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

June 9, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Jun-09 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 9 June 2005 Jeudi 9 juin 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (TEST PSA POUR

LE DÉPISTAGE DU CANCER DE LA

PROSTATE)

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (TEST PSA POUR

LE DÉPISTAGE DU CANCER DE LA

PROSTATE)

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (TEST PSA POUR

LE DÉPISTAGE DU CANCER DE LA

PROSTATE)

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AIR QUALITY

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

FLEMING COLLEGE

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

ELLIOT LAKE

HYDRO PROJECT

SENIOR CITIZENS

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

JOE CORDIANO ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE JOE CORDIANO 2005

DEFERRED VOTES

ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

SUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXÉCUTION

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND

SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES

ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS

D'ALIMENTS

TRANSPORTATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSPORT

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERS' SPENDING

HEALTH CARE

MINISTERS' EXPENSES

TEACHERS' CONTRACTS

MINISTERS' EXPENSES

HIGHWAY 406

MINISTERS' EXPENSES

PETITIONS

AUTISM TREATMENT

TENANT PROTECTION

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

HIGHWAY 26

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT

LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

ELECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(CONTINUED)

PLACES TO GROW ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR

LES ZONES DE CROISSANCE

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY

OF PEEL ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ

RÉGIONALE DE PEEL

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (TEST PSA POUR

LE DÉPISTAGE DU CANCER DE LA

PROSTATE)

Mr. Mauro moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 201,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 201, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

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

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I'd like to begin by introducing a couple of people in the gallery who have taken the time to come out

and support this initiative: Mr. John Peck, who is the chair of the Early Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Ontario; and Mr. Greg Sarney, a representative of Prostate Cancer Research Foundation of Canada.

They are here with us today. I should also mention that Dr. John Trachtenberg from Princess Margaret Hospital, a world-renowned neurologist and prostate cancer specialist, would have liked to be

here but was unable to make it today.

PSA stands for prostate specific antigen. This substance is produced in the prostate glands of healthy men but is released into the blood stream when the

structure of the prostate starts to break down, such as when cancer is present. Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. At least one in every eight Canadian men is expected to

develop the disease in their lifetime; 27% will die of it. In 2000 alone over 1,300 men died as a result of prostate cancer. Up to 20,000 Canadian men are diagnosed every year, and about 7,600 of

those men are in Ontario.

We know that as the Canadian population continues to age, and as more men move into their high-risk areas, these numbers are only going to increase. It is

incumbent upon us that we be prepared to address this increasing number of men who are going to be developing this disease in the years to come.

A radical prostatectomy would cost about $16,000 in the year 2000, before it had spread. After that, it would cost about $32,000 for treatment. It is very likely

that a cost-benefit analysis would indicate and clearly support the fact that, on an economic basis, this test could be justified.

We understand, all of us who have paid some attention to this issue, and those who have dealt with it before in this Legislature, that there is not unanimity

when it comes to validity, the clinical efficacy of this test. Everybody acknowledges that. However, if you deal with the medical practitioners, the people who are actually involved in the

treatment of this disease, you will find that the number of people who support the test far outweigh those who do not. In fact, much of the resistance to the use of this test being paid for by OHIP

comes from people who are not actually medical practitioners. There are some reasons given on a regular basis as to why this test should not be funded. One of those is that the test can produce a

false negative, and on its surface, that would seem to make a lot of sense. Why would we pay for a test that could lead someone with this disease to think that perhaps they do not have the disease?

But clearly, you do not stop testing at that point. There is strong evidence that suggests that this test should be used on an annual basis to create baseline data, and from that data, you can then

determine what may or may not be happening with the patient.

There is also the argument that's made on a regular basis about false positives being a result of this test and that those false positives can lead to stress for

the individuals. We would argue that the individual patient, the man himself, should be the one who determines what levels of stress he is able to deal with, and would clearly argue that there's a

lot more stress associated with not having the early diagnosis and then being diagnosed later, when we know his disease is much more difficult to treat. We all agree that this test is not perfect,

but we do all know that it is still the best way to catch this disease early, before it spreads. It's important to note that there are often no symptoms associated with this disease and that it is

most curable in its early stages.

Mr. Aaron Bacher is the chairman of the Toronto Man to Man Prostate Cancer Support Group. I'd like to read you a little bit about what he has had to say on this

issue:

"As chairman of the Toronto Man to Man Prostate Cancer Support Group, the largest such group in Canada, we see too many men at our meetings who are the direct

result of putting off getting a PSA test done until it was too late. All the men who come to our meetings do so after being diagnosed with prostate cancer, and they come to us looking for answers.

We hear about how they didn't get the test done because it was going to cost them a few dollars, or their GP told them it wasn't necessary because of the cost, or that the test is

`unreliable.'"

Professor Laurence Klotz wrote an

article just about a year ago, and it appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail. Professor Klotz is at the University of Toronto

and the head of the prostate cancer support group at Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre. This is what he had to say:

"A rapid rise in PSA has been clearly demonstrated to be associated with aggressive prostate cancer. Furthermore, by the time someone developed advanced prostate

cancer, the PSA is almost always very high. The widespread use of PSA testing has resulted in the disease being diagnosed at a stage when it is much more curable. More important, death from

prostate cancer has dropped 25% in the past years in North America. This advance deserves as large a headline as the one casting suspicion on the PSA test."

What this speaks to is one of the relatively new innovations when it comes to dealing with prostate cancer in men in the last four or five years, and that is

that the development of baseline data in the treating of cancer patients or people who have not been diagnosed yet is an extremely useful tool for medical practitioners when it comes to the early

detection of this disease. The velocity of the change in the PSA levels, the rapidity of the change, is a very useful tool for physicians when they're treating their patients in determining whether

or not they may have cancer. It's a great indicator for them to use in terms of whether or not they should move forward with a biopsy or other things.

No one suggests for a second that the PSA test should replace some of the other tests that are being used to make determinations around this disease, such as the

DRE, but clearly this is an advancement that has occurred in the last four or five years and is an extremely useful tool. It can only be a tool if we begin to fund this and accumulate this data on

an annual basis.

It's important to note also that younger men generally have cancers or higher PSA levels that are much faster-moving,

whereas older men generally develop one

that is much slower-moving. The danger, of course, is that younger men tend to be asymptomatic, and the danger is also that younger men are less likely to get tested. So it makes it that much more

important. This is all about early diagnosis so that we can avoid the results that are generally associated with those diseases, and they're very serious: incontinence, impotence and, of course,

potential death.

There's broad-based support for this initiative, for the funding of this procedure on a regular basis. The Early Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Ontario, as I have

mentioned, the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Prostate Cancer Network, and local groups like, in my community, the Thunder Bay Us Too group, and locally in Toronto the

Man To Man Prostate Cancer Support Group. I'm sure that most, if not all, members of this Legislative Assembly have groups that exist within their constituencies that likely are in support of this

initiative. I would have no doubt, and I'm sure that most members have received many of the same e-mails I have since this bill was first tabled in the Legislature that would suggest, that there is

broad-based support for this initiative.

Earlier, I spoke a little bit about the controversy that surrounds this test, to some degree. I can't help but reference that when I talk about some of the other

support that exists beyond the province of Ontario. It's not just a few provinces that fund this, but many. Saskatchewan funds this test through their provincial payment health plan. Manitoba, Nova

Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island all fund this test through their provincial health care plans -- all of them. In fact, British Columbia, as a seventh, also funds it,

but that is only after a test comes back as positive. So clearly, if we're going to address some of the people who have some negative things or uncertainties around the validity of this test, we

would have to wonder why six -- in fact seven -- other provinces find the efficacy of this test to be fine and that it justifies their provincial health plans funding it.

The facts are quite simple and quite straightforward: The PSA test is responsible for saving lives. There are many men in the province of Ontario today and

across this country who would not be alive had it not been for an early diagnosis that was attributable to a PSA test. It's important to note that many of these men were asymptomatic at the time of

their diagnosis. It's clear: PSA testing saves lives. And quite possibly, PSA testing could save the government money. I thank you for your time. This is clearly an issue whose time has come.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today to speak on the bill brought by the member, Bill 201,

An Act to amend

the Health Insurance Act. He spoke a lot about the tests that need to be done when there are no symptoms showing in people. I think that's a big policy statement for health care that they may need

to look at, that is, preventive medicine and early testing and early detection. I'm pleased this has been discussed. Many times in my communities and in the newspapers -- and I think this is a

great topic to be brought forward for private members' business that we do on Thursday morning -- we bring things from our communities that need to be brought forward and get attention, in this

case hopefully by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, to do some implementation that would lead to early detection, early treatment and a cure.

A constituent of mine, who's a gentleman over 70, which is certainly an age group that is more prone to getting prostate cancer, e-mailed me: "After having four

PSA tests during the last five to six years, my last in August 2005 showed a trace of prostate cancer for the first time. It's really vital that men after the age of 50 have these tests done on a

regular basis. It's been proven that prostate cancer kills more males in the world than any other disease. In fact, most males die not knowing that they have prostate cancer."

As men get older, they're certainly more concerned about this type of cancer, but we're learning to pay more attention to their health. Certainly in the 50 age

group with women, more tests should be done, and I think we should look at what tests should be done more commonly for men. It is all about prevention and early detection.

It's more common in men over 50, men with a family history of prostate cancer, one or two first-degree relatives, such as a father or brother, and men of African

ancestry. Certainly the family history -- if we haven't been doing the tests long enough, they don't have that history or knowledge. Sometimes they do have the positive family markers that need to

be followed in certain diseases.

My riding has the second-highest percentage of seniors in the province, Haliburton county having the largest seniors' percentage in Ontario. Being able to screen

for prostate cancer is a matter of concern for many constituents in all areas of the riding, but screening means testing men who don't have the symptoms to see if they have prostate cancer. The

reason for doing this, like other cancer screening techniques, is early detection.

The PSA test is just one of the early detection tests that can be done for prostate cancer. It's a blood test that measures a substance produced by the prostate

gland called the prostate specific antigen, or the acronym PSA, and it tells doctors when patients have a higher than normal level of PSA. It usually means that the patient has a prostate problem,

not necessarily meaning they have cancer. But again, it is a red flag to be followed.

For every 100 men over the age of 50 with no symptoms who have the PSA test, 10 will have a higher than normal level of PSA. These men must then go through other

tests and examinations. At the end of these tests, three of the men with a higher than normal PSA level will be found to have prostate cancer. Seven of the men with a higher than normal PSA level

will be found not to have prostate cancer at the time of screening. Of the 90 men who will have a normal PSA level, 88 will not have prostate cancer. One or two of the men with a normal PSA level

will actually have prostate cancer, undetected by the test, that will cause symptoms.

So the test will identify some men who don't have cancer and also miss some men who do have cancer. The test might miss some people, but no test is perfect. In

some cases, it will find cancer that would otherwise have been missed. Finding cancer early is key to successful treatment. Access to primary care and access to doctors is always a difficulty in

some of our communities, but it's an opportunity to have these tests done.

Dr. Cornelia Baines was one of the women researchers who launched the national breast screening study in the 1980s. She observed that thorough professional

breast examination, along with training in breast self-examination, is invaluable for women. At that point in the 1980s, there was no self-examination for men who worried about the possibility of

prostate cancer. I think dealing with a blood test and going to a doctor's office is more comfortable for men to deal with and gives us a starting point into the possibility that they may have

problems with prostate cancer. It's a decision that each man has to make, but I think there should be more awareness about early detection, the ease of having a blood test, and the fact that a man

may have a family history, if he knows of it, and that he is more susceptible.

In 1997, the National Prostate Cancer Forum recommended that all men should have an opportunity to have the PSA test done. Right now, the fee associated with it

is always a bit of a deterrent to accessing PSA testing. They might let it go and just not do it. So I think if more awareness is out there for men to weigh the benefits of having the test and not

having to worry -- I think worrying in medicine, the fear of the unknown, is a big deterrent to going and getting tested and hopefully relieving yourself that you don't have it. If the diagnosis

is, unfortunately, positive, then you have to deal with it from there.

So we should be supportive of giving men the ability to choose whether or not to have the test without having to consider whether they can afford it, as was

mentioned. Cancer Care Ontario will be coming to the government later this summer to ask for the funding commitment to allow for the use of Herceptin for women in the early stages of breast cancer,

so I hope the Minister of Health will look seriously at that and at PSA testing for men. I'm pleased today to support the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan for introducing this private member's

bill.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to say at the outset that the NDP caucus will be supporting this initiative. I think it's a good

one and long overdue. Quite frankly, we know that the best fight that we have to try to allow people who may end up with cancer to live longer is to detect it while it's in its very early

stages.

On that note, a number of you might have heard, I think it was last Saturday or Sunday -- I was driving somewhere on Highway 11 to one of the community events --

a very interesting program on CBC Radio where they talked to experts in the research field around this very issue. They talked about what kind of impact we have made over the last number of years,

considering all of the money that's been spent in research, to try to figure out more about the disease of cancer and what can be done to combat it.

It was quite interesting and quite revealing, because we've learned a lot, I guess, is what they were saying; however, we have really only scratched the surface.

The gist of what they said through that entire interview -- and there were people there from Cancer Care Ontario, researchers from British Columbia, from Ontario and others -- is that we've been

really putting our emphasis on trying to cure the disease, and maybe one of the things we need to do much more vigorously is to figure out how to detect the disease at an earlier stage, because one

thing they have learned through the science of medicine is that if you're able to detect cancer -- most cancers; not all, but a lot of them -- at a much earlier point, you're much better able to

manage the disease and, many times, to be able to reverse the disease, and the person can go on to live a very long life.

We've all known people in our families where that's happened. We've known others in our families, unfortunately, where that has not happened. I know people, as

everybody else does, who have gone out for prostate tests, have been detected at a very early stage, have had the opportunity for treatment, there has been no residual effect at the end of the

treatment, and these people are still with us today. I think of the former Treasurer of Ontario, Floyd Laughren. Floyd was the Treasurer of Ontario back in about 1993 or 1994, and I believe it was

a PSA test that detected the very early beginnings of prostate cancer. He went in for surgery and he's still with us today. He's in full remission from that particular cancer. So I think it goes to

prove that you're able to really have a much stronger effect in combating the disease if we're able to detect earlier.

That brings me to where I want to go in this particular debate, which is, yes, we have to support this initiative and, yes, we have to make sure that the

Minister of Health and the Treasurer of Ontario find the money necessary to do what other provinces are doing when it comes to paying for the PSA test. But I think one of the things that we need to

also look at is the whole issue of lifestyle. You know, I'm 48 years old and I'm only now starting to come to terms with my mortality, and thinking to myself, "Well, you know, at one point you've

got to get yourself under control when it comes to exercise, eating, all of those things," because we know that lifestyle is a great contributor to a number of diseases, including cancers.

One of the things that I thought was interesting as they talked on the show the other day is that there has been an increasing amount of cancer within our

society, and I always thought it was because we're better able to detect. Because of our public health care system, when people are not feeling well they are able to get in to see a doctor, they're

able to get into a hospital for treatment, and we're better able to detect that people have cancer. Maybe that's why we're seeing a higher rate. But obviously the other part of it is that a lot of

what we eat and what we're exposed to in our environment are carcinogens that are basically there and putting people at greater and greater risk when it comes to contracting the disease of

cancer.

There are various types of cancers, as we well know, that are out there, and as far as carcinogens that are out there that can cause cancer. So one of the things

that we need to do is to empower our public health units, and I think the medical community generally, to become much more proactive. We've done that to a certain extent, but I don't think we're

doing quite as much as we need to in really trying to promote healthier lifestyles. We have to start at a much earlier age. We have to start in the schools. We have to make sure that children are

better aware of what is proper for them to eat, what is healthy for them to eat. We're doing that to a degree, but I think we need to do more. You've got to get to the people who are within the

workforce and people who are out there in our society and be much more aggressive as a government when it comes to types of campaigns to give people the idea that, at one point, you do have to get

health styles under control. I think that's one of the things we need to emphasize.

It was mentioned on that CBC Radio program last Saturday or Sunday that they have done studies where they've determined that lifestyle is a determining factor,

to a certain degree, when it comes to people contracting cancer. If people follow certain habits such as smoking, as an example, obviously they are at much greater risk of contracting cancer. But

there are other things as well. They're looking now at a lot of the fast foods that are being consumed, the millions of burgers, at McDonald's and Wendy's and all these other places. They may not

be the best thing for you if that becomes a major part of your diet. It doesn't hurt if you have a burger every now and then, but if people -- and that's what happens. A lot us, because of our

lifestyles -- we're busy, moving, we're always going from one thing to the other, it's eating in restaurants and probably eating what's not good for you. One of the things we need to do is to be

much more aggressive in educating and encouraging the public to have a much healthier lifestyle.

It's happening to a degree. In fact, I was talking to Mr. -- I should know; I've known him for years. Do you ever get a blank on a name?

Ms. Scott: It's a senior's moment, Gilles.

Mr. Bisson: Yeah, it's a senior's moment. Boy, I don't want to say the name, because I'm going to get it wrong. He's an owner of a Wendy's; they

have 10 or 15 Wendy's in northern Ontario. The name is going to come back to me in a second. Anyway, I was chatting with him, and I said, "Is it just my impression that the fast food restaurants

are getting much more conscious about offering the consumer salads and better types of food?" He said it is the case. In fact, he said, we're seeing that across North America; however, in northern

Ontario less so. That tells us that we need to do some work in being more aggressive in all parts of our province in encouraging people to live healthier lifestyles. That's why I advocate that we

need to do it through our public health system.

The other question is the issue of research. I remember thinking this stuff a long time ago and saying, "Well, by the time I get to be 50 or 60 years old,

they'll probably have found a cure for cancer." Here we were, spending millions and millions of dollars, all of us contributing. I contributed to the various campaigns around heart and stroke and

cancer and the Canadian Cancer Society and others. We always think that in the end there's going to be a great breakthrough, that all of a sudden we're going to find a cure for cancer and we can

take that dreaded disease away, or at least manage a great deal of it. It's a bit discouraging, because here we are, many years later, and we've made progress, but we really haven't made the type

of progress that I think we were expecting to. We're still at the point where a number of cancers are very lethal and we know very little about them, and it's a question of just managing the

disease in its end stages.

I'm not the expert, but it seems to me that we need to have some sort of a rethinking about how we fund research, a rethinking about how we're able to better

organize ourselves so there is maybe a little bit more coordination in research so we're able to concentrate on those things that are closer to being discovered. For example, I was watching a

program on public television -- it might have been TVOntario or PBS; I forget which one -- where they were talking about a new form of chemotherapy. Basically, they're now able to work at the

nanocell level, where they create particular types of agents that they put into your body that attach themselves to a cancer, and then they zap you with -- it's blue light or black light, some sort

of light. It's a very, very directed type of chemotherapy, so that rather than the person being exposed to either radiation therapy or chemotherapy that attacks other cells of the body, this

particular technology, which I can't explain because I don't quite understand it, is able to direct itself specifically at a cancer and no other organism within the human body.

I raise that because one of the things we need to look at, not only as a province but as a country and, I would imagine, along with other agencies that do work

in the cancer study field, is that we need to start focusing our efforts on some of the things that may make a fairly significant difference on the research side. So (

a) we should fund PSA tests --

I think it's the right thing to do; and (

b) we need to do a lot to encourage people to have healthier lifestyles so as to minimize the risk. But the other thing we have to do is start thinking

about where we concentrate our dollars when it comes to the whole issue of research. That's not to say that we shouldn't do research in obscure areas, because that's where some of the biggest

discoveries are made, but all I'm suggesting is that maybe we should be trying to focus some of our dollars, our precious resources in the study of cancer, in those areas where we think we're close

to moving on discoveries. That's just an impression I have.

The thing I just want to close with is this. The other part of this whole thing is that we need to -- unfortunately, there are many people in our society who

contract cancer. I know a number of people now in our community, as I'm sure all of us here as MPPs do, where we know people who are being treated for cancer. Some of them will be very successful

and will go on to survive the disease; others will not.

One of the specific issues that we have in northern Ontario is the issue of treatment. I know the good member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan would share my view on

this, which is that we really need, as a province, to be a little bit more sensitive about how we deal with the ability of people to travel for treatment. Now, a lot of treatment is done in places

like Thunder Bay, Timmins, Sudbury, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, at the major referring hospitals. For example, in the city of Timmins we do chemotherapy and others in order to manage the disease,

but at times we need to have people transported to Sudbury or Toronto or even London for treatment, and it is difficult, as the member well knows.

Many people are not with a great amount of money. They're having to travel to, let's say, Sudbury for treatment or for a specialist appointment, and they don't

really have the money to do it. The northern travel grant has not been adjusted in many years. The last time the travel grant was adjusted was about 10 or 12 years ago. It seems to me one of the

things that we should be doing, especially in the case of -- well, it should be in all cases, but specifically in cancer cases, because if I go to see an orthopaedic surgeon in Timmins as a

referral from Kapuskasing, it's not life-threatening. It's probably once or twice, and that's about it. There's an examination prior to the surgery, and then the actual surgery that you go into.

But people who suffer from cancer often have to travel quite a few times, quite ill, quite sick, to get to some of these appointments that they've got to get to for treatment.

So I would advocate that we need to be able to look at seriously increasing the northern travel grant so that it more closely reflects the actual costs that the

individual has to pay in order to get to the appointment, as well as making sure that we cover the costs of the accompanying person, because as you well know, most people can't drive when they've

just finished chemotherapy or a particular therapy that they may have had for the treatment of their cancer, and they have to go with somebody in order to make sure they're able to get back to

wherever their home community is. So we need to have a northern travel grant that clearly reflects the actual cost that people have to spend when it comes to transporting themselves to and from

their appointment. We have to be able to support the cost, as well, of the accompanying person who goes with them.

We've also got to look at accommodation to a degree, because you get it in Thunder Bay as I get it in Timmins, I'm sure, or Kapuskasing or Hearst, where people

having to go for a specialist appointment or treatment have to pay a hotel room for one or two or three days. They're at my office saying, "I haven't got the money. I'm sorry. We're working folk.

We live from paycheque to paycheque. My husband," or wife or son or daughter, "has contracted cancer. We're going to beg, borrow and steal to get there because we need to do it." It really puts

families in very, very difficult positions. So I would hope the government will be serious in looking at the whole issue of the northern travel grant.

The last thing, and I just want to end on this note, my little bit toward public education, is that we should all be in the habit, especially as we get a little

bit older in life, to walk into the doctor's office -- if you're lucky enough, in northern Ontario, to have one, as I am -- or to walk into the medical clinic and go through an annual checkup every

year. It is a lot better for the individual, as far as being able to detect diseases at a much earlier stage. If you have blood pressure problems or there's a PSA test that may indicate that you

have prostate cancer or whatever, you have a much better chance of being able to survive whatever disease it is if it's detected earlier.

As well, over the long run it's much better for us as a province, because it means those people who have a real ability to contribute to our society will be with

us longer. And in the overall cost to the health care system, it's much better to treat something at an earlier stage from a cost perspective than to treat it over a very long, protracted treatment

that eventually ends with death. So it's much better for us if we're able to do that, and I would encourage people to at least once a year go and see their doctors for examinations.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

M. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke-Nord): Je demande la parole aujourd'hui pour vous parler d'un sujet qui me tient particulièrement à coeur.

La plupart des gens ne savent pas que le cancer de la prostate est le type de cancer le plus fréquemment diagnostiqué chez les hommes au Canada. En moyenne, un nouveau cas de cancer de la

prostate est diagnostiqué toutes les deux minutes 30 secondes, et un homme décède des suites de ce cancer toutes les 17 minutes.

En tant que médecin, j'ai constaté directement les effets dévastateurs de ce cancer sur les patients. Je peux dire par expérience que c'est

un type de maladie qu'il ne faut pas négliger. En tant que législateur, je peux dire qu'il est nécessaire que chaque homme qui court un risqué élevé de développer

le cancer de la prostate ait accès au test PSA, antigène prostatique spécifique.

I speak to you in a dual capacity, not only as a man entering the territory in which I should likely get this type of test myself, but also as a family doctor

for the past 15 years, as an individual who has published medical articles on this subject, and as well now, of course, as a legislator and the representative of Etobicoke North. I share with all

who are listening that medicine, irrespective of its scientific basis, its research and its ever-marching expansion of knowledge, is to this day an imperfect science. Medicine has been called the

most scientific art, and the most artistic science. That, of course, is part of the beauty and also the terror of medicine.

Specifically with regard to prostate, what this particular viewpoint highlights is that we need your help. We need not only for the public to be informed about

this disease and others, we need not only governments to come forward and fund these types of diagnostic screening preventative measures, but we need to be aware that all our testing, all our

education, all the scientific laser focus that even physicians bring to the study of medicine and to the study of prostate cancer is still imperfect. There is still a vast unknown of quantities

that we cannot put our finger on. That's why we need to be assisted in our efforts to diagnose, screen and prevent deaths due to this type of disease.

If you've ever met an individual who has not only had prostate cancer but has suffered from what's called metastatic prostate cancer -- that is, of course, a

cancer that has left home, that has left its primary location and spread elsewhere, most often to the spine, say, the bones of the spine -- that is a disease that is on the increase, meaning

metastatic, terminal-level cancer of the prostate, and it's a tragedy, because any physician who meets such a patient knows that it is entirely preventable.

As my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan very appropriately said, it's not only the base level, the number that you get back on your test; it's also the

velocity or the speed of the change, which we would be able to measure on a yearly basis if you allow us to do the test and you fund it, which is a very important indicator for potential

development of cancer. That's why we should not, as a government in Ontario, continue to offer this slight little barrier of not covering under the Ontario health insurance plan the $25 or so that

it costs to do this test.

Colleagues of mine here have also spoken eloquently about the need for prevention. That is very, very true. This is a particular case of a disease which

absolutely, in 100% of cases, would likely be prevented not only with the use of this particular blood test, but also the other modalities, including a history, a physical examination, possibly a

pelvic ultrasound, and so on. Of course, there's a whole protocol to the management of prostate cancer.

What I would like to share with you in closing is that unfortunately, first of all, cancer in general -- all cancers -- has now become the number one killer in

North America. This is occurring now for the first time, overtaking heart disease and cardiovascular causes for the first time. Prostate cancer is very much a part of that.

I quote the senior Dr. M. K. Qaadri, who happens to be my mother as well as a gynaecologist, who said to me yesterday, "If women's pap smear tests are covered by

OHIP, then why are men's prostate cancer tests not covered by OHIP?" I have no answer for her.

But I hope, Speaker, with your support, and with the support of members of this Legislature, to be able to report back to her that we in the government,

forward-looking, making use of the best practices and being fully aware of the march of medical science as well as the art of medicine, have actually begun to cover this particular test.

As my colleague from the NDP said very clearly, we as doctors need to get in all the citizens of Ontario, on a reasonably regular basis, for screening tests of

various kinds, whether it's blood pressure, sugar, cholesterol or, certainly for men over the age of 50, the PSA test.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of my member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan on this

very important subject. I suspect that many of the younger male members don't really think too much about PSA tests and prostate cancer, and I guess I don't blame them. I can tell you, though, that

when you get older, these things start weighing on your mind.

My brother Frank died from prostate cancer when he was only 57. If he had been tested early, he would probably be alive today. This disease is curable, but the

reluctance to have the test is out there.

When you hear statistics that say that one in seven men is expected to develop this potentially deadly disease in their lifetime and that 1,300 men will die

this year because of this disease, it makes you stop and think.

Of course, knowing that there's a test that can detect prostate cancer before it becomes lethal gives men a sense of security. At least we can all go to the

doctor and have a checkup, but that test will cost you $25. It seems that if it's done in a hospital and is recommended by a doctor, it's free. Now, that seems to me a ridiculous set-up.

I don't think that anyone would say that $25 is too much to spend when it could potentially save a life. I think people would say that such an important test

should be covered, like other tests, under OHIP. It seems logical that if a test can detect prostate cancer early enough to treat it, all men should be having this test and OHIP should be covering

it.

I understand that there are arguments that say this test should not be covered. One of the most common arguments is that the test can return false positive

indications of cancer, which in turn causes undue stress on patients. That happened to me two weeks ago, so I know what that is like. But if a positive result is reported, that result can be

confirmed through other means: additional testing procedures. That was the case with me. I got the good news yesterday when I went to my doctor just on Bay Street. It's very personal to me. Given

the options, we should be including that test as an insured test.

Some people have argued about the high cost of covering the test under OHIP, but evidence points to the contrary. A study conducted in 2000 showed that there

would actually be a saving of $24 million to the government if the tests were covered. Right now, it costs $16,000 for a radical prostatectomy to cure diagnosed prostate cancer before it has

spread. To treat a patient after it spreads costs $32,000, but probably a lot more than that when it moves, as was described by Dr. Qaadri.

I believe that one of the best aspects of this bill is that it would make the choice to get tested easier for all men. A $25 fee for a test does not sound

unreasonable, but it certainly can be a deterrent, and it is a deterrent. I think that should be remedied by this bill, and remedied as quickly as we can. It would remove some of the hesitation the

doctors probably have to suggest the test to people.

The majority of doctors support insuring this test. I don't have enough time to list all the medical groups that believe this test would help save lives, but

they've all been supportive.

Our government has made great strides toward ensuring that Ontarians get the health care they need. Whether it be through reduced waiting times for major

procedures, introducing family health teams and making sure that people get the care they need close to home, our government is working to provide the best health care to all Ontarians. After many

years of neglect, we are giving our health care system the boost it needs.

This bill is in line with the goals of our health care transformation. I believe it would complement our government's efforts and make a great addition to the

host of improvements we are making to health care.

Simply put, PSA tests save lives, PSA tests save money, and PSA tests are recommended by doctors.

I appreciate having been given this time to speak on this very important bill and urge all members to support it.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I thank the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan for the opportunity to speak for a few moments

on this bill, which is certainly supportable, Bill 201,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, so that PSA testing is covered by OHIP.

It's a very straightforward concept. I think even the pages in this room today would understand it. As a child growing up, my father always said to me, "Make

sure you brush your teeth." I often used to question, "Why do I have to brush my teeth every night and then every morning?" The reason became clear years later that it was prevention. You brush

your teeth when you're young and you brush them regularly, and that way you prevent getting tooth disease or cavities. In the same sort of sense, we're doing the same thing here. We're providing

for prevention of potential disease, or at least catching that disease at an early stage: prostate cancer.

It makes a lot of sense to support this. The way it has been brought forward is straightforward. Dr. Qaadri spoke to the issue of how this is allowed for with

women's pap smear testing, and this would be something fair and equitable, to allow treatment for men who potentially could catch this form of cancer.

I introduced a private member's bill about two months ago that had to do with gender-based pricing and making sure that men and women were charged equally for

things like dry cleaning, haircuts and other items, for the same amount of work that was being done. I was questioned by some critics, who said to me, "Well, you're defending women's rights and not

men's rights here. You're trying to help women out by giving them dry cleaning costs that are better or cheaper haircuts or making sure that alterations on their suits are covered the same as they

are for men. What are you doing for men?" My answer then was the same as my answer today: That bill was about equality and doing what was fair, just and right, and this bill is the same. It's doing

what's fair, just and right. It's not a matter of whether you're doing something for men or for women, but it's doing what's fair and what's right. Having this procedure covered by OHIP is fair,

equitable and right. It allows for prevention. It allows for future cost savings.

I always remember a commercial that I used to see years ago on television about an oil filter. This mechanic would come out and say, "Once again, this car

engine has broken down, and the reason is that the person who owned this car didn't change the filter." I don't know if it was an air filter or an oil filter, but it was a filter. The mechanic

would say, "If you change the filter regularly and maintain it properly, then you won't have a broken engine years down the line. So you can pay me now" --

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): "Pay me now or pay me later."

Mr. Berardinetti: -- "or you can pay me later," as the member from Peterborough has pointed out.

In the same sense, the small expense of covering this test here, like a pap test, is a way of saying, "Pay me now instead of paying me later." The expense now

of having the tests done are much lower than the costs later, the tens of thousands of dollars of having to go through surgery or radical treatment to deal with prostate cancer, which is such a

hard-hitting and growing form of cancer in Ontario and throughout the world.

I certainly am supportive of this bill and hope it goes to second reading and eventually becomes law.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to join in the debate. I want to let the member know that I will certainly be supporting this bill,

and on canvassing my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus, I can also confirm that he will have their support on this bill.

I want at the outset to commend my colleague Joseph Tascona, from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, who presented a very similar resolution to the Legislature on

December 7, 2000. At that point in time, it was supported unanimously by the Legislature. Unfortunately, it was never implemented, and the government of the day, I regret to say, did not follow

through on the wishes of the private member's hour.

I want to frame the rest of my remarks with a letter that is dated April 8, 2005. It was from the Retired Teachers of Ontario, and it's addressed to Dalton

McGuinty, the Premier. It reads as follows:

"On behalf of the political action committee of the Retired Teachers of Ontario, we are seeking an update on the position of your government related to the

funding of the ... PSA test.

"In November 2002, in your then role as opposition leader, you responded to a similar inquiry ... with the following statement: `In light of the fact that

physicians are ordering the test because they view it as a medical necessity, the Ontario Liberals believe it should be made available to patients free of charge.'

"As it has been almost a year and a half since your government was formed, our political action committee is anxious to know when you plan to make the PSA test

available, free of charge, so we may share this information with our 55,000 members. We hasten to point out that this is indeed a gender equity matter."

The Premier has made the commitment. It is a promise of the Premier. It is unfortunate that some two years later now, it takes a private member's bill to

remind the Premier of his promise to in fact make this important test free of charge, available through OHIP. The Premier is clearly on record as saying that's what he'll do. I fully expect that

this bill will be passed today. I fully expect that the Premier will be reminded, and I fully expect that we will hear the Minister of Health stand in his place and make this important announcement

to ensure without further delay that this matter is resolved once and for all.

I want to point out that not only is the Premier in support of this, but certainly members of the current cabinet and others who are now the government who

have the opportunity to make this decision are clearly on the record as supporting this. I want to read into the record comments by Mr. Jim Bradley from St. Catharines. This was in the course of

debate on Mr. Tascona's resolution in December 2000:

"I am going to be speaking in favour and voting in favour of the resolution today. I'm going to deal primarily with what is in provincial jurisdiction, as I

believe we very often and unwisely spend a lot of time dealing with the federal jurisdiction." He goes on to say, "I want to deal with the test itself. I raised this issue about the PSA test in a

question to the minister on December 17, 1998. I happen to believe the PSA test should be available to men who wish to have that test, at no cost -- it's as simple as that, in my view -- just as

other tests are available for other reasons."

That question, that the current Minister Bradley referred to, was indeed put to the then Minister of Health. I quote the December 17, 1998, Hansard. He says to

the minister, "Why is it that this government is forcing men in this province to pay for the PSA test, which could prevent them from getting cancer or detecting cancer early?" The minister referred

in her response to the fact that unfortunately, it's not a political decision, that there are others within government who make that decision. Well, I hear from the Premier, and I know from the

confirmation that I'm hearing from members of the Liberal caucus today -- they would not have brought this forward without consultation with the Premier and with ministers on the front bench --

that they are giving us a great deal of confidence today to know that when this bill is passed, we will see the minister stand and make this important announcement that PSA tests from this point

forward will in fact be covered by OHIP.

I received a number of e-mails just recently from my constituents as well. I want to read into the record a letter from my constituent Mr. George Butcher of

Richmond Hill. He writes, "Thanks to regular (annual) PSA testing I am alive today. What if I chose not to pay the $20, or if my doctor had not chosen to support this testing? I consider myself

lucky that I could afford to pay for these tests and that my doctor sees the light. Those that can't or won't pay the $20 are costing the province, you and I, millions of dollars in medical

treatment, not to mention their lives, that might have been avoided. Please support the inclusion of the cost of this testing in the Ontario medical coverage.

"Thank you.

"George Butcher"

To him, I say that I certainly am supporting this resolution today and will support and applaud the government for doing so.

Another letter I received is from Mr. J.E. DeToro of Richmond Hill. He writes, "I am very concerned that the cost of PSA testing in a doctor's office or

testing lab for men who have not been diagnosed with prostate cancer is not covered for several reasons. The cost could be a factor for many men. In addition, the fact that OHIP does not cover the

test implies that it is not useful or valid. Finally, the cost is covered when the test is carried out at a hospital, but this could make some men less likely to have it performed because of the

added inconvenience." He goes on to encourage this government to proceed with ensuring that the PSA test is indeed covered by OHIP.

I want to say very clearly that this is an opportune time for the government to act. There is now before us this private member's bill, and I encourage all

members of the Legislature to demonstrate unanimously their support for this initiative.

I thank those who have been lobbying over the years and who have not given up on this issue. It is very clearly something that needs to be done. There may be

immediate short-term costs, but as we've heard in debate today, what we invest today in this test will save multimillions of dollars in future health care costs in this province, and for that

reason, I am pleased to add my support to this.

In closing, I want to just say to you that I'm pleased to have with us today in the gallery students from St. Joseph Catholic Elementary School in Richmond

Hill. It's their opportunity to observe procedures in the Legislature and to see first-hand how important decisions are made in this province.

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

Mr. Mauro: I'd like to thank my colleagues who have spoken today on behalf of this legislation: the members from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock,

Timmins-James Bay, Etobicoke North, Ottawa-Orléans, Scarborough Southwest, and Oak Ridges.

This is my first private member's bill here in the Legislature. It's not a decision that I took lightly, in terms of what it was that I would bring forward. I

thought about three or four potential ideas and settled on this one, as I've said, not lightly.

There are, depending on who you speak to, cost implications associated with this. There are arguments that would suggest there are cost savings that would

accrue to the government should we begin funding the test. But like many of the other members in this Legislative Assembly, I have a regular stream of visitors who visit me on health care issues in

my constituency offices in Thunder Bay and Atikokan. This is only one of a myriad of issues that we have to deal with. Part of what I talk to these people about is the fact that there are a whole

range of things that we do not fund, as a government and as a province -- people think that under our OHIP plan, we pay for everything -- and I list for them the things that we do not pay for. This

is one of them. We talk to them about the fact that our health care system in this province takes up anywhere from 40% to 50% of our total provincial budget and continues to rise. The pressures on

our health care system are incredible.

Having said all that and having digested all of that, I still feel that this test is necessary, and we need to find room within our health care system to fund

it. Our agenda in health care is about transforming what's going on. It's about prevention. It's about refocusing in areas where we can make long-term improvements. For that reason, I feel that

this is an appropriate test and that we should fund it.

I thank all who have spoken on behalf of it. I appreciate your support.

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

Mrs. Mitchell moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 199,

An Act to celebrate and recognize rural Ontario / Projet de loi 199, Loi visant à célébrer et à reconnaître l'Ontario

rural.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Mitchell has moved ballot item number 74. Pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10

minutes.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): Members of the House know, as do you, Mr. Speaker, that I represent the most rural riding in the province

of Ontario, so I know first-hand what it is like to live, work and raise a family in a rural area. I'm very proud of our rural communities. Rural Ontario is the key to the health and vitality of

our province, and this bill will recognize rural Ontario's strengths: hard-working people, various economic opportunities, beautiful natural resources and a solid sense of community.

As we approach June 21, the day to be named Rural Ontario Day, I wish to outline the purpose of the bill. This will be a day when we reflect on the

contribution rural Ontario has made to our province and to highlight its great potential.

The people of the First Nations opened the vast forests of Ontario. They were the pioneers who began to unveil the riches of the land. Their trio of crops --

corn, beans and squash -- were the first steps to not depending on hunting and fishing. Their technology had its limitations, and it was not until the Europeans decided to settle that the rural

area started to open up. They were French settlers along the St. Clair River and then the influx of the Loyalists. The history of Upper Canada is the history of rural Ontario.

Our communities became strong as we faced and overcame the obstacles which geography created. Group action and innovation were the hallmarks. Working together

for the common good is the thread that runs through rural Ontario. Rapid advances in technology made the land more productive and made transportation economical. In the 19th century, towns and

villages sprouted across the land.

But progress was the word. Business followed the settlers, and manufacturers emerged to meet local demands. Schools and churches were built at almost every

concession crossroad. If you look at the dates on the buildings in our small towns and villages, you will note the date of construction. The early 20th century was the time when rural confidence

manifested itself in very impressive local structures. Main Street in many smaller towns has many architectural gems from this time. The buildings showed a sense of achievement and confidence in

the future. This period ended, and the solemn cenotaphs in many of our communities mark the contribution of the rural youth in the war to end all wars.

The 20th century has seen great changes in our rural countryside worldwide. Again, it is technology that has triggered the changes. The population has shifted

from a province where most of the population lived in rural areas to the present where most of the population lives in cities. In the 20th century, the population began to shift from the rural

areas to the city. Technology was a major factor in making the urban areas more important economically. Since the beginning, there was always a gulf between the urban and rural areas, but

technology has changed this. Just as the first railways, the highways brought produce and they brought people to the cities. Now technology has reversed that flow and, as the world becomes global,

first radio, then television, electricity and now the Internet, they have reduced the distance and the differences between our urban and rural communities.

That brings us to today. Throughout the past years, many things have thrived in rural Ontario. Our rural people, when ignored by the big financial

institutions, have turned to themselves to create solutions. They have invested in their own innovation. Credit unions, mutual insurance companies, independent phone companies -- that's our rural

Ontario. As well, I would like to highlight our unique health services.

As you know, most people in rural areas have to travel a great distance to get to a hospital or a health care provider. This circumstance is something for our

people to overcome. Many community groups have gathered together to offer more modern services much more efficiently.

Many of our rural schools also face unique challenges. Low enrolment and threats of school closures hang over their heads. As well, busing expenses are high

because of the large geographical area they need to cover, but, I must say, in small, rural schools, the families and the teachers work together to form a community.

I also want to mention the beautiful landscape and green space rural Ontario has to offer: lakes, rivers, forests full of trees and wildlife, fields full of

fresh produce, provincial parks and farmland. Many people from urban centres travel to our rural areas, especially to view the beautiful landscapes that rural Ontario has to offer: hiking trails,

sunny beaches, hunting, boating and fishing. The land remains our most important influence and factor in our rural areas. Technology may change the means of making a living off the land, but the

land is the essence of our rural way of life. It is the bond with the land that makes rural life that much different. Even if one does not earn one's living directly from the land, its importance

is always felt in our hearts.

This brings me to the summer months. Many exciting things happen in rural Ontario during warm weather months: live theatre, fairs, festivals, concerts, just to

name a few. Many people take advantage of attending these events and always leave with a smile on their face.

As I end my introduction, I would really like to recognize and highlight the strong sense of community small towns and rural communities thrive on, as well as

the many wonderful volunteers who are committed to maintaining the high quality of life we all enjoy. There are many organizations that are formed, mainly to strengthen the voice of rural Ontario.

Rural Ontario has many committed people, diverse economic opportunities, plenty of natural resources and a thriving sense of community. Rural communities contribute to a high quality of life for

all of Ontario.

Through my private member's bill, I would like to declare June 21 as Rural Ontario Day. This date marks the beginning of the summer solstice and the first day

of summer. Rural Ontario comes alive during the summer months. Thus, I thought it was an appropriate day to recognize all of the great accomplishments and potential growth that rural Ontario has to

offer.

I would like to just read a short note that was sent to me by one of my colleagues, the member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh:

"Congratulations on your work to declare June 21 as Rural Ontario Day, through your private member's bill, Bill 199.

"I too believe that it is important to celebrate the rich history, the current endeavours and the future growth of rural Ontario. You are right on the mark

with this initiative.

"Unfortunately, I have to be in the riding ... and will not be here to support you and the bill in person. I wish you well and I appreciate all your efforts

and words of support for rural Ontario."

I have also received letters of support from the Ontario Rural Council and Black Creek Pioneer Village. I also want to bring to your attention that June 21 is

National Aboriginal Day in Canada.

The Rural Ontario Day Act, 2005 will help protect and recognize rural values and culture. This day will recognize those who have made a commitment to strong

rural communities. It will highlight the rural way of life and reflect on its unique attributes. It is important to celebrate the rich history, current endeavours and the future growth of rural

Ontario. The passing of this bill will demonstrate Ontario's recognition of rural Ontario.

At the beginning of this speech I spoke of the potential of our rural areas. We can combine the latest in new technology with the benefits of rural living and

create a quality of life that is second to none. The importance of this bill is to make all of us aware of our rural roots and how they will continue to be a major factor in the well-being of all

of Ontario.

I am very proud to represent rural Ontario and I hope that my colleagues will support me in recognizing Rural Ontario Day, that day being June 21.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise today to speak in favour of Bill 199, introduced in the name of the member from Huron-Bruce. I want to say

that I much appreciate this opportunity to support the recognition of rural Ontario as a part of our economy.

In 1952 -- this goes back a fair ways -- my father decided that the possibilities and the future of agriculture in the Netherlands were not sufficient to be

able to raise his family and live the rural lifestyle that he had there at that time. It was different than it was here; it was an issue of there not being enough room for the population to stay

living in the lifestyle of a rural community, so he came here. Now, of course, things have changed. At that time, there was not enough coming out of agriculture to sustain a family, with the input

costs and the cost of land. Since then, of course, it has changed. It's one of the highest-subsidized countries in the world when it comes to agriculture. At that time, when he came in 1952, there

was no support here in Ontario, but then again there was no support needed here in Ontario. Times have changed since then. I'm still glad that he came to Ontario and to Canada, because that's why

I'm here today. But again, when you look at what's happening in agriculture, I'm sure that the people who are in agriculture today would look at the problems here as being similar to the problems

that were there in 1952.

Also, it's a pleasure and a privilege to be here to represent the great riding of Oxford county. I just want to point out that Oxford county is the

second-highest agriculture-producing county in Ontario, second only to the county of Huron, represented by the member who has introduced this bill. Of course, we will keep pushing to try to produce

more than Huron county, because we're always wanting to be number one. That's a trait of rural Ontario, that we all strive to do better.

The farmers have spent a very testing, shall we say, winter, as the commodity prices stayed down and with other problems they had. Then the sun came out and it

was time to go to the fields. I go to the farmers now and everybody is forgetting about their problems and getting enthused because they are back out in the fields, feeling like this is going to be

the best year ever, even though all signs would suggest that that's not likely to happen.

As I said, I live in and represent the rural riding of Oxford. For the first time since industrialization began in Ontario, more people are moving out of the

cities than into the cities. At the same time, the introduction of highly mechanized farms means that less than 3% of Ontario's residents are directly involved in farming. According to statistics,

fully 25% of rural residents are now people who have moved from urban areas to enjoy the lifestyle that rural Ontario has to offer. Expanding technologies such as fibre optics and the Internet are

providing new opportunities for workers to communicate from rural communities. No longer do people have to live in big cities in order to support their families.

I'm glad the member opposite wants everyone to recognize the importance of rural Ontario and its contributions to our economy. Obviously, Ontario is not just

agriculture; it's a lot of other rural residents. But I do hope the government will recognize the importance of agriculture to rural Ontario the other 364 days of the year, not only on June 21.

As I said yesterday, when I spoke on John Tory's motion asking all members of the House to recognize and endorse the fiscal and social value of Ontario's

agricultural industry and the rural way of life that surrounds it, I don't believe the McGuinty Liberals understand nor support the rural way of life. The best way to support rural Ontario is to

support agriculture and make it sustainable. In May 2004, the Liberal government saw fit to remove $128 million from the Ministry of Agriculture's budget. It was the biggest cut of any ministry,

over 20% of their budget. Again this year, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food had its budget cut by 23.1%. Is this a government that supports agriculture in rural Ontario? I don't think so.

Let's take a moment to review this. Instead of making agriculture a lead ministry as promised in the Liberal election platform, they not only reduced the

ministry's budget but cut important funding programs that farmers desperately need. During the election, Dalton McGuinty promised to work with farmers and the federal government to ensure a viable

new generation of safety nets and to develop a new research strategy for Ontario's agriculture. But instead, the 2004 budget delivered a $50-million cut to safety net programs and slashed almost

half a million dollars out of research and technology funding.

Here we are today with the same story as last year. The new CAIS program does not work without companion programs, and they were phased out in the agricultural

policy framework. And of course there is no money in the budget to fund those programs next year.

No one in the McGuinty government seems to be listening to the farmers. Sad to say, the situation hasn't changed. Farmers are in crisis. The Minister of

Agriculture has no plan -- no short-term plan and no long-term plan -- only the promise, again, to study the situation.

It's important that the government develop a plan to ensure that rural Ontario communities thrive. We have to ensure that more health care professionals and

services are available, that people are well educated, that young people can find close to home what they need for their future -- skills training, access to higher education, apprenticeship

programs and well-paying work -- so they can make acceptable lives for themselves in rural communities. I've said to all who will listen that we need to recognize that rural Ontario is the key to

the health and viability of this province, and not only on June 21. But this bill will help to do that.

Our rural communities contribute to a high quality of life for all of us. The success Ontario enjoys today as the economic engine of the country is greatly

owed to the strengths of our rich agriculture, forestry, mining and manufacturing sectors. In fact, many auto parts manufacturers and their suppliers are located in rural Ontario. There's one large

assembly plant located right in the second-highest agriculture-producing riding in the province of Ontario, Oxford county.

Municipalities recognize the importance of rural Ontario, and through the Rural Ontario Municipal Association have for decades ensured that matters which

affect rural communities are brought to the attention of the provincial and federal governments. During my time as a municipal politician, I had the pleasure of being the chair of that

organization. The issues that ROMA monitors on behalf of agriculture and rural communities include extensive livestock operations, nutrient management, rural schools, commodity prices, farm

taxation, economic development, roads, bridges and infrastructure, and ambulance services in Ontario. If municipalities, through ROMA, can recognize the importance of the role agriculture and rural

Ontario play in the economic viability of the province and can bring it to the province, it's hard to believe the answer to their concerns is budget cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture.

I have concerns with what the Liberal government is doing to agriculture, and I once again speak to the issues I raised yesterday, issues such as the very

serious ones hurting beef farmers, who are still suffering from the 2003 BSE crisis. The borders are still closed to live cattle. Beef and dairy farmers are suffering extreme financial hardship.

Spinoff industries, processing industries and whole communities are still suffering. But the minister thinks funding can be reduced.

There were reasons why our government did not sign the agricultural policy framework as it stood. It was not good for Ontario's farmers. The minister signed it

without any changes, only promises to review it in a year, with no commitment from the federal government to help fund the companion programs that are needed.

The Minister of Agriculture is quoted in Hansard on November 23, 2004, as stating, and I will say it once again, "As you know, Ontario's agricultural sector is

the most diverse in the country of Canada, and these companion programs play an important role in addressing the unique needs of this province's agricultural industry. Securing the continuation of

these programs over the short term is a key element in moving us closer to our vision of a strong and sustainable agricultural sector." Obviously this is not happening, as there is no money in the

budget to cover the cost of putting those companion programs in this year. The Minister of Finance obviously didn't agree that companion programs are important to farmers; the recent budget, as I

said, doesn't include any funding for them.

With massive cuts to the budget, the ministry will no longer be able to sustain the support which was invaluable to the farmers of this province. The minister

will deny the reductions, but we only have to look on page 29 of the budget, where the Minister of Finance cut agriculture by 23.1%. I ask again, when is the Minister of Agriculture going to admit

that he's at the mercy of his urban colleagues?

Having said all that, I do want to support the member from Huron-Bruce in her endeavours to recognize rural Ontario, but I have to say once again that I

support rural Ontario and agricultural communities for 365 days of the year; one day is not enough. I hope that your Liberal colleagues who support June 21 as a special day for agriculture will put

the pressure on the government to recognize it, as I do, 365 days of the year. So again, we thank you very much for introducing this bill, and I can assure you, I will be supporting it.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm pleased, as a member of the New Democratic Party caucus, to speak to this bill this morning. I want you

to know that Mrs. Mitchell has the support of the New Democrats in her pursuit of June 21 as Rural Ontario Day. I say to you as well that Mrs. Mitchell has demonstrated herself to be a capable

voice for rural Ontario, for agriculture. She is joined by colleagues within her own caucus for whom I also have regard, people like Maria Van Bommel, who I know to be the member for

Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. I not only know her to be the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, but as the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, I know her to be another passionate voice for rural Ontario

and for hard-working women and men and their families -- inevitably their families -- working in agriculture.

My riding down in Niagara Centre is a mixed riding of small-town Ontario and very much rural and agricultural Ontario, and I think it's important to highlight

the needs, because rural Ontario has some very, very special needs -- needs that are becoming increasingly desperate because the clock is ticking and, if I dare say it, ticking at a furious pace

for people in rural Ontario.

There's the rural Ontario of southern Ontario and then there's the rural Ontario of the north, of the ridings in places like Timmins-James Bay and Kenora-Rainy

River: Kenora-Rainy River, a rural riding, make no mistake about it, larger than the country of France; Timmins-James Bay, a rural riding, make no mistake about it, with communities so isolated

that one's only access to them is either on the icy shores of James Bay and Hudson Bay in the wintertime or by charter flight. I don't have to tell anyone in this chamber -- I certainly hope I

don't have to tell anyone -- about the desperateness and the tragedy of the unmet needs of communities like Peawanuck and Attawapiskat, those very remote communities, those native aboriginal

communities, in that very rural far north riding of Timmins-James Bay, among others.

So rural Ontario is not an homogenous thing, and it's not a simple thing. It's a very complex thing and, again, there are many rural Ontarios in Ontario. One

of the pressures that I'm well aware of where I come from down in Niagara is the tension between urban areas and rural areas. One of the struggles that we in Niagara have fought for many years, and

continue to fight, I tell you, is the effort to preserve agricultural land. One of the dilemmas is that it is the farmer who is the most capable steward and preservationist when it comes to

agricultural land, but the farmer is being undermined on a daily basis. How much longer can we expect the farmer and her or his family to subsidize our food, to subsidize the contribution to the

environment, to cleaner air and cleaner water, that agricultural and undeveloped land create? It's not a matter of how much longer we can expect them to subsidize it or call upon them to subsidize

it; it's a matter of how much longer they can afford to subsidize it. The capacity of that farmer and her or his family to subsidize urban Ontario is no more.

Yet we condemn the farmer and put hurdles in front of that farmer who would dare to suggest that maybe -- the severance of a small piece of land to enable them

to live out their retirement years is not to be permitted by virtue of the arbitrary greenbelting of Ontario? Nobody disputes or disagrees with the concept of greenbelting, but I'll use Niagara and

the instance of grape growers for as good an example as any about how there are other ways that are far more effective than legislated greenbelts.

Let me put this to you: I had occasion to tell you yesterday in this chamber, and you may or may not know it, Speaker, that Ontario wine, wine in our LCBO

stores called Ontario wine, more often than not has not just 10% or 20% foreign content, but over 50% to 60% foreign content. It's cheap plonk that's being shipped in from South America, where the

standards around pesticide use are virtually non-existent -- so we should be fearful about what we're ingesting when we drink this stuff -- where the conditions for workers are far less regulated,

if regulated at all, and where the shipping of this juice, by ocean-going ships from Chile to Toronto harbour, gives more than sufficient opportunity for that grape juice to be corrupted in so many

ways.

Yet the government will not act on this simple proposition. It won't cost the taxpayers a cent. The government won't have to reach into its revenues, its

budgetary situation, to merely say that any wine that's called Ontario wine has to be 100% Ontario wine; not 80%, not 90%; but 100% Ontario wine, Ontario juice, Ontario grape. That move, in and of

itself, would bolster grape growers, not only in Niagara but down where you come from as well and across this province, and put them back in a situation where they are making a little bit of

profit, a little bit of real income, net income, on their grape-growing operation. It is a fraud on the public to mislead them into believing that something is an Ontario product when it can be as

much as 70%, and in some cases even more, foreign product in its content. Grape growers could be given an incredible respite from the pressures on them.

As I say, requiring that Ontario wine be 100% Ontario grape and 100% Ontario juice will do more to sustain the scarce, valuable agricultural land that these

vineyards are on than any legislative move this government or any other government could ever develop.

I know that the author of this bill, Ms. Mitchell from Huron-Bruce, would support that proposition. I know she would lobby her colleagues to support that

proposition.

My concern is that the Premier's office -- Mr. McGuinty and his gang of minions -- thinks that the province of Ontario begins and ends at the intersection of

Yonge and Bloor and has no real understanding not only of what rural Ontario is but even where it is, and not only where it is, has no understanding of what its needs are and how desperate those

needs are -- because they are desperate. There's an urgency to this. While I applaud Ms. Mitchell for understanding that, I condemn the Premier for turning his back on rural Ontario, on

agricultural Ontario.

Reference, I'm sure, has been made already this morning -- I know it's been made because I sat here listening to the comments by Mr. Hardeman from the riding

of Oxford when he referred to that now-notorious page 29 of Ontario's most recent budget papers. Page 29 is the top 15 list. It's Dalton McGuinty's top 15. It's his top 15 list of ministries that

have been cut, slashed in terms of funding. And number one on the list, at the very top of the list, first and foremost, the ministry with the largest single cut across the board, make no mistake

about it, is none other than the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The government, in its budget papers, page 29, actually has the chutzpah to brag about it, to say, "Look how we're slashing

costs": Ministry of Agriculture and Food by 23%. Top of the list.

That is an incredible insult, it's an incredible assault on rural Ontario and on those farmers and their families who work so hard, who work such long hours,

who have such incredible commitment to feeding the people of Ontario and Canada and to sustaining the second-largest single industry in this province. It is, isn't it, in terms of its economic

activity?

You know what, with this government's lack of concern for the future of, amongst others, General Motors employees in places like St. Catharines and its

lacklustre participation -- well, "less than stellar" is generous; its lack of participation in and support for the aerospace industry -- and we saw what that did to us a couple of weeks ago,

didn't we? Major production leaving Ontario and going to Quebec. From the period of 1995 to 2005, the last 10 years, the Niagara region has lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs. So we'd better be darned

careful about agriculture, because if agriculture currently is number two in the economy, it could well become number one in short order, by default. That's not to say that California isn't

prepared to feed Ontarians or that South America isn't prepared to feed Ontarians, whether it's with fruit or vegetables or chickens or other forms of poultry, other forms of meat product. Sure

they are. But once you relinquish your ability to feed yourself, I say that is the most significant attack on sovereignty that could ever be performed.

I know that rural Ontario isn't just about agriculture, but agriculture is all about rural Ontario. So I applaud the sentiment but I abhor the "Oh, I feel your

pain" aspect to merely saluting rural Ontario. I join others in this chamber who have already spoken to this bill and made it very clear that if we are to celebrate rural Ontario, it's not just

about passing the bill and making June 21, the solstice, a provincial holiday. I'm wondering, should this bill go to committee, if Ms. Mitchell would consider making it a statutory holiday. That

way -- think about it -- workers across Ontario can have the opportunity to spend time with their families, travelling to rural Ontario, taking a look at what's really going on.

Ms. Mitchell, you're on to something. Not only should June 21 be a day celebrating rural Ontario, it should be a statutory holiday. Lord knows, workers in this

province, working harder and longer than they ever have before, need one. You would have earned yourself so many friends in so many places here in the province of Ontario.

I look forward to the chance to vote for this bill.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It's indeed a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to get a few remarks on the record with regard to second

reading of Bill 199,

An Act to celebrate and recognize rural Ontario.

Just to start off, I was pleased last April to get a resolution through the House that was passed unanimously to support that MPPs go back to the farm once a

year, and I look forward to having my second tour this September to visit a number of farms in the riding of Peterborough, which is a riding that basically has a 60-40 split: 60% urban and 40%

rural. It's always great to get back and spend a day on the farm with a number of the farmers in my area.

But it is important to celebrate the history of the farm community. When you go back to the First World War, the bulk of individuals who joined the Canadian

army in the First World War were individuals who came from farms. I know, for example, that in my riding there's a small community of Keene, Ontario, in the municipality of Otonabee-South Monaghan

township. When you go to the war memorial in Keene and look at the individuals who made the supreme sacrifice during the First World War or certainly that generation of young farmers who went to

France, fought in the trenches over there and didn't come back to Canada, it really was that first young generation of farmers. I think the people of Ontario have to be reminded about that

sacrifice during the first Great War.

Also in the riding of Peterborough, we had the discovery of Red Fife wheat. David Fife, who came from western Canada to settle in Otonabee township, developed

a strain of wheat, Red Fife wheat, that was particularly adaptable to the soil and climate conditions of east central Ontario.

As I'm touring through my riding, I still see a number of signs of farm families who were indeed century farmers in 1967. One of the initiatives during

Canada's centennial in that year was to go through and especially designate those farms that were there for over 100 years. Many of those family farms are still in existence and still proudly

display that century farm marker in front of their operations.

I also look at the Stewart family, who came from Chicago at the turn of the 20th century to establish Quaker Oats in the riding of Peterborough. It's now part

of the Pepsi-Cola business empire, but it was originally those Stewarts who came from Chicago to Peterborough to establish Quaker Oats in 1902. The principal reason they came to Peterborough in

1902, as I previously mentioned, was the development of Red Fife wheat. Many of the farmers in the Peterborough area were raising and harvesting Red Fife wheat that went directly to Quaker Oats and

that was used in the manufacture of those world-renowned cereal products that many of us still use today -- employing some 600 individuals in the riding of Peterborough.

You also look to the riding of my good friend from Port Hope. Port Hope was the residence of the Massey family. We know of course that Vincent Massey became

the first native-born Canadian Governor General, but the other branch of his family joined with the Ferguson family to become a world leader in the manufacture of combines and tractors. At one

time, Massey Ferguson had manufacturing facilities through all the continents of the world. They were the world leader in innovation and providing that kind of equipment.

We think of John Kenneth Galbraith, who was born in a little community outside of Guelph, Ontario called Iona Station. John Kenneth Galbraith got his first

degree in agricultural economics from the University of Guelph, and then he went on to have a tremendous public sector career in the United States as a key adviser to many administrations.

The other thing I'd like to touch upon is certainly supply management. My colleague from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex has been very active in signing up members from

this Legislature to support the notion of supply management. I think one of the things that we have to do is explain to our consumers in Ontario the value of supply management. If you think about

it for a moment, when you go to one of the convenience outlet stores in your riding or my riding or other members' ridings and you see that three bags of milk gets sold for $4.20, that's great

value, and it's all due to supply management and the ability to provide farmers a reasonable rate of return and to guarantee consumers in this province supply and quantity. Many of our urban

counterparts think supply management somehow jacks up the price of those commodities that are controlled by supply management.

I think it's important for us and the member from Huron-Bruce, having June 21 as Rural Ontario Day, to take the opportunity to explain what value there is in

how we manage our rural system in Ontario, the farm products we produce. It's something we can all be very proud of.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): First of all, I just want to extend my thanks to the member for Huron-Bruce for coming forward

with this bill. You take certain things for granted, and when I first saw it, I thought, why have we waited so long? Why have we not had a day to celebrate rural Ontario? We have so many other

things that we celebrate, and we have designated days for those kinds of things. We hadn't done this before, and I was actually really surprised. Then I thought, well, that's very much the way that

the rural communities are. The member from Oxford talked about it being a 365-day sort of thing, and he's right. We all do our thing in rural communities 365 days of the year. But then I thought

about it a little further and I thought, well, we've got Father's Day coming up, and fathers are fathers 365 days of the year too --

Interjection: Or more.

Mrs. Van Bommel: -- or more, for years and years and years, and we celebrate that on a certain day of the year, so why not the same thing for

rural? I think we should be doing exactly that. It is a business and it is a lifestyle that is with you 365 days of the year. Nevertheless, there should be one day of the year when we stop and we

take particular notice of what we're doing and what happens in rural communities.

I look around this chamber, and I know that a lot of my colleagues who are from rural communities are very active in those rural communities, and I know many

of them have volunteered. That's part of the rural lifestyle, and that's what makes people in rural communities. We have a real strong sense of community. We have members here who have been

involved with the Victorian Order of Nurses. We have members who are involved with the Red Cross, the Knights of Columbus, the federations of agriculture in their communities, the Royal Canadian

Legion, the Kinsmen, Kiwanis, Rotary. They volunteer on hospital boards. Many of them have been elected to municipal councils. I know the member from Huron-Bruce was warden of Huron.

So people in rural communities have a very strong sense of their communities and of the qualities and values they want to have and that they bring to those

communities. Those are the kinds of things that we want to celebrate on a day like this. We want to make sure that we recognize those kinds of things.

We certainly have challenges in rural communities; there's no question about that. But I think that that sense of community we have helps us to overcome those

kinds of things. We talk about things such as keeping our schools. We talk about delivery of health care in the rural communities. Members of the rural communities work hard to make those things

happen for us.

We have certain historic and traditional values that we bring forward with us, and those things are often taken for granted by us. We expect our neighbours to

do these kinds of things. It's a unique kind of lifestyle.

I just spoke with my husband again this morning, something we do all the time while I'm here in Toronto. Things are very busy on our farm right now. We've got

a wedding coming up in August for one of our daughters; it will be the last one. With Amanda's wedding, there's a lot of activity around the farm. Earlier this week, the construction company came

in and construction started on the manure bunker. So there's a lot of curiosity in our community. A lot of people are stopping to ask René what's going on, and he's explaining that while he's

doing his nutrient management stuff, he's also getting ready for a wedding. People are leaving a lot of comments around about that one. But everybody enjoys that, and that's the rural way of life.

If people came to the yard and René were somehow upset by that and felt that maybe they were interfering or should be minding their own business, that would be taken as an insult by those

people, because it's a friendliness that they bring with them when they ask about these kinds of things. It's not that they're trying to pry; they want to share with us what's happening on our

farm.

That kind of sharing has been a tradition in our communities. That's what brought about things like barn-raisings. That's what happens now when a farmer has an

accident, and everybody pulls in with combines or plows or seed drills or whatever is needed so that farmer can recover and not have to worry about his livelihood. Everybody does that on a

volunteer basis. It's the giving of the rural community. So I'm really happy that we have an opportunity to recognize that by setting June 21 aside as Rural Ontario Day. I wouldn't want to live

anywhere else.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to be able to speak to Bill 199 today, the bill from the member for Huron-Bruce,

An Act to

celebrate and recognize rural Ontario.

First of all, though, I want to acknowledge the fact that I brought two beautiful young ladies with me today from rural Ontario, my granddaughters, Rachel and

Karley Rynard. They're in the audience. Rachel and Karley go to Marchmont Public School, which is a beautiful little rural Ontario school just west of Orillia. They go to school on Mondays,

Wednesdays and Fridays, so on Tuesdays and Thursdays I often get an opportunity to bring them down just for a ride and sometimes to see the Legislature.

One of the things I wanted to point out to the member from Huron-Bruce, first of all, is that I will be supporting this piece of legislation. I think anything

we can do to enhance the quality of life and to promote rural Ontario, we have to use those tools available to us so that we can make sure the folks in rural Ontario do appreciate what we in this

Legislature are supposed to do to promote it.

I wanted to point out to the member that I read her bill quite carefully, and I didn't see at any point the word "agriculture" actually used in the bill. I

looked at the

preamble and the small amount of the bill itself, and other than the fact that June 21 is the date that we will acknowledge, nothing else is mentioned about agriculture. I think

that's something we've got to be very concerned about, and not only on behalf of this bill.

I think not only this government but, in a lot of cases, different governments over the years have not done enough to promote agriculture -- what I call a

decline in agriculture in this province. I know that we've seen a number of cuts over the years to budgets of the Ministry of Agriculture, and if there's anything we can do to strengthen

agriculture, I think we have to do it. We have to start with the Ministry of Finance giving the people in the Ministry of Agriculture enough money to operate and to promote this very important

field and very important sector of our economy. Of course, that means trying to keep more young people on the farms and to strengthen them. I think, in the end, as we deal with the word

"agriculture" and the whole industry of agriculture, without a strong agricultural base in the province of Ontario, we won't have strong rural communities. We can always try to attract some small

businesses to those areas, some small manufacturing jobs etc., but the heart and soul of rural Ontario is a good, strong, agricultural sector. I've seen so many people leave the family farm over

the last few decades, and it continues. I think it's probably one of the worst years they've ever had in agriculture in this province, or the last 16 or 18 months. I know that we have to do a lot

more as politicians to promote that.

That being said, though, I've always lived in rural Ontario. I love rural Ontario. I think that some of the small communities we have across our province, some

of the little antique stores, some of the small businesses we see in our little villages etc., the community events that are held, the festivals -- just the fact that I think the people of rural

Ontario are probably far more close-knit in communities than we would see in the larger urban areas. People help each other a lot more. They're more caring, in a lot of cases, because they know

these folks a lot better.

The bill is a decent bill. It does sort of follow up on Ontario Agriculture Week, a bill that was put forth by the former member for Perth-Middlesex, Bert

Johnson. I would hope that the government in its wisdom would promote Ontario Agriculture Week this fall. I haven't seen anything over the last couple of years, partially because of the election,

and last year I think because when the House came back it was maybe a week too late. But that is an area where the government and all the members of this House do appreciate seeing the recognition

of Ontario Agriculture Week too.

That being said, I will be supporting the bill, and I thank the member for bringing it forward.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): Let me first congratulate the member from Huron-Bruce for bringing this bill to the forefront. Rural Ontario

is a huge anchor in our province. The majority of Ontario, by land mass, is rural, yet I think not just we here in this House but all Ontarians seem to take that for granted. In most cases in rural

Ontario, we don't have subways, we don't have rapid transit, we don't have skyscrapers and we don't have rush hours. But what we have in rural Ontario is a quality of life which is second to none,

and I'm delighted to represent a riding of which the major part -- well, it is all rural. It's very, very difficult sometimes to appreciate those qualities until you experience this.

On a personal note, I used to live in Toronto. My wife was born and raised in Toronto. The very first house that we bought in the city of Toronto, we lived

there for two years. I met my next-door neighbour the day I was moving out two years later. Unbelievable. But let me tell you what happened when we moved to Brighton in Northumberland county some

25 years ago. The very first day, it was a cold, crisp day between Christmas and New Year's in 1980. My neighbours -- I didn't know they were my neighbours -- came in to help to move in, to look

after our kids. "How can we help?" And they brought food. I don't think some of us experience those things. That's something I will never, never forget.

The other thing about rural Ontario that we need to celebrate is that agriculture is a big part of rural Ontario. It's a big component. We, as a government,

have been supporting agriculture, the same as past governments. It's a vital lifeline to the people who live in this great province that we are able to grow food to supply the people of Ontario.

It's something that we as a government are committed to: ensuring that that food chain is stable and making sure that those folks working on those farms 365 days a year. In many cases, there is no

start or finish time to those 365 days; I've seen some of my neighbours, farmers. I'm not so sure when you can get them in the house, because they're normally outside doing chores. We need to

support them, and we're committed to doing that. We need to provide them with the tools they need.

So to say that June 21 is a day we need to celebrate rural Ontario, it's long, long overdue. There's no question about it. We need, somehow, to put that in the

forefront.

Let me tell you about folks in my riding; I think it was six, seven, eight years ago. As we get older, time goes faster. The local NFA, Northumberland

Federation of Agriculture, started Rural Ramble, which is such a success in rural Ontario today. They invite folks from urban centres to their own farms, into their kitchens, into their barns, to

show them that beef doesn't grow in the IGA freezer, that the produce doesn't grow in the Sobeys produce department, that it actually comes from somewhere.

To recognize rural Ontario on June 21 is the very least we can do for rural Ontario. I know all of us in this House are going to support this initiative, and I

want to thank the member from Huron-Bruce for bringing this forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs. Mitchell, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs. Mitchell: I want to thank the members from Oxford, Niagara Centre, Peterborough, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, Simcoe North and Northumberland.

Thank you, speakers. I really do appreciate you taking the time to do your research and speak on what I believe is a beginning step in recognition of our rural communities.

I want to just add to the day a letter from the member from Perth-Middlesex. I'm going to read it: "I support and look forward to the quick passage of Bill

199. Together, the member for Huron-Bruce and I have worked together with our rural colleagues to build bridges with urban and suburban Ontario. Bill 199 is a great example of this effort, and I

urge all members to support this bill." That is from the member from Perth-Middlesex.

I encourage the members of the House to support Rural Ontario Day. This is a day on which we can recognize what our rural communities have given to the

province of Ontario and will continue to give. Our rural communities have been under a great deal of duress, and we need to continually encourage all communities within Ontario.

So I thank you for your support, and I look forward to the bill moving forward at what I'm sure will be a quick pace. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me

to bring forward my bill today.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you to all members. The time allowed for private members' public business has now expired.

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (TEST PSA POUR

LE DÉPISTAGE DU CANCER DE LA

PROSTATE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 73, standing in the name of Mr. Mauro. Is it the pleasure

of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will call in the members for a vote, but we will first deal with the next ballot item number.

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ballot item number 74, standing in the name of Mrs. Mitchell. Is it the pleasure of the House that the

motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have a vote on this as well. I will now call in the members and remind them that this is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR

PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (TEST PSA POUR

LE DÉPISTAGE DU CANCER DE LA

PROSTATE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Mauro has moved second reading of Bill 201.

All those in favour will please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Broten, Laurel C.

Colle, Mike

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Murdoch, Bill

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Van Bommel, Maria

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those against, please stand.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 38; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I ask that the House refer this bill to the standing committee on social policy.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

I remind the members that the doors will be open for 30 seconds before the next vote.

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item 74. Mrs. Mitchell has moved second reading of Bill 199.

Same vote? No, I'm told we will have a vote.

All those in favour, please stand.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Broten, Laurel C.

Colle, Mike

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Murdoch, Bill

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Van Bommel, Maria

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those against, please stand.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 38; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?

All those in favour, please stand.

The majority being in favour, it is referred to the standing committee on general government.

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

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I stand to recognize Canadian Environment Week -- as we endure a week of smog advisories and thick

air as a reminder of the toll we are taking on our environment and the toll that it can take on us.

While this government tries to figure out when a closure deadline is actually a deadline, the government has missed the opportunity to put in place real smog

reduction initiatives. Smog can be fixed; smog should be fixed. Technology is available, and it's in use right now, to cut 99% of particulate matter, 96% of NO x , 92% of SO x

from fossil fuel generators, but this government has fiddled while the problem grows.

I join in the call to spare the air and leave the car behind in favour of public transit or a bicycle. I myself walked to work this morning. That said, we do

have serious problems that aren't going to be solved by a few more people walking. Even if every one of us across Ontario took those steps, we would still face the 50% smog problem billowing in

from the United States, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Today, we celebrate Filipino independence day. It gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of our

Premier, Dalton McGuinty, and the government of Ontario to pay tribute to all Filipino Canadians in honour of the 107th anniversary of Philippine independence.

In 1898, the Philippines succeeded in winning independence after 350 years of colonization. Today, it stands as a beacon for democracy, playing a vital role in

Asia and throughout the whole world. But Filipinos of every age, in the Philippines and in Canada, do not forget the long struggle that it took to get to this point in history. We all know the

tremendous personal sacrifice of those Filipinos who put their lives on the line for their nation and for freedom.

I also rise today to pay tribute to Filipino Canadians who continue to make valuable contributions to our province and our country and, of course, to the

organizer of Filipino Flag Day at the Legislature, Monina Lim-Serrano, president of the Federation of Filipino Canadians.

As the Filipino government considers adopting a parliamentary system similar to Canada's, we again see a convergence of ideals and wish the Philippines and all

Filipinos a happy independence day.

Mabuhay ang Filipinas. Long live the Philippines.

FLEMING COLLEGE

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to draw the attention of the Legislature to a tremendous honour that is being

bestowed upon Fleming College. Today, at the Ontario Energy Association's annual reception, Fleming College will be named an outstanding leader in sustainable energy practices. Fleming College is

one of seven institutions in Ontario being recognized for its environmental leadership.

The new wing at the Frost campus of Fleming College, located in Lindsay, is one of the most energy-efficient buildings in Canada and generates annual energy

savings of more than $36,000. Fleming's centre for alternative waste water treatment can treat about 3,000 litres of water a day for the new wing.

This is not the only recognition that Fleming College has received. The new technology wing in Peterborough and the new Haliburton campus have also been

recognized by Natural Resources Canada.

Fleming College is committed to embracing new environmental technologies, and this award is in recognition of the excellent job they have done at finding

practical applications for these technologies. Congratulations are due to Fleming president, Tony Tilly; principal, Blane Harvey; and all of the staff and students there.

The new wing at Fleming is the end result of hard work for several years on the part of many people in the community, including Jim Madder, the past principal,

Brian Desbiens, the past president, and Chris Hodgson, the past MPP for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. I add my voice to those congratulating Fleming College on this achievement.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Every year in this Legislature, in this building, there is a program called the Ontario Legislature

internship program, and it has been going on now for some 30 years. This year marks the 30th anniversary. Every year young men and women who have just finished university and become recent

graduates, some seven or eight of them, come here and they find out that what university taught them isn't necessarily true as to what goes on in the Legislature.

This is my fourth year in the Legislature, and for the previous three years I applied to have an intern but was not successful. This year, though, I think I

lucked right out, I have to tell you. A young man by the name of Ben Rossiter came to my office in February, and I am so impressed with him; I am so impressed with the program; I am so impressed

with what he has been able to do in these few months in my office.

He has been totally engrossed in the life of politics. He has helped my constituents. He has even babysat upon occasion when required. But the most important

thing he did was the private member's bill. I don't know how it would have come about, I don't know how it would have been passed by this Legislature at second reading, without his expertise. I am

sad because tomorrow is his last day, and I would hire him if I could.

The program continues. He and his seven fellows are off to Great Britain next week. I think they are a testament to the vitality of this program, and I commend

the program to all members of the Legislature in the future.

ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): This year marks the 50th anniversary of the beautiful city of Elliot Lake. Elliot Lake is a vibrant,

full-service city of 12,000 people. I have had the honour and privilege of representing this fine city in this Legislature for 18 years.

Elliot Lake is a city that has faced many challenges. It has succeeded, however, in recreating itself as an adult lifestyle community and an attractive tourist

destination. Elliot Lake has received international recognition for its success. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the city and a lot of exciting events are planned.

The Jewel in the Wilderness festival is the signature event of the year-long 50th anniversary celebration. The festival runs from June 30 to July 4. Many

events are planned during the festival including a special Canada Day flag-raising at the Legion's cenotaph and a special Canada Day fireworks display that night. Also on July 1, Elliot Lake

Secondary School will hold its 50th anniversary reunion. On July 2, everyone is sure to come out for the festival parade in the afternoon and the 50th anniversary street dance in the evening. There

will be a special performance by Canadian music legend Randy Bachman.

These events and many more are planned for the Elliot Lake 50th anniversary Jewel in the Wilderness festival, and there are many more events throughout the

year. I would ask people across Ontario to have a look at the Web site www.cityofelliotlake.com.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): While the Premier and his ministers are ever ready to appear at photo ops and press conferences, they turn a

cold shoulder to issues that don't fit so neatly into their agenda.

One of those issues is the proposed hydro corridor through residential neighbourhoods in York region, and the concerns that local residents have expressed for

the potential health risks, and more specifically, the linkages of childhood leukemia to EMF exposure. Parents do not want their children to become statistics and they're not prepared to accept the

avoidance tactics of this government when it comes to dealing with their concerns.

On their behalf, I call on the Premier, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Energy and the Minister of the Environment to at the very least respond to

their request for a meeting during which they can discuss their concerns. Mrs. Sue Fusco, representing the STOP committee, wrote the Minister of Health on June 6, 2005, "I have forwarded

information regarding implications to children living in close proximity to high-voltage lines and the linkage to leukemia." She then went on to say, "You chose to delete my message before even

reading it."

To the Minister of Health and the Premier, I call on you to take the concerns of Mrs. Fusco and the hundreds of parents of thousands of children seriously

before it's too late. Meet with them, listen to them, take seriously the facts that they want you to consider and assure them that you will act on their behalf in the public interest.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I rise today to acknowledge Seniors' Month in Ontario, and specifically some of the seniors who have

made such a fine contribution to community life in Don Valley West and in the province.

In her 2004 book, Dark Age Ahead, Jane Jacobs writes that "A living future is forever changing, without losing itself as a framework and a context of change."

I particularly want to acknowledge some of the local seniors who help provide me with the context I need to think about the living future we're building as a government.

Edna Beange, Charlotte Maher, Carole Irwin, Diane Johnson, Ben Jarvenpaa, Robert Campbell, Thanga Velymylum, Derek Chadwick, Ian Cameron, Rheta and Larry

Solomon, Robert Campbell, John Dalglish and Jack Henshaw are all activists, and most are active participants on my seniors' advisory council. These are concerned citizens who help me by commenting

on the issues of the day and sharing their experience and wisdom with me. They have strong opinions about education, particularly adult and community education, health care, and infrastructure

investment, especially affordable housing and social policies. They pay close attention and bring a keen, critical eye to government policies.

They approve of our initiatives to keep seniors in their homes, but they argue that we need to pay attention to well seniors who might need a little support in

order to stay in their homes. They want seniors to be able to keep learning but want us to understand that they can't always afford expensive course fees. Some of them have been at the forefront of

creative housing projects in their own neighbourhoods, and they want us to pay attention to the creative, innovative ideas around us.

The seniors in our community remind us that a healthy, compassionate society looks after its most vulnerable: its young, who are its future, and its elderly,

who have made us what we are.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): With the passage of Bill 164, this government is once again taking a leading role in creating stronger

public health policy by paving the way toward a truly smoke-free Ontario.

The Canadian Cancer Society is extremely happy that the bill has passed, and the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco has hailed the legislation as the

beginning of a new era.

While I was pleased that the majority of members in this House supported this government's anti-smoking legislation, a handful of the usual Tory suspects cried

foul over Bill 164, supposedly for economic reasons. But this bill will reap economic benefits for our province for generations to come.

By focusing resources on helping Ontarians kick their nicotine addictions and by altering retail regulations to keep cigarettes out of sight and out of mind,

and also out of the hands of youth, we are creating a profound shift in public health habits. We are also dealing a fatal blow to the deadly culture of smoking. There is no doubt that our hospitals

and our doctors will carry a lighter load as a result of this legislation.

There's also no doubt in my mind that the 80% of our population who don't smoke will be grateful that they can enjoy a meal or a drink at any public

establishment without being put in harm's way. Many jurisdictions that have already gone smoke-free report that the hospitality industry experienced a real boost from such measures.

Passing Bill 164 was a question of good health policy, but it was also a solid economic move. It's another example of this government's thinking long-term and

investing in the future, and that is something we can all be proud of.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you and with this House our

government's historic and progressive investment in post-secondary education in our province.

For far too many years, colleges, universities and apprenticeship programs have been underfunded by governments who chose to turn a blind eye to the inherent

contributions these students make to our province. From 1993 to 2003, tuition in Ontario rose 137%, the largest increase in the country.

I am proud to stand in this House today to share with my fellow members the investments our government is making to ensure a healthy and prosperous future for

Ontario.

Just a few weeks ago, we made a record investment of $6.2 billion in post-secondary education, the first such investment in 40 years.

We're investing $100 million in the Ontario graduate fellowship endowment. In my riding of London North Centre, this will mean $9.42 million for the University

of Western Ontario, as an initial endowment. That will go to help over 2,600 graduate students.

Furthermore, Western will also receive $13 million for facility and infrastructure renewal. In total, across the province, our government will invest an

astounding $200 million this year alone in facility revitalization, because providing a safe and healthy learning environment for our students is a priority for this government.

There is a direct link between education and prosperity. Research has shown this time and time again. Our government wants to ensure that all Ontario students

not only have access to the best post-secondary educat