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

November 17, 2005

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Nov-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 17 November 2005 Jeudi 17 novembre 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

PRESERVATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 PRÉSERVANT

LA PROPRIÉTÉ FAMILIALE

DE FREDERICK BANTING

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

PRESERVATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 PRÉSERVANT LA PROPRIÉTÉ

FAMILIALE DE FREDERICK BANTING

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

PRESERVATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 PRÉSERVANT LA PROPRIÉTÉ

FAMILIALE DE FREDERICK BANTING

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

EDUCATION

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

SUPPORT FOR THE DISABLED

PAUL BOSC

PLANT CLOSURES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

CLINICAL SIMULATION EQUIPMENT FOR NURSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIQUOR LICENCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY DOCTORS

HEALTH PROMOTION /

PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

FAMILY DOCTORS

HEALTH PROMOTION

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

ENDING MANDATORY RETIREMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

POUR ÉLIMINER LA RETRAITE

OBLIGATOIRE

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

HYDRO RATES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

CANCER TREATMENT

HYDRO RATES

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

PROPERTY TAXATION

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

CANCER TREATMENT

TTC SERVICE

PETITIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

MACULAR DEGENERATION

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

MACULAR DEGENERATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SERVICES AUX PERSONNES AYANT

UNE DÉFICIENCE INTELLECTUELLE

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

TENANT PROTECTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

PRESERVATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 PRÉSERVANT

LA PROPRIÉTÉ FAMILIALE

DE FREDERICK BANTING

Mr. Wilson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 20,

An Act to ensure the preservation of the Frederick Banting homestead / Projet de loi 20, Loi visant à assurer la préservation de la

propriété familiale de Frederick Banting.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I'm happy to rise and lead off debate on my private member's bill, the Frederick Banting Homestead Preservation

Act. Before I begin, I want to thank Helena Guergis, the federal member for Simcoe-Grey, for bringing to my attention the fact that the Ontario Historical Society had allowed the Banting homestead

to go into disrepair. She is to be commended for her efforts to get everyone together just over a year ago. She held a press conference on the Banting homestead ground, and we began the fight to

save this homestead. I also want to salute Bob and Peter Banting, Larry Keogh, Mike MacEachern, Alex Wright, Doug Curwood, Garnet Madill and all of those in Alliston and across the country who have

given their support and who have worked so hard to preserve the memory of such a great Canadian.

Sir Frederick Banting was born on November 14, 1891. His birthplace is a farm in my hometown of Alliston. Canadians connect Sir Frederick Banting with the

discovery of insulin. For this outstanding medical discovery, Dr. Banting was awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1923 -- Canada's first. A noble man, he did not seek to profit from his

achievement. Instead of applying for a patent, Banting transferred the rights for his life-saving serum to the University of Toronto for $1. This magnanimous gesture ensured affordable insulin for

millions of people suffering from the metabolical disorder known to us as diabetes. His contributions to medicine were so immense that CBC viewers and listeners selected him as one of our top-10

greatest Canadians.

The purpose of my bill is to preserve Sir Frederick Banting's memory by safeguarding the buildings and property where he performed some of his earliest

experiments. The home and buildings on Sir Frederick's Alliston farm are deteriorating. Earlier this week, I passed along to each member of this House some photos of one of the last remaining

octagonal sheds in this country that sits on the Banting farm. By examining the photos, you will see how the shed looked in 1995 compared to now. More importantly, you will see the declining

condition of a national historic site. I am sad to say that the homestead of this medical giant is almost in ruins, largely through Ontario Historical Society inaction.

Edward Banting, the last owner of the homestead, bequeathed the property to the society in 1999 on the understanding they would preserve and maintain it for the

benefit of all Canadians and indeed the world. Unfortunately, they have failed to live up to that arrangement. In most countries, a birthplace of this national historic significance would be a

shrine. Why have the so-called guardians of this heritage failed to preserve a national treasure -- a treasure that's right here in our own backyard, a treasure that has been abandoned and

permitted to fall into ruin?

My private member's bill underscores the spirit in which Edward Banting bequeathed his 100-acre property to the Ontario Historical Society. While he was alive,

Edward had more than a dozen meetings with executive members of the society during which he expressed his wishes. Any reasonable person would immediately grasp the sense of Edward's bequest. He

trusted the Ontario Historical Society to do what he had discussed with them. He counted on this more than 100-year-old organization with a well-established reputation for promoting and preserving

Ontario history to maintain the homestead as a permanent memorial of a great Canadian.

Unfortunately, Edward was mistaken. The mission was clear, the terms were understood, yet the promise has been unfulfilled. Proud Canadians support our campaign

now underway to fulfill this mission. That mission is essential if we are to respect and honour the Banting family and express the gratitude of 350 million insulin users worldwide.

The restoration has to begin now. It's time to repair the damage that six years of carelessness have caused. It's time to restore those buildings and it's time

to protect the property from potential vandalism and further wearing away. In the words of the Banting family, the Ontario Historical Society has misled their membership and the public. Though Sir

Frederick Banting lived on the farm until he entered the University of Toronto medical school, they say it was not his home. What nonsense. Because the family remodelled the farmhouse, they say it

isn't the original home where he was born. They say the farmhouse was in disrepair when they were given the property in 1999, an opinion that's contradicted by the photos. At that time, Edward's

daughter, Marie, was living in the house and maintaining the property in a very reasonable manner. Since assuming title, the Ontario Historical Society has condoned a level of deterioration that no

self-respecting homeowner would ever permit.

The society asserts that in addition to the free gift of this historic 100-acre farm, Edward should have given them an endowment for its upkeep. They

conveniently forget to tell the public and their membership that a local potato grower pays rent on that farm and generates income for the farm of between $15,000 and $20,000 a year. What has the

historical society done with that? That's more than enough money to pay for the utilities and the taxes, and it's a pretty good endowment by anyone's standard to maintain and enhance the buildings

on that property.

Why has the property had to endure six years of neglect under the hands of the Ontario Historical Society -- six lost years? The homestead was placed in the

trust of a group that is overseeing the destruction of a legacy -- a legacy for people with diabetes, the Bantings, Canadians, the world and indeed our local residents of New Tecumseh. The Banting

family are appalled with the mismanagement of this historic property, and I share that frustration. I know all members of this House will share that frustration.

My bill, if passed, imposes a restrictive covenant on the property. It prohibits the erection of any new structures. It also prohibits the destruction of the

current structures that are on the property and allows for only maintenance or repair to those buildings. They certainly will not be allowed to tear down the buildings that are there. It allows the

Minister of Culture to send inspectors in to make sure that the buildings are being maintained and that the Ontario Historical Society is living up to the trust the people of Ontario place in that

organization.

Initially, my bill was just to signal our determination to save this historic property. I was hoping -- and we had meetings. In fact, unfortunately, the last

meeting was a year ago. We had a number of meetings. The Deputy Minister of Culture was trying to negotiate a deal between the town of New Tecumseh, the Banting family, the Banting educational

committee and the Ontario Historical Society. Unfortunately, no deal was to be had. A year later, we have to go the legislative route and use this legislative hammer.

I want to conclude by reading one of the letters that I've received. This one is from Harvey Cuff, the chairperson of the Banting Historical Trust in Musgrave

Harbour, Newfoundland. As you know, that's where Dr. Banting's plane crashed during the Second World War. He's a war hero, in addition to being the discoverer of insulin and many other inventions,

frankly. It says,

"Dear Mr. Wilson,

"On behalf of the Banting Historical Trust Inc., I am writing this letter in support of protecting and preserving the historic property of the Banting

farm/homestead in Alliston, Ontario.

"It was on a mission to England that Sir Frederick Banting's plane crashed 10 miles inland from Musgrave Harbour, Newfoundland, during World War II. Local

hunters, led by a search plane from Gander, located the wreckage. The bodies of Sir Frederick and crew members William Snailham and William Bird were taken to the Orange Lodge in Musgrave Harbour.

The pilot, Joseph Mackey, survived.

"This ill-fated crash has always been a part of our history and considered a fascinating and intriguing story. In 1991, the wreckage of the plane was airlifted

to the Banting Memorial Municipal Park and an

interpretation centre was built next to the plane. In 2001, the 60th anniversary of the tragic crash, the Banting Historical Trust was successful in

getting funding to have a replica of the plane (a Hudson Bomber) rebuilt and a monument put on the site for the men who died in the crash. The

interpretation centre displays artifacts of the plane

and tells the story of the life and death of Dr. Frederick Banting, who in 2004 was given the honour of fourth place by fellow Canadians as Canada's greatest hero.

"The site, since it opened in 1991, has received more than 50,000 visitors from around the world. There are so many people living with diabetes who would not be

with us today if not for Dr. Banting's discovery of insulin. Visitors have expressed an outpouring of emotional gratitude for Dr. Banting's work and life-saving discovery....

"The Banting Historical Trust Inc. wholeheartedly supports and encourages the Sir Frederick Banting Educational Committee in their efforts in securing this

property and their plan to form a foundation for the preservation of the buildings and conversion of the fields to a camp for diabetic youth. What a wonderful inspiration and legacy for the

co-discoverer of insulin, of which without insulin many of these children would not be with us today."

That's from Harvey Cuff, the chairperson of Banting Historical Trust in Musgrave Harbour.

I would ask all members to support this bill today. It's unfortunate that the Ontario Historical Society, which receives $242,000 in grant money from the

Ministry of Culture, has failed to live up to their mandate and to their promise to the people of Ontario to preserve and enhance national historic properties such as this. The property is worth a

lot of money. Apparently, the historical society is more interested in money than in saving this national historic site.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): It is indeed a pleasure to rise today and speak to this bill. I want to thank the member for Simcoe-Grey

for bringing this issue forward to the House. It's an important one.

I think everybody here knows that I'm the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture. Heritage is very near and dear to my heart, not just my portfolio,

and it is for many, many reasons.

I think what we need to reiterate for those who maybe are not quite familiar with the exact contribution that was made by Sir Frederick Banting -- I know it has

just been outlined, but we can't say it enough. We know the name Banting. We know the term "insulin." We know what it does for diabetics. But we have to go over what exactly was the contribution he

made. It was unique; it was special.

Sir Frederick Banting was born and grew up on a farm in Alliston, Ontario. He became Canada's first Nobel Prize winner for his discovery of insulin, but he did

not profit from this monumental discovery. He gave the rights to the University of Toronto to keep insulin affordable and to further medical research. That in itself is an extraordinary

contribution, because we know that since the discovery of insulin, since it came into common use, millions and millions of lives have been made worthwhile, in fact have been saved, through the use

of insulin. Many people would have otherwise died of diabetes. So his contribution is absolutely enormous, not just to the history of Ontario or Canada but internationally. This is a worldwide

historical figure.

As I mentioned, heritage and history are close to my heart. It is the importance not just of the stories of the people who came before us, how they lived, how we

got to where we are now, but it is often their legacies. The legacy of Sir Frederick Banting and his contribution is a living legacy. It is a life-giving legacy. It is an inspirational story that

must be told again and again. Clearly, one of the ways that we tell these inspirational stories is through the places where part of the story perhaps took place. In this case, part of the story of

Sir Frederick Banting took place in Alliston, Ontario, on a 100-acre farm. It's not the original Banting homestead. It's not the original home where Banting was born. That has been replaced.

However, it is that sense of place that is still there, and that tremendously important piece of international history took place there.

That is why our government passed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act. For decades, we had been watching important heritage properties in our province be

destroyed, demolished, whether they were built heritage or natural heritage. We have watched those properties be destroyed, and there has been tremendous demand for three decades now for changes to

the Ontario Heritage Act that would give tools to municipalities to help protect these important heritage properties. Previously, municipalities could only delay the demolition of an important

heritage site by 180 days; they could not prevent it. We have now, through our changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, provided municipalities and communities with the tools they need to permanently

protect heritage buildings. And that is why I am strongly urging the municipality to continue with the process that they are engaged in right now with the Ontario Historical Society to come to an

agreement that will preserve and celebrate the history of this tremendously important place.

And I have to reiterate at this point the fact that heritage makes our communities incredibly vital and also viable. There is a tremendous economic benefit to

historical and heritage sites. They bring tourists, they provide education, and they often provide communities where people want to live and want to congregate, because they tend to be very

beautiful. You've all heard me say this in the House before, and my minister has said it very well: She says, "People do not come to see a strip mall; they come to see history, heritage, beautiful

buildings, beautiful architecture."

If you have ever been to Europe, you know that when you step into the streets of many European cities the history is tangible. They're beautiful places because

they have recognized their heritage. They have preserved it and celebrated it, and they bring people from all over the world there to see it. So there is also that economic benefit. You make a

stronger community when you celebrate and protect your heritage.

While I fully support the spirit of this bill, I do feel our government has provided the tools for the communities to solve this problem. We know the

negotiations are still going on right now, and we would like to see the community resolve this issue. We do have a couple of things, and I want to just outline what can take place here. There are

two better mechanisms for long-term protection, because although I say the spirit of Bill 20 is great, it could make restoration a little bit difficult. It makes it difficult to establish a future

use for this site, just because there might be alteration required. We'd like to leave a little bit of flexibility in there, because in the past there was difficulty if we were too restrictive. We

need to have some flexibility in there so that the site can be used in special ways.

The OHS could work with the town now to register a heritage easement on the title of the property, which would require the current and all future owners to

ensure the upkeep of the farm. That can be done in a specific way. More commonly, the town of New Tecumseth could designate the property under

part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Such a

designation could ensure upkeep but at the same time be tailored to meet the needs of each farm building by identifying all the parts in the appropriate municipal bylaw. It could also allow for

future uses, perhaps as a camp for children, as has been suggested, and establish minimum maintenance standards. It could be made as restrictive as need be without impacting future uses. An

adaptive reuse is really, really important if we are going to make the maintenance and preservation of our heritage buildings viable well into the future.

Also, a designation may be applied without the approval of the OHS, so if the municipality felt sufficiently strongly about the situation, it can just go ahead

and designate it as a heritage property, and then the heritage act kicks in and we protect that property. The town simply has to use the powers the province has already given it, since the Ontario

Heritage Act already makes it possible to protect the Banting farm from alteration and even demolition.

Decisions regarding the use of the Banting farm should be made, though. We feel fairly strongly these negotiations should continue. We do have a commitment from

the OHS that the roof is to be repaired. Apparently there was a failed attempt at this earlier, for a number of reasons, so it has lasted a little longer, but they have given us their assurance

this is going to go ahead immediately.

Once again, I want to thank the member for Simcoe-Grey for bringing this forward, for bringing this to light, and for giving us all the opportunity, once again,

to understand the incredible contribution that Sir Frederick Banting has made to generations and generations of human beings and will continue to make to the lives of people. I just want to

reiterate the importance of his birthplace, its value emotionally, its value historically and its value economically. That has to be recognized, and I encourage the town to recognize that as well.

Thank you very much to the member for Simcoe-Grey for bringing this forward.

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join in the debate. Certainly, I'm in support of Bill 20, brought forth by my

colleague -- senior colleague, I should say -- from Simcoe-Grey. It's called

An Act to ensure the preservation of the Frederick Banting homestead. I just want to commend Mr. Wilson and Ms. Guergis,

the MP for this area, with respect to their bringing this important issue to the attention of the community. Certainly maintaining heritage properties as a point of principle is something that we

should respect in this province.

I know my own constituency office was a former assembly area, armoury, in the late 1890s and early 19th century with respect to training of Canadian forces. It

unfortunately was allowed to deteriorate. At the time I was elected in 1995, I chose to take on that building to maintain it, because it was not being maintained, even though it was a city of

Barrie building, and bring it up to the standard that it should be as a historical site. That's why I take a strong interest with respect to this bill in terms of maintaining and protecting our

heritage properties, because once they're gone, they're gone forever and you can't look back and say, "Well, we should have done this." This is an opportunity to do something constructive.

This is a 100-acre piece of property. I believe it's zoned agricultural, but it's surrounded by residential home development, and a developer, from what I

understand, is interested in purchasing that property. There's no doubt why they would be interested in it, because as everybody knows in this Legislature and as my senior colleague Mr. Wilson

knows, Simcoe county was not covered by the greenbelt legislation. The greenbelt legislation, because it doesn't apply to Simcoe county, has led to intensification, an incredible search for land,

an incredible search to get developable land. Certainly New Tecumseth, which is the home of Honda, is an area that is going to be targeted for growth. Certainly being able to get land in an area

that can be developed, such as the property where the Banting homestead is, has proven to be a big issue. I believe that if the greenbelt legislation had applied to Simcoe county, it could be

applied to protect that particular piece of property, because it is agricultural land. What we have is mass intensification and a tremendous amount of activity by groups that want land to develop.

This is why my senior colleague from Simcoe-Grey has come forth with this bill, because something has to be done now. You cannot just sit idly by. He has worked diligently. He has also set in

course a procedure that will hopefully be adopted by the House today where we can get expedited committee hearings and also an expedited process to bring this piece of legislation into law.

It's a restrictive covenant to protect the property, and it has to be acted on, I would say, not only to preserve the buildings -- because when you look at the

buildings in the pictures that were provided by Mr. Wilson, they show that the property has just gone into deterioration. It's just not acceptable for a heritage property to be left in ruins the

way it is. If you have a property and it's put in trust to you, you have to maintain that property. Otherwise, you shouldn't have taken it on in the first place. So what we have here are buildings

that are not being maintained. We have, no doubt, a valuable piece of property here, because of the fact that the Liberals' greenbelt legislation has sort of worked in reverse effect in Simcoe

county. There's an intensification of people looking for land. This is a prime parcel of land in New Tecumseth because of the fact that it's an attractive area to develop.

We have a situation here that has to be addressed immediately, it has to be addressed responsibly and it has to be addressed in a manner that is going to respect

the family and respect probably one of the great Canadian citizens and a great humanitarian -- Frederick Banting.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I have to say that this is one of those bills that anybody who has ever taken a step back and looked at an

historic building or an historic site, anybody who has owned an historic building or been living near an historic site or anybody who has participated in any way in the preservation of either

buildings or properties that are significant in our collective historic past and tried to save those gems for the future would say is a no-brainer.

This particular homestead, this particular site, is extremely important and is one of the symbols of the kind of people this country has produced who have gone

on to do some wonderful things for humankind as a whole. I don't think it's necessary to go into a long history lesson as to the contributions of Sir Frederick Banting, or Dr. Frederick Banting.

Suffice it to say that anybody who has been touched by the disease of diabetes -- and it's recognized that diabetes is a disease that is on the rise, particularly in young people -- knows how

important Banting's discovery of insulin is in the management of that illness. It's unfortunate that so many people who are touched by this disease end up in serious medical situations.

Unfortunately, that remains a problem to this day: People lose limbs as a result of gangrene and other complications of diabetes that are not treated effectively or properly.

I have to say that when you look at the opportunity that's before us to make sure that the place of residence, the homestead, of Dr. Frederick Banting is

preserved, I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure that that happens. There is a time on Thursday mornings when we talk about issues that are not really partisan in nature but are more

co-operative, things that can get done that are not about your party or your platform but more about the real issues that face communities, the real issues that face Ontarians, the real

opportunities we have to make some differences.

I think this is one of those where some might say, "Well, it's a homestead. It's an historic site. What's the big deal?" But it is a big deal. If we don't take

the time to preserve our history, if we don't take the time to acknowledge and recognize and celebrate the contributions of people who have done so many great things, and if we don't do that in a

way that will last into future generations, then we really do lose a bit of our collective understanding of who we are as a community, who we are as a province, who we are as a nation.

I really think that this bill brought forward by the member for Simcoe-Grey is one that gives us an opportunity not only to acknowledge the work of Dr. Banting

but also the work of the people in the community who are trying to make sure, through volunteer efforts and volunteer hours, through the sheer love of history and sheer desire, that we don't lose

these kinds of really significant homesteads or sites. For their sake, we need to make sure that this bill is unanimously supported.

It's a bill that in effect preserves this site, that says that as a province we're committed to preserving this site. We want to see this site exist not only now

but well into the future. We want to make sure that the sheer neglect that happens when you don't make positive efforts, particularly with historic sites, doesn't happen, that we don't get to a

situation of erosion and of deterioration of the site.

Like anyone knows, it's that old adage, "a stitch in time saves nine"; in other words, let's make sure we're doing everything we can do right now and on an

ongoing, regular basis to take care of this piece of property. If you don't do it now, if another six years goes by, and another six years after that, and nothing is done to make sure this site is

preserved, we're going to turn around one day and it's not going to be there any more. It will be the collective shame of the members of this Legislature and everyone else who could possibly have

lent a hand in the preservation of this site.

I'm happy to be able to support this bill. I really do laud the member for bringing it forward. I actually own right now an historic property. I'm in the

process, probably -- I'm definitely in the process of selling it at this point in time, mostly because I don't have the time to keep up with the darn thing. It's a property that was built in

Hamilton in the 1850s. It's called the Stone Terrace. It's one

section of a commercial street frontage that has living space above and commercial space below. It's a fabulous, fabulous

building.

Unfortunately, as I said, I really don't have the time to keep up with it, nor the money, to be honest with you, because they can be money pits, for sure. But

it's a gorgeous piece of property. I've been really honoured to be able to hold on to a piece of history the way I have for the last several years, but I recognize that I don't have the

opportunity. I'm extremely busy with serving my constituents and serving in this Legislature, and I recognize that it deserves the love, the care and the attention that it can only get from someone

who has got the time to put into it. That, unfortunately, can no longer be me, so I'm selling that property to a couple of people who I know will take very good care of it.

Similarly, although this is not a sale of property, this is an acknowledgment that if it's not being taken care of, this historic site has to be enshrined in

legislation. The preservation of this site has to be enshrined in legislation to ensure that in the future it is taken care of, it is properly maintained and all of the upkeep is stayed on top of;

otherwise, these buildings can deteriorate extremely quickly, and these properties can very quickly become problems, and very expensive ones.

I was really pleased when I received the package of background materials on this site that the member provided. It's too bad there is no opportunity for us to be

able to hold up the pictures and let people see exactly what it is that we're dealing with here. The buildings in this package of photographs are quite interesting -- an octagonal implement shed.

In fact, some of the pictures show the deterioration of that very shed. It's a very unique structure and quite an interesting building.

I've had the pleasure of working with people in Hamilton who are interested in architectural and historical preservation. They are a very passionate group of

people and they are very concerned that in our haste to build and create new structures and change the utilization of land, we're going to lose some very significant and very beautiful buildings. I

know that the people in Hamilton are no different than the people in every other community who are interested in the architectural and historical preservation of lands and buildings. They

acknowledge, they recognize and they treasure, and they try to convince the rest of us that these pieces of property and these buildings are pieces of history that should be treasured and need to

be valued. And we can't just do that in words, we need to do that in action.

If anybody has ever had the privilege of travelling to Europe, for example, there's history no matter where you turn. But those buildings in Europe that we all

look at in pictures, or for those of us who have had the opportunity to be in Europe, we're awestruck when we get there and see the history, the gorgeous buildings, the beautiful artwork and the

frescoes inside and outside. It's amazing when you go there, but it's not amazing by accident. It's amazing because these cultures, these communities and these countries have spent a lot of time

and effort and have huge restoration and maintenance budgets for these beautiful, architecturally significant buildings.

That is something we've lost in many of our older communities. I know that even in the community I'm from, we have constant struggles and we're in constant

anxiety about the loss of historical sites. In fact, there's one that's currently on the radar in Hamilton and that's a building called the Lister Block, which was in fact the very first indoor

mall in all of Canada. That is a downtown site that is deteriorating significantly and has been doing so for decades now. It's extremely unfortunate. There are two concerns: One is that the longer

it deteriorates, the less likely anybody's ever going to have the money to bring it back to where it should be, and secondly, because of the state of the building -- it's right in our downtown --

it causes concern for people.

I'm going to leave a few minutes for my colleague Gilles Bisson to say a few words about this bill, but I really do support it. It's the right thing to do. I

think opportunities to save these buildings and to respect and acknowledge the value of the contribution of people like Sir Frederick Banting cannot be missed.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to rise in support of the bill of my honourable colleague the member from Simcoe-Grey, Jim Wilson,

on the preservation of the Sir Frederick Banting homestead. I will say that it's a fine thing he's doing. The preservation of this home in his riding is significant.

I want to tell you that I'm fortunate to have a descendant of the Banting family in my riding of Niagara Falls. He's an exceptional dental surgeon in my

community. His name is Ron, the great-nephew of Dr. Frederick Banting. Because of that, I've had the opportunity to sit with him and a number of his family members to really get a personal insight

of the significance and importance of this bill. The quest of the Banting family is to honour their great-uncle and to advance the well-being of those who fight against the terrible disease of

diabetes. In fact, I have two members of my family who are affected by diabetes, so I know first-hand the consequences of it.

At the outset of the debate on the bill, there are two things that should be made clear. The family itself has never profited and does not want to profit by this

bill. It's a bill to preserve and protect the heritage and to recognize the discoverer of insulin. In fact, Ron's brother, Bob, and others -- again, I've met Bob Banting -- have invested countless

hours in an attempt to preserve the legacy and discovery of insulin.

For the people who are watching, the 100-acre farm was left in trust to the Ontario Historical Society by Edward Banting, and that was after many, many meetings

to explain to the historical association what this bequest meant. It appears, sad to say, that the Ontario Historical Society has different objectives from those envisioned by Sir Frederick

Banting.

It's felt by the supporters of the Banting homestead that it's obvious that the Ontario Historical Society has a very different objective, and that is their own

financial survival; that's job number one. This is sad. If they sell the property, and there are suggestions of that, to reduce their debt and to finance operations, what's going to remain? Are

they going to sell it and we're going to see a subdivision there? I think most of us can reflect back on our own communities and have seen some of those situations happen. I can tell you that in my

own community of Niagara Falls we just recently lost Loretto monastery, a magnificent historical facility. In fact, I was there the day they had an open house and walked through it with thousands

of people. A lot of tears were shed; a lot of stories were told. It will be forever lost and forever missed in our community.

The family strongly feels that Sir Frederick Banting was never about money and they constantly tell me that. In fact it's been said, and it's important to say

again, that he could have made millions of dollars from the discovery of insulin but he didn't. In fact, it was determined in a deed that no one would ever profit from the discovery of insulin. Who

would do that in this day and age?

The farm was important in the development of insulin. Without Dr. Banting's farming experience, the original supplies of insulin would not have been made or

would have been more difficult to obtain.

Unfortunately, our lifestyles and diet choices are now showing that diabetes is growing, almost to a very staggering, significant situation. However, supporters

of this are really interested in juvenile diabetes and envision at some point the development of a camp for juvenile diabetics. These unfortunate young people need the support of their peers -- and

that's who we are today, their peers -- and we have an opportunity to support a significant bill.

As most people know, there are some very significant things about Dr. Banting. Of course, we know he grew up on a farm in Alliston. He became the first

Canadian Nobel Prize winner, for the discovery of insulin. He didn't profit from this discovery. He gave the rights to the University of Toronto to keep insulin affordable and to further medical

research into the discovery, which has saved millions of lives across the world of people who, without insulin, would have died from diabetes.

The preservation of this homestead and its development for humanitarian purposes related to diabetes is essential. Sir Frederick Banting and the Banting family

would have wanted it this way, and this House shouldn't want it any other way either.

I have two articles from the newspaper; I want to quickly read them. One says, "A Nobel Home, Neglected." It has a picture of Bob Banting standing in front of

the home. Although it's not a prop and may not be clear, it shows what disrepair this home is now found in. The other one says, "Family Fights to Save Banting Home."

I want to again congratulate the member from Simcoe−Grey. I urge all the members in the House to support this bill. It's a significant bill and a great

opportunity to show that this House cares about history and about preserving it. I again commend the member for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): It's my pleasure to rise today and speak in support of Bill 20,

An Act to ensure the preservation of the

Frederick Banting homestead, brought forward by the member for Simcoe−Grey.

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member on bringing forward this private member's bill, which deals with an issue very

close to the hearts of his constituents. This member is certainly one of the hardest-working members of this House. He is motivated by high principles and high values, which he acquired from his

family, and he makes a conscious and deliberate effort to apply those values and principles to his day-to-day work in this Legislature.

I'm proud to say that I share a few things in common with the member for Simcoe−Grey. We were both born in the same week of the same month of the same

year, and we were elected to serve our constituents here in this Legislature at the same time in 1990. I am honoured to have had the chance to work with the member throughout our time here in the

House. It was his honour to serve as our Minister of Health during a very challenging time shortly after our party formed the government in 1995. He did a tremendous job in that role.

The bill that this member brings forward today shows his ongoing commitment to his constituents in Simcoe-Grey. The Frederick Banting homestead is the

birthplace and home of one of Canada's all-time greatest physicians. In 1923, as has been pointed out, Dr. Banting discovered insulin -- a landmark medical discovery that changed the lives of

millions of people around the world who suffered from diabetes. He was later recognized for his achievements when he won the Nobel Prize for medicine, the first Canadian to win this prestigious

award.

Dr. Banting then made a selfless and honourable decision. After devoting his life's work to helping those suffering from diabetes, which prior to the discovery

often meant a death sentence, he made sure that insulin would help humankind for decades and even centuries to come. Instead of trying to profit from his fundamental and ground-breaking discovery,

Dr. Banting chose to sell the rights to his life-saving serum to the University of Toronto for the princely sum of $1. This courageous decision ensured that diabetes sufferers around the world

would have access to affordable insulin. At the time of Dr. Banting's discovery, Canada was considered by many to be a backwater of the British Empire, often ignored and forgotten by the world. Who

could have imagined that a Toronto-based Canadian researcher would make such an important and life-saving discovery that was eluding the rest of the world?

This is why the bill brought forward by the member for Simcoe-Grey is so important. This bill seeks to preserve the Frederick Banting homestead, located near

Alliston, Ontario, which serves as a constant reminder of the achievements of Dr. Banting. Unfortunately, the home and buildings on this property, as has been pointed out, are deteriorating, and

are in some danger of being destroyed should the land be sold for development.

Currently, the Frederick Banting homestead is the property of the Ontario Historical Society, donated to the society in 1999 by Dr. Banting's nephew, Edward

Banting. It was the hope of Edward Banting that the society would maintain the property and buildings and help preserve the memory of his distinguished uncle. Sadly, to date, this has not been the

case. The homestead and surrounding property have deteriorated badly after being neglected and poorly maintained for the past six years. Understandably, Dr. Banting's family and the larger

community feel let down by the Ontario Historical Society's failure to properly maintain this historical landmark.

The member for Simcoe-Grey has introduced this bill in order to preserve and protect the Frederick Banting homestead, which is a symbol of the momentous

achievements of this Canadian hero. In fact, the viewers and listeners of the CBC recently recognized him as one of our top 10 greatest Canadians of all time. It is my hope that this bill passes

second reading in this House so that the Legislature can make a statement that they care about this very important Canadian historical site. It is our opportunity as members to signal to the

government that steps must be taken to preserve this valuable landmark.

Since we're talking about insulin, I think it's appropriate to make reference to the private member's bill brought forward by the member for Thunder

Bay-Superior North in the previous session of the current Parliament: Bill 55, the Health Insurance Amendment Act, intended to help pay for insulin pumps for diabetics. This is a bill that I

supported as well. I received a great deal of positive feedback from my constituents on it. I hope that the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North will continue to advocate for this idea in the

balance of the current Parliament. He would continue to enjoy my support if he did so.

I look forward to hearing the contributions of other members of this House on this important bill and would encourage everyone to support Bill 20.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Je voudrais prendre cette occasion pour dire que le caucus néo-démocratique va suivre et

supporter la motion qui était mise par notre collègue M. Wilson. On pense que cette motion a beaucoup de bon sens. Premièrement, M. Banting a fait une contribution non seulement

dans la société canadienne mais aussi dans la société de notre planète avec sa découverte, qu'aujourd'hui 350 millions de personnes à travers le monde en

bénéficient et sont en vie grâce à ce monsieur-là. Imaginez-vous que vous, un individu, êtes capable d'influencer la santé du monde de la manière dont il l'a

fait avec sa découverte. C'est vraiment quelque chose de fantastique et, franchement, quelque chose qui est parfois dur à comprendre.

Le problème est simplement celui-ci. Son domicile, là où il est né, est présentement en danger de savoir exactement ce qui va arriver.

Le neveu de M. Banting avait donné cet édifice, la propriété, à la société historique de la région. C'était un défi un peu trop difficile pour

eux autres. Ils ont eu des problèmes à être capables de garder en place tout ce qui est nécessaire pour garantir que la terre et le bâtiment sur cette terre demeurent en

bonne condition pour l'utiliser comme site historique et pour attirer, premièrement, des touristes, mais deuxièmement, pour célébrer la vie de M. Banting.

Sur ce point-là, M. Wilson amène devant nous une motion qui dit qu'on va créer une autre société à but non lucratif pour

être capable de donner la capacité à eux autres de faire ce qu'ils doivent faire pour s'assurer que ce bâtiment reste là où il est et en bon état, et qu'on peut

célébrer, à travers cet édifice, la vie de M. Banting et aussi la découverte qu'il a faite.

C'est intéressant de dire qu'au Canada, parfois on n'est pas bien « smart » quand ça vient à trouver des manières

à reconnaître l'histoire de notre pays. On le sait, ceux qui ont eu la chance de faire des voyages autour du monde. Moi-même, j'ai fait l'Europe, l'Asie, l'Afrique et d'autres

places. Spécialement l'Afrique, et je dois dire l'Europe, n'ont pas seulement une histoire très longue, mais ils y arrivent d'une manière un peu différente quand ça vient

à promouvoir l'histoire de leur pays. Par exemple, si on va à Paris, si on va à Bruxelles, si on va à Londres, si on va à Venise, l'histoire est représentée d'une

telle manière que le public peut le comprendre et peut le voir. Par exemple, si on a la chance d'aller à Londres et on se promène dans les rues, il va y avoir une pancarte qui dit

qu'à cette place, à telle ou telle date, telle ou telle affaire est arrivée pour telle ou telle personne.

On prend en Europe, je pense, une meilleure manière d'apprécier, premièrement, l'histoire de son pays, mais aussi de la présenter d'une

manière pour qu'elle vive dans la société d'aujourd'hui. Si j'ai quelque chose à dire sur ce point, c'est que le Canada a une histoire très riche, une histoire qui date des

milliers d'ans, parce qu'on sait que les communautés autochtones étaient ici avant nous. On a besoin de prendre, je pense, l'habitude de mieux reconnaître, premièrement, qu'on a

une bonne histoire et, deuxièmement, de la présenter d'une manière que, à la fin de la journée, on peut en être fiers, on peut la voir, on peut la vivre, et on peut

célébrer ce que c'est d'être Canadiens.

Je pense que cette motion en est une partie, parce que M. Banting a joué un rôle important dans l'histoire du Canada. On doit le

célébrer, on doit s'en souvenir, et c'est pour cette raison qu'on va supporter cette motion.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to stand in the House today and speak in support of the bill presented by the member

from Simcoe-Grey. The member has worked in the Legislature during the last session and this one to preserve the birthplace of a monumental figure in Canadian history. Not only is the member from

Simcoe-Grey committed to conserving the historic site of the Frederick Banting homestead, but he has taken the time and energy to consult the Sir Frederick Banting Educational Committee and the

descendants of Sir Banting himself in the process of writing this bill.

I think all members of the House can learn from the way this bill was drafted. As representatives of our respective ridings, we are here on behalf of the

thousands of Ontarians living in our communities, and sometimes we must stand up to well-established, province-wide organizations to protect the rights and properties within our community.

Many community members in New Tecumseth have been discouraged as they witness the disrepair and declining state of the Banting family home. There had been much

speculation that the Ontario Historical Society intends to sell sections of the property for other purposes, and there has been much turmoil as a result of public statements from the Ontario

Historical Society. This organization has implied that the generous donation of the homestead from the family of Sir Banting was not enough and that they required an additional endowment fund to

maintain the property.

In spite of the ill will surrounding this home, there is hope in this commendable bill. This is a home that deserves to be a celebrated tourist destination and

educational historic site. The success of the bill offers a solution to the citizens of New Tecumseth and to history buffs worldwide. The bill would promptly address the poor condition of the home

and work proactively to prevent any further damage to the property. It gives due recognition to a man who was rightfully listed among the greatest Canadians.

This Monday, November 14, was Sir Frederick Banting's birthday, a date that is now recognized as World Diabetes Day. As well, each year the Canadian Diabetes

Association celebrates November 6 as Sir Frederick Banting Day.

There are countless reasons why we should respect the memory of Sir Frederick Banting through preservation of his childhood home. It is fitting that

Remembrance Day falls between the two days designated in his honour by the Canadian Diabetes Association and the world diabetes association.

Not only was Sir Frederick Banting an incredible mind in the world of medicine and a generous soul who forfeited all the possible profits from the patent to

his life-changing drug, insulin, doing this so that insulin could be affordable treatment for all those afflicted with the disease, but Dr. Banting was also a courageous war hero. We have the

opportunity to preserve the home of a Nobel Prize-winning doctor, a doctor who was also a Military Cross recipient for his service during the First World War. After establishing himself as a leader

in medicine in the 1920s, Banting did not rest on his laurels. His patriotism and dedication to military service continued. He was a liaison officer for the North American and British medical

services when the Second World War began. Before he succumbed to his own injuries from an air disaster in that war, Banting was sure to dress the wounds of the pilot of the aircraft in which he was

flying.

Today, as members of the House, we have the chance to keep the memory of this incredible man alive. In 1923, this Legislature endowed the Banting and Best

chair of medical research. Now, over 80 years later, we have a chance in this House to preserve the memory of this revolutionary doctor's childhood home.

As you know, diabetes continues to affect the lives of thousands of Ontarians, many of whom could not possibly lead a normal, healthy life without insulin,

which was discovered in 1920 by Sir Frederick Banting and Charles H. Best.

Last spring, the member from Thunder Bay-Superior North introduced a bill that recognizes the contemporary reality of the disease that is diabetes and would

provide insulin pumps to diabetics under the Ontario health care program.

The member from Simcoe-Grey is bringing forth a bill that will assist the public history of our province and our country. In preserving the Banting homestead,

there is the potential to bring the legacy of Dr. Banting to the forefront of people's minds.

Although there are tens of thousands of Canadians living with diabetes, this is not an unproblematic affliction. Diabetes is a contributing factor in the

deaths of approximately 40,500 Canadians each year.

The homestead, established almost 115 years ago, was bequeathed in good faith by the Banting family to the Ontario Historical Society in 1999. The family did

so with the intention of preserving Sir Frederick Banting's legacy to share with all Canadians. Our own Minister of Culture said recently that "For too many years, our heritage resources have been

left vulnerable." This is all too true and proven by the current state of the Banting homestead.

I hope that the success of this bill will reverse the years of damage incurred to the property and that the bill can someday provide an educational and

recreational resource for the hundreds of thousands of proud Canadians who wish to honour the memory of Sir Frederick Banting.

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

Mr. Wilson: I want to thank the member from Stoney Creek for her kind comments, and my colleagues from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Hamilton East,

Niagara Falls, Waterloo-Wellington, Timmins-James Bay and Laurie Scott, who just spoke.

The Ontario Historical Society, frankly, duped Edward Banting. He had over a dozen meetings with them in the three years before he died in 1998, and by the

time the will was done, in 1999, the Ontario Historical Society received title as a result of Edward Banting transferring title to them. Perhaps he made a mistake. Perhaps it should have gone to

the Ontario Heritage Foundation, which raises money to preserve and enhance historical properties like the Banting homestead. But what's done is done.

As was said, the homestead is probably worth about $2.5 million. There are some 300 homes being built around it right now by Mattamy developers. The fact of

the matter is that it needs to be preserved.

I appreciate the kind comments from my colleagues. We've got some great historians here in the House. I think Mr. Arnott perhaps said it best. In Canada, we

take for granted these things. We don't preserve our heritage like we should, like other countries do. To underscore that, just a few weeks ago 25 people from the ministry of retired persons in

China flew into Toronto, drove up to the homestead and did a tour. That's how interested the Chinese are. We have delegations all the time, from many, many countries, come to this homestead. All it

has in front of it right now is an historic plaque. It's not the big tourist attraction it could be.

The fact of the matter is, the Banting family wants to make it a diabetic camp for youth. I appreciate the support of all members of this House. I hope the

bill will pass, and I hope the government will actually call it for third reading.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should do whatever is necessary to

protect the citizens of Ontario from nuisance bears.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. Smith has moved private members' notice of motion number 5. Pursuant to standing order 96, Ms.

Smith, you have up to 10 minutes. You have the floor.

Ms. Smith: I rise today to speak to the issue of nuisance bears, which is very important in my area, and in my riding in particular. Although

it is perhaps somewhat selfish of me to take up the time of the House on this issue, I think it is an issue for all of Ontario, and specifically for northern Ontario.

This issue, which has always been a part of our lives up in northern Ontario, came to my attention most recently this fall. It has really become an important

issue and a serious safety concern for the children of our community and for the broader general public. I decided to bring forward this resolution in September, when I had spoken to a number of

people who had been directly affected by the presence of nuisance bears in our communities.

Nuisance bears are affecting our schools. In Mattawa, the school is on guard for bears. Let me just cite for you an

article from the North Bay Nugget: "Hungry

black bears are roaming the streets of Mattawa and Trout Creek, and the North Bay District Ministry of Natural Resources is getting swamped with calls from people who say the bruins are getting too

close for comfort." This is dated September 9, 2005. "At least one school has increased supervision during recess after tracks were found on its property, and residents are walking in groups at

night with flashlights and bells to ward off encounters." This is in downtown Mattawa. The council in Mattawa "discussed the situation at a special meeting ... after a bear tore apart a garbage

box" at some time over the weekend of September 9 "at the Mattawa Child Care Centre on the St. Victor school property." The bears are right in the school properties, right in our communities.

In North Bay proper, we've had bear sightings near the West Ferris Secondary School. On September 14, we had to have the North Bay Police Service and our

humane society get involved and actually trap and remove a bear cub. They were involved because the Ministry of Natural Resources' bear wise technicians were unavailable at the time due to the high

number of calls and traps being sets in Mattawa and other communities. We do have resources in place to deal with the nuisance bears. However, they're being tapped out.

Again, this one really brought it close to home for me in October, when we had a bear sighting right next to our high school at 11:30 in the morning. The high

school yard is attached to a primary school. The children in the primary school were kept in the school for their lunch-hour recess because the teachers were too concerned about letting them out

while there was a bear in the vicinity. The police were called and they actually shot this bear cub out of a tree in front of the students. I bring this particular incident to your attention

because it was right in downtown North Bay. It was about eight blocks from where I live. It's right next to the school that my brother attended. It's very scary. It also disturbed the children and

the neighbourhood. That was following a sighting the night before of a bear in that neighbourhood as well.

When I was in Mattawa recently for a rally, I met with some of the seniors there who were afraid to take out their garbage. They're afraid to go out of their

homes. One particular senior told me that she hadn't left her house for two days after she'd seen a bear at the end of her driveway. This isn't, of course, just an issue for my riding. As you know,

we've had some serious bear incidents across the province, including the tragic mauling death of Dr. Jacqueline Perry in September in the Missinaibi Lake provincial park and the injuring of her

husband.

The numbers speak for themselves: There have been an inordinate number of sightings this year in particular of nuisance bears across the province.

Province-wide last year, 2004, we had 948 occurrence of bear sightings in August, and in September we had 736. This year, 2005, we had 1,758 reported occurrences in August, and in September we had

2,385. Let me just compare that to the numbers of bears that have been reported killed: In 2004, 25 in June and 30 in July. In 2005, 81 in August and 92 in September. We're seeing an exponential

growth in the number of sightings of nuisance bears and then having to deal with them.

Again, the number of bears reported killed is a low number, because it's those reported. We have a number of residents who are taking issues into their own

hands, dealing with the nuisance bear problem on their property. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters questioned some of the numbers that the Ministry of Natural Resources is putting out,

because they feel that they are being under-reported.

I want to take the Legislature through a brief history of where we've been and where we're going with the bear hunt. Back in the 1980s, there was an open bear

hunt; there was no real restriction on our bear hunt. In 1987, we introduced some licensing restrictions around the bear hunt. It wasn't until 1999 that we actually saw the elimination of the

spring bear hunt, many would argue for political reasons, and many have questioned the science behind that decision.

I will concede that there are some questions around the science and the correlation between the increase in nuisance bear sightings and the elimination of the

spring bear hunt. However, the people of my community are firmly of the belief that the elimination of the spring bear hunt has increased the number of nuisance bear sightings and the bear

population in the north.

As you know, in December 2003, our government introduced the bear wise strategy. This is based on some very good science: Most of the reports from different

jurisdictions talk about the fact that we have to educate the population on how to deal with our nuisance bears. The bear wise program, introduced in March 2004, outlined a strategy for reporting

bear sightings, responding to those bear sightings and preventing human-bear conflicts. As the Minister of Natural Resources reported yesterday, the reporting line which we set up, which is a

24-hour, toll-free hotline, has had 14,500 calls.

We have developed protocols with 40 municipalities in order to deal with nuisance bear calls, and our municipalities are supported by the MNR. But as I

indicated, in our community and the North Bay sighting in West Ferris, we didn't have the resources available because there are so many calls that our resources are tapped out.

I might also draw your attention to the fact that in 1996-97, the previous Conservative government cut the resources of the Ministry of Natural Resources down

to the bone. We have, over time, been building them up since our government came into power. We have been providing more resources to that ministry in order to deal with these problems, but there

is a legacy of problems within the ministry not having the proper resources that they need.

The bear wise program is going some way to deal with the problem, but as I've noted, our communities are noting an increase, this year especially. I wanted to

bring it to the attention of my fellow legislators, as well as to the attention of the general public. In the North Bay Nugget on October 1, we had a report of a gentleman living in Powassan who

shot four bears outside his home after they ripped off the screen door of his home. In his home at that time were his wife and six-month-old child. That causes huge concerns in a community where we

have bears being that brazen and bold. That led the township of Chisholm, at its council meeting in October, to pass the following resolution:

"Whereas the cancellation of the spring bear hunt several years ago has resulted in an overabundant black bear population; and

"Whereas the black bear population is becoming increasingly bold and there are increased incidents of nuisances bear and bear attacks in urban and rural areas;

and

"Whereas the spring bear hunt was a viable management tool and a way of controlling the black bear population;

"Now, therefore,

be it resolved that the council of the corporation of the township of Chisholm petitions the Honourable David Ramsay, Minister of Natural

Resources, to immediately move to reinstate the bear hunt, and further, that this resolution be circulated to local members of Parliament and all municipalities in the province of Ontario for

support."

The science is there. Many reports have indicated that prevention and education is an important component in dealing with the spring bear hunt. But there are

also other ways of dealing with nuisance bears, and I would argue that one of those ways is to reintroduce the spring bear hunt and allow for some management through that means.

Most recently, in the state of Pennsylvania, where they've been dealing with the issue, they introduced a management plan for black bears in October 2005 based

on the most recent science and studies. They do indicate that nuisance bear conflicts have economic and public safety consequences. They go through a number of initiatives which they are

introducing, including a major educational effort. But as part of their overall strategy, they are looking at, by October 2008, identifying areas within their bear management units where locally

high bear abundance is a factor in human-bear conflict and they're evaluating if hunting may be used to reduce that abundance. I would suggest that might be an appropriate approach for our

government to deal with the nuisance bear problem which is putting our population at risk, particularly in the north. I think the issue of our children's and our seniors' safety is something this

Legislature has to take seriously.

I thank you for your time, and I look forward to responding to my colleagues.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate on this resolution from the member from Nipissing, "That in the

opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should do whatever is necessary to protect the citizens of Ontario from nuisance bears." I'm very pleased that the member has brought forward this

resolution. It's important to get the government's attention on this issue, although I would point out that the member is part of the government and the government doesn't need a resolution from

private members' business to act on the question of nuisance bears -- although I think this resolution is certainly a lot more important than the past one, which was the Kormos resolution to do

with a dress code in the Legislature. This is certainly a much more important issue.

The government needs to act on the recommendations of a report that was tabled on August 28, 2003, and that's the Nuisance Bear Review Committee report. In

that report, there was a recommendation for a partial reinstatement of the spring bear hunt. Now, they didn't find in that report a connection between the cancellation of the spring bear hunt and

an increase in the number of bears, but they did recommend a reinstatement of a very controlled spring bear hunt for socio-economic reasons.

There was also a recommendation in that report for further research, and I think that is very much needed. Information I have from an independent organization

on the bear synopsis for 2005 says that Ontario's black bear population may now be 100% higher than what the MNR is telling the public -- that means 200,000 or more and growing. The MNR's estimate

of 100,000 is based on information more than 20 years old.

This has been a bad year for bear attacks and deaths. We've had at least four people attacked -- one killed -- in Ear Falls, Chapleau, Sioux Lookout and

Upsala. Problem and nuisance bears are at unprecedented levels across the province. For example, the town of Marathon recently declared their garbage dump a danger zone. MNR's province-wide

toll-free number received 15,000 calls in 2004. The OPP and residents are killing problem and nuisance bears at unprecedented levels.

I received a lot of information, and I don't have enough time to go through everything, because other members want to speak to this. But I did receive some

excellent information from an outfitter in the north, Roxann Lynn at Moose Horn Lodge -- a whole package of information, including some highlighted excerpts from the Liberal campaign document of

But one of the more compelling letters in that information package is a letter from the Minister of Conservation for the province of Manitoba. I'll highlight a

couple of parts of that letter: "Experience in this province" -- Manitoba -- "has shown that if bear populations increase, then there would be an increase in the number of bear-human conflicts.

This increase would lead to more bears being killed in response to increased property damage and to circumstances where personal safety is at risk. Large numbers of cubs would subsequently be

orphaned as, inherently, less thought is given in these circumstances to the protection of females and cubs....

"The spring bear hunt provides socio-economic benefits to Manitoba. The purchase of goods and services by both resident and non-resident hunters, coupled with

initiatives such as the mandatory use of outfitters and resident licensed guides by non-resident hunters, is important in many areas of the province, particularly where high unemployment

exists.

"Manitoba's bear populations are stable, and Manitoba Conservation views a well-managed spring bear hunt as a legitimate approach to managing the bear

population."

"With respect to your inquiry on orphaned cubs, it is my understanding that approximately six orphaned cubs are handled each year by Manitoba

Conservation."

Interestingly enough, that letter was signed by Oscar Lathlin, the Minister of Conservation for the province of Manitoba. In Ontario, a partial assessment of

the number of orphaned bears with no spring bear hunt, which was part of the justification for the cancellation of the spring bear hunt -- in 2001 in Ontario, there were 159 orphaned bears as

compared to six in Manitoba.

Also, this person sent a letter from the minister in Quebec as well, outlining why they support having a spring bear hunt as well.

I think the spring bear hunt obviously has some socio-economic benefits, but also it is a tool for the control of the population of bears. We've certainly seen

many incidents this year, in particular the very tragic incident near Chapleau, when Jacqueline Perry, a doctor from Brantford, was killed by a bear.

I support this resolution, and I think the government should act on the report that it has in its hands and received in August 2003. I look forward to some

comments from other members of our party who want to add something to this debate.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Well, I think there has been a conversion in this Legislature. I just heard it happen a couple of times

this morning. Us northerners -- Mike, Monique, others. When was it that the bear hunt was cancelled in northern Ontario? Was it under the Liberal government? Was it under the NDP government? No. It

was under the Conservative government. I just heard the whip for the Conservative Party now take a position that we should reinstate the black bear hunt, and I think that's rather interesting,

considering it was his very party that cancelled it in the first place. So I look forward to a response to this question from the Tory caucus when they get up and debate. Is I to take -- "Is I," as

should reinstate the black bear hunt in the province of Ontario? I need to know that from the Conservative caucus.

I also heard my good and esteemed colleague from North Bay -- I think I heard her right, and I was a bit surprised. As some people say, I almost swallowed my

bubble gum because I thought what I heard you say was that you're in favour of the reinstatement of the spring hunt. I would like a clarification on that at the end, because if that's the case,

then I would ask the member, why not bring the motion in the House this morning rather than having a motion now that basically says, "The government should do everything possible to deal with black

bears"? Well, that's kind of a no-brainer. We're all going to vote for that, and we all believe that the government should do all it can about nuisance bears and protect the public. I don't think

there's a member in this House who's going to vote against that. But if the position of the Liberal member is that there should be a reinstatement of the spring bear hunt as a means to control the

black bear population in northern Ontario, if that's what Madame Smith is saying, I would suggest that you should say that categorically, yes or no, because maybe I misunderstood you. I heard you

say yes. If the answer is yes, then you should have amended your motion to say, "I call on the Legislature to reinstate the black bear hunt," and we could have had a very clear vote. People would

have voted the way they were, and we would have known the position of both the Liberal and the Tory caucuses.

I've got to say that our caucus -- I'm personally not on side with this decision -- has always taken the position that the cancellation is something that

should be maintained. That's what my leader says and that's what the majority of caucus says, other than me. I've taken an opposite view. Sometimes you lose these battles within caucus and you take

your lumps and you go along. However, that is the position of the NDP caucus, and I'll be very clear about that. But if I'm hearing that there is now a change on the part of the Conservatives and

Liberals, that they are now reversing themselves and saying we should reinstate the black bear hunt -- I just thought that was rather interesting. The motion should have been straight up or

straight down: "Do you vote for the reinstatement of the black bear hunt?"

I want to say that we have, as all legislators have over the years, made fun of the black bear thing. But it's really a serious issue in northern Ontario. For

anybody who lives in northern or, I would argue, central Ontario -- you probably have some of the same problems in and around Parry Sound, Muskoka and those areas -- I'm telling you, it is a real

serious issue. For example, in my own backyard last year, at about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning -- I live in downtown Timmins. It's not as if I live out in the bush. I have a cottage out in

Kamiskotia, but I live in downtown Timmins, on Middleton Avenue. I, like most residents, have been woken up a whole bunch of times over the last two or three years by bears in our backyards. And I

live in a downtown community. I don't leave my garbage outside, so there's nothing for the bear. The barbecue is protected, so there's nothing for the bear to get in the barbecue. But the bears,

rummaging for food, travel from one backyard to the other knocking over barbecues, trying to get into homes, going into garbage cans. In fact, I've been woken up in the middle of the night more

than once by Timmins police chasing black bears out of my backyard on Middleton Avenue.

Just now, before I came into the Legislature, I was talking to Glen and Marjory Ironside on a different issue. I asked them what they thought about this. Their

position was that the cancellation was the wrong thing to do. Both Glen and Marjory, like most northerners, I think, say the reinstatement of the black bear hunt is something that should be done,

because they're seeing, as citizens in the city of Timmins, an incursion of bears into our community.

I want to relate to you a couple of stories that happened to me just last summer. I think they're kind of indicative of what we're starting to see. First of

all, we need to understand what the issue is. As there are more bears out there and humans are basically encroaching on their territory -- that's what's happening. As our communities are getting

larger, our cottage areas, all that stuff, as we're developing more and more land, there are less and less places for bears to sustain themselves as they normally do out in the forest. As a result

of an increased population of bears because of the cancellation of the spring bear hunt, I would argue, you have more bears with fewer places to go, so they're coming to where we live. Basically,

we're the ones who are backing up into their backyard.

The point is this: The bears are not as afraid as they used to be. I'll give you a couple of examples of what happened to me this summer. I've got a cottage

out in Kamiskotia. We have a dump run by the municipality, so you bring your garbage out to the dump. Obviously, there are going to be bears at a dump. We all know that. That happened even before

the cancellation of the black bear hunt. But here's the difference. It used to be that you'd see one or two, sometimes three bears, from time to time, at the dump. But if you saw them, and you

drove up in your truck or your car with the trailer on the back with the garbage, the bears used to skedaddle. They didn't want to be around humans, because they were nervous about having humans

around them. Nowadays, those bears don't give a darn. They're in big numbers. I'll show up at the dump and there will be five, six, seven bears rummaging through the garbage bags at the dump. It's

to the point that you know when you go to the dump now, you're going to see bears.

Here are a couple of things that happened to me this summer. I went over one time with my Uncle Condo, who has a cottage just up the road from us. I have this

habit -- because a lot of our elderly neighbours don't want to go to the dump. Mrs. Damini next door doesn't want to go to the dump because she's afraid of the bears. Mr. and Mrs. Lo-a-chie, on the

other side, don't like to go to the dump because of the bears. So I've gotten in the habit of picking up the garbage as I go to get rid of the garbage for the neighbours who are afraid to go to the

dump. Well, I went with my Uncle Condo, I think it was this summer, and we saw the bears. We drove up and did what we normally do -- made a bit of noise, trying to scare the bears away. But they

weren't being scared away, so we took my truck and parked it a little farther away so the bears wouldn't bother us. So here I am, and I know there are no bears where I'm dumping the garbage into

the hole. The bears are over there by about 150 feet. I see there are no bears inside the hole. I walk behind my pickup truck, open up the back and take out the garbage bags. I'm talking to Uncle

Condo as I throw the garbage in, at which point my Uncle Condo goes, "Holy Jeez, look behind you!" I'm throwing the garbage on top of the bears, because those suckers had walked across during the

time I had turned around; they were like five and 10 feet behind me, and I'm throwing garbage bags on to the bears. It was, "Whoa, let's get out of here."

Something could have happened. Some people would say that might have been a good thing, if there had been a by-election in Timmins-James Bay. I think most

people would have said no. But the point is that the bears are no longer afraid of humans, and it's getting to be a problem. Even somebody like me, who has grown up in the bush and who understands

the rules of the outdoors -- I'm careful and responsible about how I approach this; I looked to see if there were any bears. I'm used to bears. We've had them around for a long time. And here,

these bears had no fear. They saw me throwing garbage out of the back of my truck. They're at the point where I'm throwing garbage and I hit one bear square in the head, right in the snout, with

the garbage bag. If the bear had got kind of -- thank God there was a steak or something inside that bag, because he didn't come after me; he went after the bag. That was a good thing. That's an

interesting thing: "Bisson? Garbage bag? Bisson? Garbage bag?" Imagine the decision that bear had to make. That's scary when I think about it. That's another story.

I've got to tell you another story. We go back and we tell this story to some of our neighbours over a couple of wobbly pops, as we call them back at the

cottage. We're having supper over a glass of wine and talking about this bear story. My aunt says, "You know what? Every time I've brought people out to the dump to take a look at bears, I was

never lucky to see bears. Can I go with you next time?" I said, "Sure." So I pick up Aunt Carmen, I put her in the truck, we drive out to the dump, and there, behold, are about four, five or six

bears. We're sitting there looking at the bears; we're inside the truck where it's nice and safe. Finally, the bears kind of move away, so I open the truck door and my aunt is going, "Gilles,

Gilles, arrête. Don't do that. The bear is going to come after us." I say, "Ma tante, don't worry." I grab the garbage bags, I throw them inside the hole at the dump, I get back in the truck

and I sit down.

Now, because I was throwing the garbage, the bears got attracted. This is the interesting part, back to my point that they're no longer afraid. The bear didn't

only come up to sniff the garbage, didn't only put his paws on my truck and look at the window; it got in the back, the box of my truck. Here my aunt is panicking inside the truck somewhat, saying,

"Look at that. The bear is in the back of the truck. What do we do?" I said, "Let's drive and show it to Uncle Condo." I didn't have the nerve to do that, because I would have brought the bear into

a populated area, but that was my reaction. My point is, the bears aren't afraid any more. The bears are basically in contact with humans much more than they have ever been before, to the point

where the fearful

part is that they're not afraid.

Another story: In Smooth Rock Falls, a gentleman -- and I can't remember his name. I wish I had called for the name. If I had called Réjeanne Demeules,

the mayor, she would have told me. This guy was at a celebration that the community was putting on last year, I think it was. The story with him is, he comes walking out of the arena at the

celebration, in the middle of summer, on an August day, walking across the town as he normally does to get back to his house. He turns the corner at the schoolyard, and what does he come in contact

with? A big black bear. Now, he kind of got scared, so he raised his arm. The bear took a swipe at him and scraped him, the whole bit. Now, you should see the bear. I've got to say, the bear fared

less well than the guy did. The guy only got swiped at. I wonder what happened to the bear. The point is, they're not afraid of humans any more and that's really what we need to take seriously.

One other thing before I wrap up. One of the things that happened, again this summer: We've had this cottage at Kamiskotia since about 1961, and we have never

seen bears on our property. Mrs. Damini or Mr. Lane next door, or ourselves, or the Lo-a-chies or the Albertsons, or the Vincoeurs, we've never seen bears on our property. They've just always

stayed away. What we've started to see last year and this year is that the bears are starting to incur on to our properties. They are not satisfied staying at the dump; they're now coming up to the

cottages and they're looking for garbage in our garbage cans. We're responsible cottagers; we don't keep garbage in our garbage cans. But to show you the degree to which these bears are persistent,

I've got this garage that's built out of railway ties that my father built before he died. He built this great garage out of railway ties, a pretty solid thing. I've got a habit that if I leave the

cottage, I take my garbage cans and I put them inside the garage and lock it up because I don't want the bears being attracted by the scent of an empty garbage can, those plastic ones with the

covers on them.

So I go away, and my mom comes in the next day to the cottage. My mom is 70-some years old; I won't say her age. She drives the car in and she walks into the

cottage. She didn't notice, but the bear was around where the garage is. It was a neighbour who noticed that the bear was scratching at the door of the garage, had ripped part of the door apart,

and was trying to dig underneath to get inside the garage. It luckily couldn't get in because I have a cement floor there so he couldn't dig his way underneath. My mother walked right by the bear.

She happened not to see it because the bear was down and not scratching at the door as she walked in. Now, the point is, what can a 70-some-year-old woman or anybody do if they walk into a bear? It

can be a very dangerous situation.

I think a couple of things need to be done. The government has said that they were willing to re-upload the responsibility of taking care of the nuisance

bears. I think that's a good thing. That's something that we, as New Democrats, called for. But we've not done the kind of stuff that we need to do in order to protect citizens when it comes to

bears. For example, there was supposed to be a program put out where basically the government was going to spend some money on trying to do some public education about what to do when you're in

contact with a bear, because for a lot of people, it's just a natural reaction, if you run across a bear, what you do. There are things that you should do and things that you shouldn't do, and if

you do the wrong thing, the bear may come after you. Those are some of the things that I think the government needs to look at.

This motion? Obviously, we're going to support it.

You didn't tell me anything. Do you want time?

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

Mr. Bisson: OK. She says to keep on going. I just looked up at the time and noticed where I was at.

Anyway, I say to the government, I think there's not going to be anybody who is going to vote against this motion. As parents, as citizens of our communities

and as MPPs, it's a no-brainer. We're all in favour of doing more to protect the public from nuisance bears. But I go back to my original question to Madame Smith from Nipissing -- I forget the

name of the riding.

Ms. Smith: It's just Nipissing.

Mr. Bisson: Just Nipissing. Sorry. I really want to make clear what you're saying here, because what I thought I heard you say in the debate

was that you were in favour of the reintroduction of the spring bear hunt. If that's the case, there are people in northern Ontario who would agree with you. I just think that what you should do is

be clear, yes or no, are you in favour? If you are, I'd like to know an answer to the question, why, then, did you not put into the motion that we should vote here today, this day, on the

reintroduction of the spring bear hunt? If you can answer those two questions, that would be very helpful.

I say again to my colleagues, we will be in support. I'm sure we have not heard the last of the bear story. It's an issue that I think affects many people

across Ontario. We need to figure out what to do with this, because as Madame Smith has said -- she's right, and I totally agree with her on this -- somebody is going to get hurt. We've already had

somebody killed this summer in Missinaibi Park. We're now at the point where we're seeing bears in schoolyards, and she pointed that out in her debate, quite rightfully. I know it's happened in my

constituency, where bears have been sighted during the school year in the schoolyard at an elementary school. That's pretty scary stuff. I think we need to figure out what we can do as legislators

to be able to make it safe so that people are not put at risk because of the increasing bear population and the bears being less afraid and coming into our communities. We need to do what we can to

make it safe, and we will vote for this motion.

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): It is my pleasure to rise today and speak to this motion. I'd like to thank the member from Nipissing

for introducing it. The member is from North Bay as well, and being from Thunder Bay, I think that people from southern Ontario sometimes confuse the two. We're only about 10 or 15 hours apart by

car. It's a bit of a segue, though, into this issue, because I think this issue was confused by those in southern Ontario as well when they were trying to get it right back in 1999.

I can tell you that one of the first times I spoke in caucus after the election was on this issue. It was then, and it is still now, a very sensitive issue in

northern Ontario, and I think that in short order it is going to become a bit more of a sensitive issue in southern Ontario as well.

If we go back to 1999 and look at the history of what was intended here, beginning with the chronology of Harris and Snobelen and the Shad Foundation, the

intention as an animal welfare issue, I think -- at least that put out there for public consumption -- was that we were going to try and limit the number of bear cubs that were orphaned through the

spring bear hunt. That is what was put forward as the reason for substantiating the cancellation of the hunt, that there were too many cubs being orphaned. Well, in fact, as is often the case when

we sometimes meddle with Mother Nature, we get it exactly wrong. If you talk to the people in the know, they will be the first ones to tell you that this cancellation of the spring bear hunt has

had probably the exact opposite effect. There are probably -- and according to them, most assuredly -- more bear cubs being orphaned now than there were before the cancellation of the hunt, and

that's for two or three different reasons.

One is that during the spring bear hunt, there were many more adult male bears that were being culled. Of all the bears being taken during the spring hunt,

about 70% of them were male bears. Of course, when there are more male bears in the bush, they become very cannibalistic in their nature when they get hungry; in fact, they will take bear cubs, and

that's what's happening now as there are more male bears allowed to be in the bush.

In the fall hunt, there are now more female bears being mistakenly taken as well, which of course leads to cubs being orphaned.

The third thing, and most important, I think, for this Legislature to consider, is that there is a phenomenon that's occurring in northern Ontario now, and

it's referred to where I come from as the "shoot, shovel and shut up" approach. As the number of large bears increases, people are taking matters into their own hands. If you think this policy is

stopping the orphaning of bear cubs, I can tell you that when people live in remote communities, when they feel that their lives are in danger, that their children's lives are in danger, that their

property is in danger, they are in fact taking matters into their own hands and shooting these bears. Many of them are not turning up in the numbers we see that are reported to MNR; they're just

being killed. Of course, the result of that is orphan cubs as well. So if you are somebody out there who is concerned about animal welfare and you think that this policy was well-intentioned, I

call tell you it's having exactly the opposite effect to what was intended. There are two main issues for me as well: the safety and the economic issues that this policy has affected.

In my riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, I think I can safely say that, overwhelmingly, the people I represent in that constituency all would see this issue as

having gotten greatly out of control. The sightings are increasing exponentially, as has been mentioned by the member from Nipissing. I can tell you there are schools that no longer put their kids

out for recess in the fall, because they are afraid. There are too many bears in town. I can tell you about an individual who was pulled by a bear out of his tent and was being drawn into the bush,

the bear seeing him now as a food source.

One of the things we're told is the reason for the increase in sightings is that it was a bad crop year, or that there was not enough food in the bush. Well,

we had many years previously where there were bad crop years, and we did not see the increased number of sightings. There are things going on, and primarily what it is is that there are too bears

many in the bush.

I don't like the word "nuisance" bear, either. I think that severely understates the seriousness of this issue. These are dangerous animals that will kill at a

moment's notice.

I have to go quickly. I apologize.

Economically: Ecotourism does not replace what was lost by the fall hunt. This was a $40-million annual revenue stream in the north. If you multiply that, on a

relative basis, that would be a multi-billion dollar industry in southern Ontario.

I'm told I need to wrap up. I apologize for rushing through this.

I want to comment on the bear wise program. I think it is something that was well-intended. It has gone, through its education and prevention strategies, a

fair way to trying to help a little bit, but clearly, this is a much more serious issue than can be addressed by simply the bear wise program. We need to give serious reconsideration to the

reinstatement of the hunt.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): We're debating a resolution that the government do "whatever is necessary to protect the citizens

of Ontario from nuisance bears." I feel it is a much broader issue than that. It's an economic issue -- certainly in the north -- and it's a heritage issue.

The controversy has been around, I guess, since the mid-1980s. There were areas in North America where populations were declining, and much of that has

rebounded, but that's certainly not a problem in the province of Ontario where the black bear population is one of the largest in North America. MNR had some conservative estimates two years ago of

75,000 to 100,000 bears. I think they've rejigged that to 150,000 bears, and I hear estimates of 200,000 bears.

With any large population of an animal like that, one of the most effective means of population control is hunting. Hunting is a management tool. It's a tool

that is more than appropriate with respect to increasing populations of cormorants, for example, raccoons and possums. We have an issue in our area with the possum cycle. I think of deer. Myself,

I've smashed into two deer in the last year. I've smashed two cars now. That tells me there are too many deer in my area. Again, hunting is the biological control.

However, banning the hunting of bears in the spring was not, at the time, a biological sustainability issue. As has been said here today, it was an issue

related to the practice of hunting, to the position that young bears were potentially orphaned at that time of the year at a time when they're highly dependent on their mothers. But again, if you

shoot a bear at the dump or kill one in your backyard in the spring, you have potentially created an orphaned cub. There are other reasons for cub mortality: starvation, for one, and the killing of

cubs by male bears. I don't know whether they eat them or not. That's where we have to rely on expert opinion and science.

We have an ongoing controversy on the spring bear hunt. I fully support continued, objective, research-based analysis of the issue and scientific

investigation. Much study has been done. I don't know how much of that has been made public or if the general public is aware of it, and I certainly don't think much of that has been acted on.

Ongoing, independent external reviews are very important.

Of course, safety is paramount. The protection of our environment and the management of species like bears is dependant on a number of things. I feel it's very

important that we maintain the legislative protection of our heritage rights and that we continue to rekindle the interest of young people in hunting. We have the hunter apprenticeship safety

program in Ontario. That's an excellent program. We have legislation that protects the heritage of hunting and fishing. All of this, in my view, is very important for future generations, not only

in northern Ontario but in southern Ontario.

I live in the sticks. I'm a hunter. I smash into deer with my car. I guess I get my limit that way. For many of us in the south and the north, hunting is a way

of life, and that includes the spring bear hunt.

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I know our time is limited and there are numerous speakers today, so I will try to condense what I

have as best as possible. First let me say that I fully support the member from Nipissing's resolution to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the safety of Ontarians is paramount. Certainly in

northern Ontario, in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie and surrounding area, this has become a much larger issue in recent years. I can recall being on city council, and a trapper who was contracted

by the city used to get about 15 to 20 calls about nuisance bears in the area of Sault Ste. Marie. Following the 1999 cancellation of the hunt, that number escalated to 250, to 600, and there are

now well over 900 calls of reported bears in Sault Ste. Marie and area. A Web site, sootoday.com, continually posts bear sightings, and if anybody logs on there, they can see just how many

sightings we're talking about. We're not talking about an area that is in the wilderness, in the backwoods of northern Ontario; we're talking about residential areas, main streets, schoolyards and

the like.

I would like to read a brief

article that appeared in the October 1, 2005, Sault Star. This certainly doesn't have much to do with wildlife science. It's

important to get the history of the cancellation on the record here at Queen's Park. This was written by a former NDP candidate in the Algoma-Manitoulin riding and I think it's right on the

mark:

"Many northerners believe this is the inevitable result of the cancellation of the spring bear hunt in 1999, a decision that continues to produce as much

controversy and polarized opinion as the hunt, itself, did.

"Why was the hunt cancelled?

"It had nothing to do with the preservation of black bears in Ontario. The estimated bear population in the province, then and now, is between 75,000 and

100,000 animals, which is close to capacity for the available range.

"The government's stated reason for the cancellation of the spring hunt was concern over the orphaning of bear cubs that was alleged to have occurred when

hunters mistakenly shot nursing sows. The more widely accepted reason for the hunt cancellation was that the Tory government of the time blinked when a group opposed to the bear hunt threatened to

mount a vigorous campaign in ... 1999 ... against eight first-term Tory MPPs in southern Ontario who won their seats by a narrow margin of victory in the 1995 election. The group, funded by

industrialist Robert Schad, distributed videos concerning the bear hunt to homes in the `swing' ridings and conducted billboard campaigns against the hunt in southern Ontario.

"The number of bear cubs orphaned wasn't really significant -- in the eyes of the anti-hunting groups and, ultimately, then Minister of Natural Resources John

Snobelen, any number was too many. There are far more cubs orphaned each year by ... vehicle collisions than the number orphaned by the spring bear hunt. But the images of cute cubs on billboards

in Toronto and the probable reaction of people in the southern portion of the province was too much for the Tories to ignore. They went ahead with the cancellation of the hunt, even in the face of

concern over how much political clout and influence an interest group with deep pockets could have over the Ontario government. Ironically, the number of cubs actually orphaned has still never been

accurately quantified.

"Rather than investing some money in an objective analysis of the mortality of cubs, the group spearheading the cancellation drive seized upon hypothetical

estimates and stated them as fact on numerous occasions."

The addition in Ontario of 20,000 large bears over the past six years is an incredible concern, both in northern areas and throughout the province. The

article

concludes by saying, "Any measures that the bear management strategy concludes are necessary, including the reinstatement of the spring bear hunt, should be implemented. Never again in Ontario

should biologically correct wildlife management strategies be trumped by political manoeuvring."

The presence of bears in the Sault Ste. Marie area in the community and in the city -- I think we're fooling ourselves if we're thinking that these bears are

not being shot. They're being shot now by city police officers and by the OPP. In schoolyards, there are reports of recesses being cancelled in Sault Ste. Marie; kids can't go out and enjoy some

fresh air because there are bears in the schoolyards. As a former teacher, I recall getting notes from students who had come late to class, saying, "I couldn't get to the car because there was a

bear in the driveway."

I just want to express my complete support for the member from Nipissing to do whatever is necessary to ensure that we protect the safety of all Ontarians.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): This is actually a topic that I'm very passionate about and I could spend a lot of time speaking about it.

I'm going to be very succinct in the time remaining on some of the issues.

We talked about reporting bears. I'll give you an example. I hired an individual just outside of Timmins, in Mr. Bisson's riding. Pierre said a bear came into

his yard up in Foleyet and killed his dog. I asked him, "Did you report it?" He said, "Oh, absolutely. I reported that bear." I said, "Well, do you remember about eight years ago, when you had the

bear in the barnyard, and you went in and grabbed the gun and came out? It had gone from the barnyard into the tack shop, and when you were standing there, you could hear a noise. You turned and

looked, and the bear ran right overtop of you. You shot it and it fell dead after it had knocked you over. Did you report that one?" He said, "Well, no. Why?" I said, "Why would you report one that

kills your dog, but you wouldn't report the other one?" That's because the incidence of reporting is now almost 100%. You're seeing a large number of incidents being reported because of those

bases, because people are reporting them, and they should have been doing that in the first place.

Some of other things that need to be made very clear: When you're talking about territories of bears, the average boar or male bear will range up to 90 miles

as part of their territory. I read in a book dealing with Oshawa, printed by Dr. Hoig, which stated that in 1918, an individual had just picked up his new car and drove to the ridges in Oshawa,

which is about halfway between Port Perry and Oshawa. He saw a big black bear -- it could have been any size -- and he turned around and came back. In other words, the point I'm trying to make is

that the range of bears has extended throughout the province of Ontario, and documents right back to 1918, when you talk about those things.

You talk about municipalities taking on the responsibility. One of the positions within the ministry was that if you take on the responsibility of bears, what

happens with deer? What happens, for example, as on my street, when a deer crashes through the school window and goes right into the school? What happens with racoons, opossums, beavers and all the

other animals? Or birds and bird droppings? I know I get complaints because birds are leaving droppings in one place in one particular house. What happens with all those incidents? Is it the

responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources to take on all those actions and correct them all? No, I don't believe so, because once you accept the responsibility, and total responsibility,

for one animal, then you take on the onus of accepting responsibility for all the other animals as well.

The member from Thunder Bay mentioned bears killing cubs. The reason for that is a practice called infanticide. What takes place is the boars go out, they find

the cubs and kill them in order to bring the females back into season so they can breed them so that their prodigy or their life cycle or genes can continue on in cycle. That's the main reason that

bears practice infanticide.

My, my, how we've changed from the NDP, when Frances Lankin stood up in this Legislature and gave out little tiny teddy bears to everybody. Soft, little teddy

bears were going to be saved because the spring bear hunt was now protected. Well, guess what? The reality of the situation now is that bears are doing what bears do best, and that's going out to

feed and get involved. They participate in activities and, all of a sudden, people are starting to realize, "Oh, my God. I'm seeing bears in my cottage now like never before, and they're not afraid

of me."

The spring bear hunt was more about managing the population numbers. The report in 2003 indicated that the numbers should not increase until 2005 because of

the cancellation of the hunt. The reality of that situation is that bears are creatures of habit. In the springtime, when they are chased by dogs and shot at by people, they realize, "People: bad

things; stay away." There was a report handed to me by a person, Vern Mason, that indicated that the reason the bears were going inside and ripping open tents and sleeping bags was because of the

same thing Mr. Bisson mentioned. Guess what? At the dump, they smell humans, they smell garbage, they associate it with food and they rip the bag open. The same thing with tents and sleeping bags:

All of a sudden they smell humans, they associate that with past practices, and they tear open the tent or the sleeping bag because they assume there is food there.

It's negative reinforcement that needs to take place, and that's what happened with spring bear hunt. You had negative reinforcement, negatively imprinting

humans on bears, and they stayed away from them. When you closed that, it stopped that.

Bear populations are very difficult to assess. There is a tuna can bait line they use to try to determine the numbers, but it's very difficult to determine. In

the same fashion that they determine the deer population and how the tags are allocated in that area -- and that's done because of the amount of crop damage reported, as well as the number of car

incidents that take place -- they do the same thing with bears. When there's a large number reporting and a large number of incidents, they potentially have the opportunity to increase the tag

allocations in that area to deal with that.

The study in 2003 was designed to effectively determine what is in the best interest not only of people but of bears as a population as well. With the large

number and potentially increasing number of incidents, I expect we sshould see more. The one thing I'm disappointed about in the resolution is that we should have concrete actions in the

resolution. I will be supporting it, as I did -- and I've been on the record. I've been on radio shows stating that I think the spring bear hunt is something that should be continued. It doesn't

help me a lot in Oshawa, but it's a personal belief. In this particular resolution, I think some more action specifically telling us what and how we can move forward would be far more positive.

Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): First of all, I want to thank my colleague from Nipissing, Ms. Smith, for bringing this

resolution forward. In my opinion, this debate is long overdue. Indeed, there should be little argument that the province should be doing whatever it can to protect all its citizens from the

nuisance bear problem. The question then becomes, what exactly should we do to deal with this increasingly dangerous situation?

In my opinion, we should begin by listening to the people who are affected by this problem: our constituents, all of whom are northern residents, for those of

us in the north. For the past several years, I have been inundated with calls from many constituents terrified as a result of their encounters with bears. Regardless of what ministry officials say

about the number of calls they've received, this past summer was the worst in terms of calls I've received. People from Marathon, Terrace Bay, Schreiber -- in fact, every community I represent --

contacted me by phone to tell their story. On two occasions, constituents actually called me at home while the bear was clawing at their door. Bears are wandering through towns, school yards,

backyards, around daycare centers. They are clearly a real danger to our citizens.

Frankly, my constituents become very frustrated when they are told that the problem is a result of a bad berry crop, or they're told to empty their bird

feeders or to tightly enclose their household garbage or to be sure to clean their barbecue grill. They are already doing this -- perhaps they need to be reminded, but they are already doing this

-- but the problem continues to get worse.

What we do know is that there are more bears out there than ever, and they appear to have lost their fear of human contact. As we all know, deadly tragedies

occurred this past summer, and I fear more will take place unless we deal with the situation in a more aggressive manner. At a time when we are hearing discussions of a bear cull, I want to put on

the record today a call for a similar discussion on the return of the spring bear hunt -- a more humane, controlled hunt, for sure, but a return nonetheless.

I don't think that anyone in this House would dispute that the cancellation of the hunt in 1999 was purely politically motivated. Not even my Conservative

colleagues across the floor, whose government made that decision, would disagree with me. Indeed, the consequences of that decision have been economic devastation for tourist lodge operators in the

north and, I would argue, the truly dangerous situation we are facing today. While I do not think that the return of the spring bear hunt will immediately improve the problem, I have become

convinced that an improved, properly run spring hunt will make a difference.

But perhaps just as importantly, agreement to begin discussion on the return of the hunt would send an important message to northerners, the message that we

are listening to them. We told northerners during the last campaign that decisions affecting the north would be made by northerners. I believe that was a commitment that was genuinely and sincerely

made, but in light of the serious concerns regarding the human-bear contact over the past several summers, it's become all the more important that we live up to that commitment. Certainly, a

reopening of the discussion regarding reinstatement of the spring bear hunt would send a very clear message that we are indeed listening.

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): In the very brief time, it's great to wrap up on behalf of the members from Nipissing, Sault Ste. Marie,

Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Thunder Bay-Superior North and Oshawa.

I would like to raise this challenge with the member from Oshawa and the member from Timmins: that we approach our leaders to look at revising and helping to

get the bear hunt back. The official position of all the parties is that the bear hunt should be banned. I think it's incumbent on us as backbenchers to take a personal challenge to our leaders and

talk to them about that.

From my point of view as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Tourism, the effect on tourism in the north has been devastating. It's approximately a

$40-million industry. As part of my job as parliamentary assistant, I did a trails consultation across Ontario. In northern Ontario we have the largest and best-run snowmobile trails in all the

world. The 43,000 kilometres of snowmobile trails allow us access to nature and allow us to understand our Canadian heritage, for the real Ontarian personality is built in northern Ontario in our

interaction with all forms of nature, including the wildlife there.

It is great to support this motion. I compliment the member from Nipissing for bringing it forward. I also hope it leads to concrete action.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. Smith, you have two minutes to reply.

Ms. Smith: I'd like to thank those who joined us in this debate this morning: the members for Parry Sound-Muskoka, Timmins-James Bay,

Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Oshawa, Thunder Bay-Superior North, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay-Atikokan and Mississauga South.

I'd like to address a couple of the concerns and issues that were raised by some of my colleagues. I was delighted to hear that the member for Parry

Sound-Muskoka is onside with us on this, because his caucus is notoriously not onside for a lot of northern issues. It's good to see you're supporting the north.

As many of you will remember, it was former Premier Mike Harris, who formerly represented the riding of Nipissing, who cancelled the bear hunt and left a lot

of northerners feeling betrayed. The basis of that decision was not scientific, but was strictly political. Now we have the leader of the Conservative Party, John Tory, up in North Bay, and when

asked about nuisance bears, he said more study was needed. I'm glad to see that some of his colleagues, members of his caucus, are onside for the reinstatement of the spring bear hunt. I hope you

will have some success in convincing your leader of the need for it.

With respect to the comments from the member for Timmins-James Bay, I have been clear throughout my campaign in Nipissing and here in the House that I am in

support of the return of a limited spring bear hunt. I've been clear on that since the beginning; I haven't wavered. There have to be some restrictions, but I believe that the return of the spring

bear hunt is part of the management process that will reduce the number of nuisance bears in the north and increase the safety of our residents, including our children and seniors. I think it's a

sad indication that your party here, represented by seven members, three of whom are from the north, cannot see fit to support the return of the spring bear hunt, but I leave it to you to convince

your fellow members that it's needed here in the community.

You also asked about the education process. Our government has in fact invested $900,000 in 165 projects involving prevention, education and awareness through

the bear wise program. I know first-hand from my discussions with MNR staff members in my area that they're in the schools, teaching our children about how to be bear wise. I think that is a really

important part of this whole strategy on how to increase safety and deal with some of the concerns that have been raised here this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

PRESERVATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 PRÉSERVANT LA PROPRIÉTÉ

FAMILIALE DE FREDERICK BANTING

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 7, standing in the name of Mr. Wilson.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members for a vote after we deal with the next ballot item.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 8, standing in the name of Ms. Smith.

Ms. Smith has moved private member's notice of motion number 5, "That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should do whatever is necessary

to protect the citizens of Ontario from nuisance bears."

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will vote on this ballot item as well. Call in the members. I remind them, this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

PRESERVATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 PRÉSERVANT LA PROPRIÉTÉ

FAMILIALE DE FREDERICK BANTING

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Will members take their seats, please.

Mr. Wilson has moved second reading of Bill 20.

All those in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peterson, Tim

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 39; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would like the bill to be referred to the social development committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Wilson has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social development. Agreed? Agreed.

The doors will now be opened for 30 seconds before the next vote.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with private member's notice of motion number 5, standing in the name of Ms.

Smith.

All those in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peterson, Tim

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 39; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): Many Ontarians have been contacting me with concerns about the Liberal government's new child care program.

Many are concerned that the government's preferred option for child care is expanding spaces in public schools. They want to know, and I want to know, that Ontario's families will be able to choose

the child care option that is best for them. Ontarians do not want child care to be provided only in the manner that suits the government. Parents know what is best for their children, and it

should be parents who make the choice.

Ontarians want this government to consult widely before it moves ahead with any province-wide child care system. It must consult not only with the large lobby

groups; it must consult with small home daycare operators and with individual families.

Families want to know that their child care options will not be chosen by governments or lobby groups or agencies. They want to do the choosing, as they know

what is in the best interests of their own children.

EDUCATION

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): As we all know, education is a top priority for this government. From the Best Start program, aimed at

giving young children the encouragement and support needed to embark on their academic careers, to the student success strategy, which ensures that their career is a long and fruitful one, the

McGuinty government has demonstrated that the most important investment we can make is in our youth.

Hamilton West boasts fantastic institutions of higher learning. McMaster University and Mohawk College foster the developing minds of almost 35,000 students

annually. It is institutions like these where young people can realize their dreams.

This past November 4, an agreement was put in place that will ensure that more students will have the opportunity to do so. This agreement, known as the

"articulation agreement," between the Hamilton-Wentworth D