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

November 21, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Nov-21 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 21 November 2002 Jeudi 21 novembre 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

GRAFFITI AND ADVERTISING SIGNS

CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES GRAFFITIS

ET DES PANNEAUX PUBLICITAIRES

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS WEEK

ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA MOTOCYCLETTE

GRAFFITI AND ADVERTISING SIGNS

CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES GRAFFITIS

ET DES PANNEAUX PUBLICITAIRES

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA MOTOCYCLETTE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GEOFFREY AND GERALD LOUGHEED

OSTEOPOROSIS

BOB WELCH

KIMBERLY ROGERS

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR

GOOD CITIZENSHIP

HERB GRAY

DRUG AWARENESS WEEK

ROAD SAFETY

COMMUNITY LEADERS IN NIPISSING

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

PENSION PLANS

HYDRO REBATES

PENSION PLANS

FOREIGN-TRAINED DOCTORS

PENSION PLANS

TOURISM

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

PENSION PLANS

TEACHERS' STRIKE

PENSION PLANS

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS'

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

REFERRAL OF BILL 177

HYDRO RATES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

EDUCATION FUNDING

Thursday 21 November 2002 Jeudi 21 novembre 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

GRAFFITI AND ADVERTISING SIGNS

CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES GRAFFITIS

ET DES PANNEAUX PUBLICITAIRES

Mr Kells moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 205,

An Act to control graffiti on public and private property and advertising signs on public property / Projet de loi 205, Loi visant à

contrôler les graffitis sur des biens publics et privés et des panneaux publicitaires sur des biens publics.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I rise today to address the Legislature on the merits of my Graffiti and Advertising Signs Control Act,

2002, and the necessity to have the province take action to protect the property rights of the public.

Graffiti takes place on both private and public property, while illegal advertising signs are usually placed at random on public property near well-travelled

thoroughfares. I'm going to quote from an

article by author Jake Reichert, in a journal

article out of Winnipeg:

"Graffiti has existed in one form or another as long as writing. The earliest known cave paintings dated from 20,000 years

ago sometimes seem to have more in common with modern graffiti than with writing.

"Confining a person's avenues of graphic and decorative expressions to books, canvases and printed pages -- instead of spreading them out on communal surfaces --

is a relatively recent practice and is part of our culture's obsession with private property."

Right from the start let me be clear: graffiti is one thing and illegal signs another, but the one thing they have in common is that they intrude on the public

consciousness without permission. They both assault your privacy and show utter disregard for property rights, whether we are referring to public property infrastructure or the walls of homes and

commercial properties.

With this in mind, I will begin with graffiti, for it is by far the most pervasive of the two, and obviously the most difficult to police and eliminate as a

public nuisance. The original graffiti artists I suppose could be called the media writers of ancient and medieval times, for often their drawings told a story of events of the era, and often in

vivid colour and description, without the use of language, which hadn't yet been created. To these unknown purveyors of the realities of life, we owe an incredible vote of thanks. But we've come a

long way since the days of cave art and their messages, and current graffiti relates little of value unless you believe that "John luvs Judy" painted on a subway wall delivers a sublime message of

some kind.

Before I get ahead of my story, let me tell you why I feel so strongly that something has to be done before our capital city of Toronto begins to resemble and

suffer the fate of some of Europe's great cities.

Just last year I was fortunate enough, along with my wife and a group of friends, to visit Hungary and their capital of Budapest, a charming city to be sure,

with a metropolitan area that is resplendent with churches, government buildings and commercial structures that glorify the landscape. Unfortunately, it's all spoiled by an overwhelming display of

graffiti on building after building up and down the main streets of the city. These are not fresh displays. Their existence relates the frustrating struggle of hundreds of wounded and captive

spirits over the years to have their joys and sorrows on record.

Perhaps I'm being overly kind here when I credit the scribblers with a motive other than vandalism, but let's accept the presumption of a lack of malice.

Nonetheless, the architecture of these twin cities separated by the Danube is degraded by those unwanted frescos.

Upon my return to Toronto, I began to notice just how much this defacing of walls, postboxes, telephone and electricity units has expanded in our fair city.

Toronto and other urban centres now face a similar fate, unless we take steps to eliminate new displays of graffiti and eradicate the offending renderings that have grown to assault our senses as

subway trains, buses and cars roll by or be forced to endure these unwanted intrusions forever.

A review of the efforts of Canadian cities, through their municipal councils, is in order.

Vancouver, way back in 1994, declared war on the rascals smearing city walls with graffiti by these punitive measures: every owner of real property must remove

from that real property any unsightly accumulation of graffiti within 10 days after the director of permits and licences causes a notice to be served upon the owner requiring such removal.

Secondly, if an owner defaults in removing any unsightly accumulation of graffiti, the city, by its workers or others, may enter the real property and effect such removal at the cost of the

defaulting owner. Finally, if an owner defaults in paying to the city, within 30 days after receipt of demand for payment from the city, the city may recover from the owner by putting their cost on

the tax bill.

Victoria responded to this menace with even harsher penalties. A 23-year-old Victoria man has already served jail time for doing thousands of dollars of damage

to three local businesses. He spent 16 days in jail after pleading guilty in provincial court out there to three counts of mischief under $5,000 for tagging buildings. Three other people have been

charged and their cases are before the courts.

It is estimated that graffiti removal costs $2 million to $3 million a year in downtown Victoria. The police believe 12 to 15 hard-core addicts are responsible

for 80% of the graffiti in the downtown area.

Then there's Montreal's experience when they had to shut down their contribution to the Great Millennium Wall of Canada project back in 2001 after the graffiti

applicators chased out the real artists and destroyed their mural. "Right now, Montreal does not have any laws about graffiti removal," said Montreal city officials. Montreal has spent millions of

dollars, including $1 million this year, helping property owners clean up graffiti on their walls, but ultimately it isn't the city's responsibility and will have to be done by owners.

Chicago, Philadelphia and New York require building owners to remove graffiti at their own expense.

Yet nobody has tried harder and more recently than Toronto with its proclamation that declared May 2002 as Graffiti Reduction Month. Graffiti, as embodied within

the program context, is specific to the unlawful defacing of both private and public property through the use of this kind of writing.

Here are the common targets, and if you look around Toronto you will quickly relate to the list: public and private buildings; parks and recreational facilities;

public transit vehicles, stations and shelters; public telephone booths; railway cars; bridges and overpasses. That's why I'm suggesting that a $5,000 fine for each offence is in order.

The dimension of the graffiti problem is clear and well chronicled, and the least the members of this House can do is support my bill and let our municipalities

know that the senior level of government supports their efforts to clean up and maintain the public's right to have unwanted, unintelligible etchings rendered unacceptable in our society.

The problem of erecting or attaching advertising signs to public property is a much easier law to enforce. Simply put, the offender is clearly identified by the

message on the sign. It is patently a scheme dreamed up by some companies to advertise without cost. I recall that when Avenue Road Roofing started this trend and were quickly joined by Alpine

Roofing, then an assortment of other roofing firms got in on the act. Lately, they've been erecting these unwanted signs around the Queen's Park Legislature, and I think this is the final straw.

Many intersections are littered with 1-800-GOT-JUNK signs, and now an ever-increasing list of small business offerings are sprouting up like weeds.

If the bill becomes

an act, through third reading and royal proclamation, we should encourage our municipalities and police forces to crack down on the

well-known offenders. What's the use of beautifying the main streets in our cities and towns and then letting them be marred by unwanted and illegal advertising messages?

The offence is straightforward and remedial action should be swift: get the gratuitous signs off our public property or pay the consequences.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate to offer my support for the bill and congratulate the member for

bringing it forward. I think it's actually quite an important bill.

I've watched with interest New York City's rejuvenation. In a 10-year period, New York City has recovered enormously. One of the things they did was to clean up

the city, and one thing they cleaned up was the graffiti. For those who may remember New York City 15 years ago, when you rode the subway there it was filled with graffiti. Not that I visit there

very often, but I did go down a year ago for Canada Loves New York -- all at my own expense, by the way, just in case the taxpayers are understandably worried about politicians using their money. I

took my grandson down, and my daughter. You have to be impressed with what New York City has done.

I came to understand this issue through a very good friend of mine, a police officer who was on the Toronto police force as an emergency task force officer. I

coached hockey with this individual. He got in a car accident and became a quadriplegic, had no use of his hands or lower body. I give the Toronto Police Service a lot of credit. He went back to

the Toronto Police Service full-time as a constable under then Chief McCormack, by the way, and then Chief Boothby and then Chief Fantino, all of whom were supportive of this.

One of his jobs was to deal with youth gangs. He became Canada's expert on youth gangs. No one knew more about youth gangs than my friend Brian Keown. We'd drive

around Toronto -- he drove an adapted van; quite an extraordinary individual -- and he would point out graffiti for me. He'd say, "That's X gang. That's Y gang." He could identify virtually all the

graffiti and could tell you what youth gang it was associated with. My friend Brian would tell me that it is important that we not allow this to continue, that, quite apart from the points my

colleague Mr Kells mentioned about just the sight of our city, there's another aspect to this that's real. My friend Brian Keown would, not lecture me, but kind of encourage me to recognize that

this isn't simply a case of some individuals deciding to take their artistic merit and display it on a wall or a freight car or the side of an arena; it also had, in many cases, some other

implications.

So I think this piece of legislation, while seemingly relatively minor, is important on a variety of fronts on the graffiti side. I take to heart the New York

City experience. I think there are things we can learn from what happened in New York City. One of the things they did was that they recognized -- and you can actually see this in your own life. If

a neighbour's house begins to deteriorate a little bit, it influences the neighbourhood, whether we like to acknowledge that or not. If we were to allow this to continue to grow, I think it does

have a synergistic effect on how clean our urban areas are; it's probably not just related to an urban area, but it tends to be where it's most prevalent. So it is, in my opinion, a solid idea.

I am also supportive of the part on the illegal signs. On a personal note, we have a cottage up north, and as I drive up there, I'm a little bit discouraged at

the increasing number of signs along the side of the road. The Haliburton area is a gorgeous area that I love to drive through because it's beautiful, but almost weekly, as I drive there, there are

more of these signs along the side of the road. And certainly I represent an area in Toronto and I see these signs growing, particularly over the weekends when they know there aren't crews out

there to take them down, so you'll see on a Friday night, in the community I live in, these illegal signs put out visually polluting the neighbourhood. As my colleague pointed out, from a fairness

to business point of view, it is unfair that someone can put up a sign illegally to advertise when other businesses do the legal thing and advertise through normal commercial channels. From a

commercial point of view but certainly from a visual point of view it's wrong.

As we look ahead, as we've often talked about here in the Legislature, our services, our police services, our municipal services, have got fewer and fewer

resources. It's just a fact of life. Our police services obviously are dealing with major issues. Our municipal services are also dealing with major issues. This should not be an area to which they

have to constantly be allocating resources; this should be an area where we as a society say, let's collectively find a way that we either eliminate or dramatically reduce this as a problem, the

two problems mentioned in this bill: the graffiti part and the illegal signs. I think it's unfortunate that scarce municipal resources are required to go out, often on a Monday, and take these

signs down, or else they simply stay up. In the area I represent, there is a roofing company that has many signs up. I won't mention their name. It sounds like Alpine, though, I think. It's a blue

sign -- not a Conservative blue sign, an Alpine sign.

We're here dealing with private members' business, and a member has taken the time to bring forward I think a constructive piece of legislation. Now, there may

or may not be some things in here that require some fine-tuning; I simply don't know. I would hope the Legislature would pass it and it could go a committee so that municipalities or police

services or those directly affected by it might have an opportunity to comment on it. But that's not to be interpreted as any lack of support; I am wholeheartedly in support of it.

I want to return to where I began. I know a little bit about this issue primarily because of a very good friend of mine. I mentioned that this friend, Brian

Keown, was on the police emergency task force, got in a car accident and became a quadriplegic, and the police services hired him back as a full-time regular constable. By the way, he was promoted

to detective; he competed against 500 people and he's one of the relatively few who were promoted. I take my hat off to the Toronto Police Service for making sure they were able to accommodate

that. We coached hockey together before he had his accident and we kept coaching for 15 or 16 years after that. He had an electric wheelchair and he'd go on the ice and coach. He was one of the

really fine coaches in the league I was in. Tragically, by the way, he passed away on February 10 at a young age, of cancer. Actually, the city of Toronto is recognizing him in an award ceremony

next Monday at Toronto city hall. It's well deserved.

As I say, I come to this issue with some pretty direct experience in it. The messages I got from my friend Brian Keown, originally Constable Brian Keown and then

Sergeant Brian Keown, was that this is not simply a harmless expression of creative talent. In many, many cases it is a way of gangs staking territory. We have a challenge in the province,

particularly in the major urban areas: there are gangs. That is a reality that our police services are attempting to deal with. I believe it is not simply a policing matter. I think there are

things we can do to assist the police in it, both in terms of resources to try and get at the root causes -- and by the way, Chief Fantino has talked often about that, that he needs help from the

rest of the community in dealing with some of the root causes that lead to individuals participating in gangs. Having said that, the fact is that there are gangs of individuals that need to be

dealt with. You may say, "Well, this is but a small part of it," and it's true; it's but a small part of the gangs, but it is a part that we can deal directly with.

The cost associated with this vandalism is not insignificant. Again, as I understand the experience in New York City, if you don't aggressively deal with this,

it just keeps expanding and expanding and expanding and the costs of dealing with it rise. But for New York City they were finding that it was also impacting on tourism, it was impacting on the

economic well-being of the city of New York and it was in some different ways affecting gang activities.

So I think this bill, as Mr Kells, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said, is partially a signal to our municipal partners that we understand this is an issue

and we will do what we can to support them in dealing with it. But to the public who are watching it and saying, "Is this an issue, really? What are you doing spending time on this?" I say it is an

issue. It is an issue of cost for our municipalities to try and deal with the symptoms of this. It's an issue that, if not dealt with, continues to grow. It's a -- cancer is too strong a word; it

is an activity that kind of feeds on itself if you don't deal with it, and if we simply accept it, you stop seeing its growth, stop seeing that it's getting out of hand. So I agree with dealing

with it and dealing with it quite aggressively, which I think this bill does.

As I said before, I would hope and suspect that it might go to a committee, although maybe the member has already checked with those affected, AMO, the

Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and our police services, and maybe they're quite comfortable with all the details of it, and so be it. Frankly, I would rather have it passed than go to

committee and die, obviously.

As the member from Etobicoke-Lakeshore said, it is primarily dealing with graffiti, and then there's the other aspect of illegal signs, which I too support him

on because I see in my own community the growth of it. There's an unfairness to the rest of our, dare I say, honest businesses that are prepared to invest their money in advertising only to find

that somebody else is doing it essentially for free right under their nose.

It's a bill worthy of our support. I would hope we will see it passed today, but more importantly, that it will get its way moving quickly into law so we can

show our municipal partners we're with them.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): First of all, I commend the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Mr Kells, for bringing forward this bill and

for an opportunity to debate it today. I do have to tell him that I don't know how the rest of my caucus is going to vote on this, but I personally think it is an idea that is deserving of some

support.

As you travel around this country, especially in urban areas, you will see increasing amounts of graffiti and we as governments, at all levels, seem to be

powerless to stop it. You will see the graffiti in the form of signs. We've already talked about the roofing companies, but you will see all types of people putting up signs along our roadways, our

streets and our parks in literally any place they are visible to passers-by, be they in a car or be they walking. You see those signs that are supposed to make us as consumers want to use the

products. The first thing I would say to anyone who finds them offensive is to phone the company, as I did on one occasion, and tell them that if I ever needed my roof repaired they would be the

last company on earth to whom I would go. I think that kind of thing that a consumer can do will speak volumes to a company that is attempting to use that kind of visible pollution of our

environment.

You also see graffiti in terms of vandalism where people go out simply to vandalize a property by spray-painting it, usually with some ridiculous type of

painting or something which I would not want to call public art in any of its forms. It is simply

an act of vandalism for which the Criminal Code has just penalties of up to two years less a

day.

You see graffiti that many people do not understand, but it is often in the form of hate messages. It has symbols from groups, sometimes ethnically based,

sometimes not, sometimes skinheads, offering hate against other people in our society. The police will tell you what some of these are. I was absolutely shocked the first time I was given a whole

list and the gangs to which they were related, to the ethnic rivalries they documented. Last but not least you have gang turf symbols, where people put these signs up to indicate to all and sundry

that the gang is in control in that particular quarter or that particular neighbourhood of the city.

These are vandalisms to all of us and they need, quite frankly, to be stopped. There has been an overriding failure of the Criminal Code and the justice system

and the police to deal with this. I'm not sure that this bill is going to stop any of that, but it certainly is not going to do any harm. For those municipalities that do not have a bylaw on

graffiti, this will be at least a minimum for them to aspire to.

I suggest that what we really need in this society that might go beyond this bill are three things. First of all, we need an education forum. We need to get out

to, primarily, the young people who are spray-painting; to the companies that are postering and putting up signs; and to gangs. We need to get out to everyone to tell them that this is a Criminal

Code offence and it will not be tolerated. I'm going to speak a little bit later about the experience in the city of Ottawa. Certainly, education has to be prime, and I do not really see it in this

bill. We need to be spending some resources, some monies, either in the schools or directly one-on-one with street people to ensure that they know this will not be tolerated.

The second thing we need to do as a community and as a province is to help fund those who would eradicate the graffiti. We need to fund the municipalities, the

townships, the highway departments and the hydro commissions which are forced every day to go out there and remove the graffiti. We need to make sure that there is sufficient funding in our cities,

which today are far too often finding it difficult to make ends meet. The tax base is not increasing, and we all know the difficulties that cities are having on a whole broad range of issues, from

housing to transit, to maintenance of the parks and sewer and water systems. To add another cost to remove graffiti is simply beyond their abilities. A senior level of government, like the

province, should be making funding available if we are serious about removing it throughout the length and breadth of this province, and making some sort of effort to get that funding.

Last but not least, and I think most importantly, we need to empower ordinary citizens. That is not in this bill. I am taken back to a time when I was still a

councillor in the borough of East York before I became the mayor. There was a fellow councillor who has since sadly deceased, Jenner Jean-Marie, who represented the Leaside area of East York. He

organized the people of the Leaside community to be graffiti busters. He encouraged them and told them how to go out and literally rip the signs off the lampposts. To this day, you will probably

find fewer signs on lampposts in the Leaside community than anywhere else in the city. Even though Jenner Jean-Marie is gone, his little army continues. They go out and they tear down the signs

whenever they see them on the lampposts. The community will not tolerate them. I invite any of you to go through that community, even today, and you will be surprised, you will hardly ever see a

sign on a lamppost.

The community is tolerant of people who are holding a garage sale or lost a cat and put up a few signs, but they expect within their own community that someone

will take those down after the garage sale is finished, or after the cat has been found, or after a reasonable period of time. If it is not, they take it down and they will actually take it back to

the offender.

What we need to do as a society is to empower people to do this. I am convinced that if we do this in the beginning, and people feel confident to go and take

those signs down, there will be far less vandalism and far fewer people willing or wanting to put them up.

Many municipalities already have more stringent bylaws, especially the big ones: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto and Windsor. They all have more stringent bylaws. The

courts, though, have very much hurt the case of those who would fight against graffiti. Two cases -- immediately, of course, is the famous case of the city of Peterborough and Supreme Court of

Canada back in 1993, where the city lost its case before the Supreme Court in trying to prosecute someone who was putting up illegal posters contrary to the city bylaw. Of course, the Constitution

and free speech was brought into that.

There was a second case that is not quite as well known, Regina v Quickfall, in which they said postering in and of itself, putting a poster on a hydro pole, was

not an offence under the Criminal Code. I think this has caused considerable angst in all the municipalities.

There have been several suggestions today about New York City, talking about how they cleaned it up. With respect, they didn't clean it up with a bylaw like

this. They cleaned it up through aggressive action in removing the graffiti and getting citizens to speak out and stop the graffiti from taking place in the first place. In the case of the United

States, both in the city of Seattle and in New York City their bylaws on graffiti have been overturned by the courts. So I want us to be very cautious about thinking that this bylaw may in and of

itself do what it's intended to do.

I support the bill because it does no harm. I support the bill because it gives all those municipalities that have not yet passed a bylaw something to cling to.

There are some who will not support the bill, I'm sure, because it infringes upon the right of free speech, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the famous Peterborough case.

I'd like to go back to where I started: the need for education. We need to go out to the young people and those who are committing the graffiti and tell them it

is not acceptable. We need to inform every member of society it is not acceptable. Secondly, we need to fund cities and municipalities.

The city of Ottawa today spends $400,000 removing graffiti. That may sound like a lot of money and you would think you could do a lot of work with that, but in

fact it is a very limited graffiti program. In the city of Ottawa they use some of the money, I understand around $100,000, to go out to people who are called taggers, those who actually put the

graffiti on the walls and public buildings of our capital city. They try to educate them and tell them it is not acceptable and get them to cease and desist.

They have also set up areas where graffiti are allowed. They understand it is impossible to obliterate it everywhere. There are building hoardings and places

where graffiti are allowed and where the taggers, if they must practise their art, are encouraged to go to a hoarding around a new development or a site where graffiti will be allowed, and it will

be taken down and will not cause huge public harm to existing buildings.

They do other things. In the downtown core on Bank Street and Rideau Street they have an eradication policy. They have a paid contractor who goes out every day

and looks up and down Bank Street and along Rideau Street, the two main commercial streets in that city, looking for graffiti. They have other paid contractors who do nothing except take those

graffiti off the walls. This is very expensive. It's about $300,000 a year to do this in the Ottawa pilot project. One needs to understand that in a city that is, I think, the third-largest or

fourth-largest city in Ontario -- maybe it's even the second largest. I'm just trying to think about that.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Ottawa is second.

Mr Prue: Bigger than Hamilton?

Mr Smitherman: Yes, almost twice as big.

Mr Prue: All right. It's a large city. Their program at $400,000 does two streets. That's all. Ottawa cannot, with the monies available to it,

eradicate graffiti throughout that capital city. That's their experience. They need help, and they need more help than is in this bylaw.

We have the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto has a bylaw that has not yet been enacted because they cannot get

community consensus. They are attempting to limit signs and signage to 4,500 poles in the city of Toronto. There are approximately 100,000 hydro poles in this city and they are trying to limit it

to 4,500 poles or about 4% of all of them. There is a proposal that there be a $60 fine for every illegal sign that is put on any of the balance of the 95,500 poles where you are not allowed to do

it. They are going to put plastic sleeves on the ones where it is allowed.

But there is a huge community uprising against that, which might be surprising to people, because people believe in free speech and the right to put out their

signs, whether it's to advertise a babysitting service, to find a lost cat or to do whatever, and the city of Toronto has been singularly unable, with the threat of being taken to court, to

act.

We have the example of some cities. My assistant in my office has recently come back from Spain and she told me a remarkable story of how every morning there was

a whole graffiti squad in the town she stayed in that goes out and, with high-powered sprays, literally sprays off the graffiti that were painted the night before and takes down the signs. That

city is spending an inordinate amount of money, but they are doing it for tourist reasons. Something I think we should remember: tourists don't want to come to a city, don't want to come to Toronto

or Ottawa or Hamilton or Niagara Falls or Thunder Bay and see graffiti all over everything. It is not the image we have of ourselves as Ontarians or Canadians.

Last but not least, we need to empower the citizens. We need to tell people it is OK to take the graffiti down. We need to tell them it is their duty to take

the graffiti down. We need to tell them it is their duty to report when they see people spray painting or causing damage, and not to look the other way. We need to have ordinary citizens in our

community understand that when that violation is done to a piece of property, is done to a street or a road or a roadway, it is a violation to all of us, that it reduces our value as Ontarians,

reduces the value of our property, and really diminishes us as a society.

I commend the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for bringing this forward. I will be supporting it, but I ask all of us: we need to go the extra mile to eradicate

that from Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to bring members' attention to the members' gallery west. We have a former member, Mr Ed Philip, from

Etobicoke-Rexdale, who represented those fine people in this Legislature in the 32nd through 35th Parliaments.

Further debate.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I'm particularly delighted today to address this important bill from my esteemed colleague from

Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Mr Kells, because I believe it's an issue that affects all of us. It's of considerable importance, not only to my constituents in Scarborough Centre and myself but to all the

residents, as we've already heard, in this great province of ours.

One of the underlying principles of a democratic society is the right to ownership and enjoyment of one's private property. Graffiti, illegal advertising and

other forms of property defacement undermine this very basic principle of good government. Graffiti are a crime that victimizes not only the property owner, but also the property owner's

neighbours. It effects entire communities. It can be used to promote hatred and violence, cause fear and lead to crime and disorder and the general disintegration of community standards within a

community.

In my 20 years of service to the people of Scarborough, I have learned the value of civic pride and I have witnessed the demoralizing effects of graffiti and

other forms of property defacement. Many years ago the streets of Scarborough were once lined with illegal advertising and unsightly billboards. Car dealer advertisements that had long since lost

their appeal competed with run down and tattered billboards across the street. This made for neither a pleasant nor an inspiring drive through the city streets. It provided little, if any,

incentive for investment. Property values suffered and economic development slowed. As a result, of course, the people of Scarborough suffered.

In addition, proliferation of graffiti raised public safety concerns in the community.

In order to protect the rights of citizens, the municipality adopted action plans to clean up city streets. In fact, it was the municipality of Scarborough in

the late 1970s that introduced a sign code bylaw that has been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada -- and has been upheld, I might add. To uphold this, we introduced stronger

property standards enforcement which required timely cleanup of any illegal or unsightly advertising. We believe that the effect contributed to creating safer and cleaner communities, affected

economic development in a positive way and brought back a revival of civic pride.

I believe that Scarborough residents are not alone in wanting better and more attractive neighbourhoods for themselves and their children. Concerns over

graffiti and defacement of property have been echoed by many communities. An increasing number of jurisdictions, not only in Ontario but also in the rest of Canada as well as in the United States,

have taken steps to combat this problem. In Toronto, May 2002 was proclaimed Graffiti Education Month. Communities and the police services worked together in an effort to revitalize urban areas, to

make them more attractive to investment and to showcase the best that the city of Toronto has to offer.

But incentive for investment is not necessarily the primary objective of cleaning up our neighbourhoods. The partnerships that form between communities and the

police services that seek to reduce crime promote social cohesiveness and reduce fear and disorder. Not only that; they send a clear message. They send the message that hatred and biased propaganda

do not belong in our communities. They send the message that gang graffiti does not belong in our communities. They also send the message that cult graffiti does not belong in our communities.

I believe it's time for this House to extend the strong message to the rest of the province that we need to take steps to ensure that each and every resident

in this province, regardless of the street or the community or the town or the city they live in, has the opportunity to enjoy their right to property. No citizen should be subjected to the

distress and the fear that can result from hate propaganda. No city or community should be subjected to the distress that comes from freely showcased graffiti on building walls, private as well as

public property.

We must support this initiative that encourages residents, especially youth, to take pride in their community. Of very special concern to me are the safety and

security of my constituents. Community safety is tremendously important, and I'm sure that many members of this House share the same concern. I have repeatedly met with community leaders and

members of the police services board to discuss crime and its management. As a result of these meetings, I can tell this House that evidence shows significant costs to graffiti crime. The most

obvious of these is the cost of cleanup and the restoration of property and the judicial costs. There are, however, other costs that, although not as obvious, have a more damaging effect on the

community and society as a whole, and these are the social costs that include decreased respect for law and order, citizen fear and diminished use of public spaces. In addition, graffiti crime

increases the likelihood of supply theft, leading to mischief and carrying the potential of more serious offences.

Eradicating the defacement of property helps to reduce crime. It prevents citizens, and especially our youth, from treading on that very dangerous path that

begins with a seemingly harmless prank but leads to serious disregard for the law and the safety of others.

These are serious concerns that plague many communities across our province. If we are to expect our citizens to take pride in their communities, we must

address this serious symptom of social disorder. If we want our citizens to be active in crime management initiatives, community surveillance programs and other Crime Stopper initiatives, we must

do our part and show our commitment to eradicating the problem of graffiti and property defacement.

Anti-graffiti legislation is not only a means by which we will encourage economic development and invite investment. It is not only a means by which we help

our tourism industry to flourish. It is also a significant component of our war against crime. It is one more strategy we can utilize to ensure that Ontario is indeed the best place to live, work

and raise a family.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is indeed a pleasure to rise this morning. I do so, I might add at the beginning, in respect to the member for

Etobicoke-Lakeshore and the interest he places on traditions and values. He is the member who previously introduced a private member's bill on the two-minute silence for Remembrance Day in respect

to those who served their country, and it's in the same tradition that this bill pays respect in our communities and the ridings in which we live. This bill goes a long way in making a statement

about making our communities, as the previous speaker said, better places to live and enhancing the quality of life and sense of safety.

In preparation for speaking on the member's bill, I got a copy of the bill. For those watching, I think it's important to recognize that it describes graffiti

as including "any design, drawing or writing scratched, scribbled or applied by any means to or on any surface."

In fact graffiti, previous speakers might have mentioned, was a form of self-expression or a form of art or a modern-day kind of community -- I don't know --

territorialism in some respects. It may, in the gang sense, be demarcating their territory, and it certainly is in my view something that needs to have clear direction from the province.

I commend the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, because I did survey the three principal communities in my riding of Durham. For those viewing, my riding of

Durham includes the north part of Oshawa where there are lots of commercial plazas and other areas where this certainly can be a problem. It also includes Port Perry, which is a wonderful community

on the shores of Lake Scugog. In Palmer Park in the downtown area, they have had from time to time small problems with this situation on sidewalks, walls and other meeting spots, if you will, and

also in the municipality of Clarington, which of course is a municipal area which includes a lot of communities, Bowmanville being the largest one, Newcastle and Orono, a smaller, rural-setting

community where graffiti wouldn't be to a large extent, yet there are youth issues there that are being addressed on a continual basis. But it includes smaller communities like Hampton and more

growing areas like Courtice. Young people to some extent get frustrated and they do tend to congregate because they may be bored or just want to hang out together.

When it comes to a general sense, in my research in Oshawa there is a municipal bylaw, which I'll mention to some extent later, but in Clarington there is no

such bylaw -- I think there's just a "good fences make good neighbours" approach to it -- and in Port Perry there's no existing bylaw. This gives them a framework by which they have a tool to use

as an enforcement mechanism to make our communities more beautiful, more pleasant and the sense of feeling safer, I suppose.

But to that extent there is a bylaw in the city of Oshawa, a very large city in the riding. I do share that with the member from Oshawa, the Honourable Jerry

Ouellette. Their bylaw is bylaw 01-2002, so it's very recent. It's

section 5.3.2. I'll read it. "Exterior walls of a building (and their components) shall be free of painted slogans, graffiti and

similar defacements."

I was listening to the NDP member earlier. He talked about the very famous Peterborough case, where the courts determined that it was a freedom-of-expression

issue. Well, I think freedoms have boundaries. I think with freedoms go responsibilities, or with rights go responsibilities. I think in many cases this activity is unacceptable and to some extent

it could be slanderous, it could also be discriminatory, it could have messaging that is in conflict with what in our common community view is acceptable behaviour. But it runs very closely into

the whole issue of vandalism. I think of most of it as being vandalism.

I guess there can and should be room for it being a forum for artistic expression. Well, do it on your own fence or do it on your own house. But I think it's

important to recognize that it isn't acceptable in most cases.

But I will say that the municipality of Clarington has the Clarington youth group, which congregates at the Firehouse Youth Centre. It's administered by the

John Howard Society. There are approximately 200 members. They're supervised by adults and provided a bunch of activities under very capable leadership. It gives young people a place to collect.

They work with the Durham Regional Police and community policing officers.

But I think a very important program, in the final moments I have here, is the Clarington youth group advisory committee, which received $6,000 recently from

our provincial Solicitor General for the purpose of promoting youth development in the area. They intend to purchase anti-graffiti paint with the money. The idea is that the graffiti can be washed

off, cleaning the surface with hot water and pressure. It is the intent of the Clarington youth advisory committee to use the paint purchased to create murals in some locations in Clarington where

graffiti and vandalism are a problem. In fact, most of the design and work would be painted by those very members of the local youth group.

So there's a case where they are making a positive statement. I believe that this bill will be one more signal that this province promotes beautification in

our communities for a great place to live, work and raise our families.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Kells: In the two minutes I have left, I'd like to summarize by saying I believe that my bill merits your support. There is no more

decisive illustration of support than a strong

section in the new Municipal Act, 2001, under the heading "Closing premises, public nuisance." This legislation passed during the spring sitting, and

it allows the court to take action to prevent abuses of property. Under the "public nuisance" heading, the presence of graffiti is included as a reason for the court to take action to protect

property rights. So this government has taken action and added graffiti right into the new Municipal Act.

Since I represented the minister at the committee meetings on this new bill, I know that our municipalities were pleased to learn of these extended powers to

the Municipal Act. Yet it is possible to help these wayward artists if some effective communication can be established. I think the honourable member from the NDP spoke to that.

Now may I paraphrase a statement made in the House by Brenda Elliott, MPP for Guelph-Wellington, back in November of 1999. She said, "In the spring of 1996,

Guelph police noticed a disturbing increase in the amount of graffiti in the city of Guelph. An officer took it upon himself to find a strategy to combat this problem.

"He first solicited the help of a known local graffiti artist" and then worked rather quickly to track the perpetrators down. He got them to put their graffiti

on legitimate areas. It all worked out rather well.

This Legislature, in supporting my bill, will have sent a clear signal to perpetrators that we no longer tolerate these abuses of public and private property.

The same thing goes with our ability to help municipal councils enforce their bylaws in our new legislation.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for debate on this ballot item. I will place the question to decide this matter at 12

o'clock noon.

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS WEEK

ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA MOTOCYCLETTE

Mr Stewart moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 201,

An Act to proclaim Motorcycle Awareness Week / Projet de loi 201, Loi proclamant la Semaine de sensibilisation à la motocyclette.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Peterborough has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce

An Act to proclaim Motorcycle Awareness Week. If this

bill passes, it will declare the first Monday in May of each year as Motorcycle Awareness Week in Ontario. The bottom line of this bill is about safety, education and awareness. It relates to the

motorcyclist but, equally as important, it addresses the motorist as well.

There are 102,000 officially licensed motorcycles registered in Ontario for road use. As well, there are untold numbers of motorcycles for off-road use,

totalling 570,000 motorcycles. And 9,121 more riders were licensed in 2000 than in 1999 -- a 7% increase, and it's continuing to increase daily. They are 7% of the driving force in Ontario.

Motorcycles have been used for transportation and recreation in Canada and indeed around the world for years. In fact, they have been an important

transportation vehicle in both war time as well as in peace time.

In May, there is an annual renewal of motorcycle enthusiasm. Over the last 20 years, organizations across Ontario have promoted and participated in motorcycle

awareness campaigns. Some cities and towns in this province have proclaimed May as Motorcycle Awareness Month or Motorcycle Awareness Week, depending what the municipality chose.

Motorcycles are not a toy. They are a high-speed, powerful mode of transportation and must be ridden safely and responsibly. These days, with the high cost of

fuel, motorcycles are seen as an economical form of transportation and are becoming more and more popular every day. Moms and dads, grandfathers and grandmothers, sons and daughters are turning

motorcycling into a family sport. We want it to be a safe family form of fun. Less than 2% of all riders are involved in motorcycle gangs. They are becoming a nonentity in motorcycling.

If we are to promote safety both for motorcyclists and motorists, we have to develop and promote skills and awareness of

proper habits on how to handle motorcycles and also good road habits, which should be apparent but sometimes are not, especially with we motorists.

In my riding of Peterborough, Sir Sandford Fleming College offers a motorcycle awareness and skills course. It focuses on safety, basic motorcycle tips, riding

habits, how a motorcycle works, basic skills and how to practise them, what hazards they must be looking for while they're riding, emergency braking and collision avoidance. The course is more

comprehensive than most automobile driving courses. This course is endorsed by all levels of government and the insurance advisory organization. This course has gained recognition as the finest

rider training program anywhere in the world.

The motorcyclist indeed is very vulnerable when on the highway. All of the motoring public must recognize the importance of sharing the roadway. Safe driving

habits and an overall awareness for all those who travel Ontario highways are essential. We all have a right to use our roadways. As we drive our cars and trucks down Ontario highways, we always

seem to be aware of those trucks, transports and other vehicles that can be seen very easily in our rear-view mirrors, but motorcycles can be missed. They could be in the blind spot of our vehicle,

or we could just fail to realize or remember that they also have a right to be on our highways. Motorcycles are a relatively small component of the total traffic mix, therefore their visual

recognition is reduced. Many drivers do not anticipate routine encounters with motorcycles in traffic. Again, motorcycles are smaller visual targets and are more likely to be obscured.

Let me comment on a couple of safety tips that are very important to motorcyclists. I believe they are also very important to motorists.

Be very cautious during the first rain after a dry spell. All the oil that has accumulated on a road comes up in the first half-hour and is very slippery.

Sound familiar? Yes, indeed it does.

Motorcyclists, when passing parked cars, stay to the left side of your lane. It's somewhat similar to what we should be doing when we're driving our cars or

trucks.

Look ahead. Plan ahead. Look as far down the road as you can. Pay close attention to colours and shapes on the road surface, for example trash, puddles, new

asphalt, bumps, cracks, holes and fluid spills. Again, I believe looking ahead and planning has as much to do with when you're driving a car or truck as it does when you're riding or driving a

motorcycle.

These suggestions should be practised every time we hit the road if we are to be responsible drivers. All of us know we should slow down before entering blind

turns and be watchful at intersections and when passing driveways and alleys.

Members of this Legislature, these are all awareness and safety issues that we all should practise on a day-to-day basis.

This bill is about respect: respect for each other, the motorcyclists and all the motoring public who practise responsible driving. Long gone is the stigma

associated with motorcyclists, and so it should be. Today lawyers, doctors, teachers, businessmen and businesswomen, people from all walks of life ride bikes. They pay big prices for their

equipment and contribute to the economy of this great province.

This summer I had the opportunity of opening the official HOG rally at Trent University in Peterborough. There were over 2,500 bike riders there. A tremendous

amount of dollars was represented in the vehicles I observed in front of us when we opened it, and the people who were there were so enthusiastic. The Golden Helmets from the OPP were there showing

their form but also passing on safety tips to many of the riders. By the way, "HOG" stands for Harley Owners Group, a wonderful group to be associated with and be part of.

In my riding last year, we had too many deaths, too many accidents, too many riders left with physical and mental disabilities due to motorcycle accidents. In

2000, there were over 437 motor vehicle fatalities; 37 of those were motorcycles drivers.

By declaring Motorcycle Awareness Week, maybe, just maybe, we can save some lives and some limbs. I encourage all members to support this bill. It is

imperative for citizens of Ontario to be aware of motorcycles on our highways. This is a very non-political issue. I would hope the members of this House will support this bill. Just maybe we can

save a few lives.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I'm pleased to stand up and offer my unequivocal support for this bill in front of us. The

honourable member had put it forward earlier, but because of his position within the government caucus it couldn't be dealt with. Now he's had the opportunity to bring this bill forward, and I

think it is important. As he pointed out, safety education and awareness is definitely a two-way street. We need to do everything we can to help support this bill.

The history of the motorcycle is very interesting. The motorcycle is a direct descendant of the bicycle. The first bicycle, as we know it, appeared around

1800, and the motorcycle is an evolution of the bicycle. Gottlieb Daimler is credited with building the first motorcycle in 1885, with one wheel in the front and one wheel in the back, although it

had smaller wheels, almost like training wheels, on each side. This motorcycle was constructed mostly of wood, with the wheels being iron-banded, wooden-spoked, wagon-type wheels. It was known as

having the bone-crusher chassis. It was powered by a single-cylinder auto cycle engine. There were also some earlier experiments in the United States in trying to develop a motorcycle, but it was

steam-powered. In 1867 a gentlemen by the name of Sylvester Roper developed a charcoal-fired, two-cylinder engine attached to a bicycle. The earliest designs started out with three- or four-wheel

vehicles, but eventually settled on the two-wheel variety.

The first successful production of a two-wheeled motorcycle began in Munich, Germany, in 1894. By 1895 there was a French company building an engine that led

to the mass production of motorcycles. The first North American production of a gas-fired engine was by the Metz Co in Massachusetts in 1898. Later on we saw the Indian Motorcycle Co formed, and

then the company that the honourable member made reference to earlier on, Harley-Davidson.

In 1903, 21-year-old William Harley and 20-year-old Arthur Davidson made available to the public their first production of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. The

factory was a 10-foot by 15-foot wooden shed, with the words "Harley-Davidson" inscribed on the door. The first dealer opened in 1903 as well. He sold one of the first three mass-produced

Harley-Davidson vehicles that year. The Harley-Davidson vehicle is quite common on the roads; we see it in particular with police services across this province. In 1908 the first police motorcycle

was sold to the Detroit police department.

Harley-Davidson has certainly been actively involved in trying to improve the motorcycle over the years, along with other companies. Just following through on

a bit of chronology of the motorcycle, the first front-wheel brakes appeared on a motorcycle in 1928. In 1939 we saw the first flashing turn signals appear on a motorcycle. In 1940 the first

sealed-beam headlights appeared on motorcycles. We started to see some evolution in the industry, and in 1949 Honda manufactured its first motorcycle. In 1952 the first hydraulic brakes appeared on

motorcycles. In 1953 -- and this is in recognition of some of the safety issues, and many of the points I've made dealt with safety on motorcycles -- the first patent for a protective helmet with

an energy-absorbing liner was issued. Staying with the helmets, in 1957 the Snell Memorial Foundation was established to help create and improve the standards of motorcycle helmets.

Rear suspension was introduced on motorcycles in 1958. In 1959 the Japanese invasion into motorcycles began, with Yamaha first entering the market in that

year. In 1967 Bell Helmets introduced the full facial cover. In 1980 there was the first motorcycle international safety conference. That's what we're dealing with with this bill here: safety.

We know that the motorbike or motorcycle has been on the road for well over 100 years, but we need to do more to understand and recognize, as was pointed out

earlier, the two-way street that exists: not only do we need to ensure that the operators of motorcycles are fully trained but we need to ensure that drivers of other vehicles on the road, be they

cars, trucks, or large transport trucks, understand the motorcycle as well. We need to understand and we need to ensure that when safety manuals are being developed for individuals, for young

people going for their driver's licence, there is an inclusion of awareness of motorcycles.

I want to commend the Bikers Rights Organization of Ontario, otherwise knows as BRO. The Bikers Rights Organization has worked hard over the years to try and

raise the issues of safety education and awareness. Every year, in May, they hold a Motorcycle Awareness Week. I've been privileged, at least since 1992, to have been in St Thomas welcoming

motorcycle riders from all over southwestern Ontario as they held their annual awareness rally. They use that rally as an opportunity to not only educate themselves but educate the general public,

giving them a better understanding of the motorcycles on the road. I want to commend them as well.

There's an individual in my riding, whose name is Steve Northey. Steve has worked very hard at trying to ensure that issues dealing with motorcycle safety and

awareness have been brought to the forefront. But they've been involved in other areas as well. Every fall, they have their annual toy run, and this is always the prelude or the kick-off to the

Christmas season. Every year, hundreds and hundreds of motorcyclists will converge on St Thomas. They begin their ride in London, and they each come packing a toy that becomes part of the local

Christmas Care campaign that is operated through the Salvation Army. I commend them for that and their toy run.

The honourable member talked about motorcycles and of the sheer beauty and value of the motorcycles. One only needs to go look at the care and time that

individuals have taken to customize some of their bikes and to create truly showcase vehicles. They are, in many cases, works of art, and they are also extremely valuable. They take pride in their

vehicles.

It was interesting as well when the member talked about attending the Harley Owners Group, the HOG, group rally in Ottawa. There's something so distinctive

about the Harley-Davidson motorcycle, the sound of that bike. My neighbour Murray has a Harley-Davidson and when he pulls home on the weekend and he fires that bike up, you know it's him. The sound

travels around the community, and you can hear a Harley travelling down the street, and some of the sounds are distinctive. I can pick Murray's bike out as he's coming home.

I look at another friend of mine, Joe Olsen. Joe lives outside of Detroit, and Joe has been riding motorcycles since the 1940s and he takes great pride in his

motorcycles. He has at least three in his own collection and he has done everything he possibly can to ensure that the heritage of early motorcycles has not been lost. Much like an individual takes

pride in his car, Joe has taken pride in his motorcycle. Joe -- I give him credit -- this past summer, drove all the way from Detroit to Winnipeg on his motorcycle. That's quite a ride, and I

commend him for that.

I really say thank you to the honourable member for bringing this bill forward, because we need, as legislators, to do everything that we can to increase

awareness of motorbikes on the roads and do everything that we can to educate the public, because any death, one death, is one death too many. If this bill can work toward improving awareness and

we can save one more life, then this bill has proved its worth. So I commend the member and I assure the member that he will have the full support of our caucus with this legislation.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to confess right off the top that I don't ride a motorcycle, nor do I own one. So I don't have a

conflict of interest here as I speak to this bill, whether to promote it or not.

I know there are folks out there who just love to ride motorcycles. We hope they do it safely and understand the correctness of making sure that they have

their helmets on, that they're dressed appropriately and that they take all the precautions necessary, without our having to focus on a Motorcycle Awareness Week. Although this particular proposal

may have some merit, I'm here this morning to listen to the comments of others, such as the members who have spoken already and, I'm sure, the many others who will speak later this morning.

Motorcycling is one of those two-edged swords. As the member who introduced this motion this morning indicates in some of the material he has put out,

motorcycles are not toys. They're very powerful machines. If they're not used properly, they can be very dangerous, and because of the lack of consideration, understanding and attention by other

large vehicles on the highway, they can often be in jeopardy even though they themselves take all the safety precautions that are necessary.

I want to put a few thoughts on the record this morning by way of challenge to the member. He can respond to them in his closing remarks or perhaps others who

are supportive of recognizing the first week in May as Motorcycle Awareness Week can respond, so that I might understand more fully how these issues are going to be considered in this. Then I can

make up my mind whether I want to support it or not this morning.

One side is the fear that we may take this very powerful machine, this activity that can be very dangerous if one doesn't pay attention, and take all the

safety precautions, understanding as well that other vehicles out there aren't always as conscious and aware of motorcycles on the road as they should be, and that by focusing on motorcycling and

setting a week aside for awareness, although I recognize the member is talking primarily of awareness from a safety perspective, we may also go a distance to romanticizing in some way this activity

of riding motorcycles.

For example, I'm thinking of my own kids here, so I may actually have a conflict of interest, in that one of my boys I know has talked about having a

motorcycle and riding a motorcycle. I'll tell you, it scares me big time to think of him out there on the road on a motorcycle. I'd prefer he buy a car. I think a car is safer and that his chances,

if he gets into an accident, are much greater of coming out with less damage to himself or others if he drives a car.

In setting aside a week, because there will be all kinds of celebration and focus, public relations and communication, particularly by the motorcycle industry

itself promoting motorcycling, ultimately that will appeal to a younger set out there who may not yet have developed a full understanding of the challenges and difficulties and the fact, as I've

said already, that this is a very dangerous machine they ride, not a toy.

I put that on the record, that I have a fear we may romanticize a way of transportation that isn't as safe as some of the alternatives that are out there that

people could choose to participate in. I put that out for people's consideration. Will it do that? Will the obvious benefit of an awareness week that will focus on safety compensate for the image

that may be developed about motorcycling that may encourage young people in particular to participate in this activity without thinking about the consequences, no matter how attentive they might be

to the safety side of their actual riding the machine, not understanding that even with that it can be very dangerous behaviour and activity to be involved in.

The other side of this that I think needs to be put on the record is the growing concern out there in communities about the unsavoury side of motorcycling,

about people such as the Hells Angels and some of these other groups that ride motorcycles that have become a very real threat to communities and a very real concern to the police. How do you draw

the line between the two? How do you separate those very well meaning and good citizens in all our communities who ride motorcycles for pleasure, for transportation or for recreation and who do it

in as safe a fashion as possible, who use the motorcycle and the group they belong to to raise money for charity and do all those kinds of things that we know can be and are done by people who ride

motorcycles, from the unsavoury side of motorcycling that so often is depicted in the movies that we and young people watch, and about which we become more and more anxious and concerned in this

province as we see the incursion of these motorcycle gangs into the framework, the network and the fabric of Ontario?

I'm concerned about our ability, in setting aside a week to focus on motorcycling, to actually keep the two separate and deal with them in a way that helps

people understand there is this very difficult, dangerous and unsavoury side of motorcycle activity that exists out there that is a real threat to society, to some of the things we count on to

support the bringing up of our children and the behaviour of people in communities.

Those are two issues I want to present here this morning as needing, in my mind, to be thought about as we consider this piece of legislation before us. Are we

setting ourselves up for something that is bigger and more unmanageable in the end by doing this, or as the member who has presented it suggests, will we simply be focusing on the positive side of

motorcycling and emphasizing the issue of safety where that activity is concerned? I think they're very real. I think they're things we need to think about very carefully and I think they're things

all of us need to consider as we choose which way to vote on this piece of private members' public business here this morning.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): It's a pleasure for me to rise today in support of my colleague from Peterborough's introduction

of the bill that deals with motorcycle safety and awareness. I, too, like the member from Sault Ste Marie, do not have a conflict, I guess, because I do not own and I am not licensed to drive a

motorcycle, although I must admit, as the member from Elgin-Middlesex-London pointed out, there are some very fancy and interesting pieces of equipment on the market.

Motorcycles certainly play an important role in many people's lives, not only from a recreational point of view but from a transportation point of view, and

the safety aspect of it should be first and foremost whenever we're debating this bill.

As my colleague from Peterborough pointed out, we have 95,000 licensed units and probably five times more that are off-road units. I would like to say, being a

member from a rural community, that we have to stress the safety aspect for these off-road units also. They may not be licensed but it's important and imperative that we stress that the people who

use them be well trained in using them, and stress the safety aspect of them, because today off-road vehicles, whether they're four-wheelers -- there are not too many three-wheelers left -- are

used for hunting. They're used in the bush. Farmers are using four-wheelers today, for planting, for fertilizing and for spraying, so there is a multitude of uses with regard to motorcycles and

certainly off-road units.

The member from Sault Ste Marie talked about the danger involved with motorcycles and he's absolutely right. There's no doubt that there's a higher risk if

you're driving a motorcycle rather than driving a car. That's very well exemplified under the auto policy, under the accident benefits, whereby if you're driving a motorcycle, they're substantially

higher than if you're driving an automobile. But I found something interesting yesterday. It was in the standing committee on public accounts, and they're looking at the road user safety program.

It's part of the 2001 annual report of the Provincial Auditor. The Minister of Transportation is over here talking about some of the issues I would like to put on the record: one is setting safety

standards, policies and regulations for road users, vehicles and commercial carriers; two is inspecting, monitoring and enforcing compliance with safety standards; three is testing and licensing

drivers and vehicles; and four, educating drivers in safe driving behaviour, and government policies and legislation for road user safety.

That's all well to say this, and I know it's a little more difficult to enforce it. However, I think as a government, as individuals, that under the present

guidelines, when the motorcyclists go for testing, they're made well aware of the dangers of automobiles. But on the converse of that, I don't think that, when young people are taking their

drivers' tests in driving an automobile, there is as much emphasis placed on the respect that they should have for motorcyclists.

We see that when people are in a hurry at a red light. The motorcyclist is the lane. A car will crowd that motorcyclist. As soon as the light turns green, away

they go. They will not share, in some instances, the lane with a motorcycle. Consequently, I think we have to continue stressing the importance of safety and we do this through an education

program, through driver education. I see these young students from school today, and they may be too young for testing and learning to drive, but I think we also do it through our educational

program, that we start with road safety at an early age. It's never too early to start.

I know my time is very short. I will be voting in favour of this bill because, as the member from Peterborough and the member from Elgin-Middlesex mentioned,

if we save one life, if we prevent one injury, this bill is well worth it.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand and support the member for introducing the bill, Bill 201,

An Act to proclaim Motorcycle Awareness Week.

There are some problems with this. The member from London-Fanshawe, Mr Mazzilli, who does nothing but constantly heckle in this House, should be reminded that the Motorcycle Awareness Week Act that

the member from Peterborough wants to proclaim has an upside to it. There are certainly lots of recreational bikers out there who congregate at a particular doughnut shop in the west end, probably

every Saturday night. Every once in a while when I'm around, going in for a coffee, I stop and talk to them. They're wonderful people. They're upstanding citizens. They deserve to be recognized for

the valuable contributions they make to society and also for their passion when it comes to motorcycles and when it comes to safety with motorcycles. For that reason alone I'm going to support Bill

There is a bill I have before the House. It's a private member's bill, Bill 136, an amendment of the Highway Traffic Act with regard to motorcycle helmets. The

information for this bill came from the police officers of the province of Ontario, who are very concerned that the other element of motorcyclists, those gangs we have to deal with, in many

instances the illegal gangs we have to deal with, are not using prescribed, approved safety helmets. They cause the police forces in the province of Ontario a great deal of anxiety, lots of time

Interjection.

Mr Bartolucci: Again, the member from London-Fanshawe continues to babble in his usual way. We must remember and the people of Ontario should

know that while he heckles Bill 136, he is a former police officer. I would suggest that he listen as opposed to babbling.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): On a point of order: The components are right in the regulation. Certainly the member should know --

The Acting Speaker: I'm not hearing a point of order. Sit down.

Member for Sudbury.

Mr Bartolucci: Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate your ruling on his being out of order.

The reality with Bill 136 is that motorcyclists would be forced to surrender their helmet for inspection. In fact, the subsection says, "Every rider on or

operator of a motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle ... shall, upon the demand of a police officer, surrender his or her helmet for reasonable inspection."

I don't think that's very intrusive. In fact, I think it would provide safety on the roads for people who drive motorcycles. So I would encourage the member

from Peterborough to encourage his government to call Bill 136 for second reading and for quick passage, because it will enhance Bill 201.

The reality is that the member from Peterborough has every good intention in introducing this bill. It should be supported, because the people he's talking

about in this bill are responsible people. They are people who appreciate the value of motorcycles, the excitement one has with motorcycles and the importance of being safe with regard to driving

and handling a motorcycle. So there's no question that this bill is well-intentioned.

There is the other component of cycling we have to be concerned about, and that's ensuring that the laws are followed, that police officers aren't placed in

undue hard situations where they have to give up their valuable time to appear in court to deal with bikers who choose to wear illegal helmets.

Bill 201 is a bill worth supporting. Bill 136, my private member's bill, which is the Highway Traffic Amendment Act -- helping police officers do their job --

is also a bill worth supporting.

Speaker, I thank you for your attention and the member for London-Fanshawe for his usual babbling.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I must say that I have not been, as you all know, in this House a long time, some 14 months now.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It seems longer.

Mr Prue: Yes, it seems longer some days. I've seen a great many bills come through, but I have to tell you that I am quite surprised at this;

I'm quite surprised at what we're debating here this morning. There are many, many weighty issues in this province -- everything from hydro deregulation to education to the lack of affordable

housing. There are just enormous amounts of problems, enormous amounts of potential things that could be spoken of. I was quite puzzled, I have to admit, when I saw a bill proposing Motorcycle

Awareness Week. I stopped for a minute to wonder what value this bill will have if it passes and what will be the significance if it does not.

I listened to the member earlier when he introduced his bill and when he spoke about it, and there were three key words that he talked about: safety, education

and awareness. I'm wondering what in the bill will deal with these aspects in such a way that would promote me to support it and would promote the general public to think that having another

awareness week, another in the hundreds of awareness weeks, awareness days, awareness months in this province is going to be worth the actual length of time that we've spent here debating.

Motorcycles are not a safe form of transportation. I do not believe that they are safe, nor have I ever felt as safe on a motorcycle as I do inside of a car. I

don't know of any person who feels as safe on a motorcycle. In fact it's a little bit of a thrill-ride. So if we're talking about the person riding the motorcycle: is this bill going to make them

want to drive it in a more responsible manner? Is it going to make them want to not zip in and out of traffic as I see every day on the streets of Toronto? Is it going to make them travel at the

speed limit? When I travel on the 401 I will tell you that the motorcycles all pass me; every single motorcycle passes me and passes me flying and weaving in and out of traffic. Is it going to make

these individuals more safe when they're driving?

I would doubt that having an awareness week is going to succeed in that. Is it going to educate these people who drive motorcycles? Is it going to educate them

to be safer? I don't know. Is it going to educate? I doubt it because, again, this is a vehicle for those who like adventure. This is a vehicle for those who push the limits.

Is it going to educate the ordinary driver to look in the blind spots a little bit more carefully? Perhaps. It's very difficult to see people, to see smaller

objects in mirrors.

Is it going to make us more aware? I don't know. I have to tell you, I don't know what the statistics are in this city, in this province and even the summer

time. I would hazard a guess that there's probably 100 cars to every motorcyclist. Certainly in this city there are far more bicyclists than there are motorcyclists and we have to be constantly on

the lookout for them.

I ask why the member would use his private member's bill for this, because this is not the first time. I am given to understand he attempted to do the same

private member's bill a little over a year ago just prior to my arrival here, and it was not successful at that time.

So I tried to think, what would the member for Peterborough want to do? I looked at it again. His own riding is the wonderful riding of Peterborough. I often

have a chance to go to that city. My parents live just north of Peterborough. I often go to Peterborough. It's a wonderful place, but it too has its problems. It has its problems with the lack of

affordable housing. It has its problems with the declining industrial base. It has its good points too. I was wondering how this sort of fit into that and I really couldn't figure it out.

I thought that maybe in the crassness of politics people are making big donations from the motorcycle industry. We did a little research on that. It was

actually kind of small. BMW gave $708 to the Conservative Party in Vaughan, and Honda Canada gave $404 in Whitby. That seems like such a small amount. I cannot possibly imagine that that would have

influenced this bill.

Then I thought, what about the support groups? What support groups are out there looking for this? We looked down to the support groups and there's a whole

bunch of them: the Blue Knights, the BMW Club, the Canadian Motorcycle Association, the Ontario Road Riders Association, the Red Knights, and a group, the Bikers Rights Organization of Ontario --

this one did trouble me a little. The Bikers Rights Organization of Ontario exists, and their primary goal is the freedom of choice on helmets. I'm wondering what that purpose is going to be.

We have a whole problem in Ontario and in Canada and in the municipalities of problems with biker gangs. We have a whole problem where bikes are not safe on

the roads. We have a whole problem that will not be addressed by this bill.

I am still puzzled. I think people who are watching are still puzzled as to why the member from Peterborough has used valuable legislative time to debate a

bill that will virtually do nothing. I think that this, with all respect to him, has been a waste of this legislative time here today. The bill is not going to resolve the key issues. It's not

going to do anything for motorcyclists. It's not going to do anything for other drivers and we still will have the ongoing problems that other speakers have talked about: bike gangs and

irresponsible driving. Quite frankly, I cannot support this bill.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I feel bad about this, but I have to do it. I want to put on the record that the member from Sudbury earlier -- and

I should be clear that I'm embarrassed. His constituents should be embarrassed as well because he should know that he was aggrandizing his own vision of the world while not paying much respect for

the hard work the member from Peterborough has done on Bill 201. It's just part of a long list of the work the member has done to represent his constituents in the riding of Peterborough. I think

back to how this fits into his overall legislative direction or the voyage he's on. First, his bill on the spirituality in schools speaks to the traditions and values he has. I think there was also

truck driver training. So he's very fascinated by the motor vehicle industry.

So Bill 201,

An Act to proclaim Motorcycle Awareness Week -- it should be clear right from the beginning of the comments I will make that this really does talk

all about driver safety, driver education and driver awareness. It's a very high-level discussion. The motorcycle awareness event is just to crystallize all the energies and activities around

motorcycling in May -- that's the week he's proclaiming -- just as bikes are going on the road, so that driver education and driver awareness should be paramount and safety is at the centre of the

whole debate.

If I want to make a little bit of lightheartedness on this, unlike the NDP comments just recently, I want to put on that this bill, as I said, is about safety,

but it really is about the baby boomers to some extent, the emerging group of the well-off middle class, much like the member from Peterborough really, a middle-aged -- I can just see it now, sort

of like Peter Fonda in Easy Rider with Judy on the back, that sense of freedom, sense of power, the throttle between the legs, zooming down the highway. It does overglorify the point he's really

trying to make, but I'm just trying to relate it to the personality with the white hair blowing in the wind. I don't know. It's an evocative kind of image I have here.

In my riding I have to pay respect to the importance that this isn't purely economic terms. The dealers I'm familiar

with would be: Steve Hicks from Terminal Velocity, a Ducati motorcycle dealership in Port Perry; Floyd Asselstine from Asselstine Country, where they actually market the Yamaha and Suzuki in the

Blackstock area; and Ab's Motorcycle Shop in Oshawa, a very widely known motorcycle shop. There are other motorcycle things that are widely known which I don't support, but they're more in Durham

as well.

The member mentioned HOG ownership. These are the Harley Owners Group. The HOG group,

chapter 9237 members include Linda Doucet, who's the editor; Colin

Baxter, public relations; David Joseph, public relations; and Rob Harvey, the second road captain.

On June 2, the Durham HOG group -- that's the Harley owners -- hosted the annual Battens Run; 164 registered bikes participated in the fundraiser, raising

$20,000 for Batten disease research, which is an inherited neurological degenerative disorder.

There was also the Cappy Ride. This is another group -- probably a lot of Honda and other owners' groups. Motorcyclists get sponsorships and ride for child

abuse awareness and prevention. The 10th annual Cappy Ride was held July 27. All the proceeds were donated to the Durham Children's Aid Society. Bob Brozina was the local organizer. Corporate

sponsors this year included the Building Box, Caldwell Securities, Nature's Scene, Toronto Raptors, Bell Mobility, Concept Marketing & Promotions, and James Family Foods.

At the end of this, if we can talk about this issue and endorse this bill and keep it to a higher level -- and the member from Sudbury really did work the

conversation down right to the bottom, much like carps that feed on the bottom. But we need to make sure we put in front of the people of Ontario that this bill is about driver safety, education

and awareness. I contend that it's the right thing to do. If those on the other side don't support it, it's clear they're against driver safety, education and awareness.

Unlike the bill that was discussed, Bill 136 -- it's my understanding the member from London-Fanshawe has checked -- is redundant. In the Highway Traffic Act

today, it already exists that the validation of helmets is regulated under the Highway Traffic Act.

Interjection.

Mr O'Toole: Once again, the member from Sudbury goes on interrupting, being rude and intrusive, and spoiling the camaraderie that happens in

private members' --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury will come to order. I apologize to the member for Durham.

Mr O'Toole: The member for Sudbury is out of order again. I'm not trying to pick the quarrel here because there are students here. I'm sure as

a former teacher, he's probably embarrassed now, as he should be.

I'm supporting this bill, and I'm not trying to engage anyone, other than in the debate itself, to do the right thing and support Mr Stewart. I really kind of

connect with the vision of him and Judy riding their motorcycle -- probably a Honda Gold Wing -- enjoying life and the freedom while, at the same time, being a safe driver of a motorcycle.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm very pleased to join the debate today on Bill 201, the private member's bill put forward by the

member for Peterborough, the Motorcycle Awareness Week Act, 2002. This would bring about an awareness week in the first week in May of each year. Certainly that is prime time for motorcycling, as

people who are keen motorcyclists have seen their motorcycle in the garage the whole winter and they're pretty keen once May rolls around to get out and get driving that motorcycle.

The member for Sault Ste Marie was talking about the fact that he thought it was dangerous. It is dangerous to ride a motorcycle. I agree with him; it is

dangerous. That's why this legislation is important. The motorcycle drivers need to be aware of the skills they need to drive a motorcycle, and also automobile, truck and bus drivers need to be

aware of motorcycles on the road. That's probably just as important as the motorcyclists having the skills themselves.

I speak a bit from experience as, when I was 16, my first vehicle was a Honda 100. I certainly learned the hard way and survived my three or so years of

driving that, with a few close calls, I might add. I learned that you don't hit the front brake on loose gravel because the bike goes down pretty quickly when you do that. I had the experience on a

small two-lane highway of being run off the road by a car that didn't see me going down the road on my little Honda 100. In recent years, I guess I'm part of the trend, having not motorcycled for

20 years. This past year I purchased a new motorcycle and quite enjoyed the recreation, as many people do now, of getting out, when I had a bit of time, with some constituents and cruise the

beautiful roads of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Motorcycling is dangerous, so we need people to be aware of that. The member for Sault Ste Marie said he'd be nervous about his son driving a motorcycle. I

must admit I share the same fears, partly from the experience of doing it at a young age myself. I want them to have all the tools necessary to be able to motorcycle, if either of my two sons

choose to, in the safest way possible. This is why I'm very pleased to see that more and more people are taking motorcycle safety courses, like the one that's offered in the riding of Peterborough

at Sir Sandford Fleming College, Gearing Up: Canada's Motorcycle Skills Course, which is known to be an excellent course. Last year, I believe, some 20,000 people took that course, which is very

significant.

I think it's important to know that a lot of the accidents that happen on motorcycles happen at low speeds, often in a city. I know my friend Michael

Billinghurst in the town of Gravenhurst, at a very slow speed -- at something like under 50 kilometres an hour -- was involved in a serious accident where a car pulled out from an intersection and

he was hit. That's often where the accidents happen.

Motorcycling is gaining more and more popularity, and you just have to, in the spring and summer on a nice day -- particularly a Saturday or Sunday -- see all

the people who are out enjoying the sport and the recreation part of it. We have to make it as safe as we can. Also, of course, in Parry Sound, every year in the first week of July there's a big

sport bike rally, which is gaining popularity each year.

I'd like to support this bill. If it helps save one life, it's worthwhile.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Stewart: I would like to thank the members who spoke on this bill: Elgin-Middlesex-London, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Durham, Parry Sound

and Beaches-East York. I didn't want this to become political, and I would suggest to the member from Beaches-East York -- some of the comments that he made; make those comments to some widow whose

husband has been killed on a bike, maybe forced off the road, whatever. If you're not sure about what safety education awareness is at this stage in your life, I'm not about to tell you what it

is.

In the interest of safety, I want to emphasize that it is necessary to develop skills and awareness of proper driving habits to handle motorcycles on Ontario's

highways. It is vital for the citizens of Ontario to be aware of motorcycles on the highways and the vulnerability of the motorcyclist, and to recognize the importance of sharing the highway.

I was actually passed a note that prior to 1995 an NDP member passed a motion in this House, that the House is in favour of motorcycles because they are "less

of everything." I think if you look back, you will see that. Anyway, members of the Legislature, again I say this issue should not be political. I think this is a very important bill. I think it's

important to the people of Ontario, I think it's important to the motorcyclist and to the motorist. As has been said, if we can save one life, the bill has done what we want. It was interesting

that a comment made about the romantic part of it. The average age of riders of motorcycles these days is the late 30s. I would ask that you support this bill.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for debate on this ballot item.

GRAFFITI AND ADVERTISING SIGNS

CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES GRAFFITIS

ET DES PANNEAUX PUBLICITAIRES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I will now move to dealing with ballot item number 69. Mr Kells has moved second reading of Bill

205,

An Act to control graffiti on public and private property and advertising signs on public property.

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

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr Speaker, I would ask that the bill be sent to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA MOTOCYCLETTE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Now I'll deal with ballot item number 70. Mr Stewart has moved second reading of Bill 201,

An Act to

proclaim Motorcycle Awareness Week.

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

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

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I would ask that it be ordered for third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Are you asking for unanimous consent?

Mr Stewart: Yes.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? I heard a no.

The bill will be referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Stewart: I'd like to have it referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier in the debate, there was some issue as to the regulations for

helmets on motorcycles, and I am pleased to table those regulations --

The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. You know that.

All matters relating to private members' public business now being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1200 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GEOFFREY AND GERALD LOUGHEED

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Last Friday in Ottawa, through the authority of Queen Elizabeth and Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne

Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, one of our very active, proactive and involved citizens by the name of Geoffrey Lougheed was knighted to the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of

Jerusalem. Indeed, this is a significant honour. There had only been one other Sudburian ever given knighthood, and that was his father, Gerry Lougheed Sr. At that same investiture, Sir Gerry

Lougheed Sr was elevated to Knight of Justice.

I think it's pretty significant that these two individuals in our community would receive such a wonderful honour. Indeed it is well deserved, for this honour

goes to those people who for a long period of time have performed outstanding service in educating Canadians to improve their health, safety and quality of life through training and community

service. Certainly Sir Gerry Lougheed Sr and Sir Geoffrey Lougheed exemplify what this knighting is all about.

As a community, tonight we will be honouring Sir Geoffrey Lougheed at a night for a knight. We want to wish both of them a great deal of gratitude from our

community and wish them much success in their new roles.

OSTEOPOROSIS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): November is Osteoporosis Month, and this is the 20th anniversary of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada. We are

working with the society to ensure better bone health for all Ontarians.

Of the 1.6 million women in Ontario, at least 620,000 are at risk of developing osteoporosis and over 330,000 already have the disease. As well, one in eight

men over the age of 50 is at risk of developing osteoporosis. Often underdiagnosed and undertreated, osteoporosis can be a debilitating disease resulting in pain, disfigurement, lowered

self-esteem, reduction or loss of mobility and decreased independence.

This month the Osteoporosis Society of Canada released the first evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on osteoporosis. These guidelines will improve

patient care by giving physicians scientifically based recommendations on how best to diagnose and treat osteoporosis. For example, one of the key recommendations is that all Ontarians over the age

of 65 should have a bone density test.

Our work with the Osteoporosis Society of Canada is especially important at this time; 2000 to 2010 is the Bone and Joint Decade, which was endorsed last month

by the federal Minister of Health. Canada now proudly joins 45 other countries, the World Health Organization and more than 750 organizations and associations around the world in the global effort

to raise awareness and take action on bone and joint disease and injury.

We applaud the Osteoporosis Society of Canada. This government will continue to work with the society to ensure that Ontarians have access to early diagnosis

and optimal care and treatment for osteoporosis. Ontarians deserve the opportunity to make informed decisions about their bone health and lead active, independent and productive lives.

BOB WELCH

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The city of St Catharines will witness a very important and meaningful ceremony on Friday, November 22,

2002, as on this occasion, one of its most beloved and respected citizens will have the provincial courthouse in downtown St Catharines dedicated in his honour.

At the urging of a family friend, Dave McDonnell, a challenge was issued to find an appropriate way to honour Bob Welch for his many years of service and

contribution to the province of Ontario.

It was a genuine privilege for me to be part of a committee which was formed to determine the best way to honour the former Deputy Premier, cabinet minister,

MPP for Lincoln and Brock, and distinguished citizen -- a committee which included individuals of all political persuasions and which had no other role.

As an admired member of the legal profession and a respected parliamentarian and provincial representative, Bob Welch made a major and positive difference in

the lives of Ontarians and in the community in which he resided.

The support for naming this public building the Robert S.K. Welch Courthouse will be unanimous, and will reflect the popularity of a man who was a good friend

to all who knew him and who was admired by people of every political affiliation.

The Chair of Management Board and the Attorney General of Ontario are to be commended for agreeing to the request of the committee and the citizens of St

Catharines and for participating in this important ceremony tomorrow in our community.

KIMBERLY ROGERS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I've just returned from Sudbury, where I attended the Kimberly Rogers inquest. Once again I noticed that the

Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services wasn't there.

Testimony at the inquest continues to show that the Conservative government's sweeping welfare reforms make it impossible for people to survive on social

assistance, let alone better themselves and break out of the cycle of poverty.

Yesterday's testimony showed that after the cost of housing and food, there is no money left over for transportation, phone and clothing. A person needs a

phone, transportation and decent clothes to look for a job.

The Conservative government has set up a system that forces people who need social assistance to become creative just to survive. But when these very desperate

people do, this government turns them into criminals and cuts off all their support.

Do the Conservatives think that people should be left on the streets with nothing? If the ministry had been at the inquest, they would know that the community

does not have the resources to help the victims of their welfare policies.

It is time the Conservative government understands the damage its policies are doing to people. It is time for them to stand up and take responsibility. Stop

the lifetime ban. Stop the clawback of the national child benefit. Increase the shelter allowance. Stop the ban on student loans for people on social assistance.

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR

GOOD CITIZENSHIP

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It is an honour to congratulate the two Mississauga residents who received the 2002 Ontario Medal

for Good Citizenship in recognition of outstanding public contributions through exceptional long-term efforts.

Cathy Harvey is a distinguished advocate for people living in long-term and chronic care facilities. At age 25, with two young children and a nursing career,

Cathy was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which left her a quadriplegic. Yet Cathy remained an active, devoted mother; indeed, her son Cam became a world-class rower, winning two bronze medals

in the 1986 world championships. I was fortunate enough to attend that particular event.

Cathy, who uses a chin-powered wheelchair, has mastered the art of mouth painting. Her beautiful Christmas cards have raised money for the Multiple Sclerosis

Society and the Trillium Health Centre Foundation. Cathy's courage, creativity and compassion are an inspiration to us all.

Victor Deschenes is a strong supporter of children's causes. Working quietly, he started by buying hundreds of baseball jackets for disadvantaged children.

Victor pays for as many as 5,000 children to attend Blue Jays games, and has purchased up to 500 bicycles at a time for youngsters who have none.

Victor has also provided financial aid to the Mississauga News Christmas Fund, Mississauga Waterfront Festival, Peel Partnership for a Drug-Free Community and

other causes. His kindness and generosity have made a huge difference to many families.

Cathy and Victor, on behalf of everyone in our community, thank you for your exceptional contributions to life in our great city of Mississauga.

HERB GRAY

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My colleague the member from St Clair and I had the opportunity to introduce Herb Gray at the Herb Gray

tribute in Windsor last night. Windsor is going through three days that have been properly titled Herb Gray Days, where our community is celebrating the tremendous career that Herb Gray has had in

political life spanning practically four decades, serving under three Prime Ministers. He began his career in 1962, when many of us were still just thinking about politics.

What they did last night: funds that were raised at the banquet are going to the multicultural council, where they had a huge, colourful ribbon called the

Harmony Ribbon, and they launched the Harmony Ribbon Award. That first recipient is very properly our own, the Right Honourable Herb Gray. That ribbon award is meant to be given to that one

individual or family or business that promotes the notion of harmonious living in our community especially, which is so multicultural. We are so proud of Herb Gray receiving that distinguished

honour last night.

I can tell you that with the memorial book that was passed out as part of the program, we find it of great interest to

watch the tremendous career of Herb Gray. But having watched him close up for many, many years, all we can say on behalf of all Windsor residents to our own Herb, Right Honourable Herb Gray, is

thank you.

DRUG AWARENESS WEEK

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House to mention Drug Awareness Week in Ontario. I'd like to thank public health nurses Lynn Ryan and

Heather Tucker, who have kindly provided information on Drug Awareness Week in Durham region.

The Durham Region Health Department is marking Drug Awareness Week from November 17 to 23 with the introduction of the Parent Guide to Teen Parties. This is an

informative booklet that helps parents understand the full legal liabilities they have for any alcohol that teens or their friends drink in their homes.

Also in support of Drug Awareness Week is the "ultimate mix" competition. It challenges students from local high schools to develop a recipe for the best

non-alcoholic drink. Last year, Port Perry High School in my riding of Durham won the contest. This year, I understand 12 high schools are in competition, including St Stephen's Secondary

School, Courtice Secondary School, Port Perry High School and Cartwright High School, each from my riding.

Janet McPherson is chair of the Durham Youth Drug Awareness Committee. I hasten to add that drug awareness is a year-round objective in Durham region. Public

health programs on alcohol and drugs touch not only young people, but adults as well. Among the adult initiatives are the Health at Work program and the Safer Bars campaign.

In 2001, Ontario students surveyed by the Addiction Research Foundation revealed that 32% of the teens in grades 7 to 12 were passengers in a car with a driver

who had been drinking. In view of alarming statistics like these, I am sure we are especially grateful for the Ontario Drug Awareness Partnership, which has organized Drug Awareness Week in 200

communities across Ontario. They are indeed making a difference for our young people and adults.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It is certainly frustrating that as winter arrives in northwestern Ontario each year, our

concerns about the quality of road maintenance in the region reappear with the same regularity. What is most difficult to understand, let alone justify, is why the standards vary so drastically

throughout the region. I will always argue that we should be increasing the minimum standards that are presently in place, but regardless, is it too much for my constituents to expect that driving

conditions will at least be the same for people driving all the way from Marathon to Thunder Bay, for example?

The most graphic example of varying standards is the

section of Highway 11/17 east of the Steel River bridge near Terrace Bay. During a storm earlier this

month, the pattern repeated itself. West of the Steel River, conditions were good. East of that point, maintenance crews were nowhere to be seen. Minister, your staff are responsible for that

poorly maintained

section of the highway. Clearly some action must be taken by you to see that this and other sections of the highway are properly maintained at all times.

Even more decisive action must be taken to improve safety on the Thunder Bay Expressway. Earlier this week, two people lost their lives in an accident that was

eerily reminiscent of another tragic fatality two years ago. Minister, you must move quickly to install concrete barriers on those sections of the expressway that are not protected by a median. In

southern Ontario, such a barrier is automatically installed on high-volume sections of the highway, such as the expressway. We should be treated no differently in our part of the province. People's

lives are at risk every day when they drive down the expressway, particularly when winter driving conditions exist.

Regardless of whatever long-term plans you may have, Minister, we cannot afford to wait. We cannot bring back the people who have lost their lives, but surely

we can take the action necessary to prevent any further tragic accidents.

COMMUNITY LEADERS IN NIPISSING

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today I'd like to talk about a special lady from my riding of Nipissing, Harriet Madigan. I have a tremendous

amount of respect for her, as I believe she is a person who gives so much to her community. She is the ultimate volunteer.

Harriet Madigan has done so much for our community. She developed the concept of Community Waterfront Friends and is the driving force behind Heritage

Gardeners and Communities in Bloom.

I am not the only one who has kind words to say about Harriet Madigan. Just listen to what Rod Johnston has to say: "Harriet, through her determination and

vision, has very likely changed the quality of life for the people of North Bay forever, and for the better. She has always carried herself in a professional manner, never losing sight of the

ultimate goal to bring something to North Bay that will benefit the whole community."

I'd also like to talk about a gentleman by the name of Donald Jacobs from North Bay. He's been an active community leader for many years now, and I'd like to

commend him for all his hard work. Mr Jacobs was an elementary school teacher for 32 years. His involvement in extracurricular activity goes far beyond the school and into the community as a whole.

Don has involvement in the Tolerance, Understanding, Compassion and Action organization, the Children's Assist Program, the Show Kids You Care project, the Child and Youth Support Network, the

international project called Sleeping Children Around the World, and the Concordia Centre's Rap Around project. Mr Jacobs is a kind and gentle person and has always done good things for those in

need without ever seeking personal recognition.

We are very lucky to have these individuals in my riding of Nipissing.

VISITORS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am pleased to welcome a group of OAC students from Cardinal Leger high

school who are visiting us here this afternoon in the gallery to learn about the government of Ontario, from the heart of Brampton Centre.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its

adoption.

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

Bill 186,

An Act to further highway safety and establish consumer protection through the regulation of the collision repair industry, and to make a

complementary amendment to the Insurance Act / Projet de loi 186, Loi visant à améliorer la sécurité sur les voies publiques et à protéger les consommateurs en

réglementant le secteur de la réparation en cas de collision et à apporter une modification complémentaire à la

Loi sur les assurances.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Mr Curling from the standing committee on estimates reports the following resolutions:

Resolved that supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses --

Interjections: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Dispense. No further action required.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, should large commercial and industrial consumers be able

to get a fixed price for power of 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The Premier has asked me to consult with the sector and

to report back to him on that important issue.

Mr Bryant: Well, that's not what the government of Ontario said on November 11, when Premier Eves announced and stated in his press release,

"Large commercial and industrial consumers could choose between their current arrangements and a fixed 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour price of power."

The government is now saying they are talking to the big commercial and industrial users because they found out that what they announced, they cannot do. They

found out that this part of their price relief plan would make matters worse. They found out that if they did that, not a single new generator would come into the province of Ontario. I know you

are doing your homework now, Minister, but why didn't you consult with the industry before you made your announcement on November 11?

Hon Mr Baird: I think if the member opposite checks the record, he would discover that the Premier announced on November 11 that I would do

just that. We have the courage to listen, and we'll certainly listen to what we hear from large commercial and industrial customers.

Some would like to take advantage of the fact that they have put their peak hours perhaps in a different relationship to the rest of the economy. Some would

like some information with respect to whether they could get two-cent power if they ran a plant in the evening and in the very off-peak hours. I think it's important that we listen and we take the

opportunity to reflect on what we hear. The Premier did announce that on November 11. I agreed with it then and I certainly agree with it now.

I am disappointed that we now have day three with no Dalton McGuinty in the Legislature because he's afraid to show his face.

Mr Bryant: I would say to the Minister of Energy, who excruciatingly parodied his own Premier as a serial waffler at Ernie's House of Waffles,

we don't need to take any lectures from you, waffle boy.

Listen, on May 1, the government of Ontario opened up the electricity marketplace with reckless abandon, shipwrecking Ontario's electricity system. Then when

you went to raise the Titanic, you bungled it again. You know that you can't do what you announced you would do with respect to the industrials on November 11. You didn't do your homework on May 1.

The Premier didn't even pick up the phone and ask the one guy who would have told him, "Ernie, don't open up the electricity competition marketplace." You didn't do your homework before May 1, and

you didn't do your homework before opening up the market, before bringing in the price relief plan on November 11. How on earth can the people of Ontario trust you with their electricity?

Hon Mr Baird: I refer you to the press release of November 11, which explicitly says what I just said. I say to the Liberal House leader to

leggo my Eggo.

I find it interesting. Dalton McGuinty on Monday morning put out a fundraising letter saying, "I have the courage to stick to my plan." By Monday afternoon, he

had changed it. He was now in favour of closing the market. He was in favour of abandoning regulation. On Tuesday the Web site said, "Update coming soon." Well, I've got news for all my friends:

the update has arrived. The man who said on Monday that private power was dead -- they've made another mistake on the Web site. It says they want to produce an environment that produces a mix of

electricity providers, public and private. The good news for deregulation is that Dalton McGuinty is back on board.

PENSION PLANS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the pension provisions of Bill 198. All

around Ontario, citizens are awakening to the realization that the provisions of Bill 198 retroactively rob pensioners of their rights, while encouraging Conrad Black-style surplus raiding. In an

astonishing move yesterday, your government moved to clamp down on the debate by tabling a closure motion so that you can ram your bank-bonusing bill through this House. In acknowledgement of the

building public concern around this issue, Madam Minister, will you agree to public hearings so Ontarians can let the government know just how offside it is on this matter?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): I would really encourage the honourable member across the way, before he goes around causing people

with pensions to be concerned and afraid, to check his facts. There is nothing in this legislation that takes away or interferes in the rights of pensioners -- absolutely nothing. There is

everything in this legislation that ensures the viability of pension plans for workers is protected. You would expect any government to do the same, and we are indeed doing that. Thirdly, there has

been public consultation on this bill. There has been a public discussion paper, meetings and submissions. There continue to be meetings with stakeholders as we look forward, if the bill should be

passed, to developing the regulations. There is nothing in this legislation that interferes with the pension rights of workers in this province.

Mr Smitherman: Oh, if only it were true. I've sent to the minister, who apparently hasn't had the time to read her own piece of legislation,

just one paragraph that I'll read into the record. Under the heading "Application for payment of surplus to an employer": "An employer or such other person as may be prescribed may apply under this

section to the superintendent for the superintendent's consent to the payment of surplus to the employer or prescribed person out of a continuing pension plan or a pension plan being wound up in

whole or in part."

With that section, Madam Minister, as you very well know, Ontario stands alone as the only jurisdiction in North America which gives legislative sanction to

the robbing of surpluses for ongoing pension plans.

I ask you just one more time, Madam Minister, because apparently you need a little more time to deal with this: will you agree to public hearings so that

Ontarians can put their record on the table?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Perhaps the honourable member should try reading the legislation himself. It says here that on an application to the

superintendent, "the superintendent shall not consent to the payment of surplus unless the superintendent is satisfied that" -- and it has a whole bunch of stuff here about the pension plan being

correct and viable, but they cannot consent unless "the employer ... is entitled to the surplus." There are pension plans that are written today -- it has nothing to do with the legislation --

where employers are entitled to surplus under certain circumstances. In the majority of cases, it is because of an agreement with the workers that talks about how surplus will be dealt with in

certain circumstances.

The legislation is very clear. We are continuing to do work with all of the stakeholders on the developing of the regulations because the bottom line here is,

this does not put Ontario outside of the legislation --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up. Final supplementary.

Mr Smitherman: Madam Minister, I would like to just point out that if you took a little more time to read your entire piece of legislation,

you would see that contained within it is the great trump card that eviscerates, destroys and eliminates all of those past agreed-upon rights in this plan. With respect to the consultation paper

that you spoke of, on the most retrograde, negative impacts in this legislation, none of those were contemplated or discussed in the discussion paper that you like to hide behind.

I say to you just one more time: will you stand in your place and agree to public hearings so that Ontarians can let you know just how out of whack you

are?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Since we're sitting here playing the game of paper and quoting, the consultation paper clearly had proposals that talked about

how employers would be able to withdraw surplus based on clear entitlement in plan documents -- so in other words, rights that already exist -- or based on a surplus-sharing agreement with who?

With the majority of the workers.

Maybe the honourable member doesn't think the workers should have a say in how their pension plans are treated, but this side of the House thinks there are two

things that are very important: the rights of workers -- in this case they are given additional rights to apply for surplus -- and to protect the viability of pension plans. Maybe the Liberal Party

doesn't care if a pension plan is viable, that it's not there for the workers, but on this side of the House, we think pension plans should be there so workers are protected. This legislation

ensures that is the case.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the finance minister. Minister, it's clear that you're the only one who has that

particular view when it comes to what you're doing to pension surpluses in this province and what you're allowing employers to do.

We have gone out and consulted with the Ontario Federation of Labour and legal experts in the field of pension, and all of them agree with us: what you're

doing is opening the door to allow employers not only to raid pension surpluses, but to take pension contribution holidays.

I want to just quote from one particular one: I'm going to send over a legal opinion from Koskie Minsky, one of the firms that ha