LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday 31 May 2005
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /
E DU TABAC

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I've actually been looking forward to rising this evening to speak to Bill 164, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. I know we'll be here until midnight this evening, so I am looking forward to kicking off the first hour.

A few short months ago, with this bill's introduction, I had an opportunity to address the issue. I remain opposed to this particular piece of legislation. In principle, we all support prevention. We all support funding for cessation programs with respect to smoking. We all recognize the ill-health effects of those who spend a lifetime smoking, and smoking in excess. I think what I do oppose is the approach that this government has taken. They labelled their approach "the war on tobacco," and it's an approach to smoke reduction, as found in the proposed legislation we're debating this evening.
It is an opportunity for all three parties to speak this evening, and I am particularly interested in hearing what the government members opposite have to say. As I indicated, we have until midnight. They have introduced this legislation. A number of amendments have been made. There has been a modicum of consultation, and I look forward to hearing the government members defend this particular piece of legislation.

Over a number of weeks, finance committee hearings were held on the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. This is a bill that, if passed, as we know, will prohibit smoking in all workplaces, work vehicles and public places such as bingo halls, bars, restaurants and certainly taverns and Legion halls. I sit as a member of the finance committee and sat through four days of hearings. I found them very interesting and really quite informative. When you begin to scratch the surface, when legislation is introduced, albeit at the bidding of certain interest groups, during the hearings you start to hear from not only the other side, but a number of sides. We certainly heard from business, from farmers, from those bingo halls and those restaurants. We heard from the taverns and the bars. We heard from members of the Royal Canadian Legion.

In Oshawa, the hearings were attended by the Grim Reaper. He had a mask. He carried a very large anti-tobacco sign. The Grim Reaper also greeted farmers as they filed into the Tillsonburg Special Event Centre, where the legislative hearings were held. Farmers were coming in to submit their bids on the quota buyout. Essentially that day, at least 150 farmers came in to submit their bids and to exit the industry forever, to no longer be tobacco farmers. It's regrettable that these farmers were met by the Grim Reaper with a sign in opposition, bad-mouthing the particular crop that they grow. I will say, to his credit, the Grim Reaper didn't leave his mask on for long. I know he left his mask on all day at the Oshawa hearings, but he wisely took his mask off, I feel, out of respect for those farmers who were filing into the room all day that we were conducting hearings, filing into the room adjacent to exit the industry.

1850
It was also symbolic that an organization called Tobacco Farmers in Crisis kicked off the first day of hearings in Toronto. I say "symbolic" because these same tobacco farmers really are the ultimate casualties in George Smitherman's and Premier McGuinty's war on tobacco. In their presentation, the group impressed upon the finance committee their concerns with respect to the import of offshore tobacco, something that will only continue to grow as our Canadian and Ontario farmers are pushed out. Our farmers are being replaced by farmers from India, China, Brazil, tropical countries where who knows what chemicals are sprayed on the leaf that they grow.

Tobacco Farmers in Crisis were represented by their speaker, Luc Martial, who told us, "What we're seeing in terms of an emerging threat to the health of Ontarians -- and this is why I believe it is important to raise this issue now -- is a tremendous shift in the use of foreign tobacco leaf in Canadian-style cigarettes." Mr. Martial went on to say, "In terms of how this relates to health, while we can and do have the authority to control Canadian tobacco growers, we have less authority to control foreign producers of tobacco products."

I had an opportunity, as we all do in committee, to question Mr. Martial as to whether or not there is any testing for agri-chemical residue with respect to herbicides, insecticides, fungicides on tobacco that is grown in tropical countries. Again, my assumption is that there would be a different recipe of chemical sprayed, blown or actually administered to that particular crop in a tobacco country as opposed to a Canadian crop where we know a number of these organisms are killed off over the winter.

Sadly, we all know the answer. The fact is that, as our growers are pushed out, the cadre of smokers who will always remain will be inhaling offshore or other unregulated product. That doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense certainly from a health perspective. Does government have any idea what kind of tobacco people, including young people, are buying from the trunk of a car or perhaps from their local native reserve? Six Nations and New Credit in my riding have seen the growth just in recent months of 279 new smoke shops. These have sprung up to seize the economic opportunity over the past two years of a change in tobacco policy that has given up any modicum of control.

I see in local media reports that -- the figures are in -- we've lost something like 150 tobacco farmers, again casualties of the war on tobacco. In my view, extended war reparations are in order, and I feel the extended allocation of assistance to tobacco farmers should be tied to the passing of this bill.

Things have gone from bad to worse down in tobacco country, in Norfolk, Elgin, Middlesex, Oxford and Brant county. The $35 million that has been allocated to farmers -- part of the $50-million promise of about two years ago on behalf of this government -- clearly, given the accelerated decline and downturn in the agricultural economy locally, is not going to be enough to help out to the extent one might think.

While we're on the subject of what this government should be doing for people whose livelihoods are being sacrificed in the name of a smoke-free Ontario, I'm calling for what our government described a number of years ago as a rural jump team to set up shop in tobacco country -- storefront, if you will. The town of Delhi might be a good location. There are lots of empty storefronts in Delhi. They could be there to help, advise and provide support not only for farmers but for rural people and people in towns like Delhi, Langton and Tillsonburg. Some of the effects are beginning to accrue in the neighbouring town of Simcoe. Even though towns like Simcoe, Ohsweken and Caledonia are tobacco towns, much of their manufacturing is more and more relying on foreign tobacco.

In a town like Delhi, where they've lost all three car dealerships, you cannot buy a new car now. That was a town that in my lifetime to date has always been a very prosperous agriculture-based community.

We attended hearings in Tillsonburg. Norfolk Councillor Roger Geysens testified. He indicated, "We have already lost a number of businesses and the jobs they provided." He made mention of the "Delhi Foundry, manufacturer and seller of specialized tobacco equipment, closed; Harley Smith, tobacco equipment supplier, closed; Jacob's Greenhouses, closed; Delhi Dodge, closed;" Blue Star "Ford, Delhi, closed; Norfolk Co-op" -- my grandfather was a founding member back in the early 1800s. The Norfolk Co-op is a crop input supplier. I used to work in the fertilizer warehouse. Much of our business was with tobacco farmers. The co-op is now restructuring under bankruptcy protection. These are just a few of the businesses that have been either closed or on the way to bankruptcy.
I sincerely feel that it is time for this government to stop ignoring the consequences of its own actions and do the right thing. At minimum, come forward and help communities and help these families rebuild. Again, it's in this context that I urge this government to send a rural jump team down to tobacco country before the economic base, let alone the social base, is eroded completely.

There is no question, again, that in tobacco counties -- Middlesex, Brant, Oxford, Elgin, Norfolk -- people are scrambling. I see a rural jump team, a cadre of ministry staff -- primarily Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Economic Development staff. They are needed for support, at a minimum to be there to have some visibility and to provide some answers. That's one way.

I say "one way" because this is only a part of the role that I feel government is obligated to fulfill as the smoke-free boulder rolls over our rural communities. In addition, I echo the call of others who testified at the committee hearings. There was a call for what is being termed an agriculture innovation centre. I am trying to present some positives in what has become an all-encompassing and albeit a very negative situation in the counties down in the rural south. I ask this government to consider a proposal -- I understand that it is sitting on the desk of our Minister of Agriculture -- for an agriculture innovation centre to help farmers look to other communities and other sectors for future alternatives: alternative crops to tobacco; alternative economic activity to tobacco. As I understand, that has gone forward to the Minister of Agriculture. I would hope we could see some action on an ag centre because there is very little agricultural future, at the present time, in tobacco country without tobacco.
I want to make mention -- and I'll change gears a bit -- with respect to testimony we all heard from representatives of corner stores across Ontario and the impact this legislation has on convenience stores, both financially and from a safety perspective.

Again, I'm also thinking of the Korean community, for example, and the impact it would have on their social life, essentially their cultural and family life. These are truly family-operated businesses.

1900
Corner store employees have long been partners in ensuring tobacco is not sold to minors. The employees have been vigilant when it comes to not selling smokes to underage customers. Now we have legislation that in effect punishes them, when we know that young smokers have found, and will continue to find, alternative ways of buying smokes: again, out of the trunk of a car. The guy selling cigarettes out of the trunk of a car or the back of a van never asks for ID, unlike the corner store operators.

I'll mention again the fact that in my riding alone, in the last year and a half or so, I have seen the creation of 279 smoke shops. They have opened up both on Six Nations and on New Credit, and I can assure you business is booming. Why wouldn't it be? People can buy legal cigarettes at $60 a carton, or come on over to native land and you can pay $25 or $30 a carton for tobacco, with no guarantee where that tobacco came from or what's been sprayed on it. For some reason, the government seems to be happy to ignore this reality that's right under their nose. Smokers will find tobacco where they have to, a smoke-free Ontario or not. If that means the use of illegal tobacco, contraband tobacco or other unregulated tobacco, so be it. People vote with their feet; this is the marketplace.

So what we are seeing as a result of government legislation and regulation, and primarily at this point taxation, because this bill hasn't kicked in yet, is smokers forced to use a more dangerous product. At the same time, my tobacco farmers are being forced out of their livelihood, a livelihood based on a very highly regulated industry.

Back to convenience stores. Approximately 25% of convenience stores have experienced robbery in the past year. That's a 50% increase over the previous year. The corner store operators attribute these statistics to the Ontario Liberal government's decision to jack up tobacco taxes three times since coming to power. Across Ontario, governments take in well over $8 billion a year in tax revenue. It is felt very clearly that Bill 164 will add to this critical situation. Perhaps it's time for both the provincial and federal governments to allocate some of that $8 billion in treasury taxation revenue to provide additional protection for these corner stores. Let's provide some protection for the employees and operators of these corner stores that are being robbed. Each year, one in four is being robbed. Why would they rob a corner store? In the majority of the cases, it's for cigarettes.

Bingo halls: As I said before, this is certainly not just about farmers. Over the past several months, we on the committee and those of us involved in consulting on this legislation have worked closely with a number of groups, including representatives from charity bingo. Ontario bingo halls employ 4,200 people. Ontario bingo halls support 4,000 charities, and they generate $100 million for local charities. Municipal smoking bylaws have already closed many of Ontario's bingo halls. In Niagara Falls, for example, one bingo hall remains. There was testimony from this bingo hall in which it was indicated that if Bill 164 closes the doors of the last bingo hall in Niagara Falls, you will see 91 charities without a source of funding. Again the question is, who will provide funding for people who rely on these 91 charities?

The hospitality industry: We certainly received a great deal of feedback from the restaurants, taverns and bars, much of it around the fact that designated smoking rooms were constructed in good faith, and then the carpet was yanked out from underneath them. I will continue to press for extended compensation, as I have been for tobacco growers. I feel there should be compensation for additional police protection of the corner stores, and I'll press for extended compensation for the hospitality industry. Many in the industry have spent somewhere between $15,000 and $300,000 to establish a separate ventilated designated smoking area, and they've lost that investment if this bill goes through. Premier McGuinty could avoid paying the hospitality industry anything if he'd take a look at a model that was developed in British Columbia, whereby restaurants, bars and pubs have been given the option to maintain a separate ventilated smoking room.

I think you can see that if this bill is passed this evening or tomorrow, it will impact and has already impacted a wide range of groups, not only farmers, not only bingo halls, not only the corner stores or the restaurants and bars. It will impact Royal Canadian Legions, for example.

We hear today of the $50-million announcement for tobacco prevention and cessation programs, something promised by this government at least two years ago. I hope we don't have to wait another two years for additional money to better enable our professionals in the health units, for example, to encourage young people to either not take up smoking or to cease smoking. But again, is there money slotted for surveillance? Is there money slotted for the hospitality sector? I certainly saw today not a penny for convenience stores, not one red cent for those charities who will be hit hard by the loss of their bingo hall supporters. Of course, as with the budget, there's no additional mention of remuneration for our tobacco farmers.
It's a very long list of stakeholders who have a very keen interest in this legislation. They await the implementation of this bill one year from now, if it's passed. The corner store people were blindsided a bit by losing the right to have their back-wall displays. They're somewhat puzzled that this back-wall display will not be administered until after the next election, in 2008. Clearly, this government has made that an election issue.

In addition to the good people who testified over the months and provided us with so much information, in my research I have certainly been drawing on some work from my assistant, Rob, and also my executive assistant, Bobbi-Ann. Bobbi-Ann just had a baby this morning, baby boy Carter, soon to be joining big sister Addison, and they'll soon be visiting dad's and grandfather's tobacco farm up in Oxford county.

I was disturbed by the process involved in the hearings. Over the course of those hearings, 225 associations and individuals applied to testify. Only 88 people were given the right to speak; 137 were turned away. Many of these people attended the hearings anyway, and I certainly heard from them the fact that they were truly disappointed with the lack of consultation with respect to the anti-tobacco bill.

There were Liberal MPPs who were disappointed as well, and I can quote MPP Dwight Duncan in the Windsor Star. "`It's quite unusual', he said of his and [MPP Sandra] Pupatello's request that the committee, headed by Chatham-Kent Essex MPP Pat Hoy," who is at least one Liberal here this evening, "hear from an additional delegation." But they made the request anyway, because even they, MPPs Duncan and Pupatello, realized that the public must be given a chance to have its say. I will report, there was no additional delegation.

1910
This Smoke-Free Ontario Act, if passed as is, will impact many people, it will impact many businesses, and I question why this government wouldn't want to hear from all of those who know first-hand what Bill 164 will do for them, will do to them. For example, on the fourth day of hearings in Tillsonburg, many delegates who had been turned away showed up anyway, and a number of them did attempt to speak, much to the disconcertion of the Chair. To that end, on that fourth day of hearings I did table a motion to the finance committee, and I'll just quote in part:
"Whereas the House leaders negotiated four days of hearings on the Smoke-Free Ontario Act but 225 people and/or organizations applied to testify; and

"Whereas 137 people and associations have not had an opportunity to testify, for example, Avondale Stores Ltd. The Ontario Minister of Health ... Imperial Tobacco. The medical officer of health ... Dr. Basrur, has not had an opportunity. Taps Tavern, Toronto councillor Frances Nunziata; the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health" -- did not get an opportunity to testify about the smoke-free Ontario legislation that was resting with the finance committee.

Again, I made the motion that the Ontario government continue to consult with the remaining 137 applicants, both for and against this piece of legislation. My motion was defeated by the Liberals.

Now, while this government may not want to hear what these people have to say, I'm pleased to report that they really aren't muzzled altogether. In fact, public hearings are slated for June 13 in Windsor -- again, no matter what this government decides to do with the bill today. So to some extent, at least in Windsor in a few days, people will have another opportunity to have a say.

If you would allow me, Speaker, to take a few more minutes -- and I know I have until midnight. You know, we won't be able to hear a lot of that testimony, but I would like to take a closer look at what some of the groups were telling us in committee.

In Tillsonburg, one of our speakers was a Norfolk county councillor, Roger Geysens. Mr. Geysens is a tobacco farmer -- a former tobacco farmer, I should say. I feel that it would be important -- I'll quote in part from some of his testimony. The Norfolk sand plain hosts rural communities with a diverse agricultural base. "Many of our commodity groups find themselves in difficulty, and Norfolk county has lobbied government for assistance for all our commodities. I'm here today to talk to you about tobacco. The tobacco industry has been the mainstay of Norfolk for 50-plus years. It provides employment income to a large share of families in this community, and the ripple effect is seen throughout all of Norfolk."

I will mention that the Norfolk sand plain extends not only across Norfolk, but into Middlesex, certainly Elgin county, Brant county and Oxford county.
Mr. Geysens went on to say on behalf of county council: "The tobacco industry faces many uncertainties. The federal and provincial governments and Norfolk county have all acknowledged that the tobacco industry is declining and that Norfolk will suffer social and economic losses, especially with close to 60% of the tobacco produced in Ontario grown in Norfolk.
"There are a number of factors driving this decline," he explained to the finance committee: government policies being one; high taxes, of course; illegal cigarettes, as I've mentioned earlier; tobacco imports; and, of course, the lower consumption of tobacco, certainly the lower legal consumption of tobacco, albeit I think we all recognize that the illegal consumption of tobacco is increasing -- something that really flies in the face of the spirit or the principle of this legislation before us this evening.

Mr. Geysens presented some figures: "Between 1990 and 1992, an average of 81 million pounds of tobacco were marketed annually from Norfolk, generating $159 million of farm income and employing 3,965 full-time equivalent employees, and that does not take into consideration the value added" to the crop. I think of Simcoe Leaf in the town of Simcoe. I think of the millions of cigarettes that are being manufactured now at Six Nations. I think of the Podium brand that is now being manufactured in Caledonia, in Haldimand county. In 2003, this "dropped to 56 million pounds marketed from Norfolk, generating $126 million of farm income and employing" now down to "2,523 people." If you compound the difference between the $126 million and the previous $159 million, that's a loss of $200 million depreciated over 10 years, and that's a loss of 1,450 jobs.
People and businesses will be affected in all economic sectors. In Norfolk, the greatest effect is, of course, being felt by the farmers, as both their equity is eroded and their profitability wanes dramatically. But, you know, within rural communities especially, the social effects may have as important an impact as the economic effect. Communities will change, obviously. People's lives will be affected somewhat dramatically and will be altered permanently.

We've already lost a number of businesses and the jobs they provided, and I think this bears repeating. Delhi Foundry was a major employer, a major manufacturer, a seller of specialized tobacco equipment. It's closed. Harley Smith, tobacco equipment suppliers: closed. I mentioned that Jacob's Greenhouses, Delhi Dodge and Blue Star Ford have all closed. Our own Norfolk Co-operative -- the Norfolk Co-op has been there since I think 1918 -- is now restructuring under bankruptcy protection. These are just a few. There are so many empty retail stores in our downtowns, in particular in the town of Delhi, and those that remain were so dependent on a tobacco-based economy that they're barely surviving.

There's been considerable discussion, over the years, of alternatives to tobacco and alternative crops and ways of trying to enable growers to transition to other economic activity. Norfolk county alone was 30,000 acres dedicated to tobacco production. Again, it's not so much a problem of finding something to grow -- you can grow just about anything down there except citrus, bananas and other tropical crops -- it's a problem of trying to find something to grow that's not only profitable but sustainable, something that would provide a decent income for our families that will not collapse basically the ag economy, other commodities that grow on the Norfolk sand plain.

We can grow just about anything. The problem is, how do you market it and whom do you sell it to? That's the question, and that is a question that, in my view, does require the expertise of our Ministry of Agriculture and Food and some of our experts with respect to rural economic development.
If you look at the past, two diversification programs have been implemented for tobacco growers. One was called the alternate enterprise initiative program, which ran from 1987 to 1992. A second one was called the tobacco diversification program, and that one ran from 1994 to 1999. Few of the projects that were funded under either one of those programs stood the test of time. If we define a successful outcome according to whether a project resulted in a sustainable enterprise, then essentially these earlier programs were unsuccessful. Both of them really didn't make it.

1920
Based on these kinds of results, it would seem that there are few alternatives to replace tobacco. We have to bear in mind that any transition will take decades. Indeed, there were once some 3,000 or 4,000 and, at one point, up to 4,500 farm families growing flue-cured tobacco, again, in Brant, Oxford, Elgin, Norfolk and Middlesex. Thousands of families over those years have been put out of work and forced to close down and start over again. Now we have another 1,000 families who are threatened and forced to go right back to square one, in part as a result of the impact of this particular legislation and this government's -- and I quote the health minister -- "war on tobacco." What are these people going to do?
Again, a Norfolk county councillor went on to tell us, "You can grow anything in Norfolk county. Tobacco farmers have, over the years, built up the area to where you can produce almost anything." As he pointed out, "30,000 acres has an impact on everybody else if it's one particular commodity."

In 1988, asparagus, peanuts and tomatoes were all touted as the answer during the decline at that time in tobacco production. The asparagus industry just about collapsed, again, because of the increased acreage. We've certainly seen the very significant decline in ginseng prices. Again, this is where we need some help. This is where we need some market research.

This was a theme that was picked up by Harold Schooley. He testified before the finance committee. He's research chair with the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association. He made a case, and really gave us, and I would certainly say he gave this government, something to think about as far as future direction for the tens of thousands of acres in southern Ontario. Mr. Schooley told us that the overall economy of Ontario, especially in the counties that I've mentioned -- Norfolk, Brant, Oxford, Elgin -- is significantly impacted by tobacco. This was once a vibrant industry. He made reference to the 4,500 growers managing, at that time, 210,000 acres of land. They were producing over 100,000 acres of tobacco. Now we're down well below 1,000 or perhaps 750 growers growing 30,000 to 35,000 acres of tobacco on 70,000 acres of land that they own. The remaining land would be woodland or crop rotation; rye, for example. A further decline, obviously, is anticipated.

I would point out that, as Mr. Schooley was testifying, you could see tobacco farmers come into the back of the hall and walk into the adjoining room. The reason they were coming in was not to hear the finance committee hearings; they were coming in to submit their bids to exit the industry and to end two, three or four generations of tobacco farming.
Mr. Schooley went on to say that the present acreage generates over $150 million just to the local economy, which obviously, would have a very significant impact if lost. But the decline to this level has caused not only untold hardship for their producers but also for local businesses and the local communities like Delhi, which I described earlier.

As tobacco acreage declined, government programs were set up in an attempt to enable an orderly transition into other crops. This did not work out very well. This is not easy. It's not easy to take a small tobacco farm with a crop solely oriented to Norfolk sand that's based on irrigation technology. It's very difficult. Tobacco farmers are not large. You can't replace it with corn and soybeans, for example. That's not viable. Part of my income comes from soybeans. I'm involved in a partnership. You need about 1,000 acres to put together soybeans. You can't grow soybeans on 50 acres, make a living and put your kids through school.

They need some kind of economic activity, ideally a crop to replace an income of about $1,000 an acre to remain viable. If not, they lose their farm. When a farmer loses their farm, they lose their house. The family is gone. You've got to move into town and maybe live in an apartment. However, because the acreage is so small, much of the alternative would be horticultural crops, but the acreage of these crops is very small as well. The people who are already growing the existing horticultural crops already have their customers. They're already filling that consumer demand.

A move by tobacco growers into these other horticultural crops would obviously create a supply imbalance, not only in my area but elsewhere across Ontario. It would create hardship for the existing horticultural producers and also for the new people coming in. There are examples of this happening already. I know that the last two falls I've certainly noticed in our area farmers disking down pumpkins that they had no market for, no ability to sell.

However, there can be a future for the horticultural industry to expand in our area and for tobacco farmers to be part of that. The tobacco belt -- Mr. Schooley made this clear as well -- has the potential to be the largest, the most diverse and the most innovative fruit and vegetable growing area in Canada. Tobacco farmers can take credit for building up the land. This weekend, I attended an opening ceremony for an interpretive centre at the St. Williams Forestry Station. The Norfolk sand plain was logged over in the mid-1800s. By the early 1900s, it was blow sand. People were forced off the land at that time. Since 1908, based under the St. Williams tree farm we have seen close to 100 years now of reforestation on the Norfolk sand plain, and part of that in more recent years, certainly from the 1920s, involved tobacco growers and what they did to bring that land back to production.

So we have an excellent land base. We have the kind of soil that is ideally suited to tobacco, but much of it is also suited to ginseng, asparagus, tomatoes and other crops. These soils are very productive. We're blessed as well with a climate that allows for the production of a very large variety of fruits, vegetables and herbs. Where else in Canada can you grow sweet potatoes and peanuts alongside tobacco? These are all southern crops. They do very well in our area.

The farms have access to abundant water for irrigation. They have the irrigation equipment, the greenhouses, the bunkhouses, the storage barns and the kilns for drying. The infrastructure is there. The local businesses are there to not only sell the equipment, especially the specialized equipment that's required for things like potatoes, ginseng and asparagus, but also the infrastructure is there to service that kind of equipment. They have the bunkhouses to house labour. I have worked in tobacco and have stayed in these bunkhouses. Farmers down there have the experience in managing the large labour crews that are required for tobacco, the same kind of labour crews that are required for most specialty and horticultural crops.

1930
In my opinion, there is an opportunity to enhance irrigation-based agriculture on the Norfolk sand plain. In trying to get away from some of the negative impacts of this legislation that will put farmers out of business, I ask this government to consider an idea to pipe raw water from Lake Erie to be used not only for irrigation-based agriculture but also, once it's properly treated, to serve municipal needs. Towns like Tillsonburg, Simcoe, Delhi, Cortland and Waterford are all on wells. There may be a business case to be made to pipe water to these communities, water that is available initially for ag irrigation and then, once treated, for municipal use. In fact, I would like to see this government explore the feasibility of Lake Erie water continuing to be piped north to serve communities like Brantford and Kitchener-Waterloo, which draw very heavily on the Grand River.

If I can go back to Mr. Schooley's testimony:
"We have the ability to grow right here," -- in Norfolk county -- "using Canadian rules and regulations around ... food safety, worker welfare, pest control products" -- I made mention of the insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and rodenticides, for that matter, that really have become a factor in modern-day commercial agriculture -- "and environmental stewardship, produce that could replace imports from countries where we have no such control" -- over what's sprayed on those products. "Furthermore, export opportunities abound, as we are a day's drive from half the population of North America" -- and an hour and a half to Toronto, and can readily access, within a day, markets in both Chicago and New York City.

"Premier Dalton McGuinty has spoken about the 800-pound gorilla on his back called health care costs. What is now called diabesity is the fastest-growing health concerns for Canadians," and, I would assume, for this government. "Increasing the consumption of fruits and vegetables" -- there is a link with alleviating such problems as obesity, cancer and heart disease. "Health-conscious eating has come into vogue, but it needs to become the norm. You have all heard the catchphrase, `You are what you eat.'" There is a case to be made to have government involvement and incentives for Canadian horticulture and accrue those beneficial impacts to the health of Ontarians. Another factor to consider is if this government could see its way clear to helping with the transition out of tobacco farming.
"Our ethnically diverse, more health-conscious population has created opportunities for horticultural crop producers. The market for value-added and niche-market horticultural products is growing. This is expanding the demand for ... fresh and processed horticultural crops, for specialty crops like herbs and essential oils and for non-traditional crops," which are consumed by various ethnic communities in our larger urban areas.

Going back to ginseng, already the Norfolk sand that is used to grow tobacco is also the world's largest production centre of ginseng, right here on tobacco sand. But there's a lack of processing and a lack of packaging. Technology is really growing by leaps and bounds in the horticultural industry. For example, I shared some freshly packaged apple slices the other day in the Legislature, actually, with the member from Halton, my seatmate Mr. Chudleigh. These apples by and large are empire apples grown in Norfolk county. They're sliced in Burlington. They're distributed through McDonald's. Again, there are alternatives for this land down there that this government is presently putting out of business. I think that was Mr. Schooley's main point. The government is putting one aspect of farming out of business down there, and it's felt locally that it is incumbent on this government to invest in research and innovation to try to bring along some alternatives.

The county of Norfolk has commissioned a report. It's entitled, Norfolk at the Crossroads: Directions for a Prosperous Future in Norfolk County. This was prepared by TACT, the Team Advising on the Crisis in Tobacco. One of the recommendations: "An agri-food innovation centre to be established in Norfolk will greatly enhance the capacity of local industry to capture new and expanded markets for horticultural products. It will also provide opportunities to add value to farm products, thereby increasing local jobs and profits. The University of Guelph will play a leadership role to coordinate research efforts and transfer knowledge to producers, processors and others in the value chain."

I've certainly had a number of discussions with farmers and with researchers locally, and I think there is a lot of merit in this idea of an agri-food innovation centre, a centre to bring into one location the research capability, the development, the information transfer, the technology development, whether it's for new crops, for value-added technology, really to pull together a cluster to create a synergy.

The University of Guelph presently operates what locally we call the hort station. It's on the Blueline. It's a horticultural research station just outside of Simcoe. Very significant research has been done already with respect to strawberries; of course, we export strawberry plants from our area. Research has been done with respect to raspberries, sweet potatoes, cabbages and cucumbers. I think the time is right for an ag innovation centre, potentially to rejuvenate and to invigorate this area. It's on its knees right now, actually, as a result of this particular piece of legislation.

As I discuss the impact of this legislation on tobacco-growing communities, I would be remiss if I didn't make reference to input to this government from the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board in the person of their chairman, Fred Neukamm. In testimony before the finance committee, Mr. Neukamm indicated that these policies, although intended to have one effect, are in fact causing unintended consequences which compromise the government's objectives. For example, high tobacco tax levels result in high demand for cheaper contraband and counterfeit products. Criminals make these cigarettes readily available to both adults and young people; they do not check for ID.

According to government policies, high taxes supposedly restrict youth access to tobacco products. In fact, high taxes can and are driving cigarettes into the hands of young people through illegal channels. As well, the government is losing tax dollars every day. There are no taxes paid on black-market sales. According to your own finance department officials, tax evasion is a recognized problem and was one of the factors taken into consideration at the time of the latest tax increase of $1.25 per carton, rather than the $2.50 increase that your government had been instituting before January of this year.

1940
Current tax levels are also creating an upsurge in the value-for-money cigarette market. Consumers are demanding cheaper products. In contrast, Minister Smitherman has stated that it's one of his goals to increase the cost of cigarettes. The question is, what effect does cheaper imported tobacco have on this government's policy? The answer: It allows cigarette manufacturers to keep prices down while maintaining profits. Cheaper imported tobacco means cheaper cigarettes. That is a fact, and it's compromising this government's own health goals. Obviously illegal, back-of-the-trunk tobacco at $25 or $30 a carton, where you don't pay taxes in a native community, compared to the regular price of $60, is quite a bargain.

The price is down; the demand is up, especially among young people and that cadre of people who can ill afford high-priced cigarettes. It's simple economics.

We've recently heard of new money for smoking cessation programs, but the reality is that more must be done to curb the underground market, because the harder you make it to get legal cigarettes, the harder people will try to sniff out the cheaper, unregulated, counterfeit, contraband product. By allowing this criminal activity to continue, price-driven, you're essentially placing the health of these smokers at even more risk. Again, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Your policies have to take into consideration the real marketplace out there with respect to tobacco. I remind the members opposite that the government's tax hikes have seen the price of a carton rise by $6.25 since November 2003. I've indicated that the number of smoke shops in my riding has risen exponentially. Again, why wouldn't people go there to pay $25 or $30 a carton? Why pay $60 a carton? For that reason, we now have close to 300 smoke shops that have sprung up on both Six Nations and New Credit, just south of Brantford.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): How many?

Mr. Barrett: Close to 300, John.
We heard a lot of input and testimony from the corner stores in Ontario. I regret to inform you that while the Ontario Convenience Stores Association and the Ontario Korean Business Association took the time and effort to hold a media conference right here at Queen's Park, not one government member was present to hear what they had to say. By the same token, I am beginning to question whether any of the government Liberal members opposite will have the fortitude to rise in the House tonight to make a presentation to defend their own bill. However, we do have until midnight. We'll see if anybody is going to speak up on their own piece of legislation, other than perhaps a token two minutes.

At any rate, for those of you present on the government benches who were not in attendance, I can tell you that Howard McIntyre, president of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, did have some grave concerns about the direction of Bill 164. His association represents over 7,000 convenience stores within Ontario. They employ over 50,000 Ontarians just at the store level. As a whole, the industry generates over $6 billion in economic activity every year. As well, the Ontario Korean Business Association serves another 2,400 stores. Every day in the corner stores across Ontario, 1.5 million people come in to purchase product.

The request at that news conference was to not amend the bill to allow a complete ban on back-wall retail displays. What did this government do? It amended the bill to allow a complete ban, albeit a ban that would not come into effect until the year 2008. What the McGuinty government has just done is created an election issue for 2007.

A couple of years' difference will really do nothing to mitigate the concerns of the convenience stores. They have the safety and the security issues that I mentioned before. The Korean businessmen have indicated to us that 30% of their stores will go bankrupt because of this legislation.
I am wrapping up. I regret that I have not --

Interjection: You're running out of time.
Mr. Barrett: I know we have until midnight. I would like to speak further. I would like to address the issue of Royal Canadian Legions and veteran halls that have been done in. I would like to address the issue of those charities that will lose their source of income from bingo halls.

Am I being cut off, Speaker?
Mr. Baird: On a point of order, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: I regret to say that your time is up, but there's a point of order by the member for Nepean-Carleton.

Mr. Baird: On behalf of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, I would like to ask for unanimous consent that his voice not be silenced and that he be given an additional hour to speak.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that we give the member an additional hour? I don't think there is.

I'll move now to questions and comments.