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

September 11, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L228 - Thu 11 Sep 1997 / Jeu 11 Sep 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

BOATING SAFETY

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

BOATING SAFETY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MEMBERS OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY CAUCUS

PAY EQUITY

FALL FAIRS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

HOEDOWN IN YORK REGION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION VOTING RIGHTS ACT (COTTAGERS AND OTHERS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE DROIT DE VOTE LORS DES ÉLECTIONS SCOLAIRES (PROPRIÉTAIRES DE CHALET ET AUTRES)

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

ONTARIO HYDRO

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

LEGAL AID

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

NURSING HOMES

PROPERTY TAXATION

RURAL POLICE SERVICE

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

COURT DECISION

TVONTARIO

SECURITY OFFICER

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

COURT DECISION

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORMS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PAY EQUITY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

FIRE IN HAMILTON

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF ONTARIO ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES FINANCIERS DE L'ONTARIO

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

PUBLIC HEALTH

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

Ms Bassett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 153,

An Act to provide more protection for animals by amending the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act / Projet de loi 153, Loi prévoyant une protection accrue des animaux en modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l'Ontario.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I welcome the opportunity to debate my private member's bill today. As you know, and for the audience that's watching, private members' bills give backbenchers a chance to bring forward issues of concern to their constituents and to the public at large, and in some cases to see those issues of concern become law, which is what my aim is today.

My private member's bill,

An Act to provide more protection for animals by amending the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Bill 153, which I'm now going to call the OSPCA act, will make changes to strengthen the enforcement of animal protection and hopefully to reduce cases of abuse and neglect.

Before outlining the details, I want to say first of all that an overwhelming majority of Ontarians love their animals, care for their animals well and are very concerned when they hear of any cases of neglect, cruelty or abuse. We all are well aware of that. This said, we still hear terrible reports of animals being severely mistreated. In fact, humane societies everywhere, right across the province, get thousands of complaints every single year about cases of abuse and neglect of our animals.

Most complaints are resolved immediately. Some really stem from ignorance on the part of the caregiver or the owner. They're not intentional at all, and when the inspector suggests that such and such be done, the owner complies right away. However, about 30% of complaints received by the humane societies right across the province are serious cases of abuse and neglect and they require further ongoing action and checking on by humane society inspectors.

There is an overwhelming response, as I said, from the public any time any case of abuse occurs that's made public. For example, we hear in news reports, editorials, phone talk shows, whatever it is, people calling in and saying what should be done to protect poor, defenceless animals. In fact, last year the Premier's office was absolutely deluged by calls about the case of the Irish setter, Holly, who was dragged behind a car to teach her a lesson. The public just was not going to stand for that, and phoned in by the hundreds.

In extreme cases such as Holly's case, the offender is charged under the Criminal Code and sentenced accordingly. In Holly's case, the person involved got a six-month suspended sentence.

It's relatively easy to deal with cases that are so high profile. We all read a couple of weeks ago about the man who hopped across the balcony and tossed down the little dog that was barking and disturbing his peace. In that kind of case the humane society inspectors can go in easily and charge the person who is making the offence.

It's the cases that aren't so high profile that humane society inspectors and agents have trouble dealing with. "We hear all too often about animals," they say, "who are deprived of water, left out in the sun, locked in cars when the owner goes shopping," and on and on. You have all seen or heard of such cases yourselves.

Inspectors of the OSPCA would rather not lay criminal charges in many of these cases if they had another way of dealing with the problem and getting the individual who is making the offence to clean up his or her act, in effect. That is what my bill wants to do: We want to encourage people to treat their animals humanely without laying criminal charges against them.

I've been working closely with the Ontario Humane Society and the Toronto Humane Society. Some of the members are sitting in the gallery today and I welcome you and thank you for coming. It's good of you to show your support. It's because of the support of animal lovers everywhere and members of humane societies that I feel I must bring forward this bill today, because we are all speaking out for animals, who cannot speak at all.

My private member's bill will do three things:

(1) It will make people less likely to obstruct inspectors from carrying out their duties; (2) it will make people more likely to comply with an inspector's orders when he or she writes them out; and (3) it will prohibit owners charged with cruelty or neglect of animals from owning animals in the future; for example, the person who tossed the dog over. That person obviously is not a fit person to own an animal.

I must point out, however, that the bill does not lay out any new

definitions of abuse or cruelty. I say that to members of our caucus and members in other parties who are farmers and are involved with animals and they may feel that we're going to descend with a bunch of new laws. That's not the intention of this bill at all. The law of what denotes cruelty and distress is clearly defined in the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and in the Criminal Code, and I'm happy to show it to anybody who wants to see it.

All this does is give teeth to the existing law, and I want to go through the three areas and how it works. First, obstruction and non-compliance with orders: If you see an animal that is being abused, you can lay a complaint with the OSPCA. An inspector then goes out to check up on the situation. In some cases -- not many, but in some cases -- the individual who's being inspected says, "You can't come in," or he or she verbally abuses the inspector who's coming out. Now, under my bill, you are going to be subject to a fine: $5,000 for individuals, $10,000 for corporations. So obstruction is one area.

If the inspector then gets in to see the animals, if he sees the animal in distress, he leaves a written order saying, "Feed the animal; clip its feet," whatever has to be done. Sometimes, not in all cases, but in some cases, about 30% of cases, these written orders are not complied with, and when the inspector comes back to check up on whether the animal has been relieved of his or her distress, he finds that this hasn't happened. My bill is going to make failure to comply with an inspector's written orders subject to a fine of $5,000 for individuals and up to $10,000 for corporations.

I feel strongly that this will encourage people to think twice before they neglect their animals. It attaches a certain seriousness to this particular case.

Under the current law, if somebody is abusing an animal, you cannot remove the animal for good right away. Under my law the judge can make the decision, but up until that time the OSPCA can go in and remove the animal. Then the judge can make the decision down the way, saying that a person may not own an animal, ever, or up to a certain period of time.

We feel that in some cases it's warranted that some people never, ever own animals. Some people because of health problems -- some people I know are becoming forgetful and they forget to feed their horses. In cases like that, if the OSPCA goes in and finds that these animals are not being fed and cared for properly and the person is incapable of understanding, then he or she should not be owning those animals.

Those are the three amendments to the OSPCA act that my bill is bringing in. We feel that this is a very good move and a very safe move, and it doesn't create any new law that is going to change the definition of distress. I keep coming back to that so that people will understand.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Thank you. The member's time has expired. Further debate? Member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let me first of all, on behalf of my caucus as well, welcome the representatives from the OSPCA to the chamber today. I know that the various branches that operate throughout the province certainly do very worthwhile work. They're actively involved, many volunteers are involved, to make sure that the animals, particularly pets that people have in their households, are treated in a fair manner and are looked after properly.

I can't continue, though, without saying I know that the member, who is a very influential member within the Conservative caucus, particularly when she was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): She still is.

Mr Gerretsen: She still is, I'm sorry. I would hope that she would pay the same kind of attention to some of the other problems of abuse and neglect that are faced by children in this province and come up with perhaps a similar kind of recommendation. I will say right at the outset that when this matter was first raised and I became aware of it earlier this week and I got some information from the member's office, I was highly impressed with the kind of background work that had been done by her and her staff with respect to finding out information as to what other provinces do in that regard.

Hopefully you could put the same kind of effort into looking after another serious problem in this province, and that deals with the 36% of the children of our province who are living in poverty.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Shame.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Gerretsen: I don't understand why the members of the Conservative caucus are so upset about this, that they don't think --

Interjections.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Sit down. That's disgusting.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, are we going to be allowed to continue? That is just as serious a problem, if not more so.

In any event, I think it's kind of interesting that Ontario is one of only two provinces currently where it is not an offence to obstruct an inspector or an agent, the other province being Saskatchewan. The chart that she so ably provided us with indicates that all the other provinces except for Saskatchewan regard it as an offence to obstruct an inspector and that in most provinces a fine for obstructing an officer can be anywhere from $50, in the case of British Columbia, up to as much as $5,000, in the case of Alberta. As a matter of fact, in Alberta for a second offence the fine can be up to $10,000.

I wouldn't want the general public to get the impression that just because a fine has been set at a maximum, at a rather high level, that the provincial court judges in this province necessarily are going to impose that in those situations where a person has been found guilty of obstructing an officer. In most cases, the first time around the fine is much, much less than the maximum.

But it's a good attempt and certainly I think there should be a maximum fine in that range because in a subsequent offence to a first offence it should be dealt with in a very severe manner. I agree with you that the kind of abuse situations that one hears about, for example, of the dog being dragged by the vehicle, I too in my office received many calls that something should happen about this kind of situation, that we certainly should be treating the pets and the animals we have in domestic use in this province in a much better fashion than was indicated in that particular situation.

I intend to support this particular bill. I think it's a good bill.

Interjections.

Mr Gerretsen: I don't know why the members of government are so surprised at that. I indicated right at the beginning that this was a good bill, but I would hope the government members would pay just as much attention to some of the other issues that people are confronted with on a day-to-day basis.

As a matter of fact, we have a situation in Kingston where one particular family, I believe, has about 100 or 200 cats in their home. I know this offends some people. They feel that perhaps the animals are being abused. Other people think it's an all-right situation. Certainly I think that as a general principle there is no sense in our passing any laws in this Legislature if we don't have effective enforcement mechanisms. I think that in the past, many, many laws that had been passed in this Legislature and elsewhere usually lacked the required enforcement mechanisms to make those laws and those situations meaningful.

As a matter of fact, I'm reminded by my colleague from Nepean, who at one time attended Queen's University, that there were 635 cats in one particular home. I don't want to cast aspersions on that particular situation, but it's the kind of situation where inspectors should certainly have the right to examine what's going on, because who knows what the situation may be?

I intend to support this resolution. I hope -- I have the greatest respect for this member -- that she will pay just as much attention and be equally diligent in looking after the abused children in our province.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to my colleague's bill in the Legislature today. There are very few things as upsetting as a person abusing a helpless animal. Every time a case of animal abuse is reported in the media, it strikes a powerful chord across the province.

I would like to commend the member for St Andrew-St Patrick for bringing this important issue to the attention of the Legislature. On behalf of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, we support this private member's bill. The ministry continues to examine how best to address long-standing animal-welfare-related issues but welcomes this bill to deal with the immediate concerns.

Last year the province of Ontario was outraged when an abusive owner dragged a dog behind a car. Being a pet owner myself, I was particularly moved by the incident. One can only wonder what sort of person could abuse a defenceless, trusting animal who gives unconditional love all the time. More calls were received by the Ministry of the Solicitor General in this case than any other except the Bernardo case.

There was also the highly publicized recent case of a large group of kittens left to die by a person who is widely speculated to be an unscrupulous breeder.

My family has pets. We have a beautiful Labrador retriever named Coconut, a cat named Tiffany, and three goldfish. These are all friends of mine, permanent friends, real friends.

Animal welfare legislation has not undergone any fundamental change in the province of Ontario since 1919. Ms Bassett's bill addresses many concerns not covered in the existing act. This bill prohibits pet owners who abuse their pets from owning pets. I fully support this motion to make pet ownership a privilege and not a right. Pet ownership is a privilege and, like any privilege, can be revoked if it is abused. Unlike a driver's licence or a gun licence, there is no test to own a dog or a cat, but failure to look after a pet the first time should mean a revocation of this privilege.

Another important aspect of the bill is the amendment to make obstructing a humane society officer an offence punishable by fines. Humane society officers have a difficult job. They lack the authority to obtain a search warrant on their own and thus don't have the power to conduct lawful search and seizure of dwelling houses. This bill does not suggest that they should be given powers of search and seizure. The rights of people to be secure in their homes from search should only be suspended in the most serious of circumstances. My colleague's bill allows animal officers to use their limited authority unhindered.

Obstructing a police officer in the execution of his or her duties is a criminal offence. Obstructing an animal welfare officer will now result in a fine.

Orders from animal welfare officers can be ignored under existing legislation, but under this bill orders have to be complied with or the offender faces a $5,000 or $10,000 fine. We should hit negligent pet owners where they will feel it: in the pocketbook.

My colleague's bill touches on some important changes to existing legislation. Recent cases in the media show there is a definite need for tougher legislation. It's about time that we created some animal abuse legislation with some real penalties for offenders and prevent animal abusers from owning animals in the future.

My heart cries out for the pets and animals living in abusive homes or circumstances. Their unconditional love, their companionship and their trust should not be abused. I'm proud to support this bill and I personally will do whatever I can to make it law. God bless the animals. My thanks go out to the member for St Andrew-St Patrick. I would ask all the members of this House to support this excellent bill.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I will, of course, as one might anticipate, be supporting this bill. I would be very surprised if there were any member of the Legislature who would not support a bill of this kind, because it deals with a very difficult circumstance that exists. I've often said that we who are in this Legislature should be elected to protect those who cannot protect themselves. That applies to people, but it also applies to animals who are unable to have a spokesperson for themselves, quite obviously, and require human beings to speak on their behalf.

I can't think of anything more revolting than some of the stories that have emerged in the news media of abuse of animals. When we think of our constituency offices and the kind of calls or letters we get, a story of abuse of animals, because they are innocent, because they cannot protect themselves, usually engenders a number of telephone calls and letters and other communications from people who are extremely concerned.

Members have already mentioned that pet animals play a very important role in our society. If you think of the companionship they provide, particularly to lonelier people in our society, but to virtually everybody, that is an important component. Medical people, particularly those who deal with mental health, will tell us how important it is for many individuals in our society to have the companionship of the animals, as the member for Scarborough has indicated, the uncontested love they provide for their so-called masters.

When we see the abuse that takes place in certain circumstances, we recognize that there is a need for increasing the penalties, increasing the provisions within the laws to ensure that we limit the risk of that happening.

I would hope that the member, in her position as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, would ensure that the Ministry of the Solicitor General has sufficient funds and resources to assist the local people in carrying out their responsibilities. One of the problems we have, if you talk to people involved with humane societies across the province, is that while they have significant contributions made by people who are friends of animals in general, one of the concerns they want to bring to our attention at all times is the fact that there's a need for resources at the local level.

Those of us who have sat on municipal councils in years gone by know that each year there is a budgetary process the municipalities go through and they allocate a certain amount of money for the humane society in the area. In our area of Niagara, we have the Lincoln County Humane Society, and a number of municipalities contribute to the operation of the humane society in our area. Some of them have expressed to me concerns outside the provisions of this bill, concern that they don't have the kind of resources they would like to have to do as good a job as possible in terms of animal protection.

When we think of the transfer of responsibilities from the provincial government to local government and the competition there will be for those dollars, we have to recognize that there is a danger -- we all hope it won't happen -- that when the crunch comes in terms of providing funding, humane societies will not get the kind of funding they need to carry out their responsibilities.

Every time we pass a law in this House -- a Treasurer, a Minister of Finance, will always tell a cabinet and a caucus this, just as your treasurer at the municipal level will say you really make policy every week; that there's not just a budgetary process but you make policy every week. When you make decisions, when you pass laws, when you bring into effect new penalties, you must have the resources and the staff to enforce those.

I draw a bit of a parallel with the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Minister of Natural Resources has a very commendable bill, in my view, that will come before the House when the government decides it will and will be debated in this House. There are some interesting provisions in it that I think are helpful. But at the very same time that is happening, the government is cutting back drastically on the staffing of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I know all the members who will be supporting this bill will be urging the Treasurer and the Premier and members of cabinet to provide the necessary funding for humane societies to enable them to carry out their responsibilities.

There's also an education component that exists as a result of a bill of this kind. Because it draws some public attention to a matter which is of concern to many, it allows the news media and those who have access to the news media to explain to individuals in our society how much abuse of animals takes place and the important role those animals play in the lives of many, the pets they have, often for a lifetime.

There are people who don't have pets and perhaps don't understand that kind of affinity and affection that takes place between an individual or a family and family pets. When you hear, for instance, of funerals, even, or special care being given to animals -- I've listened to people sometimes who mock that. When they do so, they simply don't understand that affinity between the individual or the family and those pets.

This is not a government bill; this is an individual's bill. This is our time, as members of the Legislature. I think that is a good time; I like the Thursday morning opportunities. What I like about this bill -- well, I guess everything has a political connotation, but I think this bill is not in that category in any major way.

I appreciate this as well: The member is not in here pointing to some other level of government to do something. She's saying: "We have the responsibility in this Legislature for this. We're dealing with a matter that is within the purview of this Legislature." I want to commend her for that aspect of bringing forward this piece of legislation, because so often now I'm seeing resolutions and bills that ask another level of government to do something.

She has not chosen that option. She hasn't said, "It's the federal government," or "It's the local government." She says, "We have this power and this responsibility within the purview of this Legislature, within the responsibility of this Legislature." For that reason I want to additionally commend her for bringing this forward.

This is something over which we, as legislators, have control, so I am confident that she will be supportive of my suggestion that we provide the necessary resources so that we don't simply have a bill or new rules on the books but have the wherewithal, the resources and the staffing to carry out the enforcement provisions of this bill, which are particularly important, and the educational provisions, which are also part of dealing with animals. The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and humane societies across the province are going to be supportive of this.

We shouldn't be surprised that the general public is going to be supportive, even those who don't have animals themselves. Even those who are not involved with humane societies or societies for the protection of animals will find this a commendable piece of legislation. I'm confident that we will see it pass in this Legislature and receive the support of all parties and all members.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this bill. I too want to commend the member for St Andrew-St Patrick for bringing it forward. People have already talked about the importance to us, as part of the animal kingdom, in recognizing the necessity that we protect all those who are vulnerable, whether they're our species or not.

The whole movement to prevent abuse of children and vulnerable people very much has its roots in a common purpose to try and prevent cruelty to animals. When you look at the history of the humane society, the history of the society for the prevention of cruelty to children and animals, we know that that kind of history is there. The recognition has been there from the beginning of the movement to protect animals, to recognize that they are part of a larger picture, that we have an obligation as human beings, as citizens, to protect those in our community who are vulnerable and who don't have a voice. This is very much part of a very honourable movement that has a history that evolves.

I think that's what's important about the bill the member has brought forward, because it marks a new step in the evolution of our accepting of that responsibility, particularly the part which talks about corporations having a responsibility. As we know, increasingly it is important for us to define the responsibility of corporations as well as of individuals. This is a gap that has been seen to exist by many who are concerned about the fate of animals under the care of various large corporate entities, particularly corporate farming operations.

The member, in bringing forward the bill, has not changed the definition of cruelty to animals as it exists in the act, although I'm sure she must have had considerable pressure to do so. We all know that the definition of what is cruel varies very strongly between the extreme end that no animal should ever belong to or be controlled by any person and that it's cruel to do that, to in any way use an animal for food, to in any way raise animals for food -- that is one extreme -- and the other extreme, which my friend from St Catharines talked about, the callous disregard for animals and their important place in our universe, with our obligation to speak on their behalf.

While the member knows she enjoys the support of most people for this change in the act, certainly most people in this Legislature and most people generally, those who are very firmly convinced of their position -- I believe they call themselves animal rights activists -- will not be as pleased that this definition did not strengthen the definition of cruelty. I think we ought to recognize that.

Passing this bill is not going to end the controversy about whether it is appropriate for large animal operations, large poultry operations, to exist. It is not going to end the controversy about using animals for medical research or other kinds of research. It won't do that. But what it will do will be to add to the ability of those who work so hard in our communities to try and protect animals from cruelty as it is currently defined to do their job and be assured that they have some of the tools required to do their job.

The first

section of Bill 153, which prohibits the obstruction of an inspector or an agent of the society, is extremely important. We know that unless we can get the facts, unless we can observe what is actually happening, the condition of an animal, do an appropriate investigation, it's extremely difficult to then take the action that's required to protect animals. It is really very important that the kind of obstruction that has been difficult for inspectors to deal with would be prohibited under this act. When we think of some of the stories we've read in the press, we need to give these tools to the people we expect to protect animals.

I also believe very strongly that giving powers to the court if someone is found to have contravened the act, giving a court the ability as a condition to prohibit future ownership of animals, is very important, because when we look at what happens with these kinds of abuse situations, what we really see are people who are prepared to exercise power and control over another creature in a way that harms that creature. That unfortunately, as we know, is often learned behaviour and it is often behaviour that is very difficult for the perpetrator to recognize as not being acceptable behaviour.

As with child abuse, as with wife assault, as with sexual assault, we hear accused perpetrators of abuse of animals making excuses for their behaviour when they are charged with an offence. We hear them talking about, first of all, how they own the animal. The animal belongs to them and it's their right to act in any way towards the animal. We hear them talking quite clearly about not seeing the animal as having feelings or having rights to humane treatment.

When that happens, although a person may be convicted of that offence, the fear always is that the person will go out and simply acquire another animal in some way. We know that there are many homeless animals, there are many animals whose owners may not be able to care for them, who may not take the care to ensure that someone is an appropriate owner in the way that humane societies do.

I have a friend who says that now applying for adopting an animal is really quite an experience because you have to show why you want the animal and what the living circumstances are going to be and what your experience is with animals in order to show that you're sincere in your desire to care for an animal in an appropriate way.

I think it will be a great relief to those who are engaged in the care and protection of animals to know that if someone has been cruel to an animal, the court would under this act have the ability to prohibit them from owning an animal in the future. Obviously time periods are going to be a discretionary issue in terms of what has actually happened, but I think for most of us we would be very relieved to know that that would be true.

For me, I must say that having corporations guilty of an offence under cruelty to animals will ease some of the pressure that people have. Of course that definition of what is cruel and what isn't cruel will continue to be contentious, but I think that as we change and develop the way in which we care for animals who are mostly in a corporate farming situation but not always -- it could be a horse-raising operation which is not a farming operation but a racing operation -- there are many different ways in which we might see corporate raising.

Then there are the puppy farms. I think perhaps one of the things this might deal with are people who run these operations with little regard for good breeding practices and for good care and raising of puppies. We know there have been very serious problems in terms of the expectation that people have of these operations being ethical and having good standards and finding that a puppy bought in those circumstances very often is ailing, has not had the kind of care that it needs. This would make it possible for those who are concerned about those operations to take some action.

I think having fines set out is important, although always we need to be really aware that the actual bringing to public attention of cruelty is probably as important as any fine that is brought to bear.

I don't know about most of the members here, but I often say I can't imagine what life is like for people who don't enjoy pets. I've had pets all my life and know that it can be a very fulfilling and rewarding experience to have a friend who lives with you, who is an intelligent and loving companion through good times and bad.

I think the fact that so many of our long-term-care operations are moving to do pet therapy with some of their residents and making sure that those who are incarcerated in institutions because of ill health and who may not have their own pets any more at least have the opportunity to enjoy the company of those pets and get the comfort of the pets of other people tells us that we're beginning to recognize how important our animals are to our mental health. We all know that when people pat a cat or a dog they love, their blood pressure tends to go down, and certainly in this place we all know that anything that reduces our blood pressure would be a good thing.

I think any assurance we have that those of us who love and rely on our pets can be sure that other animals are being cared for in a humane way will be of great comfort to us.

I would like to say a little bit about the wonderful work that's done by humane societies across the province. In my family, for the most part, all of our pets have come from animal shelters, from humane societies. We have had a series of amazing animals who have added so much to our lives, many of whom were abused before they came into our care.

Certainly two of the dogs we had were dogs who when they came to us cringed every time anybody raised their voice a little bit, were afraid to go through doorways, obviously having been kicked as they tried to go through doorways, had difficulty accepting the kind of love that we were prepared to give because that had not been their experience in their life.

I now have a wonderful cat who lives with me when I'm in Toronto and travels back and forth with me who equally was able to come into the shelter of a humane society because her family discovered that the third child in their family had allergies. This cat was fortunate to have a loving home, but a home that could no longer accommodate her. I am very grateful that the humane society was there, able to arrange an adoption and to give comfort to that family that that animal was going to have a good home.

I think all of us have experience with those kinds of stories and know that any tools that we can give the fine men and women in our province who dedicate their lives as volunteers or as full-time employees to the protection of animals is to our credit.

Having this bill, I sincerely hope, will give some publicity to those fine efforts, that it will encourage people to dedicate themselves again to ensuring that we are assuming our responsibility as citizens in this province and ensuring that the animals whom we share this earth with in our communities have a life that is free of the kind of cruelty, the kind of abuse, the kind of neglect that we so often hear about happening. It's our responsibility to assist the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals by reporting those.

All of us as members know that as we go around and canvass, we meet many animals, we see the conditions in which they live, and we need to be accepting our responsibility to ensure that those animals are cared for as well.

Mr Turnbull: I'm delighted to support this bill brought by my colleague the member for St Andrew-St Patrick. In listening to her explanation about this bill both before today and today, I know how strongly she feels about animals. Also listening to the excellent debate from my colleague the member for London Centre, I can tell by the way she speaks about animals that she feels as passionately and deeply as I do about animals.

I'm disappointed when we have partisan shots creeping into the debate, as we heard from the Liberals.

I want to concentrate on the elements of this bill. As has been mentioned, this bill does not change the definition of cruelty, and indeed there are some people who believe that perhaps we should revisit the definition of cruelty. There is a spectrum of views ranging from people who believe there should be no testing on animals whatsoever to people who agree with the present set of rules. But what this bill endeavours to do is to put teeth into the ability of the officers of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to enforce their orders.

I want to just spend a moment and salute all the people who have come here who are involved with stopping cruelty to animals. Many of you, I know, are not paid, you are volunteers, and that is that extra effort which I think everybody owes a great debt of gratitude to, the fact that you spend that time on a very worthwhile venture. There are many ventures -- preventing cruelty to children, preventing cruelty in any form in this world -- and I think that is something that hopefully everybody would agree to.

Obviously in society we have some people who don't understand fully what cruelty truly means, and this is something we have to address. We have to be able to stop in a meaningful way those people who are abusing animals, and fines seem to be one of the way that perhaps we can address this.

The key elements of this bill are that, first, it imposes a fine of up to $5,000 for a person and up to $10,000 for a corporation that is guilty of obstructing an officer of the OSPCA or an agent of the society. That means that if an inspector goes to a door and wants to inspect the premises to see if the animal is being abused and they are turned away, abused in any way, if they are subjected to verbal abuse, the person giving that abuse can in fact be fined. I think that will serve as a chill against many of the people who would otherwise try to obstruct the inspection of the premises.

It also has fines for compliance. If after an order is issued to ensure that an animal is properly looked after, those orders are not complied with, once again a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual and up to $10,000 for a corporation can be imposed.

Finally, it allows for the prohibition of that person who has been guilty of an offence to own an animal for a period which can be prescribed by the courts. It may be indefinite, it may be a lifetime prohibition, or it may be a temporary prohibition. If somebody is temporarily incapacitated but doesn't realize their incapacity to be able to care for an animal, then indeed this addresses it. No one should feel threatened by the terms of this bill because of the fact that it doesn't change the definition of cruelty. All it does is ensure that those

definitions are enforced.

I'm delighted to support my colleague and I congratulate her for bringing this bill.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): It's a pleasure to join in the debate as well on what I consider a very important bill that's received a lot of interest in the riding of Niagara South. I want to thank off the top Jack Slibar and Leane Wong from the Toronto Humane Society, who came all the way down from Toronto to Fort Erie and to St Catharines to talk about this bill, to meet the OSPCA employees in that area, whom I think they've already met before, but at the same time to do a little bit of announcement on this bill so that the public know how we're reacting in this area.

It's important to me too, because I remember quite well about a year ago, and some people have mentioned it already, when Holly the dog was dragged behind a car somewhere north of Toronto for some distance and was injured. Interestingly, the number of calls we received to the office was one of the largest numbers of calls we've had on any issue that wasn't riding-specific. That sort of twigged my mind a bit to say that this should be investigated.

My hat is off too to my colleague from St Andrew-St Patrick, Ms Bassett, for acting on this issue. I think it's shown a great deal of foresight in approaching this. To her credit as well, my understanding is that not since 1919 has this act been substantially altered -- improved is a better way of putting it. When Jack and Leane came down to Niagara, you could see that the humane society inspectors -- we met with some of the board members -- were very excited that finally after years of waiting in anticipation, this bill would finally be enhanced.

It's a bit of a pun, but the expression is, "Put some teeth into the bill," basically to give the inspectors the wherewithal to carry out their duties.

Great work, to the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, and I hope this bill, when referred to committee, will find that time to find its way through the House and become law as soon as possible.

Interesting too, I think, because this bill does cross partisan lines, and often in this House there's a temptation to take partisan shots on issues. But I found this to be very widespread in support. It's not a Conservative matter, a Liberal matter, an NDP matter; it goes beyond that.

When we start a petition drive in Niagara to support this bill and to try to get the allocated time necessary to get it into law, I think we'll find that a large number of constituents who don't usually get involved in politics -- they say only a small number actually pay close attention to particular governments or how they're doing. I think we'll see very broad-based support for this bill and I plan on keeping them informed on how it progresses through the House and how the debate went today.

I'd like to say too that I appreciate the member for London Centre -- I always enjoy her comments -- who spoke to the importance of having a pet and the feeling that can convey. Ownership of a pet is a joy. It's good to have that dog or that friendly cat to welcome you home at the end of a long day or a difficult day or whatever kind of day you had. But ownership does come with its own responsibility; it's not a right. When that responsibility is abused, when that responsibility is wielded with any kind of cruelty, I believe that should not go without a quick and decisive response on that animal's behalf.

What this Bill 153 will do is allow the inspectors to act much more quickly and decisively to make sure their orders are complied with in a timely manner. If not, there is a series of fines set up and, important too, a prohibition on ownership, whether it's going through the courts, prohibition for that time, or even afterwards, an order from the justice to ban somebody from owning a pet for up to a lifetime.

In discussing this with the people of Niagara South, I found that this had a great deal of support. Of the 20 or more people I've talked to in this week alone on this bill, only one individual didn't remember the incident with Holly behind the car. After only a couple of years in government, that's the first time I can think of an issue that had that kind of resonance, that again, outside of the riding, people remembered a particular incident and would like to see action taken so that it doesn't happen again, or at least a very strong deterrent effect so there could be a quick and decisive response to those kinds of actions.

I would like to read into the record, as I'm running out of time, some responses from humane society inspectors in Niagara.

The first is Frank Hampson from the Lincoln County Humane Society. It says, "...providing an inspector or agent with these recommended additional powers will allow us to provide much greater protection for animals." He's "looking forward to the passing of these much-needed amendments."

Roy Pastorius, the manager of the Fort Erie SPCA, says:

"The Fort Erie SPCA fully endorses the changes to the SPCA act, which brings us as a society in line with the 20th century. The changes that are proposed will enable us to act more efficiently to protect and prevent animals from neglect and abuse."

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired.

Ms Bassett: First of all, I want to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the House for your support of this bill. I want to point out, as the members for St Catharines and Niagara South, my colleague just now, said, how great it is -- maybe it happens more than in just private member's bill time, but it's wonderful to have everybody on side for an issue, that we move forward together to make things better.

As my friend and colleague the member for London South pointed out so eloquently, as she always does, and so fairly, her compassion for people and animals, those who can't speak for themselves, rang through clearly. I thank you for your support. I thank you for your speech and I hope that people everywhere read it.

That said, to the member for Kingston and The Islands, I thank you for your support and I want to say firmly that this isn't a case of either/or when you get to children or animals. We're talking, as the member for London South pointed out, for the vulnerable, those who cannot speak for themselves. I feel strongly. My record of looking after and working for, up until now in politics, people who are vulnerable -- children, adults, everyone -- speaks for itself, as I would hope the record of everybody here does.

I want to thank my other colleague from Scarborough West for his support; the Attorney General for his support of this; the member for York Mills, who is an advocate obviously of the humane treatment of animals. Just generally, I think this is a wonderful step forward for us all. As the member for London South said, it is a step. This isn't a panacea. We're not going to see an end to cruelty, but we are moving forward and that's how society does move, step by step. Thank you, everyone, and to the humane society.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I move private member's notice of motion number 69:

(

a) no person is authorized to operate a motor boat or personal watercraft propelled by an engine of more than 10 horsepower on Ontario waterways unless the person has a boater safety certificate issued by the federal crown;

(

b) a person who is the registered owner of a motor boat propelled by an engine of more than 10 horsepower immediately before the bill comes into force shall not be subject to the restriction described in clause (

a) until three years after the bill comes into force;

(

c) a person shall be required to pass a test in the safe operation of motor boats and personal watercrafts in order to obtain a boater safety certificate;

(

d) no person under 12 years of age is eligible to apply for a boater safety certificate;

(

e) the Ontario Provincial Police shall have the right to suspend or revoke a boater safety certificate if they have reasonable or probable grounds to suspect that a person is contravening the bill;

(

f) the bill includes offences for the dangerous operation of motor boats including personal watercrafts such as,

(

i) operating a motor boat or personal watercraft while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and

(ii) operating a motor boat or personal watercraft in a manner that endangers persons or property.

Today marks the fifth time in my 16 years of service in this Legislature that I have stood in this Legislature advocating boater safety in Ontario. For the sake of those families who are living with injuries or loss of life because of boating accidents, I refuse to give up. I not only believe boater safety certification will reduce horrible accidents, I know that it will.

In 1989, when the Liberals were in government, I introduced and received first reading of private member's Bill 8, entitled

An Act to provide for Licensing of Motor Boat Operators. This bill died on the order papers when the election was called.

I then reintroduced the bill under the NDP government but it was killed when the government sent it to committee of the whole after second reading, rather than the standing committee of the Legislature, as I requested.

The bill was brought forward again and received first and second reading, only to suffer the same fate before going to the committee of the whole. The fourth time, the safe boating bill was brought forward prior to the 1995 election, and again it died. However, from this effort a joint provincial-federal committee was formed to study the matter, and I personally attended some of the public meetings which were held throughout the province. My disappointment in the outcome of this joint group is that they gathered plenty of information and as yet we have seen no implementation.

In June 1995, the Joint Ontario/Transport Canada Working Group on Recreational Boating Safety filed their report. In their

summary of discussion, two thirds of their general principles and assumptions were devoted to the direction of revenues from licensing. I find this disturbing, since licensing is not the issue of safe boating. Learning safety on our waterways was the intention of my bills and is the intention of this resolution.

I am encouraged by the fact that through my efforts over the past nine years a National Recreational Boating Advisory Council has been formed. There are two levels of this advisory council. One deals with boating safety nationally, while the other level deals with boating safety provincially. Both the national and regional advisory councils are made up of members from the marine industry, users, municipalities, law enforcement and public health and safety groups.

The licence plating of personal watercrafts and pleasure boats comes under the small vessel regulations in

section 108 of the Canada Shipping Act. This is not new. It is simply the requirement of registering a motorized watercraft and displaying a licence number on the vessel. This act requires all vessels with an engine of 10 horsepower or more to be licensed. Personal watercrafts such as jet-skis and wave runners fall within this category.

The problem is, the Canada Shipping Act requires no experience or education prior to use or rental of boats and personal watercrafts. It is the inexperienced and uneducated operator who is causing accidental injury and death on our waterways. The public has expressed concern, and I am concerned, about the operation of speedboats and personal watercrafts by untrained operators who ignore or who are simply ignorant of the marine rules of the road.

In a brief submitted by the joint working group on boating safety, the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association supported option number three in the final report. That option called for mandatory education training for power vessel operators, which means that all persons operating a power-driven vessel, including personal watercrafts, would be required to complete an approved basic course on boating safety. Participants would be issued a course completion certificate and a governing body would vet the course. This is exactly what I've been working for all these years.

The state of Alabama passed legislation in 1994 requiring education and mandatory operator's certification in honour of the victims and families of boating accidents. I feel the federal government's inaction to this date is a disappointment for all Ontarians.

I understand the Canadian Coast Guard and marine educators have completed their development of a core curriculum for a boating safety course. I'll repeat that: I understand the Canadian Coast Guard and marine educators have completed their development of a core curriculum for a boating safety course. The next step is to accredit the course for the various marine educators. With this, instructors will also require accreditation. When this is complete, the next step will be to establish whom it will apply to and when it will happen.

Parliamentary changes to the Canada Shipping Act have been estimated at two years away. In my opinion, that is too long to wait. I think we need action now to bring greater safety to our pleasure boating.

Last year,

an act to amend the Contraventions Act was passed. This simply allowed provincial enforcement officers to ticket boating offences such as speeding near shore or not having enough life jackets. Many water skiers do go too close to shore. I know, as a boater myself, the OPP and various police forces are working very hard enforcing the current limited pleasure craft laws. These laws are simply not enough. I have been saying this for nine years.

Low standards for boat operation have raised the issue of operator licensing from the public and from a number of coroner's jury inquests, some of which I personally attended. With the ever-increasing number of small watercrafts in the marketplace, the argument for safe boating education gets greater.

Questions are also surfacing concerning the minimum age requirement to operate power boats. In a recent news article, a couple of kayakers wrote: "My partner and I often find ourselves placed in mortal danger by boaters and personal watercraft operators who ignore the basic rules of water safety and rights of way. Several close misses have forced us to relegate our paddling activity to the relative peace and quiet of the early morning hours when the only boaters on the lake are anglers, whose interest is in catching fish."

I believe the people in this province want action now, not two years from now. Just last month, an interested constituent of mine, Richard Crowder, brought this book into my office. He's just one of the many constituents who has ideas on how to teach boat safety in Ontario. He has a large boat launch publication which is entitled, How We Can Teach Safe Boating to Ontarians. He recently published a book entitled, Handbook of Boating Essentials. It is a fine example of people working to make a difference. We also have the Pro Boat Manual, which is a manual that was put out by the Canadian Coast Guard.

Sandy Currie from the Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association is promoting that. It's also an excellent manual. I understand that Mr Crowder's book is now being used as a teaching text at Georgian College. It covers the marine rules of the road, dealing with boat handling, being prepared and basic navigation.

Again, I stress nobody wants to cause or be involved in a boating accident, and learning the rules of boating safety can and will prevent tragedies. So I'm standing before you today asking for your support for this resolution. I understand that we're asking another level of government to do something, but I have been here nine years introducing legislation to try to make something happen in Ontario. Once that happens, the Canadian Coast Guard, the provincial Ministry of Transportation and the federal Department of Transportation can get together to try and resolve the issue that's before us.

The way I can see that it can be resolved is with this amendment to the small vessel regulation under the federal legislation. If somebody speaking here today can tell me how we can have some legislation from Ontario to do it, I'd like to know how that's done or how we can do it. I think this is the simplest way to get boater safety and education.

The Canadian Coast Guard and the federal Department of Transportation cannot afford to wait any longer for changes to the Canada Shipping Act. As caring Canadians, Ontarians in this Legislature must push the government to bring in amendments to the Canada Shipping Act prior to another major boating season.

When we look at the regulations that have been talked about, water safety is long overdue. "We need mandatory boater training, operator age restrictions and enforceable safety rules, and we need them now." This is an editorial from the Orillia Packet and Times.

We anxiously await the recommendations that will come out this fall from the coast guard and recreational boating advisory councils. They had 75 meetings across the province and I'm hoping that responsible boaters will take the initiative to get training before mandatory education is put in place. They can take the course through the Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons. I would urge anybody who's on the waterway to do that for their own safety and for the others who they're dealing with on the water.

The rules that are in place now are voluntary. I don't believe voluntary rules will work for anyone. We need action and we need it now.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Kiyoshi Hagiwara and Mr Yoshiyuki Terashima from the Nagano Prefecture Office in Japan. Please join me in welcoming our guests today.

Further debate?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's a pleasure for me to have the opportunity this morning to say a few words with regard to this resolution.

At the outset, I want to point out that recreational boating is carried out all over Ontario, but where I come from, in Essex South, we of course are surrounded on three sides by water, bounded by Lake St Clair, the Detroit River and Lake Erie, and while I always hesitate to say that we have the most of anything or the greatest amount of anything, certainly among areas in Ontario or in North America for that matter we have one of the largest concentrations of recreational water vehicles of anywhere. Most of those come from the United States.

There are a number of marinas that are on Lake St Clair, Belle River, Windsor; on Lake Erie we have marinas in Leamington, Kingsville, Colchester. There are a number of facilities that invite the recreational boater into our communities, and certainly the tourism aspect is of great importance.

When we think about water safety, I understand the reason that the member for Simcoe East has brought this resolution forward and in fact, as he has said, has been trying over the years to promote water safety. We -- I, the caucus and, I suggest, most of us in this Legislature -- want to do everything we can to promote water safety in the province. Certainly we should encourage whatever we can do to have voluntary regulations followed or voluntary compliance followed, water safety courses, those kinds of things. In fact there are a number of boating groups, associations that give free courses in water safety, and we should encourage that type of activity.

This resolution of course, because it necessarily has to, calls on the federal government to amend the Canada Shipping Act as it relates to small vessel regulations, because the federal government, has authority and jurisdiction over our waterways. As I look at the resolution, it has some points that I think all of us should be in favour of and I want to speak to those. For example, it's suggested that a bill should include "offences for the dangerous operation of motor boats including personal watercrafts, such as operating a motor boat or personal watercraft while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs."

I suggest, although I'm not familiar with the specific laws, that the Ontario Provincial Police who operate a boat out of the Leamington marina, for example, and the Leamington police services within the harbour area can enforce regulations that would ticket and fine those who would drive a personal watercraft or a motor boat while under the influence. "Operating a motor boat or personal watercraft in a manner that endangers persons or property." I think that's an excellent point.

I'll concentrate for a few minutes on personal watercraft because it seems as though personal watercraft operation is the main focus of the complaints that I get in my office. When I was mayor of Leamington, in relation to the operation of the marina and the harbour and the swimming areas at the beach, it was certainly the operation of personal watercraft that seemed to occur the most, and there are more and more of them all the time. Again, anything we can do to encourage the safe operation of personal watercraft is something that we all should do.

The problem that I see -- and certainly we want to support the idea of water safety, and I perhaps am looking for some direction the same as the member for Simcoe East -- is how we can best go about it, how we can best improve water safety, and yet do it in a way that is reasonable and enforceable. Although I support the idea of water safety, the problem with the resolution as I see it, and therefore I'll have difficulty supporting the resolution by way of a vote, is that under

section (a), without any reservation, it says, "No person is authorized to operate a motor boat or personal watercraft propelled by an engine of more than 10 horsepower on Ontario waterways unless the person has a boater safety certificate issued by the federal crown."

That then raises in my area the tens of thousands of American boaters who visit our marinas. How are we possibly going to handle what I think might be a bureaucratic nightmare, to issue certificates from the federal crown? When someone from outside the province of Ontario or the Dominion of Canada operates a motor vehicle on our highways, for example, they have to have a licence. We have no jurisdiction over how that licence was issued or what kind of test they had to take. If you have a driver's licence from the state of Michigan, you can drive on an Ontario highway.

That's all handled by the jurisdiction from which they come. But how we could possibly have the federal government issue boater safety certificates to the visitors who come to Ontario, I frankly would be interested to hear a suggestion on how that could happen.

Although the idea is certainly supportable, it's difficult to support the resolution in the form that it's in place here today. I don't necessarily want to see the member for Simcoe East fail again in his attempt to improve water safety in Ontario, but when the member has an opportunity to reply, if he can give us some idea of how this boater safety certificate will be issued by the federal crown, I would be interested to hear it.

If there can be the encouragement to individuals operating water vehicles over 10 horsepower to take boater safety courses, I think that's something we should support. If the provincial government wanted to set up boater safety courses around the province in those areas where there is a concentration of boaters, I think that would be a step in the right direction. But to put bureaucratic process roadblocks in the way -- I think of the words "red tape." We have in the last couple of years heard a great deal about the red tape the government puts us through. Some may consider this to be a red tape nightmare.

Not only to ask and require that all boaters who live in Ontario have a boater safety certificate but to somehow require that all the visitors who come to the province have a boater safety certificate I think is a bit beyond what we might be able to handle.

I will reiterate, and then conclude my remarks, that any authority we can give to our enforcement services, ie, the OPP, the RCMP, our local police forces, where they can issue offences for the dangerous operation of motor boats and/or personal watercraft, I certainly support. In absolutely no way, shape or form should anyone be able to operate a watercraft while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, nor should they be allowed in any way to operate a water vessel in a dangerous way. But to require everyone to have a boater safety certificate issued by the federal crown I think is a very, very difficult task. For that reason alone, I will be unable to support this particular resolution.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I want to have an opportunity this morning to speak to this resolution as well. I want to congratulate the member for Simcoe East, because he has been extremely consistent. Indeed, one might almost call this a crusade he has had since he was elected to this Legislature. I know he is absolutely sincere in wanting to ensure that the mayhem that occurs on our waterways ends and that we have a much safer situation. So I want to say to him that his persistence is very important.

I think he understands -- certainly, when I was Attorney General, I had occasion to discuss this matter with him -- how very complex the jurisdictional issues really are here. That is one of the real roadblocks that we see to the kind of progress he wants.

If an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act were to be passed requiring these things that he's suggesting, they would be required all over Canada, no matter whether we were talking about a high-density population or a low-density population, no matter whether we were talking about parts of our country where access is only by watercraft and anyone who can't or isn't able to operate a watercraft would be unable to have the kind of access they need to services or safety kinds of things.

We've discussed the problem for the federal government of simply requiring this kind of certificate all across the country. I have to say very frankly -- and I'm saying this for myself; I'm glad this is private members' hour -- just as I believe having safety certificates for owning a firearm is essential, I believe certificates for operating a watercraft are essential. I need to be very clear that I think the training and safety for driving any kind of watercraft over 10 horsepower is as much a responsibility of the provincial government as operating a motor vehicle of another kind.

Certainly we've had these discussions around all-terrain vehicles, we've had these discussions around snowmobiles. It is my belief that this is as serious as any of those other motorized vehicles. It has always been a puzzle to me that while we accept our jurisdiction around motorized vehicles on highways, on snowmobile trails, even off-road travel, we appear to have some difficulty working out with the federal government a way that we can assume the enforcement powers under their jurisdiction on the waterways.

Having said that, I would also say to the member that the people who oppose firearm safety certificates are the same people who are going to oppose this. We are going to hear people who've been running boats and fishing for years and years saying exactly the same thing: "I've been doing it safely for years and I shouldn't now have to apply for a safety certificate." It's exactly the same argument that we hear hunters and anglers and farmers using all across this province in their opposition to firearm safety certificates. That's a very strong belief on the part of those folks.

I would say to the member that I think politically he would need to expect exactly the same kind of opposition to this kind of safety.

I would support him for exactly the same reason that I support the gun control situation. I think it's ironic that people accept the registration of motor vehicles and watercraft but are having a hard time accepting the registration of firearms. I believe all of these things need to be looked at in the same way. It is not a right to drive a car or to operate a motorized watercraft or to own a firearm. All those are things that as a society we ought to be controlling. We ought to be ensuring that those who are using those vehicles or using those implements have the training to make sure that they are using them safely. I see it all in the same kind of way.

I think the member knows that I have been an advocate of ensuring that, within the jurisdiction that the province of Ontario does have, we take this whole issue of water safety much more seriously. It does involve resources. One of the real problems that the Ontario Provincial Police have, for example, in enforcing some of the rules that we have is that they need the resources to have sufficient watercraft, to have sufficient personnel to do the kind of supervisory job that would be required to really do the job properly.

That would be true of municipal police forces, municipal police services, where they in fact are in charge of the safety of a harbour, as we know is the case in Metropolitan Toronto around the harbour police.

I think one of the issues that has frustrated the member more than anything else has been the clear reluctance to really do an examination of what kind of resources would be needed to apply this kind of a job properly. Certainly, when I was Attorney General, I knew that those data were missing. We weren't getting the kind of information we needed about how you would actually enforce this kind of regulation.

I think it's also true that when we look at what has been happening, as the member from Essex said, the issue of personal watercraft has made this extremely urgent for all of us who have any kind of experience in living on a shoreline. We know that the style of boating has changed quite remarkably over the last 15 years, and even in the last five years. Boats have higher horsepower. They are lighter and more easily managed and, therefore, we see people using higher speeds and more manoeuvrability in a way that can be very dangerous.

But the personal watercraft issue, the Jet Ski kind of craft, is certainly the one that seems most unregulated, most inexperienced people. Most of us will sit with our hearts in our mouths at most beaches watching people come close to swimmers, to sailboats, to canoes, to kayaks, as the member suggested. In fact, our fear is as much for the person on the Jet Ski as it is for those other people who might be injured, because at that kind of speed, when those craft go out of control, the person who's in charge of that craft is in as much danger as many other people, and I think that's a real fear.

I know from my perspective, I am not a motorboat enthusiast, so I express my bias right off the bat. I love canoeing, I love sailing, but I am not fond of motorized watercraft. In fact, when we chose our cottage, we chose a location where, because of the rock formation, we knew that our swimming area and our beachfront were going to be protected from that kind of activity, because it simply is obviously dangerous enough that you don't get that kind of water traffic near our place. But a very short distance away, there's a large public beach and the whole issue that the member is raising has become more and more an issue in that area.

I think you know that we want to ensure that we are encouraging people simply to fulfil their obligations as citizens to themselves and to other citizens, that this is not an onerous suggestion that this member is making. This member is saying, for the safety of the person using the watercraft and for the safety of all the other people who might come in contact with that watercraft, we need some assurance that the people who are operating the vehicle actually know what they're doing, know what to do if certain situations occur, and in fact have some way of maintaining themselves should there be an accident.

I guess the enormity, when we think of the kind of water coverage that we have and the kind of space across the whole country -- because of course the member is suggesting that the federal government take this on -- and the number of people who routinely use motorboats as their only means of transportation, many times as their only means of maintaining themselves and their families economically, that certainly is one of the reasons the member has not seen a lot of support across the country for this, because the resistance is very strong in communities where people's way of life has been that children as small as five or six routinely take the boat.

That happens, we know it happens in many of our communities, and I think the member underestimates the kind of pressure that would be on the government.

I am always nervous when we pass a resolution in this place that calls upon another level of government to do something that is going to cost that level of government a fair bit of money. The resolution suggests that the certificate be issued by the federal crown. In any other licensing situation -- firearms, the boats themselves, the drivers' licences, vehicle licences -- those are all issued by the province. When the member suggests that these be issued by the federal government, we have to really understand that we get into a jurisdictional morass at that point with these regulations and how we work a situation between the federal and provincial government.

When it comes to the bottom line, the province is going to have to be responsible for enforcement. Enforcement is going to be a provincial responsibility and the member recognizes that in his part (e), where he talks about the Ontario Provincial Police having that responsibility. I would say to him that in and of itself would not be sufficient because of the waterways that are in fact under the control of municipal police services in a growing way. So we are going to be responsible for enforcement.

When we're responsible for enforcement of rules, then we normally have undertaken the training that we're enforcing, when we think of drivers' licences and firearms certificates. We have control over that within a regime that has been agreed upon across the country, so I think that would be necessary.

I would love to hear from the member what his solution is to the problem raised by the member from Essex, because in all of our border communities the watercraft that we encounter certainly may not be driven by residents of Ontario. Those drivers may indeed be residents of another country, as the member from Essex suggested, but they could also be residents of other provinces. I think particularly of that whole long stretch of the Ottawa and French rivers, along the eastern part of our province, all of the Lake of the Woods area in northwestern Ontario. It would be as common to find someone from a neighbouring province as from Ontario in those areas on any of those waterways.

We have a challenge in terms of how the overall safety could be achieved if we were to do this on a provincial basis. Now the member is suggesting it should be done on a federal basis. That would solve our problems with our neighbours to the east and west but it certainly wouldn't help us with our neighbours to the south, and that is a very big problem. When I look at the harbour at Kincardine, for example, or Port Elgin or Southampton, the watercraft there are as likely to be American watercraft as Canadian watercraft, and although the member mentioned that Alabama has recently passed some legislation on this, most haven't.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the resolution put forward today by the member for Simcoe East. I'd like to start by indicating my admiration for the member for Simcoe East and his career-long crusade, as the member for London Centre has said, to raise the profile of the issue of boater safety. Long before I got involved in party politics, I knew of Al McLean and his constant crusade to try to bring to the public's attention the need for greater enforcement of boating issues, particularly to raise in the public's mind the need for all boaters to pay more attention to the rules of boating.

Since I was elected provincially I have had the opportunity to speak on many occasions with the member for Simcoe East. We share a common concern. As the member for Essex South said, throughout Ontario boating is a very popular recreation, but some of our ridings have more boating than others. In my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay, the importance of boating is very significant, not only as a recreational activity but also, with respect to the Georgian Bay area, as a commercial activity.

I have also had the opportunity to boat quite actively with my family, and I have been amazed at the level of ignorance on the part of experienced boating operators. There seems to be some perception in the public that this is a problem for the boater who is 10 to 15 years old. That simply is not the case. If you do any boating at all on the waterways in Ontario, you will recognize that an amazing number of experienced boaters simply are not aware of the kinds of good habits boating requires. It is all too often the case, with the tragedies that occur on the water, that it isn't simply a matter of operator error; it is, more often than not, a matter of operator ignorance.

The mention by the member for Simcoe East of the joint working group on boating safety is an important one. This group was set up to encourage better participation and cooperation between the provincial ministries responsible for issues on the water and the federal ministries responsible for issues on the water. I was able to participate in several sessions in my riding where this working group went around and listened to the public input on how to deal with boating safety issues. Quite frankly, the issues that have been raised by the member for Essex South are very real ones, issues similar to those raised by many people at the joint working group.

I have to say I disagree with the member for London Centre. I don't think this is the same kind of issue as the firearms registration issue.

When I was at the meetings of the joint working group on boating safety, there was a good combination of recreational boaters and commercial operators of marinas. Basically, all the people there had an interest in boating safety. I think everyone who went to the seminars was committed to improving boating safety.

They all had different ideas on how it should be done, but I think there is a recognition and an acceptance on the part of all people in the boating community that there is a need for tools so that the people involved in enforcement can have the opportunity to raise the level of enforcement, but more important, raise the level of understanding on the part of boaters that they need to develop good habits.

In this regard, the cooperation between the provincial government and the federal government in passing the Contraventions Act has been very significant in that it has allowed the police to raise the level of enforcement and simplify the process of ticketing boaters. I note from the statistics that have been provided to me by the OPP that in 1996 there was a significant increase in the number of warnings issued and the number of charges issued to boaters, which I think is something that will gradually lead to improved safety on the water.

While I do have some concerns about some of the practical issues in the resolution, I will unreservedly support the resolution because, as with other ventures that have been undertaken by the member for Simcoe East, this raises the profile of the issue of boating safety, which is of great importance to us all.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I too would like to commend the member for Simcoe East on what some people have said has been his crusade since being elected to the House. But I have to go back to what he has come up with in terms of a solution here. Often we hear the saying that one size does not fit all, and many of the speakers so far today have indicated to him that this is not a solution that would work in an area like Lake of the Woods. Lake of the Woods goes into the United States and actually extends into Manitoba as well. So here we have an unworkable solution being suggested by the member for Simcoe East.

I think of the many American boaters who come into my region. There is one event which has gained recognition throughout North America now, the Kenora-Bath International, which draws between 200 and 210 boats. That's 400 to 420 operators. For us to even suggest that they are going to be faced with red tape to get a licence to operate their boats during the tournament is going beyond what we would want, not only for ourselves in terms of red tape, but putting another stipulation on a tourist coming into a region to participate in such an event.

I would have expected the member to suggest, as he indicated at one point during his opening remarks, that there could be Ontario solutions to the problem. What I suggest to him right now is that enforcement would be a solution. We have OPP who go out on our waterways on a regular basis. I suggest he get hold of the Solicitor General and find out what the cutbacks are doing to those patrols on places like Lake of the Woods, Rainy Lake. What is happening to our enforcement?

We can prohibit the use of any kind of vehicle -- I don't care whether it's a motorboat, an ATV or a snowmobile -- when someone is under the influence of alcohol. The OPP right now have the right to charge a boat operator with the operation of a vehicle under the influence. We already have that. I suggest to the member that we have to take a look at solutions here in Ontario. Talk to the Solicitor General about OPP patrols on our waterways, because they can too reprimand an unsafe operator.

I go back to the fact that one size does not fit all. The member for Simcoe East has suggested that a person under 12 years of age not be allowed to operate any boat with a motor. I have remote communities in northwestern Ontario where children actually go back and forth to school with the use of a motorized boat, and an age restriction of 12 would restrict their capacity to travel back and forth to school. Again, one size does not fit all here. It may be good for southern Ontario, but the member has to take a look at what this would do to situations I have suggested here.

As well, I would like to bring to the member's attention that the big issue in my riding at present is the removal of buoys on the waterways. The federal government has suggested they are going to be asking private organizations to take over the maintenance and location of these buoys. I must say, if any issue is going to take away the safe operation, it will certainly be the removal of the markers we use on our waterways on a daily basis. If these go into disrepair and actually disappear off the waterways, we've got a big problem.

I commend the member on bringing forth the issue of boater safety to the Legislature again, but I certainly cannot support this bill in the way he has brought it forward.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to rise today and speak on the resolution brought forth by Allan K. McLean, the MMP for Simcoe East, dealing with boating safety.

I'd like to bring into the context of the debate some real-life situations. I had a letter from a constituent by the name of Ed Gilbert. He wrote me in August 1997 about his boating experience on Lake Simcoe. That body of water would cover Simcoe East and Simcoe Centre. Some of the unsafe actions that he observed during that period of time were as follows: excessive speeds; coming far too close for safe passage; towing a flotation device without anyone designated to watch the person being towed; children as young as eight or nine operating the craft alone; the person at the wheel holding a beer in their hand; failure to be aware of or give right of way; overcrowding of the craft.

Mr Gilbert poses some very interesting questions. He says, "Over the past few days we hear of yet more deaths resulting from some of the above foolish oversights." He poses his questions to me as his member:

"

(1) Is it because there is no requirement for a test of knowledge of safe boating procedures?

(2) Is it because there is no minimum age for the operation of a vessel?

(3) Is it because there is very little police presence on the water?

(4) Is it due to ignorance or not caring?"

The resolution put forth by the member, Al McLean from Simcoe East, calls on the federal government to act and it answers all of my constituent's concerns.

I'd just like to deal with the jurisdiction issue with respect to boating safety because I think that's one area that the federal government is being very lax on and certainly hasn't taken any responsibility either at the local level or in Ottawa. Some of the facts are that the federal government has exclusive constitutional authority to enact legislation with respect to navigation, for example, to ban certain types of boats, to license operators, to set minimum age requirements or to impose mandatory operator education.

Presently, enforcement is the province's primary role in recreational boating. This responsibility rests primarily with the OPP, although other municipal police authorities are also involved.

In August 1996 Ontario police forces became authorized to issue tickets for boating offences, making it easier to enforce boating laws. The Minister of Transportation has written to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stating the ministry's desire to see the federal government exercise its responsibility to deal with the unsafe operation of boats. He also stated that Ontario is prepared to work with the federal government in this matter.

I'd state that Ontario will continue to work with the federal government and all interested parties to promote boater safety. That's the purpose of this resolution as brought forth by Al McLean, the member for Simcoe East. It's a very commonsense approach to dealing with boater safety. Certainly we recognize our responsibility as a provincial government to deal with the enforcement of the legislation, but we need something to enforce and the federal government is not doing their job with respect to protecting boaters, protecting passengers in boats, with respect to boating in waters, especially in the province of Ontario.

I'd urge the members to support this resolution. It's a commonsense resolution. The concerns that have been put forth by my constituent Ed Gilbert certainly demand that action be taken by the federal government because it's causing injury, it's causing death to innocent bystanders and passengers. Also, I don't think it's the type of approach that a responsible government, an accountable government, should be taking with respect to the health and safety of boaters in this province. I support the member, Al McLean from Simcoe East, in his resolution and I would urge the federal government to take action and do something responsible for a change.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's absolutely delightful to join with the member for Simcoe East in his persistence in trying to get the issue of boating safety on our waterways as a top priority throughout Ontario -- actually, Canada, if the federal government would look at it as a -national priority issue, since the Canadian Coast Guard has exclusive federal jurisdiction over the waterways and boating habits of people using our waterways. I think the member for Simcoe East's resolution is a model of persistence that some of us newer members in this House can adopt for any of our particular issues.

The transportation ministry of Ontario is completely endorsing the member's resolution in terms of trying to get the boater safety certificate in place. Minister Palladini has written on more than one occasion to his federal counterpart to see if we can get some action in this area.

To me, speaking personally, I can't fathom the provincial Liberal Party's position on this when you actually look at the number of deaths and accidents on our waterways provincially. For example, in 1997, as of a week ago last Tuesday, there have been 33 deaths and 1,574 charges laid by the OPP. In the year prior to that, we had 54 deaths and 2,292 charges laid for various types of boating infractions. Translate that into what must have been the number of unfortunate tragedies, fatalities, boating incidents in other jurisdictions across Canada and you can see the momentous necessity of making this an urgent priority.

As to the reservations, and there are concerns about whether the federal crown ought to be the specific registering agency for the educational certificate, I think one of the ways around it -- and it would be interesting to hear from the member for Kenora as to how he sees that a one-fits-all solution isn't the way to approach this issue.

Since there are indications from the federal government that they would like to get on with making federalism more workable, why not look at the jurisdictional problem in terms of the federal government being responsible for the international registration of boaters that come into Ontario, wherever the waterways are in northwestern Ontario or down in southwestern Ontario or out in eastern Ontario, and the provincial authorities being responsible for those aspects of domestic registration?

If you can have interjurisdictional division and devolution of responsibility in other areas, I don't see why this particular issue has to be so insoluble in terms of getting a workable solution. The problem is not whether there is a workable solution versus a non-workable solution but whether there is the political will to actually carry through the member's resolution.

I think, based on constituency mail that I have had on this issue from people who have had family members unfortunately die in boating accidents due to irresponsible boaters, that in itself ought to impel any of us to want to act in resolving this issue instead of simply saying the jurisdictional complexity is an excuse for inaction.

I would urge all members to assist the member for Simcoe East in making sure that his persistence is rewarded with success in the end and that we not allow the problems of jurisdiction to counteract a resolution that would lead to safer boating on Ontario waterways. If we can do it in transportation on our road system and in the skies, I can't see why we can't come to some satisfactory resolution of this urgent problem.

I would urge all members to help us in getting the federal government and the federal members in Ontario to help act in concert on this. This is a good example, a small example of making federalism workable.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Simcoe East.

Mr McLean: I want to thank all members who have participated this morning: Mr Crozier from Essex South, Mrs Boyd from London Centre, Mr Grimmett from Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Mr Miclash from Kenora, Mr Tascona from Simcoe Centre and Mr Hastings from Etobicoke-Rexdale.

I want to comment on some of the comments that were made by the member for Kenora and Mr Crozier. I totally agree with regard to that tourism aspect. I don't want anything in any bill or any legislation that's going to prohibit people from coming here, from fishing and hunting.

I also agree with the member for Kenora with regard to young people on the waterways. I know there are many people who go to a cottage and they have to go and get groceries. They also go to school on the waterways. That age limit that I put in the resolution is debatable. Whatever is satisfactory to the majority I'll agree with. What I'm really after is something in place that's going to stop people from getting on a machine and just going out full blast and killing somebody.

I agree with Mrs Boyd. She raised an excellent point. If the amendment included that, I would be quite happy. That aspect is that perhaps the provincial government should be responsible for issuing the certificate. If that's what they would deem to be appropriate, I would accept that totally. What I am after here is something in place for boater safety, however it's done. I don't know how we're going to end up with it. I've tried many, many different ways. Currently, a 10-year-old can operate a $1-million boat without any approval. I don't agree with that.

I'm saying there should be an education put in place for people who are on our waterways. As Mr Miclash had said with regard to the age limit, whatever it is I agree with.

I thank the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale that the government is in full support. I have a copy of the executive

summary from Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard and it's well worth looking at.

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal first with ballot item 95 standing in the name of Mrs Bassett. Mrs Bassett has moved second reading of Bill 153. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be referred to committee the whole House?

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a majority in favour of the bill being referred to justice? Agreed. The bill shall be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

BOATING SAFETY

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal now with ballot item 96 standing in the name of Mr McLean. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

Those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

It is carried.

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

The House recessed from 1203 to 1332.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MEMBERS OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY CAUCUS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was shocked and alarmed to learn from a newspaper report this week that Conservative MPPs have been told to quit leaking stories to the media or face banishment from the weekly PC caucus meeting. Who could forget the bragging of Mike Harris in the last election that Conservative members would enjoy the right to speak out and defend their constituencies freely?

With Conservative MPP Gary Carr saying, "Mike Harris has got to realize this is a democracy, not a dictatorship," and "What they want is blind obedience," and Toni Skarica stating: "I've tried to stay principled. Because I was principled and tried to follow democratic principles, I have no future in the Harris government" and "MPPs, backbenchers, ministers even, basically have no say. We're basically voting in a dictator every five years," no wonder the Tory hierarchy is getting nervous.

Morley Kells said: "Mr Harris's office simply has power that is absolute. There is no question about that. It is absolute. It is centralized authority, vastly different in terms of any other Tory government." Garry Guzzo said, "Everything isn't fine, if you ask me."

I say this not in glee, I say this with lament, I say this in sadness: My friends in the Conservative caucus are going to be unable to speak out or they'll be banned from the meeting. Whatever would happen if the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore were part of that caucus?

PAY EQUITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I want to take the opportunity today to congratulate the Service Employees International Union, Local 204, and also the Equal Pay Coalition on all the work they have done and their victory on September 5. That is the victory to tell the government they must reinstate pay equity, the proxy method, for 100,000 or so women in Ontario, who are among the lowest-paid and who do very important work and services to our community in terms of child care, homes for the aged and community services.

I direct my comments today in particular to the minister responsible for women's issues. Both my leader and I have asked the Minister of Labour and the Premier to guarantee that they would not appeal this decision. I would ask the minister responsible for women's issues today to please do everything she can, in her role, to convince the Minister of Labour and the Premier not to appeal this decision.

I would also ask the minister to take a good look at the provisions in Bill 136. Not many people are talking about it but there are three amendments within Bill 136 that also undermine and cut pay equity for certain women. Again, like the decision from a few days ago, it could be illegal and it's certainly unfair to strip away equal pay for these women.

FALL FAIRS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): If there is one thing people in my home riding of Northumberland know how to do with finesse it is to celebrate the joys of country life. Whether it's enjoying the beauty of our orchards of apple blossoms in the spring or tasting the bounty of the harvest in the fall, Northumberland has something for everyone. Nowhere is this more evident than in the tradition of fall fairs now being planned and celebrated across the riding.

For instance, this weekend Port Hope holds its annual fall fair at the Port Hope fairgrounds; and at the Warkworth fairgrounds the Percy fall fair is also celebrated this weekend. These two events follow hot on the heels of the Warkworth fair celebrated last weekend and the Campbellford fair held in August of every year.

That's not all. On September 26, the Brighton Applefest begins in Brighton and on the same weekend the Roseneath fair with its famous 19th-century restored carousel also takes place. That gives tourists a twofold reason to visit Northumberland on that weekend.

It is with great pleasure that I invite members of this House and indeed people from across southern Ontario to visit Northumberland this fall. I guarantee you will be in for a taste of what makes Ontario such a great destination.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): "Downloading Packs Tax Wallop." That's what the city of Sudbury says. On Tuesday night the city of Sudbury's director of finance presented some startling numbers to city council. After crunching the latest numbers, it appears that there will be a municipal tax increase exceeding a whopping 8%. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines is across the way. I hope he's listening. That's what the experts of the municipality are saying: whopping tax increases of 8%.

What is of even greater importance is that Councillor Dow said the human impact of this type of tax increase will allow for slums in the city of Sudbury. This is frightening. After downloading health and welfare, after cutting transfer payments, after taking away education tax funds, the municipal affairs minister expects the city of Sudbury to cut its budget by 2.3% after the city has been debt-free for eight years, after there hasn't been a tax increase for six years, after they've cut $2.5 million in services, after they've increased user fees by $500,000, after $4 million of service, efficiencies and cutbacks.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I'm telling you: Wake up; smell the roses; listen to your experts, the municipal politicians.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On September 4 the council of the regional municipality of Sudbury passed a resolution asking this government to amend the legislation to provide for the direct election of the regional chair. It is a measure of the respect held for the current chair, Tom Davies, the regional council would not have requested that the regional chair be directly elected had Mr Davies decided to stand for election by council.

Unfortunately, Mr Davies is ill and cannot serve another term. At a time when municipalities are going through very difficult times, his leadership will be sorely missed, not just by regional council but by the entire Sudbury basin. Tom Davies has served the people of the Sudbury basin remarkably well. He seemed to have an unerring instinct about the role of a regional chair. He never tried to elbow aside the regional mayors or councillors. He worked with the council as well as with federal and provincial members of Parliament regardless of party affiliation.

I recall that when I was first elected to this Legislature many years ago, Tom was very, very kind to me. At a time when MPPs had no constituency office, he provided me with an office, a desk and a telephone in a municipal building, and I have never ever forgotten that.

Now regional council has requested that the regional chair be directly elected in this fall's municipal election. I hope that the minister will allow that to happen by bringing forward the appropriate legislation at the appropriate time.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I am very pleased to share with members of the House some more good news from my riding of Durham East. Last week a midblock school crossing signal was installed at a pedestrians' crosswalk on Highway 7A in Port Perry. Our government worked together with the community to ensure the safety of the children who must daily cross a busy

section of a provincial highway.

For over a decade, concerned parents whose children attend R.H. Cornish Public School and Immaculate Conception Separate School in Port Perry asked the government to assist in the construction of a midblock signalized crossing. The safety of their children was foremost in their minds when they made these requests.

Several years ago, at this very location, a student was killed and a crossing guard seriously injured by a motorist, as there are numerous accidents every year. As the school crossing is situated on a highway, it was necessary to approach the Minister of Transportation for assistance. Minister Palladini was most anxious to help resolve this safety concern for our children. There was a three-way partnership formed, including the MTO, municipality of Scugog and the parents' association.

I would like to thank Minister Palladini, Barry Smith of MTO, Diane Martin, chairperson of the parents fund-raising committee, Mayor Howard Hall and Councillor Pearce of the municipality of Scugog, all of whom contributed to make this a success. By working together with the school community in Port Perry, we have solved a long-standing safety problem.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): As you know, this week we celebrated International Literacy Day, a day meant to draw attention to the vital importance of learning opportunities for all people. In a sad irony lost on Mike Harris, this is also the week his government went ahead with Bill 109, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, a bill that will bring irreparable harm and reduce services to Ontario's four million public library users.

This government must pay attention. The health of our library system, especially in this information age, is very much a reflection of how healthy we are as a society. This government's decision to remove itself from all funding responsibility for our public libraries will mean a reduced number of libraries, smaller collections, reduced hours, fewer staff, and in the case of many rural and northern Ontario communities, it will mean closed doors.

Does the Premier not realize that even in the province of Alberta, home to his friend Ralph Klein, an all-party legislative committee is now recommending that more money must be put back into the public library system? In addition, they have recommended maintaining citizen-majority library boards, two things Bill 109 will eliminate in this province.

I also want to join with my colleague from Dovercourt in calling on the government to formally recognize the unique role of the Metro Toronto Reference Library through needed amendments to Bill 148. The Metro reference library is an extraordinarily important resource to all the people of Ontario and its governance structure must be protected. If the culture minister truly supports this provincial resource as she says she does, then she has it in her power to guarantee its future.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yet again yesterday we had a very interesting day on the legislative committee that is looking at the question of what is to happen with the Workers' Compensation Act. We spent the greater part of the day debating the issue of the purpose clause. As most members of this assembly would know, the purpose clause is what guides how the rest of the legislation really is intended to operate once put into force.

Specifically, the government has decided to delete the word "fair" from the purpose clause of the Workers' Compensation Act. They believe that "fair" is something that doesn't belong in the current act and that the adjudicators and hearings officers should only deal with technical issues rather than worrying about the fairness of the issue for both employers and injured workers.

What was interesting yesterday was the government's position. The government again demonstrated that on most issues, they are quite contrary to when it comes to particular --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, I know that the member across doesn't want to give workers any kind of fairness, but allow --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: I heard everything in the committee yesterday, but the one that took the cake was when the government argued that inserting the word "fair" in the purpose clause of the Workers' Compensation Act would lead to an injustice.

I've heard many arguments from this government, but for this government to suggest that inserting the word "fair" would be an injustice really means to say they have a problem.

HOEDOWN IN YORK REGION

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Mr Speaker, I'd like to invite you and all members of the House to the social event of the year in my riding this coming Saturday. More than 10 years ago, Magna International founder Frank Stronach started one of my riding's best known and biggest community fund-raising events. It's called the Hoedown and it's held every September in Aurora at the site of Magna's new international headquarters.

It started out as a small local event, drawing about 1,000 people from the area who came out to enjoy good food, dancing and live country music in support of local charities. Today the Hoedown has become York region's largest annual community fund-raiser. The outdoor country fest draws close to 4,000 people from the Aurora area and it continues to support local charities, raising in excess of $100,000 for these community groups. Proceeds this year will go towards supporting causes ranging from the Yellow Brick House women's shelter and the Rose of Sharon home for unwed mothers to the local Big Brothers chapter.

This year's events will feature a barbecue dinner, celebrity auction and casino under a 60,000-square-foot tent stationed outside Magna's new head office. This year's live entertainment features three great Canadian acts: Jason McCoy, Patricia Conroy and the Desert Dolphins. It's a chance for the people in York-Mackenzie to get together with neighbours and friends for some good fun in support of a great cause.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION VOTING RIGHTS ACT (COTTAGERS AND OTHERS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE DROIT DE VOTE LORS DES ÉLECTIONS SCOLAIRES (PROPRIÉTAIRES DE CHALET ET AUTRES)

Mr Snobelen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 158,

An Act to amend the Education Act to allow non-resident owners or tenants of residential property to vote for members of district school boards and school authorities / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en vue de permettre aux propriétaires ou locataires non résidents d'un bien résidentiel de voter lors de l'élection des membres des conseils scolaires de district et des administrations scolaires.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Does the motion carry? Carried.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I have a brief statement to make. I am very pleased to introduce this bill today. The bill will amend the Education Act to allow non-resident owners and tenants of residential or farm properties and their spouses to vote for school board trustees in areas where they own or rent such property.

Since non-residents, farm and residential ratepayers will continue to pay some education property tax, they should be allowed a voice in choosing the trustees responsible for that local government and its decision-making capacity. This bill reflects this government's commitment to work with our municipal partners for better and more efficient local governments, and I hope we can have the support of all party members for this bill.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Speaker: I hope the government House leader would be able, on behalf of his government, to indicate to the Legislature Assembly whether or not, if not the Premier, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or someone is going to speak on behalf of the government of Ontario and the people of this province to indicate what position this province is taking with regard to the meeting this weekend in Calgary. What is the position of the government of Ontario with regard to the future of Canada and the development of a framework for --

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. It may be a question, but it's not a point of order.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud): Monsieur le Président, sur un point d'ordre: J'aimerais demander un consentement unanime pour le leader du gouvernement de faire une déclaration faisant affaire avec la position du gouvernement de l'Ontario en ce qui concerne les discussions constitutionnelles qui vont avoir lieu cette fin de semaine.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is seeking unanimous consent to allow the government House leader to give their position with respect to the issue in Calgary, I suppose. Agreed? No.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): What are you guys afraid of?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): The problem is they get to convey a certain impression and then we get to say nothing.

The Speaker: Order. My difficulty is this, government House leader: I never know what the point of order is until they state it. It's always near the end of their point of order, which is rather tactful on their part, I admit. But the fact is that it's not a point of order. It's not in order. He sought unanimous consent and it isn't there.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, there was a group of uninvited people at your education commission's press conference this morning. They were the parents that your commission didn't take the time to talk to over the summer.

The parents came here today to tell you that they're worried about what they're hearing. They're worried about what's going to happen to their children as you bull ahead, trying to change every part of the education system within the next four months. They say they're worried because you're doing everything you can to cause their teachers to go on strike. They're worried when they hear that some of their teachers won't be real teachers any more. They worry when they hear that class sizes aren't going to get any larger but their kids are already in classes of 38 and 40. Mostly the parents are worried because you still want to take $1 billion out of education.

Minister, when will you let parents tell you what they want for their children?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I note that we've had contact in our office from some parents, both from my riding and from other ridings in the province, who indicated they are very pleased with the report that the Education Improvement Commission put out this morning. They are certainly very supportive of the bulk of that report, which dealt with having our students have more instructional time with teachers in their schools right across Ontario. I think most parents would find that to be an improvement in the education system, would welcome that, because they value that instructional time and so do their children.

Contrary to what the member for Fort William has said, I have heard from parents on this subject. I think parents are very clear that they want to have a quality educational experience for their students, and this is one step in that direction.

Mrs McLeod: The only parents you've been out there talking to are your appointed Ontario Parent Council that clearly doesn't speak for any parents in the province.

Go and talk to People for Education. People for Education says that your government is destabilizing the education system. They're saying: "Slow down. Stop." If you listened to those parents, if you listened to what they have to tell you, they would tell you first and foremost, "Stop the cuts to education."

Your own handpicked commission said to you today that you cannot take money out of the education system. Your commission says, "Reinvest even the $150 million that you're expecting to save by amalgamating school boards."

It's quite clear that you need to take another $1 billion out of education. Your Premier has said that he needs $1 billion for his tax cut, the Minister of Finance has said that he thinks you can save at least $1.3 billion, and this week you made it clear that your goal was to take another $1 billion on top of the half-billion dollars you've already taken out of the classrooms.

Minister, your commissioners today said, "Don't take another $1 billion out of the education budget." Will you follow your commission's advice? Will you give up your agenda of taking another $1 billion away from our schools?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member for Fort William has asked me this question already this week and I have already answered this question, but I will again today for her. The only one in this chamber for whom this seems unclear is her.

My commitment is very simple; the commitment of this government is very simple. We want to direct the resources that we spend in the name of education in ways that make a difference with our students. We want to make sure we have a funding system for our students that meets their needs. Our promise and our commitment is very simple, and that is that we will provide the funds that are necessary to have a first-class education for every student in this province.

The report of the Education Improvement Commission and the reports of the expert panels that will be reporting very soon will help us to build that better funding system. That's our promise; that's our commitment. I intend to be held to account for it.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you told teachers this week that you needed another $1 billion. Today your commission said as clearly as it was allowed to that you can't take $1 billion out of the education system. You have already put the system under stress; you've already made it difficult for school boards to maintain any sort of reasonable class size by taking $533 million out of the system.

Your commission today as well said that you can only manage so much change at once. I ask you again to listen to the parents who were there, who said there has already been too much, too fast. The parents said -- they were almost pleading with you -- they don't think their children can learn in the sheer chaos you are creating in our classrooms.

You are determined to bull ahead. You're in such a hurry to get your $1 billion for Mike Harris's tax cut that you don't actually care what happens to kids in the classroom. Nothing you say about quality education is going to hide the fact that all your changes about saving money, about doing education at the lowest possible cost -- you've said that's your goal. Will you stop trying to do education --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me assure the member for Fort William of this: Our objective, our goal is very clear: We want the students in Ontario to have the highest performance, the highest marks of students anywhere in Canada. Pan-Canadian tests and international tests and tests this week have told us that our results are mediocre. That's not good enough for the students of Ontario.

We want to make changes; we want to make improvements; we want to make the system better for the students of Ontario. We recognize that change is difficult, and that's why we've put off secondary school reform, so we can make sure we get it right; that's why we've guaranteed stable funding over this transition year; that's why we have the Education Improvement Commission and expert panels working with us: to make sure changes are done, are done well and done right, and that we can manage these changes.

I want to tell the member for Fort William that it is not moral for us not to improve the system as fast as we can. It's not moral to have our students in a system of education that's not up to their standards. So we'll move as quickly as we possibly can in good management to get to that better system. That's our objective.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Deputy Premier. I'm in receipt of a confidential document dated August 8 that was submitted to the Minister of Health. He commissioned a clinical review of Windsor emergency units. Unfortunately, the result of his clinical review, which he asked for, is the most damning report of emergency care yet in Ontario, written by his own ministry.

It describes our situation in Windsor as "a gridlock, a paralysis." It goes on to say that the gridlock "causes significant unacceptable delays to the transfer of care." It goes on to say that our "fast-track activity has been hampered by physical plant inadequacies and gridlock realities."

As you know, the Minister of Health has said himself that Windsor was the cradle of restructuring. I'm asking you now to intervene and override your Minister of Health and immediately release emergency files.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I know nothing of the document of which she speaks, obviously; I'm not the Minister of Health. I would anticipate that she wouldn't expect me to. I would be pleased to take her question under advisement, to take the issue to the Minister of Health and get back to her.

Mrs Pupatello: Deputy Premier, we've tried working with the Minister of Health, who has not listened. For two years he has delayed funding to the Windsor condition. He has created an absolutely chaotic situation in Windsor and now the minister's own people have determined that everything we have said for two years is abso