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

May 26, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-May-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 26 May 2008 Lundi 26 mai 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COSMETIC PESTICIDES BAN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES PESTICIDES UTILISÉS

À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

C. DIFFICILE

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

C. DIFFICILE

C. DIFFICILE

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ENERGY CONTRACTS

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

FIRE IN HAMILTON

RENT BANK PROGRAM

TOURISM

DOCTORS' SERVICES

VISITOR

PETITIONS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

PROTECTION FOR MINERS

CHILD CUSTODY

LORD'S PRAYER

CAR CULTURE

PROPERTY TAXATION

WYE MARSH WILDLIFE CENTRE

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

FIREARMS CONTROL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

D. AUBREY MOODIE

SENTENCING

LIONS CLUB OF RICHMOND HILL

PROTECTIVE SERVICES

APPRECIATION BARBECUE

POLICE OFFICERS

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

GUELPH-WELLINGTON

WOMEN IN CRISIS

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

ONTARIO CHILD BENEFIT

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION

AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ALGOMA UNIVERSITY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'UNIVERSITÉ ALGOMA

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ALGOMA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SERVICES FOR PERSONS

WITH DEVELOPMENTAL

DISABILITIES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES SERVICES

AUX PERSONNES AYANT

UNE DÉFICIENCE INTELLECTUELLE

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COSMETIC PESTICIDES BAN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES PESTICIDES UTILISÉS

À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 15, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Pesticides Act to prohibit the use and sale of pesticides that may be used for cosmetic purposes / Projet de loi 64, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les pesticides en vue d'interdire l'usage et la vente de pesticides pouvant être utilisés à des fins esthétiques.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Phil McNeely: The ban of pesticides proposed under Bill 64 provides a unique opportunity for the province of Ontario to become a leader in North America in the efforts to reduce human exposure to chemical pesticides.

By now, all members of the House should be familiar with the risks associated with pesticide use in the province of Ontario. The links between pesticide use and devastating human diseases such as cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and increased risk to the most vulnerable members of the community–children, expectant mothers and the elderly—are well-known. I've said this before in this House: This is important legislation that seeks to protect Ontario families from unnecessary exposure to the dangers of chemical pesticides. I would be very disappointed if my colleagues across the floor voted against this legislation.

The environment has become a pivotal issue in Ontario and around the world, and this legislation is in keeping with the growing concern with the condition of our environment. This legislation is one of the many steps forward in making the environment a central issue of concern in our province. To be clear, this bill is minimally taxing on hard-working Ontarians. Its only demand is the responsible use of chemical products and a reasonable consideration for the health and safety of our neighbours and the environment. This is easily achieved.

There are plenty of effective alternatives to our dependence on chemical pesticides. Simple solutions include consulting local experts to find the best and most pest-resistant plants, shrubs and grasses to use in your yard. Elbow grease does not hurt either. People can make small changes in their cosmetic gardening to prevent weed and pest infestations. These are simple steps, such as ensuring your plants and shrubs receive adequate light and moisture and are provided with nutrient-rich soil made possible by adding compost in your plant and flower beds.

Although chemical pesticides may be easy and reliable, we can no longer allow the use of these harmful and dangerous substances. If you doubt the rationale for banning pesticides, I urge you to consider who will be playing on our lawns and smelling the flowers in our gardens: our children, friends, families, our family pets and local wildlife.

The province of Ontario is not alone in its decision to ban pesticides. Some 33 Ontario municipalities, accounting for 44% of the population, have already implemented similar or stronger bans. These municipalities are supported by countless medical and health organizations, including the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario College of Family Physicians and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario.

The city of Ottawa has made efforts to address pesticide use. While I was on council there, we worked diligently to reduce our city's reliance on, and eventually ban, chemical pesticides. Unfortunately, we did not pass a bylaw in 2002—one that I worked on very hard with Dr. Cushman, the medical officer of health—that would have banned cosmetic pesticide use, losing by a vote of 15 to 7. However, in 2002 we successfully implemented a policy banning use of cosmetic pesticides on city properties.

I have my home on one of the city parks, and I find that it's a great place to take my grandchild out for a walk, and I can do it confidently, knowing there are no pesticides sprayed on that property. In addition, a policy was put in place to encourage residents to reduce the reliance and to provide increased understanding of the potential serious health risks associated with exposure to chemical pesticides. Efforts included regular workshops providing instruction and information on the use of organic pesticides, and these continue today in the city of Ottawa.

The issue of a bylaw to ban cosmetic pesticides rose again in 2005 in the city, after the city's medical officer of health presented a report to the health, recreation and social services committee. It recommended a bylaw prohibiting the non-essential use of pesticides. Unfortunately, once again, that bylaw failed, this time by a 10-to-10 vote. I was very disappointed when my councillors in the east end did not support the ban. So I'm very pleased that we're going ahead with this provincial legislation.

Despite the unwillingness of some city councillors to take strong action to address the ban on cosmetic pesticides, public opinion across Ottawa remains highly supportive of a pesticide ban. The city has already taken pains to remove pesticides from its properties, as has the federal government on Parliament Hill and all Ottawa-area school boards.

This legislation will take us further in the protection of our health and safety by ensuring that non-essential pesticide use is prohibited in our province. Although it is only one of many steps necessary to move towards a more sustainable Ontario, it is an important step. This bill will provide a comprehensive body of legislation building on the example set by many municipalities across this province that have taken the lead on banning pesticides.

Again, I ask my colleagues across the floor how they could vote against this legislation. I would like to describe city hall and council as I recall the situation back in 2002. The council chambers were full. The meeting, I think, went until 3 o'clock in the morning. This was a biggest issue I had been involved in as a new councillor. The doctors and nurses were lined up on one side, and the chemical companies, the pesticide companies, were lined up on the other. The chemical companies had come in from every part of Ontario to make sure Ottawa didn't get the ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides.

This is only 2% of the pesticide market. The doctors presented their evidence. The pesticide pushers called on science-based decisions, and the councillors got the lobbying, often local, and they caved.

I spent three years visiting the cancer clinic at the children's hospital. I saw the number of children in those cancer clinics. I spoke with parents, saw kids cured, then met with the parents after the children went into remission. We talked a lot about the precautionary principle: If there is any doubt that these chemicals cause cancer, then that is sufficient reason to support the ban. Liberals believe evidence and opinions from doctors, and Conservatives still believe the industry. It may be as simple as that. Was the banning of smoking any different?

The Marlboro man always denied the connection between smoking and cancer. I would like to tell you that my wife has kept our lawn pretty well clean of dandelions. It's back-breaking work, you might say, but not nearly as hard as one visit to the children's hospital cancer clinic.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions and comments?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I appreciate the comments. I'll be taking

part in the debate myself in a few minutes on Bill 64. I've got a lot of points I'd like to raise about the bill, things that I've heard but I want the government to clarify. The number one thing I'm concerned about is some of the things that small business people are telling me about: problems and issues they're facing with this legislation, and wondering about some help that they'll require. On top of that, I'm concerned about the timing of the bill, the exact implementation date, those sorts of things. So I'll be taking

part in the debate myself in the next few minutes. I look forward to the debate and to the committee hearings on this as well.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I support the comments made by the member for Ottawa-Orléans. There's just one issue that I've been raising on this matter—I raised it last week—and that is that if a city like Ottawa wants to strengthen the bill, increase the floor, as it were, increase the ceiling, create more stringent rules, why would cities like Ottawa, Toronto and others be prohibited from doing that? That's the question I've asked government members, including the member for Eglinton—Lawrence and others who have spoken to this bill.

While it is nice to say, "We're creating rules for all of the cities across the land," and it seems good, but if a city wants to make it tougher, wants to ban all pesticide use, why would you not permit that? It would seem to me that that would be in keeping with the argument that the member for Ottawa—Orléans was making, and I wonder whether he has a comment on that.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to join the debate this morning on banning the cosmetic use of pesticides, Bill 64. I certainly think this bill is indicative of how society has changed over the past 10, 15, 20 years. We're starting to take a second look, in very general terms, at the approach we take to certain products that have been part of our life for a great many years. If we look at some of the toxins we're beginning to find now in products that we use on an everyday basis, I don't think anybody should wonder that responsible levels of government would look at some of the products that are used on public property as well.

Certainly that's what this bill does. It provides a level of protection that I think the public strongly supports. If you take a look at some of the responses that have come in to the Environmental Bill of Rights, you'll see that there was actually overwhelming public support for the bill that is being proposed here today.

Obviously there's some opposition to the bill from members of the industry, but I think the strong support from Landscape Ontario is very important. They want to see an end to the patchwork quilt we have of regulations, where you can do a certain thing in Hamilton but you can't do it in Oakville, or you can do it in Burlington but you can't do it in London. What people in Ontario want is the same strong level of support throughout the province.

In speaking to the previous speaker's question as to why we want to have the same level of protection for all Ontarians, I think that's part of the crafting of this bill. That's what Ontarians have asked us for; that's what people engaged in the industry have asked us for. They want some certainty around the use of pesticides in this province.

I would urge all members to support this bill. It's one of the reasons that have come from the speaker from Ottawa—Orléans, ones that I think touch many of our lives. It's something we can do something about in a very substantial way by supporting this bill and moving ahead.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It's great to be back this week after a week in our constituency offices, where we spent some time with our community leaders, our neighbours and people who have real concerns in the province of Ontario.

Just last week, we learned that we lost close to 1,400 jobs in the high-tech sector in the city of Ottawa. Of course, on the weekend, we heard the sad news that Nortel will be sending some more people on to the unemployment line.

I ask at this point in time; Why are we doing something that's not science-based but more political-science-based? We have to stop thinking in this chamber that we can just put forward pieces of legislation—in this case, a three-page piece of legislation—that really aren't going to dramatically alter the political landscape or the scientific landscape or the natural landscape of this province. They're doing it, I guess, because it is more about politics.

I would much prefer today to be debating the economy, because I'm going to tell you something: It's really hard to go home and see some of the folks who are going to be in the unemployment line, figuring out where they're going to get the money for that mortgage or for their kids' education.

As I mentioned, this is a three-page bill that will allow the government to do almost anything behind closed doors through regulations. We strongly object on this side to the growing Liberal tendency to offer up few or no specifics in legislation that is debated in this assembly, which is what they did in the last budget bill. Madam Speaker, you'll recall the slush fund—slushgate—their year-end spending spree with municipalities, with no strings attached to that money.

If this government is serious about the growing problem of reducing toxins in our environment, they should start offering up fact-based decisions on real science, not political science, and ensure that all changes are done in the full view of the Ontario public.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): The member for Ottawa-Orléans for a response.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I wish to thank the members for Simcoe North, Trinity—Spadina, Oakville and Nepean—Carleton for responding to my presentation this morning. The science-based evidence that I like to accept is that from the health organizations in this province and from the doctors that I heard speak at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

I am very pleased that this legislation is going forward. I can understand the reservations of the member from Trinity—Spadina. We need strong legislation in this province to protect our families and our kids, and I'm really pleased to see that we're making progress in that direction.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to be able to rise this morning and comment for a few moments on Bill 64,

an Act to amend the Pesticides Act to prohibit the use and sale of pesticides that may be used for cosmetic purposes. As the member from Nepean—Carleton mentioned, it's only a three-page bill, and the

short title is the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act.

It's great to be back in the House this week after constituency week, but I'm sure if you're a member of the government, you're not very happy to be back here. I didn't hear a lot of happy things about the government in the last seven days. I'm assuming they're going to want out of this House as quickly as possible, so please, please give us a break here and let us pass some of this legislation. We don't want to do one of those things like last year, where you abruptly ended the Legislature in the morning when one of the ministers was supposed to speak in estimates. That was an interesting time. We'll see. I think our

schedule goes through to the end of June. Let's get this bill passed.

The one positive thing I heard last week was the private member's bill from the member from Brampton—Springdale, which is the sprinkler bill. I tell you, there's a lot of support out there from our fire services for that bill. The only thing they're saying with that particular bill is that they think the government is going to kill their own member's bill, so there'll be a lot of firemen in the House today. When you're back at caucus tomorrow, give the lady a break and let her pass her bill. She's had it here about three times, and we can eventually implement it. We'll be happy to do that. I can tell you that that is the one positive thing I heard about the government last week.

Now, the Pesticides Act. Has anyone seen the lawns outside? It's probably the most disgraceful-looking Parliament we have in Canada now. There's no more grass left; it's all weeds. When the member from Ottawa—Orléans mentioned consulting local experts, I'm wondering who the government has consulted to look after the lawns of our beautiful Parliament buildings. Right here in Toronto, the capital of Ontario, our lawns are a disgrace. Maybe people shouldn't be crawling on the lawns or walking on the lawns, but the appearance of them—I'd rather have AstroTurf than what we see out there now. It's pathetic. Go out to the east doors, have a look and you'll see how wonderful it really is.

Do you know what? The whole thing around the science of this bill is something that I don't understand. I really hope that when we get to committee with this bill, those experts who are basing this on science will come forward and give us all of the data and the exact information we need as to why we should solve this. What I can't understand about it is why this would apply to properties like lawns on public property and individuals' lands; however, in farming, golf courses and forestry it does not. I'm wondering how you tie the science together.

I know the minister says that golf courses will have an expert advisory panel and that they'll also have a plan to put in place, but we all know that if you allow golf courses to go the way the lawns are on the east side of the building, there'll be no golf courses in business in Ontario. They simply won't be around. People will not golf at them; they'll just be nothing but weed patches. So I worry about that. I worry about how it would be unhealthy for someone to be around their own property, and have a ban that applies to their property, but not have it apply when they go golfing.

I hope someone in the House can clarify this for me—maybe the parliamentary assistant to health or health promotion, or even the environment. I'm told that money has flowed from either health promotion or the Ministry of Health to some of the school boards so that they can take kids out to golf courses. I'm wondering why the government would be hypocritical in that manner. You're funding students to go out and learn how to golf on areas where there would be pesticides allowed, but not on their own school properties or if they come to Queen's Park, or in their own homes, where they actually live. I'm concerned about that.

Farmers are concerned about this bill. There's a lot of concern about this. They think that if the government's really serious about this, they'll apply the pesticide ban to all properties across our province, and that would include agriculture. I don't know what kind of an impact that would have. Again, I'm hoping that when we get to committee we'll see the science that it's based on, as far as what the government's concerned about. I'm hoping that they'll be able to give us a lot of data and see how it will impact agriculture, for people growing potatoes, carrots, corn etc.

If there are chemicals in the ground, what kind of an impact does that have by the time it reaches the grocery store? Or are we allowing crops to come into the country with a lot more serious pesticides that have been applied to those crops in other countries, and are we just defeating the purpose? We may not be able to sit outside on our lawn and have a picnic because the pesticides may have an impact on us, but we might go to a barbecue and have a salad where a lot of the vegetables have come from other countries.

Maybe the pesticides are a lot stronger or have been applied in a lot heavier doses, and that may have an impact on how it affects the food we eat. So there would be something health-related to that.

Those are the kinds of questions that I think we have to be prepared to answer in this House. Certainly, before the bill is passed, I would want to know about things like chemicals coming in from other countries on our fruits and vegetables, the impact on the golf courses, and of course why it's strictly municipal public properties and houses, and not trying to do something that would encompass the whole province, maybe on a smaller basis, as far as the amount of chemical that's applied.

The other thing that I think we have to talk about here in this House—I have a number of folks who come to me who are small business people; they are in the lawn-spraying and lawn maintenance business. They've come to my office asking me about compensation. They went into the business in good faith. They bought expensive trucks and expensive equipment to apply the fertilizers and chemicals to lawns and gardens, and now, in a lot of cases, they'll be forced right out of business. I'm wondering what the government has in mind for compensation for these small business operators.

This is a government that hates small business; we know that already. Almost every step of the way, there is a hatred shown towards small business men, with no compensation whatsoever. We see it in questions in the House. We've seen it, of course, with this bill. If the government was sincere in making this bill fair and equitable, they would make sure that all small business operators who apply chemicals and will have their businesses downsized as a result of the bill would get compensation.

I'm hoping in particular, especially in those rural communities—and there are a lot of rural members in here this morning—that you would be supportive of your small business operators getting a lot of compensation for the huge investments they've put into it.

Interjections.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm hearing their hatred for small businesses coming out now, as they start to heckle me for saying that. But we've seen it over and over again.

Interjections.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm sorry if I got under someone's skin, but the reality is, this is a real problem that we have to deal with.

I heard it all last week. You talk about compensation in different areas for operators of different businesses. We've seen it with the tobacco farmers, who were basically told to go away. We see it in the apprenticeship ratios, which are unfair to small business operators. This government refuses to listen to organizations that represent those small business people, and they completely ignore their requests for fairness in a system which is fair in other parts of the country.

I listened last week, and I don't know how many people were actually in their ridings and spent a lot of time talking to business operators. Here's a government that—it's nice that they can use some of these motherhood things to deflect away from the real problems they face, as the member from Nepean—Carleton mentioned a little earlier, but we've got some real problems out there.

On the Victoria Day holiday weekend, I think tourism was probably down about 35% to 40%. Unbelievable. And our leader, John Tory—

Interjection: Where is John?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: The member from Wellington—Halton Hills and the member from Niagara West—Glanbrook made some announcements on some ideas that might help, like getting rid of the sales tax for long weekends on hotels and restaurants etc. I know that the Minister of Tourism is a rookie and probably not very skilled in his job, but the reality is that he called it a band-aid solution. With empty hotels, empty restaurants and nobody on the highways, when someone comes out with a reasonable solution that might help them, I don't call that a band-aid solution.

If it's going to help a family that comes to Toronto for the weekend and it's going to save them $100 by coming and visiting, they're going to spend that money in other areas in the city. That's all they were trying to say.

I've seen nothing from the government saying they promote tourism. Remember, tourism mostly involves small business operators all across our province. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake with this, and right now people aren't hiring yet. The Victoria Day holiday weekend was so bad that a lot of businesses didn't even open up between the May 24 holiday and last weekend, during constituency week.

I consider these to be very, very serious problems that our government is ignoring. We're here in this House today talking about a pesticides ban, and apparently some are arguing whether or not it's based on science. We're not really sure about this right now, but this is what we hope the government will bring forward when they get to committee. I'm hoping it's going to be a committee that will travel into rural Ontario. We don't usually get this government wanting to travel into rural Ontario, because they're not that popular in rural Ontario.

We've got another problem with the bill. I want to know what the solution is to this, and maybe the Minister of Health will be able to answer this later on, or somebody in the House who has all the expertise. I've got some letters—I don't know how many other folks in this assembly have received letters from constituents—on allergies. They're concerned about the impact of Bill 64 on people with allergies. I would like to know what the government's thoughts are on that.

So instead of heckling me in their responses, maybe the next time they can tell me what impact this bill will have on people with allergies and will there be any exemptions or will it have an impact on people who do have allergies—that sort of thing. I think we need to have those kinds of questions answered.

Again—this wasn't something I heard in constituency week. Some of my small business operators are worried about the compensation. I had a few letters on the allergies, but what I was hearing about were things like tourism. I've got to tell you, I don't know what other folks in this House are hearing, but I'm not hearing a lot of popular comments around this announcement on sex changes being funded. A lot of people think a lot of other things should be prioritized ahead of that. I was at probably 25 events last week where people came up to me and were very concerned about what the government was actually doing and why that would be something that would be so special at this time.

Last week, as you know, was our constituency week, but it was also emergency management week and emergency services week across the province. It was really interesting, when the government brags about all the things they're doing and all these motherhood statements, to find that the president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association came out last week—I've got a copy of his letter to Premier McGuinty. Mr. Walsh wrote a letter to the McGuinty government asking them when they're going to start funding police the way they should.

We're almost 500 officers short, but all they do is tend to blame the federal government; if anything comes up around policing, it's the federal government's fault. I'd like to put that on the record, because—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): I'd just remind the member to speak to the bill that's on the floor.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I was worried about the police on lawns, Madam Speaker.

The reality is, over and over again—even in any response we get in the House—the minister blames the federal government for policing shortages in Ontario. That's what you call completely not fulfilling the responsibility you have.

The reality is, we have a bill in front of us that is popular, as far as the Environmental Bill of Rights and people who have written in on that and who have made comments on it. But as we move forward with that bill and we go to committee, I hope we'll have a lot of opportunity for our small business people, the agricultural industry, golf course owners, doctors, cancer experts etc. to comment on this bill, so we in this House can understand the science behind it and why it is so important to put this bill through in its current form.

As I said earlier, I can't understand why there are these exemptions in all these other areas. If it's so important to your lawn and so important to public property, why are other areas exempt and why isn't there a better explanation of that? When the minister made his opening statement and addressed the bill in the House on the day it was introduced, he just said farmers would have a plan and golf courses would have a plan and he didn't want to talk to that anymore. But even golf course owners are now saying, "What's going to be the impact? Next year, is it going to apply to me?

Should I shut down my golf course now?" Because of the tourism aspect, business is already down in a lot of these areas, and something like this would completely kill the golf industry if it was passed. I don't have a lot to add to that because obviously you won't let me go into other areas of discussion here that I'd like to attack the government on, and of course there are lots of those.

As I said, I want to welcome the pages here. I know we've got a couple of folks—I haven't met them here this morning yet—from my riding. I'll be talking to them in the next little while, but I really want to welcome them to Queen's Park and I want to welcome all the pages here. We're pretty good people, as a rule. You'll probably come here and wonder why all this heckling is going back and forth, like the way they've heckled me all morning as I've been trying to speak. In the end, I think they're all pretty good people representing the different communities they serve in this province.

So as I wind up on this debate, I want to thank in particular my good friend the member from—I keep thinking of him as the member from Caledonia, but it's Haldimand—Norfolk—because he has been such an outstanding member and he has brought some really good points forward here. He gave a one-hour lead-off here a few days ago, and there were a lot of really positive comments in it. But I think he, like me, will look forward to the debate and having real data provided to us, real experts, not this fluffy stuff we've seen over here that is kind of a motherhood statement.

We have to base this on science; we have to base this on what kind of compensation business owners will receive as a result of the fact that this will have a negative impact on them. We want to make sure that we get it right, and also we want to make sure of what the member from Ottawa-Carleton mentioned, about the health issues. Where there are serious health issues, we have to address these, but they tie into everything.

They tie into other foods coming in from other parts of the country, international products coming into Ontario, and the way we apply our agriculture legislation to have impacts on bills like this as well.

I'm going to wind up now. I'm looking forward to the debate and to comments coming forward here today. Again, I apologize for saying that the government has a hatred for small business, but do you know what? I didn't want to make it seem that harsh, but the reality is, we are seeing that on a day-to-day basis in rural Ontario. This government hates small business operators. They have a fight with farmers on all the time, and quite frankly it's very disappointing to sit in this House day after day and see a complete assault on rural Ontario by this government. We can go on and on and on, and we'll look very forward to—

Interjections.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: You mention the word "hatred" of rural Ontario and they get mad. The reality is, this government hates rural Ontario. They do everything they can possibly do to make life harder and harder for the residents of rural Ontario. Just name the bill and it will have an impact one way or another. So when we start doing our complete job here and fulfilling our full responsibility to all the citizens of Ontario, then I'll be more supportive of a piece of legislation like this.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I just wanted to say to the member from Simcoe North that I'm happy to see that morning debates have not diminished his ability to express his warm hostility towards Liberals.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I stand today to comment on the statements, I'm going to call them, of the member from Simcoe North. I've got to say that the comment that this government hates rural Ontario—there could not be anything that is more nonsense than that statement. I think about the previous government, how you treated rural communities. For you to stand in this House and make those comments is totally inappropriate. But what we're here today to speak about is Bill 64. I want to remind the opposition members from across the way that that is in fact what we are speaking about today.

When I think about what they did when they were in government—they brought forward nutrient management. Now, one of the things in the municipalities, in rural Ontario—that piecemeal legislation, from municipality to municipality, caused untold grief to our farmers. How did they treat our farmers? They turned their backs. They finally, after the second term, decided that maybe they might bring forward nutrient management.

For the member from Simcoe North to talk about compensation—I can tell you, when those discussions were going on, this member from Simcoe North did not stand in the House and talk about small business at that time. No, sir. When we talk about piecemeal legislation and how that affects rural Ontario, bringing forward provincial legislation that speaks to making a healthy Ontario is the direction that, when we had the conversation in October, was part of our platform and a very strong plank.

Quite frankly, I think that when the member stands up and says he gets a conversation from here and there, he doesn't hear the majority of the voices that are strongly in support of this legislation and want to see more work done. I look forward to the hearings, and they should come to rural Ontario, where they will be very graciously received—the McGuinty government.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I welcome the opportunity to comment on what the member for Simcoe North has explained to us. As with the zoo legislation, he has presented a very comprehensive discussion of what's going on here. It's a very complex issue, this issue of banning pesticides. It's an issue that has to be based on science, and I think the member from Simcoe North did an admirable job in explaining that. Our concern is that the premise of this legislation seems to suggest—and some of us are of a farm background—that there is something inherently wrong with these products.

That is a threat to the forest industry and to the farming industry, because it undermines people's confidence in these various products. From the debate we heard this morning, the debate we have heard to date, I have a number of questions.

We hear the arguments with respect to linking certain cancers to pesticides. We do ask questions, and we do ask for scientific evidence. Which particular cancer are we talking about and which particular product was linked to that cancer? Was the cancer related to glyphosate, for example, which is banned in Toronto? This legislation, brought forward by the McGuinty Liberals, will allow the use of glyphosate, a product produced by Monsanto. It's called Roundup. I've been using it for decades. Will you allow that particular product to go forward or is that product linked to certain cancers?

Learning disabilities: What learning disabilities are we talking about? Which particular chemical are we talking about? We hear mention of birth defects. Which particular pesticide, which particular chemical product is linked to—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: It's a good opportunity to speak to Bill 64 and the comments of the member from Simcoe North. Again, I just remind our new pages and the people across Ontario that this is about banning or stopping the indiscriminate use of cosmetic pesticides, chemicals that you don't really need to use in your front lawn or in your backyard for cosmetic purposes and for appearance purposes.

It's just beyond me why the Conservative Party disagrees with the Canadian Cancer Society and doctors, nurses and medical professionals who believe it's best to err on the side of safety for our children especially, who might be susceptible to getting some kind of residue on their feet, on their hands and then put their hands in their mouth. This could cause some harmful medical consequences. That's why not only the province of Ontario but jurisdictions all over the world are doing this and municipalities all over Ontario have already done this.

So it is not doing something that the public is not asking for; they're asking for a uniform set of standards so that we can better protect our children especially from the indiscriminate use of these chemicals, primarily in an urban setting when you don't really need to use chemicals. That's what this legislation does, plain and simple. For the life of me, it's amazing that the Conservative Party is fighting the same battle that has been fought with tobacco. We all remember the same people saying that tobacco doesn't kill you, that tobacco doesn't cause cancer. This is the same argument.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Response?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I thank the members for Huron Bruce, Haldimand—Norfolk, Trinity—Spadina and Eglinton—Lawrence for their comments this morning. We, on this side of the House, don't want to stop anything that's going to have an impact on people who might get cancer, but we want to make sure it's a complete bill and that it has an impact on all the stakeholders who may be affected.

I mentioned earlier in the House that if there's something going on a lawn that would cause a child to have cancer, how are we assured that something that might be on the fruit and vegetables he eats, which might be imported from another country, might not be more powerful than that? What are we going to do about that? Plain and simple, that could have an impact as well.

I stick to what I said earlier about this government's hatred for rural Ontario. I've talked to some people lately about the source water protection committees. I understand that there will actually be farms put right out of business, because if they're within 1,500 feet of a wellhead, they won't be able to farm anymore, and there will be no compensation whatsoever to those farms. They're not even talking about any form of compensation.

Maybe people want to see these who apply chemicals to lawns go out of business. But if they're going to go out of business as a result of this bill, I think there should be some kind of compensation factor; it's as plain and simple as that. These are small business operators. A lot of them have a lot of employees. They entered this business in good faith under the legislation we have today. If the government is going to change the legislation, they should compensate those people for those jobs; I don't think there's anything unfair about that. But they won't. They'll try to sweep it under the carpet.

They'll try to put a motherhood statement on everything with a bunch of fancy press releases, and nothing will happen and those people will lose their jobs.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'm happy to welcome the citizens of Ontario—at least those who are awake or semi-awake—to this political channel. I've got to tell you how difficult it is to make speeches in the morning. It won't prevent me from trying, of course, but it is tough. I don't know how many other professions get to debate so early in the morning and be alert and awake as they do that. When we had speeches in the afternoon, I used to say, "Welcome, citizens, to this parliamentary channel.

It's 4 o'clock" or "it's 5 o'clock." Now I'm saying, "It's 9:45." I used to say, "Get your popcorn ready and get your beer." Now what do you say? "Get your coffee ready and listen to the debate"? Who's going to listen at 9 o'clock or 9:30 in the morning? It's hard for the speaker to speak; imagine how hard it is for the listener to listen at that time of the morning. Nobody is watching.

All this is courtesy of the Liberal government, courtesy of the House leader of the Liberal Party, probably courtesy of McGuinty, probably courtesy of some young whippersnapper in McGuinty's office deciding that this is what we should be doing. Maybe it's not even McGuinty. Maybe it's not even the former Attorney General. Maybe it's just some whippersnapper with an "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" attitude to political debate; it's very possible. But we owe this to the House leader of the Liberal Party. I hope the citizens of Ontario are enjoying these morning debates.

I want to say that I do not support the Conservative argument about "show us the real science on chemicals." If I had it my way, I would abolish the living hell out of all chemicals in our society, because I'm one who believes that chemicals are killing us. I'm one who believes that chemicals are deranging our physiology. To those who say, "Show me the science," I've got to tell you, I am frightened of chemicals like you wouldn't believe. There are thousands and thousands of chemicals in the air we breathe and the water we drink. They're in everything.

I don't want to wait for the science. I don't want to be a victim of a chemical killing, to be able to say, "Yeah, they're bad now." I'm not one of those. I take the precaution of saying, "Where you can, abolish as many chemicals as you possibly can," because I am firmly of the belief that they're hurting me, my children and everyone else's children. I don't want to wait for any real science on this matter. From a superficial knowledge—not being a scientist or anything—I can imagine these chemicals inside the body and what they're doing to us. Can't you simply imagine? Do you have to be a scientist to get a sense of what they're doing to us? That's me.

I welcome this bill. It isn't the strongest bill that I have ever debated on issues of banning pesticides. It's a welcome bill. It bans many pesticides for aesthetic purposes, particularly on residential home use. That's okay, I say.

When the government says, "This is really revolutionary, the toughest bill in the world or in the country," I say, "Stop. Please, stop. Don't exaggerate yourselves so much." It isn't the toughest. Municipalities have been tougher than you have with your bill. So please, when you say how tough you are on this kind of issue, you're not, and you will not be unless we get some changes in this bill.

Many municipalities have been ahead of this government for quite some time. Markham, Vaughan, Peterborough and Ottawa already had a ban on the application of pesticides for aesthetic purposes and have fought the fight against the chemical companies in court. The government is late to the party on this one. It's hardly leadership. So when the member for Oakville says, "We're leading"—please; you're following. You're not a leader on this one and you're not introducing the toughest anti-pesticides campaign ever. You're not. Other cities have, including Toronto and London.

It's for that reason that Monsieur McGuinty made the error a couple of weeks ago when he said, "Of course cities can introduce their own measures that could be tougher than the ones we've introduced." It's easy for me to understand that McGuinty would have made that mistake. He knows, like I do, and like many other MPPs in this place who were city councillors, that cities have already banned, in some cases completely, all pesticide use for residential purposes. So was it wrong for McGuinty to have said, "Of course cities can introduce more stringent measures if they want"? He wasn't wrong; he just made a mistake. He didn't realize his minister said that they couldn't do that.

It is my view that because McGuinty made that error and looked a bit bad, the minister will make it up to him. If the Premier pronounced himself on this issue, saying, "Municipalities can introduce more stringent measures," the Premier has spoken. He's a bit higher on the food chain, if you know what I mean, and therefore has a little more power than the minister on this one. It seems to me that the caucus members are also somewhat practical. They too probably said, "Of course cities should be able to introduce measures that are stronger if they want."

I am convinced that the MPPs are going to support the Premier on this. Then, when it comes to second reading, there will be amendments, if not by the NDP, by Liberal backbenchers who will introduce an amendment that will say, "Cities can introduce measures that are stronger than the bill we are proposing." I guarantee it. I really do. People will say, "How can you guarantee that?" It's just a little bit of psychology, I think. You don't want to make your Premier look bad—and he did.

And the minister looked bad, felt bad, when the Premier looked bad and felt bad after stating what he stated, and didn't mean to because he didn't know. Nobody wants to make the Premier look bad. So I guarantee 101% that an amendment will be made.

Any disagreement from any Liberal backbenchers? The rump or the other side? You see, they're smiling because they know it's coming. And I say, that's okay. I say it's okay if we allow cities that have been leaders on this issue, that have taken companies to court on this issue, that have banned, in some cases completely, all residential use of pesticides—that this is an important measure to introduce by way of an amendment that will make this bill much stronger than it is.

The bill establishes a ceiling, not a floor. So when the member from Eglinton—Lawrence, the member for Oakville and others say, "We have harmonized the rules. There's one single standard. No patchwork," it sounds good intellectually. For people who don't know much about the issue, they say, "Well, if you've got one provincial law and you harmonize it across the province, it's got to be good."

The point is that it establishes a ceiling and not a floor. The point is that if cities want to do better, they can't, and as the member from Eglinton—Lawrence says, for the life of me, I just don't understand why Liberals don't see it. The member from Eglinton—Lawrence often looks at the Tories and says, "I don't understand why they don't see it," so I look at the member from Eglinton—Lawrence and say, "I don't understand why you don't see it."

I'll repeat it for the member from Eglinton—Lawrence, because he was on this side of the House. You are establishing a ceiling, not a floor. Cities, in some cases, want to go further than you have. So I want to use your language. I can't understand why Liberals can't see that if municipalities want to introduce stronger measures to ban, in many cases completely, all pesticide use, why they can't. This is what I don't understand.

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Right. The member from Eglinton—Lawrence, like the member from Oakville, says, "Oh, because then you get a patchwork kind of quilt." What's wrong with that? What's wrong with a city deciding, "We want to make it better. We want to make it stronger"? What's wrong with that? If you create a harmonized rule and somebody says, "That's okay, we accept that, but we want to make it better," what's wrong with that? That I find incomprehensible.

The fact of the matter is, the city of Toronto, where my friend from Eglinton—Lawrence was—Dr. David McKeown stated in a May 13 Canadian Press story that the McGuinty government's provincial ban doesn't include a common weed killer that's already prohibited in Toronto. You understand? The city of Toronto has gone further than the Liberal government. The Liberal government said, "Well, too bad. We want to harmonize it. We think we're doing well. We think we know what's best, and if cities have already done something that goes further, it's too bad, because we don't really want to create a patchwork system across Ontario."

I'm arguing that it's not sensible, that it's nonsensical. I'm arguing that you could do better than that and you don't want to. It seems to me that in spite of the fact that you say that Tories are the core protector as it relates to pesticides, you're doing the same. It seems to me that you, wittingly or unwittingly, are doing the same. Where cities have done better by eliminating more chemicals, or a complete ban, you're saying, "That's not good." It contradicts your argument. It makes your argument much weaker to defend. That's why I find the Liberal arguments on this incomprehensible.

And even when the Tories stand up, in their mumblings, they don't offer anything by way of clarity on this issue.

I'm looking forward to rump Liberals, and/or other Liberals who have already spoken, to offer a reasonable argument against what I have said. I'm arguing that you are contradicting yourselves. When you attack the Tories, I say that you are attacking yourselves. When you say the Tories are defending pesticides and corporations, I say you're doing the same by creating a ceiling instead of a floor. By not permitting cities to offer tougher legislation, which they can, you are in effect protecting someone or something. Maybe you don't see it that way. It's clear to me that you don't see it. But that's what I propose to you by way of an argument against yourselves.

The legislation will prescribe a list of all pesticides covered by the ban, but the Canadian Cancer Society, the one that my friend from Eglinton—Lawrence referred to, says something different. They say, "Why not prescribe a list of chemicals which can be used, instead of chemicals which cannot be?" I find that a very logical proposition. Given that you make reference to the Canadian Cancer Society, I thought I would do the same.

Given that you support their arguments on the whole, I thought that if I presented yet another argument by the same society that you support, you might be tempted by the argument to say, "Hmm, that is a very good point"—and it is. If you can prescribe which chemicals cannot be used, why not prescribe chemicals which can? In my view, that would be better, because you have, by way of your legislation, no way of adding to the list except by introducing a bill in this place. You have no way of adding other chemicals that are banned except and unless by introducing another bill to ban additional chemicals.

That's why I say, accept the Canadian Cancer Society's argument and do the reverse of what you have proposed: Simply prescribe the list of chemicals that can be used. I accept that as a very logical argument. If Liberals have another argument to propose to that, I would love to hear it.

Then there's the matter of golf courses. I am puzzled. Again, I find that the arguments of the Liberals have been contradictory on this one. I'm led to believe, by an

article I read in the Star, that pesticide and ornamental herbicide use in residential homes represents only about 4% of pesticide use. That's not a huge number. But golf courses, which drink chemicals to the gills, where we pour an incredible amount of chemicals, by the tonne, to keep that grass so pristine—we're exempting golf courses. Why would you do that? Golf courses use pesticides on a massive scale. Compare that to residential use and there is no comparison. Those chemicals by the tonne are acceptable to you Liberals so that you can see pristine green grass on a golf course? How could you do that? How could you accept that argument as being logical? Why? Just to play golf?

Last week, I said to those of you who play golf that I'm worried about obesity, because I see a lot of golf players who are, dare I say as best as I can, obese.

Mr. Mike Colle: Tiger Woods is not.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The famous ones are not obese, of course, because they keep nice and trim, but those who go and just have fun on the golf course, I've got to tell you, are obese. I'm concerned about obesity. Minister of Health, you too are concerned about this.

Hon. George Smitherman: Careful; I'm sensitive.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: As a Minister of Health, I said. I made no reference to anyone or anything. But I've got to tell you, when those guys are playing golf, as far as I know—I don't see many people walking. Maybe it's a good thing; I don't know. But not too many walk on a golf course. They use those little carts, and the only exercise they get is to swing the golf bat.

Mr. Mike Colle: Club, club, club.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: See, they call them clubs. "Club" is such an awful word. So they get these golf clubs—that's the only exercise they get. The only other exercise they get is bending down to pick up the ball. That's the exercise they get out of golf. That's why I said that I prefer to chase a big ball—a soccer ball—rather than a golf ball, which isn't being chased but rather carted about. You get to it by a cart and you just bend over. That's the extent of your exercise, you understand. When you go for a beer, it's 200 calories in one beer. You go for two beers, it's 400 calories. All you do is pick up the ball and swing the club. That's it. It's not much of a game, I've got to tell you.

So I'm concerned for two reasons: one, the fact that golf players are a bit overweight, and in some cases obese; and on the other hand, I'm worried about the fact that when they bend over to pick up the ball, that ball has gone through that grass for thousands of miles back and forth, and it picks up a lot of chemicals as it rolls through the grass. So they pick up the ball, they put it down, and then so many of them smoke or touch their lips. Obviously, they're ingesting a whole lot of chemicals into their system.

Why not ban pesticide use in golf? Why not—

Interjection: Ban golf.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Banning golf is another matter. I would ban it myself. But that's just for fun.

Why not ban the use of pesticides on golf courses? That's what I would do in order to protect those people playing, those kids picking up balls, and to protect ourselves from the runoff of this massive use of pesticides that runs into whatever body of water it is connected to. Why wouldn't we do that? How do you Liberals defend that policy?

So when you say that this is the toughest bill that has ever been introduced on this issue—please. Residential use of pesticides only covers 4%; golf courses probably represent the biggest part. I believe we should ban the use of pesticides on golf courses, and we should do it today. Hopefully, the Liberal members will feel a tad guilty about that as they speak to this bill. I'm looking forward to a few Liberals speaking up on this issue.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I just want to join in this particular debate on Bill 64, the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act.

Listening to my friend from Trinity—Spadina, I think I might be able to help him a little bit as to why we're doing what we're doing and we will not allow our municipalities to have a patchwork of a higher order of legislation. If you look at what municipalities have today, they have a ban on the use; they cannot ban the sale within their jurisdiction. This particular bill actually bans the sale.

You need to have a uniform ban across the province. Therefore, this is why the bill is taking the route that it's going. Certainly his interest to see municipalities have something extra is probably worth discussion on another day, but to have the ban in the stores so you cannot buy it is really important.

Today, as an example, in the city of Toronto, where I came from, we banned the use. But I live on Steeles Avenue, and residents in my area can go into Markham and buy it, because that municipality didn't have a ban at the time we banned it in Toronto. They can bring it back and use it. It makes it very difficult for the enforcement officers in Toronto to enforce that ban of use unless they actually see somebody using it, or a neighbour complains. Tell me, how many of you have dealt with constituents who want to complain about their neighbours? Not many of them want to.

This bill would really make the ban that was started by municipalities a lot more effective, and we're doing it because it's the right thing to do. We want to protect the children of the future. Many of us here will not be around when those children are affected by pesticides. We need to do it now, and I think we're doing the right thing.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I just wanted to make a few quick comments to the presentation made by the member from Trinity—Spadina. First of all, I want to say that I don't totally agree with the premise that he started with, that the answer would be to just ban all pesticides. We have an organization called Health Canada, and they have approved all these pesticides because they say that there is no human health risk. Obviously some debate could be had on the issue as to whether all of them are or are not as effective as they should be or as clear as they should be.

But I take more exception with the comments made earlier by the government side to suggest that the reason we're doing this is to have a uniform system across the province, when in fact up until now we've always been quite content to accept that municipalities could pass bylaws to protect, as they saw fit, the health and well-being of their citizens. A lot of municipalities in our province have done that. In some areas, they've done it stricter than what the province is proposing to do here.

So if this is based on science, if it was necessary that the city of Toronto put the ban in place that they presently have, one would have to question if we don't want our children to be quite that safe; we just want them to be a little safer—why they would lower the standard for those municipalities. It would seem to me that if that was in the best interests of the city of Toronto and for their children, that they would leave it that way.

I also have a little concern: The member from the government side mentioned the fact that this bans the sale of these chemicals, and I take from the legislation that it does do that. But I wonder how that deals with the exemptions that we have on the golf courses that were mentioned by the member for Trinity—Spadina. Where are they going to purchase those chemicals? I presume that it will be from some outlet in the province of Ontario. If it's available for some, I expect—I've seen this before—it will be available to all those who wish to buy it. So I'm not sure that they're actually going to ban the sale of the chemicals.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to join the debate. From what I've heard today, and I've listened carefully to the debate, I think the member for Trinity—Spadina said he was going to support the legislation. That's what I heard. If that's not correct, perhaps he can address that when his two minutes come around. From what I've heard from the Conservative Party, they are not going to support it. If that's not true, I'd like to hear that as well.

I come from a community where golfing is a major business. Oakville is the home of the Canadian Open and has been for many years. It has been on the road for a few of the tournaments, but quite often it comes back to Glen Abbey. It's a golf course that we take some pride in. We don't consider people who are out there trying to promote their own health and trying to get exercise and socialize with their friends either for business or for pleasure—we don't consider them all obese. They are people who are out having fun, people who are out trying to do something about their own health, and it's a social activity that is very, very popular in Ontario and all over Oakville.

So from what I've heard, there is some support for the bill and there is going to be some opposition to the bill. People are asking about the science. What I'm hearing from my constituents is that they want to see more use of the precautionary principle: Do the things you can do to make your life a little better and do the things you can do to make your community a little safer. This is one of those things that we can all do. We can agree to not use pesticides on our own properties, around our own homes. It's going to make for a safer and healthier community.

You talk about the products that would be banned. What is being presented to the House is a proposed list. We've asked municipalities, the industry and lawn care operators which products should be banned and which products should not be banned. This is a suggested list. It's a starting point for a discussion. I would like to hear more about that discussion from the other parties as to what products they think should be on the list.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the comments made by the member from Trinity—Spadina; first of all, his comments regarding golf. Obviously, the person's never been out. It's such an easy thing to—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I have once.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: He's been out once, according to the member. It's very much like being on a soccer pitch. I'm sure that on a soccer pitch—they don't use chemicals there at all, or never have? I imagine that in some sort of fashion they have, and guess what? When you're down on your knees making a save and everything else, it impacts you very much the same. No matter how it takes place, it occurs in some fashion.

The current government member who just spoke—I'd have to check to find out which riding to make sure I'm in compliance—should read Hansard, because there are a number of individuals who have stated their case very clearly.

My concern regarding this is in a couple of areas. One is the enforcement aspect. Where will the enforcement come from? How will it take place? Is it going to be incumbent on the conservation officers? Will they become participants in this sort of activity too? How will it come about: through bylaw enforcement or other aspects?

Quite frankly, in my opinion, the whiz kids in the back room have probably come forward and said, "We have to give a perception that we're dealing with the environment. How are we going to achieve that?

We don't want to be talking about global warming and we don't want to talk about that darn stuff that drives me crazy, that UV rating every day where I've got to get up and make sure my kids are gooped up with UV 1,000 at some time"—right now, quite frankly, it's probably a 45 or a 60—"and the impact on our society as a whole." If this plays a role in ensuring that the future for our kids is going to be much safer and much brighter, then I'm more than willing to support it. My position is that I want to see in committee some more research and some more documentation from both sides of this issue.

But as I stated before, when they opened this gambit up, I want to make sure that all participants play a

part in the information in the committee process, and that includes forestry, agriculture and the golfing and recreational sector, which is very concerned with it as well.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): The member for Trinity—Spadina for a response.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I do thank all the members for their comments.

To the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, I say the following. He says, "We banned the sale of pesticides." The point is this: The extension of that argument is the following, and this is where I believe the Liberals don't seem to get it, or they do and they try to argue their own case. Guelph banned all pesticides and herbicides for ornamental use. My point is, they've gone further than you. Their bylaw is superseded by yours. The point is that if Guelph wants to ban all pesticide use, they can't.

They can only follow your law, which says that only the ones you prescribe are the ones that can be banned, nothing more or less. That's the point that the Liberals don't seem to get. That's where they contradict themselves a little bit. If a city wants to ban all use, they can't.

Then there is the argument made by the member for Oakville. He accepts the precautionary principle, which I spoke to, and then advances an argument as to why that is good and doesn't realize that when he speaks about golf courses, he says, "Oh, but golfing is a major business." So he accepts the precautionary principle for the use of pesticides on lawns but he doesn't accept the precautionary principle for golf courses because he argues that it's a major business. Do you see the contradiction in your argument, member for Oakville? You don't? Clearly. You clearly don't see it.

Golf courses are a major business, so chemicals are bad, but in this case it's okay because it's a business. But in every other case, we use the precautionary principle. Do you not see how you contradict yourselves in the argument for the government? That's the point that I hope the citizens who are awake were able to see.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I'm delighted to rise in support of Bill 64 today. Our government feels that Ontarians should feel confident that when they go outside in their neighbourhood they are working in an environment which is clean and safe as far as possible. We don't want to damage our environment. We recognize that there are some essential uses, some required uses, of pesticides, and we are going to arrange for those to continue. But for those uses which are cosmetic, we don't feel that we need to run the risk of applying pesticides.

The member for Trinity—Spadina used the word "pristine." My front lawn doesn't need to be pristine for me to enjoy it. We can go out and dig out some dandelions and cut down some of the weeds and get the lawn aerated and use some alternative products, but my front lawn doesn't have to be absolutely pristine for me to enjoy it. I can enjoy my front yard and my backyard with alternative uses.

I'd like to talk a little bit, actually, about some of the Guelph connections. As members will know, I'm very proud to have the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph in my riding. Over the years, there has been a huge amount of work done on what are effective pesticides for different crops for agricultural use and what is the safe level of use, what's the lowest level that you need to apply in order to get the desired result of making sure you have a product that hasn't been damaged by insects or weeds, whichever the agent is that you're trying to control.

What happens in the agricultural industry is that in order for farmers to be able to use quite large quantities of pesticides—because agriculture and forestry, industries like that, actually are the major, major users—in order to be licensed, they have to take courses in handling the chemicals safely and then they have to get a licence. When they go to buy those large quantities of pesticides, they are doing so based on the fact that they have a licence and the licence is based on the fact that they have been trained in safe handling.

I think it's very important to understand that when people like Health Canada license these products, they are licensing them for people who have been trained in how to handle the product safely.

When we look at our agriculture industry, they're exempted because people in that industry know how to handle the product safely. There are certain uses for many crops where we do need the pesticide to get the sort of production thresholds for those crops that make it economically viable for the farmer to continue in business.

Let's look at some other uses. I also have at the University of Guelph the Guelph Turfgrass Institute, and it does research on lawn care. When it's doing research on lawn care, it looks at how to maintain a golf course. I admit that I am not a golfer, but my brother-in-law is an avid golfer, so I do get to watch enough golf on weekends when he is watching people on whatever tournament is going on over the weekend.

I do get to watch it occasionally with my brother-in-law, and what I have figured out is that if you're going to have high-quality golf, you do need pristine grass because if you go to the green, you don't want dandelions and other weeds popping up in the middle and sending the ball astray.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, because then you'd get a mulligan. You'd get a mulligan then.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Exactly. I can figure this out even though I'm not a golfer. I'm sorry that the member for Trinity—Spadina hasn't watched long enough to figure this out, but as I said, I've sort of had to watch occasionally and I have figured out that if you're going to play golf properly, you actually do need a pristine golf course. So we have exempted golf courses because they do need pesticides to maintain the golf course in playable condition.

The issue isn't "Does it look pretty?", although that's a side effect; the issue is, "Is it playable?" But what we have also required in the legislation is that golf courses present a plan that will allow them to reduce their use of pesticides. So where there is an alternative product that may do just as well, where there is a change in management practice that allows that golf course to be maintained, we've asked them to put forward plans to limit the use of pesticides. But once again, the people who are doing the grounds-keeping at golf courses will have to be trained and licensed in safe pesticide handling.

What about the rest of us who just have a front lawn? How is this going to work for us? Well, we've looked at the experience in municipalities that have bans, we've looked at the experience in Quebec, which has a provincial ban, and one of the things that is very apparent is that if you only ban the use—which is what the municipalities have the power to do—and you leave those pesticides on the shelf at Canadian Tire, Home Depot, the neighbourhood nursery or wherever it is you go to get your banned products, what happens is that you end up with people with no training using the pesticides.

That's why we are implementing a retail sales ban on pesticides. What that means is that those people who are exempted and who are licensed will still be able to buy the pesticides. But for somebody like me, who doesn't have the training and doesn't have a licence, I will not be able to buy the pesticides. That makes the ban much more effective. If people like me, who need to maintain their front lawn, can't do an end-run on the ban, then you have a much more universal ban. And, quite frankly, the enforcement issues go way down, because if you can't get the chemical in the first place, then the enforcement issues aren't nearly as severe as for those people who currently have municipal bans.

What about the issue of, "But our ban is going to be the same all across the province"? Let's go back to my friends at the Guelph Turfgrass Institute, who are interested in doing research for alternative lawn care programs. What my friends at the Turfgrass Institute tell me is this: "We in the lawn care industry can live with a pesticide ban, but if we're going to do research on effective alternatives, we need to deal with consistency. We can't have major research projects for every municipality that has a different set of bans.

What we need is a level playing field so that we have some consistency across Ontario and we can do good research on effective alternative means. If you're going to have us do this properly and actually come up with good alternatives"—for people like me who want their front lawn to look okay; not pristine, but okay—"you need a consistent ban which allows us to do good research and find good alternatives for the everyday household consumer."

I am very pleased to be able to support this bill. I think it takes us a long way forward in doing what we need to do around pesticide use, which is to allow essential use to continue but to provide alternatives for cosmetic non-essential use.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions or comments?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: Again, our caucus looks at this bill with the idea that perhaps a pesticide ban should or should not be implemented for front lawns for people across Ontario. But what we want to point out is the dichotomy and the problem with the argument that the Liberals put forward, which is that pesticides are okay on farms, agricultural lands and a golf courses because they are being applied by professionals. Well, many of the pesticides and herbicides that are applied to front lawns and landscapes in urban municipalities are also applied by professionals.

So we can't quite understand the argument put forward by the government that professional application is okay 100 yards away from a front lawn, on a farm, but it can't be applied by professionals on the front lawn of a particular housing area.

The other

part is that this only applies to 4% of all pesticides and herbicides in Ontario. What we think the government should do is get the real scientific basis as to how harmful these particular substances are to the health of all Ontarians. If they are harmful to all Ontarians, then we should consider a total ban, if that's what the science says. But we don't have the science. What we would like is for this ban and this legislation to follow science, not follow political polls.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to thank the member for what was a riveting speech on this particular issue. I listened quite intently. There are a couple of parts to this bill that I think generally are going to get support, and we'll send it off to committee, but once it does get to committee, there are going to be people asking some pretty straight-up questions.

I think the first question people are going to be asking as they come to committee is: Why is it that this government is limiting what municipalities can do? We know, for example, that there are a number of municipalities across Ontario that have already taken a very aggressive and, some would argue, a progressive, stand on banning pesticides in their municipalities. This legislation is going to supersede that. I think there are a lot of people in municipalities who are going to be saying, "Why is the province doing that?

Why are they limiting our ability and our choice to deal with pesticides within our own municipality?" People can draw their own conclusions as to why that is, but I think one of the questions that need to be answered when we get to committee is: Why is this bill structured in such a way that, at the end of the day, it limits what municipalities can do? In some cases, it takes away some of the work that's already been done by some of the municipalities.

I agree with the member that there are a lot of things that we can do naturally in order to control various types of weeds on people's lawns. A lot of the research that's been done here in Ontario is good research and it's not a bad way to go, but the question then becomes: Why is it that we're limiting pesticides in some areas and not in others?

We talked about golf courses. There are many municipal and private golf courses within municipalities across Ontario. Why is the government taking the view that they're going to limit the use of pesticides on lawns but not limit them in the same municipalities where there are golf courses? So I think there are some questions to be answered in committee, and I look forward to that time.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I was listening carefully to the member from Guelph speaking about supporting this bill. She spoke eloquently and described why we have to put a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides on house properties, industrial parks and many different types of parks.

I come from London. London is well known as a photo city. My riding of London—Fanshawe has beautiful parks. So many kids and families go on the weekends and on many different occasions to enjoy those parks. They go to play, to barbecue, they invite their families to birthdays and sometimes weddings. Can you imagine this park being sprayed by chemicals that can affect our youth and people, and the health hazards that would cause?

I think this is a very important step that our government is taking. I think it's important for us to protect our children and our families and to allow them to go to parks and to play in their front and back yard with no hesitation or problems. It's important. As I mentioned, many people in this province enjoy their spring and summer outings. They can go to the parks and play without even thinking about hazards or problems. That's why I'm speaking in support of this bill.

I also want to congratulate my colleague the member from Guelph for stating all the elements in support of banning these cosmetic pesticides, because they're not good for the people, the environment, the kids, the families, and not good for our health. I think this is a good step, and I wish that all the members in the House come forward and support this initiative. In the end, it's our goal and aim to create a healthy environment and to protect our environment for years to come.

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add some comments to the speech by the member from Guelph to do with Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Pesticides Act to prohibit the use and sale of pesticides that may be used for cosmetic purposes.

This past week, of course, was constituency week, and I had the opportunity to meet with a couple of different agricultural organizations and people involved in farming over the course of the week. One of the groups I met with was the East Nipissing/Parry Sound Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and I was interested to learn that the number one issue for small farmers in Nipissing and Parry Sound is red tape. They gave me countless examples of how you may have the Ministry of Agriculture trying to assist them, but then you have four other ministries making life more difficult for them.

So my question to do with this Bill 64 is, what new red tape is this government going to create for farmers? I note that farmers are excluded in terms of this bill. However, what new process are they going to require farmers to go through, beyond the training they already have, to be able to use pesticides in farming?

It was interesting. In the group I met with, there was an owner of a local small abattoir in Magnetawan, and he pointed out that the farmers would really like to see that abattoir stay in business. They've already lost one local abattoir because of the new rules and red tape that have been created by this government. They really want to see this abattoir stay in business because it means that they can ship locally, close to home, and that's something we should be promoting.

Unfortunately, I only have another 10 seconds, so I can't get into other issues. But my question is, what new rules is this government going to create for farmers with this bill? I hope you'll think carefully about it so that you don't make life more difficult for the small farmer.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): The member for Guelph for a response.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I'd like to thank the members from Carleton—Mississippi Mills, Timmins—James Bay, London—Fanshawe and Parry Sound—Muskoka for their comments.

I'd just like to review a few points, if I may. First of all, we know that pesticides are chemicals which, if handled improperly, cause risks to human health, to animal health and to the environment. So, when we get right down to it, the purpose of this bill is to minimize risk. The use of pesticides will be exclusively in the hands of people who have been trained and licensed in safe use. People who are in the agriculture industry, in the forest industry and in lawn care at golf courses will be exempted from the ban, because they have been trained.

For the rest of us, who don't really need to have a pristine lawn, we will not be able to access pesticides which, if used inappropriately, can cause harm.

There has been a lot of comment here about consistency and whether we should let the cities have bans which are tougher. First of all, I would review what I heard from my local lawn care companies, which is: "We can live with the legislation that you're putting into place, provided we have consistency across municipalities so that we can do the research and come up with good alternatives. We need consistency to do that."

I would like to refer to the mayor of Guelph, because many people have pointed out that Guelph has a stricter ban. In fact, the mayor commented that our ability to ban sales makes this a whole lot tougher, and that's something the municipality can't do.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), six and a half hours of debate on this bill having occurred, I am now required to deem this debate adjourned, unless the acting government House leader indicates otherwise.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I wish debate to proceed at least until question period.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I'm pleased to join this debate this morning to discuss Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Pesticides Act to prohibit the use and sale of pesticides that may be used for cosmetic purposes. I'm hoping that we're going to be allowed to have the full debate on this very important issue.

I can tell you, as an MPP now and as a health professional for over 20 years, I do agree that we need to drastically reduce the amount of toxic and oftentimes cancer-causing materials that we come into contact with every day. Of course, reducing or eliminating pesticides may well prove to be a very good option, but the government has to do its due diligence and ensure it has proper scientific data to move forward. We've heard that comment many times in the Legislature this morning.

We support the concept of eliminating non-essential pesticide use to protect the health and environment of this province, but our side of the House supports a science-based approach to ensuring that our health and environment are protected.

When it comes to the use of chemicals on our foods, parkland and gardens, some current facts in the province of Ontario right now with respect to pesticides: Their use is already regulated federally by the federal Pest Control Products Act, which controls the sale and use of pesticides in Canada. The Food and Drug Act allows for the setting of maximum limits for pesticide residues in foods. The Environmental Protection Act includes numerous provisions to protect the environment and human health from injury from pesticides. The Fertilizers Act requires registration of fertilizer-pesticide mixtures.

And the Feeds Act prevents the contamination of livestock feeds. Here in Ontario we also have the Ontario Pesticides Act, the Municipal Act, the Weeds Act and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

One thing that is not in the legislation is the fact that there is not a clear delineation of the difference between non-essential use of pesticides versus cosmetic use. For example, there are serious health and environmental risks that are controlled through the use of pesticides—everything from severe allergies to insect infestations to physical injuries. We must be sure there is an ability for the use of pesticides in essential situations as opposed to cosmetic, to ensure protection in cases of health and environmental risk. As it stands, the legislation is very vague on this very important aspect. We must demand that the science behind this ban is solid and clear.

Equally important, I hope the motivation for legislation such as this is based on science, not simply on an emotional aspect of anti-pesticide argument, or basically a political argument, not a scientific argument. This is one of the key reasons why I feel this should be going to committee, so a proper, full consultation can be done. We can hear from related stakeholders. We have to build—and we owe it to the people of Ontario—a very proper balance of safety and environmental care along with a sustainable piece of legislation that makes good sense.

I've spoken about agriculture in my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, and one of its most important economic drivers is agriculture. It's a huge employer. It's vital to the sustainability of so many other aspects of rural Ontario. I'm very proud to say that farmers in Ontario reduced their pesticide use by over 50% in the last 15 years, so they should be given proper credit for their leadership and for being great examples of stewards of the province through their proper and informed study and use through integrated pest management, or IPM.

If we're going to start down this slippery slope, as the Premier likes to phrase it, we have to ensure that it is done properly, fairly and based on facts. Agricultural use is exempted from the pesticide ban. While we support the use of pesticides by farmers to ensure their continued ability to grow their product, I am concerned that once again the Liberal government has brought forward a double standard of sorts.

Let me read from Scotts Canada's response to the Environmental Bill of Rights—no relation to me, just to put that on the record:

"To introduce a ban on the use of Health-Canada-approved pest control products in urban centres while permitting their use in rural settings establishes two standards of health and safety for Ontario residents. Clearly where our health and the health of our environment is concerned, a double standard is neither desirable nor acceptable."

There is also a concern in the agricultural community that this ban is a slippery slope, as noted by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture ad which they put out:

"Ontario's proposed ban on lawn and garden pesticides is moving forward, and could have a significant impact on farmers. All pesticides undergo the same rigid health and safety standards. With Health Canada's review in place and by following label directions, pesticides can be used safely in agriculture, on fairways and greens, lawns and gardens, in forestry or in public health settings. Banning pesticide use in urban settings while maintaining they are safe for use in agriculture undermines the public confidence in farming, the safety of our food supply and Health Canada's regulatory safeguards."

I'm sorry that I have to end my

part in the debate this morning, because question period is about to start.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It being 10:45, the debate stands adjourned.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce some guests who are joining us today.

On behalf of the member from Oak Ridges—Markham; Richmond Hill councillor Greg Beros, Heather Beros, Naim and Lubna Malik and Shaista Ali, in the east members' gallery.

On behalf of the member from Kitchener—Conestoga, we would like to take this opportunity to welcome a gentleman by the name of Jeff Preston. Jeff has been raising money for muscular dystrophy for over 11 years, and he's travelling from London to Ottawa in his wheelchair to raise awareness of transportation barriers.

As well, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, I'd like to welcome students and teachers from a high school located in the riding of Leeds—Grenville. Grade 10 civics students from Thousand Islands Secondary School in Brockville will be in the gallery today, along with teachers James Cross, Conrad Walpot and Ashley Bell, and parent volunteer Rhonda McNish.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I have a question for the Premier regarding his government's priorities. Last week, the Ontario Health Quality Council reported that the lives of 8,000 Ontarians could have been saved if your government gave some priority to chronic disease management in the province. The council has reported that electronic health records would have helped save those suffering from chronic diseases. Premier, why is saving the lives of 8,000 Ontarians not a priority for your government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm going to refer this to the Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman: It was interesting to hear the honourable member quote from a report from the Ontario Health Quality Council because he and the members of his party opposed that very institution when it came forward.

We feel very strenuously that the work they do and the independence they have in making comments about the health care system in Ontario is a very important thing. It was noteworthy as well that their report commented on the fact that the number of people in Ontario who are in search of a family physician has been reduced to 400,000 as a result of our government's actions.

On the matter of chronic disease management, we've made substantial investments in enhancing the support for people with diabetes. Over the course of the next little while, as we roll out our diabetes strategy, which includes a diabetes registry—further evidence of our capacity to address the situation for 900,000 Ontarians will be very evident.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary? The member for Kitchener—Waterloo

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's obvious that chronic health management isn't a priority and it's obvious that e-health development isn't a priority for this government either. You wonder what might be.

We know that the health of the people around the province is being jeopardized because they don't have a family doctor. We have about 30,000 in Kitchener—Waterloo, 15,000 in Peterborough, 14,000 in Kingston and 40,000 in Hamilton. We also know that eye diseases like glaucoma, which can lead to blindness, go undetected because this government delisted eye exams from OHIP. We also know that long-term-care residents aren't getting the hours of care they need.

Why is this government making sex-change operations a priority when hundreds of thousands are without a family doctor, when eye exams are not covered and when long-term-care residents are forced to sit in their own urine and feces?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's disappointing that the honourable member, whose leader gave me private assurances of that party's commitment to the relisting of that procedure, can't back that up in the Legislature. And it's further disappointing that a party that continues to be in favour of a $3-billion cut to health care stands and asks these questions, all calling for additional expenditure.

I want to say to the honourable member, with respect to the first question that was asked regarding diabetes, that the actions our government has taken to expand health care services in the form of doctors to 650,000 Ontarians is a very strong example of making up for the lost time that was created while they sat idly by. The Ontario Health Quality Council report of last week says that 400,000 Ontarians, a reduction from prior numbers of 1.2 million or 1.4 million, are focused on getting care. Through our advances with more family health teams, we're going to deliver that care to them and reduce the challenges associated with family doctor shortages that they left behind.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: First of all, I'd like to clarify the record. Our leader did not say as the minister has indicated he said. That is an outright lie—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, please.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I withdraw that.

I would also say to the honourable member that we have a report today in the Toronto Star on Ray Griffis, a cancer patient. He wrote to your Premier to tell of his harrowing experience at a hospital here. He said he waited for hours in the emergency room, and we know that there are hundreds of thousands of people doing that throughout this province. It's shameful. Once he was admitted, he was left unattended. There was no one to help him go to the bathroom. After repeatedly soiling himself, the nurses threw some diapers at him and told him to clean himself up.

I say to you, Minister: Why do you not make emergency room patients such as Mr. Griffis a priority and help them retain their health and their dignity?

Hon. George Smitherman: The first thing I want to say in response to the honourable member's assurance is that she was not part of any private conversation on the issue of the matter that the Leader of the Opposition made personal assurances to me on in a private conversation, and her ability to stand in her place is narrowed by that. But on this issue of the circumstance that the honourable member raised of the care of an individual in an emergency room at North York General Hospital, the events that are outlined in this story in the paper today are not an appropriate circumstance.

We expect and depend upon the hundreds of thousands of people who work in health care to provide that care in a fashion which is appropriate, respectful and compassionate at all times. I'm as disappointed as anybody else reading that story. The people at North York General will most certainly be hearing from us as we work with Dr. Alan Hudson to make an even greater focus on the reduction of wait times in Ontario's emergency rooms.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question, the member for Kitchener—Waterloo.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: The government opposite has had since 2003 to deal with emergency rooms, and they still haven't unclogged them.

C. DIFFICILE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Going to question 2, the Hamilton Spectator reports that at least 260 people infected with C. difficile have died in our hospitals since the middle of 2006. We only know about these deaths because they have been voluntarily disclosed by seven hospitals. Minister, can you tell us today how many people infected with C. difficile have died in all of the 155 hospitals since 2006 and how many hospitals are currently dealing with the C. difficile outbreak?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to thank the honourable member for this question. The matter of C. difficile is well-known to be a problem in hospitals in the developed world. The challenges associated with it are very, very strenuous. They require all of us—visitors to the hospital, patients and those who work in the hospital—to be very attentive to our responsibilities, to practise the appropriate procedures and especially to be very, very dedicated to hand washing. It's our intention to move forward on the advice that's come from others, including Dr. Michael Baker, on issuing an edict to hospitals which will provide for regular mandatory reporting of C. difficile outbreaks.

We're working at present through the Ontario Hospital Association to create a regime which over the next many months will create substantial enhanced transparency for Ontarians about outbreaks and other matters of patient safety concern. This will be a substantial advance, building on the investments that we've made and the expectations that we have.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's absolutely shocking that this minister can still not answer a question that he was first asked on May 8. It makes a mockery of his January 2, 2007, statement, when he said, "It is our job as a government to learn from SARS and ... respond rapidly to health emergencies ... to protect Ontarians."

You knew that there were over 2,000 deaths from C. difficile in Quebec in 2003. You know that the Canadian Medical Association in 2004 recommended that each province develop an outbreak plan—which, by the way, Quebec and Manitoba did. You also were advised in July 2007 by Michael Baker that you should start mandatory reporting.

Minister, why didn't you follow Quebec's lead and Manitoba's lead? Why did you not listen to Dr. Baker? Can you tell the families of those who died from this disease why you still have not taken action to introduce mandatory reporting?

Hon. George Smitherman: First off, I think it's very important to acknowledge that the events which did occur in provinces like Quebec was information that all of us were aware of, those who work in government and those who have the important responsibilities of managing hospitals on the front line. Steps have been taken by all of them to introduce and enhance procedures which have at their heart the protection of the patient, but the obligation is the obligation shared by all of us who enter those environments. That's why it's important that we acknowledge the power each of us has.

In the hospital that the honourable member mentions, there are infectious control officers who have been paid for by the government of Ontario who are operating in that environment. We've created 14 networks across the province of Ontario for infectious disease. We've founded the provincial infectious disease advisory committee. We've taken important steps. In addition, we've recently had a report from the coroner based on an inquest into circumstances in Sault Ste. Marie, which, working with Dr. Baker and others, we're going to implement across the province to enhance the transparency associated with this information—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: You start to wonder what are the priorities of this government and this minister. Many families of patients who have died are outraged. They find it absolutely unbelievable that the government failed to issue public warnings, knowing what was happening, or heeded the advice of experts to introduce mandatory reporting. They wonder how many people have needlessly died since 2005. They wonder how many are going to be walking into hospitals in the future, thinking they're going there to get well, and instead, they're going to contract C. difficile.

SARS killed 43 people. There was an inquiry. On your watch, over 260 people in just seven hospitals have already died, and these are just the ones we know of. I ask you today: Will you recognize that this is a priority, and will you undertake an independent investigation into C. difficile deaths? Will you commit to do so today?

Hon. George Smitherman: The actions with respect to C. difficile and the protection for the public in circumstances where they're in hospitals is information that's known to everyone and shared by all. The responsibility for taking action includes those who run Ontario's 154 independent hospital corporations.

But we're going to add to those steps we've already taken: the infectious disease advisory committee, the infectious disease networks in each of our local health integration networks, putting additional workers who deal with infectious disease into all hospital environments, with a very forceful regime of mandatory reporting, not only on C. difficile but on a wide variety of other challenges in the hospital environment that affect patient safety. We're working on the implementation of that, building on the advice of Dr. Baker and in partnership with the Ontario Hospital Association.

We know that additional transparency is a powerful tool for patient safety, and in all these matters where there is now transparency, there was none implemented on the watch of that party when they were in government.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. More than 35,000 auto workers in Ontario have now lost their jobs. Last week, I was in Oshawa and met with some of those very workers who no longer have a job. One of them asked me to ask you this question: Why did the McGuinty government sign cheques worth close to half a billion dollars in contribution to automaker corporations without getting job guarantees for some of those workers in Oshawa who are now out of work?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to take the question. I would commend to my colleague a column—I think it's in today's paper or during the course of the weekend—put in by Buzz Hargrove, the head the Canadian Auto Workers union, who speaks in a very complimentary fashion about the approach we have taken to compete in a highly competitive global economy to land new investment in the auto sector in particular.

One of the reasons we are doing so well is because we are number one in productivity, number one in quality and number one in the level of skills and education of our workers. We will continue to compete. We will continue to work with the CAW. We will continue to work on behalf of CAW workers and other auto workers throughout the province of Ontario. I remain very optimistic about the future of the auto sector in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Howard Hampton: One of those auto workers was Bill Delaney. Mr. Delaney worked in Oshawa's auto sector for a number of years. He admits it was a good job for both him and his family, but last year Bill Delaney and 300 of his colleagues were told they no longer had a job.

Mr. Delaney not only feels let down when he sees hundreds of millions of dollars going to General Motors and he's told, "You're out the door," but he also wants to know something else: Why would the McGuinty government be opposed to bills put forward by New Democrats that would ensure that, when workers are laid off, they're able to collect their full pay for work done, they're able to collect their vacation pay and they're able to collect their severance pay? Why would the McGuinty government, which says it wants to ensure that jobs and workers are treated fairly, not vote for and support legislation that would ensure that those workers get their severance pay and their vacation pay?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to speak to it. First of all, let me just say, with respect to what's been happening to the auto sector in North America, that the competition has been intense, the restructuring has been severe and there have been job losses throughout North America for people caught up in this due to circumstances entirely beyond their control. But we have been, in perspective, doing better than the others. Between 1999 and 2005, Michigan lost 30% of its auto jobs; that's 90,000 jobs. Ohio lost 19% of their jobs.

Indiana, which also has the benefit of Asian investments from Toyota and Subaru in addition to their Big Three, lost 15% of their auto jobs. Ontario lost 5% in the same time frame. We have secured $2.5 billion through our GM Beacon project. It is true that we have lost jobs in the auto sector in Ontario, but in comparison to the rest of North America we are—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Premier. Final supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Bill Delaney isn't interested in what you may or may not know about Michigan or Ohio. What Bill Delaney wants to know is how the McGuinty government could hand out half a billion dollars to auto sector companies without getting job guarantees.

He wants to know why the McGuinty government would vote against bills that would ensure workers get their severance pay, get their vacation pay and get a pay cheque for work they've already done, but he also wants to know something else: Why would the McGuinty government oppose a Buy Ontario strategy, which would ensure that 50% of the work done on transit equipment is done here in Ontario? Why would the McGuinty government be opposed to a reasonable industrial hydro rate to ensure that manufacturers can continue to operate in Ontario?

Why is the McGuinty government opposed to a refundable manufacturing investment tax credit—all of which would ensure that manufacturing jobs stay in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The leader of the NDP tells us he's concerned about the plight of individuals who lose their jobs at this point in time, and he's concerned about the plight of the working individual, but he voted five times against our five separate increases for the minimum wage. He talks about 50% when it comes to made-in-Ontario policies. We've got an 82% policy in place. Eighty-two per cent of the money we put into our $17.5-billion infrastructure program for public transit will be invested in the Ontario economy.

As a result of our most recent budget, we're putting 190 million emergency dollars into the hands of our manufacturing sector. They'll be getting those cheques at a time when they need it. That's exactly the kind of thing they've been looking for, contrary to the policy that my friend has been embracing for some time now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question.

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier: Yes, New Democrats will vote against minimum wages which ensure that workers work and live below the poverty line.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to ask the Premier about Neskantaga First Nation. Neskantaga First Nation sent a notice to your government and to a mining exploration company saying, "If you want to explore on our traditional territory, we ask that you give us notice and you come and talk to us." Company X complied with Neskantaga's request and came to the First Nation and said, "Yes, we'd like to talk to you." But another company, Temex Resources, completely ignored the First Nation, completely ignored the First Nation's request, and went ahead and staked claims and cleared land. The McGuinty government then went and recognized the claim of Temex Resources.

My question: Is this the McGuinty government's idea of a mineral exploration process that is fair to First Nations and fair to exploration companies that want to work with First Nations, to recognize the claim—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not familiar with the specific circumstances raised by my colleague, but I can say that we certainly believe on this side of the House that it's time for us to work together to modernize the Mining Act. The competing interests here, which we believe we've got to find a way to reconcile, include the rights of our aboriginal communities to receive notice and to respect their right to shape their own future in terms of land management. There are also the rights of northern Ontario and rural Ontario communities, which find a lot of good, high-paying jobs in the mining sector.

Finally, there's another interest to be reconciled, and that is the natural environment and our responsibility to our children to make sure we pull all this together in a way that respects their right to a sustainable, healthy environment over the long term.

I'm not familiar with the specific details of this, but I can tell you that we have seized ourselves with this responsibility. This law has been in place for over 100 years—that is, the Mining Act—and we're working hard to change it.

Mr. Howard Hampton: You've been the government for five years now. For five years you've been repeating this line, and for five years, companies that do try to work with First Nations and show respect get pushed to the back of the line. Meanwhile, your government recognizes the mining claims of companies like Temex Resources and Platinex, corporations that show no respect for First Nations. I think it's time for the talk to end and the action to begin.

My question is: Why won't the McGuinty government tell First Nations today that you will not record any mining claim unless and until there is consultation and accommodation of First Nation interests?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We're talking about a law here, the Mining Act, that's been on the books I think since 1873. There are a lot of interests that have institutionalized themselves since it was first put in place, so it's not the kind of thing that we can instantly undo. We're working hard and well to ensure that we approach this intelligently.

I've just been handed a note here that tells me a bit more about the Temex situation, and I've been assured that the company has now said that no further staking development will occur without first discussing this with the First Nation involved, which I think is the responsible thing to do in the circumstances.

Mr. Howard Hampton: What the Premier fails to recognize is that another mining exploration which wanted to show respect for First Nations and worked with First Nations from the outset has been elbowed out of the way because the McGuinty government allowed Temex Resources, which showed no respect for First Nations, to have their mining claim recognized.

Premier, all it would take is a regulation—it doesn't take a complete reworking of the Mining Act—out of the Ministry of Mines or the Ministry of Natural Resources that would simply say that the McGuinty government is not going to record any further mining exploration claims unless and until there is a record of consultation and accommodation with First Nations. It doesn't require any more talk; it doesn't require any more speeches. On the day of national reconciliation with First Nations, I ask the Premier: Is the McGuinty government prepared to pass a regulation that says you will not record further mining claims unless there is a record of—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not prepared to make that commitment, but what I can say is that we will continue to work hard and well with our aboriginal communities. I am proud of the record that we've established in less than one year in terms of putting in place our first-ever Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. We put in place a $3-billion groundbreaking revenue-sharing agreement. Just last week, we announced our new partnership fund of some $25 million. We have committed to reviewing the Mining Act and we will continue to do that in consultation with our aboriginal communities.

C. DIFFICILE

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: To the Premier: Ideally, I would have asked this question of the Minister of Health, but his earlier answers were inadequate and clearly trying to shift the blame.

Unfortunately, 200 deaths from C. difficile, nearly four times the number of people who died from SARS, have generated little action on the part of your minister, Mr. Premier. Fern Merchant's father went into hospital in December 2007 for elective knee surgery and ended up losing his life to C. difficile. Mrs. Merchant told me that she wants your minister to resign. Can you tell Mrs. Merchant why it took news reports for you to notice the problem?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman: To the contrary: I don't think it would be appropriate for the honourable member to conclude that her local hospital wasn't aware of the challenges with C. difficile, and no Minister of Health would pretend that was the circumstance. The circumstances that have occurred with respect to C. difficile are widely known in the health care community and most particularly in the hospital community.

Aside from the honourable member's suggestion that it's about passing responsibility along, it's to acknowledge that we have a shared responsibility associated with the protection against infectious disease that occurs in the hospital environment and that starts from the spread of feces. This is why it is so important to reinforce the necessity of everyone in the hospital environment—visitors, patients and those who work there alike.

We've taken important steps. We've taken steps to have infectious disease control officers working in the very hospital that the honourable member speaks about. I'll be happy in supplementary to speak about the other initiatives we've already—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Again to the Premier: This isn't about one facility; THIS is about many facilities across our province. The inaction of your government, and specifically of your Minister of Health, has really shattered the public trust in our health care system. It is a slap in the face, Mr. Premier, to the families who have lost loved ones to C. difficile and to those who are still struggling with the disease.

Your minister has been withholding funds specifically from Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital and also other hospitals. The coroner's report from the Sault Ste. Marie hospital, following an outbreak up there, clearly indicated that aging hospitals are at an increased risk of hosting an outbreak. That report has been in your minister's hands for over a year.

When will you finally tell these families how many people have died on your watch, and when are you going to investigate the C. difficile outbreak in Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: First, I want to say to the honourable member that substantial steps have been taken. There are 137 infectious disease control officials that have been implemented in Ontario hospitals, including the two in the member's community. We've initiated a hand hygiene protocol that was implemented by the WHO. We have formed provincial infectious disease advisory committees to give us advice on these matters, created 14 disease control networks and more than doubled provincial public health funding in the province of Ontario, and we're moving forward on the recommendation of Dr. Baker to implement mandatory reporting.

When the honourable member wants to talk about withholding funds from her local hospital, we know that she's on precarious ground; first, because during the eight and a half years when her party was in office, they didn't rebuild that hospital, and, more to the point, because she continues to represent a party that proposes a $3-billion cut to health care.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think it's well acknowledged on this side of the House that the only thing the Progressive Conservative Party ever wanted to cut out of the health care system—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I say to the member that that's not a point of order and that I ruled on that issue a week and a half ago.

C. DIFFICILE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est également pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

We've heard many times this morning that since 2006 over 200 Ontarians have died from C. difficile. As well, in a recent medical journal, we learned that a significant number of hospitals are reusing medical devices. How many more shocking disease outbreaks will occur before the minister realizes that Ontarians deserve their hospitals to be transparent and accountable by agreeing to Ombudsman oversight today?

Hon. George Smitherman: We do intend to move forward with substantially enhanced transparency on a wide variety of matters, leading with C. difficile, factors occurring in hospitals which pose risks to patients. We're looking forward to using the energy and the opportunity that's been provided by the work done by the coroner's inquest into circumstances in Sault Ste. Marie and implementing that. That's why we feel it's so important to take advantage of the information that is available and to work rigorously on its implementation.

On the issue of single-use devices being reused, I will, by way of supplementary, offer information to the honourable member.

M me France Gélinas: Ontarians lose confidence in our health care system when almost four times as many Ontarians have died from C. difficile as from SARS, especially when preventive steps were not taken.

The minister failed to learn from the massive outbreaks in Quebec. He failed to listen to a top adviser who urged mandatory reporting of C. difficile now. Instead of claiming to take action, why won't the minister agree to truly making hospitals transparent and accountable and agree to an NDP solution, which is an ombudsman oversight of hospitals now?

Hon. George Smitherman: In the honourable member's earlier question, she asked about the reuse of single-use medical equipment devices. I can tell the honourable member that in Ontario in 2004, we implemented much more rigorous conditions around the reuse of any of these devices. It's a widely held practice, but we've made sure that methods with respect to sterilization are there to ensure the protection of the public in all of these matters.

On the issue with respect to C. difficile, it's not appropriate for the honourable member to suggest that the government was not proactive while, at the same time, seeming not to acknowledge the responsibilities that hospitals have, and the information and resources that they have to address the circumstances related to infectious disease. We have more than doubled the funding for public health in Ontario. Public health capacity around the province of Ontario has been substantially enhanced and is there as part of the resource to assist hospitals in dealing with the challenges related to infectious disease.

That's why we're moving forward with the rigorous modelling that will provide much more transparency—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. New question.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. New regulations under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act will soon be coming into effect. The new regulations to ban power walls will build on our government's groundbreaking Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which bans smoking in schools, hospitals, offices, restaurants and most other indoor public places. Families in my riding are watching this closely, as are small business owners, health professionals and anti-smoking advocates.

Everyone agrees that these step are necessary to help reduce smoking, but there's concern about how the new rules will be enforced. Convenience stories will be required to hide retail tobacco displays after May 31. This includes cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco. Customers will also be prevented from handling products themselves. This is a big change for the way tobacco is bought and sold in Ontario.

Minister, convenience stores in my riding are concerned about what will happen on May 31. What education and enforcement are being taken to prepare retailers for the ban?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I would like to thank the member from Ottawa—Orléans for his question. The member is indeed correct. On May 31, our government will implement the next step of our landmark Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which will ban the retail display of tobacco products in stores. This ban is about saving lives. It is about reducing health care costs by ensuring that our young people do not start the habit of smoking and by helping smokers to quit.

Tobacco-related illnesses cost Ontario's health care system $1.6 billion annually. That is 500,000 hospital days.