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

April 15, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Apr-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 15 April 2004 Jeudi 15 avril 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO FARMS

ROADSIDE MEMORIAL

ONTARIO FARMS

ROADSIDE MEMORIAL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION ROUND TABLES

MICHAEL CAHILL

HOME CONSTRUCTION

DAN OFFORD

PROPERTY TAXATION

YOUTH INVOLVEMENT IN POLITICS

TAXATION

WILDFIRE PREVENTION WEEK

TAXATION

VISITOR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

HYDRO RATES

TAXATION

AVIAN INFLUENZA

TAXATION

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

TAXATION

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

TAXATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ONTARIO BUDGET

TILLSONBURG DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SENIOR CITIZENS

RECREATIONAL TRAILERS

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LANDFILL

LCBO OUTLET

LANDFILL

SEWAGE SLUDGE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

MPP SALARY FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE GEL

DES TRAITEMENTS DES DÉPUTÉS

MPP SALARY FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE GEL

DES TRAITEMENTS DES DÉPUTÉS

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO FARMS

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I move that, in the opinion of this House, members of the Legislative Assembly should spend one day a year on a

farm and report back on their experiences.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Leal has moved ballot item number 11. Pursuant to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes.

Mr Leal: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm happy to have the opportunity today to stand before you and speak to this resolution that I've

brought forward. The Members' Back to the Farm Day resolution would encourage MPPs to spend one day a year on a farm in their riding. For those MPPs who represent strictly urban constituencies, I

propose that they partner with an MPP from a rural riding to visit a farm for a day.

Earlier this year, a group of local farmers from Peterborough county approached me with the idea to do this. The premise is very similar in nature to our

education minister's MPP back-to-school program. We've all been out of the school system for many years, and the experience allows us to see how schools have changed and adapted over the years. The

same is true for farming.

This province was founded on the farms of our ancestors, who committed to back-breaking work to clear the land and to raise crops and livestock. This tradition

is continued today. The province's agricultural industry and its related processing sector are worth $22 billion and employ 600,000 Ontarians. However, population shifts have left many Ontarians

leaving their family farms for urban centres. In today's world, children grow up in cities, rarely venturing into rural areas. Increasing pressures on farms have in

part caused this exodus. Farming

is an extremely tough livelihood. Changes in weather or a flare-up of disease can be devastating. Yet farmers must be optimistic and confident that growing conditions will co-operate.

Many city folk don't realize what farmers and the agricultural industry go through to get food to their tables. We need to return our attention to our rural

roots. We need to get MPPs back on the farm so they can see what farmers deal with on a daily basis. To further this experience, MPPs can then report back to the House and their constituents.

I can tell you I have had nothing but positive responses to this motion, which tells me of the need for recognition of the ag sector we have here. I have also

had the support of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which represents more than 39,000 farm families and more than 36 commodity organizations. Just yesterday I received a letter, and I want to

read it in the record:

"The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is pleased to support your `Back to the Farm Day' resolution encouraging members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly to

spend one day a year on the farm and report back on their experiences.

"Although farmers are one of the top three most trusted professions in Canada, Ontario farmers have encountered confusion and ambivalence from governments, urban

consumers and others due to their conflicting feelings and opinions about the romantic vision of the farmer and the practical realities of farming.

"The OFA is working hard to address this by communicating farmers' efforts at running efficient, technologically advanced, environmentally sound businesses that

fill an important economic and social role in Ontario.

"Ontario depends on its farmers not just to grow and provide food, but also to work as the responsible caretakers of the largest part of this province's land

base.

"Ontario's landscape is beautiful and reassures every person in Ontario that the land supports them. The outlook and independence of Ontario's residents rests on

their knowledge that they have the freedom to make choices because the abundance of the farmland is supporting them. The new immigrant family in Toronto can think about their own business for next

year, because they know they can afford to eat today. Most citizens of Ontario can enjoy their standard of living for the very same reasons.

"That Ontario farming has come this far is owing to the hard work, careful planning and care given to our bountiful resources. Farmers did not do this alone. In

the past, farmers were supported by their governments, their customers and fellow citizens. As many people are now generations away from a family farm, we must work to ensure that the future of

farming and farm families is guided by our successful past.

"I want to thank you for your resolution. The OFA is encouraged by the interest of the Legislative Assembly in farmers and farming. We would be pleased to

facilitate any such farm visits, and ask that MPPs to call on us for this.

"A farm visit will go a very long way to informing the important work legislators have in their decision-making and their policy development. This important work

should never be done in a knowledge vacuum. The more our elected representatives know about the diversity, economic importance and community support provided by farmers, the more informed their

policy development will be. There has never been a prosperous, stable and flourishing society that depended on others for its food.

"Once again, thank you.

"Sincerely,

"Ron Bonnett, President," Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Agriculture in Ontario is facing some tough times. Small family farm operations are facing tremendous pressure to expand while the costs and demands placed on

farmers are continually growing. Increased costs associated with farming results in a lack of profit margins for our farmers and, at the same time, consumers are continuously insisting on low

prices and high-quality products, with farmers ultimately bearing the burden.

Farmers are facing many issues today, including the enforcement and the related costs of the Nutrient Management Act, the increase of electricity costs, source

water protection and BSE recovery. Farmers have worked hard to put together strategies to protect these interests.

Farmers rely on the environment for their livelihood. Environmental plans and nutrient management plans go a long way toward protecting farmers, the environment

and consumers. In fact, more than 24,000 farms have used the environmental farm plans to identify on-farm risks to ground and surface water.

However, it is getting increasingly difficult for farmers to manage their management plans, which can include on-farm food safety, medicated feed, pesticide

management, traceability measures and animal welfare. Perhaps, as the OFA suggested, these plans could be streamlined for a more efficient approach to farm management.

Rural Ontarians have been proactive in their approach to innovative ideas for power generation as electricity costs rise. At a recent conference in my riding in

Peterborough, the Ontario Rural Council hosted a forum on alternative energy sources. One of the ideas discussed involved wind turbines that could be placed in farmers' fields. Farm sources would

be placed on the power grid. Farmers and Ontarians could benefit, and excess generation could also be sold to the province.

Even the issue of wildlife damage adversely affects farmers. Crop predation by animals such as birds, deer and raccoons results in significant losses for

farmers. The OFA estimates that in 1988, wildlife damage resulted in the loss of about $41 million for farmers. However, farmers are working with the Ministry of Natural Resources to develop

policies for a manageable and controlled wildlife population.

But perhaps one the of toughest blows Ontario farmers have taken in the last year is the fallout of the discovery of BSE in Alberta. A subsequent drop in cattle

prices has led to the loss of markets, destroying farm income for Ontario's 28,000 cattle producers and about 5,000 sheep, goat and deer producers. This has translated into a loss of about $4.13

million for Ontario's cattle producers. Compensation programs introduced by our provincial government and previous governments, as well as the federal counterpart, have offset this loss by

approximately $3 million.

On March 23, in an open letter to all MPPs, OFA President Ron Bonnett wrote, "Recently, I visited with farmers across Ontario. In my years working with Ontario

and Canadian farmers, I have never seen such a high level of frustration and anger among farmers as I see now. OFA's service and advocacy work on behalf of individual farmers and their families has

increased tremendously since this time last year. Our offices are getting many desperate calls from desperate farm families."

Bonnett adds, "For the first time in recorded history, the collective net farm income in Canada is negative! This means that all agricultural sectors are in

serious trouble."

I hosted a prebudget town hall meeting in Peterborough on March 25, and the priority that participants found sorely lacking was the support for rural Ontarians.

Surprisingly, many of the town hall participants were city dwellers. It was refreshing to see that they recognized the need to help our farmers. However, I can say I'm fortunate to live in a unique

riding. Peterborough is a blend of urban and rural. The city of Peterborough is a hub surrounded by small villages and farms. Time and time again, the resolve and spirit of the people within these

farming communities amazes me.

To maintain our rural communities, small and new farming operations need to be preserved. It is my hope that this resolution will work toward that goal and bring

much-deserved recognition to Ontario's farms. Many city folk don't realize what farmers and the agricultural industry go through to get food to the table.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Leal: We need to return to our roots, and I think this is the resolution to help us do it.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am certainly pleased to rise today. Because I come from a mixed riding of urban and rural, in

principle the member from Peterborough -- I knew his predecessor very well: Gary Stewart, who was a very strong advocate of the farming community there. The resolution is to spend one day a year on

a farm and report back on their experiences, and I think the intent and the spirit of what the member is trying to accomplish here is worthwhile. The Simcoe county agricultural federation in my

riding has a day every year where they invite the members from Simcoe county -- Jim Wilson, Garfield Dunlop and myself -- I have been doing this since 1995 -- to attend and visit a number of farms

over the course of a day, whether it's a cattle farm, a dairy farm, a hog farm, a corn farm or whatever specialty they're in. We go there and visit each farm and deal with each of the farmers and

the questions that they have for their specific area. Then we meet later at a host farm and have a barbecue and further discussions with the Simcoe county federation.

I can tell you, having done that for eight to nine years, that we are in touch with what's going on. That's something the federation puts on. I don't know what

the definition of spending one day is, whether that's an overnight trip, whether it's 24 hours, or whatever the member is proposing here. We might want to be a little bit definitive, but certainly

it is --

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): A spiritual day.

Mr Tascona: That's right. The member from Oak Ridges says "a spiritual day." I think a lot of the farmers out there are very strongly religious,

because of the nature of the business they're in.

They have really been under pressure over the last few years. If it wasn't dealing with the difficulties we're having at the US border with cattle and the

farmers who are now having difficulty out in British Columbia with respect to chickens, there were difficulties with respect to the weather conditions that farmers had been facing, especially in my

riding, because we have a nice diverse mix of it.

Bradford West Gwillimbury, which is the southern part of my riding, has marsh farmers. Everyone knows about the Holland Marsh and the support we get from the

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture. The fruit growers have put on a number of events there with respect to bringing awareness to what they're doing in encouraging the fruit growers and the marsh

farmers in terms of the work that has to be done to keep the soil productive, and also dealing with the phosphates, the issue that we have with Lake Simcoe. Lake Simcoe is a big issue in my riding.

Certainly it's impacted significantly by the phosphates and what goes into Lake Simcoe through that area. Whether it's in Sutton or down in Bradford West Gwillimbury, the runoff has an impact.

Those are issues that face the farmers in that area.

I have met with farmers in my riding over in Bond Head. Whether they're growing carrots or they're growing corn, they have issues. They had issues, certainly,

with the Ministry of the Environment in terms of what their definition is of runoff. I know there were a number of disputes and discussions in terms of an understanding -- not a sufficient

understanding -- by the Ministry of the Environment of what farmers do and what they have to face in terms of dealing with their product.

These are not just small farmers. The ones I met when we were dealing with issues with respect to crop protection are farmers with 800 to 900, minimum, acres --

up to 2,000 acres in terms of their operation. They're big operations. Those are found throughout my riding, particularly in Innisfil, which is a very rural area but is coming under pressure with

respect to development.

I've queried the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this moratorium in Bill 27 which is supposed to cover the Golden Horseshoe. I have asked him directly whether

that particular moratorium, which affects agricultural land -- and the member from Peterborough may want to ask him the same question -- impacts Simcoe county. His response -- and I had read the

bill -- was, "No it doesn't impact it." In other words, it wouldn't be covered by the moratorium.

Having read the bill, I just don't know where the minister is getting that information, because he hasn't got any exemptions with respect to certain areas. So

I'm a little bit confused, as are other people in my riding, as to whether the moratorium with respect to Bill 27 affects Simcoe county and whether agricultural land is frozen for a year in terms

of whether it can be rezoned. I have not got an answer from the Minister of Municipal Affairs on that.

It's important, because there are farms being bought up in Innisfil with respect to potential residential development. Certainly, the area is going to grow.

There is no doubt about it. But it's typical, in terms of the impact of urbanization, the location of Toronto and the GTA that will have on rural areas such as mine. I would say that Simcoe county

is rural in nature. In particular, the member for Simcoe North, Oro-Medonte, is in a very strong cattle-raising, dairy farming area. Jim Wilson's area, which is in Simcoe-Grey, is a very vibrant

rural area. In my riding in Cookstown there is a cattle auction which has done very well since it was opened; I think it was in the latter part of the 1980s or the early 1990s when it opened and to

service the area. The rural nature of my area, when you have a mixed area -- I know the member for Peterborough would, because Peterborough is a city, and with the rural area around that there is a

real mix in terms of issues that you face from an urban area versus a rural area and trying to balance that off, especially when you have a fast-growing area such as mine, in Barrie, which is

almost built out with respect to development, and areas such as Innisfil and Bradford West Gwillimbury that are growing.

There are interesting developments that are happening there. There is one situation in Bond Head where there is a development proposal. I think the population of

Bradford West Gwillimbury is around 14,000 people and there's a development proposal there for almost 50,000 people just outside Bond Head. I don't know how that will ever happen when you consider

that there is only water to service about 37,000 people. Those are the challenges the government is going to face.

I can tell you that if they're looking at Bill 27 in terms of stabilizing urbanized growth, those are the challenges they're going to have with respect to farms

as we go through this growth phase. We also have that in development projects not only in Innisfil, but the project that's slated for 3,200 units off Big Bay Point, which is subject to a very large

meeting this week. We had, in Oro-Medonte, a large public meeting with respect to another development that is being proposed out there.

The challenge for the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is how they are going to balance the interests of their rural members with

their urban members, looking at a balance of growth and a balance with respect to maintaining agriculture. If the member for Peterborough really believes what he says, then he'll have to have some

input into his government's plans with respect to growth. The growth that's going to happen out there is only to come at the backs and at the acreage of the family farm; there's no doubt about

that. There are challenges for that member there, because essentially the Liberal Party in government is very urbanized into large urban centres, as opposed to our caucus which is much more into

rural areas. But respecting that -- I think you have to look at it -- there is a balance.

Interjection.

Mr Tascona: The member from Ancaster is trying to offer me a few tidbits. Maybe he'll stand up and speak on this bill. We'll be looking for

them. Maybe the member from Peterborough will offer him the opportunity, since he wants to interrupt me while I debate.

I would say that the member's intent is important because of the issues facing family farms in terms of nutrient management, source water, the phosphates that

come off the farm, the Ministry of the Environment in terms of what they're going to deal with, but also the impact of urbanization as it infringes on the family farm in terms of doing business,

and they're saying, "We don't want you to do your business because it is affecting how we live in an urbanized centre." That really becomes a major issue. Certainly this is similar, in a way, to

the Minister of Education's always espousing, "Go to a classroom and visit school for a day and then report back on your experiences." The member from Peterborough is bringing that little lesson to

the rural area about spending a day on a farm -- and we still haven't determined whether it's a day visit or a nighttime visit or whatever -- and then reporting back on our experiences. I don't

know how he wants us to report back on our experiences, whether he wants a report to the House or a report to him.

When the Minister of Education was in opposition, he always wanted to make sure we were going to the schools. I have four children in school and I didn't really

need any lessons from him in terms of what was going on in the schools, but I can tell you that it is important. If you're a good member, you'll want to visit the places that you think are

important. Obviously, going to a school and understanding how it operates is important. Going to a farm and understanding how it operates, and their issues, is important. What the member is saying

here is that it's important that we understand that farmers have issues. We have to face those issues. If you're not in a rural area, you have greater challenges because you're going to have to get

out there to understand what they're going through as opposed to just going with what you're facing in an urban area.

That's all I have to say on this. I wish the member well.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Thank you. I want to --

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. There is a rotation here, so I'll try to keep to it. The member for Perth-Middlesex.

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm delighted to speak to this motion and I want to congratulate my colleague the

member for Peterborough for bringing this forward today. This is of vital interest to so many members from all parties in this House.

The thing that I've said to farmers in my riding -- I might preface it by saying that Perth-Middlesex, my riding, is the most productive agricultural riding in

the Dominion. There may be other rural members here who would dispute that, but I have been told many times by our friends from the Perth County Federation of Agriculture and from Middlesex that

we're very productive. I'm quite proud of that and I'm always willing to stand in this House and be proud of that fact.

As we all recall, 100 years ago Ontario was a rural province. It was dominated by members who came here from rural Ontario because the province itself was rural,

but now it isn't. Now the province is primarily urban. That's why it is so important that urban members take one day of the year to get out to what is the second-largest industry in this province:

agricultural and agri-food.

For farmers there are two things: There's pride and there's pain. There is pride in being a farmer. Farming is not a job, farming not a profession; farming is a

vocation. I truly believe that to be a farmer you are called to it. You are called to it because of family tradition in many instances, but you have it in your heart. You wouldn't farm because you

thought it was a job; you have to have it in your bones. It's bred into your bones, and it's a vocation that we have to cherish in this province.

I come from a long and illustrious line of pen-pushers. Though I am the representative for Perth-Middlesex, my grandfather was a trust officer, my father is a

chartered accountant and I'm a certified financial planner. I'm one of four boys and I grew up in Trenton, which is a small town in the heart of rural eastern Ontario. There was no way that my

father was going to allow his four sons to be lounging around all summer with nothing to do. Being a chartered accountant, of course he knew many farmers, and so off we'd go to dutifully spend some

time on the farm.

My very first job, when I was 14 years old, was on a cattle farm, the farm of Roger and Pat Laferty, and I must admit it was wonderful for me. It gave me an

appreciation of a life I had heard of but hadn't experienced. I remember distinctly that there were three things I learned. I showed up on the first day, 14 years old, all full of vim and vitality,

and it was a rainy day, so we were out in the implement barn and the chaps were sitting around: Roger Laferty, who owned the farm, and two of his hired hands. Being personable even at that early

age, I started by saying that farming must be a great job because you have the winters off.

My, my, they decided that I had to learn a few lessons about farming, that it wasn't a just a summer job. We built a hay wagon that day because it was raining,

and they had me do the hammering. So dutifully I got on to the wagon and started hammering away. Of course, I didn't want to hurt myself. I thought they would find it quite amusing if I were to

actually smash my thumb, so I worked diligently and made sure that I would not hurt myself. After about five minutes, my arm was ready to fall off. After they figured that I had done enough time in

purgatory, one of the farmers, Roger, came over to me. He gave the nail a little tap, lifted up and let the hammer fall. He did that twice, and the nail was done. He explained to me something that

I learned then and I've always known from then on: You let the hammer do the work.

The other thing that I learned was, because it was a cattle farm -- and being from town, we would go on about cows. I would call all these cattle "cows." They

explained to me that they weren't cows; they were steers. Being 14, of course I referred to them as bulls. They explained to me that, no, they were steers. Being a neophyte, I said, "What's the

difference?" For a 14-year-old young teenage boy, that was an eye-opening experience to find out about the difference between a bull and steer. I think that will always stick with me.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): What is it? Tell us what it is.

Mr Wilkinson: I tell the member for Toronto-Danforth that it had to do with an elastic band, and these things just fall off after a time.

The other thing I want to mention is that I was meeting with the Perth Federation of Agriculture and we were having a discussion about how this is an urban

province and it's incumbent on those of us in the minority in rural ridings to reach out to urban members. I know that my own federations have agreed to have a day, which we're working on, where

all the urban members will be invited out to Perth-Middlesex. We're going to have a day on the farm. We want you to bring your families; we'll have a barbecue and we're going to allow our members

to drive the great big tractors and combines, and get a real feel for what we do out in Perth-Middlesex. I look forward to that day and the support that I've received.

I am proud to support the member for Peterborough and his insightful resolution. I think it will go a long way to moving the interests of rural Ontario to the

forefront of this place.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Northumberland.

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): It's an honour to --

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, no. It's early in the morning. Could the member take his seat? I'll see if I can recognize the members in

rotation first. It's your turn, member for Toronto-Danforth.

Ms Churley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do think it's important that an urban member speak to this resolution. I don't know if many others are. I

have the Riverdale Farm in my community of Toronto-Danforth, and that is, in fact, the only opportunity for some children growing up in the city to actually get a little experience of seeing baby

lambs and baby pigs being born and all of those kinds of things. It really enriches our city.

I just have to say that I support this resolution. I think it's really important. All of the members here who were elected from rural areas come to live in the

city, at least part of the time, and you get an opportunity to see what the problems are in the city and what works in the city, and you have an idea when we urban members stand up and start

calling for more money for public transportation and all of those kinds of things. But the opposite doesn't happen. The urban members really don't get the opportunity to go out to the rural areas

or a farm and see first-hand how it all works and what the problems are there. I can tell you that, even though I represent an urban area, some of you know that I come from Newfoundland and

Labrador. I grew up in Labrador -- I come from a fishing family in Newfoundland -- and witnessed over time -- although I'd left home by then -- the demise of the fishing industry in Newfoundland. I

saw some of my relatives there just devastated. To some extent, I see similar things happening now with the family farm, with all of the issues that other members talked about and are facing today,

with all of the new things we've learned about the environment and all of the problems that farmers have to face, all the things they are expected to take care of and fix.

Often they are abandoned. We bring in new laws. For instance, the previous government brought in, after the Walkerton incident -- and let me say here that from

time to time it sounds as though people may be blaming the farmer on whose farm that well was situated, which ended up being discussed at the Justice O'Connor inquiry. I just want to make it clear

again that, if anybody still believes that it was that farmer's fault, I disavow them completely of that. Justice O'Connor was very clear in his report that the farmer -- and it was a small farm --

had done everything right. He in fact had his environmental plan and all of the other plans but, as we found out from the inquiry, it was a failure of both the municipal government and the Koebel

brothers involved in that, plus the existing government. There were a whole bunch of reasons that came together, a whole bunch of circumstances that caused that. It wasn't the farmer's fault. It's

really important that we remind people that on the whole farmers are doing their very best to keep up with all of the new environmental laws and standards and things that are thrown at them, and

they understand essentially how important those are. We are in that situation now.

I'm sure every member here received an open letter from the Ontario farmers, from Mr Ron Bonnett, the president. I think it's a very polite letter. We get less

polite letters when people are looking to government for help and assistance, but if you read that letter, it's very clear that they find themselves "in dire situations," as he puts it, "due to

BSE, the high Canadian dollar and the general disregard for the harsh realities of today's farm business issues by elected officials and consumers alike." He talks about the desperation that

particularly the small family farms -- I believe he's referring to -- are feeling. He's saying:

"For the first time in recorded history, the collective net farm income in Canada is negative! This means that all agricultural sectors are in serious

trouble."

I believe it is easy for us to sit around here and discuss all kinds of new legislation and all kinds of new regulations and rules that have a big impact on

farmers without really recognizing and understanding their day-to-day lives and the implications of what these new laws can mean to them. That's why I think this is a good resolution. I don't know

what the punishment will be if people don't make it to the farm -- and I don't know if Riverdale Farm in my riding will count -- but I do believe that it is really important, particularly for urban

members, to get out to the farm and see how it works.

It reminds me of when I first became, before I came to this place, a city councillor. At the time, there were lots of discussions, as there are now, about

infrastructure deficits and problems. I got on the works committee, as it was known then. People made fun of me a little bit, but one of the first things I did was I got suited up and went down

into the sewers. Yes, I went down into the sewers -- and I won't talk about this place in that context. I went down and had a really good look around and saw for myself. I talked to the workers who

were trying to maintain that aging system and saw what was really going on there. It certainly helped me, when we had further discussions about what needed to be done, to understand what those

issues really were.

I would suggest that that's something we all do as well. Of course, we could add on a number of things. We should go and see how cars are made and go down into

the sewer systems and see what the real problems are. I guess that could take up too much of our time, but I think it's really important for politicians, elected officials to actually see

first-hand. That, I believe, will enhance our role and make us more understanding when we stand in this place and talk about and discuss new legislation and pass legislation.

I know that the member knows, and he mentioned it himself, that there are all kinds of issues about some of the new environmental laws, many of which are a

result of what happened in Walkerton. We also know that the farmers want to comply with that legislation, but they do need some help. When I asked the Minister of the Environment yesterday about,

for instance, helping small municipalities with the new water regulations and those kinds of things, the answer seemed to imply -- at least the first part of her answer -- that a new law that was

brought in by the previous government would mean they would have to cover all those costs themselves. That is a really serious issue.

I know the member for Peterborough mentioned the Nutrient Management Act. All of those kinds of things -- that one in particular, but the Source Protection Act

as well -- will have a huge impact on those farmers, small and big. It may be easier for what we refer to as factory farms or whatever you choose to call them, the larger industrial farms, to

comply, but for the small family farm it can be an overwhelming burden. We know it is an overwhelming burden. They need the assistance of the government, to make sure they bring in those laws. They

can't be abandoned to try to find that money themselves, because in many cases we are going to lose, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.

I believe, from everything I'm hearing, that the family farm in particular is in crisis and it absolutely needs some government support. They're seeing their

driver's insurance go way, way up. They're seeing, of course, higher electricity prices now because the cap has been taken off by new Liberal government. If you start looking at all of the costs

they have to face on top of their regular costs, and because of some of things I've mentioned, they really could be in very serious crisis.

I applaud the member for bringing this forward. I certainly will participate, and would be happy to, and hope that other members, particularly urban members,

will take up the challenge.

Mr Yakabuski: I'm pleased to be able to speak on this motion today, returning to the farm for a day to learn some things. I certainly hope all

of the urban members will take advantage of that. I myself am not a farmer and was not raised on a farm, but alluding to the presentation by the member from Perth-Middlesex, in the words of Jimmy

Dickens, "I got my education out behind the barn."

I had the opportunity to visit farms quite often, because many of my boyhood friends did come from farms. I got a little understanding of how hard they worked,

not only their families but they themselves. After they would return from school, they would have chores to do, and before they'd go to school, they would have chores to do. So there's certainly a

great deal to be learned by spending some time with a farmer. I know farming has changed over the last 40 years or so since I would have been visiting those places as a young boy, but the workload

is still very, very significant for people in those occupations.

It's kind of ironic that we would be having a day to return to the farm. We have been speaking about going back to schools, and I have had the opportunity to

visit many schools in my riding in the last few months. I have children in school as well, but it still has been a very worthwhile experience for me to see how the education system is working and

how it's relating to children of other families, not just my own. That has been positive for me, and I'm sure the visits to the farm will be positive as well. I intend to take advantage of that, as

suggested by the member from Peterborough.

But I also remember, during my campaign, visiting sawmills -- because a big issue in my riding is how the Ministry of the Environment is treating sawmills --

and I made a commitment to a sawmill operator that I would spend a day working in his sawmill. Now, I have to inform the House that I have yet to fulfill that commitment, but I fully intend to do

that sometime this summer. I want to spend a day working in that sawmill and understanding the work they have to do, so it's easier for us to understand the trials and tribulations they face on

daily basis and the frustration they sometimes feel when government regulations make it more difficult for them to do their job.

On the subject of farms, I certainly want to say that I will be supporting it and also taking advantage of the visit. My riding has a large farming component.

It's the second-largest cattle-producing county in the province. With the exception of the towns of Renfrew, Arnprior and Deep River and the city of Pembroke, each of my municipalities has a

farming component and they have had a difficult time of it, particularly last year with the finding of BSE in a cow. It has had a terrible impact on farmers not only in my riding but throughout the

country. So we want to stand by our farmers and support them and make sure they understand that we do sense some of their pain and we're working to try to mitigate some of that. One way of

understanding that better would certainly be if we got out to those places and lived how they live for a day.

Many of the farmers in my riding are not full-time farmers any more, because they can't make a living at farming. So they must work outside the home, have a

full-time job and return to those beloved pieces of land that may have been in the family for generations and that they simply will not give up on, because farmers are a proud, hard-working group

of people. Their day just never seems to end, because before they start their day's work and after they've completed their day's work outside the farm, they must see to it that all the necessary

tasks that can't be completed during the daylight hours are completed after they return from work.

They're a group to be revered and respected because of the hard-working type of people they are. They're not a boisterous, loud, complaining type of people;

they simply go along. They understand there are problems to be faced, and they face them and work hard every day, hoping that tomorrow will bring solutions to those problems. I certainly support

the resolution and hope other members of my party will.

Mr Rinaldi: It's an honour for me to stand in this House today and support the back-to-the-farm day resolution of my colleague from

Peterborough. I believe that we, as leaders in this province, need to be supportive of our farming industry, more so now than ever, and education is a very important component of that.

Let me elaborate a little on how important education about farming is in the beautiful rolling hills of Northumberland county. The local federation a few years

back started a Rural Ramble farm tour, and I'd like to give a little detail about what this entails. It's all about education, about the future, about kids and about farming.

Each year, the agricultural community of Northumberland county invites urbanites to get out of town and come to farms to see what life in the country is all

about. Rural Ramble is a two-day driving tour of working farms and associated agri-businesses in the community. Today many children, going back at least a couple of generations, have no idea where

products that nourish us every day come from. A lot of them probably think they come from the local Sobeys food counter.

As I said, Rural Ramble originated with the Northumberland Federation of Agriculture a few years back, and they thought that the first time around they might

get 500 or 600 people visiting the farms of farmers who opened their doors voluntarily. Much to their surprise, they got over 2,000 people the very first year. These people came not only from our

community and from Ontario but even from outside Ontario. In 2003, even through the hardships our farming communities suffered, they drew close to 4,000 people.

This event appeals to families, to children. I know I've taken part every year at some level. It's interesting to see how grandparents bring their grandkids

and parents bring their kids and interact with the actual life on the farm for the day. This year the Rural Ramble committee, which is made up of the Northumberland Federation of Agriculture, has

scheduled the weekend of August 21 and 22.

These visits encompass a variety of farms and activities, such as dairy, beef, horse, crop, sheep, bison, trout farms, honeybee, maple syrup, apple and

vegetable. There are also stops planned at retail markets, where they'll have quilts. They'll have woodlot demonstrations and machinery displays on some of these farms. Of course, there will be all

sorts of educational displays to show how a crop goes from point A to point B.

There's a whole array of people who make this happen, all volunteers. They tell me that close to 1,000 volunteers participate to make this happen on those two

days. Some of the profits are turned back to charity in those communities, so it's a win-win situation.

I urge members of this House to mark August 21 and 22 on their calendars to visit the beautiful rolling hills of Northumberland county, just east of Toronto.

I'll leave you with a last thought before I share my time with my colleagues: that we remind ourselves each morning when we wake that we have to thank a farmer.

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): It is my pleasure to speak today in support of this resolution and to add my sincere appreciation to the

member from Peterborough for his support of our agricultural community. I can say, coming from the most rural riding in the province of Ontario, and I might add --

Interjections.

Mrs Mitchell: I just want to set the record straight that my riding produces more agricultural product than many provinces within this

wonderful country of Canada.

Ontario's farms, which number 57,000, are the first link in an agri-food chain. They generate billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs. They

contribute to the health of every person in the province by producing safe, high-quality food.

The families who own these farms are committed stewards of the environment. They know that by caring for their environment today, they will protect our

resources: soil, water and air. They are making an investment in our future. These men and women are some of most productive and innovative people you will ever meet. That's because every day they

rise to the challenges of the global marketplace, the demands of consumers and the whims of nature.

More than 200 different commodities are produced in Ontario. Our agricultural industry is the nation's most diverse. We export more than $8 billion worth of

agricultural and food products. Our industry accounts for fully one quarter of Canada's total agri-food exports.

We can learn a tremendous amount from Ontario's farmers. Any member of this House who makes time for an annual visit will benefit greatly from the first-hand

experience of agriculture in Ontario. Coming from a rural riding, I can only stress how important it is to make the time for that visit. It can only help in our decision-making to have first-hand

knowledge on the farm. I would remind the members of this House to conduct those visits with care and respect. The biosecurity measures that farmers have put in place to protect their livestock and

livelihood must be respected.

I support this resolution and the minister supports this resolution. I urge every member in the House to do the same.

I will be sharing my time with a fellow rural member, from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I commend the member for Peterborough for coming up with this type of bill this

morning.

In 2001, I put together a program, A Day on the Farm, for MPPs, and quite a few members of this assembly participated. The way it was organized, the member had

to come in the day before and had to get up at 4:30 in the morning to learn about the farming community. The benefit we got out of this -- I remember that the member for York West, Mario Sergio,

went down to the Pierre Bercier farm, who was the president of l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens. He went to a farm at Ste-Rose-de-Prescott. The Scarborough-Rouge River member, Alvin

Curling, worked a full day on Tony Van Munsteren's farm in Cumberland. When CJOH (CTV) went down to look at how he was working, he came out saying, "In Toronto, we work from 9 to 5. When you get

down on the farm, you have to work from 5 to 9, not 9 to 5." The member for Windsor West, Minister Sandra Pupatello, went down to work on a farm in Clarence, Muller farms. I went myself to the John

Kirby farms in Chute-à-Blondeau. The Premier of today offered to send his children to work on a farm. The member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound made an offer that he wanted to come down to

Glengarry.

Let me tell you what those people learned: the importance of knowing how farmers work. They cannot afford to be sick for even one day. It is seven days a week

that they have to be there, and it is from 5 to 9 at night and very often right up to midnight.

The benefit of this program that is going to be put together by the member for Peterborough -- and I hope that, like the back-to-school program we have for the

members, a lot of our members will benefit from this day on the farm. You will see the difference when you meet in caucus. Every time Sandra Pupatello was asked what she learned on the farm, she

said, "Before I went to work on a farm, I asked Jean-Marc, `What do you want me to do over there? Everything is automatic now.'" I said, "Sandra, you will learn when you get there." She got there

the night of 9/11 in 2001. The night of 9/11, she got to Orléans, Ontario, and I picked her up to take her down to the farm. The farmers explained to her what she had to do and what she could

expect. I remember driving around at noon time and I saw Sandra on the farm, at the barn.

The Deputy Speaker: As long as the story isn't too long. Your time has expired.

Mr Lalonde: She came to me and said, "Jean-Marc, can I have a rest on your back seat?" I said, "Sandra, you told me you were going to work a

full day. The full workday is from 5 to 9."

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Peterborough has two minutes to reply.

Mr Leal: I certainly appreciate the comments this morning, the insight from my colleagues: the members from Huron-Bruce, Perth-Middlesex,

Northumberland, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, and the fine riding of Toronto-Danforth.

One of the reasons that I think this is so important is that there's a very serious trade issue going on right now in Geneva. The World Trade Organization is

having ongoing discussion in Geneva. One of the issues that will be part of those trade negotiations that directly impacts, or potentially has a significant impact on farming operations here in

Ontario, is the whole question of supply management. One of the great opportunities of going back to the farm is for these MPPs who predominantly come from urban ridings to really get an

understanding of what supply management is all about. Supply management in Ontario has been the principal foundation for many family farms.

There's been great pressure over the last decade by the Americans and Europeans for Canada to abandon a supply management system. The supply management system

has worked extremely well in providing reasonable prices and return for people in the farming community and guaranteeing to our consumers a reasonable price for products, particularly in the area

of dairy, chickens, turkeys and eggs. When you think about it, when you go into Reid's milk store and pay $4.39 for three bags of 1% milk, stand back for a moment and think what a bargain it really

is when you compare to similar prices for the same product throughout the world. One of the reasons that I think MPPs must have a thorough understanding of what this is all about -- collectively,

supply management is a non-partisan issue -- is so we can constantly inform our ag ministers in Ontario and in Ottawa that we need to keep this as part of the family farm operation.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Speaker: As a farmer, I would like to extend an invitation to all members of

this House to come and visit my farm. This would be a good time, as cows are now having their calves. So if you'd like to come, just let me know at your convenience. I'd love to have you there.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order, but we'd sure like to go.

ROADSIDE MEMORIAL

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Ministry of Transportation should work with MADD Canada, where

initiated by MADD, to enter into an agreement to allow the construction of a roadside sign, or other appropriate memorial on highway property, to commemorate an individual or individuals killed by

a drunk driver.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The member for York North has moved ballot item number 12. Pursuant to standing order 96, the member

has 10 minutes.

Mrs Munro: I'd like to begin by first welcoming guests to the gallery here today. We are joined by constituents of mine, Alex and Rim Van

Hemert from Newmarket. I certainly appreciate your being here. As well, we are joined by Carolyn Swinson, co-president of the Toronto

chapter of MADD and former national vice-president. Welcome to

the Legislature.

Every year in Canada, at least 1,200 people are killed in motor vehicle crashes caused by impaired driving. This represents about 40% of all deaths in car

accidents. More than three people die every day in Canada, 365 days a year, because of the thoughtlessness of drunk drivers. This must stop. Over 70,000 people a year are injured because of

impaired driving in Canada -- almost 195 people every day. The estimated cost of drunk driving crashes is in the billions. We all know that drunk driving is a serious problem, and I am proud that

our government in office took serious steps to fight drunk driving and reduce the carnage on our roads. Some of the important measures we took include establishing a 90-day administrative driver's

licence suspension, increasing fines for driving while suspended, doubling dedicated funding for the RIDE program, putting in place mandatory remedial measures, lengthening the period of time for

considering previous Criminal Code of Canada convictions, impounding the vehicles of those who drive while suspended for more Criminal Code convictions, increasing driver's licence suspension

periods for repeat offenders, and introducing the interlock ignition program contained in a private member's bill from my colleague Garfield Dunlop.

I know all members of the House support these tough measures taken to fight drunk driving and I am certain they will continue.

Legal measures are important for stopping drunk driving, but the families and friends of victims and many ordinary Ontarians want to do their part. MADD Canada

is perhaps the single most important grassroots organization committed to stopping impaired driving and supporting the victims of the violent crime that is drunk driving. I am very proud to have

worked with them in the past and look forward to working with them in the future, in the hope that one day drunk driving will only be a memory.

When I first thought of introducing a resolution on roadside memorials, I knew that MADD Canada would have to be involved. MADD has the respect of victims'

families, the police, government and citizens, and any plan for memorials will only succeed with their support and wisdom. Roadside memorials are first and foremost for the victims of drunk drivers

and MADD is their representative. I'm very proud that MADD Canada is supporting my resolution, and I commit to their members that if this resolution is passed by the House today, I will work

diligently to ensure it comes into effect in Ontario.

Roadside memorials serve two important purposes. The first is indeed to provide the families and survivors of drunk-driving crashes the opportunity to honour a

loved one who has died in a crash, allowing them to heal and remember someone they cared for, remembering a life and demonstrating to all who pass the spot that their loved one's life was important

and was taken away for no good reason.

Memorials also act as a poignant reminder to passing drivers that too many lives are lost every year to drunk driving. Seeing a memorial with the name of an

actual person killed by a drunk driver would be a far stronger symbol of the cost of drunk driving than any statistic or message we could give. Families of victims may be able to take some solace

from knowing that their memorial to their son or daughter, brother or sister, father or mother, is not only a remembrance of that loved one, but is also a warning that may save a life. If only one

life is saved by a memorial sign, then it is a success.

Several other provinces and states allow for memorials of various kinds. Saskatchewan and British Columbia have policies that allow for the construction of

memorials. Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have no formal policies, but informally permit memorials. Ontario's Ministry of Transportation has a guideline for memorial

displays that permits displays and suggests sensitivity, but it specifically suggests that "....individuals should be sensitively advised of the potential for driver distraction and discouraged

from installing any display. If the individual insists, the officer shall meet with the individual in the field and negotiate a short-term display without safety concerns."

I recognize that safety on the roads must remain MTO's first priority, and I commend that ministry for the news that our roads in 2002 were the safest in

Canada. As a former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, I take some pride in this accomplishment. MTO, though, is not doing enough to permit memorials. They should be more

than just tolerated; they should be promoted as a positive good. MADD Canada and MTO working together to develop a common policy will ensure that memorials can be constructed, while ensuring that

drivers and pedestrians alike are safe.

Our roads are bordered by signs of all kinds, including tourist signs in many rural areas. Roadside memorial signs could easily fit into our sign system. A

memorial sign could use the language "Don't drink and drive, In memory of," a clear, consistent and simple message that, in my opinion, would be the best way for memorial signs to act as a warning

to drivers.

MADD Canada can work with MTO to develop a sensible policy, as has already been done in the province of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's Department of Transportation

and Public Works and MADD Canada work together to provide for roadside memorials through the memorial white cross program. The Nova Scotia system provides for site location, installation,

dedication ceremonies and visitation assistance. MADD Canada works with the ministry to create a fair and understandable system that is in place to provide for memorials, while ensuring that no

memorial is a detriment to public safety on the roads. Their system recognizes that some locations are not appropriate for signs, but these locations are spelled out specifically in the guidelines.

If Nova Scotia can set up a balanced system that works well, there is no reason that Ontario could not do the same. We should build on Nova Scotia's expertise to develop memorials in Ontario.

I have received many letters of support for this resolution, many of them from MADD chapters and the families of victims. I would just like to name a few of

those that I have received: Lesley Read from MADD's

chapter in Thunder Bay; Debbie White, founder of MADD Lanark county; Betty Kreidl, treasurer of MADD Hamilton; Betty and John Cochran from the

North Bay chapter; Carolyn Swinson, already introduced to us as the co-president of the Toronto chapter; and Linda and John MacDonald from Goderich, Ontario, who sent me the names of 70 friends and

family members who support this resolution.

Many of those who have contacted me have shared with me their personal stories of a loved one who was killed by a drunk driver. Their stories of loss are

heart-wrenching, and I could spend this whole debate speaking of them. They are individuals, not numbers, not statistics, and we should honour their memories. I ask you to support this resolution,

both to honour them and to act as a warning to drunk drivers that their actions kill, that cars crashed by drunk drivers are not accidents. Every one of us makes a choice, and we are all

responsible to make choices that respect the lives of others.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): As always, I'm honoured to rise in this House to speak. Today, I've been asked to talk about this

resolution. I think it's a great idea to talk about, especially after I went to the Internet and researched this topic. I went to the MADD Web site and I discovered the horrible story of the

accidents caused by drivers who drink and drive. I went to the research and found that 1,680 people are killed and 74,000 injured each year in alcohol-related crashes. That's from Health Canada,

I think it's very important to talk about this issue, especially because it costs lot of money and a lot of lives. Also, it's our duty as members of this

House. We put ourselves in this position to defend the people of this province -- and the people who drive in the province. I think it's a good idea to be discussed in this place, especially now

that we have the president of the Toronto

chapter with us. I think it's a very, very important idea.

I just have some questions. If we try to place memorial signs across the highway, I'm wondering about the safety and the importance of those signs. I think

that to raise awareness and talk about it in the media, talk to the MTO and talk to the Minister of Transportation is always a good idea. It is always important to co-operate between MADD and the

MTO, MADD's institutional associations with the Ministry of Transportation.

I'm a person who drives at least once or twice every week from London to Toronto to be in this place. It's very important to have safe drivers driving the

highway along with me, because I want to protect myself and my family. I also care about being here, and I care about having safe roads. All the time on my way to this place I see memorial signs

along the highway, both ways, from London to Toronto and from Toronto to London. When I'm driving, I cannot see those signs. They're not visible enough. The Ministry of Transportation also places

signs along the highway from Toronto to Windsor, talking about drinking and driving and what drinking and driving causes, and trying to raise awareness among drivers not to drink and drive.

I wonder if those memorial signs will cause some kind of safety problem, because maybe the families of the people who got killed due to drinking and driving

want to visit those spots and could perhaps create some kind of safety issue for other drivers.

I would recommend that all the chapters of MADD across the province work with the Ministry of Transportation on ads in the paper and ads on TV and work with

the ministry to enhance the signs we have, if they wish. I also think it's a good idea, especially after I went on the Internet and found that the people who get killed due to driving and drinking

are between 25 and 34 years of age -- so I'm talking about a younger generation. We could launch a campaign, go to the malls, go to TV, go to the newspapers and try to talk to that segment of the

population to create awareness.

I understand that this resolution is very important to everyone in this House and in this province in order to create awareness, because every one of us is

subject to the danger caused by people who drink and drive.

Also, I learned that our Ministry of Transportation already has in place tough measures for people who drink and drive by losing their driver's licence and not

being allowed to drive. The police in every city and every municipality in the province have checkpoints every Friday and Saturday night to check many drivers to see if they are drinking and

driving. I wonder if that measure will decrease the number of incidents or eliminate the death toll caused by drinking and driving.

In principle, I support the idea of the resolution. Hopefully, the member from York North will detail it more in order to make it effective and workable for

all the people in this province.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm really pleased to join in the debate in support of my colleague and advocate with respect

to ridding our roads of those who drink and drive, the member from York North.

Certainly I support her resolution, which reads, "In the opinion of this House, the Ministry of Transportation should work with MADD Canada, where initiated by

MADD, to enter into an agreement to allow the construction of a roadside sign, or other appropriate memorial on highway property, to commemorate an individual or individuals killed by a drunk

driver."

As I was driving down from Barrie today, on certain parts of the highway you see where people have been killed, families commemorating and recognizing where

that accident happened, whether it's on a steel fence with flowers, or at the side of the highway with flowers and rocks and the significance of a grave. Let's face it, we have had more than our

share of traffic accidents that have struck individuals needlessly on the highways with respect to drinking and driving.

I can remember that when I first ran back in 1995, I was at the McDonald's in Bradford West Gwillimbury, which is on Highway 88, that runs right through

Bradford and into Julia's riding in Newmarket. At the time we were in a provincial election. I was with the Premier-to-be, Harris. We met with a group from MADD Canada with respect to making sure

and promising and keeping a commitment to MADD Canada with respect to bringing in drinking and driving legislation. In fact through the Attorney General, Charles Harnick, and the Minister of

Transportation at that time, Al Palladini, we did bring in the toughest drinking and driving legislation in the country.

I think that was through the efforts of MADD Canada in terms of trying to deal with this problem. It is a problem that is not going to go away. No matter how

hard we try, with human nature as it is, you take away licences and you take away other privileges and it still happens.

I would also like to think this resolution goes as far as to apply to accidents that occur off the GO Transit entrances. We don't have too many of them, but

we've had a few. It should apply not only to highway property, but also to GO Transit entrances as we move through the GTA.

I know the member has done a lot of research on this. Certainly she has support for this resolution from third-party groups. I'm looking through the research

she did on behalf of this legislation and I notice that the province of Nova Scotia has a white cross memorial program in a partnership between the Department of Transportation and Public Works and

MADD Canada. MADD has to go through the ministry for an approval process and to observe strict guidelines before they are permitted to place a cross. MADD is also responsible for soliciting

permission from adjacent property owners. Locations for memorial crosses cannot pose a safety hazard and the placing of memorials on certain highways is prohibited.

The white cross memorial program in Nova Scotia is in conjunction with the Department of Transportation and MADD Canada. This is something the member is

proposing. I think it brings some respect and process to those families who have had victims die from drunk drivers. As the member says in her letter to me, "Too many Ontarians die every year

because of the thoughtlessness of those who drink and drive. Roadside memorials would allow families to honour their loved ones, and would also act as a warning to those who might be tempted to

drink and drive that their actions can result in injury or death for other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists."

I think the symbolic message the member is putting forth, not only in terms of community education but also as a warning to people that their actions can

affect other individuals, is something that has to be respected. I think it's very important. I understand from the member that MADD Canada supports roadside memorials, and there's a letter from

the executive director showing that they support this with respect to the resolution that's before us today.

The member from York North, former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, did a lot of work with respect to making sure that the roads in

my area, which is Bradford West Gwillimbury, and around her area too in Newmarket -- you'd have Highway 88, the 400, Highway 9 all coming together in a very, very populated area.

I can tell you that it's no small issue, because we have had, on Canal Road -- and the member would be familiar with that. As you drive, you can get to Canal

Road off Highway 400, which is essentially a road that was designed for farmers in the area to access the 400 or move around the marsh areas. It goes right into Bradford West Gwillimbury. They have

had many, many bad accidents. I can't cite the number of deaths that have happened over the years off Canal Road, because it's only a two-lane road. It's surrounded on one side by the marsh farms

and on the other side by the canal. They have had too many tragedies.

I know that the council for Bradford West Gwillimbury has met and spoken with the Ministry of Transportation with respect to what to do with that road. The

current position of the council, through a resolution, is to close off access from Highway 400 to Canal Road. That's a tough issue because of the growth that's going on with Bradford West

Gwillimbury and the number of people that actually use that as a commuter road, though it was never designed for that. It's a winding road. It's for the marsh farmers, in terms of them getting to

move around with their crops and their huge machinery.

That's an example, whether it was drinking and driving or just bad driving. But there have been more than enough tragedies in that area with respect to Canal

Road. So it's something that's being looked at right now.

But certainly the member, with respect to dealing with this particular agreement, I think goes one step forward with respect to public education and a

recognition. You can have the tough laws and ensure that they're enforced by the Ontario Provincial Police or your local police force, but you do need a public education program, if you want to

call it that. But you have to also have some respect for those who have died. I think what is going on here is almost twofold: the public education to make sure drivers are aware of their conduct

and what the consequences are, but also respect for the families who have lost someone needlessly through someone that has chosen to drink and drive, something that you just can't believe is still

happening in this society.

I support this, and certainly I'll give up my time to the member from Halton.

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. I want to personally congratulate the member from

York North for bringing it forward.

My first involvement with drunk driving -- it's something I've never forgotten; it's stuck with me through all my political years on city council and will

through all the years I stay here at Queen's Park -- was losing a close friend when I was 16 to a drunk driver on the 406 in St Catharines.

I've always been pleased to see all the different initiatives taken by MADD to bring forth the concerns about people on the road who are drinking and driving

and to ensure that, first, the public is educated about the dangers of it and, more importantly, to take appropriate actions against those who have been caught drinking and driving.

I also wanted to share with the House that while I was on city council for 13 years, one of the committees that I made an overture to chair -- and I was

fortunate to do so -- was the city's parking and traffic committee. Again, that goes back to the young friend of mine who was killed by a drunk driver. That committee dealt with making the roads

safer in the city of Niagara Falls. During the six years that I was on that committee and worked with a good group of people from the public, there were a lot of things that we initiated to try to

make our roads safer. I learned about the importance of stop signs and the warrants that are involved, stoplights. I learned about traffic calming, chicanes, speed humps, parking signs, all types

of things that we initiated within our own community to try to make our roads safer for the residents who live there.

I was also pleased, when I was doing my research on this, to see that the previous government -- and I'll certainly give them congratulations for it --

initiated some things to deal with drunk drivers. The 90-day driver's licence suspension, the mandatory back-on-track remedial measures program, which I'm familiar with -- not on a personal level,

but I'm certainly familiar with it -- the vehicle impoundment program and the ignition interlock are all very positive things, and I congratulate the previous government for initiating those.

For the 13 years I was on council, we would always have a presentation by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In most cases it was done by a local high school, the

one in particular that always came to city council to ask us to pass a resolution dealing with that matter, and also to provide the community and our own city employees the red ribbon to put on

their vehicles, again to educate the public about the dangers of drinking and driving.

I can tell you some of the things that we changed even within city hall: If a community group wanted to use one of our facilities for some event, say our arena

or our baseball diamond, and it involved the selling of alcohol, we made it mandatory that any of the groups that were using it had to have Smart Serve certification so that we could ensure that

those people who were serving alcohol had some expertise in knowing who should or shouldn't receive it.

There's one other story I'm going to share, and again it's a passion that I believe in. I can remember four or five years ago a group of people came to me

within the city of Niagara Falls who wanted to have a stoplight put up at an intersection. It didn't meet the warrants, so the regional traffic committee decided they wouldn't put it up. Sad to

say, about four months later, after that situation occurred and it was turned down, we had a fatality at that intersection. In fact, it was someone I knew personally. I had been to their 30th

anniversary and in fact had given them a plaque from the city of Niagara Falls congratulating them. The lady was killed at that intersection.

The point I'm making is, again you realize that you'd rather put up appropriate things, such as what's being suggested, because they're positive things. I have

seen the signs down in the States. I think it can be done. It can fit within MTO. I know there are some regulations we have in place. Working together, I think we can come up with a solution and we

could put those types of things up.

The final comment I'm going to make is another personal comment. We had a death about a year ago in Niagara Falls -- a young boy was killed. I'm not going to

say it was related to drunk driving but, to this day, as you make the curve on Stanley Avenue or Thorold Stone Road, there is still a memorial of flowers sitting on the fence. I pass that every day

on my way to work. I always look at it and think of that situation.

The resolution that's being put forward is a good resolution. I think it's something that can be worked with the ministry. I'm going to tell the House that

it's one I am going to support because it's one that I personally believe in. I congratulate the member from York North for bringing that forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I rise in support of this resolution from Julia Munro, the member for York North. As we know, it's

a resolution to allow roadside memorials for drunk driving victims.

I wish to cut to the chase. I ask everyone present to pass this resolution before we walk out through those doors this morning. Just think of the message that

we would send across the Ontario. I say across Ontario -- we have been doing this program down in Norfolk county since 1993. I can't tell you how many white crosses we've pounded into the ground --

dozens and dozens -- and I sure couldn't tell you how many young people are dead in our area because of drunk driving. I represent a rural area, and this has been a long, ongoing problem in my

area, the drinking-driving rate. It's about three times the provincial average.

The member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford made mention of the white cross program in Nova Scotia. Again, there's another example of a pilot project that I

understand, as in Norfolk county, is working well. It is getting people's attention. I have had the good fortune, before being elected, to work for the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation for 20

years and I can tell you that in situations like this, prevention and raising awareness with a memorial program like this is a lot easier than having to deal with the aftermath.

I think of one program we worked on and we implemented: the RIDE program. At that time, RIDE stood for Reduce Impaired Driving in Etobicoke, a pilot project. A

year later it became Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere. I would like to see a similar track with this particular initiative, partly to commemorate, but more to raise awareness. It's hard to gather

evidence on whether an awareness or prevention program like this works. Then, again, we don't keep track of the crosses down in Norfolk. We know they're there. We know that people do see them,

perhaps unconsciously, and we like to think that they act accordingly.

As I mentioned, our area has an impaired driving rate three times the provincial average. Oftentimes, we're second only to areas like Manitoulin in having the

worst drinking-driving incidence in the province, and in the early 1980s so many people were not only sick and tired of the danger on the roads and the worry about drinking and driving, the worry

about young people, but many people, including my family, stopped going out on the roads. I would not take my family out on a Friday or Saturday night, certainly after 10 or 11 o'clock, when people

were coming out of the hotels. I knew the statistics. The average person was purposely not going out on the roads because of what was coming the other way.

For that reason, we had an initiative. We set up a group called Citizens Against Drinking and Driving. I put an ad in the paper, and the first person to call

me was a woman named Shirley George, and much of the white cross initiative came from Bruce and Shirley George from Delhi. Sadly, the Georges were personally touched by the hazardous impact of

drunk driving, and I wish to quote from a letter that I received yesterday from Mrs George: "My interest is not academic, but personal, as we lost a daughter and two parents to an impaired driver

who killed five others in the same accident. That driver had a blood-alcohol level of 0.26%."

I have attended many, many high school presentations with Mrs George. She tells her story. I think of a presentation she did in the assembly of Delhi High

School, describing the story of eight people killed that evening. It was Christmas Eve. As we know, she lost her daughter and both her parents. I've never seen anything like this in a group of high

school kids. The gym was full, she finished her presentation, and a guy over in the back stood up and started clapping, another guy over here, and one by one the whole audience stood up and gave

her a standing ovation, not orchestrated.

Again, I'm speaking partly on behalf of the George family and because of that tragedy Christmas Eve. If we have the will, perhaps we will see a major

initiative in place by next Christmas. There's the traditional time for us to think ahead, if we can do some positive stuff on this.

Mrs George got the idea for roadside crosses in Montana. I've seen them in Spain. She wrote a letter to the Attorney General's office and asked for a plan to

ensure that lives lost were not forgotten, again just asking for a reminder. Unfortunately, Mrs George was told that the AG's office was not in favour of this. Partly, I think it's because we used

white crosses. The AG's office indicated it would offend the sensibilities of non-Christians, so the government was not interested at that time. I can see in part that argument, although I point

out the flag of Ontario has more than one cross on it, certainly the cross of St George.

I do mention that MTO has guidelines with respect to roadside memorials. However, those guidelines discourage individuals from erecting memorials, based

largely on safety reasons. I'd like to think that much of our initiative here would be for those reasons. After Mrs George's being turned down by the Attorney General's office, they travelled in

Japan and saw crosses there. This is a country that I would suspect is, by and large, more Buddhist than Christian.

She brought her proposal to our group, Citizens Against Drinking and Driving. We immediately embraced the proposal. We made some arrangements with a local

welding shop, and on the May 24 weekend in 1993, with the former mayor of the town of Delhi we erected two crosses. We've put up dozens of crosses since then.

Very simply, we make arrangements with the police. We make a point of putting them on private land because we're not allowed to put them on the side of the

road. As we erect these crosses, just to avoid any hassles with government, we first have to see police reports to determine that the death truly was alcohol-related. Then we very simply seek

permission from the landowner to erect the cross.

We've been doing this for 10 years. It is doable. Consider that a pilot project. I would hope we could move forward with this.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I'm sure this is going to be unanimous in this House. I know that all members of the New Democratic Party

who will be here at the time of the vote, and I'm not sure how many that will be, will be supporting this motion. We thank the member from York North for bringing this forward. All of us in this

House either have been involved or know of people who have lost loved ones due to drunk drivers.

It struck my own extended family many years ago when a young second cousin, a lad of only 18 years old, was killed by a drunk driver. I still remember the

sadness in our extended family of losing someone so young, someone who had just started university, someone who had his whole life in front of him.

Members of Legislature will remember the sadness when Bob Rae's mother-in-law and father-in-law were killed during his time as a member in this Legislature,

again by a drunk driver. It has touched all of us. We ought not ever to forget that it could happen to any one of us, on any day that we're crossing the street, on any day that we're in our car,

that someone who is impaired could run into us.

I've heard stories today about other provinces and other countries. I have to tell you that if you travel extensively, you will see that literally almost every

country in the world has memorials at the side of the road to those who have died, not necessarily from drunk drivers but from a lot of traffic accidents. You will see them throughout Europe; you

will see them in Spain, France, Italy and you will particularly see them in Greece, if you ever have a chance to visit that storied land, particularly on some of the winding mountain roads. You

will see memorials throughout the country to people who have died on the roads, either by drunk drivers or occasionally by other accidents. You will see in South America, through most of the

countries, little roadside memorials to those who have died.

Certainly the idea, although new to Canada, is an old, old idea and one that I think we should emulate and follow. We need to remind drivers over and over

again of the pitfalls of drunk driving. To see a roadside memorial is to remind them constantly of the error, the huge consequences of drinking and driving.

MADD Canada has done a tremendous job over the years. You see little red ribbons on many, many aerials on cars around this province. But we need to do more,

because a red ribbon is a symbol on the car itself that you should not drink and drive. People need to see the consequences on the sides of the roads.

I've looked at the proposed bill and it has much merit. I do have some questions, and they're made by friendly -- I know this is going to pass, so when it goes

to committee and is further debated, there are a number of aspects that need to be dealt with. The bill itself talks about either signs or roadside memorials. I would ask that the member push for

memorials. There are enough signs, of course, on our highways, our roads. They often become quite confusing to drivers. You can see literally dozens of signs within a space of a couple of hundred

metres, and to have another sign, usually in congested areas, I think will add more confusion. To have a memorial that is separate and apart and is not confused with a sign will further enhance

safety. It will also, to my mind, be far more poignant. So I would ask, when this comes to committee, that the memorial be the aspect that we put forward -- the memorial to those who have lost

their lives, but also the memorial to remind those who might drink and drive that they ought not to do so.

I've heard what the member and other speakers had to say about placement. That was not contained within the bill. But I think emulating and following what is

done in Nova Scotia is a good start. The memorials should be placed in areas and locations that are agreed to by the Ministry of Transportation and that will not cause any problems with sightlines

and may not in fact end up causing an accident themselves. Certainly that would be the last thing we would want to do.

There is a further question which I know cannot be contained in a private member's bill because only the government can do it, and that is the costs. This

obviously is going to cost money. It's going to cost the government money; it's going to cost MADD Canada money; it's going to cost the bereaved families money. It's going to cost somebody,

somewhere, somehow money. There cannot be a provision in a private member's bill because only the government can bring forward a bill that has costs involved if the government is going to actually

pay. When I look at the resources of MADD Canada, they are not great. MADD Canada operates on a shoestring; I think that's a fair comment.

I cannot help but be saddened by what I saw in the Toronto Star just a couple of days ago. It was a letter. If one does have the occasional beer and goes into

the Beer Store, they will see that there's a little box with a red ribbon on it from MADD Canada. At least you used to see that, because on March 31 those were all taken out of the Beer Stores.

From 1991 to 2004, MADD Canada received, on average, between $25,000 and $40,000 a year in donations from people who bought beer and put their change in the little box. On March 31, all that

stopped.

The Toronto Star

article says, and I'm only going to quote one or two paragraphs from it, "According to the Beer Store, the outlets dropped MADD as a sponsor

and are now limiting their social policy donations to just one group, the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving. The Beer Store claims the move was not about politics, but about corporate

efficiency."

It goes on to say in the next paragraph:

"`We were very open with MADD that we were looking at streamlining our charities,' Taylor said. She said the release was the first official response from MADD

following a conversation informing the charity of the store's decision March 31."

Finally, in the last paragraph, there's a quote from MADD:

"`What does she expect us to do?' Murie responded. `They're hiding under a smokescreen to hide from being the bad guys that they are.'"

I suggest that if MADD is involved and if MADD is expected to pay, or if MADD is expected to contribute or to assist the families in contributing, they need to

have the revenues to do it. If we are intent upon this bill, then we have to equally, as a government and as a Legislature, tell the Beer Store that they have to put the box back. The Beer Store

has, I would suggest, an obligation. It's called externalities, a rather strange word, that you have to pay for the problems you create. They put boxes in beer stores and liquor stores and other

locations so that people who imbibe will know that there are consequences of their imbibing and they will have a responsibility to pay something toward it. I suggest that needs to be done.

MADD has done a terrific job over the years. Its primary job has been, not the roadside memorials, as good an idea as this is, but in imposing the idea upon

various governments at all levels of the need to make this the criminal offence it is, that increasing sentences is the way to go. MADD has done a terrific job in showing that our court systems,

our Legislatures and everyone involved cannot any longer take this to be a minor offence. It needs to be considered a serious offence and the penalties must flow from that.

I commend the member from York North for her bill. We will be supporting it. Please make it as strong as you can in the end.

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I'm pleased today -- or not pleased -- to speak on this issue that was raised by the member from York

North. It's a sad issue that we have here to talk about in private members' legislation.

I wanted to remind us of the resolution we're talking about. It's to work with MADD Canada and/or its individual chapters, where initiated, "to enter into an

agreement to allow the construction of a roadside sign, or other appropriate memorial on highway property, to commemorate an individual or individuals killed by a drunk driver."

When I read this resolution, it reminded me of some of the debate and the difficulty I had as a municipal councillor when we had the loss of life on municipal

rights of way, how we struggled with the commemorative flowers and plaques that people wanted to put on their roadway and how difficult a time we had dealing with family members who wanted to

honour members who had been taken from them tragically.

Although today we are focusing on the good work that MADD Canada does -- and they do do good work, unsung heroes' work, and I support the work they do; in

fact, I have a red ribbon on my antenna out in my driveway -- my experience is that we have difficulty differentiating the work MADD does from the deaths that occur from so many other causes. I

support the idea in principle of commemorating those losses, but again we have no idea, most of the time, how those losses occurred.

In my case, I had the unfortunate opportunity to attend a funeral last summer, during the blackout, actually. I came back from Nova Scotia to attend a funeral

for a young man who lost his life in a tragic accident. He was 16 years old. I don't wish that on anybody: to go to a funeral, to watch all the young people, all his friends, attend a funeral for a

16-year-old. And it had nothing to do with drinking and driving. It was an inexperienced driver; it was youthful exuberance that caused the accident.

There are so many accidents on our roadways that are due to inattention, inexperience, driver error and weather conditions. If we are to commemorate all those

losses on our roadways, untimely as they are, we have to ensure that the commemorative placement of flowers or plaques is done in a safe way and that we work with the Ministry of Transportation on

whatever we place on roadways to commemorate that loss of life. I believe that not only do we not need a formal agreement but also that the ministry is flexible enough to work within the existing

process to allow MADD or any other group to commemorate a special person who is lost in an untimely way.

In the case of Brampton, we tried to work with our works and transportation department to deal with each issue on a case-by-case basis, because I think every

accident brings a different kind of issue with it. It's not always drinking and driving. Sometimes it's an accident that's related, as I said, to youthful exuberance, driver inattention or weather

conditions -- they all play a part. Although today we're dealing with provincial roadways, I think municipalities look to us for guidance and direction; they are also struggling with this issue. It

comes up on an annual basis, and in Brampton we finally put together a motion to this effect.

Today we heard from a number of very thoughtful speakers who tried to bring a different aspect to this private member's legislation. We all support the idea,

the intention, and we want to support the good work that MADD does. In this House we have to know that the ideas we bring have to cover all the different groups that would want the ability to work

with our Ministry of Transportation and our roadways to ensure they are safe. It's important to commemorate an individual or individuals killed by a drunk driver, but we also need to examine the

fact that we lose lots of individuals on our roadways for reasons other than drinking and driving.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York North has two minutes to reply.

Mrs Munro: Thank you to all the members who have taken the time today to speak on this resolution. I really appreciate the support and the

comments that have been made. In the few moments I have, I'd like to respond to a couple of issues that have been raised.

One of the most important things in the resolution, from my perspective, in regard some of the concern over details that members have raised, has been that it

says "to enter into an agreement," and that is my purpose. I made that wording very clear to allow people to work on some of the intricacies and difficulties and things like that.

Obviously the details -- whether it's a memorial or a sign, or the distribution of costs -- are negotiated issues. I think it's important to recognize that, as

legislators, we have a responsibility to set policy. It is then through our appropriate ministry that we look to provide the details of making that policy work. I appreciate the many comments that

have been made with regard to some of the complexities that are inherent in a decision like this.

Our commitment to this resolution is political will. If we pass this resolution today, we will demonstrate the political will to move forward in recognizing

the importance not only of an individual loss but of a social message. The member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant recognized that it's always difficult to measure a social message, but that's one we

have to work on.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for private members' public business has expired.

ONTARIO FARMS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with ballot item number 11, standing in the name of Mr Leal.

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

Carried.

ROADSIDE MEMORIAL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 12, standing in the name of Mrs Munro.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Munro has moved ballot item number 12.

All those in favour will please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Brown, Mike

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Gerretsen, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen

Yakabuski, John

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 44; the nays are zero.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

This House will stand adjourned until 1:30 pm of the clock.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION ROUND TABLES

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I'm pleased to announce to this House that in my role as education critic for the official opposition, I will

be hosting the first of my party's education round-table consultations, Partnerships for Parents and Students, this Saturday, April 17, here at Queen's Park.

Six weeks ago, the Minister of Education held what he called an education partnership table. When I first heard of this event, I thought it was a very good

idea. However, I was disappointed to learn that the Minister of Education had excluded the voices of many parents and students in our province. In fact, some groups were specifically told they were

not welcome to participate in his so-called partnership.

This strikes me as typical of what we have seen from this government: a cynical, arrogant approach to governing. This Liberal government makes promises they

know they cannot keep and thinks they do not need to answer legitimate questions. Now we see they won't even listen to the hard-working Ontarians who put them in office. This is unacceptable.

To help remedy this problem, I am issuing an open invitation to all the people of Ontario who are interested in education to join me in my partnerships for

parents and students. These round tables will be inclusive and thorough, and we will even listen to those with whom we may well disagree.

We welcome all to our Queen's Park consultations, and any who wish to have input but can't get to Queen's Park may do so through my Web site, www.

jimflaherty.com.

MICHAEL CAHILL

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to highlight the activities of an impressive youth in my riding of Niagara Falls. Michael Cahill

will graduate from high school this June with over 1,600 accumulated volunteer hours. It is particularly impressive for a young teen to devote so much time to our community, and I commend him for

his dedication.

Next week, we'll celebrate Volunteer Week in the province of Ontario. I believe Michael Cahill is a wonderful example of the spirit of volunteerism that makes

Ontario such a great place. Michael has been involved in a number of theatrical productions at both his school, St Michael High School, and in several theatrical companies that Niagara Falls is

known for. Not only has Michael played acting roles in a number of productions in Niagara, but he has also given of his time and effort in Niagara Falls by participating in the Niagara Falls Santa

Claus parade and the Casino Niagara marathon.

I want to tell you that Ontario is a great place to live in, and volunteering makes it stronger. I urge all members of this House to take advantage of

Volunteer Week next week to recognize all those who give of their time to serve all our communities to make them better places for all of us to live in.

HOME CONSTRUCTION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I rise to bring to the attention of the Liberal government once again an important issue affecting a number of my

constituents in the township of Essa.

Donna Rushton, Patti Hazlett and Jane Stewart have lived on Parkside Drive in the community of Angus for just under five years. Ever since they moved into

their houses, they've watched them deteriorate to the point where they no longer feel safe in their own homes. In fact, the homes are sinking into the ground and shifting off their foundations. The

walls are cracking and the homes are almost impossible to heat. This extensive damage has been caused by poor workmanship when the homes were built, and my constituents have had a very difficult

time getting the Ontario new home warranty program to resolve this situation in a speedy and satisfactory manner.

Mrs Hazlett and I have both written to the government previously on this issue, and I'm asking again today for the help of the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and Housing and the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. I ask that the ministers pick up the phone today and call my constituents, who can provide you once again with their information, a

CD with photos of the houses and comments from the township of Essa, which has been monitoring this situation. Really, we need your help. Please do your jobs. Do the right thing and help these

people with their homes that are falling apart through no fault of their own, but because of shoddy workmanship in the village of Angus. The developers should be gone after. We've tried to do that,

but we need the power of government to come to some satisfactory answer here.

DAN OFFORD

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Today I'd like to pay contribute to a great man, Dr David (Dan) Offord, who passed

away last Saturday in Ottawa.

Dr Offord loved children and devoted his life and career to helping disadvantaged and at-risk kids. Dr Offord was one of Canada's most distinguished child

psychiatrists, a world leader in increasing understanding of children's mental health and a pioneer of evidence-based psychiatry.

During his illustrious career, Dr Offord was head of the division of child psychiatry at McMaster University and research director of the Chedoke Child and

Family Centre. At McMaster he started research in child epidemiology, an area in which both McMaster and Dr Offord are now internationally respected.

The Ontario Child Health Study, which he led, is today widely recognized as the most important population-based study of children's mental health in the world

during the last 30 years. This study has helped with social policy development here in Canada and across the world.

Dr Offord is known nationally and internationally as the founding director of the Offord Centre for Child Studies. The centre is dedicated to improving the

life quality and life opportunities of children through research, policy development and training. The centre is a lasting legacy of his valuable work.

Every summer for the last 40 years, Dr Dan, as he was affectionately called by those of us who had the privilege of knowing him, served as the director of the

Christie Lake Camp in Ottawa, offering programs for disadvantaged and troubled youth.

In 2001, Dr Offord was inducted as a member of the Order of Canada. In accepting Canada's highest honour, Dr Offord expressed his hope that Canadians from

coast to coast would do their part to improve the quality and life chances of children, stating, "It is our collective responsibility to ensure bright futures for today's children so that

tomorrow's society will benefit."

The professional community has lost a giant, a mentor to many of us health professionals. Our children have lost a champion and friend. Today we give thanks

for his life and offer our sincere condolences to his family and his professional colleagues.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Complaints around property assessment have climbed to the top 10 of issues that occupy our staff in our

constituency offices and, I'm confident, of the constituency office of every one of the 102-plus members of this Legislative Assembly.

Look, the Tories privatized and created the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. It has been a fiasco. Run like a for-profit operation, it slashed jobs from

2,100 down to 1,300. That's at least a 40% cut in the number of people working there. We've seen an explosion of $100,000-plus jobs, inevitably among the brass and the people who are exploiting the

profits of this so-called not-for-profit corporation.

The profit motive rules. The information technology consultants are making out like bandits. I'm told by insiders from MPAC, the Municipal Property Assessment

Corp, that there is a computer scandal brewing that is going to, in and of itself, explode, leaving an incredible mess behind.

Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals promised -- they promised so many things, they promised anything they had to to get elected, during the course of the election

campaign -- to rebuild public services. Well, I say it's time for McGuinty and the Liberals to keep at least one promise and restore property assessment back to the public sector, restore it back

to public ownership and public control, restore it back to a true non-profit operation so that professional and qualified civil servants, workers in the public sector, can serve homeowners, can

serve municipalities, can serve this province, rather than the interests of private and corporate profit.

YOUTH INVOLVEMENT IN POLITICS

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): In the last provincial election, less than 25% of young people between the ages of 18 to 24 turned

out to vote. Investing in our province's future is important, not only in health and education, but also in the democratic process. By engaging young people today, we are preparing for the future

and, most important, we're taking advantage of a great opportunity to access an untapped source of knowledge. Today, I want to share with this House what I am doing to learn from and to speak to

the young people in our province and in my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Most recently, I was thrilled to launch the Lakeshore Scholars Program in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, which will see young people in local area high schools

participate directly in local issues and learn through experience about the political process by working directly with me on issues that matter most to them. I have also hosted pre-budget town

halls with students in grades 9, 10 and 12. Their contributions to the process were not only extremely helpful, but definitely offered a unique and important perspective on the fiscal situation our

province faces. It's so important for all of us to become involved in engaging young people in the political process.

Next Wednesday, I will continue to work toward this goal by addressing young women at the Women in Politics and Government Career Learning Day for young women

in high school.

I encourage all members to work toward making a direct impact on the lives of young people, and share with them the values and goals that make public service

so rewarding and important.

TAXATION

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "I will not raise your taxes." Do you know who said that? It was Dalton McGuinty. It wasn't Greg Sorbara;

it was Dalton McGuinty, and he said that to the province, and I think some people think that was another broken Liberal promise. Just think, ladies and gentlemen, now the Minister of Finance is

saying that the "I will not raise your taxes" statement only applied to personal income taxes.

Apparently, Mr Sorbara and Mr McGuinty have forgotten two very important facts: While in opposition, Team McGuinty opposed every tax cut made by the

Harris-Eves government. The Taxpayer Protection Act signing by Dalton McGuinty during the election campaign became a shameful ploy, filled with deceit and now another broken promise.

What have we seen recently? We've seen the possible reintroduction of the NDP tax grab -- photo radar. We've seen the political spin by the trial balloon

soup-and-salad tax. We've seen the assault on small businesses with the lifting of the municipal property tax cap rate.

But I want to read something, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Mr Dunlop: We'll do that a little later on.

WILDFIRE PREVENTION WEEK

Mr Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I rise today to inform the members of the Legislature that next week, the week of April 18 to 24, is

being declared Wildfire Prevention Week.

This is the first time that the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario fire marshal's office have made such a declaration. It is only fitting that it

should take place this year, as 2004 marks the 60th anniversary of Smokey the Bear's efforts to promote fire prevention.

The fire marshal and MNR have asked fire departments across the province to urge communities that could be affected by wildfire to be "FireSmart." A fire

safety package -- with the theme of FireSmart -- is being sent to Ontario's fire departments. It has been prepared in consultation with the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and professional

educators. The province's fire departments will be sharing messages that focus on safeguarding homes, cottages and other structures that are adjacent to potentially dangerous, combustible wildland

vegetation.

Wildfires in British Columbia and across the United States in recent years have highlighted the serious impacts of wildfire, the tremendous threat to life and

property that can occur.

Our goal is to make communities safer by highlighting the many ways that people can prevent wildfires and safeguard their homes and families. During this week,

and throughout the summer, Ontario's fire services will be trying to reach all members of their communities with a fire prevention message. People of all ages, from primary schoolchildren to

adults, can help make a difference.

People who are interested in getting involved in Wildfire Prevention Week or who want copies of the fire safety educational materials can contact their local

fire department, the office of the fire marshal or the Ministry of Natural Resources.

TAXATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): From 1985 to 1990, Ontario paid the price for electing a Liberal government. During that period, the

Peterson Liberals increased taxes 33 times and almost doubled government spending.

Fast forward to 2004, and as Yogi Berra would say, "It looks like déjà vu all over again." We've witnessed the McGuinty Liberals rescinding tax

relief measures, including one for seniors, and go on a $3-billion spending binge, all in less than six months. Now they're planning to strike again, with a soup, salad and sandwich tax that hits

Ontarians who can least afford it.

In my riding of Leeds-Grenville, this tax grab will hurt far and wide. In Brockville, it will hit the coffee club at King's, the seniors at Burger King and the

folks grabbing toast and coffee at Jon's or George's restaurants at Tincap. It will also penalize seniors having a coffee at Lockett's Tim Hortons in Prescott, the Maple Leaf in Gananoque or the

Rapid Valley at Lansdowne.

This fat-cat Liberal tax will only serve to feed the insatiable spending appetite of the Ontario Liberals. It must be stopped, and the Ontario Conservative

Party will do everything possible to make that happen.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): In the east members' gallery, former member Doug Reycraft, from the 33rd and 34th Parliaments, is here from

Middlesex. Will we all welcome him here, please?

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated April 14,

2004, of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier, who has yet to shut down the soup-and-sandwich tax trial balloon.

When Mrs Smith, who lives in Ottawa South and works at the hospital, buys her lunch at the local cafeteria in that hospital the day before your next budget,

that price will be at one level; the day after your budget, in which you bring in this proposed soup-and-sandwich tax, she's going to pay more.

Here's the problem: You promised not to increase personal income taxes, but you also promised not to increase any other taxes. I'd like to know, Premier, how

you will explain to your constituent why, the day after your budget and the day after this tax on a soup-and-sandwich meal, she has to pay more. If it's not as a result of your tax, what is it?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member for his representation made on behalf of my

constituent. I can say this: that never have so many strange bedfellows come to the assistance of Ontario's vulnerable. We have the restaurateurs and multinational corporations, who have the most

vulnerable at heart, I'm sure, when they make their representations in connection with this issue; and we have the Conservatives, of course, who have risen to become our new champions of the

dispossessed and the vulnerable in the province of Ontario.

I am pleased to hear from my constituent through the member opposite, and we will take that advice, and so much more advice, when it comes to the preparation

of our budget.

Mr Klees: I'm sure Mrs Smith, your constituent, listened to that response and is probably amongst the 75% of the people in this province who

have lost confidence in you, sir, for that kind of response, because it's arrogant. It's arrogant because you're not addressing the issue that we're dealing with.

Yesterday your finance minister emerged from under his cloud to argue that an affordable meals tax wouldn't be a tax increase at all, but rather just the

cancellation of a tax exemption. And after he unwound himself out of this pretzel that he wound himself into, the rest of us were left wondering, what does a Liberal define today as a tax increase?

I'm going to ask the Premier one more time: After Mrs Smith pays more for her meal the day after this budget imposes that tax, how will you explain why that meal cost more the day after the budget

than it did the day before?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm sure that the member opposite would want to provide the truth and reassurance to Mrs Smith that no decisions have been

made with respect to this particular issue. I can say that, given the considerable deficit that we have been left as a result of the mismanagement on the part of my Conservative colleagues, we'll

be bringing a balanced approach to the management of the government's finances. We will be looking for new ways to generate revenues; I want to make that perfectly clear. We will also be finding

some savings, which should have been found a long time ago. We will no longer be spending money on partisan political advertising projects. I was informed the other day that on another matter, as a

result of hiring 100 consultants on a full-time basis in the government, in the public service, we are now going to save $5 million every year. Those are just some examples of the steps we are

taking to save Ontarians money.

Mr Klees: To the Premier: If he is going to save all of this money, then why would he tax the most vulnerable in our province? Why would he go

out of his way to put taxes on seniors and on students who eat in their cafeteria? If he's doing all of that, why can he not stand up in his place today and say, "Yes, you know what? The trial

balloon was wrong. My finance minister was wrong for even letting it fly. I'm going to stand up now in my place and I'm going to say, `Yes, on the one hand I agree it would be a tax increase, and

it won't happen.'" We're going to need a fictionary to figure out what these Liberals mean by the various terminologies they're bringing forward in this House.

Will you stand in your place today and will you commit, after all of those savings that you've just told us you found and will continue to find, that you will

not implement this regressive tax on the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Let me say this unequivocally and with as much possible assurance and reassurance that I can provide to Mrs Smith and others

who may be as concerned as she is: Our very first budget will provide greater assistance to the dispossessed and the vulnerable in one budget alone than this government brought in eight and a half

years. I guarantee that.

You can look at our track record thus far: We have increased the minimum wage; we have put into place a rent bank; we are back into the business of affordable

housing; we put in place a tuition freeze for two years; and we have only just begun when it comes to ensuring that our most vulnerable have every opportunity they need in this province to

succeed.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question?

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for Premier McGuinty -- not the real Premier, the Minister of Finance. We have an important

question here and it's about integrity. He made a very solemn promise to the people of Ontario, the taxpayer protection promise, which he signed and which said, "I, Dalton McGuinty" will "not raise

taxes or implement any new taxes without the explicit consent of Ontario voters." That was unqualified. And then yesterday we had the putative Premier, the Minister of Finance, saying, "We said

during the campaign that we're not going to raise personal income taxes, and we will keep our word on that."

My question to you is a request that you stand in your place now and come clean with the people of Ontario on what you're going to keep your word on. Is it on

no tax increases or is it, as the real Premier says, only personal income taxes?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I can assure the member opposite that we will not do as his party did previous to the last election, when he provided every

reassurance to Ontario voters that they had a balanced budget. We discovered, as you well know -- this is now part of history and folklore in Ontario. The former Provincial Auditor, Erik Peters,

took a very close look at the books, a long and solemn look at the books, and discovered a $5.6-billion deficit, in addition to another $2.2 billion in very real risks. That is the true story when

it comes to a broken commitment in the province of Ontario.

Mr Flaherty: I'm sure the people of Ontario will take that as another, perhaps the most fundamental, example of a basic promise broken by this

government. And it gets worse. Now there are the games with language. We read in the paper this morning that the Grits are saying things about this soup-and-salad tax, that it's not a tax increase;

it's a loophole that they're going to close. This is an attempt to avoid responsibility. Even the Toronto Star figured it out. Even the Toronto Star said --

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Not the Globe?

Mr Flaherty: No, no, this is the Toronto Star today. It says, "This is a tax increase, pure and simple. Its purpose is to raise an estimated

$200 million in new revenues." Premier, will you agree that your proposed tax on soup and salad is a tax increase and the purpose is a cash grab from the poor people of Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Well, I guess there's nothing -- this is a little bit beyond the pale to have the member opposite rising to the defence as

well, joining the legions of Conservatives around the province who are rising to the defence of the most vulnerable.

I know there's tremendous interest in this budget, and we face some significant challenges. There's no doubt about that whatsoever. We've got a massive

deficit, which we've got to climb out of together. At the same time, we've got to be able to find ways to invest in better health care and in better education. We've got to enlist people in the

cause of helping us to conserve energy, for example. Those are all important objectives, which we intend to meet through our budget.

Mr Flaherty: The people of Ontario know that, as the Carter commission on taxation said many years ago, "a buck is a buck is a buck." They

also know that a tax is a tax is a tax, and that "RST" stands for "retail sales tax." It's not a loophole; it's not an exemption. It's a tax increase that you intend to impose on the people of

Ontario. In fact, the retail sales tax is the second-largest source of revenue for the province. I urge you, Premier, and I ask you, whether you'd make sure -- because I know you think you're doing

the right thing -- that MPP Toby Barrett's petition against this soup-and-salad tax is distributed in every coffee shop in your riding. Will you do that for us, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I've been reduced to a quivering mass. I don't know what to say.

Again, we intend to bring a balanced approach to our management of government finances. We intend to put forward a plan that will see us live up to our

objectives of providing the people of Ontario better health care and better education. We intend to ensure that we have a plan in place that will get us out of this deficit hole dug by the previous

government. We do not intend to gut public services, and we do intend to come to the assistance of our most vulnerable.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Last year about this time, you were very critical of the Conservatives

for announcing their budget at the Magna auto parts factory. You said it was undemocratic.

What a difference a year makes. Today, your own Minister of Energy announces the future of Ontario's hydroelectricity system, not before the people, not in the

Legislature, but at a private Bay Street club where the public isn't welcome.

Premier, it's the people of Ontario who pay the hydro bill. It's the people of Ontario who own the electricity system. Why is your government, which talks

about democracy, only interested in the views of the profit-takers, the fee-takers and the commission-takers of Bay Street when it comes to hydroelectricity?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I c