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

June 21, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-21 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 21 June 2001 Jeudi 21 juin 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FRANCO-ONTARIAN

EMBLEM ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR L'EMBLÈME FRANCO-ONTARIEN

FARM IMPLEMENTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

FRANCO-ONTARIAN

EMBLEM ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR L'EMBLÈME FRANCO-ONTARIEN

FARM IMPLEMENTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

PROCTOR HOUSE MUSEUM

SKILLS TRAINING

DURHAM ROWING CLUB

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

HEALTH CARE

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

FIESTA WEEK

SPECIAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

ANNUAL REPORT,

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

SPEAKER'S RULING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESCUING CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

EXPLOITATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA DÉLIVRANCE DES ENFANTS

DE L'EXPLOITATION SEXUELLE

237661 BUILDERS LIMITED ACT, 2001

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN

DEFERRED VOTES

MPP COMPENSATION REFORM ACT

(ARM'S LENGTH PROCESS), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 PORTANT RÉFORME

DE LA RÉTRIBUTION DES DÉPUTÉS

(PROCESSUS SANS LIEN

DE DÉPENDANCE)

VISITORS

UNANIMOUS CONSENT /

CONSENTEMENT UNANIME

FRANCO-ONTARIAN

EMBLEM ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR L'EMBLÈME FRANCO-ONTARIEN

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

RED TAPE COMMISSION

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

HOME CARE

SMART GROWTH

GYNECOLOGICAL ONCOLOGISTS

SAFETY OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

HOME CARE

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

VISITORS

OSHAWA COURTHOUSE

CONTAMINATED PROPERTY

ONTARIO-NEW YORK

ECONOMIC SUMMIT

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

HOME CARE

CENTRE FOR FORENSIC SCIENCE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

LORD'S PRAYER

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STABILITY AND EXCELLENCE

IN EDUCATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR LA STABILITÉ

ET L'EXCELLENCE EN ÉDUCATION

Thursday 21 June 2001 Jeudi 21 juin 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FRANCO-ONTARIAN

EMBLEM ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR L'EMBLÈME FRANCO-ONTARIEN

Mr Lalonde moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 18,

An Act to recognize the emblem of the Ontario French-speaking community / Projet de loi 18, Loi visant à reconnaître l'emblème de la

communauté francophone de l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : Mr Speaker, let me begin by thanking the member for Ottawa West-Nepean as well as the member

for York Centre for their willingness to change ballots for private members' business, which allows me to rise before the House today and to speak on a very special topic that is close to my heart,

as well as the heart of all francophone communities across Ontario: the Franco-Ontarian emblem.

J'ai eu le plaisir de présenter le 26 avril dernier le projet de loi visant à reconnaître l'emblème de la communauté francophone de

l'Ontario. Le drapeau franco-ontarien fut dévoilé pour la première fois le 25 septembre 1975 à l'Université Laurentienne de Sudbury, et depuis ce temps est utilisé

pour représenter la communauté francophone avec fierté et dignité.

Les Franco-Ontariens sont très fiers de leur emblème, qui est preuve de leur héritage culturel. J'aimerais rendre hommage aux concepteurs du

drapeau : Gaétan Gervais, Michel Dupuis, Yves Tassé et tous les étudiants et étudiantes de l'Université de Sudbury qui ont mis la touche finale à ce drapeau.

Merci pour votre contribution éminente au sein de la communauté francophone de l'Ontario.

Before I carry on, let me take a brief moment to explain the significance of the Franco-Ontarian flag. This beautiful flag consists of two vertical bands of

different colours. The first band is mid-green and has a white lily in the middle of the band. The second band is white and has a mid-green trillium in the middle of the band. The green represents

the summer, and the white represents the winter. Together, the two colours symbolize the diversity of Ontario's climate. The lily depicts francophones across the planet,

whereas the trillium is the

official floral emblem of Ontario.

francophone la plus importante au Canada après celle du Québec. Les premiers francophones qui se sont installés dans le territoire de l'Ontario furent les missionnaires qui

établirent la mission de Sainte-Marie-au-Pays-des-Hurons en 1639. Aujourd'hui, il y a plus de 500,000 Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes et plus de 1,2 millions de personnes qui parlent

My private member's bill,

An Act to recognize the emblem of the Ontario French-speaking community, comes at a very important time for all francophones of

Ontario. This Sunday, June 24, Saint-Jean Baptiste Day, is the official celebration of the culture and heritage of all francophones across Canada and the world. Furthermore, from July 14 through

the 24th, Ottawa is hosting the fourth World Games of La Francophonie, where more than 50 countries are represented, having all in common the use of French. They have come together to compete in

both cultural and sports events. This event is expected to attract more than 2,600 athletes, well-known francophone artists, and thousands of visitors, not to mention the economic benefit it will

convey to the province of Ontario.

La vie culturelle et communautaire francophone en Ontario est en pleine effervescence. On y retrouve une vingtaine de centres culturels, six troupes de

théâtre professionnel, et une vingtaine de troupes communautaires qui partagent à la grandeur de la province le talent et la culture des Franco-Ontariens.

21 régions de l'Ontario et compte 25 associations affiliées.

D'autant plus, je suis extrêmement fier des plusieurs autres organismes provinciaux francophones tels que l'Assemblée des centres culturels de

Mais ce qui me touche davantage, c'est l'importante présence de la jeunesse dans la vie communautaire et culturelle francophone, par exemple, la FESFO, la

Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne.

Aussi, j'aimerais souligner quelques activités notoires annuelles, culturelles aussi bien que sportives : la nuit sur l'étang à Sudbury, le

Festival franco-ontarien à Ottawa, le salon du livre à Toronto, la galerie du mérite agricole franco-ontarien à Alfred, les jeux franco-ontariens à Toronto, et les tournois

de hockey des écoles secondaires franco-ontariennes.

Ontario.

For nearly 40 years, the province of Ontario has recognized the importance of serving its citizens in French upon request. According to Bill 8, the French

Language Services Act, which was passed in this Legislative Assembly in November 1989, French services are now available in 23 designated regions of the province. For instance, I am delighted to

share with you that in terms of education and training, the Franco-Ontarian flag flows as we speak at 12 French-language school boards; 358 French elementary and secondary schools; two bilingual

universities, Laurentian and Ottawa; two bilingual university colleges, Glendon and Hearst; one agricultural college, the Alfred College; and three francophone community colleges, la Cité

collégiale, le Collège Boréal and le Collège des Grands Lacs.

Monsieur le Président, collègues parlementaires, votre appui aujourd'hui du projet de loi visant à reconnaître l'emblème de la

communauté francophone de l'Ontario serait un geste de reconnaissance remarquable pour la culture et l'héritage des francophones de 1'Ontario. Une fois adopté, cet emblème

servira à promouvoir la communauté francophone à vocation internationale et sera un outil puissant pour créer l'opportunité pour la province de l'Ontario aussi bien au

niveau économique que culturel.

Je vous invite à partager avec moi ma vision d'une belle province, unifiée par toutes ses richesses culturelles et sa diversité.

Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je suis fier de dire, je suis Canadien. Je suis Ontarien. Je suis un fier Franco-Ontarien.

Mr Speaker, members of the Legislature, I am honoured to say I am Canadian, I am an Ontarian, and I am proud to be a Franco-Ontarian.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to welcome to the Legislature this morning a public school from Little Current, Ontario.

Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for looking in my direction.

I'm very pleased to join the debate with respect to the private member's bill brought forth by one of our more respected members, the member from

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,

An Act to recognize the emblem of the Ontario French-speaking community.

I can speak to this bill very supportively. My family is originally from St Boniface, and it is a very strong French-speaking community in St Boniface, Manitoba.

They have their heroes also in that area: Louis Riel, in particular, in terms of his work. He obviously was involved in the history of this country. On behalf of my father, I'm proud to speak on

this bill.

As you know, there are more than half a million francophones in Ontario today. Francophones make up around 30% of the population in the northeast and 15% of the

population in the east of this province. There are four bilingual universities and five French-language community colleges in Ontario. Our government created the 12 French-language district school

boards in Ontario, and since 1998, francophones in this province govern their own schools and oversee the education of their children. There are close to 100,000 francophone students in Ontario at

the elementary and high school levels, and there are about 450 francophone schools on which they proudly float the Franco-Ontarian flag.

Close to 1,000 students were at the eighth Franco-Ontarian Games, held this year in Windsor, Ontario, in honour of the Windsor Tricentennial, recognizing 300

years of the francophone presence in the Detroit area.

Francophones in Ontario have a rich cultural life, demonstrated by long-standing annual events, such as: Sudbury's Music Festival "La Nuit sur l'étang";

Radio-Canada's Ontario-Pop, a competition for aspiring talents; and Ottawa's Franco-Ontarian Festival, which is celebrating this year its 26th edition for a full month in honour of the Games of La

Francophonie.

There's a tremendous heritage within my area, Simcoe county, with respect to Ste Marie-among-the-Hurons, which was the very first settlement founded 350 years

ago in Midland, Ontario. When I was a young student, like the young students who are here today, I remember visiting that site when it was no more than an empty space with a number of wooden pegs

identifying the area where they were going to build. I would say to the listening audience here today, if they haven't visited Ste Marie-among-the-Hurons, they have missed something, because it is

a tremendous facility and brings out the culture and heritage that was brought to that area. It's something that's very special within not only my area of Simcoe county but also in the province.

It's my honour, as I said before, to support the designation of a Franco-Ontarian flag as an official emblem for Ontario and to recognize that under this bill.

The member has put out a nice concise history in the

preamble of the bill. I think it's very important to note that. Actually the

preamble is longer than the

sections of the bill. He's done a great job. But I think the intent, for anyone who understands legislation and what's trying to be accomplished here, is that the

preamble is very important to the

purpose of what my friend is trying to accomplish in terms of recognition for francophones in this province.

As you know, the recognition of the flag as an emblem is symbolic. There are other symbols of Ontario. The eastern white pine, the loon and the amethyst have

been declared the official arboreal, avian and mineral symbols of Ontario by the proclamation of specific acts: the Arboreal Emblem Act, the Avian Emblem Act and the Mineral Emblem Act, thus the

name of the bill that's before us, the Franco-Ontarian Emblem Act.

I understand New Brunswick officially recognized its Acadian flag some years ago, and there have been some discussions in Saskatchewan to do the same, because

there is a rich francophone heritage in the west. I've already mentioned the role Louis Riel played in that area many years ago in the history of this country.

I voice my support, and I thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate.

M. Michael Bryant (St Paul's) : C'est avec plaisir que je me joins au débat sur le projet de loi 18 présenté par mon

collègue de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Loi visant à reconnaître l'emblème de la communauté francophone de l'Ontario.

This is a bill, as the government has said, as my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has said, about symbols. It's an opportunity for the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario to affirm our commitment to, and recognition of, the rights, policies and services that must be delivered to and the symbols that are important to Franco-Ontarians. This is

about saying that Ontario's symbols include not just the ones mentioned already -- the coat of arms, our flag, the white trillium, the loon, the eastern white pine -- but it's also an opportunity

for us to say yes, we're not just talking about the Franco-Ontarian emblem being an emblem that is the exclusive preserve of one subcategory of Ontarians; rather, we're saying your flag, your

emblem is our emblem. It's a recognition of the importance Franco-Ontarians play in this province.

We've heard from one member of the government in any event who has expressed support for this bill. This government must speak, I think, quite loudly and clearly

in favour of this. Yes, this is a symbol and an important symbol, but the government's record when it comes to francophone rights and Franco-Ontarians has been, with the greatest of respect,

suspect, and this is an opportunity for the government to speak to those issues.

What am I talking about? Well, let's talk about Montfort Hospital. We all know it is essential for francophones in this province to have access to full health

services in French and training in French for physicians and health professionals. Only the Montfort Hospital, a very unique institution in Ontario, can provide those services. It was with much

shock that this province discovered in February 1997 that the Health Services Restructuring Commission ordered the Montfort Hospital to close. Thereafter proceeded a series of appeals by the

francophone community seeking to enforce minority language rights, on the one hand, and unfortunately on the other side of the court was the government of Ontario.

I understand the government's position with respect to the court's role and the extent to which the court may intervene with respect to decisions of Parliament.

I understand that decision. It's an ongoing dialogue that goes on between the courts and legislatures. When, in November 1999, the Divisional Court overturned the HSRC's directions, the Attorney

General of the day expressed dismay with what he referred to as "judicial activism." He said the decision, in his words, "raises issues of judicial activism, of judge-made law and what is the role

of the courts and what is the role of Parliament and legislatures." Judicial activism was OK when the government was trying to strike down the federal gun control laws, but apparently judicial

activism wasn't OK when the courts were intervening on behalf of minority language rights. It expressed a position which offended Franco-Ontarians, I think it's fair to say, and this ended up being

compounded by the fact that of course it continues to appeal those decisions.

Then we had an opportunity with respect to the recognition of official bilingualism in the city of Ottawa. As we know, Mr Glen Shortliffe, the former Clerk of

the Privy Council, delivered a report on municipal restructuring. On the topic of languages he recommended, "The city of Ottawa will be legislatively designated a bilingual city, with services to

be provided in both official languages where warranted."

To which the Premier said, "Forget it." The government said, "Let the local council decide." But this was an opportunity for the province of Ontario, for this

assembly and this House to express its recognition of the importance of official bilingualism, and in turn the importance of its investment in the symbols, the policies and the services provided to

Franco-Ontarians.

I see my time is coming to a close. The government has an opportunity today to speak to this issue in a way which diverges from the position they took on

Montfort Hospital, which disrespected Franco-Ontarians' rights, which diverges from the position they took with respect to bilingualism in the city of Ottawa, which was again unsupportive of

Franco-Ontarians' rights.

I thank my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for giving us this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to Franco-Ontarians by recognizing this important

symbol.

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : C'est vraiment avec fierté puis enthousiasme que je m'adresse a l'Assemblée

législative ce matin pour appuyer le projet de loi 18 visant à reconnaître l'emblème de la communauté franco-ontarienne.

Je tiens d'abord à féliciter mon collègue de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pour l'initiative de ce projet de loi.

Le drapeau franco-ontarien a été hissé pour la première fois en septembre 1975, au mât de l'Université Laurentienne à Sudbury.

ontarienne.

Depuis ce temps, notre drapeau vert et blanc occupe une place d'honneur à tous les rassemblements des Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens, que ce soit

une réunion annuelle d'un quelconque organisme francophone, une rencontre d'une ACFO régionale, un souper Richelieu ou à une manifestation quelconque. Nous en sommes fiers, et

l'année 2000 a vu des célébrations de 25 e anniversaire un peu partout en province.

Remember that it is in Ontario that we find the highest number of francophones living out of Quebec. We are more than 500,000, making this province a strong one

from all points of view, be they social, cultural or economic. Moreover, let me tell you that hundreds of French-speaking new Canadians have chosen Ontario as their homeland.

For decades, the Franco-Ontarians have contributed to the vitality of this prosperous province. They have worked, raised their families, done volunteer work,

served as members on boards of directors and on different committees and held political jobs. They have died in wartime. They are teachers, doctors, lawyers, miners, workers, plumbers -- name them

all. They manage commercial enterprises, farms and tourism centres. Some are even civil servants. They pay their taxes. They have taken their place in this wonderful and great province.

Tout ce qu'ils vous demandent maintenant, c'est une reconnaissance de leur présence dans la société ontarienne.

La reconnaissance officielle par ce gouvernement de leur drapeau serait un geste, croyez-moi, fort apprécié qui en dirait beaucoup sur la place qu'ils

occupent présentement dans leur province. La reconnaissance officielle de leur drapeau enverrait un message très important, non seulement en Ontario mais au pays et dans le monde entier,

surtout à la veille des Jeux de la Francophonie.

C'est vraiment une occasion idéal pour ce gouvernement de poser un geste significatif en signe de reconnaissance de la communauté franco-ontarienne, un

geste qui voudrait dire que nous sommes une force vitale et vivante.

I sincerely hope that this House will vote in favour of this bill, a bill so important to this francophone community and, I say it again, a vital component of

our province. Together, let us show leadership in officially recognizing the green and white flag of the Ontario French-speaking community as their emblem.

Monsieur le Président, j'ose me faire la porte-parole de ma communauté francophone en vous disant toute la joie et toute la fierté qu'elle

éprouvera en apprenant que ce gouvernement reconnaît officiellement le drapeau franco-ontarien, l'emblème de la francophonie. C'est plus qu'un symbole ; c'est un investissement

Thank you for your support.

M. Carl DeFaria (Mississauga-Est) : Je suis particulièrement sensible à la cause des Franco-Ontariens qui désirent faire

reconnaître leur drapeau à

titre d'emblème officiel. Ce drapeau dénote l'importance de la population franco-ontarienne dans l'ensemble de la province.

My experience as a member of the Ontario

section of l'Association parlementaire de la Francophonie gave me an increased appreciation of the contribution of

Franco-Ontarians to the culture and the economy of Ontario. L'Association parlementaire de la Francophonie is made up of delegates of 60 sections from Africa, Asia, Europe and America. In 1988, the

Ontario Legislature became an official entity of la Commission des affaires parlementaires de l'Association parlementaire de la Francophonie. At present, 15 Ontario MPPs are members of the

association, and one of the objectives of the association is to support the development and stabilization of democracy within the Francophonie.

At the Quebec summit later this summer, the APF agenda will include youth in French-speaking countries.

Je soutiens la désignation du drapeau franco-ontarien au sein d'une liste prestigieuse d'emblèmes.

En tant que député de Mississauga-Est, conseiller spécial du ministre des Affaires civiques et membre de l'Association parlementaire de la

Francophonie, je soutiens la reconnaissance du drapeau franco-ontarien à

titre d'emblème officiel en Ontario.

I am very proud to support this bill, and I would like to commend M. Lalonde for introducing this bill. I have three children, and they all went through the

francophone system here in Ontario, particularly in Mississauga. My oldest son, Ryan, graduated from école René-Lamoureux and then graduated from école secondaire Sainte-Famille and

and just completed his bar exams in the French

section of the bar admission course in Ottawa.

My second son also went to école René-Lamoureux and école Sainte-Famille and graduated actually a few weeks ago in computer engineering at the

University of Toronto. My youngest, my daughter, is still at école secondaire Sainte-Famille and she'll be completing her OAC next week and she'll be graduating and going into the bilingual

Glendon College at York University.

So this bill is something that I'm very proud to support, not just as a member but as a member who is very familiar with francophone issues and the contributions

that have been made by Franco-Ontarians in Ontario and in Canada.

This emblem, as the

preamble of Bill 18 indicates:

territoire de l'Ontario furent les missionnaires qui établirent la mission de Sainte-Marie-au-Pays-des-Hurons en 1639.

« La communauté francophone de l'Ontario compose la communauté francophone la plus nombreuse au Canada après celle du Québec. Le

législative.

ont droit à ces services sur demande.

« Le drapeau franco-ontarien fut dévoilé pour la première fois le 25 septembre 1975 à l'Université Laurentienne à

Sudbury. Depuis ce temps-là, la communauté francophone de l'Ontario l'utilise de façon soutenue comme son emblème. Il convient maintenant de le reconnaître officiellement

comme emblème de cette communauté. »

That's why I'm very proud to support this bill and commend M. Lalonde for introducing it.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm going to try this again because the school from Little Current was not actually in the gallery when I welcomed them.

D'Arcy Young and this group from Little Current public school, we're happy to have you with us today.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I proudly stand in support of Bill 18,

An Act to recognize the emblem of the Ontario French-speaking community,

which was introduced by my fellow Liberal colleague, Mr Lalonde.

Speaker, I'm going to ask for the indulgence of you and the House because I want to display the flag as a way of educating the people of Ontario as to what the

flag stands for, and it's best if I raise the flag and show the people. So with your indulgence and the indulgence of the House, I'd appreciate that.

This beautiful flag consists of two vertical bands of --

The Deputy Speaker: I'm going to have to ask for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent that the member be allowed to display the flag?

Agreed.

Mr Bartolucci: Thank you very much, Speaker, and I thank the members of the House.

This beautiful flag consists of two vertical bands of different colours. The first band is mid-green; the second band is white. The first band has a white lily

in the middle of the band and the white band has, of course, the trillium flower. The green represents the summer; the white represents the winter. Together the two colours symbolize the diversity

of Ontario's climate. The lily depicts francophones across the planet and the trillium is, as we know, the official emblem of Ontario. I'll put it down now, and I thank the House for the

indulgence.

I think it's important that we all support what this flag represents. The flag represents our ability to recognize each other's strengths and our ability to

get along in our society, in our multicultural society, in our multilinguistic society, in a culture and in a society that is so diverse that we take the strength of each of our unique peoples, we

put them together and we make Ontario strong. This is the intent of the bill. There's absolutely no question about that. I'm proud to be on this side of the House and to be a part of this House

that will support Bill 18.

At the same time, in a very, very local way, I would like to thank Laurentian University -- a bilingual university, by the way; we are very, very proud in our

community of our bilingual university -- and the students who were finally chosen as the architects or the designers of the flag, and they were Gaétan Gervais, Michel Dupuis and Yves

Tassé. I'd like to congratulate those people. When they first designed the flag, I don't think they understood the significance of what was about to happen several years down the road. This is

a significant step in this province today. I think it's a significant step in this House.

I proudly stand in support of this bill. I proudly stand in support of the francophone community that I have in my constituency and certainly the constituency

next to me, Nickel Belt, and in fact the huge francophone constituency that we have in northern Ontario. From a Sudbury perspective, I have to tell you that our francophones make significant

contributions on an ongoing basis to the quality of life in our community. They do that in many different ways. They cover all the aspects. They work with everyone. We work together. We ensure that

our community is strong because we respect each other, we respect each other's uniqueness, we respect each other's differences and we understand that through our uniqueness and through our

differences we can come together. We are not a melting pot but rather a mosaic. I think it's so much more important for us to define ourselves as a mosaic as opposed to a melting pot.

We are proud of what makes us strong, not only in my constituency of Sudbury but in the province of Ontario and the country of Canada. So I say to the member,

thank you for bringing this bill forward. I certainly support it.

L'hon John R. Baird (Ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires (et ministre délégué au dossier de l'Enfance et ministre

délégué aux Affaires francophones) : C'est un grand plaisir pour moi de parler du projet de loi de mon ami de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Je suis bien sûr

très fier d'appuyer son projet de loi.

On sait bien que dans la province de l'Ontario on a la majorité des francophones hors Québec. Il y a peut-être des gens dans la province et en

dehors du Canada qui ne savent pas cela, et que dans notre province on a 540 000 francophones dans toutes les régions. Dans la région de Prescott-Russell ils sont majoritaires, ou

dans la région d'Ottawa, ou dans la région de Toronto, de Penetanguishene, de Welland ou du sud-ouest de la région, près de Windsor, dans le nord-est de la province, à

Timmins et à Sudbury aussi. Bien sûr, la richesse de notre province est plus fort à cause de la contribution des francophones et de la vitalité de la communauté. Ce projet

de loi reconnaît cette réalité de notre province.

Le gouvernement de l'Ontario a été très fier d'appuyer les Jeux de la Francophonie, qui recommencent dans trois semaines dans la ville d'Ottawa,

où on va avoir la Francophonie de toutes les régions du monde : de l'Afrique, de l'Europe, de l'Asie et bien sûr de toutes les régions des Amériques. Le gouvernement

Le gouvernement travaille très fort pour les services pour enfants. La petite enfance est très importante pour tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes,

mais c'est peut-être plus important pour les jeunes francophones, parce que le développement culturel et linguistique est peut-être un plus grand challenge pour eux que pour les

autres. On travaille très fort comme ministre responsable de la petite enfance.

Avec la création de 12 nouveaux conseils scolaires et l'équité dans le financement de l'éducation -- c'est quelque chose qui est aussi

très important.

Quand j'ai été nommé ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones de mon comté, on n'avait pas une école francophone,

mais maintenant on en a deux à cause de ces changements. On a le collège Franco-Ouest de Bells Corners, qui est une nouvelle école secondaire, et une nouvelle école primaire

à Barrhaven, l'école Pierre-Elliot-Trudeau, et on va voir que plus de jeunes francophones seront éduqués dans leur langue.

Je veux dire à la fin du débat que je suis très fier de travailler avec mon bon ami le député de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell dans ce

projet de loi très important.

M me Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Ouest) : Je suis très contente d'être ici aujourd'hui pour me joindre au débat

sur l'emblème pour la communauté francophone.

Ce n'est pas une surprise, parce qu'il y a beaucoup de francophones dans ma circonscription de Windsor et dans le comté d'Essex aussi. En plus, il y en a

culture, la langue et l'histoire de la communauté. Je suis fière aussi de participer aux activités organisées à la Place Concorde, le centre de la Francophonie à

Windsor.

Depuis les six dernières années que je suis ici comme députée, c'est la première fois que je peux faire voir, comme députée,

que je supporte la communauté francophone. C'est incroyable. Après six années c'est la première fois que nous avons, dans la province de l'Ontario -- une province qui est

bilingue -- l'occasion de voter pour faire voir que nous sommes dans une province bilingue.

Alors, pour ça, je dis à mon collègue Jean-Marc Lalonde de Prescott-Russell, félicitations aujourd'hui, et merci pour avoir donné

l'occasion à tous les députés de l'Ontario de dire aux francophones qu'ils sont une

partie très importante du « fabric » de l'Ontario.

I want to say to all the francophones who come from my area of Ontario that they form a very important part of the fabric of Windsor and Essex county. They are

a huge group that works very hard and tirelessly, that has built up the club of Place Concord. Many of us who belong to other clubs, who come from other ethnic backgrounds, watch with envy the

Place Concord and how it has risen up to take its fair spot in the county of Essex. To the people who organized all the festivities, all the activities, like Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day coming up on

Sunday, where we're going to celebrate once again the founding of the French culture in Essex, I say congratulations.

I'm very happy to support the emblem being put forward today in this private member's bill. It's going to mean something very concrete to the people in Essex

county that we can post this emblem around Essex to say, "If you come in these doors, you're going to find French-speaking people." To all those who come to visit us from across the borders, from

the province of Quebec, from across Ontario, from the great states of Michigan and the five surrounding the Great Lakes, welcome, because you're going to find a very friendly atmosphere with your

French language.

Congratulations to my colleague who has worked very hard with all the groups across the province. I'm very happy to be here today to support this motion.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie-James) : Premièrement je veux dire droit au début de ce débat que le caucus NPD va

supporter cette proposition de loi, intitulée la Loi 18, parrainée par mon ami M. Jean-Marc Lalonde.

On pense que c'est important que dans la province de l'Ontario on accepte qu'il y a un drapeau franco-ontarien qui est reconnu officiellement par la loi dans

la province de l'Ontario. On sait que c'est déjà un fait de notre pratique comme francophones que ce drapeau. Ça fait déjà 25 ans, je pense, qu'on a notre drapeau, qui est

en place depuis cette journée à Sudbury en 1976. Nous les francophones le reconnaissons comme notre drapeau officiel, mais on veut avoir à ce point la reconnaissance par la loi de la

province de l'Ontario que c'est notre drapeau franco-ontarien. Je veux dire ça droit au début du débat ; c'est très important.

L'autre affaire que je veux dire, je veux parler un peu de l'historique de la province et de notre pays. Après ça, je vais parler un peu des actions

Mais le point que je veux faire, c'est celui-ci : les Anglais ont reconnu aux plaines d'Abraham, quand cette guerre-là est arrivée et que la

le besoin d'aller en avant avec des lois, et avec ça, dans leurs idées, en d'autres mots, respecter les droits des francophones quand ça vient à l'éducation et à

d'autres services qui sont nécessaires pour être capable de demeurer et de vivre sa langue de son pays.

deuxième classe ; on est un des peuples fondateurs de ce pays, avec les autochtones et les Anglais. Bien, les autochtones n'étaient pas les fondateurs ; ils étaient

avions un droit par statut de la constitution quand ça vient aux droits ici dans la province de l'Ontario. Depuis ce temps-là, on lutte pour être capable de s'assurer que les

services pour nous les francophones sont établis à travers le pays.

très différentes que celles des Québécois, parce qu'eux, ils demeurent dans une société qui est un peu, je dirais, nombriliste quand ça vient à la

races, les Anglais, les Japonais, les Portugais, les Italiens, et que tous ensemble on a besoin de trouver une manière de vivre ensemble et en même temps de respecter que nous, on est

francophone, et que c'est important qu'on garde notre langue, on garde nos coutumes et qu'on a nos institutions pour être capable de les préserver.

En Ontario, on fait les affaires très différemment. On connaît l'historique francophone. Mes amis M me Boyer et M. Lalonde ont fait

partie de la lutte comme moi pour beaucoup d'années quand ça vient aux services pour les francophones, et ça n'a pas toujours été facile. Il a fallu lutter très fort

où vous êtes majoritairement francophones et que vous ne pouvez pas aller rechercher dans les entreprises privées ou dans votre gouvernement municipal ou provincial ou

Nous, la deuxième génération de cette lutte, M. Lalonde, M me Boyer et moi-même, on est un peu la deuxième

génération et il va y avoir une troisième derrière nous qui est déjà en place. Mais nous, on continue le débat, et parfois on se trouve dans une situation où

on a besoin d'aller lutter dans ces batailles que nos parents ont gagnées, par exemple, l'hôpital Montfort. C'était un acquis qu'on a mis en place l'hôpital Montfort pour

communauté francophone, dans la grosse lutte pour sauver Montfort.

Je peux vous dire que ça blesse une communauté quand un gouvernement arrive et dit, « On va ôter vos institutions qu'on a mises en

place, qu'on vous a données parce qu'on reconnaît que vous êtes un fait réel dans la province de l'Ontario. » C'est à beaucoup de reprises au cours des six

derniers ans qu'on s'est trouvé dans une situation, comme députés francophones, francophones de la communauté de l'Ontario ou francophiles où on a eu besoin d'aller lutter

pour essayer de sauver les services qu'on a, et on ne gagne pas toujours nos batailles.

Ça fait mal, par exemple, dans le délestage des services aux municipalités. Nous l'avons dit ici à l'Assemblée, on se rappelle bien,

au gouvernement Harris : « Si vous délestez les services aux municipalités, ils ne sont pas couverts par la Loi 8. Puis, après qu'ils seront délestés, on va

deuxième lecture, mais le gouvernement n'a jamais alloué au projet de loi de passer par la troisième lecture.

Là on se trouve quatre ou cinq ans après puis on voit avec ces services délestés, même dans les communautés qui sont

Autrement, les administrations de beaucoup de ces organisations municipales sont parfois des administrations anglaises où ils font leur ouvrage en anglais et ne pensent pas adéquatement

Moi, je le sais. Je poigne des plaintes dans mon bureau de comté puis on fait toujours un suivi. Par exemple, dans les communautés de Hearst et

faire.

On vient à bout d'être capable de résoudre avec le DSSAB le problème, mais le point que je fais est qu'on ne doit jamais admettre la

J'ai dit au gouvernement ce matin, « Je sais que vous allez voter en faveur de cette loi pour nous donner notre drapeau, qui est un symbole de la

réalité francophone de la province de l'Ontario. Ça, on l'apprécie ; on l'accepte. Mais c'est très important qu'on ne donne pas seulement des symboles à la

On peut s'assurer, par exemple, si on voudrait, d'établir la Loi 8 passée juste dans la province. On pourrait passer une loi ici à

l'Assemblée qui dit que tout service qui a été délesté ou qui va être délesté aux municipalités ou au secteur privé dans les régions

seulement de préserver ce qu'on a. On pourrait faire ça. Ce serait un pas concret, pas un symbole mais un pas concret qui pourrait nous démontrer que nous comme Assemblée, les

députés de cette Assemblée de tous les partis, acceptons la réalité de la francophonie de l'Ontario et qu'on est préparé à mettre en place ces services et

à s'assurer que ces services demeurent en place pour les francophones même quand ils sont délestés.

On pourrait, comme exemple, passer une loi -- j'en serais en faveur -- déclarant la province de l'Ontario officiellement bilingue. Je sais que

M me Boyer croit, comme moi, que cette province doit s'afficher comme officiellement bilingue. Ce serait un acquis économique pour la province, quant à moi, ce serait respecter

la francophonie, et je pense que cela irait loin sur toute la question de la constitution, le débat constitutionnel qu'on a entre le Québec et l'Ontario. Je pense qu'il serait

intéressant d'être capable, comme Assemblée, de passer une telle motion ou un tel projet de loi qui dit, « La province de l'Ontario s'affiche officiellement

bilingue. »

À la fin de la journée ça ne veut rien dire, quand ça vient à ôter des services aux autres, soyez bien clairs. S'afficher

officiellement bilingue comme province ne veut pas dire qu'un Anglais, un Portugais, un Japonais ou un Chinois va avoir moins de services parce que la province s'est déclarée

officiellement bilingue. Eux autres ne perdent rien.

l'établit pour le restant de la province, ça ne veux pas dire extra en coûts pour l'Ontario -- c'est le point que je veux faire -- parce qu'on fait déjà la traduction de

tous les documents. C'est déjà fait. Puis on pourrait dire, comme action concrète, non seulement qu'on accepte comme Assemblée qu'on doit avoir un symbole qui réalise la

réalité de la communauté franco-ontarienne mais qu'on s'affiche officiellement bilingue et qu'on fait comme le Nouveau-Brunswick : on prend ce pas pour dire qu'on reconnaît

l'historique du Canada, on reconnaît le fait francophone. Troisièmement, quant à moi, c'est vraiment une bonne affaire quand ça vient au point de notre économie dans ce

monde global.

On se trouve parfois dans cette Assemblée dans une situation, même comme francophones, où il est un peu difficile de faire notre ouvrage en

préparation pour la traduction simultanée. J'ai fallu ajourner le comité pour une heure pour qu'ils aillent chercher l'équipement qu'ils mettent en place pour être capables

la loi.

Je veux donner l'avis que je vais revenir sur ce point, parce que je pense que c'est très important.

I want to say one last thing that's semi-related to this -- I beg your indulgence, Speaker -- and that is on the recent comments made by our mayor of the city

of Toronto. They are related to the francophone issue, if you allow me.

I believe Toronto, as Ontario, is a multicultural society. That is one of the strongest attributes this province has, that we recognize among ourselves the

differences as a strength. It is a strength that we are able to live in a province where francophones, anglophones, Portuguese, Chinese, Caribbean people, people from Asia, people from Africa,

people from all over the world can come to our province and can come to our city, our capital, and live in this community, this mosaic that we talked about before which is Canada, which is the

province of Ontario, and which is Toronto.

That is something that shines out as a beacon across the world. We have been able to prove in this country that a country can be built not on a melting pot

theory, as the United States, which I totally object to, but on the theory of Vive la différence, as we say in French, because through that difference we make ourselves a stronger people. I

want to say I am extremely hurt by the comments made recently by the mayor of the city of Toronto, Mel Lastman, where he is quoted as saying very derogatory comments toward the African community. I

won't repeat those comments here because I think they're disgusting. I think it is a sad reflection on our society when you see the mayor of the largest city in Canada, the capital of our province,

make comments such as that and get away with it.

I remind people that when M. Parizeau, on the night of the referendum, said those awful words toward the ethnic community and the anglophone community in

Quebec, they chased him out of office, rightfully so. As a francophone I accept that that should have happened, because at no time should we in our society, no matter what our background is, accept

intolerance. I, as a New Democratic Party member and a member of this assembly and, more importantly, Mr Speaker, as a francophone person of the province of Ontario, am extremely offended by what

Mel Lastman said and call on him to resign his position as the mayor of the city of Toronto. He is not fit to rule as mayor in this province if he has attitudes and demonstrates attitudes such as

that. They are an affront not only to the African community of Toronto but, I argue, to all of us in Ontario, because together all of us, the people of the different races, make this province what

it truly is. I'm truly offended by what Mel Lastman has done, and I'm calling for his resignation as the mayor of the city of Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker: The deputy from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has two minutes to respond.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I want to thank all of the members who have spoken in favour of this bill and have shown

their support of the bill.

Today I stand before the House and ask that all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario share with me a vision of a beautiful province, strongly united

by its beauty and diversity from north to south and east to west. I invite all the members to join me in voting in unanimous consent of this act to officially recognize the emblem of the

French-speaking community. I also invite all francophones of Ontario to a special ceremony where, for the first time, the francophone flag of Ontario will be raised in front of Queen's Park on June

24 at 9 am.

Dimanche prochain, le 24 juin, nous allons célébrer la fête de la Francophonie mondiale, la Saint-Jean-Baptiste. J'invite toute la

communauté francophone de l'Ontario à là cérémonie du drapeau, qui sera hissé au mât à l'avant de l'édifice de l'Assemblée législative à

9 heures du matin où, pour la première fois, le drapeau franco-ontarien sera hissé devant Queen's Park.

The Deputy Speaker: This completes the time allocated for this ballot item. The votes will be taken on the ballot at 12 noon.

FARM IMPLEMENTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

Mr Barrett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 76,

An Act to ensure fairness, to foster competition and consumer choice and to encourage innovation in the farm implement sector / Projet de loi 76, Loi

visant à assurer l'équité, à favoriser la concurrence et le choix des consommateurs et à encourager l'innovation en matière d'appareils agricoles.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'd like to begin by first thanking those who will be speaking to this bill. I appreciate your time

and your concerns. Bill 76,

An Act to ensure fairness, to foster competition and consumer choice and to encourage innovation in the farm implement sector, has the support of farmers, farm implement

dealers and shortline manufacturers. If passed, this legislation is designed to protect Ontario's 300 farm implement dealers from what many consider unfair business practices of large

manufacturers.

For too long, large manufacturers have been using what are called "dealer purity" policies to prevent dealers from selling other products. Dealer purity or

exclusivity clauses are currently being used in dealer contracts by large farm equipment manufacturers in order to force the others to sell products exclusive to that manufacturer. I point out that

these dealers are not franchisees, they're not protected by Ontario's franchise legislation.

I point out as well that this type of activity is not allowed in the United States and it's not allowed in four provinces. I understand that three other

provinces are considering similar legislation to what we're discussing today.

By eliminating dealer purity policies or exclusivity clauses, this bill would allow dealers more choice in the brands of equipment they carry, create more

selection for farmers, more opportunities for Ontario's 80 shortline manufacturers to distribute their products. This will increase competition and foster choice which, at the end of the day, will

save farmers money, boost small business, boost manufacturing and make the tools that farmers need available closer to home.

Dealer purity has been a contentious and an expanding issue for dealers and small distributors and manufacturers for a number of years. Only in Canada is this

now allowed, and this is largely due to the fact that the farm implement industry has gone through mergers, resulting in fewer companies controlling the majority of distribution.

Many Ontario dealers choose to comply with the demands of manufacturers in order to save their business. I feel this isn't fair. It's not fair to the dealer or

to the farmer or to that shortline manufacturer, the little guy who is being frozen out of this distribution network.

It's been suggested that this problem be dealt with between the dealer and the manufacturer. I can assure you that both sides have been negotiating these

issues for well over 10 years now and there's been no consensus. I will reinforce the fact that issues such as dealer purity are not covered by either franchise or competition legislation. The

federal Competition Act provides for action against companies whose policies reduce competition in the marketplace. The Competition Bureau was established by the act for that purpose. However,

Canadian farm implement dealers have found the federal legislation ineffective in protecting them because the offending behaviour must, first, be repetitive and, second, must be proven to cause a

substantial decrease in dealers' sales. As well, Ontario's franchise legislation, the Arthur Wishart Act, does not address dealer purity issues.

Through these amendments to the Farm Implements Act, dealer purity issues can be addressed without affecting other franchise legislation. In other words, this

legislation will not set a precedent for other distribution systems, for example, car dealerships. I'll also point out that there have been no court challenges in other Canadian or US jurisdictions

which have similar legislation.

I do believe that separate legislation is needed to put an end to the 10-year tug-of-war I described. This is a debate that has been negatively affecting rural

Ontario and farmers for far too long, in my opinion. Earlier this year, the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers' Association met with the Ministry of Agriculture requesting that Ontario eliminate

these clauses. ORFEDA, the association, represents Ontario's farm machinery dealers and was instrumental in originally establishing the Farm Implements Act in 1988. ORFEDA is supportive of moving

forward with amendments to the act, as are the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Farm Equipment Association, an association that represents small manufacturers. With respect to the

large manufacturers, the Canadian Farm & Industrial Equipment Institute, which represents the large companies like John Deere, has been consulted, and they have indicated by letter -- I have

the letter here today -- that they will not "present any further objections" to this direction. Legislation similar to this bill, Bill 76, has been passed in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince

Edward Island. It's awaiting royal assent in Alberta.

As growing numbers of dealers begin to lose their businesses, governments in the United States found it necessary to introduce legislation to protect them.

Consequently, dealer purity clauses are unlawful in most American states. Something like 33 of the US states now have specific state legislation to prevent this.

I should point out that there are no longer any large tractor or machinery manufacturers in Ontario -- or Canada for that matter. In fact, major manufacturers

have been closing their head offices in Canada and, for economic reasons, centralizing them in the US. One exception is US-based John Deere. They still maintain a Canadian headquarters in Grimsby,

just off the QEW, as well as a manufacturing plant in Welland. John Deere remains the largest farm equipment corporation, with worldwide sales of US$11 billion last year.

Two other large corporations, Case/New Holland, previously Case International, and AGCO are two others that supply equipment dealers in our country. The

combined sales of these three manufacturers in the province of Ontario rings in at roughly $1 billion a year. Both John Deere and Case/New Holland sell only their name brand products, carrying

machinery such as tractors, harvesting equipment, hay and forage equipment, tillage, planting, spraying and material handling machinery.

Many farmers -- I think of my own riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant -- are dependent on small-run, specialized equipment for the ginseng market, potato

growing, tobacco growing, and it's oftentimes difficult to find this equipment. That's where these short-line, small manufacturers come in, to fill that niche. Small rural dealers act as a

distribution outlet for these small manufacturers who boast a full range of farm machinery and can produce this specialized equipment, as I mentioned, for the potato and the ginseng industries.

Fruit and vegetable growers and orchard and vineyard operators as well are having trouble getting the equipment they need from these large companies. The 80

short-line manufacturers in Ontario comprise a $240-million industry, and 80% of their sales are through these dealers. Farmers need these sales. They need the simpler, cheaper alternatives, and

they certainly need the innovation, the technological developments that come from these small companies that, for example, led the way in developing front-wheel-drive tractors, articulated

tractors, no-till equipment and the other vineyard and fruit and vegetable equipment I mentioned earlier.

We see a trend. It's a trend that's threatening the economic survival of our dealers. It's hampering our short-line manufacturers and having a negative impact

on our rural communities.

To conclude, I've been involved in farming all my life. I have both John Deere and International equipment. Over the years, I have probably operated just about

every piece of equipment made by most of the major manufacturers. It's all very good, well-made equipment. I have a 50-year-old tractor in my shop that will be useful and valuable when a lot of our

computers are no longer valuable. These products are very well made by all of the companies. We just ask for fairness, a competitive market and fair and open distribution.

I look forward to this morning's debate, and I ask for support from members. If members feel this is appropriate, I wish to submit this to committee.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): As the critic responsible for agriculture for the Liberal Party, I want to commend the member from

Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for his initiative with Bill 76, the Farm Implements Amendment Act. I think it's important, as we stand here today debating private members' business, that this piece of

legislation the member has brought forward, be it private members' business, is a piece of legislation that is going to have a great benefit and a real effect in rural Ontario.

At times I've stood in this Legislature and been critical of the government in their commitment to rural Ontario, but today I'm not going to stand up and

criticize the government for this initiative. I think it is a good initiative, and it's one I've recommended to our party that we support today.

I think it is essential and incumbent on us as legislators that we look after the small distributors and manufacturers comprising what's known as the

short-line farm implement industry in this province, which generates over $240 million annually for the Ontario economy.

I think it's important, too, to recognize, as the member has pointed out, that this legislation does have the backing of organizations such as the Ontario

Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the National Farmers' Union and other farm equipment organizations. So there is consensus out there and support for this

legislation among the organizations representing the agricultural community.

I think we need to recognize that large manufacturers have policies that increasingly use single-company product lines, and this prevents dealers from selling

other products. These provincial restrictions and amendments that are being proposed today will ensure the economic survival of those dealers, small distributors and manufacturers, but I think,

more importantly, they will help those rural communities where they are located.

As has been pointed out, it's important to recognize that legislation that protects agricultural dealers has proven to be extremely successful in the United

States, recognizing, too, that other provinces -- Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island -- have moved in this direction. Other provinces, including Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick,

are also developing similar acts.

I know we take a lot of criticism on this side about our federal cousins or, as I say, my distant relatives federally. I will agree with you in this case, and

I commend the Ontario government for showing leadership. It is too bad that the federal government couldn't have taken this leadership to develop a Canada-wide strategy and not allow it to come

down to individual provinces. So there: we do criticize the federal Liberals.

It's important too that small distributors and manufacturers, as we know, offer a wider variety and range of products, which in turn provides farmers with a

greater selection of machinery. This segment of the agricultural community has proved successful over the years in being leaders in terms of industrial innovation and development. We can see, over

and over, prime examples of their success stories and it's important that we recognize and support the small distributors and manufacturers.

We see that large farm machinery manufacturers are continually amalgamating. It's estimated that more than 50% of the smaller individual dealers will fail

because of a strict one-company policy. Many are trying to develop Internet sales, but this won't be a fully viable alternative for many years. Part of the reason is that we need to increase our

efforts at connecting rural Ontario, making sure that rural Ontario has access to the Internet.

It's interesting when you look historically at this province. One needs only to travel around as we embark on the summer season, visiting some of the fall

fairs and the historic and steam shows that take place. You look at the equipment that once was manufactured in this province, and we've seen this segment of our industrial economy disappear.

You can drive through Brantford and look at the vacant Massey-Ferguson plant -- it used to be Massey-Harris -- or drive to Toronto and look at the

Massey-Ferguson plants that have gone idle. We've seen a plant disappear that employed my grandfather when he left the farm in Saskatchewan and came to Toronto. He worked in the agricultural

industry here in Toronto. We can look back and I can relate, in my own riding, about a company that was there, Erie City Iron Works, which was famous for its wheelbarrows, agricultural implements,

post-hole diggers etc and it has disappeared.

We need to do what we can and an initiative such as has been put forward today is going to help preserve and support the rural economy. We need to look at

what's happened here. We've seen large farm equipment distributors forcing dealers to sell only products exclusive to the distributor. As a result of these initiatives by these large corporations,

we've seen that individual dealers cannot offer farmers a wide range of products from other distributors and manufacturers. It's a policy and an initiative of these large corporations that is

really restricting choice and access to different products for farmers, small distributors and manufacturers.

As has been pointed out, this restrictive policy is illegal in the United States and it has been a contentious issue across Canada. It has been pointed that

unfortunately the federal Competition Act in place does not fully cover this, thus causing us to have to deal with these issues at a provincial level.

It's important to recognize the support that is out there for this. Oftentimes we see legislation in front of the Legislature that doesn't have support. It's

very obvious when you read some of the correspondence that has come in in support of this legislation that this is something that farm organizations, individual farmers and small distributors and

manufacturers are looking for.

You look at the National Farmers Union, which says, "We fully support legislative changes which would outlaw `dealer purity' requirements and allow dealers to

serve farmers' needs rather than the demands of the manufacturer."

That's a key line in this legislation, that this legislation that has been put forward by the honourable member is there to serve farmers' needs rather than

the demands of the manufacturers.

As we have a real mix of urban and rural representatives in this Legislature, it's important that I encourage and urge the urban members in particular to

support this. You need to understand that there are differences between urban and rural Ontario, and that often what's best for Toronto isn't necessarily best for rural Ontario. I urge all the

members to support this initiative because this is something that is going to have a positive effect in rural Ontario.

The Ontario Farm Equipment Manufacturers' Association also has written in support of this legislation. They've studied the changes and they are in support of

this.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, one of the largest groups representing the agricultural community in this province, has also supported "the initiative

to amend the Farm Implements Act to lessen the control the that mainline manufacturers can exercise over the product lines sold by their dealers."

The Ontario Wholesale Farm Equipment Association, which represents, as they point out, "many diverse needs and perspectives," goes on to say, "It is the

general feeling of the OWFEA membership that while we are all independent-minded, in order for the industry as a whole to remain vital and not face restricted market access due to the polices of

the dominant foreign players, the dealers' freedom to operate their own businesses needs to be protected." I think it's important to recognize that.

The Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers' Association also has written in support of the amendments to the Farm Implements Act. They say:

"The amendments proposed are presented in an effort to preserve and protect Ontario agriculture and its many sectors. Without them, there exists an immediate

threat to the farming community of Ontario. Ontario farmers may be forced to pay more for farm equipment as a result of multinational machinery manufacturers prohibiting their dealers from selling

machinery made by short-line or other competitors....

"For many Ontario dealers, the choice is simple: comply with the manufacturer's demands or lose their livelihoods. The average dealer in Ontario sells about $5

million of new equipment from large machinery makers and about $1 million of short-line equipment. When the dealer faces the pressure from the manufacturer, it's a no-brainer to give up the smaller

line. This places short-line manufacturers in the province of Ontario in serious jeopardy.

"As large farm equipment manufacturers consolidate and reduce the number of competitors in the industry, dealers face additional pressure to `toe the company

line'...."

"Wouldn't it be good to save farmers money while also ensuring they have access to the latest technology? Wouldn't it also be good to preserve as many farm

equipment dealerships as possible in rural Ontario? This can all be accomplished and it doesn't have to cost the provincial government any money."

It's very obvious, when you look across the province, that there is support out there. Tomorrow I'm going to be attending the grand reopening of Huron Tractor

in St Thomas. This is an example of an industry and a business that is there to serve the rural parts of my riding. My riding, much like that of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, is a real

urban-rural mix. The agricultural component is just mammoth to the local economy.

It's important that we're seeing investments like Huron Tractor, investments that I know, with these amendments being put forward here, are going to help

businesses like Huron Tractor remain competitive in the future, but I think, more importantly, to continue to serve the needs of rural Elgin county, in my own case.

It's important to recognize some of the key elements of this legislation that's in front of us. This act is going to remove the exclusive term from

dealer-distributor agreements, allowing dealers to sell farm machinery from any distributor or manufacturer. It'll protect dealers from no-cause termination, which currently allows large

manufacturers to terminate their business with dealers without any reason. Distributors will be discouraged from imposing discriminatory contracts on individual dealers as a result of opening up

competition and providing more services at a reasonable cost for farmers in their own communities. The act will allow smaller distributors and manufacturers to share warranty costs, parts supply

and inventory responsibilities. I compliment the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for its efforts in getting all the stakeholders to work together on this important issue.

As I said earlier, my colleagues will be supporting this legislation. But I think I need to go on the record to point out that as I commend the government for

this step it's taking in trying to assist the agricultural industry in this province, the second-largest industry in this province, unfortunately in a recent piece of correspondence that went out

from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade there was no mention of agriculture. I think it is an industry that needs to be recognized and supported. It's important that this government

recognize the important and vital role that the agricultural community plays.

We know that again this year our farmers in Ontario are faced with that competition from the United States, faced with that competition from the European

Union, mainly in the area of subsidies and the support that's given to farmers. Every one of us in this Legislature, be we urban or rural, has to get up in the morning to eat, and it's incumbent on

every one of us to do everything we can to ensure that the agricultural industry in this province remains competitive, that we continue to be leaders. It's steps like this that are going to help,

but certainly there are other initiatives that can be taken. On this one, we will be supporting it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): As the member here responsible for the NDP caucus this morning on this issue, I just want to say we will

be supporting this legislation. We agree with the direction in which the member is trying to go. We also believe that manufacturers should not have the power to demand exclusive dealerships so that

in smaller areas, where it makes sense that a dealer has multiple lines in order to give that choice to the consumers, the people in the farm industry, that should be allowed to happen. In fact,

it's something that we support.

I want to go through what this bill says, what it does and what it doesn't do, and then refer to some of these items that I think need to go to committee in

order to fix them up.

First of all, what does this bill intend to do? We are told by the member who brings it forward it's to give dealers the ability to sell more than one line of

farm equipment in a dealership. Presently, there are contracts that are signed between the dealers and the manufacturers that they are not allowed to sell anything other than the equipment they've

been franchised to sell, Massey-Ferguson or whatever it might be, which doesn't exist any more. I should say John Deere. Massey-Ferguson was a great company that went down, unfortunately; that's

another story.

Anyway, he says it'll give them the ability to do that. So I went through the bill, read through it, and said, "This is a good idea. We can support this." We

went through, and this is what we found in the bill.

First point: The first thing that this bill does is it sets rules around who pays for the repairs and defective implements and parts. It says who is going to

pay for the repairs and who is going to pay for defective parts when there is such an occurrence. We support that and say OK, that's fine. We understand that.

The second thing it says is if a farm implement needs to be repaired, the distributor can fix it directly or reimburse the dealer for making the repair.

Obviously that's a mechanism to deal with the repair of defective equipment. We agree with that. We think that's a good idea.

It says if the distributor didn't manufacture the farm implement that needs repair, the manufacturer would reimburse the distributor for the cost of the

repair. It's just a way of getting the money back. If I'm a John Deere dealer and somebody brings in a piece of equipment other than John Deere, it sets up a mechanism so that you can actually get

the warranty money back to the person who does the repair. We agree with that.

If the farm implement is defective and the distributor didn't manufacture it, the manufacturer would reimburse the distributor for the cost incurred. Same

idea, we can support that.

It sets rules and limits around repurchasing new farm implements and parts to clarify in those areas. This is where we have a bit of a problem because as we

read the bill, the bill in fact doesn't clear up the problem. We still believe that after this bill is passed, if it clears second and third reading -- we don't know that yet, but I assume it will

-- it's not going to do what the member says it's supposed to do. We're still going to have a situation where the manufacturers will still have contracts of exclusive dealership with the dealers

and they will not be able to sell anything other than the farm equipment of that particular manufacturer that they have signed a contract with.

So I am a little bit lost here as to why that wasn't put in the bill if the intent of the bill was to fix it. I have to assume somehow or other it's an

oversight in drafting. I don't believe it's anything else. I know when we called the parliamentary assistant's office, the comment from his staff was, "Yes, we have a problem here." In fact, the

bill doesn't do what it's supposed to do. I take it there has been an error in drafting. I leave it at that and would say we need to refer this bill to committee and, at the committee level, fix

the problem in the bill in the way it's drafted so that it actually does what the bill was intended to do in the first place.

If you follow my drift, the answer I want from the member who is proposing this bill is, if this bill goes to committee, if you are prepared to make the

amendments that clearly say the distributors will no longer be able to have these exclusive contracts with the dealers, and in fact the bill would allow the dealers that held multiple lines,

without any question or qualification whatsoever, and you're prepared to support such an amendment, we will support this bill, no question. If you're not prepared to do that, then we need to hear

what you have to say and make our decision based on the comments that you make.

That's the first point I want to make. Let's make sure that if the bill actually goes to committee and if it passes third reading, it ends up doing what the

bill purports to do.

The other point I want to make is that I know that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs had been approached by the Ontario Retail Farm

Equipment Dealers' Association to do such a bill. I know it's got to be more than a year ago because I remember being cc'ed on some of those letters. I remember at the time seeing other

correspondence, I believe from the minister but it might have been the ministry -- my memory fails me -- that they were actually dealing with trying to draft up legislation that would deal with

this.

I find it kind of odd that a private member would have to come in and do what essentially is a government bill. If the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural

Affairs agrees that this should be done, I would hope to at least have had the ministry bring forward this bill in order to ensure its passage. We all know that a private members' bill that's

brought in this House, just because it passes second reading this morning, is not assured to pass third reading or even ever get to committee. The history in this place is that a very small

percentage of bills -- under 10%, more like 2% or 3% -- actually get to be law once they're brought into this House after they've been accepted at second reading.

So I've got to ask myself what's going on here. The ministry didn't bring forward the bill when they sort of indicated they would, and that was over a year

ago. We find that a private member is bringing the bill into the House and say, "Hold it a second. Why isn't the ministry doing this? Is this the signal the ministry is not quite on side?" Then

when we read the bill, we find that the bill doesn't do what it purports to do. I'm a little bit sceptical, I've got to say. I want to hear the explanation from the member across the way. Is this

because you don't have the support of cabinet and the ministry to make the bill do what it's supposed to do? Would that explain why the ministry didn't author this bill? Or is it just a question

of, "Well, the ministry never got to it. My ballot number came first. I made an error in drafting the bill and I'm going to make sure we fix that at committee"? I want an answer to those particular

questions. I think they're important.

I also want to point out, as the parliamentary assistant did, we know that this type of legislation is not earth shattering, it's --

Interjection: Yes, it is.

Mr Bisson: No, it's not. The province of Saskatchewan, the mecca of socialism, has passed such a bill in order to be able to allow free

competition within the marketplace. We see in other bastion, Manitoba, another one where there's a social democratic government, they have in fact passed such a bill to allow the free marketplace

to do what it needs to do.

I have to add Alberta, the land of capitalism, also has a bill before the House about to be passed. So we're not going to say just social democratic

governments have done this.

The point I want to make is this, and this is poking a little bit of fun at my free-marketeer friends: it's interesting that free-marketeers are only in favour

of free markets when it benefits them, because the manufacturing sector, these icons, tycoons or typhoons of industry, who stand for a free market, go and try to make these deals where really there

isn't a free market, a free market that only benefits them.

I always find that ironic, that the people at the top, the bigger corporations, not the little guys -- the little guys at the bottom like us, small business

people, we work the sweat off our brow trying to make a living and trying to keep our businesses afloat. I think the small business people understand what a free market is all about; they're in it.

But the big guys, the big multinational corporations, the big national corporations, I believe are actually not free marketeers, because if you look at how they act, and this is a good example of

it, they believe in the free market only when it is good for them.

The rhetoric is, they say, "We believe in free enterprise, we believe in free markets, we believe in entrepreneurship. We don't believe that government should

be intervening in the economy," but those big buggers, what do they do? They're the first ones, cap in hand, running to government whenever some --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Is that word OK?

Mr Bisson: I can say that in the House. Those big, large corporate bums come to governments, both federal, provincial and municipal --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: "Corporate welfare bum" is accepted, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I think you said another word that I was a little slow in picking up.

Mr Bisson: I'll withdraw that. I might have said something inadvertently; I really apologize for that.

But what I do want to say clearly, the corporate welfare bums -- as my good friend, Mr David Lewis, at the federal level had coined the phrase, and my good

friend Mr Rodriquez from Nickel Belt -- are the first guys, cap in hand, coming to all levels of government saying, "I need a break. Look at me: I'm having a tough time, my corporate citizen

responsibilities, I can't quite do them, you know," as my friend Rosie would say.

They're out there, cap in hand, the first opportunity they get. Then what I really find funny with those big corporate welfare bums is that they're the guys

who have protection under legislation -- not by legislation; I should rephrase that -- by way of contracts with dealers, basically put their hands around the throats of the small dealers and just

keep them in place. They say, "You're going to compete in a free market, but under our rules."

I see that, quite frankly, as almost a communistic approach to how you do business. I believe in the free market. As a social democrat, I believe that the free

market should do exactly what we say. We should allow people to do business in a way that allows the movement and the freedom of choice and the freedom to be able to try things out when it comes to

business opportunity that's according to our ability.

I believe there should be some rules about how we do that, so we don't have people beating each other up, but I really find it ironic that those big, large,

welfare corporate bums are the guys who go out and do these kinds of things. They say to the small individual dealer, "You will do it on your own."

I feel like that for a reason. I come from a family of small business people. Both my dad and my mom ran small businesses, is how they basically earned their

living for the time that I was growing up as a child. My poor father, who owned a television repair-service-sales business, was caught in exactly this kind of situation. If you wanted to sell a

television in the city of Timmins, or at the time the town of Timmins, you had to go to one of the manufacturers and say, "Boy, I'd love to sell some televisions," -- Electrohome was my dad's brand

-- and they'd say, "We'll allow you to sell Electrohome, but you can't sell anything else." Then poor small business people, who wanted to have the ability to sell goods, had to agree to those

terms by these corporate welfare bums, as I call them, that basically say, "You're going to do business, but only on our terms."

The point I'm making is, the guys at the top of the economy -- not the little guys at the bottom, because I think we all understand, all members of the House,

that the little guys at the bottom, the small business people, they're the true marketeers, they're the true free enterprise people, they're the people who are really creating the wealth. But the

guys at the top, man oh man, they irk me to no degree, not only as a social democrat but as a small business person because every opportunity those corporate welfare bums have got, they're trying

to put their hands in my pocket, as a small business person of the time. They're trying to set the rules that favour them and really not allow me to compete they way that I want to compete and the

way that my ingenuity allows me, as a small business person, to go out and do what I gotta do.

I think this is just another example about how these large corporate entities, quite frankly I believe, don't really believe in free enterprise.

There's another good example in the two minutes that I've got. This is a good example. Abitibi-Consolidated used to be Abitibi, but now they've gotten so big

by merger that they control virtually enough of the newsprint market in North America that they're able to control the price.

We all understand economics. If you control enough of the supply and you can play with the supply, make it a little bit harder for people to buy paper, you're

going to affect the price, right? We all understand that. Abitibi-Consolidated is so big now that they're able to do that.

Now they've made some decisions. They're saying, "We are going to shut off a paper machine," another one in Iroquois Falls, number 1 paper machine, after they

already closed number 7. "We are going to go to Kenora and we're going to shut down a line over there and temporarily put another one down." What that's all about is not about the benefit of the

workers, the benefit of the community. Where these corporations have made these millions of dollars, by the way, is on our natural resources that belong to all of us. These big guys are so big

they're able to play around with the supply of paper as far as what goes into the market by taking paper production capacity out of their own mills to push the price up and drop the cost down.

I argue, that's not good for small business people. That's not good for our economy, because it means in those communities all those people get out of work.

They don't have the income to go out and buy things from small business people. It is not good for our economy overall. I say, if we really believe in free enterprise, we shouldn't allow

corporations to get that big. I would favour something -- and I don't know how you do this because I'm not the expert -- but we should never allow a corporation to get to such a size that they're

able to control a market in whatever they sell. We shouldn't allow those types of monopolies to happen. Unfortunately that's where we are going. Our economy, with NAFTA, with free trade and with

everything else that's going on and the globalization, these corporations have gotten so big they can do anything they bloody well want. They're not beholden to anybody.

As a citizen, as a consumer and as a small business person, that offends me. I want to live in an economy where I've got a chance at the bottom to make a buck.

If I can't make a buck at the bottom, how is this economy ever going to work? I say that as a social democrat.

I ask the members across the way to support this legislation to take away the stranglehold that these large corporate welfare bums have on the small dealers

and allow the small dealers to go out and prosper in our economy and give them a chance to make a few bucks instead of always the guys at the top getting everything. As a social democrat, I'd be

proud to support such a motion.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Farm Implements Amendment Act, particularly when it has

been brought forward by my good friend from the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. I was pleased to hear the comments being made from the opposition parties, the member from Timmins-James Bay and

also the member from Elgin-Middlesex-London. I think it was interesting what the member from Timmins-James Bay had to say about the drafting of the bill and the concern that he has in there. I can

understand why he would bring that particular point forward. That's one of the important reasons to have hearings on a bill such as this.

Recently I brought one forward. The concern was to prohibit people from riding in the back of pickup trucks. Of course, we had legislative counsel draw it up.

After the Ministry of Transportation looked at it, they fully agreed and they recommended that it appear in a different

section of the Highway Traffic Act. But the intent was there, and we had all

three parties supporting it. After we had the hearings, we were able to bring forward the amendments into a totally different spot in the Highway Traffic Act. Hopefully, it's going to go through

for third reading.

This bill is about protection from equipment manufacturers who are forcing their product on to some of the local dealers and not giving the dealers the kind of

choice that they really should have. There's no question the minister has worked closely with the federation of agriculture and with the farm equipment association. The minister certainly is

concerned about this situation and supportive.

Farmers have many problems in crop production, ranging from weather conditions all the way through to marketing their particular product. What they don't need

is to have their farm dealers get in trouble, go bankrupt or get shut down because of regulations that are being forced upon them by the big manufacturers.

This bill is really about consumer choice. Our government has been very supportive of consumer choice. You can look back over a long list of things that have

gone from monopolies to choice, everything from your long-distance server to your supplier for gas to your electricity supplier and, more recently, a bill before the House on a better chance to

choose the education for your children with the tax credit that's being brought in.

So I guess the question automatically becomes, why not also a choice for the equipment dealers as to what they sell and not being stuck in a monopoly, as well

as giving more choice to the consumer who is going to that particular equipment dealer.

There's no question in my mind that monopoly is indeed wrong wherever it is. Competition is healthy. What we're talking about here is a policy with the problem

of dealer purity, which is the terminology that's being used, and policies of exclusivity in various clauses in those contracts. If this bill is passed, it will allow dealers more choice and more

selection.

A case in point that I want to make reference to is that a farmer in my area, Paul Jeffs, just recently phoned about a John Deere dealership in my riding that

may have to close just because of this very situation. It's most unfortunate when you have a big company that's dictating to these dealers and dictating what these dealers should be doing in

small-town Ontario. The end result is really forcing them out of business. The rationale they use is that this individual is not quite meeting his quota. The reason he's not meeting his quota is

because of undersupply of the kind of equipment he can sell in my riding and oversupply of things that people in my riding have no interest in, oversupply of some specialty farm equipment that this

poor individual gets loaded down with.

Just recently, in the riding next door to me, there's been a dealership in Stirling, the New Holland dealer, that has closed down. I understand in Renfrew a

farm equipment dealer has recently closed down.

These people are indeed being held hostage by these large equipment manufacturers. There's no question, it's time to take action. Action is indeed needed so we

can ensure fairness, competition and consumer choice. That's what our government stands for, and I enthusiastically support this bill brought forward by my good friend from

Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate on the private member's bill brought forth by the

member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. The act is entitled Farm Implements Amendment Act, 2001. The purpose of the bill is to remove the ability of farm equipment manufacturers to force dealers to

sell only their product. The member indicates that in some cases farmers are forced to pay more for farm equipment as a result of multinational machinery manufacturers prohibiting dealers from

selling machinery made by short-line or other competitors. In order to keep their dealerships, Ontario dealers must simply comply with the manufacturers' demands.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, I understand, has been contacted by numerous farm groups calling for amendments to the Farm Implements

Act. I understand action on this issue has the support of the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers' Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Farm Equipment Association,

which represents smaller manufacturers.

The amendments to the Farm Implements Act are critical to preserve and protect Ontario agriculture and its many sectors. Farmers across many fields have faced

a variety of hardships over the past few years. The member believes that passing legislation saves these farmers money and at the same time offers them the choice of the most up-to-date and modern

farm machinery available.

Other jurisdictions have acted with respect to this type of protection. Legislation to protect farm implement dealers from unfair business practices of large

manufacturers has been in effect in the United States for at least 10 years. Similar legislation has been passed in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island.

Legislation is under consideration in the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Some fundamental facts with respect to this issue are that farm implement dealerships are not franchises. Dealers do not pay fees for the right to distribute

products, and dealers do not have protected territories. Farm implement dealers have sales and service agreements. Auto dealers also have sales and service agreements rather than franchises. From

what I understand, there have been no court challenges in other Canadian or US jurisdictions that have similar legislation, and other industries in these jurisdictions have not requested similar

legislation.

The member has indicated the history, in terms of how this issue has arisen. Dealers and distributors have been negotiating for over 10 years to resolve these

issues. US and Canadian jurisdictions have seen that legislation was needed to protect dealers. In Ontario, stakeholders have been encouraged to work together. The stakeholders submitted a joint

proposal requesting this legislation, and we understand there will be minimal opposition to this piece of legislation.

What we have here, in essence, are farm implement dealerships that are not franchises. The dealerships have security and service agreements but not franchise

agreements. A franchise dealership sells one brand of a common type of product; farm implement dealerships sell over 50 different types of farm machinery. When a dealership closes in one community,

farmers have to travel great distances to find a similar dealership.

I know that in my riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, we have very strong areas of agriculture; for example, in the Holland Marsh, up through Bond Head, in the

town of Innisfil and through areas such as Lefroy and Guilford. Certainly they are strong areas of agriculture. I know that a local distributor, Church's Farm Supplies on Innisfil Beach Road, would

have an interest in this piece of legislation.

I support it, and I urge other members to do so also.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I want to commend the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for introducing Bill 76. Some people may wonder

why an urban member would be remotely interested in this piece of legislation. I think it primarily has to do not only with the merits of this bill but with the implications of this bill for urban

Ontario, if not for Canada.

I see the implications as being enormously significant from several perspectives. First, city people, in some instances, do not understand where their source

of food comes from. If your source of food rises because of lack of competition in rural and small-town Ontario, that is going to have a major impact on consumers' food bills, whether they live in

urban, rural or small-town Ontario.

It also has a health consequence, in my estimation, because if you have lessened competition in rural Ontario and do not have an anchor in terms of

competition, then you have fewer farmers producing a wide variety of foods, some of which, I note in the member's presentation -- he certainly emphasized the production of ginseng, and ginseng has

pretty potentially important and practically significant applications for alternative and complementary health care. The member across the way, Mr Kwinter -- I'm violating my own rules now --

brought in a bill dealing with this issue.

In my estimation, such a piece of legislation not only has economic value to rural and small-town Ontario, but has widespread implications for food consumers

in urban Ontario. Specifically in Etobicoke, we have a farmers' market which every June through October brings an excellent variety and choice of food that won't necessarily be available if we do

not get the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant's bill passed today, hopefully unanimously. It has impacts for farmers' markets in Weston and for the St Lawrence market in the old city of Toronto,

which I know is highly used during the weekends.

It's important to understand that unfortunately a bill like this seems not to get much reportage from the urban media. We don't see anybody here in the

galleries. I would issue a challenge to the urban media to take a little more interest in farm and small-town Ontario issues such as this -- it's very key, I think -- and also educate the food

consumer on what the barriers are in terms of economic problems in rural and small-town Ontario.

I'm very happy and enthusiastic to endorse a bill such as this, which would bring greater competition, but more so, add greater economic stability to rural

Ontario, because in a global marketplace we are interlinked. If we do not support a bill such as this, we do so at the peril of the well-being of Ontario's population as a whole. I think this is an

excellent bill and that the member has brought forth a valuable issue in this regard.

The Deputy Speaker: Response?

Mr Barrett: I listened with interest to the debate, to the contributions from the members opposite representing Elgin-Middlesex-London and, of

course, Timmins-James Bay, an MPP who continues to contribute.

I see some speakers are in favour of sending this to committee. Perhaps in response to the MPP from Timmins-James Bay, Gilles Bisson, the issue of dealer

purity is not clearly spelled out in this legislation. I recognize that, and I understand this can be covered by regulation, which reinforces the importance of further contributions from all three

parties before a standing committee, if members are amenable to that.

I do appreciate the support from my neighbour, MPP Steve Peters, the agriculture critic for the Liberal Party, and I appreciate his pointing out that support

for this bill lies not only with the OFA, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, but also the Christian Farmers and the National Farmers Union.

Of course, I continue to welcome advice, ideas and information from my caucus colleagues the agriculture PA Doug Galt, from Northumberland; Joe Tascona, from

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford; and the contribution from the urban Toronto perspective by MPP John Hastings, from Etobicoke North.

It may be argued that we are intruding on the private sector. However, farmers' choice as far as purchasing the best available equipment is being whittled

slowly away, and therefore competition and choice are being reduced. As the member for Etobicoke North pointed out, the result is artificially rising prices, not only for farmers but for

consumers.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allocated for debating this ballot item has expired.

FRANCO-ONTARIAN

EMBLEM ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR L'EMBLÈME FRANCO-ONTARIEN

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now revert to dealing with ballot item 15, standing in the name of Mr Lalonde.

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

Pursuant to standing order 96 --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: There's nothing out of order. That was a point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: We're in the middle of a vote.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent that this bill be

ordered for third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Lalonde has asked for unanimous consent that this bill be ordered for third reading. Agreed? Agreed. The bill will be

ordered for third reading.

FARM IMPLEMENTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES APPAREILS AGRICOLES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We'll now deal with ballot item number 16. Mr Barrett has moved second reading of Bill 76,

An Act to

ensure fairness, to foster competition and consumer choice and to encourage innovation in the farm implement sector. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I would ask the Legislature to consider referring this bill to the standing committee on general

government.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. So ordered.

All matters relating to private members' public business being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): A year and a half ago, a constituent of mine, Reta Lebofsky, 82, received a heart valve replacement and, while

on the operating table, suffered a stroke, leaving her left side weakened. She spent several weeks in rehabilitation, and when she went home, she was determined to look after herself with the

assistance of her 85-year-old husband, who suffers from Tourette's syndrome. They managed to be self-sufficient until three weeks ago, when Mrs Lebofsky was sent home from the hospital with

undiagnosed blood loss and congestive heart failure.

Both her family physician and her social worker convinced her that she needed home care and released her from hospital on June 1 in the belief that she would

receive this care. That same day, the North York Community Care Access Centre froze home care provisions for new clients, creating a six- to eight-month waiting list, and Mrs Lebofsky was denied

home care. Although qualified to receive care, she will have to be put on the six- to eight-month waiting list, because the community care access centre claims they are running at a deficit and can

no longer provide the necessary care for all the sick and elderly in North York.

Judy Edgar, Mrs Lebofsky's daughter, says, "It is horrifying to me to think that poor, fragile people who are unable to look after themselves are put in this

incredibly vulnerable situation." I totally agree.

PROCTOR HOUSE MUSEUM

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to announce the official opening of the Proctor-Simpson Barn, which will take place

in Brighton, Ontario, on July 1. The Proctor-Simpson Barn is situated in Proctor Park, and it's opening will be part of the Canada Day festivities.

The ribbon-cutting ceremony will take place at 2 pm and will represent the extensive work that has been done over the past 14 months since the sod-turning in

April 2000. There will be two great-granddaughters of John E. Proctor in attendance at the official opening: Cheryl Proctor of California and Tracey Proctor of Alberta.

Volunteers were wonderful in the creation of the Proctor-Simpson Barn, giving their time and dedication to the development of a traditional building. The Save

our Heritage Organization has been magnificent in making sure the Proctor House and now the barn are finished and maintained for the period from 1840 to 1889.

The Gerry and Rene Simpson barn was donated, along with barnboards and other materials from five different barns, and used in the construction by the Loyalist

Timber Framers. Materials used for the landscaping around the barn came from the old Simpson and Proctor barns. The cost of the barn has been estimated at $110,000, which includes $45,000 for the

framing and reconstruction, as well as $60,000 for materials.

The Proctor-Simpson Barn will be a wonderful asset to the community and will enhance the existing Proctor House Museum. The barn will now be a part of this

wonderful historic tour of Proctor House.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): It is no secret that there is currently a serious skills shortage in most sectors of our economy, whether it's

construction or technology. But what is a secret is how many skilled workers are leaving Ontario to go to the United States or Europe. What are those numbers? The government is hiding the numbers

of our brain drain. The reason is obvious.

But let's first ask ourselves the reasons why our best and brightest are leaving for the US or Europe. What are those reasons? Number one, government bungling:

imagine first firing 3,000 nurses and then trying to woo them back with incentives and other kinds of enterprises. The other reason there is a brain drain is because of a piecemeal approach by this

government. Imagine, we are right now training 30 doctors when the need out there is 1,000. Our communities are crying out for physicians.

This reminds me of the Conservative approach of holding a finger in one dike at a time until the flood crashes down on us. This is not the way to work.

McGuinty Liberals have a plan that was voted on by this House -- unanimously accepted. It was voted for by the Conservatives, voted for by the NDP. That plan is on your table, and it says, "Help

the Liberals to stop the flood. Help the Liberals to ensure there's no brain drain."

DURHAM ROWING CLUB

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a very important announcement on my riding of Durham. A 1999 Ontario Trillium Foundation grant of $110,000

over a three-year period and fundraising efforts have made a very important program available to my constituents.

I would like to mention some of the people involved with the Durham Rowing Club. The members would be Michael Maher, Cynthia Drewry, Chris Rutherford, Pat Van

Egmond, Michaela Innes, Brian Gardner and Pat Doherty.

I'm talking about a program in my riding of Durham which is the Durham Rowing Club in Port Perry, offering programs to youth, the opportunity to get involved

with rowing both as a team and on an individual level.

Last Saturday, June 16th, was the third Annual Scugog Invitational Rowing Regatta on Lake Scugog in Port Perry. With nine teams from across Ontario competing

in the regatta, the Durham Rowing Club won six gold medals and silver in five other events.

The rowing club works with teenagers from area high schools in Port Perry, Oshawa and Bowmanville. The club is working closely with several high schools

developing and running programs, and I should mention that their high school program is open to students from all over Durham.

The Durham Rowing Club is also reaching out in the community with their new outreach program for individuals with special needs. The free program offers

children with special needs from the age of 12 and up an opportunity to get involved in adaptive rowing. They are extending invitations to groups like Big Brothers and Big Sisters as well as

Central Seven Association to participate. The Durham Rowing Club also has a team of hard-working volunteers who look after their transportation to the clubhouse.

I'd like to thank the members and the rowing club and those participants for making Durham a great place to live.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Here we go again -- another Tory minister shooting from the lip; this time the seniors' minister last

Tuesday. Cam Jackson said the community care access centres were cut in 1990. Oops, we didn't have community care access centres in 1990. Then he said home care was cut in 1990. Oops, home care

grew every year during a Liberal government. What was the ploy on the other side? Trying to influence the by-election in Vaughan-King-Aurora.

This government is specifically clueless when it comes to health care and especially in York region. There's only one government cutting services to home care,

and that's the Mike Harris government.

This year specifically the York region has a $12-million shortfall in providing home care services to the people of York region. What do the candidates have to

say in the by-election of Vaughan-King-Aurora? That Tory candidate couldn't even show up for a health care debate in York region.

Would you tell us the importance and the priority of home care services for that Tory candidate, which is just a reflection of this group here that we have to

deal with day in, day out? There are working families in York region that expect to have home care services for their parents and for their grandparents. We demand it, and we insist on it.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James) : Monsieur le Président, par cette déclaration, j'aimerais amener votre attention à une

situation qui m'est arrivée hier au comité des estimés.

Comme vous le savez, on a l'habitude d'avoir les estimés chaque printemps, où les membres de l'Assemblée ont la chance de demander aux ministres

responsables de leurs ministères des questions faisant affaire avec leurs dépenses à travers le comité des estimés.

Hier, j'ai eu l'occasion de demander des questions à M me Ecker, la ministre responsable de l'éducation. Quand j'ai essayé de demander

les autres députés puissent me comprendre.

Monsieur le Président, je veux vous dire comme francophone, vous le savez, qu'on a sous la loi l'habilité d'être capable de parler en

pour mettre en place tout l'équipement nécessaire pour faire la traduction simultanée. Ce n'est pas acceptable. Cet équipement a besoin d'être là.

Avec ça, j'ai demandé que la prochaine fois que le comité siège, ce comité soit amené à la chambre 151, où

l'habilité de le faire. Je vous demande, monsieur le Président, de m'assister pour s'assurer que ce comité va être à la chambre 151 la semaine prochaine.

HEALTH CARE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Since 1995, the Ontario government has made magnificent health care investments in my riding of

Peterborough. We have seen improvements that will have a long-term effect on the health and quality of life of our residents.

For instance, the heart catheter lab, a swing lab that is one of the most modern in the world, was opened at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre in

With an aging population and more incidence of kidney disease requiring dialysis, Peterborough has had a privately run dialysis lab up and running since 1996,

and in October 2000 a new dialysis unit was announced at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre.

I was very pleased that our government announced last year that a new hospital is also to be built in Peterborough.

Tomorrow, another milestone will take place in health care for Peterborough: the official opening ceremony of the MRI at the Peterborough Regional Health

Centre. These images provide a wealth of information as they allow a doctor to see clearly inside the body at any angle. This is another example of our government's commitment to providing quality

health care to Peterborough and to all Ontarians. The new MRI in Peterborough will ensure that the people of the area will receive the care they need closer to home.

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal caucus, I am pleased to pay tribute to our

First Nations and to encourage all Ontarians to recognize today, June 21, as National Aboriginal Day.

It is appropriate for all of us to reflect on the very unique role our First Nations have played. After all, this is their land. All of us, either ourselves or

our ancestors, have chosen to come to this country to join our First Nations. They welcomed newcomers. They had an enormous sense of generosity that all of us can learn from.

They also offered us much to learn. I don't think any nation cares more about the environment than our First Nations. They truly take a long-term view of

society, and they, perhaps in the world, have understood that the care and nurturing of our environment is fundamental. In fact, in Huron and Iroquois the word "Ontario" means "beautiful,

sparkling, shining water."

Our First Nations also have a spirit of generosity and an enormous respect for others, particularly for their elders.

Today, we should reflect on all we can learn from them and recognize that we have much to do to mend some of the broken fences that exist between our First

Nations and the governments of this country.

FIESTA WEEK

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): This past weekend, the community of Oshawa kicked off its 40th annual cultural festival, known as Fiesta Week,

with a parade of floats and marching bands followed by awards and six days of international pavilion displays.

As part of Oshawa's cultural heritage, Fiesta Week brings together the people of Oshawa for a week's celebration of our city's multicultural heritage.

Fiesta Week provides over 100,000 people with an opportunity to examine our community's diverse culinary, dancing and musical talents from a wide variety of

multicultural backgrounds.

During this week of June, various cultural communities in Oshawa operate pavilions which feature food, dance and entertainment of their particular culture,

including Lviv, Dnipro, Odessa, General Sikorski in Mr O'Toole's riding, Roma and Loreley, just to name a few.

This year's annual parade was on Father's Day, with over 2,000 participants, and made its way around Oshawa Centre to thousands and thousands of viewers.

The numerous dedicated volunteers with the Oshawa Folk Arts Council have worked diligently throughout the year to make Fiesta Week the success it has been each

year, and I am confident that 2001 will be no exception.

I would personally like to congratulate all those for the thousands of hours they contribute to making Fiesta Week happen.

I would like to invite the members of this House and all the people of Ontario to visit Oshawa and participate in one of Ontario's premier summer

festivals.

SPECIAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the special report of the Environmental

Commissioner of Ontario, entitled Broken Promises: MNR's Failure to Safeguard Environmental Rights.

ANNUAL REPORT,

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I further beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 2000-01 annual report of the

Ombudsman.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Yesterday, the member for Niagara Centre (Mr Kormos) raised a point of privilege concerning the report of the

Ombudsman on the investigation into the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's funding for breast and prostate cancer patients who must travel for radiation treatment.

Prior to ruling on the member's point, I would just like to address standing order 21(c), which requires written notice to the Speaker of intention to raise a

point of privilege. Since the introduction of this provision in the standing orders in 1997, the practice has developed that the written notice given in advance to the Speaker must contain a

reasonably full description of the point to be raised and how the member relates the issue at hand to his or her privileges.

The Speaker has in the past, for example on November 18, 1999, declined to hear a point of privilege because the written notice did not contain details about

the matter to be raised. Though I did permit the member for Niagara Centre to make his point yesterday based on a somewhat vague written notice, I want to advise him now that I will not in future

be as lenient and will require compliance with the letter and spirit of the standing order and adherence to the developed practice of meaningfully comprehensive written notice.

Turning now to the member's point of privilege, the member asserted that the statement by the Ombudsman in his recent report leads to, and I quote, "only one

conclusion that we can draw as a result of this, and that is that there was an effort on the government's part to conceal and certainly to inhibit access by the Ombudsman to certain information,"

and that "the government's obstruction -- and in this instance I submit that it is obstruction; it's the only inference that can be drawn from the words of the Ombudsman -- of the Ombudsman's

information request constitutes contempt of this Legislature."

I do not share the member's view that the result of the application by the Attorney General of his statutory authority to decline to provide certain documents

to the Ombudsman in the course of his investigation represents an obstruction of the officer of the Legislative Assembly in the performance of his duties or a contempt of this House.

I am not of the view that the Ombudsman's statement in his report represents either an assertion that he was wilfully obstructed in the performance of his

duties, or an appeal to the House to somehow come to the aid of one of its officers. The Ombudsman is quite clear in acknowledging the legitimacy and the authority of the Attorney General to

withhold documents. The Ombudsman laments that this "limited the scope of [his] investigation," but he does not assert that the occurrence was maliciously obstructive.

This is substantially different from the circumstances the Speaker faced when considering a point of privilege from the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke

(Mr Conway) in May 2000, concerning the Information and Privacy Commissioner's report relating to the Province of Ontario Savings Office. In that instance, an officer of this House recounted a very

specific opinion that an attempt had been made to frustrate her investigation. In ruling on this point on May 18, 2000, I had become convinced that, on the face of it, the case had indeed been made

by Mr Conway that the Commissioner was obstructed in the performance of her duties without valid or justifiable reason.

In the case at hand, I do not similarly see that lack of complete co-operation with an officer of the House is alleged to have occurred without justification

and explanation, or that it was malicious.

The Speaker cannot assign relative merit to the requests from the Ombudsman for certain documents versus the decision of the Attorney General to decline the

requests. It is to be assumed the Ombudsman decided that access to the requested material might assist him in his review of the matter. On the other side, it is likewise to be assumed that the

Attorney General carefully considered the requests, but determined that it was not in the public's interest for the materials to be released. The Ombudsman acknowledges the Attorney General's

authority to do so. It is obviously not for the Speaker to assess the reasonableness of a statutorily supported decision by the Attorney General to decline to provide materials to the

Ombudsman.

I therefore find that a prima facie case of contempt has not been made out.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As the bells began to ring to draw members to the House this

afternoon, there was a quite remarkable press conference still underway downstairs with respect to the Ministry of Natural Resources. It would be our desire to raise a point of privilege with

respect to that particular circumstance. However, given the timing of the press conference, it was impossible to raise that issue or provide you with one hour's written notice. We are in process of

doing that as we speak, Mr Speaker. I wondered, would it be appropriate now? Would you be in a position to allow me to raise that point of privilege right now or will we be able to raise it later

in today's proceedings?

The Speaker: We'll confer over the standing orders.

I would refer the member to 21(c), which says, "Any member proposing to raise a point of privilege, other than one arising out of proceedings" -- and then it

says in very clear detail -- "in the chamber," so unfortunately we won't be able to hear it, but I'm sure you'll be able to put a point together and obviously at that time I would like to hear

it.

Mr Duncan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that. If we provide you with that letter momentarily, you will hear that point of privilege today?

The Speaker: We need an hour's notice.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I simply wanted to thank you for your ruling. As you know, gratitude isn't

equal to pleasure, but also, acknowledging that we will be undoubtedly putting forward points of privilege, I've taken special notice of your admonition regarding the notice.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to increase the penalties for contraventions of the Act and regulations.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and

move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 45,

An Act to implement measures contained in the 2001 Budget and to amend various statutes.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1352 to 1357.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, Bert

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duncan, Dwight

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 31.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESCUING CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

EXPLOITATION ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

SUR LA DÉLIVRANCE DES ENFANTS

DE L'EXPLOITATION SEXUELLE

Mr Young moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 86,

An Act to rescue children trapped in the misery of prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation and to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet

de loi 86, Loi visant à délivrer les enfants prisonniers de la prostitution et d'autres formes d'exploitation sexuelle et modifiant le Code de la route.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The Attorney General for a short statement?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Mr Speaker, with your leave, I'll make the stateme