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

May 11, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-May-11 (PDF)

L057 - Thu 11 May 2000 / Jeu 11 mai 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

E-COMMERCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

MEMBER'S STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

NATIONAL POLICE WEEK

SULPHUR IN GASOLINE

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

MOTHER'S DAY

EMERGENCY SERVICES

SAULT STE MARIE TEEN CENTRE

YORK REGION ECONOMY

VISITOR

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

EDUCATION REFORM

VICTIMS OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FUNDING

LITHOTRIPSY

PELEE ISLAND LABOUR DISPUTE

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

TOBACCO TAXES

HIGHWAY 407

VISITORS

YOUNG WORKER AWARENESS

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

PETITIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

KARLA HOMOLKA

PRIX D'ESSENCE / GASOLINE PRICES

PALLIATIVE CARE

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

HUNTING IN WILDERNESS PARKS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

HIGHWAY SAFETY

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAXPAYER DIVIDEND ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE VERSEMENT D'UN DIVIDENDE AUX CONTRIBUABLES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

E-COMMERCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

Mr Hastings moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 70,

An Act with respect to Electronic Information, Documents and Payments / Projet de loi 70, Loi concernant les renseignements, les documents et les paiements électroniques.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I'm profoundly delighted to participate in today's discussion of Bill 70. I hope everybody will join with me, as we can make history today in ensuring that Ontario joins the Internet communications revolution going on in the 21st century.

There isn't any doubt in my mind: Bill 70 proposes that Ontario recognize digital signatures as the legal equivalent of our paper signatures that we use so often today; also, that all contracts made electronically be made legally binding.

In my estimation, Ontario must show initiative in this electronic age where more and more businesses and everyday activities of our citizens are being conducted on the Internet. This legislation, I believe, will have a positive impact on the demand for Ontario's products and services on-line and encourage and promote the growth of e-commerce in Ontario's communities throughout the 21st century. Furthermore, I think it will help sustain one of the longest economic growth cycles we have seen in recent economic history, certainly since World War II.

In my estimation, we must foster an environment that supports e-commerce and entrepreneurship. This bill represents an opportunity for Ontario to show vision and demonstrate leadership in this Internet age.

This law will introduce a measure of certainty to the world of e-commerce in Ontario and provide a measure of convenience for citizens or businesses in this province.

As you know, our existing laws regarding legal and binding relationships, including contracts, were developed for a paper-based system and economic model, and whether we like it or not, that system is fast becoming a way of the past. Every day more and more people are accessing the Internet and using it to conduct business, purchase goods, communicate with grandparents and grandchildren and families throughout the world, and interact with government. In this fast-paced world, people do not have the time any more, unfortunately, to wait in line or on the phone for government services.

Instead of going to their local banks, more and more people are paying their bills on-line and conducting other transactions on-line via the Internet. This convenience should also be provided by the province of Ontario to its citizens. This law would take a leading role in promoting an accessible and Internet-friendly government.

If e-commerce over the Internet is to develop, consumers and businesses will require the ability to make contracts with digital signatures. This government must be in the forefront of the development of this economic model in order to promote and enhance e-commerce business and entrepreneurship well into the 21st century.

I also believe and hope that you will all join with me in the second reading of this significant and historic bill as the federal government has already translated a similar set of laws from a national perspective. Ontario being the economic engine that it is and has been regarded as being for the last 132 years or more of Confederation, I believe this measure will not only significantly improve our economic leadership across this country, but will reduce economic barriers over time, particularly intra-provincial barriers in trade, so that we can have a more prosperous economy, with more people working than we've ever had in the history of this great country.

As well, Canada has become-as has been noted so often in this chamber and, as has been quoted by members of this government, the United Nations regards Canada very highly-one of the best countries in which to live, work, raise a family and invest. We are attracting more and more newcomers on a daily basis. Within that broad context, I think the E-Commerce Act, 2000, will provide significant leadership in creating jobs, but more than that, in providing for the future well-being of our citizens and future citizens in the 21st century.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It's a great honour for me to have an opportunity to participate in discussion on the private member's bill by the member for Etobicoke North. I will be sharing my time with the member for Brant, my colleague and friend.

As the Liberal Party science and technology critic, and as one, like so many members in this place, who is both struggling with and challenged by the use of new tech nologies to improve the efficiency of the services we provide, this is a timely debate. I would say it's a timely debate but interesting in one very significant way, that we're debating this as a piece of private member's legislation.

It's my intention to support this private member's bill by the member for Etobicoke North. It's unlikely that he and I will share similar instincts on too many things, but I do believe this is a good start.

I would say at the outset that on this side we're surprised that on an issue like this the vacuum is left to be filled by a private member in the absence of meaningful government legislation. I would like to put on record our view that while this bill is a good start, we believe that it merits significant consideration by committee, and that we need the government, from a ministry-by-ministry standpoint, to take a look at what this legislation does and also at what this legislation doesn't do, in the broad minefield of regulation with respect to the Internet and electronic activities.

We had yesterday in this House a very poignant point of personal privilege raised by my colleague the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, and what that highlighted was one of the things this bill does not deal with: the protection of privacy for individuals. I believe we have seen from this government a wanton disregard for the privacy of citizens, and in the case of the point of privilege by the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, the privileges of customers of the Province of Ontario Savings Office.

I believe there's a very important message we need to send alongside this, and that is that we recognize that electronic commerce, paperless transactions, ought to bear the same burden of responsibility with respect to the protection of privacy as do transactions which have paper, and I'm not sure that's a standard this government has lived up to.

The member for Etobicoke North in his opening comments mentioned, without referencing the bill's number, Bill C-6 in the federal House. Not having had a chance to take an extensive look at that bill, I understand that bill also dealt with privacy provisions.

In terms of putting on the record our concerns, I would state, first and foremost, two. Number one, we believe the government should have had an initiative on this rather than leaving the vacuum to be filled-well, I might add, but filled nevertheless-by a private member's bill. This is a consideration that the government needs to take a look at, and in committee I believe we need to do that. We need to ensure that more work is done. All citizens should be very concerned about the absence of privacy protection as a topic of discussion in the context of this legislation.

Those are two comments I would like to recommend to the member, and I look forward to hearing his point of view on those in his closing comments.

I'm one of those who embraces these new technologies and I recommend to anyone watching that they log on to my Web site, georgesmitherman.com, and see all of the interesting subjects we've got there. It is a way we're using to try and communicate more effectively with a very diverse populace and I'm very excited about it.

In the context of working towards trying to embrace technology, but at the same time protecting against excesses, we have some very real challenges. I believe that, with the engine of Ontario's economy, as the member has stated, we have a responsibility to ensure there is an appropriate balance between the desire to appropriately regulate and, at the same, to ensure governments don't provide a disincentive to moving forward in this way. There is some real concern, if we follow the debate around regulation, the discussions around how e-commerce transactions ought to take place.

If we follow that debate from the United States, which is where the stuff is even more broadly used, there are dangers there. We see there are some who would begin to take a look at the ways they can tax those activities.

The member spoke at length in his comments about the extent to which this bill takes a look at the way we can provide services to our constituents and to the citizens of Ontario. We should all embrace service models which provide a broader range of activities, but I worry that this government will use that as an opportunity to cut off, for hard-to-service individuals and people in harder-to-service communities, face-to-face services provided by public servants and also the kind of information that can best be obtained by talking to a live person across a telephone line.

Our party has very real concerns about the deterioration of service in that way. We hear so often the government talking about virtual services and I think that too often this can be an excuse actually to provide cover for diminishing public service and hiding behind the mask of technology.

I believe it provides great opportunities to provide an alternative range of services. We see a transition, many people wanting to receive government information and services that way, but let us not make a mistake in terms of moving forward and providing government with cover to actually diminish the amount of public services that are being provided.

We've seen some attempts in the last year or two from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, an organization that's dedicated to harmonizing Canadian law. They've developed a uniform electronic commerce act that provides a legal framework, a model for e-commerce. Saskatchewan has embraced that, but I think it's interesting that in the Saskatchewan model we've seen a government bill amended for deficiencies very shortly after its passage. I think that helps to restate, to reinforce my view that we need to ensure that the committee that takes a look at this really views whether it meets all of those tests.

Again, the absence of this being a government bill with all of the resources of the various ministries being put to it is something we highlight as a concern.

I believe we have a responsibility as government to do what we can to reassure the citizens of this province that the people of Ontario are well served by their Legislature with respect to this. I touched on privacy. I can't high light enough the extent to which those protections need to be built into legislation from this province and this government. We know of course of the crisis that struck so much of the wired world with respect to the "ILOVE YOU" e-mail problem, and this place, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, was as crippled as any organization.

It highlights the extent to which we are all vulnerable on that. We have a responsibility to provide our citizens with a sense of assuredness that our legislators are working on this, and more work needs to be done.

We will be supporting this in principle. We think it's a step in the right direction. We expect and ask that the government embrace e-commerce and look for opportunities to provide better services to our citizens, but we expect that they will take a look at privacy provisions, which are not contained in this legislation, and which by their absence cause great concern to us on this side, and also that the government not use this as an opportunity to hide behind e-commerce as a service model at the expense of other service models which are particularly important in communities where language barriers and concerns around using technology are evident.

In the case of my own constituency, I have very serious problems with the withdrawal of banking services in poorer communities. Many more affluent people have embraced technology, but what's left behind are underserviced communities. I also think that with respect to seniors there are some barriers there, although we know seniors are one of the groups that are increasingly using technology. My mother has recently joined the wired world and bombards me with "I love you" e-mails of the type that aren't problematic, and this is a good thing.

But we need to make sure that government doesn't hide behind electronic commerce as a way of doing business and diminish services provided to the citizens in our province.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I'm pleased to join the debate.

I think it's very timely that we have in front of us a matter that deals with privacy, given the issue we've dealt with over the last little while, which was brought to a head yesterday, talking about the amount of information that was inappropriately released-according to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, unlawfully-wherein the provincial savings office released not just the names and personal information in terms of addresses and phone numbers for all the people who had accounts there, for the purpose of giving it to a pollster who was going to poll those individuals to find out how they felt about the privatization of the office, but also, as we found out afterwards, the actual balances that were in the bank accounts of these Ontarians were given to pollsters.

When the freedom of information commissioner was requested to delve into this, she was obstructed, and says so in her report.

It's good that the government, through one of its backbenchers, is saying, "We need to tighten it up, and here's a way to do it, through using the new technology that's available," and it is proper that we should consider that. But there still have not been answers to the questions that were raised about the last breach, and it would seem to me that it is a bit hypocritical to argue that this is the most important thing-

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: "Hypocritical" is unparliamentary, and I would ask you to rule, please.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Sorry, I missed that. Of course it is not used in here, so if the member would withdraw that word.

Mr Christopherson: I don't believe I called anyone a hypocrite. I just used the word. But certainly, Speaker, I will withdraw.

I was saying that I found it somewhat-

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Paradoxical.

Mr Christopherson: Paradoxical-thank you. Very good; I appreciate the help. I found it somewhat paradoxical that at the same time as we're talking about the electronic transfer of information, we have a transfer of information in the old way that breached all the laws. The fact that we would now provide for electronic transfer, because that makes for more efficient government and savings for the taxpayer-but if at the end of the day we aren't protecting the personal information of the citizens better than we did under the old system, what have we really gained?

This is a concern that I think all Ontarians ought to be worried about. As I mentioned yesterday in the House, other than your personal finances, the only thing that's more important to you in terms of your right to privacy in a democracy like this is your medical records.

We're talking about transferring electronic information. Here's a government that transferred information to a private pollster about citizens that contained their bank account balances. That can never be acceptable, and yet this government refuses to do anything. They make some noise about, "Well, we've complied with what the commissioner has requested," or, "We're attempting to comply with what the freedom of information commissioner has brought forward," but she points out in her report that the job's not done.

In fact, she takes the extraordinary step of outlining all the questions that remain to be answered, and a lot of them have to be, à la Watergate, who knew what when, and who approved what when?

We think this is a positive step. This is a good thing, a good use of new technology and an attempt to make sure that government stays on the cutting edge. But let's not lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day, governments have an incredible responsibility with all information. Whether they're transferring it by paper, by phone, by fax, by e-mail or other new electronic technology that's available, at the end of the day, one of the most important things about information is making sure that an individual's personal information is kept just that way-personal.

Somehow the government thinks, in this specific case, that they can just ignore what's happened. "Oh, well, the fact that nobody would talk to the commissioner when they were requested to doesn't mean anything," or there's the fact that the commissioner points out that she has never seen an issue that received so much blockage in attempts to get answer to questions as she has in this particular case.

This is a good measure. Assuming things don't take a U-turn during the debate, I think we are going to be comfortable supporting it and I commend the member for bringing it forward. It's an important issue. But with the means of transferring information also has to come the absolute guarantee that citizens' rights around having information protected are to have equal priority.

I would hope that other backbenchers would use this one opportunity we have to come to this place as individuals, as opposed to caucus members, to express their concern that they aren't satisfied their government has provided the answers the public are entitled to about this breach, not only of protocol, but according to the commissioner, of the law. We don't know at this point with any certainty that we won't end up with a criminal investigation, possibly even criminal charges. We don't know that.

So we would call on the government members to acknowledge that this is an important part of this subject, as much as the mechanics of transferring information: Where are the protections, especially when information is being moved around? That responsibility always, in the case of a majority government, lies with the government. We have one prime example of where they failed us. I would hope that anything new we move to in terms of new means of transferring information would have better protection than what you have offered the people of Ontario to date.

Ms Mushinski: I take great pleasure in rising to speak in support of Mr Hastings's E-Commerce Act, 2000, which will bring Ontario into the 21st century and obviously beyond.

It's important to stress that our government firmly believes in good customer service, and what this bill will do is provide convenience and service to the citizens of Ontario as they conduct business with this government. It will also set up the framework for the future of e-commerce in this electronic age.

By making electronic signatures the legal equivalent of paper signatures, we can ensure several things. We can ensure that the citizens of Ontario receive services in a timely and accessible manner-something, of course, that we strongly espouse in terms of improving customer service. We can also ensure that electronic signatures are legally equivalent to paper signatures.

By making contracts agreed to on-line legal and binding, we will be able to create an environment in Ontario that promotes and encourages economic growth through innovation and technology-something that is also very important to us as a government.

Ontario, as Canada's economic engine, must always make sure it has a vision for the future, by keeping up with technological advances in what we know is a very rapidly paced electronic age. We must also make sure that our citizens have every opportunity to interact with the government in the most effective way.

As of now, there are a few ways that Ontarians can interact with the government electronically, such as paying fines and updating licences with the Ministry of Transportation, or reserving a campsite with the Ministry of Natural Resources. I think it's important that we keep pushing the envelope and raising the bar of expectations to ensure that we are not left behind.

This law will ensure that the Legislature of Ontario is ready for the innovations of electronic commerce and technology into the 21st century. I commend my colleague John Hastings for having the courage, the foresight and the vision to recognize the technological needs not just of present generations but of future generations and of society.

Mr Levac: I will probably be giving a couple of minutes of my time, if it's OK, to the member from St Paul's.

I want to thank the member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale for expressing our opinion on this side of the House.

First of all, I want to state very clearly that yesterday we were involved in history-making. I'm going to tie that in to this particular bill and I'm going to speak specifically to the bill in a moment.

The first thing I want to do is talk about yesterday's historic moment. In the House, for the first time ever, we passed a committee bill. It was done so with the co-operation of all members on all sides of the House in agreement. Bill 65 forms the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians. Now, that's a harmless situation, except it showed that we are capable, in a very quick moment, of doing something that's absolutely right and good for the province.

However, that being said, I want to come over to the bill today. I did mention yesterday that I believe we need to do some more reforming of private member's bills in order to get them to the House quicker so that we can make some decisions, as parties and as individuals, as to the value of those bills.

I want to speak to the value of this bill today. It does speak to an important point. The member from Etobicoke North is bringing to the House something that was neglected. We have had e-commerce for quite some time and it's been an open minefield. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the government had not acted until now. As the member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale has indicated, we believe that it needs to get discussed. I'm sure the member opposite introducing the bill would give us that opportunity at committee to make sure all of the little nuances are taken care of.

I'm sure, as was mentioned by the Minister of Labour and a couple of other ministers, that we don't pass perfect legislation, and that there are glitches-using a computer technology term-that do come up. We have to take care of those.

I want to mention something very important for the record, and I'm glad the member who's introducing the bill did take care of this. For the public, this act does not apply to wills, trusts created by wills, powers of attorney, documents created to transfer interests in land, registration and a prescribed class of document or instrument. Those things are not in this bill, and I want to thank the member for recognizing that very important point, because I think we need person-to-person on this.

What I also want to bring up, and the member from St Paul's is signaling me to go ahead and make reference to this-is that one of the things that is very important for us to recognize is that we're slowly taking human experience out of our transactions. When we did contract, it was person to person, at one time telephone to telephone; now we're talking computer to computer. The one thing computers still have yet to be able to do is duplicate emotion, the human connection; we have to concern ourselves with the "click, I agree" syndrome.

If we click a button and say we agree, have we not been able to do that human transaction? We must be careful that we don't avoid the human interaction that is so dear and necessary when we come into these very important agreements. So there must be provisions and there must be something that we need to discuss that prevents us from getting into the "click, I agree" syndrome. I think that needs to be addressed, and I'm sure that all the members agree that we are probably desensitizing that human experience.

The one last comment I want to make is something that the banking industry has picked up on. When they made the transition to using fewer people, interacting people to people, they put their machines out first. They put all the bank machines out and got people used to those things. Now that we have e-commerce, we really have to be careful not to have that out there first.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I'm pleased to speak to this bill today. I think it's an important bill and I'm pleased that Mr Hastings has brought it forward. I don't think he and I have agreed on one thing in this House before.

Ms Mushinski: Sure you have.

Ms Churley: I don't think so. Tell me what else.

Mr Hastings: Stockwell Day.

Ms Churley: "Stockwell Day," he says. Heaven help us; protect us from Stockwell Day and Tom Long.

We're off the subject now and I want to come back to the bill, which I am supporting today. I would say that the electronic transfer of information and the conducting of business dealings electronically are not new, and certainly the time has come for legislation that sets clear rules for government and for the public and does so in a manner that is subject to scrutiny. My caucus is pleased that the member for Etobicoke North has followed the example of the NDP government in Saskatchewan. We wish his government were as forward-thinking as the NDP government in Saskatchewan, because they have already done that.

This is so important, and the electronic use of information and the lightning speed of technology are happening on a daily basis and we can hardly keep up with them. The younger generation is much more able to keep up with the latest technology than I am. I'm constantly falling behind and having to learn. But it is moving at lightning speed. I just wonder why the government hasn't had the courage to bring forward a bill like this to, in an open and democratic way, with full public participation and scrutiny, bring Ontario into the 21st century. I'm pleased to see that Mr Hastings is trying to do that today.

I agree with the principle of the bill, that we need to provide for the electronic transfer of information, and I believe my caucus-although it is private member's hour-supports this. They're happy to let it pass second reading today so it can go to committee for full hearings all across Ontario and allow some of the concerns we have and that I'm sure the public would have to be addressed.

The thing is that you can do this right or you can do it wrong. Bill 70 gives us a chance to now address the issue. It's a good thing that we now have that opportunity. But we have some concerns. I'm far from sure at this point that this bill in its present form is acceptable. But I would say as well that quite frequently with private members' bills, once they go to hearings, some concerns and further information are added and amendments are made. Of course, that's why we need to pass it today, so we can have those hearings, and any changes we need to make, any considerations that have not been included in this bill, would come forward and we could make those amendments.

Some of the questions we have to ask are, will public access to public records be guaranteed? I'm sure we all agree that that is absolutely necessary. My colleague Peter Kormos raised the other day what happened under this government to court dockets. So before we consent to allow the government to replace paper record-keeping with electronic record-keeping, we must be certain that public access will in no way be compromised.

One of the first items of the bill, subsection 6(2), says that a person's consent to accept a document in an electronic form can be "inferred from the person's conduct." We have to ask, is that good enough? Then again, we have to look at how we will verify electronic signatures, and then how we will protect the security of electronic signatures? I'm sure those are things that Mr Hastings has thought about, and perhaps when he sums up he will provide some of his thinking on those questions.

Subsection 6(1) says, "Nothing in this act requires a person to use or accept information or a document in an electronic form."

This is fine and good, but only if that person can be certain that their entitlement to receive information from, for example, the province is not undermined if they cannot accept electronic information.

Another question is, how can the transmission of electronic information be verified? That is a major concern, and it is not immediately clear that the bill covers that.

The issue that some of my colleagues have raised around privacy I think is pertinent, and I wouldn't say just in the context of discussions around some of the things my colleague from Hamilton talked about, the Ontario savings account and the release of private information there, and some other concerns we have about private information being released to the public. In a larger context, technology is being developed at lightning speed and the potential for misuse of personal information is great.

We're all aware of that, and people are somewhat concerned as there is more and more business and there are more transactions being conducted on the Internet and through our computers. Those are the things we have great concerns about. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It's time for us to move forward into the 21st century, and I'm glad we're addressing this issue today.

So there are big concerns about privacy, about the protection of citizens' entitlement to information and access to information, about the verification of transfer and receipt of information, and finally, about the integrity of public records and about public access to public records.

Whether or not this bill meets the test remains to be seen. The rights of citizens and not the ease of business have got to be our first concern here. I believe that full public hearings are a must.

I will close by congratulating Mr Hastings for bringing this bill forward.

I'd like to tell people that if they want to check out my Web site, it is http://www.MarilynChurley.com. I'd be very pleased if people would take a look at that and get back to me and tell me what they think of it.

I appreciate all the e-mails that people send me. Let me use this opportunity to apologize to people if I'm not able to get back to them immediately. We know, of course, with the advancement of technology, that people can now sit down in front of their computers and get through to us right away and expect an immediate answer. We get hundreds of those. I want to thank the member again.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): It's a pleasure to speak to Bill 70,

An Act with respect to Electronic Information, Documents and Payments.

Once again the member for Etobicoke North has done an outstanding job in researching and preparing his private member's bill, and I am pleased to speak in favour of his initiative. I support this bill not just because it would help to make business transactions faster and easier, but also because enabling e-business creates more opportunities for more people to benefit and prosper from goods and services obtained on the Internet.

Specifically, we are talking about allowing people to electronically file documents and contracts with their signature over the Internet. This will provide a tremendous boost for ordinary citizens, business and governments and will help to put Ontario at the forefront of a new and ever-changing economy.

I want to note also that Bill 70 directly addresses the issue of getting rid of red tape, which we know and experience as wasted time, long lines and paper trails slowing the path toward the services we may need. That is what makes this bill particularly democratic and consistent with this government's effort to reduce unneeded regulations and unnecessary paper burdens. Less red tape means more access to services, and that means more equity and enhanced democracy. If this measure is enacted, there will be far less red tape.

So far, this government has eliminated over 1,000 regulations that were laid to rest by our red tape reduction plan. We have made that effort permanent by creating a Red Tape Commission, headed up by Frank Sheehan, the former MPP for Lincoln.

Bill 70 is exactly the kind of measure we need to enhance this effort, and with its passage we will likely be talking about a far greater number of unneeded regulations gone in the near future: reams upon reams of paper that will disappear, I am sure.

In my riding of Waterloo-Wellington, we are part of what is known and even renowned as Canada's technology triangle, or CTT. The CTT is also at the forefront of the electronic revolution, and I'm pleased the government has worked in partnership to help them pave the way. The CTT is the place to start with partnerships for growth in the new economy. The triangle region has the right mix of rural and urban area, along with solid government and business expertise, which combine to make it the leading example of how communications technology can help provide an exceptional quality of life and enhance economic vitality.

The Ontario government has played a leading role in developing leading-edge infrastructure in the CTT through the telecommunications access partnership program. In fact, two of these information highway projects are located in the region: the rural Waterloo community network and the Waterloo information network.

Recently, I had the pleasure of joining the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Natural Resources in Waterloo for the announcement of a new initiative to further advance the information highway in Ontario, a program called Con-nect Ontario. This SuperBuild initiative will invest $82 million that will improve Internet and electronic connections within, between and worldwide for 50 Ontario communities.

Con-nect Ontario will enhance the competitiveness of our communities in the new digital economy and foster growth in jobs, new investment and economic development opportunities. As the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology said in reply to my recent question to him in the House, "We are leading Canada, indeed we're leading North America, in Internet connectedness," a government record we should be proud of.

As I conclude my remarks on the point of leadership, I want to return to the leadership brought to this House by the member for Etobicoke North. At a time when there is some concern that all governments may be having difficulty responding quickly enough to the changes of an ongoing information revolution, the government stays ahead, and this member, the MPP for Etobicoke North, shows how one member can keep us ahead.

Here are some other notable accomplishments by the member that should be recognized today:

The member for Etobicoke North has a remarkable record of bringing forward private members' bills which seek to improve the quality of life for all Ontarians. His bill to permit large private donations to hospitals was immediately recognized in our government's first budget.

He has since brought forward many private members' bills and resolutions to, among other things, establish taxpayer rights legislation; encourage private sector investment in classroom technology; recognize the contributions of Canadian historical figures; enhance grandparents' rights; license locksmiths; and make the purchase of computers more affordable for families and students.

Most significantly, I think, it was the member for Etobicoke North who called upon all Canadian provinces and the federal government to pay tribute to Princess Diana's life. His work in this area has resulted in the donation of over $1 million to Canadian children's charities.

When you look at the diverse range of issues that have been brought forward by this member in the Ontario Legislature in terms of private members' bills and at the very broad range of issues that have been canvassed over the years by this member, he has made a very significant contribution.

This Bill 70 is part of that legacy, part of that record of accomplishment of this member, and I would encourage all members of this House to support it today.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to follow the member for Waterloo-Wellington, who has ably described the purpose and scope of Bill 70, the member for Etobicoke North's bill.

I want to make it very clear from the beginning that certainly I will be supporting Bill 70. I would like to commend the member for Etobicoke North, as the member for Waterloo-Wellington has. When you look at his record and his interests, they are very diverse and very forward-thinking. I don't think there's anyone who has been critical of any of the actions, in a legislative sense, that the member has taken, and that should be on the record. I want to recognize it. He works quietly and effectively.

In fact, I could say he's ahead of the ball on this thing. The province and the ministries responsible have been diligently working on the whole issue of e-commerce, or being connected, if you will, but in a formal, legal sense, I think he's months ahead of the government introducing legislation on this, and I think much of his bill will be reflected in it. So it's an appropriate time for opposition members to bring forward concerns so that government members can listen and can amend in any future attempts at change.

What does e-commerce mean in Bill 70? I'm looking at a copy here, and I think it's important for those who may be watching to understand what this whole e-commerce or e-business is all about. If you look in the definition section,

section 1 of the bill, it describes "electronic" as follows: "includes created, recorded, transmitted or stored in digital form or in other intangible form by electronic, magnetic or optical means or by any other means that has capabilities for creation, recording, transmission, or storage similar to those means and `electronically' has a corresponding meaning."

It's a technical definition, but nonetheless-a lot of people ask me, "What do you mean by an electronic signature?" for instance. It isn't something that we transmit in sort of an art form, our name signature. What he has defined here as "electronic signature" is: "means information in electronic form that a person has created or adopted in order to sign a document and that is in, attached or associated with the document." So it could be a series of number or other kinds of digital pieces of information that represent that person's electronic signature.

The point was made earlier about the impersonal nature of moving forward in this venue of electronic communication, and I certainly recognize that. It doesn't negate the responsibility each of us has to keep the human contact there, even though when I do my banking at the automatic teller machine, it's more convenient for me on the way home at night to drop in and pay my bills and do the other transactions. More conveniently, if I look at what we can actually do electronically today, it's fascinating.

In a general sense, I think the whole B2B thing we hear about, business-to-business communication, the whole Internet or faxing-all of that kind of digital world is just exploding all around us. If we don't deal with it, and this is what the member's trying to do, we're not going to be prepared. We need a framework, a legislative framework, to think about it.

I'm going to list some of the things I've done. I've actually bought a book on-line. I've bought a trip, planned it and got the maps of another country on-line by signing on. I have an e-commerce account with TD-Waterhouse and have traded stocks on-line. I have an account. I've placed orders for various things, from books to stocks. I've downloaded information forms. Of course I have my own government member's Web site, which is john_otoole@ontla.ola.org. Plus, yesterday, at the CAP site in my riding of Durham, in Clarington, we opened up a new Web site.

The students of Courtice Secondary School, with their teacher, Mr John Winder, working in partnership with co-op students, have developed and written all of the code for my own Web site, which was launched yesterday. I could say more about that. I have a co-op student who's actually inputting the data. You'll be able to sign on to my Web site in my riding and get everything from the budget to booking a campsite.

Telemedicine was mentioned in the budget. The previous member mentioned Con-nect Ontario, which complements the virtual classroom, videoconferencing. It's amazing what you can do today electronically. That being said, it really expands everyone's opportunity to become more accessible. It has been a long time in coming, but it's essential that we become prepared for what Alvin Toffler called the third wave, the new world, the new order in that respect. Also, I wouldn't like to negate the personal responsibility issues, the privacy issues.

I think the member for Etobicoke North has done a wonderful job to bring this legislation forward. I can tell you I'll be supporting it, and I know most of the members in the House today, if not all, will be supporting it. Again, I commend you for that, and thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

The Acting Speaker: For a response, the member for Etobicoke North.

Mr Hastings: I'd like to extend my personal appreciation to all the members who spoke today on Bill 70, the E-Commerce Act. In my estimation, this piece of legislation or whatever comes out of the sausage machine, the legislative process in committee, can be a significant advancement in formalizing the everyday legal activities going on in business and in social activities of citizens in this great province.

All you have to do is go on the Net at whatever Web site and you can see the plethora of new business models that are emerging-from the old economy actually: the pulp and paper industry; the chemical and plastics; the new media and entertainment industries; the publishing industry; on-line education. Internet voting is very near us and it has significant implications for the Legislative Assembly.

I think many members in this House already have-and if they haven't, I would heartily advocate and endorse that they get one-a Web site. Mine is at www.johnhastings.com. It's another way of communicating with people.

I want to emphasize that I'm not fascinated by the technology, that in and of itself it's something magical-it is, in a way-but it's simply another piece of hardware or software to advance knowledge, to bring better communications and services and products to the people of this province.

Finally, I'd like to comment on some the concerns from members opposite. I think they raised some significant issues, and one is the issue of privacy. When this goes to committee, I think that's what we will see addressed. I'd also recommend a book dealing-

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the time allocated for debate. The question will be put at 12 o'clock noon.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

Mr Bartolucci moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 6,

An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution / Projet de loi 6, Loi visant à protéger les enfants qui se livrent à la prostitution.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm very happy today that we have children in the audience, because this bill deals solely and entirely with their protection. In the forward to the Progress of Nations, Kofi Annan, secretary general of the United Nations, wrote in part: "The day will come when nations will be judged not by their military or economic strength, nor by the splendour of their capital cities or public buildings but ... by the provision that is made for those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged, and by the protection that is afforded to the growing minds and bodies of our children." It is in that context that I would like to begin our debate today.

My private member's bill, Bill 6, has a history, I believe, worth mentioning. I first introduced

An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution back on May 12, 1998. At that time it was known as Bill 18 and there was no other jurisdiction in Canada that had enacted this legislation. The bill passed second reading on May 28 and went to the standing committee on social development. It received a number of days of public hearings: August 17 in Sudbury, August 18 in London, September 28 and 29 in Toronto, October 5 in Toronto; and clause-by-clause was scheduled for October 5 as well.

During public hearings the committee members heard over 50 deputations from both individuals and organizations. Individual presentations were made by former and current child prostitutes, like Meaghan, who so passionately said she needed this type of legislation because she was desperately looking for a way out of this lifestyle of sexual exploitation.

We also heard from parents like Alan, whose child was a child prostitute. He pleaded with committee members to pass this bill so that their children, in particular his child, could be protected from the exploitation and sexual abuse at the hands of pimps and johns preying on their children.

Organizations which showed strong support for this bill were countless. The bill received support from several social services agencies, such as the John Howard Society of Sudbury, the Toronto Child Abuse Centre and Covenant House, to mention only a few. In addition, in excess of 30 police chiefs from across the province, including the Sudbury Regional Police Service and the York Regional Police Service, then under the leadership of Toronto's current chief of police, Julian Fantino, wrote in support of this legislation. After all this, Bill 18 unfortunately died when the House prorogued in December 1998.

I reintroduced the bill on April 26, 1999. It was then called Bill 10. Again the bill did not survive the dissolution of the Legislature and the call, of course, of the 1999 provincial election. I reintroduced the bill for a third time in this Parliament on October 26 which brings us to today's second reading debate. I thank the House, especially Claudette Boyer, for moving my bill up 30 spots so that we could debate it today.

The purpose of the bill is to protect children under 18 who are involved in prostitution. The bill gives police officers the power, with a warrant, to remove a child involved in prostitution and return the child to his or her family or to place the child in a protective safe house. The police officer may also apprehend a child without a warrant where the child's life or safety is seriously endangered.

If a child is brought to a protective safe house under this act, a child protection worker shall be responsible for the child and for determining whether to return the child to his or her parent, to a person who had care and control of the child before the child was taken out of the situation or to another adult who is capable of providing for the child's needs.

The child protection worker may also decide to apply to the court for an order under

section 57 of the Child and Family Services Act, for example, for a supervision order, a society wardship order, a crown wardship order etc. The bill would allow a child, his or her parent or a child protection worker to apply to the court for a restraining order against the person who has abused the child or who is encouraging the child or is likely to encourage the child to engage in prostitution. The bill makes it an offence for a person to encourage a child to engage in prostitution. The penalty for the persons known as "johns" and "pimps" is a fine of up to $25,000, imprisonment for up to 24 months or both a fine and imprisonment.

As you can see, the bill works in tandem or in conjunction with the Child and Family Services Act. It is

an act, though, and I do not make any apology, that deals solely with the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children through prostitution. It does not conflict with but rather enhances other pieces of provincial legislation to ensure that these vulnerable children are no longer exploited but are protected.

I said earlier that there was no such legislation in place when Bill 18 first received second reading support. Since then, Alberta has passed identical legislation, and I make no apology for learning from other provinces about good child protection legislation. In fact, they passed it on February 1, 1999. In June 1999, the Alberta government heard from several stakeholders involved in this. Here's what some of the youth said: "Going to a protective safe house is good because it removed me from the high-risk situation."

Police in urban areas of Edmonton and Alberta who have experience with this legislation view it as an overwhelming success. To date-and I'll give you some accurate statistics from Alberta-310 children have been removed from dangerous situations and put back into protective safe houses. Sadly, though, the average age of these children removed has been 15.5 years of age.

During public hearings and since I reintroduced this bill, I have received many letters of support. Let me read only a few to you. Julian Fantino, the police chief of Toronto, "We welcome any initiative which serves to discourage and sanction those who would lead our youth into prostitution, a life which offers no hope, no future, and an inevitable crushing of the human spirit."

Mike Beauparlant, then the head of the juvenile task force of the Toronto Police Service, said: "This bill would be a unique tool.... I can tell you that a frustration that I have experienced over the last 10 to 12 years is that I have seen children we were able to address who were 15. A week later they are 16 and I have to cringe and watch as they enter the car, unable to do anything."

Shelley Hallett, who is a legal counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General, wrote to the Toronto Police Service back when there were Bill 18 hearings, and she said: "The Bartolucci bill attempts to address deficiencies in child welfare legislation in dealing with child and youth prostitution. If passed, it will have significant ramifications in terms of the powers of police and child welfare authorities to deal with youth who are presently, by law, out of the purview of these authorities.

Many police officers who deal regularly with youth involved in prostitution, including members of the Toronto Police juvenile task force, have been calling for legislation that would allow them greater powers...."

Finally, Zonta, which is an international worldwide service organization of executives in business and the professions working together to advance the status of women, states in a letter dated March 1, 2000: "We note that the bill received the unanimous consent of all parties on first reading this session. We also noted that Premier Harris was reported in the press following the Premier's conference last summer to have stated that"-dealing with Alberta's similar legislation-"`Ontario wants to move quickly to draw up new legislation in co-operation with other provinces to apprehend and protect juveniles who work as prostitutes.'"

I look forward to the debate that we will have over the course of the next 45 minutes, and I ask simply that you search yourselves and ask, is this legislation in the best interests of those children who are being sexually abused and exploited through prostitution?

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Let me start off by answering that question and saying, yes, I do support the direction of this bill. I will be voting for it. I do have a lot of comments that I will make about it. I have some reservations. I think the bill can be improved, but I do think that most of us on this side of the House are very supportive of this legislation and commend the member opposite for bringing it forward.

Before I go further, I'd like to welcome to the House today some folks from the St Ann's Adult Learning Centre from my riding of Niagara Falls. Welcome, to the members from St Ann's.

I know there are other members on this side of the House who have spoken to the Solicitor General on this bill. I have spoken to the Attorney General. I have spoken to the good member from Ottawa, Judge Guzzo, who has a great deal of experience in this field. He has some thoughts on the bill. We all very much respect his views on all of these law-and-order issues, someone with his experience, and I look forward to continuing to talk to him about the details of the bill.

I'd also like to mention, and congratulate once again, the member from Cambridge, Mr Martiniuk. As everyone knows, we have a crime commission that he chairs; he has for years. I think he's done more to help fight crime in the province of Ontario in the last couple of years than a lot of people. So I congratulate him.

I do want to say before I get into some detailed thoughts on the bill that the government really takes seriously the need to protect children. Our record is very clear on that. We proclaimed, and I believe all members of the Legislature, both the NDP and Liberal parties also supported, the new Child and Family Services Act, passed on March 31. These are the first major changes to that protection act in 10 years. We implemented a new risk assessment model which would help child protection workers better assess whether a child is at risk. We've developed a province-wide database to track high-risk families. We've improved the child protection training program.

Since December 1995-everyone should really pay attention to this-we have hired more than 790 new child protection workers, a 34% increase, and right now they are still hiring more. I think we'll get up to about 1,000 new workers in short order. In fact, in my own area our family and children's services are having difficulty finding good, qualified people to fill those roles. So that's a great record that we're very proud of and we'll wear that on our sleeve.

In addition, reflecting the increase in workers, $650 million is now spent on child protection in our CASs. That's an 80% increase since 1995. So I'm proud of that record, and I did want to get that on the record before I move forward with discussion on the bill.

I've read Mr Bartolucci's bill very thoroughly. I will be speaking with him in the near future on some of the details I have. I have a few questions I think we need to deal with. For instance,

section 3 deals with warrants obtained via telephone. The idea is a great one, that they can get warrants more quickly and easily. I'm concerned, actually, that some of it might be a little too cumbersome, and I'd like to talk to the member opposite and find out how we can make it even less cumbersome so that when a child is in imminent danger and a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a child is in danger, they can more easily get a warrant to help out.

I notice that in

section 4 the member quite rightly provides that a police officer can get in without a warrant when a child's life is "seriously and imminently endangered because the child is engaging in prostitution." Again, I'd like to talk to him about the test: "seriously and imminently in danger." Any child who is engaging in prostitution under the influence of a scumbag pimp who has taken a young child and influenced them or physically intimidated them to do this-I think it should be very easy for police officers to stop that and to intervene, and I want to make sure that we don't make a test that's too high. I want to talk to the member about that.

One of the concerns that I do have is under

section 5 of the bill: "If a police officer apprehends a child under this act, the police officer shall notify a child protection worker immediately that the child has been apprehended and inform the worker as to whether the child has been returned to the child's parent" or brought to a protective safe house. We may need to bring in the child protection worker sooner so that once the police officer intervenes and has the child, he then goes to the child protection worker and in conjunction with that child protection worker then decides what the appropriate place is for this person, rather than leaving it to the officer to make that decision.

So there are some concerns. I have several others. I have members on this side of the House who would like to talk to the bill. I've gone beyond the five minutes that I had allotted to talk to this, so I'm going to step aside now. I will support the bill. I will talk further to Mr Bartolucci about the concerns I've mentioned and a few others. I'd like to turn the floor over now to some of the other members.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I am very pleased to speak to this bill. My only disappointment with it is that this government did not enact it previously to this. I commend the member for Sudbury for hanging in and supporting what is a very necessary piece of legislation.

I bring to it a CAS perspective. I have been a member of the board of directors for 24 years, through some very difficult years. I recall 1995 when we laid off a substantial number of staff because of cutbacks from this government. I am pleased that in some ways they've recognized the error of their ways and are restoring the funding to bring some of the people back.

My wife and I have also served as foster parents. We're now in our 14th year. Many of the young people who have been dragged into prostitution are there as a reflection of things that are happening at home. When I was first on the board there was no such thing as sexual abuse. When there was an allegation of sexual involvement with a child, everything stopped at the agency, because it simply was not heard of. Now the cases number in the hundreds in our riding alone. Is that a reflection of better reporting or is it a reflection of more activity? I'm not sure.

I tend to believe that it's a reflection of both, that there is more involvement of children in sexual activities. But if someone is involved in prostitution, there is an adult involvement somewhere with it.

I think I can reflect the statement of everyone in this House of how appalled they were at the BC court decision which said that possession of child pornography was legal. For there to be child pornography, there has to be a victim. I'm absolutely appalled that a court would condone the possession of material such as that.

The intriguing thing that has amazed me in dealing with children who have been sexually abused-we have fostered substantial numbers of them and are aware of children as young as two being involved in the production of pornographic movies-is that the children know it's wrong. Without exception, the children know that what they're doing is wrong. We were concerned, when we first started to foster, that in dealing with children who had been sexually abused or involved in prostitution, they would bring discussions into our house that we really didn't want talked about at the family table with our natural children.

The reality is, they don't want to talk about it. They're embarrassed, they're ashamed and they know that what has happened to them is wrong. Yet adults have involved them in an activity that adults are prepared to overlook and to ignore the moral approach to.

The real problem with children involved in prostitution, from a foster parent viewpoint, is their memories. When a child is led into a lifestyle such as that, when caught by this bill and when brought to a place of protection, which is what has to happen, for the rest of their life their life fabric has been altered by what they have experienced. It is impossible to erase that memory.

We have worked with children of 10 and 11 years of age who know things that they should not have to know, but they can't forget them. The effect of involving children in prostitution is to steal their childhood, it's to remove that wonderful part of life's experience that they are entitled to and should experience. But once that fabric has been torn and they are made part of this evil activity, it can't be erased, they can't forget it.

This bill does wonders to ensure that very quickly they're entitled to the protection that they are owed by us as adults and us as legislators. But it also introduces a responsibility on this government, and that is to provide support for these young people once they're in a place of protection. They invariably require counselling. They invariably require supports.

They invariably require assistance from us as a society and as a province to ensure that, although they can't forget the experience they've had, they learn to deal with it, they learn to recognize that the adults who destroyed their childhood are not typical representatives of our society but are aberrations, and allow them to be able to move on and contribute positively to society and, more important, to be satisfied within themselves that they were victims, they were not doing something wrong, they were in a lifestyle that was introduced to them.

I'm pleased to support this bill to facilitate moving children into places of protection.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I'm pleased to be able to speak to this bill today and to congratulate Mr Bartolucci for being so persistent in bringing this bill back before us, because I believe all members of the House support the intention of this bill and want it to move forward. The last two attempts, as Mr Bartolucci outlined, failed. As we know, that often happens in the House with private members' bills. Sometimes people give up and sometimes people are persistent in bringing back these very important bills that we would like to see the government move on.

But sometimes private members, when they're really committed to a cause and are persistent and keep bringing the issue back before us, succeed. Hopefully, today, Mr Bartolucci, this will be your day that we will pass the bill and it will move forward, and the government will step in and do the things that need to be done to make it happen.

Obviously, some resources would be involved and I hope very much, particularly after a budget that is balanced and a tax cut given-$8 billion, over $5 billion of it to corporations and very wealthy people-that the government can find within the dollars, lots of dollars, that are coming in in revenue these days, the money and resources to put into this very important project.

I guess we all cringe when we think about child prostitution, because for those of us with children and for those of us who don't have children, just to even think about it is so heartbreaking and almost unbearable to contemplate. When I was Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, one of the things I was responsible for was the Ontario Film Review Board. So much of what the board had to do was to review pornographic movies. They are legal but there are certain guidelines they have to follow, and one of the guidelines of course, the top one, is to look out for child pornography, or even anybody pretending to be a child in such a film.

I also dealt very extensively with Bob Matthews, whom many of you may have heard of. He's a hero. For years and years he's been heading up a project to go after-I believe somebody already called them the scumbags; I wouldn't normally use that word in this House but I think we would all agree here that it's appropriate-scumbags who exploit little children, young children, in the most despicable ways for profit.

I admired Bob Matthews's work so much and was quite concerned that we do everything we could as a government to support that cause, and I was on a tour of the building where their offices were. I saw some pictures, just very tiny snapshots, literally and figuratively, of what they were dealing with. I can't get the images out of my mind, the young children in these pictures. It's just unspeakable what was being done to them. Some of them looked as young as six, seven, nine years old. The look in their eyes was just unforgettable.

After seeing that, I certainly would support anybody in any measure that they want to take to do everything we can as a government and as a society to eliminate child pornography and child prostitution.

Having said that-and I am supporting the bill and so is my caucus-I know that Marion Boyd spoke to the bill before and we expressed some concerns, not about the intent, and I believe there are a few changes made in the legislation to reflect some of the concerns that have been raised in the past. Some of those are still concerns and I believe those are concerns we can deal with and should deal with, but they need to be pointed out again.

I know that Ms Boyd, back in 1998, expressed concern with respect to the apprehension of a child without a warrant. Although the wording does seem to provide protection to police officers in that they can do that if a "child's life or safety is seriously and imminently endangered," it goes on after that to place some pretty onerous requirements on child protection workers to follow up after the police. So throughout we have been concerned and are concerned with that enormous onus on the child protection worker to show cause why the confinement was necessary.

We also expressed concerns, and I will again today, that the legislation might conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's something we always have to look at to make sure that when we move forward with this kind of legislation, it won't be thrown out because of that. In particular, the concern is in regard to the confinement without a warrant of persons who may or may not have been involved in a criminal offence.

Section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms indicates that "everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned."

Having raised those concerns again, we did then and still do support the intent of the legislation and many aspects of the legislation.

I would say that this is a good opportunity to discuss as well the issue around the government providing an opportunity, as we discuss these issues, to establish programs that are necessary to assist children in ending their involvement in prostitution and also to designate protective safe houses under the act.

I think that is incredibly important, and I think it's incredibly important to talk about the support systems that are in place to help children even before they go down that road, to help families cope with difficulties within their families, to have enough counsellors and social workers in the schools, to have enough licensed child care centres, to invest in early years programs, to make sure that we have programs to help those children when they are apprehended. We have to think about: What happens to them when they are finally released from that custody? What kinds of programs are out there?

What kind of education opportunities, work opportunities, support systems are there for them, and in many cases their families, to help them cope with the problems that may have led the children there in the first place?

We very much support the intention of this legislation to find a way of intervening and apprehending the abused, and the welfare of children, but we also continue to have some concerns about certain sections, and we would look forward now to having the opportunity to propose some amendments.

We also welcome the opportunity the legislation presents to reflect on the pathetic underfunding of family and children's services. The government can get up and brag all they want about services they've put in place, but the reality is-and we cannot avoid talking about this, I would say to the members of the Tory government who are here today-we need to look very closely at where the cuts have been made and the kind of impact that is having on the supports that are so important to the children of our society.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls is not in his seat.

Ms Churley: The government members don't like to hear this, but we cannot talk about this legislation today without talking about the proper supports being in place. For instance, the budget that just came out was a complete blow to child advocates. There was not one penny in that budget for early childhood years or to help poor families who need assistance.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls knows that he must be in his seat if he's to say anything. The next time, I will have to name him.

Ms Churley: Some of the government members are getting agitated here. I would say again that we cannot have this kind of discussion today without talking about resources. It's all very well to put a law in place that we agree with in principle and have nice chats about it here in the Legislature, and then not have a commitment to have the proper resources put in place. You can apprehend a child, but if the supports are not there to help that child afterwards, then that becomes a problem.

I say with the greatest respect that we should get away from the rhetoric and look at where there are holes in the system, where cuts have been made that are actually making it harder for families, particularly poor families, to get by and to get the help they need when they need it.

Despite the claims to the contrary, the government isn't spending a penny on early childhood, the early years. The $30 million the government announced is a reannouncement of an old idea, and they're not even going to spend that $30 million this year; they're waiting until the early years task group reports back in May of next year.

I raise this because when we're talking about the protection of children, I think we in this place would agree, all of us, that early years intervention, early years development and education have been proven without a shadow of a doubt to be very important for the development of children later on in life. If you have good programs in place-good licensed child care, good early years programs-that can have a profound impact on the nature and the character of that child and that child's ability to learn and grow and flourish. That is absolutely necessary.

I would suggest to the government today, when we talk about this issue, that we also talk about and think about the supports that need to be put in place.

I heard the member from the Tory caucus speak earlier about all the things the government has done. I presume that if the government uses this opportunity to talk about and brag about the things they feel good about, then I should have the opportunity to talk about the areas where I believe there are gaps and problems, where the cuts have hurt, where we have to invest more and where I saw holes and gaps in previous governments, including my own. What's unfortunate is that some of those holes and gaps have been widened under the watch of this government, so we do need to have that kind of discussion.

It's a fact that there are fewer police per capita on the street now, for instance, than when the NDP was in government, yet the government continues to brag about its law-and-order regime and agenda. At the same time, we know that our police are still grossly underfunded. There are still, to this day, despite what they say, 818 fewer police per person on our streets than there were in 1995. That's a fact.

It is a fact that children's mental health has been severely underfunded and has been cut, and the waiting lists for children who are in dire need of help and support-and their families need that support-are just off the page. Thousands are having to wait. That does not bode well for the future of those children if they can't get the supports and the help they need when they're young and troubled and need some kind of intervention.

I support the legislation before us today and again congratulate the member for bringing it forward. I hope very much that the government will vote along with the Liberals and the NDP, as I believe they will, in support of this bill. Also, as they discuss it with the minister responsible, I hope they will look at where there are gaps in the system and talk about the kinds of resources that would be needed to make the act work, if passed, because

an act passed without the resources to make it work is not worth the paper it's written on. It's nice to have it on the books but it won't really protect those children.

I don't believe a large amount of resources would be needed up front. Considering the revenues that we're enjoying these days, surely the government would be able to find the revenues and make this bill effective. It could go a long way in protecting those children who are being abused by some of the worst scumbags in our society. I would say that I'm very pleased about the fine and the jail sentence, because they're the ones we need to go after. I would even like to see that higher.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate on Bill 6 with respect to child prostitution. Certainly our government is committed to protecting vulnerable children. Let's be clear: We are willing to listen to any meaningful ideas about how to address the issue of child prostitution.

I'm certain everyone in this House is disturbed by the knowledge that children in this province are being used and manipulated by drug dealers and pimps. I'm confident that everyone would agree that if there are good ideas about how we as a government and as a society can help free these children from the clutches of people like this, we should look at them.

On the surface, the spirit of this bill seems to be in the right place and I'm comfortable saying that I think a more careful examination in committee will certainly be worthwhile. The focus of that examination may, in part, involve this, because in Alberta they do have legislation, but there are some subtle differences between the Alberta legislation and Bill 6 with respect to the apprehension of the child, as to who does that, and confinement.

In Bill 6, on the basis of a warrant or a court order, the police officer would be able to forcibly enter a premises to search for a child and, if necessary, apprehend the child and take the child to his or her parents etc. In Alberta the apprehension is on the basis of a warrant or a court order, a police officer or a child protection worker. That's the subtle difference between Bill 6 and Alberta's legislation with respect to the apprehension on a warrant or a court order.

Where there is no warrant or court order, a police officer, under Bill 6, would be able to forcibly search a premises and apprehend a child,

whereas in Alberta, without a warrant or court order, a police officer or child protection worker would be able to forcibly search a premises, apprehend a child and convey the child to a protective safe house if he or she has reason to believe the life or safety of the child in need of protection is seriously and imminently endangered. The difference is, with or without warrant, under Bill 6 it's the police officer who apprehends; under the Alberta law, it's broader: the police officer or child protection worker.

With respect to detention, under Bill 6 a child may be detained in a protective safe house for three days, during which time the child protection worker may return the child to a parent or guardian, release the child if he or she can provide for self, or apply for a supervision or wardship order.

Under the Alberta legislation, a child may be detained in a protective safe house for three days, during which time the child protection worker must either return the child to a parent or guardian, release the child if he or she is 16 years or older and can provide for self, or apply for a supervision or guardianship order. So there is an age distinction with respect to detention between Alberta and Ontario. Also, under Bill 6 a child protection worker could continue to confine a child to a protective safe house pending the outcome of a hearing for a supervision or wardship order, so it's subject to the process,

whereas in Alberta there is no explicit authority to continue to confine a child in a protective safe house beyond three days.

Those are issues where there is a difference between Alberta and Ontario, and obviously the member will have to explain why he chose to draft it the way he did. A committee could also look at it and say whether what's being proposed under Bill 6 has more merit than what's being done in Alberta, and take a look at the history out there. I think that's something important that we should be looking at.

With respect to the

preamble of the bill, certainly no one would question that. "The people of Ontario believe that, (

a) the safety, security and well-being of children and families is of paramount concern for all residents of Ontario" certainly goes without saying.

In closing, because my time is limited, I just want to comment on some of the statements in terms of funding that were mentioned by the member for Broadview-Greenwood. It's my understanding that the funding for children's protective services has increased by 80% since 1995 and that the funding formula is based on caseloads. In other words, if the caseload increases, the funding automatically increases. I think this government has put together an approach that is in the best interests of the child and his or her protection.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I am pleased to join this debate, pleased to support the Bartolucci bill, but I am in very good company. It would appear that the Bartolucci bill has been endorsed by everybody from Mother Teresa to Chief Fantino, and it is my great pleasure to say that this bill has been endorsed by over 30 police organizations, that this bill has been endorsed by victims' groups, by community leaders and by everybody who understands the scourge of child prostitution and its effect on our society and on our province.

My city, Toronto, is the place of origin of 53% of the prostitutes in this country. This is an issue for my riding of St Paul's, and the people of St Paul's expect this Legislature to do something about this scourge. The Bartolucci bill does just that.

As the member for Sudbury pointed out, child prostitution is not as it is depicted in Hollywood. This is not Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. In fact, pimps control child prostitutes through battering, through drugs and through alcohol. Child prostitutes are victims of AIDS, of sexually transmitted diseases. They are prey for muggers, rapists and murderers. They have left our society, per se; they are not in it. They carry the stigma of being prostitutes. They carry the stigma of being outsiders.

Right now, the main response to it is the criminal justice system, and it's a punitive response. The Bartolucci bill is a way for our society and our province to reach out to these people who are being stigmatized and abused, and pull them back in. This is an opportunity for us as a society to literally rescue these people at the stage of them being children and pull them out of the hell they live in.

There may be some who question the constitutional status of this legislation, and we should always ensure that the legislation brought before this House meets with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other constitutional obligations. That goes without saying. But I hope that that in no way gets in the way of us in this Legislature moving forward on this bill and passing it.

It has passed second reading before. What is important is that we see it come to fruition, that we see it happen. We all agree that it is a problem. We all agree that this is a solution, that this is a constructive response and a way to deal with it. The fact that there may be some charter issues is the case with just about any bill that affects the liberty of individuals. I hope that the principles of fundamental justice under the Charter of Rights will recognize that not only is the charter there to protect people's civil liberties against state intrusions, but it is also there to permit the state to reach out and rescue those who are in so desperate need of rescue.

For thousands of years prostitutes, child and otherwise, have been outcasts in our society and in our province. Many people will look and think, "Why did they make that choice?" But these children did not make any choice, at the very least. They made no choice at all. They were forced into this life through a history of abuse in their family or otherwise.

If there is a level of individual culpability, I can assure you that once they are brought back into our society through the Bartolucci bill, they'll be willing to accept that. But here is an opportunity for us to support a bill that permits us to prevent the continued scourge of child prostitution, that can rescue these children from the horrible life they now are in. I'm very proud to sit on this side of the House with the member for Sudbury and support this bill.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I'm delighted to be able to stand up and debate this bill today. I'd like to compliment Rick Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury, for bringing forward this bill. I know he does it with a great deal of principle. He very strongly believes in protection for our children. He has, as well, an accompanying piece of legislation, Bill 32, which I know he would like to bring forward for second reading at some time as well.

But knowing his principle in this and his concern for the children, I would like to point out-I know he remembers this-that there was another piece of legis-lation which our government brought forward which dealt with safety of children. It was the Safe Streets Act. Mr Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury, mentioned that Julian Fantino supported Bill 6. Well, Julian Fantino, the chief of the Metro Toronto police force, also supported the Safe Streets Act. I would like to know how he justifies using Chief Fantino's support for Bill 6 when he would not accept Chief Fantino's support for the Safe Streets Act.

There is a factor that I think we might take into account here, and that is that the Liberals felt that they had to oppose the Safe Streets Act because they are Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I'm sure that is the only thing that entered into their minds, and Mr Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury, along with many other members of the opposition, felt that they were subjected to the whip of that party and that they must do the whip's bidding. I know the member for Sudbury did not speak against the Safe Streets Act, and I give him credit for that.

However, he did not stand by his principles and vote for the Safe Streets Act. He actually came into this House and voted against the Safe Streets Act. I would like to say to the member for Sudbury that I know it went against your grain to do that but that you were whipped to do it. There is room on this side of the House for you at any time, because your principles are our principles in this respect.

Now, the NDP voted against the Safe Streets Act too, but we expect that of the NDP. We don't expect that of you.

I do want to say that this Bill 6 is a good piece of legislation. There are amendments that need to be made. There's one that I have concerns about, that the police or the safe house may "release the child if, in the opinion of the child protection worker, the child is capable of providing for the child's own needs and safety." Had the child been capable of providing for his or her own safety, I think he or she wouldn't have been taken off the streets by the police in the first place.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today with a great deal of pride in speaking to this bill and also a great deal of pride and respect for the member for Sudbury, contrary to what we just heard, which very much disappoints me, that we've turned child prostitution into a political agenda. I say to the member opposite that I'm very disappointed, extremely disappointed, and I know that the people in his riding would be disappointed that he took an opportunity to do such a thing.

With the fact that we have children who are being affected on a daily basis and as we very well speak, it's disappointing to know that someone would take an opportunity to turn this into some type of agenda other than to protect those kids.

I would say very clearly that there are some members opposite who did take the time to offer constructive criticism, who did take the opportunity to express very clearly that they will be supporting the bill and that they would probably be making some recommendations at a later date at committee. I want to thank them for that, and I respect you for that. Yes, sir. You got it, Joe.

I want to make sure that people understand what we're talking about.

A survey of youth conducted in 1998 by an outreach service organization that deals with child prostitutes gave us this information: regarding the age when they were first left at home alone, 45% of those 16 and over who were left alone have left home; 51% from the ages of 11 to 15 left home; those who have a life experience at home of serious conflicts, 63%; physical abuse, 45%; sexual abuse, 38%; those involved in CAS backgrounds, 48%; and the one that bothers me the most, 41% of those prostitutes had their first experience, their first trick, at 10 to 15 years of age, and 56% at 16 to 20.

What does this point to? This points to the adults in our society who have made it their business to take advantage of and abuse our children. Mr Bartolucci's bill takes a step towards that-that we want to correct the problem.

This is not the opportunity, this is not the moment, this is not the time in our history in this Legislature to try to win political points at the expense of our children. We must not, we cannot, the public doesn't want us to score political points on children. What we want to do is take the right action. This is the right action. Make the amendments, make the recommendations and move on with it.

As I stated in this House yesterday and this morning, the private member's bill needs to take on new life. We have to remove as much of the political party line as possible and move on to the legislation that speaks to the right thing.

The honourable member Mr Hastings made comment this morning, and we made those comments. I want to tell him very clearly that it was not a political issue. We spoke to the private member's bill in a way for it to move on. I want to say that yesterday, the historic moment when a committee put forward a bill, all members of this House moved as quickly as possible because it was the right thing to do.

This is the right thing to do. Our children must be protected. As the NDP member pointed out, and I agree with her, we must put our money where our mouth is. We must make the statement in this province of Ontario-and I would say further, in the country of Canada-that we will not tolerate the abuse of our children in any way, shape or form. I would say to you that we must not politicize it. We must make it a priority. We must make the statement in law and in process and in finance that our children must be safe.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury has two minutes to respond.

Mr Bartolucci: I would like to thank all the members of the House who took

part in the debate. Certainly it was a very controlled and meaningful debate, from my perspective, and I thank you for it.

In conclusion, I would like to read from a letter that Dr Fred Mathews, who works with the Central Toronto Youth Services, wrote in support of my Bill 32, which Mr Wettlaufer referred to. He says:

"I have spent my professional life as a psychologist and social scientist advocating for the needs of high-risk youth. Young people on the street are an especially vulnerable group. They are subject to all types of hardship and violence. They are often preyed upon by unscrupulous adults who exploit these desperate young people's need to survive....

"I wholeheartedly support and endorse any and all actions that will help protect these young people and hold their abusers accountable. I believe it is up to us as a society, in the name of justice, to use any and every legal means at our disposal to protect vulnerable children and youth."

And so, my fellow parliamentarians, if you believe that children engaged in prostitution are victims of sexual abuse and require protection, and if you agree that it is the duty of the province to assist families and communities in providing that protection, and if you believe it is important for us to ensure, with unanimity, that the message to those poor, vulnerable children is loud and clear: "There is an avenue for you to explore in order to change your lifestyle and your life.-If you believe, I ask you to support this legislation.

E-COMMERCE ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item 23.

Mr Hastings has moved second reading of Bill 70,

An Act with respect to Electronic Information, Documents and Payments. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I'd like to refer Bill 70 to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government? Agreed.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We'll now deal with ballot item 24.

Mr Bartolucci has moved second reading of Bill 6,

An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? The motion is carried.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like this to be referred to the committee on general government as well.

The Acting Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' business having now been completed, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1157 to 1330.

MEMBER'S STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I'd like to bring up a concern that my constituents in Don Valley East, particularly in the Henry Farm community, have with the Minister of Transportation, Mr Turnbull, in his refusal to act upon the request for a much-needed sound barrier at Havenbrook Park.

The residents of Henry Farm have been subject to living with unacceptably high noise levels for far too long. Residents have repeatedly made requests to the minister to rectify the situation, and to this date absolutely nothing has come of it. The minister himself has admitted to me personally that the noise levels are well over the prescribed limits, and yet he continues to force the residents of the Henry Farm community to suffer under excessive noise pollution on a daily basis.

A simple solution can be sought. Extending the existing barrier will greatly reduce the noise emanating from the busy Highway 401, and yet the minister has refused to act because in his opinion the reduction is not enough to bring the noise down to acceptable levels. Instead he has chosen to let the members of the community have their voices drowned out by unacceptably high noise levels.

The minister claims it is too expensive and a waste of taxpayer's dollars. However, the taxpayers of Henry Farm disagree and see far greater waste in irresponsible government spending by Mike Harris and his government. The noise barrier would bring great relief to this community, and it is in dire need. I refuse to let the Henry Farm residents be drowned out by Minister Turnbull and demand that the minister act to bring peace and quiet to this much-deserving community.

NATIONAL POLICE WEEK

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Next week is the 30th National Police Week. This is a week set aside to recognize the contributions of the brave and dedicated women and men who serve in law enforcement across this province.

This is an important week for the people of Ontario to get to know their local police officers. Community policing depends on a strong familiarity between civilians and the police officers who patrol our streets, and this week will provide Ontarians with a splendid oppor-tunity to cement that relationship.

This year's Police Week will be especially poignant, with our new memorial to the 200 officers who gave their lives in the line of duty. The memorial stands right across the street from this Legislature. Do you know why? It is there to remind us that the laws we make as legislators will ultimately have to be enforced by our brave police women and men, sometimes at the ultimate cost of their lives.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute Chief Noel Catney and the women and men of the Peel Regional Police Service. Chief Catney has worked hard to make Peel Region one of the safest places in Ontario to work, live and raise our families. Through the chief's leadership, Peel police officers and members of my constituency have built a very positive relationship based on co-operation and trust.

I hope all members present will join with me in saluting all the members of the Peel Regional Police Service and all police forces across Ontario. I wish all our police officers a fantastic Police Week, and I am pleased to note that as the memorial to the fallen officers states, these women and men are indeed "Heroes in Life" to millions of Ontarians every day.

SULPHUR IN GASOLINE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With the Environment Ministry battered by yet another round of cuts in its budget, Ontario Environment Minister Dan Newman has made a desperate attempt to divert attention from the damage caused by the slashing of his budget.

The Minister, astonishingly, as environmental insiders would observe, is now desperately calling upon the federal government to do what the Harris government already has the power to do itself: move quickly to reduce the sulphur content of gasoline.

Everyone will recall that it was the Harris government that stood shoulder to shoulder with the big oil companies in trying to thwart attempts by the federal government to pass a regulation to require the oil giants to produce gas with an average sulphur content no greater that 30 parts per million.

With smog alerts already warning residents of Ontario's polluted air, and criticism of the Harris cuts of one third of the environment ministry staff and almost 40% of the budget ringing in their ears, the Harris Tories, full of newly acquired bluster are once again pointing the finger of blame elsewhere.

The government of British Columbia regulates the sulphur content of gas sold in its province. For years, Ontario has regulated volatile organic compounds in Ontario gas. If the Harris regime has genuinely reversed its previous pro-pollution position on sulphur in gas, I call upon the minister not to pass the buck, but to introduce a regulation requiring that by January l, 2002, all gas sold in Ontario must have, on average, a sulphur content of no more that 30 parts per million. Your bluff, Minister, has been called.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today in honour of the Ontario Special Olympics, which are being held in York region, starting today, May 11, and ending May 14. I have the privilege of attending the opening ceremonies this evening at the York region administration building.

York region is incredibly fortunate to have been given the opportunity to host these games. I have also been given the honour of being a presenter for the medal winners. With over 900 athletes and coaches, 1,500 volunteers and hundreds of sponsors, this weekend's games are sure to be a success for all participants.

Special Olympics provide athletes who have a mental disability with the opportunity to experience and succeed in sport. Special Olympians gain self-confidence and transfer their success from the playing field to other aspects of their lives.

The five provincial championship sport competitions are: five-pin bowling, which will be taking place at Stellar Lanes in Newmarket; 10-pin bowling, which will be taking place at Club 300 in Markham; powerlifting, at St Andrew's College in Aurora; swimming, at the Richvale pool in Richmond Hill; and floor hockey, at the Williams complex in Vaughan.

Events such as the Special Olympics would not be possible without the hundreds of volunteers and sponsors, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them. I would also like to congratulate all the participants in the games and to wish them the best of luck in their events.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I rise today to request that the Minister of Health order her ministry officials to implement the Ontario Review Board's decision of November 8, 1999, to have a forensics patient moved from the St Thomas psychiatric hospital to Whitby mental health centre.

This issue is surrounded by tragic circumstances. Brian Crocker, a father and husband, was shot three times at point-blank range at his home in December 1995. Through unbelievable odds, Mr Crocker fought to survive. This is not the only fight Mr Crocker has had. The Crockers were left out of previous review board hearings that allowed the patient to be transferred from Penetanguishene to St Thomas psychiatric hospital, less than five kilometres from Mr Crocker's home. The review board assessed these circumstances and agreed that the patient should be relocated because he posed a direct threat to Mr Crocker.

Mr Crocker is in fear of his life. The administrator of the psych hospital claims he does not know why the order has not been carried out. Is our mental health system in such disarray and so underfunded that the quality of life and safety of victims have to be jeopardized? Is this government concerned at all about victims' rights? The last line of the review board's judgment commands the psychiatric hospital, by order of Her Majesty, to execute the terms of the disposition. Mr Crocker and his family have waited five long months for the transfer and demand that this issue be resolved now, Minister of Health.

I am providing the minister with a package that will give her all the information that will apprise her fully of this situation so that she can move on this issue immediately.

MOTHER'S DAY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mother's Day on May 7, 1982, will be remembered as the saddest day of my life. As everyone knows, this coming Sunday, May 14, is Mother's Day. While we have selected one day out of 365 to celebrate the contributions made by our mothers, the sentiments of this day really should be applied every day of our lives. Mothers are our teachers, our healers, our caregivers, our friends and our advisers. The contributions made by mothers make our society and the work we do important; they are immeasurable.

The origins of Mother's Day stretch back to the Greeks and Romans and to the Middle Ages, but the events we know today were originated in the United States by Anna Jarvis in the early 1900s. Ironically, Anna never became a mother herself. She began a letter-writing campaign shortly after her mother's death in 1905. Miss Jarvis believed that oftentimes children did not appreciate their mothers enough, and hoped that a Mother's Day would increase respect and strengthen the family bond. Over the next few years, Mother's Day was celebrated across Canada and many other countries.

This Sunday, I encourage all families to share with one another, respect their parents, buy them flowers, take them out for dinner and enjoy the day.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): The crisis in hospital emergency rooms is happening again. In fact, it's happening still. Tuesday afternoon, only two of Toronto's 25 emergency rooms were taking new patients. All the rest were on redirect or critical care bypass. There was no flu outbreak to blame it on this time, just a one-day heat wave.

It was a year ago that the Minister of Health assured the people of this province that she had fixed the emergency room problems once and for all. But not so. During the fall months and into December we had an emergency room crisis of unprecedented proportions. There were more emergency rooms on critical care bypass and redirect than ever before in Ontario's history, and this was true right across the province.

In December, the Minister of Health announced that she had a plan to relieve the crisis in Toronto, at least, but the Band-Aid isn't holding. Emergency rooms are still overcrowded and hospitals are stretched beyond their limits. They have no flexibility even to deal with a one-day heat wave. This was never just a flu season fluke and the situation is going to get worse, not better. The government has not put enough money into the budget to meet even existing hospital costs, let alone open up beds that have been closed because of past cuts.

So now emergency rooms are being closed sooner than planned so that hospitals can balance their budgets, as the minister has ordered. The emergency rooms at Branson and Women's College are both to close sooner than planned so that North York and Sunnybrook can balance their budgets. I understand that the Wellesley emergency will now close on October 1. The crisis we saw again this week will grow larger and larger as the summer days get hotter.

SAULT STE MARIE TEEN CENTRE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to share with this House and the province, and in particular my own community, those who don't already know, the wonderful work that is going on under the guise of the Sault Ste Marie Teen Centre.

It's an operation that has come to fruition over a long period of time, with effort put in by literally hundreds of people, volunteers, to see that there would be some place in Sault Ste Marie that teenagers, young people, could go, on a weekend particularly but also during the week, for various activities-cultural, educational and recreational-that were safe and positive re some opportunity for young people to explore relationships, build on some of the giftedness that's there already and, in that, to permeate the rest of the community with positive experiences and view and effort on behalf of young people and those who work with them.

They have identified and have been living in a home now, the old Sault Collegiate building on top of the hill. Those who know Sault Ste Marie will know of that as a very historic building, a school that has a long history in Sault Ste Marie that's very positive. The teen centre has claimed that as their own. They are struggling at the moment around the question of financing and how they will continue that. They are appealing to the Algoma District School Board and the municipal council to continue to support them, and I encourage them to do the same.

YORK REGION ECONOMY

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): I'm honoured to rise today as the representative for the riding of Thornhill as well as a resident of York region. York region is in the midst of a period of tremendous growth. In fact, according to the community newspaper which serves the riding of Thornhill, the region currently "boasts the biggest residential construction boom in all of Canada, while maintaining the lowest level of unemployment in the entire greater Toronto area at just 4.1%.

Almost 34,000 homes were either completed or started in 1999." Condominium development has increased throughout York region and a number of construction companies and their related suppliers report tremendous growth. This is a true testament to York region's strong economy and popularity for both business and the residents of the region.

York region's economy will only continue to get stronger. According to the same community newspaper: "There are 20 companies in the region which employ more than 500 workers. These jobs are not low-level, minimum wage jobs, either. York region offers the high-paying, high-technology jobs" that are required in today's global marketplace and that this Ontario government is proud to continue to promote.

Residential, commercial and industrial growth strongly suggest that York region, including my riding of Thornhill, will continue to be a great place to start a business, to work, to live and to raise a family.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin with reports by committees, we have with us today in the members' east gallery Mr Brian Pallister, who is a former cabinet minister in the Manitoba Legislature. Will all members join in welcoming him.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker I have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding sittings of the justice and social policy committee.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move, notwithstanding the order of the House dated May 1, 2000, that the standing committee on justice and social policy be authorized to meet for an additional two hours during the morning of Monday, May 15, 2000, to consider Bill 62, the Direct Democracy through Municipal Referendums Act, 2000; and

That the committee be authorized to meet for four days between May 17 and May 26, 2000, inclusively, for the consideration of Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the construction industry.

The Speaker: All those in favour? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): As you know, over the past five years the Ontario government has been working to improve the quality of education across the province.

Our goal is quite simple: better quality and more accountability. We are systematically working our way through the commitments we made to voters about how we would achieve these improvements. From more money in the classroom to a more rigorous curriculum, from more parental involvement to standardized testing, we are increasing quality and accountability standards in our schools.

This morning I announced another step in our plan for quality education, a step we told voters we would take, a step that will create a comprehensive teacher-testing program to raise the quality of teaching in Ontario, a step that will raise the quality of the education our students receive.

Every parent knows how important a teacher can be to his or her child's future. They know what a difference a teacher can make from year to year. Ontario has many excellent teachers in our classrooms who do make that difference, teachers who know their subject matter inside out, who have a range of teaching strategies that effectively communicate that information and the skills to inspire learning. That excellence should be recognized.

But every parent also knows that there are teachers who are not meeting these standards, teachers who have not worked to upgrade and update their skills and knowledge.

The system does not help. There are no consistent, province-wide standards for what a teacher should do to stay as up to date as possible; for the procedures boards and principals should use to evaluate teachers; for the support that new teachers need; for the procedures for dealing with an incompetent teacher. Equally important, there is no formal role for parents in the assessment of teachers.

We have looked at the best of what other professions and jurisdictions are doing to address this challenge. We have listened carefully to what our education partners have advised.

The announcement I made this morning, the implementation framework for our new Ontario teacher testing program, is a made-in-Ontario approach that deals with all of these challenges. It sets new standards, new expectations and strikes a fair and reasonable balance between the assessment of knowledge and critical classroom skills. It will provide parents and students the assurance that teachers are as up to date as possible and doing the best job possible.

This far-reaching initiative, which will deal with new teachers entering the profession as well as established teachers, builds on the reforms already in place to improve student achievement and it responds to the concerns we've been hearing from parents and students. It will ensure that Ontario's students will receive the best possible education.

This program has three key elements.

First, beginning next fall, all established teachers will have to be recertified every five years to ensure that they are as up to date in their knowledge and skills as possible. To be recertified, teachers will have to successfully complete a number of required courses, including written tests and/or other assessments, to do this. Many teachers, as we know, already undertake certain professional development activities or take extra courses that will allow them to teach additional grades and subjects, and these activities can also count towards recertification.

Second, in 2001, all new teachers will have to pass a qualifying test before they receive their certification to teach in Ontario. This will ensure that they have the knowledge and the skills required to enter our classrooms. We will also be designing an induction program, similar to an internship, that will help new teachers develop good classroom management and teaching skills through coaching and support from more experienced colleagues. Again, as we all know, many experienced teachers already provide this support, but much more needs to be done to make sure that those teachers get that good start in those crucial early years.

Third, by next fall we will establish new province-wide standards to ensure that all teachers are evaluated by boards and principals in the same consistent way across the province. This will include a role for parents. Standards will include strategies to ensure that low-performing teachers are given the time, supports and the opportunities needed to improve. But these strategies will also include a new review process to determine if teachers who are not meeting the standards should have their certification removed.

Quality teaching is also about excellence and accountability. That is why we will be looking at ways to do quality assurance through a third-party process that includes parents, educators and experts, and respond to the recommendations of the Education Improvement Commission.

Finally, because we believe that excellence deserves recognition, we want to develop a system that does indeed recognize that teaching excellence. We will continue to work with all of our education partners to further design and implement these very important initiatives.

Teachers are not alone in facing the challenges to make all of their members as good as they can be. Whether it is the health, legal, engineering, accounting or other professions, they all have a variety of entry requirements, standards for professional development, ongoing assessment, accountability practices, and many are working to improve these strategies. Working with our education partners to implement this program will bring the teaching profession into line with what's happening in other countries and in other professions.

This is an important step because it clearly recognizes that one of the foundations of quality education is quality teaching. It will help ensure that our students get the best education possible, and that is a win for everyone.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It is passing strange that the minister would stand in this House two days in a row to announce how badly their education reforms are going, to show us again a government with an utter lack of direction when it comes to education. Minister, we have here, as you know, the cabinet submission on teacher testing.

This document should be copied for all the teachers in the province so they can see just how political a ploy this minister is taking today, how little this is based on any reference to what's good for children, how instead this is a government looking to undermine-and the minister used the word "systematically." The only thing that's systematic about this government's approach to education is undermining the professionalism of teachers every chance they can.

Nowhere in this document is to be found a teacher test. There is no document here that says whether people are teachers. Instead, during the election the government gave the electorate the impression that all teachers will be required to participate in testing programs. They talked about recertification examinations. They said they would do that. But what was it but a crass political ploy to attack teachers and try to gain some votes? A year later the minister still can't produce a test. Instead we have an immense mass of duplication. We have a language proficiency test which duplicates one that already exists.

We have exit exams for new teachers that duplicate what is already in the colleges.

We wholeheartedly agree that there should be accountability. What we don't think is that it should be a political process controlled by this government. Instead, we challenge this government to treat teachers with the respect they deserve, and allow teachers to regulate their professional behaviour through their college. But for some specific reason this government refuses to accord respect to our teachers.

Then this government has the audacity to dwell on the shortcomings of some teachers when their shortcomings in education are so manifest and they want us to support a policy that is based on their misperceptions of what the system should be. Even at this late date, in an era where they've imposed all manner of changes on the quality of the teaching experience, they won't extend respect to teachers.

What is in this document is very instructive. What is in this document are conference calls with people in Tennessee. What is in this document is quality assurance teams that will be based on private sector input. What is based in this minister's mind, and I guess this government's direction, is the view of a school as a factory. This is the view of a school as producing widgets, to be done at the lowest cost and with the least amount of care and professionalism. That is the only consistent thread in what the minister is announcing today.

We could write this off as just another failed political promise, another thing where this government didn't know what they were doing. As Bill Davis said, when he looked down his glasses at the minister at the OISE awards of excellence-by the way, another duplication. The government will bring in its own awards of excellence. I guess they didn't like the Bill Davis award. But Bill Davis said to this minister, "Don't do a written test." Today we find out that basically there really isn't an overall written test, because that's not possible; the government's position was untenable in the first place.

What we also find out in this big hullabaloo about teacher testing is that there won't be any examinations or in fact anything in this program for two years for experienced teachers. We find out that in June we can expect a photo op with some kind of demonstration test. What we don't find from this minister and from this government is any sincere interest in getting to the bottom of how to support teachers better and how to give kids in the classroom a better learning experience. If there were, there wouldn't be this obsession with centralized bureaucracy.

Fifteen million dollars, which I guess all these members are supporting, for a new centralized bureaucracy, on top of $53 million-new spending for the bureaucracy, taken away from the kids. Some $1.6 billion has been taken away and nothing put back except more bureaucracy. That's not even a good version of the private sector.

We want to advise this minister that our view is to treat teachers with respect. The fact that you can't bring yourself to that today means that you shouldn't get any for this proposal.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I can see how the Minister of Education just relishes making fun of the opposition, and she'll continue to do that. I'm going to keep an eye on her as she does this.

Madame Ecker, I have a movie to recommend to you. I recently saw The Gladiator. Perhaps you haven't seen it yet, but I recommend it to you. In this movie there is a well-known figure, Caesar, who of course knows the Romans are hungry for bread. But in order to satisfy another hunger-not for bread but the thirst for blood-he opens up the Colosseum again and opens up the games, so that the slaves could go into the Colosseum and die as man with honour. You would like that movie, Madame Ecker. It's right up your alley.

To move to another political figure I'm sure you know, Machiavelli, a countryman of mine-mind you that was 500 years ago or so-but I suspect you understand Machiavelli more than most of us. You guys are good. I don't think I need to explain who he is, because you know him well, and you are the best Machiavellians I have ever seen in my 10 years in this place. You are good, Madame Ecker. You're good. Not just you-all of you are good. You're among the best I've seen.

Take Bill 1