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

May 14, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-May-14 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 14 May 2008 Mercredi 14 mai 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCESS TO ADOPTION RECORDS ACT

(VITAL STATISTICS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'ACCÈS

AUX DOSSIERS D'ADOPTION

(MODIFICATION DE LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES STATISTIQUES DE L'ÉTAT CIVIL)

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

FAVORISANT UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATION STATION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

NATURAL GAS RATES

LA JEUNESSE FRANCOPHONE

STEVEN TRUSCOTT

CHILD CARE

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

HOME CARE

LORD'S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

GRAFFITI

ALMA COLLEGE

GYPSY MOTHS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GAS WELLS

MARY FIX PARK

LORD'S PRAYER

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EVENTS IN PENETANGUISHENE

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

ALMA COLLEGE

SAULT STE. MARIE ECONOMY

DURHAM SUPPORT

OUR TROOPS RALLY

NURSES

HEALTH CARE

CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO

LE TRAITEMENT DU CANCER /

CANCER TREATMENT

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

BUDGET MEASURES AND

INTERIM APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS

ACCESS TO ADOPTION RECORDS ACT

(VITAL STATISTICS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'ACCÈS

AUX DOSSIERS D'ADOPTION

(MODIFICATION DE LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES STATISTIQUES DE L'ÉTAT CIVIL)

OPPOSITION DAY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCESS TO ADOPTION RECORDS ACT

(VITAL STATISTICS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'ACCÈS

AUX DOSSIERS D'ADOPTION

(MODIFICATION DE LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES STATISTIQUES DE L'ÉTAT CIVIL)

Mrs. Meilleur moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 12,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act in relation to adoption information and to make consequential amendments to the Child and Family Services Act / Projet de loi 12, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil en ce qui a trait aux renseignements sur les adoptions et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 12, 2008, I am now required to put the question.

Madam Meilleur has moved third reading of Bill 12. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Pursuant to the standing orders, the vote is deferred to routine proceedings this afternoon.

Third reading vote deferred.

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

FAVORISANT UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 13, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 69,

An Act to protect children from second-hand tobacco smoke in motor vehicles by amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée pour protéger les enfants contre le tabagisme passif dans les véhicules automobiles.

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could recess for five minutes to give government members a chance to arrive in the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That is not a point of order.

Mr. John O'Toole: Could we have a quorum call, please?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Madam Clerk, is there a quorum present?

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): There is a quorum present, Speaker.

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

Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: I am delighted to be talking about Bill 69, the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act. It is

An Act to protect children from second-hand tobacco smoke in motor vehicles by amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

There are two parts to this bill. The first is that we want to protect children. I think this is something that everybody in this House has always and will always agree upon: Everybody wants to protect our children. The issue of rights, that is, the right of a child to health and clean air, should supersede an adult's right to his addiction. I think this is something that many members who have spoken before me said they agreed with. It's like apple pie and, where I come from, maple syrup: Everybody likes it; everybody agrees to it. We are trying to protect children from the health hazards of second-hand smoke. This is something good and this is something that should go forward.

The second part of the bill has to do with smokers. We all agree that smoking is an addiction, that a lot of people are smokers and a lot of people smoke in their cars. If we want to change human behaviour, if we want to change the habit of a smoker who gets in his car, a place where he or she is allowed to smoke, and lights up, we have to do more than just pass laws; we have to do health promotion. Within the residents of Ontario, there are groups that are more at risk of being a smoker and more at risk of lighting up in their cars when their children are present.

When we talk about populations at risk, I talk about aboriginals, First Nations, low-income, people with mental illness and homeless people. Those are hard-to-reach groups within our community who need our help in order to be able to quit smoking and in order to be able to comply with this bill.

I have talked, in the past, about the special relationship that exists between the First Nations and tobacco, but I think it's worth repeating. For First Nations, tobacco is part of the four sacred elements, the first one being cedar. First Nations use cedar to try to keep sickness away; they use tobacco to give thanks to Mother Earth and for their lives; they use sage to chase away negativity and help bring back healing if they have fallen sick; and they use sweet grass to bring their minds as one, looking into mental health. When they do smudging, they will use all of those four elements.

I always talk about, whenever we talk about smoking and First Nations, that we have to realize that they have a different relationship to tobacco than non-First Nations do. If we want to help First Nations comply with this bill, we have to be cognizant of that cultural difference, and we have to help them.

I agree that some of what Ontario smoking prevention has done has had some success. The rates of Ontarians who smoke has decreased over the years, and this is a good thing. Unfortunately, it has not decreased for every group in our community equally. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, First Nations, aboriginal people, still have a higher smoking rate. Francophones in Ontario have a high smoking rate. The programs presently in place to help them quit smoking don't seem to be as effective.

There are also other groups, such as homeless and low-income people, who continue to have higher smoking rates than the rest of the population in Ontario. If we are serious that we want to protect children from second-hand smoke, then not only do we have to create smoke-free areas–we also have to help people stop smoking.

Il me fait plaisir ce matin de vous parler du projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée pour protéger les enfants contre le tabagisme passif dans les véhicules automobiles.

On pourrait dire que ce projet de loi a vraiment deux parties. Dans la première partie, on essaie de protéger les enfants. Je pense à la protection des enfants, et tous les membres, tous les députés, de tous les partis sont d'accord avec ça. C'est quelque chose que tout le monde va appuyer. Protéger les enfants, c'est quelque chose qu'on prend pour acquis. Tous les adultes ont un devoir de protéger les enfants. Les protéger de la fumée secondaire est quelque chose d'important.

La deuxième

partie de ce projet de loi est de vraiment regarder quelles sont les populations, à même la population de l'Ontario, ou les projets et les programmes pour encourager les gens à arrêter de fumer. Quels sont ceux qui ont eu du succès et quels sont ceux qui ont eu moins de succès? Certainement, au cours des années, on a vu une diminution du nombre de gens qui fument en Ontario, et ça ce quelque chose de bien. Mais quand on regarde les statistiques un peu plus précisément, on se rend compte que c'est n'est pas tous les groupes qui ont eu le même succès.

Si on pense aux Premières Nations, les Premières Nations fument encore beaucoup plus que le restant des gens en Ontario. Si on pense aux francophones de l'Ontario, les Franco-Ontariens fument beaucoup plus que le restant des Ontariens. Les personnes à revenu bas ainsi que les personnes sans abri ont tendance à fumer plus que le restant des Ontariens.

Donc, si on veut avoir du succès avec ce projet de loi-là, il faut non seulement être tous d'accord que l'on veut protéger les enfants de la fumée secondaire, mais il faut également être d'accord qu'il faut des programmes pour aider les groupes à risque à cesser de fumer.

Quand je parle des groupes à risques et que je parle des Premières Nations, je veux toujours faire le lien particulier qui existe entre les Premières Nations et le tabac. Pour les Premières Nations, il existe quatre éléments sacrés. Le premier est le cèdre. Le cèdre est utilisé pour demeurer en santé et pour s'assurer qu'on ne devienne pas malade. Le tabac est utilisé pour remercier la terre, remercier la communauté, remercier pour qui on est et ce qu'on a. Le sage est utilisé pour éloigner les effets négatifs.

Si quelqu'un est tombé malade, tu peux utiliser le sage pour regagner la santé et pour chasser la maladie. Et le sweetgrass, on utilise ça pour le côté de la santé mentale, pour se sentir bien et pour se sentir « un ».

J'en parle toujours parce que la relation culturelle qui existe entre les Premières Nations et le tabac est unique et doit être prise en considération si on veut les aider à arrêter de fumer. C'est sûr que l'utilisation du tabac dans les cérémonies sacrées des Premières Nation est quelque chose qui va continuer pour toujours. Mais fumer la cigarette, ça, c'est différent. Le lien entre les deux est fort, le lien entre les deux est culturel et il existe, mais il faut quand même faire attention. Mon collègue vient de me passer un message pour me faire rire et il a bien réussi.

My colleague just sent me a little message there and had me laughing. To answer you, no.

I'm now talking about how to help the people who have higher smoking rates. One of the first things that we as New Democrats want is more community health centres that focus on the populations at risk. When we talk about populations at risk, we're talking about the same populations: people who have more trouble quitting smoking because of a whole array of reasons. We're talking about francophones and the First Nations; those are target groups of many community health centres. In the community health centres, we're giving them the resources. They could certainly help bring forward those communities to help them quit smoking.

Another way to protect children from second-hand smoke is to educate the parents. We have a wonderful program in Ontario, called Best Start, where every single child born in Ontario will be seen by a professional from the health unit in the catchment area. There is an opportunity here to fund programs and resources so that every single parent or guardian of a child who is born in Ontario gets special education on the risks and horrifying effects of second-hand smoke on children.

As children are born and as parents get educated, this is one of the best ways to protect children from second-hand smoke, not only in vehicles but everywhere that children live. Although this bill addresses one confined area, a car, which certainly is harmful to a child, there are lots of other areas this bill does not cover at all.

Un autre élément de ce projet de loi que j'aimerais discuter, face à aider les populations à risque, serait de financer des programmes dans les centres de santé communautaire existants, les centres d'accès aux soins pour les Premières Nations, pour qu'ils aient les ressources nécessaires pour aider les populations à risque à arrêter de fumer. Ce financement servirait à diminuer le nombre de fumeurs en général, ce qui aurait l'effet de diminuer la fumée secondaire chez les enfants.

Un autre programme qui irait dans la même direction serait le programme Meilleur départ. Le programme Meilleur départ est un très bon programme qui existe en Ontario et qui permet à tous les enfants qui sont nés en Ontario, leurs parents ou leurs gardiens de recevoir la visite d'un professionnel du bureau de santé publique. Ce professionnel-là, si on lui donne l'argent pour les programmes nécessaires, peut faire l'éducation envers les méfaits de la fumée secondaire chez les enfants, certainement dans les voitures parce que ce sera la loi, mais également partout où ces enfants-là vont vivre et respirer.

On connaît très bien les effets néfastes de la fumée secondaire chez les enfants, et un programme visant les parents et les gardiens des enfants qui naissent en Ontario pourrait les assurer que, à la longue, tous les parents auront reçu l'éducation et que tous les parents comprennent et sont en mesure de prendre des choix éclairés pour leurs enfants.

Another part of the bill that I would like to talk about is the age cut-off. This is something that bothers me tremendously. Right now, the bill sets the cut-off at 16 years of age. Although you need to be 19 to buy tobacco, only children 16 years of age and under are going to be protected. To me, we are missing out on a great opportunity. A lot of kids between the ages of 16 and 19 will be experimenting with tobacco, will start smoking and will become addicted to smoking. At the same time, during that age period most of them learn how to drive through graduated licensing—the G1, the G2 and the G.

There is such strong motivation for kids who want to learn to drive. They are ready to learn; they are ready to do just about anything. We've all been teenagers; we've all been there. Lots of us in this House have teenage sons and daughters, and we know that when they want to learn how to drive and when they want to borrow the car, they're ready to wash the car for you, they're ready to babysit their brothers and sisters, they're ready to come to grandma's and to church, if they get to drive. What a strong motivation. Why don't we extend the cut-off to 19, so that as they are learning how to drive, they are also learning that they cannot smoke in the car, and neither can their friends?

As they are developing the habits of a driver, they won't associate driving with cigarette smoking, which a lot of smokers do. They cannot smoke at work anymore. They cannot smoke in public places. They get in their car and what's the first thing they do? They light up. New drivers learn the same patterns. What a missed opportunity. If we were to expand this bill to include up to 19, all of those new drivers would not develop this habit.

In health promotion, we talk about pre-contemplation, contemplation, decision-making and action. Those are the steps that motivate people to make changes, to take healthier habits in their lives. We have a golden opportunity here to help young people between the ages of 16 and 19 to not pick up the habit of smoking in their cars. It wouldn't be hard to make an amendment to this bill to make it 19 years old rather than 16.

A lot of other jurisdictions that have put in place similar bills have done the same thing. I have done some research on that and found that in places like Nova Scotia, they already have a bill that does this—in the town of Wolfville, Nova Scotia, to be more precise. In Arkansas, we can see that a similar bill has been put in place, but the age limit is higher. It has been done elsewhere. It is a good way to do health promotion. It is an opportunity that we should not let pass by.

Une autre

partie de ce projet de loi qui me porte un petit peu de confusion est la raison pour laquelle on a fixé l'âge limite à 16 ans.

En Ontario, il faut avoir 19 ans pour acheter des produits de tabac, mais, pour une raison qui m'échappe, on a décidé que la loi ne s'appliquerait qu'à ceux qui ont 16 ans ou moins. Pour moi, c'est une opportunité manquée. Si vous pensez aux fumeurs et aux fumeuses en Ontario, ils n'ont pas le droit de fumer au travail et ils n'ont pas le droit de fumer dans les endroits publics. La minute qu'ils rentrent dans leur véhicule, la première chose qu'ils font, c'est d'allumer une cigarette. Ils ont maintenant connecté les deux.

Tous les adolescents entre l'âge de 16 ans et 19 ans qui apprennent à conduire sont dans une période où ils sont prêts à faire des choix parce qu'ils veulent avoir un permis de conduire. On a tous été adolescents, et on se souvient de la motivation qu'on avait à avoir un permis de conduire et à pouvoir conduire. On a des adolescents, la plupart d'entre nous, qui ont vécu le même processus d'avoir leur G2, leur G1 et puis leur permis de conduire. Quand un adolescent veut son permis de conduire, il est prêt à faire beaucoup de sacrifices. Il est prêt à laver la voiture pour avoir le droit de la conduire.

Il est prêt à peut-être garder son frère et sa sœur si ça veut dire qu'il va avoir le droit de conduire. Il est prêt à aller à la messe si ça veut dire que c'est lui, ou elle, qui va conduire, puis il est même prêt d'aller visiter grand-papa et grand-maman si c'est lui ou elle qui va conduire. C'est une opportunité en or. Quand tu penses aux éléments à succès d'une campagne de promotion de la santé, tous les éléments à succès sont là : ils sont motivés, ils veulent apprendre et ils vont développer de bonnes habitudes.

Pour le fumeur qui a déjà associé, « Je rentre dans mon auto; j'allume ma cigarette », ça va être très, très, difficile de désassocier ces deux idées. Pourquoi ne s'assure-t-on pas que les jeunes de 16 ans à 19 ans, quand ils apprennent à conduire, apprennent en associant, « On ne fume pas dans l'auto »? C'est aussi simple que ça. On change le projet de loi. Plutôt que faire à ce que ça s'applique aux enfants jusqu'à 16 ans, ça s'appliquerait aux adolescents de moins de 19 ans—la même chose que pour l'achat des produits de tabac.

J'avais fait un peu de recherche là-dessus—en fait, c'est mon collègue M. Peter Kormos qui a fait la recherche—qui démontre que dans plusieurs autres juridictions ça se passe comme ça. À la Nouvelle-Écosse, plus précisément dans la petite ville de Wolfville, ils ont passé un projet de loi similaire, et la limite d'âge est à 19 ans.

Aux États-Unis, plusieurs États ont passé des projets de loi semblables : on parle de la Californie; en Arkansas, on voit qu'ils ont passé un projet de loi semblable où l'âge limite est plus élevé, ce qui a l'effet non seulement de protéger les enfants de la fumée secondaire, mais on continue de les protéger jusqu'à 19 ans et on les empêche d'associer, « Je rentre dans l'auto » avec « Je m'allume une cigarette ». Cela a un pouvoir extraordinaire pour empêcher les adolescents de commencer à fumer, de diminuer leur taux de tabagisme s'ils ont déjà commencé et de les empêcher d'associer les deux.

En ce moment, c'est une association qui, pour ceux qui travaillent en promotion de la santé, est très, très difficile à désengager.

Donc, en général nous, les néo-démocrates, sommes en faveur du projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée pour protéger les enfants contre le tabagisme passif dans les véhicules automobiles. Mais on pourrait suggérer des amendements pour rendre le projet de loi un pas encore plus loin. Protégeons également les adolescents jusqu'à l'âge de 19 ans.

On est d'accord que le projet de loi a reçu l'appui d'une douzaine d'organismes, qu'on parle de l'association des médecins de l'Ontario, de l'Association des infirmières et des infirmiers autorisés de l'Ontario, de l'Association canadienne de santé publique, de l'Association pulmonaire, de la Société canadienne du cancer et des centres pour les dépendances et de la santé mentale.

Je crois qu'on est tous d'accord qu'il y a une bonne base d'appui pour le projet de loi. On a une opportunité de rendre le projet un peu meilleur, de lui faire faire un pas de plus pour contrôler le tabagisme en Ontario. Ne laissons pas passer des opportunités comme ça. Elles ne se présentent pas souvent.

The New Democrats support the spirit of Bill 69,

An Act to protect children from second-hand tobacco smoke in motor vehicles by amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. This is a bill that is going in the right direction, and a bill we would support.

We have an opportunity, when this bill goes to committee, to make a few changes. One of the big opportunities is to change the age limit from 16 to 19 years old. This is a golden opportunity for anybody who works in health promotion to do more with the same bill by simply changing the cut-off from 16 to 19 years old.

We recognize that there is a lot of support out there for this bill. Whether it is the Ontario Medical Association, the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, the Ontario Public Health Association, the lung association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, public health units or non-smokers' rights associations, the list goes on. There is a groundswell of support for this idea, and we, as New Democrats, also lend our support. It is a good idea, but we could take it a bit further and make it a bit better.

The other part that troubles me, and where we would like to see changes, is the enforcement. To give somebody a $250 ticket does absolutely nothing to help that person change their habits. Health promoters all over Ontario will tell you that giving somebody a ticket because they have been caught smoking in a car will do nothing to help them change their habits. We have to do better.

Other jurisdictions have created ways to turn this disrespect of the law into a health promotion opportunity. Some of the opportunities that exist out there are: If you are caught smoking in a car with a child under 19—I take for granted that we'll accept my first amendment—then you would have the opportunity to join a smoking cessation group and participate in activities that will help you quit smoking.

This is turning a fine—all a fine does is punish you; it does not help you change a habit such as smoking—into something positive, where you will actually help people make sound decisions for their health by offering them, "You won't have to pay the fine if you can show the court"—or whoever the authority is—"that you have enrolled in a smoking-cessation program and followed steps to help quit smoking." To the New Democrats, that would be a way to turn this law into a health promotion vehicle.

Une autre

partie du projet de loi qui nous dérange, comme nouveaux-démocrates, c'est que se faire punir parce qu'on n'a pas respecté la loi n'aide en aucune façon les gens à arrêter de fumer. Te faire dire que tu dois payer 250 $ parce qu'on t'a arrêté et que tu fumais dans ta voiture avec des gens, je vais dire de moins de 19 ans, parce que je prends pour acquis que mon premier amendement a été accepté, n'est pas un motivateur pour arrêter de fumer et n'est pas un motivateur pour changer tes habitudes envers le tabac.

Il y a d'autres juridictions qui ont des projets de loi très semblables à ce que l'Ontario s'apprête à mettre en place, mais qui prennent un focus sur la promotion de la santé. Donc, qu'est-ce que tu peux faire? Si la personne a fumé, avec un enfant ou un adolescent de moins de 19 ans dans sa voiture, tu peux lui offrir de se joindre à un programme pour cesser de fumer, et démontrer à la cour ou à l'instance qui a juridiction que, oui, il a fait les pas nécessaires pour essayer d'arrêter de fumer.

Donc, plutôt que de devenir punitif, que tu viens de te faire punir et tu devras payer 250 $, on prend le projet de loi et on lui ajoute une composante de promotion de la santé où l'on offre aux gens de se joindre à un programme pour arrêter de fumer.

Pour nous, les néo-démocrates, c'est d'amener le projet de loi un pas encore plus loin, envers le but qu'on est en train de se donner, de protéger les enfants et d'aider les gens à arrêter de fumer.

Comme je vois que le temps passe, je vais conclure.

I see that I've taken up longer than I thought I would, so I will conclude. The New Democrats will support this bill. We are looking forward to this bill going to committee, and we hope that you will be amenable to a few minor changes that could have a tremendous impact on making this bill an instrument of health promotion.

The first amendment would be with the age cut-off, raising it from 16 to 19. The second one would be to bring alternatives to the $250 fine. Rather than having a $250 fine, let's put alternatives: that people could join smoking-cessation plans, and take steps to stopping smoking. Rather than punishing them with a fine, we would encourage them to change their behaviour.

We're looking forward to this bill going to committee, and we're hoping that you will be amenable to a few amendments.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I'm pleased to join in and comment on the debate on Bill 69. I want to first congratulate my colleague David Orazietti for bringing forward this critically important issue and Minister Best for taking up the charge on a bill that builds upon the important work done in our first mandate with respect to bringing forward the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and bringing forward a motivation for change: to change behaviour, to change Ontarians' behaviour so that they can better protect their health.

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act is now going to be amended for yet another area. You're driving along the street and see someone in an automobile with their children, and you know how you, as an adult, feel when you jump into a taxicab or something like that and that vehicle is filled with smoke. Personally, I'll get right out of it, because I don't want to be in that atmosphere. But a young child who knows no different needs to be protected by their parents. This bill makes it clear that it is a decision that we are all going to work on together to ensure that those children are protected.

When we talk about changing behaviour, I think it's so important to talk about carrots and sticks, and information and knowledge that we need to impart to people. I know it is of critical importance that there is stick in this bill—that someone is punished, receives a fine if in fact they break the law. This bill also, though, starts to educate people about what happens to a small set of lungs in a child when they are closed into that vehicle and how much of those toxic chemicals they are breathing in. I think there is another important component, when it comes to those older children, older drivers—peer pressure.

I very much look forward to seeing this bill become law and I stand very much in support of the excellent work being moved forward by Bill 69.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm pleased to rise and compliment the member for Nickel Belt for her fine presentation this morning in this House, and certainly indicate my interest in this bill, Bill 69,

An Act to protect children from second-hand tobacco smoke in motor vehicles by amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

I'm aware that this government bill was brought forward in this House on April 30 in response to the expressions of concern by the Ontario Medical Association as well as the expressions of interest from our member from Kitchener—Waterloo, who brought forward a private member's resolution with respect to this issue, I believe just before Christmas, which called upon the government to undertake an education campaign of some sort to ensure that people were aware of the dangers—if they weren't already—of smoking in their vehicle while they have children in the back seat.

My wife and I are privileged to be parents of three young boys. They're growing up fast now; they're almost 13, almost 11 and nine years old. We're obviously very well aware of the need at all times to protect our children from any kind of danger. We're not smokers, but I have in the past witnessed parents smoking in cars while they've got young children—hopefully in car seats, at least—in their vehicles. Obviously, those parents are just not aware of the risk that they're putting their children in, in terms of inhaling the second-hand smoke.

For all the years that I've been privileged to serve in the Legislature, I've always made it a point to support anti-tobacco legislation as it's been brought forward. I believe that it is the role of government from time to time to bring forward new legislation to discourage tobacco use and to ensure that especially young people are discouraged, knowledgeable and warned of the dangers. I see this bill as one of a long list of government bills that have been brought forward through the years by all governments, including the New Democrats when they were in office in the years 1990-1995, and I will be supporting this legislation as well.

Once again, I want to compliment the member for Nickel Belt for her presentation here this morning.

I want to pick up on something she said. She spoke about the inefficiency of fining someone who has an addiction issue—and let's face it, nicotine is an addiction issue. People who smoke in cars with children are doing it because they're addicts. They're doing it because they feel that they don't have any choice. One can only imagine the stress that goes into lives where you would put your own child at risk. We see this in a whole range of addictions. We know that the health response to addictions is not one of fines, it's one of treatment.

I certainly support her amendment—and it's a friendly amendment to this motion. She has already said and we in the New Democratic Party caucus have said that we are going to support this bill. We think it's an inch forward—we'd like to say it's a mile forward. It's certainly a step forward, and as such we will support it.

But there are amendments that need to be added to this bill to strengthen it, to address the issue of addiction—in this case addiction to nicotine, of course one of the most dangerous addictions that are out there, partly because it's legal and accessible. Again, we're looking at that amendment and we're also expressing concerns about the enforcement—period.

We know that our police are overworked, that they're under-resourced. We know, because I've spoken to my two divisions on this bill and they kind of threw up their hands and said, "We can't even enforce the laws we already have, never mind adding more laws to our already insane workload." We'd like to see those police officers, those community officers that were promised, delivered, certainly in the 11th and 14th. It gives me an opportunity to say thank you to those police associations and precincts in my riding.

Mr. Kuldip Kular: I'm pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 69. I want to congratulate the Minister of Health Promotion for bringing this bill forward. As a physician, I know that tobacco use is one of the leading causes of preventable diseases and deaths in Ontario.

Smoking, whether it's direct smoking or second-hand smoke, can lead to lung cancer. Lung cancer causes about 13,000 deaths in Ontario. It costs about $1.4 billion in direct health care costs in this province. There's about $4.4 billion in fiscal losses because of productivity losses. I understand that smoking not only causes lung cancer, it can also contribute to other types of cancers, for example, pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, or some other types of cancer. At this time, medical people don't know what other cancers can be caused by smoking.

As a physician, I support this; as a legislator of this House, I support this bill. The Ontario Medical Association supports this bill; the Ontario Lung Association supports this bill. I think this bill, if passed, is a step forward. It's a step in the right direction. I would urge all members, from any party, to support this bill. I definitely support this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Nickel Belt, you have two minutes to respond.

M me France Gélinas: I'd like to start by thanking the members for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Wellington—Halton Hills, my colleague from Parkdale—High Park and the MPP for Bramalea—Gore—Malton for their comments.

I think we all agree that children are particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke. They have smaller lungs and a higher respiration rate. Second-hand smoke contributes to respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections, asthma and, later, cancer, as a member just mentioned.

Second-hand smoke is 23 times more toxic than smoke in the home. Even with all four windows open, the concentration is still not acceptable. Also, second-hand smoke is absorbed into car furnishings and later let off as gases. We know that stale smoke is even more toxic than fresh cigarette smoke.

We also know that, despite public education, many smokers do not perceive exposure to smoke as a health risk. In Ontario right now, only 37% of smokers have made their vehicles smoke-free. But we also know that there is a groundswell of support. Between 55% and 80% of the population, depending on the community, supports this bill. Smoke-free policies prevent youth from starting smoking and send a strong cultural message that this is not culturally acceptable.

But as I mentioned, there's room for improvement. There's room for improvement in the age cut-off, which should be moved from 16 to 19. There's room for improvement in the way that the bill is enforced, to take it from the punitive to more public awareness and education, with fines as a last resort only.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. David Orazietti: I'm very pleased today to be speaking to Bill 69. I want to thank the Premier for moving this bill forward and also Minister Best for introducing the bill. It has been a bit of a long haul, I would say, but we're here today, and not to presuppose what we're going to do in here, but I want to say that this is going to be great news for kids if this bill is passed.

Over a year ago, I began working with a number of key stakeholders, who pretty much everybody has mentioned here today, and I just want to acknowledge their support. Dr. Janice Willett, who has just changed positions—she is the former president of the Ontario Medical Association—actually practises medicine in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie. I want to thank her very much for her support on this bill, as well as Patrick Nelson and the other folks at the OMA. Michael Perley, who is part of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, has been an incredible advocate on this issue.

Rocco Rossi from the Heart and Stroke Foundation; George Habib, CEO of the Ontario Lung Association; Peter Goodhand, CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario division; and a number of other individuals related to health as well as enforcement. Joanne Di Nardo, from the Ontario Tobacco-Free Network and who works at the Ontario Lung Association, has been instrumental in helping to facilitate a working table that we've had moving along for well over a year now, in consultation with all of the key advocates in the health sector. They were certainly very supportive of this legislation moving forward.

I also want to make reference to our enforcement folks. I made a number of calls to organizations representing the police, both union and management, and there was overwhelming support to move in this direction, and that enforcement was not going to be an issue. It's something that officers can look out for, just as they watch for those who are not wearing seat belts. It would be a matter of pulling someone over if they witness this and believe that someone under the age of 16 is in the vehicle, and they could be fined.

I want to extend my congratulations to the Premier and Minister Best, as well as my colleagues who have all been very supportive of this legislation passing. I want to thank them very much for their support, as well as the many organizations that have come forward.

The bill itself is really moving ahead at a great pace, because we're on the leading edge of this. Only one other province in Canada has passed this legislation. Nova Scotia passed this in December. If we pass this legislation, we're going to be only the second province in Canada to have this type of legislation, so I think we're very much at the forefront of this debate.

There are three US states that have passed it: California, Arkansas, Louisiana. I might add that the fines are substantially less. In Arkansas, the fine is $25; in Louisiana, it's $150; in California, it's $100. So a fine of $250 I think sends a very clear message that we think this is an important issue and that we take it seriously. Six other US states are proposing this type of legislation.

In Canada, British Columbia has a private member's bill that is attempting to make its way forward as well, and in the Yukon, a private member's bill was introduced to do the same thing: to protect children and youth from second-hand smoke in automobiles, because we know what the research says and we know what the statistics say.

I'm also very pleased to see that the bill will be a primary enforcement mechanism. In the state of California, this type of legislation is only a secondary enforcement mechanism. In other words, an officer needs to see someone operating a vehicle doing something else that they believe is not keeping up with the law to also fine them for using tobacco products in the automobile.

If an individual is speeding or has a headlight out or there's some other infraction involved, they can pull them over, but they can't pull them over if they stop beside them at a stop light and see young kids strapped in car seats while adults are using tobacco products in the car. They can't fine them. In Ontario, that would be the case if this legislation is passed.

Support for this, according to statistics, has continued to increase over time. In 1995, only 55% of Ontarians supported this. In 2002, 68% supported this. In 2007, 80% of Ontarians indicated that they support some type of legislation that would protect children and youth from second-hand smoke. When it comes to non-smokers, it's 86%, and when you're talking about smokers, 66% of smokers in Ontario feel that we should have some type of legislation that addresses this issue.

Clearly, public opinion on this and research that has been provided by many of the organizations I previously mentioned have been key in bringing to light the very severe and negative effects that individuals and young people experience in an automobile while tobacco products are being used. And I might just reference some of those.

The New England Journal of Medicine, in 1990, indicated that one out of every five instances of lung cancer in non-smokers can be attributed to childhood second-hand smoke exposure. So we know there is a correlation.

A 2004 Ontario Medical Association report indicated that the second-hand smoke inside an automobile, in a very confined space, can be 27 times more intense than in a home where tobacco products are used and, in fact, 60 times more intense than in a home where there are no tobacco products used. The exposure in small spaces increases the risk of respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis and pneumonia in children, increases the number of emergency room visits made by asthmatic children, and also has a negative effect on behaviour and cognition in children.

The Harvard School of Public Health and the American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2006 report indicated that exposure to second-hand smoke for children is more likely to result in respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections and severe asthma symptoms. Children are also more vulnerable to these diseases because of their smaller airways and greater demand for oxygen and higher respiratory rates, as well as their less mature immune system.

Exposure to second-hand smoke in a car for an hour for a child is the equivalent of a child smoking between 17 and 35 cigarettes. I don't know who would let their child smoke 17 to 35 cigarettes in an hour, but the average child in Ontario spends about 50 minutes a day in an automobile. So if you have children spending 50 minutes a day in an automobile, and you have adults using tobacco products in the car, and it's the equivalent of a child smoking, in an hour, 17 to 35 cigarettes, I think we all know just how intense and how severe the effects are when we are talking about our youngest Ontarians.

This leads to other illnesses, as I've indicated and as the research has indicated, being developed in these children at a much earlier stage in their life, and it leads to their having more frequent visits to our emergency rooms, putting more strain on our health care system. Frankly, these young children really don't have a choice. If mum and dad are going to get in the car and drive 600 miles to a relative's home and they are smokers, you can just imagine the effect on those children.

I have to say that when I introduced the private member's bill back in the fall, with the comments I received at our office—the e-mails, phone calls, letters—and the discussions from coast to coast in this country, from folks in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Halifax, the interest in this was very significant.

I had many people tell me that when they were children their parents smoked in the car and they are very happy to see this moving forward, because they wish there had been a law in place when they were children growing up, because they really struggled, being in the vehicle while people were using tobacco products when they were kids. They have other illnesses now related to that. It's something that I suppose, as we continue to learn more about and get more research on, like many other issues related to health promotion, we'll move forward in the right direction.

I think Ontario is very much at the leading edge of this in terms of Canadian provinces. So I'm very pleased to see that; 80% of Ontarians support this.

I want to take a second and reference the issue around the fines. I heard the member from Nickel Belt say that fines aren't effective and we need education, but then say that the fines aren't high enough. I'm not sure what it's going to be here, but I think the fines are important because obviously education is not getting to everybody who needs this message, because unfortunately to this day I still see people in my community, and I know other people see them as well, who are using tobacco products and have children in car seats.

With respect to the age, this was the age that I had proposed, and I'm pleased that our government is moving forward in this direction. Unless we're going to get serious with the 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds and 16-year-olds who are standing outside schools using tobacco products, I think we have to be realistic in what we're going to enforce.

Are we really going to pull an 18-year-old over who's operating a vehicle by themselves and smoking a cigarette and say, "We're going to fine you for smoking in that vehicle," or pull over a 17-year-old who's operating a vehicle, having a cigarette, and say, "We're going to fine you for using tobacco in that automobile"? Unless we're going to get serious with much younger people in this province who are, we know, using tobacco products, I think we have to be realistic about the age. I think the age is appropriate. I think once individuals have their licence to drive, the legislation will address that.

We know that in the province you need to be 19 years old to buy tobacco products, but there's no age limit to use tobacco products in the province.

So I support the legislation as it has been introduced. Again, I want to congratulate Minister Margarett Best for taking the leadership role to do this, and I know she'll do a very capable job of making sure that the bill is passed in this Legislature. As I hear opposition members talk about their support for this legislation, I hope this will be passed in a very timely fashion because I think we know that it has the potential to help save the lives of many children in this province and help reduce the negative health effects that they're exposed to by adults using tobacco products in their automobiles.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Kuldip Kular: I'll again say at the outset that I support Bill 69, which will ban smoking in cars when children are present.

Second-hand smoke is known to cause respiratory illnesses such as asthma and lung cancer. Even though children in a car do not smoke directly, it's second-hand smoke, so that's why the Minister of Health Promotion has brought Bill 69 forward to ban this.

If Bill 69 is passed as it is, it will definitely make sure that we prevent deaths and disease caused by tobacco use. Tobacco use is known to cause not only asthma and respiratory illnesses, but also lung cancer and other types of cancers like esophageal cancer, bladder cancer and kidney cancer.

Whether it's a direct or indirect type of smoking, it's costing our province $1.4 billion in direct health care costs. It's also costing our province $4.4 billion in productivity loss. When people are sick, whether it's asthma or respiratory illnesses, they lose work and the province loses out on productivity.

I think this bill is a step forward, and I fully support it.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'd like to respond briefly to the comments of my friend from Sault Ste. Marie.

This bill amazes me. On the one hand, yes, your opposition friends will support the bill. It's apple pie and motherhood, and I support apple pie and motherhood. Don't smoke in cars with children: It's nanny-state legislation, like so much on the agenda this year, and it bothers me—

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'm sorry. It bothers me for a reason. It's like saying you're going to introduce a bill that makes it illegal to be a moron in Ontario because only a moron would smoke in a car with a kid. I never did, even when I was a smoker, 25 years or so ago. Yes, there are morons in the province.

Now, let's go to point two: How do you police it? Well, we'll send the OPP, tearing down the 401, looking for people smoking in cars where they have kids in car seats. Is that going to happen? I don't think so.

We hear about the good work of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and the Minister of Health Promotion bringing in a bill like this to protect our children and yet, for—what?—two months in this House, I have repeatedly asked questions about cigarettes getting into the hands of children on an illicit basis.

There are studies that have been done by the Ontario Convenience Stores Association that take a look at the butts of cigarettes found in school yards, and what have we got? We've got 40% usage of illicit cigarettes in Aurora and 40% usage in Mississauga, and yet we have legislation here that's going to make it illegal to smoke in a car with a kid because we want to protect our children. Of course we want to protect our children. But can we do something with teeth? Can we potentially put something into play that actually helps our children by shutting down illegal smoke shops that put these cigarettes into their hands, not passing meaningless, moron legislation?

Interjection.

Mr. Ted Arnott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I distinctly heard the Minister of Transportation, in his interjection, talking about dogs barking. I believe the Speaker has ruled that out of order on more than one occasion. I would ask you to call him to order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I think your point is well made. That is a point of order, and I would ask all of us in this House to take heed to it.

The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: I'd like to make a few comments following the member from Sault Ste. Marie's remarks, and maybe follow up a little bit on the comments from the member from Thornhill.

First, I agree with the member from Thornhill that this is not a bill that will shatter all bills; it's pretty light. We've already agreed that there is a 55% to 80% groundswell of support behind it. So, whether we pass this law or not, people are getting the message that smoking when there are kids in the car is not a good idea. At the end of the day, are we going to change a whole lot of things? Not that much. But we have a health promotion opportunity here. The law can become a powerful public education tool to raise awareness about the risk.

To say right off the bat that we're not going to consider moving it to 19 years old because all of a sudden enforcement becomes the be-all and end-all of this bill—like you said, are we going to stop a 17-year-old because he's smoking? Are we going to stop an 18-year-old in a car because he's smoking? No. And we're not going to stop a 35-, 65- or 85-year-old in his car because he's smoking with a kid in the car.

This is not what the spirit of the bill is about. The spirit of the bill is about health promotion. It's about sending a message that, yes, people here in this Legislature are concerned about second-hand smoke for children and want to send a powerful message. None of us believes that law enforcement officers are going to be chasing down cars and handing out fines, whether it be for a 17-year-old or an 18-year-old. I want you to think about that.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I would like to again rise in this House in support of this Bill 69, and congratulate our colleague from Sault Ste. Marie for his great initiative in the previous Parliament in bringing this private member's bill forward.

I certainly feel that a number of the comments of our colleague from Nickel Belt in relation to health promotion are interesting and important comments as they relate to cultural issues, in particular.

As I think about this bill—in my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham we have so many newer Canadians in the community, specifically the Asian and South Asian communities—certainly, the efforts of the local public health units in their health promotion activities will need to focus very much on those particular communities, which may need some additional explanation as to the importance of this bill, so that they fully understand the health benefits of not smoking in a vehicle, in terms of the risks to their children.

I think it's very important to emphasize the impact that tobacco smoking can have on a young child's lungs—the harm it can do. We have certainly seen asthma rates rising in children, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the habit some parents have of smoking in their cars with their children there has contributed to that. As so many have said, no parent knowingly wishes to put their child at risk. Very often public education and health promotion activities will ensure voluntary compliance.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Sault Ste. Marie, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. David Orazietti: I want to thank the members for Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Nickel Belt and Oak Ridges—Markham for their comments.

We know that the public supports this legislation. And how long have we known that smoking is bad for us? Forty years? Your party had an opportunity to pass this. You didn't. So let's not sit here and say this is "meaningless, moron legislation," to quote the member from Thornhill—that's what he said. I would expect you're going to be voting against this, with that kind of comment, right? You had an opportunity to pass it; you didn't pass it. I want to congratulate our Premier and our minister for showing the leadership to introduce this bill and ensure that we protect kids in the province of Ontario.

Smoking has cost the lives of 13,000 Ontarians every year, and costs our health care system $1.7 billion every year. Yet I hear the member from Thornhill say this is "meaningless, moron legislation." I can't believe the comments from the opposition. Either you're for it or against it. You had an opportunity to introduce it; you didn't do it. Let's get it straight: We are on the side of young people who need their quality of life protected in an environment where adults continue to use tobacco products in automobiles.

It's not healthy—we know that; the research has been there for many years—and so we're moving forward with it. We know that an adult exposing a child to second-hand smoke for one hour in an automobile has the effect of that child's using 17 to 35 cigarettes in that hour. The research is there; we're supporting it. I'd like to hear the opposition members stand up and say, "This is good legislation, and we support it," not, "This is meaningless, moron legislation." I can't believe it.

I'm very thankful that our Premier and our minister are showing the leadership on this to ensure it's passed.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I am very pleased, personally, to be able to support this bill. In fact, this particular bill was one I had also prepared. Legislative counsel would know that I was also set to introduce a very similar bill, and the member from Sault Ste. Marie got out there just ahead of me. Anyway, I do support it.

As a former health minister, I put in place many initiatives to do what we could to eliminate smoking and, hopefully, raise the awareness of people in Ontario to the impact of smoking on the health of people. Anyway, I support this bill.

When the member introduced his bill and my bill was not going anywhere, I decided that one way I could help move his bill forward was to introduce a resolution that would support him and also, hopefully, convince his Premier, who initially said he didn't support the member's bill, to recognize that the opposition supported the bill as well.

So one week later, on December 13, I introduced a resolution, "That, in the opinion of this House, the government ... should protect the children and youth of this province from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke in automobiles by immediately implementing an effective province-wide campaign to educate parents about the dangers of smoking in vehicles when a person who is less than 16 years of age is present."

You know, sometimes I believe there are opportunities for the government member who has a private member's bill to be supported by a member of the opposition. I hope that I, in the way that I introduced my resolution, made the Premier reconsider his initial reaction, which was simply to indicate that he was not going to go down this—he called it a "slippery slope." Originally, he didn't see it as a necessary bill, to protect children from second-hand smoking in cars.

When he continued to object to the bill that had been introduced by the member from Sault Ste. Marie, I wrote him another letter, after the introduction of my resolution on December 13. On January 24, in fact, I had an open letter to the Premier stating:

"Dear Premier McGuinty,

"As we recognize National Non-Smoking Week, I call on your government to take action to immediately implement a new anti-smoking initiative to introduce an effective province-wide campaign to educate parents and others of the dangers of smoking in motor vehicles while children are inside." I told him that I supported the ban on smoking in vehicles while children are present. I said that I believed it was time for our province to do what had already been done in Nova Scotia last year, when that province became the first in Canada to ban smoking in vehicles with children.

I also indicated at that time that I was disappointed because the health promotion minister had indicated that we weren't going to do anything about this until the end of the year, and I wanted him to make this a priority for his government. I said that if you wait until the end of the year, which would have been 2008—I reminded him that second-hand smoke in a vehicle is 23 times more toxic than in a house because of that smaller space.

I said, "If you're not going to move forward on introducing the ban that has been proposed, then will you at least institute a province-wide campaign to educate parents and others of the danger of smoking in vehicles while children under the age of 16 are inside?"

I think we can all say, "Well, it makes sense. Why would anybody do that?" The reality is that people do smoke in cars when their children are in those cars, and obviously it's extremely dangerous to their health. All of the research shows that children and youth are particularly susceptible to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. I said to the Premier, "Can we afford to gamble with the health of even one child?"—the answer being "no."

I went on in my letter to say that we've known for a long time that smoking is a significant cause of preventable illness, disability and premature death in Canada. In fact, second-hand smoke continues to claim the lives of more than 1,000 Canadians each year—and to think that that is almost totally preventable. This initiative is just one more step in taking action that would prevent the illness, the disability and the premature deaths.

I concluded my remarks to the Premier in my letter of January 24 by saying, "Unless we take a more aggressive and immediate approach to promote healthier lifestyles, our health system will be further consumed by preventable chronic diseases and needless deaths." Then I asked him to deal with this issue of great importance to our children.

I hope that the introduction of the bill by the member for Sault Ste. Marie, my supportive resolution, my letter, plus, I believe, the flood of letters and e-mails that probably all MPPs received, influenced the Premier in making the decision to move forward with this bill.

I would have to say to you personally, as a former health minister and as a mother, that I appreciate the fact that this initiative has come forward. The reality is, we need to make sure that we protect our children. We already, as you know, have banned smoking in workplaces and in public areas such as bars and restaurants. It seemed that the next step simply was this ban in cars. I don't know how anybody can object to it. That's my personal opinion. We all know that our children are totally defenceless. They depend on adults to make responsible decisions on their behalf. This really is the least that we could do.

We know that we have seen widespread support, certainly from those who deal with people who suffer from illnesses, disease and death as a result of smoking. We've heard the lung association being supportive, the Ontario Medical Association—our doctors see the consequences every day—Canadian cancer, heart and stroke. The reality is, there's no evidence to the contrary. We need to move forward and we need to make sure that this happens.

Since the introduction of the ban in Nova Scotia, and now the introduction of a bill by ourselves, of course, we know that British Columbia has also taken the initiative to move forward. We know that New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are considering a similar ban. So this is an issue—I don't see it as being partisan. I see us moving forward on behalf of all of the children in the province of Ontario, to give them the protection that they need.

I think, though, at the same time, we also need to continue to educate people about the consequences of smoking. We sometimes assume in this House that it's common sense. I don't think it's necessarily common sense. There are all sorts of things that adults do without always considering the consequences. For example, we know people who drink—mothers, when they're pregnant. That has an impact, obviously, on some of the children. So we have to alert them to what the dangers of smoking in a car are. In fact, I hope we can take whatever steps are possible to educate all people about the need to refrain from smoking. It's tough.

Hon. James J. Bradley: What a positive voice they have over there.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Thank you very much.

We could go on and on and talk about this bill, but the reality is, I think most of it has been said. It's common sense. We know there are health consequences. I can remember, when I was Minister of Health, the different initiatives that we did undertake in order to ensure that we could move this agenda forward. It's an agenda that has been moving forward in all of the provinces in Canada. As I indicated, Ontario is just one of the most recent provinces to move forward, but others are going there too.

I could read you off lists of all of the dangers of smoking, but I think, again, most people know that it is a major cause of heart disease, it is a major cause of strokes, it is a major cause of cancer, vascular system—in fact, smoking-related cardiovascular disease is responsible for more than 6,000 deaths in Ontario each year. That's a significant number of people who are dying because of smoking-related cardiovascular deaths. When you consider that number, it would just make sense that we wouldn't expose our children to smoking, because later on in life this will continue to have an impact on them.

I support the age under 16. I think that is an appropriate age. I believe that once someone starts to drive in a car—I mean, we assume that they're capable of making the appropriate decisions regarding the operation of that vehicle, so I believe that is important.

There are other states in the United States that have actually banned smoking. I would just share with you that the Yukon, Arkansas, California, Maine, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, South Australia and Tasmania have. We are simply doing what others have already done before us. We weren't the leaders, but nonetheless the government recognized that the public supported this bill.

I think that's the other thing that was most interesting: If you take a look at any of the research that was done, there was actually widespread public support for this particular piece of legislation. I would also just say that if you take a look at preventable deaths, tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death in Ontario. It kills 13,000 people every year in Ontario. To date, no scientific authority or regulatory health body in the world has established a safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

We know that second-hand smoke contains 4,000 chemicals, and more than 50 are known or suspected carcinogens. Children are especially vulnerable to second-hand smoke because they have higher respiration rates than adults and their respiratory, immune and nervous systems are still developing. Going back to the poll and the fact that there is public support for protecting these children who are so vulnerable, there was agreement in a 2007 Ipsos Reid poll that 80% of Ontarians agree that children should be protected from second-hand smoke in a vehicle. This is a 25% increase in public support from 1996.

I'd just like to remind the audience that when I was Minister of Health between 1997 and 2001, I did promote an agenda. In fact, we put in place a continuum of what we believed to be health services. It began with health promotion. It then focused on primary care, making sure people had access to a family doctor. It then focused on the hospitals. But then it focused, afterwards, on long-term care and home care. Part of the agenda for wellness and health promotion and disease prevention was to focus and develop a strategy.

We worked with partners to make sure that we did everything we could in order to eliminate smoking and encourage people to not start smoking, particularly young people. We also focused on the need to eat healthy and, of course, on the need for clean air and the need for exercise. These are all parts of a healthy life.

We cannot sustain our health system. We can't afford our health system to continue paying for preventable deaths. If you take a look at the number of people who are dying every year in the province of Ontario because of tobacco—13,000—we need to do everything we possibly can. We need to continue to move forward. I'm glad that the government is continuing to move forward on some of the steps that we put in place regarding disease prevention, health promotion, encouraging people not to smoke and educating them about why it shouldn't happen. Today, this bill is just a logical step forward in that process.

We've already banned, as I said before, smoking in workplaces. In this instance, we're simply focusing our attention on a very vulnerable group of people: children under the age of 16 who don't have their own voice when traveling in a car with a parent, or perhaps with a grandparent, a family friend or someone else who may be car-pooling them to some event or to school. We're simply saying that once this bill is passed, those children would no longer have to be exposed to second-hand smoke in cars.

I'm pleased the bill is moving forward. I certainly support it. The sooner the bill is passed, the sooner we can put in place the framework, and the sooner it becomes law, I personally will be grateful. As I say, it's something as a former health minister I strongly support, and I hope we can continue to do more.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I want to thank and support the member from Kitchener—Waterloo for her comments. We in the New Democratic Party also will be in support of this bill. It is a small step on a long road, but a step in the right direction.

The damage done by second-hand smoke cannot be underestimated. Twenty years ago when I started my career, if you went into any primary school and there was a group of 30 children in front of you, you would talk to the kids and ask, "Do any of you have asthma?" They didn't know what the word meant. Maybe one of their siblings or neighbours had asthma. Now if you walk into any elementary school and there is a group—it doesn't have to be a big group—of 12 to 30, you ask the kids if any of them have asthma and you are guaranteed that at least one out of four will raise their hand. They know what asthma is all about.

They have all seen it. They've all seen puffers. They know what they're used for. They know the symptoms and they know what to do.

Things have changed, but not for the better. There shouldn't be an epidemic of asthma among young children in Ontario, but there is. We can't help but link the fact that as children get exposed to second-hand smoke, it just contributes to more respiratory infections, more asthma and, we all know, chances of cancer later in life. This is a small step, but a step that's worthy of our support.

Mr. John O'Toole: I am always pleased to respond to the remarks made by our member from Kitchener—Waterloo, Ms. Witmer. She comes at this with a great deal of experience, as well as respect in the health industry. I know when she spoke to caucus very passionately about this issue, it reminded all of us how important the issue is.

I think it's important to recognize the work done by the member from Sault Ste. Marie, in all due respect, as a young person with an athletic background setting a good example in his community. I know he played hockey and things like that. To set that example is very good and important in your riding.

The member from Thornhill, when he took exception to it, was really trying to point to the issue that Minister Best, the Minister of Health Promotion, brought in this bill. I think it was brought in to deflect some issues that were on the agenda, on the horizon, right across the whole economy. I see the Minister of Agriculture is here and the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal and other people are in the chamber this morning. It's important to know that there's a lot of downside in the economy right now. I think this was really a way of getting something off the radar screen without actually doing anything that would be controversial.

And yet the Minister of Agriculture knows that they haven't solved the issue of how to get the agricultural industry problem solved for the tobacco growers. How are they going to move them to other commodities? It is an industry. It's a legal product. I don't particularly enjoy it. I'm a reformed smoker so I'd be even harsher. But they have no plan. That's one of the issues that Mrs. Witmer tried to bring out. It's a bit of a smokescreen to the economy.

I do want to be on record as supporting this. As a grandparent with four grandchildren, I would be remiss not to say that we should all be doing the right thing. The issue of enforcement is going to be the right thing, by educating the public to do the right thing and not put our children at risk.

Mr. David Orazietti: It is a pleasure to be able to add some comments to the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, the health critic for the Conservatives. I thank her for her support of this legislation. I know that she has put forward a resolution and I did receive her news release and some of the other commentary, so I want to thank her for that. She has been vocal about her support for this legislation as well.

The member from Thornhill perhaps needs to make sure that he's speaking to his health critic, because there might be some mixed signals over there. I don't want to see people calling this bill meaningless, moronic legislation. I'm not sure if the member from Thornhill took his briefing from Mychoice, backed by Imperial Tobacco, because we know that Mychoice has been very actively pursuing our members and is out there talking about how it's okay to have adults using tobacco products with kids in cars. I was contacted by Mychoice and they don't think there's anything wrong with this.

This is still a serious issue. I still see this in my community. I saw this several weeks ago. I saw it several months ago. Every now and then when you pull up at a stop light, you see an adult using tobacco products, with kids strapped in car seats and the windows cracked the customary inch or two, and there is a haze of smoke in the car. We want to do the right thing, and I know members of the opposition want to do the right thing as well. I hear their comments and I welcome those comments. I think this is a much-needed initiative in this province.

Let's not forget that we're still very much on the leading edge of doing this. There's only one other province in this country that has passed this legislation, about six or seven months ago. No other provinces have passed this. There are only three US states that have passed this and some counties that passed it as well. So it's something that is still not being driven home to people, so to speak. Education can only take us so far, and we do need enforcement on this issue. I want to encourage all members of the House to support this legislation.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm very pleased to compliment the member for Kitchener—Waterloo on her fine presentation this morning with respect to Bill 69. It's unfortunate that the member for Sault Ste. Marie tried to introduce a tone of partisanship into the questions and comments that followed her speech, because clearly our caucus is quite supportive of this legislation.

I remember, immediately after the election—in speaking with the member from Kitchener—Waterloo and, certainly, within our caucus—her advocacy for this issue, indicating her intention to bring forward legislation to discourage adults smoking in cars when kids are in the back seat. Certainly that was her intention, and I was pleased that she followed up with her resolution right before Christmas.

It was, I think, a very good example of where we can work across the aisle in the public interest. When we take that approach, we're serving the public interest, I would argue. The private member's bill being brought forward, introduced by the member for Sault Ste. Marie, was criticized immediately by the Premier. But apparently after he received the polling data that some of his staff people probably showed him, indicating the strong level of support for this legislation, as well as the advocacy by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, we see ultimately a government bill introduced on April 30—more than six months after the election, I would add.

I think the member for Kitchener—Waterloo has brought an important perspective to the debate. As a Minister of Health, she brought forward a number of very important wellness initiatives, a whole agenda surrounding the issue of wellness and how we could promote wellness, as opposed to just treating illness. I think the work she did in that regard is something that our party is very proud of as we look back at our legacy in government. In her capacity as health critic, she continues to bring forward meaningful initiatives within this Legislature that the Minister of Health should listen to and heed.

Again, I would encourage all members of the House to listen to the member from Kitchener—Waterloo with respect to this issue and all the issues that she brings forward in the House, especially the issues revolving around health care.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Kitchener—Waterloo, you have two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I appreciate the words from the member from Nickel Belt, someone who has certainly demonstrated her concern for the health and well-being of people in the province of Ontario; obviously, my colleague from Durham, who indicated that as a grandfather of four and a reformed smoker, he recognizes the need for this type of legislation to protect our children; and the person, of course, who introduced the private member's bill, the member from Sault Ste. Marie.

As I say, I just think it's really interesting that two people from different parts of the province both were prepared at the same time to introduce similar legislation. I'm glad it happened. It is an example of us being able to work together in order to make something possible to improve the quality of life of, in this case, the children of our province. I hope that my support for his bill and my resolution and then, of course, subsequent feedback helped persuade the Premier to take action and move this bill to where it is today.

Of course, I thank my colleague the member from Wellington—Halton Hills very much for his comments. He works very hard on behalf of his constituents. I know he has three children. Each day, he certainly tries to make sure that he improves the quality of life, not only for his own family, but for people in the province of Ontario.

I would just hearken back to what I said before, and that is that as Minister of Health, my focus very much was on the wellness agenda, the need to focus on disease prevention, health promotion. Besides focusing on this, I focused on providing the free flu vaccine, which I know has prevented illness and death.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to rise to correct my record. Yesterday in estimates, I made reference to a company called Koolatron as being in financial difficulty. I'm happy to report that the company is solvent and operating happily in Brantford, Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): That is a point of order, and we thank you for that.

Further debate?

Mr. Mike Colle: I'm here today to support Bill 69,

An Act to protect children from second-hand tobacco smoke in motor vehicles by amending the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

First of all, I want to point out the incredible leadership that the member from Sault Ste. Marie, David Orazietti, has shown, in that when nobody was willing to take this battle on, he did so when there weren't many people who were interested enough or who were not aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke in a confined space and what it was doing to children.

I see there are children here from one of the local schools, and I think it's very important for them to understand that this legislation ensures that adults who are driving automobiles do not use tobacco products, because it intensifies the harm of the tobacco smoke when it's in an enclosed space. So if a child is in the car and the adult is smoking, I think the member from Sault Ste. Marie mentioned it's almost like forcing that child to smoke 10 or 12 cigarettes.

We know unequivocally, after years of denial by big tobacco—big tobacco paid billions of dollars trying to persuade people that smoking was good for them. They denied the fact that smoking was causing cancer. Literally millions of people in the world died as big tobacco was trying to persuade people that tobacco did not cause cancer. In fact, there are still some people out there today who will deny that there's a linkage between smoking tobacco products and cancer, despite the fact that right now in Ontario hospitals there are thousands of people who are on respirators, who have lung cancer, throat cancer, mouth cancer, cancers of all sorts, caused by using tobacco products.

The member from Sault Ste. Marie added to our very strong Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which was a new paradigm in educating and prohibiting the use of tobacco products in public spaces. That means that whether you're in a restaurant, whether you're in some kind of public space, in a hockey arena or wherever you are, you cannot use tobacco products. So the Smoke-Free Ontario Act covers most of the prohibitions in public spaces. It is a piece of legislation which sets the groundwork for protecting the health of Ontarians, and not only protecting their health, but there are billions of dollars used to treat people who are victims of cancerous tobacco.

I think there are over 450 hospitals in Ontario, and you'll find in every hospital—maybe some of the young children here today should visit a hospital and talk to some of the victims of cancerous tobacco so they can see what this awful, addictive drug does to people. It is not only costing the health of those people in these hospitals—killing people—but it is costing the health care system billions of dollars every year to treat the victims of cancerous tobacco. So there's almost a double whammy: the unfortunate individuals who are dying of cancer because of tobacco, and their families, and then also—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Why don't you ban it?

Mr. Mike Colle: I know the members of the Conservatives are for the tobacco industry and they keep on heckling me in favour of it, but on this side we think that cancer is caused by tobacco and children in the back seats of cars should not be exposed to cancerous tobacco smoke. That's why the member from Sault Ste. Marie was brave enough to bring forward this piece of legislation, against much opposition from the Conservative side.

He has put this forward and now the government of Ontario has taken on this bill—Bill 69—which will ensure that innocent children will not be exposed to cancerous tobacco, which the Conservatives are heckling in favour of, because they don't see the danger and they don't read the medical records of the thousands and millions of people who have died as a result of tobacco.

This is another strong step that our government is taking to ensure that this kind of dangerous behaviour does not occur, because it puts the danger of cancer into a confined space in an intensified fashion, and that is why this legislation is important.

I know the Conservatives talk about this being part of a "nanny state." They say the government is going too far by doing this: "Why do they have to do this?" Well, they said the same thing about the Smoke-Free Ontario Act: "Why do you have to have a smoke-free Ontario? We want the right to smoke in Ontario."

This is all about ensuring that the people of Ontario are protected from this hazardous product. They don't have to go into a restaurant and a child doesn't have to be in a car and exposed to this hazardous product. This is the type of thing that Bill 69 does. It protects those who cannot, in some cases because they may be small children, stop the adult from smoking in the car. Therefore, we ask the help of all members of society to ensure that this practice, which many Conservatives condone, should not be allowed in this province. It is part of educating, fining people and telling them that this is something that is not allowed in Ontario.

Again, I congratulate the member from Sault Ste. Marie for having the courage of his conviction to do this. He fought for this private member's bill to the point where the government adopted it because of his hard work, his vision and his caring for children across Ontario. I think all of us in this province should be thankful to the member from Sault Ste. Marie for having the vision and the courage to do this when big tobacco said it wasn't necessary. Big tobacco still says that these measures are not necessary.

We need more members like the member from Sault Ste. Marie, who fight for what they believe in and make this a better province

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Toronto Centre, we would like to welcome representatives from the Campaign to Control Cancer group, including patients, survivors, advocates and health care professionals.

On behalf of the member from Oakville: in the west public gallery, the grade 5 class and teachers from Brookdale Public School.

On behalf of the member from Mississauga—Erindale: the grade 10 class from Erindale Secondary School, seated in the east public gallery.

On behalf of page Sheilagh Brenegan: in the west members' gallery, Lynn Brenegan, her aunt; Georgia Brenegan, her nana; and Stan Brenegan, her papa.

On behalf of page Matthew Wilson: in the west members' gallery, Andrew Wilson, his brother; Fraser Wilson, his father; and Kim Wilson, his mother.

On behalf of the member from Eglinton—Lawrence and the member from York West, we'll be joined later this morning by Gianni Bardini, the consul general of Italy, who will be seated in the east members' gallery.

On behalf of the member from Toronto Centre, we'd like to welcome the parents of page Rafaël Lemmens-Chapdelaine: Trudo Lemmens, his father; Pascale Lemmens-Chapdelaine, his mother; and Alberic Lemmens-Chapdelaine, his sibling, in the east members' gallery.

As well, on behalf of page Matthew Chaput: in the east members' gallery, Mary Shay, his grandmother, and Gerry Chaput, his father.

On behalf of Premier McGuinty and Minister Watson, I'd like to introduce Emma Brownlie of Ottawa, a student of D. Roy Kennedy Public School, who's accompanied by her mother, Cheryl Brownlie; her grandparents, Leila and Forrest Buckingham; and her aunt, Nancy Tilt. Emma is the CanWest CanSpell National Spelling Bee champion, and she's representing Canada at the world spelling bee championship next week in Washington. She's in the east members' gallery. Welcome, and welcome to all our guests to Queen's Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier, again dealing with his government's relationship with General Motors. Given that General Motors is one of the largest beneficiaries of what in many cases seems to be a bottomless bowl of money, the government, in our view, has fumbled their strategy in this regard. We're seeing job loss after job loss. I think it's raising legitimate questions about their approach. We believe it's time to shine a light on the deals that this government has made with automakers.

Taxpayers have a right to know how their monies are being used and what net gain there is for this province. Premier, will you immediately release the details of your funding agreements with automakers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's hard to figure out from one day to the next where the official opposition is coming from on this score, and I'll tell you why. Just recently—in fact, on April 28—the member for Oshawa stood up in this House and asked a question about the auto sector. He said: "It's extremely important that we come forward with a plan that'll give initiatives to make sure that we build a stronger economy....

"What are you specifically going to do to aid the auto sector?"

A little while ago, the leader of the official opposition said the following: "[A]ny Premier of Ontario must keep in his toolbox all of the tools necessary to make sure we maintain and attract automobile investment in the province of Ontario....

"I would consider direct investment, in appropriate cases, to be something that you could use and should use...."

So I say to the official opposition: Are they in favour of supporting the Ontario auto sector or are they not?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Speaker, I'm not sure if you heard an answer there; I didn't. We're talking about specifics with respect to contracts made with General Motors and other automakers. I think we're talking about significant taxpayers' dollars that are going into these funds. Taxpayers have a right to know what the net benefit is.

What we are seeing today is 1,400 jobs now being lost in Windsor, a city that is already facing 10% unemployment, and significant layoffs in Oshawa with General Motors. You are very quick to forget that the money you're handing out with no strings attached is taxpayers' hard-earned money. Taxpayers have a right to know what value they're getting for the money that's gone to General Motors. Based on the job notices, it appears that we're getting the raw end of the deal. Why won't you disclose the details of these contracts?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think the results are pretty important. And I think it's important to understand what's happening to the auto sector in the North American economy. Our three biggest competitors in this regard are Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. From 1999 to 2005, Michigan lost 90,000 jobs, a 30% decline; Ohio lost 29,000 jobs, a 19% decline; Indiana lost 16,000 jobs, a 15% decline. It is true that we have lost jobs in the province of Ontario. We've lost 6,000 jobs; that's a 4% decline.

But at the same time, of those massive losses, we've secured a $1-billion new investment from Ford, a $2.5-billion new investment from GM and a $768-million new investment from DaimlerChrysler. And contrary to Michigan, we have Toyota and Honda in our province.

We've been doing very well, given the competition, given global economic circumstances, and we continue to press forward to secure even more new investment to create more jobs in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: In the bigger picture, they've lost 207,000 manufacturing jobs in the last three and a half years—and growing.

I think a quote I put on the record yesterday from David Adams, the president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, bears repeating: "As it currently stands, Ontario is now one of the most expensive jurisdictions in the world to manufacture vehicles." That's because of your policies over the last four years, and shoving taxpayers' money out the door is not going to solve that problem.

What Ontarians are seeing is that the deal you've made with General Motors has gone badly for taxpayers and for General Motors workers in Oshawa and Windsor. It demands scrutiny; it demands transparency and accountability.

Now we find out General Motors is looking for even more taxpayer money. Before we can trust you again in going into an agreement with this company or others, I think it's clear that you must disclose the details of past contracts. Will you do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The leader of the official opposition really should get hold of his counterparts in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, because I can tell you what they're asking their governors is, why is Ontario eating their lunch? Why is it that when they've lost 90,000 jobs, 29,000 jobs and 16,000 jobs, experiencing anything from a 15% to a 30% decline in jobs, Ontario has emerged with only a 4% decline in jobs? Why is it that we secured the greatest amount of new investment in North America here in Ontario in the last four years? Why do we have a brand new greenfield Toyota assembly plant? Why did we land that here in Ontario?

There is undoubtedly a real challenge facing the global economy when it comes to the auto sector, but we have more than held our own. We've gleaned an unfair share. We intend to pursue as aggressively as possible a still further share of the limited auto sector economy. We want more new investment and more new jobs here in Ontario.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Attorney General. It's regarding the letter sent by Six Nations Council Chief William Montour clearly suggesting that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs intervened in an ongoing police investigation and prevented the laying of charges. That's potentially a serious criminal offence. Minister, given the clear and serious implications of what Chief Montour is saying in his letter—and you were copied on that letter as well—what did you do about it?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: That's right, I was copied on the letter.

The issue in the letter that the Leader of the Opposition makes reference to is answered directly by OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino in his letter to the Dunnville Chronicle, which the member should have had a copy of before raising the question. He says, "At no time during this event, or in relation to any police operation, did anyone in government or elsewhere tell the OPP to stand down or direct the operations of the OPP."

That thoroughly and completely addresses the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I would suggest that's an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Attorney General. Certainly we appreciate Commissioner Fantino's perspective, but what about Chief Montour's perspective? You're going to completely ignore it.

Given the seriousness of Chief Montour's comments and his request for further interventions with the police, can the Attorney General explain why he didn't bother to correct them? These are written criminal allegations made by a credible individual. Now you're getting up and the minister's getting up later and saying, "Well, now we're going to do it," after the letter became public. Why didn't you act? It was your responsibility to react.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I'm not sure what part of Commissioner Fantino's letter you disagree with, so let me continue.

In the third paragraph: "The decisions that resulted in the peaceful resolution of the road closure in Caledonia were based on ongoing dialogue between the OPP and Six Nations leadership and on the OPP commitment to resolve such situations in the safest manner possible."

I'll continue on with the next paragraph: "The suggestion that political interference played a

part is regrettable and untrue. OPP operational decisions are the purview of the police officers in charge. Decision-making is influenced by factors related to the event and the overall need to maintain order and preserve the peace. This is fully in keeping with the police role and authority."

This government does not direct the police. We do not direct the OPP. The commissioner is on the record. What part of that letter do you disagree with? Stand up and be counted.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I don't know who you're performing for, but it's certainly not the people of the province in terms of upholding the rule of law.

Chief Montour is a respected, credible individual. He's not someone who would fabricate a story about a minister of the crown interfering with police. He has nothing to gain, but this Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has a lot to lose even if he left the impression with Chief Montour that he was influencing police decisions.

Again, these are serious allegations coming from a credible source. They merit a full investigation, and I ask the Attorney General to take off his political hat, do the right thing, stop protecting a colleague and call in the RCMP.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We have the commissioner of the OPP, who has not only called in but written in to the Chronicle on the very—

Mr. Peter Kormos: You're in the back pocket of the police.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the member for Welland to withdraw the comment that he directed to the Attorney General, please.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Withdrawn.

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: He has written on the very issue that is raised by the Leader of the Opposition, making clear the suggestion political interference played a

part is regrettable and untrue. It is direct, it is clear, it is unequivocal.

We have lots of letters that are received in lots of places over lots of issues. You've heard from the ministers involved. Now you've heard from the OPP commissioner. I say to you again, what part of the OPP commissioner's direct response to the direct suggestion do you disagree with?

Interjection: Rumours.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: That's right. You want me to act on rumours.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question to the Premier. Shortly after the McGuinty government announced the automotive investment strategy, you also announced a $235-million investment in General Motors. I want to quote from the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. This is what he had to say, "And yesterday we built on our success. In partnership with General Motors of Canada ... the Premier announced Ontario's investment ...." Then he goes on to say, "Our investment will support expansions and vehicle design manufacturing capabilities at GM plants right across this province ...

This is great news for thousands of workers and their families who will benefit from new and secure jobs at General Motors." It sounded, when you made this announcement, as if General Motors workers across the province were going to benefit.

Premier, can you tell us how 5,500 General Motors workers could be laid off in the context of that announcement?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I don't know where that last number came from; I've never heard of it before. The leader of the NDP may want to substantiate that. But there is some truth to the release he made reference to.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just want to remind the members of standing order 23(

h) when it comes to allegations. I just remind the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal of that standing order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There is some real merit to the release he referenced, which referred to "new and secure jobs." We inherited an auto sector infrastructure, so to speak, which was not bound by any guarantees, any securities. In the face of literally dozens of plants being closed throughout North America, it was inevitable that Ontario would be affected. But we're proud of the record that we established on a go-forward basis.

Mr. Howard Hampton: If the Premier can make aspersions of truth and untruth—I'm not quoting from a release; I'm quoting from what the Minister of Economic Development and Trade said here in this Legislature, in Hansard, on March 3, 2005. If the Premier says that Hansard isn't telling the truth, then we've got a problem. But I suggest that Hansard does tell the truth. The problem here is the Premier's problem.

You went out and you told workers and communities across this province that your $235-million investment was going to guarantee General Motors jobs in General Motors communities across this province. But as we found out on Monday, you forgot all about the workers in Windsor. How could the McGuinty government say here in this Legislature that you were guaranteeing thousands of General Motors' workers' jobs, yet, we find out now there was not even any thought given to the General Motors workers at the transmission plant in—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We never said that, and that Hansard doesn't say that. What I would recommend to my honourable colleague—and I'm prepared to arrange this for him—is a meeting with Buzz Hargrove. I'm offering to set that up. I'm prepared to serve as a mediator to reconcile, to actively do my best to reconcile, the differences.

But I can say that—and I do want to acknowledge the presence of Bill Reeves, who's with CAW Local 1973; he's the president. I had a chance to chat with him. One of the most important things he asked me to do was to ensure that GM had a continuing strong presence here in Ontario. We are absolutely committed to finding new ways to help GM grow still further in our province.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I just want to tell the Premier that it's not Mr. Hargrove who's supposed to be looking after the public finances of Ontario. It's not Mr. Hargrove who said that this $235-million investment in General Motors is going to guarantee General Motors workers jobs at plants across Ontario. It was the McGuinty government that said that. You didn't just say it in this release in the Legislature; you said it elsewhere.

My question again is this: Your Minister of Economic Development and Trade said that this investment was going to guarantee GM jobs across Ontario. They were going to have more secure jobs. In that context, how could 5,500 GM workers lose their jobs after you made the $235-million investment and all the announcements that went with it? How can those two things be squared, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we've never said—and the fact is we can't guarantee all existing auto sector jobs that are presently found in Ontario. We can make new arrangements, with new investments, on a go-forward basis.

Again, I would want to remind my honourable colleague, since 1999 Michigan lost 90,000 jobs, Ohio lost 29,000 jobs, all in the auto sector, Indiana lost 16,000 jobs.

During that time, when the Big Three shut down dozens of plants in North America, given the fact that here in Ontario about 90% of our product is sold south of the border, notwithstanding those challenges, we landed a billion dollars' worth of new investment from Ford, $2.5 billion in new investment from GM, $768 million from DaimlerChrysler, and a $1.1-billion brand new greenfield assembly plant from Toyota.

I think, given our circumstances, we've been very aggressive and very effective.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier: This is not about Michigan or Indiana. This is about the McGuinty government promising something in Ontario and now thousands of workers find out that what they were promised just hasn't turned out to be the fact.

Here is another comment from Mr. Cordiano, where he said to the Toronto Globe and Mail that, under the agreement, General Motors of Canada has pledged to maintain an average of 16,000 employees over the nine-year life of the project. That means it can trim its workforce by 4,000. General Motors has already trimmed their workforce by 5,500.

Again, Premier, these are the words of you and your cabinet ministers. Why don't they ring true today when 1,400 workers at the GM plant in Windsor are being told "You're out the door"?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it's important, when we're talking about numbers like this, that every one of those numbers represents a person who has a family to support. I don't appreciate that the leader of the third party wants to stand up and add thousands whenever he feels it adds to his argument.

The truth is, a few weeks ago GM did announce 900 jobs, not due to take effect in layoffs until September. So don't add 900 to the total. Last year they announced 1,200 in layoffs. What the number actually was when it happened was 400. That means that, thankfully, there were thousands more who didn't receive a layoff notice. This is important, because these families are important to us.

We want GM to do well, and doing well means that we've got to help fight for product against other jurisdictions that we compete with in North America. When we're competing with other jurisdictions around this continent, Ontario is winning, and they're winning because Ontario is prepared to be there—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: One of the reasons I'm asking these questions is because a lot of workers saw the money go out the door, but they're wondering where their job is now. For example, Ford committed to retaining 4,000 jobs in return for a $100-million investment from the McGuinty government. Well, Ford has announced layoffs totalling 2,700 workers since that investment. And I think what those workers want to know—and those workers were told pretty much the same thing, that these investments are going to guarantee their jobs, just as your predecessor said here in the Legislature.

I'm asking now: We see the money go out the door. Why were there not, in fact, real job guarantees? Why are 2,700 workers out of a job now?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: This member is interested in asking questions. I want to ask this member, if he was supportive of Ontario's role in reopening the Windsor-Essex engine plant for Ford, the first opportunity for the Ford Motor Company to reverse their decision and reinvest in Windsor—where were you on that decision? Do you support those jobs that are coming back to the Windsor area? And what about the Oakville facility that's now hiring 500 positions?

We have to understand what's happening in the world of the automotive sector, but when that sector is facing challenges, that's when it needs a champion in government, not someone who's prepared to blow all over it and make things worse than they ever were.

We are there for automotive sector today, and we'll be with it again tomorrow. Those are great jobs for Ontarians and we support them.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Obviously, the minister and the McGuinty government don't want to answer this question. I will tell the minister, I actually support government investment to sustain jobs, but government investment should come with job guarantees, and that is something the McGuinty government has failed at miserably. For example, Chrysler committed to retaining 5,200 jobs in return for a $76.8-million government investment, but since that government investment, Chrysler has sent 2,000 workers out on the street.

I say to the Premier again, if you're going to make these investments, shouldn't you at least look them in the eye and say, "We want a guarantee that our workers are going to continue to have jobs in Ontario," and not have 2,000 workers go out the door immediately or within the next two years after the signing of the agreement?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let me reiterate that when we sit down with the automotive companies, all five of them that are assembling here in Ontario—Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota and Honda—we work with them because we understand the world market for the automotive sector. We recognize that there are changes afoot. There's a high Canadian dollar. There's a high price for a barrel of oil. We know that the US sales are slumping right now.

We know that this is a tough year, but we also know that we're going to pull out of this, and when we do, it's because we helped our companies become productive—that we will solidify jobs to make great cars in the future right here in Ontario, including the city of Windsor.

We're proud of our relationship with the auto sector. It's built this country and it's built our manufacturing sector. We want to ask this member: Do you really support the Canadian auto workers who work in this province?

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade: Despite over 2,000 recent job cuts at General Motors, the minister has all but agreed to hand out another $140 million to GM's engine plant in St. Catharines. That's on top of the $135 million they received in 2005. In fact, the minister said that recent layoffs and losses would have no impact on her decision to dole out more money. I find that unbelievable. To enter so hastily into large agreements, with questionable job guarantees and no accountability, is not a responsible way to look after taxpayers' hard-earned money.

Minister, with this new expenditure, can you guarantee that there will be no more job losses at General Motors in Ontario?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let me read this: "I have said repeatedly ... that I think any Premier of Ontario must keep in his toolbox all of the tools necessary to make sure we maintain and attract automobile investment in the province of Ontario.... I would consider direct investment, in appropriate cases, to be something you could use and should use, because to me, what is important for the province of Ontario is we attract and maintain that investment...."

Interjection: Who said that?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: John Tory, your leader.

I think you guys need to get it together, because your MPP who comes from Oshawa knows full well that that plant must be viable. We want it to grow in the future. So you tell me today, if GM makes an application to the province of Ontario, does your colleague from Oshawa support that application? I'm going to wait and hear what that member has to say.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Sadly, I'll have to take that as a no. A lot of the tools you have in that toolbox are giving this government a lot of skinned knuckles when they try to use them. There's no guarantee that General Motors won't take the money and run.

I understand the need to partner with industry and to leverage investment, and I value GM as an important Ontario employer. However, there are two ways to support the private sector: the correct way and the Liberal way. The correct way is to soberly and frugally assess the situation and make certain that recipients are upholding their end of the bargain. The Liberal way is to shovel the money out the door to large corporations as fast as they can, regardless of what those corporations are extorting from this government.

Minister, how can Ontarians trust a government that recklessly spends their hard-earned tax dollars and refuses to be publicly accountable for that money?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it's important, because the MPP from Ottawa said—

Interjection: Oshawa.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Oshawa—and GM is important to this member. He fully supports support for General Motors.

I want to speak about what Christine Elliott, also from Whitby—Ajax—a very important region for the automotive sector—had to say: "I certainly wouldn't dismiss the help out of hand. I think it's important that we be given whatever support they can give."

I think it's important that we say right now, when the automotive sector is facing challenges in Ontario, this is not the time that we're going to pile on—not this government that planted its flag in automotive, not this government that has been so supportive of an industry that has fed this nation for decades.

We are having a tough year and we acknowledge that, but we also know that when it gets tough, that's when the government gets tough too, and we will help to build this automotive sector and it will be great again.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Labour.

When I met the minister several weeks ago, I asked him to make some demands of WSIB Chair Mahoney, to which he said that he has an arm's-length relationship with the agency, so he couldn't do that. Yesterday, the minister said he had spoken to Chair Mahoney about his lavish spending and had a letter reporting the details of his frolic.

When will the minister exercise his powers and direct Chair Mahoney to cancel the experience rating program and direct those billions of dollars to injured workers, where they belong?

Hon. Brad Duguid: If the NDP really cared about injured workers, one would think that they would want to be informed by the review that's going on at the WSIB right now regarding experience rating.

For those who don't know, experience rating is an incentive program brought in originally by the NDP, utilized by the Conservatives as well, when they were in power, and it's a system that's still in place today, that we've acknowledged has flaws and needs to be fixed.

There's a review going on with the WSIB now. Why the NDP would want to pre-empt that review is beyond me. That they would not want to be informed by the recommendations that come from the review tells me that their priority isn't people or injured workers; their priority with this issue appears to be politics.

Mr. Paul Miller: Once again, the minister is incorrect. We didn't do that.

On April 17, I asked the minister to use the powers he has under the memorandum of understanding between his ministry and the WSIB and bring in the Auditor General to review this deeply flawed, worker-adverse experience rating program. He said that the WSIB chair is reviewing the program. Well, that's going to be a year down the road, and we've been asking for 10 years to have that done. Really, the chair reviewing a program that he has said is here to stay is like asking employers to willingly give up their lottery winnings.

Again, I ask when this minister will finally do the right thing and immediately cancel the experience rating program, immediately redirect the money to injured workers, where it belongs, and immediately bring in the Provincial Auditor to investigate this program and the labour ministry's fines for workplace injury and publicly report—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: I'll say it again: Why would the NDP not want to be informed by the WSIB review that's going on right now regarding this incentive program?

If this incentive program can be improved, it's going to encourage workplaces across this province and employers across this province to provide healthier and safer workplaces. That is the goal that all of us should be working toward, not trying to score political points on an issue that we're well aware of.

We support the review because we know there are flaws with this particular program, a program, as I said, that the NDP had when they were in power, a program that continued under the Tories, and a program that is in need of improvement. That's why we support the review.

We're not a government of half measures like the NDP would suggest we be. We're a government that wants to do everything we possibly can to improve the health and safety of workplaces across this province. That includes, if needed, incentives for employers. It includes education programs, as well—

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

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

My riding of Willowdale is very diverse. I often meet with Iranian, Chinese and Korean Canadian constituents who were trained as doctors, pharmacists and engineers before coming to Canada. They tell me how very crucial it is for them to quickly integrate into Ontario's economy.

On Monday of this week, I was pleased to join the minister at the launch of Ontario's expanded bridge training program. Minister, can you tell us what bridge training is and what sectors of the economy will benefit from these programs?

Hon. Michael Chan: My thanks to the honourable member for bringing this matter to the House. I'm very pleased to share this information with my honourable colleagues. Bridge training programs are the next generation of language and skills training for newcomers in this province. The bridge training project provides job-specific language training, mentorship, skills assessment and work experience, which are needed to succeed in many Ontario professions. That's why the McGuinty government is investing $27.4 million into 40 bridge training programs across Ontario.

This will help 3,000 additional skilled newcomers to land a job that matches their qualifications and experience. This brings our government total to $85 million and 140 bridge training programs.

Mr. David Zimmer: Ontario is renowned throughout the world for the diversity of its population. We know that the majority of newcomers who settle in this province make the greater Toronto area their home. Minister, how will this important investment help newcomers in my riding of Willowdale and in other ridings in the greater Toronto area?

Hon. Michael Chan: Newcomers from all over the world choose Ontario as their home because it's a great place to live. I'm very proud of the investments that the McGuinty government has made to support Ontario's newcomers. In the greater Toronto area alone, there are 20 different bridge training programs offered to newcomers. Bridge training programs yield an excellent return on the investment we have made in them.

The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers has designed a pre-exam course to prepare internationally trained engineers to write a professional practice examination, a part of the licensing process for engineers. Programs such as these allow Ontario full access and utilize our most important resource—our minds. The McGuinty government's five-point economic plan is helping Ontario move forward, and my ministry is proud to assist internationally trained individuals with integration into the Ontario market.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs: Mike Corrado is the owner of a multi-residential site in Cayuga and he met with HDI several weeks ago, along with municipal and provincial officials. HDI requested this meeting after protesters blocked access to Mr. Corrado's land. In addition to a demand for a $3,000 application fee, they also demanded Mr. Corrado transfer title to his property to HDI and lease it back from them for the next 50 years.

You're a lawyer; you're the government. Is this not illegal? Is this not extortion? More specifically, Minister, are home builders now required to transfer title of their lands to Six Nations?

Hon. Michael Bryant: No.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Mr. Corrado would really appreciate a more fulsome answer. We've spoken with Mr. Corrado this morning. The blockades at his construction site are still up in spite of your "no." He's been told by Ruby Montour that the protesters will not leave and they'll never leave until he complies with HDI's demands, meaning transferring title of his land.

Again, Minister, is this not blackmail? Are deeds worth nothing? How many thousands of jobs are going to be lost; how many millions of dollars have to be spent on policing? The OPP have told Mr. Corrado they will merely act as peacekeepers; they will not intervene. My question is, do you agree with Mr. Corrado asking the OPP to lay criminal charges, asking the OPP to enforce the Criminal Code of Canada?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I spoke to the mayor of Brantford to discuss the municipal council's great frustration, the community's great frustration and the developer's great frustration with respect to what is taking place. A lot of efforts have been made to try and bring people together, to get them off of the streets and on to the negotiating table.

As the mayor said to me yesterday, at the heart of this are, in fact, unresolved claims, primarily along the Haldimand tract. Both the mayor and I agreed that it really is time for the federal government to set a deadline and say, "We're going to put all of our resources into resolving these claims. It is through that, that we are going to achieve justice." So I certainly want to add my voice to the mayor's and the local members when we say to the federal government, with respect to this 200-year-old dispute, that it is time for them to set a deadline and set it now.

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATION STATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Minister of Energy: Today a leaked letter in the Toronto Star from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to OPG says that safety margins are eroding at the Pickering B nuclear power plant. Why has your government allowed safety margins to erode at Pickering B?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I appreciate the question from the member from Toronto—Danforth. Clearly, the public wants to have confidence in the safety of our plants. Ontario Power Generation, which runs the plant, works very hard at that.

I think, more importantly, for the confidence, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has, as the member knows, the prime responsibility here. They actually have an office on-site. They have access to the plant at any time. They monitor it very carefully. To provide some confidence, I hope, to the public, recently the staff at the nuclear safety commission recommended that the licence be renewed at this plant for five years. That's the maximum time that these licences can be renewed.

So I think, clearly, safety is very important. The commission has a big responsibility there. As a measure of some confidence, I hope this five-year renewal provides some reassurance to the public of Ontario.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: You certainly didn't answer why you've allowed the safety margins to erode. So the second question I have for you, given that this nuclear power plant is one of the closest in the world to a population centre like ours: What are you going to do to restore fully the safety margins that should exist at that plant?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Again, it's a very legitimate question that the member raised. I want to once again say that we, the public, rely on the nuclear safety commission, an independent federal board with this prime responsibility. The public, I think, appreciates that. They have an office on-site, as I said.

Furthermore, they constantly monitor this. The staff there, as I said earlier, are recommending a five-year renewal on the licence. We certainly will follow the recommendations of the nuclear safety commission. They will provide advice to OPG on what things should be done, if any. I just want to assure the House and the public—have some confidence in the nuclear safety commission. They monitor this regularly. They're on-site and they are recommending, as I say, a five-year extension of the licence, which I hope provides some confidence to the people of Ontario and the people—

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

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. For the past several months, the cattle, hog and horticulture sectors have suffered greatly from low prices. The increase in the Canadian dollar has also added challenges to their sectors as well. In the 2007 fall economic statement, our government announced $150 million to help farmers in these sectors.

Som