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

May 3, 2007

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2007-May-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 3 May 2007 Jeudi 3 mai 2007

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

JOB PROTECTION

COMMISSIONER ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE COMMISSAIRE

À LA PROTECTION DES EMPLOIS

VISITOR

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

VISITORS

JOB PROTECTION

COMMISSIONER ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE COMMISSAIRE

À LA PROTECTION DES EMPLOIS

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION GRANTS

CLIMATE CHANGE

CABINET MINISTERS

ANNIVERSARY OF POLISH CONSTITUTION

VAN BOMMEL FAMILY

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION GRANTS

HEALTH CARE

COMMUNITY SAFETY

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

VISITORS

SPEAKER'S RULING

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LINCOLN ALEXANDER DAY ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE JOUR

DE LINCOLN ALEXANDER

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT (PRESUMPTIONS

FOR FIREFIGHTERS), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (PRÉSOMPTIONS CONCERNANT LES POMPIERS)

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT (PRESUMPTIONS

FOR FIREFIGHTERS), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (PRÉSOMPTIONS CONCERNANT LES POMPIERS)

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT (PRESUMPTIONS

FOR FIREFIGHTERS), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (PRÉSOMPTIONS CONCERNANT LES POMPIERS)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FIREFIGHTERS

ROAD SAFETY

FIREFIGHTERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION GRANTS

ONTARIO CHILD BENEFIT

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION GRANTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION GRANTS

VISITORS

PETITIONS

STEVENSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

REGULATION OF ZOOS

POPE JOHN PAUL II

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

POPE JOHN PAUL II

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

POPE JOHN PAUL II

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

POPE JOHN PAUL II

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

JOB PROTECTION

COMMISSIONER ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE COMMISSAIRE

À LA PROTECTION DES EMPLOIS

Mr. Hampton moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 126,

An Act to provide for a Job Protection Commissioner / Projet de loi 126, Loi prévoyant la nomination d'un commissaire à la protection des emplois.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora–Rainy River): I want to outline for all members of the Legislature how vitally important a Job Protection Commissioner is and would be for Ontario at this time.

Ontario has lost over 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the last three years. In many communities, these jobs are the core of the community. They are the best-paying jobs in the community; they are the jobs which sustain other jobs and other economic activity in the community. In so many communities, they are the real economic base.

So far, the response of the government too often has been to say to workers and communities, "Oh, I feel your pain, I feel your pain, I feel your pain," but to not do anything significant to address the issues. In my view, much of the manufacturing job loss in this province is preventable and it is avoidable. There are a number of factors that have contributed to this significant loss of manufacturing jobs, but many of these factors are under the control of or can be influenced by governments of some level.

Now, what would a jobs commissioner do? This is not an idea that I claim I creativity over. Other jurisdictions have created this position. In effect, the jobs commissioner is a jobs advocate. The jobs commissioner, when this office was created in British Columbia, was a position entirely independent of government. The jobs commissioner doesn't go around the province handing out cheques. A jobs commissioner, as it was established in British Columbia, was an independent body. It was staffed with people who knew something about operating manufacturing facilities.

It was staffed with people who knew something about labour relations and negotiating collective agreements. It was staffed with people who knew something about corporate finance, especially short- and medium-term finance. It was staffed with people who knew something about export development and export chains and the things you had to go through in terms of developing export financing and then finally export rules.

In British Columbia at the time—we're talking about the early 1990s—people were worried about the risk of losing about 100,000 jobs in the secondary manufacturing of their forest sector. Clearly, 100,000 jobs would be devastating for British Columbia, just as the loss of 150,000 jobs in Ontario has been devastating for communities and workers across this province. But rather than say, "Oh, I feel your pain, I feel your pain," the government of the day there did create the office of the jobs commissioner and did make it independent of government.

The jobs commissioner was proactive. They didn't wait until an announcement was made about a factory closing and 500 people being put out of work. They didn't wait until an announcement came through that a plant was downsizing and 200 or 300 people were going to be put out of work. They recognized that there were some issues affecting their secondary manufacturing sector, so one of the first things they did was to conduct some studies: What are the issues? What are the challenges that many of these plants and factories and manufacturing facilities are facing?

Then, with some knowledge of the challenges and the issues that needed to be confronted, they actually went to individual plants and factories and facilities around the province and said, "Look, our information indicates that you may be facing some challenges. We'd like to sit down and talk with you now about these challenges and what we can do to meet these challenges and what we can do to, hopefully, reposition your facility to sustain its output and to sustain jobs and economic activity."

Many employers were happy to come to the table because, having operated in the province for some time, having a commitment to individual communities, they wanted to see their operations sustained. So in many cases employers came to the table, certainly workers and unions came to the table, municipal leaders came to the table, provincial government departments came to the table, even federal government departments came to the table; in many cases, even financial institutions standing in the background came to the table.

Once you had everybody at the table, you could sit down and do a deeper analysis: What are the challenges we face and what are the things we need to do to reposition this facility?

In other cases, employers were not willing to come to the table. In some cases, employers were already in the backroom making the decision, "We'll move this operation to Mexico," or, "We'll move this operation somewhere else." In those cases, it took moral suasion on the part of the jobs commissioner to get some of those employers to the table.

But if workers were willing to come to the table and their unions were willing to come to the table and municipal leaders and provincial representatives and federal representatives were willing to come to the table, in many cases those employers were reluctantly persuaded to come to the table because they didn't want to be identified as selfish and self-interested individuals or selfish and self-interested corporations that were not good corporate citizens.

Once everyone was at the table—and there are case studies of this that I understand are being looked at in business schools and industrial programs across the country—it was, in many cases, possible to identify specifically what the issues were. I'll be blunt: In some cases the issue was hydro rates. Different kinds of manufacturing facilities could be penalized or prejudiced because of the way hydro rates were established. That is certainly the case in this province today, across northern Ontario.

Then the call went out to the provincial government—"Address this issue"—and pressure was put on the provincial government to address the issue.

In some cases, it may have been a financial institution that was nervous about what was happening in the forest products sector, and the financial institution was calling in short-term or medium-term loans, in which case the issue was, "How do we renegotiate some of this short-term and medium-term financing so that these workers aren't put out of work and this facility isn't shut down simply because someone in the financial community may have overextended themselves?" In some cases, it was about redeveloping an export chain.

In some cases, it was about export financing, in which case the federal government was called to the table: "What are you going to do to address these issues?"

The net result in British Columbia over 11 years is that, of those 100,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs that were originally identified as being at risk, 75,000 were successfully repositioned and sustained so that many of those facilities continue to operate today and many of those jobs that were at risk continue to be in place in those communities today, sustaining those communities, sustaining working families and contributing to the economy of that province.

What do we have in Ontario today? I can tell you that in the part of Ontario I represent, we have paper mill after paper mill after paper mill being closed. In every case, when they make their announcement, they're asked, "What's the issue here?" and they say, "Look, the Ontario government is forcing us to pay seven cents a kilowatt hour for electricity that only costs one cent a kilowatt hour to produce in our part of the province. Meanwhile, our competitors in British Columbia and Quebec, in Manitoba and Minnesota, Wisconsin and in the southern United States are paying 3.5 or 4 or 4.5 cents a kilowatt hour.

Electricity is a big part of our cost structure, 25% or 30% of our everyday cost structure. We cannot continue in the face of this kind of unfairness." So they're either closing or they're simply saying, "We're not going to make any further investments in Ontario."

Just this week I was at the Genfast plant in Brantford. In 2001, the Genfast Manufacturing plant was identified as the manufacturing facility of the year in Brantford. The plant is still profitable; it still makes money. I hear the minister of industry talk about the advanced manufacturing strategy of the government. Well, the Genfast plant should be a poster child for the advanced manufacturing plan of the government. But they're being closed down and people are being put out of work. Why? One of the reasons is, as the company has said to workers, "You know what?

It's easier and quicker for us to close a facility in Ontario rather than do it in another jurisdiction, where we'd face some barriers." That's why we need a jobs commissioner in Ontario to deal with these kinds of issues.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London—Fanshawe): Good morning. It's very important to talk about job protection. The leader of the third party was talking about creating a job commissioner to have job protection. We on this side of the House don't believe in this position in order to protect our jobs; we strongly believe on this side of the House that it's by creating a good environment to attract business to Ontario to invest in many different companies and to invest in many different research and innovation programs to create protection, to persuade people to come to Ontario to open and also hire many people.

I was listening to the honourable member, and he referenced British Columbia. To my knowledge, British Columbia cancelled the job commissioner because it didn't think it's the right thing to do. As a matter of fact, they want to follow in the steps of Ontario because, as the honourable member knows very well, Ontario is creating a good environment by investing a lot of money in the health care system, making it accessible for all the people across the province. This is very important for investment when they decide to come to Ontario.

Another

part is to invest in our post-secondary education to create good, skilled workers to be able to operate and function and supply those factories or those companies that want to open in Ontario. Our strategy is also to persuade many different factories to come to Ontario, like Hino, like Toyota in Woodstock, like Diamond Aircraft. Many different factories across the province remain in Ontario because our support is tremendous and a great help for them to compete at an international level.

I understand that the honourable member wants to protect jobs in Ontario. It's a very good and noble thing to do, and that's what we're doing in this House. We have a Minister of Economic Development and Trade and a small business minister and also a labour minister who work day and night to make sure the infrastructure and the environment are there for the workers and for companies to come and open in Ontario.

I have had the chance to go with the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities to many different spots in the province, and one of them was in my riding of London—Fanshawe; we went to Diamond Aircraft. We gave them our support because they were going to hire 500 extra workers to support their factory. Also, they've partnered with Fanshawe College to create good, skilled workers to supply their demand.

All that happened because of our investment in that area, which I guess was a million dollars going to Fanshawe College and Diamond Aircraft to have a joint venture, a program to train people for the aviation skills they needed. There are also a lot of programs across Ontario, like apprenticeships, in conjunction with many different unions and with colleges and universities to supply the demand for those factories and companies that want to open in Ontario.

I want to tell you something very important too. Last Friday we went to the University of Western Ontario and invested more than $14 million in many different areas for research and innovation. I want to tell you, that innovation system and that research in terms of audiology science was labelled number one on the whole globe. This is the way we think we can persuade companies, persuade scientists, persuade people to come and invest in Ontario, by creating a good environment. It's also very important to know we have a public education system. We have great infrastructure: highways, roads. All these elements make it easier for many different factories and companies to open in Ontario.

This is part of our strategy: creating an environment, not creating a position. A position doesn't attract business. It's when we have a vibrant government willing to support, willing to invest, willing to travel the world—to China, to India, to Pakistan, to Europe, to the Middle East—to persuade companies to open in Ontario, to open trade with many different nations. Due to our investment, due to our strategy, we've created roughly about 400,000 net new jobs in this province.

I think we're on the right track and in the right direction. I hope we can continue to work to protect jobs in Ontario, not by appointing a person but by creating an environment and also supporting financially many different companies to open in Ontario.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock): I'm pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to Bill 126, the Job Protection Commissioner Act, 2006, brought forward by the leader of the third party. He has brought this forward because the present McGuinty Liberal government hasn't been doing a good job—losing manufacturing jobs almost daily. It's a sad, sad fact out there.

I'm very passionate about my communities, as I know all the members of the Legislature are, and how we can work to keep good-paying manufacturing jobs, and keep these things, especially in rural Ontario, where we're having a hard time. Yesterday was a terrible day for me, because I lost a manufacturing plant in Lindsay: Fleetwood had to close its doors. It has been there since 1972. At one time within the last year, it was employing over 500 people. It has been having to scale down over the months; they've been struggling.

I've written letters to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, going back a year and a half now, to say, "What can we do to keep jobs in Ontario?" Eastern Ontario, which this is part of, was hit very, very hard. They need some incentives to stay there, to keep those employees. So yesterday's headlines, "Fleetwood Closing Its Doors"—at this point 315 were left out of work, just there.

But we all know that there's a huge spinoff effect in our communities. These are valuable jobs. There are other businesses that supplied parts to them; there are the economic spinoffs of just the towns—buying groceries, going to the dress shops. So when a loss that big comes to a small community, it's a huge, devastating impact. We have young families and experienced workers, skilled trades. Opportunities are gone. Youth and summer employment opportunities are gone. Staff were sent home yesterday and told they wouldn't have their jobs past July 25.

One of the employees was quoted in the Lindsay Daily Post as saying, "It's disappointing. There are a lot of people that work here in this town. You've got 300 people here that buy groceries.... I'm also at an age, 55 years old, where it's going to be pretty hard to find a job." It's a very tough pill to take in our community. It's a very tragic thing that has happened there. I spent most of my time on the phone yesterday, talking to the company to say, "What can we do? How can we help the employees you have had there?" many of whom I know personally, because the company has been there since 1972.

Like I said, it's hard for us, once we lose an industry, to try to get new industries built up. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has been bringing these resolutions before us today, because something has to be done. There's a critical situation in our small towns and all over Ontario. We want people to stay in our communities. We could lose these people from our communities.

I know that my colleague from Halton, back in December 2005, presented a motion requesting the government to act and recognize the growing crisis in communities affected by significant job losses as a result of, among other things, plant closures. My view is, one job loss is significant; every job loss is significant. It's important for the people here today to know that under Dalton McGuinty's watch, there were over 120,000 or more job losses in the manufacturing sector—and he was quoted as saying that's a hiccup.

My colleague from Waterloo—Wellington more recently, in November 2006, presented a resolution which received support from all parties. It called attention to addressing job loss issues in the province of Ontario. But we have yet to see any of these things acted upon. If the attitude is that with over 100,000 manufacturing job losses at that time, the Premier says it's a hiccup—it's not a hiccup. It's very important; it's trend-setting. We see more and more job losses every day. I know my friend from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is going to speak later.

He also had a plant close down yesterday in his riding—more job losses. It's on a daily, daily basis, and we haven't seen a plan from this government. There has been no vision, no commitment to address this growing situation. It is bad out there in Ontario.

My question is, what will our children and our grandchildren do to find the good-paying jobs in the future? With the increasing and rapid erosion of these manufacturing jobs, the lack of action by this government, very few of our children and grandchildren are going to find jobs, especially in rural Ontario. There is a lot that ministries, as I mentioned earlier, along with this government, could do to show leadership in the province of Ontario. Liberal policies leave business and industry struggling. They're struggling to meet regulatory burdens, ever-increasing taxes, energy instability. They're pushing businesses like Fleetwood out of Ontario, and we cannot stand by and let that happen.

We need short-term, medium-term and long-term strategies to assist people who have lost jobs, just like my colleague from Waterloo—Wellington's resolution suggested. It was passed last November by all parties, and we still haven't seen it. The job losses in the forestry sectors that were spoken about so passionately before—you know what? It's going to be too little, too late. Promising an Ontario Manufacturing Council that was in the recent budget with no dates, no timelines and no plan—the consistent theme with the Liberal rhetoric and electioneering. It's time for action now, and my communities in Haliburton—Victoria—Brock need much, much more.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this very important motion before us here today.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for York South—Weston.

Mr. Paul Ferreira (York South—Weston): Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. It's coming to you more naturally now—that's good to see.

It's with great pride that I rise this morning to speak in favour of this very worthy and thoughtful legislation that's been put forth by my leader, the member for Kenora—Rainy River. The member for Kenora—Rainy River embodies the type of strong, proactive leadership that the people of Ontario are clamouring for, and I have no doubt that he will be richly rewarded on October 10 for his tireless efforts on their behalf. We are already seeing evidence of that with the recent by-election returns in Parkdale—High Park and in my own riding of York South—Weston, and I believe we'll see more of it very, very soon.

It occurred to me this morning that the last time I rose in this House on a Thursday morning, it was to speak in favour of the anti-scab legislation proposed by my colleague the member for Niagara Centre. When it came to that legislation, the members on the government side contorted themselves into pretzels trying to figure out what to do. At the end of the day, a number of them voted in favour of that bill. I'm hoping that this morning, all of them join with the New Democrats to vote in favour of this bill calling for a much-needed creation of a job protection commissioner.

Ontario is crying out for the creation of such a commissioner, an independent agency. We are bleeding well-paying manufacturing jobs across the province. We've heard the figure: more than 150,000 have disappeared in recent years. That's more than one in 10 jobs in manufacturing in the province—gone.

When I say that I hope we can count on the support of the government side for this bill, I'm hoping that the members opposite accept this situation with a higher degree of seriousness than their leader, the Premier.

Just last month, the Premier made what I would call an incredibly unbelievable and insensitive remark about the crisis in manufacturing in Ontario. Speaking in St. Catharine's in mid-April, he said, "Those who lose their jobs in the manufacturing jobs can find jobs in other sectors." Thanks for the thoughtfulness, Premier. That sure sounds like a man who is out of touch with the reality that is confronted by thousands of hard-working Ontario families who have seen their livelihoods disappear as a result of his government's inaction.

It shouldn't surprise anyone in this province that this is the same man who gave himself a $40,000 raise just a few days before Christmas. That same amount—$40,000—would go a long way toward improving the plight of a working family anywhere in this province, including in my riding of York South—Weston, where the unemployment rate is considerably higher than the provincial average and where the average household income is barely more than the Premier's raise.

My riding has seen significant job losses in recent years. The latest to go was Kodak, which shed the last few hundred jobs at its Mount Dennis production facility last year. Perhaps it will be of comfort to the Premier and his colleagues on the government bench to know that the Kodak lands, 52 acres in all, are likely to turn into a new home for—what else?—big box retail outlets. So those workers who earned a very good and fair salary at Kodak will be left to, perhaps, hawk sporting goods or peddle electronic gadgets for the minimum wage that the Premier refuses to raise immediately.

With any luck, I suppose, those workers will be able to land two or three of those jobs so that they can afford to pay the mortgage each month and feed their kids. Unfortunately, in the greater Toronto area, it isn't just Kodak that's left. In the past five years alone, this part of our province has lost one fifth of our manufacturing jobs. That's a staggering amount. A few recent examples: Tower Automotive —178 jobs gone; Smurfit-Stone container—140 jobs gone; Mueller Canada—158 jobs gone.

The count rises and rises and the toll on working families mounts and mounts, yet we get nothing from this government, not even a peep from the Minister of Economic Development over there, who, just a couple of weeks back, Mr. Speaker—I believe you were here for that debate since it's in your region—sat glued in her place and didn't even rise to speak out on behalf of her constituents in the great city of Windsor when, ironically enough, the member from Kenora—Rainy River presented a constructive motion that would have greatly improved the economic conditions there in the city of Windsor.

The inaction of that minister speaks to this government's "say nothing, do nothing" attitude when it comes to protecting Ontario jobs. Thank goodness we have the member for Kenora—Rainy River filling the leadership vacuum. His bill would give Ontario much-needed direction in enhancing our economic competitiveness and effectiveness. The commissioner that the bill would create would work with both employers and labour to come up with the strategies and tactics to ensure that good, well-paying jobs are protected. It's a concept that has worked in other jurisdictions and will work here in Ontario if this government supports it today.

I know that labour leaders from across this province support this bill. In fact, it's why a number of them were here this morning on the front steps of the Legislature for a press conference. They brought with them workers who themselves have lost their jobs and now face economic uncertainty. These labour leaders and their members realize that the fight to protect jobs in our province is too important to stand on the sidelines.

New Democrats welcome their support and applaud their determination in this fight. Their hard-working members are well served by their leadership.

I want to wrap up so that one or two of my colleagues can also speak to this bill. I want to close by urging members of the government side to think of their own communities this morning, to think of the job losses in those communities and the devastating economic impact they have had and to think of the good that the passage of this bill would do to curb future job losses in their communities. I say to them, your constituents are watching. Do the right thing this morning: Support this bill; join New Democrats in supporting it.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron—Bruce): I just want to start off by saying that in terms of the economy, what we have to do as a government is to ensure that what is in place will allow for economic prosperity. That is the role of our government. I want to start off with saying that. As a result of the Dalton McGuinty government's creating the right environment, 327,000 net new jobs have been created since October 2003.

I'm going to start there, but I want to seize this opportunity to talk about rural Ontario and what we have done as a government to make sure we are able to seize our opportunities and move forward, more specifically as related to Huron—Bruce.

I just can't help but start off in this manner, as the member from Kenora—Rainy River talks about "feeling your pain." Well, I represent the most rural riding in the province of Ontario, that being Huron—Bruce, and if his energy policy goes forward, I hope he can hear me today saying, "Can you feel my pain?" Bruce Power employs a third of my riding. When we look at the work that had to be done from my riding to make sure we move forward, I hope you can hear my voice when we talk about feeling pain.

I know there has been a lot of conversation, certainly some conversation from Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, who talked about feeling the pain of rural communities. Well, where was their government when you downloaded on rural communities that had no ability to pay for the services that were downloaded upon them? We talk about economic prosperity. We talk about the formula that needs to be in place, the foundation. When I hear comments like that, I find it very, very difficult, I must say.

I believe that to go forward, and specifically in rural Ontario, we have to ensure that we have a strong health care system. Within the riding of Huron—Bruce, I have eight hospitals, and I am only going to speak specifically to the hospitals, knowing that health care is much more than hospitals, but I am going to talk about the hospital sector for just one minute.

When we took over government in 2003, I can tell you that all our hospitals were running deficits. Threats of closures were the daily conversation. I am very proud to say that all of my eight hospitals today have balanced budgets, are enhancing services and hiring more nurses. We have never seen the investment by any government—and that represents a 29% increase overall in the province of Ontario in the health care budget; that represents $8.5 billion. We have gone from closures to hiring.

I can tell you, in rural Ontario—and some of you have been up in my riding and you know what it's like to get from A to B to C—when our roads are closed, you're not going anywhere. So there's this investment in the hospital sector, understanding that there are many providers in the health care sector, but I'm just going to speak to the hospitals.

Then I'll talk about better schools, higher test scores. I talk about post-secondary, but when we took over government in 2003, what we had going on was school closures. What we had going on was community fighting community, pitted against each other. As for community members, all of their time was focused on fundraising, getting out there and talking about stopping the school closures, ensuring that their children had—and I know that there's a book in the future. We talk about the children who came through the Harris years of schooling. My children went through that: strikes, protests. It was not, I tell you, an environment where one could go forward.

But what have we done? In post-secondary, for the first time in a rural riding, the rural riding of Huron—Bruce, we now have post-secondary available to us. In Kincardine, we have a portal. At Bruce Power, the Power Workers' Union has gone to Fanshawe College, on site, training millwrights. In the town of Goderich we have post-secondary education available. No government before the McGuinty government had ever made that commitment to the riding of Huron—Bruce, so when I see people stand up and talk about that—I don't want to lose sight of tax competitiveness. If that's not available, we then cannot go forward.

Unfortunately, so many other members want to speak that I must stop talking now, but I do thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke): I certainly want to stand here and support the leader of the third party on his resolution today with regard to a jobs commissioner. It's similar in fashion to what we asked for last year—in fact, a motion that the government supported. It won in a voice vote here in the Legislature, so you would think that the government would be willing to support this, considering the record they have with job losses in this province.

I received information yesterday about another 100 jobs to be lost in my riding: Trimag, in Haley. General Motors is one of their primary customers. Where are the jobs going? You might be interested to hear this. They're going to Quebec, because the Quebec government is actually doing something to attract and retain manufacturing jobs, but the Ontario government is missing in action on that file. So we continue to bleed jobs while other provinces are attracting them in the manufacturing sector, because they're doing the things necessary to do that.

The member for Huron—Bruce went all over the map, so I suppose I have some latitude here. I want to talk about Tuesday and yesterday, and how it has sunk in this chamber. I talked to some members who have been here for between 20 and 30 years—20 and 30 years—and they have never, ever in their history here witnessed what they saw in the last two days; that is, the government of the day devoting some of their statement time and all of their question period time to attacking, personally, a member of the opposition of this Legislature—never before in the history of those members, who have been here since 1977. It gives you an indication of where this has gone.

On Tuesday, my colleague from Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford was the target—

The Deputy Speaker: I would really prefer that you address the bill at hand.

Mr. Yakabuski: On Tuesday, my colleague from Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford was the target. He has lost jobs in his riding. Yesterday, I was the target, and I have lost jobs in my riding. I want to talk about my riding, Mr. Speaker, because yesterday I was accused of not standing up for my riding. I was accused of not standing up for my riding, and that's what I'm doing today for jobs in my riding and for the constituents of my riding who still might have a job. Yesterday, a number of things were said, and I want to address a couple of them.

The members for Prince Edward—Hastings, Sault Ste. Marie, Huron—Bruce, Northumberland and Nipissing lowered themselves to that level in this Legislature. They should be ashamed of themselves. They are all desperate people. I want to address a couple of things. You know, what is sad is that they are allowing themselves to be pawns of the Premier's office. When you abandon whatever principles you have with regard to common decency, then you have to ask yourself whether or not you really should be here.

The member for Prince Edward—Hastings talked about the closing of the Pembroke Civic Hospital. That hospital was closed by the hospital restructuring board. What he failed to recognize is that the previous government invested $38 million in improvements and expansion at the Pembroke Regional Hospital.

The member for Nipissing completely incorrectly accused me of being opposed to supply management. I'm on record, and every farm organization in my riding knows my stand on supply management: I have been four-square in favour of it since I came here and before I came here. In fact, I'm one of the first signatories to FarmGate5. That's the kind of stuff that gets said from those members across the way.

The Minister of Agriculture accused me of not being interested in the Klaesi digester project in my riding. Well, I have in my hand a letter that I sent to the minister asking them to support the Klaesis and the extension of their biodigester program in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. You would think that the Minister of Agriculture would take the time to understand her own file. This is what happens when people jump to conclusions because they are so bent on trying to attack, in an ad hominem fashion, another member in this Legislature. Why have we sunk to these depths?

The other day they attacked my friend from Toronto—Davenport—

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto—Danforth): Toronto—Danforth.

Mr. Yakabuski: Toronto—Danforth—my apologies—in question period. The day before, myself and my friend from Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford—

The Deputy Speaker: If you're not going to speak to the issue, at least speak through the Chair.

Mr. Yakabuski: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I keep looking for a signal from the man who proposed this bill today, my friend the leader of the third party, and he says to go ahead, so it must be making him happy; it's his resolution.

I guess my—oh yes, and then accusing me of not recognizing things the government has done. I didn't know that when I was elected I was supposed to be the press secretary for the government. I thought it was my job to be the loyal opposition of Her Majesty. If the government wants me to go out and advertise them, they're going to have to pay me through their party reserves as well. But I am not here to do their job. It is their job to tell what wonderful things they may or may not be doing, which they do. They send press releases to my riding all the time.

When you get into the business of attacking a member here—you know that old saying that when you take the toothpaste out of the tube, you can't put it back in?—you should really ask yourselves if that's the road you want to go down. I am quite prepared, I am very prepared, to stand on my record in my riding in October, because you do not do me a disservice when you behave like that; you do yourselves a disservice.

You know who else you do a disservice to? The people that you are hoping will run against me. You're doing them a disservice. All of those ridiculous Hansards that we have here are going to be distributed in my riding and people are going to ask themselves, "What kind of people are on the other side of this House?" Just check the press, check the current events and see what happens in my riding, and you would see how silly you were yesterday.

I'm prepared to be judged by the people. I hope that you people are prepared to be judged as well.

Mr. Tabuns: It's a pleasure to rise in support of Bill 126 to bring a jobs commissioner into Ontario.

We've talked a lot about numbers, but I want to talk a bit about human experience and human impact. I grew up in the east end of Hamilton, near Stelco. People on my street worked at Stelco. The guy next door worked in a broom factory. My father was an auto mechanic. We didn't live wealthy lives, luxurious lives, but we lived stable lives. People had incomes that allowed them to eat decently, to have hope for the future, to live lives that people wanted to live.

When you look at what the population of this province needs, manufacturing jobs are a crucial part of it, and when those jobs are gone, there is a very significant, very substantial, very painful human impact.

When I was a teenager, I was in Flint, Michigan, on a—what can I say? I was there because I was in a judo club. We were down for the Canusa Games, Hamilton versus Flint, and I stayed with folks in Flint. The breadwinner of the family I stayed with worked for General Motors. As in Hamilton, these people lived fairly modest but, frankly, secure lives. They knew they had an income coming in that allowed them to live a relatively decent life. That family that I stayed with, and many other families in Flint, decades later were plunged into chaos with the shutdown of the industrial base in that city.

Michael Moore, in his film Roger and Me, documented what happened in that city: people losing their homes, people desperately trying to find whatever McJob they could get their hands on, because that's what there was. There were scenes in that film of the sheriff going in and repossessing people's homes, of houses that were left empty, abandoned, because no one could afford to either buy them or rent them—neighbourhoods devastated.

So when we come here and we hear from this government that the loss of 150,000 manufacturing jobs over the last three years really is not that big a deal because we've been working so hard to create other jobs, I have to say, it doesn't cut any ice. This is a situation that has to be taken as a significant priority by the government because of the human impact, and when a practical suggestion comes forward—not, as the member for Kenora—Rainy River has said, a wholly new leap into political policy-making, but simply taking an idea that has worked in another jurisdiction and saying, "We have a crisis here"—we need to apply it.

This morning, I was out at the front of this building with a number of colleagues from the labour movement who were talking about their anger and the anger of their members who feel that they've been cut loose, abandoned, who cannot get action or even communication from this government. I was going to say that they got tea and sympathy. Well, I don't think they got the tea, and the sympathy was very late in coming, if they got it at all.

We are in a situation where people's lives and communities are coming apart, and for the government to not embrace a practical suggestion for moving things forward, in my opinion, is a dereliction of that government's duty. It needs to act on multiple fronts.

If we want to have a stable society in this province, people have to have jobs. One of the reasons that many of our cities are much more stable than American cities is that we have had a lot of people working at stable employment. People have income. Ethnic tension and racial tension are reduced when people have jobs. What we're doing here is seeding the ground for future social conflict.

Some people seem to think, and I think the Premier is one of them, "Oh, okay, we lose those manufacturing jobs." They go to India. They go to China. They're emerging industrial powerhouses. I have nothing against those people improving their lives. I think they need to improve their lives. But I have to tell you, losing that manufacturing base is not the end of it. I talk to a lot of newcomers from India, from China, from Pakistan, from Bangladesh. These are bright, capable, energetic people. Do you think that as those economies develop, they are simply going to continue doing the hard work? No.

They are now going to move into those jobs in accounting and information technology and engineering that I think this Premier thinks are immune.

We have to work in a multi-faceted way, in every aspect of our economy, to build up and maintain that jobs base. That's all that's being put forward here today. How do we ensure, from as many angles as possible, that people have stable lives and that this province has a stable economy? Is it wrong to have someone who is an advocate, someone who in many ways would be like the Environmental Commissioner—with more powers, with more intervention duties—who would go out looking proactively for threats to employment and trying to pull people together so that those threats didn't materialize?

What's the record cited by Howard Hampton? The record is that 75% of the jobs they wanted to save were saved. Well, in Ontario, that would mean that far more than 100,000 of those lost 150,000 jobs would have been saved. Hundreds of thousands of people dependent on those jobs, communities dependent on those jobs, would be in situations where their lives would be stable, where they wouldn't be wondering whether they can hold onto their homes, and frankly, in some communities they wouldn't be wondering, "Who can buy my home?

Who is going to buy this place that now will have to be abandoned?" Talk to people from northern communities about the fact that they've sunk their life savings into their homes and now no one's there to buy them.

This is a government that has decided that laissez-faire 19th-century economics work. It certainly seems to work for the Premier, but it doesn't work for the people of Ontario. This government is going to be held accountable this fall when laissez-faire is put forward and people who have been abandoned, people who have been told, "Well, we did all we could. Too bad, so sad. You're on your own" are going to be speaking out. They speak out in rural areas. They'll be speaking out in small towns. They'll be speaking out in southwestern Ontario. They're going to say, "You didn't do enough. You did us in."

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join in this discussion this morning. We in the riding of Peterborough have been fortunate. Just yesterday, my good friend the vice-president of nuclear products of GE Canada announced the first major expansion of their nuclear products division in Peterborough since 1955. They'll have a massive expansion on their Peterborough site, so that's good news for the people of Peterborough.

It will also be good news for my good friend the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke: GE have their nuclear pellet operation in Arnprior, Ontario, which is an essential part of the expansion that will take place in Peterborough, to continue the fine work that's done in that operation in Arnprior, Ontario.

We've also been very fortunate: Numet Engineering, another manufacturing company in Peterborough—major expansion; Minute Maid juice, which is part of the Coca-Cola umbrella, has also had expansions in Peterborough.

But I have followed the forestry industry in northwestern Ontario. One of the challenges up there was certainly the appreciation of the Canadian dollar from 63 cents to today, when it's exchanged at about US90 cents.

Look at some of the operational reports from those companies in northwestern Ontario. When the dollar was at 63 cents, their profit base increased substantially, but when you start looking at their reinvestment programs that went back into capital equipment and innovation, that was a very small part of their annual reports. Many of those companies took advantage of making profits based on an exchange rate, and during that period of time they didn't enhance their competitive position.

When you do a comparison, look at the major forestry operators in Finland, Norway and Sweden. If you look at those three countries, where electricity rates are three times higher than what we have in Ontario, those forestry companies in those countries remain highly competitive. Why do they do so? They remain highly competitive because the principles of those companies were reinvesting in new technology, new processes and training their workforce. So what have we done here in the province of Ontario?

That there have been very few questions on the budget in this House, but I will note, on page 15, in northwestern Ontario we've put together an economic facilitator. If I remember correctly, Dr. Robert Rosehart was the former president of Lakehead University. He's now the president of Wilfrid Laurier University and will act as an economic facilitator, bringing together all the parties in northwestern Ontario to look at the challenges. I readily admit: there are certainly challenges in the forestry sector in northwestern Ontario.

We also announced in our budget that we'll have a new Ontario Manufacturing Council to bring together the brightest and best to look at innovative solutions for manufacturers in Ontario. That is complemented by the work that my good friend from Perth—Middlesex, who's the PA to the Premier, is doing with innovation and technology, formulating programs to make key investments in manufacturing to make them efficient and competitive with the world. We have the talent. We are making the investments to keep manufacturing competitive here in Ontario.

One of the things we've done is we accelerated the capital tax—something the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has been asking us to do. Secondly, in our budget—no one asked any questions about this—we are lifting the business education tax, having a flat rate across the province of Ontario of 1.6%, which will make Ontario businesses—large, small and medium—and other parts of the sector much more competitive. Again, that was something put forward to us by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and recommended by smaller chambers of commerce right across Ontario. It's so important to get those fundamentals right.

We're also investing $6.5 billion over the next five years in Reaching Higher; again, to put those dollars into post-secondary education to make sure that Ontario has a very competitive workforce. I look at Durham region, where we have the University of Ontario Institute of Technology coupling with General Motors again, making key investment in that manufacturing—

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): Speaking about jobs in Ontario, the government talks ad nauseam about their Toyota plant in Ingersoll, which is great news. However, in the neighbouring riding of Elgin—Middlesex there have been six companies which have closed, losing 3,400 jobs—

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Hampton, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Hampton: I want to continue where I left off. The reality is that we have a number of manufacturing facilities in this province, some of which have downsized or already closed and some of which are at risk of closure or downsizing. I'm merely proposing that instead of waiting until the sign goes up out front, "Facility closed," "Property for lease" or "For sale," the McGuinty government take some proactive steps, that we as legislators in Ontario take some proactive steps.

That's what the jobs commissioner in British Columbia did. They didn't wait until a factory, a plant, a facility was putting up the "For sale" sign. They did proactive studies. They went to companies, sat down with them and the workers, union leaders, community leaders, financial institutions, provincial government departments, federal government departments and they asked, "What are the things that we need to do to reposition and sustain these jobs?"

I hear government members opposed to the suggestion, and let me tell you why I think there's some opposition. Members of the McGuinty government are probably worried that a jobs commissioner would point out that the McGuinty government's policy for driving hydro rates through the roof has in fact destroyed 40,000 good-paying forest sector jobs in northern Ontario, and they don't want that out there. A jobs commissioner would point out that some factories have closed in this province.

For example, Ferranti-Packard in St. Catharines told the workers, "We're closing this plant, keeping others open in other places in North America because it's easier and quicker to close down an operation in Ontario than anywhere else."

We can't afford to lose these jobs. We need to be proactive. We need a jobs commissioner in Ontario.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I know the members would like to join me in welcoming Bob Huget, a former member of the 35th Parliament from Sarnia, in the members' west gallery.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex): I move that, in the opinion of this House, our farmers and the agri-food industry play a vital role in the Ontario economy and that this assembly reaffirm its strong and unwavering support for the supply management system that helps stabilize incomes for Ontario farm families and ensures a stable supply of Ontario-produced food for families around the world to enjoy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Van Bommel has moved private member's notice of motion number 59. Pursuant to standing order 96, Mrs. Van Bommel, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Mrs. Van Bommel: I bring this motion forward because of my concern that not all parties in this assembly continue to solidly support supply management in Ontario. The Liberal Party of Ontario is clearly on the record with its support of supply management as a domestic food policy that works for consumers, governments and farmers. We had all-party support for a motion presented by Minister Dombrowsky in December 2005, but since that time I have witnessed a weakening of the support by the federal Conservative government and serious attacks on supply management by a man who says he wants to help John Tory write his platform.

The McGuinty government understands that all three pillars of supply management have to work together in order to maintain a sustainable supply management system. The first pillar is the effective border controls that result in limited and predictable imports. The second pillar is pricing mechanisms that allow farmers to negotiate collectively and to set prices that create a fair return on their costs, labour and investments. The third pillar is farmers who exercise production disciplines that produce a supply of safe, high-quality food at levels that meet the needs of the Canadian market. The weakening of any of the three pillars will not be supported by the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Before I go any further, I want to explain to everyone who's listening just what supply management is. Chicken, broiler hatching eggs, turkey, eggs and dairy farms operate within the supply-managed or orderly marketing systems. Established in 1970, supply-managed commodities matched demand to supply. Prices paid to farmers are negotiated based on the cost of production. The prices result in predictable and steady income for farmers, while consumers are guaranteed consistent supply of top-quality product at a steady price. Producers must hold quota to be eligible to produce and market a supply-managed commodity.

By forecasting the need for these commodities and planning accordingly, it reduces the instability that can result when supply and demand are out of balance. This system has served producers, processors and consumers very well for many years.

As a farmer, I naturally continue to follow the stance that our Canadian government is taking on the World Trade Organization trade talks. I was encouraged by the strong expression of support in the motion that was passed by the federal House of Commons on November 22, 2005. This was followed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's statement at the leaders' debate in 2006, in which he states: "Let me just outline some other things we'll do. We're going to continue to defend supply management in the international bodies and the three pillars of supply management. This is the one sector of agriculture that has actually been from time to time making a profit in the last few years."

You can imagine my angst and frustration when I read in the April issue of the Better Farming magazine an

article entitled, "A Short-Lived 'Victory' For Supply Management.

"When MPs voted unanimously in 2005 to reject any WTO deal to limit supply management, its proponents cheered. Fifteen months later, things look rather different.

"On February 27, 2007, Conservative Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl and Trade Minister David Emerson made it clear to supply management interests that their 2005 victory was short-lived."

If a WTO deal happens, Strahl says Canada will sign. "It is inconceivable that we would walk away from the WTO, so take that as your first gospel truth." But the federal Conservative government continues to claim that they are strong proponents of supply management, and farmers are left wondering if they are really walking the talk, or is it just pre-election noise?

While Agriculture Minister Strahl continues to repeat his support for supply management, we hear something completely different from Trade Minister David Emerson. At the year end, Minister Emerson was quoted as saying, "There is national interest that government should work with supply management, and with some modest support from government, we should transition to a globally competitive stature—or we're just going to have to go through a painful adjustment."

Wayne Easter, who is the Liberal agriculture critic and a farmer from PEI, stated in a press release on April 12, "The Conservatives have constantly changed their position on supply management.... It seems clear now that their announcement to enter into negotiations was nothing more than a pre-election ploy."

At the provincial level we hear from Randy Hillier, the past president and co-founder of the Lanark and Ontario Landowners Association, of his intent to seek the Progressive Conservative nomination this weekend in the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington. He has declared in an interview his intention to help the Tories shape their platform, which he says has yet to be outlined: "Should I succeed, I will help shape that." From that, I have to assume that Mr. Hillier expects to help shape the Tory agriculture and rural platform.

Please note that on Mr. Hillier's website, you can find a page entitled What Randy Says, in which he addresses a freer marketing system and the disbanding of the present marketing board system for some commodities. He says, "I would challenge the statement, 'providing some economic stability for farmers'; we have seen in every commodity where there is a marketing board that there has been a decline in both the number of producers and also the amount produced." I don't understand this. He goes on to say, "Marketing boards are government-legislated monopolies...."

This is a statement that he repeats in the Ontario Landowners Association discussion paper, Finding Profits on Canadian Farms, which was written in March 2006. In that discussion paper, which is co-authored by Mr. Hillier, the following statement is made: "The cost of acquiring quota in supply-managed sectors has become prohibitive and prevents new farmers and farms from establishing themselves in these commodities.... The solution is to restore the principles of a free marketplace."

Mr. Hillier's argument that supply management discourages new entrants couldn't be further from the truth. My husband René and I bought our first broiler quota in 1991. At that time, we were told it was risky and too expensive. Today, we still operate a midsize poultry farm on 50 acres, and that has supported our family of seven very well. The start-up costs in supply management are no higher than the cost of land and equipment for a grains and oilseeds producer or buildings and land for other livestock farmers.

The discussion paper goes on with comments and recommendations that include, "Supply-managed sectors become optional and applicable only to those industries where the processors and producers agree to a buyer-seller contract-relationship. A marketing board or supply-managed sector contract cannot infringe upon those people and commodities that are not signatory to the contract." That's like saying it's optional to hold a Tim Hortons franchise if you want to sell Tim Hortons coffee. Another recommendation states, "Eliminate exclusive marketing rights and licensing. Re-establish 'free market principles.'"

In the April issue of the Landowner magazine, of which Mr. Hillier is co-author and co-publisher, an

article appears that is entitled "An Udder Marketing Board Failure or Just a Consequence of Socialism?" It states, "Although Hershey's is mum on the exact reasons for relocating, the answers are very obvious. At the top of the list is the cost of production....

Canadian milk prices are determined by the [Dairy Farmers of Ontario] and are very likely to be far above what Hershey's will pay for milk at their new state-of-the art facility in Mexico." Then it goes on to say, "Is the present marketing system managing the supply of milk or is it contributing to the demise of both farmers and processors?" But when you talk to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, they will inform you that Hershey's buys milk under a "special class" program that reduces the cost of milk to world price levels for further processors who must compete with imported food products.

There is no question of where Mr. Hillier stands on the matter of government support for supply management. And there is clearly going to be a conflict with the current agriculture critic, Toby Barrett, who stated in this Legislature, "Supply management ... has provided decades of business certainty for our chicken farmers and for our food system.... Supply management balances supply with demand. It prevents overproduction, flooded markets and depressed prices."

I look forward to hearing from other members of this Legislature on this issue. I hope that all parties are prepared to walk the talk and not just pronounce shallow platitudes intended to dupe farmers into a false sense of security. Let me assure you, farmers will not be fooled.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant): I'm certainly pleased to state—actually, to reiterate yet again—my unequivocal support for supply management, and support also coming from the entire Ontario PC caucus—that's 100%.

Supply management, as we know, has long been the strength of our poultry, egg and dairy farming in Canada, and any threat to the system must be seen as a threat to the well-being of rural Canada. I know what it was like before supply management. We had broilers; we had dairy. I had hatching eggs. We had laying hens. It was great work. We were losing too much money and, on the advice of the bank—we had actually gotten very, very large at that time—we had to get out. That was the reality for my family, and that's the reality of farming without supply management. I can speak to that from the source. We cannot go back.

For these reasons, I'm proud to report on behalf of John Tory and the opposition caucus that our support for supply management is 100%. In fact, 100% of our sitting members have affixed their signature to support the FarmGate5 petition. It's a collective effort from the supply-managed sector attempting to seek balanced trade that benefits all farmers. It's not posted online yet, but our newest member, Joyce Savoline, has also affixed her signature.

As we heard this morning, supply management works on three pillars: import controls, of course; producer pricing; and production discipline. Like any three-legged stool, if one pillar is weakened, the entire system is weakened. For instance, without import controls, production discipline becomes impossible. Without production discipline, pricing becomes impossible. Supply management does balance supply and demand and prevents overproduction, obviously, flooded markets and depressed prices.

Here's a good example: Look what happened to the tobacco farmers without the support of this government, when you see one of the legs on that stool weakened.

I'm very disappointed to see the divisions within Dalton McGuinty's Liberal caucus with respect to supply management. How can farmers trust the Dalton McGuinty government to defend supply management when Dalton McGuinty cannot get his own MPPs to sign that FarmGate5 petition? In fact, there's a list circulating today: 28 Liberal MPPs have not signed on to supply management. Check the website.

We've seen the shameful record of this government when it comes to not only agriculture but rural Ontario in general. I quote the environment minister from yesterday: "Stop raising issues in rural Ontario." It's in Hansard. I listened when she said it. Check back in Hansard. Is this government so weak on rural policy that they now want to declare it out of bounds? My suggestion is, move to the city if you want to be heard in this Ontario Legislature under this present government.

To conclude—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford seems to be able to yell out. I'm able to hear the speaker up to this point, but I would remind members that we have to realize that the member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant has the floor.

Mr. Barrett: Just to wrap up, Speaker, I do want to condemn the ongoing cuts to our ag budget. We're aware of that reduction of $191 million in planned funding in this present projection for the ag budget.

I'd like to quote an Ontario Federation of Agriculture newsletter from yesterday: "Minister Strahl Makes Spring Much Brighter.

"Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Strahl made spring much brighter for a lot of Canadian farmers when he announced Monday, May 1, that the $400 million in cost-of-production payments will begin to flow to eligible farmers next month." The OFA goes on to say, "Our next challenge will be to get provincial OMAFRA minister Dombrowsky to announce that Ontario will be adding its 40% contribution to the payment."

According to the OFA, producers of non-supply-managed commodities for tax purposes for 2004 are eligible for this payment. That's the reality. The feds are ponying up. Minister Dombrowsky took her chainsaw to that budget, and we would await an announcement on that 40%. I say to the minister, don't let your Liberal colleagues convince you to abandon supply management, and please pony up the $46 million owing to Ontario farmers.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto—Danforth): The member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex has introduced another motion—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Come on. We want to keep the debate and even the heckling at some level of decorum. Please.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I heard that remark, and I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to withdraw that. Addressing another member of this Legislature—

The Deputy Speaker: Would the minister withdraw?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Withdraw what?

Mr. Yakabuski: The Speaker heard you, so he already raised it. So that's up to you.

Interjection.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I withdraw.

Mr. Yakabuski: She has to stand up and withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Who's running this—you or me? I heard the word "withdraw."

Member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant—Toronto—Danforth.

Mr. Tabuns: I know people see me everywhere, but it's Toronto—Danforth.

The member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex has put an interesting issue before us, just as previously she brought forth the whole issue of electrical leakage, which I thought was—

Interjection.

Mr. Tabuns: Stray voltage. Thank you. I thought that was a very useful debate, very useful for me.

I disagree with her government's position, but I'm glad that she has put the issue on the table.

There's no question that, provincially and federally, the NDP is committed to protecting Ontario's supply management systems. Ontario's supply-managed sectors are the financial backbone of our farm communities. We need to strengthen them, not weaken them through misguided international trade negotiations.

I have to say there that are elements that relate to food security and the stability of our economy, as well as the environment, that play into this. Right now we import food from thousands of kilometres away. In talking to retailers, I know that having locked into supply from California, it's very difficult for them to actually bring in Ontario produce, because their suppliers say, "We supply you 10 months of the year. If you don't take from us for those other two months, for the full year, we're not that interested in you."

We need to have a very vital, very strong agricultural sector in this province so that we can supply as much of our food as possible, so we reduce our imports and reduce our environmental impact. A country also needs to be able to feed itself, and we have very talented, very capable farmers. We have good farmland. We have all the resources necessary to have a vibrant farm sector.

What we need on top of that is government policy that actually reinforces those farmers, that gives them the tools to allow them to produce food for us and produce an income for themselves. Now we, as I have said, support the protection of our supply management system and the expansion of our five supply-managed products as represented by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Egg Producers, the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission.

As we know, though, other sectors in Ontario agriculture are not afforded the same level of stability associated with supply management. The grains and oilseeds sector and livestock producers, such as the beef industry, have both been decimated in recent years because of unfair trade practices outside of our borders. Has this government, have the McGuinty Liberals, introduced resolutions for debate about the crisis in the grains and oilseeds sector? The answer, simply, is no; we haven't seen this government speak out and act to protect those sectors.

Yet, when Dalton McGuinty was drafting his 2003 election platform, he saw fit to promise Ontario farmers "a new generation of farm safety nets and companion programs."

So one has to ask: "Where are they?" Where is the protection for the agricultural sector? Where is the protection for the farmers, whom we need to ensure that we have a secure food supply, whom we need to produce food locally so that we don't have to import from thousands of kilometres away? We've seen the decimation of the grains and oilseeds farmers in their communities across the province—from the Ottawa Valley down to the borders of Windsor. Did Dalton McGuinty introduce a long-term income stabilization program for grain and oilseeds farmers? Nope.

Not a chance; not on his agenda; not on the agenda here in this Legislature, not even as a private member's bill. We're not seeing this government move forward on those sectors.

Farmers are resourceful people, they're optimistic people, and they're people who think about how to actually deal practically with the problems that come before them. They've developed a risk management program to provide some stabilization to farm incomes in the grains and oilseeds sector, yet the McGuinty Liberals would have no part of it. They didn't adopt it; they didn't take it on. And so, in that sector, farmers who deserve as much support as they do in the current supply-managed sectors are left to their own devices.

Does this sound like a government concerned about farmers, about rural Ontario and food sovereignty? Unfortunately not. Instead of developing a long-term plan for stabilizing farm incomes in the grains and oilseeds sector, which was called for by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union, Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal members, in December, were busy voting themselves a 31% pay increase.

We have heard this morning, and we've heard for a number of days, from time to time members of the governing party of Liberals saying, "Why don't you comment on our budget? Why don't you ask us questions about our budget? It's the greatest budget since sliced bread was first introduced to humanity." I have to point out that the director of the National Farmers Union—Ontario, Grant Robertson, had this to say in a press release after agriculture came up short, once again, in the 2007 McGuinty budget.

Interjection.

Mr. Tabuns: I'm glad I was asked: "What did the president say?" Grant Robertson said, "A huge salary increase for MPPs was a priority before Christmas, but those who produced the food for Christmas dinner are still left struggling." I'd say that the director has got it right. He goes on: "Ontario families care about where their food comes from. They want to know that the family farmers who produce their food do not have to subsidize their grocery bill with off-farm jobs." We know very well that farmer after farmer keeps their farm alive because they have a full-time job somewhere else. That's how they essentially subsidize food production in Ontario.

Mr. Robertson, director of the National Farmers Union—Ontario, goes on to characterize the plight of the family farm under the McGuinty government. He said: "Family farmers are facing the worst five years of realized net income on record. Farmers and their organizations have provided many possible solutions to address the issues for different sectors, such as the risk management plan, but instead of helping move farmers towards greater financial stability and sustainability, this government has in fact cut real dollars from the agriculture budget in Ontario. Talk about kicking someone when they are down." That was Grant Robertson, director of the National Farmers Union—Ontario.

I have to ask this government, which has constantly said, "Come back to the budget," so what did they do? Did they help these farmers? Well, I'll tell you. In the eyes of the director of the National Farmers Union—Ontario, nope, they didn't. The farmers were left struggling. The government cared little or nothing about them. It's spending a lot of time attacking Randy Hillier. Fair enough, but why don't you take action on the real issues that are driving the crisis in rural communities? Not seeing it.

The National Farmers Union also tells us that since fiscal year 2003-04, agricultural spending has now been reduced in real dollars by 10%. Does that sound like the actions of a government that puts the needs of farmers in rural Ontario at the front of the line? No, not a bit.

When the government and its members ask us, ask the opposition, ask the third party and ask others, "Why aren't you talking about the budget?" I have to ask, do they really want a discussion about that budget? Do they really want that discussion? Because part of the reason that there are no questions is that there was so little substance, so little dealt with—essentially a status quo budget—that, what's to ask? It's clear. This was a budget that didn't move Ontario forward, didn't deal with these issues and has not been well received. This is not a budget that is going to keep them in good shape this coming fall.

It will be ignored or attacked. I don't think you're going to see a lot of praise.

The National Farmers Union says that the 2007 budget is going to see more cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and they want to know where these cuts are going to take place and what programming might be affected.

In many ways it reminds me of the recent report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario talking about the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment are underresourced to the point that they cannot actually deliver on the mandate they have been given. They cannot do the work they're supposed to do. With regard to the environment, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario said that the lack of resources puts Ontario's environment at risk of catastrophic events—his words. That has not been corrected. It is not on the agenda to be corrected by this government.

Under the McGuinty government, farmers and farm communities across the province have seen farm income plummet to unprecedented levels. More and more farmers have been driven into bankruptcy, forced to hold full-time jobs off the farm or both.

The McGuinty government promised a new generation of safety nets but delivered only old Band-Aid measures while Ontario farmers and farm communities lurched through crisis. There is no leadership in the farm income crisis, no long-term income stabilization for grain and oilseed producers; that is the tragic record of the McGuinty government on agriculture in Ontario.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I'm happy to have the opportunity to speak to the motion that my colleague the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex has brought before this Legislature, a very important one. She's a very strong advocate for agriculture and certainly the supply-managed sectors. I think it's important that in this Legislature we appreciate what supply management means for the people in Ontario.

Four decades ago, Ontario's poultry farmers were struggling. They were losing their farms and, at the same time, their product was increasing in value. The introduction of supply management in 1965 marked a turning point in the poultry industry, and today that industry provides more than 5,000 full-time jobs, with related jobs employing more than 1,000 people. Under supply management, Ontario dairy producers have thrived as well, and dairy now represents the largest sector in this province's agriculture industry, with clear and crucial benefits to our economy.

The story is the same for our egg producers and pullet growers. That is why Ontario is not prepared to sacrifice the regulated marketing structures used by dairy, poultry and egg producers.

I was very happy on December 12, 2005, to introduce a motion in this Legislature to support supply management. It was very important that the motion was passed, and I'm pleased as well to reflect that history will record that it was supported unanimously by all members of this Legislature. It was a motion I was able to carry with me when I attended the World Trade Organization talks in Hong Kong. I was able to very strongly stand in my place as an advocate for farmers in Ontario and say that the people of Ontario wholeheartedly supported supply management.

In Ontario during the year 2006, approximately 6,500 farms and 250 hatcheries and poultry and egg-producing facilities were in the supply-managed sector. This activity generated $2.4 billion in farm gate receipts, or close to 28% of all farm cash receipts in the province, and roughly 50,000 jobs are related to this sector.

So I think that it's very clear why it is so important that we in this Legislature, as legislators, as elected representatives, do all that we can and stand and speak clearly in support of this very important system we have in place that supports our agriculture industry.

I would say, however, that I am concerned, as my colleague has already identified, that there are some factions in the province that have been working very hard to do all they can to find a chink in that armour and have suggested that the government would have a role to play in dismantling that. Of course, I am speaking about the Ontario Landowners Association. I have here a document that was produced in March 2006. Randy Hillier, I understand, is one of the authors of the principles that are presented here.

It does refer to supply management and it talks about the cost of acquiring quota in supply-managed sectors, that it has become prohibitive and it prevents new farmers and farms from establishing themselves in these commodities. The solution is to restore the principles of a free marketplace, the same principles that all other Canadian industries enjoy and that are non-existent in Canadian agriculture.

The document goes on. Mr. Hillier has identified that, "Supply-managed sectors become optional and applicable only to those industries where the processors and producers agree to a buyer-seller contract" for supply management. "A marketing board or supply-managed sector contract cannot infringe upon those people and commodities that are not a signatory to the contract." It also goes on to say that we should eliminate exclusive marketing rights and licensing and re-establish free market principles.

That's from the Ontario Landowners Association document, 2006. One of the authors of this was Mr. Randy Hillier, who I believe is looking to be the Conservative candidate in the next provincial election for the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

Interjection.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: My colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant posed a question, and I would just like to pose the question right back and ask: How can farmers in Ontario trust the members of the opposition when they are lining up with members of the Ontario Landowners Association, and lining up in a very substantive way? Someone provided me with a copy of the Landowner, a document that is published by the Ontario Landowners Association, and who has an ad in that? Toby Barrett, MPP for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, advertises in the Landowner.

Obviously, I think the farmers of Ontario need to be very aware that when it comes to support for supply management, members of the opposition stand in their places in this House and say one thing, but they're obviously very supportive of other individuals who would very clearly not be in support of supply management. That is something that I think farmers in Ontario are aware of, have taken note of and will remember at the appropriate time.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise to speak in support of the resolution from the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Having said that, I think it's rather interesting that the member would bring this forward. It must be because we're getting close to an election. Obviously the Liberal government, the McGuinty government, has left the farmers and the agricultural community behind for three and a half years, and this is like a conversion on the road to Damascus. Now, all of a sudden, they're going to come forward with a proposal that will hopefully make the farmers of Ontario change their mind about the government and say, "My gosh, I do believe they support it."

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, member for Huron—Bruce.

Mr. Hardeman: I would just tell the member, I don't think this resolution is going to change the opinion of the farmers. On the narrowness of this resolution, I want to say I strongly support supply management personally, and I'm sure that the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex does too, because she does represent an area with a lot of farmers who have supply-managed commodities, as do I. In fact, I think my riding may be one of the highest in the province of Ontario with supply-managed commodities.

Interjection.

Mr. Hardeman: No, you don't have as many milk producers in your riding.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Oxford, take your seat. I'll remind you once again that the member for Oxford has the floor. I will also remind the member for Oxford that you don't speak across the floor; you speak through the Chair. Thank you.

I know there was some concern on the government side when I started my presentation by saying that they have left the farmers behind. In 2003-04, the Minister of Agriculture signed an agricultural policy framework. At the time, I had the opportunity to ask him some questions about it and to ask why he would sign it, and he said, "Well, you couldn't get that done.

I got it done." I said, "But, Minister, it's not good for the farmers," and he said, "Well, you couldn't get it done." I said to him then—this is right out of the Hansard of April 7—and I'll say it to the minister today, "I want to point out that the reason Helen Johns, the minister of the day, did not sign the agreement was because the total farm community said, 'Don't sign the agreement, because it's not a good deal for Ontario's farmers.'"

It took three years and question after question and answer after answer defending the CAIS program, and, lo and behold, two days ago the federal auditor said that the program does not work for Ontario farmers. It's too heavy on bureaucracy, too heavy on paperwork, and the program is more interested in making sure that farmers pay back overpayment than worrying about farmers getting their payment. That's what the auditor said, and that's a sign of what the Liberal government believes they should do for Ontario's farmers. The reason I mention the CAIS program is because it's so important.

That's the only hope the non-supply-managed sector in agriculture has, and this government has badly let them down.

Mr. Paul Ferreira (York South—Weston): I'm pleased to speak ever so briefly to this motion brought forward by the member from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Following my maiden speech in this place, she and I had a brief conversation, and she talked about her own farming background. I know how important this issue is to all of the constituents in her riding, and I commend her for bringing it forward.

It may surprise the members here that, coming from York South—Weston, an urban riding—there aren't any farms in my riding. But I do want to talk about a very important institution in my riding that affects farmers of this province in a very profound way, and that is the Weston Farmers' Market, which draws farmers from across this province, including a couple from the riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who come every Saturday from May to November.

I hang out there on Saturday mornings and I speak to my constituents, and I speak to those farmers and talk about the issues and concerns that they have and the challenges that they face on a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis in trying to keep their family farm operations going.

Unfortunately, this government has let the agricultural sector down. My friend from Toronto—Danforth talked about some of the ways that this government has let them down in their budgetary processes, where they have shortchanged the agricultural sector. I want to raise another way, and that is specifically regarding farmers' markets.

In the province of Ontario, we have more than 120 farmers' markets operating now. According to some figures that I read through Farmers' Markets Ontario, 27,000 people in this province are directly involved in working in delivering and providing goods at these farmers' markets, and it has a direct economic impact of $600 million. So I say to this government, let's work to make the opportunities, the processes that affect farmers' markets in my community and others, easier—

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron—Bruce): I rise today to show my very strong support for the member from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and to support supply management.

I know that from the other side of the House there have been some questions raised about why this is coming forward at this time, so let me talk about that.

I know that among my agricultural community there is concern. I want to directly quote Adrian Measner, the former president and CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board. He was in Huron—Bruce recently, telling farmers that if the federal Conservative government is successful in disbanding the wheat board, then supply management will be next. Amongst my farming community there is a concern that if the wheat board goes that way, what then is the future for supply management?

To put this into context, I want to give a brief synopsis of what that means to the riding of Huron—Bruce. I can tell every member in the House today that that will create economic hardship that we have not seen the likes of. I can remember when we did not have supply management in my riding, and those were tough times. I know that part of our agricultural community sector, the grains and oilseeds, are struggling, but I can tell you, my friends in this House, that the supply-managed sector works, and why it works.

Let's talk about what's produced in the most beautiful riding in the province of Ontario. Within the dairy industry, 200 million litres in Huron—Bruce, and 375 dairy farmers. Chicken farmers: 177 in Huron—Bruce; 65 million kilograms produced. Ontario egg producers: 71; 2.1 million birds. Ontario turkey: 13 in Huron—Bruce; 6.85 million kilograms. When I think about the level of produce that is coming out of the riding of Huron—Bruce, the numbers are incredible. You can see the economic stability it provides.

I can honestly say to you, as I say to my agricultural community, that the McGuinty government understands the communities coming forward. What we have to do is to focus on the product grown in Ontario, and obviously the bulk of it will be grown in my riding of Huron—Bruce.

I also took the opportunity this summer to do round table discussions about agriculture and what people see for the future of agriculture. From the survey and the round-table discussions, 93% of the people in the riding of Huron—Bruce support seeing an expansion of Ontario-grown product. The consumer believes, and rightly so, that our product is safe, and believes in the quality of the product as well. This is one of the pillars of supply management: the quality of food, the safety, and also the quantities that are produced.

That system is already in place, and 93% of the people want to see a further expansion of Ontario-grown product. That is why $10 million has been allocated to talk about the Ontario brand, because we know the consumer wants to be assured that the safety of their food allows them the capability to maximize their own personal health. We understand that that is a component of their overall health.

So when I talk about what we can do as a government and the concerns that are being raised within my community—and we know the way the wheat board has gone: no consultation; it just went forward. When things were happening within the board that the Harper government saw as not fit in moving in the direction that they went, so went the CEO of the board. We know how fragile that linkage can be when we get into national trade talks. So I ask the members from across the way what we can do to strengthen supply management and speak with a united voice.

It's for the betterment of all people of Ontario, and we understand that. That's why this side of the House strongly endorses moving forward with a supply-managed sector.

Mr. Yakabuski: I'm pleased to stand and support the resolution from the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. As you know, every member of our caucus has signed on to FarmGate 5 in support of supply management, which directly contradicts the silly question of the member for Nipissing yesterday, clearly stating that I was opposed to supply management. So again, just to point out that she was wrong.

I see the Minister of Agriculture. I wanted to talk about her answer to that question, saying I didn't support the people in my riding. I have here a letter that I sent to OMAFRA with regard to the Klaesi brothers' anaerobic digester in their riding. So if she knew what was going on in her own ministry, she might understand. They seem to be more worried about what other people are doing than themselves.

In fact, with respect to the minister, I wanted to say that this past summer we had a terrible tornado hit both our ridings; most of the damage was in my riding but some of it was in the Minister of Agriculture's riding. I got calls from people in her riding to come and see them. I wasn't only looking after people in my riding; I went to see people in her riding. In fact, I had the courtesy, as a member of this House, to call her directly, personally, to bring that issue to her attention. I followed up with those people in her riding.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture: When did you go to look at the people in your riding and see the damage before you attack another—

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Renfrew, will you take your seat. The Speaker took some time, I believe it was yesterday, to speak to this issue, that you speak in the third person, please.

Mr. Yakabuski: I did say "the minister."

The Deputy Speaker: But you said "you."

Mr. Yakabuski: Sorry. I'd like to know, maybe the minister could tell us, when, after that tornado, she went up to visit the devastation in her riding, as opposed to me, your neighbouring member, going to look after your constituents. So shame on you for attacking me for not serving my constituents in this House yesterday.

I just wanted to point out to the member that 28 members of her caucus have failed to sign FarmGate 5—28 members of your caucus, member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Interjection.

Mr. Yakabuski: Let me see if I've got the ridings, because I wouldn't want to get in trouble. Oh, yes: London—Fanshawe; Don Valley East, a minister; Thornhill; Kingston and the Islands, a minister; Windsor—St. Clair, a minister; Etobicoke North; St. Paul's—hello, Minister; Scarborough—Agincourt, a minister; Sault Ste.

Marie; Scarborough East, a minister; Vaughan—King—Aurora, the Minister of Finance; Ottawa—Vanier, a minister; Mississauga Centre; Windsor West; Kitchener Centre; York Centre; Markham; Eglinton—Lawrence; Hamilton Mountain; Thunder Bay—Atikokan; Timiskaming—Cochrane; Davenport; Thunder Bay—Superior North; Ottawa Centre; Scarborough Southwest; Brampton West—Mississauga; Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh; and Scarborough—Rouge River.

As the House leader said yesterday—he liked to quote the Bible—"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I could say to those folks across the way, they would do well to listen to their House leader, Mr. Bradley.

I just wanted to clarify once and for all our support and my support for supply management in the province of Ontario. Every agricultural organization in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has met with me on this very subject. Let me assure you, when members, like the member for Nipissing, who clearly is in trouble, who clearly is desperate, make statements like that in the House about another member that are absolutely and completely, totally inaccurate, that in fact diminishes this great institution and all of those people who have come here before us.

I will tell you this much, Mr. Speaker: In fairness, the member who came here before me, Mr. Conway, would never have engaged in that kind of ad hominem attack on another member of this Legislature. I can say this to the House leader—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Yakabuski: —that when he was being grilled in the press in my riding and they called me, you know what I said to the press? I said, "I know that man"—I won't use the minister's name—"and I know he would not have done that." I defended him in the press in my riding. You know what? He was man enough to come to me the next week and say, "I read what you said in the paper. I appreciate that." There is a higher level that we can rise to debate to in this place, other than ad hominem attacks on other members.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for St. Paul's, come to order.

Further debate.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot): I'm really proud of the member from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. She obviously gets it and understands that we need to stand with our rural and agricultural sector. Thank you very much for your passion and your enthusiasm.

I think it's incumbent on all of us to seek to understand and to respond as best we can to the needs of our farm families. That's why, as a member of the Legislative Assembly, I attempt to get to every single meeting of the Hamilton-Wentworth Federation of Agriculture in my riding. That's why I was proud to help draft the December 2005 resolution on supply-side management. That's why I was pleased to sign on to FarmGate5 and to give advice to the FarmGate5 group, the grain and oilseeds folk, as well as many other agricultural stakeholders who have a real concern about where the agricultural sector is going.

That's why I was pleased to be able to organize five different round-table discussions with key farm leaders and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. That's why I was pleased to fight and to continue to fight for new monies in support of the agricultural sector and to be an unabashed and very strong advocate for an extension of rural infrastructure from $70 million—the doubling to $140 million, and the whole issue of farm markets, "Buy Ontario," and my private member's resolution—

Interjection.

Mr. McMeekin: —thank you—respecting the need for a co-operative economic development secretariat. We need to be standing in defence. We need to defend and extend whatever advantages our agricultural sector has. Certainly, the supply-side nature of agriculture tends to stabilize income and ensure a stable supply of products.

It all ties into food sovereignty as well. We're told by UN reports that we're not going to be able to rely, down the road, as much on markets, so we need to be growing more of our food at home. Both senior levels of government need to come to a radical understanding of the importance of food sovereignty and the ability to grow, market and distribute our own food in this country.

I stand as an unabashed advocate for this particular motion and for the supply-side nature of this economy. I'm pleased to support the wonderful resolution placed by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth—Middlesex): There's only one question that will be resolved here: Who's driving the bus over on the other side of the House in regard to the Progressive Conservative caucus? Is it Prime Minister Harper and Minister Emerson, who seem to be flip-flopping about their support of supply management? Is it a certain member of the Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Progressive Conservative Party, one Randy Hillier, who wants to set your policy? Or is it all of us defending supply management? Stay tuned for the vote.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs. Van Bommel, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Van Bommel: I just want to say how very important it is for this entire House and for all the members to support agriculture and our supply-managed commodities. I want to thank everyone who spoke on this.

During these times of international uncertainty about imported food and food additives, Canadians can take pride in the fact that they have a bountiful and secure supply of safe, nutritious and reasonably priced products. They can feel secure that it's produced here at home by people they trust. Supply management offers Canadian consumers stable prices and a steady supply of safe, made-in-Canada food that also provides a decent living for dairy, poultry and egg farmers without relying on taxpayer-funded subsidies. Supply management provides economic growth and prosperity.

We support our rural businesses, including feed mills and equipment dealers. Supply management supports small and medium-sized farms, because our cost-of-production formula gives farm families predictable incomes without the need to intensify the size of their farm operations.

I am proud to say that the McGuinty government believes in a balanced approach to the WTO trade negotiations and that Canada does not have to trade away its right to successful domestic food policy supported by supply management in order to achieve our other goal of increased access to export-oriented commodities.

I hope that by supporting this motion, we will have a strong reaffirmation of our unwavering support of supply management by all members of this House and send a strong message to Ontario farmers about our commitment to their needs. It is important that the government of Ontario, where the majority of supply-managed commodities are produced, send this message to the federal government. These are serious times for supply management, as farmers look for the strong and concrete commitment of their government to the future of their sector of agriculture. I want to thank everyone for their support—

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

VISITORS

Mr. Paul Ferreira (York South—Weston): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to take the time to acknowledge the presence of two of my constituents who have joined us for an enlightening debate this morning: Bob Ghosh and Sarah Hoffman.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke said that the member for St. Paul's was not listed as a supporter for FarmGate5. I'm sure he will want to correct the record. He may have old information, because in fact—

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Thank you.

The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

JOB PROTECTION

COMMISSIONER ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LE COMMISSAIRE

À LA PROTECTION DES EMPLOIS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with ballot item number 4, standing in the name of Mr. Hampton. Mr. Hampton has moved second reading of Bill 126. 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.

Pursuant to standing order 96, Bill 126 will go to the committee of the whole House unless Mr. Hampton—

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora—Rainy River): To the social policy committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Hampton has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social policy. Agreed? Agreed.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 5, standing in the name of Mrs. Van Bommel. Mrs. Van Bommel has moved member's notice of motion number 59. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 51; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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 1211 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION GRANTS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): We're still waiting. We're waiting for Dalton McGuinty to do the right thing and apologize. There has been an effort to smear the opposition parties. We believe it started at the top, and we are waiting for an apology.

Dalton McGuinty knows that his government made a mistake. His government gave out grants without any controls or applications. They wrote cheques first and asked questions later. He has pulled good organizations into his political scandal. He doesn't have a defence, so he's trying to distract everyone by leading a smear campaign and personal attacks against the opposition parties. From here, it looks like Dalton McGuinty is getting desperate. It looks like we hit a nerve.

Yesterday, Christina Blizzard in her column pointed out that some ethnic and cultural groups didn't receive any funding. Are they going to start making accusations against her too?

Anyone who knows John Tory knows that those accusations are false. The people of Ontario won't buy it. Dalton McGuinty should apologize to both opposition parties and then call in the auditor to clean up this mess.

As Christina Blizzard said in her article, "Unlike its toothpaste namesake, though, this Collegate leaves a bad taste in your mouth." So do the actions of the Premier. Dalton should do the right thing: be a leader, admit he is wrong, stop the smear campaign, tell the Legislature and the people of Ontario the truth about the slush funds and try to get his integrity back. We're all anxiously waiting.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa—Orléans): Last week, federal Environment Minister John Baird was "Gored" by Al and run over by a Suzuki as he brought in his less-than-intense climate change plan.

Climate change is a very important issue that we must take seriously. Ted Scambos, a glaciologist, says that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than forecasted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Arctic Ocean could be relatively free of ice as soon as 2020, not 2050 as predicted by the IPCC.

In the next five years alone, increases of greenhouse gases in Alberta's oil sands will more than offset the benefits of closing down Ontario's coal-fired generation plants, which is a tough undertaking for our province but one that we must make. To date, we have reduced emissions from that source by 30% and we remain committed to closing the coal plants. Our recent budget also included funding for many environmental initiatives, including $150 rebates for homeowners who get home energy audits.

I was very proud to hear this week that our government, led by Premier McGuinty, held discussions with other provinces to develop our own national plan to address how we can all work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This meeting is an example of government at its best: leaders who come together to discuss constructive solutions—and real solutions—to environmental challenges. This is a much better solution than intensity-based targets which allow emissions to grow with increased production.

I would like to congratulate our leader, Premier McGuinty, for showing true leadership for our country, our province and our environment.

CABINET MINISTERS

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): Over the last few weeks, this House has witnessed Liberal ministers repeatedly defending their indefensible actions. We have seen ministers refuse to accept any accountability for the failure of their policies.

What has become clear is that this issue is much bigger than the failures of individual ministers. The real problem is the Premier's complete absence of standards for his ministers. Minister Takhar's censure by the Integrity Commissioner does not violate the Premier's standards. Minister Caplan's failure to deal with Lottogate does not violate the Premier's standards. And now, Minister Colle's handouts to groups that are little more than Liberal Party fronts do not violate the Premier's standards.

The Premier prides himself on never having lost a minister. This is because he sets his standards so low as to be meaningless. That's why he won't lose a minister. Previous Premiers lost ministers because they held them to standards. Harris, Rae, Peterson and Davis held their ministers accountable and lost some of them. When it comes to his ministers, this Premier is more interested in maintaining a perfect record than a clean record.

ANNIVERSARY OF POLISH CONSTITUTION

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale—High Park): I'd like to begin by introducing some members of the Canadian-Polish Foundation. They're sitting in our gallery: Marek Goldyn, founder and chairman; Mathew Syrokomla, the first vice-chairman; Danuta Lechowska-Czarnik and Georgina Bencsik. Welcome to the House.

Today, Canadians of Polish descent are celebrating the proclamation of the Polish constitution 216 years ago, on May 3, 1791. This constitution is Europe's first modern codified constitution and the second-oldest in the world.

In 1772, Russia, Austria and Prussia signed the First Partition treaty of Poland. This was a short-lived constitution and did not save the country from two other partitions which blotted Poland from the maps. During the Communist period, especially the Solidarity revolution, May 3 was a day of anti-government and anti-Communist protests. Polish Canadians celebrate May 3 as a symbol of their freedom from foreign occupation, of national unity, and a symbol of hope that "Poland has not perished" but lives on in their minds and hearts.

I'd like all the members of the House to congratulate our Polish members here today on this glorious day.

VAN BOMMEL FAMILY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex): On May 5, 1957, Martin and Cornelia Van Bommel landed at pier 21 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, with 10 of their children. They ranged in age from two to 24. The Dutch family was among the fifth-largest ethnic group to pass through pier 21. They had already travelled 10 days across the Atlantic from Holland on a large passenger ship called the Maasdam, when they boarded a train for a two-day trip to London, Ontario, where their eldest son, Harry, met them.

Martin was 54 years old when he made the biggest decision of his life. Having survived two world wars, he knew that his children would have a better future in a country called Canada, so he sold his farm and left everything he had ever known for a new country, a new language and new culture.

From London, they went on to Blenheim, where another Dutch family, the De Brouwers, had sponsored them. They were proud to become Canadian farmers, so 10 months later they bought their first farm in Ridgetown. In 1965, they moved to another farm at Belmont, Ontario, where they lived out their final days. Altogether they had 15 children, 48 grandchildren and 77 great-grandchildren. Most of the family are farmers, and they have a teacher and a mechanic to fill out their successes.

The occasion is being marked with the installation of a commemorative plaque at pier 21 in Halifax and a visit to Queen's Park today, all decked out in the family uniform. The family wishes to thank Canada and Ontario for all the opportunities they have been given by this great country and this great province.

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION GRANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie—Lincoln): I'm pleased to rise in the House to call attention to the fact that the Minister of Finance so far has managed to dodge the growing clouds around the Collegate scandal. But we in the opposition suspected that while Mike Colle was the workhorse in all of this, Greg Sorbara, the finance minister, is the real thoroughbred. In fact, the finance minister has really completed a triple crown when it comes to the Collegate scandal.

First, as the Minister of Finance, he dished out some $32 million for this end-of-year Liberal slush fund; then, as the Chair of Management Board, I guess he would have approved the list, as Mr. Colle had indicated, of which groups would get the projects and which with Liberal ties would get preferential treatment; and then finally, as the chair of the Liberal campaign fund, he was able to shake hands with the local candidates and local Liberal Party presidents—

Interjection: Cheque in hand.

Mr. Hudak: —cheque in hand as they went through the shopping list for lawn signs and brochures and such.

We know that the Minister of Citizenship told reporters that Mr. Sorbara, the finance minister, and the public infrastructure renewal minister, David Caplan, were in charge of the purse strings and therefore helped approve the grants. We look forward to the TSN highlight of the night as the minister, as chair of the Liberal campaign fund, as Chair of Management Board and as the finance minister doling out the slush, comes home with a triple crown of accomplishments in the Mike Collegate affair.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough—Rouge River): I rise today to speak to the positive health care results the McGuinty government is delivering. It is truly unfortunate that the member for York South—Weston is not raising an important issue for his constituents. You might say he has been missing in action on this file. But I'm happy to take this opportunity to share some of the good news with the people of York South—Weston.

In my riding, my constituents are benefiting from the positive investments we have made after years of neglect under the previous two governments: a $268.4-million increase in funding for 905/GTA hospitals since 2003; just over $74 million in wait-times funding; and development of three regional cancer centres, two cardiac surgery programs and five regional dialysis programs.

It is really too bad that the member from York South—Weston won't tell his constituents about the positive things happening in their community. It is disappointing that the NDP can find the time to oppose a much-needed subway extension to York University. I'm happy to make sure that the member from York South—Weston's constituents have a voice in this Legislature.

We are moving forward with the subway, and here's more great news for the people living in York South—Weston: Let's not forget the new state-of-the-art Humber River Regional Hospital and redevelopment of one of the hospital's existing ambulatory care services as part of a major cancer funding announcement—

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Members' statements.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I rise in the House today to share some important initiatives on community safety in the GTA and York South—Weston in the absence of the member for York South—Weston standing up to share the news with his own constituents.

The McGuinty government is bringing a tough-on-crime-and-its-causes approach to community safety. The strategy involves additional funding for community programs, officers and task forces to combat gangs, guns and drugs.

After the NDP's social contract cut the number of police officers on our streets and the Tory government cut funding for the Ministry of Community Safety by $181 million, this government knew we had to turn things around. As a result, we've invested in making our streets safer. This includes funding for an additional 1,000 police officers, 250 of whom are right here in Toronto.

The McGuinty government's approach to community safety does more than just increase the number of police on our streets; it also invests in at-risk youth and rehabilitation programming for young offenders.

Communities like Weston and Mount Dennis have directly benefited from our funding. Youth-centric programs like the For Youth Initiative, UrbanArts and the Black Action Defence Committee aim to engage youth in activities that develop strong leadership and creative skills.

The NDP still has no plan, while the McGuinty government continues to move forward, with real results. We know there is more to do, but we are committed to keeping our streets and our communities safer.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I'm pleased to share some good news with the people of Toronto. Since NDP members like the members from York South—Weston and Parkdale—High Park haven't taken the opportunity to give their constituents a voice, I'm happy to help them out.

There's a lot of good news for public transportation in Ontario. We're especially excited to be fully committed to the extension of the subway line to York University. Despite the NDP leader's efforts to foil a tri-government agreement to help improve Toronto's subway system, we're moving forward.

In the GTA alone, we've invested $1.8 billion in public transit since coming to office—the largest investment in over a decade.

While our government has made public transportation a priority by putting money on the table for the York subway line, the leader of the NDP and his caucus, including the members from York South—Weston and Parkdale—High Park, would like to derail the project. That would have a devastating impact on commuters and students living in the GTA, not to mention the negative impact on good-paying CAW jobs in the north.

It's no surprise that his caucus sat silent on this. They must be embarrassed by their leader, who's against extending the Toronto subway and against CAW workers and against good-paying jobs in the north.

We refuse to play politics with major issues like our public transportation system, especially on critical jobs in northern Ontario. I hope the NDP caucus members will take the opportunity to give their constituents a voice, because it's clear that the NDP leader is not speaking for Torontonians or northerners. We'll continue to move forward with real results for Ontarians when it comes to public transportation.

VISITORS

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm delighted to welcome in the members' gallery councillor Maria McRae from the city of Ottawa—welcome, Councillor McRae; Barry Quinn, John Sobey, Mike Knoefler, Ray Balcon and Don Smith, Ottawa firefighters; as well as Johanne Levesque, daughter of deceased firefighter Claude Levesque. They serve our community so well. We're very proud of them and we thank them for coming to Queen's Park today.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean—Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to echo what my colleague from Ottawa West—Nepean just said. I want to let them know how proud we are today to stand and support them.

On the weekend I was able to be with Mark Johnson's mother and to tell her that I would be very much supportive of this bill, with Councillor McRae. So thank you very much.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think if we all stood on a point of order to recognize every single one of the wonderful firefighters who are here today, we would be taking quite a long time at this portion of the agenda. But I do want to say that I'm proud to see our Hamilton firefighters here as well: Larry Staples, our president; Henry Watson; Ron Summers; Stan—Stan, I can't remember your last name. I'm really sorry.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: For the sake of the very same sanity the member was talking about, for anyone who has not been invited to say hello, we say hello to everybody.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Yesterday the member for Erie—Lincoln raised a point of order concerning the language contained in a certain petition. The government House leader and the chief government whip also spoke to the point of order.

Having carefully reviewed the petition in question, I can only concur with the member for Erie—Lincoln that it is not temperate in its language and not respectful in its request.

The petition is not unique, in the sense that other petitions have been used recently as attacks on other members—as, I might add, have various members' statements.

The general tone and tenor of debate and language in this House, most recently exemplified by the petition challenged yesterday by the member for Erie—Lincoln, causes me grave concern, and I have addressed this several times.

All these tactics in combination represent an erosion and a lowering of the Legislative Assembly for the expediency of partisan gain. I'm not suggesting that the assembly is not a partisan forum—it certainly is—but I am suggesting that legitimate partisan interplay needs to come about in a manner that is respectful of the dignity of this place and accords each member the respect that is owed by virtue of his or her membership here.

With respect to the specific petition at issue, it is my decision that it is not acceptable for presentation in the House and will not be accepted. Going forward, I've asked the table to be especially vigilant of all petitions, having regard for my general level of concern about decorum and temperance in language.

During petitions, we in effect allow the public to come directly into this place in order to make a respectful request. The House does not dignify itself if it gives a petition attacking one of its own members, nor does the member representing it serve the greater interests of the institution.

VISITORS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Speaker: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Maria Petrenkova and Ludmila Bakosova, visiting from Slovakia, joining their brother Branislav Galat and his wife Margita Galat.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice policy and move its adoption.

The Acting Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Mr. Berardinetti from the standing committee on justice policy presents the committee's report as follows:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 165,

An Act to establish and p