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

December 14, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Dec-14 (PDF)

L119 - Thu 14 Dec 2000 / Jeu 14 déc 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (HISTORIC VEHICLES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (VÉHICULES ANCIENS)

SAFE STREETS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MEDICAL LEGISLATION

VETERANS

CHARITIES

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF NIAGARA

SIMCOE NORTH WINTER ACTIVITIES

FEDERAL AID WITH HEATING COSTS

DON MESSER TRIBUTE IN NEWMARKET

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

LAKEFIELD'S 125TH ANNIVERSARY

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FLAGS AT HALF-MAST ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES DRAPEAUX EN BERNE

STUDENTS FIRST ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 ACCORDANT LA PRIORITÉ AUX ÉLÈVES

PROMISE MADE PROMISE BROKEN ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR UNE PROMESSE NON TENUE

MEMBERS' OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE SERMENT D'ALLÉGEANCE DES DÉPUTÉS

PROHIBITING PROFITING FROM RECOUNTING CRIMES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 INTERDISANT LES GAINS TIRÉS DU RÉCIT D'ACTES CRIMINELS

SUPPLY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2000

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

MINIMUM WAGE

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

AMBULANCE SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

WASTE DISPOSAL

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

DRIVE CLEAN

MARRIAGE

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

SINGING OF NATIONAL ANTHEM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SINGING OF NATIONAL ANTHEM

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

SINGING OF NATIONAL ANTHEM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BALANCED BUDGETS FOR BRIGHTER FUTURES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR DES BUDGETS ÉQUILIBRÉS POUR UN AVENIR MEILLEUR

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Orders of the day.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): Ballot item number 55, order number M64, second reading of Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999 and the Highway Traffic Act to recognize the fund-raising activities of legitimate charities. Mr Crozier.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We were led to believe that the order was the other way around. Is that something that needs to be corrected or do we move on with that?

The Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that this is the way it is printed.

Mr Levac: I would seek unanimous consent for a five-minute recess.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Levac has requested unanimous consent for a five-minute recess. Agreed?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would be prepared to go ahead.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed. Then we won't need the five-minute recess.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (HISTORIC VEHICLES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (VÉHICULES ANCIENS)

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

Bill 99,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to number plates for historic vehicles / Projet de loi 99, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les plaques d'immatriculation pour les véhicules anciens.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Durham has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is a wintry day, and so I understand some of the delays with the members being present in the chamber today. But with your indulgence, I want to thank a number of people to begin with for supporting Bill 99, which really allows the use of year-of-manufacture plates on historic vehicles.

I first want to thank a number of individuals. Gord Hazlett is the author of this book, Old Auto Tales, and has been very instrumental in bringing forward this concept, this idea, so I thank Gord. There are a number of other people I would also like to thank, including the editors and members of Quill and Quail, "Canada's leading Model A Voice" in the province of Ontario. It's an interesting publication for auto enthusiasts. I'd like to thank Philip Wilson; their historian, Ross McDowell; their president, Ross Walter; Ian Lavery; as well as Philip Wilson and Josie and Jim Campbell; from Huronia Wire Wheels chapter, Jim Campbell and the secretary, Josie Campbell; and a number of people.

I am very surprised and quite impressed with the attention to this particular bill taken by the historic vehicle enthusiasts, and also from the Old Autos newspaper, which is produced periodically and circulated to members. I want to thank them for running my petition, which has been read innumerable times in the House and supported by many members on all sides of the House. That's just some of the body of support that I've received among many e-mails and other correspondence that I've had. I'm going to read a few.

This is from the past president of the Austin Healey Club of Southern Ontario, Ian Allison:

"I recently read an

article in the Toronto Star indicating that you have introduced a private member's bill that would allow owners of 30-year-old classic cars to have YOM plates registered for their cars.

"We of the Austin Healey Club of Southern Ontario would like to thank you for your effort and to give you our club's support from our 142 members."

So there's clear support there. These people range in age, they range in location, and there's nothing partisan at all about this.

Another very enthusiastic and very active collector and restorer is a fellow by the name of Lennis Trotter. He's an architect. He writes:

"Dear Mr O'Toole:

"Re: Year of manufacture plates for classic cars

"As you may recall, I wrote you about a year ago regarding the use of refurbished plates on antique or classic vehicles.

"I am pleased that you have seen fit to introduce a private member's bill in support of this concept and hope Bill 99 will be passed in the Legislative Assembly.

"Many Ontarians share an interest in the restoration and perfecting of vintage vehicles. To these enthusiasts, the option of registering their vehicles with year of manufacture plates would be a popular choice. I understand Bill 99 would also produce revenue for the province ... without additional costs to the government.

"I know Ontario's antique car, truck and motorcycle enthusiasts will welcome your private member's bill and I wish you every success in ensuring the bill receives final reading."

From Roy Fice, good support here:

"As you know, owners of antique and classic vehicles take great pride in restoring their cars and trucks in complete detail. Allowing the plates from the year of manufacture would be popular with many enthusiasts because plates from the year the car was built would make the restoration complete."

That's the general tone from Dave Lumsden as well, from Ancaster, Ontario, who e-mailed me. He goes on in some detail on how the regulations will unfold in the future.

For those listening today and those participating, I just generally want to thank them. But I think more importantly I want to thank John Parker, a member in the previous government, the 36th Parliament, who initially did a lot of work on this particular private member's bill. For that I'd like to thank him.

I'd also like to thank David Turnbull, the Minister of Transportation, and Diane Betts, his able executive assistant, as all staff quite honestly do a good amount of the work in this place and we get a good amount of the credit.

For members on all sides, I'm sure they have constituents who support this concept, and I expect to hear from them on that.

Last but not least, certainly I want to thank my legislative assistant, Greg MacNeil, who has done an extensive amount of work and consulted with many of the people who have sent us e-mails or petitions. He has certainly tried to make sure that everyone's been embraced as supportive on this. As members know, I introduced the bill on June 20 of this year and since that time I've received overwhelming support.

Those who forgot about the bill over the summer holidays would have been reminded of its presence on the order paper by the hundreds of petitions that my colleagues and I have tabled in the Legislature over the past few months; ad nauseam might be the way of describing that petition, but nonetheless, it is politics.

I know I speak to members on both sides of the House when I thank all those for the time they have taken to present, read and support the petitions. I would also like to thank many of the people I've already thanked. These include Ian Lavery, Ross Walter, Ross McDowell, Gord Hazlett, Roy Price, Lennis Trotter as well as Jim and Josie Campbell, who I've thanked before.

The list is really too long to mention, but many of the people responsible for this initiative are in the gallery this morning and I'd like to thank as many as possible. Some have been delayed by the storm. They must be stuck. Their antique vehicles aren't able to withstand these weather conditions. They are certainly here in sentiment and some may be watching at home. I see Ian and a couple of the other members in the gallery, so thank you very much for joining us.

"The bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to allow number plates to be used on historic vehicles if they are Ontario number plates that were issued during the year of manufacture of the vehicle.... Historic vehicles are defined" by current legislation "to be motor vehicles that are at least 30 years old and are substantially unchanged or unmodified from the original manufacturer's product."

In other words, the owner of a 1931 Model A Ford would be permitted by this legislation to register and use a 1931 Ontario licence plate on that vehicle. The legislation also stipulates that the licence plate would have to be in a condition satisfactory to the Ministry of Transportation and its number could not duplicate the number of any licence plate currently in use.

This would effectively create a fourth option for antique owners in Ontario. In addition to the regular licence plate, the vanity plate and the historic vehicle plate now issued by the ministry, antique vehicle owners would be able to use plates issued when the vehicles themselves were made. This really is the point of Bill 99.

Over the past several years, I've consulted with members of countless car clubs and at chapters not only in towns and cities across Ontario, but across Canada. Some of these clubs include the Specialty Vehicle Association of Ontario, the Antique and Classic Car Club of Canada, the Model A Owners of Canada, the Dodge Lovers Club, the Lincoln and Continental Owners Club, the Northern Rambler Car Club and many others too numerous to mention.

When bringing this together, as simple as it may sound to some, there are jurisdictions in Canada, like Alberta, that already do it. We felt it was time Ontario extended the same opportunity to our constituents.

The message I've heard from these clubs is very clear: the year of manufacture plate allows antique owners to ensure that the restoration of their vehicle is complete in every detail. I've quoted a number of letters, and those letters are pretty much unanimous in support. Of course there will always be a wish or a desire to improve, to make it less expensive and more accessible. We have done the first step, which is to get this as a legitimate use in the restoration of vintage vehicles.

Remind ourselves that Ontario is the industrial heartland of this country. Certainly in my riding of Durham, where the General Motors headquarters is located and where I worked for 30 years, I can tell you there are many people who as a hobby and as a way of life have a great affinity and affection for automobiles. There is quite a nostalgia trip attached to all this for the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Even the 1960s and 1970s vehicles will now qualify. Many of them are in everyday use in good weather.

It's something that will be celebrated across the province. As a final reminder, Ontario this year I believe will produce more automobiles than the state of Michigan. I think it's important to realize the importance of the auto sector and its history, not just from Sam McLaughlin but many others who have built this great province we all enjoy.

It's these enthusiasts who keep that up and remind us of the history, the heritage and the traditions of the automobile in our society today. With that, I know there are other speakers who want to comment on this and I'll relinquish my time. I'll leave it with one second.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Speaker, I'll be sharing my time today with the member for St Catharines.

I just want to stand and commend the member for Durham and let him know that I will be supporting this legislation. I want to talk about licence plates from an historical standpoint. First off, I think we use the word "automobile" all the time, but often we may not know the origin of that word. The word "automobile" comes from the Greek word "autos," meaning self, and the French word "mobile," meaning moving. Hence the word "automobile."

The member spoke of the importance of the auto industry to this province. The first Canadian manufacturing plant opened in Windsor in 1904 when a group of businessmen started the Ford Motor Co of Canada just across the border. This branch plant was the beginning of the automobile industry in Canada. As it's important to that member's riding, it is to mine too. I have the Ford St Thomas assembly plant, which is the only plant in North America manufacturing the Crown Victoria and the Grand Marquis. We have a large Magna plant, which is building all the truck frames for General Motors through a process called hydroforming.

But I think it's important too that we talk a little bit about the history in Ontario. The first car owner that we know of in Ontario was a gentleman by the name of John Moodie, who in 1898 imported a car into Canada. In my own riding there's a reference to an automobile appearing on the streets of St Thomas in 1899, so for over 100 years automobiles have been driven in the streets within my own riding.

Ontario was the leader when it came to identifying vehicles in the form of licence plates. In the registration of vehicles, Ontario was the first province in Canada. The idea was that the money was needed to begin the development of a suitable highway network and to set up a system to administer and enforce vehicle laws.

In this Legislature, in June 1903,

an act to regulate the speed and operations of motor vehicles on highways was passed. I want to thank Jean McQuattie from the legislative library for her effort in helping me prepare for this morning. Part of this legislation read as follows: "Every resident of this province who is the owner of a motor vehicle, and every non-resident owner whose motor vehicle shall be driven in this province, shall pay to the Provincial Secretary a registration fee of two dollars for each motor vehicle. The Provincial Secretary shall issue for each motor vehicle so registered a permit properly numbered stating that such motor vehicle is registered."

That's an interesting thing. Maybe we should start that as a way to generate some more revenue with all these vehicles travelling through our province, that we should have to register them on their entry into Ontario. It could be new revenue and much needed one for our roads in this province.

The legislation also went on to say, "The owner of each and every motor vehicle ... shall carry and expose on said motor vehicle the permit issued as aforesaid by the Provincial Secretary. He shall also have attached to or exposed upon the back of every motor vehicle, in a conspicuous place, the number of said permit...." There's another thing we could do to save some money in this province. I don't necessarily think we need to continue to have two plates on our vehicles. Most provinces and the majority of states are only using one vehicle plate. You can see that they had the foresight in 1903 that we only needed plate on a vehicle.

It's interesting too when you read the newspaper. Hansard doesn't exist for 1903, so we have to rely on newspaper accounts. On June 4, 1903, the debate was not so much about the registration of vehicles-by the way, the initial licence plate, when it was first issued in Ontario, cost $2. The great debate was the speed limit in the province. At that time, the speed limit in Ontario was seven miles an hour. The debate that took place in this Legislature, and it was quite heated, was whether or not to move the speed limit up to 10 miles an hour. That ultimately did happen.

Again reading from a 1903

article on automobiles: "A short discussion of automobile legislation must not be overlooked. The automobile frightens many horses, especially in rural districts, and reckless speeding has sometimes proved dangerous to pedestrians."

Talking about the legislation, "The framers of such legislation, however, usually seek to put the speed limit of an auto at a ridiculously low figure. Naturally, the majority of the legislators have never been in an automobile and have merely seen them pass at a speed which sometimes looks dangerous."

We'll talk a little bit about the evolution of the licence plate in Ontario. The first plate was designed by a member of the Hamilton Auto Club. It was in the shape of a shield and made of leather, with metal house numbers attached. These early leather plates are extremely rare today. In total, we know that there were 713 of these early plates issued.

The evolution of the plate began in 1905, when rubber plates were issued. In 1906 Ontario went to two plates and a pair of rubber plates was issued, and 1911 is the only time in the history of the province that we had a porcelain licence plate. It was found, though, that the porcelain chipped very easily and for that reason porcelain was no longer used. In 1912 we went to flat steel, in 1921 it was embossed steel, and we continue with the embossed steel today.

Up to 1954 the length of a licence plate varied based on the number of characters, but from 1955 onward the standard 6 by 12 size was adopted. Something else to think about is that you used to have to go in every year and pick up your new licence plate. It was in 1983 that staggered registration took place.

We've seen a lot of slogans and graphics over the years on plates: "1867 Confederation," "Keep it Beautiful," and in 1982 "Yours to Discover" was adopted on licence plates in Ontario.

They tried reflectorization on plates in 1939 but it wasn't until 1994 that we went to reflective plates in this province.

The Prime Minister of Canada has a special plate. His plate is CAN 001. The Ontario Premier's plate is ONT 001.

I could go on and on. I just want to thank a few people: my barber, Ray Fowler-as I would get my hair cut Ray would remind me of the importance of this legislation; Dave Granger of Bradford, who has an auto restoration business, provided me with some information; Ian Lavery from Toronto, who is here; and I mentioned Jean McQuattie.

I think it's important that we support this legislation. If anyone is in the antique business, you should start buying pairs of plates because I think they're going to be quite collectible.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I'm delighted to participate in the debate today. I have to say that it's an amazing place we work in. Where else could you come to work and in such a short time learn so much about the history of licence plates in Ontario, the materials they were made of and the sizes of them? I enjoyed the member's speech and I commend him for working with leg research and others to pull that together. It was very interesting.

I come at this not from a historical point of view but from I guess a very pragmatic point of view and a little bit of personal experience. I wholeheartedly support the member for Durham's bill. I've received correspondence from individuals in my riding who are members of vintage car clubs and I have had the opportunity and the joy on various community occasions and ceremonies-the Beaches Easter parades and other sorts of things-to participate along with the car clubs and to be able to ride in some of these amazing vehicles. To see the kind of care and love that goes into the restoration is phenomenal.

I've had an opportunity to see that at close hand as well. My significant other is a bit of car enthusiast himself and he has a 1964 Corvette. It's a nice car. It's a sort of powder blue convertible-lovely. When he purchased that you couldn't, from my perspective, call it a car. It was on a trailer and in pieces, and lovingly, painstakingly over many years, bit by bit that car has been restored. Of course someone who is a real enthusiast will know and understand that to restore a car is not simply to put it together and make it look like it did.

It is to go, part by part, and find the factory part that was manufactured at that point in time for that car, for that model, so that the whole thing is factory vintage. The true enthusiast's dream and hope is that at the end that's what they'll have. So can you imagine, having gone to all that trouble, that you are fortunate enough to locate a vintage licence plate from that year and are not able to put that finishing touch on the car as well? I think the bill is appropriate. It's pragmatic, and it makes sense.

I want to pay a bit of tribute to the member for the work he has done on this and the work by the former member Mr Parker. While it sounds so simple and common sense, I know from having spent some time on the government benches and in the cabinet the difficulty in working something like this through the bureaucratic streams of government. I don't say that in a pejorative way. I understand very much the role of the rules and regulations we have within the Ministry of Transportation.

But it would seem that this project took an awful lot of work through the backrooms to ensure a proposal could come forward that the ministry could accept, that they could support and that they could find a way to have complement the existing licensing system. As the member has said, probably more could be done, but this is a good first step.

I applaud the work of all the folks in the vintage car community who have spent the time to send their comments and their hopes and desires for this legislation to members of the Legislature, and the work they have done to support Mr O'Toole and Mr Parker in pursuing this issue within the Ministry of Transportation. I think the kind of commitment that takes is evidence of the kind of people who are involved in these communities, the commitment they have to the restoration of vehicles, to the maintenance of these pristine, historical preservations-I can't think of the word I'm looking for at this point in time-a demonstration of our past. I think they're an amazing group of people.

I've had a chance to go to some of the various car shows, even some of the not necessarily vintage shows but things like the Barrie Automotive Flea Market, where you see a great range of vehicles that come forward and are shown. The pride that people display and the fellowship that develops in these clubs as they travel all around the world to bring their cars to shows is quite amazing.

I'm delighted to support the bill. I'm not going to speak at length. I think it's very straightforward, it's supportable and I think we should move to the vote as soon as possible. Mr O'Toole has known my complete support for this bill since his introduction of it, and I'm delighted to be here today to demonstrate that support.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I also rise to support Bill 99, with respect to number plates for historic vehicles, also known as the O'Toole-Parker bill. I've also had a number of constituents contact me, including well-known experts in the field like Tom Stackhouse in Norfolk and Fred Thompson in Haldi mand. These guys really are legends in their spare time. Mark Hone of Townsend, in my riding, wrote me a letter that I wish to quote: "As the owner of an antique car-a 1966 Mustang-I have a personal interest in the movement of Bill 99 through the Legislative Assembly.

During my car's restoration, I have kept all parts as original as possible, and feel that as a final touch, a number plate specific to the year would add a nice completed touch."

With respect to old plates, I bought these maybe 25 years ago. They're a matching set. I would ask permission to hold this up as a prop. I've been waiting 25 years for the O'Toole-Parker bill so I can attach them to my car, which I bought close to 40 years ago. They're not as shiny as the new ones, and I know there's a visibility and safety issue. I feel this can be accommodated with my vehicle. I have a 1941 Dodge. It's a five-window coupe, flathead six. Some of you may remember those back in your drive-in days. We have so many memories.

Ms Lankin: I wasn't born then.

Mr Barrett: I wasn't born then either. But from the safety and the visibility issue, I know that I plan on installing truck lights under the back bumper, down on the frame. They won't really impact the appearance of the vehicle, but they are there when I'm driving at night and need to signal a turn or hit the brakes.

With these plates, it's not legal for me to drive on Ontario's highways. I was chatting with Sheldon Priddle of the Summer Nights Car Club. He explained to me that at so many of these shows-we had a show in Waterford this fall; well over 1,000 antique and classic cars showed up at this event-the drivers come in, take the new Ontario plates off and install the old ones for the day. Then they have to do that again so they can drive home. I think we can get around some of that, in a sense, red tape issue.

As we've heard, enthusiasts who decide to restore antique cars go through a great deal of work. They spend large sums of money, and this money is spent in the local area. We know this down in my riding. I received a letter from Milt Chesterman of the Tillsonburg area, who belongs to the Historical Society Of Antique Cars. He explained that antique car owners do a lot for the local economy and generate a lot of work for a lot of people.

Old cars are also big business when it comes to fundraising. These car shows, rallies and other events oftentimes are used to raise money for local children's charities. For example, Summer Nights, a car club in the Tillsonburg area, has raised a great deal of money for Camp Trillium at Rainbow Lake, which provides recreational opportunities year-round for children suffering from childhood cancer and their families.

Anyone who has an older vehicle understands what a conversation piece it is and the smiles it brings to the faces of people. Older generations admire the car and immediately begin to reminisce about younger years. I also find, when I drive my 1941 Dodge around, that it's a real hit with kids on bicycles, for example. They always want to know the year it was made-again, another reason for the antique plates. They would tell people right off the bat the answer to their first question: what year was that old car or truck made?

Preserving this part of our history does not come at a small price, however. Many car buffs travel North America looking for just the right car or the right price and end up bringing parts back in a bushel basket, putting these vehicles together really from scratch.

In my opinion, it really is a bit of an eyesore when driving down the road to see the brand new, flashy white licence plates on a vintage vehicle. I feel it ruins the authenticity, and I believe it's high time we allowed year-of-manufacture licence plates in Ontario. Car enthusiasts really have never asked our government for anything. They really don't ask for much, other than, "Just don't lean on my car."

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to start by following up on the member from Haldimand's reference to people not leaning on my car. In fact, that is the case. You'll notice that when there are parades, the people who have antique cars will have people put their feet up on them or lean on them or poke around them. Of course, they've spent literally thousands of dollars to restore these vehicles. It's not just the money they've spent but the time that has been spent on them and the pride they have in these vehicles, and I think they are to be commended.

I've had some letters come in on this matter from various constituents asking me to support this bill, and I think it's a very good bill to support. I talked to Jane and Bill Bickle on the weekend. They are enthusiasts. They went right across the country this year in a 1931 Model A roadster. In the Christmas card they sent out to their friends, they describe part of the tour across the country. They had to fly out there and essentially drive it from Victoria to St John's, and of course they had to take it across the harbour from the island to the mainland on the ferry. But it was an interesting trip for them.

They said that Brian Tobin greeted them as they were coming into St John's-I guess he was still Premier of Newfoundland at that time-and led them into St John's. So it was quite a trip for them, and I know that for the Bickles and others like them this is a major hobby.

It's a good bill for the member to bring forward. Often we get involved in here in partisan clashes, and I always thought the private members' hour should be devoted to legislation of this kind, which arises from people bringing to our attention certain matters they would like to see dealt with.

I'm going to read the letter from Bill Bickle. I have a similar letter from Eugene Lampman in St Catharines; they would be the same:

"Please add my name to the number of antique vehicle enthusiasts who would like Ontario to offer year-of-manufacture licence plates.

"Many of our American friends and residents of Alberta are able to complete their restorations of historic vehicles by adding appropriately restored vintage plates that are registered and validated as normal plates.

"This addition of a bit of Ontario ... history to our restored vehicles would be a crowning touch to the enthusiast's accomplishment.

"This is a good idea whose time has come and I am hoping that you will promote and advance Bill 99 for the good of all automotive enthusiasts who keep our rich automotive history alive."

Similar letters have come in from others, and I'm glad to see that. I know, as all members of this House do, that on days where there are parades or special days in our community, those who own these vehicles are kind enough to have them on display or perhaps even utilized in a parade. They add so much. They are a real treat for the kids out there who perhaps have never seen a vehicle of this kind, have seen only modern vehicles, and of course they are a real treat for the kids' grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who get to have their memories restored as the vehicles go by or as they are on display. They are always extremely popular.

This is quite obviously a major investment. There are other people who have a hobby of collecting licence plates. A friend of mine by the name of Bob Cornelius in St Catharines collects licence plates from all over and from years gone by. The member for Durham has pointed out, appropriately, that we're going to see nice licence plates. There were some people who had raised the issue of having a nice car and these tattered old, broken-down licence plates that nobody could read. Well, anyone who understands the restoration of vehicles understands that those individuals who have them don't want an unattractive licence plate, so we certainly know that they will keep them in tip-top condition.

The bill does that, and that's very good for us. Not many people have a chance to take that 45-day trip that the Bickles took from one coast to the other in their 1931 Model A Roadster, but they probably envy them and love to hear the story of it and see some of the photographs and movies and hear tapes taken as a result.

I want to say as well that we have a history in our own community of St Catharines with the automotive industry. McKinnon Industries became General Motors. We have TRW-Thompson Products involved in the making of parts, and Dana Corp, Hayes-Dana as we called it, involved again, and many other industries which of course assist and are part of the automotive industry.

I want to indicate my strong support for this bill. I know my colleagues will be supporting it very strongly, and I believe this is an initiative that will be accepted unanimously and will be a real asset for the people of Ontario.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am very pleased to speak to this bill, Bill 99, from my colleague from Durham. It's interesting, I think, that maybe he asked an antique to speak about an antique bill. The first car I ever bought was a 1932 Ford Roadster, and I want to assure you it was not brand new; it was bought in the mid-1950s. But it was an interesting little vehicle with a rumble seat. I often think that they only had rumble seats for a certain length of time, the fact being that you couldn't do much in the rumble seat, nor could you carry much in the rumble seat, so they had to make the cars a little bigger and have a regular back seat in them.

So I know a little bit about some of the older vehicles. I learned to drive on a 1951 Ford; I drove one for a while. My dad had a 1938 Chev, which he drove for about 20 years, which he won at the local exhibition. At the moment, I have a 1952 24-volt army Jeep, which someday I'm going to restore.

I think this type of bill is something that car enthusiasts and antique car buffs have wanted for many years. When you look at what these individuals do, going all over the country making sure they get authentic parts and authentic equipment for those vehicles, why are the licence plates any exception?

In the great riding of Peterborough, they have a rally and a show every Wednesday night during the summer. It attracts cars from all over the area. If you look at these vehicles, I suggest to you that they're probably better maintained than most vehicles or some of the much newer vehicles on the road.

Certainly a number of people from the various clubs in Peterborough, guys like Charlie Dunford and Bill Haslett and Norm Blodgett, have urged me to make sure I support this bill and encourage all in the House to do so, because if there's one thing that is on those vehicles that is not authentic, I think it's a bit of a downer, not only for the car buff but for the vehicle itself. We designate buildings in this province as heritage, and they must have everything in them authentic to the time. If they are repaired, they have to be repaired in the way they were back when they were built.

There is no reason in the world not to allow this to happen.

Again in the great riding of Peterborough, General Motors is probably the biggest employer. Certainly the automobile business, whether it be old or new, is very important to my riding. So I thoroughly support this bill and I would encourage everybody else to do so, because I think it is long overdue. When you look at the number of plates that many antique car enthusiasts have sitting in boxes that they can't use, or indeed those who are still out trying to find the licence plates for their particular cars, I think it is important and they should be allowed to do it, and I support this bill very much.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm happy to support the bill as well. I think I've always owned an old car. I've owned two Model A's. When I grew up in London, Ontario, I had a Model A. I remember that when I moved to Toronto, good friends of mine, Lyle and Simmone Atkin, allowed me to store my old Model A in their barn. They had, I think, four boys. Years later, I was looking over in the corner here one day at the Premier's OPP security guard, Larry Atkin, and Larry is the son of Lyle and Simmone Atkin.

So it's kind of a small world, that a long while ago I left London, Ontario, stored my Model A in their barn, and years later who is the OPP security chief for the Premier but the son of the people whose barn I stored my Model A in?

Today I have a 1967 Beaumont, a really neat old car. My wife often wonders what it's doing under that cover. She thinks it's rusting; I think it's just aging nicely. I don't know whether or not I'd have to declare a conflict; all of us here seem to own an old car. But I'm pleased to support the member's bill. I look forward to putting this on my car and surprising my wife as I fire the Beaumont up in the spring and drive it out with my brand new plate on, looking for all the world like I know what I'm doing.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): It's a real pleasure for me to be able to stand and support this bill. I've had a number of phone calls and letters from constituents asking that I support this.

I would like to point out that what we're talking about here is that we're going to allow number plates to be used on historic vehicles if they are Ontario number plates that were issued during the year of manufacture of the vehicle, are in a condition satisfactory to the ministry and show no numbers that duplicate the number of any other existing permit, and it only applies to cars that are 30 years old or older.

Many of us can think back to the days when we used to watch parades go by and see the old putt-putts. We'd say, "What is that car?" Of course as we got older we bought some of them. I didn't. I can't afford it, not like Gerry Phillips or Gary Stewart here. In fact, Gerry Phillips probably bought it in the year of issue.

Aside from that, if we hearken back, we look to the old vehicles-the Stutz Bearcats, the Model A and Model T Fords, the Packards, the Studebakers-and many of these had historical significance, particularly if you look at the Studebaker. Many of you will probably remember that the Studebaker was an old Concord. It was an old carriage that was pulled by a horse before the motor vehicle came into being.

The young pages here will be able to look back 10, 15 or 20 years from now and say, "I remember the Oldsmobile." As we all know, the Oldsmobile is not going to be produced after next year.

I can think back to the cars I drove in the 1960s, which I would love to have today. I think they were a whole lot better than the cars that are manufactured today. I had a 1964 Plymouth that lent a whole new meaning to speed. I had a 1966 Dodge that lent a whole new meaning to sports luxury. When you look at the loving care that antique car restorers put into these vehicles today-they treat them like children-why shouldn't they be allowed to have a licence plate from the year of manufacture? This has so much meaning, so much significance.

I really want to compliment the member, John O'Toole, for bringing this bill forward.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I too would like to support Bill 99, brought forward by John O'Toole and, of course, John Parker, who is sitting here on the sidelines today watching this.

As you look at antique cars, it is evident here this morning that there's such a love of these vehicles from right across our province. I was very interested to hear Mr Peters's comments on some of the history. I didn't realize some of the things you brought forward. You'll know my brother-in-law, Ron Shaw, who travels down through your part of the province all the time. Back in September, I think, he was down to a Ford reunion held in Detroit-these people truck these vehicles all across our province.

Earlier, Mr Wettlaufer mentioned about the Oldsmobile no longer being manufactured after next year. I have a friend in my riding, a fellow by the name of Jerry Walters. He bought a 1904 REO. It was actually the original vehicle. It was a truck version. It had a whisky company-I think it was Seagram's or something similar to Seagram's, one of those types of companies-on the side of it. It was used as a delivery van. He's had it completely restored. The REO was named after Ransom E. Olds. This is a 1904 vehicle. He puts it in all the local parades up our way.

I also want to commend all the people who take such an interest in their communities. We have an Elvis rock-and-roll weekend every year in Orillia. About 9,000 or 10,000 people come out to this dance.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Collingwood's got a better one.

Mr Dunlop: I think the Orillia one is pretty good. Over 200 antique cars line the streets. It's such a show to go and see the care and hard work people put into this so they can display their cars along the streets. Of course, in the evening we have this huge party. There are Elvis impersonators playing 1950s rock-and-roll music and all that sort of thing.

It's interesting to see what people do and the love people have for these vehicles. I think it's so important that we do everything we can as a government and as legislators in this House to make sure that we keep this trend going for many years into the future so we can show the young people the type of vehicles that were originally here at the turn of the 19th century and what we'll see as we go into the 21st, 22nd and 23rd centuries.

The Deputy Speaker: Response, the member for Durham.

Mr O'Toole: In the limited time left, I would like to certainly recognize Wayne Plunkett, an antique plate collector in the gallery today who has taken an interest. Thank you for coming out.

I would just like to sum up by saying that in Durham region the seventh annual autofest, Autofest 2000, was held at the GM headquarters, and they had visitors from all over North America and in fact the world. Most recently General Motors commissioned the restoration of one of the 1908 McLaughlin Buicks by a fellow by the name of Harry Sherry of Sherry Classic Autos, from Warsaw, Ontario, who did a spectacular job in the restoration. It's really quite a work of art.

This summer a very good friend of mine, Arnold Kerry, rebuilt by himself a 1950 Buick and in fact drove it across Canada. Jim Grieve, who's the owner-operator of the IGA store in Port Perry, annually drives me in each of the parades in one of his three or four classic cars. It's something very near and dear to their lives and certainly my life, and it's one small thing we can do to pay some respect to the people who keep the history alive.

Gord Hazlett has done an

article in Old Autos. In fact, he was instrumental in organizing a review here at Queen's Park and I want to thank him for that. It's a very good

article capturing the history.

Toby Barrett, one of the members who spoke today, has brought these licence plates. No, I did not make this while I was doing time. These are just examples that will bring history and the vintage plates and the vintage vehicles all into the modern world and times. In fact, in five years we might have electric cars and start a whole new genre of auto enthusiasts.

I thank all of the members for participating and I look forward to their support on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for Durham, particularly for his co-operation and assistance this morning.

SAFE STREETS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

Mr Crozier moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999 and the Highway Traffic Act to recognize the fund-raising activities of legitimate charities / Projet de loi 64, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1999 sur la sécurité dans les rues et le Code de la route pour reconnaître les activités de financement des organismes de bienfaisance légitimes.

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

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I too want to thank Mr O'Toole and the members of the Legislature for the unanimous consent this morning on what was some misinformation on my part, and the fact that Mr O'Toole and his colleagues were prepared to proceed with the debate. Otherwise I might not be here speaking. I appreciate that.

I also want to thank this morning two gentlemen from the cystic fibrosis association who joined me in a media conference earlier: Mark Fitzsimmons, who is captain in the Toronto fire department and chair of the national board of directors of the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada; as well as Yves Savoie, national executive director and executive director, Ontario, for the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada. They will be joining us this morning for this debate.

The Safe Streets Act was first passed about a year ago, and I acknowledge and understand the government's position at that time in that it wanted to control the activities particularly of what are called squeegee kids on the streets, as well as aggressive panhandling. My bill, I say to the members of the House when I ask for support of it, is to correct an inconsistency that's developed all across this province. It's having a significant effect on the fundraising activities of charities, and I would just name a few.

I mentioned earlier, just a minute ago, that the firefighters across Ontario collect $600,000 for muscular dystrophy every Labour Day weekend with their roadway boot drives. Shinerama, a student-run street campaign for cystic fibrosis, raised $380,000 in Ontario last year, in 1999. The Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada expects to lose about $750,000 annually because of the way the Safe Streets Act stands at the present time. Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children raised $5,000 for their Herbie fund last year. Under the Safe Streets Act as it stands, this fundraiser is illegal.

There are Goodfellows all across the province, Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs, the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, the Windsor Regional Hospital burn unit and so on who have been detrimentally affected by this act.

We're merely trying to correct it. Bill 64 is very simple. It's a one-page bill that wants to do two things. It is to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999, and to amend

section 177 of the Highway Traffic Act. What it merely says is that the activities carried on by these charities, as they apply to their fundraising activities, can be held if they meet two simple conditions: that they are conducted by a charitable organization recognized by Revenue Canada, and that they are permitted by a bylaw of the municipality.

I've had support from a number of municipalities across the province, and I'll only give a couple of examples.

Fire co-ordinator Max Hussey, of the regional municipality of Waterloo, has written on behalf of the Waterloo Regional Mutual Aid Association:

"I would like to express our support for private member's Bill 64....

"The firefighters raise a substantial amount of money each year for muscular dystrophy by holding road tolls.

"We believe this is a very worthwhile cause and this yearly event should be exempt from the act."

The town of Tecumseh in my riding has written that they passed a resolution on their meeting Tuesday, November 28, "That the council of the town of Tecumseh supports the request from Bruce Crozier, MPP, respecting his private member's Bill 64, the Safe Streets Amendment Act."

Just to outline the problem that this has caused, I'll read part of a letter from the town of Leamington, my home town. It is written by Brian R. Sweet, the director of corporate services.

"After the passage of the Safe Streets Act by the present government, the Leamington council had no choice but to withdraw its approval and support of these two charitable events" held in the town, that being the Kinette Club's daisy drive and the Leamington firefighter's boot drive. "Even though the municipality has never received a single complaint in the many years that these organizations were conducting these fundraising events, the municipal council had to stop the activity."

I add as a footnote that the municipality has been informed by their insurance that if the firefighters in Leamington, for example, were to conduct such an event and not be exempted from the Safe Streets Act, liability insurance would not be valid for the town.

I also want to quote from a couple of news articles, one, the Eganville Leader, where the Killaloe OPP were recently asked for their approval for a toll booth. They were informed by Staff Sergeant Jim Graham that as far as he understood the new Safe Streets Act, fundraisers like the toll boot are no longer allowable by law. I quote, "My understanding of the legislation is that nothing like that toll boot is allowed."

Also from the Eganville Leader in May of this year I quote, "So with this Safe Streets Act it is now illegal for such organizations as the Eganville fire department to hold its annual toll boot fundraiser, an event that has been held for the last 10 years to raise money. It's strange: have you noticed in recent years how the province has squeezed us out of more and more methods of raising money, yet at the same time has given us all kinds of new lottery opportunities to support?"

My point there is that I don't really think that the province, the government, had any intention of squeezing charities out of fundraising events. I think, with the passage of the Safe Streets Act and its original intent, that we then suddenly found ourselves in the position where it had a much broader scope. When police departments looked at this act, they found themselves in an untenable position.

Attorney General Jim Flaherty, being the top legal officer in our province, said, rightly so, when asked about this last November, "They will have to obey the law." I agree with that. Laws are there for a purpose. Laws are not there to be broken by intention and laws are not there so that police departments will be told in some instances to look aside. Even if they use the discretion they have, all it takes is one complaint and then that's the end of it.

Jim Parent, president of the Windsor Goodfellows, said, "If that becomes law," and it did, "It would kill us." Staff Sergeant Dave Rossell, a spokesperson for the Windsor Police Service, said, "We can't pick and choose which laws we want to enforce and those we don't. We may be put in the position where we would have to enforce."

That is the position we're in today. What I'm asking my colleagues in the Legislature to consider today is that by two simple amendments to the Safe Streets Act-it will still have the same impact that was intended when it was first passed and supported by this Legislature-by exempting registered charities that have permission of the municipality by bylaw under the Safe Streets Act, these charities will be able to once again continue to raise money for those who need our help and whom we can help the most by supporting the likes of Goodfellows, the firefighters and other charitable organizations in the province. So I ask the members for their consideration and support.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I'm pleased to rise and speak to the bill this morning, Bill 64, the Safe Streets Amendment Act.

I probably shouldn't be this way but, lately, whenever I see a private member's bill from the opposite side, I look at myself and I say, "Why are they doing this?" Maybe I'm being overly cynical but-

Interjection.

Mr Wettlaufer: I know, Rosie.

The Safe Streets Act that we passed last year fulfilled the Blueprint promise to stop aggressive solicitation and squeegie kids. It was to make our streets safer.

The Highway Traffic Act always prohibited any solicitation while on a roadway. Now the member from Essex, Mr Crozier, brings forward this bill as an amendment to the Safe Streets Act. I wonder if he would have brought forward an amendment to the old Highway Traffic Act. Nothing has changed here insofar as the charities themselves are concerned. Would he have brought forward that amendment under the old Highway Traffic Act? It's a very simple question to myself, and of course I can't answer it.

The minister, Mr Flaherty, has written to the municipalities. In the Toronto Star on April 9, 2000, it was reported:

"Charities across Ontario were concerned the new legislation-designed to combat aggressive squeegee kids and panhandlers-was being used by local municipalities to also ban long-standing fundraising campaigns that take place near roadways.

"`Medians and shoulders and sidewalks are not part of the roadway,' Flaherty said.

"Flaherty met Thursday with representatives of the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada to discuss the problem faced by the charities.

"`The letter,' said George Henderson, Muscular Dystrophy's Ontario spokesperson, `will help us in situations where municipalities have arbitrarily held up Bill 8 and said you can't do what you've done in the past.'"

Other charities, including the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, have shared the concerns of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, but I'd like to assure them that nothing has changed from the old Highway Traffic Act. This is not targeted at them. It was targeted at aggressive panhandling and the squeegee kids.

There have been some supportive quotations insofar as this act is concerned and how it may or may not affect the charities.

Ed McNorton, Windsor police staff sergeant, in a November 24, 2000, Windsor Star article, said, "As far as aggressively going out there and kicking people off the street for selling their magazines, no, we're not going to do that. The intent of the law was aggressive soliciting and people who bother people at bank machines or disrupt traffic."

Deb Mineau, senior constable, Essex OPP, in a November 24, 2000, Windsor Star article, said, "The legislation was not intended for organizations such as the Goodfellows. They're not aggressively approaching people."

Chris Townsend, London

Chapter President, Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, in a March 30, 2000, letter to the editor, said, "It is the intention of our foundation and Shinerama committees across Ontario's colleges and universities to continue this successful campaign. In addition to raising awareness and funds for CF research, it is our primary goal that all students conduct themselves in a safe manner."

I think these three quotes point out exactly what we're talking about: aggressive solicitation versus a safe approach. As long as they're not on a public roadway, there's no problem. There wasn't a problem under the Highway Traffic Act; there is no problem now.

I have to say that I cannot support the legislation because I wonder why it was brought forward.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I had prepared notes to go down a certain road, assuming the government would see that there was a small problem with the bill they passed. I was simply going to say, "Thank God they see there is a small problem and they're going to support Mr Crozier and are going to be reasonable about this and say, `We understand there's a misconception about the law out there and an inconsistency that's happening across the province, so let's make it mandatory that we have that understanding across the province.'" That was what I was going to do. Now I have to stand and ask why the government is going to be against this bill.

First, I want to start in a polite way to say to my friend, to a gentleman who has received support from charities across the province, that he's done his homework. Since January 30, 2000, I believe, the bill became

an act. Mr Crozier from Essex has done a yeoman's job of trying to pull this together to ensure that the people of Ontario, particularly those in need, are cared for by charities across the province. I want to say to him, thank you very much for your dedication and for bringing this to our attention. Thank you for doing something that we believe in at private members' time, and any time in this Legislature that we put forth ideas and concepts that we believe will improve the province and improve the legislation that's put forward.

In the spirit of understanding, the people who do their homework will understand that this legislation is nothing more than simply trying to correct a small flaw that was found in legislation. Instead, now we're starting to hear the debate of, "Oh, there must be an ulterior motive to this. They don't understand the law. They don't understand what's going on. They're not the people who know how to legislate."

Unfortunately, since we're starting to hear that, I have to go down another road. I'm going to go down that road by simply saying to the member from Kitchener-Waterloo-I think it's Kitchener-Waterloo-

Mr Wettlaufer: Kitchener Centre.

Mr Levac: -Kitchener Centre, sorry-you proved the point. You used three quotes from people who said that it's OK and they're going to proceed anyway, and we've given you quotes from municipalities that have passed bylaws to make sure that you don't go on the roads, that you don't do those activities. It proves inconsistency. I'm going to use your own words against you to say then that you should support the bill, to make sure there is a consistent understanding across the province.

I want to make sure we also understand that we're talking about what the firefighters are. As the Solicitor General critic, I've become very passionate about understanding how firefighters put their lives on the line every day, day in and day out. The understanding that I have about this group is that not only are they professional and not only do they do their job exceptionally well, but these people are law-abiding citizens. They want to obey the law. They are examples. They set themselves a high standard of professionalism, a high standard of community service.

Every police officer I've spoken to so far in my role as critic for the Solicitor General, and the firefighters I've spoken to, including chiefs, deputy chiefs, captains and all of the front-line firefighters, have said to me they support Bill 64 wholeheartedly, so much so that they included Bill 64 in their lobby day to show that they are community-minded and law-abiding citizens.

They have a deep fear, and their understanding is that this is going to stop the boot drives. In essence, it has. Why? Because since January 31, 2000, when the bill was enacted and put into place, over $200,000 has been lost to the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Why? Because they want to be law-abiding citizens, first and foremost; because they abide by the law of the land. It was pointed out very simply that the law of the land has a flaw. That simple, small flaw is that what was attempted in the Safe Streets Act to take care of one problem actually created another.

Mr Crozier's request is not to repeal the law, not to stop the government from its agenda, this particular issue, which was the first piece of legislation they put forward. What he wants to do is simply amend that piece so that the second part of the law, which reached across the province and not maybe two or three centres around the province-he's simply asking for the government to understand, "Please, go along with us. Understand that there are municipalities out there that have a different

interpretation of what the members opposite are saying, including the Attorney General." Just because he says it's so, which I've learned through my year here, it's not always so. Just because he has an idea or a concept or a thought, somebody advised him, it's not always the fact. It's not always the way the Attorney General says it is.

What we're finding out across the province is that it's eradicating the possibility of the Muscular Dystrophy Association raising $750,000 a year, because they're law-abiding citizens in this group. The firefighters are law-abiding citizens. In the gallery with us today is George Henderson from the Muscular Dystrophy Association and Captain Mark Fitzsimmons from the Toronto Fire Department, who is also the chair of the national board of directors of the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada. The two gentlemen's presence here today is to try to send a signal to you, to make it very clear to you that they have a deep concern about this.

Instead of just simply pushing it aside by saying, "Our opinion is that it's no problem," do us the favour, support the bill, get it done, on the books, so there is a consistent understanding across the province of how fundraising can and can't be done.

I did a little local research. I want to compliment the firefighters, both professional and volunteer, in my riding, in the small village of Glen Morris, in the town of St George, in Paris, in Brantford. Each of these areas in my riding has used, at one time or another, boot drives. That's where the fire department sets up a little boot drive on the road. They stop right in the middle. Why? Because that's where the traffic is, and the people expect it and the people want it. The firefighters do an exceptionally professional job and their main key is safety.

So they set this up in a very smart, appropriate way such that absolutely no one-and here's a piece of history for us-has been injured or hurt during any of these boot drives across Ontario-not one single person.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They support this bill in St Catharines.

Mr Levac: I can imagine that they support this bill across the province.

I want the members opposite to take a step back and simply understand that there is an inconsistency in your own words. If I listen to you carefully, your own words will consistently show that there is inconsistency across the province, and because of that this bill should be supported. It must be supported so that the activities of law-abiding citizens, particularly the firefighters of our province, which raise millions and millions of dollars, can continue.

They are saying to you, first on the lobby day held just last month, that Bill 64, which has nothing to do with their benefit-they didn't come to us saying, "I want, I want, I want." They came to us with Bill 64 as one of their top three priorities: "For our community, we want you to support Bill 64." I don't think that's very difficult to understand, and I implore the members on the other side, I beg the members on the other side: understand that this isn't about a whack at you, that this isn't about who wins and who loses.

This is about correcting a problem in the legislation that has been pointed out to you by members on this side of the House. So I wholeheartedly support this bill, I thank the member from Essex for putting it forward and I implore the government to support this bill.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I wish to speak to the bill introduced by the member for Essex. I congratulate him on sticking up for charities and the wonderful work they do in this province. I will be speaking against the bill, and I speak against the bill because if you refer back to what Bill 64 is trying to do, it's trying to amend Bill 8, also known as the Safe Streets Act. The intent of the Safe Streets Act was to keep our streets clean-to keep our streets safe, rather, the roadway safe. Yes, in my riding-

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Clean of all those pesky people?

Mr Tilson: Give me a break, you know. The member from Beaches-Woodbine says, "Keep it clean of those pesky people." Those are her words.

The issue in my riding with respect to keeping the streets safe is that we too have service clubs that have these toll roads. They're working with the police services boards, they're working with the municipalities and they have their toll roads off the roadway, at an entrance to the major mall of the community, where it is safe. I would hope that the service clubs and the charities and the other organizations around this province would continue to do that.

I must say that I am critical of the bill because there are two ways in which he's asking for this act to be amended. One is that you must be a registered charity and the other is that you must have approval from municipalities.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): It's a terrible thing, isn't it?

Mr Tilson: Well, the point of the issue is that I thought the province of Ontario administered the safety of the highways and the streets of this province. It's called the Highway Traffic Act. Why are you downloading the issue of safety to the municipalities? I don't understand the requirement of the bill, demanding that the local municipalities pass a bylaw to approve what these charities are going to do. The safety of the streets of this province is on the provincial government, not on the municipalities. Read the act.

As far as registered charities, I don't know why you're discriminating against everyone else. There may be other organizations that are not registered charities under the Income Tax Act of Canada. There may be other charities. There may be other organizations. There may be other non-profit organizations. Your bill doesn't refer to those. Why are you discriminating against those people?

The bill that is being proposed is flawed. The member has mentioned a group from down his way that was quoted in the Windsor Star. Goodfellows, I believe, is the organization. There was a story that ran in the Windsor Star-Windsor is near the riding of Essex-which has the following headline: "Goodfellows not Targets of Bylaw, Police say." When the Goodfellows take their annual fundraising drive in two weeks, volunteers won't be targeted by police under the province's panhandling legislation unless their actions are the subject of specific complaints.

The quote from the Windsor Star is, "`As far as aggressively going out there and kicking people off the street for selling their magazines, no, we're not going to do that,' said Windsor police Staff Sergeant Ed McNorton.

"`The intent of the law was aggressive soliciting and people who bother people at bank machines or disrupt traffic,'" according to Essex OPP senior Constable Deb Mineau.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: The members who are heckling over there, if they were to read Bill 8 and look at what the intent of the bill was, it says specifically sections 2 and 3. Read those sections. They don't apply to the people you're talking about. They clearly do not apply.

Mr Levac: The intent.

Mr Tilson: Read the section. He keeps blathering over there. I didn't interrupt him when he was shouting at me.

To imply that the Safe Streets Act deters fundraising by such voluntary organizations is certainly to misconstrue the intent of the act. Safety on our government's side is of utmost concern: safety of those who are approached and, importantly, safety of those who wish to participate in fundraising campaigns.

Voluntary organizations, charitable organizations, registered or not, can still raise funds in the traditional manner. They are only limited by this government's concern for the safety of those concerned.

Mr Crozier in his bill is attempting to amend the current act by classifying those who should be allowed to campaign on the roadways and those who should not. In drafting the Safe Streets Act, the government made a careful and deliberate attempt not to introduce such discriminating qualifications.

I hope that members would read again Bill 8 and vote against this particular bill that Mr Crozier has introduced.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): The squeegee bill passed on April 1, and we had warned the government during very short committee hearings and during debate that we feared it was going to adversely impact charities. We were told by the government on numerous occasions that that was not the case, that we were to take their word for it and rely on their

interpretation of the legislation.

One of the arguments that was made was that prosecutors would exercise their discretion in a way that they wouldn't crack down on charities because that wasn't the purpose of the act. Then something happened that I don't think even the government anticipated. Before the charities could go to the streets to engage in their charitable work, they first had to go to the municipality to get permission to do so.

It was at that point that legal counsel to the various municipalities all across Ontario said: "You know what? We can't grant that licence," or that permit, whatever it may be. "Why? Because we are going to be running afoul of the squeegee bill."

We argue here on both sides occasionally, "Here's what the law means." The parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General will say it means X and I will say it means Y, but the way we as legislators resolve things is either to amend legislation during the debate process or amend it afterwards if a provision has resulted in something this government was not anticipating.

One way this government has tried to deal with the problem is by-in an unusual move-the Attorney General of Ontario, in April this year, writing a letter of

interpretation to all those charities and municipalities saying, "Your legal opinion is wrong. This bill should not impede charitable activities." I would say, with all due respect-the Attorney General's legal opinion is one that is brought before the courts-that while he's not always wrong, the Attorney General, like Attorneys General past, is not infallible. There are a number of occasions on which the Attorney General has told this House that the law said this, and it did not. The efforts to try to strike down the firearms act is one example.

Most recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that judges' secretaries could form a union because it doesn't violate judicial independence. The Attorney General had argued to the contrary, but the Ontario Court of Appeal had the last word on that.

Here is an opportunity for us to fix the legislation. Maybe the municipal council's opinion is wrong, but that's not for us to say. Charities, in fact, are not getting the permits and are not getting the necessary permission to move forward. So what's happening? We know that in London the squeegee bill nixed the University of Western Ontario's annual fall Shinerama, which last year raised $380,000. Muscular dystrophy, we've already heard, expects to lose some $750,000 annually in Ontario. We've heard the Ontario firefighters' boot drives to raise funds have been banned by the bill.

Lastly, Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children raised $5,000 last year for the Herbie Fund through a similar promotion. They were told they have to find other alternatives. Again, we can argue what the law means. The reality is that the law is being interpreted in a way that charities are not able to go out and raise that money, and we're talking about $1 million a year.

The parliamentary assistant argued, "Look, Mr Crozier, your bill is flawed." I know my colleague would be more than happy to have this bill go to committee to have any fine-tuning that needs to happen. But I fear this is a bit of a false argument and that the government doesn't want in any way to concede or brook any change when it comes to a bill they've brought forward.

I would say this is how we fix bills, in private members' business. Here's an opportunity for the members to say, "You know what? Obviously this is hurting charities, particularly outside the city of Toronto. This one-size-fits-all solution for a Toronto safe-streets issue has had the adverse effect that charities are losing $1 million a year."

If you want to amend Mr Crozier's bill, he's happy for that. But let's pass it, let's support it. Who could not support it? The legal arguments made have been rejected. Would the Attorney General send the question of the way the provision should be interpreted to the Superior Court and let a judge decide? He refused to do that. All he was willing to do was make a legal argument through a letter. I say the Attorney General should appear before a court to make that argument, so we can get a final judgment, or the Attorney General or the members here ought to agree to this bill, so we can fix the act.

Obviously the government's intention when they passed this legislation could not have been to knock down $1 million a year in revenue from charities.

I urge members to leave aside the partisan sniping on the issue of the squeegee bill. We can talk about the squeegee bill another day. This particular provision and this particular bill-

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to say to the good citizens and decent taxpayers who are watching this program this morning at 11:30 that we're debating Bill 64, a bill introduced by the member for Essex which New Democrats will be supporting. But for the benefit of the good citizens and decent taxpayers who are watching, I want to tell you what Bill 8, the Safe Streets Act, was all about.

That legislation created new provincial offences, amended the Highway Traffic Act and made it illegal to do several things: solicit in an aggressive manner, such as panhandling or ticket scalping, as well as solicit persons in places where the right of way may be impeded, for example, bank machines, transit stops, public washrooms, pay telephones and transit vehicles.

It makes it illegal to dispose of used condoms-think about that for a moment, good citizens-needles, syringes and broken glass in outdoor public places. Just imagine the cops sitting on some street where they think this stuff might be going on, because it could be going on anywhere in Ontario, well-paid cops-presumably they are to protect all citizens from serious crimes-out on some corner, let's say Queen Street or Bloor Street. It makes it illegal to dispose of used condoms, so some cop is looking out for that kind of activity. It's pretty dumb, right?

Mr Levac: It's got to be used.

Mr Marchese: Of course it's got to be used, or presumably used. Why else would you dispose of it? It's got to be used, yes.

It makes it illegal to stop, attempt to stop or approach a vehicle for the purposes of offering, selling or providing commodity or a service to the driver or other people in the vehicle. Basically, that third point is about the Blueprint promise that gives the police the power to crack down on the most horrible of horribles: the squeegee kid. Talk about serious crime. Honest citizens, good citizens, honest taxpayers, good taxpayers, this is the government that introduced Bill 8, a bill designed to have cops keep an eye on the people who are using condoms and then disposing of them, making it illegal. I hope you find it funny, good citizens, because I find it tragically funny.

And the other piece of the law that makes it illegal to panhandle aggressively, making it impossible for firefighters and other charitable organizations to do their good deeds? And the third one, to dispose of the lowlife, the squeegee kids, the ones who frighten the wits out of so many of these provincial Conservative members as they're driving along Queen Street maybe or by the lakeshore as they get on to the highway. Imagine these poor MPPs driven out of their wits by those horrible of horribles attempting to clean the windshield.

Taxpayers of Ontario, stick with me for a while if you're watching this program. You've got to love this government, right? Have you ever seen a wackier government than this, that wastes my time and wastes your money to deal with this kind of stuff?

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): Where is Bob Rae now?

Mr Marchese: Good judge, I respect some of the work you do, so please. I don't want to say anything that might not be polite. Good judge, I tell you this stuff is an insanity. How can you support stuff like this? Come on. You've been on the bench and you know what serious crimes are all about. Good God, sexual assault is a serious crime. Get out there and do the work and deal with that. We've got serious stuff like domestic assault that's hurtful to families and to women and to children. Please, good judge, try to work with these guys.

You've been on the bench and you know that's the serious crime you've got to deal with. Violent crime is bad stuff for society and the victims who are affected by it. What about hate crime?

Get out there, good judge, you and the others. Try to convince these people, because you know what this is all about. Convince these others that they know not of what they speak, and that they waste-

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Or maybe they do know what they're doing. Because when some of these lawyers out there argue that this may be unconstitutional, this Conservative government loves that. Would that someone would take it to court. Would that some good judge out there might say this is illegal, unconstitutional, because either way this Conservative government wins the battle. Not only are they cleaning the streets from those horrible of horribles, but if someone should dare to take this government to court and they should lose this, they win. Because then they can say, "These courts are just so interventionist.

My God, there's nothing we can do any more, as lawmakers. These people, these judges, come and they create their own law. Here we are, trying to clean the streets of the riff-raff, of the rabble, of the lowest of low, and you've got judges here saying that what we're doing is unconstitutional." Then you have Mike Harris coming back saying, "We've got to work on it.

We've got to make things a lot tougher and we've got to make sure we put people on the bench who agree with our laws, the kinds of bills that we pass in this place," this Bill 8, the Safe Streets Amendment Act, 1999, that goes after squeegee kids so poor seniors don't have a heart attack as they're trying to clean their windows, and so cops are wasting our money trying to pick some guy up because he threw a used condom somewhere on some street of Ontario.

Good citizens, are you following my discussion here? Because, as you remember, I don't talk to these MPPs; it's a personal discussion with you, because they don't listen.

Here's an amendment presented by Mr Crozier that is, I think, a reasonable request. And you already had two MPPs saying, "We like the charities, but we don't like this bill, this amendment." This amendment attempts to correct a problem, because the law is quite clear. That's why I read it out. It makes aggressive panhandling illegal in certain places, such as bank machines, transit stops, public washrooms, pay telephones and so on.

These charities, firefighters and others, can't do the work they used to do. The law is clear. The letters written by the Solicitor General and the Attorney General are vague as to their intent. My understanding of what they have done is they have written to municipalities and to the police saying, "Work with the charities." It doesn't say, "If you do this you might be charged," because you will be, under the law. It says to the municipalities, "Work with them."

Some municipalities say, "Sorry. Yes, you say work with them, but the law is quite clear and it says we can't do it." So some municipalities are preventing these people from doing the work they want to do. That's why the attempts by Mr Crozier to put this amendment to make that clear, so municipalities cannot deny them those applications or those permits, and so the police quite clearly know they shouldn't be arresting them or stopping that activity.

It's quite clear; it's obvious, yet you have members-I don't know. They stand up and they make fanciful-not even fanciful. It's not very intelligent, I would say. This is just a modest amendment.

You recall my buddy here, Peter Kormos from Niagara Centre, was the first to raise this concern in this Legislature. He talked about the effect it would have on charities-it was very obvious from the law-and warned the government they ought not to do it because they would lose thousands and thousands of dollars as a result of this law that would disable them from doing this activity, and that many people who depend on them wouldn't have that support. He told them, "You shouldn't do it."

We opposed Bill 8 because it was a dumb, dumb piece of legislation, as a result of which my friend Peter Kormos introduced a bill that would repeal that act. It was called the

An Act to repeal the Safe Streets Act, 1999, and in French, which I think is even more pertinent, it's called les nouveaux Misérables.

What does it mean? It's a bill that is poorly conceived not only because it leaves charities vulnerable but because it persecutes the poor. Basically the people it persecutes are the poor. That's why it's badly conceived and dumb. It makes of those who are already victimized, those squeegee kids, many of whom have difficult problems-it persecutes them and then says to the charities that attempt to help those very people who are persecuted that they can't. On both counts the law affects the persecuted and those trying to help them.

The obligations of government are disappearing. Not only do you have a government which no longer feels obligated to help those who need the help, but you now have a government that relies on volunteers to raise money, and this bill prevents those volunteers from raising the money that would help the persecuted. Do you follow, good citizens and good taxpayers, how dumb this piece of legislation is? This government is relying more and more on volunteers and relying on the corporate sector, God bless them, to dish out millions of dollars, if they have it, to help those who need it.

It is relying on charitable organizations to do more of what governments used to do in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Now with this government it's disappearing. Governments are no longer governments. The Conservatives call themselves the non-government government. If governments don't have the obligation to help people, then who is left? If all we have are churches and charitable organizations left to help, but in this particular instance and with this particular law they are prevented from doing so, then who is left?

What we need is to end this attempt by this particular government to continue to pretend they're doing something on law and order when they are in fact doing so very little. Remember the introduction of the Victims' Bill of Rights. Judge Day, who ruled on that bill, said that the Victims' Bill of Rights has no rights inherent within it. There are no rights in the bill. Why would this government call a bill which purports to give rights the Victims' Bill of Rights if there aren't any rights? Do you see the game they're playing with you, citizens? That's why I talk to you directly.

It's a game of pretending that it's a law-and-order government, but it's just a shell game, and if you are a victim of that deceit, then I pity you, citizens, and I pity you, good taxpayers, for falling into that trap.

That's why you need to be more involved and more politicized and more engaged, because only by doing so can you help to shape governments and can you help to make them accountable. God knows, many citizens in this province have tried to make this government accountable, but it's not working as well as it should. We need more and more of you citizens to decide that it's time to get out of our comfortable lives and our comfortable chairs and get out and make an effort to be a citizen.

When you become a citizen, you're concerned not only about how laws affect you but how they affect others, because if it affects others in a bad way, it indirectly affects you. We are all citizens by the mere fact that we are human beings and we depend on each other.

This government is turning this society into a Darwinian society where every man is out there for himself. It's a dog-eat-dog kind of society. That's what they're turning us into. Do you want to be reduced to that state of affairs? I don't think you do. I know citizens don't want to and I know that once taxpayers understand the implications of bad laws, they won't want to either.

We support this modest measure. I hope there are a few others of the Conservative caucus who will as well.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999 and the Highway Traffic Act to recognize the fund-raising activities of legitimate charities.

This government recognize the legitimate activities of charities and the Safe Streets Act did not change the status quo with respect to how charitable organizations conduct their business. It's not a situation of fixing the Safe Streets Act; it's a situation of there being a misunderstanding. The Attorney General has done his best to bring this situation to finalization. But the bottom line is you cannot override the Highway Traffic Act and what's being proposed in this piece of legislation doesn't do anything to address that situation-far from it.

I want to deal with the Safe Streets Act and its substance. The Safe Streets Act does not prevent someone from soliciting money from people in vehicles if the person soliciting is positioned on a sidewalk, shoulder, boulevard, median or other place that is not a roadway. That has been the law; nothing has changed. What is being requested here is for certain organizations to be recognized. Those organizations out there are already recognized by local police forces and by municipalities.

The Safe Streets Act is not aimed at solicitation that is courteous, and it does not prevent someone from soliciting money from people in vehicles if the person soliciting is positioned on a sidewalk, shoulder, boulevard, median or other place that is not a roadway. Under the Highway Traffic Act, it has always been an offence for someone, while on a roadway, to stop a vehicle to offer or to provide any commodity or service to anyone in a vehicle. That is the law. That will not change by the amendment being put forth by the member opposite. If it's trying to do that, I didn't see it on the face of this bill.

I've read the bill and I think what it's trying to do is define what a charitable organization that would be allowed to do certain things would be. The member opposite knows that.

If the Highway Traffic Act is set up to ensure the safety of activities on the roadways, for the member opposite to indicate that that's wrong and that the Safe Streets Act shouldn't be doing something like that has nothing to do with the Safe Streets Act. First of all, we have to look at the safety of the public in terms of who's using the roads. The intention was that they were to be used by automobiles. They weren't intended to be used for any other purpose. That's why we have safety on the roads. That's why you have a Highway Traffic Act.

To say that the government needs to fix something-there's nothing to fix. The bottom line is it's something that has to be worked out at a local level in terms of the volunteer activities, which are appreciated by all members in this House. There is no doubt about that.

This is not a situation where what we're dealing with here is something the member's bill will change. It's not going to change in terms of where those activities can legally be held. So it's not a situation that needs to be addressed by that piece of legislation.

Mr Crozier: I'd like to thank those members who spoke to the bill, particularly my colleagues from Brant and St Paul's and the member for Trinity-Spadina. I acknowledge the fact that some government members have spoken to it, but I certainly don't agree with their comments. This act proposed today does amend the Highway Traffic Act. The member for Kitchener Centre asked would I have brought forward an amendment to whatever he meant by "the old act." It wasn't evident as being a problem, but your safe streets bill has made it a problem, and that's why the amendment is coming forward. So that answers your question.

I know your legislation wasn't intended to affect charities. That's why we're bringing the amendment forward. The fact that you're not going to vote for my bill, I can accept that. It would have been nice, though, if there would have been one government member who would stand up and acknowledge that there's a problem and acknowledge that the government was prepared to fix it. But not one of you stood up. "There's nothing wrong with our bill.

Everything's OK." Well, let me one more time quote to you from a letter from the Town of Leamington: "After the passage of the Safe Streets Act by the present government, the Leamington council had no choice but to withdraw its approval and support" of two charitable events that have gone on for years. For your guys to stand up there and deny that there is a problem with your Safe Streets Act when it comes to charities, then you're blind to the whole issue. All these charities-

Mr Wettlaufer: What's the date of that?

Mr Crozier: What's the date of this letter? December 13, 2000. All you need to do is acknowledge to charities in Ontario that there's a problem with the bill. Clear it up. If you want to do it with a government bill, fine.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for debate on this matter is now complete. We will take the vote at 12 o'clock noon. There being no further debate, pursuant to standing order 96(e), the proceedings are suspended until noon.

The House recessed from 1152 to 1200.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (HISTORIC VEHICLES), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (VÉHICULES ANCIENS)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We'll first deal with ballot item number 56. Mr O'Toole has moved second reading of Bill 99. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I seek unanimous consent for Bill 99 to be ordered for third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: You're asking that it be referred for third reading? Agreed. So ordered.

SAFE STREETS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 /LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Crozier has moved second reading of Bill 64. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hastings, John

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Molinari, Tina R.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Stewart, R. Gary

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

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes being 30, the nays being 30, I cast my vote in favour. The motion is carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill is referred to committee of the whole.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Mr Speaker, I would like permission of the House that it be referred to general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Crozier has requested that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government. Agreed?

All those in favour of Mr Crozier's referral will stand and remain standing until they are counted.

All those opposed will please stand.

A majority is in favour. This bill will be referred to the standing committee on general government.

There being no further business before the House, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MEDICAL LEGISLATION

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): On December 12, 2000, the Chair of the standing committee on general government reported to this House my Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991, without amendment. The report was received and adopted.

The adoption of this report by this House is a significant step in providing Ontario's doctors and patients with freedom of choice in health care. It is noteworthy that of over a dozen presentations to the committee, none opposed the bill. All made strong arguments as to the benefits and necessity of this legislation.

One of the most eloquent and relevant statements submitted to the committee was from Peter Rothbart, MD, chairman on chronic pain of the Ontario Medical Association: "To my mind the core of this bill is the very notion that fundamentally makes it a human rights bill first and a medical bill second. This core notion is that the needs of a patient are central to medical practice, that patient outcomes matter most, that alleviating suffering is what medicine is all about, that the standard of medical science and the guiding light of medical practice must always address human suffering first and last. I urge you to pass Bill 2 in the name of medicine."

We are approaching the end of a long road in achieving the goal of responsible flexibility in how licensed medical professionals treat their patients and enabling patients to have input into the modalities recommended by these medical practitioners. I urge this House to give swift third and final reading to Bill 2 to achieve these ends.

VETERANS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Earlier this week I was moved by the member's statement by my colleague from Kitchener Centre, Mr Wettlaufer. As the father of one who served in the military, I know the kind of commitment and duty that is needed by those serving overseas, whether it is in time of war or of peacekeeping. I also think it is important for us to take a moment during this specific season of peace and love to thank those who serve our country and protect our democracy.

World War II and Korean War veteran Bob Douglas, who now lives in Port Perry in my riding of Durham, is one of those people who deserve our thanks. From 1950 to 1953, he and 26,000 fellow Canadians fought overseas in the war between North and South Korea. It is my understanding that Mr Douglas served in the armed forces for 22 years before retiring in 1968.

Since moving to Port Perry with his wife, June, in 1987, Mr Douglas became involved in unit 11 of the Korea Veterans Association in Oshawa. He held a variety of positions within the local organization, eventually getting more involved, and for 10 years was the KVA's national membership chairman. One of the causes that he and other Korea vets worked tirelessly for was official recognition from our federal government for their service in Korea. They succeeded, and after much discussion with the government a volunteer medal was issued to the veterans of the Korean War.

As this marks the 50th anniversary, I would urge all members to thank those who served in this and other wars-especially, in my riding, Mr Douglas.

CHARITIES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Earlier today in private members' business, my Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Safe Streets Act, 1999 and the Highway Traffic Act to recognize the fund-raising activities of legitimate charities, passed with the support of my leader, Dalton McGuinty, my colleagues, members of the third party, and four members of the government. I want to thank them for that support and I want to thank all the charities that distributed petitions and supported that this bill be moved to second reading and to committee.

I want to assure the members present, and those who didn't support it, that the only reason it was brought forward was that there is some inconsistency in the province in the way municipalities give approval to charities to do fundraising activities.

It's my hope that this bill will move forward, with discussion and, even though it's a short bill, with amendments if necessary, so that there won't be any doubt that we, as a Legislature, support charities in the province of Ontario, for a variety of reasons for supporting the charity that is endorsed, so that there be no doubt we're all behind them, so that the law won't interfere with them, and so that we will be able to assist the charities in this province.

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF NIAGARA

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This government's disdain for democracy exposes itself frequently, and more frequently than ever. The District School Board of Niagara had a problem. There was a vacancy and no Welland representative on that board because the acclaimed candidate regrettably died before the election itself, too late for any other candidates to file nomination papers. The board very much wanted the permission and the assistance of the Ministry of Education in holding a by-election so that the representative for Welland on that Niagara district board would be a democratically elected one, as it should be.

The board considered the matter once again on December 5. The next day, December 6, they commenced their phone calls to the minister's office, seeking an audience with the minister, Ms Ecker, or some of her senior staff to get some consultation and assistance in addressing this serious problem of democracy on the board in Niagara. Those phone calls were futile. Notwithstanding persistent phone calls from the district board of education in Niagara, they couldn't get past the scheduling assistant, Ms Fran Hauseman.

An answer was needed from the minister before December 12. It's too late, Minister. You screwed up. You blew it. You've imposed a situation on the District School Board of Niagara that compels them, rather than going the by-election route, to merely appoint a member representing the city of Welland. You, Minister, are responsible with your dereliction of duty, with your disdain for democracy, with your lack of concern about public education, for the problems that are being created in Niagara with respect to democratic representation of the people of Welland on that board.

SIMCOE NORTH WINTER ACTIVITIES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'd like to take this opportunity to invite all Ontarians to enjoy a winter vacation in beautiful Simcoe North. Located between the shores of Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe, we in Simcoe North are blessed once again with snowfalls that have left the region a true winter wonderland.

The Horseshoe Valley and Mount St Louis-Moonstone ski resorts offer some of the provinces best downhill, alpine and snowboarding. If you prefer to cross-country ski through miles of beautiful forestry, come visit Hardwood Hills or some of the scenic trails in the Lafontaine area.

Snowmobile clubs throughout our region have been busy all summer building better trails and bridges to make snowmobiling safer and more convenient to those who wish to snowmobile locally and to those who wish to be connected to the provincial trail system.

If you prefer a winter indoor sport, come participate in a curling bonspiel in Orillia, Coldwater, Midland or Penetanguishene. All have excellent facilities and welcome you. If you are a hockey enthusiast, either as a spectator or a player, the ice hockey rinks are always hosting tournaments and games for people of all ages. Other activities may include ice fishing, public skating and figure skating.

For accommodation and food, there is a wonderful selection of bed and breakfasts either in quaint urban settings or in rustic country settings. There are hotels, motels, resorts and inns scattered across Simcoe North.

Our region is within one and a half hours of the GTA and two four-lane highways, 11 and 400, wind their way Simcoe North.

Call any of our chamber of commerce offices or a tourism office for more information. I welcome you to enjoy a Canadian winter destination in beautiful Simcoe North.

FEDERAL AID WITH HEATING COSTS

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise today to address the issue of rapidly rising heating costs and to commend the federal government for taking action, not just talking about the problem.

At the onset of what is shaping out to be a frigid, snowy winter with fuel costs literally skyrocketing, the federal government is actually doing something concrete about it. Yesterday, federal Finance Minister Paul Martin confirmed Ottawa's commitment to provide timely heating expense relief for eligible families and individuals in a time of great need. Beginning January 31, cheques will be in the mail to low- and modest-income Canadians. Married and common-law couples, as well as single-parent families, will get $250. Individuals will receive $125.

I want an unqualified assurance today in this Legislature from the Ministry of Community and Social Services that it will honour this commitment from Ottawa to all eligible Canadians. Why? Because we've all seen how this government operates; for example, clawing back, dollar for dollar, national child tax benefits from social assistance and disability benefits, treating it like it was nothing more than found money for the province, taking money from the most vulnerable in our society, the poor and those with disabilities. This simply cannot and will not be tolerated.

Do not even think about this federal relief as a potential provincial money grab. This is federal money intended to help people in need. This year, I would prefer not to have to call the Minister of Community and Social Services a Scrooge, so please keep your hands off this money. It is intended for all Canadians, not for this province's already bulging coffers.

DON MESSER TRIBUTE IN NEWMARKET

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to pay tribute to a Canadian legend. For 10 years, the most popular show on Canadian television was the Don Messer Jubilee, even more popular than Hockey Night-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Sorry to interrupt. We'll start over if we could. I'm sorry. Some of the members were still carrying on. It's not fair to the member.

Mrs Munro: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a Canadian legend. For 10 years, the most popular show on Canadian television was the Don Messer Jubilee, even more popular than Hockey Night in Canada. Sorry, hockey fans. The show began on radio in the 1930s and continued until 1971. The Jubilee gang included Marg Osborne and Charlie Chamberlain. Now, with a little help from two fiddling champions, it is being revived as a travelling stage show.

Memories of a Don Messer Jubilee, starring two-time Canadian fiddle champ Scott Woods and Ontario champion Mark Sullivan, performed on December 8 at the Newmarket Theatre. Woods and Sullivan were joined by Messer alumni Sandy Hoyt, the Hamilton-area broadcaster who was the host of the show from 1969 to 1971, and singers Tom Leadbeater and Marie Gogo. The program included Messer's evergreen jigs and reels, seasonal songs, and a fitting rendition of the TV show's Butchta style dancing. Champion step dancer Laura Jarvis was featured in the Newmarket show.

I know that all of us will certainly appreciate the opportunity to see this revised edition.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I rise today to talk to all the members of this assembly about one of the duties we have remaining in the time left of this Legislature, with only four more days of sitting after today, and that is to address the situation in the high schools of this province. Each member elected to this body bears responsibility for what is happening in shortchanging the students of this province. We have in front of us a possibility to do something about it.

Earlier this term, I invited each and every member of this Legislature, in a non-partisan fashion, to do something very basic: attend a school in their riding for a day. I'm pleased to tell you that every single member of the Liberal caucus has done that. Fourteen members only from the government caucus have at least put it on their agenda.

The important thing is that people are looking for more than that. The parents and students want peace in the schools. They want a solution. The Ontario Principals' Council tells us that 76% of schools have little or no extracurricular activity. There is an opportunity today to do something about it. Today we are seeking the non-partisan support of the members opposite to put in place something that will actually bring back extracurricular activities, actually bring some solace to the parents and the students who have been made to suffer because of provincial policies.

We will see, I think, in each of the communities in each of our ridings, based on the response from each of the members opposite and the members in every part of this House, how much they really want to put students first.

LAKEFIELD'S 125TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am very proud of the many communities in my riding of Peterborough and the hard work of the many volunteers who give so much toward making the community alive in spirit and uniqueness.

This year, 2000, Lakefield celebrated its 125th anniversary. The Lakefield Special Events Committee was formed to encourage, coordinate and promote events and activities that celebrate the community's unique heritage as we move into the new millennium. Many community groups and individuals have been hard at work on an exciting range of projects sure to appeal to everyone who lives in or visits their community.

The main project being coordinated by the SEC has been the development of a trail network, travelling 5.5 kilometres throughout the village of Lakefield. The trail will be ideal for walking, cycling, rollerblading, cross-country skiing, and so on. Along the trail will be information kiosks and gazebos, benches, trees, historical information and directional signage. The trail will eventually be linked to the Trans-Canada Trail upon completion of the County Road 32-River Road

section of the trail.

I invite all members of this House to visit the community of Lakefield or any the communities in my riding of Peterborough to witness communities that are alive in spirit with entertaining things to do and see.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin reports by committees, there are some pages who will be coming back next week for our extra week and there are some who are unable to do that, so for some of the pages today will be the last day. I'm sure all members would like to join in thanking this wonderful group of pages for their help over the last few weeks.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 147,

An Act to revise the law related to employment standards / Projet de loi 147, Loi portant révision du droit relatif aux normes d'emploi.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please 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 1347 to 1352.

The Speaker: Would the members kindly take their seats, please.

Mr Gilchrist has moved adoption of the report of the standing committee on general government respecting Bill 147,

An Act to revise the law related to employment standards.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 47; the nays are 27.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FLAGS AT HALF-MAST ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES DRAPEAUX EN BERNE

Mr Chudleigh moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 164,

An Act to require that flags be flown at half-mast to honour Ontario police officers and correctional services officers slain in the line of duty / Projet de loi 164, Loi exigeant la mise en berne des drapeaux en l'honneur des agents de police et des agents de services correctionnels de l'Ontario tués dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member, for a short statement.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank Heather Whitlox for delivering the bill to you.

We are all aware of the commendable job carried out by police officers and correctional officers day after day in Ontario. When one of these officers is killed in the line of duty, it is with great remorse that we are required to say goodbye. A way to honour these officers one last time is to require that all Ontario provincial buildings fly their flags at half-mast immediately following the tragedy of their passing.

While there's a long-standing tradition and an accepted protocol for the flying of flags at half-mast in this country, there is currently no legislation requiring this practice to occur. That is what the flags at half-mast bill will do here in Ontario.

STUDENTS FIRST ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 ACCORDANT LA PRIORITÉ AUX ÉLÈVES

Mr McGuinty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 165,

An Act to restore goodwill and positive learning conditions in Ontario's schools / Projet de loi 165, Loi visant à restaurer la bonne volonté et des conditions d'apprentissage positives dans les écoles de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The leader of the official opposition, for a short statement.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The

short title of this act says everything about it. It's called the Students First Act. The purpose is to address the waning goodwill inside our high schools. My hope is that through its passage we can begin to recreate a positive learning climate, which the Education Improvement Commission told us just recently was so desperately missing.

My bill provides a plan for government and teachers to come together to improve education and to restore extracurricular activities for our students, and by so doing put our children first.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to allow for the singing of our national anthem, O Canada, at the beginning of daily proceedings of this House.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

PROMISE MADE PROMISE BROKEN ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR UNE PROMESSE NON TENUE

Mr Parsons moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 166,

An Act respecting accountability for barriers impeding people with disabilities from full participation in the life of Ontario / Projet de loi 166, Loi concernant la responsabilité à l'égard des obstacles qui entravent la pleine participation des personnes handicapées à la vie de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Every day this province goes without the promised Ontarians with Disabilities Act, tax dollars are being misused to create yet another barrier, impeding the disabled community from fully participating in our society. Every new barrier adds to the bill that taxpayers will have to pay to remove the same barrier later. The removal of existing barriers is vital. The continued construction of new barriers is obscene. Ontarians need to know how much of their money is being wasted by this government.

This bill will require that where any new barriers are constructed with government of Ontario money, there shall be a public sign posted in plain view stating, "Your Ontario Tax Dollars at Waste: This is a new barrier impeding Ontarians with disabilities, which Premier Mike Harris helped finance with your tax dollars."

In addition, all advertising paid for, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by Ontario taxpayers' dollars shall have the following prominently displayed in print or in the spoken word, as the case may be, and in closed captioning: "This advertisement is brought to you by the Ontario government, which has broken its promises to enact a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act."

Mike Harris's living legacy to Ontario is more and more barriers paid for by hard-working taxpayers. The

short title of this act is Promise Made Promise Broken Act, 2000.

MEMBERS' OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE SERMENT D'ALLÉGEANCE DES DÉPUTÉS

Mr Agostino moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 167,

An Act to provide for an Oath of Allegiance for the Members of the Legislative Assembly / Projet de loi 167, Loi prévoyant un serment d'allégeance pour les députés à l'Assemblée législative.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): As it now stands in legislation, as members are sworn into office they are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, Her Majesty Elizabeth II, which I believe is quite appropriate. What this bill would do is also add Canada to this oath of allegiance. It is now illegal for us as members of the Legislative Assembly if we include Canada in the oath of allegiance. This will allow the inclusion of Canada without taking anything away from Her Majesty Elizabeth II and the oath as it now stands. I urge this House to support this for second and third readings down the line.

PROHIBITING PROFITING FROM RECOUNTING CRIMES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 INTERDISANT LES GAINS TIRÉS DU RÉCIT D'ACTES CRIMINELS

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 168,

An Act to protect victims by prohibiting profiting from recounting of crime / Projet de loi 168, Loi visant à protéger les victimes en interdisant les gains tirés du récit d'actes criminels.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The Attorney General for a short statement?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'll speak to it during ministers' statements, Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2000

Mr Sterling moved, on behalf of Mr Eves, first reading of the following bill:

Bill 169,

An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2001 / Projet de loi 169, Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 2001.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The minister for a short statement?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Correctional Services, Government House Leader): This is commonly referred to as the Supply Act. It is the formal approval by the Legislative Assembly of all the money that is spent by the government of Ontario over the year. This follows the process, first, of the budget back in May, a committee hearing estimates over the past year and finally, yesterday or the day before, the concurrence by this assembly in the estimates process that was done in committee.

This bill gives the government the right to spend some $56 billion in accordance with those estimates and the process that has gone on.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Our government stands on the side of victims. During the past five years, we have taken a leadership role in assisting victims of crime and holding criminals accountable. We have created the first-ever Office for Victims of Crime and asked this Legislature to make the office a permanent advisory agency, and we have expanded victims' services across the province.

Today, with the introduction of the Prohibiting Profiting from Recounting Crimes Act , we are taking another step to assist victims of crime and fulfill our budget and Blueprint commitments to strengthen victims' rights. If the bill is passed, it would take the profit out of crime by allowing for the seizure of the proceeds convicted criminals may get from recounting their crimes in books or reviews.

There is a specific focus to the bill. It targets forfeiture of profits being sought by criminals from recounting their own crimes. Criminals should not be able to profit from their crimes by revictimizing victims. On the approval of the court, any money generated by a criminal who has written or recounted his or her crime would be forfeited and a fund would be established to compensate the victims of the crime from the forfeited proceeds. If the legislation is passed, Ontario would be the only province in Canada to protect victims in this way.

This bill is supported by victims' advocates groups. I'm sure they would tell you that victims