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

March 2, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Mar-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 2 March 2006 Jeudi 2 mars 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT (INTERNET

GAMING ADVERTISING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

(PUBLICITÉ DES JEUX SUR INTERNET)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CELLULAR PHONES), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT (INTERNET

GAMING ADVERTISING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

(PUBLICITÉ DES JEUX SUR INTERNET)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CELLULAR PHONES), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MACULAR DEGENERATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CARDIAC CARE

HATE CRIMES

DISASTER RELIEF

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

(VETERINARY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS PAR ACTIONS

(SOCIÉTÉS PROFESSIONNELLES DE VÉTÉRINAIRES)

SAFEGUARD OUR SENIORS ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT

(STUDENT PERFORMANCE), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

(RENDEMENT DES ÉLÈVES)

TRILLIUM GIFT OF LIFE NETWORK

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE RÉSEAU

TRILLIUM POUR LE DON DE VIE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION /

ÉDUCATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

OLYMPIC ATHLETES /

ATHLÈTES OLYMPIQUES

EDUCATION

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

EDUCATION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILD POVERTY

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION

WASTE DIVERSION

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

ONTARIO MEDAL

FOR GOOD CITIZENSHIP

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

PETITIONS

MACULAR DEGENERATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

DIABETES TREATMENT

COMMUNITY CENTRE

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

DISABILITY BENEFITS

CHILD CARE

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

LANDFILL

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SERVICES

À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

GROVES MEMORIAL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT (INTERNET

GAMING ADVERTISING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

(PUBLICITÉ DES JEUX SUR INTERNET)

Mr. Leal moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 to regulate the promotion and advertising of Internet gaming in Ontario / Projet de loi 60, Loi

modifiant la Loi de 2002 sur la protection du consommateur afin de réglementer la promotion des jeux sur Internet en Ontario et la publicité qui en est faite.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker and fellow members, I rise in the House today to speak in support of my private member's bill entitled

the Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Internet Gaming Advertising), 2006. This bill is intended to stop the advertising of Internet gaming websites, which are not licensed by the appropriate

authority in Ontario or Canada and operated in accordance with the applicable laws in the province of Ontario.

First of all, I'd like to take a moment to mention Ms. Jane Holmes, vice-president of the Woodbine Entertainment Group, who has joined us in the gallery today,

who has worked with me over the last year and has supported me on this issue during our deliberations to develop this bill. Ms. Holmes has been very determined to protect and see that Ontario's

horse racing industry prospers, and we certainly welcome Ms. Holmes to our gallery today.

I'd also like to commend my special assistant, André Nicoletti, who has coordinated a lot of research in developing this bill as we move forward. He indeed

needs to be commended for all his work.

Since the Internet has become a common medium, several of Ontario's -- and Canada's, for that matter -- legal gaming operations have been subject to fierce

competition from illegal interests. The growth of illegal Internet gaming sites, onshore and offshore, is a real and serious threat to the future viability and integrity of both the horse racing

industry and government-operated gaming. Oftentimes, but not always, because these illegal operations are harboured offshore, it makes them difficult to legally confront. As I'm sure you're well

aware, drafting related legislation regarding matters outside of Canada's borders is very complex.

Fifteen years ago, there were no gaming operations in Canada. Then the federal government gave the provinces a monopoly on commercial gaming, lotteries, casinos,

slot machines, raceinos -- which are tracks with slot machines -- and video lottery terminals proliferated. The idea was that local gaming industries could provide much-needed funding for

Ontarians.

Today, there are over 100,000 places to make a bet in Canada. Canadians and visitors can choose to gamble at thousands of VLTs, slot machines, lottery ticket

centres, bingo halls with permits, 59 permanent casinos, 70 racetracks -- some with slot machines -- and many teletheatres. They are great revenue generators for the province today.

However, today there are also over 1,800 Internet gaming sites and counting. One estimate is that the global Internet gaming market will grow from -- these are

in United States dollars -- $10 billion in 2002 to $14.5 billion in 2006. The growth has been absolutely explosive. In another recent media report, pokerroom.com indicated that they have 25,000 new

players each week and that Canada is the second-largest market.

Not only has Canada's gaming industry been forced to deal with illegal competition, but similar action is taken in other countries, such as Great Britain and the

United States. It is estimated, again in US dollars, that offshore gaming business generates more than $1 billion US annually, even though online gambling is illegal in the United States. As in

Canada, internationally based legal gambling operations find the solution to this issue difficult to control.

What exactly is the big lure of Internet gaming? Internet gaming offers the excitement of traditional gambling but has the added advantage of the convenience of

gambling from home. All that is required is a personal computer and a connection to the Internet. Gambling sites are open for business 24 hours a day, attracting consumers with flashy websites.

People are often lured to illegal sites by bait-and-switch tactics, and thus make purchases they hadn't originally intended.

As can many of my colleagues in my Legislature, I'd like to draw upon instances where Ontario's gaming industry is a positive and responsible local contributor.

For example, the horse racing industry is a key economic contributor to the rural community. In fact, Kawartha Downs, which has gaming entertainment such as harness racing, stock car racing and

slots, provides many jobs to the people of my riding of Peterborough, the riding of Victoria-Haliburton and the city of Kawartha Lakes.

Further to economic issues, I'm also deeply concerned that illegal Internet gaming poses gambling-related health problems to people in this province. Illegal

gambling websites do not contribute tax revenues or support charitable organizations, as do provincial, arm's-length, regulated corporations, such as the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

Illegal gaming websites reinforce the concept that there is an easy way to make money, which is a dangerous idea, especially when a complete stranger has access to your credit card.

The Canadian horse racing industry has been negatively impacted by the massive growth of online bookmaking operations, which have not been granted regulatory

approval in Canada. This leads not only to an economic loss for Ontarians, but a social loss. These illegal Internet operators, otherwise known as bookies, who take bets on horse racing do not

incur the cost of a racetrack to conduct and support live racing, nor do they contribute to the horse person's purse account. Licensed racetracks are unable to compete, with significant

infrastructure and overhead costs.

The illegal Internet operators are taking consumers from the legal industry without any law enforcement response. The Woodbine Entertainment Group estimates that

offshore Internet gaming has impacted its operation by over $100 million annually. There are hundreds of Internet sites taking bets on Woodbine horse racing product without any commercial agreement

to do so.

For the online gambler, the industry's lack of regulation should raise some bright red flags. Online gambling is a risky business, as the player has no real idea

who is running the website and how to contact the company should the need arise. For example, how do gamblers know these companies will deliver their winnings should they actually beat the

odds?

There's also a great social concern, especially for Ontario's youth, as many of the online gambling sites do not restrict access of minors. Studies have shown

conclusively that while various companies offer age verification systems specifically designed to block accounts from minors, many sites do not use them. This is similar to many pornographic

websites.

There are also concerns about money laundering, involvement of organized crime and potential for fraud through offshore Internet gaming operators. In 2004, an

online gaming operation, Sporting Options in the United Kingdom, declared bankruptcy and 5,300 account holders could not get their money. Approximately £3.6 million was owed to clients.

As Minister of Health and Long-Term Care George Smitherman said on September 16, 2005, when he released Stanley Sadinsky's report, Review of the Problem Gambling

and Responsible Gaming Strategy of the Government of Ontario, "I am also in favour of addressing responsible gambling in terms of health promotion. It is my hope that Ontario's gaming industry can

continue to deliver quality service to Ontarians in an efficient and socially responsible manner."

Let's be clear. Internet gaming is already illegal in Canada under the Criminal Code. I've attempted to draft related legislation that doesn't mirror federal law

that exists within that code. It would seem that the problem lies in the area of the enforcement of existing law that already contains provisions relating to the advertising of gaming activities.

These provisions appear insufficient to deal with the situation effectively, and of course it's hard to see what meaningful legislative steps might be taken.

I've therefore proposed to the Legislature a bill that would complement the Criminal Code and require marketers and advertisers not to enter into contracts for

the provision of marketing advertising services to Internet gaming businesses that do not operate pursuant to applicable Canadian law.

I believe that the ideas and intentions of Bill 60 are important to the people of Ontario and Canada. Society will benefit on many levels, economically and

socially, from the reduction of a growing problem. I hope that all members of this Legislature of all political stripes will look at this bill and think carefully as to what its intentions are. It

is not intended that we intrude on Canadians' freedom of speech, but that we try to remedy a problem that already exists.

The financial lure of Internet gaming is enormous. However, legal gambling activity in Canada employs an estimated 47,500 persons as either regulators or

operators of gambling for government or within gaming management companies.

One of the key strengths of gaming lies with the income-generating power of the industry, thus ensuring its continued support from local municipalities and

provincial and federal governments. The fact that charities, hospitals, mental health and addiction projects and cultural projects benefit from money poured into the gaming industry gives the legal

industry an added boost.

Bill 60 will benefit all Ontarians, and I look forward to the debate further on this matter this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I am pleased to join the debate today on the bill brought forward by my colleague from

Peterborough. We share a very close working relationship, having neighbouring ridings. Kawartha Downs, as he mentioned, is a key player in both our communities. It's right on the boundary of the

Peterborough riding and my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, and it employs people in both ridings. We've certainly benefited from that positive role that Kawartha Downs plays in our

communities.

There are many communities that have seen similar direct economic benefits. Ontario's 16 slot machine facilities at racetracks have created more than 4,100 jobs,

with an estimated annual payroll of $154 million. That is money that is spent in the smaller communities where these employees make their homes.

The provincial slots-at-racetracks program is also very important in terms of the continued viability of the horse racing industry. It has allowed for improved

facilities and increased purses, which lead to horses of better quality and overall improved racing. The horse racing industry is very important in Ontario. Since the slots have come to Kawartha

Downs to go with the track, the number of horses that you see on the farms in both my riding and the member for Peterborough's has increased. The interest is there, and the economic impact is very

positive for our ridings.

As I've found out since the member introduced this bill, horse racing is the province's third-largest agricultural industry, spending more than $1 billion

annually. I don't think a lot of people really realize that.

The slot machine revenue is divided in a way that benefits the track owners and employees as well as the host municipalities. The host municipalities receive 5%

of the gross revenues on the first 450 slot machines and 2% of the gross revenues from any additional machines. I can see first-hand in the municipality of Cavan-Millbrook-North Monaghan, in which

Kawartha Downs is located, that they are able to contribute back to their community in very positive ways.

The purses at those racetracks with slot facilities have gone up, and that helps the horse racing industry in a very direct way. It's also worth nothing, though,

that some of the gross slot revenue from charity casinos and slot facilities at racetracks in Ontario goes to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for problem gambling research, treatment,

prevention and public awareness. In 2003-04, this accounted for $21 million. You can be sure that the Internet gaming sites don't make any contribution of this type.

There has been a tremendous surge in popularity of the Web sites that operate in a grey area of the law. Anyone who uses a computer can see that they pop up

quite frequently on your screen. They allow the use of play money, but these sites skirt the law by advising people by e-mail of where they can visit a site where gambling with real money takes

place. There is concern among mental health professionals about the lack of support for problem gamblers on these sites. And there is very real concern because there is no way to ensure that people

gambling online are of legal age to do so. That was certainly brought to our attention yesterday at the government agencies committee by a gentleman who is going to be appointed as a board member

for the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.

These websites are businesses that operate outside Canadian law. They are competing directly with legal businesses in Ontario, businesses that create jobs in

communities across the province and businesses that must operate in a socially responsible manner. It's not a level playing field, and it does threaten to take away local jobs.

Another issue that is important to recognize is that Internet gaming takes place essentially behind closed doors. We have no idea how widespread it is, and it's

very difficult for us to track the level of gambling taking place. In Ontario, we're able to track whether there has been any increase in the number of people gambling and how much is being spent

at our casinos and racetracks and how many lottery tickets are sold. We can tailor our efforts to problem gamblers by using that information.

The Criminal Code makes it illegal to advertise Internet gambling in Canada, but some have has found a way around the rules, a loophole that allows them to do it

anyway. If we can help to shut that loophole, I think we should try to do so.

The people who are trying to evade the rules are creative. We need to be equally creative in finding ways of stopping them from doing so.

Businesses that are here legitimately in Ontario should not have to compete against companies that would not meet the test to do business here. They hide in

foreign jurisdictions, thumbing their noses at the protections we have put in place in Ontario for Ontario residents, and it's not right. I am not sure if this is the exact wording needed to shut

the door, but I think we should move forward with this bill. I want to work closely with the member from Peterborough, not just because we share Kawartha Downs and the employment and economic

benefits that occur there, but because I believe it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm probably going to be the odd person out on this particular debate. I want to lay out my reasons why I

think this is probably not a good idea.

Is the goal a good idea? Of course it is. We need to do all we can in our society to protect people from themselves, quite frankly, when it comes to the avails

of gambling. The problem is not the weekend gambler or the holiday gambler who goes into a casino and says, "Okay, honey, we're each going to take $100 and go out to play blackjack or hold 'em

poker or slot machines," or whatever it might be. You lose your hundred bucks and you leave. It's entertainment. I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't see anything wrong with people wanting

to play a friendly game of cards on a Saturday night in their home. The big game now is hold 'em poker. Personally, I'm a poker player. I love to play dealer's choice poker. We do that probably

five, six times a year during the winter. We get together with some friends, we buy $10 worth of poker chips and play some poker. Oh, my God, I just broke the law, didn't I? But I can say that in

this Legislature. Nobody gets hurt; the most you can lose is $10 for a night. There's nothing wrong with gambling; I want people to understand.

I like to bet on horses. I've not had much success lately, but again, it's a question of being responsible. I'll go to the track or to the off-track betting from

time to time, and I'll say, "I'm going to spend $50, $60, $100," depending on what I think I can lose, and then I go out and do what I've got to do. Sometimes I win. My best story is that a guy by

the name of Don Dewsbury, a good friend back in Timmins, a councillor, one day introduced me to off-track betting. He said, "Why don't you come?" I said, "Sure." So we walk into the off-track

betting place and I say, "Don, what do I do?" He says, "You've got to make an exactor bet." And I said, "Exactor bet? What in the heck are you talking about?" So he said, "You pick two horses. Each

horse has odds, and based on the outcome of the race, if they come in one and two, you're going to get the combined odds of those horses." I looked at it and said, "Well, I'm going to pick the two

horses with the longest odds. I can make the most money." Well, wouldn't you know? It was my first bet and I won. On a $2 bet, we won $1,600. We split on that ticket, because I told him, "Give me a

buck and I'll go and bet." Don, I want to thank you for introducing me to betting.

But I've got to tell you, it was also the worst thing I ever did, because all of a sudden I thought I was smart, so I started betting the horses -- never in a

serious way, but I started going more often than I should have. It didn't take long until I lost that $800. I learned my lesson after the four or five weekends in a row that it took me to lose it.

I said, "Well, now I understand. There is a bit of a luck factor to this and also a bit of skill." I always remember being at Woodbine one day when I met this guy who has been doing this for years,

going around the world betting on horses. I was watching him and his methodology of placing his bet. I said, "Jeez, that's really interesting." He said, "Well, it's a sucker's game. At the end of

the day, I probably win no more than anybody else."

My point is that there's nothing wrong with gambling, nothing wrong with betting. The issue is, to what extent can you afford to lose? I know it's a bit of a

defeatist attitude, but I walk into a casino or a poker game or an off-track betting place in my mind saying, "How much can I afford to lose?" If I can afford to lose 50 bucks, that's all I'm going

to play.

The issue is that there are people who go beyond that limit, and they're the ones, quite frankly, that we need to be worried about as a society. I'm going to lay

out why I think this legislation may not do what we want in the end.

We have a habit here in this Legislature, as we do across this country -- I want to say, first of all, that I'm a New Democrat. For people who are watching back

home, they're going think this is really odd coming from an NDP-er. But we have this reaction of, "Oh, there's a problem. Let's pass legislation and outlaw it. That's going to fix the problem." The

problem is that far too often it makes us believe we've fixed the problem, but it actually does nothing or sometimes goes in quite the opposite direction.

I want to use this particular bill as an example. Should we find a way to curb people's problem betting habits? Yes. I agree with the member and I know why he is

doing it, for all the honourable reasons. But what's the most effective way of doing that? Do we bring in a law that says, as this bill does, that you can't advertise in Ontario websites that

promote betting for money on the website, whether on horses, cards or whatever it might be? Let's say we pass the law; it gets third reading and becomes the law of the land. How the heck do you

enforce that, first of all? Very difficult to do. It may have some effect. I won't say it won't have any effect -- that would be unfair -- but it's really not going to have the effect we want,

because at the end of the day, those who want to gamble are going to gamble. It's not the law that's going to stop them from gambling.

When gambling was illegal, we all saw -- a better example is that, when booze was illegal during the years of Prohibition, drinking went up because it was cool

to do. You were breaking the law. It was kind of in the dark, in the shadows of our society, and it became kind of a neat thing to do. Gambling, I think, is in much the same vein as that. People

are going to do it because they want to gamble. I think where you're better off spending your time is in trying to do some education through advertising and through programs to try to get people

not to become problem gamblers in the first place, and, for those who do become problem gamblers, to help them deal with their addiction, because it is an addiction. If we were to come at it from

the perspective of saying to people, "You need to be responsible when it comes to gambling" and deal with people's addictions, in the end we would probably get a much better effect in dealing with

the problem gamblers, because that's who the member wants to get at.

Let me use an example: When I was a kid growing up, as everybody around here knows who is about the same age, drinking and driving was almost an accepted thing.

I remember my father -- I can tell you all kinds of stories where he would go out on a Saturday afternoon and we'd be in the car with him, and he'd go somewhere and have a couple of beers too many,

and he would just jump in the car and he would drive us back and we'd sit on the tailgate of the truck or the station wagon. It was just the thing you did, going down a country road. Everybody

would laugh, and all of a sudden the OPP guy would see that Dad was weaving around a little bit too much and he'd pull him over and say, "Hey, Mr. Bisson, be careful, eh? Make sure to go straight

home," and he never got charged. It was accepted. People drank and drove, and people died.

At one point, society said, "Enough is enough." We passed some laws that penalize people for drinking and driving. No question it had an effect, but we spent

enormous amounts of money provincially and nationally to educate people that drinking and driving leads to death. So eventually we changed the culture of our society to not accept that drinking and

driving was a good thing.

So 20 years ago -- well, more than 20 years ago. Jeez, I've been married for 30 years, so probably around 40 years ago, when I was a kid, basically it was an

accepted thing to go out and drink and drive. Nowadays, it doesn't happen to anywhere near that extent. I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all, but it is really one of those taboos in our

society.

I was at a reception here around Christmastime -- I can't remember if it was the press party or what it was -- and one of our colleagues here -- I'm not going to

say who it was -- had a couple of drinks. It just hit me right away, and the person said, "Okay, let's jump in a cab." It was just automatic. Nobody said, "Where are the keys for my car?" It was

just automatic: Leave the keys here, jump in a cab; let's go. Everybody went off; we took cabs and went home. It's what we do. It's natural now. Why? Because we've educated people. We've said to

them, "Listen, you cannot drink and drive. You're going to run somebody over. You're going to kill yourself or you're going to kill somebody else, and it is the wrong thing to do." Organizations

like MADD -- Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- played a huge, huge role, and still do, in trying to sensitize people in our society to the wrongs of drinking and driving.

My point is, that's the approach I think we need to take with gambling. We need to take that seriously, because there is much more gambling going on in our

society. I, as a New Democrat, have no problem with gambling. I think gambling is all right, as long as it's done responsibly. It's like drinking: Drinking is okay as long as it's not done to

excess and is done responsibly. I would argue what we need to do is put some emphasis on public education and on dealing with the addictions once they have them.

A really interesting thing occurred to me the other day. I was at home last weekend, not feeling too well on Friday night. So I said, "I'll go pick up a couple

of movies." I picked up a movie, the one with Al Pacino about a sports betting guy. I forget the name of the movie. Somebody can help me out. It's Two for the Money. There is a fascinating scene in

it that I think says everything. Al Pacino, who is a great actor -- he's one of my favourites -- walks into a Gamblers Anonymous meeting and all these ex-gamblers are sitting there going through

the process of the meeting to deal with their gambling. He goes there and he has this big diatribe about why these people should all bet, and basically uses it as a way to give out his business

card to get people to bet, because they are the big gamblers that he normally gets money from as a betting guy.

It was quite unbelievable: A guy walks into a Gamblers Anonymous thing, he does his dialogue, gives them all his card and walks out. The guy he's with says,

"That's terrible." He says, "You need to understand what it is with the gambler. It's not winning that hooks them; it's losing. It's the rush of losing and putting on the line everything you've got

and losing it that keeps you going back." All of a sudden, I said, "Boy, that makes a lot of sense." Maybe that's the thing: I hate to lose, so I'm not addicted to gambling. I hate the feeling, so

I don't go there. I thought it was an interesting comment. It's kind of morbid and twisted, but the whole rush of putting it on the line and losing is a powerful one, and it keeps them going back.

I thought it was kind of an interesting point. My point is that we need to be able to invest in those programs that deal with people individually.

Now Internet betting, Internet poker -- listen, I go on pokerstars.com or whatever it is, and I play their funny money thing. It's a kind of diversion. I like

going there. I picked up a ticket from the Ontario Lottery corporation, which sells these things by the hundreds. This one is the Texas Hold 'em poker. I like to play hold 'em poker. I think it's a

lot of fun. I personally go to those websites and play not for money; I play for the play money. I think most people are responsible when they go to those things. They're not in there betting all

kinds of money; they're doing it for play money. I don't think we should be banning that kind of thing. In my view, it's just a bit of entertainment, a little bit of diversion. When I have nothing

to do, I go on pokerstars.com, or whatever it's called, and I play a couple of hands of poker, just try my luck against other players from across the world, and we do a bit of chatting at the same

time. I certainly don't promote the idea of banning that kind of activity. I'd like to hear the member on that, because as I read his bill, he sees that as a link to getting people into the betting

rooms, where they put the actual money. There are a whole bunch of people out there who don't do that, and I'm one of them. I say it quite clearly.

If we're saying that we're going to ban the ability of people to go onto the Internet and play games such as backgammon, chess or hold 'em poker -- whatever it

might be -- because somewhere out there there's backgammon for money, I don't think that's right. People have to be their own liquor control board, as I like to say, and be their own

decision-makers when it comes to acting responsibly.

I say to the member that I'm going to support the bill in the sense that I think it needs to get to committee, but I really am leery about this, because it leads

us to the false presumption that if we pass this bill, we've dealt with the issue of problem betting. I really don't believe it does. It lulls us into thinking that we've actually found a solution.

I think what we need to do as legislators and in society in general is to try to educate people into being responsible when it comes to betting. We need to make sure that we deal with those people

effectively, so that they can make some good, solid choices.

The other we've got to do is go to the OLC, the people who run our gaming, and they have to be a big part of the solution as well when it comes to making sure

that there are proper ways of finding information when you need it, so that the person who walks into the casino that one day and has just lost another week's paycheque and is walking out can see

predominantly that there is somewhere he or she can call for help. If I walk into a casino and lose a whole bunch of money, that's not evident. I don't find that information unless I go searching

for it. It's like the alcoholic, right? The alcoholic only quits drinking when he or she decides that it's time to quit drinking. You've got to reinforce the person every now and then by making it

very visible where that person can go get help, so that eventually they can make the choice to call and actually do what needs to be done.

Yes, I'm going to vote for your bill, but I want to be on the record and I want to be very clear that I have some deep concerns about what this is actually going

to do at the end, because I don't know how you really can enforce this effectively. Second, I have some philosophical problems with where this leads in some cases, because I think people should be

making their own choices in some of these matters. More importantly, I think we need to really do public education, in the sense of trying to get people to understand how to become responsible

bettors, and also on the whole issue of being able to deal with addictions in a much more real way.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Scarborough -- Etobicoke Southwest.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): Scarborough -- you had it right the first time --

The Deputy Speaker: Scarborough Southwest; I was right the first time,

Mr. Berardinetti: -- although Etobicoke is a great place as well.

I'm pleased to be able to join the debate here and to have a few minutes to offer some comments. I want to start off by commending the member from Peterborough

for bringing forward this bill,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

I just wanted to read, for those who are watching or listening to the debate, what he basically is proposing here. It reads here: "No person shall print,

publish, distribute, broadcast or telecast an advertisement or representation that includes an Internet gaming business website address unless the person believes in good faith that the Internet

gaming business has been licensed or otherwise granted permission to operate in Ontario or Canada by the appropriate authority and is operated in accordance with the applicable laws of Ontario and

Canada."

I think what the member here is trying to do is simply to put some regulations in place that would stop people from outside of Canada from trying to influence

people within Canada to gamble on the Internet. I think the focus here, more than anything else, is on young people. When you look at young people, they can be more influenced to do certain things,

perhaps, than someone who is a little bit older.

I would just give a few examples, in my short time, to point that out. Several years ago, I remember in high school having several friends who smoked

cigarettes, and there was nothing wrong with smoking cigarettes. Nowadays, I think the age to smoke is 19. They put that in just a few years ago. I know that the stores ask for photo ID to make

sure that if someone is trying to buy cigarettes, they're at least 19 years old. That's new, and that's something good, because that at least keeps some of the younger kids from going into a

variety store and just picking up a pack of cigarettes or smokes.

The same with alcohol: I was 18 the year they changed the law to 19. We still have the law on the books that says that you can't buy alcohol unless you're 19

years old, and there's a reason for that. You don't want young people going into an LCBO or beer stores and buying alcohol.

I think that you need regulations at certain times. You don't want to have too many laws on the books but you need certain laws, especially those that will

protect the young and the most vulnerable in our society.

I just wanted to also read into the record the fact that there was a study conducted recently by GamCare, CitizenCard and Children's Charities' Coalition from

the UK. It did a study on Internet safety. It tested 37 online gaming sites to see if a minor could set up an account. It found that minors were able to open an account and access gambling systems

on 30 of the 37 sites. So a minor can basically get on pretty well almost any gaming site. All you need is a credit card and a laptop computer and you're in business. You can start gambling and

spending money.

We all have stories we could tell of siblings or high school friends who did stupid things when they were young, myself included. All of us had experiences in

one way or another, whether it be smoking or alcohol or even with gambling, which has become profuse in our society nowadays: the lottery tickets that are available, the amount of gambling that you

can do on the Internet, the number of casinos that have opened up in the last 10, 15 years, whether it be Casino Rama, Niagara Falls, Windsor and elsewhere. Those are legal, of course, but they

just seem to be proliferating. The bottom line is that these casinos make a profit, and they make a good profit; otherwise they wouldn't be in existence. All one needs to do is look at Las Vegas

and the casinos down there and the fact that they wouldn't have the fountains and the other types of buildings unless their casinos made a profit. The people who are running gambling operations

know there's a profit to be made in doing this.

What we need to do, and what I commend the member for Peterborough for doing, is to protect those who are most vulnerable: the young, those who may not know

better, those who may just want to experiment or who have sudden access to a computer one day, maybe their parents' computer, and there's a credit card lying around and they decide to go on there

and just try it.

As a provincial body, as a regulatory body, we have the Ontario Lottery Corporation and other effective authorities -- the police authorities -- that can

effect proper monitoring of these sites, and they need to do so. They need to continue to monitor and check these Internet sites, otherwise people, especially young people, will be able to gamble,

potentially gamble and potentially cause hardships for their families and friends.

I support this and I ask that everyone in the House support second reading of this bill here today.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I'm delighted to speak on Bill 60, from my good friend Jeff Leal from Peterborough. I think it shows that he

certainly has the interests not just of his community but of all Ontarians at heart.

When we talk about his private member's bill to try to prevent gambling activities on the Internet, we have no jurisdiction in Ontario. It worries me that with

the advent of the Internet, we have communications around the world in an instant second. I guess with good things -- and it is a good thing when we're able to access information at a click of a

button -- there's always a negative, and gambling is certainly a problem that I believe is being aggravated more and more over the Internet.

I must tell you, I'm not a gambler. I think I've been inside a casino a couple of times. I made my donation and left. But what's aggravating is that sometimes

when I too am searching for something through the Internet, when I click a button, something pops up, and normally it's two activities. One is for gambling and the other one is for -- well, I won't

mention what it is. It's something that we're not proud to talk about in this House. I am concerned about that because the more accessible we make something, we're going to use it. This is why, in

Ontario, we're proud to have an LCBO that controls the drinking age and the sale of alcohol. By having those controls, someone couldn't just walk into their convenience store and reach into a

counter and are able to buy, regardless of age.

We need to do something. How we can do that with today's technology -- I kind of question that. I'm not so sure we have all the tools, but I think we need to

be ready with legislation in place so that, if those tools become available, we are able to act.

I was reading some reports. For example, one of the problems that arises, even though these people might be of age, is on university and college campuses. When

my kids were going to college and university, I was worried about whether I could help them with their tuition and their living expenses. It worries me that today, over and over again, some of the

money that either they worked for or that their parents helped them with might be going to gambling through websites on their campuses. As a matter of fact, it even goes a little bit beyond that.

I've heard reports that some students at colleges and universities overstretched their credit limit on their credit cards and used all the money they were supposed to use for tuition or food and

accommodations, and they then created some criminal activities to try to get some of that money and got themselves into even more trouble. So I guess it's not just the gambling piece itself, but

the other things it could generate that might not be appropriate.

I'm not trying to deter legalized gambling, because we in Ontario have embarked on that scenario, and by all circumstances, I think it's working fairly well.

There are always things we need to address, and we as a government, and previous governments, have addressed that. But gambling through the Internet is something we have very little control over.

The other sad thing is that sometimes, when one of these sites pop up, it's some place in some Third World country, so if something were to go wrong, how would we ever find out? We would have no

jurisdiction.

It is a concern, and I congratulate my good friend Jeff Leal from Peterborough for at least having the initiative to bring this forward so we could have a

healthy debate in this House.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): First of all, I also want to commend my good friend the MPP from Peterborough for bringing forth this

piece of legislation. Many people don't know that, very early this morning, the member from Peterborough was in Timmins, representing the government yesterday, representing his minister. I think he

was up at 4 taking a plane this morning to be here for this debate at 10 o'clock. That's how important it is to him. I commend him for doing that.

I also want to welcome Jane Holmes from the Woodbine Group. As the member said, it's wonderful to see you here today. I know the member from Etobicoke North is

so proud of your announcement of a $1-billion investment in our province from Woodbine. We think that's wonderful, and we wish you well on that and the contribution you're making.

I'm informed by two friends of mine who come from my riding, Catherine Hardeman, who is the executive director of Choices for Change, and Mr. Jeff Wilbee, who

is the executive director of Addictions Ontario. They have been able to brief me over the last few years about the dangers of addiction and what is the appropriate government response to make sure

that we, as a society, are supporting people who fall into the trap of addiction. One thing we can do is to do what we can in this House, with our limited jurisdiction, to deal with the issue of

illegal gambling on the Internet. As the member from Peterborough said, it is, in a sense, from the Criminal Code, a federal matter. But that does not absolve us of our responsibility as

legislators to protect our children and those who are prone to fall into that dark place of addiction and the tremendous family, financial and societal costs it inflicts.

What I particularly like about this bill are two things. First, it helps me show, in my own riding of Perth-Middlesex, where we have a vibrant horse racing

industry, where we support the horse racing industry, where such a large and vital part of agriculture is centred, that we believe in their industry and don't believe that the money of the horse

racing industry should go to anybody other than law-abiding corporate citizens and the individuals in that. It shouldn't be siphoned off to Third World countries.

I want to commend the member, because he was very simple in this bill about how we solve it. What he said is that if you live in this province, if you are

going to post on your website any advertising of another website, then you have to know in good faith that that is a site, an operation, that falls within the laws of this country and of this

province.

I want to say to those people in Ontario, in this country, who, without good faith, are not doing due diligence when they're posting something on their

website, that they are actually in fact perpetrating illegal activity. I think the member is absolutely right that we have to say to those people, shame on you that you are participating in an

illegal activity, helping that forward, snubbing your nose at Canadian law, endangering our children, and robbing this province of the vital contribution that is made to the economy by industries

like the horse racing industry, like the gaming industry, which is regulated, as the member for Northumberland said.

If we're going to have this, it needs to be regulated. The law should be supreme in this province. We should say to those people who are assisting those who

are offshore and want to steal money out of this province that they should not do that. The test, I think, is a reasonable one: Can you, in good faith, know whether or not that website conforms to

our laws in this country and in this province?

I want to say to the member from Peterborough that I think he has this right on, and I think that this is a bill that all members should support. I would be

surprised if there are people in this House who would stand up and say that this is not a well-balanced, reasonable piece of legislation to protect our children.

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate with respect to this bill. The member from Peterborough

is a good fellow. Unfortunately, he supports the Peterborough Petes, who are going to get their butts kicked by the Barrie Colts when they come up for the Memorial Cup. I just want to put that on

the record. I'm going to be at the game March 16, when the Petes come in to the Barrie Colts. I can tell you, the Petes will be leaving defeated. I digress. Where was I? I was speaking about online

gambling. But that's not a friendly wager. We mean business on that one.

The bill doesn't do anything. The bottom line is that the Criminal Code does not allow Internet gaming in this country. It does not allow it under

section 207

of the Criminal Code. But there is an exception, and the exception is that provincial governments can get into online gaming if they wish to, but they have chosen not to. The fact of the matter is

that the law is that no online gaming is allowed in the country, because the provinces haven't gotten into it and the federal Criminal Code doesn't allow it.

The standard in this bill is good faith. The member's bill states, in terms of the standard, that if the bill is passed, it will "prohibit the advertising of

website addresses of Internet gaming businesses unless the person doing the advertising believes in good faith that the Internet gaming business has been properly authorized to operate and is in

fact being operated in accordance with Ontario and Canadian law." The fact of the matter is, you can't do it. So what is the standard? Good faith? Basically, "good faith" means you're ignorant of

the law. How many times can you be ignorant of the law in terms of putting up an offshore online gaming address or whatever? The bottom line is that what we're trying to get at here is the offshore

online gaming sites coming into Ontario. This isn't going to stop it. I can tell you that for a fact, if you're going to have a standard as low as good faith. What does "good faith" mean? It means,

"I didn't know the law."

I want to deal with the law a little bit here, because I think it's important that we understand this. The public should know, because if we bring this in

we're going to start prosecuting people, innocent Ontarians, who don't know anything about what's going on here. If they give this to their friend and say, "Here's where you can do some online

gaming," they're going to be prosecuted by this government.

Part VII of the Canadian Criminal Code makes all activities related to operating or acting in support of a commercial betting enterprise an offence unless it

is an enterprise licensed by the provincial government. There is an exception right here: government-operated computer gaming. "Internet gaming which is a lottery scheme operated on or through a

computer may only be conducted by a provincial government." That's under

section 207 of the Criminal Code. Subsection 207(4) specifically provides that "a provincial government may conduct and

manage a lottery scheme on or through a computer but may not license others to do so." Unless Mr. Leal is telling us that the provincial government is going to be getting into online gaming, what

is the point of having this particular bill? The province is the only one that can do online gaming and they're not doing it, unless Mr. Cordiano has something up his sleeve in terms of getting

into online gaming.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Maybe they're going to. They're using Jeff Leal, maybe.

Mr. Tascona: Your turn is coming up, Mr. O'Toole, with the cellphones, but I appreciate the comment.

I did some research on this. I'm not trying to be critical here; I just want to be fair, because I don't want people being prosecuted in this province who in

good faith put something on a website not knowing that you can't do any online gambling in this province.

The code does not explicitly prohibit Internet gambling. However, it is the view of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that Internet gambling is

caught by the general prohibitions prescribed by

section 206 of the Criminal Code. Moreover, for the purposes of

section 207, an authorized lottery scheme, other than one run by the province, does

not include a scheme that is operated on or through a computer. Whether the province could legally conduct and manage an Internet gaming scheme is, according to the commission, open to question. In

any event, the commission says it has not issued any licences to operate an Internet lottery scheme in Ontario. It also believes that no other province has issued such a licence.

To date, no Internet gambling cases have been prosecuted under

part VII of the Criminal Code, and I believe there's a good reason for that. From what I

understand, the CFL was involved in this to some extent, and no action was taken against them with respect to the type of operation they were involved in.

"The expansion of online gambling in Canada poses new challenges to law enforcement. Many of organized crime's criminal activities such as drug trafficking,

money laundering and enterprise crime offences are financed by illegal gaming profits. Even if authorities decide to act, however, enforcing vague rules on the World Wide Web, which moves across

borders faster than any roulette wheel can spin, may prove impossible. Canada's federal and provincial laws are inadequate to deal with the onslaught of virtual gaming. Provincial governments are

limited in their ability to prosecute foreign-based casino operators operating in cyberspace. Since the existing legal framework is inadequate to deal with a global, intangible entity, new legal,

technological, and political solutions will have to be crafted in order to protect Canadians from the substantial externalities posed by online gambling."

That was an

article I found in this particular issue, Internet Gaming: A Look at Online Gambling in Canada, by Michael D. Lipton, QC. That was back in June

What has happened in terms of this particular type of industry -- because online gaming is big business. I don't doubt for a minute that offshore gambling is

affecting the provincial gaming in this province, but you're not going to stop it by putting a standard in the Consumer Protection Act saying, "If in good faith you put an address that will allow

somebody to know where to do some gambling offshore, you're going to be prosecuted." How are you ever going to prosecute that? What are you trying to accomplish?

What they've done in the United Kingdom is they have said, "We recognize this is a problem. We also recognize that we're going to have to get involved because

we're losing money." What they've done is legalized online gambling in the United Kingdom. They've set up a commission. They've set up regulatory officers to make sure that online gambling is done

within the United Kingdom and done in accordance with their laws. They've made sure they're the ones that are doing this, because it obviously is big business -- people are interested in doing

this.

I'm not criticizing the member from Peterborough for bringing this forth. It's an issue he has to bring forth as a private member because the minister of

government agencies, for whom I'm the critic, obviously doesn't think it's important enough to bring forth as a government bill, so he's got a private member's bill going through. There should be

some discussion on this, because there can be fraud against people who get involved in this because it's being operated offshore.

What is the solution? This is an industry that I think is in excess of $13 billion, from the last count in 2004, and it is growing exponentially because people

are interested in it. My good friend from Timmins-James Bay has brought forth the type of gambling where you can go to your convenience store and do as much gambling as you want all day and blow

your mind out. The other thing is that you can go up to the casino or you can go to the harness racing track and do that also. But there's another element out there that people find popular because

of computers and the Internet, and it's out there.

I don't think this is the way to go about it, in terms of saying, "OK, we're going to deal with online gambling by creating an offence," when the province has

to make a decision whether they are or are not going to get into this business. They have to make that decision, and it's up to this provincial government to make that decision. If they're serious

about dealing with fraud, if they're serious about dealing with losing revenue, they should make a decision whether they want to get into online gaming or not.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Leal, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Leal: I really want to thank the members from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Timmins-James Bay, Scarborough Southwest, Northumberland,

Perth-Middlesex, and the very fine lawyer who represents the riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford.

The intent here is to lift the veil on this issue, an opportunity to commence some discussion. Indeed, I think it's relevant that the Minister of Public

Infrastructure Renewal, the Honourable David Caplan, has certainly expressed some concern about this particular issue, and I have had discussions with the Minister of Government Services, Gerry

Phillips, about this matter.

One of the things that certainly concerns me is our youth, and I think a number of members touched on that today. As we broaden access, the temptation to move

to these Internet sites becomes enormous, and we know the outcomes that could happen. There are a number of articles -- I only have two minutes -- and they certainly talk about the proliferation of

problem gamblers in an age segment between 18 and 25.

By capturing these dollars that are now escaping the formal gaming system we have here in Ontario, those dollars, as the member for Timmins-James Bay quite

correctly identified -- the need for programs to address problem gamblers and the need to embark on an advertising program to make people more aware of the extreme consequences that can result from

gambling. I think that's an important issue.

Perhaps, when we get approval, we can move this bill on to the justice committee and have representatives from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. and others

start the debate on what I think is a very important issue.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CELLULAR PHONES), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Bill 68,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment

while a person is driving on a highway / Projet de loi 68, Loi modifiant le Code de la route pour interdire l'utilisation de téléphones et d'autres équipements pendant qu'une

personne conduit sur une voie publique. Mr. O'Toole.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I think I'll stand up here and ad lib for a minute or two until we find Mr. O'Toole. Does anybody know

any good stories we could tell?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: It will be recognized later --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I had to hold them off for you.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I apologize to the House. Thank you very much.

I move second reading of Bill 68,

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

highway.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. O'Toole has moved second reading of Bill 68. Pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. O'Toole: I apologize to the House. I was actually on my cellphone, but I wasn't driving -- not to make light of this.

It's an important opportunity to put on the record an issue of public policy discussion that I think has engaged people not just of my riding of Durham but

across Ontario and indeed across Canada. I want to thank the media. I've done, I believe, about 30 interviews with the media -- the press and radio, as well as television -- in pretty well all the

major centres in Ontario, on the CBC, as well as in BC, the Atlantic provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador in the past couple of weeks, since this bill has received so much attention.

I guess you'd have to ask yourself, why has it received a lot of attention? Bill 68 is a very small bill. It was first introduced in a different format in the

year 2000. It was debated, voted on and passed. It was not unanimous; there were a couple of members at the time who didn't support it. It was then referred, I believe, to the estimates committee,

and it died on the order paper of that committee. It never received stakeholder input or comments or amendments, but it did receive a lot of comment from the academic community as well as the

policing or enforcement community and others.

I've had all kinds of discussions, most recently this week, with a professor from York University, Professor Wiesenthal, as well as Staff Sergeant Cam Woolley

and Peter Barnes from the wireless association, looking at the whole issue of driver distraction and telematics in cars -- GPS systems, on-board navigational systems and the emerging distracters in

the driver's face, such as billboards that are really big televisions that are distracting drivers as they drive down the Gardiner or other major expressways. That's the future. If you want to look

at where it's come from since I started five years ago to where it is today -- there's satellite radio in the car, 300-plus channels. You'd almost have to step aside just to tune in the stations.

There are not enough buttons on there --

Interruption.

Mr. O'Toole: That is a set-up; it's not a prop. It shows how disruptive it is. That was a set-up; I have to say that. That is a really good

demonstration of when you're driving and your cellphone rings. You know just exactly how captivating that ring is. You feel compelled to respond; you honestly do. That's a clear demonstration.

You're not supposed to use props in the Legislature, but that's exactly what it does. When you're driving --

The Deputy Speaker: We don't allow planned demonstrations either.

Mr. O'Toole: Thank you, Speaker, for that indulgence.

The timing was off there, but I did want to make the point that this is one of the major issues with the phone itself and the ringing device. It seems to

command us to respond, and that's really important when you look at driver distraction. There are two parts to the issue of the cellphone. One

part is the physical interruption of text messaging or

dialling a number or all of those little physical distracters. That's one part.

The other one is the mental capturing or the distraction, that you are somehow enslaved by the phone, that you're listening, paying attention and your mind

actually becomes divided. Your purpose when you're driving a car, of course, your first and most important responsibility, is to operate the motor vehicle safely.

What my bill tries to do is find the balance between being in the driver's face, so to speak, or in the citizen's face, by saying, "You can't do this and you

can't do that," and to allow hands-free. That's really the point here. It isn't a ban on cellphones. I want to make that very clear; it's to allow hands-free.

I've spoken with the industry people, the manufacturers of the wireless devices, and they can quite easily adapt these things; in fact, the new hands-free

devices are little ear buds. With the new ones, there's no wire. It's a wireless attachment that allows you to hear and have the other end plugged into your phone, but there's no wire. It's a

wireless earpiece that allows you to hear without the potential of the little extension wire getting in the way.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): It's called Bluetooth technology.

Mr. O'Toole: It's called Bluetooth technology, exactly. That's being used by the high-end vehicles, this Bluetooth technology, which is

wireless. The other one is OnStar, where it's interconnected with the radio so that your speakers actually become a receiver-transmitter.

When you look even further in this whole telematics thing, there are the GPS systems of today which can track the car. They're quite engaging technologies. It

will actually tell you verbally, "Turn left," "Turn right," "You've got five miles to go to the hotel." It will tell you everything. It will talk you through a trip from here to whatever your

destination is.

It is even more profound than that. If you wind the clock ahead a couple of years, that car could be driven, or stolen in fact, and if you had a car anti-theft

system, they could disable the car. If it was in Florida and it was stolen from you, they could disable the car through satellite technology and GPS. They could actually send you messages on the

warranty on the vehicle or that the pressure is low on one of your tires. This is what's coming in the future.

It can provide all sorts of customized radio, not just satellite radio. Say you like classical music in the morning and western music in the evening. You can

buy non-commercial radio, and it's provided as a service. So the technology of the future isn't just the cellphone debate.

The bill does four things. First of all, it modifies driver education so that all new drivers would be informed that these technologies, cellphones included,

can provide a serious distraction, and educate them and test them on their knowledge of what are their primary responsibilities when operating a motor vehicle safely.

The second thing, on any vehicle accident there would be a requirement by the police to complete whether or not technology was a contributing factor to the

incident -- as they would with whether alcohol was involved or seat belts were involved. Now they would comment, so we would gather reliable statistics.

The third thing it would do is permit, by regulation, the Minister of Transportation, or the government for that matter, to add or delete items that could be

exempted or included. It could regulate the fines or points that could be set as a punitive measure to discourage people from using technologies. That can be done in regulation.

The fourth thing is that G1, or new, inexperienced drivers, would be prohibited for a period of time from actually using technologies while driving -- as they

do today. There are so many passengers, they're not allowed to travel at night and travel on certain types of roads.

So it's pretty unintrusive, to the extent that all it does, really, is say that if you're going to use technology, it must be hands-free, and with that, I

would also encourage that it should be voice-activated, because the phone that I actually have in my vehicle has all of the features I've described. I can just say, "Call home," and it dials my

home, or "Call office," and it dials my office automatically. You can voice-program it to do lots of different things.

It's important to recognize that driver distraction was the subject of a conference just held in Toronto last year. I want to put on the record that our

current Minister of Transportation, Mr. Takhar -- he's still the minister, as I know; we won't vote on that until this afternoon -- said:

"In 2002, 7.9% of all drivers involved in collisions in Ontario were not paying proper attention to the road. In 2003, that rose to 8.1%.

"Those numbers are gathered from police data. But they may not tell the whole story.

"In the United States, it's estimated that driver distraction may be a contributing cause in between 20% and 30% of all collisions. It may cause as many as

10,000 deaths in the US each year -- and cost nearly $40 billion."

That was a quote from Harinder Takhar, Minister of Transportation, on Monday, October 3, 2005, in his remarks to the international conference on driver

distraction. So the minister realizes it. What I am disappointed in is the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, who trivialized it. When asked by the media, he said it's just not on. I'm asking the

government to have a full and comprehensive debate on the research that has been done to date.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): It's a pleasure for me to speak on the bill that the member from Durham has introduced. I want to say that I

certainly thank him for bringing a major and important discussion to the table on such an important issue. Road safety is a very important issue to all members of the House. I do have some major

reservations, but at the same time I would like to urge everyone who drives to pay attention to the road and to the task of driving. There are hands-free devices available for use in our vehicles,

and people should use them.

There are many distractions out there. The University of North Carolina Highway Research Center recently conducted a study showing that cellphones are not at

the top of the list of distractions to drivers. In fact, their study ranked cellphones number eight on the list of distractions to drivers. Eating, drinking, billboards, adjusting the radio, and

even other occupants in the vehicle all run higher on the list than cellphones. Some 45 countries worldwide have now implemented restrictions or bans on cellphone use while driving. The evidence

shows no significant long-lasting effects in jurisdictions where such restrictions have been imposed. Reductions in cellphone use while driving following legislation being imposed have only had

short-term effects. It has been reported that in New York state, merely three months after the implementation of a cellphone ban, the usage rate had returned to pre-ban levels -- no change.

Not only will this bill be ineffective, but it also could potentially put the people of Ontario at risk. There are over six million 911 calls made from mobile

phones annually. I myself use a hands-free device in my car. When I'm stuck somewhere in traffic, it is important for me to have the ability to call my wife and my children to let them know. What

about when you are running late for a meeting? You have a meeting to attend and you're worried about it. Certainly, one cannot argue that if you have the opportunity to call and let the person know

that you're running late, you are certainly driving more responsibly than if you are not able to make that call. In such an instance, not having a cellphone to notify the affected party could

impair your driving and put other drivers on the road at higher risk.

Like I said before, road safety is a very important issue, and our government is focused on it. The Minister of Transportation took

part in the first-ever

International Conference on Distracted Driving last October. Our government and the industry are working towards greater public awareness and education. I trust the police to enforce existing laws

against careless driving. I trust the Legislature, such as ourselves, to continue to be open to any and all suggestions which may enhance our quality of life and increase the safety of our streets.

I trust the people of Ontario to use their judgment and engage in lawful and mindful behaviour both on and off the road.

There is no question that we must discuss this very important topic, but in making changes, we have to make sure that the changes are for the better. I still

say that it's important that we are able to communicate when possible, and using telephones that we don't have to hold certainly will not cause any major distraction to the driver. Therefore, I

have a major concern.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): From what I can see, documented need for this legislation and support certainly appears to be

widespread. We've been hearing about this issue for a number of years. I would like to cut to the chase and encourage members to support this legislation and vote for it.

We're debating Bill 68 with respect to cellphones. I see it as yet another opportunity to make highways safer for all of us. If this Highway Traffic Act

amendment helps out, then I advocate that we move forward.

For example -- and this was alluded to previously -- I am constantly in my truck or in my car -- or on my tractor, for that matter -- doing business. I am

fully aware of the trials and tribulations of literally living in one's vehicle. Obviously, handheld cellphones and driving are not a very good mix. You throw in radio, having breakfast in your

vehicle, having your tea or your tea biscuit, having dinner or supper -- depending on whether you're rural or urban, you would have different terms for "dinner" and "supper," I suppose -- you add

in all of these other issues, and it really gives new meaning to that expression "driven to distraction."

I would like to read a quote. "In 2002, 7.9% of all drivers involved in collisions in Ontario were not paying proper attention to the road." Who said that?

Harinder Takhar, as of today still Minister of Transportation. I understand he is still at his post. These were remarks made last October to the International Conference on Distracted Driving.

So documentation on the dangers of distraction is widespread.

The member for Durham alluded to the work of Dr. Redelmeier. It's titled -- I say it's titled, not "entitled"; I'm opposed to the culture of entitlement, so

when I see a title in a document, I refer to it as being "titled," not "entitled" -- the Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions. The member may have referred to

this. It was a report based on a study of close to 7,000 drivers -- actually, 6,999 drivers -- who had cellphones and were involved in motor vehicle collisions. These were collisions that resulted

in substantial property damage but no personal injury. The report came to the conclusion that "The use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a

collision during the brief period of the call. Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however, need to take into account the benefits of the technology and the role of individual

responsibility," which is something we believe in very strongly on this side of the House.

How about this one, from the Canadian Medical Association? This was in their journal in 2001: "Drivers who fail to exercise good judgment must be regulated to

do so, for cellphones are just the beginning. Computers, fax machines and DVD screens are also starting to clamour for dashboard space. We need to regulate the use of cellphones and other

driver-distracting devices. This is a no-brainer." That's from the CMA Journal 2001.

In my previous employment, I did a great deal of work against drinking and driving, commencing back in 1984. I think we all fully realize the value of programs

like the RIDE program, the roadside RIDE stop checks. RIDE stands for Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere. It's based on law and it combines not only enforcement but also information and education.

Oftentimes you get a keychain, a button or a brochure when you're pulled over. We have to augment this kind of legislation with appropriate enforcement, obviously -- and that will be difficult --

but also information and education programs, the health promotion programs, if you will.

So we have before us a bill that amends the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of a cellphone, car phone, pager, personal data assistant, portable

computer, fax machine or other equipment prescribed by regulations made under the act while a person is driving a motor vehicle. The legislation includes exceptions for emergencies -- for example,

cases where a driver who is not a novice driver as defined in the regulation on drivers' licences uses the equipment entirely through a hands-free feature -- the member opposite made mention of the

value of hands-free technology -- and other cases prescribed by regulation under the act.

If this legislation does receive the support that it deserves, I am hopeful that with a better-informed and more fully educated public, combined with just that

modicum of enforcement, we would go a long way to eliminating some future tragedies.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I swear to God, the member from Durham must have been conspiring with my staff or my wife in drafting

this bill, because I've got to admit I've had problems over the years with that particular issue. It's something that I work hard not to do, because I do realize that it's dangerous. I've got to

say, there's been --

Mr. O'Toole: That's when you're flying --

Mr. Bisson: Well, no. Flying is a much different thing, as you well know. When you're up at altitude and you're cruising, you're often reading

maps, you're looking at your GPS, because you don't necessarily have to keep your eye out the dash as long as you're watching your instruments. You can't do that in a car.

I've got to say, it is an issue in our society, and I know a number of my staff who might be watching right now are probably yelling at the TV saying, "Go,

John, go. Ban this guy; he's dangerous." There is actually an issue with that, because I think a number of us are guilty. I'm going to try to be up front about it. I'm not going to pretend that I'm

a perfect human being. I'm like everybody else. I do have my foibles. Staff, it's hard for you guys to understand that I would have anything wrong in my character. Dear, I know you're watching and

you do think I'm perfect, but I want to admit I will humble myself today and say that certainly I am not.

It is an issue, and I've got to say it's an interesting thing that we go through as human beings when it comes to realizing sometimes that we're doing

something wrong. I think most people don't recognize it's wrong. I guess that's the first thing that I want to say. We think that we're invincible, that we're perfect drivers, that we're always

paying attention, that we can multi-task. We pride ourselves in this society on being able to multi-task a number of things at the same time. A lot of us, I think, are in a situation where we may

not be as good at multi-tasking as we think we are. I just want to talk about a couple of things that have happened to me, and I think I've raised them in this House before.

One of the reasons that I really have tried to curb this habit of being on a cellphone while driving is that, really, the act of talking, not just the act of

holding onto the phone, is very distracting. That's where I have a bit of an issue with, well, it's okay to use the phone that's in the car if it's a speakerphone. It's the act of that conversation

that makes you not think about what you're doing when you're driving.

I don't know what it is, and I never did understand it because I can be sitting in the vehicle -- for example, on Saturday or Sunday, Sylvain Lacroix, one of

our staff people, and I drove up to Smooth Rock to the carnival; we yakked along the way, talked about things from work and whatever -- and there's something about having somebody in the car when

you talk; it doesn't distract you. I don't understand that. If I've got a speakerphone and I'm talking to somebody on the cellphone -- if I had one, because sometimes I use my ear phone -- you're

really not paying attention in the same way that you do if you're talking to a person. I don't know why that is. I really don't understand it, because I've caught myself, I don't know how many

times, putting the ear phone on, driving down Highway 11 from Hearst or Kap or wherever it might be, and all of a sudden, I'm past the point on the highway that I thought I'd be at. All of a

sudden, I go, "Well, how did I get here?" I didn't pass where I was going because, obviously, I think I would have paid enough attention to figure out, but I'm a lot further along down the road.

There's something about talking on a cellphone, either by way of a speakerphone or by way of holding it to your ear that, for some reason, disconnects you from the task of driving your vehicle.

I want to say to the member: I take a little bit of a different point of view that speakerphones are all right. I think it is the act of talking on the phone.

Maybe because the person's not in the car with you, subconsciously your mind drifts to whatever issue you're talking about and you're not paying as much attention.

I remember one particular occasion, what really, to me, was the moment where I went like this on the issue. I was the worst culprit when it comes to speaking

on cellphones while holding them up to my ear. My staff would yell and scream at me, as my wife would, when I'd be driving my Ford F-150 responding to my BlackBerry messages. It really is a

dangerous thing. You shouldn't do that. I'm really trying to do a better job of it, staff. It's still safe. You can still drive with me. I admit I've got a problem, and I'm trying to overcome it.

Dale, it's okay: you can get back in the car. You don't have to get out the door just yet.

I remember one particular incident. I left my home and my cellphone went off. I live on Middleton Avenue. It's a matter of backing up my truck, going halfway

down the block. As I turned the corner to get onto Cameron -- there's a stop sign two streets down on Commercial, I grabbed my cellphone because somebody called, right? You take it out of the

holster and grab it up. I was stopped at the stop sign, and somebody walked out in front of the car and I didn't even see them. For whatever reason, I hung up my phone, and I was just about to get

going and almost ran the person over. Literally, if I had not hung up that phone, I probably would have stepped on the gas. The only thing that saved that poor individual was that the phone

conversation was a short one and I hung up. All of a sudden, I realized where I was in my driving. My point is, for me, it was a very scary experience because it told me I can't do this safely. I

can't be concentrating on a phone call on my cellphone and, at the same time, driving my vehicle in a way that's safe.

I recognize there's a problem. I think we all need to have some self-responsibility. Staff, that means you can yell at me when I do it next time. I'll try to

be much better next time.

But the point is that we need to internalize the responsibility. We need to be responsible ourselves. We shouldn't have a law to tell us to do this. It's the

same as anything else you are doing: Whatever it is, you should do it in a safe manner.

In regard to the whole issue of distraction while driving, the problem I've got with this bill is the following: It only deals with one of the distractions.

There are a whole host of other issues that distract drivers. For example, the other day I was watching America's Funniest Home Videos or something. Like one of those shows --

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): You're not admitting this?

Mr. Bisson: Well, yes. When you've got nothing to do sometimes, that's what you do.

I was watching the show a couple of weeks ago. They had set up a camera along the side of a road somewhere to show the problem with people doing things when

they're driving. There was a guy driving down the street -- not shaving with an electric shaver -- who had shaving cream on his face and he was going through with his Bic shaver, and you're going

to tell me that's not dangerous? Or how many times have you seen this: You're driving down the highway and you've got somebody in the mirror adjusting their lipstick or doing whatever it is they

do. You're going to tell me that's not dangerous? It's probably more dangerous than talking on a cellphone.

Interjection.

Mr. Bisson: Aha, we have some people who have done it. I see them in this Legislature. We're not going to name names or point fingers, but

that is an issue as well.

People eating in the car: How many times have I seen people pull out of McDonald's, A&W, or whatever it might be, all of a sudden and not realize they're

moving into some quick traffic? The guy's holding onto his quarter-pounder or Big Mac trying to drive out on to the road. I've seen that a number of times. Quite frankly, I'm a bit cautious going

by Tim Hortons or one of those things. I always pay attention because there have been a couple of times where people were still trying to put their coffee away after they'd gone through the

drive-through window and they were not really paying attention to what they're doing.

Spilling your coffee -- how many times has that happened? I don't drink coffee in my vehicle. When I do now, I get half a cup, because when you go into

Timmy's, they fill up your cup with boiling hot coffee. You grab your coffee, you're finally on the highway and, bang, you get yourself and you're all over the place.

There are all kinds of distractions while we drive, and this bill doesn't deal with them. Now, does it mean we should vote against this bill? Some of us are

thinking, well, maybe we should because it doesn't deal with everything. I want to ask the member a question, and I think the answer is what will make up my mind. Is he prepared to amend his bill

in such a way that it doesn't become just a ban on cellphones? We need to think about legislation that deals with the issue of being distracted while driving.

There are two things. First of all, the police already have the authority to deal with this by way of what's already in the Highway Traffic Act. If you are

driving dangerously, there are parts of the Highway Traffic Act that give police officers the opportunity to not only charge you but charge you six demerit points on your licence, and then your

insurance company's going to come back after you with higher premiums, which is a big discouragement from doing it. If you're driving down the highway and drinking a cup of coffee or talking on

your cellphone, you can be charged by the police already by way of existing infractions within the Highway Traffic Act.

I understand why the member brings this forward -- it's a real issue -- but I don't think it deals with the issue. The real issue is people being distracted

while they drive. I say we need to deal with that particular issue, and the question I want answered by the member is, is he prepared, if the bill should pass second reading and ever get time in

committee, which is very difficult in this place -- it's true. It's very hard for members to get their bills into committee. It's a real issue, and we need to deal with it one day.

My point is to look at the issue and amend the bill so that it isn't concentrated just around cellphones, so that it deals with the issue of people being

distracted while driving a vehicle. We need, I would argue -- it's probably not a bad thing -- to give police the powers they need to charge somebody if they're distracted while driving in some way

that's very specific to being distracted -- not necessarily dangerous driving, because the issue can be that I'm drinking my coffee, I'm on my cellphone, I'm doing my hair and looking in the

mirror, and I still have control of my vehicle. The police officer can't charge me in that case. I haven't broken a law because I've still got my car under control. I'm not speeding or weaving down

the road or driving recklessly, but I'm doing something that potentially could bring me there.

So I think we want to look at an amendment to the bill to say, let's deal with all of those issues so that, in the end, the police officer is able to charge

somebody if they see that, and give them some discretion, because I don't think you can write a bill that is black and white. You've got to give police officers the ability to make judgment calls,

because there's a bit of difference between somebody drinking a cup of coffee and somebody doing their hair in the rear-view mirror. You know what I mean? We need a little bit of common sense in

this whole approach.

I would ask the member to respond to that, and I would be prepared to vote for this bill and allow it to get second reading if we can look at that general

issue.

The other thing I want to get into quickly is the issue I touched on for a second: How do we get the bills out of committee here? This gives me an opportunity

to say this. It's really too bad. Some of the best legislation that comes out of this Legislature actually comes by way of private members' hour. I think this is a really useful time that this

Legislature uses to give members, individually, the opportunity to bring bills forward -- members of the government, like members of the opposition. We all understand who's in control of the

legislative agenda here: the cabinet. They're the ones who control it. Even government backbenchers can't control the outcome of their private member's bill any better than a member of the

opposition. We know. We've been on both sides of the House, so we know what we talk about.

We really need to have a discussion about how we're able to more effectively deal with private members' bills so that members, first of all, have an

opportunity to do that more frequently, because part of the problem is -- and this is for people watching at home -- it's a lottery. At the beginning of every Parliament or when everybody's had a

chance to introduce a private member's bill, we do a lottery of 103 members, less cabinet and the Speaker, to decide who's going to have their private member's bill when. If you're unlucky and

you're always number 73, 74 or 75, which happened to me in one of the Harris Parliaments -- I forget which one it was -- I virtually went the whole Parliament without a private member's bill

because I was always number 70-something.

It's a real downer because the member who happens to be unlucky -- by the way, I got lucky this day. I got 25 bucks on this one. I bought it as a prop and I

won 25 bucks. Maybe this is my lucky day.

My point is that I was unlucky, and that happens to other members. They don't get their bills forward. I think there are a couple of issues we need to look at.

One is giving members the ability not only to introduce bills but to get time for debate. Maybe we need to expand the amount of time the House uses for debate of private members' bills. The other

thing is that we need to look at our committee structure, so that if a bill is passed, the member has an opportunity to get their bill into committee and at least do the tertiary work at committee,

of having at least a day where a member can have people come before the committee to speak to his or her bill so that we can go to the next step.

There needs to be some process to allow increased ability to introduce the bill, and a process to allow the bill to at least get into committee and have some

meaningful discussion and work at the committee level. We need some non-partisan mechanism to allow those bills to move forward in some way, because too often -- and I know; I'm the whip of the New

Democrats, so I understand how this works -- we end up at the end of the spring or fall session of the Parliament and it's the big trade-off. If, for example, your government disagrees with a bill

that we've identified as the one we want to put forward as a private member's bill to be passed and dealt with at the end of the session, and you're not willing to give it to us, we'll block

everybody else's, and you guys do the same to us. We end up with these big horse trades in regard to private members' bills. I think that's rather unfortunate.

The other thing -- and I want to end on this point -- is that if we allowed more opportunity for members to introduce private members' bills and actually saw

those bills become law, I think we would end up with probably much more substantive and much more well-thought-through bills, because then it becomes not an exercise of trying to figure out, "Which

bill is going to get me all the media attention I can get for the next little while in my local media?" but you can actually start dealing with some issues, because all of us come here with passion

about whatever it might be.

We're here because we come out of the not-for-profit sector, or we were in education, or we were in municipal politics or the labour movement, whatever it

might be. We have issues that we want to deal with. I think it would give members an opportunity to say, "Let's seek each other out, across the floor, those who are interested in particular issues,

so that we can work together to advance some of these issues." For example, if there are people who are interested in aviation -- there may be three or four of us in here interested in aviation --

we can collaborate in some way across the floor to help each other get an issue forward. I think it would be a way of doing not only us but the population some good.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'm happy to join this debate this morning. I think the private member's bill has raised many issues

that are important to us all, and road safety certainly has to be one of them. There was another fatality on Highway 7 this morning in Ottawa. We had five fatalities east of the city of Ottawa at

Vars two weeks ago during that snowstorm. We know how important road safety is. Anything we can do to improve that situation is very important. The roads in Ontario are the safest in North America

-- that's by independent evaluation -- so we just want to make them safer. We have a lot of work to do yet.

The first lessons drivers learn, of course, are in driver's ed. For this reason, banning cellphones on Ontario highways -- I think, if we just look at that

issue, we would not be addressing the overall issue of distractions and safety while driving. Driving while distracted, whether it's from interruptions from inside or outside the car, is extremely

dangerous and can result in severe consequences, as we all know.

Under the Highway Traffic Act, as has been mentioned by other speakers this morning, there is a $1,000 fine and six demerit points, possible jail time and a

driver's licence suspension for careless driving. Under the Criminal Code, anyone convicted of dangerous driving faces up to a $2,000 fine and jail terms up to five years. So there certainly is

legislation that is out there and is used from time to time.

Under the act, careless or distracted driving can mean anything from distractions like eating or drinking or talking to passengers in your car to operating a

cellphone or similar device. There are many distractions we all have. Creating legislation to officially ban cellphones will not take care of the wider issues of distracted driving. More than that

has to be done. Jurisdictions that have banned the use of cellphones while driving have found that initially you do get a reduction, but after time, the use comes back to pre-ban levels, so the

whole enforcement is probably a problem.

Bill 68 does not adequately address the problem. In clause 78.1(4)(

b) the bill states: "Nothing in subsection (2) prevents a person who is not a novice driver

from.... (

b) using equipment listed in that subsection, if the person uses a hands-free feature to operate the equipment...." According to nine separate research studies, hands-free phones can also

have an adverse effect on driver performance.

As my colleague from Timmins-James Bay, Gilles Bisson, said earlier -- he made a confession that he's not perfect. I think we all look at ourselves when this

debate is going on, at all the instances where we have put ourselves in dangerous situations because we weren't paying attention.

Mr. Bisson: Not you, too?

Mr. McNeely: And he included me, that I wasn't perfect as well. Thank you.

This brings us back to distracted driving. If one can become distracted by a mere conversation, then banning a cellphone will not deal with the issue. The

Ministry of Transportation has been working on this issue and has put provisions in place that will allow all young drivers to learn the rules of the road and to become accustomed to operating a

vehicle without distractions. That was shown to us: that the likelihood of a new driver having an accident was four times as bad when he had three or four passengers in the car with him. Under the

new rules, starting in September 2005, all teenage G2 drivers must limit the number of passengers under age 20 that they carry. That's just for the late night. It could have been a wider ban; it

was discussed that way. But certainly, the more kids in the car with the young driver, the higher the accidents. This was showing up in the insurance rates; this was showing up in the statistics.

It was up to four times as high. So those distractions, whether they're from the people in your car, cellphones that are manual, or other conversations in the car, all contribute to this.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Crashworthiness data system, 29.4% of accidents are caused by distractions from a person

outside the vehicle. I'm not going to get into that, that rubbernecking and the other distractions that you start staring at when going by, but that's 29.4% of the accidents. That's the distraction

outside of the vehicle.

Some 11.4% of the distractions leading to accidents are caused by adjusting the radio or changing the CD, and 10.9% of the distractions are caused by another

passenger in the vehicle. Only a small percentage -- one report says 1.5% -- of accidents are caused by using or dialling a cellphone. So we have to look at those other distractions.

What do these numbers tell us, then? That this legislation does not address the wider problem. It's part of the problem; it doesn't address the major part of

the problem. We need to work at educating the public, and that includes ourselves. I have taken a lot of direction from my wife on that as well, because we do allow ourselves to be distracted too

easily. She's a focused driver, and I think that's what we have to be. We have one job to do when we're behind the wheel: to focus on driving safely and following the rules. We have to make sure

that's the direction we're going in.

The Ottawa Police Service agrees -- and we've spoken to them -- that a holistic look at traffic safety is required instead of a mere piecemeal approach.

Banning cellphones does not address the deeper problem. What is required is public education. Ontario introduced the first comprehensive graduated licensing system in North America in 1994. This

system encourages novice drivers to enrol in an approved driver education course to ensure that they learn the rules of the road through formal instruction. In the five years after graduated

licences were implemented, the average fatal and injury collision rate for drivers aged 16 to 19 dropped by 37%, so that was very successful.

We're proud of what Ontario has done. We're proud of the direction that we're going. More education is needed. So I will not be supporting this bill, although

it has raised a great discussion.

Mr. Yakabuski: It is indeed my pleasure as well to join the discussion this morning on my colleague's bill, Bill 68.

I had a meeting with the CAA people this morning, and to no surprise, they indicated that one of the prime concerns they have is driver distraction. It's not

just cellphones; it is driver distraction, and there are a multitude of things that cause driver distraction. Cellphones are one of the causes.

I recall a few months ago where this person was charged for driving while watching a movie on a laptop computer in the car. Now, that's driver distraction to

the nth degree, but those are the kinds of possibilities that exist out there with technology today with regard to distraction. You've seen these vehicles now today -- and I think it's a real

problem, quite frankly -- with these GPS monitor systems built into the dashboard that light up as bright as a big fluorescent fixture. It cannot but help distract the attention of the driver. When

people are driving, they're punching in coordinates or trying to find where they are going. I have always thought it was a pretty good idea to figure out where you were going before you got into

the vehicle, and if you have a problem, you pull over and you try to ascertain where you are relative to your destination.

One thing that was raised by the member from Ottawa-Orléans is that police already have the ability to lay charges if someone is unduly distracted -- they

can charge you with careless driving -- but it is a very subjective thing. The police would have to make a call: One person having a cellphone in their hand might constitute to them a careless

driving situation, and for another person it might not. I'm sure the police would be more comfortable if they knew that if someone has a cellphone in their hand, they are in violation of a

statute.

Having something in your hand is an issue, because when we're taught to drive, we're taught to drive 10 and two. You're supposed to have two hands on the

wheel. I know that most of us don't. I don't -- I don't even pretend to -- but I have the option and the ability to put that second hand on the wheel immediately or very quickly if necessary. When

you're holding a cellphone or any kind of hand-held technological device, the tendency is to not let go of that device to free up your hand to get on to the wheel as quickly as possible. So there

is a specific distraction that comes with hanging onto a cellphone. I do have a hands-free ability with my cellphone, which I use. There's some concern that people whose cars are their offices

Interjections.

Mr. Yakabuski: I'm being heckled by my own members. It is touching.

Salespeople and people like that tend to use their cars as their offices, but do you know what? They have the technology now, and I'm sure everyone out there

who uses a cellphone a lot is taking advantage of the opportunity to use that hands-free technology, which would put them outside of the scope of this legislation.

There is no question -- and I don't have all of the time; I'm sharing this with others. I know people personally who have indicated to me that they have had

accidents, albeit minor ones -- fender-benders and rear-enders -- particularly in the urban areas, when they have been engaged in conversation on the cellphone. So there is no question that that

does distract them differently. The member for Timmins-James Bay is absolutely correct that a conversation with another human being in the car does not have the same effect on you that a cellphone

conversation does.

Mr. Bisson: I don't know why.

Mr. Yakabuski: I'm not sure why it is either, but there must be something in the way the brain focuses on an object, that you can't make

contact with your eyes or body language or some other way. So there is no question that having that conversation with a person on the other side of a technological instrument does change the

dynamics somewhat.

I want to see where this is going. I want to see where a committee takes it. But in general, we have a responsibility to take the necessary steps where we can

to improve highway safety in this province. There is much to be gained. There is money to be saved. There are lives to be saved. There is money to be saved in our health care system and lives to be

saved if we take the necessary steps in all ways to make our highways safer.

Ms. Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I have to say that I'm pleased that this debate allows us to have a broader discussion, and that

discussion is about distraction. Having said that, I want to point out that just looking at cellphones in isolation is for me an issue. The Canadian Automobile Association believes that we have to

have greater public awareness about the overall issue of driver distraction. The Canada Safety Council doesn't believe there is enough evidence there, and also that more public awareness, education

and strict enforcement of the existing laws that we have in Ontario are what we should be doing.

Right now, collision report form improvements are being looked at. The police have indicated a desire to see collision reporting forms modified to include

information about driver distraction, and that information includes cellphone use. I think that brings into this whole discussion the fact that cellphone use, under a number of studies that have

been done, is listed eighth on the list of causes of driver distraction. The current measures we have for careless driving, by the way -- Ontario has one of the toughest rules of the road with

regard to careless driving. Police can charge drivers with careless driving if they're not paying full attention to the driving task. A driver convicted of careless driving will receive six demerit

points and fines up to $1,000 or a jail term of six months. So we have the laws on the books that deal with distraction, and if we can get the collision report forms to include the different

aspects of distraction -- and I know that the member from Timmins-James Bay certainly discussed a number of other distractions. All of us here have been part and parcel of -- let's put it this way:

being guilty of being distracted.

The other issue I have with this is that the results have shown that the distraction, whether it's caused by handling a cellphone or having a hands-free, is

still there; you're still being distracted. So I think what we have to do is take a look at the notion of distraction and come up with an approach that makes us all more cognitive of what we're

doing behind the wheel. That's what better safety is, I think, at the end of the day.

I know that Mr. O'Toole has brought this bill forward a number of times and I applaud him, because it provides us this opportunity to have a frank discussion.

But I want to just reiterate that there are current measures that exist to punish drivers for careless driving. If we add to that collision report form improvements, which is what the police are

looking to do, then we can monitor all of those different areas of distraction that are creating or causing accidents, because the forms don't specifically have all of these different aspects of

distraction.

The laws are there on the books. We have really tough rules. The one thing about being specific to just cellphones is that that's also very hard to enforce.

But if we change our forms and use the laws that are on our books, I believe we'll have safer roads.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased to be able to make a few comments this morning on my colleague from Durham's private

member's bill. I know this bill has come forward in the past and we've had some debate on it here in the House on a number of occasions. Certainly it is a controversial bill; I don't think there's

any question about it. We've all seen people driving down the highways in our province, and we've all seen cases where they were probably not very attentive to the road conditions because of

conversations going on on their cellphones. I don't think there's any question about that. What the member here is trying to say is that maybe we should be drawing some special attention to

that.

That's one of the reasons we hear a lot of people today. I had people in this morning from the CAA who talked about the distractions in driving. They are doing

a major study, and I believe that later on in the year there will be a report coming back from the Canadian Automobile Association on major distractions in driving. In the end, it costs all of us

more money on our insurance, and in some cases costs people their lives as well.

What I'd like to see happen here -- and I hope that all members of the House would take this opportunity to support the bill -- is that it actually go to a

committee, like I think a lot of private members' bills in this House need to go to committee and be discussed. It will bring an opportunity for a lot of different stakeholders, not just

politicians but police services, people who maybe have lost loved ones in accidents, maybe the Canadian Trucking Association. All of these kinds of folks may want to come in and make comment. Maybe

they're completely opposed to the bill; maybe they're in favour of the bill. I think it would be an opportunity for something which is fairly controversial, and I think it would be important to

bring it forward.

I would compliment the member for bringing the bill forward again. But I'm going to tell you, to be honest with everyone in this House, I use a cellphone a

lot, and I'm someone who would be impacted by that if many laws were changed to eliminate cellphones. But of course, if we're allowed to have the hands-free stay, that's not a problem, in my

opinion, at all. I know the Premier has been on record saying that you can't legislate everything. However, this could be a public safety bill. It could be something that affects lives. I think we

owe Mr. O'Toole -- he spent a lot of time in this House in the last six or seven years debating and trying to promote this piece of legislation, and I would be very, very supportive of seeing it go

to the next stage, having committee hearings and having a lot of our stakeholders come in to debate it.

As well, I just want to say at this time that I think a lot of private members' bills in this House are good bills. There are many times that, yes, we vote for

them but they never get called forward. I think of Michael Gravelle's bill on the insulin pump, for one. I think of the PSA testing bill. That's another one I'd like to see brought forward in this

House. Quite often people overlook the fact that during private members' hours on Thursday mornings a lot of neat and important legislation is actually introduced here and passed on, but in a lot

of cases we don't see that legislation being brought forward by the government.

So I'd encourage the government to bring forward this bill. I would encourage all members of the House to support Mr. O'Toole on second reading of this bill. I

look forward to committee hearings at some point where we can actually have the stakeholders in to debate it as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. O'Toole, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. O'Toole: I do want to go on the record as thanking the members for Thornhill, Ottawa-Orléans, Timmins-James Bay,

Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Simcoe North and Sarnia-Lambton for their comments.

I'm quite aware that the Liberals have basically whipped the vote on private members. This is what I'm hearing. I understand that, because Dalton's first

response was that he didn't think we needed the bill. But I listened to all the experts as well as the people of Ontario, and I can tell you, without being solicited in the political sense, 75% of

the people are opposed to not moving forward with this, 75% of the people say we've got to do something on the issue of driver distraction.

By passing this bill, I'm asking the Minister of Transportation and, indeed, the Premier to move forward, to have consultations on the broad issue of driver

distraction. Yes, there are other distracters, and there are emerging new distracters all the time. This is a more precise tool to help the police intervene and disrupt the person's chronic

behaviour, perhaps, and perhaps save a life by saying, "Hey, you shouldn't be driving on icy roads holding a cellphone." Careless driving today is pretty onerous. It's six points and it could cost

as much as $1,000 by the time you get out of court, and your insurance for your family.

I'm going to refer to the Redelmeier study. This is from the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It's not political. This is from back in 2001, where I

started here. Donald Redelmeier and Robert Tibshirani reported that, "The risk of having a collision when using a cellphone was four times higher than when the cellphone was not being used."

There's the medical evidence. "Drivers who fail to exercise good judgment must be regulated to do so, for cellphones are just the beginning. Computers, fax machines and DVD," and onboard navigation

"screens are also starting to clamour for dashboard space. We need to regulate the use of" technology and "cellphones and other distracting devices. This is a no-brainer."

I'd say that this is the right thing. I'm calling on you for your support.

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

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT (INTERNET

GAMING ADVERTISING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

(PUBLICITÉ DES JEUX SUR INTERNET)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 21, standing in the name of Mr. Leal.

Mr. Leal has moved second reading of Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 to regulate the promotion and advertising of Internet gaming in

Ontario.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Leal, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole, unless --

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, could I ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy?

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Leal has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy. Agreed? Agreed.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CELLULAR PHONES), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(TÉLÉPHONES CELLULAIRES)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 22, standing in the name of Mr. O'Toole.

Mr. O'Toole has moved second reading of Bill 68,

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

driving on a highway. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All opposed, 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 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please stand.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Brownell, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Craitor, Kim

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Hoy, Pat

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

O'Toole, John

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

Nays

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, Dave

McNeely, Phil

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Smitherman, George

Wong, Tony C.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 19; the nays are 13.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer this to the standing committee on estimates.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. O'Toole has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on estimates. Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Today, I again draw the attention of the Minister of Health to the issue of age-related

macular degeneration.

A constituent of mine, Agnes Lorbetskie of Renfrew, has been diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration and has received one treatment for it. For this

treatment, she was forced to pay $2,000 out of her own pocket. The treatment for her condition is Visudyne laser therapy, which is not covered under the provincial health insurance plan. Mrs.

Lorbetskie will require several more treatments over the next few years. I ask the Minister of Health why this treatment is covered under the plans of British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, New

Brunswick and the Yukon, but not in Ontario.

The minister waxed on the other day in debate about how he was determined to make the best health care system in Canada even better. What the McGuinty

government has done is instituted a health care tax while reducing services to the people.

Age-related macular degeneration is a growing concern among seniors in this province. The loss of one's independence as a result of blindness will place a much

greater burden on our health care system than the cost of this treatment. Low-income seniors like Mrs. Lorbetskie simply cannot absorb these costs on their own.

I have written the minister on this subject in the past and call on him today to stand in support of seniors all across this province who are suffering under

the financial stress of treating this debilitating disease on their own. I will also be presenting a petition on this subject. Minister of Health, I hope that you're listening, and ask that you

stand up for seniors now.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): On Tuesday of this week, the Friends of Four Counties Hospital held their second annual town

hall meeting to discuss their commitment to their local hospital and their dedication to maintaining essential health care services in their rural community of Newbury. As a result of this meeting,

five recommendations were brought forward, including the implementation of a rural hospital funding formula, the provision of sufficient funding to keep in-patient beds in rural hospitals, and the

recognition in provincial health care strategies of the value of accessible health care to a rural community's economic viability.

I am happy to have such a dedicated group within Lambton-Kent-Middlesex that is willing to work with our government to provide the best access to quality

health care for our citizens, and I am pleased that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care publicly stated his commitment to the future of Four Counties Hospital when I originally brought this

situation to his attention in December 2003. Minister Smitherman has long said that the small hospitals of this province enjoy a bright future in the McGuinty government, and I know that Four

Counties hospital will remain an important partner in the delivery of health care services in Newbury and in the Middlesex Hospital Alliance.

CARDIAC CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): The residents in my community are very concerned that the future of Dr. Schaman's cardiac

rehabilitation clinic in Breslau is in doubt. Provincial funding for this clinic was first provided in 2001, but they have now been told by Ministry of Health staff that funding is only guaranteed

until June 30 of this year.

This popular clinic was originally funded to improve access to cardiac rehabilitation services and prevent heart disease, and to do so in an innovative

community-based setting. Since 1978, the clinic has seen 35,000 patients who attribute their good health to their participation in this program.

Barb White of Cambridge has been going to the clinic since 2002 and says in her letter to Minister Smitherman, "Dr. Schaman is keeping people healthy and fit,

and we desperately need his services."

Evelyn Playford, who has been going to the clinic since 2001, has written to Minister Smitherman to say, "It is incomprehensible to me that the ministry

charged with protecting and improving the health of Ontarians would withdraw support from a health promotion program with a proven track record of success." She states that she has been able to

control her heart condition without surgery and other costly procedures.

Today I am joined by my colleague from Waterloo-Wellington, Ted Arnott, in urging Health Minister Smitherman to listen to the pleas of these patients and to

continue to provide public funding to this very accessible and popular clinic.

HATE CRIMES

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm proud to say that my city of Hamilton is contributing $10,000 toward the reconstruction of the Hindu

Samaj Temple. In the words of Hamilton city councillor Tom Jackson, we are "trying to right a wrong."

It is with great regret that I must report that the Premier of Ontario has refused my request that he do his part to right a serious wrong. The Hindu Samaj

Temple was destroyed by arson in a racially motivated destruction spawned by the events of September 11, 2001. Ontario was not immune to the racist backlash, and I hoped that the McGuinty Liberals

would do their utmost to help the community.

A place of worship and a community centre representing the investment and hard work of Hamilton's sizable South Asian community was torched. The community had

to again raise money, secure loans and start over for a second time. History will record this event as Ontario's worst hate crime. It was an attack on South Asians on Ontario soil, and the McGuinty

government has been largely silent.

On October 24, I wrote to the Premier and urged his government to answer the community's calls for financial assistance to restore the temple. In a letter to

me dated December 6, the Premier came up empty. He offered a lot of talk about violence and racism, about taking it seriously, but the bottom line is that it was just talk. Frankly, I find this

response insulting. The role of the provincial government is to respond to crises, to show leadership in helping to erase the stain of that terrible event.

Hindu Samaj is more than a temple. It's a hub. It's a cultural attraction and a center for the elimination of racism.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): Two weeks ago, when a devastating mudslide buried a village in t