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

February 24, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Feb-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 24 February 2005 Jeudi 24 février 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FARM IMPLEMENTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

JAY LAWRENCE AND BART MACKEY

MEMORIAL ACT (HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 COMMÉMORANT

JAY LAWRENCE ET BART MACKEY

(MODIFICATION DU CODE DE LA ROUTE)

FARM IMPLEMENTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

JAY LAWRENCE AND BART MACKEY

MEMORIAL ACT (HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 COMMÉMORANT

JAY LAWRENCE ET BART MACKEY

(MODIFICATION DU CODE DE LA ROUTE)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE SPECIALISTS

HEALTH CARE

MISSISSAUGA SPORTS WEEK

SHIRLEY FINCH

GREENBELT LEGISLATION

LANGUAGE EDUCATION

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIESÂ /

POLITIQUES FISCALES

FÉDÉRALES-PROVINCIALES

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY

SEMAINE DU PATRIMOINE /

HERITAGE WEEK

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

DEFERRED VOTES

GREENBELT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR

LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

HEALTH RECORDS

IMMIGRATION POLICY

GAMBLING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRES /

CENTRES D'AIDE POUR VICTIMES

D'AGRESSION SEXUELLE

VETERANS' HOSPITAL CARE

AUTISM

DETOX CENTRES

ACCESS TO DRUGS

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

STUDENT SAFETY

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

EYE EXAMINATIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIPS

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES UNIONS CONJUGALES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FARM IMPLEMENTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

Mr. Hardeman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 168,

An Act to ensure fairness, to foster competition and consumer choice and to encourage innovation in the farm implement sector / Projet de loi 168, Loi visant à assurer l'équité, à favoriser la concurrence et le choix chez le consommateur et à encourager l'innovation dans le secteur des appareils agricoles.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the members of the Legislature who will participate in the debate on this bill this morning. I'm confident that I will hear only supportive, positive comments, as I'm sure everyone here, after reading Bill 168 and the explanatory note, will see the necessity of creating a fairer playing field in the farm implement industry.

I'm very happy to be able to rise in the House today and bring forward legislation that will make needed changes to the Farm Implements Act. These changes follow the lead of the United States and the majority of provinces in Canada. They are being made because present legislation such as the federal Competition Act, the Ontario franchise legislation and the Arthur Wishart Act are not effective in this instance.

It's also worth noting that these jurisdictions have not received any legal challenges where they've implemented these changes, and I say this only because I would like to point out that this legislation sets no legal precedent for any equipment dealers other than farm implement dealers. It is meant to address a very specific injustice happening in a specific industry.

The proposed changes to the Farm Implements Act have come before this House before. In 2001, Toby Barrett, the member for Haldimand–Norfolk—Brant, introduced the Farm Implements Amendment Act for the first time.

In his first reading statement, he rightly pointed out these changes are needed to "remove dealer exclusivity as an irritant in dealer/distributor agreements by allowing dealers to sell farm machinery from any distributor or manufacturer." He also pointed out that dealers need to be protected from contract termination without cause, and finally, that distributors need to be discouraged from imposing discriminatory contracts on individual dealers and small distributors that would not let them share warranty costs, parts supply and inventory responsibilities with their manufacturers.

Changes similar to those found in Bill 168 can also be found in the previous Rural Red Tape Reduction Act, which I was pleased to introduce in 2003, after the original version was prorogued. The rural red tape act was produced to encourage economic growth, entrepreneurship and innovation in rural Ontario. I believe the bill I bring for second reading debate this morning does just that.

The content of the rural red tape act was produced after a series of consultations that were held to determine how to improve investment, reduce red tape and remove barriers to jobs in rural and remote parts of the province.

In the spring and summer of 2000, Dr. Doug Galt, the then MPP for Northumberland, held a series of consultations with a broad range of rural stakeholders across Ontario which led to the report of the Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal. Rural red tape reduction was one of the key recommendations of the task force report.

In the summer of 2001, Minister Coburn, then-Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, hosted a series of small business round tables across Ontario. In the fall of 2001, the Red Tape Commission had consultations with over 600 small business owners in 20 communities across the province. In June of 2002, the Premier at the time, Ernie Eves, along with Minister Helen Johns, held round tables with the province's agriculture and food industries to establish key priorities to strengthen rural businesses.

For two years, consultations were held with rural stakeholders, small businesses and the province's agriculture and food industries to establish key priorities to strengthen rural businesses.

Drawing on the consultations, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Red Tape Commission initiated a red tape reduction project that recognized the unique challenge of rural communities. To this day, government red tape continues to be cited by rural economic development organizations as the key factor limiting competitiveness, investment and job creation in rural Ontario.

Our government responded to farmers and farm implement dealers, distributors and manufacturers who asked for increased flexibility for the Ontario farm implement industry. They wanted to provide better customer service in repairs and warranties and to foster more choice for farmers by preventing barriers to competition. Unfortunately, the previous attempts to change the Farm Implements Act were unsuccessful because they were unable to complete the legal process necessary to become law before the last election. But the problem is still there.

It is with great hope for all-party support that I bring before this Legislature a bill that would finally be able to address the problems that are plaguing the industry. The Farm Implements Amendment Act, 2005, once again brings to the table the changes that will encourage economic growth, improve the environment for investment, reduce red tape and remove barriers to growth in rural Ontario. It will see that no large implement manufacturers can force implement dealers to carry only one line of product or a line that no one in their area needs or is interested in.

It includes measures to remove burdens placed on farm implement dealers, distributors and manufacturers and the farm community they serve. It will allow dealers to carry short-line equipment, local equipment and to provide a more competitive environment in which farmers can have more choice and greater freedom to purchase equipment that will better suit their needs and budgets. And it will finally settle a negotiation point that has been unable to be solved going on for 15 years.

The bill demonstrates my commitment to building sustainable business and stronger rural communities. The Minister of Agriculture and Food supported the bill when he was critic. He said of Toby Barrett's bill, "As the critic responsible for agriculture for the Liberal Party, I want to commend the member ... for his initiative ... that is going to have a great benefit and a real" positive "effect in rural Ontario."

He goes on to say, "At times I've stood in this Legislature and been critical of the government in their commitment to rural Ontario, but today I'm not going to stand up and criticize the government for this initiative. I think it is a good initiative, and it's one I've recommended to our party that we support.... I think it is essential and incumbent on us as legislators that we look after the small distributors and manufacturers comprising what's known as the short-line farm implement industry in this province, which generates over $240 million annually for the Ontario economy."

The member from Elgin—Middlesex—London only suggested it was taking too long, that we had done too many consultations needed to pass the legislation changing the Farm Implements Act faster. My esteemed colleague from Timmins—James Bay, Mr. Gilles Bisson, criticized the bill because it didn't address dealer purity policies as definitively as he would have liked. I want to assure him that that clause has been amended and included in the bill. The minister was very supportive of this legislation then, and while I do wonder why he hasn't tabled the bill himself, I'm happy to do so on behalf of the farmers of Ontario.

I'm sure the minister's previous statements are indicative of how he will vote on this bill, and I look forward to his support.

Here is an opportunity to do something for the stakeholders. The minister can help an industry in crisis. This bill has no budget impact; it merely allows for more freedom within the farm implements industry. No one can plead poverty on this one. This bill is supported by the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association, the National Farmers Union and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. I could continue with the list of organizations that support this bill.

I am happy to resurrect the Farm Implements Amendment Act to respond to the farmers and farm implement dealers, distributors and manufacturers, who are asking for increased flexibility for the Ontario farm implements industry. When the minister was critic, he told us, "As we have a real mix of urban and rural representatives in this Legislature, it's important that I encourage and urge the urban members in particular to support this. You need to understand that there are differences between urban and rural Ontario, and that often what's best for Toronto isn't necessarily best for rural Ontario.

I urge all the members to support this initiative because this is something that is going to have a positive effect in rural Ontario."

Minister, I ask that you vote and encourage your urban members in particular to support this, because you said you would. Every one of us in this Legislature, urban or rural, has to get up in the morning and eat. It's incumbent on every one of us to do everything we can to ensure that the agriculture industry and this province remain competitive and that we continue to be leaders.

Thank you very much for allowing me to introduce this bill and for patiently hearing my presentation. We do look forward to further comment and, in the end, support for this bill.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I want to start by commenting on the member for Oxford's last few comments around the issue of urban members and whether or not urban members understand the importance of this particular bill.

But first, congratulations for bringing it forward. It's certainly long overdue -- not that I have been here to see how it has gone through the process, but my understanding is that it is long overdue, and I congratulate the member for Oxford for bringing it forward.

I actually am one of the members who represent an urban riding, the riding of Hamilton East. But I also have the privilege of having that riding sit in a municipality that has a significant rural-agricultural base. I grew up in a place called Stoney Creek, which has a great number of farms still there and of course a very active tender fruit belt area. The riding I represent is surrounded by a couple of other urban ridings, but those are then circled by a great deal of farmland: the Glanbrook area, the Flamborough area, the Stoney Creek area. All of those are very rural, and farmers' issues are not something that I am unaware of.

Having represented, at that time, the downtown area of Hamilton on city council after amalgamation came to the city in the year 2000, I spent several years learning more about what was happening in the agricultural areas of our great city because, quite frankly, it was an obligation of mine -- and a serious obligation, I thought at the time -- to make sure I understood what the rural representatives were bringing to the table.

Whether that was an issue of planning and subdivision of farms, for example, or whether an issue of roads and speed limits and those kinds of things, the reality is that the rural areas are quite unique. Farming particularly is an area that has not been well supported over the years by governments generally.

I see this bill as something that is long overdue and much needed by the farm community. It means support for farmers, which we haven't seen enough of in this Legislature. As an urban member, I'm very proud to say that I will likely be supporting this bill; in fact, I know I will be supporting this bill. Farmers are a group of people that this government and, unfortunately, previous governments as well have not done enough for. From my perspective, that could be in some small way corrected by Bill 168.

When you look at what has happened in farm communities, when you look at what has happened in the farming industry, if you want to call it that, in Ontario over the last couple of years, there have been quite serious challenges that have faced farmers.

Whether that challenge is BSE and the subsequent restriction of beef imports to the United States and what that has done to cattle prices, or whether it's going back even to globalization of free trade and what that did to the ability of our farmers to compete in a more unrestricted market, when we look at those kinds of impacts that farmers really had no control over but were asked to adapt to and still provide the kinds of goods that we need, as was mentioned by the member for Oxford, to survive, then you know they have been hurting. They certainly do need all the support they can get from their governments.

When you look at the effect even recently, over the last year or two, of the climbing Canadian dollar and what that has done in terms of the ability of farmers to compete, it's the same as what has been happening in industry and other places, the same kinds of impacts that have had a serious effect on our economy overall. The same thing has happened in the farm industry. What we see is that with that competition increasing the value of goods, the amount of dollars that can be obtained when there's not that extra give in the value of the Canadian dollar, then that had a serious impact on farmers.

Really, this bill, although it won't affect that piece, does send out a signal that farmers are not being ignored in this Legislature. Although they may have felt that way by the government, certainly this bill brought by the opposition member from Oxford does let them see that there are some people here who are concerned about the issues they have and the ways we can find to correct some of their concerns.

I just wanted to go through what I understand is happening in some of the specific industries, some of the specific farming areas. I've talked about things like the high Canadian dollar. One of the things I haven't talked about, though, is the issue of other variables that are not manageable, are not something that can be affected by farmers yet where the farmers are affected by the results of these things: things like weather patterns, things like rain, things like drought, things like freezing -- weather that does not do well for crops.

I think about, particularly in the region that I come from, understanding the seasons and how whether they arrive on time or leave on time will affect everything from the quality of a grape to the ability of the wine industry to make icewine that year. Similarly, the way that the weather and its fluctuations affect the ability of farmers to cope and to still be able to operate their farms over time is a significant problem.

Crop prices apparently are the worst that they've been in the last 25 years. Corn prices are at the lowest level since 1986. Soybeans are also at a 25-year low in terms of the prices they can obtain. The income of farmers -- when I read these notes, I thought, "This is a staggering figure." Farm income is down 253% this year. I challenge anybody around here to try to survive on a 253% reduction in their income source.

There is a severe shortage of other kinds of resources needed by farmers. We talk about this bill in relation to the equipment that is being sold to farmers that they need to raise their crops and bring those crops to market. But there are also other pieces of the farm and of the rural lifestyle that have been withdrawn, perhaps not in any purposeful way, but the result is the same when it comes to the way it affects the farmers. For example, one of the things that isn't discussed very often but is in fact the case is that there is a severe shortage of veterinarians in rural Ontario.

Farmers are often on their own when they need emergency veterinary assistance on their farms, when there is a problem with perhaps a birth or some other kind of incident that has occurred with an injury to an animal.

We see a number of different challenges to farmers and a number of different areas that need to be reviewed and acted upon. When it comes to the hard-working farmers of rural Ontario, when it comes to the people who literally put the food on our table, we need to make sure that as governments we support those people and ensure that they are able to continue to produce and provide that important piece not only of our subsistence but of our economy.

When I was on city council in Hamilton, I was quite shocked to learn the proportion of the local economy that was taken up by the agricultural community. It was something that I had taken for granted for all the years I lived in that community. As I said, I was quite pleased to have the opportunity to learn more about not only what was being produced in my local area but how that affected the economy of the area I come from. That is of course reflective of the province overall and of what is so important a piece of our economy in terms of overall goods and service production.

I had a chance to go up to the nomination meeting, and we now have a wonderful candidate in the Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey by-election. Our candidate there, Lynda McDougall, is a woman who comes from five generations of farms. She has born-and-bred farm and historical roots in that community. I had the opportunity to speak to her a little bit about what was happening in her community and what she saw as the issues in that riding.

I can tell you, as the only one who can speak with authority and with knowledge about what has happened to rural Ontario in that particular by-election in terms of the candidates, she was quite a wealth of information. I look forward to seeing her in this House standing up for the needs of our farmers. She would be, I'm sure, the first to agree with Bill 168.

The bill really states the obvious: that farmers deserve a fair deal, that the laws that exist should be there to protect the farmers and protect them from being ripped off in unregulated situations. The bottom line is that programs have been cut and funding has been cut even for things like drainage systems. The support for those kinds of necessary capital projects were cut. The bottom line is that the farmers were ignored.

The initiatives come forward and then people scramble to fix it, but had people been paying attention to and appropriately consulting with farmers all along, these things that throw them for a loop and force them to leave their farms to lobby and do other things that they have no time for -- it's really unfortunate.

It is a matter of opening up the dialogue and keeping the communication going, but unfortunately, farmers -- you just needed to go to the ROMA conference the other day to see how disappointed rural people are with the commitment of their government to even talk to them about the issues in a way that is productive and in a way that will move their issues forward. We all know, not only from what happened there but from what has happened in this very House in terms of the disappointment there -- it has happened with the rural municipalities and the leadership in those municipalities, and it's happening with the farmers as well.

The bottom line, what we need, is a government that's prepared to look at these issues and do the things that are necessary to be done -- not for us to have to take the farmers away from their very busy and quite difficult daily lives in keeping their farms going, but to try to get the government to have an ear. The bottom line is it's the government's obligation to make sure that their needs are met.

I see my colleague Gilles Bisson has come back into the House, and I'm not sure whether he's interested in saying a few words. I don't know what your hand signals mean yet, Gilles.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—James Bay): Keep going.

Ms. Horwath: I haven't been here long enough to know whether this means, "Keep going," or "Wrap it up." Anyway, this means, "Keep going," so I will.

One of the interesting things when I was having my breakfast this morning -- I had an omelette. I was thinking, you know, it's interesting. Every day, I consume some of the produce from the agricultural industries in our province. In fact, the riding that I represent, Hamilton East, has a farmers' market in it at a place called the Centre Mall. The farmers' market there is an excellent little market, because it is a little farmers' market where the wares are all locally produced. So it's not a commercial farmer's market. It is actually a very grassroots farmer's market.

When you go there to buy honey or eggs or cheese or meat, you know that it's been raised or produced in a farm somewhere nearby.

You know, I served on city council in Hamilton with somebody who was an active farmer. He was a dairy farmer. I had an opportunity to visit his farm and see the kinds of things that he was having to do as technology changed and as technology was introduced to the farm. It's very interesting to talk to someone like that, to find out how they've had to adapt from the traditional four, five, six generations of farming into the technological advancements that have happened in the farm industry.

He said that at first it was very intimidating, but when he figured out how he was going to be benefiting from the changes in technology, he had the opportunity to take advantage of that financially and has done quite well.

I think the bottom line to this bill is that it's a great bill. It's a long-overdue bill. What it does in terms of providing the opportunity for more competition, for more availability of various name brands of products and various types of products in each individual place of commercial farm implement distribution, is allow the farmers more choice. It allows them more opportunity for things like repairs and for upkeep of their equipment.

From my perspective, that is something that absolutely, without saying it's necessary, provides great support to farmers and that addresses an issue that they have been very vocal about, and they have been waiting for this change for, unfortunately, several years.

Thank you. I'm pleased to be able to support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Grey—Bruce.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron—Bruce): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the member from Hamilton East for the support of our rural communities. I know everyone, and the Speaker, in the House knows that I'm from Huron—Bruce.

The Deputy Speaker: I always get the Bruce right, though.

Mrs. Mitchell: Well, that's very good.

How rural my communities are. I know the importance of farm implement dealers in Ontario, and I too support this bill. But I must ask why it has taken so long to get this bill, which will make implement dealers far more competitive, passed. Why is it that a party which was in power for the last 10 years, the party that talked about competition and the importance of farming in our rural communities, didn't pass the bill? In fact, they did nothing but cut the agriculture budget, cut services that our farmers, our rural communities, have relied on over the years.

Not only did that happen, but it jeopardized our food safety, food safety which the people of Ontario have every right to rely on, because they know that our farmers are behind food safety 100%. And they sat on the bill since 2001.

I can tell you that many of the dealers in my riding have been in business for decades and they looked for equipment which would work for the farmers in their area. They looked for certain makes that were priced right and did the job for their customers. With globalization came the big corporations, which decided that the dealer would be tied to those large corporations. It was sell their brand or else. The implement dealers were in a bind, and the small manufacturers needed the dealers who handled short-line equipment. Without dealers, they had no outlets and no places to sell their machinery.

Often, these small manufacturers were very innovative. Their ideas came from work in the field. Frequently, they emerged from our rural welding shops, which grew into factories. Without dealers, they could not sell enough equipment to take advantage of economies of scale.

This bill will remove the dealer purity clauses which restrict implement dealers to one distributor, and it will ensure fairness and foster competition. The implement dealer has long been an institution in rural Ontario. It is a place of business, but it's not only a place of business for all of us in rural Ontario; we also know that it's a place to share many ideas. Often the dealers, I can tell you, were pioneers in new techniques. They have been active in farm organizations. They have sponsored teams. They have provided transportation to agricultural events.

The president of the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers' Association lives in my riding, in Huron county. He and his father before him have been fighting for more than a decade to bring about this change. This bill will allow them and other dealers to do what they do best, and that's sell and service equipment which meets the needs of our farmers.

Our farmers are competing globally. They need competitively priced equipment. This bill will provide our dealers the same protection as dealers in other provinces and all of the American states. This bill will ensure fairness and foster competition. It will encourage innovation. I can tell you that in rural communities, we are the farmers of innovation. We often don't have the same tools as our urban counterparts, but what we do have is a great wealth of creativity. This will benefit rural Ontario in many ways, and I'm very pleased to rise and support this bill and to congratulate the member from Oxford, also from a very rural riding within our province.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant): The member mentioned that similar legislation --

Failure of sound system.

The Deputy Speaker: The member may want to speak up loudly, because there's a problem with the microphone. We'll just continue -- there we go. I think maybe it's coming on.

Mr. Barrett: Well, we've resurrected this bill, so I'll resurrect my introduction.

In June 2001, it was introduced as Bill 76; we have the title before us. It did receive support then from farmers and, of course, from farm implement dealers and members in this Legislature. I thank my colleague Ernie Hardeman for resurrecting this particular piece of legislation designed to protect farm implement dealers from certain business practices of the large manufacturers.

Manufacturers have been using these dealer purity policies that prevent dealers from selling other products. Dealer purity or exclusivity is currently being used in dealer contracts by some of the large farm equipment manufacturers in order to force the dealers to sell products exclusive to that manufacturer. This bill would essentially eliminate dealer purity policies and allow dealers more choice. It will allow farmers more choice on the brands of equipment and parts that they can purchase and will help foster competition.

Last night, my office spoke to a dealer in our area. I've indicated that manufacturers have loosened up a bit on this, although the dealer still feels there is a problem there, and there's a problem for the short-line manufacturers as well in this province.

I represent an area that grows tobacco, ginseng, horseradish, peanuts and potatoes. These kinds of specialized crops require specialized machinery. The big manufacturers are not in that market. It's difficult to get that kind of specialized machinery. Therefore, we have short-liners. They can manufacture a limited run of vegetable planters, specialized tillage, the kind of stuff we need for ginseng, potatoes and tobacco. They have been able to offer cheaper product.

They've been able to offer alternatives to the more expensive equipment, and they have been in the forefront with respect to innovation and developing new machinery. They have a track record. They led the charge to bring in front-wheel drive, for example, and to bring in the articulated tractors and no-till equipment, the stuff that was not initiated by the very large manufacturers.

We know there are fewer companies; we know that mergers have been continually ongoing. There is more control now in the distribution. We don't have large tractor manufacturers in Canada anymore. We lost International in Hamilton, we lost Cockshutt, White farm machinery in Brantford, and we lost Massey-Ferguson in Brantford. We still have John Deere. It's been a while since I've been in their Grimsby operation; the warehouse is still there. So the way things stand today, the range of machinery being offered for purchase is reduced; competition is reduced.

If a farm dealership closes down in many parts of Ontario, it means farmers have to drive perhaps an extra hour or hour and a half to get the parts they need.

This issue of dealer purity policy does threaten the survival not only of dealers but of the short-liners, and rural communities as well. It does not really contribute to spinoff economic activity in the rural ridings and rural areas that many of us represent.

Bill 168 is similar to what we have already in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. I think it's in Alberta now; it was awaiting royal assent a year or two ago. Again, as growing numbers of dealers begin to lose their businesses, governments in the United States have found it necessary to introduce legislation. Dealer purity is illegal in the United States.

I do wish to caution the House. We're certainly not going overboard on this one. I wish to quote from a 1969 paper in the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. It's an

article by W. James White, an economist. He is doing a critique of The Challenge of Abundance, the report that came from the Ontario farm income committee at that time. The Challenge of Abundance was written in response to the tractor rallies of the day at Queen's Park. The committee made some recommendations on the farm equipment industry, and he criticizes their recommendations. For example, believe it or not, the government of the day proposed that a corporation be established to distribute all farm equipment in the province of Ontario, to have the Ontario government distribute farm equipment in Ontario.

It was a corporation called the Ontario Farm Machinery Crown Corp. There's some valuable stuff here. They would allow any dealer to handle any make of machine -- that's what we are talking about today -- and of course to reduce the cost of machinery. But to have the government distribute farm equipment in the province of Ontario smacks of socialism in my business, and over the years we have come a long way with respect to some of these socialistic recommendations from the Ontario government.

Some people say this issue can be worked out between the manufacturers and the dealers. It's pretty hard to negotiate with some of these large corporations like John Deere. The dealers have found that the Competition Bureau has been ineffective in protecting them. The behaviour has to be repetitive for the bureau to step in. Ontario's franchise legislation, the Arthur Wishart Act, also does not address this issue. So it looks like the responsibility to try and rectify this lies with the members of this House.

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I'm pleased to speak about my colleague Ernie Hardeman's Bill 168. If this bill sounds strikingly familiar, that is because it is. PC Toby Barrett's private member's bill, Bill 76, Farm Implements Amendment Act, 2001, was introduced on June 6, 2001. It was carried over to the spring 2002 session as the Farm Implements Amendment Act, 2002, and was never passed. The Conservatives like to masquerade as friends of Ontario farmers, yet they let this bill sit on the order paper and eventually die after two years of inaction.

The amendments proposed in Bill 168 are more specific in nature than those proposed by OMAF. However, it is OMAF's position that these specifics would more appropriately be dealt with in regulation following further consultation with the industry.

Our Conservative predecessors sat on this legislation, and although we could commend their initiative, the fact remains that during the last five years that they were in government, Ontario lost 1,000 farmers per year. The Conservatives slashed $80 million from agriculture, $23 million was cut from policy and farm finance, $10.3 million was cut from education, research and labs, and $11.4 million was cut from food industry development.

They sat on this just like they sat on that negative meat inspection memo for a year and a half and cut the number of provincial inspectors in plants down from 130 in 1993 to only 80. The Liberal Party of Ontario does not sit on those pertinent issues. We have since hired the necessary full-time meat inspectors needed to ensure the safety of our constituents. We will not sit back and jeopardize their safety like the Conservatives did.

Minister Peters has consistently and relentlessly supported Ontario's farmers. Just a few examples include:

Fulfilling Justice R. Haines's first recommendation through proclaiming the Food Safety and Quality Act, and promulgating a new, stronger meat regulation under the act took another step toward protecting Ontarians' health.

To ensure the financial health of our agricultural industry, we hammered out a better deal on the agricultural policy framework with the federal government.

To ensure that Ontario's food remains safe, we asked a prominent judge to conduct an inquiry into problems with food safety.

To help the province's farmers with the mad cow crisis and to adjust to a new generation of farm safety nets, we are spending $74 million to provide stability for our farmers.

We have committed to providing as much as $138.5 million in BSE relief funding and $20 million in nutrient management assistance.

The government of Ontario will invest $1 million toward the creation of an integrated anaerobic digestion facility that will convert the biogas from manure into heat and electricity.

To protect Ontario's dairy farmers from edible oil products, we passed the Edible Oil Products Repeal Date Amendment Act.

To help Ontario's apple growers better compete in the global market, we have established the Ontario Apple Growers Marketing Board. Brian Gilroy, the chair of the Ontario apple growers' steering committee, welcomes the government's announcement.

Our Liberal government is protecting the viability of family farming in the province by exempting the land transfer tax on farmland.

To enhance the safety of foods produced and processed in Ontario, we are investing in research projects designed to do just that.

To help Ontario's livestock industry deal with the effects of BSE, we are investing and increasing abattoir capacity for older animals.

We are doing many things --

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the member that we're discussing Bill 168, which is the farm implement bill. We should stick to that subject, if we can.

Mr. Racco: In closing, this act will ensure fairness, foster competition and consumer choice. Furthermore, it will encourage innovation in the farm implement sector and will give dealerships the ability to sell products from multiple manufacturers, specialized equipment distributors and to carry equipment manufactured locally.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock): It's a pleasure to rise here today. As the member from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant has said, doing the right thing takes a little while. The bill was introduced by that member in 2001. I've been told there have been two main ways for a private member's bill to succeed. One is through the legislative process to become law. That does happen some of the time.

I commend the member for Oxford for reintroducing this bill today because important matters are raised in his private member's bill. I'm happy to hear the members opposite speaking in support of this bill, especially the member from Hamilton East, whose riding is not rural but who understands the rural concepts and the challenges we're facing and the need for this bill to go through.

The Farm Implements Amendment Act, 2001, succeeded by having the government include these changes in the Rural Red Tape Reduction Act, 2002. The member from Oxford again was instrumental in bringing that forward. Unfortunately it didn't come into law, and the government has changed.

I was pleased to hear the present government members speak in favour of that. I think that maybe they were involved in some holdups of its passage before. But the government has not seen fit to address the farmers and the farm implement dealers by bringing this forward. We had hoped that Minister Peters would have introduced this earlier. He has not, and I want to give you a quote from Minister Peters that he made on June 21, 2001. He said during the debate, "I think it is a good initiative, and it's one I've recommended to our party that we support today." I'm hoping he's going to live by this, as he is the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and put this legislation into law.

We on this side of the House, the PC caucus, understand the importance of passing this bill and it's much needed. When the Farm Implements Amendment Act was being brought forward, I let a lot of businesses in the area know and the responses that have come back were that it's what the dealers and manufacturers have been waiting for -- finally.

I think the member from Hamilton East touched on the point that we need to keep small businesses in operation. It's important that we have competition.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Callaghan Farm Supply in Lindsay.

Ms. Scott: Sorry, member for Peterborough?

Mr. Leal: Callaghan Farm Supply in Lindsay.

Ms. Scott: I did get that from Tom Callaghan and Callaghan farm machinery in Lindsay saying, "Finally, it's good."

Mr. Leal: Good people.

Ms. Scott: They are good people. We have a lot of good dealerships all through my riding, which is a very large riding, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. Agriculture is very important there. I'm glad the member from Peterborough acknowledges that. I'm sure we'll have his support on this bill to make it law.

I have to move forward because we have a lot of members from our caucus who are here in support of it. I encourage everyone here today to support the bill. The member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is a little anxious and wants to speak to it, so thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth—Middlesex): I have but one question: Why are we debating this bill today? It's because this bill has been before the House and the previous government, in its wisdom, decided not to support their own member, the member from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, when he put this in. I know enough about this place to know that if the previous government supported this bill, it would be law. My God, the current Minister of Agriculture, Steve Peters, supported the bill, so I'm sure there was no problem with the opposition.

I'm sure that the member from Hamilton East, who showed us today that she has an interest, let's say, in rural affairs -- perhaps not a grasp of the issues of rural Ontario, but she does have an interest and we appreciate that.

I ask the question, why is this not the law today? Because the previous government, while they talked about rural Ontario and they talked about supporting the farmers, actually didn't get around to the business of doing something that we all agreed to.

It must be difficult, I'm sure, for my colleague from Oxford, the former Minister of Agriculture and Food, that this matter has come back yet again to this House. So I say, just so that we're consistent, our members here are fully in support of the retread of this bill that came from the previous government that just did not have, obviously, the support of the members of the PC caucus, when they formed the government, to move this bill forward. I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has told me personally how he supports this bill.

Despite the frustration that I'm sure they're feeling by having to bring this up -- really, it has to be galling that they have to do this -- we are looking forward to supporting this bill. Our farmers want it. The implement dealers want it. On behalf of all of us in our caucus, rural caucus, I agree with the member from Huron—Bruce that this is a great bill. It will be interesting to see that this bill actually sees the light of day, particularly with the support of our Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound—Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate today and to support the member from Oxford and his private member's bill, Bill 168,

An Act to ensure fairness, to foster competition and consumer choice and to encourage innovation in the farm implement sector.

This bill really is about increasing competition for farm dealers. There are these agreements between the distributor and the dealer that restrict the ability of the dealer to sell other lines of implements. This bill would allow a dealer -- for example, a John Deere or a Case or a Ford New Holland dealer -- to also sell implements that may be made locally, just down the road, for example. This will be a positive for rural Ontario. It will increase competition. It will allow products that may be less expensive and of better quality to be available to farmers. It will also support the local manufacturers in Ontario. That's a good thing.

I'm very pleased that the member from Oxford is standing up for rural Ontario in bringing this bill forward. I note that the member from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant has brought this bill forward previously, I believe it was in 2001. Surely, it's important for the rural PC members to bring this forward, because we see that the government and the Minister of Agriculture is neglecting rural Ontario. They haven't given any of the gas tax to the small communities across rural Ontario.

We see the farmers having to go to such extreme measures as blocking the 401 and coming here to the Legislature on March 2 and March 9 to protest the actions of the government. So it's good to see that a rural PC member is sticking up for rural Ontario.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex): Right out of the farm gate, I'd like to say that I support this bill. Certainly, during the campaign and later, I myself was approached by a person who was then the president of ORFEDA, which is the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers' Association, about this very matter. He told me about the fact that this had been before the House and somehow had not moved through, had never really been finalized or passed into law. In my mind, I wonder if maybe with this bill there is a bit of political plowing going on here. But I know that the member from Oxford has the interests of farmers at heart, so I would never accuse him of any such thing.

I want to tell you about our own situation on the farm and what happened to us. A few years ago, René and I needed to buy a tractor. We had to make a decision: It was either going to be the John Deere tractor dealership, which was further afield, or our own local dealer. We decided to go with our own local dealer because it meant that we would have him very close by. If René needed to go in for repairs, he could drive the tractor there. He could pick up the parts in and out of town, and it was going to be very convenient for us to do business there.

We certainly wanted to support our own local business, and so we did. We purchased the tractor there. But what happened was, within about a year and a half, there was suddenly this enforcement of the dealer purity clause, and our local dealer had to close their tractor line. They went to a short line of small equipment, but we were no longer able to go there and we had to go quite a bit farther to get the parts.

So what that meant was that René stopped taking the tractor to the dealer and having them do the work. The mechanic lost the work. René would simply go -- and still does -- and get the parts and do his own repairs. That's had a very real impact on our community. When he does need to take it in for repairs because he can't manage it himself, he has to ask the dealer to bring out the float. They draw it back to the dealership, they do the repairs, they float it back, and it all takes extra time. More importantly, it means that in my community we lost a viable business. That business continues to struggle.

So for us as farmers, dealer purity has been a real problem, and we really want to see this issue solved, so I certainly support the member's bill. In terms of farmers -- and I heard talk about supporting farmers -- make sure you buy Ontario first. That's how you can support our farmers.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke): I'm pleased to stand in support of my colleague from Oxford this morning, speaking on Bill 168. Again, I congratulate the member from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant for introducing this bill back in 2001.

This bill reflects the changing times that we have in commerce across the province of Ontario, and indeed across the world. I grew up in the hardware business. We owned a hardware store. The hardware store of 2001, when my wife and I sold the store, didn't much resemble the hardware store of 1950. So many businesses reflect those changes.

At one time, if you wanted to buy an extension cord or a rake or a shovel, or you wanted to buy some bolts, the only place you could go was the hardware store. But as times changed, some of those products became available at your local supermarket, they became available at your local pharmacy, because the consumer wants availability of products in as many different locations as possible. We live very busy lives, and the consumer wants that availability. They don't want to be restricted to having to go to one particular location to get one particular product.

This bill is saying that farmers should be afforded the same kind of service. They should be able to get the equipment they need from more than one source in their particular area. I congratulate the member for bringing this forward to the House. You see, farming doesn't involve as many people as it used to years ago, either. Can a dealership survive today if it is restricted to selling the products of one particular manufacturer or if it has to have a dealership agreement with only one particular manufacturer?

I think it's very important for the sake of our farmers -- who are suffering badly these days, and much of that because of the neglect of this particular government -- that they be afforded that choice, to have the availability of those implements in this day and age. This bill will give the farmers that choice. As we all know, it's about time in the province of Ontario, because since October 2003, they haven't been given much. We're trying to give them something here, and we hope that in other key agricultural issues, this government does start to see what kind of plight farmers are suffering in this province and starts to address those problems as well.

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

Mr. Hardeman: I want to thank all the members who spoke: Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Parry Sound—Muskoka, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Hamilton East -- the urban member speaking -- Huron—Bruce, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Thornhill, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock and Perth—Middlesex. I thank them for their kind comments. As I started, I made the assumption that I would hear no one speaking in opposition to this bill because it is such a necessary and useful piece of legislation for our rural community.

The other thing that I mentioned in my opening remarks, and I just want to quickly comment on it, was that the problem we have in rural and agricultural Ontario is that we don't seem to be able to get the message out to the urban majority of our population on the importance of agriculture and the challenge they are facing. I said that it was our job as the rural members to convince the urban people to understand the problem. If they understood the problem, then they would support the solutions that are required.

I think the member from Hamilton East did a wonderful job of proving me right once again. When she looked at the bill and the explanation of it and understood the implications of not having this piece of legislation, she stood up very appropriately, spoke to it and then supported the bill because it would help not only farmers, but if it helps farmers and food production in Ontario, it indeed will help the province of Ontario. I want to thank her for that.

I also want to say that there was a considerable debate about the length of time it took to bring this forward. I think it's somewhat indicative of the problem we have in this Legislature: Even though everyone agrees, it just doesn't seem to be able to get done in an expeditious manner. So I put that to you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe you could look at some way to make sure that when something is supported by everyone in this place, it could, in fact, become the law of the province in an expeditious manner.

I am very thankful, with the discussion this morning, that we look forward to a positive vote for this and that it can be called for third reading and brought into law in the province. Thank you very much.

JAY LAWRENCE AND BART MACKEY

MEMORIAL ACT (HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 COMMÉMORANT

JAY LAWRENCE ET BART MACKEY

(MODIFICATION DU CODE DE LA ROUTE)

Mr. Rinaldi moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 153,

An Act in memory of Jay Lawrence and Bart Mackey to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 153, Loi modifiant le Code de la route à la mémoire de Jay Lawrence et Bart Mackey.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): The common phrase by all members when we stand in this House is that we normally say it's a pleasure to stand here today and speak about something. Indeed, it is a pleasure, but under these circumstances, I'm having difficulty saying it's a pleasure.

Having said that, Bill 153 is legislation that's long overdue in this province. Before I get there, I would like to recognize one of the families that was impacted by what we're trying to correct, the Lawrence family, that is here with us today. Unfortunately, the Mackey family could not join us. Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence are here in the members' gallery, and I certainly appreciate their being here today. They're here because they believe we're missing some laws in the province of Ontario for the betterment of the health and safety of all.

Before I talk about the bill, I'd also like to acknowledge my assistant Travis Hoover for the work he put toward this, my EA Elaine Palmateer and, of course, legislative counsel that was there to help us.

This bill is not new to this House. It was first introduced by Mr. Doug Galt, a former member of the now opposition. I think we heard from the previous speaker that sometimes, even though we all agree, things don't get done in an expeditious manner. I want to thank Doug for initiating this. But, of course, it got lost.

This started during the election campaign over a year ago, when I had the good fortune of meeting some of these folks. They said, "You know, if you do get elected" -- I got a sense of what had happened, and I knew what had happened. They don't live very far from where I live in the riding. So I guess I'm delighted to resurrect that today and move it forward.

I want to talk about a little background on why we're here. Early in the morning of July 30, 2000, Jay Lawrence and Bart Mackey headed home, riding in the back of a pickup truck, after spending the evening with a group of close friends. The truck that the young men were riding in was involved in an automobile accident, which resulted in these two young men being thrown from the box of the truck and killed instantly.

There cannot be a worse experience in the world for a parent than having a police officer knock on the door in the middle of the night. We can only imagine the heartache the family, the friends and the community have suffered with the loss of two remarkable young men. The hopes and dreams and bright future of Jay and Bart were taken away in an instant, but this could have been prevented.

To remind us again, on August 24, 2004, in Manitoba, two 20-year-olds were killed while riding in the back of a pickup truck. It just seems too similar. A 20-year-old man and a 20-year-old woman from Opaskwayak Cree Nation were riding in the back of a truck with 16 other people. Those 16 other folks also got hurt.

It's hard to believe that we have laws in this country, in this province, that if we put a dog in the back of a truck, he's got to be tied down. He actually has to be tied down; he cannot be loose. Yet we allow people -- adults, kids -- to ride in the back of pickup trucks with no restraint, and it's legal. It's hard to believe.

Going back to the year 2000, the Canadian Public Health Association passed a resolution calling on all Canadian jurisdictions to take action to make it illegal for passengers to ride in the back of pickup trucks. The reason they did that is because they know that injuries happen, deaths happen, when we allow that.

I'm just going to read an excerpt from the resolution they passed, to give you some sense of the scope and magnitude of what we can prevent: "Whereas the head is the most frequently injured body region following a fall or ejection from the back of a pickup truck, and the direct average cost of care during the first year following severe brain injury can be as high as $300,000, with a lifetime care cost ranging from $2.5 million to $5.5 million" -- that's just from an injury. That's not a death; it's an injury.

It seems that some provinces in Canada get it. I guess we in Ontario don't get it. British Columbia, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta have legislation of some sort to regulate riding in the back of pickup trucks. Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, Newfoundland and Nunavut, I guess, just don't get it, and we need to step up to the plate.

This is not just a novelty in Ontario, in Canada. Some staggering numbers, for the record: A Washington state study found the fatality risk is 10.4 times higher for persons riding in the cargo area than the risk to the general population involved in collisions. So it increases tenfold. How simple. Over 200 deaths per year occur to persons riding in the back of pickup trucks, in cargo beds. More than half of those are children or teenagers.

Let's assume we don't change the law. Let me tell you that people riding in the back of a pickup truck, even with no accident happening, especially in trucks that have a covered area in the back, will be exposed to dangerous carbon monoxide poisoning from exhaust fumes, and we just seem to take that for granted.

It became very important to me to move forward, as I said before, bringing back this bill from a previous member of this Legislature. I'm here today -- before I get there, we do have support from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. They want to see this move forward, because it's going to make their life easier. Along with the Police Association of Ontario, which is very supportive -- not that they only want to control accidents, personal injury or even deaths.

I had a conversation with one of these folks, and one of their hardest tasks is to go to a parent's door, a relative's door or a friend's door in the middle of the night, or any time of day, and bring that horrible news. That, to them, is a tough task.

So in closing my time, what I must tell you is that this is almost too simple. We sometimes fight to understand things. We as legislators in this province and in this country get criticized a number of times -- from my constituents, and I'm sure all of your constituents -- that legislators put too many laws in place, we over-regulate things, we get in their faces. Yet we totally ignore something as simple as what I'm bringing forth today in this bill.

In the last few seconds that I have, I think maybe that as legislators we should stop worrying about those grandiose things and start dealing with some of the realities of life that are simple to achieve, to protect the lives of folks in the province of Ontario. So I urge all sides of the House to help me and help those families reach their goal, because they really want to put this to bed and they're here today because they don't want to see another parent suffer what they suffered some four or five years ago. I urge the House to support this bill and to move it along. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise in support of Bill 153, which is a bill dealing with the issue of carrying passengers in the back of commercial vehicles. Yes, I will again be voting in favour of this bill during second reading debate, although I strongly believe that the bill should go to committee and strongly urge and respectfully ask that this bill be sent to committee hearings for some fine-tuning. There are several concerns I have with the bill and I look forward to speaking to and addressing these with Mr. Rinaldi, the member from Northumberland, prior to third reading.

As I said, I will again be voting in favour of this bill, and please allow me to explain. On May 2, 2001, my esteemed former colleague Dr. Doug Galt, the former member from Northumberland, introduced this bill, which was then Bill 33, under the same title. I supported the bill then and I support it today. The most significant difference between that bill and this one is the lack of additional protection for agricultural, farming and parade-type vehicles. I would hope that these necessary and important protections for our farmers would be amended into the bill prior to third reading.

This bill is similar to the previous one in that it is trying to change the behaviour and action of people and how they deal with vehicles and ride on them. During the second reading of his bill, Dr. Galt read a letter from a girlfriend of one of the young men killed on that tragic day in 2000. I think it's appropriate to read that letter again into the record:

"On July 30, 2000, my world came crashing down when my boyfriend Jason Lawrence was instantly killed when he was ejected from the back of a pickup truck. Jason and I lived an incredible life together and had planned every minute of our future together. Little did I know on July 29, as I sat waiting for him to get home, he would never return. The accident also involved two other friends riding in the back of the truck, Bartley Mackey, who was also killed instantly, and Robert Toddish, who suffered serious head injuries.

"I did not share this story with my class or write this letter for sympathy, but simply because I feel this issue needs to be addressed immediately. After receiving the only perfect mark in my class for my presentation, and noticing the level of interest I obtained after I concluded my speech, I found comfort in believing I had changed the beliefs of so many impressionable people. Simply because I find it so hard to justify why it is illegal to ride in a closed vehicle without restraint, but it is legal to ride in an open vehicle without any restraint. I cannot think of a single logical reason why this has never become a law.

"I am hoping that this letter may make even a few people sit back and realize that something needs to be done to prevent anything similar to this from happening in the future. I have witnessed the horrible grief that has surrounded all the friends and family of these young men. A law surrounding riding in the back of a truck can prevent accidents like this in the future, and the pain and grief that follow tragedies. In conclusion, please take my words seriously and make it illegal to ride in the back of a truck.

This law will make anyone who chooses to ride in the back of a truck to think twice about their decisions, because laws are made for reasons. I truly believe that my story is reason enough." It's signed by Jennifer Shepherd.

How many times have we seen our children, teenagers, and others just like them in a similar circumstance, overcrowded and riding in the back of a half-ton truck? This is particularly true, Mr. Speaker, in rural Ontario. Certainly this legislation can prevent similar deaths by changing that kind of behaviour.

We are not the first in Canada to put forward a law to prevent people from riding on the outside of vehicles. This is in place in several other jurisdictions across Canada. A simple change to our transportation act would accommodate and prevent people from riding on the outside of a commercial vehicle. In general, it prohibits anyone from riding in the cargo bed of a commercial truck.

The reason I'm urging that this bill go to committee is to ensure that motorcycles and fire trucks would be exempt. I would also ask for exemptions for people engaged in agricultural work, horticultural work, road construction and municipal work. We should also be looking at parade vehicles. Certainly that is a very different kind of atmosphere and speed. I suggest that these concerns could probably be dealt with at committee.

The other provinces with similar bills specifically deal with some of the special circumstances I just mentioned. For example, Alberta has an exclusion that says, "Vehicles forming part of an entertainment exhibition that has been approved by the council of the municipality in which it is taking place" are exempt. The province of New Brunswick has a similar specific exclusion. These types of exclusions should be in this bill, and that's an issue that could be dealt with at committee at a future date.

New Brunswick also has a provision that goes into a little bit more of an elaboration with respect to construction: "A motor vehicle engaged in highway construction or maintenance." New Brunswick also offers exemptions where passengers are being transported to and from a work site. There may be other items, exclusions that need to be discussed when this bill is in committee.

In conclusion, I believe this is indeed good legislation, and it's certainly emotional legislation, particularly after reading this young lady's letter. It's been said that of all the duties of government, the most important responsibility is to keep its citizens safe. Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among young people, and with some of the aggressive driving we're seeing today, I don't think there's any question that it's increasing. Anything that we can do about aggressive driving would certainly help.

There's a significant amount of research that would support this bill. People are 25 times more likely to be ejected from the cargo area of a vehicle than they would be if they were in the cab. We certainly have many other jurisdictions which have passed similar legislation. It is really an important step in the continuation of making sure that our roads are the safest in the country.

There are some issues with regard to agricultural exemptions and speed limits, as I've mentioned, and things like that, but I think those are issues that certainly can be dealt with before it goes to third reading. Farmers will need to be assured that this bill will not disrupt normal farming operations, especially at a crucial time in our farming communities such as we're having today.

I rise in support of this bill and of sending the bill to committee,

An Act in memory of Jay Lawrence and Bart Mackey to amend the Highway Traffic Act. I thank the member for Northumberland for bringing this forward again. This goes to the same problem as we spoke to on the earlier bill: It has been introduced, it is a good bill, everybody supports the bill, and here we are doing it all over again. I would hope, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to expedite the process to make sure that it comes back and becomes the law of the province of Ontario.

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak to it.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—James Bay): I just want at the outset to say we will support this bill at second reading. However, I do think it needs to get into committee.

Just taking a quick look at the bill, it would appear to me that some amendments need to be done to it. Specifically, in

section 1 of the bill, adding 188.1(1), we're really dealing with commercial motor vehicles. I guess the question we have to ask ourselves in committee is, should a bill like this extend to all vehicles, or just commercial vehicles? I get an indication from the drafter of the bill that in fact he thinks this needs to be amended as well.

I think, as well, we need to have a bit of a discussion about some of the language of the bill. Again, I think this is something that could be fixed without too much difficulty in committee. I'll just read here, Speaker, because I've been dealing with legislation for some 16 or 17 years now, and it always amazes me how legislative counsel can draft something to make it as ambiguous as possible so that when we do end up in court, we've got to pay lawyers a big amount of money to figure out what they were really getting at in the first place.

I think it's incumbent upon us as legislators to be pretty darn clear in what we want. I don't blame the member, because all of us send our stuff off to leg. counsel. I'll just read this, and you'll know what I'm getting at.

The

section says, "No person shall drive a commercial motor vehicle on a highway while any person occupies the truck or delivery body of the vehicle...." We understand; that's pretty clear. The first amendment might be, do we want to take "commercial" out and say "all trucks," all of these types of vehicles? That would be the first thing, and that would be pretty clear. But then it gets into the second part, which I find to be a bit of mumbo-jumbo. Please bear with me. It says, "...except if the vehicle is being driven at less than 25 kilometres per hour...." I understand what we're getting at here.

That's talking about, for example, a situation where you're at the cottage and you're moving a shed that you've got in the back of your truck and somebody has to hang on to it; that you're going to move it from yard A to yard B or you're going to the dump and you're going to be driving really slow. We understand what we're getting at; that's the intent here.

Now it gets into the second part, which I think gets a little bit more convoluted: "...that is not designated as a controlled-access highway under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act." Well, that could mean a whole bunch of things to different people. Does it mean all highways patrolled by the Ontario Provincial Police, any highway under the Highway Traffic Act? Does that give some kind of exemption where you can do this? I think we've got to be really clear about what we're talking about.

I support where the member's going. I wholeheartedly understand what he's trying to do here. I see the parents here who have suffered this loss, and there are many others across this province and this country who have had to suffer your loss. We extend our -- I don't know what to tell you. I am a parent. We have two kids. I don't even know where to start. I hope I never have to live that. Anyway, we'll leave that there.

In the second part of the bill, we get into talking about how we limit people in vehicles while they're being towed. Now, I understand this. This is pretty logical stuff. It's where there's a car breakdown or an accident and the owner of the vehicle wants to get into the back of the car or truck while it's being towed by the tow truck back to wherever it's going. I've seen that. My nephew was a tow truck driver, and he'd tell me some of these stories. He'd almost have to get into arguments with people, saying, "You can't get in the back.

You sit in the tow truck with me." If something happens, if there's an accident to the tow truck, you're in a heck of a lot better position of being hurt in the vehicle behind than if you were in a belted seat in the tow truck itself. So I understand where the member's going with this.

But under subsection (2) it says, "No person shall occupy the truck or delivery body of a commercial motor vehicle while the vehicle is being" towed "except if the motor vehicle is being driven at less than 25 kilometres per hour on a highway that is not designated as a controlled-access highway...."

I think we need to have a bit of a discussion about where we're going with this. I think you're trying to say that there are times when people need to do these things and we want to allow that to happen. We don't want to cover off, for example, bush roads where people are going hunting and you set something up in the back of a truck as a spotter. People do those kinds of things. I take it that's what you're trying to get at. In committee, we're able to deal with those issues, and I don't have any problem.

However, I want to speak to a larger issue. This might be seen as being unsupportive, but I don't want you to take it this way, please, especially the parents. We have a tendency in our Legislature and in Legislatures across this country and in other places of the world that whenever there's a problem, we try to bring a law to try to fix it. I understand our response in doing that. However, I ask myself the question, if this law was there, would this accident have happened anyway? It's not nice to say, but who knows? It could have happened. We all do silly things at times.

I've survived many of them, and I think a lot of us have survived some pretty stupid things we've done in our lives. It really comes down to a couple of things. We do the best we can as parents to teach our kids the right thing, and I'm sure that's what you, the parents who are here today, did in your case. But we have no control, once the children walk outside the door, over what they're going to do.

For example, a couple of weeks ago, our youngest daughter, who's here in Toronto, called at 11 o'clock at night and said, "Dad, it's spring break." It's her last year in university. She wants to come home. She's fed up with the big city. She and her boyfriend are going to pack up the car and drive up to Timmins. I worried. I stayed up all bloody night. My kid was on the highway and it was snowing. She's 22 years old, with her boyfriend. I didn't sleep all bloody night. I stayed up until 5 in the morning or whenever it was that she came in, after my saying, "Are you nuts? Wait until daytime. Don't drive at night.

What are you doing?" Well, she does what she does. She's 22 years old and he's 25. What am I to do? You say to yourself, "We can't legislate that kind of behaviour."

I'm just trying to say that we can try to legislate this, but we need to be clear that people are still going to do some things that they shouldn't, because they're human beings.

The other issue is that if this law has any chance of having any force, you have to have a way of being able to police it. That's something you've heard me harp on many times in this Legislature. People don't break laws if they fear being caught. How many people are going to get caught if we don't have the proper number of police in our communities or on the highways to police a law like this?

Now, there's a balance of how many police you need. I was in Tokyo this year and went through the most secure airport I've ever seen in my life. There were police officers every five feet almost. I thought, "Whoa, that's kind of overdoing it." That looked kind of weird to me. I'm a bit of a New Democrat socialist, but I'm also a libertarian when it comes to individual rights. It's kind of a weird way of looking at things, but that's the way I am. I guess that's the way most of us are. It's not a political affiliation thing. We really enjoy our freedoms and feel very uncomfortable when freedoms are challenged.

The point I'm getting at is this: If this law has any chance of being enforced and hopefully saving some lives, at the end of the day, it's going to have to be policed in such a way that people feel they may get caught. If they feel that way, they're less likely to go out and do it.

So if I, as a parent, have not been able to get through the skull, if you know what I mean, of my 22-year-old daughter, who went out on the highway at 11 o'clock at night -- I hope she's watching this, because yes, I didn't sleep, Natalie -- then there is some other mechanism, once they walk out the door, to make them think twice, to say, "Not only did my parents try to teach me some good things about taking responsibility, but there is also the issue that we might get caught."

You will have to pardon we. I'm going to digress. It's the Highway Traffic Act, so I'm allowed to deal with this. I want to reflect on something else altogether that is not related to this particular bill specifically, that is, the issue of traffic. I just put this out there for people to think about, and I'm not suggesting we go there. I look at traffic flow in a city like Toronto or Windsor or Timmins or wherever it is.

In our system of the way we devise traffic, we are always making laws to try to control traffic, to control how fast people drive and to control how safe they are in their driving habits, and putting up stop signs and red lights and yields, all kinds of rules about how you can drive. We send our kids off to school to learn all the rules so they learn how to drive according to the rules in the Highway Traffic Act. Yet we still have tons of accidents. The congestion on our roads is, quite frankly, pretty bundled up. If you take a look at Toronto, this light is red so everything is stopped. The next one is green.

Traffic flow is really quite congested and bad.

I was in Vietnam in January. This is the nuttiest place I've ever seen to drive. But there ain't a stop sign, there ain't a red light, and the Highway Traffic Act only says one thing: You drive in the middle of the road in both directions. It sounds nuts, right? There are fewer accidents. The traffic moves. It's an interesting comparison. I guess all I'm saying is that at some point we need to think about how many rules of the road we need versus safety versus getting the traffic moved.

I've been in different parts of the world. How many people here have been to Rome? Right? It's the same idea. The traffic just moves at all speed in Rome and nobody pays attention to the rules.

Mr. Rinaldi: They have a lot of horns, though.

Mr. Bisson: Listen, there are lots of horns in Vietnam. I swear to God that everybody at birth has their thumb attached to the button on their mopeds and the horns of their cars, because I'll tell you, all they do is blown their horn. But my point is that people watch out for themselves far more in those environments than we do in ours. For example, the pedestrian who crosses the street in Hanoi or Saigon, where traffic is just horrendous and it's going every which way, with motorcycles, trucks and all kinds of rickshaws -- you name it. It's just total mayhem when you look at it.

But people watch out for each other. The pedestrian doesn't walk out on to the road and expect that the red light coming the other way is going to protect them. The pedestrian looks both ways and says, "I'm not going to trust that a red light or a stop sign is enough to save my life. I will look." A person looks and works their way across the traffic.

I had an opportunity to meet with some of the members of the national government when I was in Hué, the old capital, and I asked them, "What stats do you have around fatalities and accidents?" They provided me with some stats a couple of days later. I was surprised. For a country of 80 million people and with the number of vehicles they have registered in that country, there are far fewer accidents by ratio than we have in Canada. I thought, isn't that interesting? The point is that we need to take some internal responsibility.

You know what? Oh, I should keep on going? I just realized the time. I hogged all the time from my friend the member from Hamilton East. Will you forgive me? It's just terrible that I did that. Do you want any time?

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): That's OK.

Mr. Bisson: Sorry about that.

I would just say that we can try to legislate this stuff as much as we want, but at the end of the day, we, as pedestrians and as drivers and as passengers, need to take some responsibility ourselves.

I just come back to that experience of Rome or Vietnam or wherever it might be, where people take the time when they walk out on to the street to look both ways. Drivers are looking for those kinds of things.

The interesting thing in Vietnam -- I asked, "Who gets charged when there's an accident?" He said, "Always the biggest vehicle." Really, when you think about it, it's the one that does the most damage. I started having some chats with some people about that, and they said that the bigger your vehicle, the larger your responsibility to make sure you watch what's going on, because you have more potential of doing more damage. I thought it was kind of an interesting thing.

I just say to my friend who has put forward this bill that we will support it. There are a couple of things we need to do in committee to make sure we clarify. But at one point, I think it would be interesting as a Legislature to refer the Highway Traffic Act and all those rules back to a standing committee, or even if we don't refer it to a standing committee just have a standing committee take a look at this whole issue, because it seems to me that we keep on making rules and we keep on having fatalities, and I sometimes wonder how effective we are.

For example, the government has amendments to the Highway Traffic Act that I was reading through this morning in preparation for the debate that I imagine we're going to have next week or the week after on the amendments the minister has made to everything from speed limits to you name it. I look at it, and what you've basically got is a whole bunch of fee increases. I just say to myself, the fees are hefty enough as it is, and if people aren't afraid of being caught at these fees, I don't think they're going to be any more afraid of being caught with higher fees.

With that, I just want to say to the member that we will support it.

I've got a minute and 30 seconds left, but I have nothing else to say, so that's it.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 153,

An Act in memory of Jay Lawrence and Bart Mackey to amend the Highway Traffic Act. I've had some chats on this issue with my good friend the member for Northumberland. I want to say that the member from Northumberland follows in a long tradition of exceptional members who have come to this House to represent their riding. I think of Doug Galt, Joan Fawcett, Howard Sheppard, and a former Speaker of this House, the Honourable Russell Rowe, who was very distinguished -- as you are, Mr. Speaker -- in that chair. He had about a four-year reign as Speaker of this House and is recognized as one of the great Speakers in this area.

I think this is an important piece of legislation. Personally, about three years ago, I had the opportunity to buy my first pickup truck. I have two young children. I have a son, Braden, who's six, and my daughter, Shanae, is five. The member from Oxford kids me about my truck. It's parked out front; it's the one that has the grey duct tape holding in the headlight. I hope to get that fixed soon. But the serious side of this is that both of my children play hockey. The Evinrude Centre in Peterborough is about five minutes away from my home.

When I'm taking my kids, I put either my daughter or my son in the front seat, and we load the hockey equipment in the back. Each of them has always asked me, "Dad, can we ride in the back?" It's only five minutes away and there's a sense that that might indeed be a safe thing to do. But I certainly indicate to them that they have to go with my wife, Karan, and ride in the car, where they can be safely buckled into the back seat.

I think this legislation certainly needs to go forward. I'll just quote a few statistics here. It indicates that "Over 200 deaths per year occur to persons riding in" the back of pickup cargo trucks. "More than half the deaths are children and teenagers. In addition, children riding in covered cargo beds are exposed to the danger of carbon monoxide poisoning from exhaust fumes.

Parents with pickup trucks should only allow their children to ride with them if the children can be firmly secured with safety belts inside the cab of the truck."

There's an interesting

article here, Mr. Speaker, that I'll share with you. It comes from Tom Grace, who is a reporter with the Cooperstown News Bureau, a community in the United States. It says:

"Hartwick -- Hartwick Town Justice Orrin Higgins is trying to change a state law that allows children to ride in the back of pickup trucks.

"'It's dangerous and you see it all the time,' said Higgins. 'Kids ride in the back, and all it takes is a bump or accident and they're spilled out on to the road, usually on their heads.'"

In his particular community, "State law regulates who can ride in the back of a truck only when the trip is more than five miles long. For such trips, the driver or owner must assure that the truck has a tailgate and side racks at least three feet off the truck bed, or no more than a third of the people in the truck can ride in the back.

"'That law's old, hard to understand and incredibly inconsistent,' said Higgins. 'When you're driving a car, you have to have the children in seat belts and child seats, but in a pickup, they can ride in back, bounce around and that's legal.'

"'It's really a throwback to the horse and buggy days,' he said."

He went on to say he contacted the local state senator, a man by the name of James L. Seward, who is a Republican from Milford, and state assemblyman, Bill Magee, who is a Democrat from Nelson, about his concerns. Both of these individuals shared the concerns that were articulated very clearly by the local justice and picked up on the essential nature of Bill 153 that we are discussing today.

He went on to say that in his particular area of the United States, there have been over 200 deaths and injuries resulting from riding in the back of trucks, and it's a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

There are other examples of very tragic situations. I'm quoting from an

article of August 24, 2004:

The deaths of two 20-year-olds in The Pas, Manitoba, in an August 21, 2004, pickup truck rollover have led to renewed calls to make it illegal for passengers to ride in the open box of pickup trucks.

"According to news reports, 20 people were riding in a pickup truck near The Pas -- 14 in the open bed and six in the cab." That just demonstrates why this bill should move forward at this particular time.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock): I'm pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 153,

An Act in memory of Jay Lawrence and Bart Mackey to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

We're debating the bill here today, and many members have mentioned that it was originally brought forward by the member from Northumberland, Dr. Doug Galt, so it is fitting that the new member from Northumberland reintroduce this bill this morning in the Legislature. I appreciate that he's doing it so we have a chance to consider tightening up safety laws that we have in the province.

When it was initially introduced by Dr. Galt, the bill went quite far along in the process in becoming law. It received second reading and had gone to committee for consideration. Unfortunately, it didn't have the chance to come forward for third reading. I had a chance to review some of the committee discussions. They were quite good and quite thoughtful and with some good recommendations. I know Al McDonald reintroduced the bill in 2002. He was the former MPP from Nipissing. I see that Mr. Rinaldi has incorporated a lot of the amendments the committee brought through, improving the bill, and the work is not going to be lost.

One of the things I worry about in the bill, and some of the members have mentioned, is the lack of protection for farmers. I understand that there could be regulations made exempting any class of motor vehicle or passenger, but the key word here is "may." When the word "may" is used, it also encompasses the possibility that regulations may not be made. We really have to look at that again so that there is protection for farmers built into the body of the bill rather than leaving it to the regulations. We've also mentioned parades. I think there's a lot to work with here, that we can make some improvements and do some fine-tuning.

I want to take a few minutes to reflect upon the fact that the bill was named after the two people who were involved in the tragic accident in which they were killed suddenly on July 30, 2000, and in which their friend Robert Toddish received serious head injuries, when they were in the accident and ejected from the back of the pickup truck. I come from a rural riding and grew up in a small town. For sure, we took lots of rides in the back of pickup trucks between farms on rural roads.

I've nursed at the local hospitals and even in Toronto. We had many patients airlifted to us in Toronto and that we airlifted from the rural hospital, who had been involved in such tragic accidents. The same can be said with motorcycle accidents -- just no protection when you are thrown from the vehicle. It is a fact of life in rural Ontario that you do use a pickup truck, as the member from Peterborough said. And duct tape is also used sometimes to hold it together.

Motor vehicle accidents are certainly the leading cause of death among our young people. I had a young cousin who, before he reached his 20th birthday, was killed tragically with another young person from Bobcaygeon in a motor vehicle accident. There's certainly the devastation that the families incur when young people pass on and the effect that it has on their friends. There was a great letter that was read by the member from Oxford that I think emotionally and quite eloquently put the devastating effects that these accidents have on our small communities and on young people.

Anything that we can do to protect the safety of people we should do. It is our responsibility as legislators. I'm happy that the bill is being brought forward again by the member from Northumberland. It's going to be studied in committee. We're going to have discussions about the regulations and how it can be enforced reasonably, to not hamper some of the stakeholders that were mentioned. I congratulate the member from Northumberland for bringing this forward, and I look forward to sending it to committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Perth—Middlesex -- excuse me; Hamilton East and then --

Ms. Horwath: I think I have --

Mr. Bisson: We've got one minute and 37 seconds left.

Ms. Horwath: Yes, my very generous colleague from Timmins-James Bay left me a minute and 25 seconds, during which I wish to say two things, really. One is how much I respect and have a great amount of deference for the family of the young man who was killed in the traffic tragedy that initiated this bill. I'm a parent as well. My son's only 12 and isn't in that realm yet of all of the very frightening issues around automobile accidents. The Lawrences are extremely courageous. I respect them a great deal for following this through for so many years after the tragedy and ensuring that this bill was brought forward. I thank the member from Northumberland for bringing it forward.

I will be supporting it, but I do recognize in discussions with the member that he will be looking at possible amendments to deal with overall pickup trucks, not just commercial vehicles but the ones that young men in their 20s generally like to drive. I look forward to those amendments. I think that they're important. I'm a little bit concerned that those amendments are going to go in the wrong direction. I think that just as private citizens need to be protected, so do workers when they're travelling in these kinds of vehicles, and I expect that that will be protected as well.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth—Middlesex): I would like to join in the debate today in support of my good friend the member from Northumberland and speak about two things: tragedy and hope. I would like to address my comments to the Lawrence family, who are here today.

I recall that the great American President, and a wonderful orator, a man named Theodore Roosevelt, said, "Death is always and under all circumstances a tragedy, for if it is not, then it means that life itself has become one." It's true of the human condition that we take tragedy, as human beings, and we show the bravery that you are showing here today; we take that tragedy and we turn into hope. It was Shakespeare -- and I'm the member from Stratford -- who said,

The miserable have no other medicine

But only hope.

On behalf of all of us here, I want to commend you for sticking with this cause which is so dear to your heart, for taking a tragedy and transferring that into hope and inspiring all of us to do what we know is the right thing in this House. We know that this bill, which was introduced previously by Dr. Doug Galt, the member from Northumberland, and now by his successor, my friend Mr Rinaldi, is the right thing to do. As some of us have said, it's difficult for this House sometimes to do those things which are so very simple, yet so very right. I know that all of us who have entered into the debate today are joining together to talk to our three House leaders to make this bill a reality.

I speak to this bill because of my friendship with the member from Northumberland. I was raised in the town of Trenton, at the confluence of the great ridings of Northumberland, Hastings and Prince Edward county. I myself represent a rural riding, and as a young lad I was on the back of pickup trucks. For the farm jobs that I had growing up in Northumberland county, as a matter of fact, at Laferty's farm and at Zimmerman's farm, I distinctly remember doing that and not thinking anything of it. I don't think my parents thought anything of it either.

A question was raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay about the need to have adequate resources.

But one of the things that has always struck me, as a new member of this place and as a member of government, is that we seem to have all the money in the world to pay for those brave police officers and those incredibly heroic professional and volunteer firefighters who attend these scenes of great tragedy; we have money for the health care system, for those children and young people -- again, in this case the one person who did not die but was maimed for life; we have money to pay insurance premiums so that insurance companies can pay out the millions of dollars on those who survive such a tragedy, but we don't seem to have the money to make sure that our police officers are in a position to help prevent this tragedy.

On behalf of all of us I want to commend the member, but particularly the Lawrence family, for their bravery here today. We will do all we can not to let you down. Thank you.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant): I again rise to speak in favour of this type of legislation. Doug Galt's original private member's bill is now resurrected by Lou Rinaldi, and I thank Mr. Rinaldi for doing this. This kind of legislation can avert the tragedies that many of us know about, oftentimes, in rural ridings and northern parts of this province. Most people can see the danger. But oftentimes young people can't when they're coming back from a bush party or they're at the lake or when they're using farm trucks as recreational vehicles.

I represent a labour-intensive farm riding. We grow cucumbers, ginseng, tomatoes, tobacco and apples, and it does require that many farmers have to up 30 or 35 people working on their farms. They have a number of farms. I think of our farms, where, every day, we would have to move on the roads from farm to farm. So there is a concern.

There was a concern when former MPP Doug Galt introduced this bill, to what extent it may or may not disrupt normal farm operations. I know the Galt bill applied to vehicles at the 60-kilometre mark. This legislation lowers it to a vehicle that has to travel less than 25 kilometres an hour.

As a past president of the Norfolk Farm Safety Association, I, as do farmers, realize the importance of safety around our farms. We do have to use the roads. We do have to use the roads, for example, to move tobacco and other products. We have to realize that not everybody can fit into the cab of a pickup truck, and for most of us, if we're working up ground or plowing, there's no way our wives or, in other cases, husbands will allow us to get in the car, because we're covered in dust. We're covered in clay or sand, depending on what you're farming. We're covered in diesel fuel and mud and grease and hydraulic fluid. That does not go well on car upholstery or pickup truck upholstery.

So we do ask for some flexibility and some discretion with respect to this. There's been some very good work done through the Ontario Federation of Agriculture with respect to classifying certain vehicles as implements of husbandry. I think of school buses that have been cut back to hold the round bales.

Pickup trucks or flatbeds that can be cut back become farm implements to carry tobacco on the road, but they have to have working lights, brakes and good tires. You know, down our way, we don't tolerate duct tape on the headlight, although I've had to do that a bit myself. I've only hit two deer so far this year. I don't know about the rest of you.

So we have to take into consideration labour-intensive agriculture. There is that requirement to get workers from farm to farm, and oftentimes we do have to use not only the back roads, but the provincial highways. Thank you.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex): Before I start, I want to express my sympathies to both the Lawrence family and the Mackey family. Also, my thoughts and concerns go out to families that have lost family members to these kinds of accidents, and even to the families who have children or family members who have suffered brain injuries or other debilitating injuries, who have lost the future they thought they had for their children. We all have expectations for family members and for children, and when these kinds of things happen, they're life-altering for all of us. They completely change our lives.

I'm from the farm community, as everyone is well aware, and pickups are a very common vehicle, a very common mode of transportation. Over the years, we've had our share of farm accidents with these types of vehicles, and we have the Farm Safety Association, which has done a very good job of making farmers aware of the dangers of transporting people in the back of pickup trucks.

One of the things I see now is that the pickup truck has gone from being a utility vehicle, from being a vehicle that has a work purpose, to becoming a sport vehicle. I live en route from an urban centre, London, to Grand Bend and Port Franks. On weekends, it's not uncommon to see a short box pickup truck, a nice sporty thing all painted up in yellows and reds and all the graphics on the sides, the roll bars, the whole bit --

Interjection: And the lights.

Mrs. Van Bommel: And the lights, exactly. There are young people standing in the back. They're not sitting; they're standing in the back, hanging on to the roll bar, and they're travelling at high speed. I can barely look. I can barely watch it, because I'm so afraid of what's going to happen. I don't want to see what could happen. It scares me. If they were sitting in the cab of the truck, they'd have to have a seatbelt on across their shoulders and across their hips and they'd be secured in there completely. But the moment they can step outside and actually, like I say, stand there, nobody can stop them.

The police have to watch this go by. As a citizen, I have to watch that go by. I can't phone the police. If I do, they say, "Well, we can't do anything about it because the law does not require that someone has to be secured in the back of a pickup truck." So I fully support this legislation. Like I said, it frightens me to no end to see this.

We talked about amendments that are necessary to this, and I recognize that. As I say, farmers use the pickups for work purposes. But quite frankly, most farmers are very aware of what the dangers are. We travel at higher speeds; we have that capability. We can do so much more, but we also have the potential for more accidents. I think that even in the farm community we recognize that this is good legislation and we need to follow through on this.

We need to talk about the whole issue of speed. If there are exemptions granted, speed has to be a part of that, you know, you can't travel at a certain speed.

I know that we use pickup trucks in things like parades and that sort of thing, and all those things have to come into play, but I still feel that the intent of this legislation is good. I feel that we can bring forward the kinds of amendments that we need to clean this whole issue up.

What we need very much is to have something in place that will prevent the deaths and the kinds of permanent injuries that we have seen all too often in our communities because of that ability to ride in the back. When you're young, you always think you'll live forever and you don't think you're going to get hurt doing that. Someone might say that we're restricting someone's freedom, but I also think that we're working in the public interest and we're working to save our young people from death and permanent injury. So I very much support the member's bill, and I'd like to see this one passed today.

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

Mr. Rinaldi: I want to thank all the members from all sides of the House for their valued input: Ernie Hardeman from Oxford, Laurie Scott from Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Toby Barrett from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Gilles Bisson from Timmins—James Bay, Andrea Horwath from Hamilton East, and of course our members, my good friend Jeff Leal from Peterborough, John Wilkinson from Perth-Middlesex and Maria Van Bommel from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

I guess the biggest thanks first and foremost is to the Lawrence family for taking their time and their perseverance -- I think that they've heard from all sides of the House today that we are all in the same tune -- and for being here today, to just strengthen the importance of a piece of legislation that I think -- I know -- will have meaningful and long-lasting benefits for society, forever and ever down the road.

I've heard today about a number of suggestions about amendments. This is what it's all about. We've brought forward this piece of legislation. It's already been through committee. The previous member brought it through. We picked out some issues to try to make the bill better. Certainly we're open to amendments. If it can make things better, if it can make things safer, by all means.

We talked about how, yes, we can put in legislation, but then we have to police it. Of course we have to police it. But if we don't have legislation, we have no tools to police. I'll use a comment that my friend Maria used: It's a chicken-and-egg situation. Yes, we need more police resources, we need more firefighters, but if we don't have laws to police, what are we policing?

So I think it's a start. I encourage all members from all sides of the House to support this today and hopefully move it forward.

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

FARM IMPLEMENTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll deal first with ballot item number 51, standing in the name of Mr. Hardeman.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill will be referred to the committee of the whole, but I believe Mr. Hardeman has a request.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I would ask for permission to refer it to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

JAY LAWRENCE AND BART MACKEY

MEMORIAL ACT (HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 COMMÉMORANT

JAY LAWRENCE ET BART MACKEY

(MODIFICATION DU CODE DE LA ROUTE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 52, standing in the name of Mr. Rinaldi.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I'd like to refer the bill to the stand committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

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 1200 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE SPECIALISTS

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—James Bay): I rise today to raise an issue that is fast becoming somewhat of an epidemic in northeastern and northwestern Ontario, and that is the issue of the loss of specialists. We know that earlier this month a number of doctors in northwestern Ontario decided to pull up stakes in the community, leaving the community in a heck of a situation to deal with the medical needs of the residents.

We now find, by way of the newspapers and by way of calls to my office just this week, that a number of specialists in the city of Timmins are also upset because of the conditions they find themselves in when it comes to the office space they need to use at the hospital in regard to being able to carry out their practices. They talk about picking up 20 litres of water through leaking roofs as they try to care for patients. We're not talking just about family doctors; we're talking about specialists, and people who are going in to see internists and others.

I want to advise this House that I will be meeting with these individuals later on this weekend to sit down and take a look at what can be done.

I want to also tell this House and the community back in Timmins that Councillor Gary Scripnick, I think, has come up with a good idea, and that is for the community to work together to try to find a way of building a facility adjacent to the hospital that would suit the needs of the doctors, not only those that are here now but those later. I look forward to working with Gary Scripnick, city councillor for Timmins, ward 1, and with the rest of the city and the hospital toward a resolution. I want to put the government on notice that we will be coming with an application for money.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): Three days ago, I informed the Minister of Health in this House that my constituents are facing a crisis in their health care. Thousands are without family doctors. Ambulances are redirected constantly. Patients cannot get the CT scans they need. Specialists are unavailable or overworked. The government has abandoned doctors and nurses to provide care without the resources they need. My constituents are asking me, what is the Liberal plan for health care?

When our PC government was in power, we had a plan. We made the tough decisions. We increased spending by $10 billion, but we also made changes that were necessary. Our government closed aging, decrepit hospitals in downtown Toronto when that was the best way to improve health care. We planned a huge, new hospital in Brampton using an innovative private-public partnership. In my own riding, we committed funds to start a cancer centre in Newmarket, a commitment the Liberals are dithering about delivering.

The McGuinty Liberals do not have what it takes to make the tough decisions to save health care. Their priority is a massive bureaucratic organization, which means nothing to front-line doctors and nurses. The people of Ontario can only hope that Liberal dithering and incompetence does as little damage as possible before a John Tory government can restore our health care system.

MISSISSAUGA SPORTS WEEK

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): I rise in the House today to announce that it is Sports Week in the city of Mississauga. Mississauga Sports Week is an action-packed week of special events, displays and demonstrations designed to promote and celebrate the hundreds of sporting events and activities available to the residents in Mississauga.

I had the opportunity to attend the Mississauga Sports Council Sports Week kickoff breakfast with my colleagues the Minister of Transportation, Harinder Takhar, and Tim Peterson. At the breakfast, the sports council received $45,000 from the communities in action fund grant to ensure that these activities, such as sports week, are possible and also contribute to the council's work in promoting sport and activities within Mississauga. This partnership between the government and the Mississauga Sports Council is all part of this government's larger strategy to create a healthy, active Ontario.

The rest of the week is jam-packed with exciting, engaging activities. There will be celebrity bowling, a night with the Mississauga Ice Dogs, a sports seminar that will culminate with a sports camps and leisure show this Saturday at Square One.

I want to take this moment to acknowledge all the hard work of Chuck Ealey and Cathy Rudisi, the co-chairs, and the efforts of the rest of the council and its executive director, Catherine Holland. Their year-round work on the sports council contributes to the development of sports facilities, activity programs, training and resources and ensures that the hard work and achievements of local coaches, volunteers and athletes are acknowledged and celebrated within the community.

SHIRLEY FINCH

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound—Muskoka): I rise today to recognize the achievements of Mrs. Shirley Finch, a constituent of the beautiful riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka and a resident of Bracebridge. Mrs. Finch was recently selected by the Bracebridge Rotary Club as Citizen of the Year.

Yesterday, the rotary club celebrated its 100-year anniversary and continues to provide much-needed services to different communities. The Bracebridge Rotary Club organizes many youth programs from the Rotary Youth Centre, including Guides and Scouting activities.

On an international level, the rotary club continues to mobilize thousands of Polio Plus volunteers and has immunized more than one billion children worldwide. By the 2005 target date for certification of a polio-free world, rotary will have contributed half a billion dollars to the cause.

Mrs. Finch was nominated for Citizen of the Year by Tony Armstrong and received glowing endorsements from other Bracebridge residents.

From 1967 to 1981, Mrs. Finch has taken on various leadership roles with Girl Guides. She has served as deputy commissioner of Muskoka, district commissioner of Bracebridge, Milford Bay and Port Carling and has served as a Brownie and Pathfinder leader. In 2002, Mrs. Finch was awarded her 40-year pin by Girl Guides of Canada. She is now a Cub leader with Tony Armstrong.

Mrs. Finch has also been involved with the Order of the Eastern Star, the Royal Canadian Legion poppy day program, the breakfast club at the Muskoka Falls Public School and Meals on Wheels.

I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to Mrs. Finch, her husband, Wes, and their family and to sincerely thank her for her many years of dedicated volunteer service.

GREENBELT LEGISLATION

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West—Mississauga): Later today, we will be voting on a historic piece of legislation. It's called the Greenbelt Act and, if passed, it will protect over one million acres of prime agricultural land and green space in Ontario's Golden Horseshoe. This is the boldest piece of planning law in Ontario's history, and it's a legacy I'm proud to leave future generations.

This is a momentous occasion. It follows months of public consultation with public leaders, municipal representatives, scientists, environmentalists and planners. Others claim to care about the green space, but they repeatedly failed to protect it. Today, we have put our words into action. Today, we take one million acres and protect it for future generations so that they can continue Ontario's proud farming tradition and enjoy Ontario's green space.

We are planning in a more comprehensive way than ever before. We are enhancing biodiversity instead of paving over it. We are cherishing Ontario's natural resources. We are respecting nature's delicate balance, and we are recognizing that a healthy population is directly linked to a healthy environment. In two words, today is about tomorrow.

I encourage all members of this House to vote in favour of this very important piece of legislation.

LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean—Carleton): I rise today to bring an important issue in education to the attention of the House. Learning a second or third language is tremendously important to many young people and their families across the province of Ontario. I had the pleasure of learning to speak French in our publicly funded education system, but I also had the chance to learn a third language, Spanish, and that was tremendously important.

I want to stand today in this Legislature and call on the Minister of Education to expand Spanish-language training, because it's having a desperately terrible effect on family life. I even hear that there are people in Dufferin county who have to send their kids to Rosedale so they can learn Spanish, because Spanish isn't available to be taught in our publicly funded school system in rural Ontario. I want to appeal to this government to stand up today and demand that Spanish lessons be offered to students throughout Ontario, not just in Rosedale.

How long will these families have to be separated, putting stresses on their personal finances by having to keep up two residences, one in Dufferin county and another in swanky Rosedale? I call upon this government to stand in their place, admit the folly of their ways and bring Spanish education, and most importantly, help reunite families in the province of Ontario.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa—Orléans): This government is committed to supporting our agricultural industry. As the member representing the agricultural area of Ottawa—Orléans and as someone who grew up on a farm, I try to spread this message whenever I meet with Ontario's farmers and producers.

We made sure that farmers got a better deal on the agricultural policy framework with the federal government. We are spending $74 million to provide stability for our farmers in times of crisis. We are providing up to $30 million to help the cattle industry cope with BSE. These are but a few of the steps we've taken to support agriculture in Ontario, and we know there is still much to be done.

I know that our rural members and our Minister of Agriculture are working hard on an ongoing basis to develop a strategy that will help our farmers.

There will always be challenges facing Ontario's agricultural industry, and we must be equipped to face them. The $23-billion gap facing Ontario undermines our ability to prepare for these and other challenges. When we're facing an inherited $5.6-billion deficit, when we're 10th out of 10 provinces for post-secondary education funding and when we're unable to properly settle and train immigrants, we have a problem. The situation in agriculture is a symptom of that $23-billion problem.

For the record, I am disappointed that there was nothing in yesterday's federal budget to address this issue, even though Canada recorded its eighth consecutive balanced budget.

A fair deal for Ontario will help all of Canada.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I rise today to speak about yesterday's federal budget. The $23-billion gap between what Ontario gives to Ottawa and what we get back remains unaddressed. In recent years, that gap has been growing, constraining our ability to invest in things that matter to Ontarians.

We in Ontario have always been proud to contribute to the health of Canada's economy. We've always happily done our fair share for the country. We're now asking the federal government to give Ontarians our fair share of our own money. We need that money so that we can ensure that Ontario's economy, which drives Canada's economy, continues to grow.

One of our biggest competitive advantages is our health care system. But that system is growing at an astounding rate, and we need to make investments to transform it and make it more sustainable. It is critical that we modernize health care, but to do so requires investing in the system. To do that, we need the federal government to give Ontario its fair share and begin addressing the $23-billion gap.

I look forward to working with my federal counterpart, the Honourable Peter Adams, MP for Peterborough, on this very important matter.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth—Middlesex): Yesterday was budget day in Ottawa. We here in Ontario had hoped that they would take the opportunity to address the $23-billion gap between what Ontario puts into federal coffers and what it gets back. Unfortunately, we didn't see any action on that file, despite the all-party support the Premier's resolution received in this Legislature. It's unfortunate, because Ontario indeed is the engine of this country's economy, and we need to make investments that will ensure we continue to be that engine.

One of the keys to ensuring a healthy economy down the road is an outstanding public education system. We need the federal government to address the $23-billion gap so that we can develop the best-educated, most highly skilled workforce, which can compete with the world for the best jobs. We need a strong, vibrant, publicly funded education system that will give our children a clear, competitive advantage in an increasingly complex economy.

Ontarians are proud Canadians. We've always given our fair share to Canada. Unlike previous parties that bashed the federal government, we won't do that. We're working with them. Now we're asking for our fair share in return. We need the $23-billion gap to be addressed so that we can continue to create the wealth that we and our fellow Canadians rely on.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES /

POLITIQUES FISCALES

FÉDÉRALES-PROVINCIALES

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): A rare event happened this week in this place: We agreed. In fact, we all agreed. Members representing all parties unanimously supported a motion to narrow the $23-billion gap. We all put our common cause, the people we are privileged to serve, ahead of any other interests.

I want to thank and congratulate my colleagues on the other side of the Legislature for recognizing an issue that transcends our usual political differences, but then, and I say this with respect to my colleagues in this place, something even more important happened: Ontarians agreed.

We've received calls of encouragement in our community offices from the people we are privileged to represent. We received non-partisan support from prominent Ontarians like former Premier Bob Rae. Virtually the entire health sector wrote to the Prime Minister to offer their support for this Legislature. The people who deliver care to our sick perhaps know best the consequences of the $23-billion gap, because they bear those consequences each and every day.

Make no mistake, momentum is building for our common cause. Notre cause commune est un Ontario fort au sein d'un Canada fort, un Ontario qui est suffisamment fort pour assumer ses responsabilités particulières envers ce grand pays, un Ontario qui est suffisamment riche pour assurer des services publics forts d'un océan à l'autre. That common cause is a strong Ontario in a strong Canada, an Ontario that is strong enough to fulfill its unique responsibility to this great country, an Ontario that is wealthy enough to guarantee strong public services from coast to coast to coast.

We understand who creates our wealth: the people of this province. You