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

November 30, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Nov-30 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 30 November 2006 Jeudi 30 novembre 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT

(DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

AND POLLUTANTS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE DROIT DU PUBLIC

D'ÊTRE INFORMÉ (DIVULGATION DES

TOXINES ET DES POLLUANTS)

ONTARIO ECONOMY

COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT

(DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

AND POLLUTANTS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE DROIT DU PUBLIC

D'ÊTRE INFORMÉ (DIVULGATION DES

TOXINES ET DES POLLUANTS)

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

HOLLY MICUDA

MINIMUM WAGE

ENERGY POLICIES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

EDUCATION

ENERGY POLICIES

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON JUSTICE POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROVINCIAL ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'INTERVENANT PROVINCIAL EN FAVEUR DES ENFANTS ET DES JEUNES

OWEN EISSES ACT (WRONG-WAY SIGNS AND LIGHTS ON CONTROLLED-ACCESS HIGHWAYS), 2006 /

LOI OWEN EISSES DE 2006 SUR LES PANNEAUX ET LES FEUX QUI INDIQUENT UNE MAUVAISE DIRECTION SUR LES ROUTES À ACCÈS LIMITÉ

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT (SALARY IN LIEU OF RETIREMENT CREDIT), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE (TRAITEMENT TENANT LIEU DE DROIT

À RETRAITE)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILD ADVOCATE

WORLD AIDS DAY /

JOURNÉE MONDIALE DU SIDA

CHILD ADVOCATE

WORLD AIDS DAY

CHILD ADVOCATE

WORLD AIDS DAY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 164

IMPAIRED DRIVERS

CROWN FIBRE EXPORTS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILD PROTECTION

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

SCHOOL FACILITIES

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

EDUCATION FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs should immediately begin an investigation into Ontario's

industrial and economic competitiveness to develop an action plan to maintain and expand our domestic and international markets in the coming years.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Arnott has moved private member's notice of motion number 6. Pursuant to standing order number 96, Mr. Arnott, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Arnott: I want to begin my remarks this morning by mentioning the significance of private members' business, our Thursday morning ritual. I believe that our debates on Thursday mornings

strengthen our role as private members and, in doing so, enhance our ability to represent our constituents in this Legislature, which is ultimately one of the pillars of our democratic system.

Currently, I have four private member's initiatives before the Legislature: One calls upon the government of Ontario to establish a fund to support the families of first responders such as firefighters, police

officers, paramedics and medical personnel who lose their lives in the line of duty. I'm suggesting a benefit of at least $500,000 to the families of these fallen heroes.

I don't believe we have enough opportunities as private members to debate our initiatives. In my view, once every 18 months or so is just not enough. So I have a second resolution which would have our private

members' business begin an hour earlier than we do at present, having it begin at 9 o'clock on Thursday mornings instead of 10. This would increase the number of private members' items we debate and vote upon each Thursday morning from two to

three, and it would allow an MPP to have a private member's ballot item every 12 months or so instead of every 18 months or so, a modest reform to make this place more relevant for members.

Also before the House is my Bill 44, which supports double-hatter firefighters who, as all MPPs know, typically are full-time professional firefighters who work for a city fire department but live in a small

town nearby and want to serve their home communities as volunteer firefighters on their days off. There is a need for legislation to allow them to serve as volunteers without the threat of expulsion from their union and the loss of their full-time

position. Most every other province across the country has laws which protect double-hatters. I know the McGuinty Liberal government is totally opposed to my bill, but I remain resolute that it is needed for reasons of public safety in rural

Ontario, and I know that the respected former fire marshal Bernard Moyle agrees.

For this resolution, I want to start at the beginning, when I first brought forward this initiative more than a year and a half ago, and why I believe that the Legislature's ability and responsibility to address

the loss of manufacturing jobs, our economic competitiveness and our economic well-being is represented in what I'm talking about today.

Back in May 2005, I attended two meetings hosted by the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce and came away convinced that Ontario's manufacturers were facing a pending crisis. On that day, we heard

from the president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Perrin Beatty. Mr. Beatty was the member of Parliament for our area for many years, and I have known him since I was in high school. Based on his presentation, it became clear

to me that there were severe storm clouds on the horizon for workers and their families and something had to be done to get ready to see us through. It became clear to me that without immediate government action, we were going to experience

massive job losses in our factories and industries.

In an effort to make a difference, I introduced this resolution on May 31, 2005, and I say again, that was a year and a half ago. I said at the time that we needed a jobs plan because the world wasn't standing

still and our manufacturers were facing unprecedented challenges in the global marketplace. I said if we weren't competitive, we would lose jobs. I asked the Legislature to look ahead, recognize what was on the horizon and develop a strategy so

that companies, large and small, could expand their markets, create new jobs and protect the jobs we had.

Midway through that summer, Ontario was hit with the news of a 12-month trend showing the province's factory jobs were disappearing in droves. An

article in the Globe and Mail at that time said that Ontario had

put in the weakest performance in the country in terms of sustaining manufacturing jobs. That fall, our leader, John Tory, and other members of our caucus raised the jobs issue in question period on many occasions, and we put forward two

complementary opposition day motions on the problems facing our manufacturers, which were costing us jobs. Our second opposition day motion on jobs, debated last December, was passed by this House with support from members from all three

parties.

Despite the warnings, despite the job losses, despite the opposition day motions and the one that was passed by the House, the government has taken few meaningful initiatives and, to date, has ignored my

resolution even though it has been on the order paper for a year and a half. I would submit that if the government had taken heed and had assigned the all-party finance committee to study the manufacturing jobs issue and develop an action plan --

sending a signal that we understand that there is a competitiveness challenge and we are trying to provide leadership toward solutions -- jobs in Ontario could have been saved.

The manufacturing job numbers may go up and down from month to month, but there is absolutely no disputing the fact that we have lost many thousands of manufacturing jobs in the last year and a half. The most

recent Statistics Canada report says that the number of manufacturing jobs continued its downward trend last month. According to StatsCan, so far in 2006 there are 83,000 fewer factory workers across Canada, and Ontario has been particularly hard

hit. These job numbers are not just numbers; they are people, they are families, they are our neighbours, and they have hit home.

Yesterday, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record reported that the profuse bleeding of manufacturing jobs continues in our area -- 40 more good-paying manufacturing jobs were lost in the Kitchener portion of my riding

of Waterloo-Wellington. The workers of Huron Model and Gauge showed up for work on Tuesday of this week to learn that their jobs were being terminated immediately. In their press release, Huron Model and Gauge pointed to competitive factors, not

just the strength of our dollar, but they said, "The continual downward pressure on pricing that has become the norm in the automotive industry has also contributed to an increasingly inhospitable business environment."

This follows last week's bad news for 111 workers at Lear Canada in Kitchener, who learned that these jobs would soon be eliminated. This comes on the heels of 700 lost jobs at ThyssenKrupp Budd Canada and 1,100

lost jobs due to the closure of BF Goodrich in recent months. All of these plants are located in the city of Kitchener and in Waterloo-Wellington. At the end of the summer, it was reported layoffs are driving away scores of automotive jobs at Dura

Automotive Systems Inc. and Dana Corp., both located in the riding of Perth-Middlesex, next door to Waterloo-Wellington. Other recent factory closures in our area include Imperial Tobacco in Guelph, La-Z-Boy in Waterloo and Glenoit in Elmira, at a

cost of many hundreds of jobs. This is where we stand now, amidst dark clouds of uncertainty, with workers and their families wondering how they will replace the good-paying jobs they once had. Our response to these families should not be

indifference. Our obligation to these families should be to give them hope.

Recently, I had a brief opportunity to inform Roger Martin of this resolution. Members will know that Roger Martin is the dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and he is chair of

the Ontario Institute of Competitiveness and Prosperity. This institute's Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress was established in 2001 to stimulate business, government, educational institutions and individuals to

increase the pace of innovation and enhance our competitiveness. Central amongst their goals is to increase our standard of living.

Just last week, the task force released its fifth annual report, entitled Agenda for Our Prosperity. In this report, Mr. Martin highlighted the fact that even though Ontario has one of the most successful

economies in the world, we are not achieving our full potential. He illustrates this by showing how much Ontario's per capita domestic product has fallen in comparison to our neighbouring jurisdictions over the past two decades. Comparing the

province to 14 of our peer jurisdictions in North America, Ontario's $6,100 per capita GDP puts our province near the bottom. We've slipped from the middle of the pack two decades ago to second to last today. He concludes that Ontario is not

meeting its full potential, and clearly the empirical evidence backs up this statement.

Mr. Martin referred to the dwindling strength of our GDP as our prosperity gap, the difference between where we are and where we should be. If we were able to close the prosperity gap, each Ontario family could

stand to gain approximately $8,400 in disposable after-tax income, on average, every year. At the same time, governments would generate many billions of dollars in additional tax revenues, which could be used to retire debt, reduce the tax burden,

be spent on health, education, the environment, or some combination of these important public policy goals.

To achieve these objectives and enhance competitiveness, Mr. Martin proposes a multifaceted approach to strengthening our economy. To quote him directly, he says, "We are calling for a shifting of our overall

attitude from collective complacency to a shared determination to close the prosperity gap. If party platforms over the past few elections are any guide to public attitudes, it's clear that issues related to our competitiveness, productivity, and

prosperity are not seen as centrally important to the public. We need to raise the volume on these issues." The task force calls for a shift away from consuming today's resources and a move towards investing in future prosperity.

My resolution has received support from the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, and I also received letters of support from Perrin Beatty of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Richard Paton of

Canada's Chemical Producers, and Thomas D'Aquino of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. I've also received support from the C.D. Howe Institute, the Employers' Advocacy Council and the Ontario Real Estate Association. I would ask that

members set aside partisan considerations this morning and carefully consider the points I have made in this debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to have a few moments to talk about the resolution brought forward by the member, because I come from a community that has seen significant change

as a result of the loss of manufacturing jobs in our community. As I was looking through some of the things that I've collected over the last year and a half to two years in my files around what has been happening in my community, I came across

this

article that was published in the Hamilton Spectator. It says, "Back in the days of the P&G families, Stelco families, International Harvester families...; the Hamilton Memory Project." This is a series of articles that the Spectator was

running to kind of highlight the rich history of Hamilton, and this particular one focused on the role the manufacturing sector has played historically in the city of Hamilton.

I wanted to share with members a couple of key pieces of this article, because I think what these pieces do is set a backdrop for the reality of what communities used to look like and what they are turning out

to look like now as we continue to erode, as the member would say, our competitiveness, and as I would say, our good family-sustaining, high-quality-of-life-sustaining jobs in our manufacturing sector.

The first quote that I thought was interesting is this one. It says, "The list of Hamilton's industrial ghosts is long. Some of their hulking shells dot the streetscapes of the core and waterfront. Others have

been transformed into museums, office space or even condos."

The

article goes on to rely heavily on work done by a gentleman named Rob Kristofferson. He's the coordinator of business history at the Schulich School of Business at York University. He says, "`Hamilton is but

a shadow of its former industrial self'...

"The city built its reputation as a lunch-bucket town on the backs of craftsmen who opened small shops in the first half of the 19th century to sell products to the agricultural hinterland to the west.

"They made stoves, farm tools, carriages, blown glass, boilers, boats, tobacco, beer and spirits. In the 1860s and 1870s, Hamilton was the sewing machine capital of Canada and soon became one of its biggest

textile centres." It goes on to talk about a number of other industries that were based in Hamilton.

"Kristofferson says, `Hamilton had an "amazingly diverse economy" by the late 19th century. Almost any consumer good needed at the time was made in our own backyard. That was a dramatic shift from the reliance

on imported goods' -- back in those days -- 'primarily from England and Scotland -- just half a century before.

"Some of those early industrial threads weave through our community today: Stelco formed out of the 19th-century rolling mills at the base of Queen Street; GS Dunn Mustard, John Calder and Company (now Coppley

Apparel), the Hamilton Spectator, Brown Boggs all still breathe today.

"`Well-paying, secure jobs at companies like these allowed the city's economy to diversify and thrive,' said Kristofferson, who researched Hamilton's industrial past as part of the Made in Hamilton Industrial

Trail project in 2000," which was part of the Workers Arts and Heritage Centre, an excellent workers' museum that celebrates the history of working people in the province of Ontario.

I just have one more piece of this

article that I wanted to share with members: "`You had buoyant, lively communities built around those industries. Take Ottawa and Barton Streets, for instance. What has

happened to them since the downturn in the manufacturing sector? They've gone down with it.'

"Hamilton is known for steel, but was a pioneer in labour rights, had the first major electric power service for industry in Canada, was once a textile and hosiery power, was headquarters to the largest canning

corporation in the British Empire and over the years, had six automobile manufacturers."

Unfortunately, all of that great history is very rapidly, recently, going down the tubes. There are several companies that have recently left Hamilton, closed their doors, moved on or simply closed completely in

the area. I go to back to companies like Levis, Rheem Canada, Cameco, Tiercon and Ball Packaging. There are just numbers and numbers of companies that have left our community. Those companies leaving means hundreds of thousands of families having

either lost their livelihood completely or having their livelihood reduced significantly, so much so as to not be able to maintain a decent standard of life. The pressure and stress that comes with these job losses is considerable and is something

that we should always be considering ourselves. When we talk about strategies to deal with the crisis in our manufacturing sector, the very first strategy that we need to consider, the very first consideration we need to have, is simply an

acknowledgment that there's a problem.

I know that my leader, Howard Hampton, has attempted on several occasions to raise this issue, initially having put a motion on job losses some time back, in October 2005. During that discussion, during that

raising of the issue, we went through a number of different stakeholders, or participants in the economy, that agreed that there is a crisis. That was over a year ago now. It's over a year ago that we first raised this issue in the Legislature. I

can remember at the time talking to some of the industrial leaders in my community. At the time the sale of Dofasco hadn't yet occurred, and a person I know well whom I had met at a fundraiser, Mr. John Pether, who was at the helm at the time, the

CEO of that organization, and I talked for some time about the challenges that were facing that industrial giant in our community. There were a number of factors, one of which was the government's wrong-headed direction on Hydro. The reason I

wanted to raise that once again is because, in the context of the motion we're debating today, I suspect that if we ever got to a point where this government would admit that there's a problem and started focusing on whether they do it themselves

or whether they do it, as this member has suggested, in a kind of an all-party committee to review the issue and come up with some solutions, the bottom line is that organizations like AMPCO, back over a year ago, were critical of the government's

Hydro policy.

They stated in a document that they had put together in January 2005, Ontario Industry Position on Electricity Restructuring, that there's an indication here that those large manufacturers of Ontario, the

Association of Major -- I can't even remember exactly what their acronym stands for, but hopefully before the end of this I will.

Nonetheless, AMPCO says, "Energy policy in Ontario leaves a number of vital questions unanswered. The answers to these questions must be clearly understood and communicated in order to avoid serious ... economic

fallout." Lack of informed dialogue on electricity issues is a concern. There is little evidence that stakeholder concerns are being recognized and acted upon, nor does it appear that the full impacts of policy decisions are being communicated to

the public.

This is a criticism that was levelled against the government well over a year ago, and unfortunately there's no evidence the government has taken up the mantle and made any efforts at all to respond to the

concerns the member raising the motion today has brought forward, the concerns we brought forward well over a year ago, and more recently, the concerns the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, AMPCO, was raising.

In concern and frustration, we raised that motion over a year ago. We have a motion we're debating on the same issues today. You will note that the leader of the New Democratic Party, Howard Hampton, brought a

motion not too long ago into this Legislature talking about some kind of solution, some kind of structural way to deal with these companies that are considering leaving Ontario -- in fact, to deal with them prior to the final decision to

leave.

Of course, members across the way like to laugh and snicker about these kinds of ideas, but I can tell you that the people on this side of the House are getting pretty frustrated by the government's lack of

action on the job files and lack of action on the reality that we are losing our industrial manufacturing sector in the province of Ontario. It is, in fact, a sector that is significant to the livelihood and well-being of our diversified economy,

of maintaining a diversified economy.

The

article I quoted from the Hamilton Spectator at the beginning of my remarks outlined in a very nice way just from a city perspective what that manufacturing base means in terms of the ability to have a

diversified economy. That is exactly the same kind of system or relationship that a strong manufacturing base has to maintain for the province of Ontario: a provincial economy that is diversified and robust. Unfortunately, for some reason, the

Liberal McGuinty government is prepared to watch 136,000 jobs walk out of Ontario. From all accounts, it looks like they're prepared to continue to have a laissez-faire attitude about this crisis in manufacturing.

I'm not sure if my friend would like to speak to this issue herself, so perhaps what I'll do is wrap up in a few minutes by simply reflecting on what it means when these good jobs are lost from communities.

Hamilton used to be a very well off community in terms of its economy, its residents and the wealth that not only was generated but was keeping its economy going. We are now equal to Toronto in terms of our

poverty rates. We have significant homelessness problems. We have child poverty: One in five children is living in poverty in the city of Hamilton. We have a significant downturn in our industrial base, as I've already noted. Thousands upon

thousands of jobs have been lost, and the jobs that are coming to our community are simply not ones that sustain a good quality of life for families. So we see increased use of food banks to a startling degree. We see families now living homeless

in the streets of Hamilton. We see seniors living in poverty.

We have a significant problem, and it's casting a very negative pall on our city. Our frustration is that there's not very much of a sign that the provincial government is going to take a proactive role in

helping cities like Hamilton maintain the glory of their past and maintain a good, strong economy that keeps families living with a decent quality of life and not having to rely on food banks or, even worse, ending up on the streets.

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): If the member for Waterloo-Wellington has a detractor in this Legislature, then I have never met this individual. Indeed, the member is a thoughtful,

hard-working and effective member. His resolution reflects his desire for a better Ontario. It's not loaded with emotive language. Who can dispute its objective to "maintain and expand our domestic and international markets in the coming

years"?

The temptation might be to say, "Oh, yeah, when you guys were in government, you sold highways, ran up $30 billion in debt, neglected every type of public infrastructure and picked a fight with education, health

care and everyone else who wanted to help build Ontario" -- and the list can go on. But while all of that is true, it's not the type of thoughtful response that this resolution deserves.

Is Ontario competitive? The resolution suggests that the member isn't so sure we are, so I asked my staff to look up some numbers for me. Other than fishing and oil and gas extraction, Ontario dominates every

sector within Canada, from tourism to arts and culture, through heavy manufacturing and high technology. Alberta's principal fear is that oil prices will stabilize below about US$50 per barrel. At that point, three of Alberta's MLAs told me last

year, Alberta would likely be looking at budget cutbacks.

Ontario has one renewable resource in abundance that no other province has: some 13 million people, with the education infrastructure to turn those people into educated risk-takers, astute managers, skilled

professionals and tradespeople, dedicated service workers, and so on and so on. Alberta's principal resource is thick black glop that can be turned into petrochemical products. Ontario's principal resource is organized and educated brain power.

Ontario is where the rest of the world aspires to be.

We looked at the leading jurisdictions in the United States. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that manufacturing employment in the USA peaked in the late 1970s at just under 20 million jobs. It crashed with

the recessions of the early 1980s and fluctuated between 17 million and 18 million jobs from about 1982 to around 1999. After that, its trend has been a sharp downward plunge to less than 14 million jobs, a level last seen in the United States in

the early 1950s, when America's population was just more than half of what it is today. Is America competitive? Would the member's investigation turn up anything in Ontario not seen in the industrial heartland of the United States? Likely not.

Set against the American experience, Ontario looks like a pretty good place to set up a manufacturing business. Would the member's proposed investigation yield anything more profound than can be found in the

writings of management theorists like Peter Drucker, Michael Porter, Robert Heilbroner, Alvin Toffler and John Naisbitt? I suspect not. I pulled out some of their books last night and I skimmed through them. All of them, in the last 35 years,

foresaw and predicted more or less what has occurred in manufacturing in North America and western Europe since the closed societies of the East opened, with the cheap labour to do the long production runs in manufacturing. In his conclusion to

Megatrends 2000, written in the late 1980s and published in 1990, management guru John Naisbitt said, referring to manufacturing, "Less-developed countries, where labour is cheaper, become more attractive areas for that investment."

One may well ask, why does anybody manufacture anything in North America anymore? Because you send your intellectual property overseas at your gravest peril. Because where value-added service and one-of-a-kind

manufacturing -- such as is done, for example, at Mold-Masters in the member's own riding -- are important, then you need to be close to your customers. Your product and service bundle has to have value that can't be done in mass production.

Because culture still means something, as companies like Enersource will tell you, having outsourced some customer support and then brought it back because their customers wanted to speak to Canadians who understand a problem their way.

Our currency, our Canadian dollar, has performed well in comparison to the US dollar and even against the euro, the pound, the yen and the rand. That's a challenge, because if an Ontario company just stands

still, they'll become uncompetitive. But most of our trade is with the USA, where just plain stupid federal government economic policy has caused the US dollar to tank against every other major world currency. In 2000, the US was looking at a

10-year accumulated budget surplus of $4 trillion. Now, today, some six years later, they're looking at a $6-trillion deficit over that same 10-year forward period. Where, America must ask its leaders, has $10 trillion gone? That's 200 times the

fortune of Bill Gates. The rest of the world doesn't depend on the US market to the extent that we do. Combine a business slump and a skidding dollar in the United States, and Ontario companies that depend on that US buyer are going to hurt. We

don't need an investigation to tell us that.

Ontario's strategy is no secret: Back your winners, as we've done in the auto industry. Be where your customers are -- and our Premier has gone to China and soon will go to India and Pakistan. We're opening

trade offices in major consumer capitals in the world's expanding markets. Build an infrastructure that business can depend on and give them a competitive advantage. That's what Ontario is doing in education at all levels, with electricity and

roads and with our world-class public health system. Be competitive with taxes. That's why Toronto and Ottawa are the two lowest-cost jurisdictions among major metropolitan areas in North America. That's why total business costs, including taxes,

have stayed lower in Ontario than in the Great Lakes states, Massachusetts, California and Florida. Nobody is saying that competitiveness will ever be easy -- any company will tell you that -- but the winning industries of the 21st century are

coming to Ontario, and for all the right reasons: the right strategy, the right execution of the right plan and the right government at the right time and in the right place.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to rise in support of my colleague the member for Waterloo-Wellington, Mr. Arnott, and his very important and thoughtful resolution here today. As we

heard from the member for Waterloo-Wellington, he actually brought this forward to the assembly in a similar form more than a year ago. In fact, his forward thinking impressed our leader, John Tory, who brought forward a similar motion on behalf

of the official opposition, which I was very pleased to say passed here in the Legislative Assembly on December 8, 2005, based largely on the work Ted had already done in his May 31 resolution. But despite the fact that Ted brought this forward

over a year ago -- a motion actually passed here in the assembly for a jobs plan -- the Dalton McGuinty government continues to look the other way as well-paying manufacturing jobs flee the province of Ontario.

I hope that during debate today, I will hear some government members at least admit that there is a significant, if not massive, problem faced by the manufacturing sector today in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario. The

forest industry is in a crisis like it has never seen before, with some 4,000-plus jobs leaving the forest industry sector, which affects particularly small-town Ontario, northern Ontario, and Cornwall in eastern Ontario. We still can see a

bleeding of jobs from those sectors having a devastating impact on those small and northern communities.

I find it rather disquieting that many members of the government side tend to have this Pollyanna attitude that all is well and good and we're in the time of wine and roses in Ontario, when their jobs record has

been absolutely dismal when it comes to creating private sector jobs. In fact, from 2004 to 2006, we have seen a mere 1% growth in private sector jobs in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario. We have seen in that two-year time some 140,000 well-paying

manufacturing jobs leave the province.

When the government boasts about its 250,000 or so new jobs, which it claims credit for creating, we can't forget that approximately half of those jobs are government jobs, masking the true decline in the

manufacturing sector and the extremely lacklustre performance of the private sector economy. That's simply an unsustainable strategy. Hiring more and more bureaucrats may pad your job numbers, so you try to fool people that the economy is doing

well, but unless you have a strong, robust private sector creating jobs and wealth and investing in Ontario, you can't afford to pay for high-quality health care or education or transportation or police services.

Some members are even worse than Pollyanna. A colleague, Tony Wong, who was the member for Markham -- I couldn't believe he said this when he was parliamentary assistant to the Premier: "What they (Ontario

communities)" -- that are losing jobs -- "should do is look for new ways to create jobs to develop their economy and not just come as crying babies to the province." And what did Dalton McGuinty do about that? He looked the other way. Mr. Wong

continued to serve as his parliamentary assistant, which was absolutely shocking. With that kind of callous comment, Mr. Wong continued to serve in that role.

"In November, McGuinty described the loss of 3,600 General Motors jobs as `a little bit of a contraction,'" Toronto Star, January 2, 2006.

"Liberal MPP Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington) said the fact Imperial Tobacco in Guelph was closing its doors and throwing 550 people out of work proved to her the government's anti-smoking legislation `is

working,'" December 9, 2005. Five hundred and fifty families are now without jobs and the member is applauding that result.

I know I have many colleagues who want to speak to this resolution today. I say kudos to Mr. Arnott for championing the importance of this issue. Ontario has always been the economic engine of Canada, and its

bread and butter has been the manufacturing sector. In Dalton McGuinty's Ontario we have fallen from that to a very lacklustre, if not behind-the-pack, performance in both sectors.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): It's my pleasure to speak to this motion. Of course, as New Democrats, we would support it. You heard my colleague Andrea Horwath speak about some of the

motions that we've put forward, that our leader Howard Hampton has talked about, including the creation of a jobs commissioner who would actually address this problem directly and come up with a solution, one would hope.

I can speak about what the current state of the economy is in my particular section, and that's Parkdale-High Park, and certainly in downtown Toronto. I can tell you that in downtown Toronto what has happened to

the manufacturing base is that there is none. The manufacturing companies that used to exist in downtown Toronto are -- guess what? -- loft apartments. We have the Candy Factory loft apartment; the old GE building is now a loft apartment. We have

apartments going in where manufacturing once was.

I did want to comment a little bit on my colleague from Mississauga West's comments. For one thing, when he said arts and culture, my ears kind of pricked up because it's one of my portfolios. I can tell you

that an artist in downtown Toronto -- we have many in my riding -- makes an average of $26,000 a year. They live at the poverty level. Yes, there are occasionally dribs and drabs of money that go into the arts but never for the artists. We're

still waiting for status-of-the-artist legislation. So there's one community that's very hard hit.

He talked about the changing face of business. I would love to have those comments addressed to one of those workers who lost their job in the forestry sector or the mining sector. I wonder what words of comfort

those would be, to know that they're part of a global economy: "Oh, so sorry, the manufacturing role in the world is changing and, oops, sorry, you're the loser." I wonder if those are really words of comfort to someone with a family who has just

lost their job and wonders how to pay their mortgage or their rent. I don't think so.

You heard about the rising poverty rates, and that's certainly true. Also, he talked about small business. Certainly, I've been in touch with TABIA members in Toronto. Small business isn't thriving in this city.

I don't know who he's been talking to. Small business has had to shoulder disproportionately high property tax rates in downtown Toronto and other places. They're losing their businesses. Certainly where my constituency office is on Dundas Street

West, you can look down the street and see empty storefronts. This is the Toronto of present times and this is the Ontario of the present. This is the real world. This is not the world of global economists and multinationals; this is the world of

Ontario, the world in which we live, the world in which poverty threatens, and it doesn't have to be that way. We have examples globally, for example Ireland, where they have a 4% poverty rate, where they've done it by raising the minimum wage,

where they've done it by building housing, and they're an economic marvel of turnaround. We could do it with some planning, and that's what we need. So I certainly support this motion.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm pleased to stand up and speak to the motion brought by the member from Waterloo-Wellington.

I was listening carefully to his resolution and to the many members of this House who spoke in detail about this issue. I agree that we have some kind of problem, not just in the province of Ontario but in the

whole nation -- as a matter of fact, globally -- especially when we have a high dollar in Canada, when we have a shift in the economy in Canada and when we have a shift in economy globally. It's a very important issue to talk about, because we

value the businesses in the province of Ontario. We value every business, whether it's small or large, small-paying jobs or high-paying jobs.

As a matter of fact, I would like to support this resolution, but I don't see any need to support it, because he doesn't have to have investigations, we don't have to have a committee to study this issue. We

have a government and a minister working very hard on a daily basis to maintain the jobs we have in Ontario, to create more jobs, to attract more jobs and to invest in the economy to maintain the high-paying jobs.

Since we got elected, our government has attracted a lot of auto industry jobs, which are high-paying jobs. Our investment in the auto industry put Ontario as the number one jurisdiction on Earth in the auto

industry. Our investment to maintain our infrastructure makes it easier for all the companies that want to open in Ontario. Investment in education and higher secondary education -- universities, elementary schools and high schools -- all this to

build infrastructure to maintain and create skilled workers in the province of Ontario.

I want to tell you something very important. The member from Waterloo-Wellington can make an appointment with the minister, and she can explain what we're doing to maintain the good-paying jobs in Ontario,

what we're doing to maintain and attract the jobs to Ontario. I guess we are the number one jurisdiction on the whole Earth, by investing in the economy, by opening many spots and planning many trips to many different nations, like the last trip

to China when we were able to sign a more than $13-billion contract, and also the trip which is being planned by the Premier and many different business people in the province of Ontario to go to Pakistan and India to deal with a lot of things: to

talk about education, to talk about health, to talk about innovation and research, to attract more business to Ontario. All these initiatives play a pivotal role to maintain our high economic prosperity in the province of Ontario.

As I mentioned in the beginning, I'd love to support the resolution, but I don't see why we have to support it. I don't see a need to support it. But, you know what? If he has some kind of concern, if he

doesn't understand what we're doing, it's simple: He can call the minister, he can call the government, and we'll update him on our strategy and on our plan for the future. It's simple.

He can go to all the people in the province of Ontario to see and notice our investment. It's simple. He can see the infrastructure when driving on the 401 toward Windsor. Or when he goes to visit Woodstock,

he'll see the Toyota plant or the Hino plant being built. He can go to Oakville and see our investment in the auto industry there. He can go to GM, to Kingston, to Belleville; he can go to the north where we've invested in the diamond industry. He

can go to the north where we invested back in the forest industry. These are all initiatives to maintain the jobs, not in one sector, not in one corner of the province; to make it a level plane in the whole province of Ontario -- the north, the

west, the east and the centre -- because every community is important to us and because we believe strongly that we cannot do it just in Toronto and we cannot do it just in London and Windsor. We all have to work together. We have to invest in

every corner of the province to create a prosperous economy, an economy working together, from manufacturing to industry to universities to the auto industry. All of us have to work together to maintain our prosperity. Thank you for giving me a

chance to speak.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased to be able to take

part in this debate this morning and support the resolution of my seatmate and colleague, the member from

Waterloo-Wellington.

There are a couple of things I wanted to put on the record here today. The one is that, of course, something has to be done. I mean, we've lost, we know, at least 100,000 manufacturing jobs in the last year.

Those are very, very valuable jobs to our economy, and there's no question that the government has to show some leadership in this area. I think the problem, one of the key things I see, is that when people think of a Liberal government, they

think of a government that is anti-business; they don't want to support the economy. That's just a stigma that is attached to that party. So you talk to people in the manufacturing industry and they're not too excited about being here in the

province of Ontario under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty as we proceed in the future.

I'll give you a good example. In the small community I live in, we have a manufacturer, a company that manufactured stainless steel sinks since the late 1950s, when they set up there. It was called at one time

Taman Industries. They even survived a fire. The fire destroyed the building and they built a brand new building. This building would have been built approximately 20 years ago now. But they've stayed with that small community. They've employed

probably 100 people in the Coldwater, Waubaushene and Victoria Harbour area of my riding. These people have had jobs there for the last 40, 50 years. Well, we just found out recently that what is happening is that the plant is closing. They're

going to go right down that highway, past Windsor, the community where we're spending $400 million on a casino that we really don't need. Those jobs are going right out of our country, right down to the United States of America, because where

they're going, there are more incentives and they can survive there. I find that appalling, that a company would leave this province and go there, and most of it is because of the lack of leadership here, the fact that we don't have any -- the

stigma that the government would leave everybody feeling is that companies aren't wanted here. The red tape is getting worse by the day; it doesn't matter what kind of business you're in. That's what you hear from business people across this

province. As a result, jobs are lost; very, very valuable manufacturing jobs are lost.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words here this morning, and I thank my colleague for bringing this forward. It shows the leadership he is showing in his community.

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It gives me pleasure to rise this morning to participate in this debate on the resolution by the member from Waterloo-Wellington.

I'd like to preface my comments this morning -- I've never done this before and I hope I'm not out of order, but I do know that a very special person in my life is watching this debate. She watches every day,

actually, and I sometimes wonder why: my mother, who 55 years ago today was giving birth to her second daughter, her fifth child of 12.

Mother, I know this is a big day for you because it's St. Andrew's Day. She was from St. Andrews West -- her first address. I always wanted to do this. I know she's sitting in her living room, watching. It's a

pleasure to get up and speak today.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Jim, did she get that tie for you, that beautiful --

Mr. Brownell: Well, she told me that I had to wear that today.

This debate today is an important one. It's a chance for our government to participate in the debate and to indicate that we have already done much in this province to strengthen the economy and build on

opportunity.

The member from Erie-Lincoln mentioned Cornwall in his comments a few moments ago. I want to say that, yes, Cornwall has had some economic problems in the past year. Cornwall has had economic problems for a

long time with regard to the textile industry. Back in the 1940s and early 1950s, we had Canada Cotton shut down. Fortunately, those buildings are now being rejuvenated into other opportunities. Then we had Courtaulds Ltd. and Domtar this year.

But, you know, we build in Cornwall and in eastern Ontario on what we have. In our agricultural sector, we build on research and innovation. I've seen that happen in my riding, where farmers are building on that and getting the newest technology

in their operations. Marimac industries from Cornwall -- they're not moving; they're expanding in my riding. They have a manufacturing company in Cornwall. They're expanding into Iroquois, a part of my riding that has had some severe economic

problems this past year. But 250 jobs are being created with Marimac industries in Iroquois, and that's exciting news.

They're building because they know of the position of that area, they know of its position in the world, and they know of the position of our government in building on opportunities. Certainly this government,

with the establishment of four new international marketing centres in London, New Delhi, Tokyo and Los Angeles, and with seven offices now in world, and more coming, is expressing to the world that we're open for business and we want to expand

those business opportunities.

The Minister of Economic Development and Trade and the Premier himself have gone on a number of missions around the world, to China and Japan -- China in November 2005, Japan in June 2006 -- and there's an

upcoming visit to India and Pakistan, to promote those opportunities, to indicate and focus on sectors that are critical to Ontario's prosperity, including research and innovation, financial services, education and cultural industries.

If I could just take a moment to look in my own riding at Pat Finucan from St. Lawrence College and Mayor Phil Poirier, who went over to China this past year to build on education opportunities, to have a

chance to express to business people in China opportunities that we have here in Ontario for investment, certainly also in my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh and the city of Cornwall.

So we have done a lot in the past three years, and we certainly have the courage to do more in the future.

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): Before I begin, I want to welcome the students from Dr. John M. Denison Secondary School in Newmarket. This is a particular pleasure for me, having been on staff

at Dr. Denison some years ago.

I rise today in support of the resolution put forward by the member from Waterloo-Wellington. I think it's important for all of us to appreciate the fact that the economy is not something that doesn't change;

it is in a state of change permanently. I think that it's important, then, looking at this resolution and the manner in which it's presented to us, that an investigation should begin.

If you look at various areas in the literature on the economy, you can see how important it is to keep abreast of the kinds of challenges we face. I'm going to take a moment to read what I think is a very

important explanation in a paper presented by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives called From Bronze to Gold. In that, they discuss why there has to be a creative economy. It says:

"The extent of our prosperity as a country depends on how much value Canadians can create through their labour and what returns they can earn on their savings.

"This is why concepts such as productivity and competitiveness matter to all Canadians. Other countries are passing us by in raising their standards of living because they have found ways to attract more

investment, generate higher returns and create more jobs that pay higher wages. Higher productivity produces more money for individuals and families to improve their quality of life directly. It also generates more tax revenue for governments to

provide better public services and infrastructure."

I think that is really why the member from Waterloo-Wellington undertook this resolution, because it is important, both on the basis of individual families and society as a whole.

When you look at some of the features that I believe any task force or any committee should be looking at, one of those surely is to take advantage of or recognize the need for skilled people. We hear

constantly of areas of shortage in particular areas of industry and commerce, and looking at immigration and integration of people into this country is certainly one of the key steps. Our leader, John Tory, introduced a paper on immigration that's

designed to benefit both the individual who comes to this country and that individual's opportunity to integrate within our community and be a part of a productive and strong community.

One of the other areas that's very important to developing a strong economy is the question of the creation of ideas, because everything starts with an idea and the ability to take that idea and transform it

into a product or service. That's why, as a member of the former government, we invested in providing research funding, specifically to be able to take the very best from our universities and colleges and move those ideas into products and

services.

Another area that, again, is vital to a strong economy is the ability to attract investment. In today's global world, obviously investment can come from anywhere, including at home. So the importance of having

a tax structure that remains competitive, that becomes a method of attraction, is absolutely paramount in a world where money can be transferred in a matter of minutes and investments can be set up in a matter of days.

Another area that is equally important is the regulatory one. Obviously, everybody has to abide by regulations that deal with safety, that deal with quality and a host of other things, whether it's the

environment or personal health. But those regulations must be timely, they must be predictable, they must not overlap and they must be seamless. Only in that way can you provide surety within the regulatory environment.

In the brief time I have left, the question of energy costs is obviously a very important issue. We look at this province today, where closing coal-fired furnaces has moved from being a promise to what the

Minister of Energy now describes as a "noble goal." That doesn't create the kind of stability or the kind of opportunity for competition that we need in Ontario.

Finally, the question of transportation: It has to be something that provides opportunity for goods and services, for people to be able to travel.

I noted with interest that the Minister of Finance introduced in a speech a couple of months ago something he referred to as the dark clouds gathering on the horizon. I suggest to the government members that

supporting this resolution would in fact go a long way to dissipating those dark clouds.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Waterloo-Wellington.

Mr. Arnott: I want to express my appreciation to all of the members who have spoken to this important resolution today -- the members for Hamilton East, Mississauga West, Erie-Lincoln,

Parkdale-High Park, London-Fanshawe, Simcoe North, Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh and, of course, York North -- all of whom have offered the House thoughtful comments with respect to the issue of the manufacturing challenges that we're facing in

the province of Ontario.

I received word just now from our party's economic development critic, the member for Halton, who informed our caucus that the Statistics Canada numbers for the month of September have just been released this

morning. Manufacturing output has fallen in the month of September by 1.4%, which is a substantial drop, and of 21 major industry groups, 16 cut back production. Of course, the manufacturing sector is very important in the province of Ontario, and

so these national numbers would reflect, in a huge negative sense, on the province of Ontario.

When I brought forward this resolution in May 2005, it was my belief that I could bring the issue forward, put it before the Legislature, and that in the summer of 2005, the all-party standing committee on

finance could begin public hearings and public discussion with the affected interest groups, including organized labour; I had hoped that the Ontario Federation of Labour and the auto workers -- everyone who has an interest in manufacturing jobs

-- would have had a chance to participate in this discussion. I had envisioned that over the course of the summer we could develop an action plan, and that it could be presented in the House in the fall and the government could start implementing

it. That was a year ago, and it was a year and a half ago that I introduced the resolution. Much time has been lost.

Of course, we know that the finance committee will very shortly undertake important work with respect to its pre-budget consultations. That process is going to start a little earlier this year than normally is

the case. We are going to be starting in December and then resuming after Christmas. My suggestion now is, if this resolution passes the House, I would hope that it will be accepted by the government and that the standing committee on finance and

economic affairs will be directed to undertake this study immediately after it concludes its pre-budget consultations, so as to provide an action plan that can begin to be implemented this spring.

Obviously, much time has been lost. I wish that this could have started a year and a half ago, but given that it hasn't, I would hope that the government will take this seriously and take seriously what's been

discussed today. I would say again, this resolution has the support of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the C.D. Howe Institute, the Ontario Real Estate Association, Canada's Chemical

Producers, the Employers' Advocacy Council and the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce. And I know that the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity is very interested in what we do here today. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I

ask all members --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

I would ask members to join me in welcoming to the Legislature, in the members' east gallery, Ruth Grier, former member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in the 33rd to 35th Parliaments. Welcome.

COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT

(DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

AND POLLUTANTS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE DROIT DU PUBLIC

D'ÊTRE INFORMÉ (DIVULGATION DES

TOXINES ET DES POLLUANTS)

Mr. Tabuns moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 164,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, the Environmental Protection Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 164, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2002 sur la protection

du consommateur, la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement et la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): I rise to ask the members assembled in this chamber to take action -- action to protect public health, our environment and our emergency personnel. I ask

them to vote for this bill, Bill 164, Ontario's Community Right to Know Act, and to move it forward to committee stage. It encompasses a community's right to access information on pollutants released into the environment, a consumer's right to

know about hazardous substances they may be exposed to when they buy a good or a service, and the right of firefighters to know about the chemicals they may encounter in responding to a fire.

Community-right-to-know legislation is identified as a best practice in cancer prevention and environmental protection. It's been a fixture in jurisdictions like California for the past 20 years. In contrast,

Ontario and the other provinces of Canada lag far behind. Bill 164 is supported by the likes of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control, the Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition and the Toronto

Environmental Alliance.

Community-right-to-know recognizes the inherent right of individuals to know the hazardous substances to which they may be exposed. It's for these reasons that community-right-to-know is endorsed as a primary

cancer prevention measure and a tool for environmental protection by environmental and health advocates.

Research linking negative health impacts with exposure to pollutants and toxins in our environment continues to grow. And we are exposed. Environmental Defence Canada found 38 carcinogens in the small sample

of persons it tested as part of carrying out its study on pollution in Canadians entitled Toxic Nation. The incidence of cancer in Canada has risen by over 54% over the past 18 years. Almost one in two Canadian males and more than one in three

Canadian females will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetimes.

To give you a sense of the public interest in the issue, today is November 30. The Globe and Mail has been running major articles about cancer virtually every day since November 20. They'll continue to run

articles until December 6. Their December 6 piece will focus on the environmental links to cancer.

This series has considerable traction, in part because this disease now touches most Canadians' lives, either directly or indirectly. The response to the series so far mirrors how large audiences watched and

responded to Wendy Mesley's series on CBC this past year, Chasing the Cancer Answer, in which she confronted the gaps in Canada's cancer-fighting strategy, one of which is reducing Canadians' exposure to known or suspected cancer-causing agents in

the first place.

An aging population can help explain the rising rate but not completely. Genetics can help explain that rising rate but not completely. The Canadian Cancer Society has found that, after adjustments for age,

the incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, thyroid and testicular cancers, all of which have links to environmental contaminants, has risen among Canadians in the age bracket 20 to 44.

Research and the action plans derived from this research, like the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control, are increasingly calling for urgent acceleration of cancer prevention policies, including measures that

lessen or prevent our exposure to toxins.

Boston University School of Public Health and the University of Massachusetts Lowell released in September 2005 a research paper entitled Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancers. It concluded, "Cancer

evolves from a complicated combination of multiple exposures. No one exposure single-handedly produces cancer, and many causes of cancer are still unknown.... The sum of the evidence regarding environmental and occupational contributions to cancer

justifies urgent acceleration of policy efforts to prevent carcinogenic exposures."

Today, we can take action to help prevent at least some cancers by reducing our exposure to toxic chemicals. We know with certainty that some substances cause cancer and others are suspected of triggering it,

and we have taken some steps to deal with them. In this bill, we take a long overdue step forward.

The first part of the bill adds a provision to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, that requires consumers to be informed about a commercial good containing known or suspected carcinogens. This aspect of the

bill, known as the "labelling provision," has garnered the most attention so far. A host of organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society, have long called for such labelling of consumer products. California, Vermont and the European Union

already require such information labelling.

Unfortunately, existing legislation here in Canada does not provide us with that protection. It doesn't provide us with the information that we expect, as analysis by the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control

has demonstrated. The Hazardous Products Act does not address protecting consumers against chronic, low-level exposure from toxic substances in household products. Canadian Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, the Food and Drugs Act and

the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act don't require full disclosure of all potentially harmful ingredients, such as carcinogens.

Health Canada finally, after prolonged delay, introduced new labelling requirements for cosmetics, but it doesn't require labels to indicate if the product contains a known or probable carcinogen. Labelling is

a shared jurisdiction, something that both the provinces and the federal government can do, as confirmed by lawyers at Health Canada and by environmental law experts. In fact, Ontario already exercises its power to impose labelling. It has

requirements for a range of items. If you check your upholstery or your bedding, the label detailing the quality of fill is an Ontario-imposed requirement. We have the power; we already use it.

By acting in this field, Ontario will fill a vacuum that currently exists and start protecting consumers. In doing so, we will follow a path that's already been blazed by California with its proposition 65,

adopted in 1986, that provided consumers with information about the hazards they faced with some products, but also brought about change in the way that products were made and the contents of those products to eliminate cancer-causing agents in

ceramics, nail polish removers, white out and bottled water.

People ask, "How will we determine which carcinogens or suspected carcinogens to list?" The

schedule would be drawn from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a body of the World Health

Organization. How will that information be disclosed? In terms of the shape and form of the disclosure, we can borrow from the best practices in Vermont and California. In California, there are proposition 65 labels, and there are notices that can

be issued. In Vermont, information labels can be placed on store shelves where items that contain known or suspected carcinogens are placed.

I've been asked about the economic impact of this legislation. California has carried out five-year and 10-year reviews on the impact and found no noticeable economic impact from this legislation.

The second part of the bill establishes a comprehensive pollution inventory containing a variety of information relating to the type and level of pollutants released into the environment and their

environmental and health impacts. In the absence of a formal community-right-to-know policy, Ontario doesn't provide a consolidated, comprehensive inventory that aggregates information about emissions to water, land or air.

The third part of the bill amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require employers to provide to the local fire department all material safety data sheets which list hazardous materials that are on

site. This will be of tremendous utility to firefighters' knowing what they're encountering when they go to a scene, and it complements the pioneering work done by my colleague from Hamilton East, who has worked on these issues of occupational

health and safety for firefighters.

I've outlined the substance of the bill and the reasons for adopting it. I call on all my colleagues in the House to take the next step in cancer prevention, to take the next step in empowering communities, to

take the next step in protecting our emergency responders. I call on them to support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I'm pleased to speak on Bill 164, introduced by the member for Toronto-Danforth.

Bill 164 proposes to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The proposed amendments to the OHSA,

section 38, would require the employer to provide to the local fire department copies of all the material

safety data sheets, which the OHSA requires the employer to have for hazardous materials used in the workplace.

I would like to remind the members in this honourable House about the history of

section 38 of the OHSA, the Occupational Health and Safety Act. When

section 38 of the OHSA was first drafted in the late 1980s,

the Ministry of Labour consulted the fire services sector through the

section 21 committee. At that time, fire departments advised the ministry that they did not want -- and I repeat, they did not want -- to automatically receive the material

safety data sheets from employers. They felt at that time that they did not have the ability to handle the volume of information they would have received from employers, nor would this information have been useful in many instances. In the 15 and

more years since

section 38 has been enforced, fire services have not advised the Ministry of Labour that changes are needed to enhance their access to workplace material safety data sheets.

The OHSA already provides a mechanism through medical officers of health for the public to have access to information about hazardous materials used in workplaces within their community. Therefore, any member

of the public can go to the local medical officer and ask to see a copy of all MSDSs for a workplace within the local public health unit. That is available already.

I would also like to remind the member for Toronto-Danforth, as well as all honourable members in the House, what the McGuinty Liberal government is doing for workers. First, the health and safety of Ontario

workers is our number one priority, and we certainly have shown that in many instances. Exposure to hazardous substances is a major cause of occupational illness and adds significant cost to businesses through lost time and higher workplace

insurance claims. Under Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act, occupational exposure limits are established to protect workers.

In the year 2004, our government implemented a system to update annually occupational exposure limits for hazardous chemical substances in the workplace. This approach means that limits are updated annually

based on the recommendations of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. The ACGIH annually publishes recommendations developed using the most up-to-date information in scientific and medical literature. Of course, before

this system was put in place, OELs were not significantly updated for nearly 15 years, so we have done that.

In 2006, this year, we have consulted to update occupational exposure limits. For instance, in 2006 we invited stakeholders to review the proposal for changes to the limits for 27 substances. This includes new

limits for two substances and revised OELs or listings for 25 substances.

The McGuinty government wanted to know what our stakeholders thought about the proposed limits. We also wanted to hear about other substances that stakeholders thought should have an occupational exposure

limit. The consultation period ended in September of this year. The ministry is now reviewing the comments received from the stakeholders, and you will hear from the minister.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): It's my privilege and pleasure to speak to Bill 164. I support this brave piece of legislation by my colleague Mr. Tabuns. It's certainly a piece of

legislation that we need, and we need it soon.

I just wanted to start off by quoting something from the Cancer Prevention Coalition. They talk about the risk for leukemia increasing "by four to seven times for children, ages 10 and under, whose parents use

home or garden pesticides." They go on to speak about "the risk of childhood brain cancer ... associated with the use of pesticide `bombs' in the home, pesticides to control termites, flea collars on pets, insecticides in the garden or orchard,

and herbicides to control weeds in the yard, including exposure to two common pesticides available in garden shops -- carbaryl and diazinon.

"In 1990, more than 4,000 toddlers under age four were admitted to hospital emergency rooms as a result of household cleaner-related injuries" and infections related to that. Again, these are just a few

figures that one could throw out. "Residues of more than 400 toxic chemicals -- some found in household products and foods -- have been identified in human blood and fat tissue" as hazardous and also as carcinogens -- over 400. That's a

significant number.

I want to draw the Speaker's attention to my former life, and that was as a United Church minister. It was then my sad duty over many years to preside over more than 200 funerals. Many of those funerals were

the deaths of those under my care who had died from cancer. I remember the honour and privilege of being able to sit with their families, to be bedside with them as they suffered, and then as they breathed their last. We engaged in those

conversations in a great many deep theological issues, questions like, "What will happen to me after death?"; questions about, "Why would a loving God do this to me?" The conversation was always free-flowing. It never lagged.

But I do remember one young woman who was about 28 years old at the time of her death. She had cancer. She said to me, "You know, I've never smoked. I've never engaged in any hazardous activities. I've never

worked in a plant where there were hazardous materials. I want to know not what will happen after my death but how my death happened." I was unable to answer that question, and so were the doctors, nurses and all the specialists who had attended

this one individual. She passed away at 28.

I've also sat at the bedsides of children who have died, again of cancer. They've never smoked, never touched hazardous materials that they know of, and yet there is no answer forthcoming.

Certainly this bill, Bill 164, is part of the answer to that young woman's question and part of the answer to the questions of the children's parents because, until we know what is in our homes, what is in our

makeup and what is in all of those materials that surround us daily, we don't know what is killing us, and it's literally killing us.

It was interesting doing some research on this, and all of the websites that came up. There is a huge amount of support for an endeavour, a piece of legislation, like this.

I was looking at a website that is run, kept and maintained by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Many of us in this House, both male and female, I'm sure, use cosmetics. They point out 12 different issues:

"

(1) Toxic chemicals are widespread in beauty products -- and in our bodies.

"

(2) The government should be protecting us, but it's not.

"

(3) You can't believe industry safety claims.

"

(4) The $35-billion cosmetics industry routinely opposes laws that would protect consumers and the environment.

"

(5) We have to protect ourselves until we convince the government to protect us." The endeavour here today is to try to convince this government to protect us.

"

(6) Two of the highest-concern cosmetics categories are marketed especially to" African-Canadian and "African-American women." This bill also touches on some feminist issues that are close to my heart.

"

(7) Most product ingredients have never been assessed for links to long-term health problems. However, even ingredients that are known to cause harm can be put into personal care products. Eight of the most

problematic are" -- and I will stop here, because I know my colleague wants time on the clock to speak to this bill as well. But things like these are in products that we use right now: mercury, lead acetate, formaldehyde, toluene, petroleum

distillates and coal tar. Do we know this? Do we know that when we use soap, it might have one of these ingredients? Do we know if the skin cream that we use might have some of these ingredients? Do we know about the products we use on our babies?

Do they have some of these ingredients in them? There is no way of knowing right now, under the current situation in Ontario, and certainly in Bill 164 we begin to address that problem.

I can't imagine why one would oppose this bill, why one would not want to see this bill pass speedily into law. Of course we need to know. How can we spend billions, and we spend billions on cancer research,

when this little piece of the puzzle is left out?

Again I go back to my experience as a United Church minister and all of those bedsides that I stood beside, all of those families I sat with, and particularly that 28-year-old woman who asked that question,

"How did I get this cancer?"

I think everyone in this House would want to answer her and would want the tools to be able to answer her. I certainly encourage everyone in this House to support this brave piece of legislation, Bill 164.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to the private member's bill of my colleague the member for Toronto-Danforth. I know a little bit about

cancer. I lost my father at age 63 and my mother at age 66, so I know the impact this terrible scourge has on one's family.

I asked some folks in the Ministry of the Environment yesterday to look at this issue and give their observations on this particular bill. I happen to think it's appropriate to have a pan-Canadian approach to

deal with this particular issue and to provide levels of standards for each and every Canadian from coast to coast to coast. In fact, in working with Environment Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, that's the course they've recently

embarked upon.

I have some information that's been provided to me by Nancy Croitoru, who is the president and chief executive officer of Food and Consumer Products of Canada. I'll just read into the record some of the points

that she's making.

Currently, as we speak, "Environment Canada and Health Canada have together embarked on a ground-breaking systematic investigation of over 23,000 substances currently used in Canada, as mandated by the

Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). CEPA is a key piece of legislation that regulates all substances from a human health and environment protection perspective. It governs the safe use of substances in Canada. The federal government's

risk assessment process is taking into account information from a variety of sources including published scientific journals and databases, international reports" and extensive international research "computer modelling estimates, and commercial

data from" various industry and health stakeholders.

Over the next 36 months, this group -- Environment Canada and Health Canada -- will be looking at producing a set of new standards that will be pan-Canadian, that will:

"Limit the use of certain substances to specific dosage levels

"Limit the use of certain substances to specific applications

"Eliminate substances from commercial use entirely

"Allow commercial use of the substance with no" severe "restrictions.

"Environment Canada and Health Canada have made a commitment to complete risk assessments on 500 high-priority substances within the next 36 months. The Canadian food and consumer products industry takes

product safety very seriously. If Environment Canada and Health Canada decide, following comprehensive risk assessments of specific substances, that current levels of use and application need to change to further protect human health and

environment, industry" and other provinces "will comply fully."

Indeed, I've had the opportunity to review my colleague's bill, Bill 164. By comparison, at this time, his bill is limited to about 411 substances and I believe lacks the comprehensive scope and scientific

rigour of the federal government's current risk assessment in this area. This bill would also apply to Ontario consumers only. Indeed, just yesterday I had the opportunity to speak with executives from Unilever, which is a large multinational

corporation that employs union employees here in Ontario and right across Canada. One of their chief concerns, of course, is always, when we change regulations -- and they're supportive of changing regulations, because they're in the consumer

products business. But to have one standard in Ontario that we move forward on, and then to have the federal government in about 36 months' time add another series of regulations -- they think it's easier for them from a business perspective to go

to the higher federal standards which will be in place when their work is completed by Health Canada and Environment Canada over the next 36 months.

We also have, of course, the Environmental Protection Act in the province of Ontario. Our approach, undertaken by this current government, was to toughen the standards so carcinogens just won't be allowed to

enter into the environment. Notification versus prevention and reduction -- it's as simple as that. Getting toxins that cause cancer, make children sick, out of the plant environment, out of the air in their schoolyards and out of the products in

their homes is what regulation 419, that we've implemented, is all about. What's more, it's the first time that the province has adopted a comprehensive risk assessment approach that puts human health, especially children's health, at the

forefront of the analysis that is undertaken in order to set toxic chemical limits in the field.

Our approach is about getting results from communities, about involving communities and setting very high standards. Indeed, to give you one example, playground equipment, we have playground equipment in every

community throughout Ontario. There was a real issue, particularly for that playground equipment that incorporated pressure-treated lumber. At that particular time there was an issue with regard to chemicals that were incorporated in that

pressure-treated lumber used in building new playground facilities, not only in one's backyard, but indeed in schools. So there were dramatic changes made then by the Canadian Standards Association and Health Canada to make sure that those

substances, that product, was eliminated for use in the building of schoolyards. I happen to believe that the pan-Canadian approach that's been embarked upon is the right one: high standards right across the country, which we know the province of

Ontario will be involved in, in consultation with the federal government, to make sure that we have the highest water and air standards in the country and that we protect our citizens.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate on the private member's Bill 164, the Community Right To Know Act, introduced by my NDP colleague

and critic for the Ministry of the Environment, the member for Toronto-Danforth. I've certainly had the privilege and the opportunity to get to know the member since he was elected, as we toured across the province for the hearings on the Clean

Water Act, Bill 43. He has a great depth of knowledge on environmental issues. As well, he's certainly personally dedicated to those causes, as we've seen here since he was elected to the Legislature, but also from his past associations before he

entered the field of politics. I certainly appreciate the intent of the bill that he has introduced today. He did a lot of research into preparing us to speak today, and he's developed the idea through. So I thank him for all the work that he has

done.

He has indicated that California is the state which has had this right to know in for some 20 years, saying that we can follow other models. In politics, I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel; as with

anything, we can look to see what other countries, other jurisdictions, have done. But he's looking for the best practice that we can get in cancer prevention and environmental protection. He has indicated that Ontario lags behind in this

jurisdiction, and there's no question that we can always do better and learn from other cases, as I mentioned before. Ontario has been trying over the past number of years. Yes, we lag behind, but we have made some forward steps, and I believe

that this private member's bill today is another part of that step forward that we need to engage in debate about. So I thank him for that.

I know that the previous government brought in some initiatives that included the development of the anti-smog action plan in 1996, which committed to reducing smog-causing emissions by 45% by 2010. They

introduced mandatory monitoring and reporting of 358 harmful air pollutants for all industry sectors, formed the drinking water division of the Ministry of the Environment, and created the position of chief drinking water inspector and the

requirement for a yearly report on the status of drinking water quality in Ontario. They implemented the first air quality index in Canada, which gave reports on air quality seven times a day, seven days a week, which I'm sure you hear on the

radio all the time. But that's good; it's part of the education system out there. They implemented airborne contaminant discharge monitoring and the Ontario Water Resources Act. They initiated the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Environmental

Protection Act, and introduced the Nutrient Management Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.

So we have done a great deal of work in the province to protect our citizens; I've mentioned some of the laws and regulations that exist today. But we can do more, and we should never stop investigating all

the positive methods of protecting Ontarians. That is our job as legislators. Bill 164, which was brought forward today, does directly address some of these issues that are of the utmost importance.

I know the Canadian Cancer Society was here last week. For sure, cancer rates are increasing every year. In Canada, the statistics show that they've risen by 54.4% over 18 years. An aging population explains

part of that, but it doesn't explain it completely. I know statistics about non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, thyroid and testicular cancer have been mentioned, all of which have links to environmental contaminants. They've risen among Canadians aged 20 to

44, and those statistics are from the Canadian Cancer Society in April 2002. According to the Children's Health Environmental Coalition in 2002, cancer now ranks as the most common cause of death by disease for children.

I've spent over 20 years as a nurse. I certainly see the disease first-hand and how we have to use more preventive methods for early detection, but also address why the rates are increasing. It's a bigger

picture out there. This is what this private member's bill brought forward by the member for Toronto-Danforth is trying to make us aware of.

The member for Peterborough mentioned earlier that all of us have instances of cancer in our family, our loved ones being taken way too early in age. And we look back and we say, "How could we have prevented

that? What was he exposed to? How do we prevent further exposure to this possible cancer-causing agent?"

There's a lot of interest in pesticides, especially in rural Ontario. Education and more research needs to be done on what they're exposed to in dealing with the agriculture industry. And the agriculture

industry itself has made some progress in research. You see municipalities -- and there's an incident in Quebec where the municipality took the lead on banning pesticides used on lawns. So there are some forward-thinking people who are using

initiatives to make it known, to educate us on how we can further protect ourselves from cancer-causing agents.

Certainly the major

part is prevention, reduction and educational awareness for consumers, employees and just the population in general. So we should be doing everything in our power to ensure that pollutants

and toxins do not have the exposure to cause the adverse effects that we hear about and see, some of us first-hand, every day.

There's concern, certainly, in the legislation. I think here we all want everyone to work together, and that is business, industries and everyone to have input into how we can all work to protect our citizens.

We have to work with the retailers. It's important that they have the sustainable and correct balance that we can strike. Labelling how, when and what -- how is it going to go on? If we don't have the co-operation, we're not going to move this

forward as quickly as we want to.

The bill also affects a number of other acts currently in place, including the Consumer Protection Act, in that no consumer be sold or supplied goods unless the person is informed of the chemicals and the

risks. It also amends the Environmental Protection Act and aims to create a pollutant inventory which would be available to the public. Thirdly, it will amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require employers to provide safety data

sheets to the local fire departments.

We've had the fire departments in, speaking about the increased cancer risks with their job, with situations they were going into, the statistics they have -- certainly they all have colleagues they work with

who have contracted cancer -- and the struggle they have to prove that their cancer is connected to the occupation they're in, and they want to protect their families. So it affects all sectors, and we've heard about the different groups that have

come in and told us about the increased cancer rates associated with, in this case, the fire departments and their increased exposure to cancer-causing agents.

We need to work with everyone: businesses, emergency medical services, and it goes on. So it's good to debate, to try to strike a balance of education and awareness, and put with that legislation and

regulations that we can embrace co-operatively and make people more aware. Simply posting environmental reports on the ministry website will certainly educate some and make more consumers and businesses aware, but how many people go on there? How

many people look? There are questions about how many people read the warnings on labels, as they presently stand. Usually people who are sensitive to products, whether they're aware because of their own self-interest or because they have

allergies, read more than the majority of us who go into stores, buy products and don't really think twice about what's in them. That's back to the components of the bill, that we need to make more people aware of what carcinogenic agents are out

there.

The member from Toronto-Danforth did a great job last week. I thought he got a great amount of media around this right-to-know bill that he's bringing in, and he certainly created more awareness for myself as

I read the articles.

With regard to the regulation, including the labelling provision for both known chemicals and those that could possibly or probably cause cancer, there are a great deal of carcinogenic groups listed in the

details of the bill -- group 1, group 2, and it goes on and on. So that is why I think we need to consult with stakeholders and the federal government. Certainly the province and the municipalities can take the lead, but we need to have a

consensus as to the probable, the possible, the amounts. We need to take the lead not only as a province but as a country to strike that balance, to see the scientific data and to figure out who is going to be the responsible body for identifying

the materials which are known or suspected carcinogens in consumer goods.

Who's ensuring that these reviews, as was mentioned -- the member from Toronto-Danforth said that there are reviews in California every five or 10 years on the impact, which is great. I think that should be in

the legislation, in the regulations, if we can get that far. Everything needs to be reassessed. Research is advancing. We're finding out more things are harmful than we ever knew before, and that's just part of the evolving scientific world we

live in.

Both the provincial and the federal governments need to have a hand in this for it to be most effective. As is often the case with environmental health initiatives, cities, states and provinces all have

certain jurisdictions over aspects that relate to these issues. Again, we always say that we want all levels of government to work together. Sometimes we don't get there, but it's critical that we work together, especially with issues about health

concerns, and that it's set out what needs to be labelled, what the carcinogen is, who it's decided by and who does the review.

The Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control has stated that minimizing and eliminating, where possible, the public's exposure to carcinogens should form a foundation of public health policy. There's no question;

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. And the Canadian Environmental Law Association has stated that they look forward to support for Bill 164 as it moves through the legislative process. That is what we'd like to see for this bill, that it

be moved forward through the legislative process.

It's also important to note that we've heard from Food and Consumer Products of Canada, which has stated their concerns with the bill as it stands. Food and Consumer Products of Canada is saying that Bill 164

has limited scope and reach, will cause undue consumer confusion and alarm, and that implementation would be complex and costly. They're concerned that it's going to pre-empt a comprehensive federal substance initiative currently under way at

Health Canada and Environment Canada.

We've got some pros and cons and some people worried, so let's all sit down together and review it. The member from Toronto-Danforth has taken the lead in the province of Ontario by saying that it's a right to

know, that we should get some more labelling done and at least give the people a chance to be made aware and educated. I think that's a noble thing to do. I certainly promote more discussion and look forward to this bill going to committee so that

we can discuss it. Let's strike the balance; let's all work together co-operatively. I hope that all members of the Legislature will look at this bill seriously and move it through the legislative process in the positive manner in which this bill

is being presented to us today. Thank you very much.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's certainly my pleasure to rise in support of my colleague Mr. Tabuns, from the riding of Toronto-Danforth, in his attempt to have us get on to a more

positive, proactive phase when dealing with toxins and carcinogens in our environment.

Bill 164 is a bill that has been brought forward by my colleague. It's probably a bill that should have been here, debated and passed many moons ago. You'll know from his remarks as well as other remarks in

this debate that many jurisdictions are far ahead of Ontario and far ahead of Canada in regard to this very, very serious issue.

Before I speak specifically to the issue around how these toxins and agents in our environment and in everything we eat, drink and breathe affect children particularly -- and I have an interest in that as the

critic for children and youth services -- I wanted to first acknowledge and compliment my friend for including the issue of material safety data sheets for firefighters.

Certainly people in this Legislature are well aware of the fact that firefighters do unfortunately become susceptible to many diseases and cancers as a result of exposure to carcinogens and toxins in their

jobs as firefighters. That's what my bill, Bill 111, was all about: to acknowledge the fact that these hazards are the everyday reality of workers who happen to be firefighters as they undertake their profession in helping and saving people and

property from fires. Just to go quickly over what those cancers are, what those diseases are: primary site brain cancer; primary site bladder cancer; primary site kidney cancer; primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; primary leukemia, including multiple

myeloma; primary site ureter cancer; primary site colorectal cancer; primary site lung cancer; primary site testicular cancer; degenerative neurological disease; primary site esophageal cancer; primary site stomach cancer; as well, there's an

issue around the effect on the heart of the kinds of work that firefighters do.

That's only one piece of this bill before us, the piece that says when there are these kinds of agents, materials or toxins in a business, in a community, that information about those products or those toxins

be provided to the firefighters in that community so that they understand what it is they're getting into as they rush in to save people and property, if a fire should occur in that location. So I laud my colleague for adding that or including

that in the bill that he's brought forward.

I wanted to focus a little bit more in my remarks on the issue of toxins in the environment and what they do to our children. Members of this Legislature should be aware, in fact, that Environmental Defence

has been doing some work on this issue for some time here in Ontario, and has come up with a recent report, actually, that was tabled, I believe, or that was made public in June 2006, just a couple of months ago.

I wanted to read a couple of quotes from this particular report, or at least the

summary of the report. The Environmental Defence report is quite substantial. Members, I encourage you to actually have a look

through it. It's extremely interesting on the one hand and extremely frightening on the other hand. "Canada's Toxic Kids: Pollutants Contaminate Children's Bodies: First-ever study reveals children have higher levels of some chemicals than their

parents." The report is called Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadian Families. "The groundbreaking report, Polluted Children, Toxic Nation ... reveals that toxic chemicals, such as stain repellents, flame retardants,

mercury, lead, DDT and PCBs, are polluting Canadian children and their parents. In several cases, children in the study were more contaminated than their parents by chemicals that are still in use, including stain repellents (known as

perfluorinated chemicals or PFCs), brominated flame retardants (PBDEs), heavy metals, organophosphate insecticide metabolites, and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)." How do you like that? I should have taken a science degree. "Many of the

chemicals discovered in the children's bodies are associated with cancer, developmental problems, respiratory illnesses, damage to the nervous system and hormone disruption."

It's a first-in-Canada report that tested a number of children and their parents. I just wanted to share with you this one quote:

"`Our children are being poisoned every day by toxic chemicals that surround them at home, school and play,' said Dr. Rick Smith, executive director, Environmental Defence. `The fact that children in our study

have higher levels than their parents of a number of chemicals is an indictment of federal inaction and shows the failure of federal environmental law.'"

Of course, our member from Toronto-Danforth would argue that the provincial government has a role to play. It can be an actor in the prevention of these kinds of exposures by giving people the opportunity to

be aware of what they're exposing themselves and their children to through labelling and through the process of indicating for people where local industry, for example, is polluting or what they're spewing into the air in their manufacturing

process or whatever else they're doing as a business in that community.

Here's what one of the parents said: "When I saw how many different chemicals are in my body, I was astounded. But when I saw the toxic chemicals in my son's body, I was angry. Our children deserve better

protection."

This is a bill that is certainly well at its time and, in fact, is probably something we should have done long, long ago in the province of Ontario. I think that the member from Toronto-Danforth should be

absolutely supported in moving the yardsticks on this. I look forward to every member of this Legislature who has children, who has grandchildren or who has nieces and nephews to take a look at this, acknowledge and understand that we can't simply

go around with our head under the cover, pretending that these things don't exist and, worse, pretending that they're not affecting our children, because they absolutely are.

I recently had an opportunity to spend some time at a conference in the United States. I received some information at a workshop there about this very issue and have been reviewing some of the data and

information that they provided to me at that time: Healthy Environment, Healthy Kids: A Guide to Children's Environmental Health. Just reading what's happening in some of the American jurisdictions puts us to shame in terms of what we are not

doing here in Ontario and in Canada. Just on the issue of connecting environment to children's health and environmental effects on children's health, I could list a number of different jurisdictions: the California Legislature, the Hawaii Senate,

a Michigan House bill, a New York assembly bill, another New York assembly bill, a Virginia state joint resolution, a Washington state bill. What these bills do is that generally they're the impetus or the structural creation of children's

environmental health and protection advisory councils or sections of government that actually are committed and resourced to deal with children's environmental health impacts.

I was looking through that information and was very interested to find the things that we know for sure: Children are closer to the ground. They're very tactile. They're touching and putting things in their

mouths all the time, especially in their young years, those very years when their organs and brains are forming. This is when the exposure is great. This is when children are breathing three times as much as adults. They're drinking three to four

times as much liquid as adults are. They're eating two to three times more, based on their body weight, than adults do, so their exposure is significantly higher. It should be no surprise, then, that we find high levels of chemicals and toxins in

children. We have to stop that. Give consumers the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to expose their children.

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): I'll be speaking today on Bill 164, the Community Right to Know Act (Disclosure of Toxins and Pollutants). This bill proposes amendments to three

different acts and three different ministries. I would like to focus on the consumer protection provisions with the time I have today.

Under the amendments proposed, suppliers would be prohibited from providing a consumer with goods or services that expose the consumer to toxic chemicals. The supplier must warn the consumer of the potential

exposure, and that warning would usually be in the form of a label. I understand that the member from Toronto-Danforth is proposing this provincial piece of legislation due to frustration and slow progress federally. Believe me, we share that

frustration on a number of fronts on this side. But the amendments presented in Bill 164 are not appropriate and will present a patchwork of standards. Legislation of this nature is more appropriate to the federal government's programs, given

their current role in both product labelling in general and for health or hazard concerns.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2002, does not currently apply any requirements to product labelling, nor does the Ministry of Government Services administer any such requirements. Health-related labelling or

disclosure has not traditionally been addressed under consumer law. In addition, even when not specialized, product labelling is dealt with primarily at the federal level. There are several federal laws that address product labels, such as the

Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act and the Food and Drugs Act.

There is a very limited provincial involvement in the field of labelling except in, for example, upholstery and stuffed articles. The federal Hazardous Products Act does not require disclosure on some chemical

products and establishes the use of some commonly recognized hazard symbols; for example, symbols such as the skull and crossbones for "toxic."

I would also like to discuss some of the operational components of administering Bill 164. It's been said that the costs would be negligible because the government already has labelling legislation and

bureaucracy to enforce the act. This statement is not correct in reference to the Ministry of Government Services and with respect to either the legislation currently administered or existing programs.

If the bill proceeds, it would be required to seek legal advice with respect to the authority of the province to regulate in this field and to enact these specific requirements, given the existing federal

legislation.

I like the general thrust of the bill but I do have certain reservations towards it.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Tabuns, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Tabuns: I'd like to thank the members from Thornhill, Parkdale-High Park, Peterborough, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Hamilton East and Brampton West-Mississauga for taking

part in this

debate.

I have to say that I don't have a lot of confidence in the federal government, moving forward, but no one should be surprised. What's interesting to me is that the government, which has consistently expressed

lack of confidence, is saying, "Leave it to the government at the federal level to act." I don't find that a consistent position.

I appreciate the comments of the member for Brampton West that in fact we could get into debate in committee. We could go through this bill, improve it, find out where there are weaknesses, deal with those and

build on its strengths.

I have to say, in response to the comments of the member from Peterborough, that it's interesting, when I introduced the tobacco legislation in the city of Toronto in the 1990s, that I heard essentially the

same arguments at that time. I find it odd to have these recycled arguments continue to come back when people try to take action on cancer.

I want to thank a number of groups for the heavy lifting, the work that they did, to actually do the research and analysis and provide me with a basis for bringing forward this legislation: the Canadian

Environmental Law Association, the Toronto Environmental Alliance, the Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition, Environmental Defence, and the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control. Those organizations are devoted to protecting us from cancer. I think

their advice and their analyses were sound. I was pleased to present a bill in this Legislature that carries forward the arguments that they've made.

I'd like to thank Ruth Grier and Lina Cino for being here -- those who have fought very hard to prevent cancer. I also want to thank Fiona Nelson, who is not able to be here but whose words were very simple:

"Get on with it."

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will first deal with ballot item number 63.

Mr. Arnott has moved private member's notice of motion number 6. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT

(DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

AND POLLUTANTS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE DROIT DU PUBLIC

D'ÊTRE INFORMÉ (DIVULGATION DES

TOXINES ET DES POLLUANTS)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 64, standing in the name of Mr. Tabuns.

Mr. Tabuns has moved second reading of Bill 164.

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

Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Tabuns --

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): I would like it moved forward to the committee on regulations and private bills.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Tabuns would like the bill referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills. Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1201 to 1330.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wish to clarify remarks I made yesterday in response to a

question from the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka. I made comments around the events of the native occupation in September 1995. As we all know, there is currently a public inquiry underway into the circumstances surrounding those events. I join

all members in this House in respecting the role of the inquiry and awaiting its findings. I regret if my comments were interpreted otherwise.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise on behalf of John Tory and the PC caucus to once again make note of the ongoing promise-breaking and avoidance of responsibility by the

McGuinty Liberals. Yesterday, a sewage report card was released by Sierra Legal which indicated that billions and billions of litres of raw sewage are being poured into our Great Lakes. Those are disgraceful numbers, but what's even worse is that

the Minister of the Environment has had in her hands for over 15 months her own government-commissioned Watertight report. That report outlines the aging infrastructure deficits for water and waste water that are in desperate need of repair. The

Minister of the Environment hasn't once had the courage to step forward, and refuses to address the aging water and waste water infrastructure in Ontario. Yesterday, in the House, the minister indicated the location of her riding by saying, "I

look at that lake every single day." The minister thinks it's okay to simply look at the lake while at the same time allowing billions of litres of raw sewage to be poured into it.

The member from Perth-Middlesex had made a point of commenting on other members who have missed votes. So let's address that. I think it's particularly important to note that this member from Perth-Middlesex

did not bother to show up for the vote on the resolution on November 16 regarding the Green Lane landfill site purchased by the city of Toronto. This is --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member knows full well that you don't refer to the absence of other members. So please refrain from it.

Ms. Scott: I was responding to a similar point that the member from Perth-Middlesex had made earlier in the week.

But let's go back to the member from Perth-Middlesex, with the now-famous broken promise for waste diversion: "We have an amazing plan." I think it's time for the Liberals to stop being paper environmentalists

and saying anything to get elected.

HOLLY MICUDA

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I rise today to recognize a very important person. Her name is Holly Micuda. She's an 11-year-old Oakville elementary school student. I'm rising to recognize

her for her outstanding contributions in support of Canadian amateur athletes. I recently had the privilege of visiting Holly's school with Adam van Koeverden, two-time Olympic gold medalist from the 2004 Olympic games in Athens, who, I might also

add, is from my riding of Oakville. It's my great pleasure today to welcome Holly to the Legislature along with her father, Tony. Please join me in welcoming them; they're in the members' gallery.

This remarkable young girl has taken action and set the ambitious goal of selling 500,000 Canadian Athletes Now bracelets in support of our athletes. Holly has already sold 18,000 bracelets, with all proceeds

going to Canadian Athletes Now. She is a great role model for us all and especially our youth. In support of Holly, I've purchased a bracelet for each member of this Legislature; many of you will have them. I would invite members to proudly wear

them and promote this great initiative in their own ridings. Donations can be made to, and additional information is available on, the Canadian Athletes Now website at www.Canadianathletesnow.ca.

MINIMUM WAGE

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): I rise in the House today for the 1.2 million Ontarians who earn under $10 an hour and the approximately 200,000 who earn minimum wage, two thirds of

them women. Many of those women have children, children who often need to use food banks. There are 13,500 children who use food banks in the GTA alone. We know that a third of those children have parents who work.

In 1989, all parties agreed in the House of Commons to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000, and yet one in six of our children are currently impoverished. We know one of the best weapons against poverty

is a living wage. Ten dollars an hour is the poverty line. Anything less than that is unacceptable in a jurisdiction as wealthy as Ontario.

We in the New Democratic Party are not calling for a raise in the minimum wage so much as asking for back wages owed to our poorest citizens. In 1972, the minimum wage was $2 an hour. Using the Bank of Canada

inflation calculator, that would be just under $10 an hour today. I ask that my bill for a living wage be brought back for third reading and passed as soon as possible.

In this season when we are called to be generous and gift our children, let us call upon this government to be generous and gift its children.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): The energy sector in this province has a problem. From one day to the next, they can't figure out where this Liberal government stands on

energy in the province of Ontario.

Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals promised they would shut down all coal-fired generation by 2007, come hell or high water, and they promised that they would replace it with one of the key components of that

replacement power, being wind. So what did they do? They lured investors into Ontario with promises of lots of wind development going to be going on in Ontario, which would obviously be advantageous to them from a financial point of view.

What do we find out now? A few weeks ago, they told those people, "If you're planning to build wind, the opportunity to build wind is over. If you're planning to connect between Tobermory and Lake Huron down

to Longwood and Lake Erie, we're reserving those lines because they're full for other forms of generation." Now we find out that they've put a moratorium on wind development on water. So many wind projects are now either delayed or outright dead.

How can they be taken seriously when their policy changes like the wind?

With regard to coal-fired plants, with the incoherent policy they have we don't know when they'll stop operating, but we do know that as long as they do, they will burn much dirtier than they would have under

the Progressive Conservative government. Shame.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): I rise today to speak about the McGuinty government's efforts to ensure that Ontario can succeed in the new economy.

In the three years we've been in office, we've leveraged over $7 billion in new auto investment, which is creating 7,000 new jobs; introduced a $500-million advanced manufacturing investment strategy to help

manufacturers develop cutting-edge technologies; and made a record $6.2-billion investment in post-secondary education. We have also invested in research and researchers at our universities, and we're helping Ontarians bring new technologies to

market. The Premier has led a trade mission to China and will lead another one to India and Pakistan in the new year, because we understand that developing business opportunities with the fastest-growing economies in the world can only be good for

business.

While we're doing all this, Peter Kormos and the NDP showed us last week that they're still stuck in the past. While we work to build on relationships that are worth over $1.2 billion in two-way trade each

year, they speak disparagingly of "junkets." It just goes to show that Mr. Kormos and his friends didn't learn any lessons from their time in office. They made all the wrong decisions then, and they can't support the right choices now. While we on

this side of the House are working hard to make sure that Ontario can thrive in the new economy, the NDP is stuck in their tired and failed policies of the past.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): If there was any doubt left that the government made the wrong decision to shut down public hearings on Bill 107 and stifle hundreds of groups from

presenting their views, it vanished yesterday as the Liberal members on the committee were so disorganized that they feel asleep at the switch and mistakenly deleted a

section of their own bill.

This mismanagement and lack of integrity that the government has shown with respect to Bill 107 has been nothing short of extraordinary. The Attorney General claimed that he was prepared to debate this bill

"for however long it takes," and then he not only cut off public hearings, he introduced 60 amendments and had them discussed in just one day of clause-by-clause consideration, about half of which were passed without debate due to the guillotine

time-allocation motion.

The Premier stood up in this House on Monday and claimed that his government had listened to groups like AODA and the African Canadian Legal Clinic. Those two groups have repeatedly expressed their dismay at

the Attorney General's refusal to consult. In fact, we have a letter from the executive director of the ACLC, Margaret Parsons, stating, "The African Canadian Legal Clinic has not been consulted at any time by the Attorney General."

In the words of Keith Norton, the former chair of the Human Rights Commission, this is quasi-constitutional legislation, yet this government is so arrogant that it has no problem cutting off debate and

muzzling people. The irony that the government deleted one

section of the bill indicates their mismanagement from the start. They couldn't organize a one-car funeral.

WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Violence against women is one of the most serious human rights violations on this planet, and the White Ribbon Campaign is the largest effort in the world by men

working to end men's violence against women. The campaign was started by men in Canada in 1991, on the second anniversary of the December 6 Montreal massacre, and has now spread to over 50 countries around the world. Each year, between November

25, the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and December 6 we wear the white ribbon as a symbol of our commitment to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women.

We have all heard about the horror stories of the violence perpetrated by men against women and we are all sickened by them. I have spoken before in this House about the need for all of to us stop violence

against women. I have spoken before in this House about the need to educate men, young men and boys that violence against women in any form is absolutely wrong.

The organizers of the white ribbon campaign say this: "While most men may never condone or use violence against women, we believe that all men have a responsibility in ending it." I agree with them and I know

all men in this place do too.

I've also had the opportunity and pleasure of joining the mayor's task force in Brantford in our drive to eliminate violence against women. I encourage us all to sign a campaign commitment that I will be

circulating in the House in the near future.

EDUCATION

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): In the month of October, I took the opportunity to visit two of the many schools in the riding of Huron-Bruce. This is an annual tradition that I started

upon taking office. I must say that every year that the McGuinty government has been in control of the education system, the improvements are so visible, not only to the people coming in but to the students, teachers and parents. Everyone is so

grateful.

This year, I visited with students in Mount Carmel and Lucknow and had the opportunity to see at first hand how the education system is serving those we cater to: the students. Thanks to a $545-million

investment in smaller class sizes, once again they are shrinking, as promised. Since taking office, our government has also funded a total of 3,600 new teachers in the province to help further reduce class sizes. We are on track to implementing a

cap of 20 students per classroom in the primary grades.

In addition to adhering to our promise to reduce class sizes, we have also begun to improve overall education standards. In 2004-05, 62% of elementary students were meeting the standards in reading, writing

and math. This is up from only 54% of elementary students.

I could go on and on about all the ways the McGuinty government is improving education from what it was, the tattered system with the previous government.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise today to highlight