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

November 28, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

l130 - Thu 28 Nov 1996 / Jeu 28 Nov 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

HEALTH CARE CONSENT AMENDMENT ACT (PARENTAL CONSULTATION), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1996 SUR LE CONSENTEMENT AUX SOINS DE SANTÉ (CONSULTATION PARENTALE)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

HEALTH CARE CONSENT AMENDMENT ACT (PARENTAL CONSULTATION), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1996 SUR LE CONSENTEMENT AUX SOINS DE SANTÉ (CONSULTATION PARENTALE)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS

PLANNING ACT AMENDMENTS

JOB CREATION

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

PLEA BARGAINING

EDUCATIONAL DONATION

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

EARTH WORKS

VISITORS

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

LOAN BROKERS

OBSTETRICAL CARE

SERVICE DE TRADUCTION / TRANSLATION SERVICES

NORTHERN ONTARIO

PLEA BARGAINING

CASINO NIAGARA

HIGHWAY SAFETY

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

PETITIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

SCHOOL BOARDS

EDUCATION FINANCING

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

FIRE SAFETY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

EDUCATION ACCOMMODATION

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

SOCIAL SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HURONIA AIRPORT COMMISSION ACT, 1996

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS D'ALIMENTS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mr Hoy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 78, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Every school day 800,000 primary and high school students put their faith in the owners and operators of Ontario's school buses. Every school day parents trust the traditional school bus to transport their children to a place of learning and to deliver them home safely. Every school day more than one family's confidence is shaken by more than one careless driver.

Too many drivers are approaching a stationary yellow school bus with no more consideration than that given to a yellow traffic light, and too many children are paying the price for such reckless behaviour through personal injury or death.

That is the tragedy which recently shocked my riding, as I know it has previously shocked several of the ridings represented in this House.

Last January 17-year-old Ryan Marcuzzi, the youngest daughter of Larry and Colleen Marcuzzi, who are with us today in the members' gallery, was boarding her school bus when she was struck and killed by a car travelling 80 kilometres an hour from the opposite direction. The driver ignored the bus's flashing red lights, the extended stop sign and blaring horn from the school bus driver, who was helpless to prevent the impending tragedy.

With the encouragement and support of Larry and Colleen Marcuzzi I present Bill 78 for second reading in Ryan's memory, but I caution the House that Ryan's death was not an isolated incident. Since October 1974 five children have died in my riding at the hands of careless drivers who have ignored the flashing red lights of a school bus. Those children were going to school to prepare for their future. Instead, their future was tragically snatched away from them.

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

The last survey carried out by the Ministry of Transportation shows that when a car meets a school bus, there is a better than one in 20 chance that the driver will attempt to pass illegally.

A current bus watch program operating in the Hamilton-Wentworth area receives approximately 40 to 60 complaints per month about motorists who have failed to stop for school buses that are loading and unloading passengers even though the red flashing signals are activated. But Hamilton-Wentworth's conviction rate, like similar conviction rates across the province, is only a fraction of what it should be because the Ontario Highway Traffic Act fails to provide adequately for the safety of children using the school bus system.

The barrier to a conviction is identification. Current law requires that a driver passing a school bus be clearly identified before charges can be laid under the Highway Traffic Act. School bus drivers and other witnesses can often identify the licence plate number, make, model and colour of the offending vehicle, but most cannot see the face of a driver long enough to make a positive identification.

The province of Ontario has taken many positive steps to safeguard our children from serious injury in recreational activities. It is time for the Legislature to protect those same children as they get on and off their school bus by sending a clear message to drivers that violations to the laws governing the passing of school buses will not be tolerated.

Bill 78 sends that message. Bill 78 attempts to correct the long-standing problem of identifying drivers of vehicles who recklessly endanger children boarding or leaving school buses. The bill imposes liability on the owner of any vehicle who fails to stop for a school bus with flashing lights.

How serious is the problem? In a recent Toronto Star

article the Ministry of Transportation is reported to have obtained 1,100 convictions over two years. A ministry spokesperson told the Star that those 1,100 convictions show that the problem is already being taken seriously. But it isn't, because the ministry does not compile statistics on reported violations. We don't have an accurate ratio of convictions to violations.

School bus drivers tell us that they are passed illegally twice per shift. There are 16,000 school buses in Ontario. At two violations per shift, I'll leave it to the House to do the mathematics. You can see for yourself that the ministry does not have a handle on the problem. They barely have their finger on the pulse.

With limited resources the police are stretched to the limit and cannot mount the types of regular blitzes needed to catch violators under the provisions of the existing Highway Traffic Act. They cannot follow 16,000 buses around daily, and that's why the Police Association of Ontario supports Bill 78. They say my bill is a positive step towards insuring the safety of school children in Ontario.

The principle of vehicle liability is not new to Ontario. All parking tickets are issued using the principle of vehicle liability. Photo-radar worked on this same premise. While I recognize that photo-radar is no longer enforced on our highways, the government has kept its vehicle liability provisions on the books. Not only that, the collection of tolls along 407 will work on the same principle of vehicle liability.

Justice will not be denied because of vehicle liability. It's simple enough to show your innocence. The question becomes, how can we justify the idea of vehicle liability for the collection of tolls or parking fines if we are not prepared, as legislators, to extend the practice to the protection of our children?

Owning and operating a motor vehicle remains a privilege, not an automatic right, in Ontario. With the privilege comes responsibility and accountability. In instances such as those outlined in Bill 78, vehicle liability is both fair and just in asking that a vehicle owner either accept the responsibility for those who operate his or her motor vehicle or identify the driver who is operating said vehicle at the time of the violation so that the province can seek accountability.

Bill 78 does not attempt to unfairly penalize a vehicle owner. The vehicle itself must be properly identified to the satisfaction of the courts. An owner who can prove that a driver other than himself was in control of the vehicle would not be charged.

Only owners who fail to identify a driver will face fines beginning at $1,000 for a first-time conviction and $2,000 for a second and subsequent conviction. Drivers will face a fine beginning at $500 for a first-time conviction and $1,000 for subsequent convictions. Only in the case where the driver has been directly identified will the crown be permitted to ask for the removal of up to six demerit points under the provisions of the existing legislation.

As with other laws, including those already pertaining to vehicle liability, it will be up to the courts to ensure that justice is served. Frivolous or unsubstantiated charges will not hold up in court.

Bill 78 is not an attack on civil liberties. Ask the parents of dead or injured children whose civil liberties have been breached when an offender is shielded by an inadequate law.

None the less, the bill has been carefully written using the exact, same language as other government vehicle liability legislation. At this time I would like to commend the Minister of Transportation for keeping the spirit of safe highways and roadways alive, thus making the implementation of Bill 78 possible.

I'm also confident that Bill 78 would successfully withstand a court challenge since it only imposes a fine on vehicle owners and excludes the penalties of imprisonment and driver licence suspension as a result of conviction or default. Once again, it uses the same government legislation.

The law specifically states that when a vehicle approaches a school bus with a flashing light, either from the back or the front, the vehicle must come to a complete stop. It does not say, "Proceed with caution," nor does it say that the driver may proceed if he or she believes the road is clear. It says, "Stop." But the law is virtually unenforceable without the changes contained in Bill 78.

Bill 78 has the endorsement of parents, teachers, school boards, the Ontario School Bus Association, the Police Association of Ontario and has had an educational program put forth by Laidlaw Transit. That's why the joint Essex county school boards' public awareness committee has gone on to educational awareness on this issue.

Bill 78 will result in the protection of Ontario school bus users without eroding the civil liberties of Ontario's drivers. The children are calling. I ask that the members of this House answer that call and pass Bill 78 into legislation.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to support this private member's bill. It is indeed a tragedy that we have seen so many children killed and injured in this province. Even though we have on our highways signs warning motorists that it is the law that they must stop both ways when a school bus stops, even though we have the kind of safety features such as the flashing lights and the stop sign that rises from the side of the bus, there are some people who are not obeying that. The tragedies that result should be unacceptable to us all.

I commend the member for Essex-Kent for bringing forward this bill and recognize that he has done so in memory of a child who was killed in his own riding. That should be something that gives us all pause. This child was unfortunately not alone and we need to do everything in our power to ensure that there are not more tragedies of this kind.

I say to the member that the measures he is proposing have been approved by the parent-teacher associations and home and school associations throughout the province. There has been a very strong lobby by those driving school buses. Their frustration and their terrible fear at seeing children endangered by this kind of behaviour is well documented, and their frustration, as well as the frustration of the police, around the way the current law operates, where the driver has to be clearly identified, is a major problem.

We all know that it is going to be important for those who observe this behaviour to take very clear notes about the colour, the make and the size of the car, as well as the licence number, because we know the people who do this behaviour will likely fight in court against having their car identified. Particularly if they have not been driving themselves, that's to be expected.

It's going to be important for citizens who observe this kind of behaviour, for the drivers of school buses themselves, anyone who observes this behaviour, to be extraordinarily observant. Part of the public education around this bill is going to be to help citizens understand that to meet the requirement of the law it is going to be important to have very clear evidence that the particular vehicle is identified clearly.

Having said that, I think it is very fortunate that the provisions within the Highway Traffic Act that enable us to use the ownership of the vehicle to try and create responsibility around this kind of behaviour remains in the law even though the policy for which it was developed, the photo-radar policy, has been suspended by this government. It is a necessary tool to ensure public safety, and particularly the safety of our young people who use school buses every day.

One of the issues of course for us is that with the moves of the current government, the suggestion that many school bus regimes may disappear and students may be on ordinary buses, where there is no provision for safety around getting off those buses, there are no flashing lights, is a worry.

I think as we go on and we talk about the grandiose ideas of the Who Does What commission around transportation issues for children, we are going to have to be very aware that we may lose some of the very safety aspects that already are in place and the ones that would be represented by this bill.

As we talk about it today, I sincerely hope that this House will support Bill 78 and that the government members will urge the government to bring this through committee very quickly so that it gets in place as quickly as possible.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'd like to respond to Mr Hoy's bill. Let me begin by saying this government shares Mr Hoy's concern about school bus safety, as these are the vehicles transporting this province's most precious cargo: our children.

Making our roads safer for all Ontarians is a priority with this government. When we announced our road safety plan more than a year ago, it included specific measures to design to improve school bus safety. These include improved training for school bus drivers and working with the Ministry of Education and Training putting road safety right into the school curriculum from kindergarten on up. We have always said that our plan is just the beginning. There is much more we can do and there is much we will do.

We are always working to ensure school bus safety. For instance, the staff at the Ministry of Transportation participated in the review of the school bus standards conducted by the Canadian Standards Association last year. The ministry also continues to work closely with the Ontario school bus association to ensure industry practices remain consistent with legislation and ministry policy.

On a typical day in Ontario about 800,000 children ride a school bus that takes them to school and home again. By year's end, Ontario school buses will log some 350 million kilometres on our roads. Now, that's a long trip. In fact, it's the equivalent of about 8,700 trips around the world. Based on these statistics, Canada Transport tells us that children on school buses are 16 times safer than those travelling in any other form of vehicle. We also know from statistics that, on average, one child is killed each year while crossing the road after getting off a school bus and, on average, 10 are injured.

The loss of a child's life is tragic. It causes a void that cannot be filled. Even one death is one too many. For that reason, this government does not take school bus safety lightly. That is, we already have some of the toughest legislation targeted at those who fail to stop for a school bus. In fact, one of the most serious offences under the Highway Traffic Act is the violation of the school bus stopping law.

Let me give you an example: When a driver is convicted of passing a bus while its lights are flashing and its stop arm is out, six demerit points are assigned to the driver's record. The only offence that carries more demerit points is failing to remain at the scene of a collision. As well, fines for failing to stop for a school bus are already among the highest for moving violations under the Highway Traffic Act. A first violation carries a fine of $200 to $1,000. A second offence within five years comes with a fine of $500 to $2,000. In some cases, the offender can be imprisoned for up to six months.

I share Mr Hoy's concern for this province's children. That's why the government stands behind its current position. That is, the person behind the wheel is and should be held responsible and accountable for their actions. We maintain that it is important to catch and charge the driver for failing to stop for a school bus -- the driver, who may or may not be the owner of the vehicle. We believe we already have the system in place that deals with such offenders.

While it is true we have received letters of support for the member's bill, we received as well correspondence that was not supportive of the bill. Such a letter came in from the united counties of Prescott and Russell. It was not obvious at first why the municipality chose not to support the initiative. When we called to inquire, we were told that the reason was that the two councillors who moved the resolution believe it is the driver of the vehicle who should be held responsible for running a school bus stop sign.

I think all members would prefer that such offences not occur in the first place, rather than pin our hopes on an even higher fine, which may only be a deterrent after the fact. We already have very high fines for this offence, yet we still have over 500 offences a year. Maybe there is a better way. I believe that all the members appreciate and share Mr Hoy's interest in school bus safety and are grateful for his efforts. He has succeeded in raising the awareness of this issue, and that in itself is a success.

I believe that if it is the will of the Legislature that this bill receives second reading, the government will have to seriously consider incorporating his ideas into everything else it is doing for road safety. Meanwhile, our laws for school bus safety are clear: When the red lights start flashing and the stop arm comes out, traffic must stop in both directions. When school bus operators encounter problems with motorists failing to stop for the flashing red lights, they must contact police so that they can deal with the offenders at a local level. In 1994, 554 drivers were convicted of failing to stop for a school bus. I am pleased to say this figure dropped last year to 518.

I believe one of the most effective ways to prevent drivers from illegally passing school buses is through public awareness programs. For instance, local community groups have made great strides in increasing awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving, groups like MADD and SADD and others. In the same way, public awareness programs can also go a long way to deter negative and dangerous driving behaviour like disregarding school bus laws. Parents, schools and local school bus operators can take simple but effective steps to increase driver awareness in their communities.

This government remains committed to ensuring the safety of our children. We maintain that we already have the right checks in place to deal with those who pass school buses through our current system of fines and demerit points. However, we can all do more in our communities to increase awareness and improve enforcement.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): First of all, I would like to welcome our guests to the Legislature and congratulate the member for Essex-Kent for the amount of work that he has put into this Bill 78. As he explained in his opening remarks, a good amount of research has been put into the actual bill and the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, and I think it's been done on behalf of the children that we've heard about so far and the children who will continue to use their school bus system in the province.

As well, I've heard from a good number of bus drivers and I've heard from a good number of owners and operators. This bill certainly has more public support and more attention than I have seen in many, many cases. They're all saying we need a better deterrent, better ways of putting those deterrents on to the driver of the vehicle, passing or illegally going by a school bus that is stopped, whether it be loading or unloading children. I think Bill 78 actually corrects a very long-standing problem and anything we can do to ensure the safety of our children has to be looked at very carefully.

I've seen mentioned a number of times that many communities have gone through what our guests have gone through today and have lost children when loading and unloading them. I'm sure we can all refer to examples in our own communities where this has certainly been the case.

I've received a good deal of correspondence on this particular issue, and I would just like to bring some of those views to the House today. As I indicated, a lot of the operators are strongly behind Mr Hoy's bill, and I'd just like to read from a letter from Powell's Service in Keewatin. They are a school bus operator in my riding.

They say: "The safety of our children and youth must be a top priority item at all times. When we have large groups of children, such as on school buses, this is even more critical."

They go on to say: "The role of our bus drivers is to drive the bus, not to be a traffic policeman. When students are entering and exiting the bus, the driver is watching for their safety. He or she is indeed watching the traffic around the bus ensuring that it is stopping etc, not memorizing a physical description of the driver. If the vehicle driver chooses to ignore the bus signal, the bus driver's concern is with the safety of the student, not the appearance of the vehicle driver.

"They make it very clear, particularly if the bus driver can and does get a vehicle licence number, but we are constantly told by the police that if we can't specifically identify the driver, we won't have a case.

"During 1996 to date, we've had at least six reported incidents of drivers ignoring the flashing bus lights and stop signs while children were either boarding or leaving one of our school buses. I've enclosed copies of the incident reports for your information."

They go on to say that any of these could have ended in a disastrous incident and end by saying, "Our company has a prime goal of providing a safe, efficient and on-time transportation service for our customers. We cannot continue to ensure this goal without this legislation."

That's from an operator.

I also have a letter here directed to me from the Kenora Board of Education asking that I support this bill and support Mr Hoy's efforts. It says:

"As the staff member with responsibility for student transportation, I urge you to support this bill when it is debated in the provincial Legislature this fall.

"In meeting with school bus operators and law enforcement officials earlier this year, I heard that it is very difficult to convict drivers who have ignored school bus warning signals. It is almost impossible for a school bus driver to obtain a vehicle description, licence plate number and particularly a description of the driver, while at the same time attending to the safety of our students in a dangerous situation.

"Allowing for the conviction of the owner of the vehicle instead of just the driver would bring a new level of accountability and encourage more responsible practices among drivers.

"Your support in addressing this important safety issue would be appreciated."

I certainly do support this. As I indicated, if there is anything we can do to ensure the safety of our children as they both board and depart from our school buses, I think we have to consider it very carefully. I am sure that when all members hear the arguments as put forth by the various members that are going to speak on this today that they too will see that very important need for addressing that safety issue.

I go back to the many calls I've had from parents, from drivers, from people that represent school boards, from transportation companies. They are all in support of Bill 78 and they are certainly in support of Mr Hoy's efforts. Again, I would just like to congratulate the member for bringing this forth to the House. I look forward to supporting this later this morning.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): First of all, I want to congratulate the member for Essex-Kent. I think he has brought forward a critically important issue for us. Obviously, anything that deals with our children and their safety has to be given the top priority of everyone in this House. I want to congratulate him for that. I would also hope, although I'm a little discouraged --

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: I don't know why the backbench member of the Tories is heckling an issue of child safety. Perhaps if he'd listen a little he could show that he cares enough about this issue to pay attention. I'm not playing a partisan game here, I say to him. I'm talking about the safety of our children. I'm complimenting a colleague from another party for bringing forward what I think is an important issue, and I'm sure you would want to reflect and respect that thought also.

Let me say I know the member for Essex-Kent has spoken to the local police service in my area, the Hamilton-Wentworth police service, and they've advised him that we have between 40 and 60 incidents per month in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, so certainly there's a local reality for me as there is for all of us in this House. I would hope the government would see its way clear to supporting this bill, allowing it to move forward. There obviously is a need to provide a deterrent.

I want to move quickly to what is probably the most difficult issue for some members, particularly on the government side, if the member for Oshawa's comments are any indication, that is, whether or not the owner of the vehicle or the driver should be responsible. I think that's a valid concern. It's an area that we want to enter into carefully, but I think it's fair to say we have already crossed that line in a couple of areas -- minor, I agree, but the principle is already there. That is, if there's a parking ticket given to a vehicle, it doesn't matter who put the vehicle there; it's the owner of the vehicle.

If you've lent it to someone who's been irresponsible and you can't get them to cough up the money, you're stuck with it.

Also, in regard to tolls that have to be paid, if you whiz by and don't pay it, again, it's the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, unless they can nab the driver on the spot. In our own photo-radar, which I know the government does not support, although I do think they'll see the light of day on that one, given enough time, again, we saw the principle that the owner of the vehicle was ultimately responsible.

Where we get into very serious charges, clearly at this stage in the evolution of our traffic laws we don't want to move into that, but in an area like this, when we see the number of accidents, the number of people who are killed with vehicles and when we're dealing with children, I think on balance it's fair to say this is a step worth taking and that it doesn't change radically the idea that the owner is still responsible.

What it really can do in effect is say to owners, those of us who own vehicles, you'd better be awfully careful who you lend a vehicle to, because you are lending someone what can be a dangerous piece of machinery. Certainly you can wreak havoc with a vehicle and the person who owns it and gives it to someone has to take some responsibility -- not all, but I am comfortable with the idea that more and more we are saying to owners, "You are more and more responsible for what happens to that vehicle when you lend it."

As I've said, there are clear lines there and I don't want to see us race across those, but given the issue here, where we're talking about our children when they're away from home, they're in the care of someone else, as a parent I know that can be the most frightening time, when they're not in the immediate care of an immediate family member, they're now in the hands of someone else. This is exactly that situation and nothing is more potentially deadly to our children than when they're near the highway and near traffic.

In closing, I want to say I appreciate the comments from the member for Oshawa. I would hope they don't preclude government members from supporting this bill. I think the member for Essex-Kent is trying to in a non-partisan way advance the safety of our children and I think really this is something we can support. If nothing else, let's at least give it a further airing. If we're going to err, let's err on the side of the safety of our children. Let's have a further discussion. Support it today and get it into the system. I would urge members of the government to join with us in opposition in supporting the member for Essex-Kent's worthy bill. Thank you.

Applause.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I just want to remind the members in the gallery that you're most welcome in our House, except there are certain procedures. One of them is that you are not allowed to applaud.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I feel most privileged this morning to rise in support of this bill and I appreciate the opportunity. At the outset, I would like to congratulate the member for Essex-Kent for bringing forth this private member's bill. Frankly, I think it personifies the whole process of private members' business.

I would also, on behalf of this side of the House, like to extend our sympathy to the Marcuzzi family in the loss of their beloved daughter Ryan. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for you to be here this morning. I would like you to know that you have our heartfelt sympathy.

This bill, when I first heard about it, was a very easy bill for me to support, because anything we can do to save one life, as far as I'm concerned, is something we are obligated at least to try. I recognize that the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Transportation has expressed some of the concerns of the government, and I appreciated very much that the member for Hamilton Centre recognized that it isn't easy. I know he recognizes that from his former position as Solicitor General. But it's the old axiom, I think, that anything worthwhile in life isn't always very easy and we have to do whatever we can to improve any situation it's possible for us to improve.

Frankly, some of the statistics that I'm now aware of in terms of the numbers of violations I find tremendously shocking; to know that there are school bus drivers who have said that illegal passing occurs at least twice on very shift. For those of us who are out on the streets and on the highways all the time in our cars, as all of us in this place are, I'm sure a month doesn't go by that we don't see at least one or two cars doing that. I always find it shocking when I see it. But now I hear that bus drivers say it's at least twice per shift, and you recognize that bus drivers are out on at least two shifts a day, sometimes three shifts, morning, noon and afternoon.

Yes, I recognize that these moving violations are difficult to deal with because it means that the car essentially gets the ticket. But it's about time, in my humble opinion, that drivers are made responsible for who drives their car. This came up a little bit in my drunk driving bill, from the standpoint that there was a discussion about why you couldn't confiscate the car of someone who drove, under suspension, somebody else's car. I'm sorry, that's not a good enough excuse, in my opinion.

If I loan my car to someone, it's up to me to know that that person is going to obey the Highway Traffic Act, and in this case, it's the Highway Traffic Act as it pertains to the protection of children who ride and board and get off school buses.

For somebody who drives while under suspension because they've driven drunk, it's the same thing: I have to know that that person I loaned my vehicle to is a licensed driver.

So I simply can't give any latitude to not supporting this bill because we have to prove who the driver is. Does it really matter who the driver is? The point is that that vehicle put children at risk. That's what matters. I say, with respect, that I believe that must matter to every single member in this House.

If we say that a moving violation is difficult, and it's the same with speeding and how impossible it is for highways to be patrolled, particularly at high speed, or really any of our streets and roads where the cars are moving at high speed -- the fact that you have to be able to identify the driver means that essentially you have to stop the vehicle.

I can only begin to imagine the helplessness that must be felt by our school bus drivers who sit there with their lights flashing, with their stop arms out and their children getting off that bus or crossing the road to get on the bus, and a car goes past them. It must be a horrific moment every time a school bus driver has to endure that.

I say simply, let's try some of the aspects of this bill. I think the increase in the fine is very significant. I shouldn't say "the increase." The establishment of fines is very significant. I couldn't believe that we don't have any fines now till I read it in the background. Somebody said, "If it's a leased car, how are the leasing companies going to deal with these infractions?" Well, I'm sorry, they'll have to deal with it the same way they deal with other infractions. Leased cars get parking tickets and other infractions all the time: not stopping at a stop sign, illegal turning manoeuvres.

I just don't have any sympathy for the argument that it's a leased car or the car owner isn't driving that vehicle. It's the vehicle that weighs 3,500 to 4,000 pounds. It's the vehicle that kills and maims children, with a driver at the wheel who does not obey the Highway Traffic Act as it is established, and that's what we have to get to.

If by supporting this bill and the government incorporating further road safety measures, which we are very optimistic they're going to bring forward in the spring, which of course I'm a little biased about because it will include the measures in my own drunk driving prevention legislation -- then let's get on with it. Let's try it.

Frankly, I would be the first to be at the front of the court on the first case where an owner came in and said, "It was my car, but I wasn't driving it." I'm sorry, you own that car, you are responsible for it, and if you loan it to someone who is unlicensed or underage or impaired or doesn't obey the Highway Traffic Act in terms of the protection of our children who ride on school buses in this province, it is on your head. It is your responsibility.

I will say again in closing that I think this is an excellent private member's bill. I think it demonstrates for all of us the effectiveness of private members' legislation. It gives us an opportunity in this chamber to bring forward concerns, and in this case, I would say to the member Mr Hoy, concerns that are shared around this province, not only in your riding. We thank you for bringing this legislation and we do commend you for it.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm privileged to be able to rise and speak in support of the private member's bill from the member for Essex-Kent and thank him for the work he's put into it.

The Marcuzzi family wouldn't know this, but the tone in this House is decidedly different from what it normally is during private members' hour. I think the seriousness with which you see the members of the Legislative Assembly at work this morning is an indication that we consider the tragedy, the real tragedy, that you experienced to be one that shouldn't have happened.

The private member's bill from the member for Essex-Kent hopefully will ensure that the one life that's lost per year is one too many, that the 10 injured children, on average, per year are 10 too many. Maybe in a small way, in a very small way, this legislative body can help you in the grieving and the healing process which you naturally have to go through.

Ladies and gentlemen, having spent 30 years in education, I know the value of teaching safety: teaching safety in the classroom, teaching safety on the school grounds, teaching bus transportation safety. Certainly the first thing that teachers and principals do in September is stress the importance of being responsible as a school bus rider. The carriers, the operators and the drivers of school buses are certainly well attuned to what their expectations are and in all cases, I think, exceed the expectations that parents have, that teachers have and that students require.

But you know what? No matter how much education we go through, we cannot control what someone who is irresponsible will do. Maybe then, punitive measures have to be taken. Although this may be viewed by some as being a violation of a civil liberty, I suggest to you that anyone who has lost a child has had their civil liberties violated for a lifetime.

I know, from listening to the comments from the member for Oshawa, the members of the opposition parties and in particular the message from the member for Mississauga South, we all do not want that to ever happen again. So I suggest to you that the fines are certainly proper, that the punishment is certainly in order, and that the owner of a vehicle has some responsibility for whom he or she lends a car to.

I canvassed several bus operators in the north and spoke to several bus drivers to see if the concern is a real concern on a daily basis. Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to understand that in fact it is. It's a concern that happens regularly, on a daily basis. There are some interesting facts that the bus drivers and the bus operators told me. It's not the car immediately behind the school bus that violates in most instances; it's usually the second or third car, the one that wants to speed up and try to get by the school bus before the child leaves or the children leave the bus. It was interesting.

When I asked them why it was that the car directly behind the school bus would stop but the second one is in most instances the violator, they said it's because the person in the second car believes he can beat the child across the road. That's where the tragedy occurs. I'm not sure if that is what happened with the Marcuzzi family, but we all know that the tragedy did occur.

There isn't a member in this Legislative Assembly who doesn't want to protect children. This is what this bill is all about. I know there isn't a member in this Legislative Assembly who would want to support this bill and then send it to the committee of the whole. I'm sure we all want to deal with this in a very responsible, very rational, very non-partisan way, because Mr and Mrs Marcuzzi are here today but there are several other parents who are still grieving because of the losses they've incurred. I commend the member for Essex-Kent.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): As the transportation critic for the New Democratic caucus, I would like to speak on this bill and to indicate up front that our caucus will be supporting this legislation.

We see this as a step in the right direction. We recognize that there is much more to be done on the question of highway safety and road safety, especially when it comes to the whole question of school transportation, but we see this bill as definitely a step in the right direction.

I'd like to take a couple of minutes just to go through it for the purpose of members who may not have had an opportunity to read through it. Simply, what the bill does, in the first part of the bill under

section 1, is to make amendments to subsection 175(17) of the present Highway Traffic Act in order to be able to up the fines to the driver if the driver is convicted of having passed a school bus. That would be the first thing it does: It ups the fines that are currently found within the Highway Traffic Act.

The second thing it does is it brings a principle in that we had introduced as a government under photo-radar and under tolls legislation that basically says that if we don't know who the driver was because for whatever reason we were not able to identify the driver, the vehicle is then traced to the owner and the owner is charged. The simple reason for this is fairly apparent.

If you go back to the owner and you charge the owner with the offence, it is more than likely that the owner will say who the driver was and then we can get to the person who really did it and be able to identify who the driver was who did the offence in the first place. What the bill does in order to do this is quite interesting and I think certainly clever: It puts the fine at double the rate of what it would be to the driver. In other words, if the driver is found guilty of an offence in the first part, he would be fined $500.

In the event that we can't find the driver and we go to the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle is fined $1,000 for the first offence. The reason for that is fairly simple. We want to say: "Owner of the vehicle, cough up. Who's the driver?" We need to find out who the driver is because we need to be able to get to these people so that we can curb their driving habits, number one, and number two, make an example of them so that people take the responsibility of driving more seriously and recognize that it is extremely dangerous and quite frankly lethal to be going on with this kind of practice.

The other thing that it does, in order to clarify from the civil libertarian side of things, is that you cannot charge the owner of the vehicle with -- not "charge," but you can't imprison or put that person under probation because of the driver. The owner is protected from that.

So I think the bill is fairly sound. It's laid out in a fairly clear way and I think certainly is a step in the right direction. But I would call on the government for two things. We need to support this legislation, and I certainly hope we get unanimous support of this legislation today; second, that the bill is not sent to the committee of the whole, because if that happens, it means the bill is dead. What we're asking the government to do here is to send this back to a standing committee so that it can be dealt with properly and brought back into the House for royal assent at the end of this session or in the spring at the very latest. I would ask that we do it before Christmas.

The other thing that I ask the government is that I heard the comments of the parliamentary assistant saying, "Even though members vote for this bill at second reading and we do send it to a standing committee, it is possible that the government will never recall the bill and will wait for its own legislation," so that they can make changes in the Highway Traffic Act themselves. I'm not going get into that and the politics of that, but I'm a bit cynical when I hear that.

I would say to the parliamentary assistant, and I'm sure most members of the government would support me, that is not an option we should be following here. Allow this bill to pass, allow it to go to the standing committee and allow it to come back here and get third reading some time before Christmas and get royal assent by January 1.

The reason we need to do it is fairly clear. It's been laid out in this debate today. To do anything else but that, quite frankly, is a signal by the government that it's not going to move on this issue. I know that the backbenchers of the government are as concerned about this as the Liberal and New Democratic caucuses are and I would ask the backbenchers to support the opposition in this particular move because I am sure you've had to deal with in your constituencies the same kinds of concerns and the same types of issues we've had to deal with.

I just say to the family, my heart goes out to you. I fortunately have never had to live with what you have gone through and I certainly don't want to see any other family go through what you've had to, because no price can be paid in order to bring a child back when a child has been snatched away from us. To the family, condolences from the New Democratic caucus and the Liberal caucus and the Conservative caucus go out to you and we grieve with you because it is certainly a tragic event that should never have happened.

I say to the government in closing, the last

part is that we need to go the next step, and that is towards public education about highway safety and public education specifically around school buses. It doesn't cost a whole bunch of money to be able to do ads that say this is a bad thing and this is what can happen, to heighten the awareness of what the consequences of passing school buses will be. The price of that I think speaks volumes in that it's not a price too big to pay to save the life of a child.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): In the 20 seconds remaining to me, I point out that civil liberty concerns reflected in this bill can be dealt with by committee and, on balance, I ask this House to support this bill.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise to commend my colleague the member for Essex Kent in putting forward this very important private member's bill today, a bill that's about children, a bill about the protection of children, a bill about safety. I represent a constituency which probably has one of the highest proportions of children riding school buses in Ontario. In the district of Manitoulin almost every child is bused either to public school or to the high school at West Bay. In the Espanola district, down the Highway 17 corridor, children are required to take school buses to get to school.

I have had over the years of representing Algoma-Manitoulin many complaints from school bus operators and drivers about the dangerous conditions that they see. I want to recount for you some of the problems that we see on Highway 17. On Highway 17, running between Espanola and Blind River, we have a large number of school buses. They are required to stop on a very busy provincial highway, a provincial highway dominated by logging trucks and other trucks that use that route on a daily basis to move the resources of Algoma-Manitoulin and the rest of the north to the mills and markets that are required.

One of the great difficulties we find is especially in the areas of the passing lanes, where there are three lanes of highway. For whatever reason, drivers in that

section of highway don't seem to believe that there's a problem if you're in the oncoming lane -- not in the passing lane but in the oncoming lane -- where there are three lanes. I've had school bus drivers repeatedly tell me of difficult situations, very dangerous situations caused by drivers for some reason, confusion or whatever, about having to stop for that school bus. I think, ladies and gentlemen, we have to face the fact that this is an extremely serious situation, one that needs whatever this Legislature can do to correct it.

I have trouble understanding how this could be a problem, how people would not know they have to stop, how people would not recognize the seriousness of the situation. Yet we know, with existing legislation and with existing education, that it's still happening. So something has to be done.

Mr Hoy has come before us with a very reasonable measure, a measure that makes enforcement easier; a measure that has brought public awareness of this issue all across the province. That, in and of itself, is an important contribution. But each and every member of this Legislature needs to stand in their place at 12 noon today and demonstrate their commitment to the safety of children in this province by supporting Mr Hoy's bill. It is

an act that will make a great difference to the people and children of Ontario. It is something that a private member has brought before this Legislature in a totally non-partisan way in order to protect our children.

Surely, following the passage of this bill today, we will send it to a committee so that any legal difficulties or whatever can be resolved and this bill will receive third reading and royal assent as quickly as possible so that the children of Ontario will have added protection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Hoy: I want to thank members on all sides of the House for their comments on Bill 78 and their very supportive comments. We're talking about the children of Ontario, 800,000 of them boarding school buses daily, some of them as young as five years old, who are hoping that people will stop behind the school buses when those red lights are flashing. They depend on it; their lives depend on it. However, we find out far too often that people are ignoring those signal lights and taking a very high risk, a dangerous chance and are passing school buses on a daily basis on a route-by-route basis.

They're doing it in the morning hours and they're doing it in mid-afternoon, when those children are dependent on the security of the laws that we have before us.

The member for Oshawa talked about enforcement. Part of the problem with the existing legislation is it's difficult to enforce the law on those who pass school buses today. There has to be positive identification of the driver, which is most difficult at high rates of speed, people going 50 miles an hour passing school buses with abandon. Daylight hours may make it difficult to make positive identification of the driver; blacked-out windows, darkened windows on many cars today.

More important, the bus driver is watching those children and preparing to move on to their next stop, and it's very difficult to identify the driver. Let's also state that the owner who would be liable here may have been the driver.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

HEALTH CARE CONSENT AMENDMENT ACT (PARENTAL CONSULTATION), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1996 SUR LE CONSENTEMENT AUX SOINS DE SANTÉ (CONSULTATION PARENTALE)

Mr Klees moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

An Act to provide for parental consultation under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 91, Loi prévoyant la consultation parentale aux termes de la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), you have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I would like to begin my remarks by stating very clearly that I believe the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, which this bill proposes to amend, is in many respects good legislation. I served as a member of the standing committee on administration of justice during the hearings on that particular act. As my colleagues know, during the course of those hearings there were a number of times when I expressed my concern that there was something missing in that act, namely, the involvement of parents when it comes to important decisions regarding medical treatment for their children.

So I don't think it comes as a surprise to my colleagues that I'm bringing this matter forward at this time.

During the course of those hearings a number of very strong arguments were brought forward encouraging the government to consider incorporating the involvement of parents in this act. It was not done at that time and I am hoping that my colleagues, as we debate this issue this morning, will support me in taking this particular initiative.

I'd like to share a number of facts which I believe are important to this debate and which I ask members to consider as they deliberate on this issue. First, I'd like to report that the vast majority of Ontarians whom I speak to are not aware in the first place that children in this province can receive medical treatment of any kind without the knowledge of their parents, the only condition being that the health practitioner believes in his or her mind that the child is capable of making a decision.

The reaction, when I discuss this with people across the province and in my constituency, is initially disbelief that this is the case in this province. The second reaction is indignation. Most parents in this province want to have an important role to play in the decisions around their children.

I'd like to make it very clear that this act is not about decisions relating to people who are adults in the course of their lives. This is about children who are under the age of 16. I believe, as I believe most parents in this province believe, that they not only should be involved in the decisions that relate to their children but have a responsibility to be involved.

My second objective in bringing this bill forward is to propose what I believe to be a very practical and reasonable legislative amendment that will address this particular issue. I can report that I've received expressions of support for this amendment from people across this province from varied religious, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. I've received expressions of support for this amendment from the health care community, from people who are involved in the day-to-day practice of medicine, who are saying to me, "This amendment makes good sense; this is good medical practice."

This bill before us today does a number of things that I believe are simply common sense. In the first place, this bill provides that prior to prescribing medical treatment for a child under the age of 16, it is incumbent upon the health practitioner to make reasonable effort to contact the parents, at least one parent, or an individual acting in the role of a parent, before attending to that medical practice.

It provides some exceptions because we realize that the family is not a perfect institution. While it is, without doubt, the most fundamental institution in our society, there are dysfunctional families. Parenting is not an easy task and we understand that there are familial circumstances where perhaps there is abuse, where there is the potential for abuse, and we have incorporated into this act exceptions under those circumstances to ensure that access to treatment and support for children who find themselves in abusive situations is not withheld.

This act does not in any way present a barrier to medical treatment to children under the age of 16. I want to clarify for the record, because there has been some misinformation in the debate that's taken place over the last couple of days, there has been some misinformation about what this bill would do. There are those who would say that it will in fact present a barrier to medical treatment for young children.

It does not in any way undermine the underlying Health Care Consent Act. Children of any age still have access to health care, and as long as the medical practitioner believes that the child is capable of making an informed decision, that medical treatment can proceed. What this act simply does is ask that same medical practitioner that, before proceeding with that medical treatment, the parents are consulted. I don't think that is too much to ask.

The bill as well makes exceptions for emergency treatment. We realize that there are circumstances when children will require medical treatment as a result of accident, emergencies. This in no way prohibits that from taking place, and the act makes exceptions for those circumstances.

The act also goes one step further, and that is that if the attending physician, the health care practitioner, has any reason whatsoever to believe that as a result of seeking consultation or seeking treatment there may be potential abuse within that family situation, again, there is exception for that under those circumstances.

I'd like to clarify one thing. I believe it's in the interest of not only this House but in the interest of the people of this province that when we debate this issue this morning we deal with the facts. I'm disappointed that even this morning the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health distributed information to members that once again leaves in doubt the intent of the bill and the content of the bill.

Reference is made that research had been done by the ministry previously that relates to the age of consent. Colleagues, I ask you, as we debate this issue, let's debate it on fact, let's debate it on the content of the bill, which is not about an age of consent. This is about bringing parents into consultation when the important issues of medical treatment are being considered for their children.

I believe it's important that we put into place a completion of the legislative framework that on the one hand makes parents in this province legally obligated to provide for the care and the nurture of their children. Is it not appropriate at the same time, then, that we have something in law that ensures that those same parents who are legally obligated to provide for the care and nurture of their children also have the right to know what is going on in their lives so they can come alongside and provide the counsel, provide the care, provide the advice that any good parent in this province, I know, wants to provide?

That is what this is about, and it goes one step further because I believe, as I believe many of my colleagues and people in this province do, that the family is the cornerstone of our society. Over the years there have been many attacks on the institution of the family, but in every generation there are those who must stand up and come to the defence of the family, and I believe this House today has an opportunity to take a stand for the institution of the family, its strength and the ongoing important relationship that must exist among the members of that family, and particularly between parents and children.

Let's not contribute to the alienation of parent from child by making it so easy for children to go their own way. Let's encourage them, through this act, to have dialogue, to enter into discussion with their parents on the important issues facing them.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on this important matter, and, please, I look forward to a factual discussion of this issue.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): In the few minutes I have to participate in this debate, I've decided, rather than expressing my own concern and alarm not only as a member of this Legislature but as a former Minister of Health, to read into the record what those who share my concern have to say about this proposal. I would point out to members of the Legislature that many of these issues were canvassed during Bill 19. Mr Klees was a member of that committee, and I would point out to members of this House that he supported the government's Bill 19 proposals under the Health Care Consent Act, as I did.

On November 25, the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons passed a motion strongly condemning Mr Klees's private member's Bill 91. They say:

"This is retrogressive legislation that would create havoc and limit access to birth control, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, as well as pregnancy and abortion referrals. I am overwhelmed by the lack of sensitivity of this bill," said Dr Keith Macleod of Windsor, the mover of the motion at the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Many other members of that college, which is a public interest body of the self-governing profession of doctors in this province, had this to say:

"This bill is very disheartening and could result in real harm to adolescents because of their perception of the violation of the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship." This is from Dr Miriam Rossi, an active medical staff member of the division of adolescent medicine at the Hospital for Sick Children.

It was the Hospital for Sick Children that made a presentation before our committee on Bill 19 urging that something like this with an age restriction or a requirement for parents to be brought into the doctor-patient relationship not be included in the government's legislation or considered by the committee.

Another member of that council, Dr Don Braden of Kingston, had this to say: "This bill would totally negate the relationship of a psychiatrist to a youthful patient."

Dr David Walker, who is the associate dean of continuing medical education at Queen's University and a past president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, said, "This bill is nothing short of harmful, detrimental and dangerous."

I think that sums up the position of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Frequently in this province we see that the CPSO, as they're referred to, and the Ontario Medical Association don't agree with each other, but on Mr Klees's bill this is what the Ontario Medical Association president had to say:

"This amendment will have profound consequences for the care of adolescents in Ontario. Not only does this amendment undermine the spirit and integrity of the Health Care Consent Act, it negates the tradition of medicine in this area which has evolved over hundreds of years. The effect of this amendment, if passed, will be to make health care inaccessible for adolescents who are seeking care in a host of areas, including family planning, counselling for family-related concerns and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases."

The president of the Ontario Medical Association goes on to say, "I find this amendment sadly ironic given your government's purported support for illness prevention and maintenance of wellness." He further concludes that Mr Klees's bill, as in this House today, "will show a callous disregard for the health and wellbeing of our youth." That from the president of the Ontario Medical Association.

This morning in my office I received from the Teen Health Centre in Windsor the following concerns:

"We want to express our alarm regarding Bill 91 and its amendment to the Health Care Consent Act. Our clients come to the centre seeking confidential care for very sensitive issues. These include family dysfunction issues, birth control information, eating disorders, gynaecological problems and concerns regarding sexually transmitted disease. It is our strong opinion that without the assurance of confidentiality they would not seek care.

"This bill would result in a giant step backwards in the treatment of our youth and have devastating consequences for their health and wellbeing. Adolescents will continue their high-risk behaviour but without the supervision or input of medical monitoring."

I present this evidence this morning because I believe this is the fact, that the importance of the doctor-patient relationship, the historical opportunity our professionals who work in the field with youth have, to judge the notion of whether they are able to make decisions for themselves and when it is appropriate to bring in family members in support of that child, is something we have always in this province considered a clinical judgement.

I will say to you that I do not believe the state should interfere with clinical judgements. I believe we have a responsibility to give our young people access to the care they need, free from fear. While it was some time ago that I was an adolescent myself, it was not so long ago that my own children were adolescents. I knew and understood their fears. While we always had a good and open relationship, I know there were some times they would want to be able to go and talk to somebody privately. I support their right to do that and I support the right for all youth and adolescents in this province to be able to seek care when they need it, without fear.

I do not support this bill.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I know, because I have had many discussions with the member who has brought this bill forward, that his real concern here is about the relationship of children and parents and his concern that the current legislation destroys some of the trust and communication that he believes families ought to have. I think that is a really basic concern of his, and he believes, given his view of family, that that is a normal situation for families and that it is important to support that function of families.

I would suggest to the member that there isn't a member on this side who doesn't feel the same way. I can't imagine a situation where my child would need medical care where she wouldn't have talked to me. I have a personal experience in my family where my child came to me with a problem around sexual abuse and was able to talk to me, and we subsequently found out that her many cousins who had been similarly abused had not been able to talk to their parents about that problem.

So I appreciate the feelings this member has about the importance of communication. I would say to him that I believe it is the job of all of us in our communities, all our supportive communities, our faith communities, within our own families, to do everything we can to build the level of trust and confidence between parents and children that allows a free and open discussion of any matter, whether it's a health care matter or anything else. That's a wish; it's not reality.

We know that the reality is that many, many children, both boys and girls, do not have that relationship with their parents and that very often the reason for that is that those children have been taken advantage of within the family or by close friends of the family. We know that those children have learned to keep secrets.

We know that those children face people who are supposed to love and care for them and cannot share anything with them because their trust has been destroyed by those parents or by close family friends who they know are close to their parents and, however they try to tell their parents that something bad is going on, their parents don't believe them. This is a reality for such a large number of children.

The number of children who have been abused, according to the Rix Rogers study that was done for the federal government, is three out of four girls and seven out of 10 boys. That's a very high number. So what we have to look at is how we are going to ensure, as the member says, that where that sort of thing is a reality, a doctor is going to pick up on it and be able to say, "This isn't a problem."

Let me tell the member, having worked in the field of abuse for many, many years, physicians do not pick up on this. They are like all of us: They don't want to believe that this is going on. And they certainly don't want to believe they have to face a situation where they have to deal with a medical problem for their primary patient, who is the child, and the person implicated is the parent, who is also a patient. That's the reality in many of our cases.

I had many, many clients who had tried to tell physicians about the problems they were facing within their families, and the physicians did not believe them and in fact told the parents what they had tried to say and children got punished even more. That's a reality.

While I appreciate and affirm the conviction this member has, and his wishes about what families were like, I don't think it's enough of a reality for us to trust the so-called safeguards he has in his bill. There are many young people who simply will not seek and will not get appropriate medical attention if a physician is required to consult with parents. It isn't a realistic wish; it isn't a wish that will result in the improvement in relations between parents and children that the member wants to achieve.

We will certainly be opposing this and we will be urging the member to withdraw this. It is clearly not something that is being supported by the health minister and the parliamentary assistant and, I would hope, by many of his own members because of the pitfalls in the bill. I would urge the member to work with the rest of us in this Legislature to try and find means to build that confidence and trust between parents and children in a way that makes his bill unnecessary, that makes it less and less common for children to want to seek medical care without the knowledge of their parents.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I would like to begin my talk this morning by saying one thing. Many of us in this caucus come together from very different backgrounds and we bring different life experiences to this House. I think that's what makes this House the place it is and what helps us to bring together, I think in some cases, superior laws and legislation.

I rise today because I feel very strongly about this legislation from a personal perspective. I believe that family values are the most important thing we have. Morals are the most important thing we can give to our children. But I believe in many cases that is not what happens. I believe with this bill today what we are going to do, even though Mr Klees says it is not this way, is limit and delay the access children will have to health care. I believe this because some children will not seek health care if they believe that their information will not be kept confidential.

The second reason I am very concerned is because of my life experience where I ran into a child who was abused. I truly believe that if she had been asked and had known that her parent at any time would be able to know what she was saying or have to be consulted with, there would have been a problem. In some cases that's a non-issue as we're talking about here, because if the child says he or she is abused, then the doctor doesn't have to consult. But in some cases, if the child wants to get a degree of confidentiality with the doctor first, he or she won't come forward and talk about abuse initially, so you have that consultation happening with the parent. I'm very concerned.

In the Health Care Consent Act one thing that I think is very important, and one of the fundamental things that wasn't brought out in Mr Klees's talk, was that a doctor has to assess capacity correctly. Mr Klees talked about that, but this means that the child or the person has to understand the information, which is the first thing that was said, but the second thing is that he or she has to be capable of understanding that information. That's very much different from just saying: "I want some help.

I understand what I'm getting." To be able to understand the consequences of getting that help is a major issue that I think health professionals and people around the community take up very carefully when they're considering the issue.

I must say that from the Ministry of Health's perspective the faxes are being flooded. We've had about 27 faxes in the last three or four days: 24 of them are concerned with the bill and three of them support Mr Klees. I'm sure he's had others on the other side who have supported him too. I just have three that I think are interesting that we have to talk about.

East York Health Unit:

"Parents have a role in providing their own sons and daughters with a framework of values on which to base decisions. In homes where there is open and frank discussion and commonly held values young people will seek parental guidance and support. In homes where this is not the case it is responsible for adolescents to seek the care they need even if they cannot discuss issues with parents.

"Legislating parental `control' over access to health care will not improve the quality of parenting adolescents can expect, it will only deny care to adolescents who need it."

We have received information from the Hospital for Sick Children, which I believe is a guru in children's care, which is very concerned about this legislation; from the Association of Local Official Health Agencies; Yonge Street Mission, which takes care of kids on the streets who would be in some ways in very deep trouble with this legislation; chief medical officers of health; AIDS committees; public health officers.

I have one last letter which I think is important:

"Mr Frank Klees is proposing an amendment to the Health Care Consent Act. As a health care provider and mother of two teens, I oppose this amendment.... Youth under 16 years of age have many reasons why they do not involve their parents when they seek medical care. To insist that their parents be informed will cause many, many teens to avoid counselling and treatment for sexuality issues, drug use and many other concerns."

I think everybody has concerns and that we'll hear from many other people today.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I certainly appreciate the intent of the bill of my colleague. In a perfect world it would make some sense. The reality today is that we don't live in that perfect world, we don't live in a world where we have perfect families, where we have perfect relationships, where there is a type of nurturing, caring family relationship that many of us would like to see. The reality is that a lot of people are under some very difficult and different situations out there and we, as legislators, have to understand and be sensitive to the needs of all Ontarians and all the children of this province.

This is not an issue of family values, this is not an issue of morality; it is simply an issue of health care for people under the age of 16. As the act now states, it leaves it to the judgement of the health practitioners, people we entrust with health care in this province. It is up to his or her judgement to make the decision whether it is in the best interests of that individual, that young person, whether family members should be notified or whether there should be an attempt to notify a family member.

We're now turning it around and making it a mandatory situation. Therefore the issue becomes one of putting the notification of the family member ahead of the health care issue that person is dealing with, ahead of the treatment and counselling that may occur in that particular case. We're often dealing with situations with kids who are on the street. We are dealing with 14- or 15-year-old kids who often do not have a stable relationship with family members at home, who often are more fearful of the parent finding out why they're seeking treatment than of the illness, or of the treatment they're seeking. That is the reality of what you're dealing with out there.

You have myriad issues with young people -- suicide, psychiatric illnesses, sexual orientation, drug use -- extremely sensitive and difficult issues that many young people may feel much more comfortable speaking about to a family practitioner or health care counsellor than to their family, their parents. We're going to drive these problems underground. What you're going to say to the 14- or 15-year-old person who happened to be living on the street is, "If you're afraid that you may have been exposed to HIV," as an example, "you don't go forward and get tested for HIV," because of the fear of finding out.

There are organizations that deal with young people that have expressed tremendous concern. Some have been read into the record by my colleagues from all three political parties in the House. I think if we allow this to happen we are taking health care, the treatment of young people in Ontario, back 40, 50 years. We are trying to bring us back to a world that doesn't exist any more. There's a new reality, whether we like it or not, and as legislators I believe we have to be aware of that.

In some of the work I have done I have dealt with 14- and 15-year-old kids who have had some tremendous problems, some real difficulties. As I said earlier, it was a bigger fear of their parents finding out the difficulty or the struggle they were having or the decision they were trying to make than of actually what the situation, difficult as it was, may have been at that time.

I am not sure how you tell 15-year-old kids who unfortunately are living on Yonge Street, in a blanket and maybe a couple of cardboard boxes, that to access medical treatment they would have to somehow track down, or make an attempt to track down, parents they may not have seen for a period of time or guardians who may not exist or individuals in their lives who may have done nothing more than abuse them and scar them for life. To force that prior to getting treatment I think is irresponsible. I think it's taking away the judgements that family practitioners, physicians, can make today.

I would urge this House to reject this bill. I think it is one of the most regressive pieces of legislation we have seen from the point of view of health care in Ontario and I think the message we're sending out very clearly to health care practitioners is that we don't trust their judgement. The message we're sending out to young people is: "Don't access medical treatment if you're afraid of your parents finding out. Don't access counselling." What you end up with is more kids on the street. What you end up with is more kids using drugs.

What you end up with is more kids being exposed to situations that are risky and possibly putting their life at risk as a result of being afraid to seek treatment. As a legislator, I certainly don't want any part of that.

I believe we have a responsibility to encourage prevention, to encourage issues of safer sex, to encourage young people to get as much information as possible when dealing with a situation, but most of all to ensure that young people in this province have full and unhindered access to health care whether they are 12, 14, 16 or 20. Frankly, this will take that right away. I want absolutely no part of that.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): As a parent, I think I understand the motivation behind Mr Klees's resolution today. I would say that certainly all parents, both in this House and outside the House, would wish that their children feel safe enough, cherished enough, trusted enough, secure enough to be able to go to their parents and discuss very personal and delicate issues with their parents.

I certainly know from my personal experience with a wonderful young woman who is now 22 and a young parent herself. I think the whole world knows that she had a very difficult adolescence and of our struggles. I'm proud and happy to say, I think partially because of the love and security that she got as a young child, she came through. She went through a very, very difficult time and is now just a wonderful, mature human being whom I'm very proud of: back in school, a wonderful parent herself. But she did have a very difficult adolescence.

She was able to come to me, and I'm so happy about that. I'm sure there are secrets she has that I'll probably never know about. Who in this House today who can remember anything about their adolescence -- I know it's getting harder and harder for some of us to reach back that far. Who among us, though, can't think back to some secrets we have kept from our parents over time? But my daughter was able to come to me on several occasions and discuss some of the situations she found herself in, particularly during the time when she did run away from home and was on the street for a while.

I had to go to Vancouver and track her down; again, a nice happy ending. I actually found her on the street and brought her home.

I guess I could go on for a long time about my relationship with my daughter, but I'm bringing her up because I met a lot of her friends during that time who for a variety of reasons were not able to go and talk to their parents. God knows I'm not saying I was a perfect parent, but I do know that she knew that she wouldn't be beaten. She knew that she wouldn't be verbally abused. She knew that other family members wouldn't be verbally abused and blamed. She knew that if she came to me, she was safe and we could discuss problems and try to work them out together.

Some of her friends did not have that option. They knew that they would be beaten or thrown out of their home, if they weren't street kids but in very precarious situations. These children, these young people, if they find themselves -- and let's get frank here; no pun intended.

If young girls find themselves pregnant or thinking that they may have a sexually transmitted disease and they come from an environment where they don't feel safe to discuss this with their parents, and if there's any chance whatsoever that they go to any kind of health care person to discuss their problems -- I understand that Mr Klees in his bill is honestly trying to work with that and find a solution, but unfortunately there is still the chance that that child will not be absolutely assured of confidentiality, and I can assure you that in some circumstances that would be enough for that child to not take the risk.

While we're speaking candidly here, I'll tell you what some of my greatest fears are, because I agree with my colleague from Hamilton that this is not about family values; this is not about morals. This is about health care. I have grave concerns that we're going to find very young girls having illegal abortions because they will be too afraid to go through the proper channels, that there will be more cases of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and that these children will end up in very, very risky situations because of their fear of being found out by their families and punished.

Speaking again as a parent, I would say that I certainly understand, Mr Klees, that you as a parent -- I don't know you and I don't know your relationship with your children, but I trust that it's a good one and you feel confident that your children would come and discuss problems with you. Or perhaps you don't -- I don't know -- and you'd like to make sure there's some legal means by which they'd have to. I'm not sure. But I understand what you're trying to do here, and that is to give parents the right to know what is happening with their young children. I understand that.

I certainly would not like to think that my daughter would have gone off and, for instance, had an abortion or gone through something like that without me knowing about it, if for no other reason, in my case, than to support her through it. I think all parents would agree that is the ideal situation. But that is not the ideal situation, sadly. There are many reasons why our children can't go to their parents and in some cases, I suppose, won't go to their parents, even if they do come from a secure, generally safe family situation.

I think that when you are getting the kinds of letters and responses from the health care community and those who work with youth, it seems like it's pretty unanimous in terms of the concern by the health care community about the implications a bill like this could have on children. I know that when we were in government, this was an issue when we were changing some things in the Health Care Consent Act. Certainly you always have to weigh the balance between the parents' right to know, the parents' rights to take care of their children and be involved in their choices, with real concerns about children's need for confidentiality when it comes to health care.

I believe this bill is playing with fire. I believe it is a very, very dangerous step backwards. I believe Mr Klees is sincere in his approach and what he's trying to do, but I believe it is misguided and is trying to put his perception of what family life should be in an ideal world into one little box and saying it's got to be like that for everybody. And that's wrong, because it isn't like that.

I am not going to be supporting this bill, and I hope very much -- I understand that the health minister, and the parliamentary assistant has already spoken, is not supporting this bill, I think for the same reasons many of us in this House are not supporting it.

I'm not supporting it because I believe that, in the words of a doctor from the Hospital for Sick Children, it is harmful and detrimental. I don't know who said that, if it was the president of the Ontario Medical Association or somebody from the Hospital for Sick Children, but I know the kinds of mail and phone calls that many of us have received on this issue have made it very clear that this is not a partisan thing. It is not an issue that I believe any of us are debating in a partisan way. I believe we are listening carefully to the health care community out there and people who work with young people, those who are expressing concerns about the long-term implication of a bill like this.

I suppose that what I would recommend on the basis of what we've heard is that the bill actually be withdrawn, because I think some very convincing arguments have been made today from all sides of the House why this bill couldn't possibly work and would actually be harmful to children.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am rising in support of Bill 91. I could give you my personal reasons but I'm elected to represent my constituents and I believe that in supporting Bill 91 I am representing my constituents.

I guess the whole debate evolves around who is a minor child, and when is that person a minor child and when should they have all the freedom in the world to do whatever they want. It's a very, very interesting debate, because on the one hand, we say parents are legally bound for the care, nurturing, health and welfare of children until they're 16. Then we turn around and say, "Okay, we'll tie the parents' hands behind their backs when we're dealing with health issues."

I'm sorry, but you can't speak out of both sides of your mouth as a government in terms of legislation and say, "We're going to make you legally responsible for that child." Take education, for example. It's mandatory for children to be in school until they're 16 unless they have permission through the early school leaving provisions of the Education Act to leave prior to 16 with the consultation of the parents, the school and the child.

How is it on the one hand we say you must consult with the parent about whether a child stays in school, but on something that is probably even more important than whether they stay in school, the health issues for that child, we say you don't have to involve the parent? In this case, we must emphasize, we're not talking about the parent granting permission; we are simply talking about the right of that parent to know. When we talk about rights, I think it's very important that we talk about everybody's rights.

We criticize so many parents today in this world -- and certainly our province is no different. We criticize parents for not fulfilling their rights and their responsibilities, and this legislation is simply saying for parents to fulfil their rights and their responsibilities as parents, let them know what is going on with their child. If the medical practitioner and the child decide that a certain form of treatment has to be executed, fine, but the point is the parent still has the right to know.

This bill is not about stopping anything; it's about information, and frankly, it's very interesting, because I've heard an example in my riding recently, about something as simple as a measles shot, and a child up to 16 now -- and I agree most parents don't know about it and it's shocking to think that this is the fact -- but a child now can go for treatment to a doctor who doesn't know that child, doesn't know the history of the child, and the child itself up until age 16 may not know all of its own history, and there may be a very important reason that a certain medical procedure should not be entered into for that child because of a medical procedure that happened when the child was very young.

An allergy is very obvious, but procedures other than just allergies. So the doctor and the child enter into this treatment and that child may be incredibly at risk because nobody has informed the parent and given the parent the opportunity to say, "This in the history of my child's health."

It's very difficult in the very short time we have this morning to try to emphasize why I am concerned on behalf of my constituents. I think if we're concerned about these few children in terms of them not seeking medical help, yes, I share that concern. I'm very concerned about the few who may not seek medical help because of their own fear of their parents. There is an exemption for that in this legislation and people are choosing to ignore that exemption, but I simply want to say while I share that concern for the few children, I really believe we can never design legislation that fits every concern.

I have a concern for the majority of the children who, when they need medical help, also need their parents. Legislation has to be for the majority of children and we all have a responsibility to try to execute that kind of voting on this important bill.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have a limited time, but I want to get on record that when there was information regarding this private member's bill coming forward into the House, I received immediate phone calls from people from the riding of Windsor-Sandwich who really were stunned, I suppose, that anyone would bring this forward with so little thought and so little consultation.

I can honestly say that the thing that pleases me today is that the parliamentary assistant to the health minister who was here in the House to speak to this bill I assume is also speaking on behalf of the health minister and the health minister himself is opposed to this bill.

The ramifications of the introduction of this kind of bill are so widespread. I want to read in brief a letter from the Teen Health Centre that my colleagues have already alluded to. The Teen Health Centre deals with young people and knows this issue better than many of us in this House.

"This bill would result in a giant step backwards in the treatment of our youth and devastating consequences for their health and wellbeing. Adolescents will continue their high-risk behaviours, but without the supervision or input of medical monitoring.

"We strongly support the OMA's position that implementation of this amendment does not support either illness prevention nor the maintenance of wellness."

In closing, I must say there are areas we need to work on, in particular young people who deal with mental illness. In the case of mental illness with young people, parents do need to have a better way to deal with this situation in family so that if the member is trying to help in certain areas, there are areas that absolutely need to be addressed. We would encourage that there would be more thought given to those areas such as the area of mental illness.

We cannot support this bill. I am speaking for the people of Windsor-Sandwich and hope that everyone in the House too will not support this bill today.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): First off, I'd like to commend my colleague from York-Mackenzie for bringing this matter forward. I think the level of debate on this issue has been exemplary and I think it was long overdue in this House on an issue such as this.

My point in speaking is not to convince anybody to my side, but just to outline and underline that second side of this particular issue. I have no criticism of anyone who doesn't agree with me on this issue and I recognize the value and I commend the member for London Centre for putting in capsule form the other side of that argument.

I agree with the member for Hamilton East that this is not a morals issue, this is not a religious conviction issue. I think it's more than a health issue, though. It's an issue of human rights and parental rights, and if we constantly erase the parental rights and increase the parental obligations, I think it's time to look at the ramifications of the actions which we're taking in issues where we have removed the right to know, a person's right to be informed.

I harken to the issue of the adoption act, where we indirectly allow the young mother not to name the putative father, notwithstanding the DNA testing that removes the risk in that issue. Twenty years later the child is looking for their roots; the mother is dead, the mother is gone. It's significant.

Let me tell you about a more significant issue, and that's the medical aspect of that. Ten years later, the 10-year-old child, searching for medical help, the bone marrow transplant, and there is no record of the father, no record of that family that could provide the assistance. Why? To save some family grief is the argument. Well, let me tell you, the grief of that 10-year-old who can't be treated or can't be helped far exceeds the grief and the knowledge of the family of the putative father.

I could name you a situation I came across in my life on the bench of a young lady seven days before her wedding, engaged to be married to her half brother.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): What does that have to do with this bill?

Mr Guzzo: It has to do with this bill because it was a situation created because of the removal of the right to know, and that's what this issue is about.

Ms Lankin: No, it's not related. It's not related at all.

Mr Guzzo: In comparison in the criminal law, where we've moved under the YOA to treat people differently until they're 18 years of age, now we want to treat medically and provide additional rights and additional information? Where are we going if we continue on this particular route as we override the rights of individuals?

I suggest that a logical extension of this particular situation is in terms of religious rights under those medical situations where we are faced with a blood transfusion operation. Once again, the logical extension is to deny the parents and override their rights. At the present time we go to tremendous lengths and tremendous expense to protect those particular rights.

How much further, if we allow the medical association or the College of Physicians and Surgeons to dictate the avenue to be followed, before those particular operations and those particular procedures will see the waiving of the right of the parents in those particular circumstances to know? In every instance where we have taken that step and we have progressed, we have created individual situations -- not many, mind you -- where the harm created far exceeds the damage that would have been done by living up to the obligation to provide the information that rightfully belongs to the individuals in question.

Our caucus has had a beneficial debate on this and I commend the level of debate in this House. I think that issues such as this require the type of airing that we have enjoyed here, and I thank again the member for bringing it forward and allowing it to take place.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York-Mackenzie, you have two minutes.

Mr Klees: I take this opportunity to thank all of my colleagues for their contribution to this debate. Clearly, not everyone is in favour of my proposal, and I have a feeling that it may not be a unanimous vote in favour of this bill.

What I would like to point out is that contrary to a comment that was made by one of my colleagues, it is also not unanimous on the part of the health care field that this is not good legislation. I'd like to read from a letter written to me by Dr Linda Douville, who says, "As a family physician and as a parent, I am of the opinion that medical decisions involving the treatment of patients in this age group are best made in consultation with the patient and their parent or legal guardian."

I'd like to also read from a Dr Douglas K. Martin, who is a PhD in the field of bioethics with the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, who says the following: "I have always considered that permitting children to be treated by health care practitioners without their parents' knowledge and permission to be a glaring departure from common wisdom and ethical prudence. I encourage the Ontario Legislature to support the Health Care Consent Amendment Act (Parental Consultation.)"

This is not -- and I agree -- about morality, it is not about family values, and I agree with my colleague Mr Guzzo that this is not simply about health care. This goes far beyond that. It goes to the principle of whether or not this Legislature is prepared to take an initiative to improve on the current reality that we have in this province and take action legislatively to set a new benchmark in this province as to the role of parents with their children, giving them an opportunity to participate in the very important decision-making process regarding their medical treatment.

I urge members of this House to consider this very seriously and to support this legislation.

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

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 51, standing in the name of Mr Hoy. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Hoy has moved second reading of Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

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

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I would like the bill referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the bill should go to the resources development committee? Agreed.

HEALTH CARE CONSENT AMENDMENT ACT (PARENTAL CONSULTATION), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1996 SUR LE CONSENTEMENT AUX SOINS DE SANTÉ (CONSULTATION PARENTALE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 52, standing in the name of Mr Klees. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, would they please rise.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Klees has moved second reading of Bill 91,

An Act to provide for parental consultation under the Health Care Consent Act.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Shea, Derwyn

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Sheehan, Frank

Boushy, Dave

Hudak, Tim

Smith, Bruce

Brown, Jim

Johnson, Bert

Spina, Joseph

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Stewart, R. Gary

Chudleigh, Ted

Klees, Frank

Tascona, Joseph N.

Clement, Tony

Leadston, Gary L.

Vankoughnet, Bill

Fisher, Barbara

Marland, Margaret

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Ford, Douglas B.

Murdoch, Bill

Wood, Bob

Froese, Tom

O'Toole, John

Young, Terence H.

Gilchrist, Steve

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Grimmett, Bill

Ross, Lillian

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to this question will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Flaherty, Jim

McLeod, Lyn

Arnott, Ted

Gerretsen, John

Miclash, Frank

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Munro, Julia

Bassett, Isabel

Gravelle, Michael

Parker, John L.

Boyd, Marion

Hoy, Pat

Patten, Richard

Brown, Michael A.

Johns, Helen

Phillips, Gerry

Caplan, Elinor

Jordan, W. Leo

Preston, Peter

Churley, Marilyn

Kennedy, Gerard

Pupatello, Sandra

Cleary, John C.

Kormos, Peter

Ramsay, David

Colle, Mike

Kwinter, Monte

Ruprecht, Tony

Cooke, David S.

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Saunderson, William

Cordiano, Joseph

Lankin, Frances

Sergio, Mario

Crozier, Bruce

Laughren, Floyd

Turnbull, David

Ecker, Janet

Leach, Al

Wilson, Jim

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34, the nays are 42.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I will now leave the Chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I rise today to present to the Premier a collection of several hundred petitions from the Alliance of Seniors to Protect Canada's Social Programs. The signatures on these petitions were collected at a forum representing a cross-section of seniors' groups. The petitions express the dismay that so many seniors feel when they witness the erosion of social programs and seniors' quality of life.

These seniors are becoming increasingly alarmed about the drastic cuts to pensions, health care, social services, education, Wheel-Trans and public transportation. Representatives of the alliance want you to know, Premier, that they are discouraged that rather than live up to your promise of no user fees for health care, you have imposed user fees on prescription drugs and now seniors are facing a new fee of $40 a day while in hospital awaiting placement in a nursing home or other institution. Most importantly, they are disappointed and disillusioned that you have broken a key election promise to protect Ontario's senior citizens.

I call upon the Premier and his ministers to review these petitions and reconsider their narrow-minded policies that are rapidly destroying the social programs which not only serve our seniors, but society as a whole. Indeed, to the Premier as well, why are you and your government --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

PLANNING ACT AMENDMENTS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'd like to bring to the attention of members of the House an issue that has become quite hot in my riding. There is a planning process that many people know about with respect to the Greenwood lands, and in dispute is a proposed 2,000- to 3,000-seat teletheatre. Many citizens oppose this and they have taken their democratic right by appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board. But as a result of the Harris government's amendments to the Planning Act, their process has been threatened with early dismissal and with being charged the legal costs of the developer and the city.

In the Planning Act amendments, you said if an individual was not on record as having participated in the planning process either verbally or in written presentations, that could be grounds for early dismissal. In a community coalition and in large community meetings, lots of people participate in many different ways. The Coalition Against the Teletheatre has many individuals who are actually on record, but the individual citizen who volunteered to be the chair of this new coalition is not technically on record, and because her name appears on the appeal, the city of Toronto and the developer have taken steps to ask for early dismissal and charges.

This is an attack on the democratic right of citizens and it happens as a result of the anti-democratic provisions in the Planning Act amendments brought forward by the Harris government. We said at the time that this would be the result, that it would chill democratic participation by citizens. It's being proved true in my community, and I say shame on the Harris government.

JOB CREATION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): As you're aware, Mr Speaker, a leading goal of this government is to promote economic development and job creation. According to Statistics Canada labour force surveys, since the June 1995 election, under Harris government policies, employment in Ontario has increased by 127,000 net new jobs. I'm proud to report to the Legislature today a number of new employment opportunities and business developments that have been created in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Algonquin Industries, already a major employer in Huntsville, is expanding into the town of Gravenhurst and creating up to 100 new positions. A recent expansion at Panolam Industries of Huntsville has created an additional eight jobs. Two new 16,000-square-foot grocery stores are scheduled to open in my riding in the spring of 1997, one in Port Carling and the other in Bracebridge. It is estimated that they will create 50 new jobs. Eight new construction jobs were created in the building of a new 24-hour service station in southern Gravenhurst that will open this winter, and it will employ 10 to 15 people.

An undetermined number of new jobs will be created at the TRW seatbelt stamping plant in Midland, and the new Segwun by the Bay restaurant and marina will soon be under construction in Gravenhurst. Tembec Forest Products in Huntsville has recently hired an additional 20 full-time employees. Finally, the planned expansion of the Muskoka Nursing Home in Gravenhurst is expected to create 70 new jobs.

These new business developments and employment opportunities in Muskoka-Georgian Bay are solid evidence of the positive impact this government's policies are having in the province of Ontario.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today I stand to commemorate the night that members of this Legislature supported me in the effort to stop this bully government in ramming through Bill 26, the bully bill that was an unprecedented power grab by this government.

The top 10 list of problems with Bill 26:

Number 10: The Minister of Health is closing and amalgamating hospitals and terminating services that individual hospitals provide.

Number 9: The Minister of Health has given the power to take over the operation of a community hospital by appointing hospital supervisors who will have all the powers of the hospital board.

Number 8: $225 million in new user fees under the Ontario drug benefit program will be imposed on seniors and others most in need.

Number 7: Drug costs under the Ontario drug benefit program will no longer be regulated, leading to sharp increases in the price of prescription drugs.

Number 6: The Minister of Health gives power to unilaterally remove health care services from OHIP coverage, meaning these services will have to paid for by the public.

Number 5: The government gives the power to unilaterally close down the public service pension plan and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union pension plan.

Number 4: The Minister of Municipal Affairs is using his new powers to amalgamate and dissolve the municipalities.

Number 3: There are restrictions on access of freedom of information requests by implementing new fees and providing greater powers to the government to keep files secret.

Number 2: In the past year the province has given the green light to over 1,000 new user fees.

The Number 1 reason that Mike Harris's government rammed through the bully bill: All of the above can be done without any discussion or debate or a vote in the Legislature.

PLEA BARGAINING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On September 24 of this year in St Catharines, 14-year-old Jasmine Vanscoy was killed in her own home when a bullet from a stolen handgun tore through her head. Shortly afterwards, a 17-year-old male was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. That matter, of course, went before the courts.

I spoke with Karen Vanscoy, Jasmine's mother, yesterday. Karen Vanscoy is outraged, appalled and astonished that in a meeting at the crown attorney's office Monday of this week, she was told that a deal had been struck, a deal had been made. She was told that the offender would be pleading to manslaughter and there would be consent to a sentence of a mere two years in a young offenders facility.

It is astonishing and appalling that Ms Vanscoy, the mother of this slain child, would not have been actively involved in the consideration of plea bargaining of this nature. It's astonishing that the crown would not utilize its power to put before the courts the issue of whether this 17-year-old should indeed be treated as a young offender or as an adult. It's astonishing that a two-year sentence would be considered before any trial when the life of a young child has been so brutally taken.

I think all of us should share the outrage of Ms Vanscoy and the outrage of people across Niagara region who are witnessing what they perceive to be a gross miscarriage of justice and a denial of Ms Vanscoy and her dead daughter, a denial for them of the right to have the criminal justice system applied in their favour.

EDUCATIONAL DONATION

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): In the 1996 budget, Finance Minister Ernie Eves introduced the student opportunity trust fund, which committed the government to matching dollar for dollar any public donation to higher education made by March 31, 1997.

Last week I was gratified to see a spectacular example of this initiative in action. It was all the more satisfying because it involved a great institution in my riding of St Andrew-St Patrick. The University of Toronto was the proud recipient of a $3-million donation from the Bank of Montreal and its employees. This initiative is a direct result of the finance minister's budget announcement last spring.

I'm happy to inform the House that the government of Ontario will indeed match the Bank of Montreal's $3-million donation with a $3-million grant. To add to the good news, the University of Toronto will also contribute $3 million to this initiative, for a grand total of $9 million.

This is an excellent example of why we have introduced the student opportunity trust fund and of how it is working to help create more public-private partnerships so that we can serve the taxpayers of Ontario better.

I wish to congratulate the Bank of Montreal, its employees, the University of Toronto and its visionary president, Rob Prichard, for leading the way in turning fiscal restraint into an advantage.

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I rise today on behalf of the Liberal caucus to congratulate and honour the work of Ontario filmmakers, whose continuing efforts to give Ontarians an opportunity to see themselves, and to see their culture, on the big screen were handsomely rewarded last night at the 1996 Canadian Genie Awards.

While the eclectic mix of nominated films certainly offered up different takes of what cultural expression is all about, from the audacious Crash to the Ontario-made Swann to Bruce McDonald's Hard Core Logo, the Canadian filmmakers themselves are to be loudly applauded for setting new worldwide standards of film excellence.

Winning Ontario films and artists at this year's awards included best picture honours for Toronto-based filmmaker John Greyson's Lillies; David Cronenberg, best director for Crash; Ontario director David Wellington's Long Day's Journey Into Night, which swept all the acting honours; composer Mark Korven for the score of Curtis's Charm ; and the best first-feature award to Peter Wellington for Joe's So Mean To Josephine.

It should be noted that for all the success achieved by Canadian films last night, this Tory government has made the economically foolish decision to eliminate all funding for production financing and development programs through the Ontario Film Development Corp. The modest government support given to these programs, totalling $9 million in 1995, went a long way in contributing to the continued success of the Ontario film industry. Indeed, it is sadly ironic that the last film to receive OFDC support under these programs was Lillies, last night's biggest winner.

EARTH WORKS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I rise in the House today to bring good news from my riding of Niagara South. At the recent International City/County Management Annual Conference in Washington, DC, the city of Port Colborne was presented with the award for program excellence for its outstanding citizen involvement in its Earth Works program.

Under the direction of Mayor Neal Schoen and Cecil Vincent, the chief administrator officer of Port Colborne, the Earth Works compost project was introduced to educate the public about the use of composting as an economically viable and environmentally responsible alternative to landfill organic waste.

Port Colborne's Earth Works program resulted in the diversion of approximately 789 metric tonnes of organic waste from landfills and a dramatic increase in industrial, commercial and institutional composting, and most importantly a sense of community and ownership among the citizens of Port Colborne.

I would like to congratulate the citizens of Port Colborne for its development of these successful strategies to encourage and enhance citizen participation in local government. Emphasizing citizen involvement, the good people of Port Colborne are leading the charge on innovative waste management. I would like to commend them today for their outstanding leadership and initiative.

VISITORS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'd like to welcome Mr King and the class of Mark Wilson, the hardest-working page here at Queen's Park, from the Caroline M. Thompson School in the gallery this afternoon. Joining them on behalf of Welland MPP Peter Kormos is Princess Elizabeth School of Welland. I'd like to welcome them to Queen's Park today.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to take this time to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in our Speaker's gallery today the northwest regional chairs of the Federation Council of Russia. Welcome.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent today to pay tribute to the leader of the official opposition.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to the leader of the official opposition? Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: This is not a eulogy, of course. We're very delighted that while the member for Fort William will be entering a new part of her career, she'll still be with us in the time ahead.

I rise today on behalf of the Premier and the whole government and caucus members to pay tribute to the honourable member for Fort William on this, her last day in the House as the leader of the official opposition. I know that the Premier didn't have the opportunity to talk to you this morning and offer his personal congratulations. He certainly expressed to me last night his deep regret that he would be unable to be here today, something he had planned some long time ago, but he extended his best wishes on your service as the 20th leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario. I'd like to say a few words today as well.

It's always interesting that a political departure, whatever form it may take, is one of the few times we have the opportunity to say something nice and true about the members of this House, in particular our political opponents. I think it was Harry Truman a few years ago who said a statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years. This is certainly not the case today, and I would like to talk about the statesmanlike qualities of the member opposite.

While we've undoubtedly had the odd policy difference over the past 18 months or so since I've been on this side and the official leader has been on the other side, I believe you've always personally shown a great respect for this institution and the democratic ways of this institution and the process that allows us the free-flowing exchange that I'll say we so often enjoy in this House, enjoy maybe more so outside of question period but enjoy considerably. You've been a very active, articulate, reliable, dependable member for your party, and I know you will continue to represent well the people of Fort William.

One of the characteristics I would like to comment on in particular, and I know that's shared by all the members, has been your strong dedication to your family. It's a dedication that is particularly laudable and notable in view of your responsibilities in leadership, not an easy situation. As someone who comes from a close-by riding to this complex of Queen's Park I have the opportunity to go home every night and spend the time with my family, but such is not the case particularly for a leader but indeed for many members of this House.

I know it's difficult for people such as yourself, Leader, and the Premier and other members who not only must entertain their duties in this House but then go home to their apartment here at Queen's Park, away from their family, and not have that comfort. I was thinking of you this morning while driving my daughter to school, which I do most mornings on my way down to Queen's Park. You don't have that sort of comfort, I suppose, on most days.

While I can't speak for the members of your family, I can say that to those of us who observed you in the House during your time as leader, you seem to bring very capable leadership to the Liberal Party, provide a very valued service to the people of Ontario and at the same time remain a very committed parent. That is an excellent combination.

I strongly suspect that maybe now Neil, Dana, Robin, Dara and Kristen will look forward to a few more hours from you, with the absence in your official capacity as leader allowing more of that time, which I'm sure you will value greatly.

It's said in history that political figures are remembered, and they're quite often remembered for one particular action or characteristic -- Bill Davis maybe for his steady, solid leadership, John Robarts for his great love of the outdoors, and Mitch Hepburn for his willingness to take on the federal government and fight for Ontario, but what history will write about us we really don't know for sure. I guess we have to take the time and see what is written.

But there are a number of things that could be written about the official Leader of the Opposition, many things, I'm sure. One perhaps will be most significant. You broke through one of the barriers that has existed for women in the province by assuming the official leadership of your party, a very significant contribution and action. In this light, at this time in our history, if I might be permitted to say it, in that context you may be considered as a revolutionary by the members of this House.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: That's stretching it too far, is it? For that you will, I believe, assume a prominent place in the history of our province, as the history continues to be written.

So to you, honourable leader, on behalf of our government, thank you for your committed service as leader of the official opposition, for your service over the years. I wish you nothing but good luck and happiness and success and all of those good things in the years that lie ahead as you continue to serve the people of