Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean–Carleton): I wonder if the member from Ottawa–Orléans is actually speaking tonight about his rural area in Ottawa–Orléans and what this bill will actually mean to the residents of his rural community, especially those young kids who are working on the farm for whom the Minister of Agriculture doesn’t even think we need to stand up.I’m pleased to be joining this debate today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. Our critic for the Progressive Conservative Party—Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): My kids were all in school until they were 18.

Ms. MacLeod: That’s great.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member please take her seat. I apologize for interpreting but I would ask all members of the House to please come to order so that the member for Nepean–Carleton can make her presentation uninterrupted.The member for Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. MacLeod: In any event, this bill should be renamed the “social engineering act,” because of the Liberals’ belief that they can teach responsibility by punishing kids and taking away their choices like they are in rural Ontario.

Based on the principle that this legislation is punitive, impractical and unenforceable, and may well be found to be discriminatory under the age provisions of the charter—a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that this Liberal government and previous Liberal government across this country wrap themselves around every time they need to make a point—I  will not be supporting this bill as it presently stands. I think it’s probably an unconstitutional bill and I think that we ought to see that.

Specifically, I’m going to speak of the ill-conceived provision that allows for a court “to be empowered to order the suspension of a driver’s licence of a person who is convicted of being habitually absent from school. The person’s licence would be reinstated no later than the date on which the person is no longer required to attend school under section 21 of the act. If, subsequent to his or her conviction, a person is attending school in compliance with section 21 or is exempt for the purposes of the Highway Traffic Act, he or she may request confirmation from a board of that fact for the purpose of having his or her licence reinstated.”

The irony of this, of course, is that a 16-year-old is recognized by this province as being beyond parental control, yet this legislation actually turns the province into a nanny state. I take issue with this. We are now convicting kids for truancy. So, too, do many other Ontarians. Take for example—

Interjections.

Ms. MacLeod: This is what I love about the Liberals. When you say something that they don’t want to hear, they try to talk over you, including ministers of the crown. The discipline—I’m amazed, Mr. Speaker.Take, for example, Barry Lillie, a retired teacher—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke): Speaker, I cannot hear the member for Nepean–Carleton.The Acting Speaker: I ask the Minister of Labour to come to order. I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to come to order. I ask the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke to come to order.

I return to the member for Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. MacLeod: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to read an example from Barry Lillie, a retired teacher who wrote in the Record, Kitchener-Waterloo, who explains his problem with the bill and the many complications that could stem from the particular clause I’ve just mentioned.

“The McGuinty government clearly believes it is their responsibility to make us see the wisdom of their view of Ontario. Some might call it social engineering, but the Liberals would call it common sense (sorry, I couldn’t resist).” It might be a revolution. “Now, in all seriousness (maybe not), let’s scrutinize the licence loss proposal. It’s a serious problem for our students. I always like to look at the workability and potential impact of a policy.

“This government likes tribunals (new adoption law) and advisory boards. This would likely be required in the case of a dropout claiming hardship, who needed his licence perhaps to drive his sick mother to hospital. Now, of course, you would need an appeal board to challenge/review the decision of the earlier tribunal. Each commissioner on each board would require a daily stipend, expenses and an honorarium at the end of their term. Before anyone is appointed, there would need to be a proper examination of the candidates.

“What are the complications besides hardship?” he says. “If a dropout had his or her licence and then quit school, the appropriate bounty officer would be needed to track down those delinquents. If a dropout is truant for X number of days (X is the unknown, Y is the question), you may or may not be declared a dropout. If you are sitting idly at a desk or, as my history teacher often described me, ‘like a bump on the log,’ then perhaps every school will need to have its own ‘bump on the log review committee’ to determine the status of this student’s driver licence. There are those students who always know how to beat the system; they don’t want a licence. Oh well, we still have that incarceration thing.

”So I guess maybe what I should ask next is not only are we going to send out bounty officers ...

L89-2025-13 follows

(Ms. MacLeod)

There are those students who always know how to beat the system. They don’t want a licence. Oh well, we’ll have that incarceration thing. So I guess maybe what I should ask next is not only are we going to send out bounty officers to find out kids aren’t going to school, what about the kids that aren’t paying attention in the school? What are we going to do to them? No answers. They’re actually quiet, because they can’t respond.

Or take Kate Heartfield, an Ottawa Citizen columnist. She says: “However well-intended, the driver’s licence rule shows disrespect for young people.”

Interjection.

Ms. MacLeod: No, it is Kate Heartfield. I’ll send you the article. “It will delay their maturity; you don’t teach responsibility by taking away all the choices. It will be a hardship for those young people who are worst equipped to deal with it.” She continues: “So anyone who doesn’t want to take their ‘learning as far as possible’ shouldn’t be allowed to drive? By that logic, the province should remove licences from smart high school students who choose not to go to university, or from adults who stubbornly refuse to learn how online banking works.” What’s next, if you don’t go to university, this crowd is going to take away your right to vote?

Now, to underscore how ridiculous and gimmicky this provision really is, Linwood Barclay, who is actually the husband of a teacher, writes in the Toronto Star: “The provincial Liberals seem to have equated driving a car with making out. It’s something fun,” like teachers do. He reminds us, however, this is not the case. Rather, he says, “But learning to drive is more than that. It’s a basic life skill.” This is true on so many levels. In rural ridings, having a licence is a necessity. My riding of Nepean–Carleton is very large. It is very vast. If a kid in my community from Kars or Burritts Rapids, Munster Hamlet or Manotick was convicted of this Liberal truancy offence, he or she would literally not be able to go to work, would literally not be able to drive a sick parent, a sick relative or an ill neighbour to the Queensway Carleton Hospital. I guess that’s what they think is okay.

Additionally, this clause adversely affects those kids who are most vulnerable who either live in poverty or who are suffering from other troubles like depression or addiction. I want to know from the minister or from the parliamentary secretary: What about a child who goes through a teen pregnancy and takes some time off of school? What are they going to do there with her driver’s licence? I find it galling that this government would compartmentalize these kids and make them stick to Dalton McGuinty’s timetable and not their own.

Because of these concerns, I think that this bill must receive is a major overhaul. This is a borrowed and bad idea with mixed reviews, at best, from the United States. I think the government should back away from this section of the legislation. The legislation, as it currently stands, ignores reality. It ignores the effects it will have on rural and northern Ontario, where alternative forms of transportation are limited and the ability of young family members to drive is integral to daily life. It ignores the financial implications for students who depend on their ability to keep their employment. It ignores teenagers who drop out of school, usually the most alienated and most troubled kids. It ignores the fact there are many personal and unique circumstances in students’ lives that may require a temporary or longer-term alternative to the traditional school environment.

Rather than misallocating resources to a truancy tribunal, perhaps the government could find the resources necessary to support our autistic kids that they’ve broken promises to. These kids want to learn. Some kids don’t. These kids want to, and you broke a promise to them. They deserve to have the network and support in place. Those parents who want to have that opportunity are throughout Ontario. Just ask them.

So I think that this bill needs to be amended. I think that we need to stop turning our back on the autistic children throughout Ontario and meet their needs. And I think—Hon. Mrs. Chambers: It’s your government that turns its back on autistic kids.

Ms. MacLeod: Okay. That’s very—I’m just shocked she would even say that, after challenging a court order that orders this government to supply education services to these children. I’m actually not even in a government, never was. I’m in opposition and was sent here because they continued to break promises—The Acting Speaker: I would ask the House to please come to order. I’ll return to the member for Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. MacLeod: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is something that Frank Klees brought up when he spoke to this bill the other day: The continued broken promises to the autistic children across Ontario, a 2003 election promise that this government probably didn’t intend to keep, never intended to keep and just decided to break it.The one great piece of advice that John Baird gave me when I took this seat over was, he said, “You know what? You can say

L89-2030-13 follows

(Ms. MacLeod)

... promise that this government probably didn’t intend to keep, never intended to keep, and just decided to break.2030The one great piece of advice that John Baird gave me when I took this seat over was he said, “You know what? Whenever they decide to raise their voices on the other side, you can look at them straight in the face and say, ‘I’ve never lied to an autistic child,’ and they have to hang their head.” That’s what he told me. The current president of the Treasury Board actually said that, and I appreciate—

The Acting Speaker: I can’t hear the member for Nepean–Carleton.Hon.

Ms. Pupatello: The rest of us can. Don’t worry.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the Minister of Education to please come to order.The member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. MacLeod: I think I’ll finish my speech today by reading something into the record from a man named Mr. Dickson from Kingston and the Islands:

“For the record, I am a 57-year-old professional engineer. Neither I nor my family members will be affected personally by this legislation. I certainly agree that it is laudable to encourage young people to remain in school to at least the age of 18.” We’re all in agreement.

“However, there is no reason why someone who has dropped out of school may not acquire the skills and behaviour to pass a driver’s test and keep a driver’s licence. Yes, a driver’s licence is a privilege, but it is not a privilege that a government should ... deny any its citizens as a means of social engineering, and that is what this legislation would do. Acquisition of a driver's licence should depend only on being able to acquire and demonstrate the skills and behaviour needed to operate a motor vehicle safely—nothing more. Legislation such as this increasingly restricts personal freedoms for purposes that are not necessarily in the interests of those it affects.”

“I would expect a government that is successful in implementing such legislation to move on from this to other social engineering legislation, increasingly restrictive and even sinister. I hesitate to suggest examples.

”So I think that we’ve heard a lot of comments from people across Ontario who are very concerned with this section in the legislation, and I would encourage, since the minister is here tonight, that perhaps she should consider during committee that this actually be amended or removed.

Thank you very much for the opportunity. I thank the members opposite for turning up their Whisper 2000.

Mr. Bisson: I want to respond to—

Mr. Levac: Show us your BlackBerry.

Mr. Bisson: My BlackBerry? “Fly and be free.”

I want to respond to my—you don’t have to look at your BlackBerry. I’ll tell you directly.

I want to say to my good friend from Nepean–Carleton, I enjoyed what she had to say, and I want to speak—Nova Scotia, by the way, is a Conservative minority government: 23 Conservatives, 20 New Democrats, eight or nine Liberals. It’s a wonderful direction. That’s where it’s going: NDP up, everybody else down. Anyway, that’s another story.

The point that I wanted to make is this here: You raise the point that a lot of people outside of urban centres may not realize, and that’s the importance of the driver’s licence to the family overall.For example, in my particular family, my wife nor any of my sister-in-laws actually have driver’s licences. My daughter and my wife and her sisters, the two of them, basically have never bothered to go out and get a driver’s licence, for whatever reason. It’s beyond me, but that’s their decision.

Quite often, parents are having to rely on the children to be able to move from point A to point B. For example, in my particular capacity as the MPP, I haven’t been home. When’s the last time I’ve been home? One day every two weeks, I manage to storm into the house. The dog gets all excited. Misty the black Lab is excited for a day to see me. Then my wife is glad that I’m gone again.The point is that you end up in a situation—with Marilyn, at least—where she relied on the girls when they were younger, living at home—yes, 16, 17, 18 years old—to be able to drive her, to be able to do the things that she had to do when I wasn’t around there.In the case of elderly parents, it’s a huge issue in rural Ontario. Many times, the elderly parent who might be 70 or some-odd years old, who no longer can drive because of a medical condition, is not able to rely on their children because they’re working during the day, and are having to rely after school, or whenever it might be, on the student to be able to drive them to an appointment.So you’ve got to take this a little bit more seriously, because there is an effect for other people in the family, and I thought that was an interesting point, but stay tuned. I’m next.Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I’m happy to have the opportunity this evening to perhaps bring another rural perspective. I know that the member for Perth–Middlesex ...

L89-2035-13 follows

(The Acting Speaker) ... Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Thanks very much. I am happy to have the opportunity this evening to perhaps bring another rural perspective.

I know that the member for Perth–Middlesex—also a father and I a mother who have our children in rural communities—will say that I think any piece of legislation that’s going to require young people to stay in an environment where they are learning until the age of 18 is really standing up for them, standing up for the importance of their human contribution that they will make to the province of Ontario. That’s what this legislation is all about.

It has been acknowledged by the member from Nepean–Carleton that having a driver’s licence is a privilege. We believe in the province of Ontario that in order to encourage young people and have them understand why it is so important that they continue their formal learning until the age of 18, they understand that if they choose not to that they would required to forfeit some privileges until the age of 18.

I also want to say as a mother of four, we’ve raised our children in a rural community: Two of our children worked on farms and both of them stayed in school until they were 18 years of age. Working on a farm does not necessarily mean that they have to leave school. They are able to do both.

I think it is important that we make it very clear for all students in Ontario, that we encourage all of them, that we see the value in all of them, that we want them to understand why all of them should pursue a learning experience: whether it’s in a school setting, whether it’s in an apprenticeship setting, whether it’s on a farm—as long as they are learning. If it’s part of a co-operative experience, we support them in that experience.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant): I commend the member for Nepean–Carleton, Lisa MacLeod. Obviously she has no use for this measure of yanking someone’s driver’s licence because they’re not 18 yet.I’ve had an opportunity to visit the southern part of Lisa’s riding, a rural area. For many of the farms that we visited, the next farmhouse was about a mile away. That’s a fair walk if you’ve got to do that regularly just to get to the next farmhouse.

Again, I represent a rural area. Obviously, at harvest time and planting time it’s very important to have somebody on the farm who has a driver’s licence. Whoever’s running the farm oftentimes doesn’t have time to go into town to pick up employees or to pick up parts.

I do agree with the member. The McGuinty government is known for rules and regulations and red tape. It’s a draconian regime in my view that’s ascribing to nanny state-ism, and this is again yet another reflection of that. Very simply, “Do this, don’t do that; the government knows what’s right for you.”

I feel this legislation, the section of about yanking someone’s driver’s licence, is something obviously dreamed up in Toronto and does not reflect reality. I feel it ignores people in northern Ontario, small-town Ontario and rural Ontario. I can’t imagine this McGuinty government doing the same thing to city kids. I can’t imagine this government—they’re trying to cover up a 30% dropout rate, which is shameful—yanking some kid’s TTC pass or taking away the OC Transpo pass. That’s the difference between this government and what we saw before.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton–Kent–Middle­sex): I just want to comment on the comments by the member for Nepean–Carleton.

One of the first things that kind of struck me among all the others, because she’s talking about rural and as a farmer of course that always gets my attention: She mentioned young pregnant teenagers, and I have to wonder why you would think it’s important that you would not want them to have their education.I think that any time a young woman is left to take care of a child by herself, she needs her education more than anywhere else. I know in my own riding I have seen many young women who have returned to school ...

L89-2040-13 follows

(Ms. Van Bommel)

a young woman is left to take care of a child by herself, she needs her education more than anywhere else. In my own riding I have seen many young women who have returned to school and they have success stories that show and are examples to other young women like them.

2040

Another thing I want to talk about is the whole issue of the driver’s licence in rural communities. I am talking as a farmer when I say that we managed on our farm for many years before our kids got their driver’s licenses—and I did my share of parts runs. If we had to take care of that and do that again to make sure that our children got an education, we’d manage.

There was a time when the uneducated child was the one who stayed home and became the farmer. That’s no longer the case. Farming is an industry, it is a business, and the individual who chooses to become a farmer needs to have that education. There is no reason to do anything that would discourage those children from getting that education. If it means that you take the privilege of having a driver’s licence to make sure they get the education they need, I say all the better. In my view as a farmer, we need the education—all kinds of it—to give our children.

The Acting Speaker: That concludes the time for questions and comments. I’ll return to the member for Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. MacLeod: I want to thank the members from Timmins–James Bay, the Minister of Agriculture and the members from Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant and Lambton for their comments. I especially appreciate the comments from the Minister of Agriculture and her parliamentary assistant because I think they added value to this debate. I think they gave us a different perspective.

Having said that, while I respect their view, I can’t accept it because fundamentally why I disagree with this is what I said in the third line of my remarks: It’s about choice. What we’re talking about—living on the farm or pregnant teenagers. We should be offering these kids the choice. I benefited, when I had my daughter a year and-a-half ago, from spending a year of quality time at home with my daughter. I had that choice and I believe that choice should be made available to anybody. That is fundamentally where you and I will disagree. While I respect where you’re coming from, I fundamentally cannot accept it.

I also want to talk just briefly—because I only have a minute left—about something that’s pretty predominant in my community, and that’s home schooling. Nowhere do I see clarification that home-schooled children will not be affected by this legislation, and that is a big concern to me. If members opposite wish to clarify, then I’ll be quite happy, but I haven’t heard anything.

I’d like to read a letter that I know the minister received: “As a parent to two home-schooled children, I am concerned about how this bill might affect my children’s ability to move free.