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

May 5, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-May-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 5 May 2008 Lundi 5 mai 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROVINCIAL ANIMAL

WELFARE ACT, 2008 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2008

SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE DES ANIMAUX

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

LONG-TERM CARE

WINDSOR BORDER CROSSING

MANUFACTURING JOBS

POVERTY

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

MINING INDUSTRY

ENBRIDGE GAS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

UNEMPLOYMENT

CRIME PREVENTION

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TOURISM

CORRECTION OF RECORD

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MARY FIX PARK

LORD'S PRAYER

CHILD CUSTODY

LORD'S PRAYER

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

FIREARMS CONTROL

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

TAXI DRIVERS

EVERGREEN HOSPICE

MARKHAM-STOUFFVILLE

DONALD BEANLANDS

MUSIC MONDAY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

CHARLES CACCIA

MEMBER'S FAMILY

TOURISM

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO FRENCH-LANGUAGE

EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS

AUTHORITY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'OFFICE DES

TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS ÉDUCATIVES

DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROVINCIAL ANIMAL

WELFARE ACT, 2008 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2008

SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE DES ANIMAUX

Mr. Bartolucci moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 50,

An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act / Projet de loi 50, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l'Ontario.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We're moving into a new time frame here. I want to indicate to you that when I first arrived here a long time ago, they allowed members to bring coffee into the legislative chamber. Now we're going to be here at 9 o'clock in the morning, and I normally have a coffee at my desk at 9 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Speaker, I ask your indulgence to allow the morning session to enjoy a cup of coffee while they're listening to debate here in our morning sessions.

Hon. Michael Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Of course it's up to members of this House to decide on unanimous consent matters, and I also will obviously respect whatever ruling you make with respect to decorum etc., but if in fact the House agrees, not only do I think that the dean of the Legislature deserves a coffee, but I'll be happy to pour it for him. I'm assuming it's a double-double for Mr. Sterling.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. I'll take the points of order under consideration.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Now that we've solved the coffee dilemma and the double-double issue, we will move into debate. I'm going to be sharing my time with the parliamentary assistant, the member from Brant, Dave Levac, who will have carriage of this through committee. I want to thank him for his hard work with this bill.

This is a very, very timely time to have second reading debate. This is historic. We are now meeting at 9 o'clock in the morning for the first time ever and we're debating bills for the first time ever. We're doing something that we haven't done for over 80 years: We're revising one of the acts.

It is also Emergency Preparedness Week. Later on today, and tomorrow, and for the course of the week, I'll be making announcements. We should never, ever forget our animals in Emergency Preparedness Week. This is also another historic week because it's Be Kind to Animals Week.

Last month, I introduced Bill 50,

An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Today, I am again pleased to speak to this legislation on second reading. What better way to mark the week than through thoughtful deliberations on an important piece of legislation that aims to better protect animals; proposed legislation that would, if passed, make Ontario's animal protection laws the strongest in Canada; legislation that represents the first significant revisions to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act since 1919?

Before I get into the details of our proposed legislation, I want to thank the member from Willowdale, David Zimmer, a strong advocate for animal protection, who last December received the World Society for the Protection of Animals special award for leadership in animal welfare for his work to regulate roadside zoos. It is to his credit, along with the hard work of many stakeholders, that this legislation was introduced.

I am also pleased to acknowledge the honourable member from Eglinton–Lawrence, Mike Colle, who in 2001 led the fight to close down puppy mills in Ontario. Thank you, Michael, for your great work. I would also like to thank my colleague from York—Simcoe, Julia Munro, and Leeds—Grenville member Bob Runciman for their commitment to animal welfare in Ontario.

The care, love and protection of animals represents all that is good about our society. This is all about protecting our animals. The Ontario SPCA's management staff and volunteers are devoted to the well-being of all animals. They make exceptional efforts to provide animals housed in OSPCA shelters with the highest standards of care. We thank the OSPCA for the remarkable job they do.

The McGuinty government is also committed to a strong animal welfare system in Ontario. Our government recently invested $5 million to improve and modernize Ontario's SPCA facilities and shelters across the province. This represents the largest single investment in the OSPCA by any government. We should all be very, very proud of that. It also builds on other recent initiatives, including more than quadrupling animal funding for the OSPCA to $500,000 a year, the first increase since 2000, and investing $100,000 to train OSPCA inspectors and agents to carry out zoo inspections.

Last month, I visited the OSPCA's headquarters in Newmarket, along with Mike Colle and David Zimmer, to speak about this proposed legislation. While I was there, I met a dog named Crash, who as a puppy was deliberately thrown from a speeding pickup truck. I see our pages, who are grade 7 and 8 students from across the province, looking in dismay that someone would do that. They're right; we're all dismayed when an animal is mistreated. Despite the heroic efforts of the OSPCA and the Parry Sound Animal Hospital, Crash's leg had to be amputated. Good news, though: Today, Crash is a healthy and happy dog, living with the OSPCA inspector who adopted him.

Unfortunately, these terrible occurrences don't always have a happy ending. There are too many incidents of dogs and cats being abused, birds being trained for cockfights and animals going unfed and held in deplorable conditions. It is also wrong when exotic animals are confined in roadside zoos where enclosures are too small or not properly secured. Ontario's law on animal protection must be updated and toughened.

If passed, our Provincial Animal Welfare Act, or the PAW act, will be the first top-to-bottom modernization of the OSPCA act in more than 80 years. Let's put that into some historical context for you. I know the pages will be very, very interested in this, because I was shocked when I first read this. In 1919, the First World War had just ended. At that time, the welfare of both animals and children were the responsibility of the humane society. While child welfare laws have been modernized, until now, animal welfare legislation in Ontario has remained largely unchanged. We are looking to change that.

If passed, the changes we are proposing would give Ontario the strongest protection laws in Canada. Of that, this entire House should be very, very proud.

The new Provincial Animal Welfare Act would give the OSPCA the authority to inspect premises where animals are kept for entertainment, exhibition, boarding, sale or hire. This would include zoos, circuses and pet shops. It would give the OSPCA the authority to inspect the premises between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. year-round, to enable inspections to occur in the off-season. They would also be able to inspect the premises at any time they are open to the public.

Under our proposed amendments, the OSPCA would also be able to enter almost any non-residential location where they have reasonable grounds to believe an animal is in immediate distress. The proposed act would better protect animals by establishing new provincial offences to target inhumane treatment. These new offences would include causing or permitting distress to an animal; obstructing an OSPCA inspector or agent; failing to comply with standards of care; causing harm to a law enforcement animal; and training or allowing animals to fight other animals.

These offences would make Ontario a leader in animal welfare within Canada.

Furthermore, if passed, this legislation would give judges the flexibility to impose the stiffer penalties that these actions deserve. Our current legislation provides a penalty for failure to comply with standards of care for dogs and cats for breeding and sale. Judges will have the jurisdiction to impose a maximum fine of up to $60,000 with up to two years in jail and a potential lifetime ban on owning cats and dogs. Through our proposed amendments, penalties would be established to improve the welfare of all animals, not just cats and dogs.

All too often, veterinarians see the consequences of animal abuse and neglect. Up until now, veterinarians across Ontario have voluntarily reported these suspected cases. At the request of the veterinary profession, the proposed act would make it mandatory for veterinarians to report suspected cases of abuse and neglect. This comes from the veterinarian profession. It would also offer them protection from personal liability for doing so. Ontario would be the only jurisdiction in Canada with this provision.

Furthermore, this legislation would respect accepted standards of practice for activities like hunting, fishing and agriculture. Exemptions would be made in consultation with these communities.

Melissa Tkachyk from the World Society for the Protection of Animals called this a "positive new direction." Kate MacDonald, chief executive officer of the OSPCA, said, "We are pleased that the government has recognized the need to modernize and toughen animal welfare laws and create stiffer penalties for those convicted."

I want to thank these and other concerned organizations. I worked with people from Sudbury—Cathy Coe, as an example—from Toronto, Thunder Bay and all over Ontario. They've worked hard to help develop this proposed legislation.

But I look forward to the process continuing. I look forward to this proceeding through second reading. I look forward to this going to committee. If there are ways to even strengthen it further, to expand on what we all want in Ontario, we'll do that; we'll listen carefully to what the presenters say at committee. I look forward to that.

In closing, these changes would go a long way toward protecting animals and punishing those who threaten their welfare. These changes would take Ontario from worst to first in animal protection. Thank you. I turn the floor over to the member from Brant.

Mr. Dave Levac: I want to thank the minister for this opportunity and also repeat what he just said: that this bill will be going to committee.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about Bill 50, a very important piece of proposed legislation to better protect against animal mistreatment and abuse.

While most people enjoy and respect all animals and they do treat their pets as part of the family—with love, care, respect and consideration—unfortunately, it is not uncommon to hear of the acts of uncaring individuals who exploit or harm defenceless animals—and research tells us that the next step is people. Animal abuse has no place in Ontario. That's why our government is proposing to toughen its laws to protect animals.

In August 2007, the McGuinty government announced that it would embark on a review of the very act that we're proposing today. If passed, the proposed Provincial Animal Welfare Act would provide better protection for animals throughout Ontario, including zoos. I thank the member from Willowdale, David Zimmer, my colleague and friend, for bringing this to the attention of us.

I'd like to briefly speak to the new offences that we're proposing. Ontario is currently the only jurisdiction in Canada without a provincial offence for causing distress to an animal. The only options that the OSPCA has when they find an animal in distress are to remove the animal, make an order that the owner change the conditions the animal is living in—not likely—or impose a Criminal Code charge of animal cruelty. Our proposed changes would improve animal welfare by giving the OSPCA a new option, charging a person with a new provincial offence.

This would be a less resource-intensive option that we hope would help the SPCA to lay more charges against those who cause distress to animals and give greater deterrence to avoid future suffering of these purely lovable creatures.

There are currently no penalties for obstructing the OSPCA inspector or agent. Our proposed legislation would establish standards of care of animals. Right now, specific standards of care exist only for keeping cats or dogs for breeding or for sale. Establishing standards of care for all animals would help the OSPCA to ensure that all animals, including those in zoos, are appropriately treated.

To be clear, we're not trying to close roadside zoos. In fact, one in my own riding is an example of how animals are cared for in a roadside zoo. We just want to make sure that everyone in Ontario treats animals well, with love and respect.

This legislation would create a new offence for causing harm to a law enforcement animal. Police dogs and horses can be injured or killed while assisting police in their work. However, they currently don't receive any additional protection. This proposed legislation would make Ontario the only province—and, I hope, not the last—with extra protection for its law enforcement animals. This legislation would also create an offence for training animals to fight other animals or for owning or possessing equipment used in animal fights.

The Criminal Code makes it an offence to engage, aid or assist in fighting or baiting of animals or birds. However, in order to lay a criminal charge, people committing the offence must be caught in the act. That requires raiding dog fights as they are happening—a very dangerous situation. Dog fights usually happen at night and can involve large crowds, making raids risky and difficult. However, if our legislation is passed, people could be charged based on the possession of easily identifiable equipment. It would be safer, require less police officer support and not endanger lives.

Most importantly, this approach would allow for changes to be pre-emptive and potentially prevent an animal from suffering injury or being killed in the course of such a fight. Only New Brunswick and Manitoba currently have this provision, and Ontario's will be the most thorough.

Let's take a look at how the proposed changes would affect a few recent incidents. On May 11, 2007, the Windsor/Essex County Humane Society received an anonymous call saying that a dog was in distress at a Windsor apartment building. The OSPCA investigators found a six-month-old German Shepherd-Rottweiler mix whimpering on an apartment balcony, with his ears cut off. The puppy was bleeding, shaking his head and pawing at his ears. The owner was not at home, and the OSPCA seized the dog so it could receive immediate care. The owner later surrendered the dog to the OSPCA.

As the law stands, had the owner not surrendered the dog to the OSPCA, it may have been returned to the owner. Under the current law, the OSPCA could only prosecute the owner under the Criminal Code. As a result, investigators were required to determine who had cropped the puppy's ears and whether the harm had been done wilfully, as required under the Criminal Code. Under this new proposed legislation, the OSPCA could have charged the owner with the proposed offence of causing or permitting distress to an animal.

Rather than having to prove that the harm was wilful, the OSPCA would only need to determine the owner of the animal and that the mutilation did occur.

The proposed provincial penalties include potential fines of up to $60,000, up to two years in jail and the possibility of a lifetime ownership ban. If the owner refused to surrender the puppy to the OSPCA, the society would also have been able to apply to retain possession of the animal once charges were laid against the owner.

In another case, an Australian tourist raised concerns that a kangaroo named Tyson was being kept in a very small cage at the Lickety-Split Ranch and Zoo in London. Locals told the media that the kangaroo suffered through an eight-month Canadian winter of snowstorms and sub-zero temperatures with only a metal shed to protect it against the cold. Under the current law, the OSPCA was powerless to act as the information was not current enough to get a search warrant.

Existing legislation only allows the OSPCA to enter without a warrant if they can observe an animal in immediate distress, but in this case, they could not see the animal. Our proposed legislation would allow the OSPCA to inspect the zoo and take action as appropriate.

Let's look at one more example. Every year, the OSPCA deals with complaints about animals being locked in cars. Right now, the OSPCA can only intervene if they can actually observe the animals in distress. If a cat were locked in the trunk of a car or if a dog were locked behind heavily-tinted windows, the OSPCA would be powerless to help them without a search warrant. If passed, our proposed legislation would mean that the OSPCA would only need reasonable grounds to believe that the animal was in distress in order to intervene.

Those are just a few examples of how, if passed, this legislation would help the OSPCA to protect our beloved animals.

We've already heard today that the OSPCA supports this legislation. We've heard that the World Society for the Protection of Animals thinks the government is headed in a positive, new and supportable direction. Here's what the veterinarians' organizations have said. The president of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association, Dr.

Irene Moore, says, "Ontario veterinarians applaud the government for recognizing the need to protect our beloved pets." Susan Carlyle, registrar of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario, says, "The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appreciates the government taking steps to improve animal welfare in Ontario, and is pleased that we were consulted and our input valued."

Support like this demonstrates that this government has worked with animal experts across Ontario to develop some of the toughest animal safety standards in the country. However, it's important to note that this legislation would have no impact on people who treat their animals with love, respect and care. The bottom line is this: If you treat your animals well, with love and respect, you will have nothing to fear from this legislation. Animals, however, have absolutely everything to gain. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I am pleased to hear the minister acknowledge the work of many members having contributed to this bill coming forward. From our side, from the Progressive Conservative Party, I'm very pleased to indicate that the member from Leeds—Grenville has done a significant amount of work on this, as has the member from York—Simcoe. I think the protection of animals is obviously important to all of us in this place. We've all heard stories of unspeakable cruelty to animals that shouldn't be tolerated in our society, because, as the

preamble to Bill 50 states, "The people of Ontario ... believe that how we treat animals in Ontario helps define our humanity, morality and compassion as a society." I would certainly agree with that.

There are some provisions in this bill that are new, that are meant to toughen up the act by allowing—in fact, requiring—veterinarians to report any instances of cruelty to animals, any animals that have been neglected or abused, and also authorizes SPCA inspectors and agents to enter premises without a warrant in any places used for animal exhibit, entertainment, boarding hire, or sale to determine if animals are in distress.

The only thing we have heard about this bill that causes a little bit of concern is, though it's indicated it's not meant to apply to native wildlife and fish or to generally accepted agricultural practices, I would urge the government to allocate significant time for public hearings on this matter so that we can hear from all parties who will be affected or who believe they may be affected by this legislation to make sure that we get a full perspective and understanding of exactly how this legislation is going to be applying. I've certainly heard from a number of my constituents, as I know many members have, who are concerned that this be fulsomely discussed.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Certainly, I rise to support any step forward. We in the New Democratic Party support animal rights and any step forward, and this is a step forward we would support.

However, there are problems with this bill. I would support the member from Whitby—Oshawa when she says this needs fulsome debate and it needs fulsome committee time—in particular,

section 6. I've received a number of e-mails, as I'm sure other members of this House have, about the inadequacies of

section 6. There's a letter that has gone from the president of the Toronto Humane Society to Mr. Bartolucci on exactly that. He says, "We write to ask you to remove

section 6 from Bill

Section 6 provides that community-built shelters that either don't want to be affiliates of the Ontario SPCA, or shelters that the Ontario SPCA itself does not want as affiliates, will be stripped automatically of their names by this Legislature." That means that a venerable institution of over 100 years like the Toronto Humane Society would not be able to use the word "humane" anymore, as well as 235 other charities that look after and protect our animals. I don't understand why this

section is even in this bill. What is the purpose of it? It needs to be stricken from the bill, and I'd like the committee to look at that.

Some other concerns: There's nothing in the bill for lost animals experimented on in laboratories. There's nothing for animals and birds in the wild. There's nothing for millions and millions of farm animals and birds—and this is not to deter farmers, but we do remember the instance where something like 20 horses were starved to death. This bill would not cover them. Nothing for any other animals that cabinet may decide to exclude in the future. So clearly, this bill needs some tightening up, and clearly,

section 6 needs to be omitted from the bill.

We would like to see fulsome consultation with all of those stakeholders, whose concerns are equally valid to OSPCA's, and certainly to have this government take another look at the fine-tuning of this bill.

Mr. Mike Colle: I certainly would like to commend the minister for taking the most decisive step in animal protection in over 90 years. And that is really shameful, that in this province of Ontario for 90 years this outdated act has not been made stronger to protect those who can't protect themselves.

I had a little bit of experience with this myself as to why this hasn't been done. I collected over 200,000 signatures in 2001, trying to close down puppy mills—200,000 signatures—and brought the legislation forward in this House. It was defeated by the majority government at the time. It's just amazing how inept we are as human beings who are supposed to be in government in terms of trying to protect animals.

That's why it's critically important to not underestimate the forces that are opposed to animal welfare protection. They will come up out of the woodwork and have all kinds of excuses as to why this bill isn't quite right. But those who do care about animal protection welcome this incredible piece of legislation, which gives power—

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Colle: Again, members of the NDP are already criticizing the bill, as you can see.

This bill gives the power of inspection. That's all it does. It allows inspection powers, which they don't have, to enter premises to make sure animals are not being abused. That's not there right now. It also ensures that these inspectors can enter without warrant when there is abuse reported. This legislation also ensures that veterinarians have to report abuse. So that is why this legislation is critically important. It's a milestone piece of legislation that deserves full consideration.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, in his opening comments, made a comparison between the child welfare laws and the animal welfare laws in our province.

As the PC critic for community and social services, I can't let this comment go by without reminding the House that this is the same government that refused to enact the amendment brought forward by my Progressive Conservative colleague from Carleton—Mississippi Mills that would have ensured that individuals who are abused as children and ultimately removed from their abusers and adopted, could not be revictimized. If the Liberals had been concerned with the victims' rights, they would have accepted our PC amendment to block abusers from learning information about their victims.

As the PC critic for community and social services, I've heard from workers who deal every day with victims of domestic violence. Organizations like Family Transition Place have shown that if an individual is inclined to abuse their animal, they are more likely to abuse their spouse or child. Therefore, any legislation that will ensure animal abuse is curtailed and bring fines in line with the level of abuse I'm pleased to support.

I hope that at committee all members will listen and learn from our stakeholders on how we can improve Bill 50, because, clearly, there are some opportunities for amendments and improvements to the existing legislation that will ultimately serve us well. It does us no benefit if we pass bills that six months later we have to bring back to this House and say, "We forgot this little section. We'll try it again." Let's get it right the first time with this one, and we hope that at committee you'll listen and learn from the stakeholders who have some good points that they want to bring forward with Bill 50.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from Brant has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Dave Levac: First, let me thank those who participated with the two-minute responses: the member for Whitby—Oshawa, the member for Parkdale—High Park, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, and the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

Let's correct the record. If the member had been listening carefully, she would have recognized that what the minister was talking about was that when the humane societies were created, they took care of both animals and children. That's what he was saying. So in order to get onto a soapbox to talk about a flawed bill, the member didn't quite hear correctly or actually just wanted to use it as an example. But then she carried on about mistakes in the House about certain bills. I don't want to remind her, but since she needs a little bit of a lesson in history, there were seven different bills for a tax bill by the Tories that needed to be corrected.

We don't want to get into this. If you want to get into this, what we're going to do is have a good, solid debate about a bill that has been long overdue, in terms of getting corrected and changed. If you want to start from the premise of talking about children, we're going to say that the humane society's responsibility was for children at the very beginning, at the onset of the legislation.

Let's be clear: This is about trying to get the best possible bill that's going to help us protect our animals. I look forward to the debate. I look forward to hearing the opposition, to hearing their suggestions and recommendations. I also look forward to hearing from all of the stakeholders who want to give input into the piece of legislation. I suspect—and I want to say this gently—that almost everybody who's going to be presenting is going to talk, first and foremost, about the need for us to review this bill, to improve this bill and to protect our animals, because it is a window to our souls.

Many great people who have spoken in the past have said that how we treat the animals is how we treat ourselves. I look forward to the healthy debate, and I appreciate the opportunity to present to the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to rise today and speak on the leadoff on second reading debate of Bill 50,

An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The short form of this is the Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008.

You know, as we led up to this particular bill, we had a lot of lobbying that took place by the World Society for the Protection of Animals. I can tell you that when they met us at our offices or when we had phone calls or appointments—even the media advisory leading up to the announcement of Bill 50—I always felt this bill was oriented towards roadside zoos. The announcement came, and there's no question that the word "zoo" is not even mentioned in the bill or in the explanatory note.

That's the first thing I want to know about, because I felt that all the hype in the media—and that's what was on CP24, the different channels, on the TV stations and in the print media, as well as the radio media—was about roadside zoos. I want to talk a little bit about—and there's no question. I hope there's nobody in this provincial Legislature who would want to see any animal, anywhere, mistreated. I did think that Bill 50 would be far more oriented towards kangaroos, leopards and wildlife brought in from other countries which were actually in captivity in small, roadside zoos.

I thought we'd see things in the bill, or even in the announcement, like the height of fencing. When you have, say, a tiger in captivity, you want to make sure you've got the right fence height because of what happened in San Francisco this past winter. You're making sure the animals have proper water, proper feed; making sure that the size of the compound is large enough—they weren't squashed into some little cage—making sure they have shading in the summer, winter shelter and heat; food; and of course the one thing we want to make sure of with all our animals is that we have some veterinary assistance for these zoos.

The bill was hailed as a bill to regulate roadside zoos, but I can tell you that, although the government is very proud of it today, I think we have a few problems with this bill, and I'm going to read out some of the problems with the bill in a few minutes.

I want to tell you three little stories, though, to begin with, because they're all stories that have just taken place recently. The one involves—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Is there anything about the reindeer at the Toronto Zoo? Get to the reindeer.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: There's nothing about the reindeer at the Toronto Zoo.

My oldest granddaughter rides a horse, and I can tell you, it's amazing how animals have an impact on children. When the minister referred to the pages here today—you know, I never would have thought my granddaughter would have been a horseback-riding type of a child, but you know what? She's falling in love with that sport. Every Saturday morning at 9 o'clock—the same time that we started here this morning, by the way—she's out riding her horse at this stable and loves every moment of it.

The minister also mentioned something about law enforcement animals. One thing I want to bring up today is that we have a German shepherd police dog up in the OPP in the Orillia area. His name is Luger, and he's retiring on May 13. I mean, I'm not trying to drag this thing out, but I think it's very important. He's a canine drug dog, and I've seen him at a number of OSPCA events in the past. This dog in particular has solved over 300 cases, where he has actually tracked down the criminal, whether it was through drugs, theft or whatever it may be—over 300 cases. You can imagine the value a dog like that to the Ontario Provincial Police.

Even yesterday, when I was at the police memorial service here at Queen's Park, I can tell you that a number of the police services from across Ontario—I can't recall how many exactly—but a number of them had their police dogs at the police memorial day. As well, there were at least 25 or 30 officers on horses as well.

Of course, the sad story that happened this past weekend was the Kentucky Derby race. I don't know how many people actually saw that this weekend, but the favourite horse won; the horse's name was Big Brown. The only filly in the race placed second, five lengths behind Big Brown and quite a bit ahead of the other contenders in the race, but she broke both her legs at the finish line. It was a pretty sad day in sport to actually see that happen on the TV right in front of your eyes. They had to euthanize her right on the spot. Those were just three things I wanted to add to the debate when we're talking a little bit about animals in general, and three completely different cases.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the OSPCA. I have two branches in my riding: in Midland and Orillia. I attend most of their fundraising events that I can get to. We're building a new branch in Midland, a beautiful new facility, and I'm actually meeting tomorrow with a representative of the OSPCA. We have a member on the board of directors of the OSPCA, Jean Belfour from Orillia, who keeps me in tune. At the meeting tomorrow with Mrs. Belfour, I want to raise a number of issues that have come forward to my office that I'd like to discuss with both the representatives tomorrow and Mrs. Belfour before we get to committee.

On committee, and I think a number of people have brought this up today, there's one thing that's very important that we do: This bill affects rural Ontario, so this can't just be a Queen's Park piece of legislation. We have to travel this bill, and I'm hoping that we're going to see northern, central, eastern and western Ontario, as well as Queen's Park. It would be a shame to have a bill like this go through—especially a bill that the government brags they haven't changed in 90 years. Surely, after 90 years, it would be worth going up to Sault Ste.

Marie, Thunder Bay, possibly out to Peterborough, Goderich, or some of these communities, and making sure that we can actually debate the bill and listen to the public.

When we did the media event, I had a number of concerns right after that. A few hunters and farmers called—they hadn't heard anything from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture at that point—and I even had a call from one of the humane societies. The bill was promoted and hailed so much as a roadside zoo bill that I actually said to those people, "I don't think there are any problems with this bill. I think it's directed only at roadside zoos, and there should be no problem with it whatsoever." I tried to take away their fears. But then I asked the question in the House—I believe this happened on April 15.

I have a number of things I want to read into the record today. The question I asked the minister was this:

"My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, recently you introduced Bill 50, the Provincial Animal Welfare Act, which you hailed as

an act to regulate roadside zoos. We're starting to get a few mixed messages on Bill 50.

"Minister, can you explain to the House what impact, if any, this bill will have on those citizens participating in hunting and angling and what impact, if any, Bill 50 will have on farmers and farm animals?"

The honourable minister replied: "I think we were very clear at the press conference when we introduced the legislation that other acts would obviously not be tampered with. We have to ensure that farm animals are regulated by OMAFRA.

"We will ensure that what we're dealing with is the care of animals. We will state what our mandate is. We will ensure that we have the toughest laws in Canada. We will ensure that finally, with the bringing of age of the animal welfare act, we will be able to illustrate and promote legislation that is the best in Canada."

In my supplementary I replied: "Minister, I can't find any local federation of agriculture that is even aware of the contents of this bill. They only heard about it on the day that you made the announcement. As recently as last evening, at an Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters reception here at Queen's Park, I was informed that OFAH has some very real concerns about this bill and has had very little input.

"My question to the minister is: Will you commit to this House today that during the drafting of regulations relating to Bill 50, you will include representatives from hunting, fishing and agricultural organizations and use their expertise in drafting the regulations for this bill?"

His response was this—and this is what I think had a lot of alarm bells go off across some of our stakeholders: "That's a legitimate question," he replied. "It's a question that deserves a legitimate answer"—and I expected a legitimate answer, whatever that means. "Certainly, we had great input from all different stakeholders in Ontario with regard to that. That's why we got back the following endorsements.

"From the World Society for the Protection of Animals"—the people who were lobbying for this bill—"'For years, WSPA has witnessed and fought against the suffering of countless animals in roadside zoos.

"'We look forward to working with the government in this positive new direction.'"

The other example he used was from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' chief executive officer, Kate MacDonald, the girl who got $5 million two weeks earlier: "'We are pleased that the government has recognized the need to modernize and toughen animal welfare laws and create stiffer penalties for those convicted.'

"We were very inclusive in our consultation. We will continue that as we work through this legislation."

What happened with that particular question in the House is that the minister didn't respond to the question: Could he have hunters and fishermen, or maybe members of a humane society or people from the agricultural community, actually sit and help draft regulations as, say, the legal representatives or whatever? I didn't get an answer to the question. That's when I had a lot of feedback—and the feedback continued to last night, when I got about a 50-page fax from one organization. So if we think the bill is perfect and just needs some tiny amendments, we have some big problems.

For example, here's what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has put out. Now, I've heard a lot from the local members, like the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture, for example. Dave Riddell called me immediately and I've been trying to work with him. I know a lot of the other members in the House from rural Ontario have had that as well. What I got on Sunday was this: "Mr. Dunlop, further to my voice message left on Sunday, below you will see the OFA has issued an advisory to its constituents." Now, this is from the Ontario federation's board of directors executive staff, county federations, commodity organizations:

"Bill 50 Alert," sent Friday, May 2. "On April 3, the Ontario government introduced Bill 50, amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The OFA and its partners have been following the development and progress of the amendments. While we do not condone cruelty towards any animal, be they livestock, pets or wildlife, we do believe that the sum of the proposed amendments requires study and clarification, particularly in relation to their impact and/or application to agriculture.

"It is our understanding that second reading debate on Bill 50 will begin Monday, May 5.

"We urge farmers to speak with their MPP and request that Bill 50 be sent to a legislative committee for public hearings following second reading.

"Furthermore, we believe that these public hearings should be held across Ontario to allow farmers, anglers and hunters the opportunity to be heard on Bill 50."

So they're back to what I was saying. The agriculture organizations—and that's from the OFA—are expecting this provincial Legislature to hold these public hearings not only here at Queen's Park, which some people think is the centre of the universe, but outside, in rural Ontario, where there will be many, many impacts of this bill, so we'll have heard of the impacts.

I wanted to say also that I had a lot of feedback from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Right now, they're putting it through their legal department. I'm sure they'll have a number of concerns with the bill, but I'll just read this in:

"The following is a quick

summary of the points we raised on the phone earlier today." I was talking to a representative from the OFAH. "I have also attached a copy of the Manitoba act.... The OFA and the OFAC were briefed earlier today by senior government officials. They kept referring to those of us who have concerns about the act as 'alarmists.'" So if you're against the act, you're an alarmist—from the ministry staff.

"There are some good things about the act; for instance, we don't have a problem about the roadside zoos and exotic animals, but the following sums up some of our preliminary concerns."

(1) The act "should adopt the Manitoba approach and Manitoba legislation which has been in place for 12 years. The Manitoba act contains a much clearer definition of 'distress' and the exemptions/exceptions are contained in the act itself, not in its regulations, which are much easier to change to suit. The Manitoba act embodies a much clearer and better approach to the issue than the existing OSPCA act or what is being proposed. (You should know that those briefing OFA suggested that legislation was much easier to change than regulations, and therefore, by putting the exceptions in the regulations, they are much safer and harder to change"—that's questionable.

"

(2) The chief inspector sets the standards for hiring and qualifications for inspectors, but the act contains nothing that speaks to what the chief inspector's qualifications should be."

(3) We "should push to have a qualified veterinarian as chief inspector if the OSPCA is to maintain the enforcement role." That one is an interesting concept.

"

(4) The conflict of interest between enforcement responsibilities and fundraising as a non-profit—they use some of the most sensational cases they charge and prosecute as fodder for fundraising.

"

(5) Accountability: The OSPCA is not accountable to anyone. They receive public money and are being" given "increased enforcement powers, including warrantless searches, but are accountable to no government body." That's something we'll have to make sure is in the act, that there is accountability there.

"

(6) The ministry has suggested that

section 11(5) pertaining to obstruction would include vexatious complaints as an example of what would qualify as obstruction under this section, and therefore, the bill protects anglers, hunters and farmers from vexatious complaints. What they fail to note is that the OSPCA accepts anonymous complaints, so are they going to determine what's vexatious or who may be behind it?

"

(7) The act refers to fish and animals in the wild. What does this mean for fish in provincial and volunteer hatcheries? Are they exempt?

"

(8) The definition of distress is being changed to 'immediate distress,' much more troubling in terms of what this could be interpreted to mean. This is particularly troubling given that OSPCA inspectors will be able to engage in warrantless searches on the basis of 'immediate distress,' whatever that means—and in whose definition?

"These are just a few of the opening concerns we have, and we'll be in a better position to provide more as the process unfolds and we have a strategy in place. We strongly agree that the bill should be subject to a traveling road show, but we will apply to appear before the committee in Toronto. It is clear that the Premier has made a promise to the OSPCA and is attempting to fulfill this in haste, and we appreciate your assistance in slowing down the process to allow for thoughtful debate."

That comes from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Of course, as you know, there are over 80,000 members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Most of us in rural Ontario have a number of conservation clubs or hunting and angling clubs in our ridings.

I have some more on the OFAH after, but I want to go to the third group that has contacted me, and that was just this weekend—I'm sorry; first of all, it was groups like environmental wildlife centres. They have some concerns as well. I got one call from the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre up in Midland. They have some serious concerns because they have in captivity snakes, turtles and animals you would keep inside. They were wondering just how they would be impacted. I can't even remember all the animals that are there. I see them every time I go by, but I can't remember what they are now; as well, a number of birds—falcons and hawks etc. So that was the third one.

I wanted to get over to the Toronto Humane Society for a minute because there are a couple of things I wanted to read into the record on that. The

summary—

Mr. Peter Kormos: The Tim Trow letter.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Yes, we've got lots of Tim Trow letters.

In the

summary of what's wrong with Bill 50: It "centralizes what up to now has been community choice.

"Bill 50 turns the current voluntary membership of community humane societies and shelters in the OSPCA into something effectively mandatory because if a shelter doesn't want to join or if, as a member, it is thrown out, its corporate name will be stripped from it by operation of law. This would lead to fundraising damage and difficulty for the public to identify and find services.

"These shelters were built by communities, not government or the OSPCA. Why should the government effectively expropriate the use of their assets and silence their independent voices? Already, and the bill has yet to become law, the OSPCA calls itself 'one voice for animal welfare in Ontario,' notwithstanding that 235 independent animal protection charities are registered for Ontario with the Canada Revenue Agency.

"Will the 'one voice' be friendly to the government? Freedom from municipal taxation—OSPCA ... ongoing funding" of $1.2 million, a grant of $2 million and now $5 million. "How can this not co-opt the animal welfare movement, even if it is not the intention?

"Minister Wynne has been telling people that they have made a governing body. If so, it is riddled with conflict that the government's own Grant Thornton study warned against," and we can see that below.

There is no reform. "The OSPCA act still gives a monopoly and excludes police.

"Why should an animal shelter be forced by the government to mount and pay for a police force and be involved in law enforcement? They are first and foremost caregivers.

"Why doesn't Bill 50 change the prohibition against police helping animals in distress in the OSPCA act, subsection 11(3), to allow communities to have local municipal police help animals in distress rather than to continue to give the OSPCA a monopoly?

"The minister has already allowed the OSPCA to keep bankers' hours, so the police have to stand by when they are off the job. (The OSPCA letter to police chiefs is cleverly deceptive, leaving the impression that the police can help animals in distress when they can't. Sure, the police can enforce the Criminal Code, but the powers under the act won't be used if the OSPCA doesn't use them, and the police can't, under subsection 11(3)).

"No reform: OSPCA remains unaccountable, yet it is a police force.

"No accountability to Queen's Park's institutions of transparency and accountability: OSPCA is not a scheduled agency and is not amenable to the Auditor General, the freedom of information commissioner, the Ombudsman or the Management Board. It is a private and not a public police force, not amenable under the Police Act, unlike normal police forces with police services board, to give public or objective input—all in-house OSPCA.

"Bill 50,

section 22(2)(a), will have the chief inspector covered by ministerial regulations for the first time for some things, but it falls short of a wall between the inspectorate and the politics of the OSPCA board, who still hire and supervise him, and won't provide a forum for the public to access. The minister shouldn't be the chief animal cop anyhow. It's silly and unprofessional.

"Operationally unaccountable: See turning away lost animals"—and this is all part of the Grant Thornton report. They "recently closed down Dryden, Kenora and Parry Sound branches, closed the Scarborough branch and substituted a postbox in a strip mall. All this involves less police, not to speak of less help for animals.

"Who polices the OSPCA" anyway? "Nobody. There is nobody but themselves to write orders to protect animals in distress in their own shelters or to check what they do to animals. They put a private detective on the Toronto Humane Society to spy on us surreptitiously. Their board members themselves, including Devin Strouband, whom the minister invited to sit in the gallery when he introduced Bill 50, personally raided our shelter unannounced, grilled us like animals and grabbed at our confidential medical records.

"No fair internal accountability: As a corporation,

section 19 of the Ontario SPCA act lets the board of directors off the hook as if it were a government body and not a private charity where the board should be accountable for its actions and affairs. The board is also effectively immune from lawsuit, with nothing to prevent it from using taxpayer dollars or charitable dollars built up over the years to fend off people aggrieved.

"There is also a board of 12. Ten are elected by the 31 affiliated humane societies and two are also elected by the 31 affiliated humane societies to be representives of branches which have no vote, no matter how tiny the affiliate or how large the branch. This means that Barrie, Brantford, Hanover, Goderich, Chatham, Brockville, Napanee, Midland, Bracebridge, Orangeville, Orillia, Woodstock, Stratford, Petawawa, Scarborough, North York, Cornwall, Sudbury, New Liskeard and York region get no vote and have Ottawa, Hamilton etc. vote for them as if they were children.

"Many branches are large and would be viable as independent affiliates. There is no public accounting as to how much money spent in Newmarket is stripped from them. The minister's own consultant, Grant Thornton, paid for with $100,000 in taxpayers' dollars, said this was unfair, and the minister let the OSPCA rewrite the report maybe even with his ADM"—I'm not sure what that means. "Branches have to accept policing and animal care dictated by Newmarket.

"Bill 50 increases the conflicts of interest in OSPCA governance and at its board by bestowing such power to penalize other humane societies not represented on the board by being able to trigger the stripping of their names and damage their fundraising capabilities.

"OSPCA gets effective control of private charity assets in 31 cities in Ontario. They have already drafted new bylaws they intend to run through their AGM on May 10, 2008"—which, of course, is coming up on Saturday, I guess it is, or Friday—"to include for the first time interference in policy, shelter operations, and charitable donations.

"There is no public accountability for taxpayers' money or requirement that they spend it on animals rather than salting it away in investments.

"Fifteen years ago, the OSPCA owned 50 acres on Yonge Street in Aurora. They made millions when they sold it. Where has it gone and why do they cry poor all the time? The government hired Grant Thornton, who told them to stop pouring taxpayers' money into the OSPCA until it was more accountable. What new accountabilities did the government get before pouring in the latest $5 million?

"One thing Bill 50 is not just is a 'modernizing' of language, as the minister told Peter Worthington. It is a huge change brought about without public consultation. In our case, it was a phony consultation. The Toronto Humane Society met with the minister a week before he introduced the bill and he didn't even hint at this.

"The bill also doesn't acknowledge in exploratory notes or in the bill itself that the bill covers up the likely unconstitutionality of

section 10 of the OSPCA act that may colour what it does. (It is unconstitutional because it prohibits individuals from associating to help animals, making it illegal for a few ladies, for example, to feed hungry birds etc. Freedom of association is a fundamental right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)

"It gets cabinet off the hook from having to annul the OSPCA bylaws if they are not proper under subsection 7(3) of this act. We asked the minister to look into this and assure us they were legal and not ultra vires, and he refused.

"Bill 50 also solves the fights, some legal and with lawyers, in favour of the OSPCA that the OSPCA is having with small humane societies that aren't even members of the OSPCA in Marathon, Manitouwadge, Burlington, Mississauga, Picton and Collingwood that the OSPCA is trying to force to drop the 'humane society.'

In

summary on this part: The minister can't say he is unaware of things at the OSPCA because he has a civil servant, Mr. Mike Zimmerman, 'embedded' at the OSPCA. He is part of ... their board meetings and even audits inspector training."

So those are some of the comments that came from one organization, the Toronto Humane Society. As you can see, they're quite concerned about where we're actually going with this.

Now, that gets me over to—how much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Ten minutes.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Am I down to 10 minutes?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): No, no; you've got 31 minutes.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I know the government put out this announcement on April 1 around the funding of the OSPCA, and it reads: "The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will use a one-time capital grant of $5 million from the Ontario government to upgrade its facilities and computer systems. The society will also improve its services in northern communities. The provincial grant is part of Ontario's plan to strengthen the province's animal welfare system. Last August, the government increased funding for the OSPCA to $500,000 per year, an increase of more than 400%.

The province provided the funds to support the training of inspectors and agents. The government also provided $100,000 to help the OSPCA work with the Ministry of Natural Resources to put in place an interim zoo inspection plan."

My question now, and I hope some of the members of the government can help me with this in the

summary or when we get to committee hearings, but I'm really concerned about how much other humane societies received across the province. Is all the money, the $5 million—I'm not aware of any other organization getting any money from the Ontario government. I was curious if we could get that clarified.

Mr. Peter Kormos: What about the cricket club?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: No, I'm talking about the humane societies and the other branches. Certainly, there is a lot of fundraising that takes place in all of these organizations, and I want to make sure that we'll actually find out the true answers to that.

As well, starting on Saturday, a very interesting

article came out from Peter Worthington in the Toronto Sun. He's written a number of articles over the last few years. He loves animals and pets etc. He wrote an article, and I felt that it was such a good article, we should read it into the record, because it really does sum up a lot of the things that I expect we will hear at the committee hearing.

"Fighting Like Cats and Dogs: Animal Welfare Groups at Odds over Who May Use 'Humane Society.'"

This is on a number of websites now, but I think it's important.

"At the first reading on April 3 of Bill 50—to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act—there was wide approval for updating the 90-year-old legislation.

"Sentences for cruelty to or abuse of animals were stiffened, standards imposed on so-called 'roadside zoos' where none existed before. To the uninitiated, or unwary, the future of animals looked encouraging.

"Hugh Coghill, chief inspector with the Ontario SPCA, emotionally called it 'a great day for the animals.'

"Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

"Largely unnoticed in Bill 50 is the revision of

section 10 in the old act that says no society, association or group 'established after the 30th day of May, 1955,' shall function as an animal welfare or cruelty prevention organization 'unless it is incorporated and becomes affiliated' with what then was the Ontario Humane Society and is now renamed the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA).

"Thus, animal welfare bodies in business prior to 1955 seemed to escape domination by the OSPCA, which has been rent asunder in recent years by controversy, weak finances, mass resignations, internal feuds, etc.

"Section 10 in the new act is revised to say only groups affiliated with the OSPCA shall 'use the name "humane society" ... or "spca" or the equivalent of any of those names ...'

"Giving the OSPCA control over the name 'humane society' (which it has dropped and no longer uses) has caused alarm among some, who believe it gives the OSPCA undue power to threaten and intimidate.

"The Toronto Humane Society (THS) has feuded over the years with the OSPCA. Although it has been in existence for 121 years and is a beloved Toronto institution, the THS feels vulnerable with this amended clause.

"'It means that if we break our affiliation with the OSPCA, or they kick us out for any reason, by this new law we could lose our name—a name that has meant goodwill and trust for generations, and is essential to our fundraising,' says Tim Trow, president of the THS.

"'Donations from the public and gifts are our only source of funds. We get no grants, no handouts from government.'

"Last week, Trow wrote to Rick Bartolucci, Ontario's Minister of Community Safety, urging the removal of the inflammatory

section from Bill 50. He called it 'an insurmountable conflict of interest because the Ontario SPCA will become both regulator and fundraising competitor to its 32 affiliates.'

"He said Bill 50 will, 'upon enactment, strip the names and identities of other charities amongst the 235 Ontario animal protection charities registered with the Canadian Revenue Agency.'

"The Toronto Humane Society depends on the OSPCA for inspectors in animal abuse cases. Other than the police, they are the only ones licensed to carry out investigations and lay charges. There's rarely disagreement when abuses are found. But Trow accuses the OSPCA leadership of hiring private detectives to check up on the Toronto Humane Society, including surreptitious interviews of staff.

"'The OSPCA has a poor record with saving animals, and always needs money, and would love to get its hands on the Toronto Humane Society's fundraising abilities,' says Trow.

"'Put bluntly, our name is our greatest asset. If we had to change our name after 121 years, it would be devastating.

"'Last year we had an enviable record for saving animals—75% of our dogs and cats were adopted; our euthanasia rate was 6%,'" which is very low. "'The OSPCA won't tell how many it adopts and how many it kills.' (The euthanasia rate at the Toronto Animal Services—the pound, in other words—is roughly 50%, a far cry from the THS's, which is 6%."

"Those who think the OSPCA would never move against the Toronto Humane Society might consider what's happening in Burlington. In 1974, Animal Aid was formed after the Burlington Humane Society (affiliated with what is now the OSPCA) quit in 1970 over a dispute with the city's animal shelter program to sell animals for research.

"Animal Aid took over the role, and the name, of 'humane society' and ever since has functioned as such. In 1999, the Hamilton SPCA decided to include Burlington, to form a joint SPCA, even though it has no shelter in Burlington. Local people will have to depend on the present Burlington Humane Society.

"The Hamilton-Burlington SPCA has threatened to sue the Burlington Humane Society, but until the new OSPCA act, there was nothing to prevent Burlington using the 'humane society' name.

"Jolene Regan, president of the all-volunteer BHS, says the membership approved, and 'Burlington Humane Society' became their legal name, filed with Industry Canada and incorporated in 2006.

"'We have good working relations with the city and with the city's animal control shelter,' says Regan. 'Hamilton's interest in Burlington is because we're a relatively affluent community for fundraising.'

"Like Burlington, the Mississauga Humane Society is volunteer-based and unaffiliated with the OSPCA, which has a reputation of being dogmatic and dysfunctional, a view shared by the Toronto Humane Society leadership.

"Regan is concerned the Hamilton SPCA has a 'zero-kill' policy—it will not put down any animal. This means it will not accept most sick or injured animals but directs them to the city's animal control services, which shares the same building with the Hamilton SPCA.

"It's cruel to keep some animals alive, says Regan. 'You try to help them all, but some can't be saved.'

"In other words, the Hamilton SPCA accepts healthy animals for adoption, while sick or unwanted animals go to animal control for execution.

"Like the Toronto Humane Society, Regan worries that the wording on the new SPCA act gives the OSPCA a weapon to prevent the use of the name 'humane society.'

"A spokesperson for Bartolucci says the controversial wording in Bill 50 is mere 'modernizing of the language and not intended to change the existing situation.' The intent is to have better control over cruelty and abuse of animals, and not to prevent people caring for animals.

"He didn't think banning organizations from using the word 'humane society' unless they were affiliated with the OSPCA posed a danger to, say, the Mississauga and Burlington humane societies, which are independent (as are the Marathon, Collingwood and Picton humane societies), or Toronto, which is affiliated but which the OSPCA envies and resents.

"If the ministry believes this, it doesn't understand the issue.

"To avoid a snakepit of future controversy, before the next reading of Bill 50, the words 'humane society' should be removed from the sentence that says the OSPCA has sole disposition on who can use that name.

"It's ludicrous, when one thinks about it. Both the OSPCA and Hamilton have abandoned the 'humane society' identification for themselves, but want to prevent any except those affiliated with them from using it.

"Bartolucci is to be commended for updating the act, but he should familiarize himself with the OSPCA's turmoiled history, and that in the past it has proved unreliable in dealing judiciously with power."

That's what I read from Mr. Peter Worthington, who wrote that

article in the Toronto Sun, I believe on Saturday.

Mr. Peter Kormos: You've still got 21 minutes. You may have to read it again.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: No, I've got lots to read here. I hope it's not too painful, Peter. Quite frankly, I'm really looking forward to the NDP's leadoff time of one hour as well.

Also on a website, I believe from the Toronto Humane Society:

"Urgent—Bill 50 Flawed—Urgent.

"Let's work together in asking the provincial government to rethink and withdraw

section 6 of Bill 50." I think this was mentioned a little bit earlier.

"Section 6 of Bill 50 will result in community shelters that either don't want to be affiliated with the Ontario SPCA, or shelters that the Ontario SPCA itself doesn't want as affiliates, being stripped automatically of their names by the Legislature.

"It could happen to the Toronto Humane Society or other any other humane society across the province, without a hearing procedure or appeal to the courts provided for in the bill.

"Losing your name is losing your identity. Fear of being stripped of names used in communities for generations will stifle debate and discussion.

"The Ontario SPCA favours one voice for animal welfare in Ontario, but we know that our strength as a movement is in its many voices. We ask the Ontario SPCA to rethink its support for Bill 50, which could result in hurting other humane societies.

"Ontario's animal welfare movement does not belong to the government or to the Ontario SPCA. It belongs to the communities that built shelters without government or OSPCA money, organizations which have earned the right to call themselves 'humane societies' and the right to speak out on their own on the issues of the day."

They want everyone to contact their MPPs on this particular issue. It's on the Toronto Humane Society's website.

Mr. Speaker, you know that recently there has been a petition floating around the House, and I want to put that on the record as well. I know these will all come back a little later on when we get to committee, but I want to make sure that this is read into the record, and we can add some more a little later on. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Provincial Animal Welfare Act calls for the Ontario SPCA, a private charity, whose objective is to facilitate and provide for the prevention of cruelty to animals and their protection and relief therefrom; and

"Whereas every inspector and agent hired and trained by this private charity has and may exercise any of the powers of a police officer; and

"Whereas this private charity does not answer to the Ombudsman or the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the Ontario SPCA is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and no external mechanism of accountability exists; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government refused to investigate the desperate plea of 29 resigned directors demanding that the Ontario SPCA be stripped of police powers"—in May 2006—"and

"Whereas the McGuinty government proposes sweeping reforms to the Provincial Animal Welfare Act granting further extraordinary powers to the Ontario SPCA, including the power of warrantless entry;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"(1) that the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to investigate allegations of abuse of police powers and charter violations by the Ontario SPCA investigators; and

"(2) that the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to explore the need for an external mechanism of accountability for the Ontario SPCA; and

"(3) that the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to ensure that proposed changes to the Provincial Animal Welfare Act do not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

That is a petition that's been floating around the province, and it has had a great impact on this particular bill.

There has been a lot of correspondence between the minister's office and the Toronto Humane Society. I believe Ms. DiNovo had mentioned it a little bit earlier, but I wanted to read that letter in as well.

"The Honourable Rick Bartolucci"—

This was on April 29 of this year.

"Dear Minister Bartolucci:

"Re: An open letter to Ontarians concerning Bill 50, Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008.

"We write to ask you to remove

section 6 from Bill

Section 6 provides that community-built shelters that either don't want to be affiliates of the Ontario SPCA, or shelters that the Ontario SPCA itself does not want as affiliates, will be stripped automatically of their names by the Legislature.

"Historically in Ontario, the many voices of the province's animal welfare movement have been its strength. If the result of Bill 50 is but one voice, Bill 50 will have stifled debate and diversity and will have weakened what has been built up in communities over generations.

"Bill 50's role for the Ontario SPCA appears to be one of insurmountable conflict of interest because the Ontario SPCA will become both regulator and fundraising competitor to its 32 affiliates.

"In addition, Ontario's animal welfare movement is wider than the Ontario SPCA or its affiliates. Bill 50 will instantly, upon enactment, strip the names and identities of other charities among the 235 Ontario animal protection charities registered with the Canada Revenue Agency.

"Bill 50 provides for no decision-making process and no appeal to the courts. It provides no explanation as to why it is necessary for the Legislature to take away the identities of any charities.

"Sanctions against holding out or infringing a corporate name already exist in Ontario law. In the case of the Toronto Humane Society, there can be no confusion because there is no similarity between 'The Toronto Humane Society' and the 'Ontario SPCA.'

"The Toronto Humane Society is a well-known Ontario landmark, a hospital and a shelter, caring for both wild and domestic animals. We employ 150 caregivers, and, at any time, 500 volunteers provide recuperative or palliative care as foster parents, feed orphan kittens in the nursery, groom cats, or walk dogs.

"We serve province-wide, one-third of our clients coming to us from beyond our Toronto area.

"The Toronto Humane Society has grown and prospered since 1887 because of the generous support of financial contributors and members. We do not receive, and never have received, government funding or funding from the Ontario SPCA.

"Our name is how we have been identified for 121 years. It has been entrusted to us by successive provincial governments and it represents the goodwill and trust of generations.

"Our name is how we speak to supporters and donors, and it is how they identify us in their wills or in other giving. It is how volunteers and animal caregivers find us and it is how clients access our services—rescuing animals, reuniting lost animals, saving injured wildlife, providing veterinary care, extending shelter and providing homes.

"Take away our name and identity and you jeopardize our ability to provide essential animal care to citizens when they are desperate and in need.

"Please remove

section 6 from Bill 50.

"Thank you."

That's signed by Tim Trow, the president of the Toronto Humane Society.

I think you'll see a lot of that letter circulating over the next few weeks as we get into committee etc. and actually start to debate it. I know that organizations like the Toronto Humane Society have a great deal of respect across our country. In fact, I believe all of the animal shelters have a great deal of respect across our country and our province. I hope we can listen to some of these concerns.

I wanted to talk a little bit about the exemptions. This goes back to

section 8 of the bill,

section 11.2 of the act. The exceptions are subsections on the "exception" to this bill:

"(

a) native wildlife and fish in the wild in prescribed circumstances or conditions;

"(

b) activities carried on in accordance with reasonable and generally accepted practices of agricultural animal care, management or husbandry; or

"(

c) a prescribed class of animals or animals living in prescribed circumstances or conditions, or prescribed activities."

When you see something that vague in the exceptions, that is why you'll see a lot of organizations like the Toronto Humane Society, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the OFA—you can see why they have a lot of worry with this. That's why I asked the question to the minister about why they would not be part of the committee that actually helped to draft the regulations. I just can't see the loss for the government on that. I think it would be something that would show a lot of care and a lot of interest from the general community as they move forward with that.

As the minister said earlier, and I think the parliamentary assistant said as well, it has been 90 years since we've had a bill like this, or since we've done major work on this particular legislation. If it has been 90 years, this may require summer travel. I'm not too sure how the other parties feel about that. But if we're not able to do appropriate travel with this bill between now and the end of June, I would hope that they would agree to travel with the bill.

I'm thinking of communities like Sudbury, the Soo, Thunder Bay, North Bay, some of those communities up there; eastern Ontario, Peterborough or Cornwall, something like that; perhaps Barrie or Orillia in that area, Newmarket; western Ontario, Goderich or Strathroy, some of those communities.

There are a lot of opportunities to move this bill around. I believe many amendments will be coming. I told the parliamentary assistant at the—this parliamentary assistant here. Are there two parliamentary assistants to the Ministry of Community Safety? Okay, there are. I told him on the Christopher's Law bill that I felt we would have a lot of amendments to this bill. We went along, we basically agreed, with everything in the Christopher's Law amendments. It was a bill that was easily passed.

I think we'll be more serious about this one. I think we're going to need to take the time to get this bill right. After 90 years, if major amendments are required, I think we have to listen all of the stakeholders and work as best we can on that. We should try to get it right. As the OFAH has said, they believe the federal legislation and the Manitoba legislation really get it right. I think it took 11 years to get the federal legislation the way they actually wanted it. I think it would be really very positive if we could move in that direction.

I wanted to also, while I have the floor—this is one bill I don't think we can blame on the federal government. It's not their fault, anyway. Is it?

Mr. Dave Levac: Yeah.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Oh, it's the federal government's fault. I'm so used to everything that comes down to being the federal government's fault. Blame it on Jim Flaherty. This is one we can't say is Mr. Flaherty's or Mr. Hunter's fault.

The minister is bringing this bill forward, and we're going to do the best we can to try to support this. We want the proper amendments. We want to make sure that all these stakeholders are listened to, as I've pointed out, and I've got a lot more I could read into the record.

We want to make sure we go ahead with this and do it in a very positive manner. No one in this House wants to see the distress of any animals, whether they're in captivity or in the wild. But the minister continues to fight with the federal government.

I go back to the policing situation, where the federal government—it's not their responsibility, but out of a good message to Canadians, they made a campaign promise, and they have delivered on that promise to provide 2,500 new police officers to this country.

Each time the minister speaks anywhere, or if he answers a question in the House, he condemns the federal government for coming up with $156 million to help policing. I don't know how you can complain about another level of government giving you money that they're not required to give you. The money that's required for law and order is the duty and responsibility of the province of Ontario in this case.

I've got to tell you, I had a number of police officers yesterday ask me how the $156 million is being spent and when we will begin to see some of the 1,000 police officers required for Ontario: 500 for the OPP and 500 for non-municipal contract policing to other police services. I think there had to be 4,000 or 5,000 police officers at Queen's Park yesterday. Over the barbecue we had after, and prior to it, many of the police officers from different associations and the OPP etc. mentioned to me that they were all concerned about when that money would be spent.

If the province would put money in this year and use part of the fifth of the money coming from the federal government, it could put 200 police officers on the streets of Ontario by the end of the budget year 2008-09. If they did that each year, they would use up the $156 million, and at the end of five years we would have 1,000 additional police officers on the streets of our province.

I think we in this House should support the federal government and the work it has done to bring forward this program. It would certainly help our police services across Ontario if we quit battering away, every time we get a chance, at the federal government and started supporting them in what I believe is a very positive initiative. It's not something you can finger-point on anymore; it's something that we have to take advantage of.

In conclusion—I'm just about out of time here—

Mr. Peter Kormos: No, no. You've got five minutes.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: It's hard to carry on very long in this—

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm getting stronger and stronger in my riding, to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I know they want me to use my full time.

I've never had a lot of pets in my life. We've had a couple of dogs and a cat, but most of my family members have cats and dogs. We have a new golden retriever named Happy in my daughter's family, and he's beautiful.

Nobody wants to see any animal under any kind of punishment or cruelty or distress. I think, as we work our way through this legislation, we'll want to make sure that the people are listened to. When we get out there, when we get on our road show and we visit all these different communities—and I really hope we will do that—we'll listen to animal shelters, the roadside zoo people. I didn't get a chance to talk to you a little bit earlier about the roadside zoo just south of my riding. It's actually in Speaker Wilson's riding. It's the Elmvale Jungle Zoo.

They have had customers there for decades, as far as I know. I have never heard a complaint about the place. There may be, for all I know, but it's certainly not a business that has been under the microscope by any one particular group of people, whether it be the OSPCA or the police, or even farm organizations. I may get some e-mails on it now; maybe there have been some problems. But it looks like they have large fields, high fences, and I would have to say that the animals are well looked after at the Elmvale Jungle Zoo.

In a perfect world, all of our zoos, all of our animals that are kept in captivity, would have state-of-the-art locations. I hope that in the end the government and the people drafting the regulations for Bill 50 will work very closely with the roadside zoos, not to try to get out there and put them out of business but to give them some time, maybe even some incentives to spend money properly, to spend money in a manner that they can accommodate the animals held in those zoos and make them good tourist attractions and profitable little businesses as well, at the same time making sure that all animals held in captivity in the large zoos or small zoos are looked after in a humane manner.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time to thank you for the opportunity to say a few words today to Bill 50. It has been a long, painful morning to get through this first hour, but we do our job here to try to get all the points on the record. I can just tell you that although Bill 50 is basically supported by people in this House, there are a lot of amendments to come. We need to make sure that we get this bill right and we don't fool around, pass it quickly and then find out, like some of the other legislation we've had here, that we're back amending it six months from now.

We want to make sure that we get it right the first time, and that means listening to the public, the humane societies, the farmers, the hunters, the fishermen, anybody that has anything to do with protecting our animals and our wildlife—making sure we send a positive message that, after 90 years, we will get this bill right, and that we will get it right in the final passing of third reading.

I want to put on the record that I really hope—and I have put it on the record earlier in this speech—that we can travel with this bill and not just get to one of these subcommittee meetings and say, "We'll have one location in Newmarket and the rest of the meetings at Queen's Park." This bill needs to be travelled. It does affect rural Ontario. It does affect small businesses. It will send a message to rural Ontario that we actually care about them here if we can travel with this bill.

Listen to the farm organizations. I know that the people at the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture would love to make a deputation, as well as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I'm sure all the members of this House who are from communities with federations of agriculture will want to have their representatives there as well, pointing out their different concerns and how this bill may in fact help or hinder those animals that are kept on farms, or the fish, birds and wildlife that people hunt through the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

With that, I appreciate this opportunity. I look forward to further debate and the comments on my fabulous speech that I made here this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I listened with interest to my friend from Simcoe North. He raised, in an exhaustive way, I believe, all the problems with this particular bill. Again, what we have here is Liberal spin, government spin. Certainly, it's an inch forward for animals, but in particular with

section 6, it's a ruling on behalf of the OSPCA. It makes one wonder whether there are Liberal members on the board of the OSPCA, because it certainly rules in favour of them.

Also, I'd like to introduce to the House Tim Trow, president of the Toronto Humane Society, whom we have here, and members of the Toronto Humane Society in the House today. We're honoured to have their presence. You've heard his letter to Mr. Bartolucci read out here. We, on their behalf, but also on behalf of many members of our constituencies, are demanding that

section 6 be reworked, that it in fact be deleted from this bill. It's not necessary. It has nothing to do with the protection of animals; in fact, it goes against the protection of animals.

Mr. Trow, president of the Toronto Humane Society, wrote on their website:

"Dear friend of the animals:

"Now is the time for humanitarians across Ontario to stand together.

"Each of us should email our own MPPs urging removal of

section 6 from Bill 50. We owe it to the animals who cannot speak for themselves and who will need us to speak out for them in the future as we have done in the past."

I also want to thank my sister from Dufferin—Caledon who corrected me on my last two-minute hit: Apparently it was 50 horses that were abused on a farm. Again, this bill does nothing for them. These were not owned by a farmer, by the way. Farmers tend to look after their animals better; they depend on them. These were owned by a lawyer. I suggest that perhaps if there were more farmers in the House and less lawyers, we might get more action here.

Nothing for lost animals experimented on in laboratories; nothing for any other animals that cabinet—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: Just listening to the member speak, a few things came to mind. This legislation has not been strengthened in 90 years. He talked about haste. Well, it's been 90 years that we've been waiting for animal protection in this province.

He didn't speak about the fact that there are people who are operating all kinds of breeding businesses without any regulation and without any restrictions. You need a licence to own a dog in Toronto, for instance, but you don't need a licence to breed thousands of animals. No licence is required.

No inspection: You could be breeding cats or dogs, and no inspection is allowed to see if the conditions are clean.

People are also engaged in animals for profit. They are training dogs and fowl to fight. Dogfighting and cockfighting take place in this province and no one does anything about it. It's allowed right now to train these animals to kill each other. This bill for the first time stops that.

It allows inspection of these mills that are operating all across this province. It also ensures that the roadside zoos that are popping up everywhere are allowed to be inspected. The members opposite don't talk about that. This is long overdue protection for animals. They talk about federations and they talk about lawyers. They talk about all these interest groups. They don't talk about the fact that there are animals that are unable to defend themselves and we, as a government, for the first time in 90 years, are trying to do something—and they squabble about lawyers and federations. What about the animals that can't speak for themselves?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 50 and I compliment the member for Simcoe North on his comments. Some of the areas that are of concern are these roadside zoos that we're hearing about. I don't believe any member in this House is opposed to making sure that animals have proper care and concern over them. But where are the roadside zoos? Having worked somewhat on this file in the past, I can see a movement toward an area that I think all members should be concerned about: Where is this standard going to for roadside zoos or zoos in general?

My understanding is that currently, in the province of Ontario, there are only two places that would be acceptable. Those would be the Toronto Zoo and, potentially, the African Lion Safari, with some modern changes to it. They may be the only acceptable locations in the province to meet that standard.

The difficulty there is that we don't know the locations of these so-called roadside zoos. Effectively, the member for Peterborough should have concern about what will take place at that particular location, and also the impact on the Bowmanville Zoo, the oldest private zoo in North America, which Mr. O'Toole, the member for Durham, constantly mentions. As well, it creates a standard of care that causes some concern, by which these locations provide a great service in our communities. Quite frankly, there are a number of us who have some concern for the rearing of the animals in those areas, and that needs to be addressed.

Also, what would take place with the impact of adoptions of animals in a number of facilities or service providers out there? Will this create a record and a filing of locations that are now going to be receptive for inspections to ensure—as was the case in California. An individual all of a sudden had the animal removed because one of the movie stars, a famous individual, could no longer comply or was not supposed to comply with caring for an animal under the guise of what was taking place in that jurisdiction. I believe there's a lot of concern and we have to make sure it goes through the committee process.

Mr. Dave Levac: I want to take a moment to thank the member opposite for some of the on-the-record comments that others have made and for the fact that he's been able to articulate all of those concerns that are being raised. I made the commitment earlier in my speech, and I'll make it again, that we are definitely going to committee. We're going to consider all of the concerns that are being raised. As a tradition in this place, when we do go to committee, the subcommittee will make those decisions and the House leaders will have the discussions about how that's going to happen, and I respect that.

What I would also suggest to you is that, as was said before, these improvements are not inching forward. These improvements are going to be quite dramatic in terms of the protection of animals in our province. Respecting the hard work of all of those organizations over the years is what this bill will attempt to do. Nobody has a monopoly on how to care for an animal, and I respect that. I want to make sure it's clear that these organizations' comments and the input that they give will be done in a respectful way.

The second point that I want to make is the respect I have for my colleagues on all sides of the House who have previously introduced private members' bills that speak to the very essence of what this bill is trying to get to, and that is the way we treat our animals.

In terms of our relationship with the animals in the world, we need to improve. With this type of legislation that's being put before us, it's a step forward in terms of our recognition that we must get better at how animals are treated, regardless of where they are. The member also knows about the exemptions that are being offered in the legislation to ensure that other pieces of legislation from other ministries and other levels of government will take care of some—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member from Simcoe North for the response.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'd like to thank the members from Parkdale—High Park, Eglinton—Lawrence, Oshawa and Brant for their comments.

In

summary, I think what we really wanted to get on the record today is, first of all, to comment to the House that we want extensive committee hearings on this bill. It's a bill that hasn't had major work done on it in over 90 years. We really do want to make sure we get it right. I plead with the members of the government to make sure that we listen to agricultural organizations, that we listen to hunting, fishing and angling organizations and to some of our humane societies, and use their expertise as we proceed in helping the government draft their regulations.

I know that there will be many amendments that'll take place here in this House with this bill. I hope the government will listen to those amendments, and in fact, they've probably come up with a number of amendments already that they may want to see.

All of us support the protection of animals. We don't want any animals being mistreated cruelly and distress to these animals. So it's incumbent on all of us to get this bill right the first time, not to fool around with it for 10 or 15 years but to make sure that we get it right the first time and make sure the amendments will protect our animals and our shelter organizations many, many decades into the future.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I move unanimous consent for all members to wear a green ribbon, which are in the galleries, to support Children's Mental Health Week.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is there agreement for wearing the green ribbons? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I now call for introduction of members—of visitors, pardon me. Well, introduction of members: Welcome. It's nice to see everybody one here bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.

It's especially nice to see our good friend the Minister of Government Services back. Welcome back, Ted.

I remind the members that under the new standing orders you are supposed to have these in my hands one hour in advance.

On behalf of the member from Mississauga-Erindale, I would like welcome students from Christ the King Catholic school in Mississauga who are visiting the Legislature today.

On behalf of the members from Ajax—Pickering, Pickering—Scarborough East and Scarborough—Agincourt, I would like to welcome the champion foursome from a charity golf tournament in the "average age over 80 years" category to the east members' gallery today: Don Sutton from Whitby, Fred Mason from Oshawa, Michael Bridgman from Pickering and Ted Arnts from Pickering.

On behalf of page Sheilagh Brenegan, the following guests are visiting this morning in the west members' gallery: her mom, Louise Hart, her grandmother Mavis Hart, her grandfather Duncan Hart, and her father, Allan Brenegan.

On behalf of page Jack Aloise, the following guests are visiting this morning in the west members' gallery: his father, Gerry Aloise, his mother, Patti Aloise, his brother Michael and his sister Nicole.

Welcome to all the guests and the other guests who are visiting Queen's Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: It's great to see some children in the gallery here for the first early question period. I know they're from the 905; I don't think other parts of the province will have the same opportunity.

The question is to the Premier on Ontario's last-place economy. Your answer in the House last week when we raised the issue of increasing number of manufacturing job losses: You said—it's in Hansard—there's more to come. That was your prediction—no solution, no hope, no leadership, just what appears to be complete surrender while this great province just spirals to last place in Confederation.

In light of the fact that this is Emergency Preparedness Week, can you tell us and the people of Ontario where your emergency plan for Ontario's economy is, or are you just going to sit on the sidelines and complain to others?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Good morning to you, Speaker. It's a wonderful opportunity to receive this question from my colleague opposite. Of course, he chooses to frame our perspective on this in a certain way, and I understand that's where he's coming from.

I think we should keep a few facts in mind. For one thing, in January, February and March of this year, we are ahead 57,300 jobs. That's a net job gain in Ontario of 57,300 more jobs, and 97% of those were created in the private sector. In the last four and a half years, we are ahead 455,000 net new jobs, and 80% of those are full-time positions.

It is true that we have been losing manufacturing jobs, but I just don't want Ontarians to lose sight of the big picture. We are, overall, ahead, and we are still moving ahead.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I've suggested in the past that the Premier's in what appears to be a permanent state of denial about the situation in the economy in this province, and we're not alone in that—although we in the Progressive Conservative Party have consistently said that there is a way to stimulate our economy and provide hope to Ontario's families and businesses. We've talked about the immediate elimination of the capital tax, reducing government regulation, lowering corporate tax rates across the board.

The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, chaired by Roger Martin, funded by your government, has said virtually the same thing. This is high-paid advice, paid for with hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. You are ignoring it, essentially, and I think Ontarians deserve to know why.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Conservative Party continues to put forward its simplistic, anachronistic, one-point plan. They maintain that all that ails us can be remedied through a dramatic reduction in taxes. They would have us take $5 billion by way of taxes out of the mix. What they don't like to say is what the consequences are that would flow from that dramatic, reckless cutting of taxes. They don't like to talk about hospital closures. They don't like to talk about reductions to the funds we put into our schools. They don't like to talk about the reductions in supports for our most vulnerable.

They don't like to talk about the reductions in the supports we put in recently that invest in the skills and education of workers who've been losing their jobs. They don't like to talk about any of those things. They don't like to reference the fact that we just cut, retroactively, $190 million by way of capital taxes, to put that money directly into the hands of our manufacturers and resource-based sectors to give them support right now. They don't like to talk about any of those things.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: All those people the Premier just referenced are hurt the most when Ontario's economy goes down the tubes. That's the reality.

It's not just our advice and Roger Martin's you're ignoring. Your former finance minister in 2004 said, "People pay attention to the level of taxation in Ontario to make investment decisions as to whether they're going to invest in the province ... create jobs and more economic prosperity."

You've ignored our advice. You've ignored the advice of Roger Martin, your own adviser-consultant. You've ignored Mr. Sorbara and who knows how many others. We have to wonder who the Premier is taking advice from. We talk about a possible recession, we know we're entering have-not status in this province, but you get up on your feet time after time—you are something of a serial denier. Maybe you're a secret member of the Flat Earth Society. I don't know. But we have a right to know and the people of this province have a right to know what your plan is to deal with the deteriorating situation in Ontario—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to restate the fundamentals of our five-point plan for the benefit of the leader of the Conservative Party. First of all, we are cutting business taxes. We've eliminated capital taxes for manufacturers in the resource sector retroactive to January 2007. That means $190 million in immediate rebates. We're investing heavily in infrastructure—$60 billion over the course of 10 years. We are repairing, expanding and renovating schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, courthouses, housing and the like, like never before.

That's creating jobs in the short term, and it's enhancing our productivity in the long term. We are investing heavily in innovation, doing much more so we can move more quickly to commercialize our ideas and turn those into jobs. We continue to partner with business. Again, this is something the Conservative Party opposes. We are partnering with business so we can create more jobs here. Finally, and most importantly, we are continuing to invest in the skills and education of our people, something they don't believe that we should be doing—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: If you look at the Roger Martin reports over the last number of years, if you listen to the advice of C.D. Howe, if you listen to the advice of many other economists across this country, you'll realize that many of the decisions you've taken over the past four and a half years have been bad for the economy and have placed us in the position we're currently in. If Ontario's economy were growing 1% or even half a percent more than it is now, we wouldn't be in last place. The unemployed workers in Oshawa and Leamington wouldn't be wondering today if they're going to be able to pay their mortgages or feed their kids.

When will the Premier start to take some degree of responsibility for the contribution his decisions have had in terms of Ontario's dead-last position?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We will continue to work well and hard with the people of Ontario to lay continuing shape to our five-point plan, which is in keeping with their values, their aspirations and their history.

Speaking of history, I think it's worth our while to take a little look back at what we were left with. They had a 60-cent dollar, oil at $30 a barrel, and a US economy that was firing on all eight cylinders. They left us with a $5.6-billion deficit, dramatically under-resourced public services, and an unemployment rate—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: They don't like to hear this because it's painful, but they left us with an unemployment rate of 7%. The unemployment rate today in Ontario is 6.4%. It's important for them to understand the damage that they caused this economy, and, no, we will not go back to those days and those kinds of cuts.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I suspect, Premier, the folks of Ontario will be very happy to go back to the days of one million new jobs created in this province, over 700,000 people taken off the welfare rolls.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Real jobs.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Real jobs; that's right, not complete reliance on the public sector.

We're looking down the road here as well. The Premier talks about a plan, but we have around 200,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the province since July 2004. His response to that last week was, "More to come. There's more to come." Instead of saying something to the tune of, "We're going to be fighting this. We're going to be bringing in emergency measures to deal with this situation," he says that there's more to come.

The C.D. Howe Institute indicates that Ontario will remain the highest-taxed province even in 2011. Clearly you are not addressing the situation facing us, the fact that we are not being—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to remind Ontarians that we are doing a great deal within the fiscal constraints that are the lay of the land today. We're proud of our five-point plan that both cuts taxes and makes strategic investments.

But there's another issue, and that is, what we are doing with the additional wealth that we're sending to the federal government. I still have not heard my honourable colleague speak to this issue. I think sending $20 billion to the federal government for distribution in the rest of the country at a time when we are challenged here in Ontario is inappropriate. I think we should be keeping some of that money so that we could engage in the kinds of discussions he, as well as the NDP, would have us have as to what kinds of additional investments we might make and whether or not we should make additional tax cuts.

We can't engage in those kinds of discussions because we're not hanging on to that $20 billion. I think Ontarians would like to know, where does the official opposition stand when it comes to that $20 billion?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I recall when the former Progressive Conservative government brought in a resolution to express concern about the disparity, and the leader sitting across from me voted against it, along with his colleagues. He plays the blame game continuously instead of dealing with the situation.

Look at the statistics in terms of the ability of this province to compete, attract investment, retain investment, bring new jobs into this province. We're dead last in economic performance and we're down at the bottom in terms of competitive ability, taxation rates.

We can go on and on with respect to the advice he's ignoring from experts like Roger Martin, yet he gets up time and time again and blames the federal government, blames external sources, and never takes any degree of responsibility for the situation we're facing in this province.

Once again I ask the Premier, will he get up here on his feet today and accept some degree of responsibility and take a look at his own policies? Are you saying that nothing you've done over the past—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's obvious that Ontarians cannot rely on the Conservative Party to lift them up and to champion a stronger economy. We're going to hear nothing but negativity for weeks, months and possibly years to come.

Just to remind the members opposite about the foundation on which we are privileged to continue to build, Ontario is the number one wealth generator for Canada. We have created over one third of all new Canadian jobs since 2003. We've got nearly 40% of Canada's head offices here. We are the number one place for Canadian venture capital. We're the number one place for foreign venture capital.

We're the biggest in financial services, the biggest in information communication technology, the biggest in business services, the biggest in the chemical sector, the biggest in the mining sector, the biggest in the auto sector, the biggest in manufacturing, the biggest in arts and entertainment, the biggest in private investment R&D. We have the most new business start-ups. We have the greatest investments in skills and education. We've got the highest rate of education in—

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

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier: Florence Coxon was an 87-year-old senior who unfortunately spent the last years of her life restrained in a wheelchair at a Toronto nursing home. A few days ago, Mrs. Coxon was apparently strangled by the strap used to restrain her in her wheelchair. Mrs. Coxon's family says that the staff at the nursing home were overworked, always on the run and simply didn't have enough time to provide the hands-on care that people like Mrs. Coxon require.

This is not a new issue. Your government announced, with much chest-thumping, in the recent budget, five more minutes of care. Premier, the question is this: Do you think five more minutes of hands-on care is sufficient for our seniors who are residents in nursing homes and long-term-care homes?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm going to have the Minister of Health speak to this in some detail momentarily, but let me just first of all, on behalf of all members, express my sympathies to the family of Mrs. Coxon and say that this is a terrible event. I know there's an investigation underway and I think it would be appropriate for all of us to await the outcome of that investigation.

What I can say is that we remain very much committed to quality of care being delivered to our parents and grandparents in Ontario's long-term-care homes. In fact, since we took office, we've increased investments there by 52%. That's more than $1 billion. This year alone, we are putting in $59 billion for 1,200 new nurses.

Again, my sympathies to the family, but I say to Ontarians that I think it's important that we allow for the investigation to unfold, and that we will continue to support long-term-care homes.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Premier, the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors has looked at the numbers that your government boasts about. They've crunched the numbers and they say that all that seniors like Mrs. Coxon would get is an additional five minutes of hands-on care. They say that what is required is 60 minutes of additional care each day.

According to Saturday's Toronto Star, it was clear to the Coxon family that front-line workers raced through every shift just to meet the basic needs of residents. My question is this: How many more families have to go through what the Coxon family is going through before this government listens to associations like non-profit homes, which say our seniors aren't getting the quality of care they need and that they need an additional 60 minutes of hands-on care?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman: As the Premier has done, I'd like to add my words of condolence. Any time a family member is lost, it's obviously a very difficult circumstance.

There are two different investigations that are ongoing, one by the police and one by the compliance officials from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, who were on-site at the time, shortly after the occurrence.

I would say to the honourable member, I think we all agree, I'm sure, that adding staff in long-term-care homes is crucial. That's why there are more than 6,000 additional staff since we came to government; and at present, 1,200 RPN positions which are being implemented; and through our budget initiatives, almost 900 additional personal support workers will add to the ranks of those serving people in long-term-care homes in the province.

I can tell the honourable member that, while I agree the necessity of putting more care in the homes is foremost with respect to long-term care, we should all acknowledge a much higher standard of care in the long-term-care home environment than under either of these two governments.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Every year, the McGuinty government makes these announcements, but every year, the situation either stays the same or gets worse. Here's what the son Bill Coxon had to say about his mother's situation: "That was the problem. It was just the fact that they couldn't give her individual attention. I think that bothered me more, having my mother in a nursing home, where she was losing her memory, and she was just left on her own. (Staff) knew her, and they talked to her, but there were just too many other residents there," to look after.

Experts, workers, families, everyone agrees that our seniors aren't getting the quality of care they need. They all say we need three and a half hours of hands-on care per day. The McGuinty government, despite all your promises, hasn't done that. I want to ask again: Do you really think just five minutes more care is enough to look after our seniors in nursing homes and homes for the aged?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to acknowledge, of course, that family members are going to respond in an appropriate circumstance, wishing for the highest degree of care possible. In the last budget of that member's opportunity to be in a government, that increase was 0.1%. Our government's investment in enhanced care and long-term care, this year alone, is close to an additional $300 million.

The honourable member likes to talk about "five minutes," but he knows very well that the pattern is annual increases in the ratios of care, moving towards 3.25 hours of purchased care over the term of our government's mandate. We started at a number of 2.4. We're at 2.9 hours of purchased care per day. This has been a very, very substantial investment, an enhanced resource, in the form of thousands and thousands of additional people providing millions of hours of additional care in our long-term-care homes.

We agree there is more to be done. That's why our budget accounted for increased staffing.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier: What's needed is an hour of additional care. What you're providing is only five minutes. I think that fails by any measure.

WINDSOR BORDER CROSSING

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to ask the Premier about the city of Windsor, which produced a viable border-solution plan called GreenLink. It would have been good for the Ontario economy, for the residents of Windsor, for the environment, the air the people in Windsor breathe. Why is the McGuinty government ignoring Windsor's plan and instead going ahead with a plan that is clearly inferior?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to take the question. I was very proud of the announcement that was made just last week. It demonstrates some of the great things we can do when we work hand in hand with the federal government. There's a strong consensus that—there's as much trade that goes back between Ontario and the US as the US does with Japan. That's how important that trade route is for us.

Together we've decided to invest, I think it's $1.6 billion, in a new access road leading to the new crossing. This is a result of a lengthy process involving six levels of government, three on each side of the border. There was extensive consultation with the local community. We think that we have landed on the best possible alternative. We very much look forward to making this investment and creating those great jobs in Windsor, where they need them right now.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier says the McGuinty government consulted and listened. This is the headline in the Windsor Star: "City Slams DRIC Plan," which is the McGuinty plan.

The GreenLink plan, which is that advocated by people in Windsor and by Windsor city council, would have done much more for the natural environment, would have created more construction jobs, but most importantly, it's what the people of Windsor and the mayor and council of Windsor wanted to see. They advocated for this.

Why is the McGuinty government failing to meet what people asked for in the consultation, what Windsor city council asked for in the consultation? Why are you trying to give them an inferior plan which is going to be bad for the air that people breathe and bad for the people of Windsor on the whole?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We're really proud of the process and its result. This is the most expensive roadbed ever built in Canada. Beyond that, as part and parcel of it, we're going to create at least 240 acres of parkland, more than 20 kilometres of recreational trails. It says that the Windsor-Essex Parkway will be the most significant single highway investment made in Ontario history with an estimated price of $1.6 billion, unprecedented in its community enhancement features for any highway anywhere in Ontario, designed using Ontario's high safety standards and practices that have made this province's roads among the safest in North America.

We're proud of the co-operation that has resulted in this magnificent plan. We're proud of the fact that we're joined by the federal government in this and we look forward to moving ahead at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I've got a quote from a Windsor Star editorial: "The DRIC Plan," which is the McGuinty plan, "A Disappointing Lack of Vision," because it doesn't meet what people in Windsor and what the city of Windsor believe is necessary. This is infrastructure that has to last for the next 30 or 40 years and, frankly, they say you're failing Windsor's needs.

Furthermore, since the federal government is committed to paying 50% of this, why not do the right thing? Why not do what the people of Windsor asked for in the consultations over and over again, what the mayor and council of Windsor asked for in the consultations over and over again? Why at this time, when Windsor really needs a shot in the arm, is the McGuinty government trying to sell the people of Windsor on an inferior plan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We're talking here about a six-lane freeway with 11 tunnels and service roads. It allows long-distance international traffic to travel unimpeded by traffic signals to a new inspection plaza and river crossing, while improving community linkages and providing extensive new trails, green space and other recreational opportunities. Trucks will be hidden from the view of homeowners, noise levels will be reduced and overall air quality conditions will improve for Windsor-Essex residents.

Here's what Jim Lyons, executive director of the Heavy Construction Association of Windsor, had to say: "We're hungry for work. Today is a monumental day. We're going to be at full employment. There's going to be substantial construction. We're going to be a very busy sector."

Windsorites deserve the opportunity to get back to work. Let's get on with this plan. Let's build this access road. Let's clean up the air. Let's improve the flow of traffic. Let's strengthen the Ontario economy.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Speaking of cars, my question is for the Premier. Last week, in front of the cameras, you promised a new auto plant for Ontario: "We will add a new auto assembly plant here in Ontario and we will create more jobs and all kinds of spin-off jobs." In particular, the Premier named the Italian auto giant Fiat SPA. Surely the Premier would not make such an announcement without some details secured. That would be highly irresponsible. Premier, will there be a new Fiat plant in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that the opposition party wants us to grow this economy, to land a new auto plant, to express our determination and our resolve in so doing, but what we'd like to have is their support for our auto sector strategy. They opposed our $1.15-billion Next Generation of Jobs Fund; they opposed the half-billion dollars that landed $8 billion in new investment. When I visit Italy and when I visit with the Fiat people, I hope to be able to say, "I have the support of the opposition party. I'm here to speak on their behalf as well. They fully support this public investment that we will make in terms of doing everything we can to land this new investment here in Ontario."

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I'll take that as "I don't have a clue."

This was obviously another classic example of Liberal grandstanding in front of the cameras, and another broken promise from the Premier. In fact, these kinds of fake news stories and photo ops compromise our bargaining position at the table with foreign investors. Premier, will you admit that this announcement has no substance and that you made it only to save face in light of the Oshawa job losses?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The member opposite calls our $1.15 billion Next Generation of Job Funds and our auto sector strategy—he references that as corporate welfare. We see that differently, and I'll tell him that if he was to phone any of my colleagues across the country, or to phone any US governor's office, and ask them if they had any kinds of supports available, any initiatives that they're prepared to put on the table, anything at all that they're prepared to do to compete with public dollars to land new private sector investment, they're all going to give you the same answer: It's "Yes."

We're in the game or we're not in the game. Ontario chooses to be in the game. So far, we've landed $8 billion in new investment, with at least 8,000 direct jobs. What I'd like to be able to say as we try to hustle business around the world is that we have the support of the official opposition.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. This government's consultations on poverty are to begin today, but they are hardly public. Minister Matthews is in Peterborough today to meet behind closed doors with the mayor's task force on poverty. It is by invitation only. All those who have asked to attend have been disallowed, including members of this very House. Why won't this government allow all Ontarians to participate in real public dialogue with the minister on this very important issue?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the opportunity to talk about the poverty reduction strategy. You're absolutely right: The next phase of consultations begins today. I will be in Peterborough. Mayor Ayotte of Peterborough established a poverty reduction committee there two and a half years ago. They have been working very hard, looking at constructive solutions on how we can together address what is an unacceptable level of pov