't have cable or don't have a phone, or they don't have all three, depending how expensive the rent is. We know this government has not been very

good in the public sector when it comes to not-for-profit housing and subsidized housing. Not one new stitch of units has been built since this government has come to office, and it's more

difficult for people to get apartments that are geared to income. So they're bringing a message here: "Listen, you've got to pass this because we need some respite."

I only want to give one other story, because I know the member from Trinity-Spadina is going to say something. I'm just going to relate one story I had of a

woman who came into my office. Quite frankly, it made me cry when this woman came in. She comes in, sits down in my office and says, "Gilles, I'm really having a hard time. I'm on a disability

pension. My husband left me because of my illness. I'm alone. Here I am having to live on this measly little pension that we get. They want to shut down the hydro. I've already shut down the phone.

I've already shut down the cable. Yesterday morning I had to send my granddaughter home." I said, "What was that all about?" She says, "My granddaughter tried to climb up on a chair to make herself

a peanut butter sandwich. There was no peanut butter and I couldn't afford to buy her any." I tell you, even today it hurts me, because here is a proud woman, a woman who basically because of her

circumstance, because she developed MS and is unable to work, her husband left her, she's on her own, can't afford to buy peanut butter for her granddaughter.

So on behalf of the granddaughter and on behalf of all grandchildren and people on disability, please pass this bill, because this is about real issues; this

is something that would make a big difference in their lives.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I do believe that improvements to the Ontario disability support program are needed; however, I also

believe that Bill 118 is flawed. The effect of Bill 118 is an unnecessary duplication of provisions that already exist. The minister has the ability to change ODSP payments by regulation.

It is important to remember that Ontario residents with disabilities have the highest rate of income support in the country. The government respects the

dignity of persons with disabilities and has removed the stigma of "permanently unemployable," allowing people to be supported when they need it the most. But we can do more.

For example, increasing the asset ceiling would improve the financial security of people with disabilities. It's currently about $7,500 for a couple. There are

many exemptions, but I believe that could be increased. Increasing the amount of earnings that can be made while still receiving full benefits -- and that is currently about $235 a month for a

couple -- is a practical way to allow persons with disabilities to improve their personal circumstances. I have constituents whom I have met with who are receiving ODSP payments who want to be able

to earn more money, and I believe we should be helping and encouraging them to do so.

Continuing limited benefits, such as the drug benefit plan, for people with chronic disabilities would remove a barrier to pursuing gainful employment. I have

constituents who fear the loss of the drug benefits available under ODSP far more than the loss of income support. The cost of permanent medication is a huge disincentive to seeking alternative

employment and striving for independence.

I will continue to work on behalf of my constituents with disabilities. I believe we need to make changes to the ODSP that will result in meaningful and

tangible improvements, that will remove barriers to security and self-sufficiency.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Over the years, my wife and I have fostered quite a number of children. Most of them come and are

able to fit into the family, but some come whom we have to teach the very basics of what is the right thing to do -- holding the door open for a person behind you is just a very basic thing.

Doing the right thing for people on disability is just a basic human characteristic that we've not seen demonstrated over there. This government has taken and

sentenced Ontarians with disabilities to absolute poverty. Do not tell me that disability in Ontario is the highest unless you're prepared to live on $930 a month, and I challenge you to do that.

If you truly think the wording in the member from Sault Ste Marie's bill is wrong, then just do it. You don't need the bill. You have the power to change it instantly. You know as well as I do that

the problem with this bill is that it doesn't go far enough, and it doesn't go far enough because you won't let it go far enough, not because of the member for Sault Ste Marie.

This bill should be retro. While we have seen them suffer a loss in purchasing power that's significant, this government bills taxpayers for booze. Get your

priorities right. Here's how ODSP works in Ontario right now. You apply; you are refused. You go to an arbitration process that takes months and months, forcing people to find other resources or go

on welfare when they do not belong in that area. They are entitled to ODSP. When they finally get the money, it's inadequate. If they try to better themselves, it is clawed back.

I know you're reading great scripts over there, but I challenge you to talk to your constituent assistants. Call a meeting in your riding and talk to people on

ODSP. I can assure you that what you'll be hearing from them is not what you're hearing from your speech writers.

It doesn't matter what you say. People don't care what you say, they don't care what politicians say; they care what we do, and we have given short shrift to

people on disability who don't choose to go on it. I've not yet had one person come into my office and say, "I think I've got a scam. I'm going to lose my eyesight and then I'll get money from the

government." No one chooses to go on it. They want dignity and they want to work. They want to be able to dress their children like the rest of the children in their community. They want access to

transportation and baby food. They want access to their full rights.

Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals do not believe that there are classes of citizens in Ontario, that some are entitled to $2.2 million a year and others

are entitled to a maximum of $930 a month. There isn't a parent in this province who has a disabled child who is not worried about what happens to them when they die. They know that, based on this

government's treatment of them and based on the allowance they leave, their children are going to suffer when they pass on, and yet you have every obstacle and roadblock to prevent these parents

from putting in place a lifestyle to permit their children to live. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Support this bill at the very least and please don't bury it in a committee.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to

recognize very quickly a couple of special guests, if I could: Calvin Hung, a grade 8 student; and Camille Logan, the vice-principal of Parkview Public School in Markham, who just presented a

poster on racial harmony to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I stand proudly in support of the bill presented by my friend and colleague from Sault Ste Marie. I

take little comfort, and I suspect that people with disabilities take little comfort, from the comments made by the member from Oxford and the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka.

The member from Oxford says that this bill would permit, not compel, the government, or presumably this assembly, to do what is before us. My point is, what's

your point? If it's permissive, it's good. If it compels government to do it, it's even better. Whatever the government wants to have happen can happen on the basis of what you want to have happen.

I'm not quite clear on what you were saying by way of what this bill does or doesn't do.

Second, he says people with disabilities have the highest levels, presumably, of benefits. What does it mean when he says that when people with disabilities

are here pleading with you, not as supplicants but as people who are saying with dignity, "We would like to have what is deserving for us as human beings"? What they're asking for is that we

require an annual cost-of-living adjustment to income support payments as a way of recognizing real needs of real human beings. They don't want to have to come here as supplicants, pleading,

entreating, soliciting you people to give them a little more. But that's what it appears they're coming to do each and every time.

You hear the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka saying, "We're doing so much. We would like to do more." But you can do more. It's just the choices that you make.

The choice this government has made is to give people income tax cuts rather than giving people the real benefits they deserve. A third of the cuts they made, to education, have paid for those

income tax cuts they have given to the highest-income earners of Ontario. The other third of the cuts they made, in health care, have benefited of course the high-income earners who have naturally

benefited from those tax cuts. So you give a tax cut and someone has to pay for that tax cut. Who pays for that? Our educational system, our health care system and the people who work in them; and

the other people who have lost incredibly are those who are most in need: the people who rely on government for support. People with disabilities are just one group. There are so many other groups.

This is the other group that is coming before you, saying, "Look, the choices you are making are bad ones."

When you say we need to give income tax cuts to the corporate sector and to the highest-income earners of Ontario, what you're saying to people with

disabilities is, "We don't have enough for you," because that's the choice you've made. Because you're sending billions and billions of dollars out every year, what you're saying to them is, "We

don't have enough money left to give it to you." And then you come into this House and say, "We would like to give you more but we really can't. We don't have any money left." That's not the answer

that people want from governments and that's the only answer you're giving them.

The other point the member for Oxford makes is that people with disabilities no longer are labelled unemployable. While that might be true, the fact of the

matter is that people with disabilities still are discriminated against as a group because they can't have access to those jobs, and even if they have access to the jobs they don't get hired the

way other people do. That is why the highest number of people who take their cases to the Ontario Human Rights Commission are people with disabilities. It's for a reason, and that reason is that

discrimination exists in society on the basis of not creating workplaces that are accessible to them, and even if they were, they still are not getting the jobs they deserve.

It's sad to hear the member for Oxford and the other fellow from Parry Sound-Muskoka saying, "We would like to do more." They can do more and the choices are

very clear. As New Democrats, since the very beginning when this government said, "We are going to institute income tax cuts," we said, "You are doing it on the backs of the most vulnerable

individuals in society. You are doing it at the cost of a health care system suffering. You are doing it at a cost of our educational system suffering." That's the choice you've made. It's a very

clear, ideological, Conservative choice you made and people are paying for that.

This bill is something that ought to be easy for the government to support. If you don't want to do it, if you don't want to support it, you bring in your own

bill and label it differently. You can do it. You have the power to do it. But tell us that you want to do it, member for Oxford. Don't tell us, "This bill permits, does not compel." I don't know

what you're saying. I don't know whether you're saying you would like it to compel you to do it and I don't know whether you're saying it's permitting you to do it but you don't want to do it.

Whatever it is, speak clearly about what your position is.

Don't tell us they're receiving the highest level of benefits ever in the country. Don't tell them that, because otherwise they would not be here. If it was

enough and if they were the highest level of income earners on the basis of what they receive, they wouldn't be here. They're here because they are in need. But they shouldn't be here pleading with

you to give them a little extra.

So I hope the two members who have spoken with speeches that were clearly already prepared -- I am hopeful that some of the members will stand on their own in

support of this bill, take it to committee and support it, because that's the right thing to do.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I rise today to speak about private member's Bill 118, a bill introduced by the member for

Sault Ste Marie.

On Tuesday, the member for Niagara Centre got up to defend this bill by saying that it did nothing: "This does not, in and of itself, necessarily entail an

increased expenditure." He also said that the bill may provide -- I emphasize the word "may," and I've read the bill -- "permissive but not mandatory -- 'that the amount of income support provided

be adjusted on April 1.'" From what I have read in the newspapers, from the rhetoric across the way and from the NDP news release, when this bill was first introduced, I think the member was

probably quite surprised to learn the bill that he has said would provide annual cost-of-living adjustments to payments under the Ontario disability support program will actually not do that at

all.

Interjections.

Mr Tascona: Read the bill; that's exactly what it says. Actually, if I was one of the individuals who supported this bill or believed what the

member said, I would be extremely disappointed with him and the NDP. Clearly, the NDP House leader realized the bill did nothing, yet the NDP has been misleading Ontarians who rely on ODSP for

months.

First of all, I'm wondering why we are wasting valuable time on a nothing bill, when we could be debating a bill of substance.

I cannot support a bill that does nothing. That's basically what it does: nothing. That being said --

Interjections.

Mr Tascona: I have a right to speak, regardless of the rhetoric across the way, because that's what it is. Read the bill, understand the bill

and know what you're talking about.

That being said, I agree we must always work to do more for Ontarians with disabilities. I've heard from my constituents about this. It's something we should

be working on. We should be doing something of substance. I think every member here would agree with that, despite the rhetoric across the way.

So we're debating a bill here today that, in fact, the other side says does nothing. We need more than that.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a brief contribution to make because there are so many members who would like to speak.

I have to disagree with one of the members who has already spoken. I'm not proud to be here discussing this bill. I'm not proud of the level of debate in this

forum. I'm not proud of the fact that we, who have full-time jobs -- our only job is to determine the needs of the people of Ontario -- have not discharged that somewhere else by now.

I want to give credit to the member for Sault Ste Marie, because he has all the credibility in the world to bring forward this debate. For anyone to undermine

that, I think, is beneath the members of this House, because an honest effort has been put forward. But it should be unnecessary. It should be unnecessary for anyone to not appreciate that there

are people who, through no fault of their own, have gone through some rigorous and sometimes humiliating measures of how much in need they are -- 22 pieces of documentation to say they're people in

need.

I refute the premise of the people on the opposite side of this House that says we get to decide what kind of quality of life they have. People make their own

quality of life. What we have control over here are the intentions of the rest of the province, and we're not doing a good job. The province wants us to extend some dignity to people. They don't

want us to sit here in judgment about the price of what they get to do with their lives or what they have to live on; they want us to interpret dignity for everyone in this province. For the member

opposite to try to use some kind of trick to say he doesn't have to address that question -- every member in this debate has to answer the question, "What should the finance minister do on Monday?"

Which should she include? Who should be part of that budget? I tell you, the new Minister of Finance will go through the character test that sits and weighs heavily on everyone in this House. The

revenues of this province are up by $15 billion since the last time we increased the pittance we give to the most vulnerable people in this province.

For anyone in this House not to then agree that when rents in Ontario, in every community, are 40% to 50% higher than rents elsewhere in the country for

comparable communities, that we need to recognize that somehow in the stipend we give to people who through no fault of their own cannot provide for themselves -- they provide for most of their own

dignity; they provide for most of their own lives. They make and they've made a contribution to this province. It is beneath us in this Legislature to not accord that some usual form of debate.

I want to give credit to the member for Sault Ste Marie because he is doing a necessary thing, but it is not a credit to us that we couldn't have decided this

by now and every year from here on.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I've been here too long to be astonished, but today I also find myself disgusted with government members,

government backbenchers, in the face of the reality of the impoverishment of Ontarians with disability being forced into homelessness and being forced into levels of despair that they have never

experienced in this province before.

I say to my sisters and brothers who are Ontarians with disability here in this chamber and across this province, as do all New Democrats, that this government

has a track record that is, oh, so clear: the repeal of employment equity legislation which provided some modest access for persons with disabilities into the real economy and into the workplaces

of this province -- this government repealed that law as one of its first items of governmental agenda; this government's disdain for Ontarians with disabilities, where it would force Ontarians

with disabilities into ongoing levels of impoverished lifestyles, treat them with disdain, disregard, and quite frankly afford them no dignity whatsoever.

Well, let me tell you something: Ontarians with disability is a far stronger community than you take them for. They have political clout. They have skill,

talent, organizational abilities. They are out there on the ground as a grassroots movement. You will not make Ontarians with disability invisible by your attack on them and their agenda. They will

pursue their rightful place in our society in Ontario, in terms of access and in terms of the economy and in terms of the right to live decently and with dignity. Your feckless efforts today to

defeat this bill are shameful and disgusting, and Ontarians with disability will defeat you.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I'm glad to make some remarks this morning regarding the bill dealing with the indexation of ODSP amounts.

Let me start by stating that we'll try and add a little light, a little more philosophical enlightenment to this debate, because we need to look at it in a broader context.

In the past year, we've passed the Ontarians with Disabilities Act --

Interjections.

Mr Hastings: If it's such a joke as the members opposite state, then my point would be, where were you and why didn't you do it in the

Peterson years? Where was the NDP when they were here from 1990 to 1995? Let me tell you, Speaker, that the folks who are advocating for the disabled today as if nobody else can do it and only they

have a monopoly on it -- guess what? It was those folks in the Rae government in 1993 who cut the pension level for the disabled.

Interjections.

Mr Hastings: It's a fact. Go back and look at that historical reality. And yet they come here and claim and profess that only they have an

advancement and monopoly on what can help the disabled.

On this side we take more market-oriented, more open assistance programs, not only through the Human Rights Code enforcement but also through the disabilities

support assistance is one of the key elements of helping the disabled, and I think what this bill implies, much as there is some admirable content in it, and I appreciate the member from the Soo

for presenting it, is that the only way that you can help the disabled in this very narrow context is to increase the amount of money available to them. That is the only approach they take and that

to me is not the most realistic way to approach this particular problem.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Stop the clock. We need to have order. The member has the floor and he alone has the right to speak.

Mr Hastings: Not only is there an approach to help in terms of job support skills and programs of the like, what we also have done is advance

the cochlear implant program. What is missing from this bill -- and we didn't hear one remark from the members opposite -- is that they need to take a more optimistic long-term approach in terms of

how new technology can assist and help the disabled. For example, in recent media reports we have seen how the blind who have been challenged and impaired by their incapacity to see are now being

assisted in terms of artificial vision technology. In fact, I recently saw an actual demonstration of a blind Canadian farmer who can drive a car. What governments need to do in the future -- and

you think you'd hear it from members opposite -- is to adjust their regulations to anticipate that change in technology, those kinds of positive changes that can help this particular group of

people.

Furthermore, I'm proud to be part of a government that separated out, under the ODSP, the disabled who had been associated and lumped in by the previous

governments in this province as all one group. That to me is a significant advancement.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): First of all I congratulate the member for Sault Ste Marie for bringing this bill forward. His

credibility on this issue, his passion on this issue, is beyond question.

I'm absolutely astonished at the members across the floor and their reaction to this. This is an issue of basic human dignity. This is an issue where you

should put your briefing notes away, the rhetoric that comes out of the Premier's office that you're forced to read here today. You should refuse to stand up and read that rhetoric that is

demeaning to Ontarians, your approach that leaves the most vulnerable people in this province often going begging, often having to use food banks, often being in substandard housing because of

decisions you have made to treat those people in such conditions. It is disgraceful in a province that has had seven years of unprecedented economic growth, in a province where the government sees

fit to give away $2.5 billion a year in corporate tax cuts, that you can't find a decent adjustment to the standard of living for people who are disabled in Ontario.

We are judged as a society on how we treat the most vulnerable, how we treat people who need some help and support from government. We don't have to dictate to

them how they live their lives. We don't dictate to them where they're supposed to live and what they're supposed to eat, but we have the basic responsibility to ensure that the most basic needs

are provided for people, and this government's failed miserably. It is a disgrace the way this government's treated the disabled in Ontario. It is a disgrace as you abandon people who, through no

fault of their own, are in very difficult situations. You pound your chest and you're proud of job creation and economic growth and tax cuts, but surely you cannot be proud of how we've treated

people who are disabled in the province of Ontario. You had one slight chance today just to send out a signal that maybe, maybe you're intent on making it a little better, and what do we get? This

garbage from across the floor from these members who sit there and don't understand the basic needs of people in this province who are disabled. Shame on you.

I hope some members have the guts and the courage to vote today with their hearts and with some compassion and understanding and dignity and respect, and stand

up for what is right. Support this bill and send out a signal that in this province we do care about people who are disabled and we do believe there should be a better standard of living and more

support for them.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I want to commend my colleague from Sault Ste Marie. As the former critic for people with

disabilities, I had an opportunity to tour this province. I can tell you that from Windsor to Thunder Bay to Ottawa to Kingston to here in Toronto, this is an issue that's affecting people across

this province. I wish this government would open its ears and take off the blinders and do what is needed for the most vulnerable in this province.

I think we need to have further debates in this Legislature on issues faced by persons with disabilities. One thing I'd like to take this short period of time

to talk about is something that is of extreme importance to persons with disabilities who are living in institutions, in group homes or in a lodging home, and that's the personal needs

allowance.

The personal needs allowance in this province is provided to an individual for things they have to purchase like toiletries, clothes and basic needs those

individuals have. Yet just as this government has abandoned persons with disabilities on ODSP, it has also abandoned those individuals -- the most vulnerable and most needy in our society -- with

no increase in the personal needs allowance in over 10 years. The $112 a month that those individuals in institutions receive is not meeting their needs.

We have turned our backs on these individuals. Those of you with a psychiatric hospital in your riding, take the opportunity, as I've done at the St Thomas

site, to go in and talk to those individuals, those residents, and find out what it's like to live on $112 a month. We're turning our backs on them.

If you on the other side of the House have any social conscience, why don't you stand up and support this bill that's in front of us today? Better yet, support

a thorough review of how we support the most vulnerable in this province. We can't turn our backs on them. These are individuals. We live in a country where everybody is to be treated equally, but

you're creating two classes of citizens in this province. Something needs to change, and it's this government that needs to change.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie has two minutes to reply.

Mr Martin: We've had a lively debate here this morning on a subject that goes to the heart of what it means to be a modern civil society. The

subject we debate on the floor of this House this morning is indeed, as the member from Hamilton West has said, an issue of basic human rights, an issue of basic human dignity.

I appreciate the contributions that everybody who has participated has made -- the members for Oxford, Thunder Bay-Superior North, Timmins-James Bay, Parry

Sound-Muskoka, Prince Edward-Hastings, Parkdale-High Park, Niagara Centre, Etobicoke North, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Hamilton East and Elgin-Middlesex-London -- a nice variety of voices from around

this province calling on the government to do the right thing.

I tried, as I prepared for this morning, to come up with how the government would frame its opposition to this very basic request to support those in our

communities who are in greatest need. Government has no greater a responsibility -- and when I say "government" I mean all of us here, each member elected by their constituency, speaking on behalf

of the people they represent -- than to look after those in their jurisdiction who are most in need, who are most vulnerable, who are most marginalized.

You have an opportunity here this morning in this private members' hour -- speaking particularly to you on the government side -- not to stick with the script

and the government edict on this, to act independently, to think for yourselves, to speak from your hearts to all those people, your constituents and mine, who are living with disabilities in this

province, living in poverty, and to do the right thing. This bill may, as you say, not go the distance and may not be enough. But it sends a signal. Do the right thing: vote for this.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 50.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS

DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 49.

Mr Hoy has moved second reading of Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses.

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

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Mr Speaker, I request that Bill 112 be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

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

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT

PROGRAM AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN DISABILITY

INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENTS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LE PROGRAMME ONTARIEN DE SOUTIEN

AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

(ÉQUITÉ DANS LES VERSEMENTS

DU SOUTIEN DU REVENU)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 50.

Mr Martin has moved second reading of Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 to require annual cost-of-living adjustments

to income support payments.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bisson, Gilles

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Tascona, Joe

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 30; the nays are 38.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

It being past 12 of the clock, all business before the House is now complete. The House will resume sitting at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Today, Ontarians woke up to learn that the Ernie Eves government has not yet learned anything from

the tragedy of Walkerton as they continue to fail to monitor our drinking water properly. Drinking water for more than a million and a half Ontarians in southwestern Ontario has to be retested

today because the Eves government was not properly monitoring our water. Hundreds and thousands of Ontario families don't even know if they've been drinking contaminated water for several weeks.

How could the Ernie Eves government let this happen after the deaths at Walkerton? How could this happen after the recommendations of Justice O'Connor?

The phones in my constituency office have been ringing off the wall today. People are concerned about what's happened, and people are concerned that they've

been once again abandoned by the Ernie Eves government. Families are worried that this government has put their children at risk.

We know the NDP government started this privatization path of water testing labs. Then, in 1996, the Conservatives accelerated the move at breakneck speed. Six

years ago, then-Finance Minister Ernie Eves, and now our Premier, slashed the Ministry of the Environment budget by more than half and cut staff by over a third. Ernie Eves still continues to put

the drinking water of our families at risk despite what happened at Walkerton. Ladies and gentlemen of Ontario, we all know that this government is failing the families of this province.

BIG SISTERS OF YORK REGION

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to speak about an agency in my riding of York North, Big Sisters of York Region. For the past few

months, Big Sisters has been working on developing a partnership with Girls Inc. Girls Inc is an American-based, non-profit organization whose motto is "Inspiring All Girls to be Strong, Smart and

Bold." This organization provides gender-specific programming and research based on informal education programs aimed at meeting the physical, intellectual and emotional needs of young girls

between the ages of six and 18. These programs are offered to millions of young girls, primarily in underserviced or high-risk areas.

As a result of the partnership, Big Sisters will be able to offer programming in such areas as math and science education, pregnancy and drug abuse prevention,

adolescent health, violence prevention and literacy.

Big Sisters has been providing programming for girls and young women in York region since 1979. This precedent-setting initiative has received positive

feedback from funding partners and has been applauded by members of the community. I offer my congratulations to the Big Sisters of York Region on their initiative.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): This morning, the students of C.C. McLean Public School attended here at the Legislature. This

morning, their families back in Gore Bay woke up to the news that their water system was at risk. The Tory government has been asleep at the wheel and the health care of families in my riding has

been put at risk.

The question people are asking today is, how could the Ernie Eves government let this happen? After seven deaths in Walkerton, after a judicial inquiry, how

could the Minister of the Environment and the Premier allow for this to happen again? Have they learned nothing from Walkerton?

Do you know what's worse? Just like in Walkerton it wasn't the government that identified the problem. It was an anonymous tip that led to the discovery that

our water was not being properly tested. What if the tip hadn't come? How much longer would the residents of Gore Bay be put at risk under this government?

What started this mess? It started when Ernie Eves gutted the Ministry of the Environment. It started when Ernie Eves cut monitoring stations, fired inspectors

and shut down public laboratories.

On behalf of the families in Gore Bay that the Ernie Eves government has put at risk, I demand an explanation. How could this government let this happen?

SENIORS' MONTH

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): In keeping with the celebration of June as Seniors' Month, it's my pleasure to pay tribute to three successful

seniors in my riding of Durham. There are literally hundreds of seniors I could mention, but the three I chose to mention are leaders in their respective roles in their communities.

For instance, Greta Brown, who has just turned 90, has been a volunteer since 1956 and was recently honoured with a birthday celebration at Trinity United

Church in Bowmanville. Ms Brown spends several hours at our hospital gift shop in Bowmanville on Thursdays and Sundays handling cash, recording sales and arranging displays. She also volunteers for

Community Care on Fridays. She bowls and belongs to various community groups. A truly beautiful lady.

Roy Forrester was recently nominated as Clarington's senior citizen of the year. Mr Forrester is another example of a successful older adult serving his

community. He is currently chair of the Oak Ridges Trail Association and is a member of the Clarington Concert Band. He has served as chair of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority and is an

avid naturalist and birder. Before his retirement, he was the owner of the quite supportive Orono Weekly Times community newspaper. A true statesman.

In the township of Scugog, the Senior of the Year nominee is Carol Morrow. She is one of the township's most dedicated community care volunteers. Carol is

active in Meals on Wheels and is a volunteer driver. She also finds time to play the piano for community care luncheons as well as playing the organ at many of the church celebrations.

In keeping with the recognition of Seniors' Month, I'd also like to pay respect to the visiting former parliamentarians -- not to be confused with senior

citizens, but I'd like to recognize them as well.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Today in Essex county, as across Ontario, people in this province woke up to the news that this

government failed yet again to protect their health and safety and their water system.

We need to be reminded by this today that it was Ernie Eves, as Finance Minister, who was responsible for cutting the Ministry of the Environment's budget in

half, who was responsible for firing inspectors, who was responsible at the outset for the tragedy in Walkerton and the seven deaths there. One need only review the commissioner's report with

respect to that. Why is it that this government hasn't put the health and safety of all our citizens first? They have failed yet again.

I say to the Premier and the Minister of the Environment, take responsibility for this. Don't run away from the House, and certainly don't run away from an

emergency debate this afternoon on this vital issue, an issue that's being debated in every coffee shop and doughnut shop in this province. Don't prevent this Legislature from having the

opportunity to debate the facts of the situation: the fact of when the government knew, what it knew, and how long it took to respond. Don't prevent this Legislature and the duly elected people of

this province from discussing the most pressing and important issue that has faced us certainly in the seven years I've been here.

This crisis merits a debate in the House this afternoon. I call on the government and the minister responsible not to hide, but to come forward and have a full

debate, and not to put any conditions on that debate, so that all of us in this House have the opportunity to express our concerns and the concerns of our constituents.

MENINGITIS C

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Today I will introduce the Michael Maxwell bill, a bill to establish a province-wide immunization program

against meningitis C.

On March 14, Michael Maxwell developed flu-like symptoms, was admitted to hospital that night and 21 hours later died of meningitis C. He was 17 years old.

This tragedy reinforces the need for this government to follow the lead of Quebec and Alberta and establish a province-wide immunization program for the

highest-risk group: infants from two months to young adults aged 20. It's not acceptable for the Minister of Health to insist on federal government support to do so. Ontario runs the flu shot

campaign without federal money. Ontario should follow the lead of two other provinces which have recognized meningitis as a serious public health issue which must be addressed.

The vaccine to protect against meningitis C normally costs over $100 and is not usually covered under private insurance plans. That cost is prohibitive for

many Ontario families, if they even are aware that a vaccine exists. It's imperative that the Ontario government cover the costs.

Further, the province must undertake a major public education campaign about the serious, even fatal, consequences of meningitis and the need for us to protect

Ontario infants and young people.

Gregg and Bernadette Maxwell are here today for the introduction of the bill in their son's name. I call on the government to adopt this private member's bill

as soon as possible so that the tragedy which so profoundly affected the Maxwell family never happens again in Ontario.

SOUTH ASIAN WELCOME CENTRE

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On behalf of the people of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, I'm pleased to recognize the

opening of the South Asian Welcome Centre. About 50,000 new Canadians arrive each year from South Asian countries and 80% of them choose to settle here in the greater Toronto area. That means there

are at least 40,000 new South Asian Canadians in this region every year. They are hard-working, entrepreneurial and self-reliant, but they need community support as well. I'm pleased the South

Last Sunday, June 9, I was very pleased to be able to join in the opening celebrations of the centre on Strathearn Avenue in my riding. The centre is inspired

by the Reverend Bill Virgin, who saw that new immigrants in Brampton and Mississauga need help to adjust to the ways we do things here in Canada.

We should also recognize that the office space for the centre was contributed by Mr Gurdish Mangat. As well, there has been great support from the Baptist

churches of Ontario and Quebec.

Congratulations and best wishes to them.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise in the House today to express my deep concern that the people in my community of Brant awoke to news that their

water may not be safe. Water testing in Ontario is in disarray and this government is failing to properly watch to ensure that our water is safe.

In my riding of Brant, both municipalities -- the city of Brantford and the county of Brant -- were using MDS Laboratories in London to test their water. They

had been assured by the Ministry of the Environment that MDS labs tested the water within provincial standards and regulations, yet the news being released by the ministry yesterday urged 67

municipalities to test their water again after discovering that MDS Laboratories was not testing within the standards.

I hav