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

March 27, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Mar-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 27 March 2008 Jeudi 27 mars 2008

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT

(NOT FOR PROFIT

CORPORATIONS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES GARDERIES

(PERSONNES MORALES

À BUT NON LUCRATIF)

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT

(NOT FOR PROFIT

CORPORATIONS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES GARDERIES

(PERSONNES MORALES

À BUT NON LUCRATIF)

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT

(NOT FOR PROFIT

CORPORATIONS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES GARDERIES

(PERSONNES MORALES

À BUT NON LUCRATIF)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SAMUEL DE CHAMPLAIN

BRAMPTON SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE

SEXUAL ABUSE

AGNES MACPHAIL

HOLI FESTIVAL

MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO BUDGET

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RIGHT TO HOUSING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE DROIT

AU LOGEMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

WEARING OF PINS

VISITOR

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

JOB CREATION

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

CHILD CARE

SKILLS TRAINING

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

LONG-TERM CARE

MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

CLIMATE CHANGE

HOME CARE

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

CONSERVATION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

DAVID DUNLAP OBSERVATORY

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

GO TRANSIT

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

HIGHWAY 35

HOSPITAL FUNDING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2008 ONTARIO BUDGET /

BUDGET DE L'ONTARIO DE 2008

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

2008 ONTARIO BUDGET /

BUDGET DE L'ONTARIO DE 2008

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

LOW-INCOME ONTARIANS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT

(NOT FOR PROFIT

CORPORATIONS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES GARDERIES

(PERSONNES MORALES

À BUT NON LUCRATIF)

Ms. Horwath moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Day Nurseries Act to limit the approval of corporations to not for profit corporations / Projet de loi 26, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les garderies afin de limiter l'agrément de personnes morales aux personnes morales à but non lucratif.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Ms. Horwath, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I wanted to start out by saying that I truly believe that all members of this House would agree that children are our future. In fact, I'm sure that every single one of you has either used that phrase before or certainly has nodded in agreement when you've heard that used by someone else.

I put to you that as members of this place, we actually have an obligation to Ontario's youngest children, an obligation that says we must do everything in our power to ensure that they are given every chance, every support, every tool that we as a society can provide to ensure that the mantle they take on, that mantle of our future, is something that they can handle with every bit of success that they, as individuals and as groups of people, are capable of achieving.

How do we do that? I would put to you that we do that by ensuring that the programs and services that we provide are of the highest quality, of the greatest calibre, ensuring that our system of early learning and care is befitting of a province like Ontario; ensuring that we have a child care system that delivers a universal, accessible, affordable, developmentally appropriate environment for our children in their most important and formative years.

I also want to make sure that members are very clear about what this bill does and doesn't do. It does amend the Day Nurseries Act to restrict future child care licences to the not-for-profit sector. I emphasize the word "future." It does not in any way threaten the existing for-profit child care providers across the province who are currently operating licensed child care centres. It does not require families to participate in child care. It does not insinuate a removal of resources from other kinds of care.

It is a very short, very simple, very specific bill that does one thing and one thing only: It amends the Day Nurseries Act to provide that future licensing of child care centres is restricted to the not-for-profit sector only. That's it, period; that's the bill.

So why, you might ask, is this important? Very simply, it's important because it's a fundamental time for child care in Ontario right now. It's an historic time for child care in Ontario. The reality is that the bill, in large part, deals with the issue of quality and a sub-issue of timing.

There is an

article that was published about a year ago, when the Early Years Study 2 came out, and it speaks to why quality child care is so important. I thought it was important to share that with members. The

article was in the Record, and it says:

"A growing body of worldwide research shows clearly that investing in early child programs before age three produces dramatic long-term results, not only for better child learning, but also for lower crime and fewer physical and mental health problems later.

"And the cost savings are enormous, with one study estimating that society saves more than $17 for every dollar invested in early childhood programs"–17 to 1: that's the value of investing in quality early childhood development programs.

The

article goes on to talk about specific studies that were done in particular communities, but I fear I'm going to run out of time, so I'll leave those studies for people to look up on the Internet and review.

The reality is, every study that has ever taken place in the last 30 years shows very, very clearly not only the importance of quality, but the fact that the higher-quality early learning in education comes from delivery in the not-for-profit sector. That's not something that I'm making up; that's something that is borne out by study after study after study. In fact, approximately 15% higher quality has been measured in some of the studies in the not-for-profit sector. I ask you to consider, members: Do Ontario's children deserve to have 15% less quality? I certainly don't think so, and I hope that you don't think so.

What is the "quality" argument about? The quality argument is all about the fact that, like many, many labour-intensive types of services, like schools—my friend Rosario Marchese is here; he is our critic for education—like in the education sector, like in the health care sector, it's hands-on, one-on-one work with people that makes the difference. That's where the quality comes from. It comes from the staffing levels.

The reality is that, not unlike public education and not unlike health care, the same rings true for child care: You have to have high-quality staff; you have to have staff who are paid well; you have to have staff who are committed to their careers in child care and in early learning. In order to achieve that commitment and those staffing levels that are consistent and long-term, you need to have funding that is not withered away into the pocket of a private operator.

Unfortunately, there are very few places where you can cut corners in places like child care centres. One of the places where corners get cut in the for-profit sector is, quite frankly, in wages. If you can't provide wages and professional development opportunities for your staff, your staff are soon going to be leaving your child care centre and moving on to another centre that is more appropriately supporting their needs. So the bottom line is that the quality argument has a heck of a lot to do with the extent to which staffing is remunerated at an appropriate level and supported appropriately.

Having said that, I think people would recognize that staff turnover is something that also would disrupt the children and destabilize the centre. Of course, system-wide, that is something that we experience already and that we know happens in other jurisdictions as well.

People might wonder why this is important right now. I'm telling you that the importance of this bill coming forward right now is because we are now in a situation here in Ontario where there are significant threats to our existing system, significant threats to what is currently the majority of our providers here in Ontario, which is the not-for-profit sector. The threat comes specifically from an organization that has set up shop here in Canada, that is searching around to gobble up some of the existing centres here in Ontario.

It's a multinational corporation based in Australia, and one of my colleagues later will give you some of the specific information about what's happened in Australia.

They went from a system of having a far greater majority of not-for-profit centres, but they decided not to come up with any real public policy around not-for-profit expansion. Lo and behold, a couple of years later, a vast majority of providers in Australia are now in the for-profit sector. And what's happened? There is no access to child care in many parts of that country. Fees for parents have gone through the roof. There's been a significant reduction in quality. There have been situations where the for-profit conglomerates—this particular one actually operates over 2,300 centres on four different continents.

They are an organization whose main priority, like any for-profit corporation, like any publicly-traded for-profit corporation—and, God bless, maybe that's the way the world works; that's fine. But not in child care, because the priority in child care should be the care of the children, the learning of the children, the development of the children.

The priority—just by definition—in the for-profit sector, particularly this model that is now threatening Ontario, is shareholder return on investment. That's what corporations do. That's their job; that's their mission. That's what they're created to do. It's the nature of their business. We don't think that early learning and care has anything to do with the making of profits and the growing of shareholder value. We think it's about the growing of children. I think it's about the growing of public value and of a society where our kids are given the tools that they need to succeed.

In fact, all of the studies indicate very clearly that that's what necessary to be able to have a successful model.

We need only to look at Quebec; we see what Quebec is doing in terms of child care. We know that other provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have already gotten rid of any expansion in the for-profit sector. We need to do that as well in Ontario. Some of our Ontario cities—Toronto, Ottawa and Sudbury, recently—have already said no to expansion into the for-profit sector. They're staying in the not-for-profit sector. The preponderance of evidence is significant.

This province needs to take a proactive stand. We need to make sure that the expansion of child care in this province is only in the for-profit sector. I urge members to please allow this bill to go into committee where we can have a more fulsome debate. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thank you for giving me the chance to speak on Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Day Nurseries Act to limit the approval of corporations to not for profit corporations. I read this bill many different times. I was listening to the member who introduced this bill a few minutes ago when she was talking about the whole intent of this bill. I have no doubt in my mind that she has good intentions and wants to protect the children in the province of Ontario.

But as a matter of fact, I wonder if the member went back to the rules, regulations and laws in this province. She probably didn't know that we as a province, as the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, don't make deals with corporations, with child care corporations or others. So the whole thing happens through social organizations and also municipalities across the province of Ontario.

As you know, we fought very hard to sign an agreement with the federal government to create a national daycare, and the province of Ontario especially would have benefited from that agreement to a great deal. Sadly, this agreement was cancelled after the government changed in 2007. That agreement was intended to support almost 25,000 child care spots across the province of Ontario.

Despite the cancellation of this agreement, the province of Ontario and the Minister of Children and Youth Services went ahead and approved 22,000 spots across Ontario. Therefore, I don't see that if this bill would pass or not pass, it would make any difference, because we already don't interfere with any deals going on between municipalities and child care spots or organizations across the province. Our statistics show that the ratio between private and not-for-profit is almost 87 for non-profit versus about 13 for for-profit across the province. This number has been consistent for the last 10 years.

So I don't see why the member opposite is making a big issue about it. In the meantime, we have tough regulations and good standards to make sure that the quality of child care in the province, and also the delivery of child care organizations in Ontario, has to be able to provide the province the [ inaudible ] for the children on a regular basis—update about their activities on a daily basis.

I want to tell you something very important. Almost a month ago, I had the chance to visit one of the child care spots in my riding of London—Fanshawe, called Simply Kids. It is a great small child care centre. The kids come from different backgrounds to this centre. This child care is, amazingly, very good. If anyone in this assembly gets the chance, go and visit that place. It's run by an individual. It's a small one, not a huge one. It's organic in the community—based in the community—and it works for the community.

The amazing thing about this child care is that the families of the kids have the ability to watch their kids on a regular basis from their home. Every class has a camera, and the parents can watch their kids—whether they're playing, studying, learning or interacting with the person who's looking after them—from their home. It's amazing. Also, the camera is connected only to their room. The family cannot have access to all the rooms; only to the specific room where their child is. This camera is also connected with the playground.

The family can monitor their kids while they're playing outside, and can see how the people who are providing services deal with them on a regular basis. I think that's amazing.

This is a for-profit. If you are profit or non-profit, it doesn't mean: Are you going to deliver a good service? The most important thing is that we have rules and regulations in place to protect the quality of the delivery of child care services in the province. That is the most important thing.

When we were fighting hard to maintain the agreement with the federal government, the member who stood up a few minutes ago and introduced Bill 26 didn't support us. It was a huge fight with the federal government to maintain that agreement which would provide 25,000 extra child care spots across the province. That's why I don't agree with her, in terms that passing or not passing this bill can change the whole image.

The most important thing is to have rules and regulations to protect the quality of child care spots and spaces in the province and to work hard to create some kind of agreement with the federal government, with the municipalities, in order to create a good working relationship to make sure that all the spots are safe and deliver in a good fashion, in a good way, in the interests of the kids of the province.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'm pleased to join the debate on the issue of child care in Ontario. This is an issue of great importance to many of my constituents. We hold the responsibility, as legislators, to devise policies that suit the needs of Ontarians, meet their priorities and benefit their children.

As I regard the child care issue, I see a few clear principles that we need to follow as we make decisions. The first of these is the principle of parental choice. Moms and dads deserve to have every possible choice that suits their child care needs. They do not need or want a single, rigid system designed for everyone. Some families prefer a tax credit, with one parent staying at home or with child care being provided by a close friend or relative. Others want to make use of child care facilities, either publicly funded and run or privately funded and run. Many families do not need or want any state involvement in how they raise their children, and their views should be respected as well.

The second principle is for the government to recognize that it is up to families to raise their children. The state must respect the wishes of parents and not close off any child care options. Parents do know best, and they certainly know better than the state what is best for their children. Children learn best when they have a strong role model to follow, and that's the one at home. The bill before the House today does not meet either of these principles. It simply rules out one child care option for families. It makes no changes in the provision for standards. It makes no comment about the size of child care facilities or their quality.

The member's question yesterday referred to the "risk that these new for-profit daycare corporations pose to the movement for universal accessible, affordable and regulated child care." To me, this is the wrong way to look at the issue. The role of this House is not to please a movement or a lobby group; our role is to do what is best for families and children. It was the PC government in 1998 that provided the first child care tax credit in Ontario's history. While in office, we doubled the total funding to children's social services, spending record amounts on child care. Most importantly, we stood for a balanced child care system.

The last PC government also recognized that early childhood development was a vital investment. We launched 103 early years centres across Ontario. They offer core universal programs such as parenting classes, early literacy programs and workshops on child development. These centres let local communities decide on how best to meet their own needs. As our party knows that parents are the best ones to raise their own children, we also know that many parents want assistance with skills and expertise. The early years centres offer this assistance. A balanced approach is the best for child care.

Parents need to find out which options suit them and then have those offered to them. Let moms and dads choose what is best for their own children. We must not take any option off the table.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to start off by giving you a couple of comparisons with what is going on in Australia and what is going on right here at home in Sudbury. Over the past 17 years, the face of child care in Australia has changed dramatically. In the early 1990s, about 15% of the centre-based services were owned by small commercial operators. The rest were operated by non-profit societies. Today, about 70% are for-profit commercial operations, with approximately 25% of all centre-based child care provided by the largest child care corporation in the world.

Conversely, in Canada in 2004, the last year for which these figures are available, 79% of the centre-based services were non-profit. The rest are commercial, most commonly small businesses run by independent owner-operators. Since 1990, parent fees have risen 123%—more than doubled—while household income has only increased by 62%. The most dramatic escalation occurred since the first Australia child care corporation listed publicly in 2001, with others following in 2002. In 2006, the cost of child care rose faster than almost any other monitored good or service, outstripped only by vegetables and gasoline.

In fact, the child care price index has surged 65% in the past four years. Why do you think these people are getting involved? For profit.

Government spending doubled between 1991 and 1998, from $525 million to $1.135 billion per year, and it has almost doubled again since then. In May 2006, the federal budget set out nearly $10 billion for child care over the next four years, and almost all of it is earmarked for child care benefits and a 30% tax rebate for out-of-pocket expenses for operators, both of which were initiated in response to the soaring costs of child care. Bloomberg reported that about 40% of the largest Australian corporation revenue comes from government subsidies. Others report the percentage to be even higher.

According to the latest annual report from ABC, its worldwide profits are now $143.1 million for 2006-07. The same corporation spent over $700 million last year buying centres in the US, Australia, New Zealand and the UK, and will continue to acquire and develop child care centres this year.

Now that we've had the horror story from Australia, I would like to go locally. The city of Sudbury has strong and positive relationships with five private owner-operators of licensed child care in the greater Sudbury area that have been developed over many years. However, this type of child care is a difficult fit for the child care system that the city envisions for the future. The potential conflict, where the city provides direct operating fund grants to private, for-profit operators, makes it more difficult to move toward the vision of child care as a publicly funded system of early education accessible to all families.

As with the public system of education in Ontario, where private schools may be licensed but do not receive public funding, the vision of public systems for early education would not exclude private, for-profit child care from opening their doors. However, public funding in the form of operating grants and fee subsidies would not be provided to for-profit, commercial child care centres.

This bill, in my opinion, is long overdue. I commend the member for Hamilton Centre for bringing this forward. Bigger is not better. We've witnessed that, even in cities. Let's take greater London, England. They have now gone back to the borough system of 100,000 people, including all their services, child care and other things. Bigger was not better.

Offshore control: Here we go again. Not only are we eroding our base industries; we're now eroding our education system. We're putting the control of our kids' future in the hands of overseas owners that are there for profit, not there for quality, not there for decent wages for local people who are employed in these daycare centres.

Talking about neighbourhood involvement, a lot of the people who work in these facilities are local moms, trained in our area, who have a stake in our community. They want to provide even better care than they do. But if they're under the direction of a foreign company, with their rules and their out-the-door/in-the-door policies to make more money, I'm not quite sure the quality is there.

Bad wages: Are you going to keep quality people employed, or is it going to become like another Wal-Mart? Are we going to be working for minimum wages—bad daycare, untrained and unlicensed people running these daycares? I think that may happen as it goes down the road.

So I have some great concerns. If the government doesn't support this bill, I think we're going to make a big mistake, and down the road we're going to regret not supporting this bill at this time.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I am pleased to be able to stand here today to speak to the bill. As a mother and a grandmother, and not just as an MPP, I've had to struggle with child care in a rural area over the years. When I look at this and hear someone say, "Well, we don't want to support the for-profits," for me, in my communities—and I'm sure for all rural and northern communities—the issue is what's best for the child. It's about what is quality child care, what is affordable to the family and, more importantly, what is accessible. When we, as parents, need to have child care, we look for those things.

We don't look to see whether they're for-profit or not-for-profit. It might be nice to support one or the other, but that's not necessarily the first question in our minds.

In rural communities, it's an extreme struggle to find child care on a seasonal basis. When you're a farmer and you need to get out and help with the cropping and the work on the farm, you want something safe for your children. You don't want to take them on the tractor with you; you don't want to take them into the barn with you. You want something safe for your children. You need to find something close by, and someone who is willing to work with you on a seasonal basis and in off-hours.

I'm really not concerned about big box in rural and northern Ontario. We are not big enough for a big box. We are not the kinds of communities that they are looking at, but we do need the child care, and we do not always attract the not-for-profits. We have a number of people in our communities who use this as an opportunity to employ themselves. They use that as an opportunity to employ their neighbours and they also provide a service that's very important, that's very local; it's very culturally sensitive, in many cases. These are the kinds of things that we need for our children. These are the things we look for as parents.

I live in a community that is about 45 minutes outside the city of London. Many of my constituents work in the city of London, but they don't want to take their children there for child care, which is where we would find most of the larger child care facilities. We would not find very many—we do have not-for-profits, but they are not large operations. Most of them are for-profit in my communities.

As a mother who doesn't want to take her child a great distance for child care—we want to be able to have our children close to home. That way, if something happens and the child care calls and says that you need to come pick up the child because they're sick or something has happened, we often call grandparents, aunts and uncles, a neighbour, a good friend to go and pick the child up. That is because we want them close to home. If we have to do that and we have to ask someone to come from the home area into a large centre, because that's the only place that actually ends up being able—under this type of an amendment, would that be the only way we would have child care?

Mr. Peter Shurman: We live in a day and age where two incomes are no longer considered a luxury but a necessity in order for many families to make ends meet.

Each and every day, parents, especially those of children not yet old enough for school, are forced to make serious decisions about appropriate care for their children so they can go to work to earn the money needed to ensure a roof over their family's heads and food on the dinner table. Some are blessed with friends or loved ones who can watch their kids during the workday, but many are not. Often a parent is forced to stay home due to a child's illness, thus missing a much-needed day's pay.

We've seen time and again how this government ignores the plight of ordinary Ontarians. They remain in the state of wilful ignorance about the state of this province's economy despite repeated warnings from respected economists. Yet as the McGuinty government keeps its collective head buried in the sand, the problems facing the parents of Ontario's children become more dire with each passing day.

Rather than fostering an environment in Ontario that provides parents with a broad spectrum of choices for the care of their children, this government is steadfast in its belief that parents do not know what is best for their own children. When can we expect a modicum of individual respect and dignity?

Indeed, I believe that no one knows how to take care of a child better than a loving parent. Each of us here wants what is best for our children and our grandchildren; many of us were inspired to become MPPs so we could make Ontario a little better for them. The people we represent are no different from any of us in this chamber. No parent wants to be told by a faceless government how to raise her or his children. No two families are alike. Each family exists with its own set of circumstances. Indeed, you cannot legislate a cookie-cutter approach to such an important issue as child care.

It is our role as politicians to enable parents to make the best possible decisions for their families and to support the choices that each individual family makes. What works for a family in my riding of Thornhill may not work for a family in Thunder Bay. We must respect this fact.

What we need in this province is a range of policies that respects the diversity of families and assists them in their quest to determine the best care for their children. What we don't need are policies, such as the one proposed today, that will unreasonably limit the choices available to responsible and caring parents. Parents aren't ignorant. Give them the right to choose.

There are those in this chamber who think we should imitate the Quebec daycare model. Let me share with you some thoughts from a report of the L'Institut économique de Montréal on the subject of Quebec's model. The report cites "two-year waiting lists, lack of parental choice and a proliferation of daycare strikes as the main shortcomings in the Quebec system since its 1997 reform under a Parti Québécois administration. 'Access to a subsidized space depends neither on the parents' financial circumstances, nor on the needs of children who may require special help....

The only factor that now plays a role is the rank of a child on a waiting list, i.e., bureaucratic convenience.'" Do we really want this for Ontario's children?

There's more in an editorial by the National Post's Norma Kozhaya. She writes: "One of the few extensive studies on the quality of Quebec child care facilities reported, in 2005, that 61% had an overall quality rated as minimal (with scores of three to 4.9 out of seven) while 12% were rated as inadequate and 27% as good. Government subsidy and regulation, clearly, does not ensure high quality."

Some parents believe an institutional setting will assist their children with early learning and socialization skills. Others believe a child can best be looked after by a venerable member of the family. Still others believe it is best for one of the parents to remain home during those formative years. The decisions made are based on each family's individual circumstances. Shift work, commute times and child care costs are all factors that impact parental decisions on child care. The best thing we can do as politicians is to broaden the range of safe child care options available to parents, not to presume that we know what's best for their children.

The federal government provided a one-time sum of almost $300 million to Ontario for child care. Whatever happened to that? Let me point to the federal universal care benefit program. It is a new program that issues a $100 monthly payment to families for each child under the age of six to cover the cost of child care. That way, families can decide what type of child care is best. That is choice. That is what I'm talking about: giving parents the ability to decide what is best for their child.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'm very happy to be here to support my colleague from Hamilton Centre and to support her bill, which we believe is a very good bill.

As I listen to the Tories and the Liberals—more the Tories—what they have to say is very predictable. The point about choice—very predictable. They are allergic to anything public; it's embedded in their genes. It has been embedded in their genes since time immemorial, and it will never go away.

What is surprising is the Liberals. They continue to amaze me and surprise me each and every day. Two members for whom I have some respect, or a lot of respect, depending on the issue, just stood up to talk about the idea of choice—couched in different language, but it's the same thing; it's all about choice.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Oh, come on.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Again, it's predictable, Jimmy, what you have to say. When the Tories were in power for eight long years, they spent not one cent in child care services, public or otherwise—not one cent. So am I surprised when two Tories stand up and say, "We like choice"? I'm not surprised.

When the Liberals stand up, am I surprised? No. They have $300 million given to them by the federal government to spend on public child care services. Did they spend one cent of federal money on public, not-for-profit child care? Not one cent. Money that was given to them by the federal government to spend for that purpose, they kept in their own pocket to do whatever else they wanted to do. They have no commitment to public, not-for-profit child care.

We have a public elementary and secondary school system in this country. Ninety-five per cent of our children are in a public system. This, it appears, the Liberals support; that, they support. But when it comes to child care they make the case that, "Well, in some cases we don't have public in our area. What are you going to do?" And in another case another individual says, "Well, I've been to some of these for-profit and they're not so bad," and they need choice. Please.

How can you argue that a public system, elementary and secondary, is good and then argue that for child care, "Well, it's not so bad; you just have to make sure that you regulate it, and if people want to make money on children, that's okay"?

How could you make that leap and feel good to be Liberals? This is the problem with Liberals. You claim you have a heart on so many issues, and when you're put to the test, you fail each and every time. And God bless you. People seem to like it, they seem to like you, so you must be doing something right. I understand it. To take two contradictory positions is always a beautiful Liberal thing, and you win each and every time.

The good people of Ontario, who don't know any better, who should know better, who ought to know better—who know or ought to know that you're not investing one single cent in child care—keep voting for you, so you must be doing something right. God bless you, all Liberals, on this side and the other side.

We have a public universal health care system that is gradually being eroded by the feds, who have an allergy to public institutions, and by Liberals under the Chrétien-Martin government who eroded the funding of public services, including child care, for many, many years, since 1993 when Jean Chrétien was elected. We have a universal public health care system that is gradually, incrementally being eroded, both by Conservative governments provincially and federally and by provincial Liberal governments here. You still pretend you have a commitment to universal health care as you gradually eat away at those public institutions.

Liberals say, "We want a universal health care system. Oh, no, we want a universal public elementary and secondary system, including the post-secondary," but when it comes to children, those things that we value the most, we say, "It doesn't matter that it's a public institution or a for-profit institution making money on the care of children." That's the commitment Liberals make in this place each and every time.

Why can't they learn from Quebec, which leads on so many issues, notwithstanding any comments made by my friend from Thornhill? It has one of the best programs offered in Canada, and it has been offered by Quebec for a long time. Why can't we follow Quebec? Their child care is provided on a low-cost basis because it's subsidized by the government. It says to working men and women, "We value the fact that you have to work, that your children are an investment for us all, and that you cannot afford to pay the rates of $7,000 to $15,000 for each child for that care.

We want to help as a government because we believe it's an obligation of government." But not here, not the Liberals—and let's forget about the Tories.

Please. Can't you look it up, do a little reading and say, "Why can Quebec do it, and we, who have been rich for so long in this province, with so much money, declare ourselves to be incompetent and unable to do the job?" Why do you do that? All it takes is just a little effort, a little will, a little left-leaning Liberal heart, for those of you who still have some of it left, to pull into that heart and say that Quebec does a good job. Some 64% of Quebec children have access to a licensed early learning and child care program—64%. You should look at those numbers and say, "Man, how do they do it?

They have been poorer than we have for a long, long time. How do they do it?" But they have, and they've been leading.

We don't have to look to Europe, as well we should, in terms of the programs they provide in Europe at an early age, not for-profit but subsidized by governments. We could and should look at Europe, but we don't have to. We could just stay here. Travel a little bit to Quebec. It's not so far. You can access it by e-mail; you don't even have to travel there, for God's sake. It's in Canada. Parents here pay anything from $7,000 to $15,000 a year for one child—a lot of money. Most parents can't afford it.

Most parents who cannot afford it are waiting in line, and those who don't have access to that kind of support subsidy by government are going to unlicensed, unregulated child care. We don't know what those kids are getting in those unlicensed child care services. We don't know. I can't imagine the kind of care they're getting, and the government says that it's okay. It's part of the choice that parents have. We have a profound difference with Tories and Liberals on this particular issue.

We urge people who are watching, we urge people working in the public child care system to lobby their Liberal members on an ongoing basis and make this a campaign. Some Liberals will be torn. Some Liberals will feel guilty about this. You need to meet with them face to face and ask them for their position. It's got to be part of a campaign; otherwise it won't work.

We have said in this bill that we are grandparenting the services provided by the for-profit child care groups. We are grandparenting that; we don't want any other monopolies coming from another country to provide child care for profit for our children. We simply reject that as an option.

Those who are watching in this Legislature and on television: Make it a campaign. Go after your friendly Liberals. There are some; not too many, but there are some. Go after them and make them feel guilty so that when they go to their Tuesday caucus meetings they are forced to debate this issue in a serious way and not allow themselves to be part of the same argument about choice. We reject it.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I'm glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on this debate.

First of all, I find it incredibly ironic that the NDP, especially at the federal level—Jack Layton—who got together a few years ago with their Conservative friends to bring down not just the federal Liberal government but also to bring down the most comprehensive child care plan ever proposed in this country—that child care plan went down the drain the moment the NDP and Jack Layton decided they would rather pursue their own personal agenda of taking down the Liberal government at the time, and take down the child care plan with it; let it go right down the drain and have that no longer exist.

Instead, what did the Conservatives bring forward? They brought forward a small allowance that is given monthly to parents, who've told me that that is not enough to provide them with any help whatsoever. The NDP knew this was going to happen when they collaborated with the Conservatives to bring down the Liberal government. If anyone, the NDP should be complaining with their federal sisters and brothers in Ottawa as to why they brought down that child care plan.

Also, I have to address the issue of Quebec. Again, as anyone in this Chamber now knows, Ontario provides a lot of money to the federal government. We are a province that provides and subsidizes the rest of Canada. We're not complaining, saying we don't want to subsidize or help other parts that may need help; that's fine. But we subsidize Quebec a lot, and Quebec is using Ontario dollars. If they use Ontario dollars, they're going to be able to create and put forward the kind of programming and funding, whether it be in child care or other areas, that we in Ontario can't do, and this is what the Premier continues to bring up.

We're not saying that we're not going to contribute at all, but billions of dollars through equalization flow out of Ontario and go to other parts of Canada, and I'm sure some of them land in Quebec and they end up getting the programs they want. Perhaps it's time that the NDP start pointing their guns and their arguments towards the federal government and telling them that they shouldn't be hurting us so much. This is something that has come up many times.

But getting to the core of the issue, the Liberals have done here in Ontario a lot towards child care. My colleagues and myself have said that we've expanded the availability of child care for the creation of more than 22,000 new licensed child care spaces in the last three years. That's a remarkable achievement, when you think about it, considering all the other areas that we've focused on in Ontario. We invested $142.5 million in 2007 to sustain more than 7,000 new licensed child care spaces across Ontario. So we are involved in helping with child care.

We've launched a website to help parents find the information they need to make an informed decision about licensed child care. Our government is also raising the bar on quality by establishing a regulatory college of early childhood educators, the first of its kind in Canada. Childhood educators are going to have a college to strengthen the quality of early learning. We've gone on to appoint Dr. Charles Pascal to advise in implementing full-day learning. When implemented, the full-day learning program will free up thousands of child care spaces.

And there are other accomplishments which, unfortunately, time doesn't permit me to list, but the bottom line is that we have invested $142.5 million to 2007.

In closing, I'd like to say that in the riding of Scarborough Southwest—we've allowed a lot of new immigrants, a lot of new Canadians, to come to this province. They have come to me and they've said that they have needs and they have requirements. A lot of them take public transit and have to leave their kids at child care facilities. We have responded. We are funding the ones that presently exist. We are doing our very best to make them as good as possible. Again, a lot of people in my riding have young children that require daycare, but they're not complaining about the fact that there isn't daycare available.

They want to make sure that the quality is good, and that quality is improving under the Liberal government.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I am pleased to rise this morning and join my colleagues in the thoughtful and antagonistic, at times, debate on the bill presented by the member from Hamilton East: Bill 26, Day Nurseries Amendment Act (Not for Profit Corporations), 2007. It certainly allows me to bring up later on some issues we have in the riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

For the moment, for starters, I will be joining my other two colleagues who spoke previously from the party about the PC caucus and our fundamental beliefs in Ontario children and young people, and that parents are the best suited in their families to decide on their choice—I'll use that word again—in their child care decisions and their needs.

We agree, certainly, that affordable daycare and child care is important to all the health and well-being and the development of Ontario's children. I know the member from Scarborough Southwest has just mentioned that he doesn't have any problems in his riding with access to daycare, but that's certainly not the situation in my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I've spoken several times in the Legislature about the Best Start child care spaces that the former Minister of Children and Youth Services decided to remove, after promising that they would come to the riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

For reasons we are still investigating, both the municipality and myself—questions about that—we hope that the new minister will look at this with fresh eyes. We've certainly asked for that, both verbally and in written letters to her.

But I think it's important to bring up the fact that the former Minister of Children and Youth Services—that ministry received a scathing report last year about the expenses and what went on in that ministry, brought forward—I mean, $59,000 in luxury vehicles was spent; trips to the Caribbean, Argentina; other misspent monies that should have gone to hard-working Ontario families in respect to child care, and didn't.

When the former minister decided to give 15,000 Best Start spaces in the province, my service provider for Kawartha-Victoria, which provides services in both Haliburton and Kawartha Lakes, received zero. We feel it was unjustified that we received zero Best Start spaces from the former minister. I've asked the Auditor General to investigate. I know the municipality of Kawartha Lakes, which would also be the service provider for Haliburton in this matter, has asked the Ombudsman to look into this, and, as I say, I've asked the minister to look into this issue with fresh eyes.

It's important to bring that up because we have challenges not only geographically but with a lot of low-income families in our riding, and the service providers, the municipalities, want to provide the best services possible. They're certainly at a disadvantage when they weren't allocated the initial Best Start spaces, a disadvantage that would be $5 million over four years.

I know the member for Peterborough is looking at me kind of strangely, but certainly it's been brought to his attention many times.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes.

Mr. Jim Wilson: The best program in North America.

Ms. Laurie Scott: It is the best child program. Certainly there was federal money, as has been mentioned, that was given to the province. The accountability for where that money was spent—and the good work done by the previous Conservative government, no question, on early childhood education. This brings us to a bigger picture, and I know the member for Leeds—Grenville and the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook spoke yesterday in the budget debate about how the commitment to Ontario actually means taking responsibility for governing seriously.

You keep pointing fingers at different governments, be they federal or municipal; everybody is at fault but yourselves. Again, I've said several times that the federal government gave you a lot of money. We're asking how you disbursed it in respect to the child care spaces.

I've brought my example forward several times in this Legislature, and I bring it forward again today because we don't want to let that go. That's still a lot of money to us in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, and we're at a disadvantage in providing services that we desperately need in that riding. All the other service providers in the rest of the province received funding. It's doesn't make sense, but we're still asking questions and I hope to get some responses and some answers from this government.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Don't hold your breath.

Ms. Laurie Scott: No, I won't hold my breath, because that is a long, long time and we've been fighting this for a long, long time.

Bill 26 has brought the opportunity to discuss the lack of this government's initiative in respect to child care spaces, and I welcome the debate this morning. We have some fundamental disagreements on the best way for child care to be delivered with private-public providers, but we welcome the initiative brought forward by the member for Hamilton Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. Horwath, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have to say, I'm pretty shocked by the lack of information that some of the members in this House have and on which they are basing their decisions.

I also have to say that I don't think people were listening when I indicated in my initial remarks that we are not saying, and this bill does not say, "Let's get rid of the existing for-profit providers." In fact, I have long acknowledged, and so have many others in this sector, that it's because of lack of government investment, because of ignoring the needs of families and children in the province, that some of these for-profit providers have come to pass. The reality is that if we were investing what we should be investing in child care, then there would be no need, because the fulsome and bountiful public provision of child care would exist like it does in the province of Quebec.

But mark my words: Things are different in Ontario today than they were even two years ago. The reality is that the big bad wolf of the multinational corporation is breathing down the neck of the small providers here in Ontario, and the reality is that we do not want to see big-box child care. So it's not good enough for the government to close its eyes and pretend that everything is just the same. It's not the same. We're not talking about small, mom-and-pop operators like one of the members was talking about earlier. Absolutely not. We are talking about big corporations, corporate child care.

That is not acceptable in the province of Ontario. It's not acceptable to me or to most parents. We have to pass this bill and get on with good child care in Ontario.

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

Mrs. Savoline moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 42,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act / Projet de loi 42, Loi modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mrs. Savoline, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I rise and recognize in the House a constituent in Burlington who has brought this issue to my attention, that we have a loophole in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Mr. Ted Kindos is the owner and operator of Gator Ted's Tap and Grill, and others have joined him from Burlington.

I am proposing to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to include that "no person shall smoke tobacco or any controlled substance or hold lighted tobacco or any burning controlled substance in any enclosed public place or enclosed workplace," and also add, "or within 10 feet of that place."

The issue came to my attention some months ago when Mr. Kindos told me that he was being challenged by a patron who was smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes. My amendment does not cast judgment on those who smoke marijuana for relief of whatever ailment causes them to smoke it, and I want to make that perfectly clear. I am not trying to infringe on anybody's rights to take their own medication. However, what happens here is that the rights of the broader public then are infringed on if marijuana is allowed to be smoked in places where we have prohibited smoking tobacco.

When researching this issue, I really felt that there was a loophole in our legislation, one that folks could take opportunity with. I felt it was important to bring this forward and to close that loophole. I want to ensure that this follows on the intent of the original act, which was to create a safer environment. It really was to be a safety measure for the broader public against tobacco smoke, which we know is detrimental to people's health. What the original act did was, it banned smoking in enclosed public places and all enclosed workplaces; this happened a couple of years ago.

Time has gone by and we're learning where, perhaps, the wrinkles are in the act. This gives us a way to close those gaps. The places included restaurants, bars, schools, private clubs, sports arenas, work vehicles, offices and entertainment venues, including casinos, bingo halls, and bowling and billiard establishments. What this act proposes to do is to include the prohibition of smoking controlled substances in all those places as well. If it stands as a safety measure for people's health in the original act, then it should be extended in this amendment to smoking controlled substances in public places as well.

It's really regrettable that we even have to legislate what I call a logical or a common-sense issue. Talking about this today, it may seem like, well, why wouldn't it include that? Well, it doesn't, and only legislation can change that. So I would like to say that what I'm bringing forward is about the principle. It's the principle of respecting the rights of folks who do not want to be subjected to second-hand smoke of any kind. What message do we send our Ontario residents or our children if we allow a loophole to stand?

What I think we're doing by moving forward with this amendment is to protect workers and the public from exposure to second-hand smoke. It will help ensure, I think, that the young people understand that we are not tolerant of this in our society in Ontario and perhaps pick up this deadly addiction.

Tobacco, as many of you know, is the number one cause of preventable disease and death in Ontario. It kills 16,000 people every year. Tobacco-related diseases cause the Ontario economy almost $2 billion yearly in health care. This results in $2.6 billion in productivity losses and about 500,000 hospital days each year. We know that we need some relief in our health establishments, our hospitals. I think this goes yet one more step in protecting our public and keeping it as safe as we can.

It also, I believe, advocates for the right of business owners to protect and advocate, first of all, on behalf of their patrons, the majority of their patrons, and also on behalf of their business. What happens when patrons stop coming to a business is that the business loses money and eventually goes out of business. I think this act would go a long way to preventing that kind of thing from happening.

The restaurant industry, as we all know, is a very competitive place, and even though there's a certain loyalty attached to attending one particular establishment, I think that in order to protect one's health, one's children's health, people will stop attending that establishment in order not to breathe that second-hand smoke. So we owe it to businesses that cater to patrons—the food service industry—to protect them against anybody who feels that this is an opportunity to actually go around the law.

There are establishments, I think, that are at risk because this is happening, because police will not confront anybody who has a certificate to smoke marijuana for legal purposes. So when you can't count on the police to help you because of a certificate, then I think we have to legislate this into our Ontario laws. People have rights, and I respect those rights, but I think it goes without saying that with rights come responsibilities. Unfortunately, some people have to be legislated into those responsibilities.

Our businesses create jobs in our community. They provide good-quality jobs, they contribute to the economy in that way, but they also give back to the community. They give back in many ways. They give back through volunteerism.

They have the right of this protection in Bill 42 to help them continue to be good corporate citizens, to be good constituents in our ridings and to provide an environment where they can run their businesses without the risk of being challenged and without the risk of losing patrons because somebody is smoking, either trying to smoke in the establishment or right at the doorway of the establishment.

I think this bill actually closes that loophole and provides us with the opportunity to make things right and continue with the intent that the bill set out to do back in May 2006, when we all agreed that smoking was bad for our health, that we were providing safety to residents in Ontario by creating the legislation in the first place and that this just follows on that legislation.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd just like to commend the member for bringing forth this bill. We support this bill. However, here are a few concerns about enforcement and a rationale for this amendment.

Enforcement: Local public health units are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. In 2006, when the restriction on smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces was introduced, the government provided funding for enforcement, a commitment of $5.5 million. The new provision brought forth by the member in restricting smoking within 10 feet of a public place or workplace will require a greater level of enforcement resources and will create an additional resource burden on the local public health units. Although we are supportive of the bill, once again, we want to make sure it is enforceable in a way that does not stress the local public health units.

Effects of second-hand smoking: We all know the health impacts of second-hand smoke on our communities. According to the Canadian Cancer Society, cigarettes produce about 12 minutes of smoke, yet the smoker may inhale only 30 seconds of smoke from that cigarette. The rest of the smoke lingers in the air for non-smokers and smokers to breathe. Second-hand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals. Many of these chemicals are known to cause cancer.

Chemicals found in second-hand smoke include carbon monoxide, found in your car's exhaust; ammonia, found in window cleaners; cadmium, found in batteries; and arsenic, found in rat poison. Each year, more than 1,000 non-smoking Canadians die from second-hand smoke. This bill takes additional steps to ensure that fewer people are subjected to the dangers of second-hand smoke.

Second-hand smoke versus other pollutants: While this bill will lower the impacts of second-hand smoke on Ontarians and is important, we need to keep in mind that in many communities across Ontario the health impacts of second-hand smoke are far, far outweighed by widespread industrial pollution. I'll give you an example. If one of my fellow colleagues in the steel industry is standing beside his gate 10 feet away from where this new law would take provision, then you look directly behind him and you see large stacks putting out tonnes and tonnes of pollutants into the local air.

The Ontario Medical Association estimates that in 2005, air pollution caused 5,800 premature deaths, almost 17,000 hospital admissions and almost 60,000 Ontarians to visit hospitals and emergency rooms. The OMA report estimates that the cost of air pollution to the economy of Ontario is a staggering $16 billion per year. These health impacts are rising at an extraordinary rate. So while we support this bill, it is important to highlight these concerns. If you're standing outside of your workplace in Hamilton, even in a smoke-free environment and at a 10-foot perimeter, you are not breathing clean air.

The air around you is probably 15 times worse than the cigarette alone.

What are we going to do about cleanup? Okay, the guy was dropping butts in the doorway of the establishment—not good; not good for children and not good for anybody to breathe that in. But now he's going to stick that butt 12 feet, 14 feet away on the ground—more cleanup. Has anything been taken into consideration about cleaning up the butts, cleaning up the cigarettes surrounding the establishment, not just 10 feet in front of the door, where they used to stick ashtrays so people could smoke outside, even if they were employees? What are you doing around the establishment?

What are you doing about the streets, where these people are now going to throw these cigarettes? Can they not breathe, 11 feet away from the establishment, the same cigarette butt or whatever is thrown on the ground or whatever they are smoking? Cannot there be residue from the marijuana, or who knows what else—opium? Who knows what people are taking? Is this going far enough? Is this really going to eliminate it?

I can't emphasize enough that I'm not sure if the member has taken into consideration the enforcement of this. As far as I can see, having been in Hamilton for many years, I haven't seen too many people get fined with smoking violations. The odd one was blatant: inside a bar or a restaurant. They were actually doing it and trying to push the issue. They got fined. So I'm not really sure how this is going to be enforced.

I hope the member, in discussions, if this bill goes further in committee, will take into consideration some of these other concerns and try to alleviate some of the tension of people who feel they're being unjustly dealt with because of the big stacks that are pouring out tonnes and tonnes of pollution, which I tried to address with the environmental minister the other day.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to join the debate today, and certainly a pleasure to announce that I'll be supporting this bill. I think it is a wonderful bill; I think it's well thought out. It's nice to be able to work with the member from Burlington. She and I have a long history working together on Halton regional council. Sometimes the adversarial nature of this place puts you at odds with each other, so it's certainly nice to be working in a cooperative way again on this.

I think there's a certain logic to this bill that's appealing, that I think would make most members of this House support the bill. The test I often use as to whether something makes sense or not is to talk to kids about it. When you look at any major behavioural change that we've been able to make in our society over the past 10, 15, 20 years—when you think about things like recycling, when you think about drinking and driving, when you think about a host of changes, like smoking, perhaps—when we told adults it was unsafe to smoke, adults continued to smoke.

It was when we got kids to talk to their parents and say, "I'd like you to stop smoking," that parents started to pay some attention. When we asked adults to start to recycle tin cans and pop cans, it wasn't the adults who really did the work, who did any of the heavy lifting on that; it was the kids who did it. It was the kids who would not allow you to throw a pop can in your own garbage. Drinking and driving: We told people they shouldn't drink and drive, and adults continued to drink and drive. We told the kids, "Don't ever get in a car with someone who's been drinking.

If your parents have been drinking, hide the car keys." That's when we started to see action on drinking and driving. So if you asked a child, if you asked a young person today, if you asked some of the pages in the House today, "Does this make sense? Should you have to walk through a cloud of marijuana smoke to get into a restaurant?" I think the answer from everybody would be no; somebody simply doesn't have the right to do that to other people.

The dangers of second-hand smoke are very, very clear. I think the same logic applies here in this bill, that the dangers of marijuana second-hand smoke are no less dangerous. In fact, some of the research I've seen has said that marijuana second-hand smoke could perhaps be even more dangerous.

I think of all the progress we've been able to make on the issue of second-hand smoke and smoking cessation—and we have made terrific progress, as a government. We committed to reduce smoking in Ontario by 20% by the end of 2007. It was in 2003 that we set that target. But we were able to decrease smoking by over 30% between 2003 and 2006.

We have a new proposed law coming out that would ban smoking in cars with children. That makes sense to everybody around this House, I would hope. We know that smoking kills 13,000 Ontarians each and every year. It costs our health care system $1.7 billion every year.

So unlike attempts by previous parties to do something about smoking among young people and adults, the past four or five years have seen actual progress on this issue. It's something that we do want to keep moving forward with. We've seen, when the NDP were in power, that smoking went up among young people. Between 1991 and 1995, smoking rose from 21% to 31%. How could that go up?

Mr. Paul Miller: That's our fault?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It is. I don't know how you did that, but you managed to do that.

Our plan is working. In a 2007 survey by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 72% of students between grade 7 and grade 12 are reporting that they have never smoked a cigarette in their life. That's a 15% increase since 2003. So we're starting to see some real progress. To have a loophole inserted, or to have someone try to take advantage of a loophole, seems to me to just run contrary to the progress that's been made to date. So as I said, I'll be supporting the bill.

There certainly is a federal element to this as well, and I would urge the member for Burlington, if she hasn't already done so, to contact the federal member from Burlington too. Certainly this is a controlled substance; certainly there's a role for the federal government in this issue. I would hope today, when the vote is taken, that all members in this house would support the member from Burlington. But I don't think we need to let the federal government off the hook on this. They have a role to play here; I don't know if all members agree with that. Certainly, I think that if you look—

Mr. Jeff Leal: I do.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: The member from Peterborough agrees, and that's good enough for me.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He agrees with everything. Wait till I get up. He'll agree with me.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I can't wait to hear that one.

I know the establishment in question; I know the proprietor of the establishment in question; I played soccer against him for a number of years. He's very, very involved in the community, he's a person who takes his corporate and social responsibility very seriously, and he's somebody who deserves to be supported. As I said, I will be supporting it, and I would urge all members to support it.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It's a pleasure to join the debate on this bill brought forward by my colleague from Burlington, Bill 42,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. I must say that Ms. Savoline did offer me a treat for speaking today, but that is pure chocolate. I assure you, there is nothing in there but pure milk chocolate. I do appreciate any bribes in the way of candy that you can offer, Ms. Savoline.

Speaker, you have to ask yourself: Why do we need to bring in a bill that should, for most thinking people, be automatic? Over the years, incrementally, we have changed the rules with regard to smoking in this province. I can't say exactly when it was, but maybe in the late 1980s, we first banned smoking in businesses and public places such as clothing stores, or in my case, a hardware store, so that you couldn't be smoking in those buildings. It may have been later than that.

Incrementally, we've gone to a situation where a couple of years ago, we banned smoking completely in bars, restaurants, and everything else except for when they built a nice, fancy room down at the casino—the government did, so that they could smoke there.

We've had these incremental changes to the law so that we could send the message that we as a society and we as people in government believe that smoking is inherently bad for you, and we can't simply allow it to take place wherever somebody chooses to conduct themselves in that activity.

Then, of course, we had medical exemptions to smoke marijuana, a controlled substance. Those were granted by the federal government through Health Canada if someone could put forward a case that their health was being benefited by the ability to smoke marijuana.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Grandma's glaucoma.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Grandma's glaucoma.

But that's not what this debate is about. This debate is about whether or not someone who has that exemption has the right to smoke somewhere else.

What I fundamentally believe is that while you may have the exemption from a law, it doesn't put you above the law. In the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, we don't permit smoking in bars, restaurants or establishments such as that. So just because someone has the privilege of having a medical exemption to smoke a controlled substance such as marijuana, that, in my mind—and, I believe, in the mind of every reasonable person in this province, with the exception of that person who is bringing this before the court—certainly, Mr.

Kindos, the people who work in his establishment and the customers in his establishment would believe that it should go without saying that that does not give someone the right to smoke marijuana in a place where the rest of the population cannot partake in the smoking of tobacco.

We live in a society—or at least we used to—where the law applies to everyone. In this government, quite frankly, they have different views about how the law is applied. I want to talk about the situation we have in Caledonia, for example, and the situation with the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and how this government views acts of extortion with regard to the law.

I know that if I went over to Welland, into my friend Mr. Kormos's riding, and started going door to door demanding money, I would soon find myself on the wrong end of the law, but in this government they permit that because they don't want to enforce the law.

Let's talk about illegal tobacco. Michael Perley of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco now believes that fully one third of the cigarettes consumed in this province are illegal, contraband cigarettes. The revenue for the government from the sale of tobacco is plummeting. They like to say that as a result of their strong position against smoking they've actually reduced smoking, but no, they haven't. What they've reduced is the enforcement of the law, because they don't want to have anything to do with illegal cigarette smuggling coming through First Nation reserves in this province. They don't want to touch it—not with a 10-foot pole.

My question is, will they actually agree to enforce the law should Ms. Savoline's bill be passed? This is an opportunity—another one; they've squandered opportunities—to say, "We're going to ensure that this law applies to everyone in this province of Ontario. If you can't smoke cigarettes there, you're not going to be smoking a controlled substance."

I support this law in the strongest way possible. I congratulate Ms. Savoline for bringing it forward, and I'm looking for the vote a little later on today.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to take a few minutes on this bill because I know my colleague the member from Hamilton Centre wants to speak to it.

Just from a personal perspective, I want to talk a little bit about the importance of this type of legislation toward curbing people's habits when it comes to smoking. I used to be a pack-and-a-half-a-day smoker, probably some 80 pounds ago, but I've lost about half of that, so that's pretty good. Basically, like most people who smoked at that time, I was very hostile towards any type of legislation that would restrict my ability to smoke.

I remember back in the 1980s when legislation was first introduced limiting our ability to smoke on airplanes and a few other places. Like most smokers I was up in orbit about it—"Who are they to tell me I can't smoke in this particular place?"—not realizing a couple of really important things. Never mind that it's bad for your health, but I never realized as a smoker to what extent it really annoys people who don't smoke.

Now, being a non-smoker for some 15 or 18 years, since I quit, it just amazes me that I never recognized as a smoker of the day that if somebody walks into a room and smokes, just how obnoxious that smell can be and to the degree that it's bothersome, to the point that you don't want to be in the same room. You want to get out of the restaurant and stuff.

As a former smoker, I understand the arguments of those people who smoke, because certainly I hear that from my constituents as I travel around the riding every time this type of legislation comes forward. But I'd just remind people that legislation like this in the end helps to take away the triggers that allow you to smoke. Why did I quit eventually? Because it became so unhandy, so difficult to find places to smoke.

I finally came to the conclusion, "It's more of a pain to try to find a place to smoke, so I'm just going to quit." It was like, "You can't smoke on the airplane." God, I used to have two or three on that one, because I was a bit of a white-knuckle flier at the time. I used to not be able to smoke in my office here at Queen's Park. I used to be up in the ministry office at the time, so I'd have to go outside in the snow, the rain and the rest of it. You couldn't smoke in public buildings that were owned by the government. I just came to the conclusion, "Heck, I don't need this hassle anymore.

Maybe I should try quitting," and eventually it is what led me to quit smoking.

I know that a lot of smokers out there get annoyed when this type of legislation comes forward, but from my perspective, I just want to say that if you can get this old dog to learn a new trick and quit smoking some 17, 18 years ago—

Mr. John Yakabuski: How old are you?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, a young dog at the time—I would just say that anything is possible.

I encourage members to vote for this law. I think, however, that the bill will have to go to committee if it does pass here at second reading, because I think we need to give people an opportunity to come forward and point out whatever difficulties they have with the bill. I look at parts of this bill that quite rightfully are probably more under the Criminal Code than they are under provincial jurisdiction, but nonetheless we will support this bill.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Indeed it is a pleasure to join the debate this morning on Bill 42,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. I would certainly like to commend the honourable member from Burlington for her initiative in this regard. Clearly, she has an issue in her community and she is working hard on behalf of her constituents to bring that issue forward.

In fact, many of the issues brought forward this morning are issues with which I could certainly concur. For me as a former physician, the whole initiative behind what led to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act in 2006 started when I was in medical school. I'm going way back to the 1960s—because it was the US Surgeon General in 1963, Dr. Everett Koop, who actually brought forward the epidemiological evidence that showed that many forms of lung cancer were directly related to tobacco smoke.

As many members have stated, it has been a very long war against tobacco. Those of us who worked in the municipal sector remember those first few municipal bylaws. I know the honourable member for Burlington, in her capacity as regional chair of Halton, will have had to deal with that, as we did in York region. In my community—I have four municipalities in my riding—the type of public debate and, as the member for Timmins—James Bay said, the difficulty of getting those bylaws through one by one, as we did in York region, and eventually—through a lengthy process requiring a triple majority—to in fact have a regional bylaw for the whole of York region that we passed in the year 2000.

Since that time, we needed to level the playing field across the province. So when this government was elected in 2003, one of our commitments at that time in the platform leading up to that election was to bring forward a Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which we see before us. Of course, our government very recently proposed an amendment. Members have alluded to the danger for children in cars where adults are smoking. I'm certainly hoping, given the kind of debate we've heard today, that there will be all-party consent to that particular amendment.

In fact, hearing all the concern related to tobacco smoke, hopefully the opposition parties will also be supporting our budget, because of course in our budget we are proposing to establish a permanent retail sales tax exemption on nicotine replacement therapy.

Having said that, as we know, certainly there are issues with the proposal around enforcement. I thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for remembering public health units and their role in enforcing the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which I believe they are doing exceptionally well. It certainly could be a challenge, and some of these issues need to be fleshed out.

My colleague also talks in general about pollutants. Certainly we know, as the science is telling us more and more, the harm that so many substances, potentially chemical toxins, can do to our health. We in this Legislature, of course, are all committed to ensuring that we do guard public safety, as the honourable member from Burlington has suggested.

I see clearly the need for further discussion and debate on this very important issue. I would like to thank the member from Burlington for bringing this issue forward.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I'm pleased to join in the debate this morning and support my colleague the member from Burlington on her private member's Bill 42,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Certainly, the member from Burlington has been an outstanding addition to our caucus and has represented her constituents extremely well. Today's private member's bill is an example of that. She had a constituent, Ted Kindos, the owner of Gator Ted's, who brought a problem he was having to his member of provincial Parliament; in this case, Joyce Savoline, the member for Burlington. There was a problem in legislation that was affecting his business.

I see there are many members in the gallery from the Burlington area in support of this, and we are pleased to have you here with us today. Certainly it is our responsibility, as legislators, to fix problems that exist that are affecting our constituents, and in this instance, all the people of Ontario.

The government's website says, on Bill 42, the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, "The Smoke-Free Ontario Act is designed to protect the health of all Ontarians by prohibiting smoking in all enclosed workplaces and enclosed public places in Ontario…." This should be consistent across the board, and the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke made the point that there should be one law, whether it affects a controlled substance or second-hand smoke from cigarettes.

Under the previous Minister of Health Promotion, we had on the website "equal protection under the law to all Ontarians for second-hand smoke and prevent youth from starting." The amendment brought forward today by my colleague from Burlington speaks to this quote, allowing no exceptions for any controlled substance.

I was also the critic for health promotion, and I'm certainly a strong advocate of healthy lifestyles, including reducing cancer-causing exposure to second-hand smoke. I know that the Canadian Cancer Society did a survey a few years ago, and my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock had the highest lung cancer deaths related to smoking in Ontario, which certainly highlights the need for education and prevention. It also speaks to access to primary health care, specifically in my riding, with the underserviced designation we have and the lack of doctors and health care professionals.

In my other life, before I entered the Legislature, I was a nurse, and I understand the medical value of controlled substances like marijuana. As long as it's used in public places and does not affect Ontarians in other ways, there is certainly a proper place to use medicinal marijuana, and that should be followed.

It's our responsibility to protect Ontarians, and the member from Burlington has done an excellent job of bringing this forward. She has gotten support from all parties in the Legislature so far. At the end of this session—closer to 12 p.m., for people in the gallery and at home—we'll be having a vote. Hopefully we can move this legislation forward and get that loophole closed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I thank the member from Burlington for bringing forward this legislation.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in support of the member for Burlington's bill. I have to say that I look at it from some of my own experience at the municipality. When I was a municipal councillor in Hamilton, my area of representation included our downtown, and I can tell you that there was no end of frustration, usually from many of the owners of large office towers, who were concerned that as people were not be able to smoke in their workplaces anymore, it forced people out of the office towers and onto the street.

Particularly in inclement weather, but really at all times, people would converge and congregate around the entranceways of these buildings. That caused some concern and some problems for the people who owned those buildings and were leasing out the space to various types of businesses within.

The issue became a couple of different things. One was that of people coming out at various times of the day—morning break, lunch break, afternoon break, whenever, or even just a sneaking-out break, when they weren't supposed to be doing that—and dropping their cigarette butts on the ground and jamming them out with their heel or their foot. By the end of the day, you would have quite an unsightly mess of cigarette butts on the very doorsteps of these buildings. It became pretty unsightly, and it was something that was difficult to try to resolve.

I recall that we did successfully implement—and, just downtown the other day, noticed yet again—a beefing-up of public ashtrays in our downtown area. That helped, but it didn't really solve the problem 100%. It certainly helped those people who were inclined to actually put their cigarette butt in the right place, but the bottom line is, the problem still remained.

So I think that this bill will help to move people away from that very small space, congregating in front of, often, the only entranceway to some of these large office towers. The other thing is, if you were actually going to go into this office tower or that office tower and it happened to be a time when there were a number of people congregating smoking, people would have to run the gauntlet to try to get through the group of people who were smoking in order to access the building. Again, this became problematic.

So whether it's the litter issue or whether it's the issue of having to run a gauntlet to get through groups of smokers at a front entranceway, I think this bill will help address that concern that I know a number of owners of businesses in the community that I come from have articulated over the years.

I also have to say that it certainly has been my experience that when these congregations of smokers are taking place in front of these buildings and you happen to be inside and the door opens, what happens but a big waft of smoky air gets sucked right into the building and you're hit; you have some kind of cloud of noxious smoke hitting you. It goes back to the issue of second-hand smoke. It goes back to the issue of the extent to which we have to try to do whatever we can to reduce the exposure of people to second-hand smoke. I think this member's bill does very much that.

I know there are other parts of the bill as well that speak to the kinds of substances that are currently not caught, if you will, in the legislation, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Again, I think as the member mentioned in her opening remarks, it seems kind of—I'm not sure of the term she used, but it doesn't really make sense. It seems like almost an administrative error that somehow—so tobacco is legal. We're now saying that we cannot smoke tobacco in public places or places of employment or various places listed in the act, but lo and behold, illegal substances were not covered off.

I know my colleague from Timmins—James Bay raised the issue very briefly as to whether or not that is something that is a matter for this kind of legislation—for the Smoke-Free Ontario Act amendment—or whether that issue should be dealt with in other areas like the Criminal Code or some other place.

The reality is that it seems to me that the smoking of, particularly, medicinal marijuana, where people are actually able to smoke that substance because they have a doctor's prescription—it really shouldn't be something that is done. Because, in the same way as regular tobacco, the wacky tabacky—is that what you call it?—also has the kinds of toxins in it that are harmful to the health of other people.

The reality is that this bill is one that makes sense. It's one that not only will help in terms of some of the outstanding issues that I know exist in commercial areas, in our downtowns across the province, but also I think it covers off a piece—a kind of no-brainer in terms of the restriction of smoking of any kind of substance in a location that is currently identified in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to make remarks and I want to congratulate the member on bringing this forward. I think it's a positive piece of legislation and something that can be very well supported. It really does speak to the health of Ontarians—something that we all think is important.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I am pleased to join the debate on Bill 42,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, brought by the member from Burlington. I think I'm going to support this bill because it speaks about something important to us as a government. We have fought very hard to work on this issue for many different years. I know when we got elected in 2003, we brought this issue forward and we debated it big-time in this place. I remember that the investment to control smoking habits and invest in this area was almost $10 million when I got elected in 2003.

Right now, we have almost $60 million invested in this issue because it means a lot to us and we want to help the people who smoke in the province of Ontario. For that reason, we created a special ministry called the Ministry of Health Promotion in order to promote healthy habits and healthy living.

I listened to many different speakers who spoke before me—what great experts in this field, especially one of them, who was a nurse in her past life. She knows a lot about the impact of smoking on people and the cause of smoking. We also had with us our colleague, my friend, the member from Oak Ridges—Markham. She's a doctor and she was also the medical officer for York region. She knows a lot about the impact of smoking, and of second-hand smoke too, like when you inhale smoke, the damage may be more and greater than when you smoke directly. I acknowledge that myself, Mr. Speaker.

I hate it when I go to visit a friend and they smoke; it's awful and it bothers me. I ask them nicely if they can quit smoking until I leave, or I leave.

Mr. Peter Kormos: In your house?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: In their homes, not my house. In their homes.

For some reason, when we introduced this law in the province of Ontario in 2006, it was very difficult for many people, especially the people who smoked and who used to go to the coffee shop. They got used to it. They went to drink coffee and smoke, or they went to the bar to drink beer or whatever, and then they smoked. It was a part of the habit created through the history of humankind. Also, it was promoted through the media.

When you watched a movie, you saw a good-looking woman smoking and you saw like a Marlboro man, a big, huge, macho man, on every billboard across the globe, actually smoking and riding his horse. It was some kind of promotional material across the globe that created a kind of stimulation to sway people to smoke. And I guess it was working. It was part of the fashion of humankind across the globe.

Then, when this issue became very dangerous for humankind, people started thinking about it, because the cost, at least in Ontario—almost 13,000 people die from smoking and it costs our public health care almost $2 billion; it's very costly. That's why all the activists, all the government colleagues, members of provincial Parliament, and the many different activists in our communities came together and enforced the law and it became a law in Ontario. You cannot smoke in public places and you cannot smoke in the car—hopefully, it's going to be a law soon—while you have children in your car.

I think it is a very good initiative to be taking, and I thank the member from Burlington for bringing this very important issue. It's dear to our hearts and to many people in the province of Ontario, especially the people who work in health care, because it's important to us to make sure we live in good conditions and healthy conditions.

I was also listening to the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek when he was talking about a very important issue, about the unit to implement the law and enforce it, the health unit in every city, basically. We have to make sure that the budget is there in order to enforce the law, because most of the time it's very difficult to implement issues like this one here, when you know people smoke, especially when they are driving alone, or they are smoking when people are not monitoring them.

It was also brought to this House and to the attention of the people of Ontario that smoking is not just hazardous to the people who smoke; it also pollutes the environment. The environment is very important too. It's our responsibility as citizens and as a government to bring laws and rules to protect not just our health, but also the environment around us, because indirectly, the environment will affect us. I listened to the member from Hamilton Centre, as a previous politician at the municipal level.

She was talking about putting ashtrays in many different spots in the city instead of throwing cigarette butts out on the street, because we don't want to pollute our streets. We have a good environment, good streets, good gardens. It's very disgusting when you see people smoking and throwing them on the ground and twisting them under their feet. It just doesn't look good and it also pollutes—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Chewing gum is no better.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I agree with you. In some countries, they ban chewing gum because it sticks everywhere and anywhere, especially when they go to meetings. It's bad.

Anyway, I'm glad to join this debate, and I support—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm absolutely thrilled to support the motion that has been put forward—Bill 42,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act—by the member from Burlington.

The member from Burlington, as you know, was elected in a by-election. I can tell you that ever since she was elected to our Legislature, we have been the beneficiaries of her working extremely hard on behalf of her constituents in the Burlington community. I think this particular piece of legislation again demonstrates the fact that she is very responsive to the concerns of her constituents. In this case it's Mr. Kindos, the owner and the operator of Gator Ted's Tap and Grill. I'd like to join others to welcome Ted here and those others who have come from Burlington.

I think we all agree that this is just plain common sense. I think people wonder why it wasn't done before this. I applaud the member for stepping forward and introducing Bill 42 today, which simply means that the prohibition is going to be extended against smoking these substances anywhere within an enclosed public space or workplace or other places such as schools. I think we all know that this is something that obviously is going to be supported today.

It really is all about respecting the rights of people. I think we are quite aware of the harmful effects of smoke, and that was why the original legislation had been introduced. Recently we've talked about introducing legislation which I've been very supportive of. I did introduce a resolution to make sure that we don't force children under the age of 16 who are in cars to be subject to tobacco smoke. I very much support our moving forward, because we know that tobacco smoke has a very detrimental impact on children. When I was Minister of Health, I was pleased to introduce measures at that time which recognized the health issues that were associated with smoking.

I think the amendment today to the original act simply builds upon, obviously, our concern for the health and the safety of people in the province of Ontario. Again, I want to applaud the member. As I say, she has been an outstanding MPP since she arrived here. She did a phenomenal job as the regional chair before that time. I can tell you: Time and time again she brings the concerns of her constituents to either our caucus table or to this Legislature, and I applaud her for this move today.

Mr. Jim Wilson: As a former Minister of Health, I too want to join with my colleagues from all sides of the House in congratulating the member from Burlington, Joyce Savoline, for bringing forward this measure. As my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke said, though, it's astounding that we would have to bring forward legislation and that common sense seems to have gone out the door, at least with some people in Ontario, that they would actually smoke a joint right in the doorway of a public restaurant, Gator Ted's.

I've been to Gator Ted's. I don't remember it very well, but I know I was there at one time with the former member from Burlington. The only reason I don't remember it is—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Reefer madness.

Mr. Jim Wilson: There was a lot of smoke going through the door; I remember that.

Anyway, as the member from Kitchener—Waterloo has just said so eloquently, we're very proud of Ms. Savoline, our colleague, who was regional chair for many years. A lot of people probably don't know, but Joyce not only practises good health, but she has done so all her life. She used to train with the National Ballet of Canada. I congratulate her today with bringing this initiative forward.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm pleased to add some words of support to the debate that has been taking place this morning on Bill 42 and to congratulate and commend my colleague the member for Burlington for bringing this bill forward,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. As members know, this bill is intended to prohibit smoking any controlled substance within 10 feet of a public place. I certainly agree that this is a measure that's needed. We shouldn't really have to debate this too long. I would hope that the government will allow it to pass into law.

I want to congratulate and commend the member for Burlington for the good work she does on behalf of all her constituents. It's an honour to work with her, along with the member for Halton and the member for Oakville, representing the region of Halton. I'm pleased to have that opportunity. I really look forward to the government getting its support behind this bill so as to ensure that it passes into law.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Savoline, you have two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I want to thank my colleagues and friends from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Oakville, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Timmins—James Bay, Oak Ridges—Markham, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, Hamilton Centre, London—Fanshawe, Kitchener—Waterloo and Wellington—Halton Hills.

I'm overwhelmed by the comments that are being made today in support of this bill. I have noted the comments that have been made, and I will take them under advisement as this, hopefully today, moves on to committee.

I think some of our residents feel there is a futility when they come to government and ask for something to be fixed. It's refreshing today that an establishment that caters to a sports crowd is here asking us to strengthen and enforce a no-smoking act. I think that speaks a lot to how far we've gone in the awareness of how bad smoking is for our health.

We have an opportunity here to legislate something that all of us have said is just logic and common sense, but that's the responsibility we take on as legislators in this House. I think we have to do this in the most defensible way, that simply creating a rule that is something we want rather than something that respects the rights with defensibility in a challenge—they're two different things. We have an obligation to create

an act that has defensibility in the case of a challenge.

This is about the impact on people's personal safety—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you.

Interjection: Your time is up.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Is my time up? Okay.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): As a matter of fact, the time provided for private members' public business has expired.

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT

(NOT FOR PROFIT

CORPORATIONS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES GARDERIES

(PERSONNES MORALES

À BUT NON LUCRATIF)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with ballot item number 7, standing in the name of Ms. Horwath. 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.

We will call in the members and have a division.

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 42, standing in the name of Mrs. Savoline. 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. It's carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, we will have—I'm sorry. This bill is referred to the standing committee—

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to refer this bill to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Savoline has asked that this bill be referred to the standing committee on finance. Is it agreed? Agreed.

Now we'll call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT

(NOT FOR PROFIT

CORPORATIONS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES GARDERIES

(PERSONNES MORALES

À BUT NON LUCRATIF)

Ms. Horwath moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Day Nurseries Act to limit the approval of corporations to not for profit corporations / Projet de loi 26, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les garderies afin de limiter l'agrément de personnes morales aux personnes morales à but non lucratif.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Horwath has moved second reading of Bill 26. All those in favour, please stand until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All those opposed, please stand until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 11; the nays are 41.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I declare the motion lost.

Second reading negatived.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SAMUEL DE CHAMPLAIN

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to rise in the House today. I want to comment on the 400th anniversary of the coming of Samuel de Champlain, a French explorer and one of the founders of our country.

I want to bring it forward to this House because the 400th anniversary will be taking place in the year 2015. I have with me a deputation of people from my riding whom you will introduce a little later on who are here today helping me promote this special event, but what I am really wanting to say today is that, as Samuel de Champlain went across Canada, so has the celebration of his explorations.

In fact, this year in the province of Quebec, in a partnership between the province of Quebec and the federal government, tens of millions of dollars are being spent on the promotion of the 400th anniversary of this event. You may have heard some of the radio and TV ads. We're already promoting this special event in the province of Quebec.

What I would like to see happen in this House, in a non-partisan manner, is for everyone to get together and look at what we can do as parliamentarians, working with our federal parliamentarians, to promote this very special event when it takes place in the year 2015.

I know it's seven years away from this summer, but the reality is that time flies quickly and there's a lot of planning to do. I would like to see the Ontario government work with the federal government to receive tens of millions of dollars to promote this special event. I thank every member of this House and wish them well as they try to work with me to promote the 400th anniversary of the coming of Samuel de Champlain to Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm just going to take this opportunity—I have some further introductions that I will make later, but I know the member has guests who are here promoting the 400th anniversary of Champlain's coming to Ontario in 2015. We would just like to welcome Yvon Gagné, Anne Gagné, Matthew Desrochers, John Desrochers, Bob Nash, Terry Quealey—I apologize; the member's writing isn't clear—André Claire and David Dupuis.

Also, I'd just like to let the members know that, on members' behalf, I wrote to every mayor in the province of Ontario because on July 3, Quebec City is going to be ringing their bells. I have written to every mayor in Ontario asking that they consider ringing their bells in recognition of that celebration.

I apologize for the introduction, but I thank the member for bringing this most important event forward.

BRAMPTON SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: I rise today in the House to recognize the Brampton Small Business Enterprise Centre, which recently celebrated its 10th anniversary.

For the past decade, the enterprise centre has been a haven for aspiring business owners looking for planning resources and support services to implement their business vision. A joint project between the city of Brampton and the province of Ontario, the centre also partnered with HRDC, the Brampton Board of Trade, the Royal Bank, Microsoft and Bell.

Last year, in collaboration with the province of Ontario and the federal government, Brampton joined the BizPaL online network. It was one of the first municipalities in Canada and Ontario to do so. This reflects the centre's strong commitment to offering to local businesses and entrepreneurs innovative tools and resources to help them create and grow successful and thriving businesses.

The centre continues to offer personal, one-on-one assistance. Aspiring and new business owners appreciate the opportunity to speak with a live person, to learn in traditional classroom settings and to meet in person for confidential consultations. They know how valuable personal discussion can be in a time when so much business is done through forms, websites and other automated processes. In the last 10 years, the dedicated staff have assisted with nearly 140,000 inquiries, more than 26,000 business registrations and 3,650 consultations, and more than 4,000 people have attended enterprise centre seminars and special events. Since 2004, nearly 17,000 jobs have been created.

Again, join me in recognizing the small business centre in Brampton for its remarkable service to the Brampton area.

SEXUAL ABUSE

Mrs. Julia Munro: Last week I was honoured to attend Men of Courage: the First Provincial Conference on Male Sexual Victimization, here in Toronto. It was hosted by the Men's Project, a counselling agency that has helped men and their families since 1997. They offer healing for men who have experienced sexual or physical abuse as children, anger management and fathering skills.

One of the issues raised at the conference that I give this government full credit for is calling for a public inquiry into the events in the Cornwall area. Former MPP Gary Guzzo also deserves a lot of credit as a driving force to hold this inquiry for many years.

Conference attendees also supported changes to the Criminal Code to increase protection for young people by raising the age of consent to 16 and toughen the dangerous offender provisions. I'm glad that the federal Liberals have finally seen the wisdom in allowing this bill to move forward.

Violence of any kind against any person is wrong. We should all be grateful for the work the Men's Project does to help heal male victims.

AGNES MACPHAIL

Mr. Michael Prue: The year 1993 was the 50th anniversary of the election to this House of Agnes Macphail, the first woman to take her seat in this Legislature.

That was also the year that the member of provincial Parliament for part of East York, Gary Malkowski, came before the council of the borough of East York and asked that the borough do something to recognize this historic and wonderful woman who had represented our community. It was the decision of the East York council to establish a yearly award to honour people who did great things and did them in a way that we thought Agnes Macphail would have approved.

Each and every year on the anniversary of her birth, March 24, we set aside in the borough of East York an opportunity to recognize an individual with outstanding contributions to our community. You'll be proud to know that we have done so even after amalgamation.

This year, the award went to Geoff Kettel. Geoff Kettel is a wonderful man who lives in the Leaside area in East York. He has distinguished himself on the board of health he has worked in citizenship in helping newcomers he is an advocate in areas of law, a housing provider and an environmentalist. Not only did he get the award, but today is his last full day of work for the Ontario civil service. He will be retiring, and we in East York know we can count on him even more in the future to do the good things he has done in the past.

HOLI FESTIVAL

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: On Sunday, March 23, I had the honour of joining the Holi festivities of the Hindu community in Hamilton. Holi festival is also sometimes called the festival of colours, which is celebrated to welcome spring, and what a welcome it was after the harsh Canadian winter we had.

I had the pleasure of attending the festival with my friends Vera and Ashok Kumar, who are members of the community. The festivities took place at the Hindu temple, Hindu Samaj of Hamilton. There were many cultural activities that afternoon, including a beautiful dance performed by a group of young children in bright costumes. The crowd was overwhelmed by the performance, as was I. The stage was filled with thousands of rose petals and it was absolutely beautiful.

The Hindu Samaj of Hamilton is a temple that stands as a monument of co-operation between many different community groups in Hamilton. I want to thank the Hindu community for their warm welcome. I had an opportunity to meet many of them and several of their community leaders.

MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Recently we witnessed yet another example of the games this Liberal government is prepared to play and the people they are prepared to use to further their own ends.

Two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance, with great pomp and ceremony, announced something called investing in Ontario communities. The gist of the announcement was that the government would dedicate a portion of its surplus to municipalities when the provincial surplus exceeded $800 million.

When the minister announced what is now clearly a phantom fund, his budget showing a much smaller surplus well below the proposed trigger number would have been at the printer.

As the Minister of Finance stood there receiving the praise of Hazel McCallion and other mayors from across the province, he knew very well he was giving them sweet nothing—a kiss on the cheek from Hazel and sweet nothing for her voters; sweet nothing for Ontario municipalities; sweet nothing for the people of Ontario except more taxes, more spending and more barrelling down the wrong track towards the have-not status that the Liberal government has been aiming for for going on five years—shameful conduct on behalf of this minister and the government he represents.

The mayors who unwittingly participated in this sham announcement deserve an apology.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Ms. Helena Jaczek: It's with great pleasure today that I rise in the House to share with you how many of the great investments that were proposed in the budget will affect my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham, situated in York region.

Aside from the many exciting initiatives that will affect all ridings, including mine, such as investments in health care, education and job skills, I'm very pleased that this budget has an emphasis on infrastructure. This is a key component to the ridings in rapidly growing York region, and Oak Ridges—Markham is no different. We all depend on public transit, roads and bridges to get our families to where they need to go in a safe and reliable manner. On top of that, investments in infrastructure create jobs in the short term and strengthen our economy in the long term.

From the $497 million in 2007-08 for public transit, York region received funding for Metrolinx projects, including $52 million for Viva Highway 7—Pine Valley Drive to Kennedy Road; $89 million over two years for inter-regional GO Transit; and $293 million for Yonge subway capacity improvement, which is part of the eventual Yonge subway extension to Richmond Hill.

This government understands the importance of investing in people. By making strong investments in our infrastructure today, we are creating a strong foundation on which the people of York region, and all Ontarians, can build and succeed.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Parents in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga believe in a strong, publicly funded education system. The recent Ontario budget was one of interest to them as it included significant new investments in our schools and in our students.

Parents in my community are not alone in their support for our education plan. Some of Ontario's leading educators are speaking out as well. I would like to share some of their positive words with you and with my colleagues.

John Campbell, chair of the Toronto District School Board, said, "There is another $250 million coming to Ontario's schools, and I think on the whole the government has continued its really outstanding commitment to public education."

David Clegg, president of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, says, "We appreciate the $315-million increase in per pupil funding announced in today's provincial budget as well as the new funding to support literacy, numeracy and special education."

Loralea Carruthers, vice-president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, said that they appreciate "the stability of funding and the recognition of the commitments that the government has already made to school boards, and we've seen those in the budget."

Marilyn Dulmage said, "All around, I think it's good news. The only surprise should be a happy one."

I am going to run out of time before I run out of educators who support this budget, and I'm sure every member of this House is hearing similar statements from educators and parents.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. David Orazietti: Our government's 2008 budget is great news for Ontarians and certainly great news for the people in Sault Ste. Marie.

We have provided more resources for housing, public transit, infrastructure and our municipal partners. The $1.5-billion skills-to-jobs program will help support Ontario workers, and we are eliminating the capital tax for businesses four years earlier than expected. In Sault Ste. Marie, we're providing $15 million for a new invasive species centre, which will help expand our research and innovation capacity within the community, creating new jobs and further strengthening our local economy.

We're also providing $1.4 million in additional capital funding for our hospice to help improve end-of-life care and ease pressure on our hospital. Helen Ross, the executive director, said, "The Ontario Liberal government has recognized the need for residential hospices and has moved forward to support all of us who believe that everyone has the right to die in dignity, free from pain and surrounded by their loved ones."

Despite the positive reaction from a wide array of provincial stakeholders, including the CAW, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Ontario Medical Association, the Conservatives and NDP have suggested that the Ontario government is not doing anything to help the provincial manufacturing and forestry industries. They must have our government confused with the federal Conservatives, who have yet to contribute a single cent to Ontario's forestry sector, since we have supported it with a $1-billion aid package.

We're certainly not interested in economic lessons from a former member of this Legislature who saddled our province with a $5.5-billion deficit. Even though the federal government is completely ignoring their responsibilities to Ontarians, our government is delivering on the priorities that Ontarians want and deserve.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RIGHT TO HOUSING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE DROIT

AU LOGEMENT

Ms. DiNovo moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 47,

An Act to establish the right to adequate housing as a universal human right / Projet de loi 47, Loi visant à consacrer le droit à un logement convenable comme droit humain universel.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: This Ontario government spends about 14 cents—actually less—a day on adequate affordable housing. That's less than half of what they spent in the year 2000. That's according to my friend Michael Shapcott here, of the Wellesley Institute.

This bill will, along with the United Nations, insist that housing be seen as a right, allowing the thousands waiting—125,000 households on the waiting list—to challenge this government's neglect.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

Hon. John Gerretsen: Our Premier, Premier McGuinty, has stated his commitment to ensuring stronger protections for Lake Simcoe. For the nearly 350,000 Ontarians living in communities close to Lake Simcoe, these protections are absolutely critical. But they're also very important for the many people who visit and enjoy the lake every year.

Earlier this afternoon, along with my colleagues, the member from Barrie and minister of culture, and my parliamentary assistant, the member from Oakville, I had the pleasure of announcing three new measures by our government to protect Lake Simcoe and its watershed.

First, as of April 1 this year, new interim limits will be in place for phosphorous discharges from industrial and municipal sewage treatment plants. These measures will help protect water quality in Lake Simcoe while we work on developing a long-term protection strategy.

Secondly, we have formed the Lake Simcoe science advisory committee to ensure that our strategy, including any proposed legislation, is based on the best available science.

We need to better understand the issues facing the health of Lake Simcoe and its watershed and look at what actions we must take to improve and protect the health of the ecosystem.

I was joined this afternoon by many stakeholders that have an interest in the lakes, but as well, by Dr. Jennifer Winter, one of the co-chairs of the Lake Simcoe advisory committee, together with Dr. Peter Dillon, who will be the other co-chair. They will use their considerable scientific experience and knowledge of Lake Simcoe to look at the present state of the lake and its watershed, the pressures on the system today and in the future and to provide advice on how best to approach managing it.

We are committed as a government to developing a strategy that joins together both environmental protection and planning growth. Our goal is not only to protect Lake Simcoe, but set a benchmark for sustainability.

Our government recognizes that a great many people are passionate about this issue and want to be involved in protecting the Lake Simcoe ecosystem. This is the reason for the third measure announced today—the release of a discussion paper on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry.

We are consulting with Ontarians so we can develop a long-term, comprehensive strategy that will work for everyone.

Our government recognizes farmers are already doing a lot of good work to reduce the amount of phosphorus going into the lake. We will consult with them and the entire farming community to find ways to reduce it even further.

We also want to get input from cottagers, recreational users, business individuals and corporations, First Nations communities, environmental groups and municipalities—everyone who cares about protecting and sustaining the lake. We know that there are a lot of good ideas out there, and we simply want to hear them.

We will also be creating a stakeholder advisory committee to advise us on the best approaches to improve the long-term future of the lake.

With the pressures from population growth, urban and rural development, new invasive species and climate change, we need to take strong actions now to protect our water so that it stays healthy and protected.

What we do today will build a better, more sustainable envir