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

May 13, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-May-13 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 13 May 2004 Jeudi 13 mai 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ANTI-SPAM ACT, 2004 /

LOI ANTI-POURRIEL DE 2004

OLYMPIC DAY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA JOURNÉE OLYMPIQUE

ANTI-SPAM ACT, 2004 /

LOI ANTI-POURRIEL DE 2004

OLYMPIC DAY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA JOURNÉE OLYMPIQUE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MARGARET MARLAND

BRIAN WINKWORTH

LAW ENFORCEMENT

ST ELIZABETH HEALTH CARE

NORTHEAST MENTAL

HEALTH CENTRE

DEOHAEKO SUPPORT NETWORK

HYDRO OTTAWA

NURSING WEEK

BY-ELECTION IN HAMILTON EAST

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PROGRAM CANCELLATION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 ANNULANT LE PROGRAMME DE PERFECTIONNEMENT PROFESSIONNEL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT /

PERFECTIONNEMENT PROFESSIONNEL DES ENSEIGNANTS

SPEAKER'S RULING

DEFERRED VOTES

STRONG COMMUNITIES

(PLANNING AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE RENFORCEMENT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS (MODIFICATION

DE LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE)

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

SALES TAX HARMONIZATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LAW ENFORCEMENT

TOBACCO CONTROL

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

GASOLINE PRICES

DAIRY INDUSTRY

TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

TOURISM BROADCASTING

HIGHWAY 24

WATER QUALITY

MID-PENINSULA HIGHWAY

AIR QUALITY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

PROPERTY TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

ONTARIO BUDGET

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

PRIMARY CARE

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

TTC RIGHT-OF-WAY

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

ONTARIO BUDGET

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH INFORMATION

PROTECTION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LA SANTÉ

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ANTI-SPAM ACT, 2004 /

LOI ANTI-POURRIEL DE 2004

Ms Marsales moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 69,

An Act to prevent unsolicited messages on the Internet / Projet de loi 69, Loi visant à empêcher la diffusion sur Internet de messages

non sollicités.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Ms Marsales, according to standing order 96, you have 10 minutes to lead off.

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): The distribution of unsolicited commercial e-mail, known as spam, appears to have reached unprecedented levels

in Canada according to a recent Ipsos-Reid poll entitled E-mail Marketing 2004: Being Heard Above the Noise. The study notes that, on average, Canadian Internet users receive 197 e-mails a week, an

increase of 60% in one year.

In its simplest definition, what is spam? Spam is simply unsolicited e-mail. But, as you will hear, it's the variety of intentions contained within the spam that

is of greatest concern.

The control of spam is a very complex issue that requires co-operation from all levels of government. It requires co-operation of Internet providers as well as

the engagement of the general public and general users of computers as to the significant dangers which exist with the escalation of spam, not the least of which is the undermining of the

Internet.

What is the current status in Canada? Currently in Canada, roughly 15 billion pieces of spam are distributed every day. This was according to a recent University

of Ottawa study. The study goes on to say that these pieces of spam account for over 50% of global e-mails, and it's predicted that this number will grow to over 70% in very short order.

There's not only the distribution of the spam at issue but the cost of the spam and, as I referenced earlier, the content of the spam. The cost of spam, from a

business perspective, has been estimated at $1 per spam of lost productivity for industry. That, as you can imagine, is terribly significant.

There is an organization in Canada called the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail. What they have said is that spam is far more than a mere

annoyance. Spam is costing hospitals, schools, governments, business and end-user consumers millions of dollars every day. Junk mail is postage-due marketing. It is like a telemarketing caller

calling you collect. The cost has shifted to the recipient. Connections must be faster and storage space larger to cope with the incoming spam. Businesses must employ more people to deal with the

flood of unwanted e-mails. The costs are borne by the end users, not by the person doing the mailing, as is the case with traditional direct marketing.

I ask you, can you imagine what would have happened in the infancy of television if everyone was allowed to broadcast whatever they wanted? I think we would all

agree that television would no longer be the medium we currently know it to be.

There is another gentleman in Canada doing an awful lot of work right now. His name is Professor Michael Geist. He too is out of the University of Ottawa. He

says there was a time when the cure for indigestion caused by Spam was no farther away than a trip to the drugstore. At this point, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, we were going to do a spam

routine. We were going to sing, "Spam, spam, spam, spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam." Unfortunately, there is no longer an easy antidote or an easy antacid for the spam we know today.

In January 2003, the annual cost of spam was estimated at $8.9 billion for US corporations, $2.5 billion for European business, and another $500 million for US

and European service providers. In addition to these direct costs, spam has the potential to erode consumer confidence in electronic commerce and, as a result, threaten the growth of all on-line

businesses. Interestingly enough, Professor Geist went on to say:

"On the marketplace front, the government's emphasis on consumer choice with regard to ISP service is misplaced. The issue is not about consumer choice but,

rather, about consumer cost. Quite simply, consumers bear the cost of spam regardless of which ISP they choose. Each provider employs a battery of marginally effective anti-spam measures that

require significant resources. The cost of those resources is ultimately borne by the consumer, who indirectly pays not to receive the spam."

Also of interest was the fact that Industry Canada just yesterday released a paper indicating that they are now going to take issue with this unwanted e-mail

from a federal perspective. Interestingly enough, they have established a task force, and I met with two of those members quite by accident yesterday. It says:

"Today, spam has become an international annoyance for Internet users. According to current estimates" -- and this is from Industry Canada -- "spam accounts for

more than half of the world's e-mail traffic, resulting in significant losses in personal and commercial productivity, as well as decreased confidence in e-commerce....

"In fall 2004, Industry Canada will organize a round table meeting with key stakeholders to review progress on the implementation of its proposed collaborative

plan to reduce and control spam. In spring 2005, the task force will present its findings to the Ministry of Industry." But this is not just a federal issue, as I referenced earlier. This is an

issue that washes over both the provincial jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction, and it certainly imposes responsibility on all of us as computer users.

What are the other experiences in terms of the world? I will point out to you that in the United States, for example, we hear a lot about spam control, and there

are currently 21 US states that have laws that regulate unsolicited e-mail. I would like to read again from the coalition against unsolicited e-mail position:

"On the legislative front, legal approaches already exist in such diverse regions as the European Union, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia and 30 of the

American states." They say 30, but I could only find 21. "Indeed, Canada may soon be the only industrialized country without such legislation in place, a shortcoming which is likely to lead to

spammers regarding Canada as a `spam-friendly' favourable environment in which to set up shop, given our relatively lenient banking laws and advanced Internet infrastructure."

I don't think this is what we want here in Ontario, and the legislation we have put forward speaks to what is necessary to control this. In fact, there are two

sections within the bill, sections 2 and 3, which will require the Minister of Consumer and Business Services to initiate consultations with other governments and with the Canadian Association of

Internet Providers relating to the control of spam.

Section 4 of the bill provides that any person may give notice to the minister or the body to which the minister delegates responsibility that they wish to be on

a no-spam list, and persons sending spam must first check to see if the address is on the no-spam list. The list will not be a public document, and the minister will provide only negative

information from it; for example, that an address is not on the list.

Section 9 of this bill provides that wherever a message is initiated, if it is received by a person in Ontario it is deemed to have been sent to that person and

the act of sending it is deemed to have been carried out in Ontario. The bill also provides for offences and punishments that are more severe in respect of messages that involve pornography. That,

of course, is another issue of this bill that's most relevant, particularly with explicit sexual activity or attempted fraud or, even more severe, the targeting of children as the receivers. It

also provides a cause for civil action in nuisance for sending excessive spam and deems damage to have been caused if the volume is sufficient to cause inconvenience.

You might ask, "What is the percentage of spam?" In the information we have been able to glean, 25% of spam is adult environment, 37% of it is get-rich-quick

schemes, 1% is vacation, 2% is contests, 2% is health, 4% is other, 5% is investment, 6% are Web site promotions and 18% are software offers. So clearly, governments can't do everything.

It was told to me that for a marketer to derive a benefit from using spam, they only need to have a .001% response. Clearly, for them to continue this practice,

they are getting that degree of response. So we as consumers, we as individuals, must also be responsible in how we manage spam and how we do not respond to it and the like.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I don't think there are too many mornings when we on this side of the House support two Liberal private

members' bills. I'm going to have an opportunity to speak to Mr Fonseca's bill as well, but I do want to --

Interruption.

Mr Dunlop: This is very interesting. I'm surrounded here. I don't know what kind of plan this is, but I guess I have to be really careful this

morning. I think it is interesting.

I guess no one has welcomed the schoolchildren here this morning; it's great to see the classes on each side of the House watching private members' hour this

morning.

As I said, we'll be supporting Bill 69,

An Act to prevent unsolicited messages on the Internet, and I thank Ms Marsales for bringing the bill forward, although

it's probably an interesting day for you in the House, knowing what's going on in Hamilton East all day long. It will be an interesting day for all the politicians here at the Legislature.

My comments will be very brief. I just want to say that I think we live in an information world today that's so intensive. I talk to my former colleagues, people

who were at Queen's Park 35 years ago, and they tell me about the letters they received and how people would respond from the ministries. People would receive letters five and six weeks later, and

that was sort of the way we were doing business. Today we have this intensive amount of information coming at us all time, whether it's on your BlackBerry, your fax machine or the literally

hundreds of e-mails we get -- we still get dozens and dozens of letters every week.

I don't know how you folks on that side of the House find it, but I find that one of my biggest challenges in being a member of Parliament is trying to get back

to my constituents and to people who are concerned about different issues, and it adds to the workload we have.

This fits in to what Ms Marsales's bill is about. Of the vast amount of information that floats around the world today -- of course the Internet has opened this

vast amount of information across the whole planet -- the spam type of information accounts for almost 50%, as she said earlier in her comments. I think it's just unacceptable that that type of

volume flows on the Internet. We, as government, and the federal government, all have to do something about it.

I believe she mentioned -- I hope I'm clear on this -- that roughly 15 billion pieces of spam are distributed every day, according to a January 2004 study by the

University of Ottawa in partnership with the law firm Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt. Just imagine that: 15 billion pieces of spam every day across the world. It's an incredible amount of information.

Imagine if you transferred that into letters. The study goes on to say that these pieces of spam account for over 50% of global e-mail, and it's predicted that the number will grow to over 70% by

the spring of this year. So, as the member pointed out in her comments earlier, it's growing at an enormous rate.

There may be a lot more complexities behind this that I'm not aware of, but the intent of the bill is certainly very positive, and if we can reduce the numbers

in that area, it would be valuable not only to our constituents but to all Canadians and to people right around the world.

I understand that the federal government has been a little bit slow to tackle the problem -- that's my understanding right now. A government report prepared in

1999 concluded that spam-specific legislation was really not required at that time. Of course, we now know how the Internet has grown. When I was elected in 1999, I remember that we used to get

four, five or six e-mails a day. That has changed. It seems like it doubles every month and doubles again. When I go back up to my office right now, there will probably be a pile of e-mail that

I'll want to look through, because you want to deal with your constituents and do the best you can for them. But I find it is just amazing how many people are using it and how much information is

being sent out. Sometimes I find people will forward me a long letter via e-mail and ask me to comment on some long story that was done in the San Francisco Chronicle or some newspaper in Britain

or something. First of all, it probably takes an hour to read the

article and analyze it. I can tell you it is a huge amount of information.

I look forward to further comments today from my colleagues here -- these really aren't my colleagues; they're filling my colleagues' chairs today. But they are

colleagues in the House, and they are supporting the bill. Maybe, when we're debating the budget in a couple of weeks' time, you'll be over here cheering us on as we criticize Mr Sorbara's 2004-05

budget.

The other thing I wanted to comment on this morning is that I never knew the member had such a lovely voice, and I was hoping that song would carry on for a few

minutes and we could hear her singing. Thank you for this opportunity. We'll look forward to further comments this morning.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Man, do I need this bill to pass, if it actually works. Most members of the assembly who have their

Internet sites posted are subject to getting a lot of spam. On my own particular Web site -- gillesbisson.com -- we probably get anywhere in the vicinity of 100 to 200 spam messages per day. My

staff would be really happy if we were able to get rid of that.

However, this is a difficult issue to deal with. How we make this thing work, should this bill pass, is subject to what the committee is going to have to deal

with. The bill is well-intentioned. We all support it. We're going to be voting for it and think it's a great idea.

The problem is, how do you make this work? By saying that a person who wants to send out spam has to check the registry -- how are you going to enforce that?

There are some enforcement provisions in the bill. I'm not as up on the enforcement provisions as I need to be, but at the end of the day you need some sort of a mechanism that's a strong enough

club to discourage people who put out spam from doing so.

Number one, we will vote for it, we will support it, but I really think this bill has to go to committee. The committee is going to have to call some experts

about how you're able to make this happen. It's one thing to say we're all in favour of trying to stop spam and this bill is a step in that direction, but the bill in its current form really needs

a fair amount of modification in order to give it some initiative.

I noted that yesterday, I think, in the House of Representatives, a similar bill was passed. It had some interesting provisions in it with regard to the

prevention side, how they would work it. But, as I understood it, there were fairly large fines in that bill to deal with being able to penalize somebody if they should use spam.

I wanted to take a list of the spam messages I just got from yesterday, when my e-mail was last read. Unfortunately, my staff were a bit busy this morning and

they weren't able to pull that together in time. But there are more spam messages that I can't talk about in this Legislature, because it would be lewd and crude. There are all kinds of parts of my

anatomy that can get bigger. There are all kinds of things to make my hair grow. There are all kinds of messages to do all kinds of wild and wonderful things, and nasty and perverse things. Quite

frankly, I don't want to look at it. I find it quite upsetting to look at some of this stuff. I sometimes wonder about the people who put out this stuff. Don't they have anything better to do than

put out those messages?

However, we have to look at the times you do something legitimately. You have group e-mails, for example. How are we going to capture that within this

legislation? As a member of this assembly, I let people know that by self-registering on my Web site, if they want to get information from me we'll pass that on. I'm sure that is not going be

picked up by the legislation, but I think we have to take a look at some uses of the Internet that are quite appropriate and supportive.

The approach I would like to take on this bill is to say, "We'll support it, but at the end of the day, we really need to refer this bill to committee to be able

to do the kinds of things that have to be done."

With that, I'm sure other members of the caucus want to put in a couple of words on this spam issue, and I'll leave time on the clock for them.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for -- just give me half a second -- Mississauga West. I know where you're from; it's the direction I wasn't sure

of.

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): North, south, east or west -- I'm always here.

Last night, I checked my personal e-mail. Of the 231 incoming unread messages, 223 were unwanted and unwelcome solicitations; they were spam.

Bill 69 says to the holders of e-mail accounts in Ontario that your government doesn't like spam any more than you do and will work with the other stakeholders

on the World Wide Web to can spam and put its perpetrators in jail.

There is now an entire sub-industry dedicated to producing and distributing unwanted e-mail traffic and the hidden applications contained in executable code

inside some of those unwanted spam messages. Spam makes your software more expensive. Applications now need rigorous testing procedures and validations against thousands of permutations of

vulnerabilities from such risks as keystroke capture, which sends everything you're doing on your computer to a remote computer; Trojan Horses that enter your system inside a message, inside of a

so-called game or inside a free screen saver, only to execute code on your computer and cause damage to your system by deleting or corrupting files; or ad ware that allows a remote computer to

store files on your machine and allows others to access those files without your knowledge and permission.

Vendors can only go so far on their own. Last year, industry leader Microsoft assigned 50,000 employees the task of building a trustworthy computing environment

for its hundreds of millions of customers. The four corners of this initiative were to make their operating systems, applications and development tools (1) secure by design, (2) secure by default,

(3) secure in deployment, and (4) to communicate with its customer base to keep them informed on security issues.

As users, most of us know the three sides of the security triangle: Stay up-to-date on operating system and application patches, use anti-virus software and stay

up-to-date with your virus signature, and use a software firewall. But that's not good enough, even if everybody did it, which they absolutely do not. There is still little risk and there are even

fewer penalties for investing your time with script and language tools to figure out a new way into an application of an operating system and, once inside, doing something that may range from the

annoyingly harmless to the life-threatening.

As an example, last week's Sasser virus, written by a German 18-year-old, spreads by scanning IP addresses of vulnerable systems through FTP port 5554. It

creates a key and corresponding value in the Windows system registry that allows its executable code to run every time the machine is booted. If your patches were up-to-date, you had little to

worry about, but if they were not and you were not running a firewall, your system was vulnerable if your IP address was searched. You didn't even have to open an e-mail or click on an

attachment.

Internet service providers, or ISPs, now keep detailed logs that assist police in tracking the progress of a virus and tracing it quickly to its source. But what

happens if a perpetrator is caught? Often prosecutors lack the legal tools to make a penalty meaningful. Bill 69 offers such tools. Bill 69 says that if you spam someone in Ontario, you commit an

offence that will result in a fine, imprisonment, or both. Bill 69 also allows the courts to go after the business perpetrating spam, and after its directors as well.

As it is, spammers are frequently script kiddies out for peer recognition on a chat room or a newsgroup, or unscrupulous hucksters who seldom offer value for

money with their commercial solicitations. As an example, police have learned that the author of the spam-propagated Sasser virus sought recognition for his skills as a programmer as his motive for

writing the virus. Instead, he faces five years in prison under German law.

Software needs to be secure. Developers need to learn to write software that is secure by design, default and in deployment. Users need to take responsibility

for their actions and to secure the entry points to their computer hard discs in a manner similar to how they secure their homes, their cars and their bank accounts. ISPs and Web-hosters needs

server software that can identify spam at its source and delete it early in the propagation cycle. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors need the means to find, arrest, penalize and jail those

who violate the privacy of Canadian homes through the medium of the World Wide Web.

Spam is no joke. Spam is a productivity drain and an increasingly costly waste of time and resources for Internet service providers and for businesses, large and

small. It clogs corporate networks and is sometimes a vehicle for viruses that cause serious damage. The cost of spam to North American businesses alone is nearly US$1 billion annually. That

is value lost, just as if the cash itself had been stolen. Spam, like insurance fraud, costs consumers who obey the law.

Canada is certainly not the Wild West in cyberspace law. Sections of the Criminal Code of Canada, the Telecommunications Act and the Personal Information

Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, extend legal protection to consumers and sanctions against spam perpetrators. British Columbia, and now Ontario, have joined the anti-spam

crusade in provincial legislation.

As a computer user, some 95% of my incoming e-mail is now spam. I'll fight for this bill, not only because I feel it's part of the solution to secure a universal

and safe global Internet, but because I'm just tired of those unending funeral plot, Viagra and hair restorer solicitations.

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I'm pleased to have the opportunity this morning to support my colleague from Hamilton West with regard to Bill 69.

I think one of the important elements of this bill, if it moves forward and hopefully is implemented, is the protection of our young people from spam.

In my case, I have a son who is six years old and a daughter who is four years old, and frankly, in terms of facility with computers, they're much more literate

than their father. I came to computers fairly late in life. When you have a daughter in JK and a son in SK, they're exposed to the marvellous technology of computers at a very young age. Indeed,

for children who are accessing the computer at such young ages, I think there is a real opportunity to bring in some controls to really filter out what I consider a lot of messages through spam

that could be harmful in many ways -- stuff that's put over electronic links.

In my case, as a former councillor, we introduced the e-mail system to city hall in Peterborough in 2000. It was implemented on the reasoning that it would make

the mayor, members of council and senior staff much more efficient in dealing with the concerns of our constituents. But after a while I found it indeed was inefficient, because when I would turn

on my computer on a daily basis, instead of getting the five or six messages I needed to conduct my business as a city councillor on a day-to-day basis, it was filled with 200 messages from people

advertising a variety of things.

I think we'll always remember Bob Dole, the Republican presidential candidate in 1996. When that product was advertised by e-mail, I always have images of Mr

Dole marching down the halls of the United States Congress. It will be forever imprinted. I think this bill is an opportunity to start the process to really get into an area that I feel needs to be

regulated.

I want to quote from a Toronto Star

article yesterday, talking about the federal government's anti-spam task force. It's about how criminals might be using spam

-- Michael Geist is a professor of Internet law at the University of Ottawa and a member of the task force: "Canada risks becoming a `spam haven.' Geist said many criminal spam rings already

operate in Canada. `We're not talking about people operating out of their basements. We're talking about very sophisticated and large criminal organizations,' he said, adding that spammers and

virus creators are now working together to exploit consumers."

I think my colleague from Hamilton West is starting an initiative here that I hope all provinces will eventually join to really get a handle on this spam that

we have in our computer systems and ultimately to get rid of it, so that on a day-to-day basis we'll just have the information we really need to do our jobs.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 69,

An Act to prevent unsolicited messages on the

Internet. This is legislation that certainly merits consideration by this House.

I would like to have known the position of the Minister of Consumer and Business Services on this, because the duties being put on the minister and the

ministry are fairly significant with respect to intergovernmental consultations under

section 2, and each year a report to the Legislature on what's happening with respect to spam. Also,

section 3

requires that "The minister shall initiate consultations with the Canadian Association of Internet Providers."

Certainly the ministry is going to have to be behind this. From what I see of this bill, significant money and resources will be needed to make this happen and

make it work, so the ministry is obviously going to have to be behind this. This is not a ministry bill; this is a private member's bill. The member obviously has good intentions, and I accept

those intentions with respect to trying to bring this about. But it's not going to happen unless the ministry has the resources and the will to bring this about, and we don't know what the minister

thinks about this.

The other part that needs to be addressed is

section 7. It's quite confusing as you go through

section 7, which is entitled "Offences by e-mail senders" and

then over to

section 8, which involves penalties.

Section 7 deals with persons who commit offences, and there is no definition of "person" in the legislation. I would think it's not related to a

corporation, not related to a partnership. It could cover officers, directors, employees or shareholders of particular companies. It becomes problematic because under

section 7 it deals with "every

person" and then goes over to subsection 8(5), which says, "Where a corporation or partnership is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may, in addition to imposing a fine...."

Section 8 deals with "A person who commits an offence under

section 7," and

section 7 doesn't refer to "corporation or partnership."

That's going to have to be cleaned up, because that's confusing. You could have a person who's an employee directed by their boss to send that spam, and it's

the employee who's going to be charged under here and nothing is going to happen to the corporation or the partnership involved in this particular type of activity. The member has set out in

subsection 8(4), under "Forbidden to operate business," it "being the owner, director, partner, employee or shareholder," and then it goes on to deal with "Directors' punishment."

I would just say the language is going to have to be cleaned up, because you could run a truck through that with respect to a corporation. They're not going to

get convicted under this legislation. A partnership is not going to get convicted under this, and neither is any other type of entity that is a non-person. Persons are covered under this, but it's

actually going to be directed at the sender, and that could be the employee of that company. That's not fair, if they're working under orders, because that's what they're there for, no matter what

is going on here.

There certainly should be penalties, just like the health and safety act. I think the member should realize that. The health and safety act is designed as a

tiered system in terms of there being corporate responsibility, director responsibility, shareholder responsibility, officer responsibility and employee responsibility. Those tiers of

responsibility under the health and safety act all have obligations and all have fines that deal with the breach of those obligations.

This is going to have to be amended to make sure that what

section 7 covers also applies to corporations and partnerships and also covers people who are

office-holders within those companies. They may not have sent the e-mail but are in fact directing the activities of that operation, and they're going to get off scot-free because there's nothing

to trigger getting them. I would hold strongly to that, because quite frankly, it's not going to draw any liability.

The other part of the bill that I would comment on is under

section 12, "Cause of action," which is an independent civil action. It reads, "

(1) Any person,

including an Internet service provider, who receives spam in contravention of this act in quantities that cause significant inconvenience may bring an action...." What is a quantity that causes

significant inconvenience? I have no idea, and I don't know whether a court would either. It's certainly a factual test. I think it should be, actually, not absolute strict liability in terms of

there being something that is in contravention of the act by sending the spam, but to qualify it by saying "quantities that cause significant inconvenience," what's the test? For a small

organization with one machine and just a couple of employees, if you send 50 to 100, that might be a significant quantity, but the question is, does that cause significant inconvenience? I don't

know what "significant inconvenience" is. If it stops them from working for an hour or two, that would certainly be a significant inconvenience, depending on the organization. I think that

qualifying statement with respect to a civil action is going to be very difficult to understand and difficult for a court to interpret. I understand what the member is trying to accomplish here in

terms of causing "significant inconvenience," but at the same time I think that's going to have to be looked at.

I have no further comments.

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm honoured to rise in this place to speak in support of Bill 69,

An Act to prevent unsolicited messages

on the Internet, brought by the honourable member for Hamilton West. It's a very important topic to talk about, and I'm interested because I receive a lot of e-mail on my Internet, and a lot of my

constituents came to me and asked me if we could bring a bill like this to prevent such action, which creates inconvenience for a lot of people in this province.

This is a very complicated issue, especially when we live a life full of technology and with a medium that we are not able to control 100%. I was reading the

bill in detail and was interested in how the member did important research to follow it step by step in order to bring such a strong bill to help the people in this province especially. Everyone in

this province probably has a computer and is connected to the Internet. Even now, through BlackBerry, we have the Internet beside us almost 24 hours. On the Internet we receive a lot of e-mails,

what we call junk e-mail, which we don't want, and most of the time, when it comes in an e-mail at home, especially when we have small kids, we have e-mail that we don't want our kids to see. It's

forced on us. I think the bill will help a lot in order to prevent such action which poisons our children's minds.

It's very complicated and I don't know how we can implement it, especially when we deal with technology. There's always something around it. I was reading the

statistics. About 15 billion junk e-mails are received on a daily basis, which cost us millions and billions of dollars, across this globe.

I like what I read from the bill in the details. In order to implement a strong bill, we have to work in conjunction with the federal government and also with

Internet providers -- I don't know how we can control that -- and also with the international market. I hope our Ministry of Consumer and Business Services comes with details to enforce that bill

and put it alive in order to help our family, our kids, our people in this province.

Therefore, I'm here today to speak in support. I hope everybody -- from what I've heard -- on both sides of the House is going to support that bill.

Thank you very much for giving me this time to speak in support of that bill. I leave the time for my friend.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to respond to the member from Hamilton West's Bill 69. I'm not going to get into much of the detail

of the legislation, as my colleagues did, but speak more in a general sense.

I want to congratulate the member from Hamilton West for bringing this bill forward, because I do see, as other members of the House have already said, that

this is a significant and growing concern, not only in the province of Ontario but across the country of Canada and internationally, and in fact the whole realm of intrusions into privacy. There's

the notion of having some peace in our home from annoying telemarketing calls in the evenings or on weekends. There are spam faxes as well, that kind of intrusion. My wife and I have been awakened

at 4 or 5 in the morning by the fax phone ringing with a junk fax coming across at that time. And of course there's the growing area of intrusions into privacy on the Internet, imposing a

significant externality on users of the Internet and increasing the costs to business and in our time in going through all the junk e-mail that hits us. And there's the new area of spim, I think

they call it, using Internet instant messaging services as another intrusion. You may be reading the National Post for that day and these instant messages pop up on your screen. They're not only

annoying and costly, but they could be tremendously misleading ads as well.

If the bill proceeds, obviously the challenge is to ensure that laws we bring forward are consistent with the breakdown in powers between the federal ability

and the provincial ability to act in these areas. But I say God bless the member for bringing it forward, because the federal action in this area has been absolutely lame. There was a very flaccid

announcement this past week by Industry Minister Robillard to put together a committee to talk more about the evils of spam.

The CRTC has been consulting in this area since 2001 or maybe before that. I think that's been enough time for talk federally. We need some action in this

area. The United States, Britain and European countries are leaving Canada in the dust in protecting personal privacy, particularly on these intrusions into the home, whether through the computer,

the fax line or the telephone line.

At the very least, this bill, particularly if it gets support from the government and the Minister of Consumer and Business Services, can help start pushing

the agenda -- from what we've seen, a very weak attention to this at the federal level.

I'm reminded too about the movie Minority Report, where Tom Cruise's character, whose name slips my mind now, walks into a Gap store and is bombarded with ads

that know what he purchases and know the size of his clothing and such. Well, that's a few steps down the road. The reality is that today, through data-mining techniques, they can put together a

profile of the Web sites you may have visited, the information you've downloaded. They could tell, for example, the purchasing preferences of the member for Hamilton West without her permission,

without opting in. You can do your best to try to opt out of this type of process, but you may just be giving your e-mail address to even more predators on the Internet.

This is just the beginning of the dangers to our personal privacy through the Internet -- a tremendous tool, with vast and growing potential, but also great

risks to our personal privacy.

I've seen very strong work and I want to commend the Minister of Consumer and Business Services for some great ideas in advancing the consumer protection

agenda. His most recent legislation sounds great to me, and some interesting changes he's proposed to the liquor laws and regulations in this province, including bring your own bottle --

interesting ideas. If I had only had the time, a few more months at that ministry myself.

I hope the minister will champion this bill and get some action as well at the federal level.

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): It is always a pleasure to rise in the House, particularly for my colleague for Hamilton West and her

private member's bill, Bill 69.

I was thinking about spam. As you know, I'm a business person, so I've been part of that technological revolution over the last 20, 25 years. When I looked at

spam -- s-p-a-m -- I thought, really, that stands for something these days.

"S" for significant. I think we've all learned today in the debate that spam is significant, that more than half, almost two thirds, of all e-mail is spam,

unsolicited. They come into your e-mailbox. You didn't ask for it. You didn't ask for it at all.

The second thing, p, is that it's pervasive. Although we have technology now that allows people to filter, or try to filter -- and actually create an industry.

It makes me wonder whether or not those who sell anti-spam filters are actually doing spam to create a demand so they can fill that with their product. Really, it is pervasive.

The third point, the "a," is that it's annoying. I think we've all had to deal with the terrible frustration of having to deal with this. Mr Dunlop was saying

the same thing.

The other thing is "m" -- malevolent. This is what we all have a great fear about as legislators, that our children, who all have the ability to access their

e-mail accounts, who all have an account with Hotmail or Yahoo, are being bombarded by content that -- as the member from Timmins-James Bay said, parents have nightmares about the stuff their

children would be exposed to.

I want to commend the member for Hamilton West and all the members for speaking in favour of this bill, particularly the member from Mississauga West. I don't

think anyone here in this House has more technical ability with regard to the whole issue of computers and software and how they work than Mr Delaney. What he is telling us, of course, is that spam

is the preferred vector for viruses. So let alone the fact that about a dollar of economic production is lost for every spam. These millions, hundreds of millions, billions of spam we have to deal

with are the way that malevolent people get viruses into our computers -- for various reasons. Some young teenaged boys just do it because they can, and they want to prove they can do it. But we

also have a security risk. We have a risk to our entire economy, when you think of terrorism. You read some of the books about where terrorists will hurt our North American economy and in the

Western world in the future, and it is through this kind of cyber-war.

We are allowing a situation where billions of unsolicited spam are coming into our computers. That's why I want to commend the member from Hamilton West.

One of the things I have seen as a suggestion is that marketers, advertisers, must have an e-mail address as a source that begins with the letters "adv" to

show they're advertising, or their Web site has to end with a new suffix ".adv" so you know it is advertising and can decide whether you want to have e-mails from people that start an e-mail

address with "adv" or have a Web site or an e-mail address as a source that ends with "adv." That may give us the ability to separate the sheep from the wolf, the wheat from the chaff. I would

commend that suggestion that I've read about in my research about this bill as a way for us to deal with it.

Finally, I'm sure that if we were to tax this stuff, it would stop in a big hurry. Not that we'd want to go to taxes, but when you look at the health and the

security of our children, I would say a penny a spam and we'd have a lot of health care in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms Marsales has two minutes to respond.

Ms Marsales: I want to express my sincerest appreciation to my colleagues on both sides of the House for supporting Bill 69, but I would also

like to thank some of the experts that Monsieur Bisson was talking about earlier, one of whom is Nick Bontis, a professor at the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University, which is in

Hamilton West; and Tom Copeland, the president of the Internet providers association, and Lori Assheton-Smith, who is the senior vice-president and general counsel, Canadian Cable Television

Association.

In closing, I want to share with you an example of just how quickly this spam issue is spiralling out of control and how desperately we need to do something to

bring it into check. I think it was referenced a minute ago, about the newspaper

article yesterday giving us the discouraging report that not only is spam choking the Internet, but we have a new

spam cousin on the scene called spim.

Mr Leal: Spim?

Ms Marsales: Spim.

Mr Hudak: The evil twin.

Ms Marsales: Yes. This is defined as junk being sent from instant messenger software, and as the

article states, you can't even escape by

leaving home. Unsolicited ads are already being sent to your cellphone. Can you imagine, Mr Speaker? There is just no privacy left.

We have to keep in mind that spam knows no boundaries, but all stakeholders have a role to play. I am just one of those stakeholders, as we all are in this

Legislature. We must engage the general public. We must engage the federal government. We must engage the Internet providers' association. We must engage everyone who has an interest in

communications at all levels to ensure that the complexity of the issue is dealt with, as well as the confidence in securing the Internet for all of us to use in the future.

OLYMPIC DAY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA JOURNÉE OLYMPIQUE

Mr Fonseca moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 71,

An Act to proclaim Olympic Day / Projet de loi 71, Loi proclamant la Journée olympique.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr Fonseca, you have 10 minutes to lead off.

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): Altius, citius, fortius: higher, stronger, faster. Those are what Olympians strive for, Mr Speaker. But

not only do they strive for those things as principles and values; they strive for values that transcend what we call the celebration of humanity, and those are the values of excellence and fun and

fairness, human development, leadership, peace, respect. It is when the world comes together under those strong values that we create this Olympic spirit.

I had the great honour of representing Canada in the 1996 Olympic Games in the marathon, and it was a tremendous experience to be able to represent our great

nation. I'm running along in the marathon -- I was ranked 40th in the world at the time -- and there were about 126 of us in that race. When we took off on that Atlanta morning, it was about 30

degrees Celsius, 96% humidity, and I can tell you, I was not feeling really well at about 32 kilometres into this 42-kilometre race. But when I saw the people cheering and I saw a group of

Canadians with that Canadian flag -- I had drifted back in the pack -- my head got up and I started pushing on. I crossed the line in 21st, and it was one of the greatest experiences of my

life.

Now, being in an Olympic Village, for those who haven't been in an Olympic Village, it's amazing. People of all cultures, races, sizes and shapes come

together, so you have Polish and Indians and Kenyans and Chinese and Italians and Portuguese; 200-some-odd nations come together in that Olympic Village. What I found amazing was that people from

other nations outside of Canada, like Italians or Polish or Chinese, found it awkward to be around so many different cultures, but what is great about being Canadian and about being an Ontarian,

about living in the GTA area, is that we have an Olympic Village here 365 days of the year, and we are able to live in a peaceful civic society here that the rest of the world looks upon as golden.

This is our gold medal, the gold medal that we shine out to the rest of the world. That was the most amazing experience I felt, in terms of that human experience.

Now, the games are about breaking barriers and pushing the envelope, achieving new heights. Sometimes we see those in terms of sport, in that somebody can lift

more weight or run a little bit faster. But they've also broken ethnic barriers, social barriers, technological barriers, all the obstacles that hold us back from greatness. We think back to Jesse

Owens, the barriers he broke, or Cassius Clay, who then became Muhammad Ali, the barriers that were broken by this great athlete; or we think about our team and how it united our country, the team

that was led by Wayne Gretzky in Salt Lake City, our women's and men's gold medal hockey teams; or we think back to Simon Whitfield crossing the line, with his gold medal in the triathlon in the

Sydney Olympic Games -- all these people breaking barriers, winning.

But we also remember Jeremy Witherspoon, where he fell trying to achieve his gold medal in the long course speed skating. The thing is that when someone is not

able to achieve, our hearts go out to those people. It doesn't matter if they finish first or last or in the middle; it's that they are striving for excellence. We, together, push for them, either

as we watch in the stadium or, if we don't have that opportunity, as we watch on TV, as do four billion or five billion people around the world.

As to the Olympic experience, I'm going to tell you a short story about an experience I had. Within an Olympic stadium, there is a track that the fans cannot

see, a warm-up track. As I was warming up for my event, I would hear the stadium just roar. It was unbelievable. It felt like the whole place was going to shake and crumble down. I was thinking,

"What is going on?" as I was jogging along. I realized that what was happening was that those pole vaulters were going over that bar, one centimetre higher and another centimetre higher, and all

those people were screaming. It seemed somewhat absurd to me: just for another centimetre? But no, they were screaming for humanity to break barriers. That's what they were screaming for.

That's what everybody screams for. As we work here for the people of Ontario, that's what 12 million people in Ontario are screaming for: to break barriers, to

make our life better. That is what greatness is all about. Greatness is about the ability to overcome barriers that seem unending. It is to conquer mountains that seem insurmountable, to rise above

one's fears and triumph over pain. It's to push ourselves and, in so doing, inspire others. For us to achieve greatness, we must do great things, take great strides and change the world, starting

with ourselves. Like an Olympian, we each represent our race, culture and country and should strive to be agents of peace and change. Through our actions and by working together, we make ourselves

aware and gain an understanding of what we represent and of ourselves. This is greatness.

It would be appropriate to recognize the fourth Tuesday of September as Olympic Day, a day that celebrates Olympism and the seven values of the Canadian

Olympic Committee.

Now, the Canadian Olympic Committee contacted Avril Lavigne and asked her about the Olympic Games, and Avril said, "What's important about the Olympic Games is

not where the athletes come from or what they look like, but playing fair and doing the best they can." Nelson Mandela made a statement about what Olympic spirit is all about.

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): An honorary Canadian citizen.

Mr Fonseca: An honorary Canadian citizen, as my colleague from Mississauga West says.

The Olympic Games remind us that competitors can be friends and equals a far greater percentage of the time than they will be adversaries. Even though the

competition is fierce, the rivalry ends when the event ends. This message is fittingly delivered by Nelson Mandela, whose life has exemplified peace, hope and equality.

Another great individual making great strides in pushing the Olympic spirit is Christopher Reeve. Often at the Olympic Games, even when competitors don't reach

the podium, they reach into their hearts by representing the very best humanity has to offer. Christopher Reeve demonstrates the power of inner strength. He defines the core Olympic values of joy

and effort and inspiration, just a few of the many things that make the Olympic Games so special.

We talk about character and the character we want to build in our kids, our youth, and everybody in this great province. I say that as we build strong

communities, we incorporate those values of excellence -- the right of all people to pursue their personal level of excellence, which could be in education or in any endeavour they desire; of fun

-- the path to greatness should not be seen as competitive nor as a chore, but rather as an enjoyable endeavour that we undertake for ourselves and with others; the great one of peace. Through our

actions and by working together, we make ourselves aware of what we represent and increase our understanding of ourselves. In so doing, we become agents of peace and change.

That is why I feel we should proclaim Olympic Day. Olympic Day is represented in Ontario 365 days a year and is something we live by every day. Thank you very

much for being able to speak on these great values.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate today on Bill 71,

An Act to proclaim Olympic Day, put forward by

Mr Fonseca, the member for Mississauga East.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate Mr Fonseca on being one of the few who manage to get to the Olympics. That's certainly a great accomplishment. I think

it's something many of us dream about doing, but very few of us actually have the ability and are able to do all the hard work that makes them able to make the Olympics.

I know that in my younger days, a sport I very much enjoyed was downhill skiing. I spent just about every spare moment I had in my high school days racing and

competing, dreaming about being on the Canadian Olympic team, skiing at a very small ski hill just north of Bracebridge -- well, a small one by Bracebridge called Rainbow Ridge, which no longer

exists, and then at a little family place called Curlew, just south of Huntsville. It no longer exists either, but it was a small place where families participated. A race, I think, lasted about 20

seconds on the hill; it was that small. But there, I still aspired to be in the Olympics. I raced hard and to the best of my ability -- obviously not good enough to be in the Olympics. But from

that small ski hill, we actually did have a person who made it to the Olympics. Liisa Savijarvi competed in Sarajevo in the 1984 Olympics and had a great career on the World Cup circuit as

well.

Really, what is to be accomplished by this bill? I say it's putting forward Olympic values, the glory of the hard work paying off, the achievement that comes

from that, but I also think the greater societal goal has to be that we encourage more people to become physically active and to develop a healthy lifestyle. In my case, I still ski and enjoy

cross-country skiing as well. I'm involved in lots of other sports, none that I'm very good at, but I still enjoy them and keep fairly active with those.

I think that is the goal that can be accomplished by a bill such as this. If we can encourage more people, if we can develop in more young people especially an

interest in sports and physical activity, then that's a very worthwhile thing. It will benefit those individuals in terms of a much better quality of life. It benefits government as well, with

things like less cost for the health system down the road as we have more people that are physically active and in better shape.

I think there's certainly a role to be played by schools as well, in the physical ed departments in schools. I remember through my youth having some great phys

ed teachers: Art Luker in public school, and Lanny McQuain and Bob Barrett in high school, who did a great job of introducing their students to many different sports. I remember Lanny McQuain was

the coach of our downhill ski team. He himself hardly skied at all but still managed to get us to achieve to the best of our abilities. He did a great job. I think there needs to be more phys ed in

schools. In fact, I think it's a good idea for it to be mandatory.

I think this bill is really about developing more of an interest in our young people in becoming physically active, and recognizing that the Olympics play a

role in getting more of us to work toward a physically active lifestyle.

On that point, I think we need to look around this room a little bit at the MPPs. Maybe we should be starting the MPP Olympics, as a possibility, to encourage

physical activity around here.

Mr Hudak: O'Toole would win the long-distance speaking contest.

Mr Miller: Yes, and not the long-distance speaking contest either, that Mr O'Toole would certainly win, as you say.

Anyway, I will be certainly supporting this bill. If it goes a way towards getting more of our youth active, I think it's a worthwhile thing.

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm honoured to rise a second time in this House, to speak in support of Bill 71,

An Act to proclaim

Olympic Day. When it comes from an Olympic champion, Mr Fonseca, the member from Mississauga East, I believe he's just the perfect person for the perfect bill. I was listening to him, the details

of how he described the value of that day, the importance of that day. I believe he stated it very well.

The Olympics are about breaking the barriers among all the international athletes who come from everywhere. Despite their colour, their religion, their ethnic

background, all compete on the same level. All they care about is doing their best in order to represent their countries.

Mr Fonseca had the honour to represent Canada in 1996 as a runner. When he spoke with passion about the importance of this bill, I just felt him running right

then. I can see him running with full passion, trying to encourage others to follow his path.

Another important thing for this bill is to encourage people to be physically active in order to get healthier, which was our mandate and our commitment to the

people of this province, to encourage people to walk and do some kind of sport -- any type of sport -- in order to strengthen their health.

I come from a city, London, Ontario, where we encourage a lot of sport. We try all the time to convince all the games to come to London. We had the honour in

2001 to host summer games along with the city of Woodstock, St Thomas and Grand Bend. We had a wonderful time. Athletes came from all over Canada to be part of that competition. We had a good, good

time because London has great facilities. We have a great river, a famous river. Also, we have the John Labatt Centre. We have a lot of hockey arenas, a lot of fields, to enable athletes to compete

in Olympic rules and fashion.

We were happy when we heard the announcement last week that we are hosting, in the year 2005, the Memorial Cup. All of that because our city, London, our

council, our mayor, don't save a minute where they're not soliciting, talking, trying to promote health, trying to promote the Olympics, trying to promote sport as a way to put people together, to

break barriers, to help people be physically active and also to get more people to come see our beautiful city of London.

Today Mr Fonseca, by introducing this bill, is trying to put people on the right track, the right way, in order to help the younger generation be involved in

soccer, running, hockey, baseball. All these activities are very important to us. I would encourage every member of this House, in order to continue our message, to encourage constituents, to

support the bill and support all physical activities -- I hope also from both sides of the House. The support of the bill is very important to celebrate and talk about the importance of Olympic

Day, in order to have a healthy generation, a healthy community. I go back to the Romans. They used to say, "A healthy mind comes from a healthy body." Therefore, I'm supporting the bill, and

hopefully everybody in this House will support the bill along with me.

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Indeed, it's a pleasure for me to support Bill 71,

An Act to proclaim Olympic Day. I had the opportunity to do a

little research with the National Library of Canada. Bruce Kidd, outstanding Olympian and athletic director for the University of Toronto, has written a series of essays about the history of the

Olympic movement in Canada. I just want to quote from Bruce's essay:

"Canadian amateur sport constitutes one of the longest-standing nationalist movements in Canada. In the year of Confederation, Montreal dentist and lacrosse

player George Beers established the National Amateur Lacrosse Association to instill self-discipline and a sense of citizenship among athletes through the orderly conduct of games and to foster

pride in the new nation through dramatic athletic performances in international competition. Subsequent amateur sports leaders adopted these goals and when they joined Pierre de Coubertin's modern

Olympic movement in the early 20th century, they made Canadian Olympic teams the flagship for these" very worthwhile "ambitions.

"The first Canadians to compete in Olympics did so as individuals or as members of local clubs. Canada's first Olympic champion was Toronto Lacrosse Club star

George Orton. At the 1900 Olympics, Orton, who was studying at the University of Pennsylvania, travelled to Paris with the American team and took the gold medal in the 2,500-metre steeplechase and

the bronze in the 400-metre hurdles. The requirement that athletes compete as members of national teams was not established until the games of the IVth Olympiad in London in 1908.

"At the 1904 Olympics in St Louis, Canada took four gold medals. Étienne Desmarteau of the Montreal Police Association won the hammer throw and George

Lyon of Toronto's Lambton Golf Club won the golf competition. The Galt Football Club and the Winnipeg Shamrock Lacrosse Club won titles in their respective sports. In 1906, at the so-called Interim

Games in Athens, Hamilton runner Billy Sherring, sporting a large green shamrock on his chest, won the marathon. Despite their local affiliations, these athletes' victories were quickly acclaimed

for Canada, and whetted public opinion for the Olympic Games."

But also the great elements of Canadian citizenship were shown during the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. We know that those games were quite controversial

because "The Nazis' murderous treatment of Jews, trade unionists and so many others ignited an international protest." While Canada did send an official delegation to the Berlin games in 1936, a

number of Canadian "athletes like speed skater Frank Stack, race-walker Henry Cieman, and boxers Sammy Luftspring and Norman "Baby" Yack decided not to go," in protest that the Nazis were violating

many of the citizenship principles that we hold dearly. Indeed, those individuals actually wanted to protest by going to the People's Olympics, which were held as a counter Olympic event in

Barcelona during that same time.

"The revitalization of amateur sport was furthered by the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, first elected in 1968. An enthusiastic participant in

physical activity himself, Trudeau believed that the performances of Canadian athletes in international competition sharpened the `image Canadians have of themselves.'" In the face of Quebec

separation, western Canadian regionalism and the anger of Aboriginal people and others, Trudeau thought that the Olympics, the spirit imparted by the Olympics and the example that Olympians showed

in their citizenship were models of Canada, and I believe my colleague's bill will help support that ideal.

Mr Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It's indeed my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 71, presented today by my

esteemed colleague the Olympian from Mississauga East.

When we think of the Olympics, we think of sports and competition. But the Olympics are so much more than that. Let me talk a bit about the history of the

Olympics. We all know that the ancient games were taking place in 776 BC. The games took place in four cities in ancient Greece. The names of those cities were Olympia, Nemea, Delphi and Isthmia.

At the start, the ancient games used to last only one day, compared to the modern games, which last 16 days.

The founder of the modern Olympic Games was a French nobleman, Baron Pierre de Coubertin. In 1894, in Paris, the International Olympic Committee was formed,

and it was agreed to hold the Olympic Games every four years. It was hoped that the athletes taking

part in international competition would promote peace and friendship between their countries. The

most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

As I have said before, the Olympics are so much more than sport; they represent core values. These core values, as put forward by the Canadian Olympic

Committee, are excellence, fun, fairness, human development, leadership, peace and respect. In my own riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, many organizations portray these values in the work

they do on a daily basis.

In Canada, the summer Olympics were held for the first time in Montreal in 1976. Unfortunately, politics have affected the games at different times.

Another aspect of the games is that they have become commercial in recent years. Television rights are sold, and large companies sponsor events and teams. Some

people think this is a bad thing, but it provides the money to build facilities that allow athletes to train and increases public awareness of the Olympic movement.

At the end of the day, the Olympic Games are an inspiration for the whole world. Friendships are built through participation in sport. The performances of the

best athletes in the world can inspire all of us to achieve our own potential. The efforts of those who do not win Olympic medals can also be an inspiration to young people across the world.

Olympic Day, which this bill is all about, is a part of the worldwide commemoration of Baron Pierre de Coubertin's convening of the first meeting of the

International Olympic Committee in Paris in 1894 and the founding of the modern Olympic Games.

In closing, I would like to give my support to this bill, which has been put forward by the member from Mississauga East. I would request that all members of

the House, on both sides, support this bill, and I'm proud to do so.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join the debate on Bill 71,

An Act to proclaim Olympic Day. The values

that are in the bill are certainly not just about the Olympics and the values that athletes display. If you wanted to rename the bill, you could call it "An Act to proclaim Volunteer Day," for the

values that volunteers put forth every day to make their communities better places to live in.

The values that are set out in the bill are excellence, fun, fairness, human development, leadership, peace and respect. Those seven values are something that

obviously make a community better and permeate our society in terms of what we're trying to achieve. Certainly the Olympic tradition, which the member is putting forth -- when you look at those

values, I remember one movie that caught my attention, and probably a number of people in the audience have seen it, Chariots of Fire, great movie that depicts not only the politics but also the

greatness and fair play of the athletes who participated from the United States, the United Kingdom and Scotland, to name a few, in terms of what they were trying to accomplish.

I think the seven values set out in the bill are very special. They denote what's special about our society. I can think of people and organizations in my

riding that exemplify those values; to name a few, Sam Cancilla, who was just given the Paul Harris Fellow award by the Huronia Rotary Club for the work he's done for the community, from being

involved in the Allandale Recreation Centre to Victoria Village, which is a new seniors' facility in our riding, a state-of-the-art facility that was opened last year. The Minister of Health and

Long-Term Care, George Smitherman, was there to open that facility. It's a state-of-the-art facility for seniors' care. Also involved in that project was Jean McCann.

I was out the other night at the Royal Canadian Legion, which has a Citizen of the Year award, and that was awarded to Jean Colbert, who is very involved in

the Scout movement and a selfless worker at the Legion. The people at Legion branch 147 -- the president up there, Royden Johnston, and Debbie Cook -- are serving people day in and day out and

trying to make our community better. There are also Neil McKinnon, the president of the Army and Navy Club, Chuck Byron and all the volunteers who make up those organizations. They give hundreds of

thousands of dollars each and every year to different organizations within the community to make Barrie a much better community.

The work that's done by the service clubs -- the Barrie Rotary Club, of which I'm a member. I'm very proud of the fundraising activities and the initiatives

they're undertaking. One is for the cancer care centre that's going to be built in Barrie. They're going to have a standalone facility by the cancer care centre for the families of people afflicted

with cancer to be able to stay close to their family members. That's a great project among many they have undertaken.

You have to salute the volunteers who work in the hospitals each and every day, whether it's Royal Victoria Hospital in the north end of my riding or Southlake

Regional Health Centre or the nursing homes. Those are the unsung heroes who represent the values the member has put forth, each and every day, to make other people's lives better and to make our

communities better.

There is the work that's been done in the south half of my riding. Sylvia Luxton was second to none in the setting up of the Danube seniors' centre to serve

the seniors in the area and to provide a bus service. The seniors there and the people within that community and the work they do, whether it's CarrotFest or dealing with other initiatives -- I was

at a haircutting event the other day where the mayor raised $12,000 for the hearing loss part of Sick Kids Hospital. He had all his hair cut off his head, and his beard too. I didn't even recognize

him when he came up to me at a 50th anniversary. I got my hair cut that day; as you can see, it's still fashionable. We raised $19,000 in total for that day. It was great. At Mary and Vita Hair

Also, just to name a few of the people in Innisfil, there are Larry Wilkins and Gord Walker and all the events they put on in the community, and of course

there is the work the people do at Sandy Cove Acres.

The features and the values that are in here -- excellence, fun, fairness, human development, leadership, peace and respect -- all are depicted whether it is

our Olympic athletes or our day-to-day volunteers who make our society better.

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): I'm happy to rise and speak in support of Bill 71. I want to start by saying that when I read the

preamble, where

it refers to "the pursuit of excellence, innovation and success," it sounds familiar, and yes, this also appears in some of our economic development literature in Markham. Many of our IT companies

have done exactly that. This is the point: Whether it is the pursuit of business or the pursuit of volunteering in the community or public service or the various pursuits of academic excellence,

this also applies.

I want to speak about one of my good friends in Markham, Bill Crothers, who is the chair of the York Region District School Board of trustees. He is also a

former Olympian; I think he ran the 800 or 1,500 metres. He has taken on so many challenges over the years. We know that York region has experienced phenomenal growth in population, but also a

phenomenal growth in terms of diversity. We've said that diversity is our strength, but it also comes with challenges, of course, and he has always been able to deal with these challenges, day

after day, with strength, optimism and persistence. I'm sure that Olympic flame is still under his belt today.

I want to talk about my personal experience in 1976. I came to this country in 1971, so it was only five years after that when I was in Montreal for the 1976

Olympics. I was just so impressed and proud to be a Canadian at that time, hosting the whole world. It was a very important experience for me. I think we should all be proud in pursuing this

experience and this spirit.

The member from Mississauga East talked about there being an Olympic village right here, and that was so well said. I think many new immigrants have not heard

of, never mind Sir John A. Macdonald or Cartier; they probably have not heard of John Diefenbaker or Lester Pearson. But the Olympics, oh yes, they've heard of that and they know about it very

much. This is something we can all rally around, and even for you, this is going to be a fun item. We've said so many times that, yes, there are so many problems with our youth, but what have we

done? I think proclaiming an Olympic Day is an event that we can support and they can also support.

I want to very quickly talk about another experience, a personal experience of mine, and that's the Special Olympics. In the year 2000, York region hosted the

Ontario Special Olympics, and I was able and proud to support that. I still remember their slogan. It goes something like this: "Let me win, but if I don't win, let me be brave along the way." That

is the spirit of Olympicism and Canadianism.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today to support this motion that the fourth Tuesday of every September be Olympic Day. In our

hearts, though, I think every day should be Olympic Day, quite frankly. I'm not sure why that particular date has been chosen because when the Olympics fall, they're almost always in the

summertime: July, August. This is perhaps a period of reflection when the Olympic athletes come home after winning so many medals.

In the world today, and in Canada, in Ontario and in this city of Toronto, support for the games is widespread. It is hard to find a person who thinks we

should not participate in the Olympic Games, although you will occasionally finding people who are thankful the Olympic Games did not end up in Toronto because of the expense, cost overruns,

political problems, security and everything else that is associated with the modern games. People are not always clamouring to host the games.

Personally, when I was on city of Toronto council and as the mayor of East York before that, when the idea was first floated by the mayor of North York, who

was then Mel Lastman, we all embraced the idea that Toronto would be a perfect location for the Olympic Games because of our multicultural bent, because we literally had people from the four

corners of the world here and because we had a great deal to offer in an almost idyllic situation, with the lake and the facilities we have in our community.

Having said that, we still embrace the Olympic Games, whether they be held in Beijing or Atlanta. This year they're going to finally be held in a place where I

think they are most appropriate, in Greece. Greece of course is the home of the Olympics.

The Olympics have changed a great deal. When people talk about the Olympics in ancient times, they are really talking about a very different Olympics than the

Olympics we have today. If you do some research, if you read about the Olympic Games you will discover, to the surprise of many, that the Olympic Games were religious in significance. They were

primarily a religious institution, set aside at the time of the harvest to praise the goddess Demeter, and also to praise the other gods of the whole pantheon of Greek culture as it existed at that

time.

It was a time of pride of small villages in the Peloponnese, which sent their champions to the games. The games were running, wrestling, hammer throws and

discus. They were probably much smaller than we have today. It was those small villages in the Peloponnese that 3,000 years ago sent their champions off to the games every four years. Their

champions came back with glory for their village.

In fact, the Olympic Games did not go beyond Greece until the time of the Roman conquest. People are surprised that the Olympic Games were entirely a Greek

function. People would literally come from the four corners of Greece up until the time the Romans invaded and successfully conquered that nation, at which time they became more than pan-Hellenic.

They actually became pan-Romanic, so that people from the four corners of the world, as it was then known, from Egypt, Greece, Rome and what is modern-day France and Germany, would come to

participate in those games.

If you've ever had an opportunity to travel to the original Olympia, it is a place of great and extreme beauty. The great religious monuments were there. The

temple of Zeus, which was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, is there. The track is still there. It was a place revered in ancient Greek and later Roman culture.

The Olympic Games were also very different in that women did not participate. This is a modern invention of this century. The only woman who was ever allowed

to enter the ancient Roman and Greek games was the priestess of Demeter, which harkens back to the agricultural roots of the original games. She was the only woman who ever set foot or who ever saw

the actual games. She didn't participate, but she saw the athletes perform.

The modern Olympics are much different. They are of course a worldwide spectacle. They are watched by billions of people every day, billions of people who

watch the spectacle, who cheer on their champions, particularly the champions from their own nation, but who also watch to see the spectacle of sport in its raw and most beautiful way, which is

with gifted amateurs and not so many professionals -- although that too is now creeping in, as we know only too well with our Olympic hockey team, which is made up of more professionals than

amateurs. But the summer games to this day mostly remain amateur-driven, and that's a good thing.

We have had experience in this country of the Olympics at Calgary and Vancouver and Montreal -- or they're about to come to Vancouver -- and we have seen that

it is an absolutely good thing.

To celebrate the Olympics is to celebrate sport. Although we are supporting this, as a culture we need to start looking at what the state of sport is in this

country. That's where you have to know that the state of sport in this country is not where it should be. It starts with children. It starts with having schools open in the evening so the kids can

play basketball. It starts with having playgrounds open without user fees so they can play baseball. It starts with having the cultural centres and community centres open without user fees so every

kid has an opportunity to participate regardless. If you can do that, then you will have a whole cadre of people who one day might be Olympians.

I was driving in today and heard the news. The news was not surprising, not shocking, but it had to do with people selling clothes in Canada. The Bay, a

veritable Canadian institution, has made a decision that they are going to put most of their marketing into the plus-sizes because the market for plus-sized clothing in Canada is rising three times

faster than it is for ordinary clothing. That has to tell us something as a people. If we are now putting all of our marketing into plus-sized clothing it is because more and more of us are

becoming plus sized, and this is because fewer and fewer of us are getting exercise and we're starting to eat things that maybe we shouldn't. We need, as a culture, to reverse this. Passing this

bill is one aspect.

But what we're asking, and what we'll be asking and looking for on Tuesday when the finance minister comes in, is: Where is the money going to go for our

schools? Where is the money going to go for our sports groups? Where is the money going to go to our communities? We need to know that user fees will be a thing of the past, particularly as they

refer to children and young adults. They need an opportunity to participate in sports and all that will come from that. We need to know that the school boards won't have to look for money and rent

out the facilities but will freely open them to all kinds of community activities, as they did only a few years ago. We need to know that the community groups can spend time actually helping the

kids learn about the sport, rather than spending all their time selling chocolate bars and fundraising. We need to know that groups like those who were here yesterday with Community Living can

anticipate that there will be money for them for things like the Special Olympics, money so their athletes can have an opportunity to participate. The fees for some of their groups have gone

literally from nothing to $2,000 and $3,000 per participant. We need to know that that is a thing of the past.

So we look to the member and we look to his party and say, good bill. Make sure that the Minister of Finance does the right thing on Tuesday next week by

virtue of all the citizens of this province, particularly our young. Thank you very much.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise today to make a few comments on Bill 71,

An Act to proclaim Olympic Day.

I congratulate the member, Mr Fonseca, for bringing forth this bill. It's a nice bill. It's a warm and cozy bill. I mean, who wouldn't want to support an

Olympic Day proclamation?

It's important that we acknowledge our Olympic athletes. I can think of a couple of people I wanted to just put on the record today who have been very involved

in the Olympics over the years. I've got a gentleman in my riding -- whose name is Walter Henry. Walter was in the boxing divisions through the 1960s and early 1970s. He worked extremely hard and

trained. He got a lot of publicity in our community and the community of Orillia where he's from. In fact, today he's married to Chief Sharon Stinson Henry of the Mnjikaning First Nation. He has

worked hard over the years and has been just a class act for the city of Orillia, as have all the members of his family.

Growing up and getting to know a little bit about the Olympics, Walter was somebody we all looked up to in our community. He was an example of what an Olympic

athlete was all about. They didn't have a lot of money to train, didn't have a lot of money to advance their careers, but with self-determination and hard work they managed to get to that level of

other careers. Walter, in fact, won a few medals at the Olympics -- I believe it was in Mexico City -- which was the highlight of his career.

I also wanted to say something -- I know how hard the Olympic Committee worked here in Ontario a couple of years back, trying to secure the Olympic Games for

the city of Toronto. We have a facility up in our riding called Hardwood Hills. It's operated by a young lady named Kim Vinney. Last night, Kim was nominated Businesswoman of the Year in the city

of Orillia. Kim worked extremely hard, building her business up in the area with biking trails, cross-country biking and cross-country running. If we had gotten the Olympics in Ontario and for the

city of Toronto, hers had been pre-chosen as the facility that would house a lot of outdoor sports. It's just a great facility. If anybody hasn't been to Hardwood Hills, it's one of the best

cross-country ski trails and mountain biking trails that we have in Ontario. I thank Kim for that. I know how much she wanted the Olympic Games, but it didn't come about.

Of course, we're fortunate -- and I think that's one reason we need an Olympic Day. I hope that at some point this can actually occur because we, as Canadians,

have been fairly outstanding in the fact that in recent decades we've had Montreal, Calgary and now we're about to have Vancouver. The fact that Canada has been a leader in promoting the Olympics

and hosting the Olympics here in our country says a lot for the country and the stature we have around the world. We are considered one of the greatest places in the world to live. I think that's

why a lot of the people, when they're selecting the Olympics, actually choose Canada at different times.

There's one issue I have with the Olympics: the lack of funding for a lot of our athletes. I know it's not too bad if you're a hockey player now, certainly if

you're one of the NHL players and you get chosen for one of the Olympic teams -- particularly the men's league, of course. They won the gold medal in 2002, and we were very proud of them. However,

they are professional athletes and have earned large salaries. The women who won the gold medal for us are not professional athletes and they have some funding issues around that.

If there's anything we can do -- maybe promoting an Olympic Day. One thing that might help us help Olympic athletes is the fact that if we had an Olympic Day

and there's a proclamation, it might go somewhat toward securing more funding, and it may be some money at the provincial level. I'm not saying it's something that Minister Bradley or Minister

Sorbara should come up with money on immediately, but when they're national sports and we are representing the nation, I think the federal government has a large role to play. There's no question:

They have not been there for our Olympic athletes. As far as I'm concerned, they've never been there for our Olympic athletes. I hope that at some point in the future we can properly fund the

training of these young men and women who represent our country in such a great manner.

I think the bill is a very positive bill. As we look to the future of our country, it's something that, when you specify any day, it adds to your province or

your country's spirit. I don't know if Mr Fonseca spoke to this at all, because I came in late on it; I'm sorry. It may be something that could be a worldwide bill: Many countries could use Olympic

Day. I don't know if that's what your intention is or not, but I can't see why that wouldn't be the case. Each year you celebrate an Olympic Day and it's proclaimed across the world -- not a

statutory holiday, but certainly promoting the fine work that our Olympic athletes provide for our country. So I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We'll be supporting the bill, and I

congratulate the member for bringing forth this bill. It's a nice bill to have, and I think we'll get the support on it.

Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale): It's my pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 71. This bill is about recognizing the value of the

Olympic spirit. These values are: hard work; fair play; respect for others of all religions, creeds, nationalities; and respect for the values of competition. These are Olympic values, but these

are also Ontario values. These are the values that make Ontario a great province and will continue to make Ontario a great province: hard work, fair play, and respect for all races, all colours,

all creeds and all nationalities.

Let me say a word about the Olympic spirit recognizing competition. If Ontario is to succeed in the global economy, we must be good competitors; we must have

great respect for competition. This is an Olympic value which, by the adoption of Bill 71 and the recognition of Olympic Day, will enhance and underscore the importance of these values.

In short, the Olympic template, the Olympic spirit, is also a template for a successful Ontario. It's for this reason that I rise in support of this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Fonseca, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Fonseca: I'd like to thank all my colleagues for speaking on Bill 71,

An Act to proclaim Olympic Day: my colleagues from London-Fanshawe,

Peterborough, Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, Markham, Willowdale, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Beaches-East York and Simcoe North. I'd also like to mention another member here,

Mike Colle of Eglinton-Lawrence, who was actually a coach at St Michael's College School and helped at the early onset of my career on going to the Olympic Games. I do know that many of the other

members here make such a huge difference in their communities to create future Olympians -- and when I say "future Olympians," I don't mean just in sport; I mean in Olympic spirit: those that

strive for the values that we have said, in terms of respect, peace and excellence, those who have that self-discipline to give back, and so much that they do give back to their communities.

Yes, this bill is about active living. Everybody who's listening today should go out for a walk, a bike ride, a jog or go swimming. There are so many things

you can do to get in a little bit more active living. Try to get everybody in Ontario to do 20 minutes a day of active living. It's about values of peace and respect. It's about pride. It's about

celebrating our successes, and the many successes that we have had. Often, we focus many times on our failures. I want to focus on our successes, on raising the bar, on shooting for excellence,

which millions of Ontarians do every day. That's what this bill is about.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today.

ANTI-SPAM ACT, 2004 /

LOI ANTI-POURRIEL DE 2004

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The time for private members' public business having expired, we shall deal first with ballot item

number 19.

Ms Marsales has moved second reading of Bill 69,

An Act to prevent unsolicited messages on the Internet. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

Ms Marsales?

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I would like to move that Bill 69 be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

OLYMPIC DAY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA JOURNÉE OLYMPIQUE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 20.

Mr Fonseca has moved second reading of Bill 71,

An Act to proclaim Olympic Day. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Fonseca?

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): I move that Bill 71 be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

All matters having to do with 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 1156 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MARGARET MARLAND

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I rise to pay tribute to a good friend and a long-time member of this assembly, Mrs Margaret Marland. On Sunday,

May 30, Margaret will join friends and family as they celebrate her 30 remarkable years in public life in the province of Ontario.

Margaret was first elected in 1974 as ward 2 trustee for the Peel Board of Education and quickly moved up the ranks to become a city councillor in Mississauga

and councillor for the regional municipality of Peel in 1978. In 1985 Margaret was elected as the Progressive Conservative MPP for Mississauga South, and was re-elected four times before her

departure from public life in October 2003.

Right through her 18 years at Queen's Park she demonstrated leadership and professionalism while serving in a number of roles, including chair of the PC

caucus, deputy House leader and minister responsible for children.

Margaret is an honorary member of the Rotary Club of Mississauga Centre and a proud supporter of the United Way of Peel Region and the Mississauga women's

hospital auxiliary.

Her passion for public life and her loyalty to her constituents has left a mark on this assembly. Margaret will be best remembered in this place for her upbeat

spirit and her genuine respect for the rules of this House. She would have made an excellent Speaker, for I know all of us who served with her had the utmost respect for the way in which she

performed her duties as an MPP.

It gives me great pleasure to extend my best wishes to Margaret, her husband, Ken, and children Ruth, Donald and Robert on this very important milestone in

Margaret's life. Margaret Marland, truly a classy lady.

BRIAN WINKWORTH

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I rise today to bring to the Legislature's attention a great member of my community. Brian Winkworth was

named Kiwanis Club's citizen of the year and we will be honouring him tonight in North Bay.

Brian is the youngest citizen in North Bay to be given this great honour. With four children, it's hard to imagine how he has managed to fit in so much

community work. He's the regional manager of our Cogeco cable company. He and his wife moved to our community 17 years ago and have been devoted to it ever since.

He has been involved in over 20 charitable and community organizations, including the chamber of commerce, Rebuilt Resources, North Bay Mining Week, and the

health professionals awareness committee, and has volunteered countless hours to charitable events around our area.

One such event was the recent tribute to our mayor, Jack Burrows, where Brian and a team worked diligently to create a fabulous video. He collected video clips

from hundreds of people in our community, including the fans of the North Bay SkyHawks, the congregation of Jack's church, and his buddies at Tim Hortons, and I was happy to be part of that.

Due to some scheduling miscommunication, I was a bit late and it was a freezing cold morning on the waterfront in North Bay. Brian was there waiting for me

half an hour late with a smile on his face, saying, "No problem. No worries," because Brian does everything with a smile. He is an example for our youth and for all the members of our

community.

I would like to thank the Kiwanis Club for acknowledging Brian's commitment and contributions. I'd like to thank his wife, Nancy, and their four children,

Steven, Michael, Amy and Andrew, for sharing their husband and dad with our community. I would like to congratulate Brian on being citizen of the year

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to comment on the latest Liberal embarrassment concerning law and order.

On June 11, 2003, the Tory cabinet approved a total of $700,000 allocated over three years, $242,000 in 2003-04, $325,000 in 2004-05 and $137,000 in 2005-06. The funds were to be drawn from the

victims' justice fund. The $700,000 was to be used as a pilot project for the Toronto Police Service, to help the service closely monitor an estimated 800 registered offenders living in the Toronto

area.

The $700,000 was allocated for a reason: to help protect our young people from sexual predators. It was with disbelief when we learned yesterday that the new

McGuinty government has, for over seven months, refused to flow the funding to the Toronto Police Service.

The Liberals suggested that they would replace the program with a possible national program. We now learn that the Liberals have been humiliated and

embarrassed into suggesting that the program, announced and approved last summer by the Tory government, will be in fact honoured.

Each and every day, a Liberal trial balloon or a Liberal broken promise is uncovered and identified in our province. The Premier, who likes to have photo

opportunities in the classroom, has little or no concern with the monitoring of sexual predators, the people who can and will harm the children of our province. The ultimate flip-flop this week is

an embarrassment to the Liberal government and a wake-up call to once again brand Liberals as soft on criminals.

ST ELIZABETH HEALTH CARE

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Yesterday morning, I participated in the RNAO Take Your MPP to Work Day and visited with a

non-profit charitable organization that provides innovative in-home nursing therapy and home care. That organization is St Elizabeth Health Care.

Not only did I have an opportunity to meet with a number of the St Elizabeth nurses during a round table held at LAMP Community Health Centre, in order to

listen to their comments and concerns, but I also had the opportunity to shadow a nurse working in the community as she visited the home of a wonderful family dealing with the extremely challenging

and heart-wrenching health issues experienced by their son.

As I learned during my visit, the child and family program provides customized strategies to support and respond to the complex health care needs of children

and their families -- like the family I met yesterday. Some of the innovative care and treatment that is provided is home chemotherapy, home dialysis, home infusion and palliative care, as well as

family support and training.

I want to thank and commend the nurses at St Elizabeth for offering me the opportunity to share a morning with them, to see first-hand their challenges, and to

speak with a family that is on the front lines of nursing care in our province.

I also want to offer thanks to the nurses all across the province, but especially those in my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, for the important work they do in

all of our communities each and every day. Thank you for working long hours through difficult circumstances. Thank you for your professionalism and your desire to help us find solutions to better

our health care system. Most importantly, thank you for caring.

NORTHEAST MENTAL

HEALTH CENTRE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The Northeast Mental Health Centre is in crisis, and the Liberal government has done nothing to respond. On

April 2, the board wrote to the Minister of Children and Youth Services, asking for $436,000 to avoid cuts to children's mental health services. On April 15, the ministry said no.

This means the end of mental health services for children under six in Sudbury district east, Manitoulin Island and Espanola; an end to mental health support

for children in CAS foster care; an end to the district day treatment program which allows high school students to complete their credits while being treated for substance abuse; a reduction in

services for children who are dually diagnosed with mental illness and developmental disabilities; and an increase in the waiting time for preschool speech and language programs, from eight months

to one year. These cuts are devastating for children across the northeast who suffer from mental illness.

On May 4, the board also wrote to the Minister of Health, asking for $1.5 million to avoid cuts to adult community mental health programs and hospital-based

services. There has been no reply. Without help, the cuts will include closure of counselling and treatment programs in Elliot Lake and Walden; an increase in wait times for counselling and

treatment elsewhere in Manitoulin/Sudbury; an increase in wait times for seriously mentally ill patients needing help from the ACT team; and a reduction of nine beds on the hospital side, by the

end of fiscal 2004-05. These cuts will be devastating for adults in the northeast who suffer from mental illness.

There is a crisis here for patients and staff. It demands a positive response from this government.

DEOHAEKO SUPPORT NETWORK

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I rise today to welcome members of the Deohaeko Support Network, guests from Durham region whom

I've come to know and work closely with over the past decade. These families support their adult children with intellectual disabilities to live in their own homes in the Rougemount Co-operative in

Pickering, that they built and established in 1994. The co-operative offers affordable housing to over 200 people, representing the full diversity of individuals and families in Durham region.

The young adults of these families are supported to live in their homes and contribute to their community through the provision of some individualized funding.

Individualized funding allows individuals with intellectual disabilities and their families to direct their own funding and, thus, their own lives.

Through individualized funding, a one-to-one support person assists an individual to access the rich resources that are typical in any community: places of

work, volunteer opportunities, leisure and recreational clubs and facilities, and places of worship. Therefore, each person creates a day and a life that is uniquely their own, at the heart of

their own community.

In return, individuals who are assisted to access their communities in these ways contribute greatly with their time, commitment and energy. They become

involved in paid work, they may start their own small business, and they employ the people who provide them support.

Our communities are stronger and healthier when all members of our community find a way to participate, feel welcome and contribute. Deohaeko Support Network

is a fine example of that in my riding and my hometown.

HYDRO OTTAWA

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): There is a growing scandal brewing in Ottawa. It involves secret contracts, payments of more than half a

million dollars to well-connected friends of the government, untendered work and double-dipping. It's all happening in a big government-owned hydro company.

The entire mess falls on Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli and his chief of staff, Brendan McGuinty. This well-placed Liberal pair were happy to have left the

impression with local taxpayers that Hydro Ottawa was directed by public-spirited citizens who worked for nominal fees.

John Hamilton, former chair of the board, resigned, citing political interference from city hall. Mayor Bob and his chief of staff, Brendan McGuinty, installed

a new head, Bob's boy on the board, Glenn Shortliffe.

And the scandal brews. Today an Ottawa Citizen editorial asked three questions: How could a man whose chief responsibility was to oversee management receive

untendered contracts from the same management he oversees: $295,000 dollars over two years? Two, the justification for such compensation included that he was lobbying against Bill 210. Not only did

he never contact me, every Liberal member of the Legislature voted against Bill 210, including Dalton McGuinty. Also, Mr Shortliffe was not a registered lobbyist.

Taxpayers deserve answers. Some have suggested that Mayor Bob enlisted Glenn Shortliffe to do his dirty work for him in rural Ottawa. We await more information

on this Liberal McGuinty scandal.

NURSING WEEK

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): Today I would like to recognize Nursing Week in Ontario and applaud the tremendous efforts of Ontario's nurses.

I especially wish to recognize the efforts of Linda Campbell, a nurse working in Markham Stouffville Hospital who was recently awarded the Toronto Star's

Nightingale Award for achievement in nursing in Ontario.

Linda Campbell was selected by a panel of judges from 94 nominees. She worked extensively during the SARS crisis caring for patients in the palliative care

unit last April, including Laura Quintero Sierra's 88-year-old father. Linda Campbell's loving and sensitive care to the needs of this family helped to comfort the 88-year-old father in his dying

days. As a result of Ms Campbell's exemplary work, Ms Quintero Sierra nominated her for the Nightingale Award.

We, the people of Ontario, appreciate the hard work and dedication that is demanded of nurses such as Linda Campbell and recognize the tremendous sacrifices

they make. Throughout many difficult medical crises, nurses have helped Ontario citizens cope by showing compassion, intelligence and courage, and as with last year's SARS outbreak have often

risked their own lives in the process.

On behalf of the citizens of Markham, I would like to thank Ms Linda Campbell and all the staff at Markham Stouffville Hospital.

BY-ELECTION IN HAMILTON EAST

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): As all members know, today is judgment day in Hamilton East. Today's by-election is the first major

electoral test for the McGuinty Liberals, the first opportunity for the public to send a message to this Liberal government. All signs point to a message Liberals aren't going to like.

And is it any wonder? The McGuinty Liberals have shown complete disrespect for the residents of Hamilton East. In very cynical moves, McGuinty first called a

snap by-election and rammed through a candidate of his choosing, not the local association's, all in an attempt to garner a perceived sympathy vote. Those insults to the intelligence of Hamilton

East residents were followed by a barrage of spending announcements in an attempt to buy votes with the voters' own money.

This is a government that deserves to lose this by-election. In seven short months, they have reinforced the negative sentiments that too many Ontarians have

about politics and politicians. They have casually and cavalierly tossed aside important promises they made to voters last September. In seven months, their front bench has displayed arrogance in

its refusal to answer opposition questions that is reminiscent of the Peterson Liberals following the 1987 election.

In conclusion, the McGuinty Liberals have broken faith with the people of Ontario and we encourage the residents of Hamilton East to consider the outstanding

Conservative candidate, Tara Crugnale, when they cast their votes today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 40,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act to protect emergency service providers from rate increases to their personal contracts of automobile

insurance / Projet de loi 40, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les assurances visant à protéger les fournisseurs de services d'urgence contre l'augmentation des taux dans leurs contrats

d'assurance-automobile personnels.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. The bill will therefore be ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PROGRAM CANCELLATION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 ANNULANT LE PROGRAMME DE PERFECTIONNEMENT PROFESSIONNEL

Mr Kennedy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 to cancel the Professional Learning Program / Projet de loi 82, Loi modifiant la Loi de

1996 sur l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario en vue d'annuler le programme de perfectionnement professionnel.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1347 to 1352.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Marsales, Judy

Martel, Shelley

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Chudleigh, Ted

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Miller, Norm

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 12.

Mr Kennedy?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I will address this in ministerial statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT /

PERFECTIONNEMENT PROFESSIONNEL DES ENSEIGNANTS

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I rise today to speak to legislation that will improve the work environment, the morale and

ultimately the ongoing professional development of Ontario teachers.

On April 22, Premier McGuinty outlined our government's plan for dramatic improvement in public education. Our plan is based on the firm belief that Ontario's

public education system can and must deliver excellence for students. The future of our students and of our province depends on it.

Notre plan se fonde sur la ferme conviction que le système d'éducation public de l'Ontario peut et doit assurer l'excellence pour tous les

élèves. L'avenir de nos élèves et de notre province en dépend.

We can only stop the slide that has been allowed to occur in our publicly funded schools if we take responsibility for the success and the well-being of

everyone who works in those schools. An education system that aspires to unlock the potential of every student has to be a system that in turn unlocks the potential of the teachers and the other

education workers within it.

The McGuinty government will take responsibility for teacher excellence. A key difference between this government and its immediate predecessor is that we

believe teachers want excellence just as much as we do. Our policy is one of respect for teachers as professionals, individuals who conduct themselves in a manner that deserves the public trust.

Every Ontario student needs and deserves highly trained and highly motivated people at the front of their classes. Today's legislation is an important prelude to ensuring that by bringing

long-overdue respect and relief to the classroom teacher in Ontario.

This bill does one very simple but necessary thing: It eliminates a hugely flawed, punitive approach of the previous government toward the teaching profession

in the form of its professional learning program, or PLP. This program, also known as the teacher-testing program, was brought into place four years ago as part of the previous government's

divisive approach toward Ontario's teachers in public schools. Rather than motivate our teachers, they took out partisan advertising. Rather than work with teachers, the government made them a

target.

The PLP policy was a policy of conflict from the beginning. It originated as an election promise for teacher testing in 1999 to prey on public concerns about

the quality of education. Instead, it became the most centralized, bureaucratic and overly prescriptive program of professional development that you could find anywhere. Teachers were ordered to

complete 14 courses over five years, only from centrally approved courses and providers, or the Ontario College of Teachers, created by the government, would take away their teaching privileges and

certificate. Recommendations provided by the College of Teachers at the time were overruled, and its independence was trampled on by the previous government. This served to alienate the college

from its membership.

Since it was imposed in 2001, the PLP has been an enormous failure in practice. By September 2003, less than one in five teachers had registered for even one

course of the official program, let alone the five or six they should have had by then to reach the compulsory number. The PLP has cost the College of Teachers $10 million, paid for by additional

annual fees levied on individual teachers.

While dollar cost is just one measure, the amount of discouragement the PLP policy has generated among Ontario teachers is much greater. A study released two

weeks ago cited the rate of depression among Ontario teachers as indicative of toxic workplaces, with incidences one third above other workplaces and long-term disability rates doubling since 1993.

According to the College of Teachers, we have been losing one in three of our new teachers within the first five years of practice. Ultimately, the previous government succeeded at only one thing:

disenfranchising an entire profession and undermining one of the province's most valuable resources for its future, its teachers.

We're going to fix that.

We are taking a new, respectful approach to teachers' professional development. Nous adoptons une nouvelle approche respectueuse à l'égard du

perfectionnement professionnel des enseignantes et enseignants.

What matters most is that teachers get the training and development they need in a timely fashion.

Aujourd'hui, je suis fier de déposer un projet de loi pour abroger le programme de perfectionnement professionnel et mettre fin officiellement à

l'époque d'irrespect envers les enseignantes et enseignants. Aujourd'hui, nous renouvelons notre engagement à l'égard de la paix et de la stabilité dans le système

d'éducation public de l'Ontario, afin que nous puissions fournir la meilleure éducation possible à nos élèves.

The Ministry of Education will soon release a discussion paper outlining approaches to teacher excellence that will tap into the best our teachers have to

offer. We will collaborate with teachers, as well as principals, school boards and faculties of education, and we'll gather input from parents, students and others to ensure a framework for

meaningful professional development.

Some of the approaches that will be considered are: innovative mentoring programs for new teachers by more experienced teachers in schools, increased

professional development days, enhanced summer development program opportunities, evaluating the link between teacher performance appraisals and development, and funding for teacher

development.

In closing, I want to be clear: We already have tremendous, outstanding teachers in this province. As Minister of Education, on behalf of this government, I

want to express our appreciation to them for the selfless work they are doing on behalf of children and young adults.

Further, I say to the members of the public that Ontario's teachers are professionals who by definition have some of the keenest appreciation for the value of

continuous learning. While we have lost ground in this province, as a result of the PLP, on working together on teacher development, this House should know that Ontario teachers continue to take

courses and upgrade their skills outside of the PLP framework. I am confident that Ontario teachers are very prepared to engage their responsibility for self-development. In this as in other areas,

our government will treat them with the professional respect they deserve. We believe that teaching is more than a profession; it is one of the highest callings and a matter of public service.

The Professional Learning Program Cancellation Act, 2004, recognizes our teachers as the dedicated professionals they are. I ask all members in this House to

join me in supporting this bill.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I'm certainly pleased to rise and respond to the statement presented by the Minister of Education on

behalf of the opposition caucus and our education critic, Jim Flaherty.

All of us believe teachers do a phenomenal job in the province of Ontario. I can speak personally that I have benefited greatly from our public education

system. I even have a diploma signed by Sean Conway and a nice letter congratulating me on being an Ontario scholar in our public education system, which is signed by Sean Conway as well.

In fact, I first got involved in politics when the federation president ran for Parliament for the Conservative nomination in Nepean-Carleton some years ago.

She was my teacher at D. Aubrey Moodie Intermediate School, and she is actually one of the reasons I got involved in politics.

Teachers and the fundamental role that teachers play in our education system are so important. To ensure that their skills are constantly being upgraded, we on

this side of the House believe that teacher testing and professional development requirements are an important part of any efforts to increase standards in our public education system.

We should be very clear in this response that this speech by the Minister of Education is less about excellence in education and has everything to do with

payback to the union leaders who generously supported the Liberals in the last election campaign.

People say, "Can you quantify that? Can you quantify the back-slapping union bosses who got behind Dalton McGuinty and this minister?" Let's look at the facts:

Our friends at the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, not just $885, not just $200, but $9,600 more.

Interjections.

Mr Baird: Even the member for Leeds-Grenville is outraged by this, and I share that concern. The Toronto elementary Catholic teachers,

$15,000. The union bosses are now clearly in control over at the Mowat Block, and they can get this minister to sign off on just about anything they put in front of him.

Some people have asked, "Why is this announcement being done today?" All of the provincial news tomorrow will be about how the Liberals lost the by-election in

Hamilton. This will get put off to the back pages of the paper. They didn't dare go to Hamilton and make this announcement because they know just how unpopular this piece of legislation will be,

about handing over the control of our education system to union bosses.

Someone said, "I remember Dalton McGuinty saying other things about this." I know the member for Simcoe North will agree. Let's take a journey down the Liberal

flip-flop trail on this. Back in 1995, the Red Book said they would "require teachers to upgrade their certification during their careers," and that "teachers must be well qualified and stay up to

date throughout their careers." That's the Red Book, 1995,

article 1.

Back in 1995, Dalton McGuinty was for enhanced teacher education. He said that he was in favour of enhanced teacher education on February 22, 1995. In 1999,

the Liberals said, "All new teachers will be required to pass certification exams."

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Then the cheque showed up.

Mr Baird: "Then the cheque showed up," the member says.

In 1999, April: They're now against teacher testing. In 1999, they changed their mind again: "All of our new teachers will have to pass province-wide

examinations," despite having taken four years of education. They changed their mind again. Another time in 1999, "Dalton McGuinty said his party would require education faculty graduates to pass a

test before they could teach."

We keep going on in 1999: "There should be a ... requirement to pursue ongoing training, the same way there is for" other professions, McGuinty said on

September 2, 1999.