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

June 12, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L204 - Thu 12 Jun 1997 / Jeu 12 Jun 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CAREGIVERS WEEK

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

FIESTA WEEK

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SKILLS CANADA COMPETITIONS

EVENTS IN WENTWORTH EAST

POLICE SERVICES

BREAST CANCER

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

VISITORS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

HOSPITAL BEDS

RENT REGULATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

PAY EQUITY

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

TOURISM INDUSTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SPECIALTY STEEL INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLINICS

WATER CHLORINATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

RENT REGULATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA RÉFORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

JOB GROWTH AND TAX REDUCTION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CROISSANCE DE L'EMPLOI ET LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

Mr Young moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 134,

An Act to promote zero tolerance for substance abuse by children / Projet de loi 134, Loi encourageant une tolérance zéro concernant l'abus de substances par des enfants.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): The 1990s have been earmarked as the decade of the rebirth of the drug culture. More and more young people, some as young as 12 years old, are fearlessly joining the trend. Substance abuse by youth is at its highest level since 1980. Today, drugs are far more potent than they were in the 1960s and most are readily available to our youth. But young people just aren't getting the message that drugs and alcohol can be deadly and addictive toxins.

As a society, we haven't fully acknowledged this reality. The apathy we've allowed ourselves to cultivate over the last two years has created a blind spot that has rendered us unable or unwilling to accept the fact that substance abuse among our youth is skyrocketing. The costs to our society, both human and financial, are devastating, but we are a society in denial.

The reality is that almost 20% of grade 9 students and almost 41% of grade 11 students smoked cannabis in 1995. This is hydroponic marijuana or its derivatives, 20 to 30 times as strong as that which students experimented with in the 1970s -- mind-numbing dope. Almost one in five grade 11 students had tried LSD, which produces bizarre hallucinations for up to eight hours, flashbacks and sometimes screaming fits. The statistics related to alcohol use among students are even more staggering. Thirty per cent of grade 7 students aged 12 and almost 76% of grade 11 students aged 16 had consumed alcohol. Yet less than 2% of parents believe children use drugs too often.

The drug culture is flourishing in our backyards. Our children are gathering for bush parties where they drink and take drugs in neighbourhood parks and ravines. Forty-four per cent of our youth have witnessed drinking and driving. Thousands of our children are cramming themselves into overcrowded abandoned buildings for rave parties where dangerous herbal and chemical drugs like ecstasy and speed are pedalled to them at tables right out in the open. I have witnessed this myself. The marketing is insidious. They use names like "rush," "acceleration" and "giggle juice." Is life a little tough? Buy a new reality.

The giggles were over for one US teenager last year who died after taking herbal ecstasy.

We are abandoning our children. We owe it to them to open our eyes to what's going on. My bill will help us achieve that. We can't rely on the media to do our parenting for us. Many youth already identify with the Kurt Cobains of the world. Open any American fashion magazine and you'll likely see images of stoned, stringy-haired addicts staring from the pages in a shameless attempt to sell our children clothing.

Nor should we place responsibility for our children solely on the shoulders of our educators or law enforcement officers. If passed, my bill will reduce their role by compelling the participation of a group which has sometimes been excluded in the past: the parents. I am told by the experts that the major roadblock to reducing substance abuse is in fact parental denial. We need parents to be part of the solution to substance abuse among our children. My bill will, by law, require parents to intervene at the first sign of suspected drug or alcohol use by their child when alerted by the school.

With the help of a social worker or a guidance counsellor, both parent and child will get the information they need to get help in their community and develop a plan to deal with the problem.

If passed into law, my bill will also ensure zero tolerance for the possession of tobacco on school property, resulting in the immediate suspension of the offending students. In 1995, 10% of students in grade 7 were smokers. By grade 11, that number jumped to 42%. We know smoking is addictive, sometimes after only one cigarette, and usually lifetime smokers start in their teens. The tobacco companies certainly know that.

It is also a killer. In 1992 in Ontario, there were approximately 13,700 deaths attributable to smoking; 40,000 deaths a year in Canada are due to tobacco use. In Ontario, young people under 19 are prohibited from purchasing cigarettes and smoking on school property is illegal. Yet we still allow students to bring tobacco on to school property and offer it to their friends. My bill eliminates this inconsistency.

I mentioned that there are devastating social costs involved with substance abuse. Allow me to elaborate. There are terrible, terrible costs to health, including the threat of dependency, addiction and the long-term effects of drug and alcohol abuse. There are costs to our children's education as well. The performance of substance users declines, sometimes permanently.

Most tragically, there is the cost of human lives lost due to drug overdoses and drug- and alcohol-related accidents, including motor vehicle accidents. In 1992, there were approximately 6,840 deaths attributable to alcohol in Ontario.

And there are costs to the rest of society. Police tell us drugs and alcohol play a role in most crime. Many or most home break-ins are drug-related. Many or most physical assaults occur under the influence. Most gang activity centres around drug use and the drug culture. Most murders are committed by people under the influence.

Canadians spend billions of dollars each year treating addicts and cleaning up the mess many of them create through crime, car accidents, court and incarceration costs. In 1992 the federal government launched a five-year, multimillion-dollar commitment to deal with substance abuse, to cover related programs, including medical and corrections. However, no clear national strategy is in place to deal with the growing problem of substance abuse among our youth.

One day, our children's children will look back and ask us, "Why did you let that happen?" There is no good answer. In Ontario we must set the standard of public tolerance. We must send a message, loud and clear, to our youth and their parents that the use of narcotics and alcohol is a grave danger in our homes, in our schools, in our province and in our country. I am asking your support for this critical initiative.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise to speak against the bill. One may find that peculiar, since I've been a teacher and a principal for 30 years, but let me tell you why: The bill, as proposed, is not manageable. The bill, as proposed, has so many flaws that it will only hurt children or young adults in the long term, because the bill is punitive in nature.

Although the discipline strand in any exercise is important, it is far more important that we deal with the intervention and prevention components of any substance abuse policy, and this is where the bill is lacking. There is absolutely nowhere in this bill where you spend time or focus your energies on ensuring (1) that prevention takes place and (2) that meaningful intervention takes place. It is hardly meaningful to be fining teachers and principals and to be punishing parents. That is not productive; that is counterproductive to the process. It does nothing to help children or students in Ontario's school system.

I find it ironic that the former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education would propose a bill like this without consulting the stakeholders -- without consulting students, without consulting teachers, without consulting boards -- because it is very important for him to realize that most boards in Ontario have very good substance abuse programs in place. Certainly this right-wing approach, this punitive approach of this government is beyond belief when it comes to trying to prevent a problem that exists in schools. This bill does not realize the importance that any good substance abuse program has when it comes to individually helping those students with problems.

Our pages -- they are in grades 7 and 8 -- will attest to the fact that children come to school with many different and diverse backgrounds and many different and diverse needs. This one-size-fits-all approach will absolutely not work but will cause bigger problems, bigger delays in what is and should be the most important part of any program, and that's prevention and intervention. This bill simply doesn't address those two very important components of any workable, manageable and sustainable substance abuse program. The big-stick approach just doesn't work with children.

The big-stick approach gives you negative results and not positive results. When we're dealing with children, specific problems with students, we should always be looking to a positive resolution and a positive course of action as opposed to a negative course of action.

So I find it surprising, I find it almost unbelievable that the stakeholders weren't involved in the process, and I find it impossible that the gentleman doesn't realize that confidentiality between teacher and student to help a child is very important. It isn't addressed in the bill. Therefore, a student would not feel comfortable going to a teacher with a problem, because if the teacher doesn't then divulge the confidentiality that has been built between the teacher and the student, the teacher is fined, the principal is fined, the parents are fined and ultimately and finally the student is fined. I'm sorry, it just doesn't make any sense and I would ask the House not to support it.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm pleased to participate in this debate --

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: -- and I'm pleased to address the bill, if Mr Young will permit me. I'm going to tell you, recognizing that second reading is approval in principle, I have some great concerns about the bill, not about the principle.

All of us should endorse the proposition that schools should be healthy places.

If schools are infiltrated by tobacco, which we all have to consider to be a highly addictive and very dangerous drug and, let's make no mistake about it, one from which great profits are made, with total disregard for the welfare of the users, the addicts, by an industry which has increasingly, recognizing that older persons are becoming increasingly sensitive to the health dangers of tobacco, older persons are increasingly inclined to make efforts to break the habit, seen, as I've read and understand from any number of studies, dramatic increases of tobacco use, smoking, on the part of youngsters, especially young women, I think that should be of considerable concern to all of us.

I'll be quite candid: I say this as a person who has quit smoking for considerable periods of time, who understands the addiction and who has returned to the habit, understanding how tenuous a period of abstinence is, even periods as long as three and four years. Like most other smokers, I concede readily that my introduction to tobacco was as a young person -- and there was nothing unique or special about my circumstances -- compelled to engage in the habit for all the same reasons that young people are in 1997.

I think it's important that the Legislature address this issue. I am proud of the legislation of the last government which made significant strides to control the access of young people to tobacco. Perhaps it's time for governments -- and provincial governments alone can't do it. We were sorely disappointed by the failure of the federal government prior to the last election to be as tough and firm in its anti-tobacco legislation as it stated it was going to be. They backed off under the pressure of a very powerful lobby, and that is very specifically the tobacco industry.

The tobacco industry has a strong interest in creating new addicts, because there's a whole lot of money at stake. Let's be clear: The tobacco industry doesn't make money from people who smoke two, three or four cigarettes a day; the tobacco industry relies upon addicts in much the same way -- and I'll move on to spirits and alcohol -- that the alcohol beverage industry doesn't rely upon the family that keeps a bottle of Seagram's VO in their den closet for years at a time, perhaps serving it up at Christmastime or celebrations. The beer industry doesn't make profits from people who drink one beer a week.

The alcohol industry requires that there be mass consumption on the part of significant numbers of people. Once again, just as the tobacco industry has targeted young people in a not very subtle way, in my view, it's my firm belief, based upon what we've experienced in this province for a considerable period of time, that the alcohol industry similarly targets young people.

Witness, for instance, the ongoing experiments with making what are referred to as soda pop beverages -- soda pop wines, coolers, those sorts of things. They're designed for the tyro consumer. They're sweetened, they're sugary and they're more akin to Kool-Aid than they are to the taste of hard liquor. Those are desperate efforts on the part of the industry to seduce young people into beginning alcohol consumption.

I endorse the principle of the bill to this extent: I'm eager to see this bill or any other of a similar ilk go to committee. What I would call upon is for there to be broad and extensive hearings on the part of the committee. This isn't the sort of bill that should be dealt with in a period of but a few weeks, because I'm convinced that this bill in itself is not the solution.

Quite frankly, I think it's nuts to suggest that a student who commits an infraction be suspended from school for a period of up to 20 days. That's the last thing in the world -- I concur with the principle of suspension, but my view is that a suspension should only be imposed to protect the health and safety of other students. It seems to me to be avoiding the issue to merely suspend the student.

The prospect of imposing fines -- in the case of the bill, fines of up to $200 -- against a student who fails to comply with the provisions of the bill, quite frankly, is nuts; it doesn't begin to address the issue. The reality is that most young people won't be able to find that type of money to pay a fine. We're not looking for a system which merely permits people to be licensed, to buy their way out of scenarios where they find themselves in difficulty.

I find the arguments of Mr Bartolucci persuasive. My own work prior to being elected here has involved a great deal of work with counselling and drug and alcohol and other substance abuse programs.

I question how effective the bill is going to be when we see the process that's being engaged in now, with larger and larger class sizes, with serious concerns about underfunding of school programs, with guidance counsellors who can't do guidance counselling but are forced into classroom teaching because of shortages of staff. It's imperative that any legislation that addresses this problem and that calls upon counsellors, professionals within the school system, to respond to these situations, it's imperative that the bill has to consider whether those personnel are going to be available, whether the school is going to be adequately staffed.

My impression, from speaking with people in the teaching profession, is that they already feel, and rightly so, beleaguered by the number of additional responsibilities put on them. They don't dispute the need for somebody to embrace these responsibilities, but they have great concerns about the capacity of teachers, in the position they're in now, to respond to these responsibilities in an appropriate and professional manner.

It's clearly important to acknowledge that young people experiment with any number of taboo items. That's probably the nature of the beast. I'm prepared to concur that when a young person or a child attends school under the influence, it has gone beyond mere experimentation, and that is probably some pretty strong indicia of there being a problem or at least the beginning of a problem. That's with respect to alcohol or other drugs like the ones mentioned by the sponsor of this bill or tobacco.

It would be interesting to have this bill go to committee. I reject the proposition of imposing fines. That doesn't address the issue. I reject the proposition of the automatic suspension, because that doesn't address the issue. If schools are going to be built into healthier and healthier places, it's important that young people who are experiencing difficulties with, among other things, substance abuse have more and more access to healthy places rather than being ousted, rather than being ejected and put into positions where they can't receive the advice and counsel of teachers or peers.

I want to remark on programs that I'm familiar with down in Niagara region. Recently I was honoured to be, for instance, the reviewing officer for the Thorold air cadet squadron. My familiarity with the Thorold air cadet squadron and the Welland air cadet squadron -- and I appreciate it's not a provincial government responsibility in terms of funding of those programs; it's one that falls to the federal government. But these programs are increasingly under threat because of the lack of funding.

Programs like the air cadet program or sea cadet or army cadet programs -- and I just use these as illustrations, because they're not every young person's cup of tea. I understand that, the people who operate these programs understand that and the young people involved in these programs understand it.

When we see municipalities with withering recreation programs because of the inability to finance them, when we see municipalities, however trivial it may seem in the context of this broad issue of substance abuse by young people, not just shutting down recreation programs, sports programs, but shutting down, for instance, public swimming pools, as municipalities are doing across the province because of their inability to finance the repairs and maintenance of these swimming pools, quite frankly we're going to see more and more young people drifting to the margins and becoming increasingly lured by the prospect of the relief or release that at least they believe they can obtain by virtue of substance abuse.

I think it's important that we get tough with the tobacco and spirits industries. The spirits industry has been very clever in many respects, malicious and insidious, about how they weave their way around advertising guidelines which they insist be self-imposed. They are strong advocates of self-regulation.

They insist they have the capacity to regulate themselves, but the advertising in some of the most powerful media, obviously, like television, like the big screen, like the sponsorship of youth-oriented events, rock concerts, the ilk of those, illustrates that they've targeted a market and have every intention of pettifogging their way through any regulations that might be imposed on them. I think it's time to get tough on the spirits industry, it's time to get tough on the tobacco industry and stop treating the attack on tobacco as something that somehow sits on the back burner.

The sponsor of the bill made reference to identification with Kurt Cobain, whose music I've never heard.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Oh, come on. You haven't heard it? Oh, you haven't lived.

Mr Kormos: Well, I haven't, but I'm well aware of the circumstances surrounding his career and the fascination that young people have with him. I regret to say to the author of the bill and to the other members here that I think I understand why increasing numbers of young people identify with Kurt Cobain. There's a great level of despair out there among young people. Sociologists call it anomie.

Young people are confronted by levels of unemployment that are well into the double digits, in the Niagara region approaching 19% and 20%. That's not unique to Niagara. Youth unemployment doubles that of their parents virtually across the province and across the country. Young people are increasingly concerned about what future will be there for them. Young people are feeling incredible pressure about whether they'll be able to afford post-secondary education and, even if they and their families make the incredible sacrifice necessary to achieve it, whether there will be jobs and careers for them at the end of the day.

Surely this has to be recognized as part of the process which draws people into substance abuse: families in poverty. I think we have to understand that families in poverty and young people suffering that poverty, certainly through no fault of their own, find themselves in states of despair and detachment. Again, I understand part of the Kurt Cobain phenomenon to be an expression of that despair and detachment and that identification of what is called generation X.

When we see the numbers of young people who populate the streets, not just of Toronto but increasingly of communities across the province, as homeless people, kids who resort to squeegeeing to eke their way through a day and then a week and then months, surely we've got to understand that the response to substance abuse is more than just fines and suspensions from school.

I'm prepared to participate in committee hearings. I think there's a whole lot of people in the community across this province -- experts, laypeople, parents, teachers, young people -- who would be eager to participate as well. It's for that reason, and the eagerness to see this discussed and debated in the broadest possible way, that I will be supporting this bill this morning.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Today we are debating the private member's bill put forward by the honourable member for Halton Centre, the Zero Tolerance for Substance Abuse Act. I'd like to applaud the member on his efforts in trying to eradicate the use of drugs and alcohol and tobacco among our children and rid these substances from their presence in schools across Ontario. These are values I share as well. However, there are several areas of the bill that I feel require clarification and may prove to be unenforceable if passed in its present form.

The bill establishes several different offences but does not indicate that these offences are under the Provincial Offences Act. If it is the intention for these offences to be under that act, then this needs to be clearly set out in the bill. If, however, these are to be offences under the Education Act, there are no mechanisms in the act for procedures of enforcement, so that would need to be addressed.

There are several sections of the bill that amend portions of the Education Act which I believe may not be necessary, such as an amendment to require a principal of the school to hold informational meetings if there are grounds to believe that a student is impaired, in possession of a substance or supplies a substance to another person. This is already covered under the drug education policy framework issued by the Ministry of Education and Training. This has assisted school boards in the development and implementation of drug education policies throughout Ontario.

Drug education is an area of study in the physical and health education curriculum guidelines for grades 1 to 12. The focus is on education about tobacco in grades 4 to 10 and about alcohol, cannabis and cocaine in grades 7 to 10. I believe this is a very important point, that our government has ensured that drug education, remain part of the current curriculum, and when the new curriculum is developed for physical and health education I'm confident that drug education will remain a key element in this new document.

Another concern is that this bill may put our teachers and principals in a very difficult position. Under the proposed bill, the principal is required to hold a meeting with the pupil's guardian before there is a trial or a conviction of the student. This may actually require the principal to act in a quasi-judicial manner. The bill also creates offences for teachers who fail to attend the informational meeting. I believe this bill could expand the role of the educator to that of enforcer, an expanded role that many within the educational community will not be comfortable with.

One of the most important roles of the decision-maker, whether it be a president of a company, a judge or a principal, is the ability to exercise discretion when needed. I believe the bill limits the principal from exercising that discretion. The requirements made on the principal to suspend a student in possession of tobacco, whether lighted or not, eliminates the ability for the principal to exercise discretion. A key function of a principal is the ability to exercise that discretion and make appropriate decisions based on circumstances. Exceptional situations occur in many facets of life, and I believe our public policies must reflect that.

I believe the spirit of the bill introduced by my colleague is well intentioned in helping to eradicate the use of drugs among our young people. If the bill is passed and goes to committee, I would strongly recommend that teachers, principals, parents and community members have the chance to give their input to ensure that the bill accomplishes its objectives.

Mr Gerretsen: I concur with what the member opposite has just stated. He stated many of the reasons I'm against this bill at this stage. When you send this kind of bill to committee, it's highly unlikely that enough changes will be made to accomplish the kind of thing and to deal with the kinds of issues he's talking about.

I'd like to talk about something else, though, very briefly, because we have two other caucus members who want to speak on this as well. The member for Halton Centre talked about a national strategy. Surely, if we're talking about a national strategy of making sure our youngsters don't have access to these substances, it's a matter for the provincial and federal governments to start working together better. They should go after the alcohol industry, the spirits and tobacco industries, to a much greater extent than they have.

I know why governments haven't done it. Quite frankly, there's an awful lot of tax revenue riding on the sale of these items. If our federal government and our provincial government really and truly made this a priority, I think we could handle these kinds of problems and situations. But to start blaming the youngsters for these problems when at the same time advertising is placed on a day-to-day basis in all the media glorifying the use of alcohol and tobacco, how can we possibly expect the youngsters in our society to get the right kind of attitude towards the use of these products?

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): The Liberal government, Allan Rock.

Mr Gerretsen: Just a minute now, folks. How can we possibly expect them to do that if --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They're hopeless over there.

Mr Gerretsen: They sure are. I agree. They're hopeless.

The governments could deal with these issues by at least making darned sure that laws are in effect so that the youngsters will have as little access to these products as possible. That's where it has to start. We can't glorify this kind of situation.

Mr Hastings: I'm glad to join in this debate regarding the submission of the member for Halton Centre on his private member's bill dealing with substance abuse.

I want to concentrate on the consequences of the rampant substance abuse we see in our society. One of those consequences, the demoralizing of our children, must be stopped. Substance abuse not only hurts the individual, it rips apart the lives of friends and families. More often, the physical and emotional short-term effects of substance abuse lead these young offenders to a life of long-term pain for which our society is paying enormously. Their habits result in a compromised education, perhaps leading to crime and in some instances even to death. We need to get into the minds of our youth and somehow play an integral role in determining how to deter substance abuse.

The citizens of Ontario have ended up paying enormous amounts of money caring for these offenders. When they're sitting in a hospital with brain haemorrhaging, lung cancer, kidney and liver cancer or malnutrition, who pays for it? All of us. Most important, as a society we can never re-create their potential.

We have to ensure that our youth realize they are not invincible, and we must hit them where it hurts. If a youth is convicted of substance abuse, we must step up to the plate and intervene, holding them back from the things they like to do most. Let's make them wait another year before they can obtain a driver's licence or enter a club. I believe these are creative and effective deterrents for our young people. We must make it clear to our youth that they can lose the privileges that come with growing up and becoming mature in today's society.

Substance abuse starts in the schools, where kids are learning how to cope with today's pressures. They're using it as a tool to deal with that kind of pressure. But I think it's important that our children understand that taking drugs or drinking alcohol, even moderately, is against the law. Alcohol is a poison that hurts the heart and irreparably destroys young minds. Tobacco is one of the cheapest forms of addictive substances available for adults over age 19 years.

Children must realize that if they are found smoking in our schools, they must be punished -- imagine. We need to bring back some enforcement along with complementary drug awareness and prevention programs. Children must realize that if they are found in possession of an illegal substance, no matter what the age, they will be severely punished and, foremost, young people must realize they will now be stripped of the privileges they value most if they are found abusing a substance of any form.

Finally, I'd like to say that these children who spend their parents' money to skip school, poison their bodies with alcohol, destroy their brains with drugs and damage the integrity and love of their families must be punished. Kids' responsibility results in an ongoing process of wasting resources to treat our young people, who understand that punishment exists but fail to respect today's judicial laws.

This categorically could not be any worse than seeing a loved one in the hospital suffering from an incurable but avoidable ailing disease or sickness. Kids have the conscious choice of patiently waiting until the age of individual consent, or they can choose to break the law and face the consequences. That's a reality we ought to be dealing with today. As a society, we must draw the line and state that there are certain things this society will no longer tolerate.

Today I'm pleased to join in supporting the member for Halton Centre's bill on substance abuse and I clearly disagree with the parliamentary assistant's position. It seems to me that we have had for the last 25 to 30 years a large dose of drug awareness education. In fact I'm supportive of a program called DARE, Drug Awareness Reduced Everywhere, in my own riding that originates in California and Edmonton, taught by police officers. It's found to have the most sticking, bonding consequences in terms of having our young people understand what happens when they engage in drug and substance abuse.

It seems to me that you have to have the combination of strict enforcement and drug awareness education and counselling,

whereas our members opposite seem to want to emphasize the continuing ironic status quo and forget the enforcement concept completely, just continue with drug awareness education.

If it were working so effectively, then the question the member for Halton Centre posed has still not been answered by members of either of the opposition parties. If those two approaches are the most effective, then why do we have a mounting problem? That's the raison d'être for his bill, and I congratulate him for bringing it forward and showing that we need to combine drug awareness education and prevention with strong enforcement. I'd like to congratulate the member for Halton Centre for introducing this bill today.

Mr Bradley: I want to first of all say that I understand the problem that exists and that I believe the member is very sincere in wanting to address what is a problem that troubles so many of us in our society. I'm sure it is a problem that makes many parents lose a lot of sleep. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale pointed out the impact on our society of drug abuse that takes place. All of us are frustrated when we see in our society a problem which is sometimes growing, sometimes abating only a little bit with young people in our society. We have to finds ways to address the problem.

The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Education indicated that he felt the bill would be difficult to enforce, and that is my problem with it. I spoke to the member for Halton Centre about his bill and thought initially that it would have some positive impact. I think we want to see restrictions on the ability to use substances within the school system, for instance, and in other places. I looked at the bill and said I don't think it's an enforceable bill, even though the goal is good.

I think drug education is absolutely essential -- it's not the only component you can use -- and I believe you have to get at the people who are purveying the drugs, except that here we're in a case where we have legal drugs for older people, that is, alcohol and tobacco, being referred to. If you're talking about cocaine, heroin or whatever other drugs there are out there, and there is a variety of drugs that are illegal, I think you look at that in a different way.

What you're doing is placing a tremendous onus on people within the education system, people who are already occupied with an awful lot of other things that they have to do within education. Also, you're putting greater onus on the enforcement system. This government has made a decision, rightly or wrongly, that it is going to attack things by severely reducing expenditures within the government, and there are some people who agree with that. I don't agree with it, but I'm not being critical of that aspect today.

I'm simply saying that with all these problems, if you're not prepared to commit the resources to them, then you're not going to be able to enforce laws, no matter how tough they are.

I think the problem is appropriately brought to the attention of this House and I want to find ways, along with other members, of dealing particularly with those substances which are considered to be illegal within our society and those substances which are illegal for young people to have.

I don't know if this will solve it, looking at the details of the bill. I really think you're going to place principals and teachers in an extremely difficult situation. You're assuming that in all families we have somewhat of the old-fashioned and what a lot of people would consider to be normal families, a nuclear family where you have a husband, a wife and other children and there is some enforcement at home. There are many more dysfunctional families out there and I don't know, if you applied these rules to the more dysfunctional families, that they would be able to cope with it, whether it's realistic.

I think the member gets full marks for bringing the matter to our attention, for raising this issue. I simply believe, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education believes, that the details of this bill are such that it may not be enforceable. That would be unfortunate because I think the problem should be addressed by members of this assembly.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I support my colleague's bill for zero tolerance for substance abuse in schools. Zero tolerance for substance possession and abuse on school property ought to be pre-eminent in the minds of all teachers and principals.

This bill will mandate that the teachers and principals all have to report substance abuse or drug possession in much the same fashion as they do for physical abuse of children. Under the Child and Family Services Act a number of professionals, including teachers, are required to report to a children's aid society any case where they have reasonable grounds to suspect past or present abuse of a child under 18. Child abuse is defined as physical harm, sexual molestation, lack of medical treatment or an untreated emotional disorder.

Drug or alcohol problems could come under this broad definition of child abuse, but the operative word is "could." Zero Tolerance for Substance Abuse Act replaces "could" with "will." Teachers and principals will report to parents suspicions or knowledge of substance possession or abuse.

Our problems with youth have accelerated. Youth drug-related offences rose 83% between 1992 and 1995, and violent youth crime has risen 124% since 1986, more than double in less than a decade.

This problem with a small segment of the youth population is affecting other kids and it's happening in the schools: kids in elementary school who chew blotters laced with LSD, kids who mix hash with tobacco for a tobacco high, and then there is the illicit sale of prescription drugs like Ritalin and Talwin. Ritalin and Talwin are amphetamines. They are forms of speed. They are prescription drugs. If a kid is hyperactive, Ritalin gets prescribed to have a calming effect. However, to a normal kid Ritalin or Talwin gives a high, kids get jazzed up. They are really taking speed and they know it.

Metropolitan Toronto Police told me that Ritalin and Talwin in combination give a tremendous high. On the street these drugs are called kids' cocaine and the kids know how to feign hyperactivity to get a prescription. They forge prescriptions, they photocopy prescriptions. They do double-doctoring, going to different doctors for the same prescription.

Each year, illegal prescription drugs make for a multimillion-dollar industry. In Metro Toronto two years ago, police estimated at least $1 million to $2 million in sales per month, almost always with kids.

Some Addiction Research Foundation statistics on student substance use are frightening: 30% of grade 7 students had consumed alcohol; 19% of grade 9 students and 41% of grade 11 students had smoked cannabis; 20% of grade 11 students have tried LSD; 3% have inhaled solvents, sniffed glue, taken cocaine, heroin, crack; 31% of students said someone tried to sell them drugs at school; 64% said drug use had increased in their schools.

The biggest problem is parental denial, and it continues. The Zero Tolerance for Substance Abuse Act brings the problem out in the open. Teachers and principals will know their responsibility and will know that they have a protocol or plan of action to deal with the problem. The parents will be told; the problem will be discussed. The problem is so insidious that the solution must be all-pervasive.

This bill, which I support, will help. Zero tolerance at school: It's about time, and it should be for all the kids in Ontario. They deserve a fair break when starting out in life. I urge all members of this Legislature to support this bill.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Although the intent of the bill is commendable and the intent of the member to try to deal with an obviously serious problem is there, the bill itself and the details of the bill are the problem. I really believe the devil in this thing is in the details, because very clearly you have what is going to become a very unenforceable situation. You're going to put teachers, principals and parents in a very difficult position that frankly is going to drive the problem more underground than deal with it.

The reality is that every school board in this province has a zero tolerance policy in place right now. The way this bill was brought forward as well -- my understanding is that there has been with very little consultation with school boards, very little consultation with principals, with teachers, with parents. It is a bill that is simply going to create a mess of a situation that is already difficult.

When you already have a situation where schools deal very strictly and very aggressively with drugs and alcohol and tobacco abuse on school property, you already have a situation that in many ways in unenforceable now. We have the policy where school boards, for the right reasons, have banned smoking on school property, so what happens now is that smoking occurs across the street from school property, in the mall next door. What does that do?

It makes it more accessible for the drug dealer to work the mall across the street where the kids are smoking than to work the school property, where it would be harder to be and spend time. In some ways the legislation we introduced to try to help has made the situation even worse.

But what is bothering me about this bill the most is the details, where it takes a very punitive approach to everything, that the answer to everything is to punish, to hit, to nail, to slam the kids. Somehow we think we're going to be able to stop them from driving for a further year if they're convicted of an offence, which I guess would be smoking underage, that somehow we're going to stop them from getting into a club.

I don't know if we're going to put an ankle bracelet on these kids or a stamp on their head to somehow say, "You can't purchase a lottery ticket because you were caught smoking on school property." It sounds wonderful, and it's a tough Reform line here. Maybe we'll cane kids next. The reality is that's not how you deal with those problems.

It puts teachers in a difficult situation. I have coached high school football and I have been a school trustee. I understand the situation in the schools. As a coach, often -- or teachers in the school -- I have had kids who have come to me to deal with issues or problems they were facing in regard to drugs or alcohol. They wouldn't go to their parents because they were afraid. They do this with teachers all the time.

What kind of situation does that put a teacher in now? That confidence, that ability of a student to go to a teacher or a coach they trust in the school and say, "I've got a problem with drugs" or "I've got a problem with alcohol and I need some help, and I want you to help me," they know that this teacher now must go to the principal, must immediately involve the parents, even if it's not a good situation to involve the parents in, rather than try to get some help for the young person.

You're creating a very difficult situation here. You're going to drive this problem further underground. We all agree that drugs and alcohol abuse are a problem in the school, outside the school and in society as a whole. But this bill would go as far as suspending; that's the whole thing. So you've got a child who has a problem and the answer to our problem is to suspend them so they spend more time away from school and can continue doing the activities they're doing, probably more easily and with less responsibility outside the school.

You can stretch this to say, "Anybody caught with a cigarette on school property will be automatically suspended." I'm picturing the grade 2 or grade 3 child who brings his mom or dad's cigarette to school as a joke or to show their friends or to show off, "Look, I've got a cigarette here." You would suspend that grade 2 or grade 3 child, according to this policy. It is unrealistic; it is unenforceable.

The intent is good. I think we should find some reasonable solutions for this problem, but to go to such a regressive, punitive approach to dealing with a serious problem is wrong, and at the end of the day it's going to make the situation worse than it is today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Richard Patten): Member for Halton Centre.

Mr Young: I'll respond briefly to some of the comments made by my colleagues. I thank those who spoke in favour of the bill.

The member for Hamilton East said there's a penalty: You can't buy a lottery ticket for bringing tobacco on school property. I say to him: Read the bill. The penalty for possession of tobacco is related to suspension only.

He talks about driving the problem underground. The entire purpose of this bill is to get the parents involved and bring the problem above ground, to bring it out into the open.

He talks about punishing and nailing the kids. That's not what the bill is about at all. It's about getting their attention, because the message is not getting through.

I appreciate the member for St Catharines's comments about the bill being unenforceable. I disagree, with respect. We can make this work; we have to make it work, for our children.

The member for Sudbury said it's a big-stick approach. How on earth can bringing parents together with their children with a social worker be a big stick? How is that a big stick? If he reads the Child and Family Services Act, he'll see that parents and teachers are required to report child abuse. Is that a big stick as well? Isn't substance abuse as dangerous as child abuse? I think the member for Sudbury should be aware that he's representing parents and children in Sudbury, not the OSSTF, of which he tells me he's still a member.

He says there's no intervention in the bill. This entire bill is about intervention.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Young: Stop the clock, please, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Young: This bill is all about intervention. I say to the member for Sudbury, before you come in here with all your hot air, read the bill next time.

The member says I haven't consulted with stakeholders. I have consulted with many, many parents and many, many children. Those are the real stakeholders in this issue. Those people have their lives at stake. I have consulted with them. I've also consulted with medical personnel and with social workers and others who support the bill and the concept.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I move that in the opinion of this House, given the importance of the agriculture and food industry to rural communities and the provincial economy, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs be encouraged to work with farmers, farm organizations, the research and investment communities to identify and promote new agricultural products and uses, both food and non-food, and to work with industry and rural communities to promote these new products and new product uses, and to identify and remove barriers which might hold back Ontario agriculture from realizing the benefits which these new products and product uses can bring to the provincial economy.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: From all the statements that have been made by the Minister of Agriculture over the last two years, this is already happening, so why are we discussing a redundant resolution this morning? This is already happening, according to the minister. I would move that you rule this motion out of order, since according to the minister this is already happening.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Richard Patten): It's not a point of order. You'll have an opportunity to respond to the resolution. The member for Huron.

Mrs Johns: I'd like to first of all thank the members for being here today and I'd like to explain something about why I brought this resolution forward today. As a member of a rural community, it's very important for us to have a strong agricultural environment for our children to survive and flourish. One of the things I think members forget when they talk about agriculture, and I think it needs to be recognized today, is just how important agriculture is to our community and to our province.

I would like to say that from the urban perspective of some of the members within this group, agriculture brings to them safe food, a reliable product, but from the standpoint of a provincial economy, the Ontario agrifood industry generates $25 billion in economic activity annually. It is also the second-largest industry in Ontario. The dairy industry is valued at $1 billion annually, corn at $970 million, the cattle industry at $800 million and pork at $500 million. So this industry is important to the province, but especially to me, because I represent Huron county.

Huron county has a population of 60,000 people and they are very dependent on the agricultural business. Private members' hour is supposed to be where you come together as a representative of your area and speak about an issue that concerns your community and the people you represent. The future of agriculture and our ability to move into the 21st century really is the most important issue to the people of my riding. That's how they make their living, that's how they keep their children on the farm, that's how they allow generation after generation to have a family farm and to proceed.

Today, as I thought about things that were important to my community, I felt it was important to explore opportunities about what we can do for agriculture, to make my community strong, to make it grow, to make it a community that will keep my children there for their lifetime.

I believe Huron county is the largest area that produces agriculture in all of the province. We have more census farms, more acres of farm land and more gross farm receipts than any other county in Ontario. We have a little battle on this side of the House with many of the rural members, trying to decide who represents the largest area, but I always, always say it's I.

Agriculture is the backbone of the economy of Huron county and of Ontario, and I have to do my best in my role here to ensure that we're creative enough to ensure that in the long run we will have opportunities in agriculture.

The challenge that we have in agriculture on all sides of the House, not just government members but members of the official opposition and the third party, is to ensure that we create an environment to allow businesses to proceed and to keep many of the agricultural byproducts being developed within our community. I need to have jobs that result from the product that I grow in my community being developed right in the community so that my kids can decide whether they wish to farm or not, and if they don't wish to farm, that they have the ability to live in our community and to have jobs that relate to the only products we have, which are agricultural products.

Over the past two years here I have noted some of the things we need to concentrate on when we're looking at agriculture. We have to find ways to continue to look at adding value to products within my community and within other communities in Ontario. I've been most pleased recently about some of the products that have been presented to us through the Grow Ontario project. One of the things that happened in my riding is that they're starting to look at differentiating products within specific areas. For example, in the Jersey industry they're talking about differentiating cheeses that will allow us (

a) to pursue a value added product and (

b) look at exporting that product throughout the world.

I need that to happen, because as my community works harder and harder to increase their yields, to increase the viability of their land, they need to find markets for these products. It is my belief that we need to continue to look for creative solutions to allow farmers and the agricultural community, the agricultural organizations, to find some way to look at developing new and interesting products that we can export, that we can look at taking to other areas, that we can differentiate.

I hope that as a government -- and I know I have some ability to talk to the minister; he listens to all of us in the rural community -- we can entice this government to think about more Grow Ontario projects which allow us to enhance the development of new products and new markets so that my community will grow and flourish.

One of the other things I wanted to talk about today, and I hope the opposition members will give creative solutions, is that we have just announced a rural jobs strategy which will allow us to keep money in our communities in rural Ontario. That's very important for me. I export young people from my community. They go to university, they go to college, and what happens is, lots of them can't come back to my community because there aren't jobs available or there aren't opportunities there. A rural jobs strategy needs to find a way to find opportunities for our young people in rural Ontario.

I see we have mostly rural members sitting in the caucus at this particular point, a few urban members. I hope that today we can come up with different options to be able to look at this $30 million the government has allocated to the project but has not yet set a strategy for, to come up with creative ways to enhance job creation, boost the rural economy and turn the economy of the province as whole into a better place to be.

It's very important for me as a rural member to also look at how we can move our products into the international marketplace. I need to find ways that the government can help my agricultural community increase the quality assurance standards so that we can move product into all of North America and the European common market. In the long run I know that the people in my riding are going to be able to produce product, and I have to find a market that will allow that to happen.

I have to be able to have a market; I have to be able to expand export; I have to be able to find investment so that people can come in and produce better product within our areas. The future of my community depends on what we do with agriculture in the province and with the money we have in agriculture.

Today, as I talk about what's important to my community, I'd like to say that it's important for my community that we work very hard with all agricultural groups to make a difference in how we're going to compete in the 21st century. My community has to be a viable community, which means we can keep youth in that community, that we have jobs for those youth, that we have opportunities to spread our products throughout the whole world.

My community has to be able to know that they can sell their product to Toronto and to other places and everyone will be assured that we produce the healthiest, the best product and that it has a reputation for that, so we can demand the proper price for our food.

The people in my community work very, very hard to be a world leader. Huron county is ranked seventh in all of Canada in its ability to produce agricultural product, and I'm very proud of them for that. As a result of their wonderful ability to produce gross farm receipts, gross gate receipts, as a result of their ability to generate economic activity, I have chosen as a discussion today the biggest issue for Huron county residents, and that is, what we can do to make agriculture the most important backbone industry in Ontario.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I'm pleased to speak on this resolution put forth by the member for Huron. We indeed agree that agriculture plays a major role in Ontario. I guess what the member is saying by bringing a resolution of this type to the House is that the Minister of Agriculture is not listening to the important role and the voices that come from rural Ontario and she's reminding the minister to get out there and do his work. The government needs a constant reminder about the role of agriculture.

Let's look at the government record. They promised no cuts to agriculture and brought in cuts in excess of $80 million. Now they say in this last budget they'll replace some of that money to about $5 million. We have a net loss of $75 million for the agricultural community.

The major effort put forth by 36 farm organizations which travelled here to Toronto, unprecedented that they would unite in such a manner, was to seek from the government a solemn oath that they would keep their promise, which they had previously broken, of no cuts to agriculture. Those farm organizations had better things to do than to come here to Toronto at a busy time of the year and seek the government's solemn oath that it would not cut agriculture. Other provinces invest almost 50% more money into the agricultural food sector than does Ontario.

Talking about new agricultural products and the value added aspect, this government originally cut funding to the ethanol plants here in Ontario. It was good for farmers, it was good for the environment and it was good for jobs. They originally cut their funding to ethanol and it took the agricultural community to get them to reverse that decision.

We have forced amalgamations in Ontario of rural and urban communities. The rural community used to meet their representative at the hardware store, on the streets of downtown rural Ontario, in other social places, and they could go to that representative and say, "I have a problem with my agricultural drainage." Now, through amalgamation, particularly in Kent county, we are going from 131 representatives to 18.

The rural community believes those jobs may become full-time and they wonder how the farmers who sat on those councils and made as little as $4,000 to $5,000 a year for their labours are going to have time to seek office in the new megacity. The outstanding powers taken through Bill 26 bring in an outsider to tell the communities that rural and urban centres will now be one.

Downloading: The province has downloaded provincial highways and the cost of those highways and their maintenance. It's a slap in the face of rural Ontario for the government to say these highways no longer have a provincial interest. They link the communities in rural Ontario one to the other, and this government says they have no provincial interest.

The loss of the money from the farm property tax rebate has many municipalities scrambling and wondering how they are going to cope with the withdrawal of $170 million from that program. Even in the government's campaign they said, "We make a commitment to end the practice of downloading responsibilities on municipalities and regions, forcing them to raise property taxes or cut services." I say that those were shallow words.

The resolution talks about barriers. User fees to the tune of $1 million for publications such as Forage Production, Ontario Ginseng Pest Control Recommendations, Integrated Pest Management, and the list goes on and on. They are charging the farmers of Ontario user fees for these publications that help them to do good business.

The Internet is a fast-moving part of our society. They are charging user fees for the written word and videotapes, but they have to realize that many rural Ontarians cannot access the Internet. This is particularly true in the north; their only access is to the written word.

AgriCorp is in place now and there's a report to the minister that says it might investigate full cost-recovery. We have to look at the competitive nature of Ontario in a worldwide scope. I say to the minister, do not go down this path. Farming has its risks. In Essex and Kent they have barely started to plant and the farmers know full well that spring is quickly turning into summer. They have the weather to contend with; they need not have a government that is an obstacle in their way. Farm output is $7.6 billion here in Ontario, with a value added of $22 billion.

Of course we will support this resolution. It's obvious that this government needs constant reminders about the role of agriculture in Ontario. I am pleased that the member has stood up. I hope she does the same in caucus and tells this minister to reverse what he has done to farmers in this great province of Ontario.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I as well am in support of this resolution that is brought forward by the member from Huron county. Having been born and raised in Perth county, I am well aware of the importance of farming in the rural and agricultural communities in southern Ontario. Having lived in northern Ontario for the last 37 years, I am also aware that there are a lot of farming communities up there that depend on the government not passing on the added costs to them and trying to run them out of business.

I am looking at some comments that were made during the last election campaign that there would be no cuts to agricultural programs and the policy plan in the Common Sense Revolution. This was circulated all around to people in the election. But then when we look back, shortly after the government was elected in July 1995, the Minister of Agriculture cut $13 million; in November 1995, another $13.1 million; in April 1996, $56.7 million. As I heard the member add all those up, we're talking between $55 million and $75 million.

I can see why the member for Huron is trying to get a message out to the Minister of Agriculture: Don't continue to cut the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and lay off hundreds of people. The information I have is that we used to have a total of 1,850 employees with the Ministry of Agriculture, and now 954 have been given their layoff notices. As a result, the farming communities are having to pick up the costs.

Some of the headline stories coming out of various papers are saying exactly what the member for Huron is bringing forward, that the Ministry of Agriculture is cutting seriously and adding to what farmers will have to pay. Even the OFA president at that time said it may save the government money but is not likely to be as kind to farmers. Talking about, "Will farmers pay for AgriCorp?" he says here: "Producers are going to be asked to pay more for the services they now expect. If user fees are not another form of taxation, I am not sure what you'd call it."

There is a lot of unhappiness out there with the massive cuts that have taken place, not only in the Ministry of Agriculture but the dumping or downloading on to municipalities, which seriously affects the amount of taxes rural communities are going to pay. You say a lot of the provincial roads are no longer provincial roads; they should be local roads and the local communities should pay for them. The costs of education have been reduced.

We had a debate on June 10, with my leader, Howard Hampton, criticizing the amount of downloading in agriculture and to rural hospitals, rural health care, increasing the pressure on all the rural communities by what the government is doing in order to fulfil one of their other promises, which was to give a tax cut of 30% to the wealthiest people in this province. It seems the cutbacks that are happening are as a result of it.

I can see it would be unfortunate if the Minister of Agriculture is not listening to some of the members in the Conservative caucus. I know if it were our caucus and the Minister of Agriculture was letting people down and wasn't doing his job, there would be a demand from the backbenchers that the Premier replace that particular minister. Maybe this is what Helen Johns, the member for Huron, is talking about, trying to have him replaced.

We know he has let down the francophone communities in Ontario. He also looks after francophone affairs. We know he hasn't stood up and spoken out on behalf of the francophone population, which in some of my communities is 90% or 95%, when it comes to Montfort Hospital, and Bill 108, the offences act. We're not going to be able to get parking tickets and speeding tickets in both languages. He has let them down on that. We know that nothing has come forward other than cuts in the last two years, going now into the third year. No wonder people are upset with what the Minister of Agriculture has brought forward.

The resolution speaks quite clearly. The intention of this resolution is to get the Minister of Agriculture to put some of the money back into the rural communities, the agricultural communities, and promote and create employment, as the member for Huron has mentioned.

Once again I point out that in the book that was circulated around, the report of the Mike Harris task force on agriculture, it says there will be no cuts to agricultural programs and that it's not the policy of the Conservative government in the Common Sense Revolution. Yet we've seen $75 million in cuts and it's hurting the rural communities. A lot of my family are still working in the agriculture industry, and they are being affected as a result of the dumping and the cuts to all the programs that are out there.

I know there are other people who want to make comments on this resolution, but I would like to point out that I support the member for Huron in her decision to put a little bit of fire under the Minister of Agriculture and maybe put a little bit of fire under Mike Harris to say: "You have broken your promise, what you promised in the election in 1995.

Let's put that money back into the programs instead of just taking it all out and giving it to the wealthiest people through a tax break." Farmers are important, agricultural communities are important, and the surrounding areas that thrive off the wellbeing of these communities are important, rather than just cutting and slashing and giving a tax break to the wealthy.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): It's certainly a pleasure for me to rise today in support of the resolution put forth by my colleague the member for Huron. I think everyone realizes how important it is to recognize the contribution the agrifood sector makes to rural Ontario and indeed to the provincial economy.

I'd like to offer some statistics at the beginning that reflect the degree of this contribution. First of all, the food and farming industry in Ontario is the second largest industry -- and it generates over $25 billion in economic activity annually. Some $5.3 billion worth of agricultural and food products are exported annually, an increase of 160% in the last decade.

Ontario also leads the nation in food processing, shipping more than $21 billion worth of goods in 1995 alone. That accounted for a full 48% of Canada's gross domestic product from the food industry. Our dairy industry alone is valued at over $1 billion annually, corn and soy at $970 million, the cattle industry at $800 million, and $500 million is derived from the pork industry. Investment in the food and beverage industry has increased by 57% since 1995, and it has risen to $860 million.

We provide 640,000 jobs and produce an additional 31 jobs for every $1 million that is invested in agriculture and related services. Finally, for every $1 billion in agricultural exports, we create 15,000 jobs. So we can see the importance agriculture has to Ontario and indeed to our country.

Ontario's agrifood sector is Canada's most diverse, accounting for 90% of Canada's soybean production and 100% of the dried bean production. I share with you that 23% of Ontario's dried beans come from Perth county alone. In Ontario, we're the top producer of corn, vegetables, floriculture and nursery crops, worth more than $479 million, and Ontario farmers produce two thirds of the ginseng grown in Canada.

This government and this Minister of Agriculture believe in the importance of consulting with stakeholders of the industry when it comes to moving forward with our commonsense plan. I can tell you that since this government was elected, we have seen a new spirit of cooperation between OMAFRA and the stakeholders, whether it be the Ontario Cattlemen's Association or any of the other industry associations, and ROMA as well. This minister is committed to working with them and consulting with them.

To give you a few examples of the consultations that have gone on since our election in 1995, at the beginning of our government being formed, Minister Villeneuve held a round of table talks with the stakeholders to determine what should be the ministry's priorities for the next few years. We have held public consultations on a variety of topics.

Most recently we had open discussions chaired by Marcel Beaubien and myself with the farmers, the farm groups and the rural municipalities on proposed amendments to the Farm Practices Protection Act. Our stakeholders know that we made commitments to them during the election campaign. Delivering a Farm Practices Protection Act with teeth was a campaign commitment that we are going to fulfil. The need for changes to the act was underscored by Charlotte Clay-Ireland, the immediate past-president of the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, when she said: "Without farmers, you wouldn't have food on the table. We have to protect them."

During our consultations we heard strong support from our stakeholders for

an act that will establish agriculture as a provincial interest and give farmers and food processors the protection needed to get the job done, allowing this sector to continue to prosper and grow, and most important, to remain competitively functional in the global atmosphere.

A guiding principle of the new act has to be that we establish agriculture as a provincial interest, but that we do it in harmony with the environment, health and safety. Our stakeholders realize this. As the Ontario Federation of Agriculture president said at one of our meetings, "We state in the strongest possible terms, the Farm Practices Protection Act is not a licence to pollute in any way." As a matter of fact, farmers are well known for their stewardship of the land and the environment. They know it is in their best interests to do the right thing with their environment.

In keeping with our practice of consulting, we are setting up a panel to consult on the rural jobs strategy announced in the last budget, and my colleague Barb Fisher is heading that up. The three-year, $30-million rural jobs strategy aims to enhance job creation, boost the rural economy and in turn the economy of the province as a whole.

Prior to our election we committed ourselves to working with those in the agricultural community in helping promote innovation through investment. We introduced the Grow Ontario investment program, which by matching funds from the private sector enhanced the development of new products and new markets and created new partnerships.

The government invested $5 million in the commercial alcohol ethanol plan. Between 140 and 185 permanent jobs will result from this venture. It is calculated there will be 640 to 700 indirect jobs, and 45 to 60 spinoff companies are predicted as well. We've been supportive of this program in both southern Ontario and eastern Ontario.

Over the last two years this government has delivered on a number of other commitments: We increased market revenue insurance coverage to 85%; we supported and promoted the whole farm support program through NISA; we introduced reform to the farm tax rebate program.

In last year's budget, the finance minister introduced the retail sales tax rebate for farm building materials. This program was recently extended for another year. In Haldimand county alone this program has resulted in one new hog barn being built a week. Just in case the members opposite were not listening, that's one hog barn being built per week in just one county in the province of Ontario. Our agriculture policies are working, and that means people are working.

I believe this government is living up to a commitment to help farmers to identify and promote those new agricultural products and their uses, and has been successful in identifying and removing the barriers that are currently and have been holding back Ontario agriculture from realizing new benefits.

However, the job is not finished. By passing this resolution, we will send a signal to our farmers that we are committed to working with them on these continued new challenges. We will continue to work with all the farmers, farm organizations and rural municipalities to identify and remove those harmful barriers that have been part of our system. We've already repealed Bill 91, the NDP law that would have unionized the family farm. We have also introduced Bill 116, a red tape reduction bill. This Legislature passed Bill 46, which created AgriCorp, a service delivery agency created for farmers that is run and operated by farmers.

We have heard from the opposition this morning about a number of concerns and cutbacks. If we look at the history of the agricultural industry in this province, the farmers well recognize the cuts that occurred since 1990 and how they decimated the agricultural community, and how things finally, in the last two years, have slowed and come to a halt and started to return to that industry that needs to be supported in the very best way.

This resolution put forth this morning will certainly enhance that and we are in support of the resolution. We congratulate the member for bringing it forth.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak to this resolution as well. The message we're getting from the government is confusing. I can understand that this member wanted to bring this resolution forward because she felt the government wasn't doing enough, yet they stand and say they are doing enough. I'm a bit confused with their message, but I understand what the member for Huron is saying to us.

In the few minutes I have, I find it necessary to be a bit parochial in that I'm going to speak more directly to exploring the bounty of the sun parlour county, that being Essex county's agrifood industry.

In Essex county the agrifood industry creates over 6,000 jobs. They invest over $40 million in wages and gross over $200 million worth of field, vegetable, greenhouse and fruit crops. An interesting statistic is that Essex county has a greater agricultural output than any one of the Atlantic provinces. That's only as a comparison because we realize that Essex county is the most southerly part of Canada, so it would be understandable that we have the climate in which agricultural production can be carried on at great length.

For example, the economic value I speak of: field crops, $92.7 million a year; processing vegetables, $18.7 million; fresh vegetables, $16.6 million a year; fruit crops, $7.8 million; livestock, milk and poultry amount to $16.9 million a year; and greenhouse crops, $85 million a year. That says a lot about what agriculture means not only to Essex county but to the province.

Field crops, for example: The major field crops in Essex county are soybeans, winter wheat and grain corn. About 93% of the acreage in the county is planted in those crops.

I spoke of the value of greenhouse crops to the economy of Essex county in Ontario. Essex county is the largest and most intensive greenhouse vegetable growing area in Canada, and we're very proud of that statistic. There are also 10 acres of mushroom houses under production in Essex county.

When we speak of processing vegetables, we know the engine in processing in Essex county is the processing of tomatoes by the H.J. Heinz Co. By the way, this is a booming industry in the town of Leamington and the surrounding area, because the H.J. Heinz Co has become a leader in the industry in both Canada and the United States. Much of the production of the Heinz Co in Leamington has been production that has been moved in from the United States.

In field vegetables, Essex county is the province's earliest source of fresh vegetables. As I mentioned, you can understand that because of our temperate climate.

It's also, when it comes to fruit crops, a very productive economic engine in the county. Nearly 200 growers are involved in the production of Essex county's diverse fruit crops.

We have a tendency in large urban Ontario not to think of the things that come to our local grocery store, to the market, that come from the fields of the province, particularly of Essex county. We think of sweet corn, potatoes, eggplant, zucchini, squash, asparagus, always in great demand in early spring; we have melons and Spanish onions, and fresh tomatoes obviously.

Not to forget the livestock and poultry industry, why, of course it's an important sector of our economy in Essex county, although it has been diminishing in the last few years. That has given us some concern, but it still is an important part of that economic machine.

Other commodities we have in Essex county in the way of the agribusiness: honey, Christmas trees, popping corn -- Essex county is a great area for popping corn -- maple syrup --

Mr Hoy: Flowers.

Mr Crozier: My friend the member for Essex-Kent mentions flowers. A great deal of the greenhouse industry is involved in the growing of flowers. As a matter of fact, in the Ontario flower- and plant-producing industry, bedding plants are the mainstay of the economy, with nearly 400 million plants being sold annually, while potted plants, nursery stock and cut flowers are also part of that.

We in rural Ontario understand today, and I think this resolution goes to emphasizing to those friends of ours in large urban Ontario, that we have a great manufacturing business industry in Ontario but were it not for the food that is put on our table, we wouldn't be able to keep those plants going at the pace they are.

Having said all that, there are still, as my colleague has mentioned, some barriers to the growth of agriculture in the province. We have yet to see what's going to happen as the result of downloading. The farm tax rebate, for example, that is an incentive to the farming community, is now a responsibility of the municipality. As to where the municipalities are going to get those tax revenues they previously received in the way of funds from the provincial government, we have yet to see how that will come about.

When my colleague from Essex-Kent mentioned the downloading of roads, I thought in particular that there are a number of them throughout Essex county that for some reason or another the minister has said, "Well, these really shouldn't be under provincial jurisdiction because they don't have that much influence on the economy of Ontario."

All this $200 million in agricultural products doesn't just jump out of the field and fall into Montreal and Toronto markets. They have to travel over roads. The trucking industry in the county is strong because of the agricultural industry. But we have to have good roads over which to move them. The Minister of Transportation is doing a disservice to rural Ontario by saying they now have to take responsibility for these roads. I think it's a responsibility of all Ontarians to see that we have a good road system over which to move our products.

User fees are another thing. The Common Sense Revolution said there would be no cuts to agriculture. Not only did they make specific cuts to programs and funding, but they've also then turned around and said, "We're going to start charging you for the services we provide." Because of the importance of agriculture in Ontario, this is something on which the Minister of Agriculture is abdicating his authority. He should be doing everything he can to help the farm community in Ontario, not hinder it.

With that, I will repeat what I said at the outset. I am pleased to support this resolution. It's unfortunate that the member for Huron felt she had to bring it forward and that the Minister of Agriculture has not been listening, I guess. I hope he does because we know that as goes Ontario, so goes the agricultural industry in our province. I thank you for this time to speak on this matter.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I stand today in support of this resolution put forward by my colleague from Huron because of the increasing importance of agriculture and food in the province of Ontario and the recognition of the attention we must all pay to the industry to help it flourish.

Ontario has the largest farm-gate value in Canada, with over $5.6 billion a year. Ontario has the largest food-processing, value-added industry in Canada at over $25 billion a year and growing at an extremely rapid rate. This makes agriculture and food an important part of Ontario's economy, placing second only behind the auto industry in importance.

The good news is that this government recognizes its importance. The Grow Ontario program is an example of the kind of support OMAFRA is giving to the industry. It encourages strategic partnerships in agriculture and industry in order to qualify for support. One very dramatic way the government has used to encourage the industry is changing tax structures and providing incentives for businesses around the world to have the opportunity to invest research and development dollars right here in Ontario.

Evidence that there is significant benefit for businesses to invest in Ontario was presented this week in Houston at an international convention and conference on biotechnology. The study compared Ontario, Massachusetts, California and Texas. Where Ontario's after-tax cost of R and D was $41.20, it was $48 in Massachusetts and California and a whopping $59.40 in Texas. All reports from the conference indicate that companies with research dollars to spend are taking a serious look at investing in Ontario solely because of this tax incentive. That's good news for agriculture and food and it's awfully good news for Ontario.

Even with this support, we must do more. There are indeed barriers to the industry in getting new products to market that affect our competitive advantage globally. No more prevalent will they be than with the emergence and acceptance of the new frontiers which agriculture and food are going through in the world today. This new frontier is actually an old frontier, with the development of knowledge and new technology which will revolutionize global food production and ensure a safe and abundant food supply for the future.

The biotechnology revolution is upon us and is one which needs the support of government in educating itself, the public and the media as to the benefits this new field provides for the public and the assurance of food supply in Ontario and throughout the world. Educating ourselves, the news media and the public is crucial in not only gaining acceptance of the products that will result from this new technology, but in ensuring that the farm community can continue to flourish with 21st century thinking and technology.

We are already recognized worldwide as a producer of high-quality, safe foodstuffs in Ontario and Canada.

It is important that government take a lead role in establishing processes to deal with these circumstances. History tells us that government is always slower than private industry when it comes to change. As we enter into the modern agriculture and food revolution, we must recognize the importance of our support, action and encouragement of the industry and its evolution.

The means of producing wealth are changing. They will change as we enter the 21st century. Our knowledge and the ability to commercialize it will be the new currency of the new century, and that's why I support this motion and encourage all members of the House to do the same.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm absolutely thrilled to join this particular debate and support the member for Huron's mentioning of the significance of agriculture to the provincial economy.

As an urban MPP, I find it absolutely essential that we emphasize and reinforce again and again the strategic linkages and interrelationships between the agricultural foundation of the provincial economy and our urban progress, our urban survival. People often ask me, why would you be interested in agriculture? The very simple answer: We all eat, regardless of where we come from.

I see agriculture and the new biotechnology revolution that the member for Halton North mentioned as absolute keys to job creation in this province. We have heard in recent days critics of the parties opposite claim there are few prospects for youth in our economy. To me, one of the key areas for job creation is to remind members of the linkages between what happens in rural Ontario and what happens in urban Ontario.

For example, if we do not have a vibrant, vital, strengthened provincial agricultural economy, we have fewer jobs in our communities, urban communities particularly, in such things as events management, in the travel industry, in the strengthening of our viticulture. That's the essential reason I support this motion today.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The time allocated for the Liberal Party is completed. However, there is some NDP time left. I'd like to speak in favour of the member's resolution if I could use the NDP time, with unanimous consent.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have consent? We'll split the time.

Mr Bradley: Okay, we are splitting the NDP time. I want to speak in favour of the member's resolution for some of the same reasons the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale did. I think a lot of people who represent urban ridings often don't take into consideration the importance of rural ridings. That's because we're not faced on a daily basis with the problems that are confronted by farmers in our province.

We have a need for agricultural land in viable use in this province. I look at my own area, the Niagara Peninsula, and see that we have a couple of things that are very valuable. One is we have temperatures or a climatic condition which is conducive to tender fruit growing. It's a pretty unique condition that exists just adjacent to Lake Ontario. The amount of time you have to grow products on top of the escarpment compared to below the escarpment, for instance, is about 28 days' difference, 28 frost-free days.

We need to preserve that agricultural land in the Niagara Peninsula, particularly in the northern part of the Niagara Peninsula, for the purposes not just of today but well into the future.

The pressures, however, for development of that land are very significant. The farmers will say: "We would like to continue to farm this land. We like the job of farming, it's a nice occupation. We feel we're doing an important job. But we find it difficult economically from time to time, because in North America we are used to cheap food prices." I think all those who represent rural areas understand that. We like our cheap food prices. There are only two ways to maintain farmers on the land and keep them viable.

One is through paying the appropriate price for the food, a price that reflects the cost plus some profit to be made. The second is any initiatives the government can undertake to assist farmers.

I know the member wants to see, as we all want to see, promotion of Ontario products. We do a pretty good job now, but we can always strive to do better in promoting our products. The tender fruit grown in the Niagara Peninsula is of outstanding quality, but the farmers believe they're not getting the kind of prices they should to reflect the input costs involved. It's a tragedy to watch a very good agricultural land, in special climatic conditions, disappearing. I see it along the Queen Elizabeth Way. We see subdivisions being built, though we need subdivisions around the province, on very good agricultural land.

The member, by having these kinds of discussions, by raising this issue today, is joining with so many of us in the House in wanting to preserve agricultural land but to preserve the farmer as well. You can't simply say you're going to preserve the land; you have to say you're going to preserve the farming operation itself. If we can do that, we can continue to have an extremely important and good agricultural industry in this province. We rush quickly, from time to time, to save other industries in towns or cities where there are 4,000 or 5,000 people directly affected. Farming affects far more people than that.

I appreciate the time I've had. I know another member may wish to join in this debate.

Mr Hastings: Mr Speaker, just to continue --

The Acting Speaker: You would need unanimous consent to do that. Agreed? Okay, member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr Hastings: To continue with my emphasis on the theme of job creation that we need to focus on, I had the opportunity yesterday to visit the University of Guelph and to learn a tremendous amount about what is going on in that particular area with all the partnerships and strategic alliances being brought about through the grower associations, the universities, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and a lot of players from the private sector.

I learned from that situation yesterday that the application of biotechnology is one of the key tools that will ensure that the member for Huron's resolution will come to strong fruition in the very near future. The use of biotechnology in its widest applications will help to produce better products for our domestic and international markets.

That was particularly brought home with the viticulture situation. They're experimenting with strengthening the type of grape to withstand colder temperatures in this climate, even in the Niagara region the member for St Catharines speaks of, and the strength and variety of alfalfa, which is a key foundation, along with soybeans, for many new products and services that the Ontario urban citizen will acquire and appreciate.

The enhanced value of biotechnology, along with a lot of other stuff that's going on at the University of Guelph in terms of expanding our agricultural economy, the product base and the number of jobs that can be created -- not only directly in agriculture, but in all the other related industries, particularly the brewing, food processing, travel, wine and event management industries. That is one of the sectors where we're going to find a huge number of jobs in the coming years, through the new applications of technology and changes in the barriers the member for Huron mentioned.

I'm very happy, as an urban member of the rural caucus, to support her resolution today. I think it will take great stead in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mrs Johns: I'd like to thank everyone for joining in the debate today. As you know, it is very important to my riding that we continue to think about the ability to make my riding viable, to allow it to continue to work with the community, to develop.

I'd like to say just before I go into my closing remarks that we have here today one of the most important, I want to say "assets," it might not be the right word, that we produce in Huron county. Today we have a page with us from Huron county. Her name is Meghan Martin, and I hope that in the long run I can keep her in Huron county with an ability to create jobs and an ability to find things for her to do, so that she wants to stay in Huron county and be part of what I consider a great rural community.

Working together, we must continue to increase exports, find and exploit new markets on a worldwide basis, produce more high-quality products, more value added products and develop new and different products that will meet international standards. We have to promote, promote, promote rural Ontario and the things we do in rural Ontario.

All of these initiatives are right for the time and right for the Ontario agrifood and rural sectors. I encourage the government and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to continue the tremendous work they have done with the agriculture and food sectors in the past and to ensure that in the future we're global leaders with respect to the agrifood industry for years and years to come.

I hope all the members of the House will continue to work with this industry, because it's imperative to the people of Huron county that we build a strong agrifood industry. It's important obviously to other areas; we heard about Essex today and we heard about some other areas. It's very important that we continue to build this industry.

I am proud to be the representative of a strong agrifood county, which translates into a strong economic county. Bringing value added products and job growth not only to my riding of Huron but to the province as a whole will be good for all of us. I hope that in the ensuing months you'll have an opportunity to thank a farmer for the food you eat. It's safe, it's reliable, it may be the healthiest in the world, and I'm very proud of the people who bring that food to your table.

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' business has expired.

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Richard Patten): We will deal first with ballot item number 83 standing in the name of Mr Young. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot, would they please rise at this time.

Seeing none, the member for Halton Centre has moved second reading of Bill 134,

An Act to promote zero tolerance for substance abuse by children. 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.

There will be a vote on this.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Richard Patten): The member for Huron has moved private member's resolution 55. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

We will now have the vote on the first item; there will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Richard Patten): All those in favour of the motion, please rise until your name is called.

Ayes

Brown, Jim

Hastings, John

Parker, John L.

Chudleigh, Ted

Hudak, Tim

Shea, Derwyn

Churley, Marilyn

Johns, Helen

Spina, Joseph

Clement, Tony

Kells, Morley

Stewart, R. Gary

Danford, Harry

Kormos, Peter

Tascona, Joseph N.

Fox, Gary

Leadston, Gary L.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

Wood, Bob

Grimmett, Bill

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise until your name is called.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Carroll, Jack

Sergio, Mario

Bartolucci, Rick

Kwinter, Monte

Tilson, David

Bradley, James J.

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 24; the nays are eight.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, I request that the bill go to the standing committee on social development.

The Acting Speaker: Everyone in favour that the bill go to the standing committee on social development? Agreed. The bill will be referred to the social development committee.

I now leave the Chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CAREGIVERS WEEK

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): As part of Seniors' Month, this week has been designated as Caregivers Week so that we may have a greater appreciation of those who assist seniors with activities of daily living or specific health problems.

Caregivers include family members who assist their elderly and disabled relatives with personal care and heavy household chores. In hospitals and long-term-care facilities, seniors rely on the high level of care they receive from staff committed to providing the best service possible. In the community, we are thankful to those who are part of care services, such as home support, home nursing services, homemaker services, as well as the myriad volunteers who give of their free time because they care about our seniors.

Although the demand continually grows, Mike Harris's cuts to hospitals have resulted in fewer health care workers and many fewer nurses. Doesn't this government recognize that lost nursing care will leave sick and frail seniors unable to fend for themselves, neglected and with improper care?

It is expected that our seniors will increase at least 50% in the next 20 years. As Caregivers Week comes to a close, I urge this government to take steps now to ensure that caregivers will be there in the future for the people of Ontario.

Let us all salute the caregivers among us for their dedication to our elderly. Our seniors enjoy --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Increasingly across this province people are expressing disgust with the manner in which this government, and in particular its Attorney General, has mishandled the family support plan and victimized thousands upon thousands of women and their kids.

A recent column in the Sault Ste Marie newspaper was headlined "Family Support Plan Gaffs Disgusting" and "Serve Harnick's Head on Platter." This is part of that growing outcry about an Attorney General who has betrayed women and children who relied upon him to protect them by ensuring that the support payments that were being made by absent parents were transmitted promptly to them. Charlie Harnick, the Attorney General, has gone beyond merely disappointing, has gone beyond the point where a mere apology will suffice; he has victimized women and kids.

"Serve Harnick's Head on Platter," this columnist writes. "The next story I hope to write is about Charlie Harnick's resignation. I hope to write it soon." The only way this government can reassure those women and kids who have been victims and who continue to be victims is by ensuring that this incompetent minister is no longer the Attorney General. Indeed, a new word, a neologism has been coined: To "Harnick" now means to lie.

FIESTA WEEK

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): This Sunday, June 15, my riding of Oshawa will kick off its 36th annual cultural festival known as Fiesta Week with a parade of floats and marching bands, followed by awards, pavilion displays and the annual teddy bears' picnic.

As part of Oshawa's cultural heritage, Fiesta Week brings together the people of Oshawa for a week's celebration of our city's multicultural heritage. Fiesta provides the residents of Oshawa and our entire province with an opportunity to examine the diverse culinary, dancing and musical talents from a wide variety of multicultural backgrounds. Throughout next week various cultural communities in Oshawa will operate pavilions which will feature the food, dance and entertainment of their particular culture.

The numerous dedicated volunteers, along with the Oshawa Folk Art Council, have worked diligently throughout the year to make Fiesta Week the success it has been each year, and I'm sure this year will be no exception. I would personally like to congratulate all those for the thousands of hours they contribute in making Fiesta Week happen.

I would like to invite the members of the House as well as the people of Ontario to visit Oshawa during the week starting June 15 to join us in Oshawa's 36th annual multicultural festival, Fiesta Week.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): All of us in the Legislature have listened to the Minister of Health talk about the importance of restructuring the health care system in this province. Frankly, all of us would welcome any restructuring that would improve patient care. The fact is that restructuring in Thunder Bay means we're left with a system where seriously ill patients are being left in hospital hallways because there's nowhere else to put them.

There's no sense in setting totally unrealistic deadlines and closing hospitals when replacement care is not in place. In Thunder Bay, St Joseph's General Hospital had acute care services one day and the next day did not. Hogarth Westmount was forced to shut its doors the same day. Then the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital had its acute care beds severely cut back. The result is a system put under severe stress that has now led to seriously compromised patient care.

The fact is the Health Services Restructuring Commission got its numbers wrong, set unreasonable deadlines, and the people of Thunder Bay are paying the price. The commission hit Thunder Bay first, and it hit Thunder Bay with bad numbers that will not adequately serve the needs of all of us in northwestern Ontario.

The minister in this House yesterday indicated he expected to see the transitional beds in operation by December. What good does that do my constituents and those in the northwest who are faced with inadequate health care today? The minister needs to acknowledge that patient care is suffering as a result of these decisions, and he needs to get involved to fix it.

People in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario deserve quality health care. Unless the minister acts now to acknowledge this growing problem, he is simply abdicating his responsibility as health minister.

SKILLS CANADA COMPETITIONS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On May 6 and 7, students from across the province attended the Skills Canada competition for Ontario and Kitchener. The mission of Skills Canada is "to champion and stimulate the development of excellent technological and leadership skills in Canadian youth and to strengthen our competitive edge in the global marketplace."

I'm very proud to report that 12 students from Central Technical School in my riding won medals at that event. Gold medals were won by Sandra Aloi, Carlos Simao, John Cutulle and Steven Ventura. Silver medals were won by Gints Bruveris, Michael Andras, Martin Spellerberg, Jose Faria, Deoram Bachan and Rajah Subramani. Bronze medals were won by Ken Rosa and Evan Markiewicz.

The national competitions were then held in Red Deer, Alberta, on May 29 and June 1 of this year. Central Tech won three medals: Martin Spellerberg won a gold medal, Sherri Pickett won a silver medal and John Cutulle won a bronze medal.

I want to congratulate all the students who took

part in this competition. I know your school and your teachers are very proud of your accomplishments. From my colleagues and myself in the New Democratic Party, best wishes, and keep up the good work. You are an inspiration to students everywhere.

EVENTS IN WENTWORTH EAST

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I rise today to inform the House that this weekend will be the 29th celebration of Canada Flag Day in Stoney Creek. This has become an annual event in the city, honouring our country's flag and heritage. Only recently has the federal government decided to proclaim an official flag day, after citizens of my riding have been celebrating it for 30 years.

Flag week is filled with many different activities and events, culminating with a flag day parade throughout downtown Stoney Creek this coming Saturday.

The festivities began last weekend, with a re-enactment of the battle of Stoney Creek, a turning point in the War of 1812. This historic battle took place in the twilight hours of June 6, 1813. This battle would make a legend of 19-year-old Billy Green. After discovering an encampment of American invaders, Billy ran many miles to deliver the information to British troops stationed in Burlington Heights. In the ensuing hours, Billy Green led a tiny squad of 704 men in a silent ambush of the Americans, who numbered over 3,000. The Americans were taken by surprise, routed and forced to retreat to Fort George in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The evolution of our nation owes much to this historic battle and to those brave individuals who lost their lives for the nation that would become Canada.

Finally, on the subject of great efforts and victories, I would like to congratulate the Glanbrook Rangers junior C hockey team from my riding. The Rangers recently won the all-Ontario junior C hockey championship. I look forward to congratulating each of the members personally at their victory banquet this weekend. All in all, this is a great week of celebration in Wentworth East.

POLICE SERVICES

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I wish to bring to the attention of the House an open letter to the Premier by Roy Rawluck, a senior constable in the Metro Toronto Police Service, who has served our community for 22 years. Mr Rawluk has come forward with no other motivation than that of advancing the public interest in sounding the alarm about the implications of Bill 105, the Police Services Amendment Act.

All members of this House know the pervasive effect of this government's downloading and how it will affect every element of service delivery in our province. We in the Liberal caucus have consistently pointed out that municipalities will face a severe shortage of funds as a result of the Tories' dumping of $180 million. As a meagre counterweight, the government has presented Bill 108, which would increase the fines from the Provincial Offences Act which accrue to municipalities. Under this bill, municipalities will obtain complete control of police financing and of the majority of appointments to local police service boards.

Constable Rawluk, however, tells us the real impact of these bills. In his letter to the Premier he notes that cash-starved municipalities will have the capacity to set ticketing quotas for police officers to achieve. In addition, he states that police administrators are proposing to buy more radar sets to increase municipal revenues. Those police officers who do not achieve their quotas may face disciplinary actions.

Constable Rawluk has sounded the alarm about the disgraceful Tory traffic quotas on ordinary citizens. This government must reconsider Bills 105 and 108. Nothing else will do. The public interest and our police officers demand it.

BREAST CANCER

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Located on Queen Street East in my riding of Riverdale is a place called Willow. Willow is a resource centre which was established to assist women in Ontario who are living with breast cancer. Through compassionate, dedicated volunteers who have experienced breast cancer, Willow provides current, comprehensive information, support and referrals with understanding and sensitivity.

On May 9 I attended their third anniversary fund-raising dinner and was again moved and inspired by the women who talked about their struggles with and survival of breast cancer. The keynote speaker was Toben Anderson, a vibrant woman in her 30s who told a harrowing story of her battle with breast cancer and how her life changed as a result, for her, for the better. She then trained, and having never done it before, climbed the highest mountain in Antarctica to help raise awareness and money for breast cancer. I cannot do her story justice here.

Then there was ll-year-old Arielle Goldberger, whose mother survived breast cancer, who came up with an idea, and together with her friends in school, raised $300 making jewellery and selling it in their neighbourhood. Arielle presented this cheque to the Willow at the dinner.

There are many worthy causes for us to support in Ontario, but I would urge all people out there, if they're trying to find another worthy cause to add to their list, to get in touch with Willow. There's no other place like it in Ontario. You can deal with women who have experienced breast cancer who can help.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the House today to speak about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

Imagine not being able to walk, write, smile, talk, eat and sometimes not even breathe on your own, and yet your mind and senses remain unaffected. ALS is a rapidly progressive and fatal neuromuscular disease. Muscle by muscle, nerve by nerve your body shuts down, yet your mind and senses are alert as you watch yourself die. This is what life is like for the 6,000 Canadians who suffer from ALS.

It can strike anyone and eventually results in complete paralysis and death, generally within two to three years from diagnosis. Two to three Canadians die every year from ALS. Although promising research studies are conducted, there is still no known cure.

Across Ontario, and in fact Canada, June is ALS Awareness Month. Throughout the month, volunteers will be canvassing the public to raise funds to fight this devastating disease. All funds raised will be spent on ALS scientific research.

In my community Lynn Frenette, Adrian Maes and Dan Stone are leading a group of volunteers who will be selling live cornflowers grown by Parson's Florist for ALS, as well as holding a barbecue at the Orangeville Mall.

I urge all Ontarians to make a generous donation to the ALS Society so that the dream of finding a cure can soon become a reality.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I would like to bring the House up to date on the serious forest fire situation we are facing in northern Ontario right now.

Yesterday, I toured the forest fires around Timmins and the Kirkland Lake areas, along with the member for Cochrane South and the member for Timiskaming. We saw forest fires that caused us a great deal of concern, but we also saw the hard work of the Ontario fire rangers and of the Ministry of Natural Resources and others in those communities doing all they can to make sure that people remain safe.

The safety of people in communities is our first priority. That's why I've instituted an emergency area order for communities in the Timmins and Kirkland Lake areas. The emergency area order empowers us under the Forest Fires Prevention Act to take whatever steps are necessary to safeguard human life and private property. The emergency order is a precaution I've put in place to make sure we can move quickly if necessary.

The main fire in the Timmins area is Timmins 12, which has grown to more than 7,000 hectares. Fire crews have been working hard to protect the cottages and camps in the Watabeag Lake area. Many have been saved with the assistance of the OPP. We've evacuated more than 100 cottagers in the Watabeag Lake area west of Kirkland Lake.

I'm happy to report that there have been no casualties to date. The OPP has advised travellers in the Timmins-Foleyet area using Highways 11 and 101 to be very careful and to stay off secondary roads. In northwestern Ontario, Red Lake 9 is more than 1,800 hectares. People from five outpost camps have been evacuated, and the forest fire danger is extreme across almost all of northern Ontario.

I've put in place a restricted fire zone that bans open fires across the north, from the French and Mattawa rivers to the Manitoba border. We want to prohibit open fires because the forest are very dry and the danger of starting new fires is extreme.

Unfortunately, the fire danger doesn't look as though it will improve quickly. We hope to see some rain in the next couple of days which may improve the situation. However, the risk of thunderstorms continues and lightning from thunderstorms has caused most of the fires.

Right now, more than 60 forest fires are burning in Ontario. So far this season, we have had almost 490 forest fires that have burned more than 16,000 hectares of forest. We have more than 1,300 firefighters in the field right now. This year, we have increased the number of Ontarians working on fires over last year's number.

As Minister of Natural Resources, I've had the opportunity to speak to many front-line firefighters who are risking their lives every day to protect us and our provincial resources. This is MNR at its best. The front-line workers have agreed that our new firefighting system is working better than expected. Modern technologies such as lightning locator networks, long-range aircraft and computer-based analysis have brought us into a new era of forest fire operations.

This new system has allowed to close in the last couple of years 17 of the 45 fire bases and ensure that the crews are travelling to the fires, not waiting at remote camps for the fires to come to them, as happened before our changes.

Again I want to commend the efforts of the Ontario fire rangers, our contract fire crews and our initial attack crews from western Canada in fighting these fires. I also commend the efforts of the OPP and others in the communities which have been affected. We will continue to work hard to make sure people and property are safe and we'll work hard to keep the threat of forest fires under control.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Before we go to the next ministry statement, I noticed that Ms Crljen's class from Sunnylea is here today and I just have to introduce them. I wouldn't have done that, except my daughter Victoria happens to be in that class.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That was perfectly in order.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Exactly one year ago, our government launched Ontario Works, our mandatory program to help people on welfare become self-sufficient.

I am pleased to announce that later today I will be introducing legislation to further reform Ontario's welfare system. With the support of the Legislature, the Social Assistance Reform Act would fulfil two key commitments in the Common Sense Revolution: It would fully implement mandatory work for welfare and it would create a separate income support program for people with disabilities.

The legislation would create two acts: the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about each.

The Ontario Works Act would overhaul a welfare system that is 30 years out of date. It would restore the welfare system to its original purpose: a transitional program of last resort that will provide people on welfare with a stepping stone back into the workforce.

The legislation I'm introducing today will ensure this objective remains paramount. As a government we owe it to the people on social assistance to provide them with the opportunities they need to become self-sufficient. Equally, we owe it to the taxpayers to ensure that the dollars they give us are going to help those truly in need.

Ontario Works, our mandatory work-for-welfare program, will meet this dual obligation. Today's proposed legislation will allow us to complete the implementation of Ontario Works by extending this requirement to sole support parents with children in school.

Individuals on general welfare who are currently participating in Ontario Works are telling us that the program is helping them develop skills, make contacts with potential employers and give something back to their communities.

There are now more than 20 municipalities across the province implementing Ontario Works. More than 20,000 people have participated in this mandatory program and we are hearing very positive reports. People are saying they appreciate the opportunity to improve their skills and to contribute to their communities.

The Ontario Works Act would also strengthen our ability to prevent fraud and abuse to protect the welfare system for those who really need it.

I would like to now address the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. Members of the Legislature will recall that last week I announced the government would create a new income support program to meet the unique needs of people with disabilities. The Ontario Disability Support Program Act would move people with disabilities off the welfare system and provide them with greater opportunities for independence.

It should be noted that Ontario currently provides the highest level of disability support among Canada's provinces. I would also like to note that people who are receiving disability benefits under the family benefits program would have these benefits protected under the proposed program.

We have been told by people with disabilities that the current system does not meet their needs. They want individuals to be treated individually. Many have told us that they can and do want to work. They don't like being labelled "permanently unemployable." We have developed eligibility criteria based on their experience and insights. They have asked for an employment system that focuses on employment and they want the practical help they need to get and hold a job.

The proposed system would help people take advantage of employment opportunities. It would allow people with disabilities to accept work without worrying about any delay in having their benefits reinstated if they could not continue with the job.

People with disabilities have told us they don't need more studies; they need a government to deliver a new program of income and employment supports to provide them with real opportunities for independence. With this legislation, we intend to meet their needs.

I believe the legislation I am introducing today would provide opportunities for real and positive change in the lives of people in need in Ontario. Previous governments failed to undertake the necessary overhaul of Ontario's welfare system, despite the fact that they knew the system was not working.

We have a responsibility to people in need and to the taxpayers of this province to fix the system. It's time to provide people with the opportunities they need to become self-sufficient.

In closing, I would like to convey thanks to our municipal partners and to my caucus colleagues for their advice and input, and I would also like to thank all my staff and the staff of the ministry for their hard work in getting this major piece of our government's agenda under way.

FOREST FIR