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

February 16, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Feb-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 16 February 2006 Jeudi 16 février 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE JOUR DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

VISUAL FIRE ALARM

SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES SYSTÈMES

D'ALARME-INCENDIE

À AFFICHAGE VISUEL

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE JOUR DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

VISUAL FIRE ALARM

SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES SYSTÈMES

D'ALARME-INCENDIE

À AFFICHAGE VISUEL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOCKEY

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

WASTE DISPOSAL

AGNES CAMPBELL MACPHAIL

OMERS PENSION FUND

ONTARIO ECONOMY

OMERS PENSION FUND

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOLDEN DREAMS HOME

AND DECOR LTD. ACT, 2006

TRILLIUM GIFT OF LIFE NETWORK AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE RÉSEAU TRILLIUM POUR LE DON DE VIE

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

NOWRUZ DAY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE JOUR NOWRUZ

SENATORS SELECTION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE CHOIX DES SÉNATEURS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

KYOTO PROTOCOL /

LE PROTOCOLE DE KYOTO

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

OMERS PENSION FUND

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

VISITORS

OMERS PENSION FUND

GREENBELT FOUNDATION

FOREST INDUSTRY

PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL

HEALTH CENTRE

TRANSPORTATION

ABORIGINAL HEALTH CARE

PETITIONS

BROCKVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL

MACULAR DEGENERATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO SPCA

JUSTICE SYSTEM

DIABETES TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

LONG-TERM CARE

GAMMA FOUNDRIES

CANCER TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CURRICULUM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

(CONTINUED)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE JOUR DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

Mrs. Mitchell moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 49,

An Act to celebrate and recognize rural Ontario / Projet de loi 49, Loi visant à célébrer et à reconnaître l'Ontario

rural.

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, as you know, I represent the most rural riding in Ontario, so I know first-hand what it's like

to live, work and raise a family in a rural area. I'm very proud of our rural communities. Rural Ontario is the key to the health and the vitality of our province. This bill will recognize rural

Ontario's strengths: hard-working people, numerous economic opportunities, bountiful and breathtaking natural resources and a solid sense of community.

This bill declares the Wednesday before Thanksgiving day in each year as Rural Ontario Day. This day falls in the middle of Ontario Agriculture Week. This week

was established in 1998, and it provides recognition of the contribution of Ontario's agricultural community. Ontario Agriculture Week was established as a private member's bill, and it was put

forward by former member Bert Johnson. That member was from Perth-Middlesex. I want to thank Bert for introducing his bill. I believe this is an appropriate time to declare Rural Ontario Day and

also to highlight Ontario Agriculture Week.

The purpose of this bill is to have a day when we will reflect on the contribution that rural Ontario has made to our province and to highlight its great

potential. The people of the First Nations opened the vast forests of Ontario. They were the pioneers who began to unveil the riches of this land. Their trio of crops -- corn, beans and squash --

were the first steps away from depending on hunting and fishing. Their technology had its limitations, and it was not until the Europeans began to settle that the rural areas really started to open

up. There were French settlers along the St. Clair River, and then the influx of the Loyalists. The history of Upper Canada is the history of rural Ontario. Our communities became strong as we

faced and overcame the obstacles which geography had created.

Group action and innovation are the hallmarks, and working together for the common good is a thread that runs strong through rural Ontario. Rapid advances in

technology made the land more productive and made transportation more economical. In the 19th century, towns and villages sprouted across the land. Progress was the word. Business followed the

settlers, and manufacturers emerged to meet the local demands.

Schools and churches were built at almost every concession crossroad. If you look at the dates on the buildings in our towns and villages, you will note the date

of construction. The early 20th century was the time when rural confidence manifested itself in very impressive local structures. Main Streets in many smaller towns have architectural gems from

this time. The buildings showed a sense of achievement and confidence in the future. The period ended with the solemn cenotaphs that mark the contribution that our rural youth gave to the Great

War.

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

from a province where most of the population lived in rural areas, to the present, where the people live in our cities.

In the 20th century, the population began to shift. Again, technology was a major factor in making the urban areas important economically. Since the beginning,

there has always been a gulf between our urban and rural areas. But technology changed that. Just as the first railway and the highways brought produce and people to the city, now technology has

reversed that flow. As the world becomes global, first radio, television, electricity and now the Internet have reduced distances and the differences between rural and urban.

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

turned to ourselves to create solutions. We invest in our own innovation. Credit unions, mutual insurance companies, independent phone companies, co-operatives -- that's rural Ontario.

I want to highlight our unique health care services. As you know, people in rural areas have to travel a great distance to get to hospitals or health care

providers. This is a circumstance that our people have overcome. Many community groups have gathered together to offer modern services much more efficiently.

Many of our rural schools also face very unique challenges: With low enrolment, the threat of school closures hangs over. As well, busing expenses are high

because of the large geographical area that they have to cover. But I must say that in rural schools, the families and the teachers work together to form a very strong community.

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

produce, provincial parks and farmland. Many people from urban centres travel to rural areas to view our beautiful landscape. Rural Ontario has so much to offer: hiking trails, sunny beaches,

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

of our rural life. It is the bond with the land that makes rural life different. Even if one does not earn one's living directly from the land, its importance is always felt as being our largest

economic driver, which brings me to the summer months. Many exciting things happen in rural Ontario during the warm-weather months -- and our warm hospitality during the winter months: live

theatre, fairs, festivals and concerts, to name a few. Many people take advantage of all the events that we have to offer, and I know they always leave with a smile on their face.

I would really like to recognize and highlight the strong sense of community that small towns and rural communities thrive on, as well as the wonderful

volunteers who are committed to maintaining the high quality of life that we all enjoy.

There are many organizations that have been formed mainly to strengthen the voice of rural Ontario, and one of those voices is the Ontario Federation of

Agriculture. I want to read into the record the letter of support from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture:

"Dear Ms. Mitchell:

"The Ontario Federation of Agriculture wishes to thank you for the development of your private member's bill, Rural Ontario Day Act, 2005.... OFA supports the

recognition of Ontario's rural communities and the farmers who have built and supported these communities since the first settlements in Upper Canada.

"OFA certainly agrees that rural Ontario has contributed largely to the success and prosperity of Ontario. We also agree that it is Ontario farmers who have and

continue to contribute to the fabric of rural Ontario.

"Our farmers need to see a future for themselves, and their families in agriculture if they are to be expected to remain as part of the fabric of rural Ontario.

Our rural communities are growing increasingly anxious about their long-term futures -- if the farmers can't survive, they know their chances are slim. Statistics show that in 2003, farmers spent

$5 billion on fuel, fertilizer, veterinary services and electricity and telecommunications services. All of these services support rural Ontario businesses and citizens.

"The survival of these service providers, implement dealers, co-operatives and other small businesses ... depends on farmers paying their bills.

"The untenable situation of negative income on Ontario's farms can be resolved with comprehensive short-term, urgently needed assistance and long-term programs

as proposed by producers from both levels of government to provide the stability ... for farmers and rural Ontario.

"Other nations have decided that farming and rural communities are worth protecting. Bold and decisive leadership by the Ontario and Canadian governments is

required to maintain a rural Ontario worth celebrating each and every year."

Rural Ontario is home to committed people, diverse economic opportunities, plenty of natural resources and a thriving sense of community. Rural communities

contribute to add to the high quality of life for all Ontarians. Through my private member's bill, I would like to declare the Wednesday immediately before Thanksgiving day in each year as Rural

Ontario Day. I would like to thank the speakers who will be coming forward, and I look forward to further debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Thank you, Speaker. I'll address Bill 49,

An Act to celebrate and recognize rural Ontario. I guess

the first question that comes to mind is, how does one celebrate and recognize rural Ontario, on one hand, and completely ignore the crises faced by farmers? I think we all recognize that farmers

are the backbone of our rural way of life.

Over the last year, we have seen our farmers pushed to the edge of bankruptcy. Regrettably, a number of them have gone under. Farmers are on their knees. They

need leadership, they need inspiration at a time like this, and the question remains: Where is that leadership? Where is that inspiration? Who do they turn to when the minister, who should be

representing them, won't stand up for them herself? So this legislation does leave me with some questions. My question is this, what the Liberal government is offering today: yet another

agriculture day, another day on top of Food Freedom Day, on top of the proposed Farmers Feed Cities day -- I think that's slated for the same day -- and on top of the already declared Ontario

Agriculture Week. Nearly all of our sectors are either in crisis or about to be in crisis, whether it's cash crops, beef, tobacco, horticultural crops, cull cows, export, dairy heifers, deer and

elk. Even beekeepers: Their costs are obviously more than what they're getting.

I can tell you that the signs I see at the various farm rallies -- the most recent one was just this past Tuesday in Guelph -- are not calling for yet another

designated agriculture Day. I'm seeing signs like "Equity with US Farmers," for example. Having attended so many of these anti-government farm rallies -- I'm aware of at least seven major rallies

in the last 12 months -- I've yet to see a farmer holding up a sign calling for a designated day. I see signs, one in Guelph this week, like "Our governments are only good at three things: study,

stall, and study."

Another motherhood piece of legislation. Now, this may look good on the 6 o'clock news tonight, but it does very little for farmers in their present time of

crisis. They need help and they need assistance right now. As ag critic for the official opposition, I have had the opportunity to question the agriculture minister regularly on this need for

action. Again, it's not only cash crops, but beef, tobacco, horticultural crops. For example, during the estimates committee last fall, I asked to what extent ministry staff are assisting farmers.

Corn producers have some very good numbers people, but they need help from the Ontario government and from ministerial staff to assist them to work through and to come up with a viable risk

management program that will get them through, at minimum, the next crop year.

The response from the minister was -- and the admission was there -- that CAIS, the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, has not worked well for

grain and oilseeds. That was five months ago. If CAIS is not working well, according to the minister, why is something not being done to fix it?

What do we get? Today is a good example: We get announcements. The minister did show up on Tuesday at the rally and brought greetings; nothing specific. We get a

call for a designated agricultural day, but no real action to attempt to address the very real, very unfortunate choices that our farmers are being forced to make.

This government is now sitting under a deadline. It's an ultimatum. It actually came from a Huron county farmer on CKNX Wingham radio, a call for a March 9

deadline for this government to come forward with a risk management proposal. Here we are debating agriculture day; I'm not sure what kind of message that would send to our farmers.

I have an idea: How about members opposite, as government, finally beginning to recognize the problems? Then, let's celebrate what's left of rural Ontario by

supporting farmers. They are being run out of business, and there is a concern that this government either doesn't understand or does not have the wherewithal to even deal with so many of these

untenable financial situations that we see out there.

I made mention of that sign at the Guelph rally, "Equity with US Farmers." This was painted on both sides of a gigantic tanker truck that had been converted to

haul corn. Why would a farmer paint a sign like that on both sides of his truck? In the United States --

Mrs. Mitchell: He did it while you were in government, Toby.

Mr. Barrett: I know the member opposite doesn't like to hear this. US farmers are receiving $123 an acre in support for their corn. I suspect

farmers in Huron county are getting maybe something in the order of $7 an acre. How do those Huron county farmers, how do my Brant county, Norfolk county and Haldimand county farmers, my farmers on

Six Nations compete on the Chicago market? Maybe we need an Equity With US Farmers Day. We've essentially set up a situation -- I compare it to sending David against Goliath, but in this case David

doesn't even have a slingshot. Maybe declaring a rural day will help the bottom line for farmers; I'm not sure. I guess we put that into the "long run" category.

I will wrap up. We have a number of speakers in the opposition who do wish to address this. But I remain concerned that the Ontario minister continues to fail to

provide any details with respect to either a long-term plan or a short-term plan. I agree that this Legislature should do everything it can to celebrate rural Ontario and recognize rural Ontario,

but I think it should start by recognizing the fact that if it doesn't act to support the people of rural Ontario -- we're talking real action here rather than words -- there won't be a rural

Ontario to support at all.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm really pleased to debate this bill. Interestingly enough, people would think that because I come from

Hamilton East, a bill dealing with the celebration of rural Ontario would not have much to do with me. But I have to tell you that that's not true. In fact, it's something that not only was part of

my growing up, but also, when I was active on council in my local community, I learned a great deal about the value of the contributions of our rural communities to our city.

Hamilton is an interesting place. Although we are considered to be a city, per se, the vast majority of the land of the city of Hamilton is in fact rural. We

have communities in Winona, Stoney Creek, Ancaster, Flamborough and Glanbrook that are all rural and that in many cases still maintain significant rural lifestyles and contribute significantly to

the rural culture, if I could call it that.

Notwithstanding my desire to echo a lot of concerns and comments raised by the previous speaker -- because frankly I did have some opportunity not only the other

day but last year as well to hear from farmers, to hear particularly the other night from grain and oilseed producers about the concerns they have with the government's lack of activity around

making sure they're going to be able to maintain their farms, that they're going to be able to continue to feed cities. In fact, I was quite interested to learn that at this point in time they're

considering it to be pretty much a crisis. Of course, right now people are trying to determine what they're going to be doing in terms of planting their crops, which is just several weeks down the

road in terms of the calendar. So they're very concerned about their ability to make a go of it in this farming season. When I say that they're telling me it's a crisis, I'm not saying that with

any hyperbole at all, but simply reflecting their deep concern that the government has not yet made a commitment to stable, long-term solutions to the farming crisis. Again, I understand that there

have been attempts both federally and provincially, apparently, at one-time emergency types of funding. But as you can well imagine, these farms are businesses and they need to have an

understanding of not just their short-term but medium- and long-term investments and requirements for labour and for seed and for all of those equipment investments that need to be undertaken in a

way that is planned and organized, and not off the cuff in response to perhaps some hope that there will be stabilized systems in place for them to rely on as they continue to feed our cities, or

continue to desire to feed our cities.

One last point on that: The other thing that's disconcerting or concerning is the tendency towards, because of this destabilization, because of this lack of

commitment, because of this sense that governments are not hearing the concerns they're raising, there are almost no -- I shouldn't say "almost no." What I was told by people I was speaking to is

that there is a significant concern about the lack of willingness and desire for the family farm to be handed down to younger people. What you see is that the average age of farmers is now in their

50s and those farmers' children are not willing to take on the risk of running the family farm. We're quickly going to be losing the very agricultural rural heritage that we're looking to celebrate

in this bill if we don't do something really significant to assure not only today's farmers but their children that the farm is a good future to invest in, that it is a good place to raise a family

and undertake a business that will feed people across Ontario, and in fact across the nation.

Having put those concerns on the record, I wanted to talk a little bit about what a great experience it was for me growing up in the community of Stoney Creek,

which, when I was growing up, was a lot more rural than it is now. Unfortunately, a lot of urban sprawl has taken place and there has been a great deal of development in sensitive farmland areas.

The Stoney Creek I grew up in doesn't look very much like it did when I grew up there. But I did have the opportunity not only to visit farms but to have friends whose families were farmers and who

had horses and barns and all kinds of animals and crops. It was quite a wonderful experience. Interestingly enough, I was speaking to one of my colleagues, the member for -- where is Michael Prue

from? Somebody help me.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): Beaches-East York.

Ms. Horwath: Beaches-East York.

Interjection: He's your seatmate.

Ms. Horwath: He's only my seatmate. I know; isn't that funny? I'm thinking about rural things, not city things. Anyway, Michael and I were

talking about some of the farming issues that had been raised with us around the grain and oilseed producers. He indicated to me, believe it or not, that he has never, ever in his life been on a

farm. My understanding is that he's going to undertake that experience at some time this summer. But I found it interesting. One of the things I've learned as I've become more aware of the

differences between, for example, where I grew up and where many other people experienced their lives in the province of Ontario is that oftentimes people don't have the experience of farming, of

understanding what that lifestyle is all about and how different, unique and wonderful it can be compared to living and growing up in the cities. There have been efforts made, I know, in many

cities to provide opportunities, for example, for children to visit farms so they don't end up like the member from Beaches-East York and be of that age -- I don't know how old Michael is exactly

-- never having had the opportunity to experience a farm.

That was a great pleasure for me. In fact, there were members of my extended familiarly who operated farms, and every summer we would have a family gathering at

this particular farm. Again, to the issue of what's happened to those farms, I know there's no longer farming happening in my family, extended or otherwise. I think it's indicative of the way of

the future if we don't deal with how to support farmers and their efforts and their ability to compete.

The great thing about agricultural and rural communities, in terms of celebration and recognition, is that oftentimes they provide their own opportunity for

local communities to come and celebrate with them. I think about things like the fairs we have -- in Hamilton, being surrounded by so many of these great communities, we have everything from the

Winona Peach Festival on one end -- that I always went to every year as a child and into my teens because it was the thing to do. Peaches were being grown more or less just down Highway 8. We'd

pack up the car and the family would go. The big talk for a couple of days would be who had the best peach sundae and did we buy peach jam or peach pies? All kinds of issues that we talked about

during those weeks surrounding the peach festival were part of life for us. It was a great part of life. Something that we anticipated every year was, are we going to the peach festival? What day

are we going? Who all is going? Can we go more than once? We used to drive our parents crazy just wanting to make sure that we got our chance to go to the peach festival, because it was such a

great time and such a very close community event.

There were all kinds of things going on there. It wasn't just the food -- for me, it was just the food -- but there was entertainment, there were all kinds of

different events, there were community groups and organizations that people could connect with, there were games. It was just an amazing time.

But that was just on the one end, on the Winona side. Of course, on the other side of the city or above the city, we had the Ancaster Fair and the Binbrook Fair.

We had all of these opportunities, living in a city where any one of those would take maybe 20 minutes maximum to get to. From being right down in the city, you could get to any one of these

agricultural celebrations or fairs within 20 minutes -- some quicker, obviously, and some took a little longer, depending on where you lived in the city.

I have to say that I think that's something that's quite unique. I think there are many people in Ontario who have not had the opportunity not only to attend

these fairs but to have them as part of their lives. I'm certainly going to be supporting this bill because I think the celebration and recognition of rural Ontario is something that is extremely

important and something we should all value. I only wish there was a way to ensure that every single person in Ontario, and particularly every single young person, would have an opportunity to see

the unique nature of the agricultural community, of the rural community of rural Ontario.

Some people will have that experience the way I had it. Other people, as the member bringing forward the bill indicated, will experience rural Ontario through

perhaps a summer vacation or trips to cottage country. Again, I certainly feel very privileged that, not only as a young person when I was growing up -- my dad was an auto worker, so we had the

ability, once in a while, to go up north as a family and do some camping and fishing. I can still remember the day I caught my first fish. I don't think I've caught many fish since then, because

it's certainly not a skill that I've been able to hone over the years. But I have those memories and they're very valuable to me.

A lot of the times when I think about my family experiences, they were often within that context. There was the one when our two-lane dirt road in Stoney Creek

became a four-lane highway, almost to the QEW. But many of my memories as a young person are around family experiences in rural Ontario, whether those family experiences were the camping or fishing

trips, whether they were my dad taking us to the fairs here in Toronto, to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair -- I can't remember the exact terminology -- or whether it was the times when I went to

the Winona Peach Festival or the Ancaster Fair or the Binbrook Fair. I've tried to take my son to some of those events. We've been to the Winona Peach Festival. He's 13 now. I don't know if I'll

get him there this year, but certainly he's been there a couple of times in his life -- the Ancaster Fair, the Binbrook Fair.

In celebrating that, we have to also acknowledge that there are threats to that way of life; there are threats to that piece of our lifestyle and our experience.

They're under threat not only because of the issues we were talking about a little earlier in terms of stable funding and programs to assist farmers in the fluctuation of world market prices for

their product, but also in terms of the broader threats to the environmental wellbeing of our communities. I think there are some things that have been done in that vein, but I get concerned that

there are also many looming threats around what may happen to our agricultural areas.

I can remember being at a reception not too long ago where the Ladies of the Lake were talking about the threats to some of our Ontario watershed -- I believe it

was Lake Simcoe, if I'm not mistaken -- and concerns about the encroachment of development in those areas, not only traditional development in terms of the expansion of cities, but also

encroachment by cottagers on some of these areas.

Again, I think if we are going to be celebrating and recognizing rural Ontario and agricultural communities through Bill 49, we also have to redouble our efforts

and recommit to not only the planning principles and the environmental principles that will safeguard those communities for generations in the future, so that we can celebrate them and feel

positive about them far into the future, but also making sure that the ability for people to maintain those farms and to continue to have strong agricultural production in our province is

paraamount. The government really needs to look at how we can put some stable programs in place for the long term for these small businesses.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I just want to start off by commending my colleague the member from Huron-Bruce. I want to tell all the

people in this House that there is no member who has more of rural Ontario in her riding than Carol Mitchell. I come from the riding of Perth-Middlesex, which I am proud to say is the most

productive agricultural riding in the entire country. If you want to talk about rural Ontario, in my riding I actually have the beautiful city of Stratford, with some 30,000 people, but each and

every community in Carol's riding is rural. That's why I'm so happy to support my colleague as she promotes Rural Ontario Day as part of Ontario Agriculture Week.

I want to say that my predecessor, Bert Johnson, who at the time was the member for Perth county, is the one who introduced Ontario Agriculture Week. I thought

it was very forward-thinking of him. I know it enjoyed the support of the entire Legislature. I think Bert has always been committed. I refer to him in the riding as the father of Ontario

Agriculture Week, but I think we're going to have the new mother of Rural Ontario Day in this province, because I get a sense from everyone here that we are going to pass this bill and move it

forward, and I commend it.

To come from my riding -- I know that the member from Hamilton East was talking about her colleague, her seatmate, the member for Beaches-East York. We were on a

bus together, we were on pre-budget hearings, and we drove through my riding, from the Middlesex part to Stratford. I don't think Michael had ever been in rural Ontario, and I invited him to come.

That long trip was only halfway through our riding. We have large ridings. We have land; we have space. But despite the land and the space, we have community, and that is the essence of rural life,

the fact that our community comes together as family, connected to the land. What we know and what we want to share and always promote with all of our colleagues in suburban and urban Ontario is

that everything comes from the land and everything goes back to the land. If you live in a concrete world, you lose that. It's up to us as rural members, despite the fact that we are a minority in

this House reflecting Ontario's population -- it's important that we do that.

I want to commend the member. We were on the standing committee on finance and economics affairs together and we had three eminent economists come before us. One

of the economists was Roger Martin, the head of the Rotman school of business, and he was talking about something he refers to as the prosperity gap. The member for Huron-Bruce, the most rural of

ridings, asked him to comment about rural Ontario, because there's this myth that somehow rural Ontario is not prosperous and does not contribute. He said no, his research shows how strong the

rural economy is, how prosperous, how it has advanced because of technology. It isn't some backwater; it makes a huge and important contribution. Agriculture and agrifood are the second-largest

industry in this province, something that we can never forget.

I think Rural Ontario Day will go a long way in reminding all of us in this House and right across this province what a tremendous resource we have in our roots.

That's why I'm supporting the member.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I too am pleased to have the opportunity once again to speak about rural Ontario and agriculture

in the Legislature this week. My colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant and I have been speaking this week because there have been a lot of protests this week trying to get recognition by the

government here that we need action to be done. When the member from Huron-Bruce brings in

An Act to celebrate and recognize rural Ontario, we are certainly supportive and pleased at the

opportunity, but hoping that this is going to lead to actual action on this government's part to help our farmers.

Joe Hickson, who's from my riding, helped organize the Unified Voice for Agriculture/Farmers Feed Cities rally in Guelph, and some of my constituents, Bruce

Webster and Dale Mountjoy and many others, were here at Queen's Park and delivered the postcards of the Unified Voice/Farmers Feed Cities to try again to impress upon this government that the need

for action is now.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Joe is a great guy.

Ms. Scott: Joe is a good guy. Thank you. The member for Peterborough is commenting.

March 9 is the deadline they're giving to us. They're going to Ottawa on February 21. They need both levels of government's attention and they need the action

now. They have given the date of March 9, and I'm hoping they're going to be able to get action from both governments on that, because it is planting season. As we know, this has been -- I think my

colleague mentioned seven protests. Ever since I've been here, the farmers have had to come to Queen's Park or go to Ottawa to demand action. We need to listen to them.

This day, as I said, is nice. We all want to praise rural Ontario and respect its roots, as was mentioned before by the member from Huron-Bruce. But there's a

list: The farmers have gotten together and worked hard, and the Unified Voice for Agriculture has given a list that they developed themselves in the agriculture sectors. It's a commitment they

need:

"A commitment to viable risk management and income support programs;

"Implementation of the risk management program for grains and oilseeds, with an interim payment to flow as soon as possible;

"An immediate down payment on other long-term programs to provide assistance for the millions of dollars lost by horticultural and livestock producers;

"Extension of horticulture's self-directed risk management program until the newly designated SDPI program can be operational;

"Adoption of inventory valuation changes to CAIS retroactive to 2003-2004;

"Provision of loan guarantees of up to $100,000 per farm for dairy heifer producers to avoid financial collapse;

Recognition of and provision for the deer and elk industry's new partnership with Ontario, including the cervid transition, genetics and market research and

development programs;

Provision of the promised $6 million towards a cull cow program."

I had to read that list. I wanted to get it in because they have worked together and have come up with a solution. They're going to both levels of government.

We have the opportunity here again today to promote what they need. They need a fully funded long-term risk management program and they need it now.

I come from a very rural riding, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. The city of Kawartha Lakes in my riding is the third-largest agriculture employer in the province.

Every day I'm out in the communities and I speak to the farmers. Some of them will be here this weekend for the 160th anniversary of the Ontario Agriculture Societies; they have their annual

convention at the Royal York. I wanted to put in a plug for that, that they even come to the city and they promote agriculture and tourism.

I know I have to share my time with the member from Simcoe North. We support this, and we want action by the governments, federal and provincial. I'm pleased

to have the opportunity again today to speak to the agriculture crisis.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I'm certainly glad to be able to speak in support of

An Act to celebrate and recognize rural

Ontario.

Rural Ontario is changing, just as everywhere else in the globe. We know that agriculture still remains the most important part of rural Ontario. We also know

that a lot of people are making the choice to move to rural Ontario. A lot of things are causing them to do that. They're looking at things like the idea of open spaces, less traffic; they want to

see the natural resources we have there, such as the lakes, the rivers and the forests. They also want things like access to recreational activities. They have the possibilities of trails and

snowmobiles, all those kinds of things. But I find that the thing that draws them the most to rural Ontario is the sense of community. There's a very strong sense of community in rural Ontario. So

it's clearly time that we start to celebrate rural Ontario with a day that is dedicated to recognizing the qualities and the people that make that happen. Our rural communities do contribute to the

high quality of life that all Ontario enjoys.

In 2005, shortly after being appointed as the parliamentary assistant for rural affairs, I had the opportunity to travel throughout Ontario as our government

developed its rural plan, and that plan is called Strong Rural Communities Working Together for Success. In that rural plan we came up with four themes -- strong people, strong economies, better

health, and success for students -- and we've enjoyed some successes in those endeavours.

In success for students, one of the things that happened when we first became the government -- most of us during the campaign heard from our rural

constituents about the issue of keeping rural schools open, so we came up with the keeping good schools open program, which is a $31-million program to do just that.

Just recently I had the opportunity to be with Minister Kennedy when he announced the Lighthouse program, and in the Lighthouse program we are putting

agriculture back into the curriculum. Along with that, we are also using the 4-H program. Those of us who come from rural areas are very familiar with the 4-H program, and I'm sure people in other

areas have also heard about it. I have to apologize to my leaders, because although I still keep my collection of silver spoons from my 4-H days, I certainly haven't polished them in a while. I

know some people who display them with great pride; they're polished and they are there in the numbers to indicate the number of clubs they had finished. And 4-H was a very important part of rural

education. It not only taught you about livestock -- it didn't teach you just about agriculture; it taught you life skills. We talk about having healthy food. We learned things such as how to

prepare that food so we could retain the health benefits in that food. We learned things such as budgeting, parenting issues, all those things that help you in day-to-day life as an adult. That was

through 4-H. It's been there for absolute decades, and I think we've all benefited from that.

Those are just some of the things that I think are very important in rural Ontario.

At this point, I'm going to leave this to my counterparts, who I'm sure want to speak on this, but I want to say that I certainly do support this bill. I think

it's very important to recognize rural Ontario with a day that's dedicated to just that.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased this morning to stand and support Bill 49,

An Act to celebrate and recognize rural

Ontario. I compliment the member for bringing it forward. As the member for Huron-Bruce said many times this morning, she has a very beautiful rural riding, and I'm pleased that she recognizes

that, as well as the fact that we could name a day after it.

I was pleased to hear the member for Perth-Middlesex mention that our former colleague Bert Johnson brought in Ontario Agriculture Week. I have to tell the

members, particularly of the government, that I'm very disappointed. When the Progressive Conservative Party was in government in Ontario we celebrated that week. We had breakfast here during rural

Ontario week. Since the Liberals have taken power, I have seen no recognition whatsoever of Ontario Agriculture Week. So if we do pass this bill, and I'm assuming we can pass it here today and go

to an agreement to see it become law, I hope the government will recognize that we have a Rural Ontario Day and an Ontario Agriculture Week, both brought forward by members of this Legislature,

both from rural ridings. I appreciate that.

As Ms. Scott mentioned earlier, agriculture plays a very important

part in our economy here in Ontario, and I think everyone here must recognize the very, very

difficult time that our producers are facing here in our province. Just as an example, I have a clipping here from FM 102 CKNX in Wingham: "Guelph Rally Not the End." I'll just read it into the

record:

"One of the organizers of today's Guelph rally says this won't be the last governments will hear about the farm income crisis. Another rally is set to take

place in Ottawa next Tuesday. One of the organizers, Huron county farmer Bev Hill, says they'll continue to lobby until the proposed risk management program is implemented. Hill says they are

giving the government a March 9 deadline, noting farmers don't have time for study and stall tactics.

"He says many will be going to the fields within the next few months and money is desperately needed to help get the crop into the ground."

That's a message I'm hearing continually wherever I go. I've been to a number of rural meetings, agricultural meetings. We have agriweek in Simcoe county every

year. It's the third week of January. I was at the Barrie Event Centre every day, and you know what? I was the only politician who arrived at the Barrie Event Centre for agriculture week. No one

from the government came up for agriculture week -- no one whatsoever: the parliamentary assistants or anybody from the rural Ontario sections. That's a very important week to the farmers in Simcoe

county, which is of course the largest county in the province of Ontario. So that was disappointing.

Our critic, Mr. Barrett, mentioned that the Farmers Feed Cities want their day on exactly the same day as the member is calling for in Bill 49: the Wednesday

before Thanksgiving.

I will be supporting the bill, but I do want to make it clear that I don't think the government is doing nearly enough to help our agricultural partners.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): C'est avec plaisir que je viens prendre part au projet de loi intitulé Loi visant

à célébrer et à reconnaître l'Ontario rural, parrainé par ma collègue d'Huron-Bruce, une personne engagée sans réserve au développement du secteur

rural. Elle est aussi l'adjointe parlementaire au ministère de l'Agriculture et des Affaires rurales.

Selon Statistique Canada, le recensement de 2001 démontre que 95 % du territoire total de l'Ontario est considéré rural et compte plus de

4,5 millions de personnes, soit 39,7 % de la population ontarienne.

Le Jour de l'Ontario rural permettra aux Ontariens et Ontariennes de célébrer la richesse de son histoire et, d'autre part, de reconnaître la

situation actuelle et de s'occuper du développement futur des régions rurales de l'Ontario.

Le gouvernement McGuinty reconnaît l'importance du secteur rural depuis son élection d'octobre 2003. En voici quelques exemples :

-- plus de 31 $ millions ont été investis pour garder ouvertes nos bonnes écoles rurales;

-- un fonds de 512 $ millions a été créé pour développer nos installations d'éthanol;

-- 20 $ millions pour donner accès à nos communautés à nos écoles après les heures de classe.

Il y a aussi les centres de santé communautaire dont nous avons fait l'ouverture dans plusieurs régions rurales de l'Ontario, tels que celui de

Bourget, dans ma circonscription.

Je suis natif de la région rurale, d'un petit village nommé Saint-Pascal-Baylon, dans la belle circonscription de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, un

endroit où il fait bon vivre. J'invite la population urbaine à faire une randonnée dans les secteurs ruraux et voir de près les produits de la terre qui se retrouvent tous les

jours sur nos tables. Oui, ces produits proviennent de la ferme du secteur rural. Nous avons de beaux endroits touristiques à visiter dans Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, dans le secteur

rural : le zoo Papanack de Wendover; la production théâtrale L'Écho d'un peuple, à Casselman; les Glengarry Highland Games de Maxville.

L'appui des membres de cette Assemblée est très important afin de pouvoir reconnaître officiellement cette année, en 2006, le premier jour

officiel de l'Ontario rural.

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): In rural Ontario, the early-morning peak period in which commuter traffic is at its densest has a

different nickname than it does here in the bustling greater Toronto area. In rural Ontario, they call it "rush minute."

"Rural" no longer means only agriculture. Indeed, a look back into Ontario's past shows that it never really has. That quintessentially Canadian, elegantly

simple implement of manufacturing excellence, the Robertson screw, was invented in what was then rural Ontario. Anyone who has ever tried to use a flat-headed or a Phillips screwdriver on any kind

of an angle appreciates the sensible design, simplicity and true genius of this rural Ontario invention.

Our Ontario government's many initiatives in decentralized, renewable energy will soon be enabling rural Ontarians to access reliable and abundant local

electrical energy. That leadership and inspiration by our government will mean that Ontario's farms, already among the most efficient and productive in the world, will continue to remain at the

leading edge in the use of technology in all facets of agriculture.

Let's not minimize the challenges before Ontario's agricultural sector even as we celebrate its contributions to our province. Here in the GTA, I represent a

riding that is home to many businesses that are major purchasers of rural Ontario agricultural products. Food processors here in the GTA sell their products not merely in Ontario but throughout

Canada, into the United States and all over the world. Healthy food processing businesses in places like Mississauga mean excellent markets for Ontario's farmers, and yet we have challenges to

overcome.

The rising Canadian dollar is an indicator of the health and strength of the Canadian economy after recovering from nine long years of irresponsible

Conservative deficit spending in the 1980s and 1990s. But a strong Canadian dollar means that Ontario agricultural products become more expensive when they're exported.

Ontario's grocers need to do better, and I mean much better, in supporting Ontario's farmers. Those packaged salad mixes that could and should be grown,

packaged and bought in Ontario invariably come into Canada from the United States, en route to your store shelves. Nobody can say that US products are better or even cheaper because US grocers

stock their shelves with Canadian farm products. Shop at Wegmans in New York and see where their vegetables and packaged mixes come from. Then look in Ontario at Dominion, Loblaws, Sobeys, Longo's

and others and see where their packages come from.

Rural Ontario is very much a factor in our lives here in the city. Bill 49 gives us an event around which we can work collaboratively to make rural Ontario an

even better place to work, live, play and raise a family.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? Ms. Mitchell, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs. Mitchell: Rural Ontario Day Act, 2006, will help protect and recognize rural values. I want to thank all those who spoke today:

Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Hamilton East, Perth-Middlesex, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, Simcoe North, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Mississauga West. The voices that spoke

today are very much in support of promoting rural Ontario and protecting the values that make rural Ontario what it is today. The passing of this bill will demonstrate the recognition that this

House will place on rural Ontario.

I'm very proud to represent the most rural riding in Ontario. I am probably biased, but I also believe it's the most beautiful riding in the province of

Ontario. As our second-largest industry is tourism, it's certainly shared amongst many people across the world.

My colleagues have supported me today, as have the official opposition and the third party. I want to congratulate everyone who spoke so well and talked so

well about rural Ontario. I'm sure this will go forward and become a successful private member's bill. I look forward to celebrating the day and I look forward to celebrating agricultural week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to present my bill today.

VISUAL FIRE ALARM

SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES SYSTÈMES

D'ALARME-INCENDIE

À AFFICHAGE VISUEL

Mr. Arthurs moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 59,

An Act respecting visual fire alarm systems in public buildings / Projet de loi 59,

Loi sur les systèmes d'alarme-incendie à affichage

visuel dans les édifices publics.

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

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): It's with great pleasure that I rise this morning to speak to my private member's bill, Bill 59,

an act that would provide for visual fire alarm systems in provincial and municipal buildings. This particular legislation is focused on public buildings in both the provincial domain and in the

municipal domain, and it will provide for equipping them with a visual means to identify fire alarm systems. I think the need is self-evident. It's a simple matter of protection for those who are

deaf, deafened or hard of hearing. It's a fundamental right in our society for individuals to be able to provide for self-protection in the event of an emergency situation.

What does Bill 59 -- a visual fire alarm system -- include? What is it contemplating? The bill itself is quite straightforward. It's not complex in its wording

nor in its intent:

"2(1) A visual fire alarm system shall include a strobe beacon or similar feature that is sufficient in the circumstances of the public building to alert

people who are deaf or hard of hearing to the fire alarm.

"

(2) A visual fire alarm system may include a feature that electronically displays messages in respect of the fire alarm, including some or all of the

following messages:

"1. The fact that the fire alarm has been activated.

"2. Information on the appropriate response, including where to evacuate the building.

"3. Information on the nearest exit."

For those of us who have sound hearing, sound sight and full capacities in other fashions, the fire alarm provides a signal for us to act. For those who are

hearing impaired, for those who are deaf, an auditory fire alarm means nothing to them.

In consultations, I've had stakeholders who have expressed considerable enthusiasm and support for the bill in question. A number of those stakeholders and

other interested parties are here today, and I want to thank them and offer the opportunity for you to join me in welcoming them here this morning. If I can, I'd like to identify, in a short period

of time, some of the organizations and individuals who have taken the opportunity not only to be here but to provide input and advice on the developments of the bill. These individuals and

associations include Mr. Gary Malkowski, who members in this Legislature will know and acknowledge as a former member of this Legislature, Kelly Duffin, Jo Ann Bentley and Joyce Lange from the

Canadian Hearing Society; Bev Dooley, Ontario Interpreter Services; Karen Walker from George Brown College; Dave Hamen from Durham Deaf Services; Ian Gadsby from ONESTOP Media; Susan DaDalt, Silent

Voice, Community Services for the Deaf; and Kim Reid from Happy Hands Preschool, the Bob Rumball Centre for the Deaf. These are but a few of those who have contributed and had insight and input

into the bill, and encourage its debate and adoption. And, of course, ASL interpreters, who are such a critical resource to those who are hearing impaired or those who are deaf.

In my role as an MPP, I have the privilege as well of serving as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. At about 10 o'clock this morning, my

BlackBerry went off on its vibrating mode -- as opposed to its auditory mode -- and my two staff members each sent me an e-mail saying they were just leaving or were standing now outside of the

Frost building as a result of a fire alarm. They thought it rather ironic that this morning I would be presenting a bill on establishing visual fire alarms for those who need that resource at the

very same time they were standing outside the building as a result of an auditory fire alarm.

We take for granted, I think, those of us who have a full set or a different set of abilities, certain kinds of community activity. When I drive down the

highway and there are emergency vehicles, it never really occurred to me until I started to develop the bill and talk to the stakeholders that if a fire truck comes up behind you, if you have

hearing, you can hear it, and if you have sight, you can see the visual alarms. Similarly, if a police vehicle approaches you, you can hear the siren and you can see the flashing lights, and if an

ambulance comes roaring up alongside, similarly, it has both visual and auditory clues. Most of us take that as a very natural environment. Why would it be any less natural for us to provide

exactly the same level of signal to both those with hearing impairments and those without? Why not establish in public buildings a visual means to respond to an alarm? It seems so natural to us in

our everyday lives to expect that. I think if we saw the fire truck, the police cruiser or the ambulance approaching or passing us, and all we had were the auditory alarms going off, we would

trigger something, saying, "Why aren't the lights going on that particular vehicle?" So for us, it's natural. For others in our community, it's not quite so natural.

Who in the province of Ontario and those who visit would this bill affect? According to the Canadian Hearing Society, almost 25% of people report experiencing

hearing loss, although closer to 10% would actually identify themselves as deafened or hard of hearing and would use interventions such as hearing aids or other forms of amplification. About 1% of

our general population is culturally deaf and uses sign language. That means there are probably some 1.3 million Ontarians, or more, who require accommodation for hearing loss. That's a significant

portion of our population. In my view, they have the right to self-protection in the event of emergency. What better place to start than in those public buildings either directly under our control

as provincial government or with our municipal partners?

The average age of those experiencing hearing loss is some 51 years; although nearly one in four of those with hearing loss are under 40, seven in 10 are under

60. With an aging population, with a growing population, the issue of hearing loss and hearing impairment will grow in numbers. The deaf and the hard of hearing are not as easily identifiable. I

know this from personal experience. I have family members, both a child and an in-law, who suffer hearing loss. You become acutely aware of the need to do specific kinds of things to assist

them.

My child has only partial hearing loss and has a hearing aid. When he's not using that, though, for all practical purposes, he's a member of the deaf

community. I've learned to speak directly to him. I've learned that when he's on my right side and I speak to him, he's not going to hear what I say. I've also learned over the years not to say to

him, "Did you understand what I said?" because he understands exactly as much as he hears. Unfortunately, at times, he needs to fill in the blanks if I'm not being precise and clear. So I've

personally become acutely aware.

Probably eight in 10 Canadians have either co-workers or family members who have hearing loss of one degree or another. So this is a matter that affects all

Ontarians, for all practical purposes, but most particularly and obviously, those who have hearing loss, significant hearing loss or deafness. They deserve the right to self-protection. They

deserve the right to control their own lives in the event of emergency. I hope the Legislature, during the debate, will support this private member's bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It gives me pleasure to stand up today and debate this bill that's been introduced. Let me have a look at it

here, the proper wording:

An Act respecting visual fire alarm systems in public buildings. I commend the member from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge for bringing this bill forward. As we look at all the

things that are happening in our society, it wasn't that many years ago that fire alarms were not mandatory in buildings and homes. You see some of them implemented, and then you hear stories about

things that happened to people because the batteries were not working or the alarm was not loud enough because it was not in the proper place. We have disasters in our society that could have been

avoided had there been proper alarms.

As the member's bill puts forward, it's very important to recognize that the ability of hard-of-hearing and deaf people to deal with the sound alarms puts them

in the same position as people who cannot hear the alarm because it didn't go off because the battery was dead. In fact, what we are doing is depriving them of the ability to be warned of a

dangerous situation because we decided not to implement that in the bill. I think every member in the House would support the implementation of such a bill to make sure that we make everyone's

basic rights protected, we make everyone as safe as possible in the environment in which they live. So I commend the member for doing that.

Having said that, I do have some problems. The bill, of course we would all know, is a one-page bill that just says that this should be made mandatory in all

public buildings and all municipal buildings. But it doesn't speak to an implementation plan or what that actually means, whether we're going to have it in all public buildings as they're being

constructed or whether, when this bill passes third reading, we're going to have a process whereby we're going to install them in all the present buildings. When I look at a bill and it doesn't

include anything as to implementation, then I get concerned about whether there's an intent to have it implemented, or whether this is just an exercise to make sure that we all show we care but

we're not prepared to do anything about it. I think that's a real concern, and I do want to speak just quickly to that.

I have some real concerns that relate to the implementation and government policy. The member will know that the present government has signed a memorandum of

understanding with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that any time the government passes a bill that is going to have an impact on the budgetary process in a municipality, they will have

consultations with the municipality to deal with that issue. I'm not aware, in the presentation or information that I got, that this bill actually had any consultation with municipalities. I would

suggest that if we are intent on getting this passed, that's a process that we need to go through to make sure the municipalities are aware of what is being asked for and that they can have some

input into how it should be implemented. Should it be in all existing buildings, or should it be just put into the building code from now on so that when a public building is built, it must have

these types of safety devices or warning devices put in place?

I guess my concern is that this isn't the first time this type of thing has happened, where we put these things forward and then after the fact we tell

municipalities that this is what they have to do. But municipalities also don't have an endless pot of money, so then they start looking at other areas where they will have to cut back in order to

accommodate what is being asked for. I'm sure we're not going to be there to help make that decision as to what it is they're not going to do in order to add this. I think this would go very high

on the priority list of "Needs Doing," but there would be some other things that the municipalities will not be able to do. I think the member putting forward this bill would be quite aware of

that. Having been mayor for quite a number of years, he would realize that every time a dictate from the province came along that said, "We have made a decision that this is a very important thing

to do and a very appropriate thing to do, and now you have to go about doing it," regardless of how important or how critical that issue is, municipalities do not see it as being appropriate for

the province to make that decision in their absence. I think it would be very important that that was done.

Having said all that, if the intent of the member's bill is that the province is going to fund the implementation of this bill, then I don't have that same

problem. If this is in the provincial budget, then I have no problem at all with suggesting that we carry on with it and that we all support it.

Again, I want to thank the member for bringing the bill forward. I don't think there's anyone in the House who would not support this bill. With that, I will

turn the time over to my colleagues, who all have some very important things to say on the bill too.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I too am going to be supporting this bill, because I don't think anybody really could with any

justification not support the bill.

I have to say that, like the member who's bringing the bill forward, the member from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, I too have family members who experience hearing

loss. I have a young niece who was just recently discovered to have a hearing impairment, and my brother, with his wife, is going through the process of making sure that she's able to receive the

extra special care she needs to address that hearing loss and to address her future in terms of being able to receive information in the way that's best able for her to process it and communicate

with all of the loving people she has around her.

I have to say that this bill is one where I think people probably would think, "Of course this is something we need to do," and I'm certainly one of those

people. Having said that, it's interesting for me to note that I recently spent time some time in the city that I'm from, the city of Hamilton. Of course, our city is an older city and goes through

upgrades of infrastructure on a regular basis. After many years of debate, our city is now in the process of renovating its city hall, as opposed to tearing it down and starting all over again.

Although I'm not positive, I'm pretty sure that those renovations are not going to include the kind of device that this bill outlines, and it's unfortunate. I can't say that with surety, but I do

suspect that's the case.

You know what? Our city has been very progressive in the way that it's tried to acknowledge and accommodate various community initiatives around people with

different kinds of disabilities. For example, we have a way-finding system in our downtown and in other parts of our community for the visually impaired, for people who have sight and vision

challenges, where we have different coloured and different textured insets in our sidewalks to assist with way-finding, as well as other textured features in the corners of our sidewalks where we

have intersections, and various other kinds of assistive renovations that have taken place to help people who have visual impairments. So we have a tradition in our community.

I can remember when I was first elected to city council back in the late 1990s, there was a committee for people with physical disabilities; we called it

"physdis," the physical disabilities committee. Interestingly enough, I think over the years that committee has shifted to be more of an access and equity committee in that physical disabilities

were not the only disabilities. Again, interestingly enough, in the member's covering letter regarding this particular initiative, one of the things he indicated, and so rightly, is that people who

have hearing disabilities, hearing loss, deafness or acquired hearing loss are not visual; I mean, not visual in terms of people seeing that there might be a disability with hearing. So it's

accommodations.

So it's really positive that this is here. But the unfortunate thing about it is that not only was there not the consultation with municipalities, which was

already described, so I'm not going into that, but it becomes a big problem in Hamilton, for example, where they're now renovating city hall. If this hasn't been built in already, it's going to

cost that much more money to then go back and retrofit a renovation that's happening right now.

Yes, we have to start somewhere, definitely. But if the provincial government wants to make sure communities are implementing these kinds of initiatives, a

part of that has to be the sharing of some of the finances around that. I say that because we continue to struggle, in the city of Hamilton, with significant budget pressure that's a direct result

of provincial government policy from a previous government and now of course being sustained by the current government. Unfortunately, the city of Hamilton is not alone in that regard. Although I

agree completely with this bill and I will be supporting it, it's with the cautious note that municipalities are struggling under a huge municipal fiscal gap. That gap is to the tune of some $3

billion, which is provincial programs being funded at the municipal level. For different municipalities, that gap has a different dollar value on it.

Yesterday we heard my seatmate from Beaches-East York asking questions of the Premier about Toronto's fiscal gap, but Hamilton has a significant fiscal gap as

well. Our mayor, Larry Di Ianni, was here last week, trying to convince the Liberal government to address in a sustainable way the problem that municipalities have with the current financing

scheme. The first year we did this, back in 2004, the provincial government forked over about $19 million. It was $15 million last year. But the problem is that the pressures are growing, not

reducing. This year, the city is identifying that gap to be $25 million, not $19 million, as it was in 2004. So the pressure is growing, just with the existing funding situation or the existing

burden on municipalities for delivery of provincial programs like Ontario Works, the Ontario disability support program, land ambulance and social housing. I can go on and on about all the services

that were downloaded. Nonetheless, that existing regime continues to this day and each year it seems to get worse.

But when you add on the requirement to initiate new programs, it makes it that much more difficult. It would be really unfortunate if we ended up in a

situation where municipalities got their backs up and said, "No, we can't implement these kinds of programs," knowing darn well that they're absolutely the right thing to do and they absolutely

must be initiated. The way to get over that is not only to deal with the existing problem the province has in terms of the number of municipalities that are feeling overburdened by their

responsibility for funding provincial programs -- so get rid of that problem, and I'm sure the municipalities would ask no questions whatsoever when these kinds of initiatives come down the pipe.

Or, if you're not prepared to do that -- and apparently the government is not prepared to do that, to the great frustration and anger of municipal taxpayers. In fact, community after community is

beginning to have public meetings about how the heck to get this government's head around the fact that there's a huge problem, and that problem is resulting now in municipal taxes going through

the roof -- no pun, because it's all property taxes. Nonetheless, it's not a laughing matter and there's a significant concern there.

If that's not going to get solved, then at the very least, when these kinds of initiatives come forward that are so important and really require our full

support, they must include dollars. They must include opportunities for municipalities to obtain some financial assistance from the province. Otherwise, these great initiatives end up being seen on

the other side as just another form of provincial downloading, and what a tragedy that is. That's a terrible tragedy, and it's completely unacceptable, on one hand, from the perspective of those of

us in this gallery and in this Legislature, but reality is reality. At the municipal level, anything the provincial government does is going to increase costs, and that means the money has to come

from somewhere. What many municipalities are saying is that the money doesn't exist. They're in the negative. They're in the hole right now. So anything that adds to that pressure and adds to that

burden is going to be received with a bit of a negative view, and that is extremely unfortunate.

I wanted to talk a little bit about what that looks like in the city of Hamilton. Recently, we had the Centre for Community Study put together a report that

very specifically outlines the pressures the city of Hamilton faces in regard to its balance of payments, if you want to call it that. You know, it's interesting: We're the only province in the

country, and I think we're the only jurisdiction in all of the G8 nations, where you actually have social programs and health programs being funded off the property tax base. Those programs are

income distribution programs and they need to be funded at a level where the taxation comes from earnings, not from property. Again, coming from the municipal perspective, having spent some time

there, I know the frustration is that people have a certain amount of money left in their pockets after taxation, and that's the money they then pay their property taxes with. So to have income

distribution programs at the property tax level is simply inappropriate; they don't belong there. In fact, people may recall that when this downloading exercise was undertaken by the previous

government, a very prominent Conservative person in our community spoke out against that initiative. The provincial government of the time, the Harris government, decided they were going to

download a number of initiatives because, from the provincial level, it was what they called revenue-neutral; there was no imbalance. The problem was, when you got down to individual communities,

that there was a huge imbalance. Perhaps from their perspective on this side of the fence, everything was fine. But on the other side of the fence, depending on what municipality you were coming

from, it wasn't fine and it hasn't been fine since.

So we have a situation where the realities of older communities like the city of Hamilton have ongoing infrastructure needs. We have water main breaks on a

constant basis and road, bridge, sewer, water and environmental issues that need to be addressed. We have huge infrastructure needs. Our economy is in stress because we're moving from a largely

manufacturing-based economy, and with the pressures in that sector we're not seeing those jobs, as they're lost in our community, being replaced by similarly well paid jobs. Unfortunately, late or

mid last year we became equal to Toronto in terms of the percentage of people living below the poverty line. So now Hamilton equals Toronto in terms of the number of people living in poverty, and

that's certainly not something we as a community are proud of. We are also a community that's proud to welcome very many refugees and immigrants. The problem is that the governments, both federal

and provincial, have not seen fit to assist our city at adequate levels in making the transition of newcomers into our community and to be able to contribute to our community. That funding, that

assistance, has not been there.

So you can see how the challenges faced by a community like the city of Hamilton, where one in five children is living in poverty, are not financially

sustainable. That is why the city of Hamilton year after year comes to this provincial government and says, "You're causing a great deal of this pressure by virtue of the fact that these downloaded

provincial services don't belong on the property tax base. We're never going to be able to get all of the pressures we have addressed until you take a look at this formula and fix it."

There are a lot of other pieces, a number of different pieces to that puzzle around education taxes and payments in lieu, but the big one is the downloading.

The big one is the fact that this government has refused, even though they promised to do it, to put together a sustainable plan for how we're going to get out of these troubles in the future. As a

result, when great pieces of legislation like this one come forward, when the opportunity arises for us all to work together and pull together and say, "Yes, we support this legislation. We want to

see this system implemented in municipal as well as provincial buildings, at the local levels," we don't see the funding that goes with it, the dollars that go with it to assist municipalities in

implementing it. Unfortunately, we're then in a situation where I fear that the reaction won't be as positive as it should be on the other end.

So I support this legislation completely, but I urge the mover, considering that he is the parliamentary assistant to the finance minister, to bring back

issues not only around downloading and the difficulties municipalities now have, but also on how we, as a province, can make sure they implement this initiative.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It's a pleasure to join the debate and, hopefully, bring it back to the substance of the debate, which is

An Act respecting visual fire alarms in public buildings, a wonderful initiative that has been put forward by the member from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge.

The member and I have a very similar background in that we come from the municipal sector. I served for 18 years as a member of regional council in the town of

Oakville and in the region of Halton, and served during that period under all three parties in the provincial Legislature. I've had experience with them all, and I remember the days of downloading

and the days of the social contract. What I loved about serving at that level, and what you search for, I think, as a new member when you come to the chamber here at Queen's Park, is that you like

things to be logical, sensible and practical.

When you serve at the local level, you tend to look at things in that way and to deal with things in that way. When you come to Queen's Park, you get much more

of a bureaucratic outlook, much more of a legislative outlook and approach to things. So you're always looking for those things that might have a practical and really immediate impact on people's

lives.

It's got to be very satisfying for the member to be able to bring forward a private member's bill based on input from his own family, based on experience he's

had as an individual in his everyday life, dealing with someone he loves, his son Joel, who, as I understand, came up with this idea in the first place and asked his dad if he would bring this

forward as a private member's bill because it made a lot of sense.

It makes a lot of sense to me, and yet, still, we've had speakers who have stood up today and said, "How could you not support this? Who would ever speak

against this initiative?" But here we are, in February 2006, in the province of Ontario, and we don't have visual fire alarms. If it hadn't been for the member from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, we

wouldn't even be talking about it. So you might want to steer the debate off into any other realm you may choose and take advantage of the time to maybe criticize the government, but I don't think

you can criticize the member for bringing forward this initiative.

As I said, there are a lot of fire prevention initiatives that we have in Ontario. There's a private member's bill before us that would call for the

implementation of sprinkler systems in homes. We say that we legislate what sort of building materials you can use in construction. We talk about the storage of flammable materials on construction

sites and job sites. We talk about the response times of our fire services. We talk about those things and pass rules and laws about those types of things because we know what tragedies can occur

and sadly still do occur as a result of fires.

Experience has told us that public standards lead the way for the private sector. What you implement, what you set as the standard in public buildings,

with Disabilities Act, 2005, that was finally passed under the leadership of this government in the recent past.

We have to think about our own situation right here at Queen's Park as well, the Legislative Assembly. When we want to call our members to vote, we ring the

bells. That's a sign to everybody that it's time to vote, that it's time to come and do your democratic duty and vote on behalf of your constituents. But we also flash the lights. This is in a

building as old as Queen's Park. Somehow we've been able to implement that system that alerts people in an audible and in a visual way that it's time to take some action. We can do it at Queen's

Park. I'm pretty sure we could do it at Oakville town hall. I'm pretty sure we could do it at the region of Halton building. I'm sure that, with technology being where it is today, it would not

cost a lot of money.

Perhaps you think that, in a crowded situation, a hearing-impaired person might understand that something is happening -- "maybe I should follow the crowd" --

that a fire emergency may exist and that they might have to do something. But put yourself in the shoes of a hearing-impaired person who finds himself alone in a bathroom, or finds himself alone in

a room in a public building, for whatever reason. You would have no clear indication that it was time to leave that building. You would have no clear indication that your life might be in

danger.

I think a hearing-impaired person should understand and feel that they have as much right to be alerted that an emergency situation may exist in a building as

a person who is able to hear. I think it's a fundamental right, a matter of equity, and I also think it's just simply the right thing to do.

How would a person who is able to hear know that somebody is hearing-impaired, know that they would need help in the first place? How would you identify a

person in that situation, even if you were willing to help or thought perhaps you should help?

In emergency situations, we all know that seconds count. That's why we talk about response times for ambulances and fire trucks. It seems to me that if seconds

count, with the technological abilities we have today in our society, it's not a big step, it's not a big leap, to think we would be able to implement a system that would alert people in a visual

way that it's perhaps time to evacuate the building.

Experience, as I said, has shown that public buildings would lead the way. This bill, in my opinion, certainly is a bill that is logical, as I said at the

start; it's practical; it's sensible. The advantages that would be obtained by the passage of this bill are self-evident.

My understanding of private members' bills is that they cannot have a budgetary impact on the government. They cannot compel the government to spend money. In

my estimation, this sets the groundwork for the implementation of something that would be advantageous, that would be supported at the municipal level as something that's got a very practical and

immediate impact on people's lives, and is something that I believe my constituents in Oakville would support as much as the constituents who are being very well served by the member from

Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge in the implementation and introduction of this bill. I would ask that all members support this bill.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to participate in this debate. I want to commend the member from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge for

bringing this legislation forward. It is indeed practical. It is needed. I'm hopeful that the direction of the Legislature, when this bill is in fact passed, will be taken seriously by the

government, that it will not die here, as many private members' bills do, but that it is carried forward and the appropriate changes are made in building codes to ensure that those in our

communities who are deaf and hard of hearing have the protection of this important provision.

I want, however, to take this opportunity to add my encouragement to the member and to members of the Legislature to in fact go beyond the bill as it is

written. I believe that not only is there a need, a very important health and safety need, to protect the lives of those in our community who are deaf and hard of hearing, but every member of our

community.

I believe it is unconscionable that even in today's building codes, we still have not incorporated technology that ensures that all of us are protected in the

event of a fire. Far too often when a fire happens, and particularly in public buildings, when the room fills with smoke, the current exit signs are very quickly obscured by it. Many of the lives

that are lost are not lost because there hasn't been an exit sign; it's because people can't see them.

I would strongly recommend that what we should be requiring of the building code is to prescribe a technology for all exit signs in every public building that

incorporates an electroluminescent technology which can in fact be seen through smoke, through fog, through any kind of distraction that may be caused as a result of smoke and fire. It's a

phosphor-based product and it should be a mandatory requirement incorporated into the specifications of our building code.

I also want to encourage this Legislature to go beyond simply having this as mandatory within the building code for municipal and provincial buildings. There

is no reason why this requirement should not be made mandatory for every public building where people gather, whether that is a restaurant, whether that is any other place that is of a public

nature where people in our communities gather and where there is danger of fire.

I know personally that the technology is there. I also know that it is not costly beyond the current signage that's available. In fact, it uses far less

electricity than the current exit signs because of the nature of the technology. So on the one hand, we can do the right thing, and on the other, we can save lives. These signs can be designed to

contain chevrons that, at the time an alarm goes off, indicate the direction of the exit, so it serves many purposes. That is the kind of practical recommendation that I believe is appropriate for

this Legislature, to give direction to ensure that these specifications are contained in our building code.

I want to again commend the member for bringing this forward. I want to thank those who are here who have participated in helping to design this bill, members

from the deaf community and all of those who have shown an interest and have shown leadership in helping us create good legislation in the province of Ontario.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I'm very pleased today to rise in support of Bill 59, the Visual Fire Alarm System Act, 2006. What is so

important about this bill, in my mind, is the simplicity that it brings forward. It's a very practical application. I think that, so often, we can get caught up in the process. When I look to the

member, he comes from a municipal background; I come from a municipal background. Often we can get caught up in where we need to go by who does what and who should pay for what. But when I think

about it, so often what we really need is just, where do we want to go, how do we want to get there, and what's the practical application of how to get there? I'm sure that when traffic lights

first came out for the "Don't walk" or "Walk" signs and a beeper came forward, there was great discussion about who should pay for what. But that's the beginning. It's in recognition that we need

to put in place what the people of Ontario need in order to ensure public safety. This bill does that; it recognizes that. It's talking about including a strobe beacon or a similar feature to alert

people who are deaf or hard of hearing. This is in recognition that we don't all have the same abilities.

When I think about, over the years, when we've made decisions, be it from a municipal world or a provincial world, a lot of decisions were made with absolutely

the best intentions, but we just did not take into consideration what would have been a better application. This bill demonstrates to me a very practical application and how we can move

forward.

In the past, we just did not understand what could affect our hearing and how it was cumulative for our hearing. I think about some of the farmers out on the

tractors over the years, before there were cabs and they wore ear protection, and the equipment they worked with and the constant pounding. We know what that did. We know, in our seniors, how many

have been affected by hearing loss. This is about recognizing and meeting the needs of the people of Ontario.

Imagine yourself in a situation where people are starting to react because they know what's happening, but you don't know -- the sense of bewilderment you

would have about knowing where you needed to go or why people were moving forward. It's something that I hope none of us ever has to experience.

I would be remiss if I did not get a quote from Helen Keller here. This is from Listen Up, Canada: "When you lose sight, you lose contact with things, but when

you lose your hearing, you lose contact with people." Isolation can be dangerous, especially in an emergency. Bill 59 recognizes that and hopes to eliminate the isolation. It's practical; it makes

sense. I'm pleased to rise today and support it. I want to thank the member from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge for recognizing a practical application, addressing a situation, and bringing this bill

forward. I look forward to further debate.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I too am pleased to rise today in support of the private member's bill presented by the member

from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, the Visual Fire Alarm System Act. I know that he has worked very hard with the Canadian Hearing Society, and I thank them for coming today and being present in the

Legislature.

As MPPs, Thursday is for our private members' bills, and we have a chance to bring forward some legislation that helps all of the society. I think this bill is

an example of that, and of the commitment from the member from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge.

The Canadian Hearing Society has members from a diversity of backgrounds, ages and levels of hearing. I think it's important to remember the MPP Gary

Malkowski, who was the first deaf MPP in the Legislature and is here in the gallery today. Welcome. I believe he was responsible for bringing in the flashing lights as well as the alarm bells that

go forward when we are called into the Legislature. I think he did a great job when he was an MPP of recognizing the problems that deaf people and hearing-impaired people have in today's society. I

thank him for his work in that area.

I too have members of my family who are deaf and hearing impaired. They live in Belleville and had to go there to attend the Sir James Whitney Provincial

School for the Deaf. When they were building their house, they had to get improvements made so that when the doorbell and the smoke alarm went off, they had the flashing lights as well. They have

since got a dog to help them with their impaired hearing abilities. They have a young child now. She's about six years old and she starred on Sue Thomas: F.B.Eye as one of the nieces for the star

of that show.

I certainly appreciate the efforts brought by the member here, and the challenges that are faced in society. In the survey done for the Canadian Hearing

Society, they found that almost one in four adult Canadians report having some degree of hearing loss. As to the issue of providing safety and services to a minority group, we're talking about one

quarter of the population that requires extra assistance and extra insurance in receiving notice of an emergency. Smoke alarms, as we know, save untold lives every year. They alert people before a

fire has spread widely. They certainly are the best preventive measure against fatalities from smoke inhalation and other potential injuries received in a fire.

In order to alert more people, we need visual smoke alarms. It used to be that the only type of smoke alarm available was the high-pitched sound when smoke was

detected. It's still the most common type of smoke detector, but for people with hearing loss the audible smoke detector's impact ranges from useless to barely passable, and for deaf people, of

course, audible alarms are useless.

Other provisions like visual alarms must be made. There is a growing number of hard-of-hearing people as our older population increases in size. The member

from Huron-Bruce mentioned tractors and the number of farmers without protected hearing over many years.

It is good legislation that has been proposed here this morning and we're going to be supporting the bill. Emergency plans typically are designed for people

without disabilities, so the majority of us can escape with the usual hearing alarms that sound off. I commend the member for the consultations. I say, don't let the consultations end here.

Hopefully today this will be passed and we can hear from firefighters and emergency workers who are involved, to enable this legislation to move forward as best as possible, how the buildings will

be retrofitted, the ideas that are going to come from the communities.

I commend the member again for bringing this forward. He has our support. I am pleased again to welcome the people in the galleries from the Canadian Hearing

Society and other groups that have come here today.

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's my pleasure to support my colleague from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge and to echo some of the kind words

spoken by my other colleagues, particularly my colleague and friend from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, who spoke so eloquently on this bill.

Some six years ago when I first made my run for elected office, a run at which I wasn't successful, one of the people I met at the time with whom I am still

friends -- who may be watching this morning; I'm not sure -- was a young man named Chris Portelli. His disability wasn't hearing loss; his was an injury stemming from a spinal cord injury. He first

Disabilities Act, which was finally proclaimed into law last year.

has proposed, which is such a logical, simple add-on, a visual symbol that tells you when a building may have a fire alarm or some other alarm, in addition to the sound.

For those of us who are not hearing impaired, even today when an alarm goes off, we almost instinctively think it's a false alarm. If in addition to the

auditory signal we also had a visual signal, it would tell even those of us who are not hearing impaired that this is something to be taken seriously, that this is for real. When an alarm goes off,

and most especially if it's not a false alarm, if it's very much a real one, my colleague from Oak Ridges came up with an excellent suggestion, which would be lit chevrons pointing the way toward

the nearest exit.

This doesn't cause an architect or an engineer or someone contracting for a building to materially alter their plans, but it does ask for a little bit of

thought. Should something go wrong in the building, how do you plan for the most efficient and safest means to provide the people working or living in the structure an orderly, quick and safe exit

from the building?

There's so much in this proposal that is good common sense. It's a pleasure to see that all three parties have stood to endorse it. I join them in supporting

the bill. I sincerely hope that it gets the committee hearings it so deserves quickly and expeditiously, and that as a Legislature we can rise and vote on it very soon and see it proclaimed into

law.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

There being none, the Chair would like to recognize and draw to your attention the presence of the former member from York East, a member of the 35th

Parliament, Gary Malkowski.

Mr. Arthurs, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr. Arthurs: Thank you for acknowledging Gary. I'd like to acknowledge members who have joined us during the debate, and those in the public

gallery who have come today to support this particular initiative as well as being here for other reasons.

Two minutes, and less now, is not enough to be able to encapsulate some of the comments. I do want to thank the members from Oxford, Hamilton East, Oakville,

Oak Ridges, Huron-Bruce, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock and Mississauga West who have all spoken to this bill this morning. They each set out some issues that would need resolution. I was pleased to

hear one of the members make reference to private members' bills and the difficulty often in seeing those move through to legislation. This is not a government bill; this is a private member's

bill. With support of the members of this Legislature and the community, I'm sure that this, along with other private members' bills, could be enacted as law.

Would there be a need to consult with our municipal partners? Clearly there would be, but the memorandum of understanding really speaks to government

initiatives. In my view, until this is at least beyond -- if it's adopted for second reading and off to committee, then that stage is the appropriate time to engage directly in that type of

consultation.

I can tell you that in a brief conversation with my own mayor, over some things we were doing, I casually mentioned my bill, and he said that in our community

we're very supportive of that. They have a diversity and equity committee, and that's exactly what we should be doing. Mr. Flynn, the member from Oakville, spoke in the same regard. I think it's

something municipalities would embrace, the opportunity of setting the benchmark, of setting new standards, and then encouraging the private sector to be engaged. Government has an obligation and a

role to set out those standards, to set the benchmarks, to take a lead role so that others can join in doing that.

I'm pleased to bring the bill forward. I think it's the type of practical politics members have spoken of. I was pleased with the member from Oak Ridges and

his comments about other technologies; the bill provides for that. I look forward to its adoption and movement to committee.

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

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE JOUR DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 17, standing in the name of Mrs. Mitchell.

Mrs. Mitchell has moved second reading of Bill 49,

An Act to celebrate and recognize rural Ontario.

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

Mrs. Mitchell?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs. Mitchell has asked unanimous consent that the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance. Agreed?

Agreed.

VISUAL FIRE ALARM

SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES SYSTÈMES

D'ALARME-INCENDIE

À AFFICHAGE VISUEL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 18, standing in the name of Mr. Arthurs.

Mr. Arthurs has moved second reading of Bill 59,

An Act respecting visual fire alarm systems in public buildings.

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.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: All those members in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Mauro, Bill

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 42; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): Speaker, I request the bill be sent to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOCKEY

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Good evening, hockey fans, and welcome to the Paul J. Yakabuski community centre here in

beautiful Barry's Bay, Ontario -- now known as Hockeyville -- where the Ottawa Senators will face off against the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Sound unbelievable? Well, it might just happen if 10-year-old Michael Papania's application to the CBC/Kraft Foods search for Hockeyville is successful. While

watching Hockey Night in Canada, Michael saw the ad telling people of the contest, open to communities all across Canada. Michael -- whose dad, Mike, mother, Ann, and sister Chayanne all play

hockey -- filled out the application and, along with Barry's Bay and District Minor Hockey Association president Shaun O'Reilly, got the ball rolling.

This weekend, as part of the annual Timberfest celebrations, Barry's Bay will be visited by a television crew from the CBC to measure how much it deserves to

be called Hockeyville. Communities are evaluated on their love of the game, community spirit and grassroots hockey stories. The CBC crew will be treated to a number of community events, many of

them hockey-related. The annual Timberfest Stanley Cup will be played this Saturday night. This game pits players with allegiances to the Montreal Canadiens against those who love their Leafs. I

myself have had the honour of playing for the Leafs and hoisting the cup the past two seasons.

Added to the Timberfest roster this year will be a Friday "chicks with sticks" tournament and, later in the spring, a new Heritage Cup tournament, which I know

will be enjoyed by all.

Let me take this opportunity to thank and congratulate young Michael Papania for his initiative, and let me encourage all those in Barry's Bay to get out there

this weekend and show their enthusiasm and community spirit as they vie for the title of Hockeyville. I encourage all communities to make their best effort to become Hockeyville themselves.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): On February 4, I attended Road to Freedom, a celebration of Black History Month presented by the Buxton

National Historic Site and Museum. The museum, located in my riding of Chatham-Kent-Essex, is home to a rich collection of artifacts relating to the history of the Underground Railroad and to early

African Canadian history.

Shannon and Bryan Prince are lifelong residents of North Buxton. Shannon is the curator of the museum. Bryan is a member of the museum board and a historian.

He is the author of several works on this subject, including a new book, I Came as a Stranger. The book is a powerful history and a valuable guide to sites and communities that commemorate the

courage and suffering of men, women and children who made the perilous trip from slavery in the United States to freedom in Canada. The fugitives -- most of them penniless, many of them illiterate

-- carved out new, independent lives. They built homes, schools and churches. They became teachers, business owners and writers. Mr. Prince has generously donated a copy of his book to the

legislative library. Artifacts from the museum can also be seen in the display cases downstairs on the main floor.

It is important to recognize the achievements and the contributions of original settlers. Black Canadians play an important

part in Canada's unique cultural

heritage. Our diversity has made Canada a model of co-operation and fellowship around the world.

I would like to thank the volunteers and the residents of North Buxton for their continued hard work and commitment to preserve and promote the history and

accomplishments of the original settlers.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to add my voice to those who are concerned that this government has no plan to

respond in the event of a garbage crisis. The only plan we have seen so far is the Liberals' amazing plan to ignore the pending crisis and to try and pass the buck to municipalities. But that is

not a plan; it's an abdication of responsibility.

If the border were to close, it would have an impact not just on Toronto, Durham, Peel and York but also on communities all across Ontario. The emergency

landfill capacity in Ontario is just under 29 weeks, and the government knows that. They know that because it's contained in the Gartner Lee report when they outlined an emergency plan for GTA

garbage. The plan is simply to dump trash into dumps in nearby communities, but implementing this report's recommendations would require provincial action. People across Ontario need to know if

this is the amazing Liberal plan to deal with the garbage crisis.

In December, John Tory called on the Premier to make public his government's plan for garbage in Ontario before the end of March. We haven't seen this plan

yet. John Tory has also called on the Premier to convene a summit of municipal leaders, environmentalists, experts and other affected parties to help in the development of a plan. All we've seen is

a government with its head in the sand hoping against hope that they will not have to do anything. If the amazing Liberal plan to deal with the trash crisis is to do nothing, it's time to get a new

plan.

AGNES CAMPBELL MACPHAIL

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It's indeed an honour to stand today and talk about Agnes Campbell Macphail, the first woman elected to

the House of Commons in Ottawa and, as well, the first woman to be elected to this Legislature. This was in 1921, before women were even declared to be persons.

After a 19-year career at the federal level, Agnes was elected, as I said, as a member of the provincial Parliament for York East, which encompassed all of

what is today modern-day East York in the city of Toronto. She was the first woman seated in the Ontario Legislature, in 1943, where she was a leader in the fight for hospital insurance.

Agnes's work and passions are well known. They encompassed things like women's rights, fairness to seniors, penal reform, international peace and disarmament,

access to housing and health care. Most recently, in latter life, they were about the development of youth and education.

It is in this regard I stand today to talk about the contest that we hold every year in East York for young people to come forward to contribute and to show

their parliamentary skills and their ability to speak in public. The quality of these contestants, I will tell you, will very often match the level of debate that we hear in this House. The young

people have done their research, they have organized their presentations and they've spoken in front of their family, friends, peers and judges. They talk on a broad range of topics. This year it

will be held on February 21 at 7:30 in the True Davidson council chamber at the East York Civic Centre, 850 Coxwell Avenue. Please, if you can possibly make it, come out and see some very good

public speaking.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): Recently, quite a few retirees who are collecting pension benefits from OMERS have come to the constituency office

of my riding of Markham worried about the security of their pensions. It is very unfortunate that some have chosen to try to scare pensioners into believing that any changes are being made to their

pensions just to try to score some political points and make the government look bad. The truth, as has been stated many times in this House this week, is that there will be absolutely no changes

made to existing pensions, and those collecting pensions have nothing to worry about.

Some pensioners in my riding have been led to believe that they will have to pay for the supplemental benefits that firefighters and police officers negotiate.

This is completely untrue. Any supplementary benefits will be paid for on a 50-50 basis by the municipality and the employees who will benefit. As a matter of fact, Bill 206, if passed, will do

something that will benefit pensioners. For the first time, a representative of pensioners will have a vote on both the administrators and sponsors boards of OMERS. For the first time, pensioners'

voices will be heard at the table when any changes to the OMERS plan are being negotiated.

I'm happy to say that the McGuinty government has taken steps not only to protect current OMERS pensioners but to give them a voice that they've never had.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): Ontario's manufacturing sector is in trouble. Some 54,000 jobs were lost in 2005. January alone saw a further

32,500 jobs disappear. What will February bring? The Minister of Economic Development and Trade has the answer. Is it a comprehensive plan to build competitiveness within key industries in Ontario?

No, that's not it. Is it a series of meetings with affected communities to find out what they need to be competitive? No, that's not it either. Is it a plan to make electricity rates for small

businesses competitive to other jurisdictions? No, that's not it. Is it a plan to make Ontario business and industry tax-competitive with competitive jurisdictions? No, that's not it either. Well,

what is the answer?

The answer from the minister is, "It's not our problem; it's the exchange rate." In 1977, when the Canadian dollar was US$1.07, Ontario had a competitive and

productive manufacturing sector because the government of the day kept us competitive. In 2003, when you were elected over there, Ontario and Canada were the third most productive nation among OECD

countries. Now we are 12th. That's under a federal Liberal regime and a provincial Liberal regime. I say it's not the exchange rate; I say it's not Ottawa. I say it's you. Develop a plan like you

promised you would on December 8, 2005, when you supported our resolution to do so. Roll up your sleeves, get to work and develop a plan to keep Ontario competitive and stop the bleeding in our

manufacturing sector.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I rise today to clear up some of the myths being propagated about Bill 206. This bill, if passed, will not

affect any current pensioners. It doesn't discriminate against women and low-paid workers, as some would have you believe, and it does not force anyone to pay for supplemental benefits that they

won't be receiving. But the most important myth I would like to clear up is the idea that the bill stacks the deck against improvements to the OMERS pension plan.

The truth of the matter is that the two-thirds majority required to make improvements to the plan applies to any effort to diminish the plan. This means that

major changes to the plan, before they can go ahead, will have to have a significant number of employers and employees in favour. What's more, if 50% plus one are in favour of a change but a

two-thirds majority cannot be reached, the proposed changes could go to a mediator. The same formula applies to going to arbitration after the mediator reports back.

This government has done everything in its power to make Bill 206 acceptable to all sides. The bill has been sent to committee after both first and second

readings. A number of amendments have been accepted, including some suggested by stakeholders and the opposition. It is unfortunate that myths are being spread in an effort to derail a bill that

has support on both sides of this House as well as from many stakeholders. I hope I have been able to dispel some of these myths today.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I rise in the House to acknowledge the work that the public safety officials do on a daily basis. Police

officers and firefighters selflessly put their lives in danger to protect the public every day. Think about that for a minute. We're talking about the people that are running into buildings in

flames as people are running out. We're talking about people who place their lives on the line on a daily basis, dealing with the worst elements of our society every time they answer a distress

call.

Police officers and firefighters have, to put it mildly, unique job challenges. The McGuinty government, through Bill 206, is recognizing that selflessness.

We're allowing police officers and firefighters to negotiate supplemental benefits to the OMERS pension plan that they belong to. What we're doing is ensuring that the very people who ensure our

safety have a greater chance to retire in good health.

It's unfortunate and it's shameful that a campaign of misinformation has surrounded these changes. So I would like to set the record straight: The supplemental

benefits that are negotiated between municipalities and police officers and firefighters will be paid for on a 50-50 basis. It's inaccurate for AMO to suggest they will have to increase municipal

taxes.

Devolving the OMERS plan has been discussed for more than 10 years by every government. Transferring control of the pension plan is the right thing to do. I'm

proud to say that we've done this in a way that's fair to all members.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Over the past few weeks, we have heard a great deal about our government's Bill 206 and the effect it might have on

OMERS pensioners. There are others who are counting on us to pass the bill. In fact, in my riding of Brant, the Brantford Professional Fire Fighters Association sent me 100 letters in support of

the bill. Quite frankly, some of their points should be put in this House.

"I commend you for this bill's introduction and recognizing the necessary amendments required during second reading of the bill. As a firefighter, it is very

important to have the flexibility to enhance our pension to afford a respectable retirement at an earlier age."

One goes on to say, "My concern lies with recent media advertisements sponsored by other stakeholders and their attempt to kill this bill."

Finally, "To have your government turn down this opportunity and not move forward ... would leave my colleagues and I in a plan that cannot meet the needs of

professional firefighters across the province."

Concerns of the costs have been raised. The total worst-case scenario predicted by AMO -- even if it were correct, which it's not -- would take 11 years to

negotiate and fully implement at the local level.

Finally, our firefighters have double the rate of cancer of any other member in this plan and they live shorter lives. They have a right to ask us to take care

of them and their families in this time of need for their pension negotiations -- double the rate of cancer of anyone else in the plan, and they live shorter lives.

I support Bill 206. Everybody should support Bill 206.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOLDEN DREAMS HOME

AND DECOR LTD. ACT, 2006

Mr. Qaadri moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19,

An Act to revive Golden Dreams Home and Decor Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

TRILLIUM GIFT OF LIFE NETWORK AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE RÉSEAU TRILLIUM POUR LE DON DE VIE

Mr. Kormos moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 61,

An Act to amend the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act / Projet de loi 61, Loi visant à modifier la

Loi sur le Réseau Trillium pour le

don de vie.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The purpose of the bill is to ensure that upon the death of a person, tissue from the person's body may be

removed and made available for transplant into another person's body and that this may be done without the consent of the person from whom the tissue is removed.

Currently, the act requires that consent be obtained before tissue can be removed from a human body. Under the proposed amendments, consent is no longer

required, but a person may object to the removal of tissue prior to his or her death or a substitute may object on his or her behalf after the death has occurred. If an objection is made, no tissue

shall be removed from the body.

Part II of the act sets out the manner and circumstances in which an objection may be made by or on behalf of a person.

To date, it was considered an exceptional act to donate an organ. I put to you that it's time in Ontario for it to be considered an exceptional act to deny an

organ where it could save a life or extend a life.

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

Mrs. Bountrogianni moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act and the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 62, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le financement des

élections et la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): This bill, if passed, will make

it easier for new political parties to register in this province. Registration in Ontario entitles political parties to receive a number of benefits. These include having the ability to solicit

contributions, issue tax receipts to contributors, request and receive a copy of the permanent register of electors and become eligible for campaign expense reimbursements.

Under the provisions of this bill, new parties could register by endorsing at least two candidates in a general election or in two or more concurrent

by-elections. Outside a campaign period, parties could register by providing the Chief Election Officer with the signatures, names and addresses of at least 1,000 electors. By facilitating the

registration of new political parties, we're encouraging better representation of the full diversity of perspectives across this province.

We're also taking steps to make sure that the integrity of the party registration and political finance regime is maintained. There are provisions that impose

obligations on parties and enable the Chief Election Officer to deregister parties that aren't meeting those obligations.

I'm very proud to introduce this bill today and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

NOWRUZ DAY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE JOUR NOWRUZ

Mr. Racco moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 63,

An Act to proclaim Nowruz Day / Projet de loi 63, Loi proclamant le Jour Nowruz.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): March 21 marks the first day of spring, and to Iranians all over the world it marks the first day of the new

year. Nearly 100,000 Iranians have come to live in our beautiful province, and it is only appropriate that we honour them with recognition of Nowruz Day.

SENATORS SELECTION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE CHOIX DES SÉNATEURS

Mr. Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 64,

An Act to provide for the election in Ontario of nominees for appointment to the Senate of Canada / Projet de loi 64, Loi prévoyant

l'élection en Ontario de candidats à des nominations au Sénat du Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): The purpose of the bill is to provide for the selection of nominees for appointment to the Senate by

way of democratic election. Once nominees have been selected by election, the government of Ontario shall submit the names of the Senate nominees to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as persons

who may be summoned to the Senate of Canada for the purpose of filling vacancies relating to Ontario. This is an historic opportunity for Ontario to play a leading role in the democratic renewal of

the Canadian Senate.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): Speaker, I believe we have unanimous

consent to move a motion without notice regarding the standing committee on social policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley is asking for unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding the standing

committee on social policy. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Notwithstanding the order of the House dated Thursday, June 17, 2004, regarding the

schedule for committee meetings, the

following committee shall be authorized to meet as follows: The standing committee on social policy on Monday, Februar