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

October 12, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Oct-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 12 October 2006 Jeudi 12 octobre 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(STABILITY FOR STUDENTS

IN TRANSITION HOUSING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION (STABILITÉ POUR

LES ÉTUDIANTS VIVANT DANS

UN LOGEMENT DE TRANSITION)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(USE OF PORTABLE EQUIPMENT BY

NOVICE DRIVERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA

ROUTE (UTILISATION DE MATÉRIEL

PORTATIF PAR LES CONDUCTEURS

DÉBUTANTS)

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(STABILITY FOR STUDENTS

IN TRANSITION HOUSING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION (STABILITÉ POUR

LES ÉTUDIANTS VIVANT DANS

UN LOGEMENT DE TRANSITION)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(USE OF PORTABLE EQUIPMENT BY

NOVICE DRIVERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA

ROUTE (UTILISATION DE MATÉRIEL

PORTATIF PAR LES CONDUCTEURS

DÉBUTANTS)

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(STABILITY FOR STUDENTS

IN TRANSITION HOUSING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION (STABILITÉ POUR

LES ÉTUDIANTS VIVANT DANS

UN LOGEMENT DE TRANSITION)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(USE OF PORTABLE EQUIPMENT BY

NOVICE DRIVERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA

ROUTE (UTILISATION DE MATÉRIEL

PORTATIF PAR LES CONDUCTEURS

DÉBUTANTS)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MOHAMMED JAMIL DAR

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

SUKKOT

US COAST GUARD INITIATIVE

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

ROSE THEATRE

JEANS FOR GENES DAY

GREENFIELD ETHANOL

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

TRANSPORTATION

VISITORS

TONY GRANDE

DEFERRED VOTES

PLANNING AND CONSERVATION

LAND STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE ET AUX TERRES PROTÉGÉES

MINISTERS' ATTENDANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

EDUCATION FUNDING

HYDRO RATES

CASINO EMPLOYEES

CANCER PREVENTION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

LONG-TERM CARE

BRANTFORD COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF

WINDSOR ECONOMY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

POACHING

VISITOR

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

LONG-TERM CARE

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

PROPERTY RIGHTS

CHILD PROTECTION

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

LONG-TERM CARE

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

IDENTITY THEFT

TAXATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

CONCERNANT LES MUNICIPALITÉS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(STABILITY FOR STUDENTS

IN TRANSITION HOUSING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION (STABILITÉ POUR

LES ÉTUDIANTS VIVANT DANS

UN LOGEMENT DE TRANSITION)

Ms. Matthews moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide stability for students in transition housing / Projet de loi 133, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation afin d'offrir une stabilité aux

étudiants vivant dans un logement de transition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): This is a bill that will affect only a very small number of people, a very small number of children, in fact, but they're the kids who, perhaps more

than any other kids, need to have some adults looking out for them. This is a bill about making sure this small number of young people have a little bit of stability at a time in which their home lives are anything but stable. This is a bill that

respects and recognizes the importance of teachers, of friends, of routine and continuity for kids who are facing the kind of disruption that most of us would not even imagine. It's a bill that, if passed, would give kids who have to move to

transition housing -- temporary foster care, a homeless shelter, a women's shelter -- or who become homeless the right and ability to stay in their own school until they find a permanent home.

You see, right now there's no province-wide policy for kids in that situation. It's up to each shelter, each foster home and each board of education to figure out what to do in each individual case. In many

cases, the decision is that the child has to move out of their home school into a school in the neighbourhood of their shelter or temporary home, and then, when permanent housing is found, into a third school in the neighbourhood of that home.

So at a time when these kids are facing enormous upheaval at home, when they may have been a witness to or a victim of abuse, when they've been forced out of their own home, when their clothes and toys and other

prize possessions are not available to them and may never be, when their family has been torn apart, when the troubles of the adults who are supposed to be taking care of them consume all of the energy available in the household -- when some or

all of this is happening to a child, we deny them the security of staying in their own home school, the school where their friends are, where their teachers know them, where the custodian jokes with them, where there is some routine and some

refuge from the chaos that is their life at home.

What this bill would do is give kids the right and the ability, if it's deemed to be in their best interest by their parents or guardian, to stay in their home school while they are in transition housing, to

maintain the continuity that we know is so important to a child's education and social development.

This is an issue that was brought to my attention by Leaurie Noordemeer, the director of Rotholme Women's and Family Shelter, a branch of Mission Services of London, who joins us in the members' gallery today. I

met Leaurie on Boxing Day, 2005. Along with my daughter, Christie, and a number of other volunteers, I was helping to serve a turkey dinner to some of London's homeless folk at a wonderful restaurant called Waldo's on King, owned and operated by

Mark Kitching.

Some of those homeless people were kids from Rotholme, and I wanted to learn more about them and understand some of the challenges they face. I guess the idea of homeless kids was not one that I was very

comfortable with. Leaurie was good enough to meet me, and in that conversation, I learned about the myriad of unique challenges these kids face, one of which is the instability of their educational environment. Thank you, Leaurie.

I'd like to recognize some of the others in the gallery today and thank them for their support of this bill: Virginia Rowden, the director of social policy for the Ontario Association of Children's Aid

Societies; Andrée Cazabon, filmmaker and producer of the film Wards of the Crown; Amanda Rose, youth coordinator, Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies; Lynda Manser, executive director of the National Youth in Care Network; Cheryl

I'd also like to take a moment to thank those who have helped with the drafting of the bill but couldn't be here today, including: Jane Fitzgerald and Janet Laderoute of the Children's Aid Society of London and

Middlesex; Carolyn Buck, executive director of the CAS of Toronto; Vivian McCaffrey and Wendy Mathews from the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario; Craig Brockwell from OSSTF; Donna Marie Kennedy, the president of OECTA; and Meghan Warby,

my former legislative intern.

I'd also like to take a moment to thank all the other members of my staff who made today possible.

This bill has received strong support from across the province. Janet Laderoute from the CAS of London and Middlesex writes, "When children experience trauma in their lives and have to move into a shelter or

into the care of the CAS, school stability becomes paramount. Teachers and students in their classes can provide that sense of continuity and stability that these children so desperately need while they are dealing with the trauma and significant

relationship losses."

Rod Potgieter, the executive director of Family and Children's Services of St. Thomas and Elgin county, told me that they have generally good co-operation from both school boards in Thames Valley, but, "It does

not always happen, and I think we will be much further ahead if the expectation is there that the child can remain in their home school and will be transported, if under 30 kilometres."

Colin Vickers, director of education at the Near North District School Board, supports the bill and tells me they've conducted research in their district which underlines the importance of stability in school

for kids in transition, and that they've taken action as a result of that research.

Leaurie, of Rotholme, writes, "If each child had the option to finish out their school year with transportation guaranteed, this would eliminate a major stressor for both parents and children, and allow them to

work at finding safe, affordable housing."

I should tell you that not everyone is supportive of this bill. Some say it will cost money, and that is true. It will cost money to provide transportation from the transition housing to the home school and back

again.

The people who are concerned about the cost of transportation should think about the cost of not providing the stability. One of those costs, clearly, is student success. Lack of continuity is widely recognized

as jeopardizing a child's success at school. A study by Dr. Joy Rogers at Loyola University Department of Education found that it takes a child on average "four to six months to recover academically from a change in school." It "can destroy a

child's academic progress," she wrote, and that costs money too, especially if it means the child loses their academic year.

Teachers tell me it takes considerable time and energy to integrate new students into their classroom, and that takes time away from other students. They also tell me that kids who are known to be in the school

only temporarily sometimes don't get the extra attention and support they need, because everybody knows they won't be there long, and there are costs to that too.

Let's not forget that these kids are at a particularly high risk of having troubles later in life outside the school system. For example, a study by Leslie and Hare in 2000 found that almost half -- 48% -- of

the "street youth" seeking post-transition services from Covenant House in Toronto were former children in care, and there are costs to that too.

All of these costs, and many others, must be weighed against the cost of providing a stable learning environment.

So I urge those who are concerned about the costs associated with this bill to look outside the transportation line item in the budget and consider all the costs of not doing it. Let's remember that the children

this bill will affect have the deck stacked against them in so many other ways. They are facing and overcoming challenges and obstacles that would overwhelm most of us. These are challenges for which they hold absolutely no responsibility; they

are simply innocent bystanders to events that have unfolded in their families around them.

In closing, let me tell you a little story about a family in London. Late last spring, a family with one child became homeless and moved into Rotholme. They knew that their stay would be temporary, as they had

already secured housing in their old neighbourhood so the child could return to the same school in September. There were only a few weeks left in the school year, but they were important weeks, as we all know those last few weeks are.

Transportation from the shelter to the school was refused, meaning that this child had to switch from their home school to a school in the neighbourhood of the shelter, and then back to their home school in the

fall where they had to explain and face the stigma of why they had to miss the last few weeks of June.

Was this the right thing to do, the best thing for the child? Did it cost less? I don't think so.

Despite our best efforts, there are limits to what we can do to prevent the instability these kids face at home. But what happens at school is completely under our control. It is our responsibility as adults and

as legislators to do whatever we can to provide stability for these kids in their schools.

Let's take that responsibility seriously. Let's pass Bill 133. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to rise to participate in today's debate on private member's Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide stability for students in transition

housing, which has been brought forward by the member for London North Centre. I commend her initiative in doing so.

I would like to say at the outset that I support the substance of this bill and anticipate that all members of the House would do so. I don't see anything in this bill that would cause anyone great concern.

The member speaks about cost. I think that rather than characterizing it as a cost that may be associated with this bill, we should be considering it as an investment in the future of our children, and that it

should, in fact, be considered a priority for the Minister of Education and for the government.

I would anticipate that the member will be successful not only in having this bill passed today, here in private members' hour, but that the Minister of Education would take this forward and ensure that this is

one of those private member's bills that will actually be taken seriously by cabinet and by the government and implemented as part of government legislation and for the benefit of children in this province.

In substance, this bill proposes to amend the Education Act to guarantee that a child who is a ward of a children's aid society or is in the care of a children's aid society or is in an emergency or temporary

housing situation, who is homeless, may continue, at the parents' or guardians' request, to attend the school they were attending before falling into one of those aforementioned categories. How common sense is that? Children who are already

subjected to upheaval in their family life would then also face the additional complications and stress, in many cases very harmful, of being denied the stability of perhaps, in many cases, the only peace and calm these children often have in the

course of a day in their home school, with teachers who they have come to trust, with classmates who represent some form of stability for them. For those children, because of legislative or regulatory requirements, to be taken from that safe haven

within the school system is fundamentally wrong. So from that standpoint, I say, apart from any of the other technical arguments that may come forward, perhaps even from the civil service, who say, "Well, this isn't the time. There are other

implications. It's going to mean a number of amendments to the Education Act," and so on and so forth, this is the time when we truly have to put children first and ensure that that is more than a motto, that it's carried out in a very practical

way through our legislation.

It's a sad commentary on our society today that we even have to be debating this; a sad commentary indeed that not only in our society but the world around, we know that children are placed into these very

difficult circumstances through no control of their own. They are innocent victims and it's up to us, as legislators, to ensure that we do whatever we can to protect those innocent victims rather than have them become victims once again as a

result of family circumstances. Our hearts bleed for children whose emotions are being torn, whose very enjoyment of life is being robbed. Far be it from this Legislature or government regulations to complicate that circumstance.

As educators and psychologists will agree, the experience of continuity and stability in a child's school environment is in fact integral to her or his ability to learn and to socialize. All too often, we come

across a partial understanding of the role of our education system, in that it is limited to the role of simply imparting knowledge, and it's much more than that. We know that teachers who take very seriously their calling impart much more than

knowledge. It is truly about building character. It is about developing the whole person. So to ensure, at least during those very early formative years, that that is a stable environment for children is important. If we, as legislators, can do

anything to support that, I believe we have a responsibility to do that.

Education in this province is a challenge. We continue to see any debate or discussion relating to education often polarizing groups within our communities. It should not be that way. If anything, the discussion

or debate, deliberation around education, should be something that brings us all together. If there is any issue in this province where there should be common ground that we can all find, that we can all agree to, it should be around education,

but it's not. That is, unfortunately, the reality. There continue to be political debates, there continue to be partisan wars, that are launched on the battleground of education.

I believe that this issue before us today goes beyond any of that. I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say in this debate, but I would be very surprised if anyone here would find this particular

issue one to bring forward in any kind of -- how can I put it? -- negative discussion.

I will, however, make this point, and I don't want the member to take this in the wrong way; in fact, I am convinced that the member will agree with me, as will most members of her party -- and that is, when we

talk about stability in education and every child having the right to have an education and to be given the life skills to function as citizens and as human beings within our society, that should in fact apply to all children. Members have heard

me raise this issue in the House many times. The honourable member who brought this bill forward has heard me debate this issue and call on the Minister of Education as well as the Premier to meet the Premier's commitment to another group of

children in this province. I speak about autistic children, who have as great a struggle, if not to a greater degree, a challenge of finding stability and finding an opportunity to develop their life skills and to get the basic educational

supports that they deserve.

The Premier of this province made a commitment to autistic children and their families during the last election campaign that, if elected, he as Premier and his government would extend educational support and

treatment support to autistic children beyond the age of six, and we have yet to see that promise come full circle. I continue to have calls from parents of autistic children who are struggling. On a daily basis, they're struggling to make ends

meet because they have to take of their own resources to ensure that their children have the same opportunities as other children in the province.

So I would simply, in that spirit, call upon the member to use her own influence within her caucus, with her Minister of Education and the Premier, to extend that same opportunity of stability and support for

educational services for autistic children.

I would conclude by saying that I will certainly be supporting this bill. We look forward to it coming to committee. There are a number of issues that I'm sure we can talk about in terms of implementation, and

perhaps get some advice from stakeholders.

Once again I thank the member for bringing this bill forward, and I look forward to subsequent debate.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): The background to this bill is that of child poverty. It is set against a background of family poverty. I commend Ms. Matthews for bringing it forward. I

welcome the opportunity to examine children who are at risk in this forum.

Sixteen years ago, the House of Commons unanimously resolved -- and that was all parties; it was non-partisan -- to eliminate poverty among children by the year 2000. Since then, the child poverty rate has been

stuck at 15% to 16% in this province, despite strong economic growth. Some 443,000 children in Ontario live in poverty. That's almost half a million children. Low-income, lone-mother families are living on an average of $9,600 -- below the poverty

line. The percentage of children living in working families who are poor has doubled in the past 10 years, and poverty rates for children in aboriginal, visible minority and immigrant families are double the poverty rates of others. This contrasts

with 10% of families who saw a 41% increase in average incomes over the past 10 years; at the same time, poor families saw their incomes decrease by 4%.

It used to be said that the best route out of poverty for families was a job. That's no longer the case. One in three poor children have parents who work full-time. Thirty-seven per cent of jobs are precarious,

temporary, contract or involve self-employment. The Workers' Action Centre estimates that at least one in every three Ontario employers violates the Employment Standards Act, yet the Ministry of Labour's commitment to only 2,000 surprise

inspections means Ontario's workplaces have less than a 1% chance of being inspected at all. In a 13-year time span, this has resulted in half a billion dollars in unpaid wages that employers have been ordered to pay but have not been collected by

the Ministry of Labour.

I'm going to quote from a UNICEF document: "There are many demands for priority on the time and resources of government. And the case for children therefore bears repeating. It is the fundamental responsibility

of government to protect the vulnerable and to protect the future. Children are both."

Growing up poor: Studies have shown that poverty is linked to poor health, poor school performance, and low pay and unemployment as adults. The vast majority of shelter users, children's aid wards and foster

children come from poverty. Lest we think it is only -- and I shudder when I say "only" -- 443,000 children who live in poverty, know that 703,000 children experience episodic poverty. That means that they're poor for limited times of their lives,

and "limited" means two to six years. So most of their childhood is spent in poverty. This means that if their parents earn less than $10 an hour, that family is poor. Eight dollars as a minimum wage won't even be brought in until 2007, and that

doesn't begin to bring a family up to the poverty line.

I know that in my own riding of Parkdale-High Park, I've had some experience with the poverty of families. We started West End Angels, which is the only 52-week-a-year drop-in for families, children and others

on a Sunday. It feeds thousands of people every year, and thousands of those people every year are families and hundreds of them are children. If it weren't for that program, many of these children wouldn't eat on Sundays.

I remember well a family that lived in a car in the parking lot of our church, and we helped that family to find some temporary housing. At this moment in my constituency office, we have a woman who has five

children. She lives in a townhouse where the rent is $1,200 a month, and she gets $1,250 a month on social services. We're still no closer to seeing that case resolved. Every year in our church we've welcomed Redwood shelter to a holiday party

where the children get gifts, and then we've watched them all go back home to Redwood shelter because there are no homes, because 122,000 households live in wait for affordable housing, and they wait five to 10 years.

We also witness in Parkdale-High Park the increasing gentrification of our housing stock. Now, we're excited to see that old houses are being fixed up, but we also recognize that for every old house that's fixed

up, tenants lose valuable low-cost housing stock. Where do they go? We don't know, but we know they're displaced, they and their families.

In south Parkdale, some 26,000 families live -- many of them refugees and recent immigrants -- thousands of children, most in cramped quarters, much of it substandard, some of it even dangerous, all of it

lacking green space. We are caught, again, between the desire to refurbish and the reality that since no government money is forthcoming, developers who want to improve the housing stock also need to raise the rents. Raising the rents then means

dislocation for these fragile families and their precious children. I ask this House: to where and to what?

Families who work, most of them more than 40 hours a week, many at a minimum wage: It still does not guarantee that they'll pay the rent and feed the kids. It guarantees them a life still well below the poverty

line. Many of them attend breakfast programs just so they get breakfast in our area and other areas. My assistant and I attended one of these breakfast programs. It was run by dedicated volunteers who put their own money into the program. These

children sat next to people who have drug abuse problems, mental health issues, and who work in the sex trade. They sat next to them why? Because it was the only way they would have breakfast.

Education -- another area that could have an enormous effect on the lives of poor children. Reading recovery programs are in danger of being curtailed in some boards. Education assistants, who can target their

time to children who need the most, are being cut. ESL programs that help children new to our country are underfunded and understaffed; 40% of our children who need ESL teachers don't have ESL teachers. Again, I know this first-hand, because a

community of east African immigrant women in our community are looking for just such teachers, and we're having a hard time finding them for a homework club. We shouldn't have to do this. This should be an essential service.

Child care, since Campaign 2000, has changed little in this province. We still witness nine of 10 children who need child care and go without. This means a patchy system of unlicensed child care, and in the

case, again, of one of our immigrant groups, it means that, say, one mother will stay home with the other mother's children. This then cements her own impoverished state and, as we know poverty is inherited, the impoverished state of her children

as well.

All of this is the background for this Bill 133. This is where I would ask for your patience and divert the conversation to the question of ethics. Because as much as I support this bill and would support any

bill that supports children, I cannot help but wonder at the broader reality which necessitates just such a bill. Most children -- not all, but most -- who will benefit from this bill are poor children. Statistics show us that most families and

children who might need this bill are poor families. The real question is, what is this House prepared to do about child poverty? Might I suggest it's a little like knowing that a crime is going to happen to a child and doing nothing about it

until the crime is committed, knowing a child is about to be hurt but doing nothing until that child is hurt and then applying a Band-Aid.

Child poverty hurts children. One of the possible outcomes of child poverty is the displacement of children to temporary shelters, to guardianship or the children's aid. Then all of these hard-working staff who

step in do so knowing that the situation is traumatic and knowing that there's little they can do to prevent the same kind of trauma happening again and again and again.

Undoubtedly, this bill might help. But all of us in this House get the calls, the calls from the social workers, the calls from the teachers, the calls from those who care, who inveigh upon us to change the

circumstances that result in the trauma. We, as legislators, need to ensure that the trauma of not having enough money to pay for necessities in one of the wealthiest locales in the world does not continue, that this bill, however necessary now,

is in the future absolutely unnecessary.

Campaign 2000, which attempted to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000 and was ambitiously embarked upon by all of our parties, absolutely failed. It is our failure, the failure of each member of this House.

We carry that failure with us, and so do our parties and so does this government.

Here are the recommendations. We know how to get rid of child poverty. Why don't we do it? Here's how. This, again, comes from Campaign 2000:

(1) Increase minimum wage to $10 an hour.

(2) Improve enforcement of the Employment Standards Act.

(3) Ensure OHIP access to recent immigrant families.

(4) Urge better coverage for employment insurance so that more than 30% of those unemployed are actually covered.

(5) Stop the clawback of the national child care supplement.

(6) Press the feds to honour child care agreements and allocate the $300 million for child care promised in the 2003 election.

(7) Fully fund ESL programs and reading recovery programs in our schools and improve child care in the six-to-12-year-old sector. That is after-school programs.

(8) Build -- finally -- the 20,000 units of affordable housing promised in 2003, and provide 35,000 housing allowances promised in 2003.

Finally,

(9) Increase social assistance and ODSP to reflect the real cost of living for our poorest of children.

Although I support this bill, I ask everyone what their personal commitment will be -- not only their party commitment but their personal commitment -- to eradicating the very need for such a bill and

eradicating child poverty in Ontario. We know how to do this. We have the recommendations. Do we have the will to do this? There is, I might add, no more important task in this province and in this House for anyone.

In my remaining minutes, I'd like to muse on why this House has been so slow to move on the issues of child poverty in Ontario. Perhaps it has to do with a certain lack of imagination. If that child, that one

in six children who live in poverty, were one of the children in the family of a cabinet minister, maybe we would act. Perhaps if that child's birthday was known and the face of that child bore a resemblance to a government member, maybe we would

act. Perhaps, and most pursuant to this Bill 133, if that child, when dislocated, didn't go to foster care or a shelter or to children's aid but to the home of our Premier, maybe we would act.

On behalf of that child, I call upon this government to finally act, not only on this bill but on the recommendations, all of them, of Campaign 2000.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It is indeed a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of Bill 133, as presented by my colleague the member from London North Centre,

An Act to amend the Education Act

to provide stability for students in transition housing.

In January 2002, there were two American congressmen, a Mr. McKinney and a Mr. Vento, who passed through the American Congress the Homeless Assistance Act. I would just like to read into the record today the

statement of policy from this act that was approved by the United States Congress in 2002, because I think it provides a very good backdrop for this morning's discussion on Bill 133. The statement of policy in this bill, the policy of the

Congress, is as follows:

"

(1) Each state educational agency shall ensure that each child of a homeless individual and each homeless youth has equal access to the same free, appropriate public education, including public preschool

education, as provided to other children and youths.

"

(2) In any state that has a compulsory residency requirement as a component of the state's compulsory school attendance laws or other laws, regulations, practices or policies that may act as a barrier to the

enrolment, attendance or success in school of homeless children and youths, the state will review and undertake steps to revise such laws, regulations, practices or policies to ensure that homeless children and youths are afforded the same free,

appropriate public education as provided to other children and youths.

"

(3) Homelessness alone is not sufficient reason to separate students from the mainstream school environment.

"

(4) Homeless children and youths should have access to the education and other services that such children and youths need to ensure that such children and youths have an opportunity to meet the same

challenging state student academic achievement standards to which all students are held."

It seems to me that that is an appropriate framework for this bill, when it goes to committee -- I believe it will get unanimous support here this morning -- to start a series of discussions along this very,

very important matter, providing stability for students.

I note that the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies is very supportive of Bill 133. I'll just get on the record here this morning this letter to my colleague the member from London North Centre. I

quote from paragraph three: "Stability in education is critical to our children. We know that children served by our member societies are at higher risk for poor educational outcomes.

"Despite efforts to provide as much stability and permanency to children at risk as possible, children in care move, on average, every 22 months, and many of their moves occur during the school year. In fact,

recent data from Ontario research on children in care, Looking after Children (LAC), indicates that almost 23% of children have had over five changes of school and another 10% have had over 10 changes of school. These moves leave children months

behind their peers -- and cause challenges with teachers and in classrooms."

Stability in classrooms and the opportunity for teachers to deal with their students over the long term in fact is the positive environment for learning. We know that if you disrupt a student many times over a

period of their education experience, the outcome is less than satisfactory. This is why I believe Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Education Act, is so vital and important, and I really commend my colleague for doing this. She's been a constant

advocate for children across the province of Ontario in her role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services, and again, this shows her dynamic leadership on this very important file.

You'll remember a number of years ago there was the famous Fram oil filter commercial. The gist of that commercial was, you can either pay me now or you can pay me later. That's what I think this bill is all

about: an opportunity to stabilize children in the classroom, to look at employing some resources within school boards across the province of Ontario, and looking to invest in our kids, who are a very precious resource.

It always seems to me that our role in public life is to take the future and bring it into the present. Providing stability for our children, for their future, and bringing it into the present by passing this

bill is certainly a positive step forward for the province of Ontario.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide stability for students in transition housing, brought

forward by my colleague from London North Centre. It's "to guarantee that a child who is a ward of a children's aid society, is in the care of a children's aid society, is in emergency housing or temporary housing or is homeless can continue, at

the parent's or guardian's request, to attend the school they were attending before falling into one of those categories until the earlier of the end of the school year and the child being established in a permanent housing arrangement."

When the member came over a couple of weeks ago to mention that this bill was coming forward -- it's amazing what you find out when you're in this job: the holes that are in the system, how we need to make

those changes. And that's our responsibility as legislators, to protect the children to the best of our ability. So I commend the member from London North Centre for bringing this bill forward.

We need to invest in our children. These are very vulnerable children. I can tell you that since I've been elected as an MPP, I've certainly had my eyes opened greatly to the assistance that's available for

vulnerable children who are out there. In my previous career, being a nurse, I saw bits and pieces of problems that came in through our emergency systems, and since being elected, through some contact with the children's aid society, I've seen how

we need to make some changes, because we aren't protecting our children enough. We can never do enough, but we can make progress in taking the steps to get this continuity for children.

I think the school system provides that -- it's a base. They have teachers whom they get to know, who get to be their friends. Their lives are troubled at home. The teachers become a constant. They know

they're safe within that classroom. I commend the teachers and the school system. I know that some of the existing boards work very hard to try to ensure that there is stability, but sometimes they need assistance from us as legislators, some

laws, some regulations that can ensure that we can provide the best transition and stability for children at this most vulnerable time. So I commend the teachers for being that constant there for them.

It's important to recognize that at the stage in life that a lot of these children are at, what happens to them now can mark the rest of their lives. I have nieces whom I spend a lot of time with and have

watched grow up. It's very important that, if there isn't a home life there, there is some constant with friends, with teachers, in the school they're attending, because it can leave tremendous scars on their future, or it can make a difference

that they go on to be very positive citizens within our communities. It's incumbent upon us in our communities that we do all we can to help raise the children who are most vulnerable out there. I see a lot of community organizations -- Girl

Guides, Boy Scouts etc. -- that I've gotten to know since I've been elected, because I didn't have the opportunity when I was a child to be involved in those organizations, but they make the difference also.

So I commend the member from London North Centre for bringing this forward. She has my support.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I think I have a brief moment to make a few remarks about the bill. It's a bill that obviously is one of those pieces that the member noticed was missing

that could possibly help, and I commend her for that.

I only thought of one particular issue that I'd like perhaps to be considered if the bill moves to a committee process and there's some further discussion about the details, and that is that oftentimes when we

talk about child protection issues particularly, there's always a clause that we are careful to include because it speaks to the needs and the respect for the wishes and experiences of the children themselves. That clause usually says something

like "where it's in the best interests of the child." That's not in this bill, and I would hope it would be a friendly amendment, if we get to that stage, to add that kind of language, because always, always, always, when we're dealing with issues

around trying to make things better for children and trying to deal with children's issues in a way that moves us forward as a progressive, thoughtful society, we need to ensure that the best and most appropriate things for the child are always

foremost in our mind.

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I want to first congratulate the member for London North Centre for this bill. It is a good bill; I just wish I had thought of it first.

My family and I are finishing our 19th year fostering. I realize this bill covers a variety of situations, but I'm going to speak to it from the viewpoint of a foster parent heavily involved with foster

children. We have millions of really good parents in Ontario, but we have some parents who simply don't have the skills to provide the care that their children need, and so it's necessary for them to be removed from their family and brought into

care; sometimes for a short term, sometimes on a permanent basis.

Children's aid societies and courts don't take the decision to remove a child lightly. It is imperative that the first priority be to keep a family together. But when the decision is made, the process that

follows can be very difficult for a child.

In many cases, they are apprehended at school -- this has been our experience. They have gone off to school, sometimes never to return home or sometimes not to return home for many months. I have difficulty

getting my mind into their condition and the experiences they have, because invariably they love their parents. No matter what their parents have done to them, there is genuine love on the part of the child.

They are taken from the home. They've lost contact with their parents. They've left all their clothes, they've left all their toys, they've left all their possessions. It is extremely rare for the family to

ever give up those possessions to follow the child.

They've left their family pets and their friends in the neighbourhood, and they're placed, from their viewpoint, with absolute, total strangers. All of this may happen over an hour or two. It's got to be

absolutely mind-boggling to them.

In many cases -- I'd say in the majority of cases of children we've fostered -- they have struggled academically at school, not because they are not good kids. But if you're being sexually or physically abused

or you're hungry, then your challenge in life, no matter what the age, is to stay alive, and learning takes a second place. So they are probably already having some challenges academically.

I'm sure it's exactly the same experience and just as difficult emotionally for a child who is in a shelter. They have no one. They have absolutely no one.

This bill provides for them to have some continuity in their life, for them to continue to have support from other students, from their friends. You know, folks, for some kids, school is the safest place

they're going to today. It is the only place of safety.

We've had foster children tell us about their nurturing teachers, custodians, office staff and bus drivers who understand and appreciate the challenges that child is going through and form their own support

network and support system for these children.

Where it is possible, this bill will help phenomenally, if passed, to enable these children to have some support.

We have great foster homes in Ontario -- I'm fiercely proud. But I've got to acknowledge that for the first day or two, they're in an absolutely strange family. So I think this bill is wonderful.

At the same time, this bill provides for the option that there may be instances where it is not appropriate to have the child remain in that school, because of contact from the birth parents. We've had them

show up at the school and make threats to the children if they disclose anything that happened, or unbelievably but all too commonly, threaten to kill their dog or cat if they talk to CAS staff. So there are instances where they should not be at

school, and this bill provides for those.

The member for London North Centre acknowledged the costs involved in busing, and that may be presented as an obstacle. But, folks, the cost of busing may reduce costs for special ed or for counselling. I will

never, ever apologize for investing in children, and there isn't a better investment than this. If this bill results in one child's life improving, then it is worth it.

I applaud the bill and am thrilled to support it.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Before I start, I'd like to acknowledge in the east gallery a friend of mine, Cheryl Hasler, originally from my riding , who is with the provincial executive team of

OECTA. Welcome, Cheryl, and thank you for being here and showing your support for this piece of legislation.

I want to say a couple of things quickly before I get to the member for London North Centre's bill specifically.

To the member from Oak Ridges, thank you for your challenge. It's accepted and understood. It's probably the least partisan speech I've heard come from you at private members' time in a long time --

Ms. Scott: As always.

Mr. Levac: -- and I think it's because you really do support this bill. I want to thank you for that. It's very important for us to understand -- as well as Haliburton-Victoria-Brock,

absolutely. Thank you.

Hamilton East, as always, a good challenge and it's probably accepted. I know the member was looking at you, saying, "That's not a bad idea," and I appreciate that.

Let me talk just for a moment to the member from Parkdale-High Park. The challenge is accepted and understood. Poverty is not acceptable; most importantly, child poverty is not acceptable. But in your homily,

or your speech, what you did tell us was that you didn't know what people's backgrounds were in here. The only thing I would caution you to understand -- I know you're a modern type of minister -- is that to make an assumption about the minister

or the Premier or whether we could get legislation or not because of somebody's personal circumstances, I believe, was a little unfair. You heard the member from Hastings, who has been a foster caregiver for 30 years or 25 years -- 25 years. In

terms of who we are in this place, never make the assumption that people don't care about this. We may not make the progress as fast as you want and as fast as we should accept the challenges, but I've never met a person in this House who doesn't

care. They care deeply about this.

That's why I'm standing in support, because I've personally had to experience exactly what she's talking about in this bill, and that is the transportation of children to the place where they should be.

Unfortunately -- and I say this sincerely -- in the schools where I was principal, in some cases the children only connected with the teachers, the principal, the staff and the kids of the school. If that's the place where they should be, why are

we moving them away from it?

She's pointed out -- and every member here acknowledged this -- that we have continued to find little pieces of a hole that should be filled, and this is one of them. I passionately ask all of us to understand

that we cannot solve all of the problems right away, all the time, but this is the place where we have been filling those holes. We have been filling those holes at private members' time, day after day, every Thursday, with private members coming

up with ideas that individually fill those holes and make it better. That is what we're doing here in this bill, and I'm going to say into the next bill coming up. Let's not make accusations against each other as opposed to acknowledging what the

value of the bill is and getting it done.

Do I accept the challenge? Do we accept the challenge? There isn't anyone in here who doesn't accept the challenge that poverty sucks, and it's not the right thing to do. What we need to do is accept those

challenges and try to move forward in a smart way. This is a smart bill because it does address that. Do we get to the root causes in this bill? No, we don't. But do we accept the challenges of whether or not we should be making life better for

the children of Ontario by filling this hole? Absolutely. I'm going to challenge our government to do that. In private members' time, it does end up becoming a government initiative, because private members from all parties come up and say, "This

is a hole that needs to get filled," and we're doing it.

The experience I've had with individuals -- I had to go to my board and literally fight and fight for some of those students to stay in my school, because I knew that was the best thing for them. These

children would have been moved from place to place, not three times in some of the cases I experienced, but four and five times, because they were difficult to serve. What we need to do is understand that concept and fill those holes.

I thank the member from London. I thank her for bringing this to our attention, and I accept the challenge to receive it.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. Matthews, you have two minutes to respond.

Ms. Matthews: I must say that I am delighted by the response of the members on all sides of the House. The member from Oak Ridges, thank you. I appreciate your support. I especially appreciate

your comment that we should consider this to be an investment, not a cost, and that we not allow these kids to be victimized once again.

The member from Parkdale-High Park, I appreciate your support, and I appreciate your passion and your recognition that we have work to do to address the root causes.

The member from Peterborough brought in the experience in the United States. I think we can learn from our jurisdictions on this, and I thank him for that.

The member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, I thank you. I agree that we as members do get to see things we might otherwise never, ever see and how every day is a learning experience for us. This certainly is

not an issue I would have been aware of had I not been a member.

The member from Hamilton East, I will take that advice about including that amendment seriously. I think it's probably a very good one. I thank you for that and I thank you for your support.

To the member from Prince Edward-Hastings, you bring a wisdom only the experience of a foster parent can bring. I guess what I want to say is thank you for your support of this and for your unfailing

consideration of the most vulnerable in society.

To the member from Brant, your experience as a principal, where you've actually seen this up close, just underlines the importance of this bill. I appreciate it, and I'm glad to know that you, with all of your

force, are behind this bill. So, many thanks.

This is not a bill that will solve all the problems of these kids, not by a long shot -- there is much, much more that needs to be done -- but it will make the lives of some of these kids better and more

stable. I look forward to it moving forward.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(USE OF PORTABLE EQUIPMENT BY

NOVICE DRIVERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA

ROUTE (UTILISATION DE MATÉRIEL

PORTATIF PAR LES CONDUCTEURS

DÉBUTANTS)

Mr. Flynn moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other portable equipment by novice drivers while driving on a highway / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant le Code de la route

pour interdire aux conducteurs débutants l'utilisation de téléphones et d'autre matériel portatif pendant qu'ils conduisent sur une voie publique.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Flynn, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It certainly is a pleasure to be here today to rise in the House and speak to my private member's bill. You get very few opportunities to do this, and

certainly you like to do something that's of some value to the people of Ontario. I'm hoping that all members of the House today agree that the bill I'm proposing is of some great value, especially to the younger drivers in our province or those

people who are not young anymore but are just learning how to drive.

Bill 135 will amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit novice drivers -- and that's novice drivers of any age, not just teenagers -- from using a cellular phone, a car phone, a pager, personal data assistant

or any other personal portable electronic device prescribed by the regulations while operating a motor vehicle. My private member's bill is intended to improve the safety of all drivers in Ontario, but the focus of the bill very specifically is on

our newest drivers, those who are operating with a G1 or G2 licence under the graduated licensing system.

The consequences of driving while distracted are disastrous. That evidence is becoming clear. Many organizations throughout North America are starting to come to grips with it. Each year, many accidents occur

on our highways, many injuries occur and many deaths result as a result of distracted driving. According to Ontario police data here in our province, in 2002, 7.9% of all drivers involved in collisions in Ontario were not paying proper attention

to the road at the time of the accident. Just one year later, that had already grown to over 8%, to 8.1%. There are obviously a variety of distractions that drivers face on the road today. That can be anything from billboards, to other people in

the car talking to them, to eating. There are all sorts of things out there that could distract you while you're driving.

This bill takes aim at something that we can regulate, and that's the use of devices by those people who are just learning how to drive -- novice drivers -- and we can do that today. I know this bill has

generated an awful lot of interest in the media. It's generated an awful lot of interest amongst people of all ages. Once all aspects of the bill are understood, this bill receives unanimous support, I believe.

It's something we can do today. There obviously is a debate that is raging out there in North America on the use of cellphones in general. That debate, I think, has yet to occur in Ontario, although it

certainly has been the topic of a private member's bill by the member from Durham on a number of occasions. I think Mr. O'Toole has been after that bill since 1999.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): He's been a leader.

Mr. Flynn: That's right.

This is something we can do today. This may be the first step to further regulation, it may be something that is just stand-alone that makes sense for us to do, but it makes sense that we take some action on

this issue today.

The most recent study released this past April by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that distractions are a contributing factor in eight out of every 10 police-reported traffic

accidents.

There's a tremendous cost associated with motor vehicle accidents. For example, injuries from vehicle collisions cost Ontarians over $1.1 billion in 1999. Think of what we could do in this province with an

extra $1.1 billion. Injury as a whole has been found to cost the Ontario economy $5.7 billion annually. While it is sure that all of these are not related to distracted driving, distracted driving nonetheless plays a huge role in this issue.

Prohibiting the use of portable devices while driving will have a definite impact and will save taxpayers money in this province. I've introduced this bill because I think we can do something to improve the safety on our roads, and especially the

safety of novice drivers here in Ontario.

I'd like to take a moment to recognize an organization that has been at the forefront of the campaign to raise awareness about distracted driving and the use of portable devices by drivers. The Canadian

Automobile Association, the CAA, deserves a lot of credit and our admiration for their work on this issue. They have launched an educational campaign on distracted driving with an excellent website that provides a variety of background information

and resources on the use of devices while driving. The CAA also co-hosted the first-ever International Conference on Distracted Driving in Toronto in 2005.

We have with us today in the Legislature Mr. Kris Barnier, who is a provincial affairs specialist with CAA Ontario and is sitting in the members' gallery. I'd like to welcome and thank Kris for the CAA and for

all the important work they have done in highlighting this issue. It's one of the most common contributors to traffic crashes; it's a problem that affects all road users, but certainly newer drivers are at particular risk.

Using a portable device while driving places demands on drivers' attentive resources, which is dangerous. Studies have also shown that drivers who are distracted by such things as cellphones were simply unable

to properly estimate correct safe stopping distances. Distracted drivers are less able to anticipate hazards and choose the appropriate time to even enter into a line of traffic. Similar legislation dealing with novice drivers does not exist

anywhere in Canada today.

I believe we are uniquely positioned in Ontario as legislators to take a leadership role on this issue. Only in Newfoundland and Labrador is it illegal to use a hand-held cellphone while driving, and that

applies to all drivers. I believe my bill will be effective, as it will ban portable devices for novice drivers, both hand-held and hands-free. Just because you aren't holding your phone doesn't mean that you are paying more attention. It may be

more evident to another driver who is watching you on the cellphone, but certainly that does not mean, because you are using a hands-free device, that you are paying more attention to driving.

This bill targets our newest drivers, those who are just learning how to drive. If you can remember how you felt the first time you got behind the wheel of a car -- not in the passenger seat, but behind the

wheel -- and all the instructions you were given -- where to place your hands on the steering wheel, when to step on the brake, when to look in the rear-view mirror, when to look over your shoulder -- we are saying to novice drivers currently in

Ontario that it's okay to learn all those things and, at the same time, if the phone rings, just pick it up. That simply does not make any sense. Eleven states in the United States have already passed legislation for novice drivers using

cellphones. Another 26 states are currently reviewing it.

Our graduated licensing system has been a resounding success in reducing death and injury amongst novice drivers. Currently, we place very sensible restrictions on novice drivers as they proceed through the G1

and G2 phases of earning a full G licence. Novice drivers are currently subject to limitations that we're not subject to as full holders of a driver's licence: zero tolerance for alcohol consumption -- a novice driver cannot have any alcohol at

all in their blood system; a novice driver is not allowed to drive on the 400 series of highways at any time and cannot drive on any street in Ontario between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. There's a limit on the number of teenage passengers

allowed at any one time, and you've got to have an experienced driver with you. These are restrictions we already place on G1 and G2 holders because we know they're in a learning phase. Restricting the use of cellphones simply adds to that

sensible list of restrictions. If a driver breaks any one of these rules, they're subject to a 30-day suspension of their licence. I would add cellphones to that list.

I believe our newest drivers are important to target because preliminary research from the CAA and others has identified an enhanced risk for young people, as they are more likely to use a portable device

while driving. I would like to point out, however, that this bill targets new drivers, those who are novice drivers and not simply young drivers. I believe some of the best and the most attentive drivers in Ontario are young people between the

ages of 18 and 25, but during the novice years, at any age, I think we should place this restriction.

Our province and especially the greater Toronto area are among the top destinations for new Canadians. Regardless of your age, if you're learning to drive or just getting your licence, the restrictions in this

bill make sense.

We've had some very favourable reaction to this bill in the media so far. I've seen polls that have been conducted by AM640 and CFRB 1010, and all the responses from the public came back very, very supportive.

About 90% of the respondents agreed in the CFRB poll; over 84% agreed in the AM640 poll. We received supportive e-mails from all over the province -- from the prairie provinces and from British Columbia. I'll tell them all, as I'm telling you now,

that fundamentally this bill makes sense because it increases safety for our young people. That certainly should be the aim of any legislation we pass in this House.

I certainly would appreciate the support of all members on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Leal: I want to thank the member from Oakville for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other portable

equipment by novice drivers while driving on a highway.

Safety on the roads is a great concern to us all. We often see Sergeant Cam Woolley, who has become a fixture on most of the media outlets across Ontario, during holiday weekends in Ontario. We just finished

having a Thanksgiving weekend. Sergeant Woolley provides reports that are often very tragic in nature about the issue of road safety in Ontario and how we can take proactive action to improve road safety in this province.

I know a gentleman from Peterborough, Tom Robinson, who is a director of CAA. I've certainly had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Robinson in his role as director to make sure that the government of Ontario

indeed is advocating for measures that do improve road safety in Ontario.

I know from my own personal experience, having an eight year old and a six year old, that one of the best investments my wife and I made in a new vehicle was getting a video inside the van. While my kids get

along very well together, from time to time there is a difference of opinion, and when that difference of opinion occurs it can be a distraction, certainly for my wife and myself, who's driving, and on long trips the video has made a great

difference in that area.

There has been some data collected from the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that has looked at causes of crashes throughout the United States, and they've ranked them

accordingly:

-- using other devices in a vehicle, such as navigational instruments, business tools, cellular telephones;

-- something taking place along the side of the roadway;

-- an unexpected noise;

-- operating the radio, CD or cassette player;

-- adjusting the climate or operational controls in a vehicle;

-- eating, drinking and smoking while operating a vehicle.

Other distractions they've identified include personal grooming, conversations with passengers, disciplining or tending to children, or reading or writing while driving a vehicle.

They went on to say:

"Distracted drivers react more slowly to sudden traffic conditions or events, such as a car stopping to make a turn, or pulling out from a side road. They fail more often to recognize potential hazards such as

pedestrians, bicycles or debris in the road. They decrease their `margin of safety' leading them to take risks that they might not otherwise take, such as turning left in front of oncoming traffic.

"When a driver's attention is drawn away from the road and the surrounding environment, the result could be a delayed reaction to a hazard, or possibly a failure to detect it at all. All of these are common

factors associated with vehicle crashes. Driver focus is critical to anticipating and avoiding collisions."

In effect, along with our colleague the member from Durham, who is advocating a complete ban on the use of cellphones in Ontario, it seems to me my colleague from Oakville, through Bill 135, is directing it to

young drivers. I will get on the record that young drivers are indeed very safe, but many distractions have been clearly identified: the issue of using radio players of various descriptions or a cellphone. I believe this bill goes a long way to

help improve road safety in Ontario. Indeed, any measures that we can take to reduce the carnage on Ontario's roads are initiatives that should be taken. As Sergeant Woolley says on many occasions, many of the fatalities that occur on Ontario's

roads today are preventable. Any action we can take as legislators in the province of Ontario to reduce those risks, to make our roads much safer, are actions I think we should take. So I will be supporting Bill 135.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I want to start by saying that I found it very interesting initially. My first reaction when I heard about the member's bill being on the agenda for debate

today, my gut reaction immediately was, why only young drivers? Why is it that this is about young drivers? I found it very interesting that he addressed that in his remarks, indicating that in fact it wasn't his intention to talk about young

drivers per se, it wasn't an age issue, but rather an issue of novice drivers. But at the end of his remarks he closed by saying it's about safety for young people. So I think the member perhaps initially went out thinking that this was for young

people, heard some of the criticism around the fact that it shouldn't be about not valuing or appreciating the sensibilities of our youth and not supporting the fact that our youth are in many cases very bright and wise and responsible people, and

has perhaps backtracked a little bit and changed his course. If that is the case, that's great. I think any member would recognize that young people quite often get a shafting and are often blamed for many things that perhaps some of their peers

might be doing. We tend to paint our young people with a broad brush and often don't give them the dignity and respect of acknowledging that the vast majority of young people in fact are responsible and do want to do the right thing and are not

the ones who often, unfortunately, are in a position of causing some angst in communities with their behaviour.

Having said that, I would say that I support the principle of the bill overall, but I really do believe that the bill that was brought forward by the member from Durham a while back spoke to everyone. It spoke

to the issue of the use of electronic devices -- I believe he was specifically talking about cellphones, but in fact it's the use of electronic devices -- by everyone in cars. If we agree or believe that the stats that the member from Oakville was

raising -- in 2002, I think he said, 7.9% of accidents were the result of distractions, and in 2003 I believe he said that rose to 8.1%. If we believe that accidents are being caused in this province because we allow people or we don't restrict

people or we don't regulate the use of electronic devices, I would be interested in knowing how many of those 7.9% or 8.1% stats were specifically novice drivers using electronic devices, as opposed to simply saying that these accidents were

caused by distractions. So you see where I'm going. It's a matter of saying that if distractions cause accidents, if electronic devices are the things that are currently the greatest distraction within the realm of things that are causing

accidents, then we should regulate the use of those in cars for everyone, not just for novice drivers.

I wanted to indicate that I think even if we do move to regulation, whether it's through the member from Durham's perspective in terms of a more broad-based regulation or the member from Oakville's perspective

that it really should be focused on novice drivers, regardless, we're still going to be in a situation where we're going to have to find ways to monitor and enforce this kind of change. I would hope that the monitoring enforcement pieces are

brought into consideration, so that if we actually do get to a place where we have this new regulation in one way or another, we're acknowledging that it creates a strain, for example, on municipal budgets, because perhaps police are going to have

to be a little bit more bumped up in the traffic department to try to reinforce some of these issues. For example, when seat belt legislation came in, a lot of focus was put to the traffic sections of the police departments, because they wanted to

reinforce that seat belt legislation was important and thereby put more focus on that. Again, if this comes into play in a more permanent way in the province, I would hope that there's some acknowledgment of the need to pay for and support the

work of enforcement agencies to make this move more effective.

A number of issues have been raised around what constitutes a distraction, and there are a couple that have come up with other members. It's interesting, because I know that a number of members of this

Legislature -- in fact, it happens during debates; I'm seeing it happen at this very moment. I was doing it myself a little earlier, I must admit, because I have a problem with my BlackBerry. But we all use these devices -- we use BlackBerries, we

use cellphones. So I'd be interested to know -- I'm not going to ask for a show of hands -- if any members of this Legislature use cellphones, BlackBerries and those kinds of devices in cars as they're driving, because you know what? It does

happen, and it's shocking to see. When you're driving anywhere, in fact, you notice people doing things that they just shouldn't be doing. Oftentimes, you shake your head and you think, "Gee, that's an accident waiting to happen." Yes, it's

BlackBerries, cellphones, novice drivers, long-time drivers, and it may even be members of this very Legislature who are --

Mr. Leal: Personal grooming in cars.

Ms. Horwath: Well, you know what? It's funny that you raise that. The member from Peterborough talks about personal grooming. But as he was listing a few of the distractions that people have,

I remembered when I was in university that one of my friends, who was a little bit older than I -- we had all just gotten our driver's licences, but she had been driving for a little bit longer -- got into a fairly significant accident. The reason

she got into the accident was because of her, dare I say it, Tim Hortons coffee. She put it on her dash, turned out of the Tim Hortons and the hot coffee spilled everywhere. It burned her and burned her passenger. They both kind of screamed, they

were quite distraught, and of course she smashed into another car because of the distraction of having burning coffee on your lap when you're trying to drive.

Again, there are a number of different things that cause people to be distracted from the road, not to say that all these accidents are Tim Hortons' fault, but certainly that's one of the ones that I remember

quite clearly. And you know what? When I found out about it, it taught me a lesson. I'm always very, very careful now if I'm going to have anything in the car. You see people juggling with their bottles of water, undoing their bottle cap, trying

to steer at the same time and drink their water. You see that all the time driving on the highway. I see it often when I'm in gridlock on the QEW, coming either to or from Toronto, as I have to come from Hamilton along that roadway, and there are

lots of individuals, unfortunately, driving in cars. They don't have two or three passengers with them -- they're not carpooling or anything like that -- so they're doing these things on their own.

Personal grooming: lipstick. How many times do I see someone with their visor down looking in their mirror and putting lipstick on, or -- I could say some other things that I've seen, but I don't want to go

there; I don't think anybody wants to go there. It's before lunch, isn't it? We don't want to talk about that. But certainly personal grooming is one that I've noticed.

You know which one I've noticed as well? The member talked about kids in the car, and I had that down as one of mine too. I put "arguments" -- you know, when you're having a domestic in the car. Usually it's

your kids; sometimes it's yourself with your partner or whatever. But one of the other ones is waving politicians. How many people during election campaigns are driving along and there's the politician waving on the side of the road with their

team of people and their election signs? I would suspect that most people really want to just drive those politicians over, they want to just run them over, because you know what? Waving politicians are a big distraction to people. Who the heck

needs to see that when they're driving to work: some waving politician with their election sign on the side of the street? I have to say, I don't think I've ever done the waving politician thing. I think it's kind of cheesy, to be honest with you,

but what it certainly does is distract drivers from what they're supposed to be doing, which is paying attention to the road. So for everyone here who's thinking of supporting John O'Toole's bill or thinking of supporting Mr. Flynn's bill, let's

remember that we have to do our part as politicians and stop that waving on the side of the road, because it's something that distracts drivers.

To be a little bit more serious, there are real challenges we have as technology changes and as the technology becomes smaller, more compact, more convenient, more easy to be transported and carried on the

person. There are challenges we have about educating ourselves as the people who are long-time drivers and experienced drivers, but also building in to all the drivers' training courses and all the driving processes to make sure that people

understand very clearly that in a split second of taking your attention off the road, you can change your life or someone else's life forever, and not in a positive way. One of the most powerful weapons that everyone has access to is a motor

vehicle. The problem is that unless we start educating and raising awareness about this issue -- we can do all the regulating in the world, just like the seat belt regulation. It took a heck of a lot of what's called social marketing -- getting

that message out there, trying to change people's attitudes and behaviours -- before the use of seat belts became as widespread as it is now. People resisted. They didn't want government to tell them what to do.

Similarly, if we're going to move forward with anything, whether it be a more broad or widespread ban, whether it be something more focused on novice drivers, we really need to put the effort and the

initiative into the education portion, into the awareness portion of this kind of effort. I think it would behoove the government -- I wish the Minister of Transportation was here right now, because I think there are some good ideas around how we

can encourage existing bodies, existing departments of government, to come up with some of these education campaigns at this point in time, not even having to wait for legislation or regulating the use, but taking the fact that this issue keeps

coming up and starting to internalize that within the day-to-day business of the Ministry of Transportation as it stands now -- perhaps developing and producing some educational pieces for billboards, for television, for radio. Okay, so

advertising is a bit of a sensitive issue right now for government. I acknowledge that, I recognize that. In fact, my party has been criticizing it nonetheless. But there is a good example of something that would be useful and helpful and would

begin that process of raising awareness around the use of these kinds of devices so that it's not a matter of targeting this kind of driver or that kind of driver, but to say that it's our collective responsibility not only to not do this

ourselves, but to be clearly vocal about it when we see someone else doing it, to discourage the behaviour if others are doing it and make it become something that's not acceptable, something that people frown upon. Again, that will reduce the

incidence of people undertaking that kind of behaviour, I believe.

It's interesting, because one of the other things that came to mind very quickly for me when this bill was coming forward, when I knew we were going to be debating it, is a particular example of a person in my

community who, again, had some frustration in using our current drivers' test system.

What happened to this particular person is that she logged on to the computer to book her driver's test at the privatized driving centre in our city and, unfortunately, when she paid her credit card amount of

$70 and she chose the date on which she wanted her driver's test to take place, she received an e-mail back indicating that she was booked for that very day.

She immediately sent something back to them saying, "You've made a mistake. I've paid my $70 by credit card. I can't come today. I'm booking for the 20th" -- basically, about three weeks later.

She was told, "That's too bad. We don't rebook. You've booked the wrong date. It's not our fault; it's not our problem. Go on your way, and if you want to rebook, it will cost you another $70. We're not

refunding your fee."

We, of course, worked with that person and with the minister's office and tried to change the outcome for this woman, but it was quite interesting to see the resistance in that private company to trying to do

the right thing for this person -- the resistance. They simply thought they were above the law, that they had no accountability whatsoever. They couldn't give two hoots if we were calling the minister's office or not. They didn't care that this

woman, through no fault of her own, because of a glitch in their computer program, ended up with the wrong date, and they were very stubborn about it.

I raise this because I really don't think we're going to get anywhere with these kinds of new initiatives if we're not making it clear to the various bodies that are charged with carrying out some of the

government duties.

In my opinion, it is unfortunate that this is the way another government in this province went: privatizing a lot of these facilities. When you privatize them, you just don't get the accountability. You don't

get the opportunity to really make them accountable as policies change and as priorities change, in the way that I firmly believe you can when you have those kinds of direct relationships of in-house service provision. That is another issue I

think is looming, and we have to take it seriously, around getting other agencies to do our work if they're privatized.

I have run out of time and I still have a couple of points left, but I thank the member for bringing the bill forward, and look forward to other people's remarks.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to address this bill, Bill 135, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act to prohibit the use of portable equipment by novice drivers.

The member for Hamilton East gives us, again, some more challenges that I think are valid that we need to take a look at in education.

I have a couple of ideas I want to share that I know the member for Oakville has heard before, and I know he'll hear again.

The research: We shouldn't be rejecting the research, because it is scientific and it is pointing us in the direction of the most important impact we can have on this particular event inside of this bill. I

continually remind us that we're talking about small pieces, small steps to improve the holes that are found in each.

I offered a private member's bill quite some time ago about safe school zones, where we finally adapted somewhat of the idea -- where we were not slowing traffic down in front of schools when kids were going

to and from school. When Florida did it, they reduced their accident rate by 82%, and it became a culture.

Here's how the culture changed that the member for Oakville is talking about: The culture change came when they made it part of the driver education program and the testing to get your licence in the first

place. They had to show that they knew they had to slow down in front of a school.

In this case, I would highly recommend that we work with the MTO to say that, if and when this bill should pass, or something like it, we should be making sure that in the regulation this is part of the

education process that makes it clear, to help us change the culture of what's going on in front of that car, inside of that car, around that car and in front of schools.

Here's the other piece: Message boards on the highway have been researched. They have an impact on the driver's performance. When the sign across the road says, "Traffic slow between such-and-such an exit and

such-and-such an exit," people begin to slow down already. Using the message boards does change driving habits, so that would be another area where we could improve the circumstances behind that. We could use the message boards right on the

highway to explain -- and they do use them now.

I've driven and I've said, "Keep your mind on the road. Don't use your cellphone." I'm going to tell you that it does have an impact.

The last piece that I want to talk about quickly is: Go to the source of knowledge. You know where the source of knowledge on this one is? Truck drivers. I've talked to an awful lot of truck drivers, and

they've informed me of the things they've seen happening in cars. I don't want to tell you what some of the stories are. Some of them were: bare feet in front of the windshield, putting on makeup, eating breakfast, drinking coffee. These guys were

telling me stories and I was sitting there going, "No, that's not going on on the roads in the middle of a 2,000-pound weapon." And the answer was, "And more." I am sensitive to this Legislature. I respect it so I won't get called out of order. I

won't tell you what the other things were that they were telling me they were seeing.

But having said that, we need to change a culture, and inside of changing that culture, we need to take examples from other areas. There are other examples of other areas. This one is pretty good because, I'll

tell you what: We have done the research on the graduated licensing introduced by the previous government. What they found was that drivers improved. It wasn't the best, but young drivers actually improved their skills on the highway, their skills

on the road, by having this graduated licence. The expectations of some of the things, as they get their full-fledged licence, have improved. Does it need to be better? Absolutely. This is one of those bills that I believe fills that hole, where

we can make that improvement.

There was research done on this. The CAA is another example. They're supportive of this bill. What they're saying is that the research shows that young people inside the graduated licence system do change the

culture of how they perform in those cars. This is another example of how that could happen. I recommend that we support the bill, and I support the bill fully.

I thank the member from Oakville for plugging this hole, as we do often in this Legislature during private members' time. Thank you very much, member.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 135. How did we ever get to this situation? How did we ever exist without cellphones and BlackBerries?

Police cruisers have computers in the cars; imagine that. Once upon a time we put radios in cars, and from what I understand, the same debate took place: "You can't put a radio in a car because you're going to be distracting people, and look

what's going to happen. They're going to be driving all over the place and they'll be dancing in the cars," and on and on and on. Guess what? We did.

Then the truckers got CBs, and we got, "How can those truckers be paying attention?" and "Come on, good buddy," and all that kind of stuff; "We got a convoy going on," etc. And the truckers made it through.

Now the truckers have GPS that will tell their companies exactly where they are, the speed they're going etc. How we've advanced from there.

One of the members mentioned the things we see in cars. When I'm driving in on the 401, I see people shaving, putting on makeup, lipstick, eating breakfast, drinking coffee. Just as the member from Brant

mentioned, there are so many things going on there that we hear about on a regular basis. You have to look at all these things and take them into consideration.

I want to tell you, as a father of two boys -- Josh is now 11 and Garrett is nine -- there was a time where the biggest distraction going was somebody arguing in the backseat; try and watch what you're doing

at that time.

Mr. Levac: "Don't make me pull over."

Mr. Ouellette: Yeah, pull over, all the time when you're on the 401 or wherever you're going, everywhere. You try to do the best you can. Yes, there are certain things that take place in our

community, and the HTA, the Highway Traffic Act, does address a lot of these; we'll get into those. But there are so many other things that are mentioned.

You drive on Simcoe Street in Oshawa, you're looking up and down the road, and they've got Little Caesars. They're running out shaking these signs in front of you, and Quiznos Sub is doing the same thing.

They're shaking their sign. It was also mentioned to read the sign "Pay attention to the road." Well, I'm looking at the sign saying, "Pay attention to the road," the information sign. What are they saying that for? I was watching the road in the

first place. All these distractions are taking place on a regular basis, and it's all part of the learning process and what takes place.

What these new technologies have done is, effectively, in the case of MPPs or others who utilize them, expanded the work day for us. Communication is now instant and right there, and when people want to talk

to us or we need to get back to individuals, we take that opportunity to be in touch with people, to be in constant communi cation. I can remember one of the deputy chiefs of the Durham Regional Police who said, "They didn't quite figure it out

when we gave all our senior officers cellphones, because we got an extra hour and a half a day out of them because they were doing work and they were accessible all those times."

At a quarter to 7 this morning, I and a retired chief of police sat down and discussed this very bill. His comments were, "I realize this deals with G1s and newly licensed drivers. Realistically, I'd like to

see some stats that pertain to that." I'm going to get into that a little bit. Are insurance companies offering reduction rates for non-cellphone users? They used to have abstainers who used to receive -- and I don't drink at all; it has been six

years or so over that. But I don't even know if they have those reduction rates anymore. Do they have reduced rates? If they don't, then it's not an issue with the insurance companies.

Anyway, the issue that came up this morning with the retired chief of police was: Look at police officers. They've got on-board computers, cellphones, walkie-talkies, direct communication. They've also got

communication between officers -- dispatch communication. I know that conservation officers have about four different pieces of communication in their vehicle at all times that are going all the time where they are. But how do we get by? How does

it happen?

What are you going to do with the new GPS systems that are out there? I happened to be driving to an event with a friend, and he had a new GPS. He plugged in where we were going. It says, "Turn right, 200

metres. Turn right, 50 metres. Turn right now." Is that a distraction or not? What's taking place there is, the GPS is now taking the function away from the driver of watching and knowing where they're going. The GPS is making that decision, and

guess what the driver is doing? They're talking about other things and not focusing on those things. So is that a distraction or not? Is it an aid? I know that one of the car companies produced a vehicle that projects on the windshield in

low-light conditions and poor visibility to see what's going on along the side of the vehicle. So you can now see the sides of the road on your windshield, which is supposed to be a great aid, but is it or not? I don't know. Those are some of the

things that have to be decided.

I have an old form of GPS which is great. It shows all the roads, the maps and all those sorts of things, and it tells me effectively where I'm going. As the members know here, when you're dealing with the

province of Ontario, you're in a lot of different jurisdictions. If you've got something that says, "This is where you're going; that's how you're getting there. That's a one-way street: Don't go down there," it's a great aid and a great benefit.

But it's like anything else. It's those aids and benefits that you have to make sure you're using in a proper fashion.

I don't know if there's any data, as I mentioned before, that specifically states that new drivers in the province of Ontario are the ones. I don't see reductions by insurance companies for those non-cellphone

users or if there are any agreements that they sign. I don't see any indications by the insurance industry to say that this is a main problem we need to have. Mr. O'Toole will maybe tell us a little differently later on, because I know he's done a

lot of research on that, but I do want to tell you that I had students from John XXIII Catholic School in Oshawa here today and I asked them, and they were quite openly in support of the bill.

I intend to listen to a lot of the debate on it and make a decision at that time. I would like to see more stats, specifically as relate to new drivers. Are there any insurance stats or claims coming

forward?

It was also mentioned about Sergeant Cam Woolley. Cam Woolley also realizes and knows that there is a component within the Highway Traffic Act that specifically states that you must always maintain proper care

and control of your vehicle. When you are not, you are in breach of that law, the Highway Traffic Act, and the policing authorities have the authority currently to lay charges to those individuals who are not in proper care and control.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to debate. I look forward to listening to more.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): It's my great pleasure to rise in this House today to speak in support of Bill 135, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Use of Portable Equipment by Novice

Drivers), 2006.

I was listening to many speakers in this House talking about the importance of this bill. First, I want to commend the member from Oakville for bringing such a very important piece of legislation, because it's

about safety: how we can create safety in the province of Ontario, how we can enforce that safety without passing such important bills, like this one here before us, in order to maintain safety. I listened to many speakers. It's important.

Whatever is being said in this House is correct.

I used to work in Woodstock. I used to commute with a friend when our shift used to be the same time. On our way to Woodstock, my friend used to put on her makeup, drink coffee and talk to me. It was

frightening. I was polite. I guess I didn't say much, because she was giving me a ride to Woodstock.

Interjection.

Mr. Ramal: Well, I don't know, but she was trying to put her makeup on, drinking coffee and at the same time talking to me. So I was, I think, polite. Maybe because she was giving me a ride I

didn't say much. I should have said back then, "Come on, my friend, it's not the time to do it."

Anyway, many people talk on the phone, use a BlackBerry, you know, socialize, do a lot of things, as the member from Brant and many other members in this House mentioned. But the very important thing is, we

have to start somewhere. I think the member from Oakville started in the right spot: the novice drivers who are the newest drivers in the province of Ontario, who happen to be young, just got their licence, or they came from a different province

or they came from a different country altogether.

You know, we have a way to drive in Ontario. We have certain circumstances, rules and regulations. You have to learn those regulations. It doesn't come very fast and quick. We have to get trained. Then, when

you get comfortable, maybe you are able to use a phone, maybe you are able to use different electronic devices. But the most important thing is, we have to make sure that safety is in place, because it's our responsibility as a government, our

responsibility as citizens of this province to make sure that safety is in place, and to create the safety of the people who are driving and using the phone or electronic devices; also for the people who are on the road, walking or driving. So

this causes a lot of accidents.

While the member from Hamilton East was speaking, somebody in London, I think he's named Peter Foy -- my friend Peter Foy e-mailed me. He's a former police officer in London and originally he was from England.

He sent me an attachment talking about how important it is to ban the cellphone while you're driving. Unfortunately, I couldn't open that attachment on my BlackBerry, but he said it shouldn't be only for the novice driver; it should be for

everyone. But we have to start somewhere.

I think it's a very important step which the member from Oakville brings to us today, and I heard all the members from every side of the House -- from the Conservative, from the NDP, from our caucus --

supporting this initiative, supporting this bill and talking about how important it is. Because if we create safety, it would mean less pressure on the hospitals, less pressure on the police system, less pressure on the fire departments, less

pressure on the ambulance service and also less pressure on our budget, instead of wasting more than $5 billion to $6 billion on a yearly basis, and I urge our people that in relation to collisions or accidents, I think it will save us a lot of

money.

I also want to commend many private companies who enforce a ban on using cellphones while working, like the member from Oakville mentioned. The company name -- I believe one of them is Union Gas and another

company -- I don't remember the name. Anyway, it's important; they have about 20,000 members -- AMEC. They are banning their employees' use of electronic devices while they are at work. It's very important to create safety for their employees, and

also for the people around them who are driving or walking on the road.

Sometimes we go -- especially like myself; I drive two, three times from London to Toronto. I see a lot of accidents on a daily basis. I see a lot of accidents on my trips. So I wonder, are those people who

are paying attention to the road, who are paying attention while they're driving, or were they speaking on the phone, using their Blackberry? We can use a lot of simple things to protect our community, to protect the people who commute on a daily

basis, and also to create safety in this province of Ontario.

I'm honoured to have the privilege to stand up and speak and support the bill. I think I'm going to support it and vote for it as a first step toward eliminating the use of cellphones or electronic devices

while we are driving, for safety, for the sake of the province of Ontario.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to take a minute and respond to Mr. Flynn's Bill 135, which was introduced on September 25, 2006. I would say at the outset that the best form of

flattery is imitation. That being said, he must agree with my bill substantively. I know that Kris Barnier from the CAA, in the audience, substantially agrees that my bill should go for public hearings. In that respect, I think Mr. Flynn and I are

really trying to provide a public service, and in that respect, I'll be supporting the bill.

I hope that, quite frankly, the simplest solution is my bill, referred to as Bill 68. It's sitting on the order paper for the estimates committee at the moment because it has passed second reading. That bill,

of course, would be amended probably in the committee process and it could be implemented, as Mr. Flynn and I could work together, which would be quite novel in this House, to see two people from different parties working together.

Most of the comments germane to the debate are important. I want to draw to your attention that there are many academics outside of here who are doing a lot of research. I want to mention Professor David

Wiesenthal, who is in the department of psychology at York University, and his partner, Dwight Hennessy, who are editors of Contemporary Issues in Road User Behavior and Traffic Safety. I'm looking at a specific edition here issued by them. I'll

just read a few comments, because there are more academics than just those two. There's been research done by the government itself, governments in other jurisdictions, and there's the famous Redelmeier and Tibshirani study that was done in

I think what's important here is to look at other jurisdictions, and the research that has been done. Specific to Mr. Flynn's Bill 135, it says here, and I'm reading from the Wiesenthal study: "Canada's

Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) conducted a nationwide survey and found that 40% of Canadians believed that driver distraction constituted a serious problem, with two thirds of respondents describing cellular telephone use by drivers to

be a `serious' or `extremely serious' problem." They're quoting a research paper by Beirness, Simpson and Pak in 2002.

They go on to say, "The TIRF survey estimated that 4.3 million drivers placed cellular telephone calls while driving over a one-week period and found that cellular telephone users tend to have the following

characteristics:" -- this is the important part, the characteristics of typical cellphone users. "They are male, younger drivers, have a job requiring driving, live in urban areas, consume alcohol and then drive, and have received a traffic

ticket."

There is evidence in some jurisdictions that they're profiling young people today. In fact, the Ministry of Transportation just last year, under Minister Takhar at that time, passed a bill that pushed

restrictions on young drivers. Our government, many years ago, introduced the graduated driver's licence system, which indicated that inexperienced and novice drivers, as you would call them, needed to have some restrictions or special

consideration or help or assistance while they learned to drive. So in that respect, Mr. Flynn is on the right case here. My bill did exactly the same thing; it extended it in other areas.

But the point being made here is that young drivers tend to have a greater degree of risk. That's why they pay high insurance rates. Today, they can't drive after midnight, until 5 in the morning; they can't

drive on 400 series highways. So there are restrictions on graduated drivers today. The evidence proves that that is the case. This isn't politics.

It goes on. I could quote this paper. There's the epidemiological report done by Redelmeier, and in it they compared drivers, and they're more likely to be engaged in an accident.

What this is trying to do is make our roads safer. In that respect, I would say that the Ford Motor Co. has just conducted a study on driver behaviour as well. So there's much interest and much research. Some

of it needs to be confirmed.

One of the things that my bill, Bill 68, does -- Bill 135 is similar to it -- is actually to require accident investigation reports to account for whether or not technology played a contributing role. I think

it's very important to have certainty around the data we collect as we move forward to make our roads safer.

Multi-tasking has been described as simply unsafe. Driver education itself should be modified to address driver distraction in all its forms, whether it's having a coffee or whether it's using your BlackBerry

or text messaging while driving -- or using GPS, as Mr. Ouellette has said.

I'm impressed with some of the good citizenry that's occurring throughout society, because AMEC, a private company with 3,000 or 4,000 employees, now prohibits its employees from using a cellphone while

driving while at work. Several other companies have now taken it upon themselves to eliminate using a cellphone while driving.

This bill and the discussion around it are important. I think it serves to educate the public on the important first and primary responsibilities of driving, whether you're a novice driver or an experienced

driver, and using a cellphone appropriately. If roads are icy, don't use it, but if you're stuck at the side of the road in the snow, it's a good time to use your cellphone. It's like any tool: Using it appropriately at the right time and place is

important. The Ministry of Transportation could produce guidelines for appropriate use of cellphones.

Etiquette on the phone would be good. Keep your conversations short. There's no need to talk to your stockbroker while driving at 120 kilometres an hour. It's okay to call and say, "I'm going to be late for a

meeting. I'm stuck in traffic." That would be an appropriate phone call.

Enforcement of this is a big issue with the police. How do they enforce it? With tinted windows, late at night, how are you going to enforce it? Then there are privacy issues in terms of enforcement. My idea

would be to educate the driver by stopping, interfering and saying, "You're on the phone. You're driving erratically. I could give you a careless driving, but what I'm going to do is require you to take a driver education course, which deals with

driver distraction or multi-tasking."

I think there are ways that either this bill or my bill, Bill 68 -- I think Mr. Flynn would probably agree, and I hope in his

summary remarks he'll give me full credit. I also give him full credit for

supporting my bill by bringing this one

section forward. So I will be supporting it. But the solution here is for Mr. Flynn and I to work together, along with Ms. Cansfield, the Minister of Transportation, to try and get Dalton McGuinty to do one

thing that makes sense that we all agree on. He could help Mr. Flynn's career, because in the next election he may be at some risk. You never know. I might, as well, so I shouldn't say that.

But we are trying to do the right thing by working together and, in that respect, I compliment Mr. Flynn. I hope he'll do as much with respect to my Bill 68, which is far more comprehensive. In fact, it's been

introduced three times.

Mr. Leal: Three times.

Mr. O'Toole: Three times. Exactly. I intend to introduce it a fourth time to keep the debate alive. This debate, including this debate this morning by all the members, is about educating the

public, not just our young people. But all drivers should not put themselves or others at risk. They should work with the CAA and other responsible organizations to do the right thing. As well, the wireless association of Canada should be paying

attention to this debate. I'm sure they are, because they often contact me. The media also serves a role here. It simply isn't safe to multi-task while driving.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Flynn, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Flynn: It certainly is a pleasure to hear from all the speakers today from Peterborough, Brant, London-Fanshawe, Hamilton East, Durham and Oshawa. I want to give credit to the member from

Oshawa. He's fought very hard. He should --

Mr. O'Toole: Durham.

Mr. Flynn: Oh, from Durham. I'm sorry. He's fought very, very hard. The member from Oshawa had good remarks too.

The member from Durham actually owes me. I've got the member from Durham more press in the last two weeks than he's had in all the time he's been in this House.

Driving is a new skill. I think we all understand that. We'd all like to change the world with one private member's bill, but that's simply not going to happen. If you agree that cellphone use while driving

for all people is unsafe, then by default you agree with this bill. What we're saying is that during the period where you're acquiring a skill -- and the most encouraging support has come from young people. The member from Oshawa talked about

people in Oshawa. I have heard from people from Windsor. I think if we asked the young people in the audience today, "Could you talk on the phone and learn how to drive a car at the same time?" -- one guy said yes, the rest said no.

Interjection: He's the guy with the cellphone.

Mr. Flynn: That's right. He's the young one on the cellphone, Mr. Speaker.

I think we've presented the evidence, and I think we've presented it in a very serious way. It may be a first step for some people, it may be just a baby step for some people, but it goes a long way toward

ensuring that Ontario's roads, which are amongst the safest in all of North America as they are, would become even safer.

There are companies like AMEC that have banned cellphone use amongst their employees. Union Gas has travelled the same route. I think when you're learning a skill, whether it be horseback riding, snowboarding

or truck driving -- and certainly including driving a car -- you don't need to be on the phone at the same time. It just makes sense.

The debate on cellphone use in general is perhaps for another day. Today we can do something very specific to make Ontario's roads safer. I ask for your support.

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

We shall deal first with ballot item 51, standing in the name of Ms. Matthews.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(STABILITY FOR STUDENTS

IN TRANSITION HOUSING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION (STABILITÉ POUR

LES ÉTUDIANTS VIVANT DANS

UN LOGEMENT DE TRANSITION)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. Matthews has moved second reading of Bill 133.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members after dealing with the next ballot item.

We'll now deal with ballot item 52, standing in the name of Mr. Flynn.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(USE OF PORTABLE EQUIPMENT BY

NOVICE DRIVERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA

ROUTE (UTILISATION DE MATÉRIEL

PORTATIF PAR LES CONDUCTEURS

DÉBUTANTS)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Flynn has moved second reading of Bill 135.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members for this as well. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(STABILITY FOR STUDENTS

IN TRANSITION HOUSING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION (STABILITÉ POUR

LES ÉTUDIANTS VIVANT DANS

UN LOGEMENT DE TRANSITION)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. Matthews has moved second reading of Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Education Act to provide stability for students in transition housing. All those

in favour, please stand.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

DiNovo, Cheri

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 33; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill is -- Ms. Matthews?

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I request that this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

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

The doors will now be open for 30 seconds, before we take the next vote.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(USE OF PORTABLE EQUIPMENT BY

NOVICE DRIVERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA

ROUTE (UTILISATION DE MATÉRIEL

PORTATIF PAR LES CONDUCTEURS

DÉBUTANTS)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Flynn has moved second reading of Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other portable equipment by

novice drivers while driving on a highway. All those members in favour, please stand.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Brownell, Jim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Klees, Frank

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 28; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd ask that this bill be sent to the standing committee on general government.

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

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

The House recessed from 1211 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MOHAMMED JAMIL DAR

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): It is with great sadness that I rise in the House to inform all members of the recent passing of my constituent and friend Dr. Mohammed Jamil Dar. As a true

pioneer of the Islamic-Canadian community, he became the president of the Islamic Foundation of Toronto, which is today the largest mosque in Canada. His tremendous organizational abilities were a testament to his unique leadership in the

Muslim-Canadian community.

Dr. Dar also dedicated his professional life as a physician to serving his community in his two medical practices in Scarborough and Woodbridge.

He is survived by his wife, Dr. Shahnaz Dar, his daughters Salma, Seema and Heerah, and his son, Imran.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of joining Dr. Dar's family and the community he loved so dearly at his funeral held at the Islamic Foundation of Toronto, which he helped to establish.

On behalf of all members of the House, I wish to express my deepest sympathy and most heartfelt condolences to Dr. Mohammed Jamil Dar's family and his entire community at this very sad and difficult time.

Salaam Alekum.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Ontario's heritage is an essential part of our identity; it is therefore important to recognize those who work to conserve and preserve

it.

One such individual is Mrs. Margaret Kurtin, known as Peggy to her friends. Peggy will be presented with the Lieutenant Governor's award at the Heritage Canada Foundation's gala award ceremony reception on

October 13, in recognition of her more than 40 years of service for heritage conservation. Her passion has been the region of Toronto known as Cabbagetown. Peggy has produced a book about the region as well as a video entitled I Love Cabbagetown.

Her love of Cabbagetown has seen her and other volunteers research over 1,500 buildings. She also participated in the founding of the Toronto Historical Association.

Peggy isn't afraid to roll up her sleeves and do the hands-on work of conservation; for the last five years, she has volunteered at the 1830 tollkeeper's house at the corner of Bathurst and Davenport. From the

organizational level to painting and scraping, Peggy has been a role model in the heritage community and is most deserving of this honour. She is not afraid to roll up her sleeves and work on heritage projects.

Peggy, on behalf of this Legislature, thank you for your tireless work and dedication to the preservation of heritage in Toronto and Cabbagetown.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): In Waterloo-Wellington, the McGuinty Liberal government is best known for its record of broken promises. It's no wonder this is their hallmark, since

Dalton McGuinty campaigned on a promise not to raise taxes and then brought in the biggest tax increase in the province's history in his first budget. We in Waterloo-Wellington have not forgotten, and in response to my recent questionnaire, which

was included in my annual newsletter this past spring, my constituents have spoken loud and clear.

I asked them a question on the issue of lost manufacturing jobs in Ontario. In reply, an overwhelming 81% of respondents said that the McGuinty Liberal government is not doing enough to protect factory jobs.

They also expressed an astounding 90% support for the resolution that I first tabled in the Legislature some 16 months ago, when I called upon the House to immediately begin a study of the competitiveness of Ontario industry, with a view to

protecting these good-paying jobs.

I asked them a question about balanced budgets; 80% said the McGuinty government should balance its budget this year. In spite of this, last spring the Treasurer made a conscious, irresponsible decision to

plan for yet another deficit this year, again breaking another election promise.

I asked my constituents if they believed the provincial government is doing enough to respond to the crime problem. Again, 80% of the respondents criticized the government, saying no, they are not doing

enough.

Overall, my constituents in Waterloo-Wellington have given the government a failing grade on key issues like jobs and the economy, the province's finances, and crime, and the vast majority of my constituents

are rightly skeptical of whatever statements the McGuinty Liberals make, because we know they will say anything to try and get themselves re-elected.

SUKKOT

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): On Monday night, I had the pleasure of attending an event in my riding of Thornhill to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. For those who do not know, Sukkot

is the holiday that occurs on the fifth day of Yom Kippur, usually in early October. Sukkot is a Jewish holiday that traditionally marks the end of a long harvest, the time of year when farmers finish their work.

The event took place at the Chabad Lubavitch Community Centre in Thornhill. It was a festive occasion, attended by community members not only from Thornhill but from the GTA. There was truly something for

everyone at the festival. There was a band playing outdoors, singing and dancing, games for kids and, at the end of the event, an impressive display of artwork.

I would like to thank Rabbi Grossbaum and all the members from the Chabad Lubavitch community for hosting such a wonderful event and allowing me to take

part in the celebration.

In addition to Sukkot, several other religious holidays are taking place at this time of the year, including Ramadan and Diwali. These holidays will be observed by thousands of people throughout Ontario,

reminding us of the diversity that exists within our communities, a diversity that is to be treasured and respected.

Again, I would like to thank Rabbi Grossbaum and the members of the Chabad Lubavitch community for their hospitality and generosity.

US COAST GUARD INITIATIVE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I rise to express the concerns of Ontario residents living in the Wolfe Island and Kingston areas of Lake Ontario with regard to the US Coast Guard's

intentions to use an area of the lake near Wolfe Island for target practice with machine guns and other armaments. We're advised that the weapons are mounted on boats ranging in size from 25 feet to 240 feet.

This week, a spokesperson for the coast guard was quoted in the Kingston Whig-Standard indicating that this was solely a US issue, implying that Canadians who share these waters are not entitled to

consultation, let alone input. The coast guard, apparently in response to rising US public concerns, has announced a series of public consultations, but none north of the border. We're excluded.

I believe that the Ontario government could, and should, play a role here by formally requesting consultation prior to this planned proceeding and by asking for the support of the federal government in their

efforts.

In my view, this initiative is dumb, unnecessary and potentially dangerous, and the US failure to treat us as full partners is worrisome and could portend future unilateral actions on issues such as

water-taking. We should fight for involvement, and fight vigorously.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I recently had the privilege of participating in a round table discussion that took place in my city of Hamilton.

My colleague MP David Christopherson called together community leaders to address the needs of new Canadians and immigrant groups that call Hamilton home. The group was reflective of the mosaic of which

Hamilton can currently boast. There were representatives from the Somali, Turkish, African, Afghanistani, Pakistani, Chadian, Sudanese and Bangladeshi communities; youth from McMaster representing the voices of student visa holders; the

Afro-Canadian Caribbean association members; Muslim association members -- many, many people.

As clear and pointed as their message was, it was equally frustrating to acknowledge that not only has not much changed in the way new Canadians fare in our city, in some ways things are even worse.

In Hamilton, we all know too well the struggle that immigrant families face and the woefully inadequate response of governments to their needs. Study after study tells us that emerging communities face greater

economic challenges from poverty, unemployment and lack of opportunities. We're committed to changing that, first through dialogue and then through action.

We must listen -- really listen -- to what these communities are telling us. Their skills, talents and insights have not been utilized to their full advantage, nor to ours. Fifty-two per cent of recent

immigrants in Hamilton live below the poverty line. It's shocking and shameful that a province as affluent as Ontario has done so little to improve things. Immigrant women continue to be isolated and continue to represent the largest numbers of

the face of poverty in our city. Employers in Hamilton are often unaware of their skills.

There is much work to do. It's not just a matter of immigrant policies; it's a matter of all of our policies.

ROSE THEATRE

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I'd like to take this opportunity to brag about the newest addition to my community. Recently, Brampton officially unveiled the Rose Theatre, which is

part of Brampton's vision and sets in motion its five-year strategic plan and revitalization program in our historic downtown core.

The Rose Theatr