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

May 15, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-May-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 15 May 2008 Jeudi 15 mai 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO FRENCH-LANGUAGE

EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS

AUTHORITY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'OFFICE DES

TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS ÉDUCATIVES

DE L'ONTARIO

COSMETIC PESTICIDES BAN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES PESTICIDES UTILISÉS

À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

ENDANGERED SPECIES

DIALYSIS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NURSES

TOURISM

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

AIR QUALITY

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HEaLTH CARD RENEWAL CLINIC

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

POPE JOHN PAUL II

HOSPITAL FUNDING

POPE JOHN PAUL II

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALLISTON HORNETS HOCKEY TEAM

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CANADA

GOOD SHEPHERD

C. DIFFICILE

LEON PAROIAN

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

GEMS OF THE LAKESHORE

JOHN BROOKS

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SERVICES FOR PERSONS

WITH DEVELOPMENTAL

DISABILITIES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES SERVICES AUX PERSONNES AYANT UNE DÉFICIENCE INTELLECTUELLE

PROPERTY TAX DEFERRAL ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE REPORT

DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

NORTHERN YORK REGION POWER CONSERVATION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'ÉCONOMIE D'ÉNERGIE DANS LE SECTEUR NORD

DE LA RÉGION DE YORK

COMMUNITY LIVING DAY /

JOURNÉE DE L'INTÉGRATION COMMUNAUTAIRE

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA

VISITORS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

STEVEN TRUSCOTT

LORI DUPONT ACT (DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE PROTECTION), 2008 /

LOI LORI DUPONT DE 2008

SUR LA PROTECTION CONTRE

LA VIOLENCE FAMILIALE

APOLOGY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LA PRÉSENTATION D'EXCUSES

STEVEN TRUSCOTT

LORI DUPONT ACT (DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE PROTECTION), 2008 /

LOI LORI DUPONT DE 2008

SUR LA PROTECTION CONTRE

LA VIOLENCE FAMILIALE

APOLOGY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LA PRÉSENTATION D'EXCUSES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

872440 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2008

872440 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2008

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO FRENCH-LANGUAGE

EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS

AUTHORITY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'OFFICE DES

TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS ÉDUCATIVES

DE L'ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill 55, which, as I understand it, in essence is creating a stand-alone network to serve Franco-Ontarians.

Obviously we, on this side of the House, are fiscal conservatives. To put some points on the record with respect to the expenditures involved here, I gather, would be appropriate. I want to contrast it with what I consider to be some shortcomings and some areas that could stand to be improved in terms of TVO coverage and its linkages with TFO.

For some time, going back to the late 1980s, I've been a very strong advocate of increased and improved coverage of what goes on in this place, its committees, with the opposition parties, with private members' legislation—all the host of, I think, very interesting and in some cases complex and involved matters we deal with on a daily and a weekly basis as members of this Legislature.

TVO and TFO are arms, if you will, of the Ministry of Education—an education network; that's what it's all about. I recall, going back many years ago—I won't mention the union, but they were having a lobby day at Queen's Park. There were a couple of folks from my riding, and they met with me for half an hour and discussed their issues. Then I asked them if they'd like to go in and watch question period. I gave them a couple of passes and they came in—I was in the third party at that point in my political life.

They came out after question period—these were ladies in their 40s—smiling from ear to ear. They thoroughly enjoyed themselves and said, "We didn't realize this happened in Toronto; we thought it only happened in Ottawa." These were individuals who had been in the working world for 20 years, had gone through the Ontario educational system and were representing their fellow workers in a lobby day at Queen's Park, but didn't appreciate or didn't understand or didn't realize that we have a question period in the Ontario Legislature. That sort of elevated my concern with the coverage we get in this place.

If you fast-forward to today, we know what's happening with the decline in membership in the press gallery here. I was talking this week to Richard Brennan, who was here to see his daughter graduate as part of the Queen's Park security service. Rick, as some of you will recall, was also known as the Badger around this place—a very aggressive and, in many respects, fun-loving member of the press gallery at Queen's Park. He's now president of the press gallery in Ottawa. He was telling me that they have over 400 members in the press gallery in Ottawa, covering everything from who's dating the Minister of Foreign Affairs to whatever the hot national topic of the day might be.

What happens in this place? We see reduction after reduction. CHCH moved their reporter out of here, and now we have Randy Rath, who is a cameraman—a great guy, but he's doing double duty. We see TVO closing their Queen's Park bureau, which really deeply offended me. This is an arm of the provincial government, an educational network. Ontarians have increasingly limited coverage of what goes on in here, and increasingly underappreciate the responsibilities, the workload, the challenges that face all 107 of us sitting in this place. We should all be concerned about this.

Going back to the late 1980s, when I chaired the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, a fellow by the name of Peter Herrndorf was appointed by the Peterson government to chair TVO. During the review for his appointment, I asked him about the idea of TVO producing a show that focused solely on Queen's Park. I used as a model a show I had watched for many years called Inside Albany, which is a PBS show covering affairs in the New York state Legislature. Mr. Herrndorf agreed with me; he thought it was a good idea and said he would pursue it.

To given him his due, he did pursue it. His answer was the Fourth Reading component of Studio 2, which was a very modest component, but it was helpful. It was helpful, but it was, what, a 15-minute or half-hour segment once a week? Mr. Herrndorf said afterward, "That's my answer to it," and I said, "Well, I appreciate what you've done, but it isn't what I feel should be done and hasn't been done over so many years." I contacted Lisa de Wilde, the new president or CEO—whatever her appropriate title is—of TVO, on a couple of occasions and have been spurned.

Her answer is that this new show called The Agenda is the answer because they, on occasion, deal with provincial issues. Well, that's fine and dandy. The Agenda is an outstanding production, I don't think there's any doubt about that, but it's not what we need.

What we need is a show that focuses solely on Queen's Park. I had the legislative library do a bit of research on this, looking at neighbouring jurisdictions. Virtually every other jurisdiction does something to cover the happenings in their state legislatures. We're alone in this. In fact, what TVO has done is quite the opposite: by closing down their Queen's Park bureau and losing Sue Kelley, who covered this place extremely effectively and is no longer employed by that agency of government.

I've talked about the coverage at the federal level and the inane topics that get unbelievably intensive coverage, while we are dealing with serious issues in this place. If you look at hospitals, if you look at the health care system, if you look at policing, if you look at education, primary, secondary, post-secondary—you can go down the laundry list—transportation, these are all provincial issues. We see this in our own constituency offices: the municipal government issues.

We have Focus Ontario once a week on Global. So that's it, folks. That's the kind of coverage. Maybe the government of the day appreciates that lack of coverage and lack of scrutiny of what they're doing, but I don't think it's appropriate.

And I don't think it's appropriate for this arm of government, this arm of the Ministry of Education, not to fulfill its mandate with respect to what's going on in this place. I think it's an obligation. If you look at the monies going into the establishment of a stand-alone TFO network, I've heard the number of $15 million being circulated. If that's wrong, someone can correct the record later.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I think it's $60 million.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: It's $60 million?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Yes, I think—

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's a significant amount of money. I'm not minimizing the impact on the Franco-Ontarian community, but we know the viewership. I've seen these numbers over the years. All of us who have taken a look at those viewership numbers know they are relatively modest numbers; so $60 million for a relatively modest number of viewers, versus ignoring what's going on in this chamber for year after year, and in fact, even diminishing it further by closing their Queen's Park bureau.

It's a slap in the face to Ontarians; it's a slap in the face to all of us sitting in this place. It really is.

We know how we've downgraded our roles in this place over the years—all governments have been responsible for that—diminishing ourselves, and here we're doing more of the same by allowing TVO and TFO to walk away from this place, to join the mainstream media in walking away from this place, and minimizing coverage of very important decisions and very important consultations: Look at the committee work in this place, look at the roles of individual members, the kind of workload that individual members take on in this place, and the accomplishments of individual members, which get no recognition at all.

I'm pleading with the government members here to raise this issue with their Premier and with the Minister of Education. I sent a note to the Premier some time ago, prior to the budget actually, saying, "Here's an opportunity to put a reference into the budget with respect to TVO," and funding TVO, or requiring through the transfers that go to TVO now, saying that we want a production that's going to solely cover Queen's Park. They have the ability to do it.

Let's face it: If you're finding $60 million to create a stand-alone network, you can find enough money to produce a weekly half-hour television show—Inside Queen's Park, or whatever you want to call it—that covers the happenings in this place.

I think that all of you should consider this a non-partisan issue. I've been an advocate for streaming of the proceedings on the Internet, and I want to compliment the Speaker for moving very quickly on this. I don't think I'm spilling the beans or anything, but the Board of Internal Economy approved funding for that yesterday. So that is going to happen, and that is going to somewhat improve the ability of Ontarians to find out what is going on in this place. But we know that Rogers has moved access to coverage of this place up into the sky, and Star Choice and many others don't even cover Queen's Park or make it available in terms of access to their network.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Star Choice does.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Star choice does?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Bell doesn't.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Bell doesn't. Again, I think this is worthy of our consideration. It's worthy of us moving ahead on this and requiring—we have the ability, especially the government, obviously. You control the purse strings; you appoint the head of TVO.

I'm encouraging the members to take a serious look at this. This is a non-partisan issue. It should be a non-partisan concern about giving Ontarians a better opportunity to understand the role we play in this place: the debates, the discussions and the consultations. I think it would help us in terms of gaining a better understanding, in our own ridings and throughout the province, of the role we play and the serious issues we have to deal with on a weekly and daily basis.

I'll wrap up my comments with that. We are supporting the legislation. We obviously have some concerns about the decisions being taken at TVO and the failure to really, in my view, fulfill its education mandate with respect to this place, and we encourage them to do just that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Ms. Laurie Scott: It's a pleasure to rise and comment on the great oratory we've just heard from the member for Leeds—Grenville; he puts out a lot of good points. We should be educating people more on what goes on in the Legislature. Our role has been diminished over the years, and we need to re-establish that in the public's eye. They need to see what we do here to engage them. It also helps us do our job a lot better. It is frustrating when there is less and less coverage of the Legislature. People at home really don't know what we do; the difference between MPs, MPPs and municipal politicians gets confused all the time.

We're not helping ourselves or the democratic process by diminishing any coverage that exists here. I know that when I first got elected to the Legislature, my mother wanted to watch at home—I was kind of discouraging that for the first while. We had to change satellite companies in order to get coverage so she could watch the legislative channel. She makes sure I'm at work when I'm supposed to be and probably watches more than the average person at home.

Since 2003, I've seen the diminishing of coverage of the Legislature, and I don't think that does anybody any good. The member from Leeds—Grenville made good points: This should not be a partisan issue; TVO/TFO is an arm of the government.

It was a big loss for Susanna Kelley to go. I remember when the Frost centre suddenly closed under the Liberal government. She helped all of us—the member from Peterborough, all parties—in getting that Frost centre up and going. She did a series. She went up to the Frost centre, to the riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, and to Parry Sound—Muskoka—we just abut there. She covered that. She educated people. She helped us get the public on board.

We've seen a great success story of FCI, with Al Aubry taking that over, educating youths, not only from this country, but internationally, on the importance of environmental sustainability. That's a success story that TVO helped us bring forward to the public. I hope the government reconsiders that.

Alors le débat est centré dans le domaine de TVO et le futur de TFO, ce qui est quelque chose de très différent d'un TFO indépendant. C'est quelque chose que je crois est très important d'exprimer pour les gens qui demeurent dans ma circonscription d'Etobicoke—Lakeshore qui prennent avantage d'une école francophone. On a beaucoup de gens dans notre communauté qui sont dans un milieu anglophone et essaient d'avoir des enfants et une famille francophone, francophile et franco-ontarienne. Alors c'est quelque chose où on doit mettre un effort pour s'assurer que nos enfants et les générations de l'avenir vont être francophones ici dans une province où on a une histoire bilingue.

Pour moi, encore aujourd'hui, je donne mon appui à un TFO indépendant et j'espère que tous ceux dans la législature vont aussi donner leur appui. Je remercie le membre de Leeds—Grenville de dire qu'il veut donner son appui, et j'espère qu'on va pouvoir filer en direct à chaque famille en Ontario, un TFO indépendant dans les jours qui viennent.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member from Leeds—Grenville has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I appreciate the interventions. The member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock hit a good note when she talked about constituents not understanding the different roles and responsibilities of MPs and MPPs. If we want to be honest about that, we in our constituency offices bump into that every week.

I think it reinforces the point I'm making that TVO and TFO, as educational networks, have a responsibility here, in my view, to better inform Ontarians, starting with the educational system, of just how the provincial government operates, the roles and responsibilities of their MPP and the challenges, the legislation, how a committee works. All of those things can only benefit the people of this province, especially the young Ontarians who are currently in the education system.

Again, I encourage the government members to take this seriously, to encourage their Minister of Education and their Premier to take this seriously and to undertake an initiative to ensure that TVO and TFO produce programs that will cover solely the happenings and responsibilities and undertakings of this great historic assembly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you for your contribution to the debate. Further debate?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I had the occasion to do the lead-off speech on this particular piece of legislation, and I'd like to take this opportunity—

Hon. David Caplan: No, you can't speak again.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I can speak again on this, can't I?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I guess you can't, no. Sorry, I didn't know you had spoken before. Further debate?

Mr. John O'Toole: I think the member from Leeds—Grenville said most of what we wanted put on the record. The member from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock also mentioned the importance of that voice for Ontario and the francophone community and its challenge with respect to the whole issue around assimilation. I think it's important to strengthen it.

My understanding is that most of the organizational changes that are recommended in Bill 55 indeed have happened and this is just an affirmation of what has actually gone on. TFO already has its own board of directors, an office in Toronto and manages its own budget of $23 million per year. The total operating budget includes provincial funding combined with federal funding and revenues from cable subscribers. This is in place. It's a matter of formalizing and strengthening it.

If I want to talk in a sincere tone, like the member for Leeds—Grenville, who summarized pretty well how I feel about the bill, since the province is one of the partners in a non-commercial station, we should have a presence here at Queen's Park. The province of Ontario, the people of Ontario, the voice for Ontario: the unifying effects all transcend and happen right here in the dynamics of an opposition and a government and third party. In that, I can say that Susanna Kelley was actually a very sincere and genuine reporter who I thought did a very commendable job.

Now, Steve Paikin, that's a whole other story, a whole other level. He's at the level of CNN. The best program on television, in my humble opinion, is The Agenda. That program is the most informative program on television for Ontarians and Canadians, and I commend it to anyone listening to this parliamentary channel. You might be wasting your time; if you want some real content, you should be listening to The Agenda with Steve Paikin. The producers of that show have a continuous blog, as well. It's a very interactive learning and dynamic channel in that respect.

I hope they have the same luxury of content in the French-language format. I would hope to engage people. I belong to the francophone committee here at Queen's Park to learn. Like most people, I don't have enough vocabulary. I understand general themes, but it's by listening and participating—and I'd encourage anyone, especially the young pages here. If you have one, two or more languages, so much the better. Having a second language is like having a degree; it's that valuable. So take advantage. Some of you may be in French immersion or in French-language schools, and so much the better; and whatever other languages in a global economy.

That brings me back to the fundamental premise of my comments today in support of TVO. The reason I say that is that Mr. Runciman was right. As our leader here, he wasn't being critical of the station; he was critical of pulling out the anchor of this whole place. We have our parliamentary network, which may not be widely subscribed to. In fact, when Rogers reconfigured their cable service packages, I had to get another package to be able to get the parliamentary channels. I enjoy CPAC and other dialogue programming, and that's what I'm trying to say is important for the francophone community as well.

We wouldn't be opposed to that. I think there is some discussion in things I've read, and I have some notes here which—perhaps some wish that I would stick to the notes.

Interjection: No, you're doing a great job.

Mr. John O'Toole: Actually, I'm waiting for one of our caucus adviser groups to tell me where this is going to go in committee before we stop talking about it.

I still go back to some of the important issues. I thought Steve Paikin's Agenda program on the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel and Palestine was phenomenal. They presented in a most professional, balanced and fair way, a very complex, often emotional and certainly very sensitive issue. You couldn't read and learn as much as they presented in the series of programs that Steve Paikin and his producers put together.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say I have some very good friends who are from the—my sister actually was married to a Jewish fellow. He, unfortunately, passed away within the past year. She's very integrated into that community. I said to her it's the most balanced program I have watched. There is a highly emotional debate in that whole discussion, but it's a lesson to all, as we become such a cosmopolitan or multicultural community in Ontario, and in fact in our country and globally: Where are the boundaries, where are the limits, where are the tolerances, and where are the thresholds?

We're talking about a country that ostensibly is officially bilingual. I'm from the generation where that wasn't as advanced. In fact, I would say that even when our children were starting school and they had French immersion programs, it was rather shaky whether or not they would continue. So I would have put my oldest boy into French immersion, but it just wasn't quite on solid footing. He ended up going to the Royal Military College where, to graduate, you had to be functionally bilingual. So it was unfortunate that he hadn't had that background.

But I have a number of members of the family—in fact my first grandchild is now in a French immersion program. She just immigrated from Australia. So here's a young child who's three, four years old, whose first three or four years of her life were in Australia, which is a different language entirely.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Does she speak the language?

Mr. John O'Toole: She speaks Australian. Mr. Chudleigh, don't get me into trouble.

What I'm trying to say is that the world as we live in and inhabit is getting smaller. We must become more tolerant and understanding. TVO and TFO serve a function of educating us, thereby expunging ignorance and encouraging understanding. It's a responsible position.

I would say that if you look at the background, in June 2006, Minister Pupatello oversaw the overhaul of TVO, with revamping of programming and conversion into a digital format and preparing to turn French-language TFO into a separate entity. According to a Globe and Mail article, on June 30, 2006, "The new content, to be rolled out over the next 15 months, is aligned with the Ministry of Education's priorities and follows a strategic review done at the request of the government."

So the government is hands-on trying to, in a policy way, direct this transformation of TFO, giving it a bit more strength and independence. At the time, our leader, John Tory, told reporters that "The cancellation of Studio 2 seems like an attempt to line up the political policies of the government with the editorial policies of TVO". This is the issue when governments actually start interfering, which has been talked about with the Caledonia issue, that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Attorney General could perhaps be involved in influencing things. We don't want that.

Some of the best programming is BBC. It's like TVO. It's high-class programming. Maybe some people don't like Coronation Street—I don't, but a lot of people do. But there is a lot of really good, global content. That is one of the global channels that I watch, because one of my daughters lives and teaches in London, England. I have another daughter who actually lives in the Isle of Man, which is in the Irish Sea, and she's taking her master's degree in England, at some school in England. It's not an executive MBA, it's a full MBA. I think it's an MBA or MPA, I'm not sure which, really.

My point is that I watch the programs because even there, when we talk to them, it's the importance of these mediums, it's so important to understand. When we talk to them on the weekends—a week ago, my daughter, the one from Isle of Man, was vacationing in Switzerland, and it's interesting—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You've got to be kidding me.

Mr. John O'Toole: Yes, she—

Mr. John Yakabuski: How did she like Switzerland?

Mr. John O'Toole: She did, she loved it.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Does she speak the language?

Mr. John O'Toole: Yes, in fact, she does speak a bit of French.

She was on Skype, and we were speaking to her from Italy on Skype on the computer, and in the background were the Alps. Do you understand? It's quite incredible when you think of the how small the world is getting. She was sending pictures of their trip through—they were staying in Geneva at the time so it's—I could go on.

The main reason I'm standing up here is that I've been given information that it appears we have all-party consent to have this go to a committee. I'm glad to see that TVO and TFO are progressing well, and that the French language and community are strong and strengthened in our community.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and/or comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It's certainly a pleasure to follow my esteemed colleague from Durham on some of his chatting and, how would I say, evaluations of not only the bill but the general human condition, you might say. He raises some very interesting points about the value of TVO today and questions why the McGuinty government would be yanking it from the precinct here—it's just unbelievable—and why the McGuinty government wouldn't have stood up and said no when those cable companies were yanking the legislative channel from basic cable. Now you've got to get a digital box in order to watch the legislative channel.

I know my colleague talked about how much he enjoyed watching the Canadian Parliamentary Channel, but now he has to upgrade his cable package in order to get the legislative channel. Believe it or not—and I know a lot of those Liberals would wonder why—there are some people who actually want to watch this channel, because they find it interesting.

The other thing is—and I'd like to point this out about the legislative channel itself—why isn't the McGuinty government doing something to put pressure on Bell ExpressVu, for example, to bring that channel to people in rural Ontario? Bell ExpressVu, believe it or not, while it covers the Saskatchewan legislative channel, doesn't carry the legislative channel from the most populous, most prosperous province in the country, the one with the most important Legislature, the one that we serve in Ontario. Why is the government not doing something to pressure Bell to put that channel on ExpressVu?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I'm really not quite sure what all this chit-chat is about regarding decisions made by Rogers Cable. I too am frustrated by the decision by Rogers Cable that you have to get a box to watch the legislative channel, but that has nothing to do with TFO. What is true of TFO is that it's on the mainstream cable service. It's a wonderful service to francophones in Ontario and it's particularly a wonderful educational service. I was actually just talking to page Isabelle Love's mother, who happens to be here to visit today.

Isabelle's mom happens to be a principal in a French-language school in Ontario, and we were just chatting about what a valuable service TFO is for francophone students in Ontario.

This is an important bill. It's an important bill for the francophone community in Ontario. I hope we'll have people's support, and we need to get on with voting.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It's interesting that the member for Leeds—Grenville talked about the lack of coverage in this place. When we look at how government touches the people of Ontario most—is it the federal government where there are 400 members of the press gallery, or is it the Ontario Legislature that has a shrinking number from the press gallery?—the provincial government covers health, which touches people all too often; it covers education, which touches people daily; it covers major roads, bridges and construction of major thoroughfares, which touches everybody every day.

None of these things is covered by the federal government. People are hard-pressed to name one thing that the federal government does that touches their lives on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis, other than collecting income tax. They run the major courts, which don't touch individuals in Ontario on a daily or monthly basis, or perhaps in a lifetime. Most Ontarians who obey the law, who go to work and come home to their family every night are not touched by the courts.

Yet the federal government takes two thirds of your pay envelope in tax dollars. When you see that tax deduction, some of it comes to the province of Ontario but about two thirds of it goes to the federal government, yet they don't touch the lives of Ontarians in the same way the Ontario Legislature does. That's why I think it's a great shame that TVO and TFO don't have the kinds of coverage of this place that they should have, keeping the people of Ontario informed of how the majority of their tax dollars are spent in this province.

M. Phil McNeely: Je suis très fier de voir que la Loi 55 est devant nous. Ça va beaucoup aider les francophones de l'Ontario, surtout pour moi avec 35 % à 40 % des francophones dans notre circonscription d'Ottawa—Orléans. Je suis très fier que notre gouvernement marche de l'avant avec la Loi 55.

Une chose qui est très importante, c'est que les distances en Ontario sont très grandes pour les francophones, surtout dans l'ouest et dans le nord. On est plus chanceux à Ottawa. On a à peu près 150 000 francophones dans nos trois circonscriptions : celle de la ministre Meilleur, de Jean-Marc Lalonde et moi-même.

Pour l'autre

partie de l'Ontario, c'est très important pour l'éducation et la culture pour que les francophones aient de meilleures manières de communiquer. Je vois que l'office pour créer des programmes d'enseignement à distance est très important. On a eu ça à Orléans, le programme a commencé dans le nord et ça marche très bien avec ces programmes-là.

Alors, plus d'argent pour ces programmes va aider beaucoup les francophones : pour l'éducation et pour la culture. Ça va être très important pour avoir une francophonie plus forte dans notre province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from Durham has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O'Toole: It's very encouraging how the debate was awakened. All of a sudden, it's taken on a bit of life—to show the interest in this legislation.

I think the key point made by a number of speakers was the importance of the parliamentary channel itself. I know we're talking about TFO, and that's important. But in that whole discussion of the communications function, a number of points have been made about expanding that. TFO and TVO and CPAC and the legislative channels, in a nutshell, summarize the important functions that are going on here, whether it's health care, education, the environment—the next bill to be discussed is the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act, Bill 64.

For the people of Ontario to really engage, at whatever level they wish, whatever age they are, with the transformations in globalization and agriculture—all of these things are important. And in more languages, not less; and in more opportunities, not less. Rogers, as well as the parliamentary channel here, should be scolded for not putting that stuff out there so people can choose to watch good-content television. In fact, it's meaningful content and it's educational content. It breeds tolerance and acceptance through education. Ignorance is the enemy that we often deal with on important issues. But I commend the government for formalizing this.

There are a couple of points, just in a technical sense, while I conclude. The Lieutenant Governor in Council appoints the chief executive officer for a term of five years and can reappoint him. So there's the potential for political appointments here, which is often troubling. But qualified people who should go through the agencies, boards and commissions—I'm in support, in that respect.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Seeing none, Mr. Bryant has moved second reading of Bill 55. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. David Caplan: I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Agreed? Agreed.

COSMETIC PESTICIDES BAN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES PESTICIDES UTILISÉS

À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 12, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Pesticides Act to prohibit the use and sale of pesticides that may be used for cosmetic purposes / Projet de loi 64, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les pesticides en vue d'interdire l'usage et la vente de pesticides pouvant être utilisés à des fins esthétiques.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I didn't realize we were the first ones up to debate this. Normally, I thought it would be—

Mr. John O'Toole: It's supposed to be the NDP.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Okay. Well, we're here. No problem.

I recall when this issue came up during the provincial election of 2007, and the Liberals were saying they were going to ban pesticide use across the province, etc. Of course, I was asked, "Well, how do you feel about banning pesticides across the province?" What I basically said was, "Based on what?" Based on the science that has determined that pesticides should be banned? No, we don't have that.

What we've got is a party that's looking for a political wedge any way it can get one, so they decided they were going to take the stand that they were going to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides across the province of Ontario, which, depending on your numbers, accounts for between 4% and 6% of all the pesticides used in Ontario. They're going to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides on the lawns of homes and businesses in the province of Ontario—the lawn here at Queen's Park.

I must tell you that I've got an interesting little letter here. I thank my colleague Sylvia Jones from Dufferin—Caledon for getting this. We asked the people at the precinct—I won't name names, because that would be unfair, although the name is here:

"Sylvia:

"You asked me to find the answer to the following question: What pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and lawn care fertilizers are used at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario?"

The answer came back, "I spoke with" so-and-so "at precinct properties." So-and-so "provided the following response.

"We have used no chemicals on the front lawn of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for the past six years. That is why there are so many weeds on the front lawn. If you look at legislative buildings around the world, the lawns look beautiful because they use pesticides. We didn't use chemicals, and this is why our lawn is in terrible shape."

That came from a staff member here at the legislative precinct. Interesting stuff.

The one thing we do know we're going to get with a pesticide ban is a lot of weeds, and some of those weeds have been proven, not because Rick Smith from the environmental people says so, but because it has been proven by health professionals, to cause tremendous allergic reactions for people, and some can actually cause toxic reactions in people.

I'll tell you one thing: If this ban goes through, you might want to get to your stockbroker or call E*Trade Canada for that $9 trade, or whatever it is, and buy a lot of stock in the people who make Reactine or Benadryl or any of those kinds of things, because the allergies in this province are going to be over the top. Everybody who suffers a little bit from allergies is going to be over the top. Then the McGuinty government is going to have to make some kind of excuse why everybody is walking around sniffling or choking or gagging or whatever.

There are tremendous allergic reactions to a lot of natural substances in the environment, and that's one of the reasons that pesticides were ever asked for.

While I'm at it, I don't think there are enough people in this House, so I like to call for a quorum count, if I could.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Do we have a quorum?

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Continue the debate.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You just never know where those Liberals are going to appear from. I think a couple got out from underneath their desks. Anyway, back to the issue.

Hon. David Caplan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Where is the official opposition? There's only one member here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): That is not a point of order. We're not to refer to the absence or attendance of members.

The honourable member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has the floor.

Mr. John Yakabuski: You know, that minister's a cagey one. He'll do anything to steal some of my time.

We want to talk about the science. We go down a fairly slippery slope when we base legislation on politics, as opposed to science. If you're using that precautionary principle, if you asked somebody on the street, or tell them, or say to them, or you raise the issue, and they haven't done a whole lot of research themselves—I mean, people out there are very busy, they're trying to earn money, to make a living, support their families, whatever. They take some of this stuff at face value. They don't do a whole lot of investigation on that, because they're too busy.

But the McGuinty government seems to have time to sit down with all of its stakeholders, the ones that they know they need—they want their support and they'll do anything to get it, to keep getting them elected. They'll base legislation on politics, as opposed to science. They did it with the greenbelt; they did it with the Endangered Species Act—and that's coming back to have some real detrimental effects on some of our forestry people. I hope the government addresses that, but I'm quite certain they won't.

They base these things on politics. If you said to the average person—and we'll just use a name, take a name out of the hat: "Do you know what, Mr. Leal? Those pesticides that people are using, and that are being sold, they're bad. They shouldn't use them. We have proof. We're not going to show it, we can't produce it, but we have proof that they're bad." If that person is asked that question in a poll, "What do you think about a pesticide ban?" they're going to say, "You know what? I've heard those things are bad. I've heard that we have to get rid of them. We have to protect our children.

They can't be rolling on the front lawn, where pesticides have been used"—even if they've been used three weeks earlier and the rain has washed them in and blah, blah, blah. "You can't have that use." I know that I would make sure at any time—my kids are old enough now that I think they can probably make that judgment themselves. But if they were younger, I'd make sure that if I sprayed my lawn, they wouldn't be anywhere around it for several days, at least as many days as Health Canada—which has approved these substances—would recommend that we not allow human contact, or pets, or otherwise.

But no, the McGuinty government throws out that big scare. The reaction—not the Reactine—of people is going to be, "Hey, yeah, let's err on the side of caution." But the unintended consequence, or the unexpected consequence, for the public is what they're not considering: what things are going to look like in five or 10 years.

Then the McGuinty government says, "We think these things are terrible and you shouldn't have your children rolling around on the lawn when there are pesticides. However, if you don't mind if your little four-year-old likes to hang on to your putter, or get you your tees on the golf course, no problem; take him out there. If he wants to roll around on the greens or on the fairways, that's a great idea—some time for fathers and sons." Oh, did I tell you? The golf course is exempt from the pesticide ban.

So the McGuinty principles, again, always seem to be sort of like a teeter-totter: They're up, they're down; this way and that way, variable like the weather. So, "It's okay, we're not going to protect your children if they're frolicking on the 18th green at Glen Abbey. We're just going to tell you that we're not going to let you put that weed killer on the lawn at home." So we're not going to take the kids to the golf course anymore.

I'm going to call up Uncle Joe and say, "I want the kids to get good, country-fresh air. I'm going to bring the kids out to your farm, Joe." What could be more healthy, Mr. Speaker, than taking the kids to the farm? Oh, did I tell you—I may have missed that—that the farm is exempt from the pesticide ban? Goodness gracious me, don't take the kids to the farm. They could come in contact with the pesticides. My goodness, now I can't take the kids to the farm.

Do you know where I would be able to take my kids here in Toronto? No, they're too old, but if they were between the ages of 9 and 15, I'd be able to take them to a graffiti school—that kind of activity. We can't take them to the farm any more. Pesticides, so the McGuinty government says—bad for them. Can't take them to the golf course—pesticides. Do you know what we can do, though? We can take them to a graffiti school here in Toronto where they can learn how to spray-paint graffiti on buildings. And they're spending $350,000 to teach that to kids. Excuse me, when I think about that I get a headache, so I'm going to ask for some water.

The slippery slope. What happened a couple of weeks ago? The Premier and the environment minister had a bit of a tiff.

Interjection: No.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, yeah. Dalton and John weren't kissing cousins that day. No, no, no. Because you see, what happened was that apparently either the Premier or the Minister of the Environment didn't know what they had actually written in this bill. They got themselves kind of caught, which they do quite often, but I'll tell you one thing: They are very good at wiggling out of things.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Professional squirmers.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, they are the best squirmers you've ever seen.

They couldn't seem to agree as to whether municipalities could have a tougher ban than this. The Premier and the environment minister seemed to contradict one another. Our understanding is—and of course these things happen behind closed doors. It's like, if my wife and I have a disagreement—you can rest assured, she will win every one of them—they tend to happen behind closed doors. The Premier and the environment minister had that. We've heard rumours. Rumours are that the environment minister was, as we used to say back home, taken out to the woodshed.

Yes, had to get a little education—a little education with the hames strap. Apparently he's been whipped back into shape and is on board now. And whenever he sees it looks like the Premier is going to open his mouth, his automatically closes. It's just like two coordinated robots. There is the environment minister and his mouth is open. The Premier shows up and his lips twitch a little bit, and the environment minister's mouth closes, because he does not want to be caught contradicting the boss.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Standing order 23(

h) prohibits the making of allegations and the imputing of motives toward another member.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I've listened carefully to what the honourable member's been saying in this debate and I think his debate is appropriate. Carry on.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would request that I get some time from the honourable member from Mississauga—Streetsville when he's speaking. He's almost as persistent as the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal—almost.

Industry is very concerned about this bill, because they've never really been consulted on it. They've never been asked for their input. The McGuinty government wants to ban these products because they see this as a vote getter, not as a health issue. That's really a cynical way to operate the province.

Anything the government does should be justifiable from a scientific point of view, not because they see there's a constituency out there that, without giving a whole lot of regard to the meat of the matter, will say, "Hey, you know what? If they ban them, then we're not taking any chance that they might be bad; we're just going to get rid of them." We've got little science that says that these pesticides, approved by Health Canada, are detrimental. I'm not suggesting that you fill the barrel in the backyard and wash your hair in it, but used as directed by Health Canada, we're told they're completely safe.

The natural inclination for people is to say, "Well, if there's a chance, let's err on the side of caution."

Do you know where we do have science? We do have science—and even the member for Peterborough has agreed with me on this many times—on smoking tobacco. There is no debate any longer about the dangers of smoking—absolutely. The member for Peterborough and I agree on that 100%. I don't think there's a person in Ontario who would disagree that the proof is out there that tobacco is detrimental. It has been proven a hundred times, a thousand times, a million times. Yet does the government say, "We're going to ban tobacco"? No, no; nay, not so. Do you know why?

Even though they're not getting as much revenue as they should because they're not doing anything about the illegal contraband tobacco that is being sold in the province, they still get billions in revenue from people smoking in the province of Ontario.

They talk about the environment. One thing the fellow in precinct properties here says is that we're going to have one heck of a mess on the lawn. We already have it; it's just going to get worse. Do you know what's going to happen? There are a lot of things you can you do about weed control. One of them is to get out there on your hands and knees.

My yard is about an acre and a half, and I ain't getting out there on my hands and knees—although the member from Ajax—Pickering, I think it is, would suggest that I spend more time on my hands and knees, or at least on my knees, particularly praying for him. I know he makes that suggestion all the time. But I'm not going to be doing that on that one-and-a-half-acre lot.

Interjection: Why not?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Because it's just too big and I'm getting too old. It might work on a little postage-stamp lot like some here in the city of Toronto where the lawn's not very big, but it's a little hard in the country.

But there are ways you can control them. If you're not going to get out there and pick the weeds, dig them out or whatever, a lot of people will also opt to—you know what we can do? When we cut the grass more often, the weeds are there, but they don't show. So we could—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Would the member for Peterborough agree that we should cut the grass more often, maybe?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I pay my son 20 cents a dandelion.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The member for Peterborough is paying his son 20 cents a dandelion. I'll tell you what: I'll bring my son to Peterborough, and he'll do it for you next week.

But the member for Peterborough agrees that you could cut your lawn more often. So we cut the grass more often. What does that do? Well, that just gets more of those very inefficient small engines puffing out more fumes into our environment. So now we have a bill where we're worried about the environment, we're worried about health, and now we're going to have people who are out there more often with the little lawn mower cutting that grass because they can't stand the sight of it. They can't put anything on it. Or we could hire a goat or we could hire the member for Peterborough's son, who, for 20 cents a dandelion, will take care of your lawn.

I can't believe that I'm out of time. There's so much to be talked about here. I'd like another opportunity. If I could get unanimous consent for more time, I'd appreciate it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Are you asking for unanimous consent? Do we have unanimous consent to give—

Interjection: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): No. That idea didn't go too far.

Questions or comments?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's my pleasure to make a few remarks on the speech that was just delivered so eloquently by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I have to say that there is no doubt that it's long past time for the province of Ontario to deal with the pesticide issue. We know that municipalities have been far ahead of the game when it comes to dealing with cosmetic pesticides in communities across the province. My own community has been dealing with putting bylaws in place around pesticide use, and successfully did so a couple of years ago. The reality is that the municipal sector is the sector that has been far and away the lead on this particular file.

It's very anguishing, then, for municipalities to realize that when the province finally catches up to the game, when the province finally gets the picture that this is an important issue for Ontarians, they put a bill together that basically says that even though municipalities were in the game far in advance—they had been on the ball on this issue, they had been leading the charge, if you will—if municipalities have pesticide bans that are more stringent or list more types of chemicals or pesticides in their bylaws, their bylaws no longer are usable.

They have to go to the lowest common denominator, which will be set out here in this legislation. I think that's actually inappropriate, and I'd hope that when this bill is finished its debate at second reading it goes to committee and the government would consider some amendments that would give the municipal sector the respect and the due they deserve and take out that odious clause that prevents municipalities from getting ahead of the game on pesticide issue.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to join the debate and to pass some comment on the remarks of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Certainly, I think there was some wisdom in the words that he put out today for our consideration, but the problem is, it sounded like a speech from the 1950s or the 1960s. The attitude that we used to have toward pesticides and chemicals in our society is one that I think was fairly portrayed by the member there.

Certainly, times have changed. Society's attitude toward these pesticides has changed, and what Ontarians are asking for now is equal protection. A person in Renfrew or Nipissing and, of course, Oakville—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Barry's Bay.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: —or Barry's Bay should have the same protection as everybody else in Ontario when it comes to pesticide reduction.

What we've brought forward, we think, based on overwhelming positive public response, is a bill that is very balanced. Should it meet the favour of the House, should it move forward, certainly if there are suggestions that are to be made by municipalities along the way, I know our government is open to hearing those things.

If you look at it on balance, what it does and what I think is a major improvement over any other municipal bylaw in the province—we should thank the municipalities that had the foresight and the courage to move ahead in the first place in this regard and implement bylaws of their own in the absence of any provincial response from previous governments—is the fact that the province has the ability to ban the sale of pesticides. Municipalities never had that option, never had that ability.

Certainly that, by default, makes the provincial law much stronger than any municipal law that's in effect without taking anything away from those communities that have had the courage to step forward on this issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the fine presentation made on this pesticide-ban law by my good friend from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. He made a couple of very important points that I think warrant reinforcing. One deals with the member from Oakville's comments about being equal to everyone, that everyone deserves equal treatment.

If there's science to back up this piece of legislation, then equal treatment would mean there would be no exemptions in it, because obviously if you can spray it in one place and you can't spray it somewhere else, that's not equal and fair. If there's a science-based risk here, then obviously the elimination of that should be equal to everyone. I would be as protected on the golf course as I am in my backyard, and that doesn't seem to be what this law is doing.

I'm sure the member on the government side will produce the evidence, shall we say, the science base for this legislation, so we can make a decision based on whether it should be banned across the board or banned nowhere. I think that's a very important part.

The other

part I just wanted to talk about was the difference in lawn sizes in rural Ontario. Obviously it's going to be very difficult to deal with the large areas that are presently being cut and used as lawns and the adjacent pastures or fields right beside them. If we can't control the weeds on large lawns—and the member from Peterborough suggested that we can pull all these weeds out by hand—if we can't control those weeds on this large acreage around buildings, we can't control them on the rest of our farms, and we have to spray more there.

I think much more work needs to be done on this legislation.

Mr. Paul Miller: There are some oversights in Bill 64, and hopefully the bill won't get shot down, like all our opposition bills do, in committee, even though they are good bills that we bring forward.

Our municipalities have taken the leadership role in pesticide control. The communities have done the heavy lifting on this legislation. This bill needs some amendments that will be dealt with at committee. We, as team players, support this bill and legislation with the proper adjustments. We should not cancel out all the good work that municipalities have done in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the comments from the members for Hamilton Centre, Oakville, Oxford and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and their input on the bill.

In two minutes I can't get back into everything, but clearly the science—the member for Oakville talked about attitudes changing. There's no question about it: Things should be based on science, and I want to talk about the agricultural industry when I wrap up.

One of the reasons agriculture is exempt is because this government knows that if we don't have pesticide use in our agricultural industry, we can't produce food. It's as simple as that. We cannot produce the amount of food we need.

I used to be in the hardware business. We sold products for home and garden use: pesticides, insecticides etc. Up in the Barry's Bay area, everybody got a little bit of garden. One of the things they plant, along with many other things, is potatoes. When the potato bugs roll in in the second half of the summer, if you don't treat those plants, you don't have any potatoes. It's as simple as that. The bugs are just wild. They're just rampant, the way they attack potato plants. So if you don't have some way of dealing with them, you don't have potatoes.

Under this proposed legislation, all of these people who have a little garden are actually going to have to be licensed to get a pesticide or get a farmer's licence to have a little bit of garden, a small plot of garden just around their home, which is very common in rural Ontario.

The government needs to send this to committee. We've got to talk to people, not just base things on politics.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: Mr. Speaker, I'll be sharing my time with the honourable member from Hamilton Centre.

New Democrats are pleased to be able to speak to the legislation, which aims at implementing a provincial ban on the sale and application of pesticides for aesthetic purposes. This legislation is long overdue, and given the time the McGuinty government has had to observe the leadership role of the municipalities, many of which have already implemented bans on the application of pesticides for aesthetic purposes, we would have liked to have seen the legislation introduced with a few more of the kinks worked out with amendments.

But this is what the committee process is for, and New Democrats look forward to hearing from environment and public health groups as we move forward in ensuring the legislation is strong and enforceable.

Before offering our perspective on the bill's shortcomings, which we'll aim to address in committee, I think it's important to discuss how we have finally arrived at this legislation.

The proposed provincial pesticide ban in context: When it comes to pesticide bans, it is extremely important that we acknowledge the leadership of Ontario's municipalities for their efforts in this area. We owe municipal leaders and the numerous community activists across this province and across the country a great deal of thanks for their tireless work to bring the debate on pesticides to Queen's Park. It is important to acknowledge that they have done the heavy lifting on banning the aesthetic use of pesticides in Ontario.

Yet while the provincial government talks glowingly about the efforts of our municipal partners, why is it that the proposed legislation takes away their ability to continue their efforts?

We know pesticides kill indiscriminately, and it's estimated that only 5% actually reach their targets due to incautious application. The World Health Organization estimates that 200,000 people are killed worldwide each year—up from 30,000 in 1990—and another three million people are poisoned annually by pesticides, many of them children. So when we know of these dangers and of the leadership provided by our municipal partners on this issue, and because it's clear that the province is a latecomer to the dance, why would the McGuinty government bring forward a law that cancels out existing municipal bylaws? Environmental and health groups want this

section removed, and New Democrats concur.

As stated earlier, in the case of banning pesticides, it is the municipalities who have led while the province followed, and the community activists are rightly concerned that the legislation as written will needlessly tie the hands of municipalities in taking future action with respect to pesticide use within their respective jurisdictions. For example, it could be the case that a municipality might want to ban the use of pesticides on golf courses. They would not be allowed to take such action under the bill as written.

Having the province set a standard which must be met across the province is welcome, but only if the municipalities who in the future may wish to introduce a stricter standard are still able to do so.

The province can't talk about treating municipalities as equal partners, and then once again turn around and strip them of their jurisdictional powers to regulate their local environment regarding pesticides. Municipalities have been leaders in the area of protecting their citizens from pesticides and they should be allowed to continue in this vein. This bill needs some doctoring before it actually is put into law.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's my pleasure to take a few minutes to participate in the debate.

It's not surprising, I think, that there is a pesticide bill in front of us. I say that because all of us recognize that the municipal sector has been very active on these issues for quite some time. So it's not a surprise, it's not a shock and it's not in anyway difficult to understand why eventually so many municipalities have undertaken this work and that the province finally got the eureka moment that they needed to put something together to deal with this, as it is an ongoing and significant issue around the province.

Municipalities have, in fact, taken on the responsibility for the protection of the health and well-being of people living within their municipal borders when it comes to exposure to the toxins that are present in pesticides that are freely and openly used and marketed here in Ontario.

This government's response to that grassroots movement that has taken place in a number of municipalities is to come up with this bill we're debating today, Bill 64, the cosmetic pesticide use bill. I'm certainly one who would say that I'm glad it's finally here. We're definitely pleased that the government has seen fit to do the right thing and, although coming late to the dance, finally getting here and putting before legislators a bill that would seek to address some of the ongoing concerns out there around the use of pesticides in municipalities and in every community across the province.

It's interesting, though. Where does this come from? When I say it comes from the grassroots, in Hamilton, the community I live in, the city council has been very active on this file. It's come from a couple of places—certainly the environmental movement. We have some great environmental activists in Hamilton. We have Environment Hamilton, run by Lynda Lukasik and Brenda Johnson; the Conserver Society; Friends of the Red Hill Valley; a number of different community-based activist groups that are always pushing the envelope, which is what needs to happen.

In fact, I really believe that we wouldn't have a number of significant pieces of legislation or bills around, or anything at all, some of these environmental areas if it wasn't for the grassroots activists, the people in communities who become aware and raise awareness of legislators at every level and push and push and make sure that the issue stays on the front burner and not the back burner.

In many cities, including mine, this issue has been bubbling on the front burner for quite some time. Bylaws exist, but everyone knows that a big challenge is the raising of awareness, the education, and bringing people along and getting that commitment to happen.

I can remember when debates and discussions first started around pesticide use in my own community. There were a significant number of people who were skeptical, I guess I would say, not quite sure whether it was that big a deal: "Our lawns need to look picture-perfect, postcard-perfect, so we need to use pesticides." These were the kinds of discussions and reactions that were initially on the table at the community level when the pesticide ban was being considered.

There were also discussions around golf courses and sports fields, concerns about kids going over on their ankles if the fields weren't maintained, and the theory that the only thing that would maintain those fields was the regular application of pesticides on the playing surfaces. A couple of years have gone by, solutions have been found and changes have been made. The sky hasn't fallen, but what has happened is that we've made our environment less toxic, particularly for those people who are more vulnerable to the effects of exposure to the various toxins that make up these kinds of pesticides.

The reality is that young children who are playing in sports fields—which ironically was the one place where people were adamant that they didn't think the ban should apply—are close to the ground, have smaller organs, smaller bodies, so the absorption of these toxins by a smaller person, a child particularly, would have a much more significant impact. It's very obvious that young children would be much more negatively affected than anyone else when it comes to pesticide use.

We also know that people who already have health concerns—people with asthma, senior citizens who sometimes have respiratory or breathing problems or other kinds of ailments—also would be more likely to be negatively affected by the use of pesticides.

There's no doubt that this bill will have great benefits. That is why many, many municipalities have already gone the extra mile, had the public debate at the local level, and dealt with all of the issues coming up. Again, it's probably safe to say that in most communities where there is a municipal bylaw dealing with the application of cosmetic pesticides, it is likely that grassroots community organizations and environmental organizations will have made that effort to not only educate the councillors, but to bring the public on as well.

It's interesting as well, because most of those organizations are volunteer-based. They don't have a lot of money. They don't have a lot of grants or operating funds, and they certainly don't have scads and scads of staff. They don't have that kind of infrastructure, if you will.

But darn it, those people really do deserve a great deal of thanks and respect from people like us. They fight in the trenches on these issues, they do the research on their own, and they do it on a volunteer basis. They do it out of passion and belief in the issues that they are tackling, whether it's cosmetic use of pesticides or whether it's one that came up recently at the public accounts committee—the issue of hazardous waste.

We were dealing with the auditor's report and the hazardous waste

section of that report, which spoke to the ministry's lack of ability to track hazardous waste from the place where it's generated through the transportation process into the landfill site. At some point, there is a weight that's taken at the beginning of that process, and at the end of the process when the load gets to the dump or to the landfill site, the hazardous wasteland fill site, there is not as much weight. So somewhere between point A and point B, there was quite a possibility that hazardous waste was being lost or had gone missing.

Through the process of that committee, we learned about the systems, or lack thereof, that are in place. One of the things that I became aware of was, again, the fight that is being undertaken by a number of grassroots-based community environmentalists who are looking to other jurisdictions that have jumped ahead of where we are here in Ontario. So just like the McGuinty Liberal government didn't have this on their radar, it took municipalities to take the leadership role, often based on community activism.

Not dissimilarly, community activists are saying there are lots of places where the McGuinty government needs to pull up its socks in terms of the environment and environmental issues. I know my colleague who is our environment critic is often critical of the government for its lack of action on a climate change plan, for example.

Going back to the public accounts committee, I was surprised to know that other jurisdictions are quite wide open and transparent about the companies that are generating toxins. They have a website that's publicly accessible, which lists and shows quite clearly—for free—the companies that are producing toxins in the States. This is just south of the border, in the States. Their registry of toxin producers is as clear as a bell. It's there for everyone to see. In Ontario, on the other hand, you have to pay a fee to be able to have access to information about toxin producers.

It seems to me that control of pesticide use in this bill in particular, Bill 64, is definitely a step in the right direction. It's unfortunate that the government has decided in their—I don't know why and I'm really hoping, as my colleague from Hamilton East-Stoney Creek, Paul Miller said—New Democrats really are hoping—that after this bill finishes second reading and goes to committee, we will be hearing from many grassroots environmentalists, as well as municipal representatives.

I certainly don't want to prejudge, but I suspect that we will have people coming to committee, to the public hearings, who will say, "Get rid of that clause in the bill that says that where municipalities have standards that are greater than the ones included in Bill 64, those standards will not apply; only the standards in Bill 64 will apply." I think that's a problem, and I think that's an issue we can probably overcome.

I'm hopeful that the government will see fit to acknowledge, respect and support the work of grassroots environmentalists and municipalities that have gone further than this province is prepared to go and will acknowledge that some municipalities are going to continue to take a leadership role and this bill shouldn't squelch that leadership role. This bill should support and encourage municipalities and communities to stay vigilant on the environmental file, to keep pushing, if you will, because the reality is, that's the only way that positive change will occur.

I would really urge this government to please consider seriously getting rid of that clause, because it sends a wrong message on a number of levels.

I have to say, I think it was embarrassing for the Premier when he said one thing and the minister was saying something else and there was a whole bunch of confusion. Lo and behold, we found out that the Premier was incorrect in what he was indicating was in the bill. I think a lot of people are quite disappointed. They would have preferred that things were the way that Dalton McGuinty thought they were.

Hopefully, between that and the public hearings, when we hear from the community and from municipalities and others—I believe that at the end of the day it will only do us better as a province and do municipalities better as communities where people live and raise their children and work and engage in civil society—it will only help to have that clause removed and give the community and the municipalities the due that they deserve in terms of their ability to set higher standards, to require greater protection of the public.

It's never a wrong thing to make sure that the health and well-being of young children and of people who are frail, people who have breathing problems—asthma and other kinds of respiratory concerns—are protected.

It's amazing the number of things that we now, at this point in time—we had the people dealing with cancers yesterday. The things that we now acknowledge and recognize that cause cancer or are directly related to the possibility of cancer being developed: 15, 20, 25 years ago, a lot of that—bisphenol A is one that very recently, in the last little while, has been banned in terms of its potential for causing cancer.

Our environment is something that we really need to pay significant attention to, because if we don't—and this is what that message was yesterday for those MPPs who had the opportunity to hear from the people who were here. It's a matter of saying that we will certainly, at the end of the day, be in a much better position if we can control and end, as much as possible, the things that cause diseases like cancer. If we can't necessarily cure cancer, there have been great strides as well in the way that different types of cancers are managed.

But the reality is, why don't we spend that money, why don't we spend that energy, why don't we make that effort in making sure that the things to which we are exposing ourselves and our children and all the people in this province and in this country—to get rid of those potentially dangerous exposures. Then you won't end up getting the kinds of cancers, or we'll start reducing the kinds of cancers that are prevalent in our society today, and a lot of pain and anguish of families and individuals will be reduced.

Yes, that means things like the cosmetic use of pesticides. But it also means a toxin reduction strategy that is forward-thinking and quickly implemented. I know that there is some kind of process that's going to take maybe the next year or so before it goes onto the Environmental Bill of Rights, the posting for the feedback. All of that is necessary, but let's make sure that we're staying on top of these files.

Whether it's pesticide reduction, whether it's toxic substance reduction in our environment over all, it's really our obligation to ourselves, to our children, to their children, to make sure that we are maintaining the health and safety and well-being of people in our province. If that's not our job, our obligation, our responsibility, I don't know what is. I look forward to the government making sure this bill is stronger and not weaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I'm certainly listening with great attention and interest to this debate. I think there have been a few things that need to be clarified in this.

I certainly was interested to hear that someone seems to think that all farm properties are exempt, including the farm lawn, and that taking your kids to the farm is not a good thing to do. I happen to live on a farm, a very active, working farm. There is no exemption for my lawn. My lawn and my neighbour's lawn are being treated the same as our city cousins. We are not going to be able to spray our lawns either. I think that's proper.

I have 12 grandchildren who live within 20 minutes of the farm. They come to play there. I don't want to see them exposed to pesticides either.

Now, as a working farm, of course, we have an integrated pest management plan. My husband is licensed to use pesticides. He knows at what time they should be used and he knows the quantity. There is no concern, as a farmer, that there would be overuse. Anyone who understands the cost of these pesticides understands the reasons why farmers are very careful in how they use them and when they use them. It's a necessary and essential use of a pesticide. But nevertheless, it's not going to be on my lawn.

In terms of what do we do instead—the member for Peterborough talked about his son going out and pulling the dandelions—I might also suggest that you use more grass seed. Amazingly, grass does choke out weeds. So in the spring, Rene and I, before we roll our lawn, we put on more grass seed. It's not hard to do.

We use mulch around the trees. We have a tree that falls, we get it mulched, we put it around the other trees. There's nothing that can't be done naturally that we—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm always pleased to participate and respond. The NDP are always passionate about these issues. I just caution members: Let's not get carried away. Bill 64 is one page. This bill here is one page. A lot fuss being made about it; we don't know what they're talking about. Actually, the Premier, when he introduced the bill, had no clue. His minister standing beside him? No clue. The point is, this bill is all in regulation.

Section 7.1 is being added.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: Let's be careful now, don't get too emotional.

It's all in regulation. We won't know until the regulations are established. I read—or am understanding—that Roundup, one of the most invasive products, may not be banned. So we don't know.

It is the right thing. It's sort of like motherhood and apple pie. It's all good. We support the idea. The problem here is that some of the exemptions simply don't make sense. I have to laugh. This is the problem. We have a feel-good type of government.

This is an

article from the paper. It's not me saying it, it's not John Tory saying it. Here's what it says: "So it's fine to use the pesticides on crops we're going to eat, but not fine to use them on our gardens." That's in the St. Catharines Standard on April 26.

You have to wonder what the goal here is because all this material is regulated federally by Health and Welfare Canada. The province and the municipalities are all sticking their finger in the apple pie here. We need to get the regulations out. We need to have the Premier and the minister tell us exactly what the goal is here.

How come you're exempting golf courses? The ground runoff runs into the streams. You've got to look at this thing. I'm suspicious. I'm going to speak later on this bill.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's a pleasure to speak, if only for a couple of minutes, on this bill. First of all, as my colleagues have said, with great insight and great research to back them up, this is a bill that actually does less to ban cosmetic pesticides than what's already in place, for example, in a city like Toronto. It's set against a backdrop, I must say, of inaction on the entire environmental file. Here we have an environment minister who has not come forward with a climate change plan, which has been promised.

We know about the travesty that accompanied the coal-fired plants, where they were promised to be shut down—what was it, 2007, and now 2011, or whenever; also, a government that's planning on putting $40 billion to $50 billion into nuclear reactors and that refuses to uphold the Kyoto protocol.

Again, we've called on them to do all of this. Instead, what do they do? They bring forward a very small bill here, a bill to ban cosmetic pesticides, when the city of Toronto already has stronger legislation in place that this would conceivably pre-empt, unless they do something about that particular clause.

Set against a background of inaction on the environment file, which is truly a sad commentary—a government that said that they were going to be proactive on this and have not been. No Kyoto protocol—

Interjection.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I'm being heckled by the Minister of the Environment, but he knows as well as I do: no action on the Kyoto protocol, no action on climate change, and yet a rush to nuclear reactors, to the tune of $40 to $50 billion. One has to hope that those nuclear reactors are not built in your backyard—whoever's listening to this—and certainly if you are listening to this, I would write in about that issue, if not any of the other issues that we've spoken to at great length in this House.

Again, it's a pleasure to speak to this bill. I wish it was stronger. I wish they had an environmental plan.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I'm pleased to join in on this debate on the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act. To be honest, this piece of legislation is long, long overdue. To give you a little bit of background, I got elected to municipal council some 20 years ago, and I know municipalities have been talking about this for a long time. But the bureaucracy used to always advise the elected officials that the sale and use of pesticides within a municipality is not within the council's realm of mandate to ban.

We have to credit the municipality of Hudson, Quebec, because they ignored that bureaucratic advice and decided to pass a bylaw, which eventually went to court and the court ruled in favour of the municipality.

What is happening now is that a domino effect has taken place throughout Canada. I have to say that, as a member of Toronto council previously, it was difficult to accept this ban within the confines of the city of Toronto, because it was difficult to picture how you could ban it within a municipality yet it was available for sale at all the stores, including the municipality next door. I have to say, as a member of Toronto council, we did it. It did work.

What this government is doing today is going to strengthen that particular ban by municipalities, in fact, because the actual sale of these cosmetic pesticides will not be available in the stores anymore. So home use of it will definitely be controlled. I think if you speak to the experts in the medical field, they'll tell you that that was the biggest concern, the home use of—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. The member for Hamilton Centre has up to two minutes to respond.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to thank the members from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Durham, Parkdale—High Park and Scarborough—Rouge River for their comments on the remarks of my colleague Paul Miller and myself regarding Bill 64.

It's interesting, because one of the things that the member from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex talked about is the fact that we can use natural means to control weeds, and that's something that we all need to become more educated about. Having said that, it's interesting to note that in my own community, just adjacent to where my riding ends, is a producer, a manufacturer of pesticides. Interestingly, that manufacturer had a fire, and as a result of that fire, a creek nearby was contaminated with toxic runoff and a number of fish were killed.

The reality is that the surrounding neighbourhood continues to this day to be quite concerned, because not only were the fish killed, but there have been rippling effects on the ecosystem around Spencer Creek since that fire took place.

So it's not only a matter of getting rid of the pesticides that we are using in a cosmetic way, but we also need to take a real hard look at where the manufacturing of some of these chemicals takes place. In this particular situation, these chemicals are manufactured right on a water system, on a creek that feeds into other water tables in the area. It's in a residential neighbourhood—literally right in a residential neighbourhood—and the impacts from not only the ongoing production but the possibility of a spill or a fire are significant and deadly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for debate has ended.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce a number of guests to the Legislature today.

On behalf of the member from Durham: Mr. Gary Cooke, past chair of Community Living Ontario.

On behalf of the member from Guelph: Richard Sandals, her son; Allison Dawes, her daughter; and William Dawes, her grandson, will be visiting this afternoon.

On behalf of the member from Parkdale—High Park: John Paterson, Sylvia Paterson and son Teddy Paterson, in the Speaker's gallery today.

On behalf of page Vanessa Chiarello: Augusto Chiarello, her father; Michael Chiarello, her brother; Vincenza Chiarello, her mother, in the west members' gallery.

On behalf of page Mikaela Henderson: Holly Henderson, her mother, in the east members' gallery.

On behalf of page Matthew Chaput: Audrey Chaput, his mother; and Norah Chaput, his sister, in the east members' gallery.

On behalf of page Hannah Jansen: Ellen Jansen, her sister; Colin Jansen, her brother; Val Millson, her mother; and Steve Jansen, her father, in the public galleries.

On behalf of page Isabelle Love: Linda Love, her mother; Chris Love, her father; Sebastien Love, her brother; Oliver Love, her brother; Rose Love, her grandmother, in the west members' gallery.

On behalf of page Thomas Parker: John Parker, his grandfather; Margaret Parker, his grandmother; Emily Parker, his sister; Michelle Parker, his mother; Alison Parker, his sister; Megan Durkin, a friend; Chris Parker, his brother; and Al Parker, his father, in the east members' gallery.

On behalf of the Minister of Community and Social Services, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the representatives of Community Living Ontario and Community Living Toronto, as well as community living agents, self-advocates and clients who are present today throughout the galleries.

On behalf of the member from Toronto Centre: in the east gallery, as part of the Community Living delegation, we'd like to welcome Jim and Dianne Turner here today.

On behalf of the member from St. Paul's, we'd like to welcome, in the east members' gallery, Elijah Harper, former Manitoba MPP and MP. Welcome today.

We'd like to welcome Murad Velshi, member from Don Mills in the 34th Parliament.

To everyone who wasn't introduced today, welcome to Queen's Park.

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Thursday, May 8, the Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order during question period concerning comments that he said were being made over a period of time by members of the government benches which, he contended, were not accurate reflections of the policies of the official opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition indicated he would be writing to me to address this matter in more detail. I have now received his letter, and I thank him for that. In it, Mr. Runciman reiterates his concern that members of the government, when addressing the House, sometimes make reference to policies of his party in a manner which he feels distorts them or, conversely, ascribes policies to the opposition which it does not have.

I hope the member will appreciate, and I think the undertone of his letter anticipates, that the Speaker is not really in a position to address what amounts to a difference of opinion between him and certain members of the government.

The Speaker does, though, have a role to maintain order and decorum in debate but cannot interject himself into the interplay of ideas that debate represents or attempt to referee the nuances or precision of everything that is said in the chamber. It is a given that all members are both assumed and expected to conduct themselves honourably, and I think it is sufficient for the Speaker to leave the matter at that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. It has to do with his government's inability to grasp the gravity of Ontario's economic situation, a crisis in many respects. Eleven hundred jobs lost at Dell in Ottawa, 300 at Sitel in Ottawa, 900 at GM in Oshawa, 325 at Quebecor, 1,400 at GM in Windsor, and today 27 in Cornwall—that's over 4,000 jobs in just two weeks. Four thousand people—that's the size of a small town, Deputy Premier—don't know how they're going to pay their mortgages, feed their families or put their kids through university. More and more people, on a daily basis, are becoming alarmed for their family's future.

Deputy Premier, your government's response seems to be to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Where's the sense of urgency? Where's the economic stimulus package that Ontario very clearly needs today?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The economic stimulus package was voted on and approved yesterday by this House.

Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition: You voted against $1.5 billion for skills training; you voted against investments in innovation that will create new jobs; you voted against a capital tax reduction that Ontario manufacturers will see this fall; you voted against partnership with the federal government; you voted against standing up for Ontario.

We laid out a plan that recognizes and begins to address the challenges in our economy that are portended by the world price of oil, by the state of the US economy and by the value of our dollar.

The McGuinty government has a plan; it has laid it out. It's a plan that works well. We need the federal Conservative government to stand up and protect Ontario the way we are, and we ask you to join us in that.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: There's an old saying, "You don't have to be much of a musician to toot your own horn," and that certainly applies to the Minister of Finance. His government talks about a five-point plan. The five points are "duck, dodge, dip, deny and defer."

These last two weeks have really laid bare the blinders this government has on when it comes to stimulating the economy. Throw $235 million at GM, and GM throws 2,300 people out of work. Even if a small portion of that money that went to GM had gone to drop business taxes, it would have benefited all companies, big and small—saving jobs, creating jobs, encouraging investments.

Minister, your plan isn't working. You need to change your strategy. When are you going to come to your senses and do that?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition talks about the government wanting to talk about its plan. Let's hear what some other people say about the government's plan.

BMO, on May 12, reported this: "Job growth in Ontario has perked up to 2.2% in the past 12 months, above the national average and one of the strongest performances of the past four years."

In the meantime, the unemployment rate has actually dropped three tenths of a percentage point from a year ago—and by the way, it's down almost seven tenths of a point from when that member sat on the government side.

There is no question that sectors and individuals and families are facing a challenge. What the people of Ontario know is that they have a government in Ontario with a five-point plan. What we need is a federal partner. What we need is a federal government that will answer the call of Ontario's challenge. Stand up with us and help us convince them of the need to invest in Ontario—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: As a member representing Windsor, a community that's been really hard hit by auto sector closures, I think the minister should have paid attention to quotes that I've put on the record here in the past two days from a senior official in the auto manufacturing area saying that Ontario has become one of the most expensive jurisdictions in the world in which to produce automobiles.

That's your responsibility, Minister. You've been sitting in government for almost five years now. This is not simply calling on the federal government. It has to do with your policies, with your taxation, with regulation, with the onerous burden you've placed on every business doing business in this province. That's your responsibility, which you have continuously, on a daily basis, declined to accept.

Shape up. Start doing your job. Bring in an economic stimulus package and do it today.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite voted against the capital tax cut that manufacturers will see in November. The member opposite voted against the tourism stimulus package, including the new Casino Windsor initiative that will open next month. The member opposite voted against getting Ford Motor Co. to invest in Windsor.

There is no question that there are challenges in our economy. The people of Ontario recognize that their government, the McGuinty government, has come to the plate with money for training and skills development, with money for automotive and other investments in next-generation jobs, with appropriate tax cuts, properly targeted, that will assist all sectors in all communities.

This government has a plan; it's implementing it. What we need is a federal government that will respond to Ontario's very real challenges today.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: He continues to play the blame game as jobs leave this province.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Deputy Premier regarding Six Nations Chief Montour's letter of April 29, thanking the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for intervening with the OPP in Caledonia.

Today in the Hamilton Spectator, Chief Montour is quoted as saying, "I asked Minister Bryant if he had any influence on his fellow cabinet colleagues to look at ways we could relieve the situation." He was referring to the blockade in Caledonia.

Montour quotes Minister Bryant as saying, "Look Chief, you know I can't act directly with anyone, but I'll see who I can talk to and see if something can be done."

The minister said he would get involved, and the chief was left with the distinct impression that as a result of the minister's intervention, the OPP stood down.

Deputy Premier, will your government investigate what are clearly serious allegations?

Hon. George Smitherman: Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Chief Montour certainly didn't refer to any serious allegations. He referred to the efforts of the official opposition as a "witch hunt." Chief Montour is of the view that in fact there was a peaceful ending, that it was positive, that there were open lines of communication between the OPP and Six Nations leadership. Commissioner Fantino has indicated that everything proceeded exactly as it should and that he has never been a part of or associated with interference in any fashion.

I would repeat again what Commissioner Fantino said: "At no time during this event, or in relation to any police operation, did anyone in government or elsewhere tell the OPP to stand down or direct the operations of the OPP."

I'm sure that the member will accept the commissioner's word.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: There's no question it is a hunt, but it's a hunt for the truth, and we're certainly not getting it from this government.

I have to say it's unbelievably inappropriate, when allegations are being made about a minister, in terms of his conduct, by a very credible individual in this province, that the question is referred to the individual in question. That is terribly, terribly inappropriate. How are we going to get a straight answer with respect to whether or not there was interference with police decisions in this situation if the minister in question is having the questions referred to him? It boggles the mind.

Will the minister stand up and tell us who he did speak to, what was discussed, what else we are going to do? That's your position—you're referring everything to him. Get up and start answering some questions. Who did you talk to? What was discussed? Will you give us an independent investigation?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The leader of the official opposition refers to Chief Montour as a very respected individual, and of course that's absolutely true, that's absolutely right, and I absolutely agree with him. I speak to Chief Montour on a very regular basis. I exchanged messages last night with him with respect to the new relationship fund that was established today, a very important fund that will allow the levelling of the playing field in discussions between governments and First Nations.

This very credible individual has referred to the efforts of the member, today and otherwise, in this House with respect to this issue as a witch hunt. So I would ask the member to take the word of the highly respected individual, Chief Montour, to take the word of the highly respected individual, Commissioner Fantino, and accept that everything happened exactly the way it ought to happen, and that at the end of the day, there was a peaceful resolution—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Not surprisingly, the minister again refused to answer the specific questions, and the questions raised by the chief in his letter. He assured the chief that he would get involved, he'd make some calls, he'd see if something could be done. We've asked him today to explain that, to explain what he said to the chief. He says the chief is a credible individual, and he's making some credible claims here that you have a responsibility to respond to. These are serious, serious allegations.

How many other times did the minister make a call to see if something could be done? Is that why we have had such lawlessness in Caledonia for the past two years?

If this government fails to commence an immediate and independent investigation into this matter, from here on, everything this government and the OPP do with respect to Caledonia is going to continue to fall under a cloud of suspicion. Will he call in an independent body to conduct an investigation and do it now?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Well, there we go. I think everybody heard loud and clear what the concern here is. It's not, in fact, that there were discussions between the government and the OPP, which did not take place; it's that somehow there have been peaceful results. It's that at the end of the weekend, as the member for Haldimand says, "There were no arrests in Caledonia. There were in Deseronto, but none in Caledonia."

There's been an independent investigation all right: It's called the Ipperwash inquiry. In the Ipperwash inquiry, there were findings and there were recommendations. Obviously one of the recommendations is that the police be independent. The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely wrong when he suggests that there has been any inappropriate contact between the government and the OPP. And who do I cite in support? I cite Chief Commissioner Julian Fantino, who says that at no time has there ever been interference. I will accept the word of Commissioner Fantino.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Three years ago, the McGuinty government, with much fanfare and thumping of the chest, announced a $235-million provincial government investment in General Motors. At the time, the Minister of Economic Development said that General Motors committed to maintaining an average of 16,000 workers in the province. When asked what would happen if they failed those commitments, he said, "If they don't meet their commitments by way of our Beacon project contract, we will claw back any funds that won't meet those commitments."

Three years later, General Motors has laid off thousands. They're now below the 16,000-workforce limit that was set. Why did the McGuinty government cave to corporate pressure and fail to negotiate tough job guarantees in its agreement with General Motors?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I'm happy to once again stand up for the automotive sector in Ontario. What's very important for the member opposite to understand is, yes, there were guarantees in a contract signed with General Motors and the Ontario government. What this member should recognize is the historic success of General Motors in Ontario. In fact, even the number that was calculated, at 16,000, is a figure that is met by General Motors. There is not one of our Ontario automotive investment strategies signed with assemblers here in Ontario that is in breach of contract.

Let me say this again: There is not one contract signed with the Ontario government that is in breach. We expect that our companies will be strong and will continue to be strong in Ontario, because the Ontario government is supportive of the automotive sector.

Mr. Howard Hampton: There's only one way that could be true: Either the 16,000-employee base that was set wasn't true or the McGuinty government is not insisting on that 16,000 base being met, because General Motors is now below 16,000 workers. But Ford committed to retaining 4,000 jobs in return for a $100-million provincial government investment. At least that's what the freedom of information document says, which we released a couple of days ago. Ford has announced layoffs totalling 2,700 workers.

Can you tell us what are the specific clawback provisions that Ford has to deal with, should they fail to meet their job commitments, and when will the McGuinty government enforce those clawback issues?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it's very important to note that the member opposite, despite feigning support for auto workers across Ontario, has absolutely no relationship with them or he would know that General Motors has been in excess of 20,000 for these last five years. What matters is, when we make calculations with our automotive partners, we talk about long-term averages. It's important to note what we can control and what General Motors can control as it relates to sales of their vehicles.

It is very important to note that we stand behind our automotive companies. It's important because we know that there's a worldwide change in that economy, and we are there to support them. They have provided good jobs for Ontario historically, but I think it's fair to say that back, in 2000, this particular member made it very clear what his relationship was with the CAW membership: "We could blow our brains out trying to talk to these guys. It's not worth it."

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The reality is this: I think there's something wrong when literally thousands of auto workers are being put out on the street at the same time that the McGuinty government has handed over $400 million to companies, and the McGuinty government has said to people at the time that these jobs are guaranteed, that these jobs are going to be sustained.

Now, it seems to me that the McGuinty government had a choice. When you handed over $400 million, you could have insisted on strong job guarantees and you could have insisted on some clawback provisions. Why, if the McGuinty government says it cares about these workers, didn't you insist on strong job guarantees, and why didn't you insist on clawback provisions to protect those workers from being laid off and being put out on the street?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let me assure this House and all auto workers who work for all of our assemblers, this Ontario government stands behind the auto sector. It is what made our manufacturing sector strong and has fed the nation in its GDP output for decades, and just now, when they are under fire around the world, this is exactly when these folks need to see that there is a government that stands behind them and prepared to invest, as they will invest again.

We recognize more than most that we are having a challenging year. We recognize, too, that our investments are what will lead to a better automotive sector: more productive, more innovation, better technology and higher automation. These are going to be the things that see us through. When we speak about General Motors, Ford or Chrysler, we've been through tough times before. But I suggest that this member ask Buzz Hargrove—surely you've had time to talk to him since Monday—and ask him how he feels about the Ontario government's role. He who really speaks—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. New question.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Deputy Premier: New Democrats simply believe that if the McGuinty government is going to make $100-million investments in companies, you have a duty to the workers who work there to get some job guarantees that workers are in fact going to benefit. But what we've seen is the McGuinty government is handing out hundreds of millions of dollars with no job guarantees.

My question to the Deputy Premier: Can the Deputy Premier tell us how many other companies received provincial money and then turned around and announced job cuts, worker layoffs?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think, or at least I would hope, that the member opposite has watched very carefully the kinds of programs that this government has come forward with in our entire first term, with a serious focus on manufacturing Ontario, understanding where our strength is and also recognizing the partnership with industry, as they face challenges that they have never seen aligned like this before: a very high price for a barrel of oil, a very high and strong Canadian dollar, and a weakening US market, where 80% of all of our products across sectors go to the United States.

That means that when we step forward, it's to help our companies be innovative, be more productive and understand the world challenges that they face. That is where we have put our funding on the table: to help bring those investments that need more productivity to be more competitive. Does that mean that we're not still going to face challenges in these sectors? Of course it does. Any one of you who knows this sector would know that's the case. We will backstop our manufacturing sector, because we will be strong again. That is something I expect from opposition benches—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'm still waiting for an answer to the question, but let me help the minister out. In May 2007, she announced a $2.5-million subsidized loan to Skyjack, a subsidiary of Linamar, another large multinational corporation. The minister said at the time: "We are partnering with Ontario's most innovative companies to generate new jobs and investment in the province." In December, Linamar announced that Skyjack would be laying off workers in Guelph. Last week, they announced that more workers at Skyjack were laid off, over 100 workers now.

Tell me, does the minister think that was a good deal for those workers? The company gets government money, and workers get pushed out the door. Do you think that was a good deal for the workers?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I would hope that this member opposite took the time to understand exactly what our funding with Linamar was to do—Linamar, an international company with a footprint in many countries around the world, but housed right here in Ontario. This is a company that came to the government saying: "We can have a centre of excellence for the production of new products developed right here in Ontario, an R&D facility where we can take products and develop and commercialize them for sale around the world."

These are the kinds of projects that our government stands behind, because we recognize that we are an export jurisdiction. So I ask the members opposite: When we understand the challenges in manufacturing due to a whole variety of factors that we wish we could control but can't, do we stand behind manufacturers? Do we stand behind them in ways that will make them stronger in the future? I say the answer is yes, we do.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think what the minister just admitted is, yes, the McGuinty government gives $2.5 million to the international corporation, and 100 workers go out the door, and the McGuinty government is fine with that.

Let me ask you about a couple of others. FibraTech, a company in Atikokan, received $5.6 million in provincial grants and loan guarantees. On October 11, 2007, the day after the provincial election, the company suddenly went into receivership—another 100 jobs gone.

North American Charters received $2 million in provincial grants and loan guarantees to build a three-storey building in the Thunder Bay airport. The building is empty, the company is gone and workers are out of work. Koolatron received $2.3 million in provincial loan guarantees and then laid off workers. I'm asking you again, is this the McGuinty government strategy: millions of dollars for corporations, while workers gift pushed out the door?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: When members of his party and the official opposition would name particular companies, it became very clear that they in fact did not present the facts at committee, nor are they presenting the facts today in the House. That is really unfair to companies who are trying to move through some very challenging times—just like the numbers that they purport to bring into this House in fact are inaccurate, and every one of those job numbers that they get wrong means families that worry about whether they will have a job in the future. It is no thanks to this party whether they would have any look to the future for their sector.

This is in fact the only government, in the absence of federal support, where we can truly say that we support our manufacturing sector. We recognize and will stand with them even in these challenging times, because our manufacturers will be strong again. That, they can take to the bank.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, in 2007 your government promised the Ontario Forestry Coalition—and that includes municipal leaders, First Nation communities, chambers of commerce, labour unions and industry—that your Endangered Species Act would complement the already significant stringent regulatory framework the industry follows.

Your then-Minister of Natural Resources said steps would be taken to provide a

section 55 regulation that offers "specific recognition of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and forest management plans as equivalent processes which plan for species at risk."

Minister, have you honoured your commitment to our vital forestry sector by putting in place a long-term regulation recognizing that the current forest management in Ontario is world-class and meets all the objecttives of the Endangered Species Act?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm pleased to respond to the question by the member from Parry Sound. We've been working very closely with the forest industry. As you know, the Endangered Species Act comes into effect at the end of June 2008. We recognize our first obligation, of course, is to those species that are at risk, threatened or endangered. Every day, some 600 species are made extinct on this planet.

It is our responsibility and, I would suggest, our obligation to ensure wherever possible to work with our industries and with our companies—actually, with everyone in Ontario—to ensure we do everything we can to protect those species that are threatened or endangered. In fact, as I said, it is our obligation to do so.

We will continue to work with the forest industry. There is no question that excellent progress has been made through the forest management plan and we will continue to work with them as we integrate the species at risk into the forest management plan.

Mr. Norm Miller: Minister, you didn't really answer my question. Previously, your government said you would recognize the work that the forestry sector does. Now, they say you're breaking your word. They are saying the government has gone back on its word. They're saying that you're putting in place an unnecessary duplicate layer of red tape that will not only suck up more resources and revenues from a struggling industry, but, in fact, puts the entire forest industry sector on its knees.

In fact, Jamie Lim, president of the Ontario Forest Industry Association says: "The government needs to honour its commitment to 230,000 working families and develop a long-term regulation that recognizes the efficacy of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and forest management plans in protecting endangered and threatened species and avoids the creation of crippling process that would bring the forestry industry to its knees."

Minister, will you honour your commitment to our proud forestry-based communities and to the forest industry?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Without question, the Premier was very clear that we will integrate the Endangered Species Act into the forest management plan. I believe we can coexist. We do have an obligation to both—not to one in spite of the other, but to both—to the species that are at risk and to the industry. We have clear indication that many companies are already doing a phenomenal job of doing exactly that and I think a good example is the bald eagle. At no time will we put one at risk of the other. We can sit down, work through and manage to do what we need to do to coexist with species at risk and with industry.

DIALYSIS

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I would like to know, when does the minister intend to expand nocturnal home hemodialysis to residents of northern Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to thank the honourable member for the question. I've heard about this matter a lot from the member for Sudbury, and his advocacy on behalf of his constituents has been extraordinary.

I do want to correct an impression that is sometimes advanced that this is a service that is advanced in southern Ontario and not in the north. This is actually not accurate. It's relatively available in very few places, but we do plan to make improvements on that.

I don't have all the details at hand, but I can tell the honourable member that I've worked on these issues even this week and hope, in a matter of a relatively few short months, to be in a position to make announcements that would expand the capacity to support people with advanced kidney disease and the associated challenges that mean they need dialysis in a variety of forms. Advancing nocturnal dialysis most certainly is a priority amongst those, and I look forward to working with all members of the House on its expansion for the benefit of our constituents.

M me France Gélinas: Residents of northern Ontario, such as my constituents Homer Seguin and Richard St. Amour, have been urging the ministry to expand nocturnal dialysis to Sudbury for years. Groups such as the Sudbury Health Coalition, which represents over 20,000 people in the Sudbury area, have urged the minister to fund nocturnal dialysis at Sudbury Regional Hospital.

The minister claimed that the government cannot afford the program in northern Ontario. This completely ignores the benefit of nocturnal dialysis and is a signal to northerners that they should accept second-class health care services. Nocturnal dialysis has been available in southern Ontario for many, many years. Why is the minister refusing to provide nocturnal dialysis to residents of northern Ontario now and to force northerners to accept second-class health care services?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's very unfortunate that in light of the answer I gave, the honourable member still chose to read a second question that frankly bears a long way from reality. It is not that there is widespread access to nocturnal dialysis in southern Ontario; that's not an appropriate perception. I know that it is advanced sometimes in the north.

It isn't about two tiers or two classes; it's about making an advance in the province of Ontario that offers the benefits—which I agree with—in terms of nocturnal dialysis much more broadly to Ontarians, in all parts of our province. There are sporadic programs indeed, but overall this is an area where we have a strong opportunity to make an advance in a way that is good for health care because you don't have to build a building and is very good, of course, for the clients because they can get the care at home and aren't disrupted by going into satellite dialysis.

I can tell the honourable member: Since 2003, we've invested more than 158 million new dollars to expand access to dialysis. We have more work to do on nocturnal dialysis, and efforts on that front are forthcoming.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, as my riding of London—Fanshawe is along the 400-series corridor, my staff and I, and of course the citizens of my area, including my constituents, spend a lot of time driving these highways to join with tens of thousands of other motorists as we drive back and forth across the province. The 400-series highways are among the busiest roadways anywhere in the world, with more than 420,000 vehicles making use of them each day.

As you know, a lot of crazy drivers are driving this highway and cause a lot of accidents and cause a lot of damage to many other passengers and drivers. Minister, unfortunately the long weekend is especially dangerous for many drivers, and I heard that you funded the OPP for a special plan to make sure our highways are very safe. Can you tell the House and tell—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for the question.

Listen: Highway safety is vital to everyone in this House. We all encourage and agree that we have to promote safety on our highways. That's why, just recently, we introduced the new aircraft enforcement program. It's an excellent program that allows the OPP, in a Cessna 206, to observe the highway patterns, the driving patterns, from about 2,500 feet.

Let me encourage every Ontarian to drive safely, to follow the speed limit on this long weekend, to drive defensively, because at the end of the day, we want what everyone wants: safety on our highways.

Let me tell the people of Ontario: I was up in the plane just recently. The eye in the sky will catch you if you're a reckless driver or a speeding driver.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Hopefully this new tool will encourage those who would fly along the highway to put a curb on their reckless behaviour. I hear on occasion from frustrated constituents who try to report such careless drivers, only to see them pull off the highway or out of sight before they can get a full description of the offending vehicle. This plan will allow for the police to monitor these individuals more carefully.

Can you tell us what the government is doing to make sure those people will be monitored and pulled off the highway to make sure our highways are safe for the many people who enjoy driving back and forth or to go to work? I think it's a good initiative, but I want to ask the minister to tell us more about this initiative and how we can make sure all these people are monitored and pulled off the highway.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I refer to this the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Even though Ontario was declared to have the second-safest highways in all of North America in the last figures available, behind only the Northwest Territories, there's much more that has to be done, without a doubt. For instance, let's give an idea of what consequences people could face.

Any driver found stunt driving or driving over 50 kilometres an hour over the speed limit has the vehicle impounded on the spot and the licence revoked for a seven-day period, and if convicted of racing, can face a maximum fine of up to $10,000, the highest in Canada. When it comes to impaired driving, one of the sanctions is that they can have a 90-day licence suspension for drivers who blow over the legal limit and other consequence