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

March 20, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Mar-20 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 20 March 2008 Jeudi 20 mars 2008

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

REPORTING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE DEVOIR

DE SIGNALER LES CAS

DE PORNOGRAPHIE JUVÉNILE

CANADIAN MASS TRANSIT

VEHICLES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT

EN COMMUN CANADIENS

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

REPORTING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE DEVOIR

DE SIGNALER LES CAS

DE PORNOGRAPHIE JUVÉNILE

CANADIAN MASS TRANSIT

VEHICLES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT

EN COMMUN CANADIENS

VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER MANAGEMENT

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

ALLISTON HORNETS

UNION REPRESENTATION

JAMES BIRRELL

ONTARIO ECONOMY

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

MEMBER'S FAMILY

NOWRUZ

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

GREAT LAKES SHORELINE

RIGHT OF PASSAGE ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE DROIT

DE PASSAGE SUR LE LITTORAL

DES GRANDS LACS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL DAY

FOR THE ELIMINATION

OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

WORLD WATER DAY

INTERNATIONAL DAY

FOR THE ELIMINATION

OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

WORLD WATER DAY

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF

LA FRANCOPHONIE

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

WORLD WATER DAY

INTERNATIONAL DAY

FOR THE ELIMINATION

OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

VISITORS

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

TRANSPORTATION POLICY

DEVELOPMENT FEES

LONG-TERM CARE

CRIME PREVENTION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

CANCER SCREENING

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

AUTISM SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

LORD'S PRAYER

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

LORD'S PRAYER

TENANT PROTECTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

DAVID DUNLAP OBSERVATORY

BUDGET SECURITY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTHY FOOD FOR HEALTHY

SCHOOLS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 PORTANT

SUR UNE ALIMENTATION SAINE

POUR DES ÉCOLES SAINES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

REPORTING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE DEVOIR

DE SIGNALER LES CAS

DE PORNOGRAPHIE JUVÉNILE

Ms. Broten moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 37,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act to protect Ontario's children / Projet de loi 37, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille afin de protéger les enfants de l'Ontario.

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

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to bring this important issue to the floor of the Legislature for debate this morning. Ask any parent and they will tell you that there is nothing more important than the protection of their children. This bill recognizes our collective responsibility as legislators to protect and prevent any further harm and be a strong voice for those children whose voices are often silenced. If this bill is passed, it would require all Ontarians to report images of child abuse and sexual exploitation.

We all share a collective responsibility when it comes to the safety and protection of our children. Child pornography is a permanent evidentiary record of child abuse. This bill would make it mandatory to report that image, and the failure to do so would now be an offence.

If you saw a child being abused on the street, or you suspected abuse in their home or in your neighbourhood, you would have an obligation to report that information. If this bill passes, if you see a child being abused, but that image comes to you through a computer screen, you still have an obligation to report it because the abuse that that child is suffering, whether on the street or through the computer screen to you, is no less real, no less harmful, no less tragic. It is all of those things because it is an image of child abuse, clear and simple. There is no form of child pornography that is not, in and of itself, illegal to hold, illegal to trade and absolutely a crime to commit.

It is evidence of a crime that is coming to you. If you receive that information, you need to report it. You need to report it to allow those who work every single day across our province, across the country and around the world, to protect children. Police enforcement agencies take that information and seek to find out if the child who is in that image is currently being abused and whether they can help protect that child. They take that information to find out whether the consumer, the individual who possesses that child pornography, has any children in their life who may be at harm and may need that protection.

The mandatory obligation to report that would be imposed takes away any confusion and leaves no question. Whether you are a computer repair technician or someone who runs a network in a business, whether you are a neighbour or babysitter or someone who is using someone's home computer, it is not your job to determine whether that image is or is not child pornography, whether that image is or is not illegal or what to do with that information.

It will simply be your job, as a result of this bill, if it passes, to report that information to those agencies, be it law enforcement or child protection or any other agency such as CyberTip.ca, who may be able to make sure that that child is protected, and take that information and help and protect other children around the world.

I want to take a minute to acknowledge those who work in this most difficult area each and every day across our province and across the country. The voices of children are often voices that are very quiet and difficult to hear. There are people right across the province and around the country who lift those voices out of obscurity every single day. Many of those agencies and individuals have worked for so many years. They are the witness to very horrific images, and they act on all our behalf. I have been so pleased to have the support of many of those groups and individuals, and that support has culminated in the development of this bill and in bringing it forward.

I want to acknowledge some of them now. In the gallery today is someone who, for those who have worked in the field for a long time, almost needs no introduction: Paul Gillespie. Paul is president of the Kids Internet Safety Alliance , and a former Toronto police officer who has done more work and seen more horrific images than anyone can ever imagine. Paul's passion for this area continues as president of KINSA, and I'm so very pleased that he has joined us here today.

Paul will tell us that in the fight against Internet child sexual exploitation, the mandatory reporting of these images is an important step forward, because it gives police enforcement and child protection agencies the information they need to take more steps to protect more kids.

I also want to acknowledge the good work that has been done by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. The executive director, Lianna McDonald, has been incredibly supportive of this proposed legislation and in helping bring it to fruition. The Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness in Ontario–John Muise is the director of public safety for that organization, and Ellen Campbell is their president.

Beyond Borders has also been supportive. Beyond Borders works around the world to protect children from child sexual exploitation. The Gatehouse child abuse advocacy agency is one which is close to my heart and that I've had the privilege to work with over many, many years. At the Gatehouse, they see the lifelong harm that is caused to children when they are the subject of this horrific abuse.

The OPP and the Toronto Police Service, who are on the front lines of this work and who are frankly leading the charge around the world, have also been very, very supportive of this—what I believe to be a very important step—and I appreciate the work they do every day and want thank them for their support and comments as well.

Why do we need a bill such as this? It's because, essentially, this is a horrific crime which is out of control on the Internet right now. Pick up any newspaper, watch any news broadcast, and almost each and every day, someone is charged with or convicted of a child pornography offence. In each and every one of those cases, there is a child who has been harmed, a child whose life may be at risk and who will suffer lifelong as a result of that crime.

The Internet has opened so many doors for us. It's given us access to information instantaneously, and it's a wonderful, wonderful tool. But with each development in society, we know that there are very, very dark corners. This bill says that if you happen upon one of those dark corners, where you find and witness a crime being perpetrated against a child, you cannot stand by. We cannot have a society of bystanders, where we all turn a blind eye. We know, each of us, as parents and grandparents and people with children in our lives, that we would do anything to protect our own children.

We need to make sure we recognize that we need to act collectively when it comes to this virtual community on the Internet. You don't need to go looking for it; we're not telling anyone to undertake vigilante justice and go about searching to find out what their neighbours or whoever might be doing. But the point is that if you unfortunately happen upon it, this bill would say that you must report it, because that's how we can best protect children.

C'est si important que l'ensemble d'une communauté travaille ensemble, essaie de protéger les enfants ensemble, et de donner un signalement obligatoire. C'est quelque chose qui va aider ceux qui travaillent pour protéger nos enfants chaque jour. Ils vont avoir l'information dont ils ont besoin pour pouvoir en effet mettre en vérité le fait que les enfants sont la plus importante domaine de notre futur.

With that, I certainly ask my friends across the House to support Bill 37 and stand with me when we vote later this morning. Then we will all be able to collectively say that on this day, on what is the first day of spring, we stood tall in the Legislature and took a step forward to help kids across Ontario and around the world, to protect them from harm and abuse, because those kids matter to us. We are going to signal that today.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I want to congratulate my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore in giving a very passionate appeal to this Legislature for the protection of children, our greatest natural resource in this province. I'd also like to welcome Paul Gillespie and Lianna McDonald and thank them for the work they are doing for child protection in this province. There is no greater role for any of us in this Legislature and in this province than protecting those children who cannot protect themselves. That is why I will be supporting this piece of legislation.

It's much-needed legislation, and I think that all three political parties in this chamber will support the honourable member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

I want to start today by saying that not only as a mother and a child advocate, but also as an MPP, I have been able to work on matters of child protection. This past winter, when I was in my own constituency of Nepean—Carleton, I got to meet with two survivors of child sexual abuse. They created something called the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Network, which will be launching later this spring, in April. These two people have been so courageous to talk about their experiences and how they want to prevent future sexual abuse of children. They are Kimothy Walker, who is a CTV News anchor in Ottawa—I have so much admiration for her and her ability to speak out about this issue—and Ron Jette.

The picture they painted for me in my office of what is happening to children across this province and across this country was mind-boggling. It was scary, and as a mother I was terrified. That's why I don't think Bill 37 could have come at a quicker time for me to be able to support something that I think is long overdue and much needed in this province. So I congratulate Kimothy Walker and Ron Jette for recognizing the need. Hopefully we'll all be able to work together on this legislation.

I think this is a step in the right direction. I've long been an advocate of a children's bill of rights for the province of Ontario, and I hope to table a piece of legislation this year on more protections for children. Every piece of legislation we look at, particularly when it comes to social services, Attorney General matters or justice issues, should be measured against the rights of children and how we can best protect them. That is what I intend to do and I think that's what the honourable member here has intended to do, and I congratulate her for that.

I wish to speak briefly about some of the challenges of this legislation. Perhaps during the wrap-up the member can communicate some of my concerns and see if she is able to answer them.

One of the biggest issues is, how are we going to enforce the piece of legislation? It is much needed, and right now we do not have enough police officers to not only enforce the law with those doing the bad deeds, but also to enforce the law with the folks who should be reporting these atrocities. So I would welcome an answer to that.

The second thing—and I wish that the Attorney General was here, because, quite honestly, the penalties for people who are abusing our children are not stiff enough. I think that we ought to be having that conversation, that discussion and that debate right here in this chamber. I would welcome her views on that matter.

The third is, how do we assist the police, who are already doing an amazing job? As my colleague pointed out, the OPP are world leaders. How do we give them the resources so we can make sure that as many children as we can protect in this province are protected?

Those are some of the concerns I have. I wish to again acknowledge some of the great work that people are doing in terms of child protection in this province. I urge every single member in this Legislature to speak out on this, not only today in this chamber but when we go into our communities. We should be using every tool we've got to let people know that what some sick individuals are doing in this province is unacceptable. They should be challenged and they should be in jail.

As a mother, I want to again congratulate my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore. This is a great piece of legislation. I offer you my full support and I wish you well today.

Mr. Mike Colle: I also want to personally thank the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for really being brave enough and courageous enough to take on this very difficult subject, because it's certainly subject matter that most of us want to try to avoid because it is so disgusting. But the harsh reality is that this kind of insane, criminal behaviour does take place in our society. It takes place internationally through the Internet. I commend the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for leading us into a more preventive activity here, because I think Bill 37 will be a deterrent.

I think it will prevent some of these horrific things from happening. It will send a strong message out to these criminals that this kind of behaviour is not tolerated in the province of Ontario or anywhere in Canada. So I think it's going to have a great deterrent and preventive effect, and I really commend her, as I said, for putting this very thoughtful piece of legislation forward.

It is essentially based on the same model that we have in Ontario in terms of reporting incidents of abuse to the children's aid society. If we see or know of something taking place in our community where a child is being mistreated, we have an obligation to report that. I think this is the same approach here, because the wide scope of the Internet is so pervasive that it is the new reality of what is going on in our community, through the Internet. Therefore, we need to join with the police and join with advocacy agencies who need the support of the public in counteracting this criminal behaviour.

I see this proposed legislation as a way of partnering with these excellent agencies and our dedicated members of the police services who are, on a 24/7 basis, trying to deal with this scourge. It is an added benefit, I think, as the police have said, to have the public acting, in some ways—this is another dimension of what we have in all our communities: the Neighbourhood Watch program. It is almost like an Internet watch program. We are our brothers' keepers; we are our children's keepers. All of us who are parents of children or grandparents of children know first-hand how precious they are. We don't have to expand on that, but I think all of society has an obligation to protect children.

This legislation in essence empowers all of us to be more conscious of the responsibility we have to be our children's keepers. Because in many cases parents are overwhelmed with day-to-day work, with pressures, they need our help to protect children. Sometimes the incredible amount of money that is made on the Internet by selling the product of crime—it is so lucrative that these criminals will use any means possible to promulgate this kind of pornography on the Internet. Those of us who use the Internet know full well that you get bombarded by this junk 24/7, the spamming.

It's just non-stop, because there are, I'm sure, hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to be made in this criminal industry.

So I applaud, again, the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for taking this leadership step in enhancing our ability not only as a government but as a community to better protect and watch out for our precious children no matter where they live and no matter whose children they are. We will all be stronger as a community if we have this social consciousness of trying to ensure that our children are in no way brought into this incredible world and we will protect them any way we can. This is our chance to pitch in here and protect children. So again, this is a very thoughtful and much-needed piece of legislation and I fully support it.

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: I'd like to take this opportunity to support the honourable member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore on this bill to protect Ontario's children. This bill proposes the mandatory reporting of child pornography. It is a bill that will amend the Child and Family Services Act to protect Ontario's children. While I don't have children of my own, I have many nieces and nephews and a goddaughter. But I do believe that it is the responsibility of all Ontarians to protect the children who live in this province, and it is a very important bill.

I have spoken to a number of my constituents and there is overwhelming support for this bill. Some of the comments that I have received include, "It's our responsibility to protect not only the children of Hamilton Mountain but all across our great province. Why haven't we done this before?" Another comment was, "We as a society must take action. Being a bystander is not right. Let's all take responsibility." The third comment was, "This issue affects all of us. It's easy enough to think someone else will make the call, but what happens if you don't?"

I would also like to just comment on some of the experts and what they have had to say. A quote from Rosalind Prober, president of Beyond Borders Inc.: "When it comes to the rights of children to be free from sexual exploitation and abuse, this bill makes it clear that everyone has the obligation to report, to help find children, rescue them and prevent years of future abuse."

Then we hear from Ellen Campbell, the president of the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness: "These are images of child abuse, plain and simple. This legislation will protect children by clarifying the duty to report."

Finally, I have a quote from Andy Stewart of the child pornography

section with the Ontario Provincial Police. He says: "We deal with disturbing images of child sexual abuse and exploitation daily. The public needs to understand the severity of the abuse in these images and that reporting can facilitate protection, child rescues and prevent re-victimization. The most fundamental responsibility of any society is to protect its children."

I fully support all of these statements. I am in full support of this bill, and I applaud the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for the work that she's done. I congratulate her.

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise to speak in favour of this bill. I want that to be said at the outset, because I do have some criticisms and I think some things need to be looked at, but in the overall scheme of it, I think this is a bill that ought to go forward. It ought to pass here today in the Legislature and ought to be sent to committee.

This is a very serious matter. It is serious to all people of this province, all people of this great country, probably all people of the world. It is horrific that one can find images on the Internet and elsewhere of children being abused.

There was a time, many years ago, when I was a councillor in the megacity of Toronto, that I was the city of Toronto's representative on the child abuse committee of Ontario. We met about once a month in an office on Yonge Street. We helped to raise funds for the victims of child abuse, and we helped to fashion programs for those people who were abusers. It was a very sobering experience for me to witness the families, the children, even the abusers—to see the depths to which people were driven, the sadness that ensued, the children who had to have their lives turned around. All of that was very sobering.

I think, with all my heart, that we need to do something. I know what this bill purports to do is to try to look at ways of stopping the abuse that is coming across the Internet—primarily, but not exclusively—and the ways that we can do it. I think that's where some of the difficulty I have is. I am sure that this bill will pass here today. I don't think there's anyone in this room who does not understand the magnitude and want to try, even a little, to do something.

But in my own heart of hearts, I have to question the deterrence value of this. I question this because people look at the Internet, and people will look at these disgusting pictures and other things, usually in the privacy of their own homes, in a secluded area. They will not be out there watching in a place where they can be seen. They will be doing it where they're alone and when they're in private and where they're not likely to be caught.

I wonder about the deterrence effect, because every day, sadly, when you see that there's been a shooting in Toronto, as an example, and you see that it was in a crowded nightclub or in a room filled with people and the police arrive 15 or 20 minutes later, look around the room and say: "This gentleman has been shot in front of all of your eyes. Who saw something?

Did anybody see anything?"—sadly, you know all too often, and the police know all too often, and we all know, that even though it may have been witnessed by dozens of people, no one is willing to come forward—even though they were there and they can be proved to be there. There is no deterrence. Those people do not go to jail; they cannot even be charged.

So, sadly, I'm looking at this bill and I'm wondering how many people will actually be brought forward? How will they be caught? How will they be made to testify? How will they do the right thing? I don't know. I think the mere fact that we are asking them to do so is a good idea, and that's why I support the bill. But how anyone could ever be charged or forced to give this kind of information I find difficult.

I think we have to look as a society, with this brand new legislation—and the member spoke eloquently about the dark corners of technology—at who is responsible for putting these websites up, and what responsibility do the companies that allow it to be put up have, the search engines? People go on these websites; they're traded by word of mouth. You can log on to one and find another, and so on and so on; you can keep going. Surely the companies that allow this stuff into the websites have a responsibility.

In my view, what we need to do is start enforcing that. In the same way we can stop magazines, the same way we can stop newspapers and have proved we can do that with libellous or slanderous material or with pornography in the past, we should start to think about doing this in a full-scale way against the search engine companies. They should be shut down if they permit it. As soon as they become aware that this information is going through their search engine so that people can access it, they should be in the forefront of shutting it down. That's where I believe legislation needs to go.

I've been accused in the past of wanting to be someone who is looking to stop ideas or things from being printed—censorship and all that. I don't think so. But when something is so completely illegal and immoral as child pornography, I believe in my heart of hearts that we have that obligation to shut down those who permit it to happen. That would go all the way to the top. That would go to the Googles and everyone else who allows that to enter into the Internet and does nothing about it.

As this legislation goes forward, I would like for us to start looking really strongly at taking the necessary steps to stop it at its source, to stop the avenue that people are using and to make sure that our children are, in all ways, protected.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to be able to rise today and make a few comments on Bill 37,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act to protect Ontario's children. I believe it's called the Child Pornography Reporting Act, 2008. I haven't had a lot of opportunity to review this bill—it just came in the last day or so—but I want to congratulate the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore for bringing it forward to begin with.

This is a debate that I believe has to take place in this House. We have to draw much more attention to the fact that these terrible crimes are actually being committed to the most vulnerable people in our society, our kids.

I have a lot of respect for the law enforcement agencies. I believe that over the last few years, they've been able to do a fairly good job in trying to identify a lot of the offenders and large organizations that do it on a mass scale, and I know there have been a number of important arrests. In my time as critic for community safety and correctional services, I've actually had a chance to attend a number of events dealing with Internet luring and child pornography, and I've actually toured Project P with the Ontario Provincial Police.

I've got to tell you, people who are able to work in that field, day in and day out, deserve so much respect from the citizens of our province because these images would wear on anybody. They're the type of things that I can hardly imagine how you could not think of those images when you go back to your own family in the evening.

There are a couple of things I wanted to point out that I think are fairly important with this. One of the areas that I'm really concerned with in the bill is the whole idea of someone retaliating against someone who has reported a crime. In some cases these people who are on to child pornography could be family members, and there may be a lot of people who would have great fear of reporting the crime. One of the reasons they would fear it is that in many of the cases I've seen I don't think penalties have been nearly severe enough.

If anyone has any comments on that—I'm not sure what the length of penalties is for people who participate in child pornography, but I can tell you that I've heard mostly complaints that they're not nearly strong enough. I'd be interested in the member's comments, if she could respond to any of that later on: What type of penalties are we seeing for people who are actually committing these crimes? I know that the penalty for not reporting can be a fine of up to $50,000 and two years in prison, which in a lot of cases I believe would be much more than the penalty that people receive for the actual crime.

So I would be really worried about people not wanting to report the crime for fear of retaliation from someone committing the crime.

One thing I thought was fairly positive was when the federal government passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, Bill C-2. It was just passed in the federal Senate a few weeks back. I know that it did raise the age of consent in Canada from 14 to 16, because a lot of law enforcement agencies were having a really difficult time with the 14- and 15-year-old kids who had been attracted to participate in sexual activities because of Internet luring. At least this would be a step that will help us somewhat, that now they will actually have the age of consent raised, and it should help law enforcement agencies as the children become older and more experienced.

One thing that this bill will need, though, is additional people to help enforce it. I'm not sure what kind of numbers we're talking about at this time. I know the government has tried in the past—all the governments have tried in the past—to increase funding in this area, but there's certainly no question that if we bring in the people who we would want to see report these incidents, we will need to have more officers available in that area.

I call on the government—the federal government has on the table, I believe, $156 million that the Ontario government has to agree to sign on to by the end of March to hire new police officers. I'm hoping that in the provincial budget next week and in the negotiations with the federal government, our government would not be foolish enough to turn down $156 million over five years to hire new law enforcement officers. I know there is the whole thing about the length of the hiring of these officers and that this money is not sustainable into the future, but that would be step two.

After we agree to take on the $156 million to hire 1,000 new officers, then I think we should go back to the federal government and try to make sure that after five years, after this review, this would continue on and be sustainable funding for the future. It looks right now like it's not going to happen that way, but it's something that we can all work together on, to make it positive and make it happen in the future so we do have those officers who can work in these very specialized areas.

You know, I think one of the things that is important today, why we're having this debate—the member brought it forward. I know she has young children of her own. People hear about this on a day-to-day basis. We read it about it in newspaper articles or we see it in TV stories. You know, it's actually hard to believe that it even occurs in this world. I can't believe there are this many sick people out there who lure children through the Internet or participate in child pornography. In my mind it's absolutely hard to believe.

But it happens, and we as parliamentarians, whether it's at this level of government, the federal level of government or with all the nations combined bringing their services together, somehow have to stop this from actually taking place.

I want to conclude here by saying to the member that our party will be supporting this bill. We hope that your government members will come on side with it as well—and not just to stop here today, like so many private members' bills, but to move it forward in the future. I'm someone in this House who really believes in private members' time.

I think we've seen some great bills come through here, and quite often, down the road the government will adopt the bill, one way or the other—like the bill that was brought forward yesterday by the Minister of Transportation, which was almost identical to the bill that Laurie Scott presented in this House in the last Parliament. Maybe if we had adopted Laurie Scott's bill in the last Parliament, we would have had less emissions into the air and more safety on the highways, but we didn't do it.

So there's an opportunity here, no matter when we come forward with private members' bills, to actually try to get them adopted by the government—not just one or two per session but maybe eight or 10 or 20 per session.

I've seen absolutely magnificent bills presented in this House by all three political parties that just kind of get shut down. You remember last year, when the House adjourned on June 6? We still had three weeks to go, and what happened? There were all kinds—I think something like 110 private members' bills might have been brought forward for debate, but we didn't debate them, and that's very, very unfortunate.

To the member, I congratulate her again for bringing it forward. I think it's a bill that, at the very least, will draw more and more attention to this very, very sick crime of child pornography and Internet luring. I thank her for doing it and I wish her well as we proceed to pass this bill.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My apologies getting up; it's a little bit hard with these knees today.

I want to say up front, as my colleague the member from Beaches—East York said, that we will be supporting the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore's bill. We see this as a debate that needs to happen, and quite frankly, I think the more you try to bring this stuff out in the open and less behind closed doors and in the corners, the better I think that we're able to deal with this as a society.

I just use as an example the following: As we were growing up as young people, the whole issue of sexual exploitation of children was not something that we talked a lot about, but it happened in the times that we grew up. A number of people in this assembly might have been victims of that; I don't know, but the stats tell us that in fact far more went on than meets the eye. Part of the problem was that everybody was very hush-hush about it if it happened, and as a result of people not talking about it and not putting it out in society, people felt that they could do it and get away with it.

So I think these kinds of debates are very helpful because they bring it out into the open, and they say to people, "This is not the type of behaviour that society should tolerate," for all the reasons that have been said in the debate this morning.

I think the more we put this out in the open and talk about the need for people to respect each other and not to engage in these kinds of acts, either involved explicitly in sexual acts with children or pornography, the more we send the message out there that it's not acceptable and that we need to as a society respect people, especially those people who are less able to defend themselves, such as children.

I do want to say, though, that the bill needs to go to committee. The way the bill is written, and as I read it this morning, there are a number of things that I think we're going to have to look at if you're going to make this bill work the way that the author wants it to work.

First of all, we know that we have limited powers here on this particular issue provincially, because most of this falls under the Criminal Code. And as we all know, I would imagine, there are already statutes in the Criminal Code that deal with parts of this. We need to find some way to complement and to try to find a way to assist, to help eventually changing acts in the Criminal Code that are federal to deal with some of this. That doesn't mean to say that we as a province are powerless or can't do this, because there are a number of things we can do.

I would urge that members vote for this bill. I can tell you that New Democrats will support it. But we do need to get it into committee, because I think we need to talk to people who are in the know about, first of all, the way laws are written, and speak to police enforcement and others about how this bill can maybe be structured differently. I note in this bill that we're making changes to one act, the Child and Family Services Act, but there may be a few other amendments that need to be made to other acts as well. I'm not going to get into that this morning—there's not enough time—but I think we need to make this a bit more comprehensive.

The other thing I want to say is, I think the author probably recognized that this bill will do nothing to get the perpetrators. As my colleague from Beaches—East York says, those people who engage in the practice of looking at pornography on the Internet are not going to report themselves. They, by and large, try to do it in a dark corner somewhere in their home, hope to heck nobody sees them, and figure they can get away with it. But I think the strength of it is that it allows those of us who might be surfing the Net and who quite unintentionally come across such a site to say, "Hey, hang on a second.

Look at this," and report it to officials so that we can assist the police in tracking these websites and finding out who is going on those websites, in an attempt to catch the perpetrators.

We know that the police, such as the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police, have entire divisions of their police forces that deal exclusively with this, that watch Internet sites to try to determine who is hitting what sites in an attempt to shut those sites down, because I think the best way around it is to try to limit the ability of people to access this stuff, but also to catch the perpetrators, those who are engaged in the act. So if it's going to do anything, I think it might help us in assisting the police to identify sources of pornography.

But I don't believe for a minute that the perpetrators are going to say, "Oh, hang on, I've got to go report myself," and I'm sure the member doesn't believe that either. So I see this piece of legislation as a way to support the efforts made by our police.

The other thing I just want to say quickly is that there is a potential with this bill—and I think that's one of the reasons we have to look at it—for somebody to get caught up in a wrongful accusation. I had somebody come by my constituency office last spring or winter—I can't remember exactly when. It's a long story, but what happened is that this individual works in a fairly large office with other people, and there are a whole bunch of computers available, and for whatever reason the computers are not password-protected. I would think in this day and age everybody password-protects.

What happened is that somebody was going on this individual's computer and was cruising sites such as the ones mentioned in this bill. The systems people came down to fix the computer and noticed all this stuff inside the registry or the history portion of the Internet, under options, and reported it promptly to the manager. The manager called this person in, and this person had to do a whole bunch of explaining that it wasn't him. I suppose, because he told me it wasn't him, that it wasn't. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.

The point is, with this bill, you could end up in a situation where somebody somehow gets on to a person's computer, does a whole bunch of cruising on those sites, and all of a sudden, as a way of getting at the individual, makes an accusation, and how do you prove it wasn't you? So you could end up with a wrongful accusation.

I'm not saying I would not support the bill on the basis of that, but we need to think that through a little bit, because there have been instances where that has happened in the past. We need to figure out how to draft the legislation in such a way that people don't use this legislation as a tool to get back at other people for whatever.

I support the bill. New Democrats support the bill. We believe that as a society, at all levels of government, we need to do what we can to bring issues such as these out into the open. The more we talk about it, as a civil society, out in the open, the more we send the message that these actions should not be tolerated in a society such as ours and that in fact there should be, and have to be, laws to protect the innocent—in this case the children—and to get to the perpetrators.

The more we talk about it, the better it is, because at the end of the day we send a very strong message that these actions are not acceptable and they are not things that should be condoned by a society such as ours.

I would expect this bill to pass at second reading, but again I say that I look forward to time in committee, because I think the member probably recognizes that we need to have an opportunity to have a discussion with those people who might be a little bit more informed about some of the practicalities of making a bill like this work. I'm thinking there are probably amendments to a couple of other acts that could be made to give this a little bit more enforcement, to actually make a difference when it comes to enforcement.

We need to take a look at a couple of other provisions to make sure that we do this right in the first place so that we don't end up with a bill at the end that is not as strong as it needs to be.

With that, I look forward to the vote.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am just delighted to be here this morning to speak in support of second reading of this bill. I was very pleased when the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore told me what she was planning to do. I have to tell you, I was a bit surprised that it was not already included in what our duty to our children is, so I welcome this as an opportunity to update the duty that already exists to report abuse and neglect if you are suspicious that a child is in fact being abused or neglected. So I want to thank and congratulate the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore, who never stops making the world better. Thank you for that.

It sounds a bit like a cliché, but our children are our future. We need to not only provide them with the supports they need to achieve their full potential—this government has really been active in taking good steps towards that with things like the Ontario child benefit and many other good things we are doing—but we also have a responsibility for their protection. The adults in this world have to look after the kids, and it's as simple as that. We are always looking for ways to make sure our kids are safe. We are always looking for ways to combat abuse and exploitation, and we must continue to be vigilant.

The duty to report already does exist. In fact, I've got with me a copy of the booklet that talks about the duty to report. I just want to mention that the Child and Family Services Act, which we're talking about amending, recognizes that each of us has a responsibility for the welfare of children. The current legislation does a good job in giving our child protection system the framework and tools they need to protect children.

The definition of a child in need of protection in the CFSA includes a child who has been or is at risk of being "sexually molested or sexually exploited, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child." Under the act, any individual who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child has been or is at risk of being abused or neglected has a duty to report that information to the children's aid society.

It's not a question of "Do you think I should report this?" There is no dilemma here. You have a duty to report it. I hope that people who are listening to this debate understand that they already have a duty to report any suspicion of a child being in danger. The duty to report specifically requires a person to report where they suspect a child has been sexually exploited or is at risk of such exploitation by the person having charge of the child or where that person knows or should know of the possibility of sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child.

The act does not, however, specifically identify a duty to report evidence of child pornography. This bill, if passed, would identify a duty to report evidence of child pornography.

I have a quote here from a remarkable woman, Barb MacQuarrie, who is the community director of the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children in London. They are from London, in my riding, but they are national and international leaders on this issue. Barb MacQuarrie told me I could use this in the Legislature. She writes: "Child pornography is child sexual abuse. It hurts real children in real ways. We all share an ethical imperative to protect the dignity and integrity of children by reporting anyone who would violate a child by viewing them in a pornographic image."

The list of people who support this initiative is long and diverse; from the police, to people concerned about children, the list is long. It has broad support, and I just want to add my voice to the people who want to say that we must continue to improve our protection of children. We must take away the guesswork on this. You don't have to debate this one in your head; you don't have to seek advice. If you see evidence of child abuse, you have a responsibility to report it, because any child pornography, by definition, includes child abuse.

I welcome this initiative. I look forward to further debate. We do have to take the next step, though. I urge all members to vote in favour of the bill, and then we'll continue to work to protect children.

It's really appropriate that this is a bill we're debating today, because the focus of this government has been very much on children, whether it's the improvements to our education system, where we're now starting to see some really exciting results with 10,000 more kids graduating each year than a few years ago; we're starting to see more kids getting the nutrition they need through the student nutrition program; we're starting to see kids get opportunities for jobs that they never had before. The Ontario child benefit starts rolling out every month this July.

It is up to $50 per child, per month, going to $91 per child, per month. I always think of that as a grocery cart of food. I see $50 worth of good, healthy food that will be going into homes that didn't before. That will start rolling out this July.

I'm out of time here, but I want to close by congratulating the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for her initiative on this matter.

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

Ms. Broten, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank my friends all across the House for their indications of support with respect to this bill. I want to highlight a couple of the areas where I think the bill speaks very directly to issues of concern.

First of all, the bill protects the identity of the informant and protects them from any liability that might occur. That is critical. It also builds upon what is already a very strong provincial strategy with respect to combatting Internet crimes, where the province is working with groups like Cybertip.ca and others to put in place programs like Cleanfeed Canada, where Internet sites are being shut down. This bill speaks directly to everyone, and "everyone" includes those who provide service on the Internet, those who have the knowledge about what may be transferring across their networks.

This bill very much speaks to those dark corners on the Internet. It parallels some steps that have been taken in US jurisdictions and a bill that is now pending in Manitoba, where police and child protection agencies have worked together, as I have brought them together in the development of this bill, to protect kids.

That's what this bill is about: the jurisdiction of the provinces with respect to protecting kids and the jurisdiction of the federal government with respect to the Criminal Code and all other matters. There may well need to be steps taken in that fight, and I certainly have committed myself to raising those issues as we tackle this scourge on so many fronts. We need to do our work here in the province; we need to do our work around the country and around the globe. But first and foremost, this bill is protecting Ontario's kids and telling Ontarians, "You need to report if you see that image of child pornography because it is an image of child abuse."

I look forward to seeing this bill pass second reading, advocating it and moving it forward.

CANADIAN MASS TRANSIT

VEHICLES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT

EN COMMUN CANADIENS

Mr. Bisson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 31,

An Act to promote the purchase of Canadian mass transit vehicles / Projet de loi 31, Loi favorisant l'achat de véhicules de transport en commun canadiens.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I've got a sore knee. It's hard to get up today.

I first of all want to say that this has been a long-standing issue for a number of people in Ontario, especially in places like Thunder Bay and others where construction of mass transit vehicles takes place.

Just to give you a bit of a historical perspective, Bombardier in Thunder Bay, as you know, in 1992 or 1993 had a memorandum of understanding with the province of Ontario that said that at least 50% of mass transit vehicles, light rail, etc. would be constructed here in Ontario. For whatever reason, that particular agreement, that particular law, was struck down by the McGuinty government in the last term.

I don't quite understand why they didn't continue with that particular understanding with Bombardier, because it is good policy from the perspective of the province of Ontario having an opportunity to utilize our public dollars to the best possible effect. It only makes sense that if the province of Ontario is going to spend money to buy buses, to buy transit vehicles of whatever type, be it GO Transit or subway cars or streetcars, as much as humanly possible we need to see how much of that can be constructed here in Ontario.

We know, for example, that announcements that have been made recently, such as the announcement that was made earlier this week where some 300 hybrid buses have been delivered to the TTC—over 60% of the construction of those buses was not done here in Ontario but in fact was done in the United States.

So we say to ourselves: Why shouldn't we be utilizing public dollars to the best possible effect to make sure that we create jobs here in Ontario and sustain those that we currently have? Is this something that's radical, new and different? I would say no. If you take a look, this is typical legislation that exists in all kinds of other jurisdictions around the world.

For example, here in North America, the United States has a law that says that 60% of whatever monies that are invested by the federal government in transit vehicles—they have to be constructed in the United States. You have to remember that the United States is different than Canada: The federal government plays a much larger role than the states when it comes to the amount of money expended on transit. They have a federal law there that says that 60% has to be built in the United States.

Even Mexico, south of the United States, has similar laws that say, I think, that 50% of their construction has to be done within Mexico itself. In the European Union, almost every nation has similar provisions.

Why? Because it makes sense. If we're going to spend public dollars, we should, as much as humanly possible, move toward trying to have that construction done within our own jurisdiction.

I listened to the government originally say, yes, they thought this was a good idea and that they were going to support the bill, and I was somewhat encouraged by that. I know my colleague the member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan has a similar bill that he had in the House for two or three years in the last term and has reintroduced in this term that calls for 60%, so I look forward to his support on this bill, because certainly I'm going to support his. I think it's only right. It goes in the right direction, so I'm looking forward to that. But recently the government has come out and said, no, they're not going to support the bill, and I say to myself, what are the arguments?

One of the arguments put forward was, if you have a 50% content rule, it's going to force construction to happen outside of Ontario, because we export goods such as mass transit vehicles to other jurisdictions, and if we have 50% we're going to limit our opportunity in the export market. I just say: Hogwash. We're already limited in the export market because the United States and others we trade with have similar laws. When the United States buys a transit vehicle and they happen to get a contract with Orion Bus out of Toronto, you can only do 40% of the construction here.

In fact, last week I spoke to the workers up at Bombardier, along with my leader, Howard Hampton, and they have similar content rules. For example, right now they're building the same type of trains that we have for GO Transit that are being sold to the United States, and when they do the construction of these trains up in Thunder Bay, they have to make sure that no more than 40% of the actual construction is done in Thunder Bay. It is then shipped off to the United States by rail and then the rest of the assembly is done in the United States.

So we're not going to be limiting our opportunities for export; those opportunities have been limited by right of legislation that exists in other countries.

The other argument that's put forward—and I've heard people say, "This means there won't be competition." Again: Hogwash. We know, for example, that the province of Ontario said that by the year 2020 we expect to spend $17.5 billion on transit vehicles, light rail and other things here in Ontario. If you're Siemens or one of the other companies that is in the business of constructing buses or whatever it might be and there's a large contract in the province of Ontario that you want to bid on, one of the things you're going to look at is the ability to build a plant of some type here in Ontario to do that construction. Members across the way will say, "Oh, they were never going to do that."

What does Bombardier do? Bombardier of Canada has plants in the United States, France, Germany and different parts of the wide world because there are content rules in those jurisdictions that say that if you want to build transit vehicles, a percentage has to be done within that country. You've seen the ads for Bombardier somewhere in some German city where a worker is taking a picture of a light rail transit car going across some old city in Germany. The person's very proud to show that that's Canadian technology. That train wasn't built in Canada. It might be Canadian design.

That train is 98% built in Germany even though it's a Canadian company. What happens is, those manufacturers of these vehicles, whatever they might be, if the contract is large enough, are going to have to make a decision, "Do we want to bid on that contract? Does it make sense? If so, we need to do production facilities here in Ontario," which is only good for workers here in Ontario. It means we have an opportunity to make sure that the dollars we spend when it comes to transit are done here in Ontario.

I want to say to members across the way that there is another provision in the bill, if we take the time to read it. There is another argument saying, "Oh, we're going to end up with a non-competitive bid system." Hogwash, because the bill is written in such a way that ensures that there is a competitive bid process and that we don't put ourselves in a position of having to accept a product that is of lesser quality. For example, if the lesser-quality product happened to come out of a Canadian company, we don't hamstring ourselves into having to buy a lesser-quality vehicle.

That forces our manufacturers to raise the standard. It also ensures that there is a competitive bid process in place to make sure that is done.

Listen: It's not just us in the New Democratic Party, my leader, Howard Hampton, and the rest of the New Democrats who are calling for this bill. If you read the editorials across the province, it's fairly clear. The Toronto Star, which is well known to have a position on this, has come out in support, saying, "It's high time that we do." The Toronto Sun, the Thunder Bay Chronicle and a number of workers and companies across the province of Ontario have supported this initiative.

I'm asking members across the way to allow this bill to go through second reading. Let's get it into committee. If you think there are some things that need to be changed, I'm open to amendments. I'm not ideologically—not "ideologically"; I'm not wedded to the point that the bill has to be written exactly the way it is. If we think we can do something to strengthen the bill to make sure we get to where we want to go in the end, that's fine by me. We allow that to happen at the committee level. That's what committees are all about.

I say to members across the way: This particular bill is one that is going to serve the province of Ontario well in two respects: It's going to ensure that the dollars we spend are spent here in Ontario, and it's going to assist Ontario workers to have jobs.

In the last minute I have, I want to respond to one of the points that the Minister of Transportation made. He talked about one of the initiatives that the government has put forward and he said that 82% of that money is going to be spent here in Ontario. Yes, the construction of light rail, the construction of infrastructure on the ground: Of course a majority that's going to be done in the province of Ontario because you can't do a construction project that's putting tracks in the city of Toronto and build it in California. To use the argument saying that 82% of it already happens in Ontario is false.

Eighty-two per cent of the construction certainly happens in Ontario when it comes to putting in infrastructure, but when it comes to the manufacturing of the products that are used, such as buses and trains, GO trains and subway cars, we need to make sure that a majority of that—or 50% of that, I should say—are built here in Ontario.

Quite frankly, we're not there. We know, for example, that the announcement made this morning on the double-decker buses—they're not built here in Ontario. A majority of that, about 90% of it, was built overseas.

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

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I'm really quite delighted to be here to talk a little bit about the bill that my friend le député de Timmins—James Bay has put in front of us today. I think it's an interesting bill. The House, as some people know, gave unanimous consent so this bill could be heard today. It didn't have the normal time limits that would be there, but the government and all members gave unanimous consent so it could be heard.

What I find entertaining, if nothing else, is that my friend, who I think has been here for some 17 or 18 years now, didn't avail himself of legislative research. I know that perhaps the NDP research budget is strapped, I know that perhaps they don't have the resources to possibly do the job they should do, but virtually every piece of information that the member just put out about other trade agreements and components in other countries and other provinces is wrong. It has a tiny, little bit of truth to it, but if you look at the entire issue, it is wrong. Not one single Canadian province has a commitment to purchase transit in their own province.

But I've got a news flash. I just received a note from the Ministry of Transportation telling me that, for the first time ever, the province of Quebec has a procurement policy for mass transit—for the first time ever. It never existed before. This morning it was announced in Quebec. It's a buy-Canadian policy: not a buy-Quebec policy, but a buy-Canadian policy.

My good friend the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan has a bill in front of the House that speaks to that, that speaks to the fact that a buy-Canadian policy should be instituted. We believe we should go forward to make sure that Ontarians and Canadians benefit from public investment in all sectors, not just transportation. The government is working towards finding ways to make sure that we absolutely maximize every dollar for public transit that is spent in the province of Ontario.

I have every confidence that our good friends at Bombardier in Thunder Bay will be able to compete in that kind of situation and win the contracts, because our workers, our companies, are the best in the world. So I have every confidence that it will happen.

But my good friend seems to forget some things. He seems to forget that his party opposed subway lines. You can't have subway cars if you don't have the subway line. It just cannot happen. Fifty per cent of nothing is nothing.

I know about this. As the member for Algoma—Manitoulin, I've had the pleasure to serve that fine constituency for some 20 years. The NDP used to have a policy for many, many years, probably decades, that they would buy—or Ontario Hydro rather, the crown corporation, would buy, 100% of its fuel requirements for uranium from Ontario sources. They would buy 100% of that uranium in Ontario. There was only one place in Ontario you could buy uranium, and that was in Elliot Lake.

The NDP promised continually, through every election campaign—every convention I could see, they all went there and everybody was very much in favour of buying that 100% of the uranium. We had a very vibrant uranium mining business in Elliot Lake. In that city, we employed about 4,000 miners with good-paying, excellent jobs. The policy of the NDP was to purchase 100% of the uranium there.

Do you know what happened? The NDP was elected in 1990, and within a few short months two northern NDP ministers appeared in Elliot Lake to tell that community and to tell the workers that all 4,000 of them would be out of work, that they were cancelling the Ontario Hydro contracts to buy uranium in Elliot Lake. Do you know what the reason was for doing that? The reason for abrogating their policy was that it was too expensive to buy in Elliot Lake, that we shouldn't do it in Ontario because it cost too much money. That's what Ms. Martel and Mr. Wildman, when they appeared in Elliot Lake, said.

Interjections.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: My colleagues will be following me and we will discuss this with a little more information, but I seem to have struck a nerve. The 4,000 mining folks in Elliot Lake do not forget.

Ms. Laurie Scott: It's a pleasure to rise today to speak on private members' business—an opportunity for the first time in 2008. I commend the member from Timmins—James Bay for bringing forward Bill 31, the Canadian Mass Transit Vehicles Act, 2008. This being the first day of spring, it's also a pleasure to stand here, and hopefully the snow has stopped falling.

We're talking transit specifically in this act that's been brought forward. I can say right off the top that we're very supportive of the intent of this legislation from the member. It appears to me that the underlying intent is that we need to do our utmost to encourage this government to promote Ontario and Canadian businesses, and those who work for those businesses.

It's even truer when it comes to decisions and directions that we take with the public's money, which this bill is reflecting—money that is entrusted by the people of Ontario to this government; most importantly, using taxpayers' money in the public's best interest. It's been said many times that it doesn't seem to mean much to the government side, who are doing everything that they can to deflect the fact that Ontario has lost—is it 180,000, or is it up to 190,000 manufacturing jobs?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It's 210,000.

Ms. Laurie Scott: It's 210,000, the member from Halton tells me, who's going to also speak later to this bill. That's a big figure, and something that the present Liberal government is not addressing.

What else aren't they addressing about Ontario's economy? Ontario is facing the slowest growth in the entire country. The unemployment rate in Ontario has exceeded the national average for the first time in 30 years. Consumer confidence is down. Confidence in investing in Ontario is down. We have an out-migration of skilled workers in record numbers.

I can tell you that this affects my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, as well as the rest of Ontario. We've had sad news, as many parts of Ontario have had, with two manufacturers that closed down last year. Fleetwood RV shut its doors and Bonar Plastics announced that it's closing—hundreds and hundreds of good-paying manufacturing jobs. Those manufacturing jobs in small communities affect a large, large group of people—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Fleetwood's back.

Ms. Laurie Scott: —I'm getting to the story—from shops to restaurants, who depend on those local jobs staying in our community. I know that the member from Peterborough has been very anxious for me to say that we did have good news on a partial recovery for the RV industry. Great Lakes RV had a managed buyout, in co-operation with lots of local community members and workers from the previous plant, and has reopened its doors. We encourage them and I'm very proud of the effort that they've made. I hope to see that they will continue to expand.

Bill 31's intent, I think, relates very much to the tough economic times that are happening in Ontario. In—

Mr. Jeff Leal: What's the story about Fleetwood? FEMA—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member from Peterborough, order.

Ms. Laurie Scott: In December, I hosted a round-table meeting with a number of small-business representatives in my Lindsay office, and they were feeling the crunch. It was in the first part of November. The Canadian dollar had gone up quickly, they had an increase in energy costs under this government, more red tape, and increasing tax burdens. They came and said, "We have to do something. We're hurting. Our businesses are hurting and we're going to go out. People have to be educated about why they need to shop locally and be more aware of where products are made."

From that campaign—and I'm quite proud of the community, the municipality, the chambers and the BIA in our Lindsay area. The press came on board; the local press did a fantastic job, and we all got together and got the Shop Locally campaign, where they had stickers on bags, people were educated about why they need to shop locally, and they came to the shopkeepers and said, "We're more aware and we're going to be more conscious of that." So that was a good success story, a local initiative, and it does speak to the intent of the bill that's here, from a different angle. It's all about shopping and buying locally, and being made aware of what's made locally.

Our small-business sector is hurting; our manufacturing is hurting. Yesterday in the chamber, the Minister of Small Business got a very important and relevant question and deflected it to the Minister of Labour and did not answer the question. No wonder Ontario's entrepreneurs and business owners are dejected. The minister representing them in this Legislature, the minister of small business, is silent on the issues that are facing them. I read statistics earlier. They cannot be ignored. With what's going on in Ontario, we have to be responsible to the people and do what we can to assist them.

This government is not doing that, but Bill 31 here is addressing aspects that the government needs to focus on.

Just two weeks ago, my colleague from Oxford, the critic for agriculture, came up to Lindsay for a round table meeting with local agricultural commodity representatives. Again, the point was made clear: the hard-working producers need progressive, active and long-term solutions to meet the challenges they are facing. The inadequacies were brought up here, specifically for the hog programs in Ontario, the group of people who are falling through the cracks and need to be assisted. The critic for agriculture, the member for Oxford, made that point to the Minister of Agriculture.

We've certainly heard about that in our communities, and I'm sure the member from Peterborough has been made aware of that, because our ridings are very closely associated and we have similar producers. I'm sure he's doing his best within his government to bring attention forward to the inadequacies, specifically to the hog farmers, in that.

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I know the member from Peterborough is very actively engaged in the debate this morning. Let us talk about the proposed rail service from Peterborough to Toronto, which this provincial government does not seem to know much about. But the federal government has stepped up to the plate, money is earmarked for a rail project, and they're waiting for a commitment from the Liberal government here, from the Ontario finance minister.

Mr. Jeff Leal: No details.

Ms. Laurie Scott: The member for Peterborough again mentions details. There is certainly a commuter rail report, which I know the member for Peterborough was presented with last fall.

The finance ministers, both federally and provincially, are speaking. We were speaking with the Minister Cannon's office today, and certainly, they are working with the province; they need the commitment. I know the member from Peterborough is in support of the commuter rail service between Peterborough and Toronto, which affects ridings represented by members from both sides of the Legislature. I know that he's on for that commitment.

I'm hoping that they see the light and will work with the federal government and the many municipalities that support this initiative of the rail line and the studies that have been done on the growth that has happened in our areas and how it's going benefit all of our areas.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Peterborough, come to order.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Yes, the member from Peterborough can get on the train, certainly, when it's up and going.

The need for investment along with the policies that produce results: That's what we're looking for, not band-aids. Clearly the Dalton McGuinty government is just reactive, it's not proactive; it doesn't have a long-term plan.

For those reasons, I support and appreciate the member from Timmins—James Bay for bringing forward this bill this morning. Private members' public business is a great morning in which we can debate openly, even those not on the speaking list, and discuss the challenges facing our economies.

I'm running out of time, so I'd better stop. The member from Timmins—James Bay has said that he wants it to go to committee, that he's flexible, and if there are some better ideas that could be brought forward, he's willing to do that. I think we owe it to the people of Ontario that we should take this to committee and flesh this out more, and make this government more responsible to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like the start by complimenting my colleague on this bill. This bill is long overdue. We need protectionism in the province of Ontario for our workers and our industries. This is a big step in that direction. The government talks about job creation in the province—here's a perfect opportunity for this government to step up to the plate.

What is good about this bill? This bill would benefit numerous industries in our province, starting with the steel industry in Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie, all the secondary industries that supply the steel plants: glass manufacturers, plastic manufacturers, assembly plants, automotive producers and parts manufacturers. Who works in these plants? Trades: welders, electricians, hydraulic experts, plumbing, pipe assembly. Millions and millions of man-hours could be produced in this province through these types of bills. Why aren't we moving on it?

There's preventative maintenance of the fleets, jobs of labour mechanics, reassembly, recovery, rubber manufacturers—tires. Firestone left Hamilton and went back to the States. Gee, if we had these types of bills in place at that time, maybe Firestone wouldn't have left. Maybe Massey Ferguson wouldn't have left Hamilton. These are the types of businesses that have fled in droves from this country.

I was really amazed yesterday, when I looked in the Metro paper on Wednesday the 19th and saw, to my shock, two GO buses sitting in the Halifax port. There were five more being unloaded—GO buses; government-sponsored GO buses for Toronto. Where were they manufactured? After getting off a boat, I don't think they were manufactured in Canada.

The member across the floor mentioned Bombardier and their competitiveness. It's a tremendous company, a company that's known throughout the world for its quality. However, all our companies in Ontario and Canada cannot compete. Why? Because we can't match their labour costs. They're paying people in their countries a third, a quarter of what our tradespeople and labourers make in this province. How can you possibly compete in a contract, like the member said, if you're dealing against those types of odds? It's not going happen.

That's why we're buying a lot of these things overseas, because we don't have the manufacturing plants to have them built here. We have an abundance of trades and skilled labour in this province that are not being utilized to their full capacity. There are hundreds and hundreds of fully qualified journeymen who can't get work or are laid off. Once they're laid off, they have to collect unemployment.

It's amazing that the member thinks that we can compete. The Liberals—the government—like to talk about a global market. Great; I'd love to compete in a global market if it was fair, but the deck is stacked against us. We can't compete because we don't have the proper facilities to be sponsored by the government. They do band-aid solutions, they throw money at the automotive sectors, but what do these companies do—foreign-owned companies, I might add? They say, "If you don't give us $200 million or $400 million, we're going to leave. We're going to lay people off. We're going to shut down.

We're going to go back to the States. We're going to go back to Japan." Boy, that's a real good thing, holding us hostage: "We'll leave unless you give us taxpayers' money"—unacceptable.

What we need is more Canadian content and more Canadian jobs so we can, as the member wants to say, compete in this global market. If we had the proper material—we are the richest country in the world for raw materials. What are we doing now? We've even got diamond mines in Ontario. People are coming to us, but they're coming under their rules, not under our rules, not under our laws that protect our jobs.

This legislation has to change. The economic policies of this government are unbelievable. It's just, "Throw $400 million here; throw $300 million," hoping that the ghost will go away, but he doesn't. He comes back to the trough for more—more and more and more. Where does it end? I'll tell you where it ends: It ends when we have Canadian content and Canadian jobs. That's where it ends. This bill speaks volumes towards that end.

Interjection.

Mr. Paul Miller: For the information of the member across the floor, when I lobbied in Ottawa, while I was there, we lost Falconbridge to Xstrata. Telus took over all the foreign-owned industry in British Columbia and Alberta. This is going on all over our country. Until we open our eyes and see what's really going on, we're going to be in trouble.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thank you for giving me the chance to comment on Bill 31, Canadian Mass Transit Vehicles Act, 2008, which was introduced by my friend here on my right side, the member from Timmins—James Bay.

When he was talking about how made-in-Ontario bills or laws should be implemented in the province of Ontario, it's good for local consumption and it's good for media talk, the reality is that the member forgot we live in a province that is part of a whole nation and we have some kind of agreement with those provinces. We work together on many different levels. Also, some of the product has to be Canadian content in order to get support from the federal government, because some money is also attached to it. We cannot live in isolation.

Also, he does not remember maybe that we have a lot of agreements with the provinces around us and we have a good working relationship with them. We cannot, as a province, close the door on ourselves to say whatever we produce in this province we have to consume and we have to deal with.

We have to remember that we as a province have great ambitions, and these ambitions give us the ability to compete on a provincial level, on a Canadian level, as well as on the international market, if we equip our people and our companies with the tools they need in order to be able to compete.

That's why we create many different initiatives, one of which is Move Ontario 2020, which gives us almost $17.5 billion to invest on transit in Toronto and the Hamilton area in order to create good communication lines, in order to give the ability to many people to commute without any problem and, in the meantime, stimulate the economy and create jobs. This initiative wasn't supported by the NDP and also didn't get supported by the Conservatives.

Our transit tax initiative, which creates a lot of jobs for many people in the province of Ontario and also helps municipalities to renew their fleets and their transit systems, also wasn't supported by the NDP. The subway extension from Spadina to Vaughan wasn't supported by the NDP.

All these initiatives would support our transit, which the member from James Bay was talking about all morning—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Of course the NDP supports subways.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: —that we should have made-in-Ontario products and consume—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: We had a whole bunch of construction going on, and the Tories cancelled it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: It is very important for us to remember our company; it's a great company. We have good skilled workers in the province of Ontario. If we give them the tools and initiative, I guess they'll be able to compete not just in Ontario, not just in Canada, but in the international market.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, we invested $1.2 billion in a program called Next Generation to allow a company $5 million and above to borrow money from the government, to get a loan from the government, to get grants from the government in order to support them and enhance their ability, enhance their products, and expand. We also partner with universities and colleges in the province of Ontario to have good products that give us the chance to compete not just in Canada, but also in the international market. These are the initiatives we should put in place, not just sit and complain.

I know this is a very big issue for northern Ontario, an emotional issue, but we're not working on an emotional level here. We're working with reality. The reality is we are not just living in isolation in this nation or in isolation with the whole globe. We have aspirations. We have the ability to compete and to send our products everywhere on the whole earth if we put the right investment in the right place and if we work hard to enhance our products and our companies.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to stop the talk; we have to act, and that's what we are here to do. We are lucky. We are privileged to have a government that understands the reality, understands the future of the province, instead of just sitting and crying. The member opposite said, "We have to do this, we have to do this, and we have to close the door on ourselves in order to protect our company and our factories." He has to remember we cannot consume the products we produce in this province.

We have to have the ability and the connections to send the products outside this province, outside this nation, in order to give us the ability to keep prospering and continue being a hub for many different institutions and factories and companies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak. Hopefully, my colleague will continue later on and explain to the people of Ontario about the misconception about this bill.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I am pleased to talk about this, and it's a very topical subject today.

The bloodshed that's taking place on the TSX and the New York Stock Exchange may indicate that we're headed down the road into some difficulties. Certainly the Canadian dollar is dropping, I think two or three cents in the last couple of days, and that would auger well for Ontario's manufacturing sector. The government would be familiar with the manufacturing sector. That's the one they've been ignoring for the last five years and one which has been decimated in this province to a degree that about 23% or 24% of the former manufacturing jobs that existed in Ontario no longer exist. Perhaps if I have some time, I'll say more about that.

This bill would give some advantages to Ontario manufacturers of rail cars and buses, those kinds of things. I'm pleased to give at least moral support to this type of legislation. I think this particular bill should have made some mention of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization and their rules around this type of thing. Both the North American free trade agreement and the World Trade Organization specifically exempt transportation equipment. However, they also have sections in their agreements that call for fair trade between countries, and within those kinds of clauses there are elements where bidders on a particular manufacturing site have to be equally treated, no matter which

section of the economy they're in. So if a bidder who is manufacturing rail cars in Thunder Bay is bidding for a particular contract in New York City and somebody from Wisconsin is bidding on that same contract, those two contractors, if their contracts are similar, in other words, if you're buying as much product in the United States and the two bids are similar, they must be treated in a similar fashion under NAFTA, and sensibly under the World Trade Organization, although that's a much murkier area.

Canada's trade balance—of course, we're a trading nation. That's when these types of agreements become sensitive and somewhat difficult. I'm not sure if Canada is the most trading nation in the world, but I think we must be one or two. Fully 33% to 35% of our gross domestic product is exported out of Canada. The value of our exports equals about 33% to 35% of our gross domestic product. We export a tremendous amount of our manufacturing and raw products and commodities. Therefore, our trading partners are extremely important to us.

It's very important that we don't upset our trading partners and thereby perhaps close some doors. We want to keep all the doors in the world open because we are more dependent on trade than almost any other country in the world. If you take that 33% of our GDP as exported and apply that to the United States, 2% or 3% of the gross domestic product of the United States would be exported. That just gives you an idea of the degree we have in that area and how we have to be very careful about where we go down that road.

There are huge stories around the world as to the protectionism that various countries have dealing with this kind of transportation equipment. One of the worst, I suppose, or the most protectionist around the world would be Japan, and certainly China has a lot of protectionism too. When it comes to transportation equipment, Japanese regulations are such that they effectively eliminate any competition, with the exception of their sole manufacturer, and that would be Kawasaki. Kawasaki effectively is the only company in Japan that can produce this kind of equipment, and that's by government regulation.

It contravenes a number of sections of the World Trade Organization, but as I understand it, to this point they have never been taken to the world court.

As I mentioned earlier, this would certainly help the demise of the manufacturing sector. The member from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock has talked about some of those issues, which I agree with. Those kinds of closures that she talked about continue into 2008. We have seen that the Essex aluminum plant in Windsor is closing, with 600 jobs disappearing on February 6 of this year. Again, the Dana Corp. in Barrie closed, with 155 jobs disappearing in the province. Martinrea in Kitchener closed with 1,200 jobs on February 11; 1,200 manufacturing jobs gone from Ontario.

The government has been touting the growth of Toyota in Woodstock, which is going to create something in the order of 900 to 1,000 jobs. Here's 1,200 jobs gone in Kitchener at one stroke of the pen. So the bloodletting continues.

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise in support of this bill. I rise in support of this bill, and it's not just because of this bill, but it's because of the entire history not only of this city but of this province. We've been doing this for a long time. Twenty years ago I was first elected to public office in the borough of East York, as it then was. When I arrived there, the borough of East York had a policy. It wasn't my policy; it was the borough of East York policy that we bought first from the businesses and the factories that were located in the borough of East York.

Secondarily, if we couldn't find it there or if it was not cost-competitive, then we would buy it from factories and institutions of other places in Ontario. Third, we went to Canada. I don't remember, in the whole time that I was a municipal politician, that we were not able to find the goods and services that we needed, first of all in our own community, second of all in Ontario, third of all in Canada.

I will tell you that that policy was maintained. It was maintained throughout my time in East York. It was maintained when East York was subsumed into the megacity of Toronto, and then Toronto had a similar policy. Toronto still utilizes that policy, and that is why the subway cars were purchased by the city of Toronto from Thunder Bay. The only other option, and there was an option, was to buy the cars from Siemens, a Dutch company, which were going to be manufactured in China. But the citizens of Toronto, through their council, said no. They said that they wanted to buy them here in Ontario to protect the jobs.

It is a good municipal strategy that is still being used in Ontario and Canada's largest city. I am merely suggesting, and this bill merely suggests, that the government of Ontario adopt something that has been shown to work over many years.

The second point I want to make in the couple of minutes that I have is to refute some of the catcalls and comments that have been coming from the government bench about New Democrats not supporting subways. That is hogwash; that is nonsense. The New Democrats, between 1990 and 1995, established and were in the process of building four subway lines in Toronto. You all know that's true.

When the Harris government came along, they said no; they were only going to allow one to be built. One that was under construction was filled in with sand, and that was the Eglinton subway line, which to my mind, to this day, was the best of the options available. The one that was eventually built was the Sheppard subway line.

The Sheppard subway line, to my mind and to most people's minds even today, was not the preferred option. We built it because it was the only one left on the table. I remember that vote: It came down and it passed by one vote—Metro council in those days; one solitary vote. I like to think it was mine because even though it wasn't the preferred option, it was the one that we took because it was available and because we could build it.

To my mind, even to this day, the best option was the one that ran through Black Creek in the riding of Eglinton—Lawrence. I would assume that the member from Eglinton—Lawrence knows that that was the best line. New Democrats know that that is and remains the best line. So when New Democrats say, "Why are we building the one up through University and Spadina?" we have a legitimate question to ask. The question is not whether we should build it, because of course we should build it, but is there a better line that could be built?

We think the one that could be built and should be built—and the best option for the city of Toronto and for the province—is the Black Creek line to the airport. That's what we think. And if you're going say we don't want this Spadina line, then you're wrong. We want it, but the first priority should be to build it to the airport. That's the thing. Liberals can put forward all the spin they want, because you've got it wrong again.

Those are the two points I want to make. I'm going to leave the remaining time to my leader, the leader of the third party.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I'm delighted to add my thoughts to this debate. There are just a couple of points I wanted to raise. The first one I'm going to raise is the NDP position on the subway line, because it sticks in my mind and it was the last point the member just made. I was just given the quote by your leader, Howard Hampton—who is going speak next, I understand—about the subway line to Vaughan. He says the following: "We don't need another subway mega-project." That's his quote.

Now, there may be something in here that I don't understand, but it seems pretty clear that you can't have production of subway cars if you don't have the subway line. I don't understand why the NDP would take that position, but we'll hear more about that from the leader.

Let's assume that the member from Timmins—James Bay has a good thought in mind. I would assume that all of our objectives here in this Legislature, our goals, should be that we would promote public transit. We're all trying to create jobs, all parties. We'd all like to strengthen our economy; we'd like to support our manufacturing industry. That should be the goal. But we differ, I guess, on how this can be done.

As it stands right now, over the last few months the McGuinty government has undertaken a review of how this government can maximize local jobs. How can that be done? The idea here is that, okay, $17.5 billion has been committed to transit—$17.5 billion—and the review indicates how that $17.5 billion can be used to create jobs. The good news today is that the direct effect of this $17.5-billion commitment to transit will be 16,000 jobs from money spent on rolling stock, from money spent on transit: 16,000 new jobs, and there may be more.

So the review, going through all ministries, is simply this: How can we spend $17.5 billion and maximize jobs, throughout all ministries? That's what we are undertaking right now.

If Mr. Bisson wants to add his name and his ideas to this concept of how to create and maintain local jobs, that's great. His idea is 50%. Okay. But what about the other party members in the NDP? Well, some of them say, "It shouldn't be 50%, Mr. Bisson; it should be 75%." In fact, there is one member in your party who says, "Let's have 100%." I have the quote here. He says every penny should be paid and used in Ontario. That's 100%. So that's very good. I don't know what your position will be in the end, but I assume this is the bill, and we'll talk about that in the specific section. So I don't know how this is going to work out.

I just want to remind you of one thing, and that is Mr. Chudleigh's point about the Conservatives too. Laurie Scott made an interesting point. She supports you 100%. Then the member from Halton, Mr. Chudleigh, says, "You know what, we should be considering protectionism. This is wrong." So I don't know where the Conservatives are on this. Are you going to be in support of this bill by Mr. Bisson or are you going to be against the bill? You cannot, as Conservatives, speak out of two sides of the same mouth.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Liberals do this all the time. What are you getting at?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: You can't do that. You need one position.

Now, not only do we catch the NDP talking about 100% versus 50%, but we've got Conservatives saying, "This is right," and another one who says, "This is wrong." In other words, it's kind of tough to find out what the position is. I understand why this is difficult. I understand why this is complicated.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I'm advised by the member for Ajax—Pickering that we are joined by students from the Bolton C. Falby school in Ajax. Welcome.

Further debate?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to speak in support of this bill by the member from Timmins—James Bay, but first of all I wanted to explore some of the excuses that have been offered up for not supporting this bill. No one has quite come out and said it, but some have tried to imply, either in the House or in the media, that this kind of bill would be in breach of trade obligations. Let's be clear: This is not in breach of NAFTA; it's not in breach of the World Trade Organization. The reason that the United States has such a successful "buy America" policy is because NAFTA specifically provides for this.

The reason that jurisdictions in Europe follow a similar policy—in Germany, in France, in Belgium—is because world trade agreements provide for this kind of legislation. It is well accepted by trade rules in the world today that jurisdictions can leverage public expenditure to benefit manufacturing jobs within the jurisdiction. That's all that this legislation proposes.

The second thing that has been offered up, sometimes in the House and sometimes in the media, is that this would somehow compromise Ontario's capacity to sell to other markets. I simply want to point out that Quebec, through a very similar preferential system, gave Bombardier the contract to build in the range of $386 million of subway rolling stock for the Montreal subway. If I listen to what some of the government members say, they say that this would somehow prejudice Bombardier's capacity to sell elsewhere in the world.

But Bombardier is winning transit contracts in Britain, is winning transit contracts in Turkey, is winning transit contracts in Germany and is winning contracts all over western Europe and many other countries. So I would say to government members who want to offer up the excuse that somehow if you did this, it would negatively impact your capacity to sell elsewhere in the world—not so. Bombardier is a beneficiary of this kind of beneficial policy in Quebec and Bombardier has no trouble selling transit vehicles virtually everywhere else in the world.

What this is about—and let's be clear—is that we all recognize that urbanized societies, for a variety of reasons, are going to have to invest billions of dollars, not only in urban transit but in intercity transit in the coming years. Thoughtful jurisdictions, recognizing this, are putting in place buy-domestic policies so that they can use that expenditure to leverage the creation of manufacturing jobs in their own jurisdictions.

That is why you can go to the Bombardier plant in Thunder Bay today and see the shells of streetcars being built, but once the shells are built, they're shipped to a plant in the United States where all of the finishing work is done—billions of dollars of finishing work and hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, because that's what the Buy America policy requires.

We're simply saying that this works well in many other jurisdictions, that it does not contravene any trade laws, and if we care about sustaining manufacturing jobs in Ontario, we ought to do it here—now. Ontario did have a Buy Ontario policy until 2005, until the McGuinty government did away with it. That was a mistake. That mistake needs to be rectified, and it needs to be rectified now with the passage of this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. I am advised by the member from Mississauga—Erindale that in the visitors' west gallery, we have with us visitors from Palestine House from the riding of Mississauga—Erindale. Welcome.

Mr. Bisson, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to thank those members who took the time to participate in this debate. I'm looking forward to the support of all members of the House, from all sides, because I think we all understand the importance of making sure that dollars that are spent from the public purse are utilized in the best possible way when it comes to creating jobs.

I want to remind people that my bill is no different from a bill introduced by another member from the Legislature, Bill 216, the Buy in Canada for Mass Transit Vehicles Act, that was introduced—the same bill.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My bill says the same thing. The bill that I introduced is virtually the same bill as Mr. Mauro's, so I look forward to having the support of Mr. Mauro and the rest of the Liberal caucus. At the time they thought it was a good bill, and I look forward to them thinking that this would be equally as good a bill as well.

We need to send this into committee. I agree that we may want to take a look at some amendments to the bill, but the principle is one that has to be maintained.

The leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Hampton, my leader, pointed out, quite rightfully so, that all jurisdictions in North America—the United States, Mexico and Central America—and jurisdictions in Europe such as England, France, Germany, Belgium and others, have similar provisions when it comes to laws in their own countries, because they understand that if you're going to take public dollars, you should have some net benefit impact when it comes to employment within your own jurisdiction.

So for the Liberal government to say, "We don't want to support this," I think that says a very simple thing: that the Liberal government doesn't support the creation of jobs in Ontario when it comes to making sure that public expenditures—if you do vote against it, you're basically saying that you don't believe in the creation of jobs as a result of expenditures in the province of Ontario on mass transit.

So I'm looking forward to the support of the members across the way and on this side of the House and to the moment that we have this bill in committee.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

We will first deal with ballot item 5, standing in the name of Ms. Broten.

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

REPORTING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE DEVOIR

DE SIGNALER LES CAS

DE PORNOGRAPHIE JUVÉNILE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): . Ms. Broten has moved second reading of Bill 37. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. Broten.

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I'd ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on social policy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. Broten has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social policy. Agreed? Agreed.

We shall now deal with ballot item 6, standing in the name of Mr. Bisson.

CANADIAN MASS TRANSIT

VEHICLES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT

EN COMMUN CANADIENS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Bisson has moved second reading of Bill 31. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

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

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 20; the nays are 41.

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

Second reading negatived.

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

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Richmond Hill, to introduce the members of the Iranian community who have come from across the greater Toronto area to celebrate Nowruz with us. We welcome you to Queen's Park today.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER MANAGEMENT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: In the very near future, the International Joint Commission will be making a decision on a water level management plan for Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. As you know, the St. Lawrence stretches along the complete southern border of my riding, from Cardinal in the east to just past Gananoque to the west. It also includes the bulk of the Thousand Islands, a recreational paradise and tourism magnet.

This past summer and fall, we experienced the lowest water levels in memory, and the upcoming decision by the International Joint Commission, expected later this month, is critically important to the environmental and economic well-being of this treasured waterway.

This week I wrote to the Right Honourable Herb Gray, Canadian co-chair of the International Joint Commission. I joined with New York State Congressman John McHugh in calling on the commission to select Plan B+, a plan that strives to return the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence system to a more natural regime and begin to reverse the ecosystem damage that has occurred over the past 50 years. The binational Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study Board recommended Plan B+ following a five-year study and a scientific review. I strongly urge its selection.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Mr. Kim Craitor: This is Black History Month. Many people in this province are not aware of the role the Niagara black community played in the great civil rights movement in North America in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, the founding meeting of the NAACP was held in Fort Erie in 1905, and its leadership was derived from the Niagara Movement.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the House and the people of Ontario an exceptional woman of accomplishment who is helping us understand the importance of the black community's legacy to our area. I speak of Wilma Morrison, who last month received the Ontario Lieutenant Governor's Ontario Heritage Award for her lifetime of work in educating the public on local African Canadian heritage and culture, genealogy, and Niagara's connection to the Underground Railroad that allowed American slaves the chance to escape and start a new life.

Wilma is extremely modest about the accolades that have been heaped upon her and often tells me, "I'm sort of riding on the coattails of so many people who have done so many wonderful things." Wilma says, "I always wanted to celebrate our ancestors because they went through unspeakable horrors to make sure that things were better for me." Wilma maintains, "It is my responsibility to remind our young people of the story."

In Niagara Falls, it is Wilma who has provided the coattails on which future generations will ride to ensure the story is told. And finally, Niagara, Ontario and this world are much better places thanks to Wilma Morrison.

ALLISTON HORNETS

Mr. Jim Wilson: I rise today to pay tribute to the Alliston Hornets of the Georgian Bay Mid-Ontario Hockey League, who on Sunday night, in front of a packed house at the New Tecumseth Recreation Centre, displayed incredible poise and skill, defeating their rivals, the Penetang Kings, 7-2 in the fifth game of a seven-game series to win the mid-Ontario championship. Winning the title at home capped off a season that saw the Hornets lose only three out of 42 games and marked the team's first league title in 24 years.

As a native of Alliston, I know the Hornets have a proud history in Simcoe county. Founded in 1971, the Hornets have launched the careers of NHLers such as Manny Legace, John Madden and the brothers Darrin and Darryl Shannon. Over the last four years, the Hornets have won 105 games while losing just 27—an amazing accomplishment, to say the least.

The championship means that the Hornets now go to compete for the Schmalz Cup against either the Walkerton Hawks or the Kincardine Bulldogs. Residents of Alliston and, in fact, everyone can catch the games live on 95.5 FM or at the home of the Hornets, the New Tecumseth Recreation Centre.

I want to congratulate manager Rick Bartlett, coach Darrin Shannon, his staff and all the players for their hard work and determination this season. On behalf of the residents of Alliston and area, I want to wish them all the best as they compete for the all-Ontario junior C championship.

UNION REPRESENTATION

Mr. Paul Miller: Yesterday was a historic day in Hamilton and, in fact, all of Ontario. The United Steelworkers worked with ArcelorMittal Dofasco management to develop a unique neutrality process that allows workers to be free from any interference from Dofasco management to consider whether they want the United Steelworkers to act on their behalf and to negotiate a collective agreement on their behalf. This is a very novel approach that should be offered to all workers in this province, where they can freely exercise their democratic right to determine if they want to belong to a union.

As a member of the United Steelworkers for 32 years, I'm extremely proud of the efforts of my brothers and sisters in developing this new process. In fact, I believe that this process should be the only way that certification is done in Ontario and in Canada. Ontario's current laws do not do the job.

I want to also congratulate Jürgen Schachler, president and CEO of ArcelorMittal Dofasco, for leading his management team to this historic agreement. He said that this "first of its kind in Canada" process is geared to allow for "clarity, transparency and democratic principles to guide the decision-making of our employees."

I know that I also speak on behalf of my Hamilton NDP colleague MPP Andrea Horwath in our congratulations to our United Steelworkers brothers and sisters and to ArcelorMittal Dofasco for showing leadership on both sides of the bargaining table.

JAMES BIRRELL

Mr. Jeff Leal: In November 2007, the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto named a cancer research lab in honour of eight-year-old James Birrell, a boy who lost his battle with neuroblastoma cancer in December 2001. The James family has raised over $2 million to fund neuroblastoma research at Sick Kids. The James Fund was established to provide dollars for the much-needed research. Neuroblastoma accounts for nearly 10% of all childhood cancers. The $2 million is funding 10 research projects, five full-time research salaries and 17 articles published in this field.

James shared a special relationship with Tom Hanks after his role in Apollo 13, a role James took great delight in watching and discussing with Mr. Hanks. In November 2003, Tom Hanks chose the James Birrell neuroblastoma research fund of Peterborough, Ontario, as his charity of choice; and at Disney's 75th birthday for Mickey Mouse, a six-foot-tall "space mouse" was dedicated to James by Michael Eisner, chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company.

If I had the time, I could go on about the accomplishments of this young man and his family in their quest to raise research funds to help children with cancer.

I will close with a quote from Dr. Kaplan, senior scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children: "James has effectively left his tiny footprint in the vast world of research in this country, and that is an immensely powerful legacy to leave."

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Today I would like to rise in the House to talk about numbers. However, I will not be talking in verse.

Interjections.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Another one will be coming.

A lot of numbers are thrown around in this House, and they can often be misleading. For instance, the Premier likes to say the number 450,000. That's how many jobs have been created under his watch, he claims. However, a closer look at the numbers within the numbers reveals other truths. Nearly half of these jobs were created in the public sector, and while there is no such thing as a bad job, a robust, flexible and growing economy demands significant investment in the private sector. In its first four years, this Liberal government has created only 160,000 private sector jobs.

Compare that with the 372,000 private sector jobs created in the first four years of the Harris government. These numbers reveal that, given a similar trajectory, the Premier and his cabinet have cost Ontario 200,000 private sector jobs.

The number 200,000 should also sound familiar. That's the number of manufacturing jobs lost since 2005. I find it hard to think that this is a coincidence. So in effect, the Premier has not made any gains in job creation at all; quite the opposite. While business and service stay at par, manufacturing has tanked.

All of these numbers illustrate the immediate need for economic action by this government. If they continue to do nothing, we will soon be looking at zeros across the board.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. Charles Sousa: As we head into the Easter holiday weekend, I know I am not the only one here in the House who is looking forward to spending time with my family. This weekend provides a welcome respite for many families before the snow melts and we head into the spring.

This government can say with pride and confidence that when we make policies or develop initiatives, the needs of families are our top priority. We have been making Ontario a better place for families. We continue to make our education system better, which means more of Ontario's children will flourish and succeed. We continue to make our health care system better so that our families can take heart in knowing that their loved ones are being well taken care of. We are making strides in our protection of the environment, ensuring that we leave our children with a cleaner and greener environment.

I think we can say that Ontario's first Family Day was a success. We saw and heard many stories from across Ontario of families having a great day out skating, going to the museum and simply just enjoying each other's company.

I wish all of my colleagues on both sides of the House and all Ontarians a safe and happy Easter weekend.

MEMBER'S FAMILY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: This Saturday marks the 60th anniversary of the day that my parents arrived at pier 21 in Halifax in 1948. Joe and Josie Thuss were married only days before they boarded the Kota Inten, which was a World War II troopship that had been pressed into further service as an immigrant transport between the Netherlands and Canada. Women and children at one end and men at the other, everyone slept in hammocks as 702 passengers spent two weeks on the choppy March seas of the Atlantic.

The newlyweds traveled by train from Halifax to Wheatley, where they started their new life in Canada as farm labourers. Their involvement in agriculture continued as they went on to become farmers in their own right and finally farm equipment dealers in the Parkhill area of Middlesex county.

They were among the many postwar immigrants who made the difficult decision to leave their families in Europe as they looked to Canada and Ontario as their opportunity to start a new life for themselves. All of them contributed to their new country through their hard work and family values as their way of supporting the community that had welcomed them.

My parents raised 10 children, of which I am the oldest, 41 grandchildren and 30 great-grandchildren. My dad passed away in 2001, but my mother still lives in Forest and in the heart of her children.

NOWRUZ

Mr. Reza Moridi: Today is Nowruz. Happy Nowruz.

Nowruz is a celebration of the spring equinox and usually occurs on March 21 or the previous or following day, depending on where it is observed. Nowruz is commonly perceived as the most Iranian of all celebrations. It has been celebrated by all the major cultures of ancient Mesopotamia such as the Sumerians, Babylonians and Elamites. Nowruz is widely celebrated in various central Asian countries such as Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and in part of Turkey, Pakistan, India, China, and in the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria. The Baha'i and Ismaili Shia Muslims, who trace their origin to Iran, also celebrate Nowruz.

Nowruz, with its uniquely Iranian characteristics, has been celebrated for at least 3,000 years and is deeply rooted in the traditions of the Zoroastrian belief system. Nowruz is also the natural rebirth of nature and, despite its Iranian characteristics, can be celebrated by all the people in the world. About 200,000 Ontarians from various ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds celebrate Nowruz every year.

Happy Nowruz.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Once again on behalf of all members, welcome to the Ontario Legislature today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

Mrs. Savoline moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 42,

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

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: The bill amends the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to extend the prohibition against smoking tobacco in any enclosed public space, any enclosed workplace or other places, such as schools, to include the prohibition against smoking any controlled substance, as set out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada), in that place or within 10 feet of that place.

The bill is intended to stop the smoking of marijuana for medicinal purposes in public places or within 10 feet of public places.

GREAT LAKES SHORELINE

RIGHT OF PASSAGE ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE DROIT

DE PASSAGE SUR LE LITTORAL

DES GRANDS LACS

Mr. Craitor moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 43,

An Act to create a right of passage along the shoreline of the Great Lakes / Projet de loi 43, Loi créant un droit de passage le long du littoral des Grands Lacs.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Mr. Kim Craitor: The Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act recognizes that it is time for the people of Ontario to reclaim their traditional rights of passage along the shores of the Great Lakes between the high-water mark and the existing shoreline, a right that exists in British common law, which still governs this country and province, a right I wish to emphasize through this legislation.

The bill does not attempt to write any new legislation or preclude any existing legal rights. The bill limits the right of passage along the shorelines of the Great Lakes to people on foot only. Adjacent landowners would still retain their right of access to the Great Lakes and their right to build docks and wharfs where permitted by law. It will preclude adjacent landowners from placing fences to bar the public's right of way.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL DAY

FOR THE ELIMINATION

OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Hon. Michael Chan: On the eve of International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I am honoured to stand in the House today to talk about racial discrimination.

Forty years ago tomorrow, 69 demonstrators were shot and killed in the Sharpeville massacre of South Africa during a non-violent protest against apartheid. Each year, the United Nations marks this anniversary by drawing special attention to the continued fight against all forms of racial discrimination.

In Ontario, we mark the day further with a renewed commitment to equality, opportunity and respect for all the people of our province and recognition that it is many cultures that make our province one of the best places in the world to live.

Ontario's diversity is renowned. Our people come from 200 countries and speak more than 130 languages. We welcome about 130,000 newcomers from around the globe every year. It is one of the great achievements of Ontario that so many individuals, in all their backgrounds, have come together and chosen to live in peace and harmony.

Our government is proud to foster this acceptance of each other. We do this in many ways. We have invested in Ontario's community builders program, to support community projects that share our rich heritage and diversity. We created the Newcomer Champion Awards as a means to recognize individuals who exemplify excellence or achievement in establishing welcoming communities, who foster understanding and sharing of our many cultures and traditions. Last year, we invested $1 million to mark the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in the British Empire.

Our government recognized this bicentenary as an opportunity to raise awareness of that little-known part of our history—the fact that slavery existed in Ontario—to recognize the struggle of African Canadians and to honour the spirit of those who fought for freedom, justice and equality.

Mr. Speaker, much as we are proud of our diversity, and rightly so, we also know that some people treat others with hatred and prejudice for no other reason than race or the colour of their skin. We know racism exists, but we must keep moving forward towards a fully just and equal society. We cannot, and must not, tolerate racism or discrimination anywhere in this province. We want to ensure that no Ontarian is victimized by racism. But keeping racism and discrimination from making our society toxic is the work of all of us.

On this day, I ask all Ontarians to stand up and speak out whenever they see discrimination, to challenge it whenever it occurs. It's up to us to do our part to ensure that the acceptance, fairness and respect