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

June 1, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Jun-01 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 1 June 2006 Jeudi 1 er juin 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO CHARACTER

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SPEED LIMITERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE

LA ROUTE (LIMITEURS DE VITESSE)

ONTARIO CHARACTER

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SPEED LIMITERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE

LA ROUTE (LIMITEURS DE VITESSE)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KIDS' FISHING DAY

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

PHARMACISTS

EVENTS IN CHATHAM-KENT ESSEX

CHILD CARE

VOLUNTEERS

FOREST INDUSTRY

TETYANA ROGOLSKA

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

DEAF-BLIND AWARENESS MONTH /

MOIS DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA SURDI-CÉCITÉ

INJURED WORKERS' DAY

DEAF-BLIND AWARENESS MONTH

INJURED WORKERS' DAY

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR QUALITY

STREET RACING

CHILD CARE

ONTARIO IMMIGRANT

INVESTOR CORP.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

INJURED WORKERS

CHILD CARE

WASTE DIVERSION

CHILD PROTECTION

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ONTARIO IMMIGRANT

INVESTOR CORP.

EDUCATION FUNDING

ARTS EDUCATION

FISH AND WILDLIFE

PROGRAM FUNDING

PETITIONS

PASSPORT OFFICE

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

LONG-TERM CARE

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

VISITORS

CHILD CARE

GASOLINE PRICES

RENT REGULATION

SPRING BEAR HUNT

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

CHILD CARE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT

(STUDENT PERFORMANCE), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

(RENDEMENT DES ÉLÈVES)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO CHARACTER

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should declare the province of Ontario to be a

"province of character" by encouraging the citizens of Ontario to foster a climate which promotes, supports and celebrates excellence in character in its schools, businesses, homes and

community-based organizations in order to strengthen Ontario's families and communities.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Wong has moved private member's notice of motion number 16.

Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Wong, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Wong: This is certainly a very exciting day for me. Before I start, I want to recognize two very important people, and I'm honoured they've

joined us this morning: Lina Bigioni, executive assistant to regional chair of York region Bill Fisch and director of government relations, and Christine DeHaas, executive director of York Region

Character Community Council. Just a personal note: I've known Lina for many, many years, and she has done such great, conscientious and impressive work for both Markham council and York region

council that she is just a jewel for us.

The purpose of my resolution is to engage the citizens of Ontario, including elected officials, community leaders, businesses, school boards, health

professionals and our youth in recognizing and promoting the importance of good character. By declaring Ontario a province of character, we would serve as an example for cities, towns and

municipalities across the province to adopt a similar culture of good character. In a province of character, everyone works together to ensure that families are strong, neighbourhoods are safe,

education builds character, and businesses are productive.

There are two very important people in York region who have spearheaded the character community initiative since, I guess, the year 2000.

Becoming a province of character is about defining and practising in our everyday lives a better way to be. It means to show respect for one another, demonstrate

good citizenship, teach our children how to participate responsibly in a civil society and foster democratic ideals of justice. There is a better way to build a strong spirit of community among

Ontarians, and declaring the province to become a province of character is the first step in that process. By designating the province of Ontario as a character-building province, the government of

Ontario would encourage the citizens and community leaders of the province to promote and foster excellence in character in all sectors of society.

As a province of character, the government of Ontario would work together with communities across Ontario to nurture positive character attributes such as

respect, inclusiveness, honesty, fairness, compassion, integrity, initiative and responsibility. A province of character is one in which the elected officials, community leaders, business leaders,

school boards, health professionals and citizens recognize and promote the importance of good character. In a province of character, everyone works together to ensure that families are strong,

streets and neighbourhoods are safe, education is effective, businesses in the community are productive, neighbours care about one another, and citizens continue to share the freedom to make wise

and healthy choices for their lives and families.

I was saying that there were two very important people in York region who spearheaded this process, and of course I refer to my mayor -- and I say that because I

was on Markham and regional council before I was elected to the provincial level: Mayor Don Cousens. I would like to quote him:

"The character community initiative that we started five years ago in York region has become a movement that schools, businesses, families and communities are

beginning to take seriously. Living with character affects everything we do, the way we drive, play sports and deal with family and friends."

"Good character is fundamental in all societies and has a common thread through every culture, language and religion. We are already seeing a difference in York

region with anti-bullying and the way people work together more effectively."

"It would be a great step forward for the province to endorse this program."

Another very important person -- my idol -- is Dr. Avis Glaze, who was formerly with the York Region District School Board and subsequently worked in the

Peterborough board of education, but recently joined the Ontario Ministry of Education as the chief student achievement officer and CEO for the literacy and numeracy secretariat. She started this

in the York region district board of education and subsequently educated us about character communities. She said:

"The qualities demonstrated by individuals affect the quality of our lives within our communities positively or negatively.

"To ensure that our society continues to be a just and harmonious place for all, it is important to find common ground on the values that are important to

us.

"It matters -- that we demonstrate qualities such as fairness, empathy, honesty, optimism each day. Employers often say that they want their future graduates to

have initiative, to be honest and responsible. These qualities are taught and nurtured in homes, communities, churches, synagogues, mosques and temples.

"It matters how we treat one another. It matters that our children know what we care about as members of our communities. It matters what kind of province and

country we want to build for future generations.

"I have seen first-hand what it means to have a community of character. When individuals take these issues seriously, it has a positive impact on all that we

do.

"There is a lot of generosity among Ontarians, but we cannot take it for granted. It is important for all of us to invest time in determining the kind of

province our children and grandchildren will inherit -- by creating it now.

"I strongly support this initiative."

This actually went back to five, six years ago. Weeks after the municipal election of 2000, Mayor Don Cousens spoke to me about this exciting idea as introduced

by Dr. Avis Glaze. I was fortunate enough to have been invited by the mayor to be one of the two vice-chairs. My good friend Mayor Tim Jones from Aurora was the other vice-chair, and I think he

still is vice-chair of the York region character council.

I am so proud that York region has taken this initiative. Another good friend of mine, Regional Chair Bill Fisch said, "In January 2002, York region became the

first Canadian municipality to be declared a character community. Our nine area municipalities have all declared themselves to be communities of character. Since that time, York region residents,

businesses, community groups and sports organizations continue to embrace the 11 principles of character community and make it an important part of their daily lives."

There's so much to say but there's so little time. And I just want to tell members the 11 attributes that York region has selected for its character community.

They are respect, responsibility, honesty, integrity, compassion, courage, inclusiveness, fairness, optimism, perseverance and initiative. Both the York Region District School Board and York

Catholic District School Board have implemented character education in their schools. Their school boards hosted a conference called Quest for Character, which brought together community leaders,

local politicians and educators. Former Ontario Premier, the Honourable David Peterson, a person of good character himself, made a strong case for a return to fundamental values in his keynote

address, energizing the crowd with examples and a call to action.

York region's character community initiative was born out of that conference. Learning what they could from character communities in the United States, York

region developed its own made-in-Canada model based on the principles that I've set out.

I want to say that it really is important for us to recognize the people who have done so much, but I will have to do it in my two-minute wrap-up. I do want to

say that in York region there are a lot of positive impacts of a character community.

I just want to describe what happened with Recreationists of York Region, ROYR. They incorporated the spirit of character community initiative into their

accreditation program, and Parks and Recreation of Ontario developed a program entitled High Five, a certification program that trains leaders in program development and evaluation. Embedded within

the five principles are the character attributes and instruction for incorporating respect, responsibility, honesty, integrity, inclusiveness into programming for children.

Another group, the Ramer's Wood Co-op in Markham -- the board of directors expressed concern that residents weren't taking an active role in the daily operation

of the co-op. Vandalism was on the rise, and residents seemed to be turning a blind eye. By implementing character community, great things have happened and residents treated each other with great

respect, sat on more committees, and encouraged each other to keep the co-op litter-free and --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to rise and speak to this motion presented by my colleague. I want to state at the outset that, of

course, I will be supporting this resolution. I will be very direct in my remarks on this issue. I don't want the honourable member to take offence, because I believe he has introduced this in good

faith, and he has done so twofold: first, to compliment and to recognize the good work of York region and the leadership of York region Mayor Cousens specifically and Mayor Tim Jones, both of whom

I consider to be very good friends and have the highest regard for.

I too want to recognize Lina Bigioni and, as well, Christine DeHaas for their good work, because we know that often it's the staff who really drive the

initiative. None of this would happen without that kind of support. I want to recognize, as well, the associates, those members of the character council who have been doing such great work: Steve

Hinder and Doug Mottram, Errol Lee, Jacquie Hermans, Kathleen Redmond, Edward Nelles and, of course, Randy Taylor.

There are many others who are involved in this program. I often travel to schools throughout York region, and it's wonderful to see how our school boards have

taken on this issue of character communities. Many of them that I've seen have various halls and parts of the schools named after some of these character identifications. All of this is so

important as we focus, not only as individuals, as families, as communities; as the honourable member states, we, as a province, should be having this character focus.

I will now move to what I believe is a challenge for this government, for all of us. I would point out that I would have worded this resolution somewhat

differently. I would have worded it as follows: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should declare the province of Ontario to be a `Province of Character' by," and is

where I would change the wording. Instead of "by encouraging the citizens of Ontario to foster a climate which promotes ... character," I would have rather seen this to say, "by showing leadership

on the part of members of the Legislature and the government to demonstrate character in how we do our business in this place and in the province of Ontario."

You know, it's unfortunate that often in government it's much easier to say to people, "Do it this way," rather than demonstrating how it's done. I would say to

the honourable member that in the case of this government and his leader, it's simply not enough to say, "Do as I say." He would not often want to say, "Do as I do," because all too often over the

last number of years since this Premier has been our Premier, he has been caught. He has been caught out of character and out of many of these character traits as are proposed under character

attributes.

The honourable member listed some 11 character attributes, and don't we all agree that they are fundamental? But it's interesting that the character attribute

for June is honesty. What I would ask the member to do, and all members in the Legislature to do, is to contemplate on the importance of honesty and demonstrating honesty as a lead characteristic

for those of us who hold offices here and certainly for the Premier of this province. I want to bring the leader of this government face to face with what honesty means. I want to put it at his

doorstep and remind him of a pledge that he made on September 11, 2003. He signed this pledge in the presence of literally millions of people because he did it as a demonstration in the middle of

an election campaign of what his commitment was going to be.

I read this pledge:

"I, Dalton McGuinty, leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario, promise ... that I will not raise taxes or implement any new taxes without the explicit consent of

Ontario voters," and further that, "I promise to abide by the Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act."

We know that Dalton McGuinty did not keep that promise. Broken promises are not part of the integrity definition, and they should not be part of a character

province. They should not be part of a character Premier. They should not be part of a character government.

It's interesting that July is noted as Integrity Month, and so it should be, because integrity flows from honesty, and integrity means having the courage and

intestinal fortitude to tell it the way it is, to be forthright and direct and to show leadership based on principles. Principled leadership: that means not saying what you think people want to

hear but saying what is right and showing leadership. Often, I question whether we have that kind of example coming out of this place.

August has the character attribute of compassion and would, as the prayer that you read at the opening of this session, Speaker, that we act and conduct our

business in this place that would in fact represent social justice.

To that effect, I cannot leave this debate without pointing out the many hundreds of thousands of parents and children in this province to whom Mr. McGuinty made

a promise in no uncertain terms about what he was going to do when he was Premier. This is a letter that was written by the Premier of this province to Nancy Morrison of Bradford:

"Dear Ms. Morrison:

"Thank you kindly for your e-mail requesting information on the Ontario Liberal Party's position on IBI treatment for autistic children. I appreciate the vital

issues you raised and would be pleased to address them at this time.

"First of all, let me say that I admire your determination and all your hard work, not only on behalf of your son but all autistic children in our province. You

have clearly put a lot of time and effort into ensuring that autistic children of all ages are able to enjoy the best ... quality education."

I go on, the same letter: "I also believe that the lack of government-funded IBI treatment for autistic children over six is unfair and discriminatory. The

Ontario Liberals support extending autism treatment beyond the age of six. We are not at all confident that the Harris-Eves Conservatives care to devise any innovative solution for autistic

children over six, especially those with best outcome possibilities that might potentially be helped within the school system with specially trained EAs.

"In government, my team and I will work with clinical directors, parents, teachers and school boards to devise a feasible way in which autistic children in our

province can get the support and treatment they need. That includes children over the age of six."

I want to remind the people of the province, and I want to remind the honourable member and the honourable members of the government caucus that they have yet to

step up to the plate and demonstrate the characteristics of compassion and integrity and honesty and follow through on that commitment that they made while on the campaign trail.

I quote Jeff Bostick in a letter to the editor, Toronto Star, April 2:

"Families of autistic children counted on Premier Dalton McGuinty, at election time, to keep his promise to fund the medically necessary treatment these kids so

desperately need ... McGuinty has been exposed for what he is, a liar."

I'm quoting, Speaker. I would not personally say that. I am quoting from the newspaper article.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm reading directly from the standing orders [ failure of sound system ]:

"(

h) Makes allegations against another member.

"(

i) Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.

"(

j) Charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood."

This has been going on for the entire 15 minutes, very close to the line on a regular basis, and I would ask the member to fulfill his responsibilities of trying

to avoid such discussion in this House.

Mr. Klees: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that while the government whip introduced this point of order, perhaps we

could stop the clock so that we're not interfering with debate.

The Deputy Speaker: We have a couple of hours dedicated to private members' business, so I'd say get on with --

Mr. Klees: My point of order, in response to the member's comment: I, at no point -- and I was very clear -- made any reference to any issue

that is contrary to any standing order. I was very specific that I was quoting other people to whom commitments were made. Speaker, from that standpoint, I have absolutely nothing to be in any way

ashamed of with regard to my comments. In fact, I would suggest that if this is coming close to the nerve of the issue of integrity and honesty, then those who are being offended by it should take

note.

I want to close my remarks by once again commending the member --

The Deputy Speaker: Have you finished your comment on your point of order?

Mr. Klees: I am. That's finished.

The Deputy Speaker: I've listened to the points of order. I'm inclined to suggest to all members that this is private members' business. We are

all equal in here at private members' business. There are no ministers, no whips, no House leaders, so if we can attempt to keep our remarks in that fashion, I would appreciate it. What I'm saying

is, let's just move on from here. Thank you.

The member for Oak Ridges.

Mr. Klees: Thank you, Speaker. I want to simply close my remarks by saying that I commend the member for bringing this initiative forward. I am

simply suggesting that on the issue of character, we have a responsibility to show leadership before we ask anyone else to do anything with regard to that issue.

I commend York region for their initiative. I commend all who have been involved in demonstrating and advancing these character attributes. We look forward to

the day when this government will do the same.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Needless to say, I found it somewhat ironic that a Liberal member of this Legislature would bring a

resolution before this chamber talking about character, talking about setting examples, talking about raising the bar -- what, the way Joe Volpe and Jim Karygiannis had when it comes to

fundraising: cheques from 11-year-olds for $4,500 a crack? What, Gomery-style inquiry standards? Is this the kind of character we're talking about? Broken promises: Is this the kind of

character-building we're talking about by the leadership of Dalton McGuinty? Make a promise to get what you want, to opportunistically seize an election event, but then break it as soon as you're

elected.

I would suggest to the author of this resolution that if he wants to create higher standards of character in this province, he should ask his Premier to

demonstrate, by action, appropriate character; to be forthright with the public; to keep promises once he makes them, whether it's promises not to raise taxes, whether it's promises to ensure that

kids, once they reach the age of six, get IBI treatment for autism; whether it's the promise to control the rate of hydroelectricity -- that would be a demonstration of character, if the Premier

were to have kept that promise; whether it's the promise to show regard for democracy and enhanced debate -- the Premier would be best suited to demonstrate some character by keeping that promise.

The litany of broken promises goes on and on.

It is amazing that in a place where character seems to have so little value and importance to the highest levels of leadership in the province, this bill would

be put forward without a smirk, or at the very least someone's tongue planted firmly in their cheek.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): First, let me congratulate Mr. Wong for this resolution. He's right on when he says that in this province, in

every one of our schools, every one of our children should be subjected to character education. I'm disappointed that the member from Oak Ridges and the member from Niagara Centre began to

politicize the very important introduction of this bill by Tony Wong on a province of character. I am disappointed because they know better. They know better because we say, "Let him who is without

sin throw the first stone. Let him who is the kettle call the other kettle black. Let him throw the first stone." We don't want to get into this, talking about broken promises by the Progressive

Conservative Party or even, for that matter, what happened under Bob Rae. We don't want to talk about that. We're here to talk about a wonderful resolution by Tony Wong, who has introduced a

private member's resolution on the province of character.

For too long we've taken character education for granted. For too long we've subjected our own children to learning about character by osmosis or by accident.

As we know, we used to receive most of our character education not only from our parents, but also from our religious institutions, might they be churches or temples or synagogues. Now of course

it's somewhat changed.

While I'm looking at the list of character ideas that have been introduced by my colleague -- respect, inclusiveness, honesty, fairness, compassion, integrity,

initiative and responsibility -- there seems to be just one missing, which is almost all-inclusive, which Mr. Klees came very close to, and that is the idea of love.

We take a lot of our idea of character from biblical references, if you're a Christian. I remember one specific story, even though I'm not a biblical scholar,

about a man called Nicodemus. Do you remember that man? This man, Nicodemus, was sitting apparently in a tree -- I don't think literally -- and Jesus passed by, and Nicodemus said to Jesus, "Jesus,

tell me what must I do to get to heaven?" Apparently Jesus answered, "Love your God with all your might, with all your strength, with all your soul, and love your neighbour as yourself." Looking at

the character traits introduced by Mr. Wong, that idea of love is really all-inclusive in all of these characteristics.

It's easy, Mr. Speaker, to love you or to love our colleagues. You're all nicely dressed. You have money in your pockets. But how hard it would be sometimes to

love some of the members here who are in opposition when they're politicizing an event like this. How hard it would be to go out and be fair to a squeegee kid or an unemployed immigrant. How hard

it would be to open one's pocket to a beggar we meet even here in Toronto. How hard it would be to open one's door and be fair with a mentally challenged person. How hard it would be to be fair and

to open one's door to a drug addict. How hard it would be -- even in my own office, someone comes in, an older senior citizen who wants to actually kill himself, and he smells and the people

sitting next to him are saying, "I wish that man wouldn't come in here because he smells." How hard it would be to open up that door and show some character.

We're all challenged with this as individuals. We're all challenged today by Tony Wong, who brings his resolution forward, as politicians and as persons to

open our doors and to live in the province of character. That, to us, is a matter of congratulations to this member.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the member from Markham's resolution before us

today on the province of character:

"In the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should declare the province of Ontario to be a `province of character' by encouraging the citizens of

Ontario to foster a climate which promotes, supports and celebrates excellence" in their communities.

I represent a riding, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, that has stellar examples of people who have made initiatives to strengthen their communities. I wanted to

mention a few. I wanted to mention Amy Terrill who received the Bernie Gillespie Memorial Award by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in Hamilton. It recognizes excellence and work within their

organization, which is the Kawartha Lakes Associated Chambers of Commerce, and the overall wellness of the community that she has promoted.

Paul and Robin Brown received the Ontario Farm Animal Council award with their children to raise awareness of the importance of agriculture.

There are all the Kawartha Lakes associations and volunteer administrators who received awards: the Easter Seals Society, the Boys and Girls Club of Kawartha

Lakes and the Ross Memorial Hospital, just to name a few examples of stellar people in my community.

I want to remind the members of the Legislature that we are leaders in our communities and the examples we set are very important. When the Liberal government

has gone out and made promises and broken over 50 of those promises to the people of Ontario, that is not an example we want to be setting.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I read this resolution as it came across my desk, with the imploring of the member from Markham that

people come forward to speak to this. I thought I had to come and speak to this. I have very mixed feelings -- I'm going to explain -- about supporting this bill.

Of course, at the outset, we should all be people of good character. I don't know of anyone who would say we should be people of bad character, or anyone who

would espouse for us to do wrong things, or anyone who would condone those who do wrong things.

I've looked at the experience of York region and how this program seems to be working in that community. It's not unlike a program we used to have in East

York, a program the citizens participated in, a program the citizens loved, and it was called the Good Neighbours community program. Every year, we would hold an awards ceremony. We would invite

people to nominate their neighbours, people who had distinguished themselves within the community, within the neighbourhoods, by doing neighbourly deeds, by providing prime examples, by helping

those who could not help themselves. It could be something as simple as taking a senior out to buy groceries, or helping someone who was disabled, or providing funds or working in the school free

of charge. It was all kinds of things. We handed out those awards and we had a reception. It was a much loved institution. I do truly believe, even to this day, that it helped the safety and

harmony of our community.

So when I looked at this resolution, I thought this is something along the same vein. But I have to say that I started to reflect about the community of East

York and what existed in those days and, sadly, some of the bad things that are starting to happen in our community, in part, it may be said because we longer have our own municipality, and in part

because of the social conditions of Toronto, and in

part it can also be said that what we used to strive for in terms of our community and our neighbourhood is no longer possible.

By and large, 95% of the people from those days are still there, but they have seen a real change in our neighbourhoods. They have seen the megacity imposed.

They have lost control over their council, their councillors, their mayor. They've lost control over the boards and committees on which they once belonged. They have seen that people from far away

now make the decisions.

They have seen the bylaws that we used to have in our neighbourhood become subject to the city of Toronto, bylaws that we had that helped to make a safe

community. We didn't allow pool halls. We did not allow adult entertainment. We did not allow the sale of adult videos in video stores and all of that proliferation. If you lived in East York, you

could be absolutely assured that none of that would happen in your community. But today, as part of the megacity, we have adult entertainment; as part of the megacity, we have pool halls. We didn't

even have a bingo parlour in those days because we didn't want to facilitate gambling. All of those things that we had that helped to develop a safe community have now gone by the by. I think you

can see that this has happened throughout Toronto and, in fact, throughout much of Ontario, as cities were amalgamated, as people lost control.

It's instructive that this resolution is coming from York region. I travel very often to York region. It is a beautiful place, but one of the things that would

strike anyone who goes there is that it's largely brand new. If you go, you'll see row after row of beautiful homes in subdivisions that cost $400,000, $500,000 or $600,000. You will not see on the

face of a casual observer any poverty. You will not see on the face of a casual observer any kind of social upheaval. You'll see brand new schools, brand new subdivisions, gleaming malls.

Everything looks fine. I would suggest it's pretty easy in a place like that to have a community of character. I think that for York region it's probably a good thing to have instituted this.

But I want the member opposite, and all people thinking about this, to contrast that with the reality of far too many places in this province. I had an

opportunity last week to go to Attawapiskat, where the only high school in the north has been closed for seven years. Nobody has a high school and there's nowhere to teach this kind of stuff. I

want to contrast that with the town of Kashechewan, which has, for the third time this year, been forced to evacuate its residents. I want you to contrast it with downtown Toronto. There was a

question in this very Legislature yesterday about vermin and rats in a school, about asbestos that the kids have to breathe in, about the mould growing in the corners and the tiles falling off the

roof.

I want to ask the member and everyone, how is this kind of life going to build citizens of character, that kind of life in the inner city, with so many people

forced on to ODSP, on to general welfare, where the levels of unemployment are infinitely higher than they are in the suburbs? How can the society in which they live, in which welfare rates have

been virtually frozen, in which welfare rates have not even matched inflation since this government came to office, in which the poorest of the poor in Toronto are worse off today than they were

during the deepest, darkest days of the Mike Harris government -- I ask you, how can this program work when our poorest children of welfare mothers have the federal government money clawed back by

this government? How can they aspire to be citizens of character when they don't have enough to eat, when they live in squalid conditions, and when the very government that is supposed to and is

entrusted to help them chooses not to do so, but instead chooses to claw back the money for whatever purpose the government wants to use it for?

How can people who live in places like Jane-Finch, portions of Regent Park, and all of those public housing developments in this city and in public housing

developments across this entire province, who live with the problems that have been documented so well in the past, who live with mice and cockroaches and vermin and mould, who live in places where

no one has any hope, in places where there is gun violence in the street, in places where their kids don't finish school or don't even have a chance to finish school, aspire to be in a community of

character?

How can all of this happen? How can it happen in communities across northern Ontario and even in Toronto and, I dare say, probably even in York region and in

smaller municipalities, where over 100,000 jobs have been lost this year alone, where people are struggling to try to build for their families and to keep what they already have? How, in a

one-industry town like Smooth Rock Falls, if the mill shuts down, are they supposed to maintain and be a community of character? There is nothing there to have character for. There are no jobs, no

livelihood, nothing to which the citizens can aspire or in many cases can do. They look to this government to do more than this resolution will allow.

I don't blame the member from Markham for all of those social ills; he is but one person in this Legislature. This resolution attempts to do something which I

think is premature at best. It's premature until all of those social ills are looked at. We have an obligation as legislators to try to do something so that the people who are in the hardest

circumstance, the people who are having the hardest time in this very prosperous Ontario, have an opportunity to participate. What we need to do is to draw them in, not to tell them to be of good

character, not to say that we are of good character, not to go into the schools and tell the kids who have no chance for a higher education, who can't afford the increases in tuition and who simply

are forced to drop out -- how can you tell them to be of good character? How can you train them to be of good character when they see the affluence all around them and have no opportunity in which

to participate?

I looked at this resolution and what this resolution says. This resolution says five things.

The schools are supposed to try to give at least 10 minutes a day to build character among the youth. I question how this is going to be done when so many

children have so many problems within our schools directly related to poverty. One in six children in Ontario lives in poverty. This government has done nothing to alleviate that poverty. How can

you build character amongst those children when they know that all around them is affluence and all around them they are not participating? I don't know how the 10 minutes is going to engender

something which I am sure most of them are bitter about.

The second thing it says is that the community is to find resources and tools. How are cities that are struggling and do not have sufficient monies, especially

smaller towns and towns in which the manufacturing base has been destroyed, to find this kind of money for the tools and resources? I don't know that many cities are going to be able to participate

in this or will feel that it is important enough, with all of the other problems they have with infrastructure, with education and with everything else, to find the wherewithal and the monies to

find the resources and the tools.

The third thing is the creation of a character council. I suppose that's kind of benign, but I am not sure that many will want to put the resources and the

time with so many other pressing problems they have.

The fourth is an education committee to provide resources and tools; that is, to take the work away from the duly elected councils, the duly elected school

boards, and to have a parent group or other group find the resources and tools which I believe this government has a moral and legal responsibility to provide. I have to question why that is in

there at all.

The last one is a character council made up of a board of directors and a non-profit organization, another non-profit organization, which I think will probably

suffer the same fate as literally every other non-profit organization in this province. They are starved for funds. They do not have an opportunity to have enough funds to do the jobs they need to

do. They come cap in hand every year, and every year they go away empty-handed.

The member is trying his best. I do not blame him for one minute for putting forward this resolution. But I have to ask, how is it possible in a province that

has so many glaring social issues in front of it and so many that have not been resolved, especially so many children who are living in poverty, going to declare itself to be a province of

character, and how is it going to enforce what this resolution would do upon municipalities that simply do not have the wherewithal to carry it out?

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It is indeed a pleasure for me to provide a few comments this morning on this resolution from my colleague from

Markham.

But first, one of the great friends of the member from Markham, His Worship the Reverend Donald W. Cousens, announced today that after 12 years as mayor of

Markham -- and an MPP who had a very distinguished career here -- he won't be seeking re-election as mayor of Markham because of health reasons. That will be quite a loss to that community, because

he did show outstanding leadership. He and my colleague the member from Markham, who served on that council with Mr. Cousens, were indeed part of what many have called the Markham miracle: the

growth of business and industry in that area and the development of many positive programs, through the work of the member from Markham when he was a city councillor there.

Just to talk about a few things that have gone on in my own riding to develop character and good citizenship: For many years, the Peterborough Rotary club

would hold an essay contest, leading up to July 1, Canada Day. That was organized by a former Speaker of this Legislature, my good friend Mr. John Turner. John took it upon himself to organize the

essay contest. In the essays that the former Speaker would judge, an individual would talk about the essence of character and the essence of citizenship, not only within my community of

Peterborough, but on a provincial and a national basis.

During my time as a city councillor in Peterborough, we developed the Peterborough youth awards. I would recognize a number of people -- Mayor Sylvia

Sutherland, who will retire this November as the longest-serving mayor ever in the history of the city of Peterborough; Councillor Doug Peacock, a former colleague of mine; and Ellen Stewart, a

staff member of the recreation division at the city of Peterborough -- who came together a number of years ago to come up with a Peterborough youth award. These awards are awarded annually to

students who show good character and good citizenship, and recognize their contribution to the community of Peterborough.

Of note is Avis Glaze, who was a superintendent of York region. After she finished her work as a superintendent of York region, she became the director of

education for the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board. Through her work, she brought about the character education that she developed as superintendent of education in York region and

certainly brought that to her new assignment as director of the Kawartha Pine Ridge board. Dr. Glaze of course went on to become head of the secretariat for numeracy and literacy with the Ministry

of Education here in Toronto. Through that process, I had the opportunity to visit classrooms where Dr. Glaze was directly involved in promoting character, 10 minutes a day. It was interesting to

see, over a period of time, after students had been involved in the character-building exercise, the change in their outlook and in their attitude, and really the building of their self-esteem,

which is so very important, and getting confidence in themselves as young persons in the classroom.

I feel this resolution, talking about respect, responsibility, honesty, integrity, compassion, courage, inclusiveness, fairness, optimism, perseverance and

initiative, is important, and highlights very well the key characteristics one would talk about when one was describing what we think is a good citizen and a good individual who will make a

contribution to our society. My late mother used to always tell us that good manners never go out of fashion. Taking the opportunity here this morning to discuss this resolution, I think, brings us

together to look at some things that sometimes are not talked about at any great length. I certainly commend the member for bringing this resolution forward this morning. I intend to support

it.

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to support the member from

Markham and his resolution in declaring Ontario a province of character. I have watched the member and his hard work in the riding of Markham. He has shown that character to his constituents.

I just want to make a comment about the character I saw in the member and his work that I brought back to my riding. Last November, it was announced that the

Domtar paper mill in my riding would close. On that very day, I shall never forget the member from Markham getting out of his seat, walking over to my desk and indicating to me that he had an idea

to help me out. He had an idea that he thought I should bring back to the riding, and I did. The member would understand that it wasn't long after that that the mayor of my community was here at

Queen's Park and met the member from Markham in his office, and he presented this idea to the mayor. It's something we are certainly following up on. This is what we have to do in our province:

reach out to each other. On that day I saw compassion and honesty and initiative and integrity. This is what the resolution is all about. I saw them in an individual, which I now bring back to my

riding and comment about and spread out across this province.

In my riding in 1998, I was the reeve for the new municipality of the township of South Stormont. We had a natural disaster where everyone in my riding -- and

I noticed especially in my community -- reached out. I saw true community character. This is what we have to build on. This community character was shown for sure, because it was at that time that

my wife was critically ill in the hospital. I was reeve of the township. I was running back and forth between Ottawa and the municipality of South Stormont; she was in the hospital there. I saw

people reach out to me. But I also saw people in the community reach out to their brothers and sisters to lend a hand of support as they tried to cope with the loss of power, the loss of getting to

jobs, the loss of networking in the community. I saw people reaching out to each other. I saw people from Long Sault to St. Andrews, from Lunenburg to Ingleside, from Newington to Osnabruck Centre

-- people all across my municipality -- and I also saw, because I was on county council and had an opportunity to fly over the area where power lines were down and whatnot, people in other

communities reaching out to lend that hand of support, to show that support and that character. This is what happens all across our province.

I also look, in my municipality and in my constituency, to our local newspaper. I think this is the fourth year, if memory serves me right, that they have

supported and profiled the great kids of our community in the Great Kids contest. They reach out every year and have a great celebration of what is good in children. That newspaper, the

Standard-Freeholder, also has a page every week where they reach out to all those organizations and have a full page of pictures of people. Whether it's the diabetic society, heart and stroke,

Alzheimer's, the OSPCA, people who work in the environment, they profile these people with photographs. This is what we have to do; we have to promote and foster that spirit of what's great in our

communities. That's what this is all about. That's what my good friend the member from Markham is doing with this resolution: profiling what's good in Ontario and making sure that we never lose

sight of that.

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

Mr. Wong: I want to thank the members from Oak Ridges, Niagara Centre, Davenport, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Peterborough, Beaches-East York

and Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh for participating in this debate. It is a bit unfortunate that some members have turned something extremely positive into something negative, but I'm going to

stay on the positive side. I'm repeating: In a province of character everyone works together to ensure that families are strong, neighbourhoods are safe, education builds character and businesses

are productive.

There have been a number of comments about Premier Dalton McGuinty. Let me tell you, the Premier is the province's greatest champion of working toward

character education programs in schools. In his first throne speech, in November 2003, Strengthening the Foundation for Change, the Premier spoke to this government's commitment to excellence for

all in public education. Part of that commitment was that communities would be asked to help define citizenship values for Ontario's new character education program in our local boards, to

strengthen our students' education experience. He also acknowledged that the path to a better society and a more prosperous economy runs through our public schools.

I think it really is important to introduce the book that has been published by York region, Building Character: A Community's Success Story.

I want to address a point that's been raised by the member from Beaches-East York with respect to poverty and social issues: This is not about money. This is

about how we can build and foster a great society. I want to advise and inform the members here that there have now been 11 cities or municipalities in Canada that have declared themselves as

character communities. I am sure this would be helpful and I urge all members to support this resolution.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SPEED LIMITERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE

LA ROUTE (LIMITEURS DE VITESSE)

Ms. Scott moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to improve air quality by reducing truck emissions / Projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant le Code de la

route pour améliorer la qualité de l'air en réduisant les émissions de camions.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): Two weeks ago, I introduced Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to improve air

quality by reducing truck emissions. The act requires all trucks operating in Ontario to activate the electronic speed limiter that exists in every truck engine to limit the truck's maximum speed

to 105 kilometres per hour. I introduced the bill for three reasons.

First, as my party's environment critic, I fully support the introduction of measures to reduce greenhouse gasses and smog-causing emissions created by trucks.

It's a simple matter of physics that you use less energy when you reduce speed. By slowing down trucks on our highways, we will reduce the amount of fuel that they burn. A reduction in fuel

consumption means a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The math is very simple and incontrovertible.

The trucking industry has estimated that over 140 kilotonnes of greenhouse gases would be eliminated each and every year, a number which I believe is probably

low. I believe that the reductions will probably be much higher. It's not just the trucking industry who thinks that slowing trucks down is good for the environment; Pollution Probe, the Lung

Association and Fleet Challenge have all publicly endorsed speed limiters.

The Minister of the Environment and I may disagree from time to time, but on one thing, at least, I know we are in full agreement: We need to act now to stop

global warming by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. The minister has described the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases as the greatest environmental challenge of our generation and I tend to

agree. Whatever our differences, what matters is that we start taking action now rather than later.

Climate change does not have to involve big, sweeping changes. Each of us doing our

part can combine our efforts to achieve real, positive, lasting change for

our environment. We have witnessed that in waste diversion through the blue box program, where every household does their part to reduce, reuse and recycle. The bill is a great example of a key

industry stepping up to the plate as a willing partner to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce consumption of fossil fuel. Together, we can all reduce greenhouse gases. While I would never

suggest this measure alone as the sole solution to global warming, I think it's a step in the right direction. Global warming is a complex issue and there is no single magic solution. We need a lot

of different measures dealing with each source of greenhouse gases. For the trucking industry, using limiters to reduce trucking speed is a good strategy, one that is supported by the industry and

by environmental experts. I am pleased to be able to bring forward a bill implementing it.

I'm also mindful of the fact that at the same time other pollutants like NO x and particulate matter that cause smog and affect our health will

equally be diminished. Given the smog days we are experiencing in Toronto right now, I should think that we can all agree we need to act now to reduce smog.

My second reason for introducing this bill is that when the private sector takes the lead and offers to support tougher environmental and safety legislation, I

think we have an obligation as members of this Legislature to encourage that kind of leadership and support their efforts. The trucking industry deserves a lot of credit for coming forward with

this proposal. It was their idea originally. How many industries are coming forward begging us to help them improve their environmental performance? How many have really grasped the challenge of

dealing with global warming and offered a constructive solution? Do we have so many willing volunteers for new environmental legislation that we can afford to reject good-faith offers of

government-industry co-operative initiatives? I don't think so. I think it would be a shame to have an industry come forward asking for new legislation that will help our environment and then have

we as legislators refuse to act. What kind of message does that send out, that industry cares more about the environment than we do here? So my second reason for introducing this bill is to show my

personal support as a member of this Legislature for the efforts of an industry that has been proactive, shown real leadership, and is looking to government to work with them to implement a good

idea, an idea whose time has come.

That brings me to my third reason for introduction of this bill. I'm a frequent user of our provincial highways as I drive back and forth from my home in the

beautiful riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. I know first-hand how dangerous it is to have to share those highways with trucks that are speeding. I also know that the majority of truck drivers

are professional, courteous, and among the safest drivers on the road. But unfortunately, there are a minority of drivers who drive their fully loaded trucks far too fast, putting at risk not only

their own lives but the lives of those who have to share the highway with them.

If enacted, this bill will ensure that all drivers slow down to a reasonable speed. I firmly believe it will improve road safety, a belief that is shared by a

host of safety organizations that have also endorsed this idea. The CAA, the Canadian Safety Council, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, the Ontario Safety League, Road Watch, the

Transportation Health and Safety Association of Ontario, the insurance bureau of Ontario, the Markel and Old Republic insurance companies and Smart Risk have all come out and said that speed

limiters for trucks will make our roads safer. In all honesty, I can't claim to be a road safety expert; however, the myriad organizations I've just named are the leading road safety experts in

this province and they agree that slowing down trucks will make our roads safer.

Despite the obvious environmental and safety benefits and despite the fact that it is the trucking industry itself that is calling for this kind of

legislation, I recognize that there are still those who question why the government should force truckers to obey the speed limit, just as there were those who vehemently opposed mandatory seat

belts in the 1970s and just as there were and are those who opposed forcing motorcycle drivers to wear helmets, and just as there are those independent drivers who oppose the logbooks that restrict

the number of hours they can drive in a day, who oppose the laws that restrict the maximum weight of their truck, and who oppose efforts by MTO to inspect their vehicles at roadside truck

inspection stations. There will always be those who don't like any kind of government interference, but when their actions have an impact on the rest of us, on the environment we live in, on the

safety of the roads we drive on, it is appropriate -- it is imperative -- that we enact sensible legislation. No one today would question whether mandatory seat belts were a good idea or whether

motorcycle drivers should be required to use helmets, yet at the time, many did.

Let me deal now briefly with what the bill does and, more importantly, what it does not do.

What the bill does is require all trucks operating in Ontario to activate the truck's speed limiter, which is a built-in electronic microchip that allows an

engine's top speed to be pre-set. The maximum speed that the limiter would be set at is 105 kilometres per hour. All trucks manufactured after 1995 are equipped with these chips now. Setting the

maximum speed for a truck is a relatively simple programming change that can be performed in a matter of minutes at minimal cost. In many ways, it is no more complicated than changing the password

on your home computer.

Enforcement will be easy because if every truck is staying at or under 105 kilometres per hour, a cheater is going to be pretty obviously speeding past the

other trucks. Cheaters will be easy for the police to spot and deal with. In addition, MTO on-road inspectors can very easily check if a vehicle has been properly governed using a hand-held device.

The law would apply to all trucks, regardless of their home jurisdiction, who choose to operate in Ontario.

This is not unusual, as North American jurisdictions have a variety of laws governing operation of commercial vehicles, and they're expected to comply with the

laws of the jurisdiction in which they are driving. You can use examples of Canadian truck drivers in the US in respect of the US drug-testing law that we don't have in Canada, the rules that

govern vehicle weights, axle configurations and even the hours that drivers can work. So the trucking industry has long adapted to these different changes in jurisdiction. In the long term, I hope

that all North American jurisdictions will follow Ontario's lead.

So what the bill does is reduce fuel consumption, thereby reducing emissions. What the bill does is improve road safety.

Now let's deal with what the bill does not do. What the bill does not do is affect the competitiveness of Ontario's trucking companies. Who would know better

the competitive situation than the trucking companies themselves? They are the chief advocates of this policy. If there were a chance that this would hurt their competitiveness, they wouldn't be

asking the government to bring in such a law.

What the bill does not do is affect the competitiveness of Ontario shippers. The fact is, over 50% of trucks operating in Ontario and around 70% of those

operating in the US are already governed by this technology. The simple fact is that those trucking companies who have already governed their fleets are effectively competing with those who

haven't, providing the same level of service at competitive rates.

What the bill does not do is affect a driver's pay. It does not affect the amount that independent truckers or owner-operators earn. It's not unreasonable to

suggest that in order to make money, an owner-operator has to operate at excessive or unsafe speeds. Furthermore, whatever increased risk of rear-end collisions, it's going to decrease that. That's

proven by many statistics.

I see my time is almost expired. Let me just conclude by urging all members of the House to consider the environmental and safety benefits, to consider the

fact that the industry itself wants this law and to consider the fact that a broad cross-section of reputable environmental and safety organizations are also in favour of this law. Having

considered all this, I urge you all to join me in support of Bill 115 this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I will be supporting this private member's bill by the member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, but as with most

bills, it has its pros and it has its cons.

Let's look at the pros. The member says that speed limiters on large trucks have the potential to deliver these benefits, especially in terms of reduced

speeds, fuel economy and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously that is a very good point, a point taken up already in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions by our government. We have

already, in terms of specific actions, produced a number of almost immediate results, and let me just go through some of them here.

This government has introduced North America's toughest emission-testing standards for large diesel trucks and buses and has toughened the Drive Clean

emission-testing standards for light duty vehicles by 23% in the past two years. We've implemented a five-point clean air action plan and provided gas tax funding so that municipalities can make

meaningful investments in public transit. This is cleaning the air we breathe by getting people out of their cars, and obviously it enhances public transportation. The government has introduced

Ontario's first-ever HOV lanes to help reduce gridlock. The Premier, in fact, has hosted the first shared air summit.

We've closed the Lakeview coal-fired generating station, and we consistently have maintained, and will continue to maintain our desire to reduce emissions,

especially in terms of our coal goal, which is about cleaner air.

There are a number of points in terms of reducing gas emissions that the government has already taken. But let me now look at the cons. I hope the member from

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock will answer some of these questions.

I have a trucking company in my riding and I asked, "In what way would this specific private member's bill affect you?" He said to me, "Well, we have shipments

to make of car parts to Georgia. And who do we call? We're looking for the person or the trucking company that takes the transportation route that is the closest and shortest route in terms of

hours." I said, "Why is that?" "It's obvious," he said. "First, it reduces the cost, but second, which is much more important, the company and the factory in Georgia is waiting for these parts. The

plant shuts down at 6. The truck that doesn't have a governor or a speed limiter on it will get there at 5. The Ontario truck that has a governor on it will arrive there at 7, which is one hour

past the closing time of the factory, which means a hell of an extra cost."

I'm simply wondering whether the member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock can answer this question for this specific trucking company. Are we saying with passing

this bill, and I will support this, that we're disadvantaging and adding extra costs to those trucks that are registered in Ontario, as opposed to those trucks that come from south of the border,

whether it be Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina or Virginia?

So the question is one of cost and disadvantage. I, for one, would not want to, with this bill -- obviously we would not want, as a government, to try to

disadvantage those trucking companies, in terms of competitiveness, which have to compete with those who won't be governed by the specific legislation.

But there are some other cons, and I hope the member will address these specific questions. The bill does not specify whether this restriction applies to motor

vehicles only in Ontario, or does it also apply to vehicles operated in and through Ontario? Will it create confusion for other provinces' carriers and drivers? In other words, will any truck

driving through Ontario be subject to this law?

The bill intends for this offence to be enforced. There will be an offence, obviously, if a truck is found guilty of not providing a governor or speed limiter

on the truck and on the motor. The bill intends for this offence to be enforced by conventional police officers who are not commonly involved in the enforcement of weight and equipment requirements

for commercial vehicles. There will have to be special training provided for these police officers to know just what fines to give to these drivers.

Deeming the driver of the vehicle to be in contravention of a vehicle equipment requirement is unfair in most cases because the driver has no control over the

components of the motor vehicle that he or she is driving. This will be the responsibility of the vehicle owner or operator. The bill does not address the responsibility of the motor vehicle owner.

Is it just the driver who's being fined? Should there not also be a special fine for the person who owns the vehicle or who leases the vehicle when he or she knows the governor is not being

provided?

Obviously, then, there are a number of cons, and I would hope the member would be able to specifically address these questions, especially for my trucking

company that would be at a disadvantage in terms of competing with other trucks out of the province. I will be supporting the bill, but I would hope that the member would be able to answer some of

these questions that are distinctly important.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm pleased to rise and speak to the bill introduced by the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, based on a

proposal from the Ontario Trucking Association to put limiters on trucks on the highways so all trucks would not be able to go beyond 105 kilometres an hour.

Right off the top, I will suggest that I will be supporting the bill, as I believe anything we can do, first of all, to improve our environment, but even more,

to improve the safety and the expediency on our highways, is a good thing to do. It's also important to recognize that this isn't necessarily the answer to all the things that are wrong. This isn't

going to all of a sudden clean up our environment to the extent that none of the other things need to be done. I think the government still needs to work on cleaning up the air that's coming out of

our electricity plants that they keep saying they're going to close, but they're not. It seems they're saying they're going to close them so they don't have to clean up the air that's coming out of

the stacks. I think that's very important.

My support for this bill is not so much on the environmental part, but on the rest of it. I've often heard in my community that good environmental policy is

also good financial policy when people and businesses are conducting their business, and this is one of those examples. I would find it hard to believe that anyone who is operating a vehicle or

truck on the road and who is trying to make a living would not appreciate that putting this in place, making a level playing field so all trucks are doing a similar speed and it does not create an

uncompetitive edge by slowing some down, and they can save the number of litres of fuel that the studies show they can save -- I would be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn't be interested in

finding a more economical way to get from one place to the other and, of course, at the end make more money.

The studies show that if they install these -- I guess I should clarify the installing. Trucks already, since 1995, have the ability to function by putting a

chip in the diesel fuel pump that is there. They can make that the limiter. It isn't a program where you have to put new equipment on the truck to make this work. As was said, there are many trucks

that already have it. I think the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock mentioned that 50% of the trucks on our highways and 70% on the American side already use this type of technology in order to

save fuel. As I said, I think this is a good business case. Not only that, the safety of the trucks on the highway is a very important issue.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada supports the proposal, as they see it will make our highways considerably safer. A number of other insurance companies are all

suggesting it will make our highways safer. So again, it's not just for the environment, it's not just for the money saving, but it will make our highways safer. I think we should have all members

of the House supporting it.

Having said that, there are some challenges. That's why I would hope that my colleague will agree to have it referred to committee for some hearings to deal

with some of the issues that could cause a problem in the industry. One is the uniformity of the speed limit and how we make sure that people coming into Ontario are governed by the same rules as

our trucks will be, to make it a level playing field for all our truckers.

The other thing is that I noticed from driving to Toronto every day to come to the House, as trucks are coming down the highway, particularly in the area where

there are just two lanes of traffic, as they go by, sometimes even now, as they do have the variance of speed, it takes a long time for one to get by the other. I have some concerns with this

process, if 105 is the speed of all the trucks, that we have one going at 100 and the other one wanting to go at the 105, which would then be the legal speed limit. If they get out beside, it could

take many kilometres before the process of passing that vehicle was completed. Again, that would have a detrimental impact on the movement of traffic on our highways, recognizing that one of the

other big challenges in our society is to have enough room on the highways for all the traffic that's presently there. That is quite noticeable in the mornings as one travels into the city.

I think those types of things need some discussion and some committee time to come up with solutions. But I think that a compromise can be found on those

issues to make this an improvement for the environment, an improvement for the profitability of our trucking industry and an improvement in the safety on our highways. I'm happy to stand today in

support of this bill.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Before I start to speak, I wish to preface my remarks by congratulating the member from

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, because not only has she come forward with a good idea, but I do not remember, in my five years here and in all the private members' bills that I've ever had an

opportunity to debate, being sent such a package by a member. Not only is it researched, not only is it clear, cogent and coherent, but it also has many endorsements contained within the body that

literally answered every question that I might have had.

In fact, like the member who spoke before me, I had a great number of questions. I remember some of the difficulties in previous legislation and in other

governments, where there was a whole bill about the length of trucks in Ontario and there was a whole thought that we should lower the lengths of those trucks because that was going to involve

efficiency. But then we found out that if we did that, it was going to cause great discomfort to the Ontario trucking industry, much of which was sent into the United States, where their trucks

tended to be longer, and it would also make it virtually impossible for American trucks to travel into Ontario. So I was looking for this kind of stuff. I was thinking maybe we ought not to be

going here, because I remembered that.

I also remember the 400-series highways, going back a number of years, and the 401 in particular in Toronto. There were two different speeds. There was a speed

of 65 miles an hour -- because in those days we were non-metric -- and then there was a speed of 55 miles per hour for trucks. I know that caused considerable angst, difficulty and driver

discomfort. In the end, it was determined that all trucks and all cars should travel at 60 miles an hour, and then that subsequently became 100 kilometres an hour. It seemed to me that having a

differential speed, as we have in some places in the United States, was not the way to go either. So I was looking into the body of the bill and had some considerable difficulty should that be one

of the suggestions.

Last but not least, I continue to be worried and need to know whether other Canadian jurisdictions are going to follow suit, because it's very clear in here

about the American jurisdictions, but I think we also need to know whether other Canadian jurisdictions are contemplating similar actions. Although a great deal of our truck traffic ends up in the

United States, there still is a considerable amount that is interprovincial, particularly along the corridor leading from Quebec and the Maritimes. Quite a bit of traffic still flows that way and,

to a lesser extent, from British Columbia. But still, a fair amount of traffic is involved both ways coming in and out of Ontario. I want to make sure that if this is done, it is coordinated across

the country. Certainly if the idea is good enough for Ontario -- and I suggest it is -- other jurisdictions may want to follow suit, or at least our own law must be very clear as to whether or not

it will involve interprovincial transportation. I do not want to see people coming from Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia or New Brunswick facing problems in transporting goods and services into

Ontario.

I talked about the list of endorsements. I'd just like to read those. My friend, in her 10-minute opening, obviously didn't have time, but I was very impressed

by the length and breadth of those who have come forward in support of this bill.

The first is the Ontario Trucking Association, and that should come as no surprise. Then there was a whole bunch of them after that: the Canada Safety Council,

Pollution Probe, Smart Risk, the Canadian Automobile Association, Road Watch, the lung association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Old Republic, Markel, the

Transportation Health and Safety Association of Ontario, the Ontario Safety League and Fleet Challenge. All of these groups, as disparate as some of them may be and having completely different

mandates and people they serve, came to the same conclusion: that this was a bill whose time has come.

The bill, in effect, will limit speed. The limitation of speed has its own reward, and that greatest reward is probably in terms of human safety. I don't care

how old you are or how long you've been driving or how long you've been a passenger: If you have travelled sufficient miles or sufficient kilometres on the roadways of this province, you have seen

car accidents. There are many causes for those accidents, almost all of which are human error. But in the end, the accidents that tend to be the worst, the accidents in which lives are lost or

severe injuries take place, are those in which excessive speed is involved. Anything that helps us to limit that speed, anything that helps us to make people understand that a slower speed is

always a safer speed, is a good thing. I commend the member for this aspect of the bill.

We also know that in Ontario, about 500 people die every year as a result of truck accidents. Again, some of this involves human error, but a great deal of it

may involve -- I don't have the statistics for this; it's only anecdotal from my life, having driven some 40 years on the streets, roads and highways of this province -- speeds in excess of 100

kilometres an hour. For reasons of safety, and for reasons of safety alone, this should be supported.

There are two other important aspects to this. The first is, it will save money. It will save money because if you run the truck at 4% to 5% less speed, you're

also going to correspondingly save the same amount, 4% to 5%, of fuel cost. You'll burn less fuel. The cost of that fuel will allow the trucking companies to save money. The second one is related

to the environment, and I'm going to deal with that in a moment.

If there's one thing that I have to say I'm sad is not contained in this bill, it's the provision not only that it deal with trucks but that it in many cases

should deal with automobile traffic as well. Everybody in this province who opened up a paper this past week saw the horrific accident of a young couple who were out to celebrate their anniversary.

They hardly ever went out to celebrate an anniversary, but they got a man to come out and babysit their seven-year-old daughter so that the couple could celebrate something, as is quite normal in

many families. They got together; they went out for a pleasant meal. They were driving home. Two young guys were having a road race going at what the police estimated, according to the paper, as

140 kilometres an hour. One of them side-swiped the car and killed the couple on their way home from a normal family celebration.

I would like to think that this bill may, in committee, be expanded. I would like to see that people who recently received their licences, or at least for the

first number of years of the licence, have such a limiter placed on a car. I'm specifically thinking about younger men who have just got a licence and who think that this road race, this thing of

going down and seeing who's got the fastest car, this thing about seeing how fast you can go on the streets without the police catching you -- it needs to be curtailed.

I have seen that the federal government is considering increasing the sentences for those who would act in this irresponsible way. But this is a bill and this

is a provision which would clearly ensure that speeds of 140, 150, 200 kilometres an hour, which some people travel on our roads, and for no real purpose other than to see how fast they can go --

that there should be a limiter placed on them too. I would think that anyone who's getting a new licence or anyone who has been convicted of driving excessive speeds, above 140 or 150 kilometres an

hour, on the roads of this province should have, as one of the conditions of getting a licence back, a limiter placed on their car. I would like to see that. I hope, if this goes --

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's a private member's bill.

Mr. Prue: This is a private member's bill. I think, though, that when this goes to committee, this can be easily added. If somebody does that,

if they go 30 or 40 kilometres above -- it is possible, in a 30-kilometre-an-hour zone, for someone to be caught going 60, and I know they shouldn't be doing that, but I'm talking about those who

really want to speed. I'm talking about those who drive excessively. I've seen them on the 401; we all have. I've seen them going as if I'm standing still driving at 100. They just pass me as if

it's nothing. I have no idea what speed they're going, but I'm sure it's 160 or 170. I think if the police catch them and if they are convicted -- because I believe in due process -- that they

should have a limiter placed on them as well, because what's good for them will be good for all of us.

The thing about the trucks, though, I have to say, is that it has been my experience, and I want to state it publicly through this debate, that the safest

people on the road are probably truck drivers. If you drive and you watch them, they are the most courteous. They are the ones who will let you pass; they are the ones who will wave you through if

it's going to take a long time. They are professionals. They are the least likely to be involved in accidents and also the least likely to take any abuse of their licence, because, after all, it is

their livelihood. I don't remember the last time I read anything in the paper about somebody drunk-driving a transport truck, not the same way as somebody is drunk-driving a pleasure car. I'm not

saying it's without the realm of possibility, because it could happen, but it's simply not something that one sees every day. So I want to commend all of them for the job they do and the way they

do it safely. This is not an issue in terms of their driving, but it is in an issue in terms of public safety and those who may not be as professional as they are.

I wanted to talk about this for a minute, and there are only a couple left: pollution, because pollution, of course, affects all of us. Yesterday was a smog

day of some horrendous proportion in this province, and the day before that as well. There were poor readings in Toronto, Hamilton and all of southwestern Ontario. A poor reading is that between 50

and 99. The smog days are getting horrendous. They seem to be building up, with more and more and more of them as I grow older. I don't remember this many smog days in my youth, although all of

these things were tested even back then. I do see it on a basis that we even have smog days in the winter now, which we never used to have. They used to be confined usually to the summer months,

with the air inversions, but today that is not the case. These were smog days in May, which years ago just didn't happen.

We need to get the amount of fossil fuels that are being burnt down. It has been estimated -- again, I thank Ms. Scott for her wonderful research -- by

Pollution Probe that 27% of the smog produced in Ontario comes from transportation: large trucks, cars, those kinds of things. If we can reduce the amount of fuel being burnt by 50 million litres,

we can reduce the CO 2 emissions and other emissions into the atmosphere, as they say, by 140 kilotonnes. That is such a huge amount of weight that one cannot even fathom it, and it's

simply in the air.

This has to be done. It has to be done for safety and health. It has to be done for transportation. It has to be done so that our roads are in better

condition. It's going to save the trucking companies money. In the end, the best thing that's probably going to happen for all citizens is that we will not have to endure the smog days; we will not

have to endure what has become, all too often, the norm.

When this bill goes to committee, I am asking the member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock -- I'm hoping she is going to send it to committee and not allow it to

go to the committee of the whole House --

Interjection.

Mr. Prue: -- I'm getting an indication that that is what she is going to request -- that some of these excellent groups be called forward and

be made available to answer the questions.

I heard the member from Davenport and his suggestion that this is going to cause some difficulty for a transportation firm who may not want to limit the speed

because they can't get to Georgia, that it's going to take an extra hour. The only suggestion I can make to that firm is that they leave an hour earlier, for the safety of all of us.

I think that he and others need to hear that there are alternatives. One of the alternatives is simply to time yourself better. One of the alternatives that is

here is to limit the speed. But clearly, if all members can feel comfortable about this, if we can draw on the experiences of other provinces and states, if we can coordinate this across North

America, it is an idea whose time has come. I commend the member for her efforts.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'm pleased to rise in my place today to join this debate. I would like to begin by congratulating the

member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock for bringing the legislation forward. Any legislation that speaks of reducing emissions is certainly welcome in this House.

While, ultimately, I think this bill has been brought forward without thorough consideration of all issues, this bill gives us the opportunity to highlight the

importance of responsible driving to fuel conservation in this province. Ontario boasts the safest road system in North America, and the Ministry of Transportation is very proud of that

achievement. This enviable record is due in no small part to the strong partnerships the ministry has forged with its safety partners, including the Ontario Trucking Association and the trucking

industry as a whole.

More specifically, Ontario also has an excellent truck safety record. In fact, data tell us that trucks are the least likely type of vehicle to be speeding.

That was mentioned by a member previously. The vast majority of truck drivers drive safely and responsibly, and our excellent truck safety record reflects that. The facts are these: Despite the

fact that the number of large trucks on Ontario roads increased by 43% from 1990 to 2003, fatalities involving large trucks decreased by 21% over that period. This is tremendous movement forward in

safety.

I just want to say that the men and women who drive trucks in this province are dedicated professionals who take their safety responsibility seriously. Still,

we can do more to promote road safety and cleaner air in the province of Ontario, and we must. Bill 115 is based on an Ontario Trucking Association proposal and has received broad support from the

larger trucking companies. I congratulate them for taking this initiative. Other supporters include AMO, the Canadian Automobile Association, the Ontario Safety League and the Ontario Lung

Association.

Not only does the legislation aim to increase road safety, but it will also diminish greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the speeds at which large trucks are

able to travel. However, smaller independent owner-operators are strongly opposed to this legislation because it could impact their ability to compete with the larger trucking firms. The member

from Davenport spoke to this matter, and the member from Oxford spoke to it as well.

Interestingly, in Europe, where they've mandated speed limiters, drivers are generally paid on an hourly basis; however, in Ontario, drivers are paid on the

mileage travelled, so this initiative would have a real impact on the earnings of truck drivers who already work long hours for modest pay. The negative impact on independent business is one of the

factors that must be weighed against the obvious environmental benefits.

Another potential issue that this bill raises is the issue of economic competitiveness. Trucking is, by nature, an interjurisdictional enterprise, and we

compete with various provinces and with the United States. Ontario-based carriers run 25% of their miles in jurisdictions with a speed limit of 105 kilometres or more. What will be the impact of

this proposal on Ontario carriers that travel through jurisdictions where it is legal to drive 105 kilometres and more?

On the other side of the coin, what will be the impact of this proposal on the non-Ontario-based carriers that deliver goods to Ontario or through Ontario?

These are all questions which were raised earlier and which must be dealt with before we can move forward.

In terms of road safety, intuitively, we could reasonably expect that slowing down trucks could reduce collisions, yet Europe and Australia, which implemented

speed limiters, have not yet produced any data to support this intuitive belief. So, are there safety concerns? If there are safety concerns, we have to have that data, that information, because we

are the leader in safety in Ontario. We must stay there.

Enforcing consistent speeds of truck travel would suggest that roads would be safer. However, this may pose problems for companies competing to maintain a

solid reputation for just-in-time delivery. Certainly there are going to be some adjustments that have to be made.

To summarize, Ontario roads are the safest in North America, and we intend to keep them that way. Ontario's truck safety record is equally enviable.

Bill 115 promised some real benefits in terms of the environment. However, speed limiters would have broader implications for the trucking industry and could

have unintended consequences. There remain questions around the economic competitiveness and the lack of road safety data. I know that the Ministry of Transportation is playing a leading role in a

working group that includes the Ministries of Transportation from Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick, and they will no doubt be looking at the impact that trucking will have in the states to the

south of us.

A report on the impact of mandatory speed limiters is expected this fall, so we don't have to wait that much longer. This initiative deserves some real

consideration, but we just aren't there yet. All the issues must be considered before moving ahead with this proposal. We look forward to reviewing the report from the federal-provincial working

group on this issue.

Mr. O'Toole: As the critic for the John Tory caucus, the opposition caucus, I want to first start by commending Laurie Scott, the member for

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, for the work she has done in preparation for Bill 115. In fact, most of the comments today have been of the nature of the previous parliamentary assistant, Mr. McNeely,

the member for Ottawa-Orléans. He wasn't absolutely critical, and he's sort of the spokesman for the minister. I'm sure he read the speech the minister prepared for him.

Mr. McNeely: Who wrote yours, John?

Mr. O'Toole: I haven't got one, actually. Also, the member from Beaches-East York was quite complimentary, and correctly so, because when

you're preparing a private member's bill -- this is mainly for the viewer -- there's pretty much a consensus that this is the right thing to do for a lot of different reasons, whether it's the

environment, the road safety issue or, as the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, the due diligence that's important.

The presenter of the bill, Ms. Scott, has done a wonderful job, because she has talked to the major stakeholders here. I can attest that she gave each of us

who wanted to participate in the debate a package which was quite informative on such a technical subject in the commerce of Ontario. This came, I believe, from her work with the Ontario Trucking

Association. Dave Bradley and Doug Switzer brought this to our attention. In fact, through her office, there was a meeting arranged with John Tory, the leader of our party. He was quite receptive

to the meeting and the input they gave him. You might suggest it's resulted in Ms. Scott drafting this legislation.

There are others that she's worked with as well which are worth mentioning. The Insurance Bureau of Canada recognizes that if our roads were safer, the

insurance implications would be that costs are reduced. Mark Yakabuski, in that instance, has been complimentary of the work she's done on this. Of course, there's the Canadian Automobile

Association; Kris Barnier has been in touch with her office and has been supportive. These are the major stakeholders. They're consumers and independents who want to know that the right thing is

being done.

I just want to focus on a couple of things. As the transportation critic, I believe that the broader issue here is gridlock. It's not that somebody is going

120, 110 or 50 kilometres an hour; we're stuck in traffic. They have no transportation plan. It's tragic. In fact, I'm on a bill right now, which I know the member from Beaches-East York and other

members of his caucus -- the member from Ottawa-Orléans -- are participating in. Bill 104, the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act, is before committee as we speak. We met this

morning.

This bill again demonstrates to me -- and most of the delegations, which included academics, a number of experts and municipally elected people, are calling

for some substance to Bill 104. It's missing the main ingredients to get rid of gridlock. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce says that gridlock, whether it's trucks or cars, is causing environmental

issues as well as costing the economy. In fact, it's costing our quality of life.

What have I done on this? As the transportation critic, I have been in touch with other provinces. In fact, I've met with Lawrence Cannon, who's the Minister

of Transport federally. Because the trucks just don't drive around Toronto or Durham region, or Halton or the greater Toronto area, or for that matter Kingston. They're usually going

inter-jurisdictionally, between provinces and, in fact, between countries. As such, an important aspect of this bill would be to coordinate this goal, this policy at a federal level. I'm convinced

that the federal government is seized with this discussion, as the parliamentary assistant said.

I have written to the Minister of Transportation, formerly Minister Takhar, now Ms. Donna Cansfield. The response I got back was on May 23. It says here, "As

part of the assessment of the OTA" -- the Ontario Trucking Association -- "proposal, the ministry is considering available road safety research as well as input from key stakeholders to determine

the potential impact of mandatory speed limiters. The suggestion you have forwarded will certainly be considered as part of this assessment." The suggestion came from the hard work done in

preparation by Ms. Scott.

I think what I learned this morning on Bill 104 that needs to be put on the record in the very brief time that -- the member from Beaches-East York made

reference to this, a presentation this morning to Bill 104. The discussion was about transportation. They gave us some very, very important data that I was quite impressed with. This data were

presented by a group called SMART, which is Student Math Action Research Team. They were led by an academic person, a mathematician actually, from McMaster University. It's an Ontario public

interest research group.

What did they tell us about this issue of the use of scarce resources? One of the facts these mathematicians put together says that the reason for their

concerns about the environment and the combustion engine is that a tonne of greenhouse gases is produced for every 417 litres of fuel burned. That's an interesting little nugget of knowledge: A

tonne of greenhouse gases -- one tonne -- is produced for every 417 litres of fuel. That's pretty interesting. These mathematicians, this group of students -- and I commend the work they've done --

have extrapolated, have drawn this number down so that we can understand it. The data have come to the conclusion of "the accuracy that .00041 tonnes of greenhouse gas are generated in one year by

the average ... vehicle for every second that vehicle idles daily in a parking lot" or in congestion.

They had extrapolated that number on all registered vehicles. "It means that for every second each day that every vehicle in Ontario sits" and idles "in

traffic we not only generate 2,256 tonnes of greenhouse gas a year, we also waste over 940,000 litres of fuel." Now we're starting to quantify this problem to our environment, indeed to our

health.

What has this to do with the speed limiters? There's clear evidence of a relationship with the 105 kilometres per hour, by reducing consumption, affecting

gridlock, reducing emissions, improving our quality of life.

My question remains, what's causing the minister to do nothing about this? Why doesn't she get on with it?

Respectfully, the 105 kilometres actually raises an important issue because of the two issues that I see. First of all, the legal speed on the 400-series

highways is 100 kilometres, not 105. How can you validate going 105 when the law says 100? The real issue here is, what's the true speed on the 400-series highways? Should it be 100? I believe it

should be 110, personally. They're designed for 110, let's make it 110, and let's enforce it at 110. That's the whole issue. How do you enforce this 105 if everybody else is going 120? I drive a

fair amount. I take GO Transit whenever I can. It just shows you that this issue -- we support it. Conceptually, it's the right thing to do. There are concerns about enforcement. If we were in

government, we'd certainly have done the work already. They've had three years. What's the problem here? We've got the academics telling us that there are -- how many tonnes? I've just given it to

you. It's 2,256 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year; about 940,000 litres of fuel.

Let's get on with the job and endorse this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? There being none, the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, you have two minutes to respond.

Ms. Scott: I'd like to thank the members for Davenport, Oxford, Beaches-East York, Ottawa-Orléans and Durham for speaking to this bill

and in support of this bill.

I want to answer some of the questions that were asked. The fact is that over 50% of the trucks operating in Ontario and around 70% of those operating in the

US are already governed by this technology. The simple fact is that those trucking companies that have governed their fleets are effectively competing with those that haven't, providing the same

level of service at competitive rates.

The 50% to 60% of Ontario trucks that are already governed have provided the pilot project demonstrating that a governed fleet is just as economically

efficient as an ungoverned fleet, both for the shippers they serve and for their own competitiveness and economic viability. Even though rules and regulations differ between provinces and states,

and the truckers adapt to that, this bill is receiving support at the national trucking association level, so I think we have to take that into consideration.

We have to look at Bill 115 as an example of big-picture thinking required by Ontarians to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It would reduce fuel consumption on

the average truck by 8,000 litres annually. Multiply that by the number of trucks on Ontario's roads and highways and you can achieve serious fuel savings. It would reduce greenhouse gases.

Improving fuel efficiency results in decreased harmful emissions from commercial trucks. As much as 140 kilotonnes of greenhouse gases could be eliminated in Ontario through this legislation.

Bill 115 will improve highway safety by minimizing the severity of car-truck crashes. We have a stakeholder, the Ontario trucking industry, that has come to

the table wanting to reform their industry to make it more environmentally friendly and improve highway safety across the province. This is not a partisan issue. Every single member in the

Legislature has truck traffic in their riding. The issue affects us all, and I ask you for support today for this bill.

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

ONTARIO CHARACTER

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 39, standing in the name of Mr. Wong.

Mr. Wong has moved private member's notice of motion number 16. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SPEED LIMITERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE

LA ROUTE (LIMITEURS DE VITESSE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 40, standing in the name of Ms. Scott.

Ms. Scott has moved second reading of Bill 115. It the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Balkissoon, Bas

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

MacLeod, Lisa

Matthews, Deborah

Milloy, John

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Racco, Mario G.

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

Nays

Marsales, Judy

McNeely, Phil

Mitchell, Carol

Parsons, Ernie

Rinaldi, Lou

Smitherman, George

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 27; the nays are 6.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to refer it the finance and economic affairs

committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. Scott has asked consent that it be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. Agreed?

Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KIDS' FISHING DAY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers, children and parents who participated in

our sixth annual Kids' Fishing Day at Heber Down Conservation Area last Saturday.

What a wonderful, rewarding day it turned out to be. This year's event, which was exciting and fun-filled for both children and adults, attracted our largest

crowd ever. Well over 1,200 participants came out to enjoy the sunshine and great outdoors.

With the support of many community and outdoor organizations, children were able to participate at no charge in a day filled with many events, including

conservation and wetland displays, lure making, face painting, casting competition, Kim's Game and retriever demonstrations.

Ducks Unlimited; our own MPP, John O'Toole; Kids, Cops and Canadian Tire; Muskies Canada; the Ministry of Natural Resources; the Ontario Sporting Dogs

Association; Oshawa Community Health; Oshawa Teen Council; Oshawa YWCA; Durham Regional Police; Pickering Rod and Gun Club; Lake Ontario Hunting Retriever Club; Port Perry BassMasters; Simcoe Hall

Settlement House; South Central Ontario Big Game Association; Westmount Kiwanis; and the Christ Centre all contributed time and effort to the success of the event.

I would like to give special thanks to the Toronto Sportsmen's Show, which once again showed its commitment to the future of fishing and conservation. Most

importantly, I would like to thank all the parents and kids who showed up to make this year's event the best ever. It was a tremendous no-charge opportunity for children who usually don't get the

opportunity to learn about fishing and nature and have fun discovering Ontario's great outdoors at the same time. Well over 200 rainbow trout were caught by the young anglers.

Once again, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the many people who made this memorable experience possible for the children of our community.

Remember: There are still lots of fish to be caught in the pond.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): It gives me great pleasure to announce in the House today that tomorrow a milestone event is taking place on the

grounds here at Queen's Park. On June 2, 2006, the Republic of Italy is celebrating the 60th anniversary of its national day.

At noon tomorrow, together with Minister Colle and the Consul General of Italy, Mr. Emanuele Punzo, we will preside over the first flag raising, joining Italy

and the other 60 million-plus Italians throughout the world to celebrate Italy's national day.

To join us, directly from Italy for the event, Mr. and Mrs. Luigi Zanon are here with us in the east gallery today.

We take pride in inviting our community -- all our people -- to come and join in the celebration.

We know that Ontarians have long been mindful of the contributions Italians have made to our province and so, as we honour the raising of the Italian flag, we

honour its people, their courage, their entrepreneurship and their vision to better this great province of ours and themselves. Yes, we are mindful of the fact that Italians, like so many other

immigrants, embraced the call to come to this land in order to not only fulfill their destiny but to join with all our citizens to help mould the destiny of this, our nation of Canada, as well.

So tomorrow we celebrate a toast to Italy on its 60th anniversary. Everyone is invited to come and join in our hospitality. Come and appreciate our famous

sports cars, motorbikes, fashions and food.

To tomorrow, to Italy, I say, Salute all'Italia. Cheers .

PHARMACISTS

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to demonstrate my support for Ontario community pharmacies. As we all know, the local

pharmacy is the front line of health care for many Ontario families. They are available, approachable, open long hours, and are an important part of our business community.

Unfortunately, this first draft of Bill 102 threatens the livelihood of many local community pharmacies. It is estimated that as many as 300 pharmacies in

Ontario would be forced to close if Bill 102 is allowed to pass. Some of those pharmacies may be in your riding or mine, the riding of Durham.

The impact on community pharmacists is not the only cause of concern. It's indeed about access or limited access to health care. We also need clarity on the

detailed regulations of Bill 102. We also consider the impact of this bill on the pharmaceutical research, manufacturing and high-technology jobs.

Now that we have had an opportunity to review this legislation in committee, on which I sit along with Elizabeth Witmer, I would urge this government to make

the necessary changes to prevent and preserve quality health care in Ontario while there's still time.

Community pharmacies are good medicine for Ontario. They deserve the support and respect of this House. I'm surprised and disappointed by the Minister of

Health and this lack of openness and clarity with the people of Ontario and the threat to the professional pharmacists of this province for whom I --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you.

EVENTS IN CHATHAM-KENT ESSEX

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): With the tourism season underway, I invite everyone to Chatham-Kent Essex this summer. Chatham-Kent is a

vibrant blend of rural and urban communities. We provide specialty shopping and wonderful dining.

The RM Classic Car Exhibit showcases one-of-a-kind classics and rare automobiles. Enjoy the natural beauty of Rondeau and Wheatley provincial parks. Visit the

Buxton National Historic Site and Museum and follow the path of the underground railroad. In July, the Tartan Sertoma Highland Games are held in Chatham. In September, the Heritage Days' Faire at

the Forks showcases a festival featuring War of 1812 battle re-enactments and exciting activities for the whole family.

In Essex, Leamington is known as Ontario's southernmost recreational playground and the tomato capital of Canada. Recently, a national publication, MoneySense,

named Leamington as the number one place to live in the country. The magazine described Leamington as a tiny gem. Leamington has the perfect climate, beach paradise and exciting scuba retreat. Each

year, naturalists from around the world come to witness the spectacular migration of birds and butterflies. ErieQuest Marine Heritage Museum houses the nautical history of the Pelee Passage. The

Tomato Festival is held each August. Come to the parade, listen to the music and witness the world-famous tomato stomp.

There are numerous outdoor recreational opportunities in Chatham-Kent Essex: beaches, campgrounds, golf courses, historical sites and festivals for everyone.

Come to Chatham-Kent Essex.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): This morning I was pleased to meet with members of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care and listen to

their views on Ontario's child care needs.

As an MPP, I believe it is important to hear what Ontarians think. In fact, it is a political responsibility. Our party is listening to Ontarians as we develop

our policies. We are going to develop a plan that puts Ontarians and their children first. When we make promises to Ontarians, we will be keeping them. This is a stark contrast to what the Liberals

do.

In the last election, Dalton McGuinty promised Ontario families and their children that he would spend $300 million to create 25,000 child care spaces. Did he

keep this promise? Absolutely not. This government does not keep its promises.

Now, Premier McGuinty is blaming the federal government for his failure to keep his promises. This is a failure of leadership.

Ontario is calling out for leadership. It is calling out for honest government. Ontario children deserve no less.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I would like to pay tribute today to a special group of individuals who make this province a

better place to live.

We have two young boys who absolutely thrive on their membership in the Stirling Cub pack. Whether it be sports, camping or other activities, the gatherings

are both educational and highly enjoyable.

Yet these things happen only because of the willingness of a number of teenagers and adults who are prepared to give of their time, not just one night a week,

but for other times such as camping or organizing future activities.

Our family owes a special thanks to Al Gray, Colin Berry and Bob Mullin for their leadership of our sons' cub pack. At times, they must feel like they're

herding a bunch of cats.

In a similar vein, I watch with admiration and appreciation other members of my community who work with groups like the Beavers, the Brownies, the Scouts and

the Guides. They truly are selfless. At the same time, I have the pleasure of attending special events involving young people participating in the Navy League, Sea Cadets, Army Cadets and Air

Cadets. As an aside, I say with some pride that Belleville has the best Sea Cadet band in Canada.

At all these activities, I again see so many volunteer leaders, both parents and non-parents. I have no doubt in my mind that every member in this House can

think of similar individuals in their ridings who positively influence the lives of our young people.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to the many, many volunteers who freely give of their time to help our youth develop their skills and

potential, while at the same time serving as positive role models. They truly make Ontario a better place to live.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): The people of Smooth Rock Falls are still waiting. They're waiting for this government's response on

what it's going to do to assist the community of Smooth Rock Falls in the announced intended idling of the plant, of the Tembec kraft mill, in Smooth Rock Falls on July 31. The community, workers,

families and others have been waiting for the government to respond in some way, in trying to figure out what can be done to avert this idling of the plant, or at the very least, to figure out how

we're going to deal with the aftermath should that happen.

I'm saying to this government now that the community is not going to stand idly by and watch this government do nothing when it comes to trying to assist this

community in its time of need. I'm inviting members of the government, and whoever wants, to be with us as we meet in Smooth Rock Falls on June 10. We are going to be having a meeting in that

community. It will be an opportunity to take a look at what can be done. I'm calling on this government to do the right thing, and that is to step forward and become part of the solution rather

than being part of the problem, which you have been for the last three years.

This plant is shutting down, and it's no big surprise, due to provincial government inaction in dealing with policy issues that are in its control that could

have averted this announcement by Tembec. I'm saying to this government now, you have to step off the sidelines. You have to give up your laissez-faire attitude. You've got to do what's right. You

have to become activists in trying to figure out what to do to respond to the crisis in the forest industry. And no more tinkering at the edges, because there will not be much left of the industry

if you don't take serious action now.

TETYANA ROGOLSKA

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): I rise in the House today to recognize one of Markham's outstanding residents and students, Tetyana Rogolska.

Tetyana is one of the 20 recipients of this year's TD Canada Trust scholarship for community leadership. One of the most prestigious post-secondary awards in

the country and valued at $60,000, the TD scholarship is awarded to young people who have demonstrated exceptional and consistent leadership in striving to improve their community.

Tetyana and her family could not be here today, but she has promised to visit over the summer months.

With a passion for local and global social justice issues, Tetyana, a grade 12 student at Brother Andre Catholic High School, led a three-year campaign for a

no-sweat uniform policy to be adopted by the York Catholic District School Board. Now in place, this policy ensures that uniform suppliers subscribe to full disclosure regarding their factory

locations, making it possible to monitor the working conditions of their employees.

Tetyana has also worked with Street Patrol, delivering food and clothing to the homeless of Toronto, and has successfully started her own tutoring service.

Tetyana plans to study medicine in Canada and one day to practise with a non-governmental organization like Doctors Without Borders.

Please join me in recognizing and congratulating one of Markham's best and brightest young people, Tetyana Rogolska. Tetyana, your compassion, initiative and

perseverance are a shining example of excellence in character that is helping build a stronger Ontario.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): Last Thursday, May 25, I had the distinct privilege of meeting with students from 30 Niagara region high

schools who hosted their first annual Niagara Youth Tobacco Conference in my riding of Niagara Falls at the McBain family community centre.

These students have a direct and blunt message for their peers and I thought I'd share this message with this assembly today. Their message is simply: Don't be

a target -- REACT now. Don't be a target of the large multinational tobacco conglomerates that target youth to be their new customers. REACT stands for resist, expose and challenge the tobacco

industry now.

REACT is a group of energetic youth from across Niagara. Their goal is to raise awareness about the manipulation by the tobacco industry and the health hazards

of smoking. These are exceptionally bright and talented youth from our region, reaching out not only to their peers in high schools but also to students from local public schools to prevent them

from starting to smoke or, in some cases, to encourage them to quit.

These students are our best advocates for a smoke-free Ontario. They deserve support, encouragement and congratulations from all members of this House and, in

fact, from the people of Ontario, for their efforts will save lives and create a healthier Ontario.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House, and to welcome, Steve Mahoney, a member of this place in

the 34th and 35th Parliaments representing Mississauga West.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice policy and move its

adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. Todd Decker): Mr. Dhillon from the standing committee on justice policy presents the committee's report as follows

and moves its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Emergency Management Act, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi

56, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la gestion des situations d'urgence, la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi et la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les

accidents du travail.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1347 to 1352.

The Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted on Bill 56? All those in favour will please stand one at a time and be recognized by the

Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Fonseca, Peter

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Racco, Mario G.

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bisson, Gilles

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

MacLeod, Lisa

Marchese, Rosario

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tabuns, Peter

Tascona, Joseph N.

Witmer, Elizabeth

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are 19.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PROTECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA PROTECTION

CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Mr. Prue moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 120,

An Act to require the Building Code and the Fire Code to provide for fire detectors, interconnected fire alarms and non-combustible fire

escapes / Projet de loi 120, Loi exigeant que le code du bâtiment et le code de prévention des incendies prévoient des détecteurs d'incendie, des systèmes d'alerte

d'incendie interconnectés et des sorties de secours incombustibles.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): This bill does two very short things. It ensures that every residential building with two or more

dwelling units is equipped with fire detectors in all public corridors and common areas of the building, and interconnected fire alarms that are audible throughout the building; and secondly, that

every fire escape is constructed of non-combustible material. This is identical to a bill I introduced prior to the last prorogation.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

DEAF-BLIND AWARENESS MONTH /

MOIS DE SENSIBILISATION

À LA SURDI-CÉCITÉ

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I rise in the House today

to recognize the start of Deaf-Blind Awareness Month in Ontario. June is also the birth month of Helen Keller, a deaf-blind woman who has been a beacon of hope for millions of people who aspire to

her model of perseverance and achievement in the face of enormous challenges.

Helen Keller est une source d'inspiration pour toutes les personnes sourdes et aveugles, et une héroïne pour tous ceux qui connaissent son

histoire.

Il est important de sensibiliser davantage le public à la surdité et à la cécité si nous voulons élargir l'éventail des

possibilités pour les personnes qui en sont atteintes.

So it was my great pleasure this morning to join members of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Canadian Hearing Society, and the Canadian

Deafblind and Rubella Association to announce that our government is increasing its investment in intervenor and interpreter services this year. I want to recognize two individuals from the

Canadian National Institute for the Blind who have joined us today: Louise Goldhar, regional manager for Toronto, and Christopher McLean, gove