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

June 27, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2002-Jun-27 vol. A (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 27 June 2002 Jeudi 27 juin 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

APPOINTMENT OF

SELECT COMMITTEE

TENDER FRUIT LANDS

VISITORS

APPOINTMENT OF

SELECT COMMITTEE

TENDER FRUIT LANDS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

JUST THE TICKET

MEDICAL IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES

CANADA DAY CELEBRATIONS

HIGHWAY 69

JESSIE BANNERMAN

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

MISSISSAUGA FIREFIGHTERS

OF THE YEAR

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COLLISION REPAIR

STANDARDS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES NORMES DE RÉPARATION

EN CAS DE COLLISION

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT

(AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES ASSURANCES

(ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE)

ANAPHYLACTIC STUDENTS

PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION

DES ÉLÈVES ANAPHYLACTIQUES

WELLAND HYDRO

ELECTIONS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES ÉLECTIONS

AU SEIN DE WELLAND HYDRO

MPPS PENSION PLAN

STUDY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉTUDE

DU RÉGIME DE RETRAITE

DES DÉPUTÉS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SCHOOL BUSES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

(TURN SAFETY), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(SÉCURITÉ DANS LES VIRAGES)

FLAGS AT HALF-MAST ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LES DRAPEAUX EN BERNE

ST. JAMES' CATHEDRAL

SIGHTLINES PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DE LA VUE

DE LA CATHÉDRALE ST. JAMES

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

HYDRO DAM SAFETY

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

HYDRO ONE

ENRON CORP

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

OTTAWA-CARLETON

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

NURSES

GOVERNMENT POLLING

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

MENINGITIS C

ANGIOPLASTY SERVICES

BIOTECHNOLOGY

NEW VISIONS

CANCER CARE

LABOUR DISPUTE

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 69

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS

HYDRO ONE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HYDRO ONE

HEALTH CARE

SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

MARIA K.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

FARM IMPLEMENT SECTOR

SERVICES DE SANTÉ POUR ENFANTS /

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

VISITORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HYDRO ONE INC. DIRECTORS

AND OFFICERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LES ADMINISTRATEURS

ET LES DIRIGEANTS DE HYDRO ONE INC.

KEEPING THE PROMISE

FOR GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT

(2002 BUDGET), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RESPECT

DE L'ENGAGEMENT D'ASSURER

LA CROISSANCE ET LA PROSPÉRITÉ

(BUDGET DE 2002)

KEEPING THE PROMISE

FOR GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT

(2002 BUDGET), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RESPECT

DE L'ENGAGEMENT D'ASSURER

LA CROISSANCE ET LA PROSPÉRITÉ

(BUDGET DE 2002)

RELIABLE ENERGY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA FIABILITÉ

DE L'ÉNERGIE ET LA PROTECTION

DES CONSOMMATEURS

WYCLIFFE COLLEGE ACT, 2002

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

(REMEMBRANCE DAY), 2002

GROVES MEMORIAL COMMUNITY

HOSPITAL ACT, 2002

1397399 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2002

ROYAL OTTAWA HEALTH CARE GROUP/SERVICES DE SANTÉ

ROYAL OTTAWA ACT, 2002

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

Thursday 27 June 2002 Jeudi 27 juin 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before you start the proceedings today, I see that Mr Duncan's bill is listed as first on the order paper, rather than my bill, my resolution. I think there was a general impression that something happened there. Perhaps we could ask permission to deal with ballot item 54 first, then, if that's possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Bradley has asked that unanimous consent be given to consider ballot item number 54 and then ballot item number 53. Agreed?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: No?

Hon John R. Baird (Associate Minister of Francophone Affairs): Could I maybe ask for an up-to-five-minute recess?

The Acting Speaker: We will take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 1003 to 1008.

APPOINTMENT OF

SELECT COMMITTEE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): I move that, in the opinion of this House, a select committee should be appointed pursuant to standing order 110. The select committee will be charged with examining the relationship between the environment and health. The committee be given up to seven months to study and report back to the Legislature with recommendations respecting improved health outcomes resulting from a cleaner environment. The Legislative Assembly directs the House leaders of the three recognized parties to negotiate the terms of reference for the committee.

The assembly recommends that the committee begin its deliberations no later than September 2002 and report back to the House no later than March 2003.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Windsor-St Clair has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Duncan: Mr Speaker, let me begin by apologizing to you. There was a bit of misunderstanding. We thought this was the second item today and express gratitude to the government and the third party for allowing this to proceed.

All of us in this House I think share a concern about our environment and about our health. We have all experienced smog days, we have all experienced a number of environmental conditions and situations that we recognize could possibly, and likely do, affect our health. I think every member of the House has a desire to look at a range of possible alternatives and solutions that we might be able to find, as a province, to begin to address what is a very complicated issue.

In December 2001, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives published a report entitled Community Health Profile of Windsor, Ontario, Canada: Anatomy of a Great Lakes Area of Concern. The report concluded that the Windsor area and nearby municipalities have death rates significantly higher than the Ontario and Canadian averages. That's what has given rise to this. In January of this year a local coalition of union activists, environmentalists, local members of provincial Parliament and local members of federal Parliament in our area met to discuss this report and to begin to determine what we, as a community, should do to respond to what is obviously a situation of some concern.

All of us have struggled since that time to begin to come to terms with (

a) the magnitude of the issue and (

b) what it is we, as a people, not just as governments but as a society, can do. I have rapidly come to the conclusion that while there are certain things that are obvious and simple, the problem does not lend itself to an immediate and simple solution.

I believe all members of this House have an interest in looking at this area. I believe a select committee of this nature can advise the government and can advise the ministers affected, particularly health and environment, with respect to what it is we, as members of the Legislature, believe as a society we can begin to do to address this situation.

I put this resolution today in a non-partisan fashion. I think everybody in this House agrees. I think everybody in this House wants to find the types of solutions or to begin to address the problem in ways that will help, over time, to improve our environment and, eventually, health outcomes.

I was encouraged to recommend a select committee because we've done two since last year. We did the select committee on alternative fuels, chaired by Mr Galt from Northumberland, and the Legislative Assembly committee is now looking at parliamentary reform. I've spoken to members from both committees and all parties, and we've all agreed that those were very useful exercises. I believe the government established those committees in good faith, and I believe this government and possibly future governments will look at the recommendations contained in those reports and attempt to incorporate them into meaningful public policy alternatives.

I have identified roughly 15 select committees that have been appointed by this House over the years since 1985, all of which have given us reports, some of which have been outstanding, many of which have had some or all of their recommendations eventually incorporated into government policy.

The two issues of environment and health are, I think, top of mind, not only for our electors in all parts of the province, but for all members of this House. I think having the opportunity to get a group of members together with the resources, with the support from the Legislative Assembly, will give us an opportunity for the first time to address the very serious issues that confront all of us as citizens of this province.

One of the other complicated factors about this is that there are obvious federal overlaps, municipal overlaps, international overlaps. Obviously we can't do anything to clean things up in the Ohio Valley. But let's work together as an assembly and as a society. I often think of this chamber as sort of like the kitchen table of the province. This is where we come together to discuss issues of significance.

Quite appropriately, it is a partisan chamber because there are differences of opinion, but on an issue of this nature you will find a deep bibliography of research into this area that's largely scientific that doesn't go to the next level, which is to determine how we can take these findings and address the serious public policy concerns.

All three of the most recent governments have taken steps in one direction or another to address certain aspects of it. This, I believe, will afford us the opportunity if we decide as a Legislature and the government follows up on the recommendation to appoint a select committee to do a meaningful look at all of this.

I don't need to remind members of the serious smog problems we have here in Toronto. We have those same problems in my home community of Windsor. They're prevalent in Hamilton and other areas. There are many environmental concerns and we know those environmental concerns have public health implications. I urge members to look at this seriously as a method of allowing us meaningful input into the discussion, allowing us the opportunity, hopefully in a non-partisan fashion, to provide advice not only to the current government but if should there be different governments in the future.

If one looks at the recommendations of various select committees and royal commissions in the past, oftentimes it takes many years for recommendations to be implemented. This will be a very modest first step, but it is a step. It's something, in my view, that can lead eventually to a better quality of life, a better and healthier environment for us and our children.

I believe there's a place for all parties to work together and, by the way, to define our differences in meaningful ways that go beyond what I would call the normal routine of this place, to define those differences in clear public policy terms and, where we differ, to debate and take our differences to the people. As we found in the alternative fuels committee, as I believe we're going to find in the Legislative Assembly committee's work on parliamentary reform, we will find areas of mutual agreement, areas that we can agree we must and should move forward on.

This issue is so important. It especially affects children. I don't need to remind the House about elevated incidences of asthma in our young people, in our young children, and how those cases have grown over time, about elevated incidences of various cancers that have been well documented and well defined, and about scientific evidence that suggests clearly there is a link between the environment and those health outcomes. It's the sort of thing that should be taken seriously. It's the sort of issue that none of us has a magic bullet to solve. It has economic and public policy consequences.

But I believe this Legislature and this House, members of goodwill on all sides, can find areas we can agree on and find potential solutions to the problems that will confront the current government and future governments, problems that, while not intractable, are difficult. If we, as a society, can set our minds to this, focus on it and bring to bear our collective wisdom and imagination, I'm convinced that we can make a difference and can begin to address these serious problems.

I say, as I conclude my opening remarks, that governments of all stripes have wrestled with these problems. Some policies have worked and had some positive effects and some frankly haven't, but let's take a first modest step toward addressing this in a systematic fashion that will hopefully yield better health outcomes for all our children and our families.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate on the resolution put forth by the member for Windsor-St Clair. The issues he's raising here are important, let's be honest. I serve with the member on the committee dealing with private members. I know he's a very sincere and hard-working member with respect to trying to come up with solutions in this area. Having lived in Windsor, I can certainly appreciate his comments with respect to --

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Did you go to Windsor law school?

Mr Tascona: No, I didn't go to Windsor law school, but my sister-in-law and brother-in-law did. It's a good law school. But I would say it's a serious issue when you're dealing with the environment, the heat and certainly the pressures of the economic forces you face in areas that really do get hot.

Because we're dealing with terms of reference for the committee, when he goes to deal with the terms of reference -- and he'll be there, because he's the House leader for the Liberal Party -- I want to put to him, don't restrict a cleaner environment to the outside. I think it also has to be looked at inside in terms of buildings and smoking. I want to stress that in terms of smoking. I know there's provincial legislation that deals with smoking in the workplace. It has been in effect since 1989.

But there are exceptions to the government's ban with respect to smoking in the workplace, where there's public service in restaurants and bars, and the responsibility has been given to municipalities to establish bylaws in those areas.

Quite frankly, it's been an area of a lot of controversy with respect to how you balance those areas in terms of the fairest way to regulate this. Exclusive responsibility with respect to smoking is with the federal government. If they didn't want smoking, they could stop it tomorrow, but they have not made that decision to stop smoking. They've decided it's going to be regulated. It's allowed. It's regulated by the province and the municipalities.

I want the member to know my thoughts about this. I want him to look at the inside environment, where people work or where children are with respect to daycare and areas where they can be affected by their environment. It doesn't mean just the outside environment, so I hope he doesn't take a look at a narrow focus. Certainly there are issues with respect to smog in terms of people being able to breathe, but there are also issues with respect to their breathing inside.

There are controversies out there that have to be addressed with respect to not necessarily the workplace, because I think the province has taken a position on that, but I think municipalities are struggling with respect to how to deal with that.

I know in my own riding of Simcoe county the health unit says they would like a 100% stamp-out of smoking, and that's being grappled with by the municipalities. Some municipalities are in favour of that and have gone ahead. Other municipalities -- in particular in my riding, Innisfil is dealing with that issue. They haven't made any decision. Bradford-West Gwillimbury is the same. The city of Barrie has been dealing with it and they've decided not to have a 100% smoking ban.

I think the bottom line is that the province has to show some leadership on this, because you're seeing some really interesting -- I'll put it as "interesting" -- and different standards set out between municipalities with respect to how they deal with smoking. That has to be addressed. Certainly I think we have a role to play. I'd like to see the terms of reference show some strong leadership, because let's face it, when you look at smoking and the impact secondary smoke has on the environment where people work and on people who actually do smoke, it's a tremendous impact. Even smoking outside, whether it's controlled or not, affects people who are just in the general vicinity.

I want this committee to take a strong look with respect to the inside environment and not only with respect to air ventilation, because having worked in some large office buildings on Bay Street when I used to practise law here in Toronto, when you work inside these large buildings and you depend on your air ventilation and you don't have a window you can open, it's different. You have to make sure that what you're breathing and the work environment you have are safe and aren't detrimental to your health.

You have your challenges with respect to inside and outside the workplace, so let's not be too narrow with respect to what you define the environment as. I think you should take a very close look at smoking and maybe revisit that issue in terms of health impact. Because I think that would be a major step forward in terms of dealing with a healthier and safe environment. I indicate to the member opposite that when they look at the terms of reference, don't narrow them to the outside environment, because there are some significant issues inside the workplace that have to be addressed.

I certainly believe that a select committee would be of assistance in dealing with this issue. I know our throne speech reaffirmed our commitment to the Nutrient Management Act and spelled out the centrality of the environment to Smart Growth.

I think the initiatives we've taken -- and I'll just refer to my riding, Lake Simcoe -- have been significant in terms of trying to ensure that it's a cold-water lake and is beneficial to the fish in that particular lake. We have seen tremendous strides with respect to control of what goes into that lake. I think all the communities around that lake have joined together to make sure, through provincial money and initiatives with the Lake Simcoe conservation authority, to protect our environment.

It's not just what you breathe; it's also what you drink, as we know, and the environment and the recreation we have in this province. So let's take a hard look at all the aspects of this issue, health and environment, and I think we'll come up with some positive initiatives in terms of showing some leadership on some issues. In particular, the province should be showing some leadership with respect to smoking in our environment.

That's all I have to say. I would support the resolution.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I'm very happy to support the resolution of my colleague from Windsor-St Clair today and hope that we look for all-party support on a select committee to study the links between the environment and our health.

I think what we wish we had more time for in this hour to debate this resolution was the time to go through the detail of the profile that was done and released in Windsor just a few short months ago.

The data that resulted in this profile was nothing short of stunning for the province. I thought the people in Windsor reacted in a very funny way when this became public. Most people in Windsor know there is a link between where we live in our environment and our health condition. Most people, in fact, responded by saying, "You know, we knew that." It's quite good to see it actually documented and to know that all the anecdotal evidence, the stories we hear, how many neighbours on our street have cancer of a similar type -- those things anecdotally were always there, and we've lived with that.

But note that two gentlemen, James Brophy and another individual who is listed here as the writer, went to the length of collecting data from Stats Canada to actually do a review. What they found, in not just some cases but in many in this study, were several diseases occurring at elevated rates in Windsor, including lung cancer, cancers of the digestive system, the reproductive system, lymphoma, leukemia, diabetes, asthma, infertility and degenerative nerve diseases. It was striking to hear and to see in writing things that we always knew from our neighbours.

Those of us who grew up in Windsor, as Dwight and I did, have relatives and friends whose parents or grandparents worked at the Bendix plant, which was probably made most famous after its closing, when we all realized and grew up with the notion that these people were working in asbestos for decades and that the people in that plant have since come down with innumerable diseases because of work at that plant, and then after the fact realizing that many plants in this automotive capital of Canada, the foundries in our area -- I know that the people who come from the Hamilton area have similar concerns with the steel industry there, as in Windsor with the chrome-plating plants and all those heavy industrial environments that cause pollution unimaginable in the days when the plants opened.

Today we look at that and wonder how our fathers -- they were mostly men -- worked in that environment, even up to the mid-1980s. When the Kelsey-Hayes plant closed, we realized there were people, hundreds of them, who worked in this environment for years and years, and anecdotally we would hear of the number of people in these plants who had become very ill, often with similar types of cancers. It's unfortunate that's our history where health is concerned.

I've often been up in the House talking about how we can combat these health issues and how we need a health system to fight the diseases, once people are ill. It is time that we spend as much energy determining where we got that as we are currently fighting to get the system to respond to illness. It is also our responsibility to deal with how we can prevent it. The member from St Clair and I both hope that is ultimately going to be the result of such a select committee study, that we are going to be able to look at resolutions that come forward from the committee to say, "This is the kind of environment we have to strive for."

It's striking to note that it isn't just ill health, as we come to know it, but things like mental health. We have talked about the lack of mental health services, but we often don't talk about the incredible demand in our community and why that is. We currently have 700 kids on a waiting list for mental health services. Why, in an area like Windsor and Essex county, is that so elevated? If you speak with teachers in our elementary schools, they will often say that we have an incredibly high number of kids with attention deficit disorder.

The doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists are all saying now that they believe there may well be a link between our environment and these kids' behaviour, that those mental health illnesses may well be triggered by allergies.

If you have an environment like ours, where we don't know for certain but can suspect, it then becomes our duty and we are duty-bound to find if there is indeed a link. Then the greater issues lie after that: to determine how we collectively, across all levels of government, can work with our community partners to make a difference in that environment.

While Windsor has been identified in this study by the individuals who wrote this paper, it's of concern to every industrial city and it's of concern to the province as a whole. I hope the entire House will support the resolution and we can look forward to an excellent report coming out of a select committee to determine what -- and if -- are those links between the environment and our health.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I would like to commend Mr Duncan for bringing forward this important private member's resolution this morning and say how pleased I am to see his quick response to the report, which came out some time ago in Windsor, a very alarming report that suggests the illness and death rate for people in Windsor is significantly higher than the Ontario and Canadian averages. This was published in a report entitled Community Health Profile of Windsor, Ontario, Canada: Anatomy of a Great Lakes Area of Concern.

Since this report came out, I'm sure there's been a lot of discussion in Windsor about it, but we haven't heard much discussion here in this chamber, as we have been preoccupied with many other issues. I want to remind the House that there are many individuals and groups, doctors, organizations, that have been toiling away over the years on the prevention of cancer. I want to remind members of the House that in 1994 Ruth Grier, when she was Minister of Health -- she had been Minister of the Environment -- put in the public sphere a report called Recommendations for the Primary Prevention of Cancer.

It is true that this report is focused more on cancer than on any of the other diseases. We well know by now that there is a whole litany of ways the environment can affect our health.

What we hear most about in this Legislature these days, for obvious reasons, is water. The water we drink can kill us or make us ill. We know the air we breathe can cause up to 1,900 people to die premature deaths in Ontario due to smog. Soil contamination from carcinogens, heavy metals and other toxic substances that endanger our kids can work their way into our water. Water quality has clear links to human health and is under threat from so many areas, including contamination from toxic dumping, nutrients, and the list goes on.

I believe it's a very good idea to bring a select committee together so that we can attempt to work, in a non-partisan way, to bring in all those experts out there who have been working in this area for so long. Hopefully now the entire Legislature is ready to work together for that common goal.

I want to remind people that on April 18, 1996, I brought forward a resolution in this Legislature that talked about cancer being one of the leading causes of premature death in Ontario, "claiming more than 20,000 lives annually," and noted that Ontario "currently spends in excess of $1 billion a year on cancer treatment."

The previous, New Democratic Party government recognized this dire threat and commissioned a task force to advise on ways to effectively stem the rising incidence of this disease. Unfortunately, our government was defeated shortly after that report came out. I asked specifically in my resolution -- and surprisingly I got the support of all three parties -- to set up not a select committee but something very similar to that, with all three parties being represented.

That would be a committee "consisting of environmental, health, labour, industry, women's, aboriginal and other interested groups," and the government of Ontario should "work with that committee to establish realistic and measurable timetables for sunsetting persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals that are known or suspected carcinogens as outlined in this report of the task force."

I'm glad to see that the resolution before us today goes further than that and talks about the direct link between all aspects of our health and the environment.

I don't know if you're aware but there are over 70,000 -- just try to imagine that -- artificial chemicals that we've allowed into our environment. Of course we have no idea how these chemicals interact and, once they do interact, how they react to each other. In October 1993 the Ontario Minister of Environment and Energy released primary and secondary lists of candidate substances for bans, phase-out or reductions and other lists by other bodies that had been submitted to the public in this same area.

Obviously it's not possible, once that chemical, that persistent toxic substance is out there, to remove it. So the focus has got to be on prevention of the use and production and generation of these substances in the first place. As that report pointed out, certain classes of persistent toxic chemicals are of particular concern. One of these classes that we're hearing a lot about today is organo-chlorines, which includes such chemicals as DDT, PCBs and dioxins.

Organo-chlorines have been found to act as tumour promoters and there is growing evidence that some of those substances can mimic the effects of estrogens on cells and are likely causing birth defects and reproductive problems, such that they can have very serious long-term effects on the reproductive abilities of future generations.

Those are some examples of the things we need to be looking at -- all of the links. Bring in all of the experts who have been working on these issues for years and try to find common ground and begin the process of phasing out and getting rid of some of those persistent toxic chemicals that are going into our food chain and are having a direct effect on and a direct link to the reproductive systems of women who are giving birth to children, to breast milk.

We know that the incidence of breast cancer and prostate cancer and testicular cancer, particularly in young men, is growing at an alarming rate. Studies have shown that in a very large percentage of those, the causes are not known.

Direct genetic links cannot be found. That is why it's so important that we find ways to get together and try to come to some conclusions and some ways, in a non-partisan fashion, that we can start the work of eliminating some of these toxic chemicals from our environment.

Pesticides are an issue that we hear a lot about these days. There is enough evidence out there to show that some of these pesticides can have very bad health effects on our children, yet we have a government that is doing nothing about those pesticides. Perhaps there is a feeling that we need more evidence, more proof, that those pesticides are having a negative effect on our health, particularly on our children's health.

A large number of man-made chemicals have been released into our environment, and there are a few natural ones, but they are having the impact and the effect of making our children sick. We see more and more instances of cancer.

I do want to commend the member for bringing this resolution before us today. I recently sat on a task force, a special select committee on alternative fuels, and I'm pleased to say it was a very effective and well-run committee where, at the end of the day, we released a report. Yes, there were some compromises made, but actually it was a very good report with far-reaching recommendations for the government of the day and other governments to follow.

What remains to be seen is what the government does with that report. I'm disappointed that this report that came out shortly before we lost government in 1995 was never acted on. I'm disappointed that on several occasions in this Legislature I asked the Minister of Health of the day and the Minister of the Environment to work together with me to form this committee and it never happened. I have letters in my file. I have a big file here of correspondence to show my attempts to bring the Legislature together with experts in the field, but it never happened.

I do hope, and I believe from what I've heard today, that attitudes have changed, that there is no longer such a fear of bringing together all members of the Legislature and that we can work together and come up with common recommendations. That, after all, is the reason we're here: to work together as legislators to try to do the best we can for our constituents across the province.

Congratulations to Mr Duncan for bringing this forward today. I certainly will be very pleased to serve on this committee.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I appreciate the chance to respond to the motion being put forward by the member for Windsor-St Clair. I empathize very much with him. I'll be supporting his resolution and I thank him for bringing it.

I think what an ideal time -- I don't know if this was planned or accidental -- to be debating this in late June. I think it's a perfect day to bring it to our attention and have a close look at it.

I have a quote from Mikhail Gorbachev: "The 21st century will be the century of the environment." I think he's absolutely right. That was stated some time ago, probably a decade ago, but certainly those are prophetic words that are going to be true in Ontario and probably true worldwide.

On his suggestion of a select committee, I was just having a chat with my good friend Jim Bradley about this select committee. I've been fortunate to be on both of the select committees we've had since I came to office in 1995. The select committee on nuclear affairs was a very satisfying experience for me. It was struck back in 1997. Then, to be able to chair the most recent select committee on alternate fuel sources -- I was just chatting there a second ago about the fact there was a total consensus.

I think it puts us in good stead with what select committees can in fact do for this Legislature and for, particularly, the people of Ontario. During the writing of the report the door was closed, the party hats were left at the door and we just sat down and worked for the good of the people of Ontario. If select committees can do that into the future, I think we can accomplish an awful lot for the Legislature and for the present government.

That particular report on alternate fuel sources can certainly put Ontario out in front as leaders in looking after our air and looking after our water, particularly some of the thoughts on the production of electricity. There is a tremendous amount of interest in the province looking at wind turbines. They felt our report was very positive, the fact that we're promoting the idea of run-of-the-river hydraulic plants. I think it has been overlooked because of the power, if you'll excuse the pun, of the nuclear plants.

I'm disappointed that with all that power that's available at night they haven't been producing hydrogen over the last three or four decades and powering some of our urban buses and reducing the pollution that is present in our urban centres.

Just a gentle challenge to the opposition parties: when you're on the right, you tend to think that's the party that's all about economics, and when you're on the left, that's the party that's all about the environment. But a tremendous number of changes have occurred and a tremendous amount of legislation has been brought in by our government since we took office in 1995 for the good of the environment. I challenge the opposition parties with what they brought in when they were in office.

I know they did bring in some things, but I think our party while in government has been exceptional with the number of changes that we've made. I know that we must indeed protect our air, water and land to ensure a healthy, vibrant community. Ontario is no exception to this rule and that is why Ontario has taken numerous actions during the more than seven years we have been in office.

Air quality is perhaps one of the most important environmental issues that concerns Ontarians, especially those of our citizens who are elderly or who are suffering from asthma or other difficulties. Last week we proposed to add fine particulate matter to Ontario's air quality index. Although medical and environmental groups recognize Ontario as having one of Canada's best air quality monitoring system, improving the system will better protect the health of the people of Ontario, especially those who are vulnerable to poor air quality, like children, people with asthma and the elderly.

Our youngest daughter has asthma and of course we're quite concerned about it. She's a delightful young lady who, by the way, just got married last Saturday.

Also in June of this year, Ontario's new emissions reporting registry on air went on-line, making polluters more accountable to the public by providing regular information about what emissions are being put into the air and by whom. This will of course allow consumers to make informed decisions about whom they want to do business with, to know which companies are doing the best job of minimizing their environmental impact and to motivate poor performing companies to do a better job, either by voting with their feet or by actively lobbying those companies to improve their performance.

Talking about the air quality index, I should also mention that our government has already spent $5 million to upgrade Ontario's air monitoring network. As well, the air quality index reporting system was expanded into the rural areas and high-growth areas for the GTA. These two initiatives in June are in addition to many other government initiatives to improve the province's air quality.

Our government's anti-smog action plan is a commitment to reduce the nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compound emissions in Ontario. The goal is to reduce these two emissions by 45% by 2015 when compared to the base year of 1990. In October 2001, the government proposed to tighten this deadline, moving it from 2015 to 2010.

Also, in October 2001, the government set strict emission caps on the six fossil fuel electric plants currently owned by Ontario Power Generation. When fully implemented in 2007, the caps would cut emission limits of smog-causing nitrogen oxide by some 53%, and sulphur oxide by some 25%.

Again, I come back to our member from Windsor-St Clair, and compliment him on bringing forth this particular resolution. I look forward to voting on it and expect that this particular resolution will pass.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I am pleased to join the debate this morning to support my colleague's resolution to strike a select committee for an examination of the relationship between health and the environment.

The member from Windsor-St Clair makes the point that the select committee on alternative fuels brought forward an excellent report, with recommendations supported by all three parties, and I hope at the end of this debate we will have the same kind of consensus that we did on the alternative fuels committee.

Mr Speaker, I know that you and many of my colleagues are aware that I have a special interest in causes related to cancer. The information on causes and effects is overwhelming. We probably could fill this House with all the materials that are available. This speaks to the need for this select committee to do a thorough job to review the literature and findings and make recommendations to this House to ensure that the people of Ontario receive a coordinated approach to research and development. This committee has the potential of advancing research and, ultimately, the health of our citizens.

Let me give you a few facts. Women in Canada are a thousand times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than women in China -- I repeat, a thousand times. There are reasons for this. It's not because it's purely one thing or another but rather a multiplicity of things. It relates to the environment. It relates primarily in this case, though, to diet.

Dr Norman Boyd, head of epidemiology and statistics at the Ontario cancer centre, believes that differences in diet and exercise may explain much of the high rates for Canadian women. Some experts believe that hormone replacement therapy, bleaches, lipsticks and dishwasher fluids play a role in breast cancer. Estimates for women in Canada diagnosed with breast cancer are 20,500 this year, an increase of 1,500 this year alone. Environment is another, the external environment. The member earlier talked about the internal environment; it is correct that that is also a factor.

But experts in the field believe we need to know what role the various environments play, and I agree. How do we tackle the problems if we don't know the causes and the effects?

This week in Hamilton the federal environment minister told participants attending a global conference on water that water will be the overwhelming issue of the 21st century, of 100 years we are entering. The president of the Great Lakes Commission said, "Developing countries face desperate problems." He went on to add that there is a crisis in the developing world, specifically the Great Lakes-St Lawrence region. This is where the majority of our population here in Ontario live. Water is essential to our existence.

We learned from Walkerton how essential water is and, where there are problems, just how life-threatening tainted water can be. Justice O'Connor told us the causes of this failed system.

I'm not sure the government listened. Bill 81, the Nutrient Management Act, was forced through this House. This bill is the very essence of why we need this select committee. If we as legislators are forced to push a flawed bill like that through the House, without knowing the full details of the regulations, how can we ensure the safety of Ontarians? This bill leaves more questions than answers, in my opinion. I don't know how the government could expect us to pass a bill when they can't even tell us what constitutes a nutrient.

What is it that we are flooding on our fields and what will be going into our water systems? We don't know. What we do know is that untreated human waste is still being spread on farmers' fields, the very fields from which we get our food, and this government is going to privatize oversight of nutrient inspection, administration and training services. So we will have one set of rules applied across the province, administered by private firms.

In brief, I would like to point out one matter of extreme importance. The World Health Organization has called an emergency meeting to review evidence that basic foods contain carcinogens. These are foods we all eat, but when fried, baked or grilled at high heats, dangerous levels of carcinogens have been found. These foods are potatoes, rice, bread products. These are foods we all eat.

If even the simplest foods can be detrimental to our health, if the water we drink, cook and bathe in can be detrimental to our health, if the air we breathe contains contaminants, if we are spreading human waste on our fields, there is no doubt that it is time we finally review this matter in depth. That's why I'm happy to be here today to support the proposition and the resolution to create a select committee.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wish to speak briefly to this particular resolution, which I think is important: the establishment of a select committee. I think all of us, in each one of our constituencies and in each of our political experiences, recognize that the question continues to be asked, what is the relationship between our general environment out there and health?

The Minister of Labour is here this morning. He would know, from his briefings and from his own knowledge, that there are contentious issues that exist within the workplace. There is evidence that exists that within the confines of a workplace, certain contaminants, certain chemicals, certain toxic substances may well have an effect on individuals. It's probably even easier to quantify in that case than it is in the general environment.

If you ask people why we have relatively widespread breast cancer, for instance, it doesn't seem to lend itself to any easy answer. Many people out there have asked the question, is it something in our environment? Is there something out there in our environment that impacts upon our health? That's why I think a select committee of this kind is very useful.

Mr Galt, when he was speaking earlier as the Chair of the select committee on alternative fuels, pointed out the value of a select committee. Frankly, I'm a great fan of select committees. One reason is that it focuses attention on a fairly specific area. The second is that people tend to be far less partisan in their consideration of the issues at hand in a select committee setting than they will be in one of the standing committees of the Legislature, which by their nature -- and I don't say this in a critical way -- are an avenue for partisan exchange.

I was very impressed, and somewhat surprised, I must say, because there haven't been that many select committees around to make a judgment on this, at the consensus that was reached. If you read the report of the alternative fuels committee, there are some pretty radical recommendations, pretty sweeping recommendations in it. Yet there was a strong discussion in the committee. When we were doing the report writing -- first of all, we gathered excellent information from people who made presentations to us. We had certain visitations where we were able to glean some information.

Then the real work came along when we had to write the report. I watched people with pretty divergent views and philosophies, all of us on that committee, work together to develop a consensus and come up with a report that I think is an excellent blueprint for not only any government in Ontario but any government in any other jurisdiction on how we can move away from our dependency on fossil fuels, for instance, to renewables, alternative fuels which are much more benign environmentally and do not consume valuable fossil fuels which could be used for other purposes.

I think this committee, which grows out of an experience in the city of Windsor, which has been impacted by environmental problems, without a doubt is a good idea. I think there are members of this Legislature who have a specific interest and would want to be part of this committee and would want to develop a report.

One of the important parts, it seems to me, in this committee is going to be the gathering of information. That's going to be extremely important -- credible information, because there's a lot of conjecture out there. If you go to almost any city in a jurisdiction, if you're the Minister of Health or Minister of the Environment or Minister of Labour, they will say, "We have the highest cancer rate in Ontario," for instance, because we see an incidence which is somewhat concerning to all of us, and understandably so.

So we want to determine whether there is indeed a direct impact from the environment on our health. I think ministers would be interested. I think members of this Legislature would be interested.

Once again, it's not only for our own purposes in Ontario, though that's our primary purpose as legislators in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Also, I think what we find through the select committee could well be of value to people in so many other jurisdictions.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Windsor West -- Hamilton West. I'm sorry.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Thank you, Speaker. That's actually not a bad opening, because it gives me a nice segue into my opening remark, which is that there are a lot of similarities between the environmental issues in Windsor and those in Hamilton.

With that, the first thing I want to do is commend my friend and colleague from Windsor-St Clair, Mr Duncan, who I think has done a real service to this issue by virtue of bringing this here. I don't know at this point -- I haven't gone around and asked -- whether this is going to pass. I hope it does; I sense that there's a good chance it might. It would definitely be one of the most progressive things to come out of this Legislature, and I mean that in the sense of all of us as elected members of our communities as opposed to being broken down into three separate camps.

Just this week, in fact on Monday, in the Hamilton Spectator, in a regular column by Lynda Lukasik. Lynda is an environmental activist who lives in the east end; I believe she lives in Dominic Agostino's riding. She's the founder of Environment Hamilton, a citizens' organization. She just recently received her PhD in planning. This is what she said in Monday's article: "It's time to speak out. We've become guinea pigs in a very large, very uncontrolled scientific experiment, the outcome of which remains unknown. The reality, though, is that we are inextricably linked to the environment around us."

That, in a nutshell, is why I think all of us should support this. There's nothing partisan about it. There's no sense of "gotcha." There's no sense of trying to set anybody up. There are so many issues contained in here. For instance, it was reported in May, just last month, that in the area from Oakville to Brantford, Milton to Niagara Falls, in 1997, 350 tonnes -- 350 tonnes -- of toxic chemicals and carcinogens went up the smokestacks of our industrial facilities. Three years later, it's up 72%, and in that same area of our province, which of course encompasses my home town of Hamilton, it's now at 600 tonnes of toxic emissions going into all those communities.

We really don't have a touchstone we can refer to to say, "Here's the damage that's done," and therefore it either justifies or doesn't justify the expenditure on whatever issue might be in front of either a local city council or this provincial government, or in fact the feds. We don't have that starting point.

How many of us who served on municipal councils have dealt with the issue of pesticides? It continues to be an issue in Hamilton. I suspect it's an issue in Windsor, Sault Ste Marie, right across the province. Most councillors really don't know where to go. Obviously, none of them wants to poison their own citizens, but they don't want to overreact. It's a big issue locally. It may not seem like it in the context of headlines these days, but it's a big issue when you're dealing with local politics. This would give us a chance to deal with that.

In Hamilton, this issue resonates so strongly. First of all, the Red Hill valley expressway: there are studies that can show how many children are going to die and how many elderly people will die and how many children and other citizens will contract asthma and other respiratory diseases because of that expressway. Anything we can do to show that plans where we spend money from the provincial government are going to kill people is information we ought to know

In Hamilton we also experienced Plastimet. We are so lucky that no one died there; that could easily have been an environmental massacre. SWARU in the east end of Hamilton continues to be one of the major polluters in Canada. Yet we don't show the leadership in this place to do something about that. There are literally tens of thousands of new chemicals coming into our environment and we have no idea what the impact is on the human body. It has become far too acceptable to think about someone who has died of cancer as having had some kind of normal death. There's nothing normal about dying of cancer.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Windsor West has two minutes to sum up.

Mr Duncan: Windsor-St Clair.

I want to thank the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Mr Tascona; the member for Toronto-Danforth, Ms Churley; the member for Northumberland, Mr Galt; the member for Ottawa Centre, Mr Patten; the member for St Catharines, Mr Bradley; and the member for Hamilton West, Mr Christopherson. I want to respond briefly to what has been raised by them.

Mr Tascona talked about the terms of reference. I've set the resolution so that the government and the opposition can negotiate that. This is a broad topic. It's something we want to have a meaningful, effective report from, and I'm sincere when I say it's important that we can agree to the terms of reference.

Ms Churley spoke with some experience and passion about bringing people together on complex issues that involve chemical interactions, cancers, the human body and so on.

Mr Galt and Mr Bradley spoke with some knowledge about how effective a select committee can be. Candidly, it was watching that committee and our Legislative Assembly committee that led me to believe this is the right step to take, a small but meaningful step.

Mr Patten of course brought the passion of his own battle with cancer to bear on this debate, and what he has learned about the linkages between our environment and cancer.

Of course, Mr Christopherson has always spoken passionately about his own community's experiences as well as the issues around cancer.

To the people in my own community, we live in some fear of our environment and what effect it's having, particularly on our children. I believe all of us in the Legislature share those concerns. Of 103 members, I would say 103 are unquestionably concerned and would like to have the opportunity to do something. The government members indicated their willingness to support this. I hope that happens at noon. I think this will be a small but important step we can take to begin to address a very complex and challenging issue.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, with apologies to the member from Windsor-St Clair.

TENDER FRUIT LANDS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I move that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario be urged to establish an agricultural preserve in the Niagara Peninsula similar to that in the Napa Valley in California, in order to protect tender fruit lands from further development.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and 10 minutes would not be enough to easily deal with all the issues related to this issue, but as I indicated in a little note I sent to members of the Legislature, the purpose of bringing this issue forward is to get a discussion going on how best to preserve agricultural land.

To put a little bit of focus on an actual preserve itself, this kind of preserve exists in many other jurisdictions, both in Canada and the United States. What it is designed to do is to retain good agricultural land for agricultural purposes. Governments across North America are talking about smart growth now. How do we best use the land we have for the benefit of the population as a whole? In my view, that is a good discussion, and that kind of debate is very helpful and very public at this time.

I focus on the Niagara Peninsula because I am very familiar with the Niagara Peninsula and the fruit lands there. I am alarmed at how quickly it's being lost to development. I think it's a genuine asset to the whole province.

We're lucky in the Niagara Peninsula that we've got, first of all, good soils for the growing of grapes and other tender fruit. The second thing we have, besides good soils, and perhaps even more important, is a microclimate that is conducive to growing tender fruit. It is said that the difference between the growing season on top of the Niagara Escarpment, that is, south of the northern portion of the Niagara Peninsula, and the area down in the little pocket near Lake Ontario is about 27 days' growing, and those are frost-free days.

We have as well some of the best farmers you're going to find probably anywhere in North America in terms of tender fruit, people who have had long experience, people who have handed down farms from generation to generation.

With those three particular assets, it seems to me we would want to preserve as much agricultural land as possible. I wish I could say it could be done through local zoning laws, but it can't. It's very difficult for municipal politicians to resist the temptation of development, because development is instant money. It is often looked upon as success. Indeed, we want to see development in certain places that are not on agricultural land. One of the initiatives we've seen in this Legislature has been that of a focus on brownfield development.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs was very excited about being able to move forward with that, and a significant step has been taken. I think that helps very much in terms of getting people to redevelop parts of their municipalities and to intensify their development.

One of the things we all know is that if you want to save the farmland, you have to save the farmer. That's something very basic. It seems to me, and somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, that one of the steps the government took in this budget was to treat farmland in a different way for taxation purposes. That's positive, in my view. It's difficult sometimes for those of us in opposition to look at budgets. They always say, "What is good about the budget?" You can always find some things, and that's one step that I think is important in preserving this land.

From the legislative library and other sources, I have a number of things that are being done around North America, not only in the Napa Valley of California, which is highly successful agriculturally and tourist-wise -- it brings in well over $1 billion per year in just the revenues from the selling of wine -- but many other areas and states in the United States that have found ways to assist farmers, while keeping the farmland for the purposes of agriculture. I'd like to see us look at these. I mentioned in my note to members of the Legislature that I wanted to get a discussion going. I want to get that discussion focused, however, on some kind of agricultural preserve.

I'm not going to be specific today. We've mentioned select committees. Frankly, I think it's a great topic for a select committee. We have some members here who have direct experience in agriculture, in the marketing of our products and so on. I think it would be valuable to have them in to tell us how we can best preserve this land. I don't think any one of the plans I see in the various states in the United States and other jurisdictions in and of itself is necessarily the solution; perhaps a combination is. A combination would be very helpful.

I look at that land and some people would almost cry when they see that good agricultural land being lost. I was reading in my own local newspaper about the member for Stoney Creek, the Minister of Labour, and his commitment to the preservation of agricultural land. He sees it in his constituency and in his general areas -- areas that were once really top-notch areas for agriculture being lost to development. Again, in some cases we want to see development take place. This is not something designed to block development, but it is something designed to make sure we can retain good agricultural land for good purposes.

The Minister of Consumer and Business Services is here. He has certain responsibilities for wine, and as Minister of Tourism he had certain responsibilities. People come from other parts of the province to the Niagara Peninsula not to see more shopping centres, as they might see adjacent to Toronto -- Mississauga has some great shopping centres. So have we; we want to say that. But generally speaking, you find people from the Metropolitan Toronto area come to our area to enjoy the rural experience, to enjoy what are now top-notch wines and to get tender fruit they can get right at a fruit stand.

It's top-notch, fresh and of the highest quality. That's why I think it's going to be important for us to try to look for ways to implement smart growth as it relates to agriculture.

I know that it's nice to have your own food supply. We know we keep our prices reasonable for Canadians when we have some competition here in Canada. If we don't have the competition from our own local growers, we will be gouged by people outside. But we still have to make sure our local growers have programs in place that ensure they're not penalized by being compelled to retain their own land for agricultural purposes.

I see urban development taking place. I have statistics from the Niagara region which show how much we've already lost of that agricultural land and how important it is to preserve that which is left. We also have a situation where you'll see developers buy up land and then don't farm it.

They go to the local council and say, "See, it's not being farmed anyway, so we might as well develop it." That does two things: it militates in favour of development of good agricultural land, but it also drives up prices so farmers themselves who may want to expand their operations, if they are able to do so, have to pay a huge price for that land. It artificially drives up the price of that land for farmers who may need it for expansion purposes.

I also know there's the issue of severances. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has expressed its concern from time to time about severances because that's death by a thousand cuts. If you are not careful in giving severances -- and I'm not saying there isn't a case from time to time for severances, but if you allow them to be given willy-nilly, if you allow them to be traded one municipality to another municipality -- and that's what happens, now that it's not under regional control, it's back under local control -- ultimately the region probably has to agree to these severances.

People start bargaining: "You give me my severance in my community and I'll give you your severance in your community." That's death by a thousand cuts.

What happens as well is, it starts to urbanize rural areas and then you get people complaining about natural farm practices. Farmers in this House would know that. You have urban people move out to enjoy the countryside, only then to want to impose upon the countryside the urban conditions they came from in some circumstances. You get complaints about noise, odours, dust and dirt from people who have moved from an urban setting to a rural setting.

I think it would be a national tragedy to lose this farmland. I think we have a chance to preserve it for future generations. I don't want to pretend it's an easy thing to do, but I do want to say this: if you don't preserve the farmers, if you don't assist the farmers in ensuring that they get a reasonable return, whether it's through programs from the government or the prices that are paid for the products, then you won't save the land. I want to save the farmers as well as the land, but it's going to take a bold step from a provincial level of government to do this. I think our Legislature has a chance to do that today by, in general terms, approving this resolution.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus with enthusiasm for this resolution. I'm rather fortunate because I get to go to the Niagara South Federation of Agriculture dinners because part of my riding is Niagara South. The member from Erie-Lincoln gets invited to those too. I also get to go to the Niagara North Federation of Agriculture dinners, where Mr Bradley is inevitably in attendance as well. Mr Bradley doesn't have the blessing I have of being invited as frequently to Niagara South, although I suspect if he asked them to, they would.

But why I make a point of this is that there's a remarkable contrast in agriculture in Niagara region. When we're down at the Niagara South Federation of Agriculture dinner and the annual meeting -- and the member for Erie-Lincoln will confirm this, I'm sure -- we're talking about some diverse types of farming and agriculture: chicken, cattle, among others, some crop farming. But when we go up to Niagara North and sit down with those farmers at their annual meeting dinner, we meet second, third and fourth generations of tender fruit farmers. We also meet newcomers.

I was grateful for being given a copy of Doug Draper's

article in Vines magazine. Doug Draper is a very bright and very capable journalist down in Niagara region, who has written a very succinct and powerful argument for the need to preserve agricultural lands in Niagara. Although this isn't unique to Niagara, Niagara is unique in terms of the types of agricultural lands that warrant our prompt attention.

As I say, in terms of families where three, four and even five generations have been farming the land in Niagara north and Niagara south -- in Niagara north there are tender fruit farmers operating vineyards. Mr Draper in his

article in Vines magazine writes of Michael Kacaba, for instance, a newcomer to Niagara, investing substantially, not only money but also his family's future, their lifestyle in developing a small vineyard to a company to provide grape product for a small boutique winery.

I've got to tell you: travel along Highway 8 from, oh, Grimsby down through Niagara region east and you're confronted by -- you can travel down that road in May and think you've seen all the wineries that are there, but go again in June or July and you discover yet more, and all of them not only with delightful product but some of them, in increasing numbers, award-winning, and on an international level in an unprecedented way.

So we indeed are the trustees of an incredibly unique and, yes, valuable -- invaluable -- heritage. Once you pave it over, there ain't any more -- ever. And you can never build it; it's not like building a new one. Nothing short of God and millions of years of history can create the microclimate we find north of the escarpment, down there along the shores of Lake Ontario, not only the microclimate but the incredibly rich soil, the two combined creating -- if the west is the wheat bowl -- the fruit bowl, not only of Ontario but also of Canada, especially when it comes to tender fruit.

I was also especially grateful and especially proud not only of my association but also of my predecessor Mel Swart's association and his strong support, like mine, for PALS, the acronym for Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society. This is a group of committed people who over decades now -- hasn't it been, Mr Bradley? -- have been fighting to preserve agricultural land in Niagara region.

Their first president was Dr Bob Hoover, a professor at Brock University -- still very active, mind you, very much a senior citizen but you wouldn't know it in terms of how active he is in the community and how active he remains in the fight to preserve agricultural land, along with so many others. PALS itself has nurtured leadership that's matured through the years. Our own Dr John Bacher from St Catharines, along with others, has developed some incredible expertise around (1) the need to preserve this agricultural land and (2) methods by which it can be meaningfully preserved.

At the end of the day, the fundamental battle is between developers -- look, far be it for me to tell developers they shouldn't want to develop what is very expensive housing on this very unique land in this very unique microclimate situation. Of course they want to. That's a tribute to the uniqueness and high quality of it. I acknowledge that if they're unfettered -- you see, this government wants to let the market prevail.

This government has been disinclined to understand the role of government in terms of its need to be interventionist and, yes, to protect people and our most valuable assets and our future from the incredible pressures of the free market. If developers have their way -- and since, what is it, 1997, they have -- that tender fruit land is going to be gone; it'll be eliminated and it'll never be returned.

It'll take millions and millions more years and yet more historical accidents globally for another similar climate and chunk of soil to be created, and it could be a hundred miles from here or it could be 1,000 or 10,000 miles from here.

Now, back in the early part of the 1990s, Bill 163 provided part of the solution. One also has some significant sympathy for farmers, who have seen their fruit prices under attack by virtue of free trade and the huge growth of the importation of mega-farm fruit from the southern United States, particularly California. Farmers have been under attack.

Farmers have not seen the subsidies and support in this province and in this country that farmers in other western countries have enjoyed -- quite frankly not "enjoy" in terms of receiving it with such great pleasure, but acknowledgment by the governments of those other countries that an intrinsic agricultural industry is in and of itself an extremely valuable and important thing to preserve. If you forfeit production of your own food and become reliant on another jurisdiction, then you are enslaved forever.

While you can tear down a building and build a new one, you can't pave over land and then hope some time down the road to re-soil it and restore its agricultural potential.

So we have a historic and national interest in preserving this agricultural land. And I've got to tell you that I am incredibly persuaded by the years, the decades of work PALS has done research on the issue. Indeed Gracia Janes provided me with a copy of her address made in Guelph in April this year on behalf of PALS, the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, where she talks about PALS's history, its process of canvassing various approaches and techniques. Its final conclusion: the free market is the antithesis of preservation of agricultural land.

The pressures are so strong, so profound -- again, farmers under attack with their diminished fruit prices because of the competition that was permitted as a result of the free trade agreement and the absence of meaningful governmental support, unlike farmers in other jurisdictions in so many other countries -- that farmers find themselves, after lifetimes of farming the land and being good trustees of it, with no option but to sell it if they're to have any sort of retirement with any decency or dignity.

One has to understand and be sympathetic to the pressures those specific farmers have, especially when generation after generation of the land has been farmed but younger generations don't find the farm life, with its incredibly long days and heavy workload and modest income, to be attractive in contrast or comparison to the careers that are available to them. So we understand, and I'm sure the author of this resolution understands, the interests of farmers.

But those same farmers also understand the interest in preserving the land, and that's why the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, after as thorough and complete a course of research as could ever be conducted, has been an advocate of, and the New Democratic Party government of the early 1990s in fact enacted, the concept of creating agricultural land reserves by virtue of easements.

We know that we can't rely upon mere zoning, because subsequent governments can alter that zoning, governments like this one, that are the little puppets of the corporate developers -- and for reason: corporate developers have invested a lot in this government, and this is the best government the corporate developers could buy, or rent. When you take a look at campaign contributions and you see who has supported this government and its candidates financially, you see to whom this government is beholden, and it is those same corporate developers.

So mere legislation and mere land zoning in and of itself isn't sufficient, because subsequent governments can alter it, change it, flip it, what have you.

The most concrete, meaningful and historic way of preserving agricultural land is through the easement system proposed in Bill 163 in the early 1990s -- a policy reform that was underway in a meaningful and effective way, because it also compensates the farmer for reducing the value of his land to mere agricultural usage as compared to the value it would have for development purposes -- for residential and commercial purposes.

So the farmers' interests are met in terms of its being compensatory. Does it cost money? Yes, but as PALS points out and as Doug Draper would point out, in contrast to the incredible investment we have made, as a succession of governments, in the wine industry, for instance, in Niagara, it's but a pittance, and we have a strong interest in maintaining that wine industry.

One of the observations that has been made is that with the growth of wineries and the expectation and promotion of Niagara wines, the access to land adequate to grow the grapes to make those wines is rapidly becoming so restrictive as to constitute a restraint or constraint on the growth of the wine industry in and of itself.

This government could have taken this bold step, though it didn't, but we all advocate, I hope, that Ontario wines should be 100% Ontario grape, bar none. If there is even one grape from elsewhere in a bottle of so-called Ontario wine, then sorry, it's not Ontario wine. Why should we as Ontarians be taking any other position? We've got farmers and wine makers down in Niagara working hard, making major investments and bringing kudos to Niagara and Ontario, and darn it, they need the support of government. At the very least, government could make it quite clear that Ontario wine means 100% Ontario grapes.

New Democrats endorse this resolution. New Democrats indeed continue to advocate for the easement system that was put into place by Bill 163, the policy endeavour that was crushed rapidly by the Conservative government shortly after they attained power. New Democrats condemn this government for its indifference to the preservation of agricultural land in Niagara and, quite frankly, in other parts of Ontario as well. But the focus today, of course, is Niagara.

New Democrats continue to stand with PALS, the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, its leadership and its membership. New Democrats continue to support the initiative of PALS, and New Democrats call once again for the establishment of a land easement system that will preserve this agricultural land, not only in the short term but quite frankly forever, and that will do so in a fair way, that will do so in a way that financially compensates the farmers who deserve financial compensation, a land easement system that will ensure the preservation of agricultural land in Niagara for generations -- not just decades but centuries to come.

Anything less is mere tinkering. Anything less is less than a sincere commitment to the preservation of this unique, scarce and valuable asset of Ontario and indeed all Canadians.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I am pleased to speak to this resolution this morning, put forward by the member for St Catharines, a resolution proposing that the Ontario government establish an agricultural preserve in the Niagara Peninsula to protect the tender fruit lands from further development.

As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I can assure the member for St Catharines that our ministry and our government is absolutely committed to working with our agri-food and rural communities to strengthen, to sustain and safeguard our rural environment and our food production systems.

This government fully recognizes the important contribution that agriculture and the food sector make to this province. Clearly, the economic benefits are enormous, and we're committed to the tender fruit and grape growing industries. I will mention, for example, that we're funding a five-year, $10-million OSTAR development grant to promote and increase the domestic and international market share of grape wines grown in Ontario.

On May 10 of last year, Ontario's profile as a world competitor in wine making got a big boost with an investment of more than $2 million under the Healthy Futures program. Together with our industry partners, we're building the wines of Ontario as a word-class brand which will increase investment and economic activity and certainly create jobs. The ministry also provides a great deal of technical expertise and advice to tender fruit and grape growers to help them improve and protect their crops.

With respect to land use planning in the peninsula, we certainly recognize the importance of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and, more recently, the Smart Growth initiative of this government. I'll make mention as well of the mid-Niagara corridor planning process. This is a process, in part, to relieve pressure on the area below the escarpment from the QEW, which presently, and regrettably, runs through Niagara fruit lands.

I also personally would like to make mention of a Manitoba program I've been looking at, the ALUS program. This stands for alternate land use services. It's piqued the interest of farmers in my riding. It's a conservation program that encourages farmers to set aside marginal land, wetlands perhaps, for natural wildlife habitat. It's a voluntary program. I recognize that it goes beyond what this bill is proposing. Mr Bradley may wish to take a look at the ALUS program.

I could expand further on some of these initiatives, but I will be splitting my time with some of my colleagues. I'll close by saying that with respect to the initiative taken by the member for St Catharines, I cannot support this resolution simply because establishing an agricultural preserve in the Niagara Peninsula is not the responsibility of the province of Ontario; it's a decision to be made by local municipal government. Both the province of Ontario and the state of California have very similar approaches to land use planning.

We believe that the province's role is to provide strong land use planning policy directions to municipalities, as does the state of California, and to allow municipalities the flexibility to develop within these directions according to local needs, as Napa county has done in establishing the preserve in the west.

I support the protection of agriculture -- I own a farm -- but, in light of my preceding comments, not this resolution, not that the Ontario government be the one to establish an agricultural preserve.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to be joining the debate in support of my colleague from St Catharines. I'm disappointed that I gather the official government position will be against this resolution. I think if we reflect on one of our key roles here in the Legislature, it is to look ahead at how things are going to unfold, and where we have enormous public assets in significant danger of being eroded, the Legislature has a responsibility to act.

I just reflect back. Algonquin park was a decision by the Legislature of Ontario, where it was seen that logging was going to run the risk of destroying an enormous asset for the province and we stepped in. The Niagara Escarpment is another example where, among other things, as the province looked ahead and saw that piece by piece the Niagara Escarpment, I think heavily because of aggregate producers -- people were going to mine the rock and the stone there. The province felt a responsibility to step in and preserve it. Thank goodness we did.

I've been most directly involved in two things. With the Rouge park, contrary to what the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture said, the province did step in and established, among other things, an agricultural preserve. I might add that my colleague Mr Bradley was deeply involved in that decision. That decision was made as a result of the community launching a very, very effective effort to persuade the government of the day -- it happened to be a Liberal government -- to take action to preserve the Rouge treasure. Governments of all three political stripes -- the Liberals, the NDP and now the Conservatives -- have embraced that and have actually expanded it.

The most recent one -- and my colleague Mr Colle was deeply involved in this, and I personally think the one in the Legislature primarily responsible for making it happen -- was the preservation of the Oak Ridges moraine.

All four of those examples are treasures for the province of Ontario, for the people of Ontario, who have said, through their elected officials, "We need action taken to preserve it."

Now we've got another example. My colleague from St Catharines, Mr Bradley -- his thrust, I might add, for the 15 years I've known him here in the Legislature, has been the environment, protecting our environment for the future. For me, and I think for most people in Ontario, if you look at that Niagara area it is a jewel. There are few, if any, people in the area of southwestern Ontario, maybe all of Ontario, who have not visited that area at least once.

For most of us it's two or three times a year that we travel there, whether it be for May 24, when the blossoms are all out, or whether it be a trip through the wineries. It is a jewel. There are at least two articles here from presidents of wineries expressing their very significant concern that, day by day, there is an encroachment on that jewel.

This, in my mind, is not unlike decisions the Legislature made -- I just quoted four of them: Algonquin park, the Niagara Escarpment, the Rouge park, and, just within the last few months, the Oak Ridges moraine. This has the same significance. An issue like this creeps up on you. Day by day it's an encroachment, unless you have a vision that says that, "10, 15, 20 years from now, we do not want to see this continued incursion into the farmland in that area."

My colleague Mr Bradley also acknowledges that there are people with a huge vested interest in not proceeding with this. That's understandable. Many of them, unless there's a proper plan for dealing with them, would lose financially. I do think we need to make sure that we treat those people fairly. But we have to have the vision here in the Legislature to look ahead and say, "We need to take a step now."

I commend my colleague Mr Bradley for his foresight in doing this, and I would hope that in spite of what I gather will be the official government position, many members of the Conservative back bench will support this resolution.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): It is indeed a pleasure to speak to this particular issue, because it's an important issue that has been near and dear to my heart. I want to commend the member for St Catharines for bringing forth the resolution, and also thank him for recognizing that it is something that has been important to me.

We have an opportunity here. Realistically, it is rare in the political world that all the stars start to line up and it becomes a win-win for everybody. The Minister of Consumer and Business Services will speak later on, and he may point out that our wine industry is burgeoning. We now have access to the European market, which means there is more and more interest in Ontario wines. Ontario wines for the most part are grown in the Niagara Escarpment area, down in the Niagara tender fruit lands. There's a reason for it. That area is a microclimate.

It is a protected area, from the lake -- it's buffered by the lake -- and it's protected by the escarpment. The member from St Catharines talked about the Napa Valley. The Napa Valley is a phenomenal experience. This is again a microclimate, but we have an even better microclimate here in Ontario for the growing of wines. People don't realize this, but in the Napa Valley the vintners, the people who are actually growing the grapes, will hire helicopters to come in on hot days to hover over the vineyards to stir up the air so it doesn't cause a drying-out factor on the grapes.

It gives them a much better hybrid grape. They go to that extreme to improve the quality. In Ontario we have a prevailing wind that blows over the Niagara Escarpment which automatically stirs it up. We have this incredible microclimate, and we must recognize that to continue to expand our wine market we have to preserve the tender fruit lands.

We have to recognize that development naturally occurs, and it has been occurring. If you look at Hamilton, it is slowly sprawling outwards. We see it happening. I'm from the Stoney Creek riding. We have Stoney Creek and Grimsby in my riding, and you can see the development slowly moving out. What happens historically with development is that the people who move into the community have come from an urban community. They've moved to Grimsby, a wonderful town. It's a quaint town. It's like Mayberry. I mean, everybody knows everybody. It's a wonderful community.

So people move from the urban centre to this community and it's a developed area, and naturally when the next development begins the people who are living there say, "I moved here, so why not have more development?" But what I have experienced in my riding is a resurgence of the recognition that they want to preserve what's there. I've had 28 round tables since I've been elected. I've had a number of them on agricultural issues. They want to preserve the tender fruit lands.

The member for St Catharines is absolutely correct. We say, "The municipalities make these decisions." You'll find this fascinating. I was visited -- it was divine intervention, if you will -- by a constituent just last week. He came in to speak to me about an issue. He didn't know this topic was coming up from the member for St Catharines.

He brought in to me that there is a situation in Grimsby right now where a planning consultant has come in and done a study, and -- this boggles my mind -- they're saying that the soil below the escarpment in the tender fruit land area is of a lower grade than the soil above the escarpment. A planning consultant has come in and is saying, "You can farm above the hill -- we'll put peaches up on the hill -- but below the escarpment, where the tender fruit lands are, it's low-grade agricultural land, so we have to develop it." It's the opposite. The low-grade land is on top of the escarpment.

Ask the farmers up there. They can't get grapes to grow. You can't grow peaches up there. For anyone to suggest that they can is absurd.

We have to preserve the tender fruit lands below, and that's why, when I was Minister of Transportation, I was so keen on developing the mid-peninsula corridor. I saw it as an opportunity -- again, stars lining up. We can push development above the hill and begin to preserve what is really a remarkable piece of property.

So not only do I support the resolution, but I also believe we need either a select committee or a task force where we can do like we did on the Oak Ridges moraine: bring the parties together to start dealing with this matter and proceed in a more prudent way to preserve the Niagara tender fruit lands.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I commend the Minister of Transportation for his position on supporting the member for St Catharines on this issue. The member for St Catharines should be commended, because he always is a pioneer. In this instance he has shown that we have to think ahead and we can't think back.

Hopefully we can get other ministers, as did Mr Clark, to jump onside. This is a no-brainer. It has to be done. It's shocking. In Ontario, there were 7,792 fewer farms in 2001 compared to 1996, about 8,000 fewer farms in Ontario since this government came to power, an 11.5% decline. The Niagara fruit belt, one of the world's premier tender fruit areas, is basically being victimized by this government's smart sprawl policies, which are just paving the place, which are just putting cookie-cutter homes everywhere, and we are losing these incredibly valuable jewels.

Don Ziraldo is the pioneer, along with Mr Bradley, in protecting this gorgeous area. This

article says, "In the more than 30 years since this ordinance was passed" -- comparing to the one in Napa Valley -- "not an acre of prime grape land has been removed from the preserve, and thousands of acres have been added." This is in California, Napa Valley. Then Mr Ziraldo says that by contrast, here in Niagara it "has become critical. We need a moratorium declared on development on all rural lands on and below the Niagara Escarpment, and it has to be done by the province -- like yesterday." The province has to be dragged kicking and screaming.

Look at what the Ontario Municipal Board has been doing and what the province has allowed to be done all through this tender fruit belt: application after application -- the famous one in Fonthill -- allowing, again, cookie-cutter homes over prime fruit land, and the government twiddles its thumbs. Shame on them.

We talk about the wine industry, how important it is. Just the other day we had an amazing feat by a Torontonian who is a vintner, in the wine industry. These people should be praised and honoured; instead, they won't mention them in this House. But I will mention their names: Charlene and Joseph DeMaria. They won five awards internationally. Joseph DeMaria's Vineland-based Royal DeMaria winery won for its icewines at a competition in Bordeaux, France.

"It is the first time in the history of the award ... that any winery has won five gold medals." This guy, who is a hairdresser in Bloor West Village, started growing grapes for icewine in Vineland and won five gold medals. It's like winning the World Cup or the Stanley Cup. This government won't support or praise guys like DeMaria, won't mention his name in the House, and he has put us on the map.

"Linda Watts, the export and special projects manager at the Wine Council of Ontario, says Royal DeMaria's wines winning five gold medals is a coup for the winery and the country.

"`Winning one of these medals is a marketing tool for wineries, particularly in the domestic market....

"`To have one winery win five golds is quite a significant achievement.'

"There were 547 wines ... entered from 20 countries," and Mr DeMaria, who has to be a hairdresser to make a living on the other end, won five gold medals. These are the pioneers, the heroes who will create jobs, put us on the world map and bring in export dollars.

What this government is doing is allowing homes -- Home Depot and Canadian Tire -- to pave all this precious fruit land. Support Mr Bradley's far-reaching, far-sighted initiative and you will preserve this gold mine, literally, for generations. We have some of the best wines in the world and some of the best fruit in the world. As the minister's assistant has said, they don't want to do anything to protect it. That's shameful. How stupid can you be when you've got this resource under your nose in the Niagara region? Listen to Mr Bradley and do the right thing for Niagara region.

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I'm pleased to rise to speak to the resolution before the House today and commend my colleague from St Catharines for bringing this important motion here for debate, one that I feel quite strongly about as the MPP who has the pleasure of representing the Lincoln area, one of the most beautiful areas in the peninsula, and in the province, I would argue.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Hudak: Fort Erie, Port Colborne and Wainfleet are not on the escarpment but are beautiful areas in themselves, and I'm quite proud to represent Erie-Lincoln as a whole.

I appreciate the member's comments and those of my colleague from Welland-Thorold and my colleague from the Stoney Creek riding as well. The member from Eglinton -- I think there was a little bit of silliness in terms of accuracy, but I appreciate the tone of the member from St Catharines, I'll put it that way, because the issue is complex. I think the government has done a lot to support this and we can always do more.

I've had the pleasure as well of serving as Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and now as Minister of Consumer and Business Services, and being able to make an impact, as well being a local MPP, in keeping Niagara green. For a local resident, there's nothing quite like sitting out in the vineyard on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon or at our annual summer picnic at Moyers' cherry orchards in Vineland or hiking along the Bruce Trail.

Part of this agricultural land, for sure an important part of this debate -- Marcy's Woods, a topic also very near and dear to my heart, keeping that in public hands. I really want to thank Minister Snobelen and Minister Ouellette for their support. The province put forward $900,000 with the Nature Conservancy of Canada to help purchase that. There was some help from the town of Fort Erie, and I would like to see some help from other areas because they're not making any more of it. This is the last vestige of Carolinian forest and some of the best tender fruit land in Ontario.

That's why I'm speaking in support of this resolution today, to keep Niagara green and to support the notion of an agricultural preserve in the peninsula.

The reference to Napa Valley is a good reference. As the member said, you don't want to duplicate everything. It's a unique area. But Napa serves as a good example because of the tourism element as well, being relatively close to San Francisco and enjoying the benefits of that from a tourism standpoint, which then also fuels the agricultural economy. Certainly with the populations of Toronto and the greater Buffalo area, within an even shorter drive than to Napa from San Francisco, that poses outstanding opportunities if we keep it as the gem it is, as a green area.

But at the same time, with those populations expanding -- as my colleague from Stoney Creek says, we've seen Hamilton heading east into Stoney Creek, into Grimsby -- that also puts pressures on developing that land and there's a risk of losing some of this tender fruit land that is not being made any more.

First and foremost, it is most important I think to make sure it's economical for the farmers to continue to farm, to make sure they have an incentive to keep that property in production. So ideally the value of the land in fruit production would exceed the value of the land in development. The work we're doing on the wine and culinary tourism strategy -- I was proud as the Minister of Tourism to bring that forward as part of our wine strategy. The goal here to bring Americans, Germans, Japanese and folks from across Ontario into Niagara to enjoy the vineyards, cherry orchards and such and, again, to give that economic incentive to keep it in production.

Now, as Minister of Consumer and Business Services, there is a great opportunity to build on that, to sell more of that wine and associated product to Ontarians, increasing sales to the LCBO as well as abroad into European markets, breaking down those borders.

Of course, it's not just the grape and wine industry. We've made efforts as well on the tender fruit side -- peaches, sour cherries and such -- and do what we can to make it economical for the farmers to keep in production. So while Napa serves as a good example, I think, on the tourism side, we have to be careful, as my colleagues have said, to avoid a cookie-cutter approach -- to look at Napa, to look at Okanagan and other examples, but to find a solution unique to Niagara.

Yes, I do believe the province can play a very important role in preserving this, because Niagara is simply not for Niagarans but for the province as a whole to enjoy. In that debate, in that discussion, I think it's important for us to make sure that the serious concerns of farmers are taken into consideration.

When I had my discussions in the past with Dave Elliott from the Niagara South Federation of Agriculture; Len Troup from the tender fruit growers; Wayne Lockey from the grape growers -- I just had a good conversation with him last night; and Linda Franklin from the Wine Council, among others -- concerns to make sure that we don't do an outright ban on agricultural land, that we achieve that proper balance between incentives to keep it green, to make sure we preserve the most important types of land, but at the same time not to bind farmers' hands from doing what they can do to make sure their farms are profitable.

So I'm very pleased to speak to the resolution and congratulate the member from St Catharines for bringing this forward.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to support and speak in favour of the member from St Catharines, who provides us with a guideline not just for his riding and the people around him but a concept that should be embraced -- and I think it's been alluded to by the member opposite and some members here -- that this is an opportunity for us to go beyond that and look at preservation of lands as we use them in a symbiotic relationship between us and the land. I think we should also point out what this should not be about.

This shouldn't be about urban versus rural, this shouldn't be about developers versus environmentalists, this shouldn't be about profit versus a way of life -- it should be a combination of all of those that basically says we should be smart and measured to grab an understanding of the symbiotic relationship that we do have between the land and the people.

This is a start, this is a step in the right direction that makes us all become quite aware of what our relationship is with the land and our environment, because the two go together. It should be about understanding for the future, because we are not in, as I think we should be -- we should be talking about, and could be and must be talking about, the competition of foreign interests. We are probably looking at an opportunity to prevent self-destruction because the competition is going to come in if we don't do something about this particular situation.

Right now, China pretty well owns the market in apples, in pears, in all of the other fruits and vegetables that are starting to be taken over by other people who have that relationship already understood.

I also want to make a comment about brownfields. It was mentioned once before. Councillor Marguerite Ceschi-Smith in my riding is spearheading -- she's the chair of the brownfields committee in our city, but further to that she's on FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. She's the chair of a brownfields committee and is talking about national strategies of brownfields. So inside of that comes the use of greenhouses that the member referred to earlier.

There's an opportunity for us to start these businesses and put them on brownfields within municipalities, inside, in terms of development that stops the sprawl we're talking about and also preserves the growing lands we're talking about in terms of looking forward.

The member opposite speaking on behalf of the government disappointed me somewhat in terms of his reference to the municipalities, that they can work it out. Quite frankly, the government extracted themselves from water for the longest time as to our environment, and we got Walkerton, because we had a mishmash of opportunity. The very same member sponsored a bill and did some public hearings on Bill 81, province-wide concepts of how we do nutrient management. Why didn't you leave it to the municipalities? This is the same thing. It's the use of our lands. There should be standards across the province that we develop.

It's quite odd that in one breath he talks about municipalities having to take care of business and yet he's the one who introduces and brings us Bill 81, which gives us province-wide standards in the use of nutrient management. That's got something to do with the land. It's unbelievable the government would take that position. We have some very smart people on the other side who understand that relationship, and they're starting to talk to us about understanding that nutrient management should be province-wide. The member opposite, who introduces the very same bill, turns around and says, "No, now we want to push it back to the municipalities."

We've got Bill 81 and we've got Walkerton, where we're still cleaning up and we're taking it back to the province. We come up with a great resolution that says the province should involve itself in a non-partisan way in taking a good, hard look at how we're going to take care of our lands in the future, and the member opposite tells us, "No, we don't want to get our fingers into this pie." Well, it's time to, because you have to look forward.

Again I bring to the House the concept of seven generations. They were so smart when they told us about that. What we do today has to be looking forward seven generations to ensure that seven generations from now, things will be right. We have a stepping stone and the member from St Catharines is bang on when he says we have to start taking a look at this holistically.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk to this bill. I ask the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant to get on the bus, because it's the right way to go.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to conclude the debate on this resolution. I think it's a worthy resolution. Coming from the riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, we have the Holland Marsh, which is something that is very important to the province in terms of agricultural land. The principle the member from St Catharines is putting forward would apply equally to the Holland Marsh and what it means to this province. I would say that the government's provincial policy statement clearly states the importance of protecting prime agricultural land.

The Acting Speaker: The member for St Catharines has two minutes to sum up.

Mr Bradley: I want to thank all the members who have contributed to this very non-partisan debate that we've had in the Legislature today. In my view, it would be sheer madness to convert this prime agricultural land we've all talked about for development purposes when there is other land that is available around the province for those purposes.

I want to thank Dr Bob Hoover of the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, along with Gracia Janes, who have provided information over the years and who have engendered a lot of discussion about this topic. I want to thank David Pond from the legislative library, who produced some very good information that I'd be happy to share with any member of the House about programs south of the border and in other jurisdictions that are designed to help both the farmer and society as a whole by keeping the farmer on the farm and making it a viable operation and protecting agricultural land.

The

article by Doug Draper, which has been made reference to here today, talks specifically about grapes. We all know in this House how successful our wine industry is, because we have some outstanding growers who produce the grapes and excellent vintners who produce the wine. We also have other products such as peaches, pears, cherries, apricots and apples -- a variety of fruit that is produced in the Niagara Peninsula. It's of great benefit. This is a tourist gem for those of us in Ontario, something we will want to preserve.

I agree with the consensus out there that some kind of task force or select committee should look at the specifics of trying to create such a preserve, because each area is unique and different and we need that kind of input to see what's best for Niagara in preserving Niagara's land. We have an opportunity in this House to protect a genuine asset for future generations, and I certainly hope this Legislature will agree with the resolution this morning and do so.

VISITORS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to introduce to the House my father, Michael Martin from Sault Ste Marie, and his sister and my aunt, Ellen Scougal from Scarborough, Mary Malone from Newcastle, Sister Moyra Martin from Ireland and Anne Doyle from Victoria.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Welcome to the Legislature.

APPOINTMENT OF

SELECT COMMITTEE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 53.

Mr Duncan has moved private member's notice of motion number 7. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

TENDER FRUIT LANDS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Now we will deal with ballot item number 54.

Mr Bradley has moved private member's notice of motion number 8. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The motion is carried.

It being after 12 of the clock and all business related to private members' public business having been taken care of, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): It is regrettable that thousands of children in the city of Toronto are casualties of the labour dispute between service workers and the city of Toronto.

All permits for parks, tennis courts, outdoor sports fields and civic squares are cancelled, a majority of which provided activities for children. All city-operated swimming pools and arenas are closed, including pools at the board of education facilities. All recreational programming, such as camps, drop-ins, clubs, swimming lessons and walking tours are cancelled. Community centres, fitness centres and community schools are closed and their programming cancelled.

This means children in the city will not be able to go to their local library, take swimming lessons, visit their local museum, play with their local sports team, or keep cool in the wading pool or splash pad.

The city of Toronto finds itself in a most untenable position because this government has downloaded so many services to the municipal tax base. We hope that the city and the union can come to an agreement quickly so that children in the city of Toronto will not be deprived of the important services that they need and deserve for a healthy, happy summer.

JUST THE TICKET

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I want to speak today about York region's summer theatre companies, including the Red Barn Theatre in Jackson's Point. They have together formed an alliance with the Stratford and Shaw festivals and Ontario's tourism ministry to offer a unique entertainment package called Just the Ticket.

This initiative is a partnership between a group of theatres and Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership. The promotion also involves Newmarket's Resurgence Theatre, Aurora's Howard Johnson Hotel, the Eaton Hall Inn and Conference Centre in King, Pheasant Run golf course in East Gwillimbury, and Wildflower Farm in King.

In this all-inclusive package, people are offered theatre tickets, overnight accommodations and tickets to entertainment venues at a single price. The Red Barn package covers admission to any of this summer's five productions, an overnight stay including breakfast at a bed and breakfast or hotel, and admission to area venues including Georgina Pioneer Village and Sibbald Point Provincial Park.

This is a unique promotion that will attract tourists to York region. All you have to do is look through a brochure and pick any Just the Ticket theatre package. For tickets, call the box office at 905-722-5157.

MEDICAL IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I find it somewhat galling that while this government talks about opening up privately run MRI facilities in the province they're not yet prepared to maximize the use of the publicly run facilities in our hospitals.

In Thunder Bay, our MRI and CT scans are simply not being used to their full capacity. As the only diagnostic tools in the Thunder Bay district, the demand is great yet it still seems startling that the waiting time to get an MRI has stretched to seven months while people have to wait three months to get a CT scan.

This is absolutely unacceptable, particularly as these delays add enormous stress to people waiting for diagnosis. But what is more upsetting is that these long delays are absolutely unnecessary and could be reduced, if not eliminated, with increased financial support to the hospital.

Thunder Bay Regional Hospital currently has five radiologists on staff, with a sixth scheduled to arrive in August. This full complement means that TBRH is ready, willing and able to expand its hours of operation immediately if the province simply comes forward with an immediate increase in operational funding directed at the diagnostic wing.

CANADA DAY CELEBRATIONS

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): This coming weekend will mark the 135th anniversary of Canadian nationhood, and I'm pleased to report to this House that the residents of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale are going to celebrate it properly in Chinguacousy Park.

The city of Brampton is hosting a proper party on Monday from 10 in the morning until a fireworks display caps the festivities at 10 at night. I'm sure the fireworks display will be up to Brampton's usual spectacular standards.

As well, Chinguacousy Park will have live music, dance and martial arts demonstrations. The beer tent is serving Brampton's own Cool brand beer, perfect for days like July 1, which is forecast to be warm and dry.

A petting zoo, amusement park, climbing wall and magicians will also help entertain kids of all ages. There will also be a giant cake, which is fitting for Canada's 135th birthday party. The cake will be cut at 5 pm, but there's no word at this time as to who will blow out the 135 candles.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): Someone with a lot of hot air.

Mr Gill: Yes.

On behalf of the people of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, I want to congratulate the city for putting together this event and wish all Canadians everywhere a very happy Dominion Day.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I take this opportunity to remind the people who will be driving on Highway 69 south this weekend to please drive carefully, to follow all the safe driving rules, because that is a very dangerous stretch of highway.

A couple of weeks ago I told the government that I would be launching a petition campaign with regard to the four-laning of Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound. These are the results of that three-week petition. There they are -- everybody wanting to ensure that Highway 69 is four-laned from Sudbury.

What's even more shocking is that you've got the member from Durham going like this, saying it's not important.

Let me quote some of the statistics from the Ministry of Transportation and the Ontario Provincial Police when they say that between 1996 and 2000, 32 people have died on Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound. In that same time period, only five people have died from Parry Sound to Barrie on the 400 series. That's five too many, mind you. At the same point in time, there have been 1,622 accidents on Highway 69 south between Sudbury and Parry Sound. Highway 400 between Parry Sound and Barrie saw 607 accidents.

Clearly, multi-lane highways save lives. Clearly, multi-lane highways cause fewer accidents. I challenge this government to commit real money to do real four-laning between Sudbury and Parry Sound, and I challenge them to do it immediately.

JESSIE BANNERMAN

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): On behalf of my colleague the member for Brampton West-Mississauga, it's my honour to speak today about Jessie Bannerman, who announced her retirement from a very busy political and social life, effective the end of this month. Jessie was honoured by the community last night in Brampton by her many friends and her family.

Jessie came to Canada from England through pier 21 in Halifax over 50 years ago, and has never looked back. She has been a resident of Brampton since the early 1960s, and immediately immersed herself in many volunteer groups and community activities, among them the Flower Festival and the Pine and Rose Festival. She is a past president of the Brampton Curling Club and has served on the Brampton Millennium Committee. She is a long-time member of the Zonta Club and, effective tomorrow, will be the zone 4 service chair, encompassing southern Ontario, western New York and northern Pennsylvania.

Jessie is also active in the Salvation Army and the Canadian Cancer Society and is currently a member of the Brampton Community Foundation.

Jessie is a very caring individual, known for her hard work and ability to multitask her volunteer work and office career, and for her wealth of knowledge of Brampton and of government. It's these traits that made her the outstanding asset to the constituency offices of the Honourable John McDermid, MP from 1980 to 1993, and currently of my good friend and colleague the Honourable Tony Clement.

Please join me in congratulating Jessie on an auspicious career and her well-deserved retirement with her husband, Bill. I'm sure they'll enjoy their summers on the golf course, winters in the curling club and definitely -- God bless you, Jessie -- time with their children and grandchildren.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): As we wrap up the 20-some-day session, I want to reflect a bit. The government introduced four new bills this session. The first one was the Hydro One blank-cheque bill, which of course they had to time-allocate. That's the bill that leaves the government open to do whatever it wants with Hydro One this summer. They of course wouldn't announce their decision here in the House. One can't be too surprised by that. They've changed their position five times since the Legislature resumed.

They brought forward the Hydro One directors act; I'm sure they planned and anticipated that. That's the one where they had to fire all the directors of Hydro because of the mismanagement and because of these outrageous salaries. Yet they want to proceed with the privatization, or at least the partial sell-off, of Hydro One. We're still not sure what they're going to do, because they certainly don't want to talk about it in this House. They want to wait till the summer, when the Legislature is done.

There's the budget bill, which was time-allocated last night -- a time-allocated budget bill. That's the bill, you'll recall, that wipes out the Taxpayer Protection Act they were all so proud of just some short years ago.

What an interesting session. What a change. It's a change that speaks to trust. It speaks to the trust of people in their government, what governments will say and not say, what they say one day and do the next. This government does not deserve the trust of the people. The people ought to have an opportunity for an election sooner rather than later.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm appealing to the Premier of Ontario and the leader of the official opposition today to allow Bill 77, the adoption disclosure reform bill, to be called for a vote. We all know that a vast majority of members on all sides in this Legislature want this bill to pass. This bill, or a similar bill, has been before this House for many years. We've come very close to having it pass. But time after time after time a few members in this Legislature -- and we know it is a very few members -- hold the bill up. Is this democracy? No, it isn't.

You're breaking my heart again today. You're breaking the hearts of thousands of people who have been working on this issue since the 1970s to bring justice and fairness to the thousands of adoptees out there who cannot make contact with each other and who cannot find out about their health and birth information. It is against human rights -- it violates human rights. Jurisdictions across the world have changed the law.

I have spoken with many of you on many occasions, and you know I have fixed my bill to deal with your concerns about those few who still want privacy. There is a contact veto in the bill which gives people more privacy than they have now under the existing act.

I appeal to you today to let this bill go forward for a vote -- no more delays.

MISSISSAUGA FIREFIGHTERS

OF THE YEAR

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mississauga recently honoured its 2002 Firefighters of the Year in an awards ceremony held at city hall.

Captain Allan Thompson and Acting Captain John Hill, along with Firefighters Larry Jackson, Gerald Lacasse, David Middleton, Edward Nelson, Peter Perrone and John Watts, received this prestigious award for their quick-thinking action during a house fire in my constituency on September 9 of last year.

When the crew arrived at the burning house on Exbury Crescent, they were faced with a basement fire with zero visibility as a result of heavy smoke. To make matters worse, the female resident of the home could not be found.

Firefighters Watts and Middleton went searching for the missing resident under dangerous conditions, having to pass through extreme heat and smoke. They located the unconscious woman in a small washroom in the basement and, with the help of the other firefighters, passed through the fire area and carried her to safety.

As Mississauga Fire Chief Garry Morden said of his crew, "If this wasn't done properly and professionally, it would have been a failed rescue. Their quick, professional response ... resulted in the saving of a life."

On behalf of all residents in the city of Mississauga, I'm privileged to congratulate and thank these outstanding firefighters. We are fortunate and grateful to have you safeguarding our community. You are a tribute to your profession, and we are very proud of you.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to give second and third reading to Bill 77, Ms Churley's adoption bill.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's already had second reading.

Mr Duncan: I seek unanimous consent to give third reading to Ms Churley's adoption bill, Bill 77.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: This is the last day for our pages. Although it is the custom of the Speaker to acknowledge their contribution to this House and how much all members of the House have enjoyed them, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to thank them on behalf of all members.

In particular, as the father of Lauren Jackson from Burlington, who was a page here for the last three weeks, I must tell the members opposite that Lauren's route was through the Liberal caucus. She started every morning with Mr Cleary and ended up at the end of the day with, I think, Mr Bartolucci. In between, she met some very wonderful people. The reports are that all the staff in your offices are just wonderful. So thank you for treating my daughter and all the other pages so well.

I'm joined in the House today by my wife, Elaine, and my youngest daughter, Michelle. We had lunch with our daughter, and we've had a great day.

If I might just echo the sentiments that were reported in the media by the leader of the official opposition, I fully support his comments that we would all be better MPPs if we could find more time with our families. I think it anchors us and makes us better MPPs.

So thank you to all members of the House. Everyone have a great summer.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): While we're on that, I'm sure all members would like to join me in thanking our wonderful group of pages. We wish them well in their endeavours, and we thank them for the fine work they've done over this past short while.

With the indulgence o