Hansard Transcript 1994-Dec-08 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Since summer smog is a serious public health threat, particularly for the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who have asthma and other respiratory ailments, and

Since about half of the air pollution which forms smog is emitted by automobiles and trucks, and

Since Ontario has fallen behind more environmentally advanced jurisdictions in North America, which have instituted mandatory annual vehicle emission testing, and

Since in Ontario, we are spending several million dollars to test vehicle emission testing equipment which has already undergone more than a billion dollars of testing by the US Environmental Protection Agency;

Therefore, this Legislative Assembly supports the immediate implementation of a mandatory annual vehicle emission testing program to get polluting vehicles off the road and reduce summer smog.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It should probably come as no surprise that as an individual who has had the privilege and honour of being the Environment minister of Ontario for a period of over five years, the resolution that I would bring forward when I had the opportunity to do so would be one that would be connected with the environment.

The recession has been very hard on environmental advancement throughout the world, and certainly that is the case with Canada and Ontario as well. The period of 1985 to 1990 was one of probably unprecedented interest and coverage of environmental issues. What one finds is that when governments are subjected to additional scrutiny in one specific area such as the environment, it tends to cause governments to move more rapidly and comprehensively in dealing with problems in that area.

This government has had to deal with a very deep economic recession and many other governments have had to do the same. As a result, environmental initiatives have been put more on the back burner than the front burner. I don't say that in any partisan sense. That is something we're seeing in a number of jurisdictions, though not all jurisdictions.

It may seem odd that I would be bringing this resolution before the House in the midst of winter because, politically, the best time to bring this forward would be in June of the year, when the smog is at its worst and the newspeople, particularly television cameras, can go out and show photographs of the smog that's out there, particularly in larger metropolitan areas such as Toronto.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Is this something you forgot to do when you were minister?

Mr Bradley: You know, it's very unfortunate when you hear the interjections. You try to be relatively non-partisan in this House and you get interjections. I'm not being critical. I'm trying to present a resolution, and all you do is barrack critical partisan comments. That's why people I think get frustrated in this Legislative Assembly, because you do that. I could stand here and condemn the government --

The Acting Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Bradley: -- for doing nothing in the environment for five years. I haven't. I've apologized for the fact that we're in a deep economic recession, and I understand why the government has addressed other issues. How many people would do that in any Legislative Assembly? And you still barrack partisan comments from the sidelines. I guess the only thing to do is to be partisan. It really amounts to that. The member for Durham East would say that.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: One example that we have for us, which is now completing, is the example of the Countdown Acid Rain program, which was supported by all members of the House back in 1985. That was an example of being able to move forward with an environmental issue, an environmental problem, despite the fact that there was considerable opposition. Members will recall that it compelled the four major polluters -- Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma in Wawa and Hydro -- to reduce by two thirds their emissions by 1994, and overall there must be a 60% reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions across the province of Ontario.

What is interesting is that initially there was a lot of opposition to that. Some of the major polluters said that this was absolutely impossible, that there was not the technology or science to do it, and that besides, there was no money. I thought one of the most interesting press conferences I've ever watched was the one Inco had after a three-year reporting period which said, "Not only is it possible with our technology and with our science, but we're going to spend $500 million to do this and we will implement this program and, by the way, we will make a profit on one portion of it of 6% and on another portion the profit will indeed be some 17% or 19%." That's a clear demonstration that despite a tremendous opposition, we had three parties in the House that were supportive of the initiative and it worked very well.

There are a number of programs that are up and running now, some not moving as quickly as I would like to see as an environmentalist or perhaps as a person who knows about those programs. The municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program, MISA, and the clean air program would have been nice initiatives to see moving. I hope they will begin to move more rapidly than has been the case to this point in time.

I had great expectations for this particular party in power, because when I listened in opposition they made some very compelling cases, I thought, for environmental improvement. I read many of the resolutions that were passed at the party annual meeting and at provincial council. There were a lot of people very concerned and very committed, some of them elected to this House, to environmental improvement. I guess again as a result of the recession and the lack of movement, I've been disappointed in that area, not on a partisan basis, because I think many of the parties across the country, regardless of what they are, have had difficulty in moving forward.

British Columbia, which has an NDP government, has moved rather rapidly in this particular area. I commend Moe Sihota for the initiative that he took in this regard in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

1010

This is an area, I think, where their action is possible. Yes, it's an extensive program; yes, there is some cost to it, but it seems to me that it is a very practical program that can be implemented across the province. The Environment minister needs support in this regard because the Ministry of Transportation will say that it has more initiatives that it wants to deal with. They would rather build more roads and bridges and things of that nature. That is their primary purpose. So dragging the Ministry of Transportation along, kicking and screaming, is something every Environment minister has to do with initiatives of this kind. I think the Environment minister needs support from members of this House to be able to implement this kind of program.

I also know that there are many people in the environmental community who would like to see us virtually abolish the use of personal vehicles, and that is a Utopian dream that many have. I must add that for the auto workers in St Catharines, Niagara Falls, Windsor and other parts of the province, that is not a consideration they take as being very serious.

So we have to then address the problem of how do we deal with reality, the reality being that most people like to have a personal vehicle in a country or province such as ours which is so large, and how do we deal with the emissions from that particular vehicle? I think that's what this addresses today.

We can make vehicles more fuel-efficient, and there's been some good progress made throughout North America, better than Europe in this case, in fuel efficiency, and we can make them better vehicles in terms of the emissions they give off. The real problem exists with the older vehicles. The newer vehicles, particularly the brand-new vehicles, are much less of a problem in terms of pollution than the older vehicles. If we can get the clunkers off the road or at least fixed up, we will go a long way to solving an important problem out there.

We can reduce volatile organic compounds in summer months through regulations. I believe we can move even more rapidly than we have. The northeastern United States has an excellent program. I remember meeting with those people and seeing what they were implementing.

Members of the House will find perhaps amusing but not surprising the fact that there was one company, because you always get resistance from the oil companies on these things, that said: "We can't possibly produce the kind of fuel that you want in Canada from our factory. It can't be done." The same company, of course, was producing the fuel for the northeastern United States, because the regulation there stipulated the Reid vapour pressure, which deals with volatile organic compounds. So that is one area I think we can move rather rapidly in and it would help an awful lot.

There is a significant problem with vehicle emissions, as I mentioned, particularly from older cars and from trucks. There is a bad-air corridor in the summer from probably Windsor right through to Kingston, maybe even farther down there, that we all want to address; we want to see an improvement. Summer smog is a severe health threat, particularly for hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who have asthma and other ailments. I was talking to the member for Chatham-Kent in the House last night. He was mentioning that you're seeing more asthma these days, particularly with the younger people, and how it would be nice to be able to address that problem.

We have the opportunity to do that. A little later on in the debate I hope to expand upon how we can do that, how serious the problem is and how I believe members of this House can assist the Environment minister in persuading his colleagues in cabinet and in government to proceed with what I think is a very sensible program.

The Acting Speaker: Now each party will have 15 minutes to debate Mr Bradley's motion.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate the member for St Catharines. I guess today is Environment Day. This morning we have two resolutions before the House, both of which involve environmental matters. I congratulate him for bringing it forward.

I think the issue of smog is a principle that we're all concerned about in this province. As to this particular government that's before us -- and Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, may have some defence to deal with his position when he was Environment minister -- there's no question that this government hasn't really done a great deal with respect to smog and the problems of smog, particularly in the larger urban areas. It seems to have concentrated most of its time on dumps.

I look at the resolution and I look at the provisos and I agree certainly in principle with the provisos and I look forward to perhaps more explanation from the member for St Catharines as to the intent of his resolution. I quite frankly support in principle the resolution. I do have one major concern as to what the intent of the resolution is, and of course that's one of the problems with resolutions; that sometimes, as opposed to a bill, one isn't able to perhaps clarify what the resolution means.

I think it's unnecessary, for example, to test brand-new vehicles that come off the assembly line that have had strict requirements in the manufacture of those vehicles. I don't know whether mandatory testing should be done on new vehicles and I don't know when an appropriate time should be, whether one year, two years or three years. I've driven three-year or four-year-old cars and sometimes they get pretty bad with respect to problems. I have no idea. I would have to look at the experts with respect to that.

I do know, however, that with respect to this specific resolution and the way it is worded, I would have some concerns with the intent of it. It may not be that that's the member's intent, to require all vehicles, although that's what it says, but I cannot believe that he intends all vehicles including brand-new vehicles. If he does, I may have some problems with respect to supporting the resolution.

The current government, of course, Mr Wildman, the Minister of Environment and Energy, has a policy now. It's a pilot project which has been referred to in the past and was announced some time ago which says you have an option: You can go and have your vehicle tested -- which, quite frankly, we all get rather cynical about when we hear that. If I have a vehicle that's four or five years old and I've got problems with the emissions that are coming with my vehicle or I suspect that, do I really think that I'm voluntarily going to go and have my vehicle tested and run the possibility of great expense of having it repaired? I suppose if I'm a keen environmentalist I would do that, but I must say I get cynical at spending all of that money and effort.

If you're going to get into a project like that, I would support the principle of British Columbia, which essentially is what this resolution is doing, to support that type of philosophy, and it's really a meaningless type of position that this government has taken with respect to voluntary testing.

Michael Valpy wrote an article back in September which many of you may have read. I'm certain the member for St Catharines has read it. He starts off his article talking about what happened in England this past summer and that there were a large number of asthma sufferers as a result of the smog, particularly in the city of London. Mr Valpy says, "The end of another summer smog season -- and British Environment Secretary John Gummer, responding to public alarm over record numbers of asthma sufferers hauled off to London hospitals in June and July, announced a few days ago that he is considering rationing car use by London commuters." That shows you that the problem is like many things particularly this government has done: When a crisis develops, it takes a crisis to do something.

In that respect, I think the member for St Catharines is right: We have foreseen that each year we have more and more smog. At the top of the headline of each paper it tells you what the rating is of the smog in each particular city. So it is getting worse, and if we don't take action, certainly the smog that's being caused by automobiles is getting more and more serious.

1020

I support in principle the resolution. I look forward to hearing more from the member as to what he means by his resolution. Mr Valpy talked about a number of other things. I'd like to refer to his article, which essentially supports Mr Bradley's resolution: "Pollution Probe and the Canadian Lung Association, in a joint report released early in the summer, said Ontario is falling behind other provincial and US jurisdictions in the fight against summer smog. The report was blunt: Provincial government measures are ineffective." And there's no question they are. Each summer has gone by and we've had smog and air problems and the government seems to be doing nothing, and this problem --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'm telling you that the smog continues. The problems from emissions from automobiles continue. Mr Bradley, whether you want to criticize him as the former Environment minister -- I as a different member from his party would love to. He had an opportunity, and you're right, he didn't do that, but the fact of the matter is he's acknowledging the fact that this is continuing and if we don't do something in the very near future we are going to have a problem.

Mr Valpy says, "The Ontario government, for example, has failed to follow British Columbia's NDP in requiring annual emission testing, with cars being thrown off the road if they fail the test." I must say I don't know -- and perhaps the member for St Catharines does, who, I'm sure, has researched this area a little bit more than I have -- what British Columbia does with brand-new vehicles and perhaps he will be able to enlighten us.

There's another issue as well: the cost of all of this, how much smog is being caused out in the country. I suppose it's hard to distinguish in many cases certain vehicles, but I'm certain the rural people will have problems with respect to that. In general, I'm sure even they will support this type of resolution.

Mr Valpy continues: "It has not followed the lead of a number of US jurisdictions" -- referring to Ontario -- "in curtailing fuel evaporation at the pumps by means of special hose collars, or in requiring summer-grade gasoline to be composed of fewer highly volatile compounds which pollute the air.

"It has not followed the lead of the US Environmental Protection Agency in setting emission limits for such machinery as tractors, bulldozers, chainsaws and lawn mowers....It has not followed the lead of, say, California in establishing targets for vehicle manufacturers to market low- and zero-emission vehicles."

Mr Valpy continues; I won't spend any more time with that, but it's a good article.

The issue that's being raised by the member for St Catharines is just one of many things that this government could do and could have done with respect to dealing with smog. I can't let it go by -- the current government's policy is voluntary testing -- to make some comments with respect to the current government policy and why I think it's really of no use whatsoever.

I put a number of order paper questions to the minister on this topic and if I have time I'd like to refer to some of the answers that were given to show that the government's policy is really one of folly, and that you're either going to have a policy of the type of testing that's being suggested by the member for St Catharines or you're not going to have any at all. For example, in this particular case, I asked some questions with respect to costs, and it appears that "All costs being incurred in establishing the project are to be borne by the contractor with no guarantees that he will be awarded the contract at the end of the year's pilot period."

Cost is an interesting issue. Again, to be fair to the member, he could have pages and pages in his resolution, but I'd like to hear more about the issue of costing, about how that is going to be controlled. Will it be, as he's suggesting, for example, that the testing will be contracted out to individuals or will the government be obliged to construct buildings? In other words, I get worried about cost and bureaucracy and how he would propose it be administered.

It really is dubious what results can be achieved if the project is based on voluntary testing, which is what this government has. The only people who will voluntarily have their vehicles tested will be those people whose car or automobile or truck is in good condition. No one else is going to do that.

In fact, in one of the order paper questions that I put forward I asked, "Would the Minister of Transportation please provide any results of public opinion polls regarding the imposition of mandatory inspection fees and how such a program will be enforced?"

The answer was, "Results from a January 19, 1993, Environics study of a Metropoll show that 60% of the greater Toronto area residents were supportive of the idea of mandatory testing for vehicle emissions," and I believe that. It may have even increased. Anybody who lives in the city, if you don't have an air-conditioned car that you can close up your windows as you're driving along any of our main highways, you're going to have a difficult time. All of that is called smog. I am surprised actually that the poll isn't higher. This was done in 1993.

"When asked how much they would be willing to pay for inspections, the average amount mentioned was $44. With regards to enforcement of such a program, other jurisdictions enforce the program by making vehicle registration a condition on passing the emissions inspection." Then they say, "Of course there will be no fees charged during the pilot program and no enforcement required." That's meaningless rhetoric, quite frankly.

I'd be interested to know whether the member has any concept of costing, of fees. We've seen the corporation fee, the $50 fee that the public has to pay for corporations and other such fees. Fees seem to be going up and they're going to complain about that. We need to know more about what the member for St Catharines has with respect to that.

I asked the question, "Would the Minister of Transportation advise the House how it plans to monitor vehicle testing?" This is the pilot project of the current government. The answer was, "Emissions data will be collected for each vehicle tested and then analysed. A database containing all results will be developed and will provide a basis for monitoring the vehicle testing program."

I don't know whether any information is yet available from the government. It's been doing this for some time. I'm sceptical as to what the results are and whether it will really provide anything.

I think the experiment that the government had was a complete waste of money, complete waste of time, and that what it should've done is to look towards the type of issue that the member for St Catharines was suggesting.

I asked a question to the Minister of Transportation as to how the ministry, "due to the time needed to perform the emissions tests, intends to avoid traffic congestion on busy roads and will there not be an even greater problem if the ministry is anticipating that 30% of the cars will need to undergo secondary testing."

I think we better be prepared for that because there's quite a number of cars out there that are causing problems, and where are they going to be tested? Are we going to do it on our main highways? How is it going to take place?

The government gave, as usual, a vague answer. They said, "Since this is a pilot program capturing perhaps 1% of the local light duty vehicle population, we estimate 100 vehicles per day, which is not expected to cause local traffic problems."

I'd be really amazed if they even get 100 vehicles per day, voluntary, 100 people a day going to take their vehicles in for voluntary testing.

"Due to the voluntary nature of the pilot program the contractor may wish to arrange appointments to evenly distribute the testing load over the one-year period. Specific requirements have been made in the RFP asking respondents to address local traffic impact and thus responses will be evaluated with this in mind. The pilot program's intent is to help us learn how to handle volumes of people in a mandatory program."

I look forward to hearing more from the member for St Catharines as to what he intends with his plan.

1030

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): The member's resolution begins by saying that Ontario has a severe summer smog problem and that smog is a threat to health as well, and that's certainly true. He goes on to say that half of the smog is emitted by automobiles and trucks, and that's certainly true as well. But I know if there's any resistance in the Windsor area that I represent to mandatory testing, it would have to be because of the fact that most of that pollution comes from cars and trucks in the United States.

He also goes on to say that we've fallen behind more environmentally advanced jurisdictions in North America. If that's the case, then I think that period that he was talking about in his remarks, between 1985 and 1990 when he was the minister for the Liberal government during a time of high economic growth and when there was a lot of attention being paid to environmental matters, certainly something could have been done at that time so that we wouldn't have fallen behind. But it wasn't.

This government is doing something about it. On April 21 of this year, as part of our efforts to deal with the problem of smog, the ministries of Environment and Energy and Transportation announced the vehicle inspection and maintenance program to test emissions from cars. The member for St Catharines would like the people of Ontario to believe that somehow this is a flawed initiative. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.

He's playing cheap politics by saying that our program isn't good enough because it's not mandatory. The member's saying that because we're not forcing all motorists to submit to an operationally unproven technology, our program isn't good enough. This is nothing less than irresponsible politics, and the member should know better.

What this government is doing is a giant step ahead of the vehicle emissions program that the member for St Catharines introduced when he was the Minister of the Environment, which was nothing. If he had done this kind of pilot project, we might be in a position to move sooner to a province-wide program which all motorists in Ontario could take advantage of.

The vehicle emissions testing program that we have introduced and that will be under way in the spring should be one of the most advanced in North America. It will evaluate state-of-the-art technologies over a one-year period at no cost to vehicle owners, and we expect that some 25,000 vehicles, cars and trucks, will be inspected over the one-year life of this program. In addition to this, we've begun a heavy-duty vehicle emissions pilot project as well. That began in September.

The member for St Catharines is introducing this resolution today so that he can try to impress environmentalists and green organizations in the province of Ontario and somehow convince them that the Liberal Party is more serious about dealing with smog than the New Democrats.

Environmentalists and activists in green organizations in Ontario are well informed. They know about these issues and they know that we are doing more about smog and environmental issues than the Liberal government did when it was in power. They also know that if the Liberals had introduced the pilot project when they were in government, we'd be much further along than we are now.

Our government is serious about tackling vehicle emissions and that's why we're taking a responsible approach to make sure that the program we implement is one that's going to work. This resolution does nothing to advance the fight against smog, but our testing program certainly will.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to join in the debate this morning on this issue, and, let me say at the outset, in full support of the resolution put forward by the honourable member for St Catharines.

As a first comment, I am quite surprised by the remarks by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who has taken a resolution put forward in good faith, has heard some of the opening debate and has responded as if this is some political type of excursion, or incursion.

The fact of the matter is that a resolution of this kind is most important to be brought forward not in the summer months, to be very frank, when our minds are directed more visually to the issue of smog, but really in the winter, because that is the time when action can be taken so that we can be prepared for May, June, July, August and September. You don't start to take the action in those months, because by that time it's much too late. What you have to do is start to deal with the issue in the winter so that you are prepared for the summer.

I think we all recognize, notwithstanding the significant partisan comments of the member for Windsor-Walkerville, that the issue of smog, that the issue of respiratory disease, that the effects those have know no political bounds. They care little about what particular political party one has come to. They affect people, they affect children, they affect our elderly. They are very real and very significant, and action can and must be taken in this area.

As an aside, I certainly just discount the baseless political jargon coming from the member for Windsor-Walkerville on an issue which I believe will very much affect his constituents, the children in his riding, the elderly, those who have any athletic training, as it affects everyone throughout the province.

Now we are dealing with an issue referred to as smog. I have an article written June 22, 1994, by Suzanne Elston, who indicates: "Smog is composed mostly of ground level ozone. It is created" -- and I think it's important to talk about what actually this is -- "when nitrogen oxide" -- referred to as NO_x -- "emissions from cars and trucks and volatile organic compounds" -- referred to as VOCs -- "from solvents and gas fumes mix together and are exposed to sunlight." Basically it's a mixture of the emissions of cars with the gas solvents under sunlight, and that causes smog.

Obviously, "it is thickest and most offensive on hot, muggy summer days." That just underscores the reason why you have to deal with this issue in the winter, so that you can be prepared when those hot, muggy days appear.

She goes on to say: "Most vehicles are the greatest culprits of smog emissions. They emit roughly 40% of VOCs and 60% of NO_x." These, of course, are the ingredients mixed together under sunlight that create the smog.

The article goes on further to say:

"Ontario's recent record-breaking temperatures have been accompanied by unusually high levels of smog. While most of us are more concerned with the heat and humidity, smog can be a serious" -- and let me say this is not a political statement; this is written by someone who cares deeply about the issue -- "health threat for some. Even low levels can sting the eyes and burn the lungs, and can cause shortness of breath, coughing, wheezing, dizziness and fatigue."

Again in the Toronto Star from just last June, I have an article that says, "Metro Smog Linked to Rise in Hospital Admissions." I say this for no political purpose, no partisan purpose, but rather to underscore the resolution put forward by the honourable member for St Catharines that this is a very real issue, that it is a very real problem, and that the effects and impact of not dealing with it result in a rise in hospital admissions. The article by Caroline Mallan of the Toronto Star reads: "Metro's smoggiest summer days result in a major jump in the number of people arriving at hospitals with breathing problems, international studies show."

"Dr Alfred Munzer of the Lung Association produced three studies of air pollution in southern Ontario, showing admissions to hospitals for respiratory problems jump anywhere from 24% to 50% when smog reaches levels considered acceptable in the United States."

What we've got here is a very real issue which causes some very real problems to a variety of people in this province, and there are ways in which it can be addressed. Vehicle emission testing, as was indicated in the article, can have an effect on this issue which will result in fewer hospital admissions. We know that this has a direct impact on our seniors. We know that it has a direct impact on those with any respiratory problems. It has an impact on any people who work out, who exercise. Smog will affect their health.

1040

It is very important to note that the organization known to all of us in this place and to so many outside as Pollution Probe has combined with the Lung Association to underscore the importance of this issue. I have a news release of June 1, 1994. It states:

"'Ontario is falling behind other provincial and US jurisdictions in the fight against summer smog,' the Lung Association and Pollution Probe said in a report issued today. 'Although southern Ontario has the worst chronic smog problems in Canada, the province is not taking effective action to reduce air pollution,' the two groups said," Pollution Probe and the Lung Association.

This summer millions of Ontarians will be exposed to levels of smog known to harm human health. They have asked the provincial government to take action. Action can be taken. This can be addressed. We can combat the issue of smog. We can make this place a better place, a cleaner place for our citizens and residents of Ontario, for the young people, for those who have respiratory disease, for our elderly and for so many others.

I am more than pleased to be fully supportive of the important resolution put forward by the member for St Catharines, and I would hope that members of the government would look at a resolution of this kind and respond in substance and in principle, instead of cheap, partisan, political meandering on an issue which is important to the people of this province.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am surprised that on such an important issue, there are not the speakers coming forward from the third party. However, I'm glad to stand on my feet this morning to speak against the resolution introduced -- I was going to say "revolution," but I caught up with that -- by the member for St Catharines.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville has done a good job this morning here of explaining the initiatives that our government is taking to test vehicle emissions. He was right to point out that this is far more than the member for St Catharines ever did when he was the Minister of the Environment in the Peterson government.

I find it, to quote one of his colleagues, the member for -- I forget, but he always says he finds it "passing strange." I find it very passing strange that here we are this morning talking about smog and emissions and the member for St Catharines had it in his grasp when he was the Minister of the Environment of a government that had the biggest mandate, the biggest monopoly in this House that this province has ever seen, and he did nothing. Then he stands here today and has the gall to give the impression that a mandatory program is the approach he would have taken. Where was he when he was the minister?

Why didn't he do that if he was so sure that was the way to start off? Why didn't he do that?

Mr Offer: You're embarrassing yourself.

Mr Mills: No, no. Why didn't you do it? You had the biggest mandate in the history of this Legislature and you did nothing.

Mr Tilson: Give me a break.

Mr Mills: And you haven't got any room to talk at all. What the member for Windsor-Walkerville is --

The Acting Speaker: Order, order.

Mr Mills: He bugs me. He keeps bugging me. I didn't bug him when he was speaking and I don't expect to be bugged when I'm speaking.

What the member is trying to do with this resolution is to create an impression that our government is not sufficiently concerned about the problem of smog, and of course that's complete baloney. I can tell you that, in addition to what the member for Windsor-Walkerville has described, there are a lot of other initiatives our government has taken to deal with the problem of ground-level ozone, and I'm going to list a few of them.

On June 7, 1994, our government finalized a training and certification regulation for dry cleaners. This regulation will require dry cleaners to be trained in the safe handling of dry cleaning chemicals by certified professionals by June 1996.

On July 8, 1994, our government promulgated a draft regulation to control hydrocarbon vapour emissions -- gas fumes -- from fuel distribution at refiners' terminals, bulk plants and gasoline stations.

Performance standards for new combustion turbines were announced on March 25, 1994, and, as the member for Windsor-Walkerville has already said, on April 21, 1994, the MOEE, along with the Ministry of Transportation, announced a vehicle inspection and maintenance program to test emissions from vehicles.

A light-duty vehicle inspection station will open in the spring of 1995 and a heavy-duty vehicle educational enforcement program has already been initiated by our government in September by MTO.

MOEE, in conjunction with Environment Canada, announced on April 26 the extension of the air quality advisory to include the northern Ontario cities of Sudbury and North Bay.

MOEE is consulting with industry on voluntary pollution prevention initiatives to curb the release of NO_x and VOCs. For example, Ontario Hydro has agreed to voluntarily reduce 1985 levels of NO_x emissions 40% by the year 2000 -- 40% by the year 2000.

We are also pressuring the federal government to negotiate an 80 parts per billion ozone standard, now a 120 parts ppb average in the US, with the United States. The Ontario standard is 80 ppb.

MOEE has made comments to the US EPA objecting to the reclassification of Michigan as a attainment area for ozone, and the final decision on that has been delayed by the US EPA.

Gasoline now sold in Ontario has one of the lowest benzene contents of gasoline sold in the whole of North America, and I think that's commendable.

We think it's important to have better emission inventories, so MOEE has undertaken a survey, due later this year, of roughly 1,300 large emitters of air pollutants in Ontario. Further, in cooperation with two Ontario dry cleaning associations, the MOEE is surveying Ontario dry cleaners for solvent emissions. Improved inventories are also an initiative under the NO_x/VOCs management plan.

I think that from those initiatives I've read out into the record here this morning, it's easy for everybody to see that our government has taken a workable, responsible and serious approach to smog, and, given that our government has taken that attitude, I think that it is well to defeat this resolution this morning.

The resolution is to obscure the fact that the Liberals, when they were the government, failed to introduce any kind of program to do serious vehicle emission testing in Ontario, and I say again I find it passing strange that the member who was the minister at the time now comes up with some wonderful plan that he says we're not doing when he could have done something and they did nothing. This government is doing something which contributes to the battle against smog much more than the resolution does.

1050

I want to talk about back in the summer this year. I was over in England visiting, and I can tell you that I was almost forced to go around with a handkerchief over my face. I'd only been there two days and I got a sore throat, running eyes, and I felt terrible. Three days I had all the symptoms of bronchitis. Four days when I lay down to go to bed at night I had this horrible crackling continue in my chest. Every day I felt terrible. I felt ill.

Interjection.

Mr Mills: No, it isn't. I'm better now.

What I want to tell you is there are a lot of complaints that we are doing nothing in Ontario. Here I was, over there -- the pollutants are terrible -- crackling, wheezing and everything. I came back to Canada, and I was so glad to come back here, Madam Speaker, you wouldn't believe it. Two days after I was breathing the wonderful air in my community, the hamlet of Orono in the beautiful municipality of Clarington, I was like a new man. I have been rejuvenated with that wonderful air that we have in Ontario. So for you folks to sit there and blame us for doing nothing, when you had the huge mandate that you could have done anything you wanted in the whole country and you did nothing --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): No political will.

Mr Mills: You had no political will, as my friend from Essex-Kent says, and he's quite right. With those comments, Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity. There's a minute or so left if there are any of my colleagues who want to comment on that, but I thank you for the time.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any members who wish to further debate this motion? Seeing none, the member for St Catharines may reply.

Mr Bradley: I take it this is it? I want to deal with some of the legitimate comments that have been made about the resolution. First of all, I want to say I am really disappointed that people would view this as a partisan shot at the government, because it's not designed to be that. I had a lot of things I could have brought forward as a resolution. I tried to pick one about which I felt very strongly personally, about improving the environment.

It didn't matter, I think, to the members of the government, I've listed some of the things the government is endeavouring to do to help the environment and I'm happy to see that is taking place. I wasn't critical of those things. But when we're trying to develop something for private members' hour we usually try to pick something that is either particularly important to our constituencies or to ourselves.

I notice from time to time that private members' hour has been utilized for partisan purposes by all parties, and I've seen some of those. I could have chosen a really government-bashing resolution or bill and I didn't want to do that. I wanted to say, "What is something I would like to see done, whether I didn't do it or the Conservatives didn't do it or this government didn't do it?" I didn't say, "You've had four and a half years or whatever to do it and you haven't." I simply put forward a resolution that I think will help the province. I think it will help the member for Windsor-Walkerville's area, the member for Durham East's area, to improve even more than we have over the past 10 or 15 years.

I want to say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville that some of the arguments he has made are the very arguments I encountered from polluters constantly and that every Environment minister encounters: It's too tough a program to implement; it's too complicated; the problem is really the American problem. Constantly, and some of the members who have been in the House a long time would know this, we face this argument, whether it's in committee or wherever, from polluters, from people who don't want to see environmental action.

There's a page in the Globe and Mail today where there's a writer who is constantly debunking everything that has to do with the environment. That happens. That's why I'm surprised and disappointed to hear the same arguments advanced by members of the New Democratic Party.

In answer to the member's question, when you try to develop the various programs, it does take a while to develop them, and I appreciate that for the government it does take a while.

One of the things we were working on as 1990 came was cooperation between the MTO and the MOE to implement this kind of program. The minister who came in in the day, Mrs Grier in this case, who was a very committed environmentalist, would have had that program brought forward by MOE officials and MTO officials. That would have been, I think, an opportune time, but I recognize her other priorities that the government had to deal with. I appreciate that.

I know it's always hard to believe in this House, but this is not a politically motivated resolution. It's simply something I feel strongly about. I tried to pick something in the environment where I thought we could implement a program that would be a good program for our province.

The member for Dufferin-Peel asked a couple of very pertinent questions about how practical this is. What I envisage -- I did not make it as precise and detailed as a bill can be, and he pointed out that a resolution usually doesn't do that -- is that you would not have new vehicles, you'd have vehicles that would be three years old or over that would be subject to this annual inspection.

The member for Dufferin-Peel points out appropriately that even some of those vehicles can begin to have problems with their emission controls. So that's what I envisage there. I envisage that it would be done by contractors just as, when a car changes hands, we have a safety inspection done by private organizations, private garages. In fact, that's how this could be implemented in Ontario.

I would understand the problem of trying to do every brand-new car in the province -- that would be very difficult -- but I think these problems can be overcome. We had a lot of discussion in the ministry when we were in government about that, and of course the Ministry of Transportation raised a lot of the concerns that Mr Tilson raised in this House, and I think those certainly can be overcome.

As far as the cost is concerned, to me that's a cost that I bear as a driver of a vehicle. I believe that the main problem as well is certainly in the urban areas, not in the rural areas, and that when you stage programs -- if you look at British Columbia, what they selected was the lower mainland where there's a problem with groundlevel ozone. I remember going to a conference in Washington where a professor from British Columbia made this compelling case to the Americans and he used as a good example the lower mainland in British Columbia where they had been able to move.

I don't know whether the government could move all over Ontario on this in its initial stage. It certainly, in the major metropolitan areas, could move as a start. It's not something you jump into immediately, I understand that. Although I'd like to see that happen and my resolution suggests that, I know the government would want to phase that in.

I think the member for Durham East makes a good case for what can happen when we don't have the best possible laws. His description of Britain is one which many people have brought back in terms of the smog that exists there. We're fortunate we're a bigger country. We're more spread out and the air corridors are different, but we do encounter those problems. As I said, the member for Chatham-Kent and I were discussing at some length last night the new respiratory diseases, particularly asthma, that we're seeing in people.

I think it's a supportable resolution. I don't criticize the government for action or lack of action. I think the government has been ahead of other jurisdictions in some areas of the environment and behind in others, and there are some jurisdictions which have taken some initiatives that I think we can learn from and proceed with.

I hope that the arguments that are made are arguments that in fact are not accepted, those arguments being those made by polluters. I cannot emphasize too much how the government members will be told by some people in government why something can't be implemented.

If I did not move forward with or try to move forward with initiatives that I was told by other ministries couldn't be implemented or by the private sector or by business, labour, citizens, whoever, I'll tell you you would have no environmental improvement taking place. There's a constant assault on environment.

There's a new group out there deliberately debunking the environment set out there. It's a well-financed group. It's a group that attacks the Niagara Escarpment Commission. It's a group that attacks the environmental initiatives that this government brings forward or any other government brings forward, and we have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of using those arguments.

That's why, and I like the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I was surprised that the material that he read into the record really sounded like what some of us who have been in this House for years and years had listened to from the polluters over the years.

I think it's a supportable resolution. I hope members of the government don't see it as a partisan shot at them, as cheap politics, as the member for Windsor-Walkerville saw it. I hope you see it as a good potential initiative for a government to implement, and I would certainly applaud the government if it were to implement that and be very supportive of the minister in any efforts he would make to try to improve the environment in this way.

I think the cautions that have been suggested by the member for Dufferin-Peel are reasonable cautions that one has to look at in the implementation of such a program, but I deliberately put it forward as a resolution to try to get the support of members of this House for a Minister of Environment who I'm sure would like to move more comprehensively than he has to this point in time. I certainly appreciated that kind of support when I was minister; I hope we can give it to this minister.

1100

NATURAL GAS VEHICLES

Mr Cooper moved private member's notice of motion number 53:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the Ontario New Democratic government has stated job creation is its number one priority; and

Since reducing government operating costs is of paramount importance to controlling the deficit and preserving the services people have come to reply upon; and

Since economic renewal depends upon high value added manufacturing, export success and increased research and development; and

Since we must use the principles of sustainable development by promoting the wise and efficient use of energy and conservation of resources; and

Since we must lead by example through the procurement of factory-supplied natural gas vehicles and/or retrofit of existing vehicles to natural gas; and

Since we must preserve our environment for future generations;

Therefore, this House urges the government of Ontario to review the feasibility and where possible implement the systematic conversion of government vehicles to natural gas as a means of creating higher value added jobs, reducing government operating costs and achieving a cleaner environment; and

This House also urges the government of Ontario to call upon the government of Canada to review the feasibility of converting federal government vehicles to natural gas; and

This House also urges the government of Ontario to call upon Ontario municipalities to review the feasibility of conversion of municipal vehicles to natural gas.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Cooper has moved motion number 53. He will now have 10 minutes for his presentation. Following that, each party will have 15 minutes to debate this motion.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Basically, the purpose of this resolution is to urge the review of the systematic conversion of government vehicles to natural gas.

The conversion to natural gas is similar to the chicken-and-egg riddle: Potential customers want to see fuel availability before they will switch to natural gas vehicles, while fuel station owners want to see natural gas vehicles before they will invest in a new fuel supply system.

This resolution is in keeping with the NDP government's plan of investing in jobs, controlling spending, reducing the deficit and preserving services.

The present Ontario natural gas vehicle market is not sustainable without growth of local markets. While it's a $62-million industry here in the province of Ontario, we're looking to the long-term economic benefits for the government of Ontario to become a leader in the field of natural gas. The New Democrats have always supported policies to reduce transportation's energy intensity and the production of carbon emissions.

I guess first what we should do is talk about what natural gas is. Natural gas is inherently the cleanest of all fossil fuels. It is primarily methane, and methane is chemically a simple fuel, especially when compared to the very complex chemical compositions of gasoline and diesel. This characteristic of natural gas allows automotive engineers to design for and achieve extremely low exhaust emissions.

For example, Chrysler Corp has recently produced a natural-gas-fueled version of the popular Magic Wagon, available now in the United States and Canada for the 1995 line. The natural gas Magic Wagon is designed and produced in Ontario by Chrysler Canada. This new minivan has been certified to meet California's future vehicle emission standards, which have been recognized as the most stringent in the world. Moreover, Chrysler's natural gas vehicle minivan is the world's first production vehicle and so far the only production vehicle to be certified to meet the ultra-low-emission vehicle standards.

Natural gas is a proven safe fuel. The inherent characteristics of natural gas vehicles that provide this important advantage include the fact that since natural gas is lighter than air, natural gas will rapidly dissipate into the atmosphere should a leak occur. Gasoline and propane are both heavier than air and may lie or collect near the floor or ground, providing conditions for combustion. Natural gas needs a very high temperature to cause combustion: 632 degrees Celsius. By contrast, gasoline ignites at 280 degrees Celsius and propane at 466 degrees Celsius. And the natural gas fuel cylinders approved in Ontario for use on vehicles are much stronger than gasoline tanks and there have been no reported incidents of cylinder failure as a result of vehicle collisions in Canada.

We've also encouraged the development and manufacturing of highly efficient urban vehicles powered by alternative fuels. The long-term economic goal benefits are not only for the province of Ontario but also for the government of Canada and Ontario municipalities.

Natural gas has a strong infrastructure base already in North America, and this is where I came to know about this: There's a company in the city of Kitchener called GFI. Their system, they claim, can reduce fuel costs by 30% to 60%. At the pumps presently, natural gas runs at about 32 cents a litre. The mileage is as good or better on an energy basis and the maintenance costs can also be lowered through reduced engine wear.

There are approximately 15,000 vehicles equipped to run on natural gas, and this amounts to about 50% of the Canadian natural gas vehicle market, here in the province of Ontario. There are about 2,000 people employed in this industry at the present time. Right now there are 35 public and private refuelling stations, and over 800 vehicle refuelling plants are situated in individual customers' premises.

GFI's Canadian-developed computer technology has been described as a conceptual breakthrough. It's a viable alternative fuel system and it has produced technological advancement in research and development. It serves to protect and create higher value added jobs here in the province of Ontario and it's putting people to work in our communities. The job spinoff is considerable. GFI estimates that 10 jobs in related parts production and technology development, as well as service and installation, are created for every job at GFI.

Our government's mandate includes the responsibility to find commercial partners and ensure that Canadian manufacturing jobs, specifically here in Ontario, are part of that mandate. We need a high level of export potential. We need the preservation and growth of clustered development industries here in the province of Ontario.

The cluster stakeholders here in the province of Ontario right now are Alcan in Kingston; Engine Control Systems, Newmarket; FuelMaker, Toronto; GFI Control Systems, Kitchener; Motion Concept Vehicles, Mississauga; Ontario Bus Industries, Mississauga; Ortech, Mississauga; Overland Coach, London; Sherex/OPW, Burlington; Steel Cylinder Manufacturing, Tilbury; Sulzer, Toronto; Williamson NGV Fleet Systems, Georgetown; and Wilson Technologies, Kitchener.

This means a great deal to the province of Ontario in the sense of business. The vehicle refuelling appliances, VRAs, are assembled in Mississauga. The GFI system is manufactured in Kitchener. A Burlington company manufactures NGV nozzles. A Tilbury company makes NGV cylinders which hold the fuel. And Trillium Alternative Fuels is located in Chatham.

What we're saying here is that we have to integrate our efforts with the corporate sector and get the research and development going to help commercialize this new technology. A coordination between the government to establish technological standards for environmental products and services is absolutely mandatory. At the present time, Hamilton currently has a natural-gas-powered fleet of approximately 40 buses and London Transit currently has the first indoor natural gas vehicle refuelling station in North America.

Gaseous fuel injection is the best alternative fuel solution, in my opinion. Gaseous fuel injections are safe, economical and dependable, and maximize the potential for clean burning of abundantly available natural gas. This enhances the environmental benefits to the province of Ontario. But I want to state at this time, right now, that the introduction of this resolution does in no way impact on the government of Ontario's commitment to rural Ontario in the use of ethanol for agricultural use. Ethanol, made from corn or grain, can be blended with conventional gasoline to create a cleaner-burning fuel that reduces carbon monoxide emissions and displaces several toxic gasoline additives. The planned plant in Chatham will use 20 million bushels of Ontario corn a year, and I know for the corn producers in my area of the province this is good news.

The natural gas program promotes the responsible use of a non-renewable resource and environmental protection through the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Conversion to natural gas enables our government to conduct its business in an environmentally responsible manner, using the principles of sustainable development. Promoting the wise and efficient use of energy in the conservation of resources is a priority for our government and provides for the government of Ontario to provide leadership in seeking ways to reduce the environmental impacts of our doing business.

The GFI system offers convenience and flexibility through a bifuel system, and GFI control systems are recognized by the Ford Motor vehicle company through their qualified vehicle modifier program, which means that GFI now has the potential to go in and do factory installations to cut down on the cost of retrofits.

Right now, the F-series trucks with a 4.9-litre engine can be purchased as an NGV or can come equipped with a bifuel system. One of the advantages right now of the bifuel system is that while the natural gas refuelling stations aren't widely available across the province, this allows the consumer to have a bifuel system where if you run short of natural gas, with a flick of the switch you can switch over to gasoline so that you can get to the next station. So while it does cut down on the amount of storage space you have, it is still a convenience, especially if you get into the northern areas.

I know one of the booklets that was really good, and I guess it was just produced, was Driving Ontario with Natural Gas, which is put out by the Ontario Natural Gas Association. These are widely available right now and they actually come with maps showing where the refuelling stations are available. I know it's hard to see, and I'll make these available to some of the members, but if you look, it's basically clustered around Toronto westward, down to southwestern Ontario. But you'll note that Thunder Bay also has services, Timmins has services, Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury.

So while it's expanding, we have to show leadership here at the government level. I guess the thing here is that by the Ontario government converting its fleet, it gives an incentive for the people to set up the refuelling stations. I know people like Bell Canada are looking at this, because they have enormous fleets and if they can reduce the cost of doing business it would be an advantage to them. But somewhere, somebody has to show leadership by doing the conversions or at least send the signal that they're going to be doing the conversions so that the natural gas industry will start setting up service centres across this province. This will help benefit everybody. Obviously, with the cleaner environmental fuel, we're going to be preserving our atmosphere and the environment for the future generations.

I look forward to the discussion that will be taking place and I hope everybody will support this resolution.

1110

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): As far as private members' motions go, I think this is a very good one, and I would say for two reasons.

First of all, a substantial reason, I think: Who can argue with having a cleaner environment? In fact, it's rather strange that on this last day of our sitting we should have two motions that are quite similar in intent, one coming this side of the House, from the member for St Catharines, who would like to also make sure that our fuel emissions don't pollute the air any more, and I think the basic intention of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, with his motion, is the same when he says we ought to encourage more conversion of gasoline vehicles to natural gas.

So from a substantial point of view, we have two very good private members' motions before us that I think are quite innocuous, as it were, not very controversial. I was somewhat disappointed that earlier on during the debate on the motion from the member for St Catharines it was quite partisan. Mind you, I think in the motion from Mr Cooper, I won't be too non-partisan either, because there are some other spinoff questions that can be raised. I must admit, Madam Speaker, that I might stray a little bit from the topic, but seeing that this is sort of the last meeting we have to put some points of view on the record, you hopefully will permit me a little bit of latitude.

I also am somewhat wondering why the member would have chosen this particular motion. He obviously, and I must congratulate him, has done his homework well. When he just spoke, he obviously had a lot of facts and figures. I don't know whether he prepared it himself or had someone else do a bit of research there. Certainly I will look up with interest in the Hansard all the figures that you put forward, because I think they're useful and, in the furtherance of his objectives, I think it's good to have that background and these facts in front of us.

But frankly, I would have expected a different kind of motion from the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, and he won't be surprised if I say that I was expecting to hear something about motorcycles. I remember, about half a year ago, we were outside the House and there was a tremendous lineup of all kinds of bikers. You should have seen it; it was very colourful, I must say. I'm not a biker myself, but I happened to be here with my family, and I have three teenagers, and they were quite impressed by seeing all these motorcycles outside the Legislature. I don't think they were on the lawn, but they were circling. There must have been 400 or 500 bikers here with their regalia, some of them dressed more than others.

The concern was that the insurance for certain types of motorcycles is very, very hard to come by. It's hard to come by because of certain changes this government has made making it more difficult to get the proper coverage. I know the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has tried several times with the Treasurer, albeit unsuccessfully, I think as late as a couple of weeks ago, to get this issue to the forefront of the attention of the government, because I am still receiving, and I guess he is receiving as well, concerns about insurance coverage for motorcycles. So I was expecting something along those lines.

I hope this is not a sign that Mr Cooper has given up on the motorcycle people in the province. I see he's shaking his head, and I'm glad to see he will continue, and Mr Hansen as well, who's also a friend of the motorcycle industry and the motorcycle fans, to fight for these people, fight with their own government, I guess, because I'm certainly convinced -- even though the other side would argue -- that it was the changes the government has made to the insurance bill that make it so hard now for certain motorcycle fans to get insurance coverage.

But to come back to the motion before us, it's a good one. As I indicated earlier, who can be against trying to convert government vehicles, to start, and I'm sure his intention is perhaps for private vehicles as well, to natural gas? They burn in a cleaner way.

He's also phrased his motion in a very acceptable manner, because he doesn't say, "Do it," but "explore the feasibility of." I must say, he's very diplomatic in that language. I don't know whether it is the almost five years now that he has been here that he has learned to drop some of the more radical rhetoric we usually used to hear from the NDP, but he's saying here, "Let's explore and encourage other levels of government to explore the feasibility of." Again, who could argue with that? That's certainly a good approach to take, because clearly it would be the wrong thing for the provincial government to simply impose that requirement on other levels of government.

I should say, though, that there's one element I have a bit of a question about: Why just natural gas? I happen to have attended, about two months ago in Nepean, in the part of the riding that belongs to Ottawa-Rideau, Mrs O'Neill -- we went to the opening of an electric vehicle research institute and in fact the opening of the Electric Vehicle Association of Canada. That too is a different approach to motor vehicles that I think we should encourage.

When the member says we should try and get the governments, including the provincial government, to convert to natural gas with their vehicles, I think we should not exclude the possibility of using electric vehicles. In terms of the technical advancement, they may not have progressed to the stage where natural gas has arrived, so it would probably be a little more complicated to do with electricity and batteries. But I think there's quite a bit of promise with regard to electric vehicles. There are some vehicles on the road in Ottawa -- and I presume in other parts of the province as well, but I'm not familiar with that -- for example, vehicles used by the University of Ottawa, that use batteries; they're used to further advance the research going into those types of vehicles.

1120

I would just like to point out to the House that when we say natural gas, that's fine and I certainly support that, but there are also other means of cleaner air. Electricity in this case would probably be the cleanest air, although there are other dimensions to the impact on the environment that electricity has -- all we need to think of is PCBs and all that stuff -- so it's not totally a clean alternative either, but certainly cleaner than gasoline fuel. I'm sure the member does not have any great difficulties with this.

But as I indicated, I'm a little bit surprised to see this motion at this time of the term of the government. It's a little bit late, since we may not even be coming back before an election, so I guess he just wants to put this on the record as a hope and a desire for the next government. That's probably good, and why not?

But when we're talking about hopes and desires for the next government, in particular what we could do for the environment, one dimension I want to point out is that we cannot force people. Sometimes we have to put in place bills, but as much as possible -- and I think the member has tried that -- you try to work with the people, with the governments and the other institutions. You don't just put in laws and say, "That's it and you follow it." That's the way he has phrased his motion, and I appreciate it.

There's an example where again the intent by the NDP government is to protect the environment but the way it's doing it goes very much contrary to all fairness and to all reasonable democratic expectations of consultation, and that has to do with the wetlands policy. It strays a little bit from the motion, but I do want to put on the record that in eastern Ontario, and now in other parts of the province, they have very, very serious concerns that people have brought to my attention and to the attention of our caucus with regard to the wetlands policy established by this government.

The people are saying, and they've made presentations to us and they're furious, that they're being expropriated without any kind of compensation. Under these new rules the NDP government has established, the government can simply say, "This land is all of a sudden a significant provincial wetland and there's not going to be any kind of development."

These land owners have been telling me, often people who have inherited these lands or perhaps who are pensioners now and have banked on these lands as their insurance for their retirement, that all of a sudden these lands are worth a lot less than they planned. The government simply went on to their land and said, "We say this is a designated wetland under provincial policies," and the people are very concerned about that. They're not against protecting the environment, including the natural environment, but they want a fair hearing; they don't want to just see these matters imposed.

I'm glad the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, with his motion, doesn't just want to impose. He says "encourage the other levels of government to review the feasibility," and I think that's good. That's the way you achieve good government policy, and I would have wished that the same thing had happened with regard to the implementation of the wetlands policy.

I want to leave a little time for the member for Ottawa East, but I did want to indicate to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot that I will be supporting his motion, and if he would bring along a similar motion with regard to insurance for motorcycles, I probably would do the same.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): First of all, I'd like to welcome a class from my riding of Dufferin-Peel who are in the gallery today.

With respect to the motion, I'd like to congratulate the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for bringing this issue forth. Natural gas certainly is cleaner, less expensive, better for your car, and of course in Canada we've got lots of natural gas. It has many benefits, and there's no question about that.

I do have several reservations with respect to the resolution, and I guess it boils down to the same type of philosophy this government has with many of its waste management policies, for example. With respect to this government's philosophy on waste management, it says, "Thou shalt have dumps, and," the government says, "you will not be allowed to look at energy from waste facilities, you will not be allowed to look at long rail-haul to willing host communities, you will not be allowed to look at other types of disposal of waste." Similarly, with this resolution, it appears to be saying, from the way it is worded, "Thou shalt use natural gas." In fact, the government says, "Thou shalt spend all kinds of money and create all kinds of bureaucracy setting up that type of motor vehicle."

Notwithstanding the good points -- and I think we will all agree about the benefits of natural gas. The member referred to ethanol fuel, although that really wasn't part of his resolution, yet it's an alternative to natural gas.

Noble Villeneuve, the member from -- I won't even attempt to say where he's from, it's got so many names in it. He's our Progressive Conservative agricultural critic and he has spent some time on the topic of ethanol fuel, and I'm sure the member for Kitchener-Wilmot agrees with many of the things he says. He, along with our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, has put out a booklet on rural economic development where we spent some time on this topic of ethanol fuel.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, give me a chance and I'll tell you about it, because obviously you aren't interested in looking at other alternatives.

He lobbied several governments, both federal and provincial, for the use of ethanol fuels. He's argued that "the development of an Ontario fuel ethanol industry provides potential for significant economic growth and prosperity in the province's rural areas." I'm reading from the booklet. He refers to the fact that "ethanol, produced through the fermentation of corn, is a fuel additive blended with regular gasoline to produce cleaner fuel combustion and lower emissions." He talks about one of the areas you talked about in Chatham. Your resolution seems to refer specifically to natural gas, yet on the other hand, you start talking about another alternative, which is ethanol.

There are other alternatives that could be looked at. One is the issue of propane, and yes, there are some downsides of propane. It's currently being used in the trucking industry and in some passenger cars as an alternative to traditional gas fuels. Some people are getting into that, for different reasons. It may be economic in some areas and not in others. It's the same with electric cars. Electric cars are being heavily tested and developed in California.

So the question I have for the member in his response, dealing again with the issue of alternatives, is, why can't we look at everything? Why would the government take the lead and look strictly at one issue? There are all kinds of environmentally sound and economically better ways than we are doing now, and we have to continually develop these alternatives. But why can't individual consumers and organizations decide what is best for their particular use and needs and plan accordingly, rather than simply going with only natural gas?

All kinds of articles and books have been written on the benefits of natural gas, and I'm not going to challenge those; I agree with them. I'm just asking, why does your party say, "Thou shalt do this, and you're not allowed to look at anything else"? Your resolution doesn't say that, but you're coming on very strong and saying: "This is the resolution. This is the way in which the province of Ontario may go." Why can't the province of Ontario look at these other alternatives?

1130

It appears that Canada has all kinds of natural gas at the present time. For some unearthly reason -- we don't know; I have no idea; I'm not an economist -- natural gas prices skyrocket and become too expensive as compared with other fuels. Meanwhile, we've put all our eggs in one basket. We've converted all our government vehicles and perhaps other vehicles to deal with natural gas. Why can't we look at other alternatives? The auto and gas industries are constantly improving their products so that their emissions are lessened and the fuel is being burned more efficiently. So I caution the member for saying, "Let's just look at natural gas."

Natural gas is a non-renewable resource just as gasoline is. I quite frankly emphasize that notwithstanding the good points of natural gas, you have to continually remember that. It's a non-renewable resource just as gasoline is. Both of them can be criticized in the same fashion. The government shouldn't be favouring one form of non-renewable fuel over another. We must be continually looking at better ways of doing things.

I ask the member perhaps a second question, as to who is going to pay the costs necessary for converting these vehicles. Of course, he's dealing strictly with the provincial government. I shudder as to what that's going to cost. I just shudder at what that's going to cost, looking at the debt and the taxes of this province. We're trying to cut down on taxes. We're trying to cut down on the debt of this province. I have no idea what the cost is, but I shudder at the issue of the cost of implementing these vehicles all across this province.

There are other problems which have been referred to. It may have been the member, Mr Cooper, who raised it, the issue of northern Ontario. There have been problems in northern Ontario simply because of the availability of sources to obtain the fuel. The switch-over is one issue, but all of these things are very expensive.

The biggest problem I think in northern Ontario is the issue of availability. The city of Thunder Bay accordingly now has four natural gas vehicles, as I understand it, but it's only using two natural gas vehicles. So the lack of availability of natural gas has an effect. There's only one natural gas vehicle with the Ministry of Transportation. It's a van. It's regularly used because the ministry is unable to gas the other one up.

I'm referring to an article, if people are wondering, from the Thunder Bay Chronicle of June 1992, so things may have changed since then, but I doubt that very much with the economy. The article continues, "The only natural gas dealer in Thunder Bay is Centra Gas Ontario Inc and it has no natural gas pumps open to the public." So that's a problem.

I understand where the member is coming from and I think many of us support the resolution in principle, but obviously we can't go in blind. I realize his resolution perhaps is very purposely vague by encouraging the federal government to look at a feasibility study, but hopefully he would consider his resolution to be amended to look at all alternatives. The system we have now has many problems, but we should be looking at all alternatives.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak at this particular time. I congratulate the member again. I emphasize, just to conclude, that with respect to the subject of natural gas, it is cleaner, it is currently less expensive, although we don't know what's going to happen in the future, it is better for our automobiles than it is now and there's no question that our country has a lot of natural gas that could be used.

One of the problems, of course, is that in the United States they don't have a lot of natural gas and they're not encouraging it as much perhaps as we are because they will be relying on natural gas from this country. So we have a natural resource, and the member is quite right; we should be considering using it. I just caution him in putting all his eggs in one basket.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I rise in support of this resolution put forward by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. I'd like to begin what I have to say today on this issue by saying that we have an abundance of natural gas in this province, and for that matter in this country, and I can say that this fuel at this point, even though it's used in heating homes and so forth, is underutilized.

When I talk about that fuel being available here and produced here in Ontario, it certainly has ramifications. It has ramifications as far as not being held for ransom down the road by oil cartels or oil conglomerates is concerned. I believe that the other advantage, of course, is that we are talking about a fuel that will keep our environment much cleaner as the number of vehicles and motor vehicles dramatically increases on our roads, and that's indicative, I would say, of the recent news of major increases in auto production and auto sales. We have to be constantly thinking and measuring what that means when it comes to the environment and what kinds of environmental situations may face us in the future. I can tell you that I'm concerned about that.

I believe this is good for business. It's good for business because I think there are the new blossoming businesses related to this issue out there ready to take advantage, but of course they need the market. Market is very important. Other speakers in this House have indicated market, and who better to help diversify the fuel consumption in the auto industry than by a push and a realization by government itself to move in that direction?

I can tell you that it's time there was real competition in this field. Gasoline has always been number one and will probably maintain its position for the foreseeable future. But we should be able to say that the consumer will have a better choice, from here, on what kind of fuel consumers would like to pass through the engine of their vehicles. At this point in time I don't believe that many governments are interested in doing this.

I gave a statement in the House yesterday, and that statement was in and around the concern of many of my constituents who were, and still are, extremely concerned about the unrealistic fluctuations in gas prices. I believe that by creating a competitive situation with the use of natural gas, with the use of ethanol, with the use of gasoline, with the use of diesel, whatever, the broader you can make that, that creates a competitive situation, whereas the games that can be played by forming cartels in certain areas to possibly fix prices can't go on.

I would say that when you create that choice you're moving not only in an environmentally sensitive way forward, but you're also moving in a way in which consumers will have choice, and their environmental concerns can be dealt with with their choices on what kind of vehicle they would operate.

1140

The issue is also promoting local businesses, and local businesses with the drive to move towards alternative fuels for vehicles is important. But I have to say that it takes a government willing to do that. It takes a government that's willing to move in that direction. People look to their governments to lead the way, and I believe that's what we should do.

Unlike the situation where we've had the investigation into gas pricing, not one consumer was considered in that investigation at the federal level. Not one consumer made a presentation. We're talking about consumers and consumption and lessening our dependence on foreign sources; what it means to have a cleaner environment; promoting small business in this province; what is right; and also choice, consumer choice. I believe this resolution to be a good one.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I think the members' session is ending on the right note. When you look at the two motions this morning, the first one introduced by the member for St Catharines and this one from the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, I think we're ending on the right note.

A great deal of progress has been made in the last five or 10 years. I think engine manufacturers are continually improving not only the size but the efficiency of our vehicles or engines and we have a long way to go.

This motion will provide us with an opportunity to improve our environment. Financially, it could be negative, like some of the members were when they talked to Mr Bradley's motion. I would have preferred a bill, a government bill, and not only to say, "Review the feasibility and where possible implement the systematic conversion of government vehicles to natural gas"; I would have preferred a government bill to say: "Yes, we are committed. Yes, we will do it."

I agree with the member for Kitchener-Wilmot that we have to start somewhere. I will certainly support his motion because I think this is the way to go. Natural gas is the way to go. It's the cleanest fuel on the market today. Possibly ethanol will be on the market very shortly and I will be supporting --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): When the feds do something --

Mr Grandmaître: Well, you see, again as long as the feds are doing something. Why don't you do something about it instead of criticizing? Instead of criticizing, they should be doing something.

I will support this motion because it makes a whole lot of sense.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'm pleased to rise this morning and speak a short time on this resolution by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. Its main thrust, to me, is that the member is thinking in the right direction. He is trying to find ways to save money for this government, because we know the debt that is facing us here in the province of Ontario. If the member feels that this transfer of all government units to natural gas is going to bring in a major saving to the government, I certainly understand his bringing it forward. However, I have concerns in that here we are, all ready to go and switch all of our fleet of the Ontario government without putting forward some of the studies that have been done on other types of energy for transportation.

I would just like to draw the member's attention to his own resolution. He says, "We must use the principles of sustainable development by promoting the wise and efficient use of energy." This is what I've been saying for a long time regarding our own source of energy here with Ontario Hydro, that we should be promoting the wise and efficient use of energy, not trying to come out with a negative approach.

We've got many reports here on the electric car. It's reached the stage now that it can go 160 kilometres at 100 kilometres an hour. It takes five hours to recharge the batteries. There's more research going on on the batteries at all times. The state of California has certainly decided that this is the way it's going to reduce its emissions in the next five years, through the electric car. General Motors is already setting up a special plant to not only improve and produce that car along with Ford but to have the parts for it. Metro Toronto, in conjunction with the federal government, is testing the electric minivan here as a test run over the next 30 months to try and decide what it should do with its fleet.

Rather than just jump into this, I'm saying to the member, I think we need to study it a little more.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'm very pleased to rise and support my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, Mr Cooper, on this resolution. When I read the resolution, that in the opinion of this House the number one concern of this government is job creation, let me tell you, in Guelph job creation has also been our number one priority. Jobs Ontario is flowing in Guelph. The unemployment rate in our area is about 5%, the lowest in the country. Why? Because of the initiatives of this government, not some pie-in-the-sky stuff about, "We'll cut your taxes. Vote for me and we'll create jobs. That's how we'll do it," not that but a systematic approach to job creation.

When I look at the second part of this resolution, "reducing government operating costs," not by slashing government services but by preserving government services, that's what this government has been able to do. Again, I have to applaud the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, who has been able to present a resolution in such a way that he not only captures the spirit of what this government is doing, but also is promoting what this government is doing in a systematic way of job creation, and reducing government costs but preserving services -- not slash and burn, as the Conservatives are talking about. The Liberals won't even do anything about it anyway.

"Economic renewal depends upon high value added manufacturing, export success...." Let me read what it says from this little book the member gave me, "The growing NGV industry in Ontario now employs about 2,000 people in equipment/vehicle manufacture, installation, maintenance service, research and development," and much of this is exported business. I think the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has hit upon a solution, one of the solutions, one of our programs that can work as far as economic renewal is concerned.

When I look at the next part of the resolution, "We must use the principles of sustainable development," that's an approach that, as far as I can see, is probably the most sensible, systematic way of approaching what this government is trying to do. It is not a politician coming up saying: "Vote for me. I'll cut your taxes 30%." That's dumb. That'll never work. We have to have an approach that is going to be sustainable development, and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has captured the spirit of what this government has been doing for the last four years. It is working. The plan of this government is not only working; we are seeing all the development of job creation, lower unemployment and services being maintained.

I applaud the member for Kitchener-Wilmot and I'm very pleased to be able to stand here in the House and support his resolution today.

1150

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): For the short time I've got, I want to put a few things on the record. It was back some years ago when the government brought in a $1,200 reduction for propane. It was about a few years later after that, when the Liberals were in power, that they came along and taxed that. Now I wonder, if the Liberals got back in power again, would they want to tax natural gas? They probably would.

I want to say there is a GM electric car that's now being promoted, so we have a lot of clean fuels that are going to be produced in this province, and natural gas is one of them.

I think it's important that this resolution come before this Legislature to have a debate on such an important issue. When we look at the federal government initiatives with regard to natural gas, they are few. They don't want to help. The federal government wants to leave it up to the province of Ontario to promote this. When it looks at the taxes that it's collecting and revenues from the gas wells in the west, the federal government gets its funds from there.

I commend the member for bringing this resolution forward so that we could have some debate on the natural gas issue, and it gives us the opportunity to talk about the electric cars that are going to come in the near future, because that's going to be the way. Metropolitan Toronto's even getting funding to do a study on electric.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I've very pleased to be up here today to support my colleague and friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. One of the things, when you talk about using natural gas, is that everybody will benefit. Everyone will benefit on this because it is an economical fuel that saves money. It helps us to improve and preserve our environment and it's the same safe fuel that heats your homes and your businesses.

I'm very pleased to be up here to support this resolution and I also would like to make some comments in regard to ethanol. The bifuel vehicles, for example, offer the practical advantage of extended total range and the ability to revert to gasoline if you run low on natural gas. But at the same time, you can also use ethanol in that other tank when you convert back from the natural gas. Both of those fuels certainly complement the environment and they're environmentally friendly.

On the subject of ethanol, I'm very pleased and very proud to be a member of a government that has taken the initiative to not only support but also to promote the use of ethanol in this province. Not only is this initiative environmentally friendly, but it creates jobs, and it creates jobs in rural Ontario and also in urban Ontario.

One of the things that I want to mention today with my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent here is that as people use more natural gas in their vehicles, it also helps promote our community down in Chatham and Kent county because that's where Union Gas's headquarters is now. If we can get the federal government to follow suit like this province has -- we exempted the tax on ethanol for 15 years and also gave the ethanol consortium $5 million to get started -- if we could have the federal government today follow the example of the provincial NDP government, then we'll be getting somewhere. Not only does this clean the environment, it also creates jobs, and many jobs which are much needed in our community. Also, it will help the farmers and many small businesses and other people. There's nothing better than cleaning up the environment and also creating jobs at the same time.

One very, very important point in this resolution that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot talked about is, "We must preserve our environment for future generations," and that is what he is doing with this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Is there further debate on this motion? The member for Durham West.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I am also the parliamentary assistant to the Chair of Management Board and, in that capacity, I'd like to speak for a minute or two, I guess, on this resolution because I believe wholeheartedly that it's a good resolution.

At Management Board, we have been involved extensively for some years now in recycling, making sure that the government is green, that we're using non-bleached recycled paper, post-consumer waste. We have created composting technology at the Ontario Science Centre where all of the institutions in the Metro area can send their food scraps to be composted.

We have worked hard to create a green workplace. If you look around, you can see all of the containers. We're recycling toner cartridges, just for an example. In fact, in my riding we have a small business that recycles and refurbishes toner cartridges. This is a move in the right direction. The green workplace is definitely here.

We also have at Management Board a Build Green program which is to encourage, within the Metropolitan Toronto area and the province of Ontario, that new buildings that would be built by Management Board would be done to a green design, that insulation from there would come from glass, which would be manufactured in Ontario, in the Ottawa area. We have wood that is recycled and cleaned. The Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association has been participating in this Build Green program.

We even have instituted a green curriculum program where we get students in the high schools to enter into a contest to make sure that they understand green. They have come forward with some very creative ideas.

When I look at this resolution, I can simply say that the next logical extension from Management Board would be to start the Drive Green program. The Drive Green program would mean the change from petroleum products to natural gas products in the vehicles of the government of Ontario, and that would also help us save money.

The Acting Speaker: Is there any further debate? The member for Kitchener-Wilmot has two minutes to respond.

Mr Cooper: I'd like to first thank all of the members of the House who participated on this and who will be supporting it: the members for Ottawa East, LanarkRenfrew, S-D-G & East Grenville, Norfolk, Guelph, Essex-Kent, Durham West, and also the member for Nepean, who I'll respond to, and the member for Dufferin-Peel, who I'll respond to.

One of the big things here is that we have to lead by example. I think it was already stated --

Mr McLean: Simcoe East.

Mr Cooper: S-D-G & East Grenville; I said that.

Mr McLean: No, Simcoe East.

Ms Cooper: Simcoe East. Sorry about that. My apologies, but I only have a few minutes, and obviously we needed more time to debate this.

This government is leading by example because, as it was stated earlier, the Minister of Environment and Energy is driving a natural-gas-powered vehicle. It's not a limousine, but it is a very nice car and it drives well. I've talked to the driver of the vehicle, who reports that driving a natural gas vehicle is no different than driving a gasoline-powered vehicle.

But one of the big things that I want to respond to here is, why am I promoting the use of natural gas? The point is that we have breakthrough technology in the field of natural gas vehicles and what we've got to do is encourage this. As it was stated, most of this technology is exportable. We want to encourage this business to develop here in the province of Ontario where we have leading-edge technology that's not available anywhere else in the world.

To the member for Nepean, I haven't given up on motorcycles and I have talked to the Treasurer, who has stated there is progress coming in the field of motorcycle insurance. That is one thing. But the one thing is, I also did a resolution on motorcycles, at the beginning of the term of this government, which also promoted the wise and efficient use of our fossil fuels. Motorcycles use less and they take up less parking space and they're environmentally conscious. This is a follow-through on what I was talking about.

All members have been talking about electric vehicles and ethanol and things like that. Yes, we do promote that. I'm not asking for the total conversion. That's why it says "systematic conversion," so where it's feasible you'd bring in natural gas vehicles.

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

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We will first deal with ballot item number 75 standing in the name of Mr Bradley. If there are any members opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This is up to a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Will all members take their seats.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carter, Crozier, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Fawcett, Frankford, Grandmaître, Hansen, Hayes, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, MacKinnon, Malkowski, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Murphy, O'Connor, Offer, Perruzza, Poole, Sterling, Sutherland, Tilson, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Bradley's motion will please rise and be recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Cooper, Fletcher, Gigantes, Hodgson, Hope, Lessard, Mathyssen, Martin, Mills, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36, the nays 13.

The Acting Speaker: I declare this motion carried.

NATURAL GAS VEHICLES

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We will now deal with ballot item number 76 standing in the name of Mr Cooper.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Cooper's motion carry? Carried.

All private members' business having been completed, I will now leave the chair and we will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Yesterday, the leader of the third party asked a question about tax reduction and the tax legacy of the NDP government and, indeed, the former Liberal government. I thought that it might be a good idea to look even further back, at the legacy left to us by the government Mike Harris was part of.

I went back to the Progressive Conservative budgets for 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984, and guess what? I found 24 tax and fee increases, including expanding the provincial sales tax to trees, smoke alarms, household pets and 19 other things.

Interestingly enough, for the same Conservative years there are only two tax decreases, or "tax reductions" in the current lingo of the leader of the third party.

Let's count the tax reductions during the Liberal years. From 1985 to 1990 the Liberal government reduced taxes 26 times.

Now Mike Harris thinks tax reductions are a good thing.

But let's go back to those Conservative tax increases. Members of the Legislature must vote to approve the budget and the tax and fee increases included in it. I thought it would be interesting to look up who voted in favour of those budgets of 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984.

In 1981, with the Progressive Conservatives voting in favour of the tax increases was a person by the name of Harris. As well, in 1982, 1983 and 1984, there he is again, a person by the last name of Harris.

I thought the leader of the third party will want to track this other Harris, this impostor, down. After all, this other Harris didn't miss a chance to vote for higher taxes and fees for Ontarians. Surely, the leader of the third party and this Harris character can't be one and the same person -- or can they?

SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On January 31, Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington gave one week's notice to 120 families in active treatment and 90 families on a waiting list that it was terminating their speech-language pathology services for preschool children.

These families were told their main alternative was to continue with the same therapist but at a private rate of $80 per hour -- quite unaffordable for most families.

On May 2, I asked the Health minister to undertake a review -- still no action. On September 13, I asked the social services minister to confirm which ministry assumes lead responsibility for these children -- still no action. Yesterday at Queen's Park, Parents Advocating for Language and Speech, PALS, a group concerned with the erosion of speech-language services, brought a petition with more than 2,000 signatures calling on Ruth Grier to maintain accessibility to these services without paying user fees.

When the Education minister is funding second- and third-language programs at a cost of millions of tax dollars, parents ask why another minister would sit by idly while preschool children cannot access this vital health service to learn their first language because their parents are forced to pay user fees.

Today, I call again on Ruth Grier to make good on her May 2 promise to investigate and restore this essential children's health service. She will know that one in 10 children experiences some form of language difficulty. Speech therapy should not be delayed since it is most effective with early identification and intervention. Without the early investment in our children, the cost to our society will be much greater in the future.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Let's talk about toxic waste. It's been a nightmare for the people of west Lincoln since 1985. It's been a decade since the Ontario Waste Management Corp chose west Lincoln as a site for its proposed toxic waste treatment facility.

Two weeks ago, the consolidated hearings board rejected the OWMC's proposal, and the thousands of people who opposed OWMC's toxic monster thought the battle was finally over. The battle has just begun. Rumour has it that the OWMC will appeal the board's decision. If this happens, the Ontario cabinet will have the final say on OWMC's proposal.

I call on the cabinet members to reject outright the appeal by the OWMC. Why? Because the people of west Lincoln do not want a toxic waste treatment plan in their backyard. They believe it is not needed. They believe that Ontario can best deal with its toxic waste problem by forcing industry to reduce toxic wastes through recycling and by embracing new Canadian technologies that would alow industry to treat toxic waste onsite.

Cabinet must put an end to west Lincoln's suffering once and for all: First by rejecting any appeal by OWMC and, second, by forcing OWMC to give up its option on the land that was to be used for its proposed facility. They must listen to the people of west Lincoln.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of killing OWMC's proposal. Read my lips: no new toxic waste plants in Lincoln.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Today, we want to salute the advisers to Mike Harris who are trying to help turn him into Newt Gingrich, the government of Ontario, the 51st state in the Union.

We see, on the one hand, Tom Long, one-time party president and leadership contender, who reputedly was the adviser who got Frank Miller to say on that ill-fated day, "I am the Ronald Reagan of Ontario." Tom Long, the former Mulroney aide, is a great admirer of the policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. In fact, when Long was running the show at the Conservative campus association he had a jar of jelly beans to munch on, just like Mr Reagan.

We also see the new Tory adviser, Mike Murphy, the Republican dirty tricks consultant, the master of negative advertising, who almost took Ollie North, a convicted liar and thief, to the US Senate. These two had a plan: Turn a down-home golf pro and teacher into the consummate actor, able to shift shapes, images and convictions at a whim, depending on the circumstances and the audience he's talking to.

He has reversed his position on user fees. Once for them, he's running radio ads against them. In the last Conservative government, Mike Harris never found a tax increase he couldn't vote for. Now he says he's against all the taxes he voted for.

Mike Harris has gone from just being another Conservative to being the Taxfighter to Mike the Knife to the Bleeder, a sensitive, new-age guy for the 1990s, sort of a Mr Spock with feelings, a Data with emotions. Well, in the next election I expect the voters to beam him down.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): London teachers have given destreaming a failing grade, stating that it frustrates students, lowers self-esteem and pushes more youths through the cracks of the education system.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation conducted a province-wide survey which illustrates that 80% of its teachers do not support the destreaming process. The teachers were asked a number of questions and the results were included in a report that concluded: There have not been enough support services; destreaming has reduced the opportunity to help individual students; it has reduced the ability to challenge stronger students; students' self-esteem hasn't improved and frustration has increased; classroom management is more difficult.

According to Bill Brooks, president of the London branch of the teachers' union, "...the better students aren't challenged, the weaker students don't get the help they need and in trying to please everyone, few are pleased."

Minister, I believe that all students, no matter what level of learning they are at, deserve to be challenged in the classroom. We support excellence in education for our young people, not mediocrity.

In my role as critic for Education and Training, I have been discussing this issue with students and teachers from across the province for over a year. Both criticize the lack of opportunities for students with learning difficulties, students with literacy challenges and students with special program needs. What we should be focusing on, Mr Minister, are programs, including technical and cooperative, that lead to jobs for students.

Your Common Curriculum document and your destreaming policy do not support excellent job training for students and do not support excellence for entrance into our colleges and universities either.

1340

DOMINIC CARDILLO

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to pay tribute to Dominic Cardillo, who retired as the mayor of the city of Kitchener.

Dom Cardillo served 32 years in municipal government, and throughout those 32 years he maintained this basic philosophy: "How can I help this city?" His focus was on quality of life and, "How can I help make this city truly user-friendly?" Dom was totally committed to the community and to serving the people of Kitchener.

I would like to mention a few things that have taken place during Dom's tenure at the municipal level: improved recreational facilities; relocation and construction of a new city hall; additional parkland in the Chicopee area; funding for industrial lands; efforts to assist the Working Centre of Kitchener; and expansion of Kitchener Memorial Auditorium.

Dom Cardillo entered municipal politics because he likes people. He is truly a people person. He believed in putting people first. Their needs, concerns and basically just how they were doing was very important to Dom Cardillo.

If Dom said he would do this or that or talk to a certain person, he did what he said he would. He was reliable and consistent. It may have taken a couple of months, but he followed through on his commitments.

To most people in the city of Kitchener and to visitors to the city, Dom was also known by another feature. Most who met Dom received either a city pin or pen, and sometimes both.

To Dom I would like to say that on behalf of the city of Kitchener, we wish you well on retirement. We thank you for your 32 years of commitment to the city of Kitchener, and henceforth in Kitchener, BC will be Before Cardillo and AD will be After Dom.

To Mayor Christy I say congratulations. I wish you well and look forward to opportunities where we can work together for the city of Kitchener. To Gary Leadston, Carl Zehr and Will Ferguson, who all served the community well, I wish them well also.

TOP 10 LIST

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On what could be the last sitting day of this government in the Legislature, I have here in my hand, from the home city in Mississauga, the top 10 list of NDP government firsts:

(10) The first cabinet minister to appear as a Sunshine Boy. Peter Kormos no doubt ranks as one of the most talked-about, if not one of the best-looking, Sunshine Boys ever.

(9) The first cabinet downsizing to result in a larger cabinet. They went from a cabinet of 25 to a cabinet of 27 ministers, supported by 31 parliamentary assistants, an amazing feat of streamlining.

(8) The first campaign manager to be appointed secretary to cabinet.

(7) The first time the auditor refused to sign off the government's books, and the first government to keep two sets.

(6) The first casualty of the information highway: John Piper caught leaking information to smear a member of the public.

(5) The first investment in a Peruvian utility by Ontario Hydro. But don't worry, folks, this will not be the last foreign investment Hydro makes if Chairman Mo of the Jungle has his way.

(4) First half-million-dollar sabbatical for a political backroomer: Robin Sears, the most expensive exile since King Faroukh.

(3) The first minister to resign twice.

(2) The first minister to refuse to resign twice but finally relent and quit the cabinet.

And my personal favourite:

(1) The first minister to take a lie detector test to prove that indeed she did lie.

LANDFILL

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): For those who may not be aware, there is a smaller version of the IWA landfill site selection process going on in Victoria county. The process, which began in 1989, is not expected, in the most optimistic view, to be a functional landfill for another three to four years. As it currently stands, residents around five short-listed sites have had to put their lives on hold while this bureaucratic nightmare unfolds around them. They can't sell their properties. Potential new residents are turning away and looking elsewhere.

Designating possible sites and then effectively freezing development around them for nearly a decade is unconscionable, unfair and is simply a way for the provincial government to throw a political hot potato into the hands of municipal politicians.

What you've effectively done is created a never-ending make-work project for consultants. By setting rigid, non-negotiable guidelines that apply no matter where you live in this province, you have eliminated commonsense proposals from people who know what will work best in their communities. The flexibility to respond to local circumstances is absent from the whole process.

High tipping fees are forcing millions of tonnes of Ontario garbage to the United States.

This government is still determined to bury waste in agricultural land, the very land that sustains crops and farm animals that feed the people of this province.

My message to the provincial government is this: The field of knowledge about waste management has surpassed your ideological crusade to simply bury things out of sight and out of mind. It's time to open up the process. Let the people see all the facts, not just the ones that support your outdated mode of thinking.

ONWARD WILLOW CENTRE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): The Onward Willow Better Beginnings, Better Futures project continues to have very positive outcomes in the Willow Road neighbourhood, which was labelled in 1991 as Guelph's largest problem. The police have reported a dramatic reduction in vandalism and an increase in community involvement.

In fact, Paul Morant, a staff sergeant from Guelph police, said: "From my observation Onward Willow has had a very positive input, that particular area, in the way of police-related calls was a very busy area, and those calls have dropped dramatically. From my observations Onward Willow has allowed the people living there to share and build in their future rather than just being occupants...."

Another person said: "The Wellington-Guelph Housing Authority reports a dramatic increase in housing residents taking a more active role in community building, cooperation with the housing authority on the tenant advisory committee and there has also been a reduction in complaints of vandalism.

"The project has assisted a number of young offenders placed by the John Howard Society to return to school and to participate in community activities. Keeping one adolescent of a young offender out of a...facility saves the taxpayer over $100,000 per year.

"The principal of the primary school in the neighbourhood reports that fewer children are going to school hungry. This has come about because families have access to bread and other food staples donated by neighbourhood stores from their unsold stock....

"The community mental health clinic reports that the support provided to adolescent women who have been abused is resulting in many of the women seeking professional help and making positive changes in their lifestyle.

"These various outcomes are cost-effective not only in dollars but lead to better parenting and more adjusted children."

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in showing appreciation to the pages who have served this chamber and the members so exceedingly well during the past several weeks. Will the members please show their appreciation to the pages.

Applause.

The Speaker: The Minister of Citizenship.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I seek unanimous consent to mark International Human Rights Day.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): It gives me great pleasure to rise today in honour of International Human Rights Day, which will be celebrated on December 10. Nearly half a century ago, the members of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The United Nations had just been formed. A long and agonizing world war had finally drawn to a close. The world for many was again a place of hope, and the members of the United Nations moved, in their wisdom, to construct a fundamental pillar of civilized society -- a declaration of human rights.

That was some 46 years ago, in 1948. To this day it is a document that should inspire and challenge us all. The declaration recognizes the inherent dignity and the equal rights of all members of the human family. It notes that the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief -- and freedom from fear and want -- has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of a common people, and it proceeds to proclaim fundamental human rights that we all hold close to our heart.

It is a substantial document, of course, one that we should reread regularly. It stands as a measure of our successes and our future challenges in ensuring the dignity and equality of all members of the human family.

The world remains a very troubled place. The magnitude of difficulties facing some people of the world should make us feel thankful for our relative security and prosperity in this province, but we can never afford to lapse into complacency when it comes to protecting the freedoms, rights and opportunities of all women, men and children.

Here in Ontario we still have a way to go to building a society free of barriers for all people in this province. Examples of acts of hate activities still exist in Ontario. In fact this week, we saw that three businesses in North York were defaced simply because the owners of those particular businesses were members of a group, of the Jewish family. But we have also seen in my own riding some acts of hate as well, hate against teachers who work in our school system who are trying to provide education to all our young people. At Humberside we all are very upset about this particular type of occurrence.

1350

That is why this government is working with the people of this province to identify and dismantle barriers to our full social and economic development, as individuals and as a society.

The government of Ontario is advancing its equity agenda on a number of fronts. I'd like to share a brief overview of some of these initiatives.

In the human rights area, we are taking active steps to protect and promote human rights in the province of Ontario. We recognize that the protection of human rights requires effective and efficient administrative operations, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission has taken a series of steps to improve such operations.

As a result of a new case-management strategy, the number of cases pending investigation was reduced from 924 cases, which was 45% of the caseload, in March of this year to only 352 cases, which is 15% of the caseload, in September.

As of October 31, 1994, just 208 cases, the lowest number in five years, had been on file with the commission for more than three years. By way of comparison, at the same time last year the commission had 332 cases over three years old.

The number of cases formally closed by the commission between April and October of this year increased by 85% over formal closings in the same period in 1993.

The Employment Equity Act, which took effect on September 1 of this year, will help ensure that workplaces in Ontario provide equitable recruitment, treatment, training and promotion to all employees. It specifically calls for employers to identify and remove barriers to employment for members of four designated groups, namely aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women.

The Employment Equity Commission, headed by Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, is providing employers, unions and employees with the information and support they need to make employment equity integral to the way they do business.

The Advocacy Act will undoubtedly stand as one of Ontario's most important initiatives undertaken for vulnerable adults. The act is designed to build bridges to independence for vulnerable adults who have difficulty expressing or acting on their wishes and to help them assert their rights and autonomy and to participate in making decisions about their lives.

Along with the Substitute Decisions Act and the Consent to Treatment Act, the Advocacy Act is rooted in the idea that personal autonomy, the freedom to make choices and decisions, is a fundamental human right.

This government has undertaken a number of initiatives to ensure the protection of human rights and equitable treatment for persons with disabilities. Allow me to provide some examples of how we are working towards a barrier-free society.

In 1994-95, the Ministry of Education and Training has provided more than $11 million to help colleges and universities provide services to persons with disabilities.

Under the Jobs Ontario Capital program, this government has provided $10 million to help post-secondary institutions improve access and services for persons with disabilities.

Under initiatives scheduled by the Ministry of Transportation, 13 GO Transit stations are to be fully accessible by next spring. As well, new and key existing subway stations in Metro Toronto will be made fully accessible.

Persons with disabilities will enjoy improved access to 15 provincial parks, thanks to $1 million in funding provided this year by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has supported the development of an accessible waterfront trail stretching from the Trent River to Burlington Bay. Some 275 kilometres long, the trail is to open to the public next spring.

The Ontario government has spent $38 million in the past five years to improve access to its buildings and facilities.

Since 1990, more than 650 community groups have received a total of $18.6 million from the Ministry of Citizenship's access fund to make their facilities more accessible to persons with disabilities and senior citizens.

As well, the Ministry of Citizenship has engaged in systemic and strategic cross-ministry initiatives to improve access for people with learning disabilities. We also have developed an implementation plan with the ministries of Education and Training and of Community and Social Services in response to the report on the status of oral interpreting services in Ontario.

Finally, a private member's bill introduced by my colleague Gary Malkowski has been debated this week in the standing committee on justice, and this bill is to help improve the equitable treatment for persons with disabilities. Bill 168 has provided opportunities for all of us to have vital discussion, dialogue and debate, and we'll continue to have that dialogue and debate, I understand, on how Ontario should move toward becoming a truly barrier-free society.

We are fulfilling our commitment to combat racism and ensure that all Ontarians have equitable opportunities to contribute to our social and economic strength. The Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat in the Ministry of Citizenship is leading the government's anti-racism agenda through its work in community coalition building and economic development, public education and support for other ministries' activities.

The Cabinet Round Table on Anti-Racism is another example of the government's commitment to community dialogue in combating racism. The round table, which brings together cabinet ministers and members of racial minority communities to share information and to work together to address obstacles, held its fourth meeting on November 28. A variety of important initiatives and issues were discussed at the round table, including a range of government-wide non-legislative antihate initiatives. If I might add, I think that is an extremely important and vital dialogue we are having in our communities at this particular time.

Our access to professions and trades unit is working in partnership with community groups, professional bodies and other ministries to accelerate the processes by which newcomers earn accreditation to practise their trades and professions in Ontario.

The examples I've just provided show that this government is taking active steps to identify and eliminate barriers to the full participation of all Ontarians in our cultural, social and economic systems. We are working on many fronts to ensure the inherent dignity and the equal rights of all members of the human family. We must always remember that our ability to respect one another is one of the most telling marks of our decency and our humanity, and we should join hands in a range of vigorous and active steps to create a barrier-free society for all Ontarians.

I'm confident that all members of the House will join me in a salute to all the people of Ontario on December 10, International Human Rights Day.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too join with the minister in recognizing International Human Rights Day which, as was stated, marks the 46th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Yes, 46 years have passed since the United Nations proclaimed December 10 as International Human Rights Day, and the week of December 5-11 as the week when we should all reflect on what we are doing individually and collectively to ensure that human rights are enjoyed by all people in Ontario or anywhere else in the world.

"International human rights" makes us automatically think of somewhere outside the borders of Ontario, outside the borders of Canada, and not here at home, as soon as we hear about human rights abuses. We live on a continent that accepts more diverse immigrants than anywhere else in the world. People come here with different ethnic, racial and religious compositions. We are constantly redefining who we are collectively as Canadians. We are a nation made up of people from all continents that have joined the native people who were here originally, our original inhabitants. The native people of Ontario and of Canada, we know, deserve the respect of all people in recognizing their culture.

What has happened is that we select what we want to see and we select what we want to hear just to satisfy our conscience that we're doing enough for human rights, but unfortunately what we're also seeing around the world and at home are new terms of racism, reinforcing the kind of status quo of superiority of one culture, race or religion over another. We hear phrases like "ethnic cleansing" and other phrases like it that tell us one race is superior over the other.

1400

In Ontario, we may not see the degree of human rights violations that are suffered in some other parts of the world, and for this we should be grateful, but we are far from resting on our laurels, as much more work needs to be accomplished, as the minister stated. Discrimination exists in Ontario. It exists, and the case backlog at the Ontario Human Rights Commission is evidence of this.

We must also fight against the systemic discrimination that exists, and in working at this, examine the institutions in which we live to see how we can make the society we live in more tolerable, accepting and open to all.

In recognizing International Human Rights Day, it is important to remember that achieving human rights is a process we must all be committed to, and that human rights not only include racial lines but also the collective rights of the disabled. We must also recognize that for many in the disabled community, their rights here in Ontario are breached every day when fair accommodation to their needs is ignored.

Forty-five years ago, the United Nations saw the need to pass a Universal Declaration on Human Rights for countries to use as a benchmark. Some have done better than others, but I hope we will all reflect on what we can do to help human rights be enjoyed by all.

In my riding, we have seen a transformation of different ethnic groups. As a matter of fact, almost 40% are from east Asian countries. Therefore, we have to reexamine ourselves, as I stated earlier, of who we are as Scarboroughites, Ontarians or Canadians. It is that re-examination that makes us a great nation.

But we have seen here, in one of the highest forums of democracy, the Legislature, the denial of proper debate on some of the issues that touch many of us hard, many of our concerns. That is one of the frustrations of democracy. We hope in the next Parliament, today being the last day, when we form the next Parliament, regardless of what party it is, that expressive worth is given to parliamentarians to talk about some of those violations of rights. It is very frustrating, especially for myself, who faces some sort of discrimination each day.

We in this Parliament are vigilant, I know, in some respects, in seeing that equity is being appreciated, but somehow when we look at the bureaucratic structure we have in our province, there is a tremendous amount of frustration, especially in the public service. They have been expressing to me daily that employment equity in the public service is not working. I appeal to the government, the minister and the opposition to be more vigilant that equity is being addressed in that region.

As I mentioned earlier, cases in the Human Rights Commission are backlogged, not because of incompetence on the part of the Human Rights Commission but because of the lack of resources given to that commission. We have to have the political will to see that it can work, because it is not working.

The courts continue to be backlogged; people are waiting for justice. Their rights are being denied, because justice delayed is justice denied.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, and to my colleagues, that though we mark another International Human Rights Day, to say it's 45 years, if we look around the world, in the sense of Bosnia, Somalia, South Africa and all over the world where we see human rights violations, and in China, as a matter of fact, we've thought the economic situation is much more important than human rights, we have to balance that. We see a trend of many of us going to China, yet human rights violations do exist there. In Mexico, they continue to have a high rate of human rights violations. In Haiti, we continue to have that, and all over the world.

As we deal with the situation in a domestic forum or a local forum, we have an impact internationally. So again we look forward to another year where we are just as vigilant in addressing the violation of human rights here and abroad.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too would like to join other members of the Legislature today in acknowledging the 46th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights adopted in 1948 by the United Nations.

On behalf of my party, I would like to say how deeply proud I am of our record, our collective record of achievement in this province on the issue of human rights. Ontario, under the leadership of Premier John Robarts, was the first jurisdiction in Canada to adopt a human rights code that was modelled on the United Nations declaration, and that was over 32 years ago.

Our party established the Human Rights Commission and through the Ministry of Citizenship opened our doors to thousands of new Canadians through the Ontario Welcome House program. Our record of human rights and economic opportunity made Ontario an exceptional place to live, work and raise a family. Millions of new Canadians chose our province over any other place on earth to call home.

So no individual, party or province has a monopoly on compassion, no individual or party or province holds a monopoly on support for the principles of human rights. We in this chamber all believe in democracy and in the right to self-determination. We all support the protection of an individual's right to safety of person.

In his most famous speech, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr said he had a dream that one day people would "not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character." We all agree that every individual should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, in the job market, in the housing market, indeed in all of society, regardless of race, of religion, of gender, of ethnic origin. However, we can and we must strive to do better, to continue to move forward.

In that regard, I do want to address a few comments to all of us on the threat of political correctness as it relates to this issue of human rights. As I said, we all agree in this chamber on the importance of human rights. However, we do disagree, as is our right in a democratic and pluralistic society, on how best to protect, to preserve and to enhance those rights and freedoms.

I know the Premier believes in equality of outcome. I believe in equality of opportunity. The Premier and his caucus believe that laws should be passed to establish hiring quotas. The government may try to pass the system off as voluntary and talk about goals and timetables; nevertheless, when you are legally required to hire by race, colour, sex or other physical characteristics, that is a quota.

I, on the other hand, agree with the words of Martin Luther King. Everyone should "not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character." No one should be denied an opportunity because of their colour, ethnic origin, religious beliefs or gender. That must include the young white male son of Estonian immigrants as much as the daughter of a third-generation Chinese or first-generation Somali. Each of these individuals should be hired on merit. They must be guaranteed an equal opportunity to compete based on merit.

Support, then, for equality of opportunity is hollow rhetoric unless you support efforts to enhance those opportunities. That means equal access to education, equal access to jobs, equal access to promotion opportunities and equal treatment under the law. It means no glass ceilings for women, no denial of access because of religious headgear, no quotas. Opportunity, like justice, should be blind.

The point I am making is that political correctness and the issue of human rights can sometimes lead to reverse discrimination. This new discrimination in and of itself creates new tensions and new frustrations in our multicultural society.

1410

While we are acknowledging the United Nations declaration on human rights and human rights day, I also want to touch on our own record, on the necessity of maintaining consistency as a signal to the rest of the world, for Ontario, Canada, is in fact held up to the rest of the world.

We've all listened to speeches in this chamber from politicians of every party on the issue of human rights. As leader of my party over the past four years, I'm sure I have made mistakes, but I have tried to be consistent: consistent from year to year, consistent in rural Ontario and in urban Ontario and, most importantly, consistent in what I advocate in opposition and what I would do in government.

As we talk about human rights today, we can recall the emotions and feelings of 1989, when all of us in Canada were gripped by the scene of a lone student just outside Tiananmen Square, staring down the barrel of an army tank in China.

We all thought about the human rights of the students in the square and the millions of Chinese citizens that they symbolized. We watched to see what would happen after those tanks started to roll. Five years later, I see pictures of Bob Rae and Bob Nixon signing an agreement with the same Chinese government to purchase nuclear reactors from Canada.

I don't oppose trade with China, but I find it disappointing to see politicians who gave eloquent speeches about human rights in opposition now selling nuclear reactors to the same government that was on the other end of that tank gun in 1989, and not one word went out to the rest of the world that watches Ontario, not one word on human rights. I thought it was very important to touch on these issues as an illustration of how much we can still do, of how absolutely important it is for Ontario, watched by the rest of the world, to be consistent.

It is important that we all acknowledge and celebrate human rights day and the advances we have made as a province since the end of the Second World War on the issue of human rights. There is much more that could be done for individuals, though, in Ontario and around the world.

I believe the best way to advance human rights and dignity both at home and abroad is to provide an example that is consistent, credible, believable, and to provide greater opportunities. That opportunity doesn't come from words or politically correct phrases or interjections. It comes from education, protection under the law and economic advancement.

One of the best ways we can enhance opportunity in Ontario is to provide a strong economy, a fair justice system, an accessible health care system, excellence in education, equal and accessible to all. If we can focus on those priorities and bring common sense to government, we will continue to build and enhance individual opportunity, economic growth and human rights in Ontario. That's my goal.

I believe, regardless of our philosophical approach, it is the goal of every member of the House. We may differ on how to achieve the goal, but the continued commitment by all of us in this chamber to a better and a fairer society must be resolute.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps you could help me with this. This is an anniversary, a one-year anniversary, and I was wondering if you had been able to determine whether the investigation has been concluded by the OPP into Jim Coyle and Richard Brennan, two members of the press gallery who last year brought this to your attention. It's one year later. It's their anniversary. I was wondering if you had determined whether they were innocent or guilty or what had happened.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member is mistaken. I have not had any connection with the Ontario Provincial Police regarding an investigation which the member speaks of.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I was very disturbed by the comments by the leader of the third party when he said that justice should be blind. I think that blind people would find that offensive. But what's more, he failed to mention people with disabilities. He didn't say one word about people with disabilities, and I guess that shows how the Common Sense Revolution works. I don't accept the language that he used. I feel it's offensive to the disabled community.

The Speaker: To the honourable member for York East, I appreciate the concerns which he brings to my attention. However, he does not have a point of privilege. There are certainly, or often, differences of opinion which are expressed in this chamber.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am asking for unanimous consent of the House to revert to ministerial statements to allow the Minister of Health to address nurse practitioners, the hospital reallocation formula, details of the catastrophic drug program --

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to ministerial statements? I heard at least one negative voice.

Mr Malkowski: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'm just asking for your guidance. I'd like the leader of the third party to withdraw his statement when he said, "Justice should be blind." It's the same type of a statement as saying, "Falling on deaf ears." So I'd like him to withdraw the unparliamentary language.

The Speaker: As I stated earlier to the member, he does not have a point of privilege. However, as is the custom in the chamber if something is found to be offensive to another member, the first member has the opportunity to withdraw the remark if he or she chooses to do so. I now allow that opportunity to the honourable leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your ruling that it was not unparliamentary. If it offends anybody, though, I certainly withdraw it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation on one of my favourite subjects, photo-radar. When his colleague and seatmate, the loquacious, peripatetic, hyperactive former Minister of Transportation announced this pilot project in the summer of 1994, he indicated on behalf of the department and the government that this pilot project would be carefully assessed against clear safety criteria.

My question to the now Minister of Transportation is simply this: Will the Minister of Transportation today announce to this House or indicate to this House what specifically are the safety criteria by means of which the photo-radar pilot project will be assessed at the end of its tenure?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): The member is quite correct: Safety is the key issue of this government in making these roads the safest in North America. What I would suggest to the member is that clearly we want to see a reduction in speed. We want to see a conformity of motorists to the speed limits that are posted. We know and we believe that there will be a correlation between reduced speed and fatal accidents and accidents in general. I'm sure the member will join us in our efforts to ensure that the roads of Ontario are indeed the safest in North America.

1420

Mr Conway: I'm not surprised that the now Minister of Transportation says that his criteria are a hope and a prayer that things will get better.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): That's not what he said.

Mr Conway: That's exactly what he said. When the program was announced earlier this summer, the government of the day, the then minister said there were specific criteria by which this program would be judged.

I'm not surprised to hear the minister's answer, because I had staff communicate to the two departments, Solicitor General and Transportation, trying to elicit from them what the criteria were. The department of the Solicitor General responsible for the OPP writes back a short time ago, saying: "We have no criteria. Check with the department of Transportation. It's their job." The Ministry of Transportation writes back to say: "No, we don't have any information. We have no criteria. Check with the department of the Solicitor General." It's the stuff of Abbott and Costello: Who's on first, what's on second and I don't know who's on third.

Minister, your seatmate said months ago there were specific safety criteria by means of which this project would be judged. It is clearly indicated in the government propaganda of the summer just passed. My question remains: What are the specific safety criteria by means of which your photo-radar pilot project will be judged?

Hon Mr Farnan: It boggles my mind that on the final day of the House this is where the official opposition goes. Let me put it very, very simply for the honourable member: Speed kills. When you speed you increase the potential for fatality and serious accident.

All of the research of other jurisdictions where these programs have been implemented clearly indicates that there has been a reduction in speed, there has been a reduction in fatalities, and the member will know that one out of six deaths on our highways is a result of speed.

I believe that all members of this House, in good faith, would want this government to act responsibly to provide a safe environment. I would say also to the member, you can approach the OPP and they will certainly provide you with details.

Mr Conway: I have the ministry documents. There are criteria. The sheriff of Hazzard county, Danny Waters, seems to know what some of the criteria are, but we have the now minister saying, "I never saw any criteria, I never signed any criteria." I've got government documents from both departments involved saying: "Not I, master, not I. Check with my colleagues next door."

Surely the answer must be this: that the responsible minister for setting the criteria is truly neither the Solicitor General nor the Minister of Transportation but rather the Minister of Finance. Is not that the truth, Minister of Transportation, that the only definite criteria that the government has have been set by the Minister of Finance, who is quite clearly anxious and willing to pick the pockets of everyone, including Donner, Blitzen and Rudolph? Would you not agree that that's the only measure and the only set of criteria by which this project is going to be judged at the final analysis?

Hon Mr Farnan: Again I say to the member, the people who are responsible in greatest part for these measures are the people of Ontario, the public of Ontario, and this government is responding to the desires of the public of Ontario to have safe roads, something the former Liberal government never did.

I say to the member, I can go through every Liberal member sitting in this House and I can tell you what they want us to spend money on. The honourable member himself wants us to spend more money for road construction for a plowing match, spend more money for road construction, spend more money for culvert construction. The honourable member wants to spend, spend, spend.

Well, this government is not in that ballpark. We have responsible government, safety on the roads, and believe me, we will be happy --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Farnan: If we have to choose between raising a dollar and saving a life, we want to save that life.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Conway: You know, Catholics are educated to appreciate mystery, but this --

Interjections.

VIOLENCE IN SPORT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to say my second question is to the minister of --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): I'm offended, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Achieving order seems to be a mystery too. The honourable member with his second question.

Mr Conway: If I had a criterion for every one of Gilles Pouliot's utterances, I'd be a rich man.

My second question is to the minister responsible for amateur sport and recreation and culture. The minister will know that she and I had a brief chat on Tuesday about a matter that I wish now to raise in this question period.

I want to ask the minister formally whether or not she's now aware of the following facts: that last weekend, at a minor hockey tournament in suburban Ottawa, a hockey tournament for Atoms and Peewees -- now, that's the age category 10, 11, 12 and 13, young boys -- at that hockey tournament in suburban Ottawa last weekend, 10 coaches -- 10 coaches -- were ejected, and one of those coaches has now been charged with common assault for beating up a referee. Is the minister responsible for recreation aware of the circumstances surrounding that Atom and Peewee tournament at the Merivale arena in suburban Ottawa last Saturday?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): Yes, I am well aware of what happened and I was certainly happy when the member brought it to my attention the other day. I'd like to inform the member I've also had the opportunity since that time to have discussions about this incident with the Ottawa District Minor Hockey Association as well as other hockey representatives.

I certainly share the member's great concern that this is a time when people are not only encouraging their young boys and girls to get involved in amateur hockey in Ontario, but also encouraging them to be involved in a way that means fair play and the reduction of violence in sport.

For that reason, I'm delighted that in spite of the economic constraints that our government has been under, we've continued to provide funding to the Hockey Development Centre for Ontario in the amount of $600,000 per year, $100,000 of which goes to the safety and risk management program. Many of the other dollars in fact go to the training and certification of coaches, particularly to train coaches to promote fair play and non-violence in sport.

I was also pleased this morning to participate personally in the new Milk Energy Penalty Free Sweepstakes, along with many other famous hockey players and hockey organizations. I was also very much pleased this morning to announce a new --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I was also very pleased this morning to announce a new $15,000 grant to the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario to assist them, in addition to our earlier campaign --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her reply.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- "'Settling the Score' Won't Change the Score," to assist them further with the work that they're doing to try and promote violence-free environments in recreation facilities --

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

Mr Conway: What's going on here?

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Conway: My supplementary -- and again, this is a very serious question and I appreciate, as I think all members do, that we have a lot of very good people who are coaching and who are refereeing in minor sports. But I've got to tell you, I was in Ottawa on Monday listening to the reports from that minor hockey tournament: 10 coaches kicked out, one of them now charged with common assault, beating up on referees, throwing things at the referees. It sounded like rock 'em, sock 'em hockey at its worst.

I want to say to the government that I appreciate --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Like a Liberal caucus meeting.

Mr Conway: Well, I'm telling you, the parents -- we have stood up in this House repeatedly and properly deploring violence, violence against a lot of people. I'm trying to focus on what these young kids, 10- and 11- and 12-year-old boys, are to make of this kind of situation where adults are beating up on referees and, on a routine basis apparently, pitching projectiles at the referees.

1430

The referee in question says he thinks it's getting worse, and my supplementary question is this: The government has applied a zero tolerance to violence in schools. Has the minister, in her discussions with the Ottawa District Minor Hockey Association and others across the province, made plain that the kind of rock 'em, sock 'em mayhem that led to this outrageous behaviour at the Merivale arena last weekend will not be tolerated and that zero tolerance may in fact be the policy, not just in schools and school yards but in hockey arenas, particularly where the games involve minors?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I believe I went on at some length in indicating what this government is doing to promote non-violence in sport. I would, of course, say that the responsibility for acting on what has happened rests with the Hockey Development Centre for Ontario and with its amateur hockey organizations.

The alleged proponent of the incidents that happened in Nepean has of course been charged by the police. The other nine coaches involved have been suspended by the Ottawa district hockey organization, and I believe that speaks very clearly to their feelings about what happened. Further action by the Ottawa district hockey association must wait for the outcome of the charges to make sure that they don't adversely affect what's before the courts.

Mr Conway: I have in my hand the public accounts for 1993-94 and I see by reading the public accounts that last year this assembly voted $642,485 to support the good works of the Hockey Development Centre, whose works include the training of coaches and referees in ways that I think many of us understand.

My final question is, given the fact that this Legislature has voted very substantial funds to support minor sports, and I think properly so, what specific direction have you given or will you give, not just to the Ottawa district hockey association but to other minor sports organizations, that the kind of outrageous behaviour that has been reported from that Atom and Peewee tournament last weekend in suburban Ottawa simply will not be tolerated by those of us who are expected to vote moneys to support the good works that, most of the time, these people do?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I'm very pleased that the member has raised this question because I think it's an opportunity for us to stress as a Legislature the kind of role-modelling that we expect from the coaches of Ontario's young boys and girls.

The member is quite right to point out that we do provide significant moneys from this Legislature to the Hockey Development Centre for Ontario and, through it, to the various hockey associations around the province, and we provided specifically for the kind of training that it provides to coaches to teach coaches about the kind of role-modelling we expect them to portray to their young boys and girls to eliminate violence in sport and to encourage fair play, and to act on the slogan we've been promoting in our posters through the schools of "'Settling the Score' Won't Change the Score."

I'm delighted with the support from this Legislature for us to continue to send out that strong message for fair play and for good role-modelling to all of the coaches of Ontario's young boys and girls in hockey.

INTERNET

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Late last month, Premier, with great fanfare you announced that the Premier of Ontario had moved on to the information superhighway; you had your own mailbox on Internet. I wonder, Premier, if you can tell us how your journey has gone so far.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): My journey's going very well, thank you very much.

Mr Harris: Premier, I've obtained a copy of a recent message allegedly sent under your new Internet address, which I'm sending over to you. To say the least, it is rather obscene.

As of 1 o'clock today, this message still appeared on the Internet system. Has your staff made you aware of its existence? If so, have you been able to determine how this message was sent through the system from the Premier's secured address?

Hon Mr Rae: I haven't had an opportunity to read this message. It obviously doesn't come from me. I think the leader of the third party would understand that, seeing the contents of it. It doesn't come from anyone on my staff. And so all I can say to the leader is that there will obviously have to be a thorough investigation as to how a message of this kind could have appeared on either an e-mail or an Internet.

I would say to the leader of the third party that I think we're all aware of the fact that there are security questions about both the Internet and about q-mail communications, and that there have been instances before of people getting online who should have no access to the service.

I'm not even going to bother reading this out because it's a truly contemptible message, but I'm obviously very disturbed by what I've just read.

Mr Harris: I agree with the Premier not reading it out; neither am I. I'm releasing the document blacking out those sections that I too find very offensive. However, we obviously have a problem here. We received this, and I think four phone calls today into my office on others who have picked it up off Internet.

We contacted a number of people in the computer industry who have confirmed for us that the sender either had special access to the Premier's office computers -- that's one way -- or broke into the system from another location, and we are told it's not all that easy to do, or very, very skilfully reconfigured their computer to duplicate your address.

This raises, though, yet another issue of privacy and security within your government. Could you tell us what steps you're taking to ensure the security of information from the highest office in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, no confidential information of any kind would be put on the Internet, nor would it be put on q-mail. Any of us who have worked in this field understand, first of all, three things. It is possible for hackers, as they are called, to get into the system. I understand that they released Buckingham Palace's internal phone numbers and the home phone number of the British Prime Minister. We understand that there have been people who got in the Ministry of Revenue's system, and bilked the phone system for a certain amount of money.

I would say, just based on the document that you have sent me, that this is the product -- I mean, all I have here is a printout. I have no idea what computer this came from. It could have been printed out by anything. It could have been printed out by anybody, and the printout is one that refers to my address. My address, as you will well know, is in the newspaper: Premier at Government of Ontario Canada: premier@gov.on.ca, as it's called.

So the allegation that this even came from my system is an allegation that, so far as I can tell, is simply that: an allegation made by you, an assumption made by --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: Oh, you're not making that allegation.

Mr Harris: There are three ways, the experts say, you could get on the system.

Hon Mr Rae: No, but you're also saying it got on the system. I don't even know that. All I have here is a printout.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: I will do that. We will do that. I will certainly do that, but I want to be very clear that what I have got here is a printout of a machine and you are now making an assumption or an allegation as to where this came from.

Mr Harris: The experts tell me there were three ways --

Hon Mr Rae: I've heard a lot of your expertise today. I've heard a lot about your expertise on all sorts of subjects, and you'll permit me if I just take a moment to say that you have presented me with a piece of paper --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me just assess what you did in your questions today: You passed over a piece of paper without any warning of any kind. You ask a flip question as a way of introduction. You then pass me over a piece of paper without any introduction and you ask me to comment. You then make an allegation and an assumption about it.

I have never seen this paper. It doesn't come from anybody associated with me. I hope the leader of the third party would understand that there's enough decency and civility in this place to understand that this is a contemptible document. It has nothing to do with me or with my office. How you got it, I do not know. Where it comes from, I do not know.

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Rae: All I know is that a piece of paper came over to me. I'm telling you it has nothing to do with me. If there are security issues to deal with in terms of the Internet, we will obviously deal with them as we would with any other communication.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I raised it as a security issue. I was expecting --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr Harris: My second question is also to the Premier. Yesterday you told reporters you don't understand why welfare rolls are swelling when unemployment is declining. Premier, I suggest you and your minister are the only two people in Canada who don't understand why this is happening.

Ten days ago --

Hon Mr Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to confirm, has the leader of the third party actually distributed this document to the entire gallery? Is that what I'm to understand?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Yes, he has.

Hon Mr Rae: Has this document been distributed? I can't believe the leader of the third party would engage in that kind of tactic. This is unbelievable. Today you have managed to lower the tone of this place, and I find it --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. This House stands in recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed from 1443 to 1453.

Hon Mr Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like an apology from the leader of the third party, and I'll be very specific as to what I want him to apologize for.

He is leaving on the record the impression that a member from my staff, or possibly me, had anything whatsoever to do with an obscene message on a machine. That is an allegation that is beneath contempt and I must have a clear apology from the leader of the third party. I think it's contemptible to leave that kind of impression on the record; truly contemptible.

Mr Harris: I demand an apology from the Premier of the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon Bob Huget (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): That junk is on PC letterhead.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Sarnia will come to order.

We have unfortunately had to have at least one recess. In order to conduct the public business, we must attempt, no matter how difficult it may be, to have decorum in this chamber.

This is a difficult and serious issue, I acknowledge. The leader of the third party was recognized; he has the right to speak.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Premier has made allegations that I implied that he or one of his staff has put this information on to the Internet system.

If you would check the record, Mr Speaker, when the Premier checks it and calms down he will find out, contrary to the allegation of distribution of material, I did not distribute the material. I blacked out anything that my staff felt might be offensive. Secondly, we had a security problem and I indicated very clearly that the experts say there were three ways that it could have got on there. I am suggesting to the Premier that we do have a problem -- unless he has a computer expert who suggests there is a fourth.

I also, Mr Speaker, would let you know and the Premier know, his office is well aware of the problem. The indications to me were they were in a panic situation because they can't get it off the system and unfortunately they didn't notify the Premier. So, on the allegations that the Premier made about me, I would respectfully request an apology from the Premier.

The Speaker: First to the Premier, I understand the concern which he has brought to the attention of the Chair and the House. He does not have a point of order, but it is our custom for any member of the House, when a member finds something to be offending, there is a request and an opportunity for the other member to withdraw whatever remarks were made. Such is not the case and, to the Chair, there is simply a disagreement between two members in the House.

Members will note that, because of the unusual circumstances, I did stop the clock and we will now resume question period. The leader of the third party with his second question, please.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, you told reporters you don't understand why welfare rolls are swelling when unemployment is declining. Premier, I suggest that you and your minister must be the only two people in Canada who don't understand why this is happening.

Ten days ago, I informed this House of the Auditor General of Canada's conclusion that Canada's welfare system is fraught with dependency and disincentives to work. He found excessive spending on passive programs and an increasing number of employable people claiming welfare.

Premier, that is why Ontario's rolls are increasing. The only thing, Premier, that is left to understand is why, over four years, your government has done nothing about it. Can you explain that?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll take that question as notice, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary?

Mr Harris: In perhaps the Premier's last opportunity to answer questions in his history, I'd like it to be noted that on a question that was brought to the attention two weeks ago, well understood by the Auditor General, the Premier doesn't have enough information or composure to answer the question. By way of supplementary, now that he's taken the first as notice, in the first 10 months of this year, the Ontario economy gained 180,000 jobs, yet 18,000 caseloads were added to welfare. Premier, this prosperity paradox is not a new trend.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Durham West, come to order.

Mr Harris: Welfare cases have increased every single year in the last decade, regardless of how strong the economy was. Yet you, Premier, have waited until the dying days of your government to even take a look at the problem. Your inaction has taken hope from thousands of families in this province who are now caught, as the Auditor General concluded, in a cycle of dependency.

Premier, the time for action is now. Could you tell us today what specific plans you have to overhaul Ontario's welfare system?

Hon Mr Rae: I'll take that as notice as well, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Is there a final supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

1500

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The minister will know that the Provincial Auditor, in his annual report, raised some serious concerns and some serious recommendations about the way the finances of the province are reported.

Normally, the committee called the standing committee on public accounts, an all-party, normally fairly non-partisan, committee deals with those recommendations, and I would say that the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor are absolutely fundamental to the credibility of the province. The committee this morning, as the member will know --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Have you read it? Go read it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Downsview, come to order. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: One of the key recommendations of the Provincial Auditor was a revision to something called the Audit Act. As a matter of fact, you yourself sent a letter to the committee urging them to have public hearings on it.

This morning, the opposition, members of my caucus, moved a motion that these essential public hearings be held over the next few months. That was the recommendation, a fundamental recommendation. The NDP members of that committee, in a somewhat unprecedented move, blocked any public hearings to be held on the important Audit Act over the next few months.

My question to the minister is this: Were you consulted by your caucus on that decision and, more importantly, do you agree with that decision to not hold the important -- at your urging -- hearings on the Audit Act in the next few months?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): In view of the fact that we're really talking about a scheduling program of committees, I'd refer this question to the House leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The member opposite knows full well the answer to his question before he asks it. The House leaders of both parties have been made clear, and the members of my caucus and his committee made it clear, that they were prepared to proceed in the spring when the House returns with those hearings that the member refers to. So, with respect to the member's question, yes, we are in the number of months ahead prepared to proceed with those hearings.

Mr Phillips: The Provincial Auditor, in his remarks to the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please. With the cooperation of his own colleagues, perhaps the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt will have an opportunity to place his supplementary.

Mr Phillips: The auditor, in his comments to the public, says, "The way the government is reporting the 1994-95 budget differs significantly from financial reality under any accounting rules."

The auditor went on to say that, in his opinion, the real deficit of the province isn't the $8.2 billion you're reporting. The auditor went on to say that the deficit would be in the $10.9-billion range. That's what the Provincial auditor is saying; a fundamental difference between what the government is showing as the deficit and what the Provincial Auditor says is the deficit -- a fundamental difference.

The members of our party urge that we have public hearings on the Provincial Auditor's recommendations. This morning the NDP members blocked that request to hold what normally happens: public hearings.

Can the minister responsible for scheduling assure the House today that the government will reconsider its decision to stonewall the public hearings and allow us to have the Audit Act publicly heard over the next few months so the public can have an input into the way the finances of this province are reported?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member has asked a question not having listened to the answer to his first one. I cannot understand the problem the member is having here. The members of my caucus in his committee made it clear that the government is prepared to proceed with those hearings when the House resumes in the spring. That happens to be in the next few months that he's talking about.

The Speaker: New question, the honourable member for Parry Sound.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The patient member for Parry Sound.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is also to the government House leader on the same subject. This morning, as you know, your members on the public accounts committee voted against reviewing the Provincial Auditor's report in committee during the winter break. Given that your government has put nothing new on the agenda to discuss in committee over the next few months, there seems to be plenty of room in the committee schedule to discuss this very important document. What possible reason could the government have for using its majority to quash the long-standing tradition in this Parliament of reviewing the findings of the Provincial Auditor during the intersession, as we've done here for over 125 years?

Hon Mr Charlton: Perhaps the House leader for the third party can consider this as a response to the question that he raises: I recall last June, when I was trying to order the business of some of the committees in opposition to the wishes of the members of the committees, that the member opposite raised with me the concern that we, to the best of our ability, should be following the requests that come forward from the committees. The government House leader has received no request to sit.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The supplementary is for the member for Parry Sound.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Take a recess.

The Speaker: It's too easy.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask the minister to check his mail because in fact a request was made by the committee for the committee to sit for four weeks.

The Speaker: It's not a point of order. The member for Lawrence will know that. Supplementary.

Mr Eves: The government House leader will know full well that in fact all three House leaders this morning at House leaders' meetings had a request in each one of our files from the Chairperson of that committee. The Chairperson speaks for the committee, just as the Premier speaks for the province of Ontario.

The government House leader knows full well that his members comprise a majority of that committee and that he and his Premier can direct, and often do direct, members on committee to vote certain ways on certain issues. That is a fact and they know that. Anybody who doesn't know that doesn't know anything about how this place works.

1510

The Provincial Auditor has raised serious concerns about water quality, about support payments for children, about policing, about Jobs Ontario. The province is mired in debt.

We have drafted a motion for you, which I will send over with a page, which allows the public accounts committee to sit for four weeks of hearings to review the auditor's report and amendments to the Audit Act. Minister, we would be happy to support the motion on this side of the House. Will you have the courtesy, and the common sense and decency, to bring it forward for passage this afternoon?

Hon Mr Charlton: The short answer to the member's question is no. Secondly --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- there are two issues here that need to be dealt with.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order.

Hon Mr Charlton: There are two clear issues here that need to be dealt with: First, the comment that there was a message sent from the Chair of the committee, and that's correct, and I pursued the government members on the committee and asked them, "Is this a request of the committee?" and the response was: "No, that's the desire of the Chair. The committee has never dealt with the issue." The committee did not deal with that issue until this morning.

With respect to the member for Parry Sound's comments --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. When the House comes to order, I will ask the member for Lawrence if he has an actual point of order.

Mr Cordiano: Mr Speaker, it stretches the truth to unknown limits. There has been a consensus on committee that we would sit to deal with matters --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Hon Mr Charlton: There is no consensus and that's obvious from this morning's vote. There was no consensus. The vote shows that.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): No, you gave them their marching orders. That's why they didn't vote for it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Are you finished?

Hon Mr Charlton: In response to the member for Parry Sound, the member for Parry Sound can't have it both ways. He can't tell me on one occasion that I have to let the committee sit because the committee requested to sit and then tell me that I have to demand that the committee sit because the committee didn't request to sit.

The Speaker: New question.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. I read this past week in the Niagara Falls Review that Liberal leader Lyn McLeod is now supporting a casino for the city of Niagara Falls. Minister --

The Speaker: A point of order.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm sorry to have to raise a point of order in question period because I know it uses up the time, but I think, in fairness, we cannot have the government House leader stand in this House and frankly say something that is not true, and that is what he's doing.

The Speaker: The member indeed has raised a point of order. She is out of order, and I would ask her to withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take her seat. I would ask the government members to try to come to order. Make some effort.

The member for Mississauga South, would you please withdraw the unparliamentary remark which you made.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, the member for Lawrence is Chairman of the public accounts committee. He has stood in this House and reported to you that a request was made by that committee to meet --

The Speaker: No. I must caution the member that she has made an unparliamentary remark. She now has an opportunity to withdraw that remark.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I will --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I apologize for trying to have the record of this House recorded factually. I would ask that the government House leader inform this House of the --

The Speaker: I now caution the member that if she refuses to withdraw the unparliamentary remark which she unfortunately made, then I will have no choice but to name her.

I know the member for Mississauga South's respect for Parliament and I know that she would not want to leave an unparliamentary remark on the record.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw the comment that suggested that the government House Leader had not spoken the truth, but I think that he has misstated the facts.

The Speaker: It did sound like a withdrawal of sorts. Now, the question from the member for Niagara Falls.

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): As I said, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. I read very curiously in last Friday's Niagara Falls Review, on the front page, that Lyn McLeod, after visiting the city of Niagara Falls, has now said she is supporting a casino for our city.

Minister, as you know, the people of Niagara Falls held a referendum and the people voted 63% in favour of a casino, just recently, of course. I would like to know first of all from the minister what developments are now taking place as a result of that referendum between the city of Niagara Falls and the Ontario Casino Corp.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I can't help but say how amazed I was to read, "McLeod Supports Casino for City," -- I just happen to have it -- "McLeod Favours Falls"; "Liberals Would Give Casino"; "Harrington Accuses Liberals of Flip-Flop." I've got lots of them.

The member's question specifically was with respect to what steps have been taken. I made it very clear when I made the announcement with respect to the fact that the government intended to pursue our very cautious approach and to review the Windsor casino and its operation in its entirety after a year before making a decision about any more casinos outside of the native pilot, that we would be willing to have the casino corporation work with communities that were interested, to ensure that they were assessing their own capabilities and infrastructure with respect to municipal approvals processes, in respect to issues of crime and tourism attraction and a number of issues -- market studies.

We know there's a range of technical issues on which we could be of help to those communities that are interested. I can tell the member that we did receive a request from the city of Niagara Falls and that the casino corporation will be pursuing that with that city as well as some others that have indicated a like interest.

Ms Harrington: It is very clear that this government owns this issue. We introduced it two and a half years ago. We have worked long and hard to make it a success --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member take her seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Harrington: We, as a government, have worked long and hard to make this a success. We are now ensuring that it is carried forward in a very careful --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Ms Harrington: -- and a very responsible --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member take her seat, please.

1520

Interjections.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Harrington: Given that the leader of the Liberal Party has now jumped on the bandwagon and come out in favour of a casino in Niagara Falls, do you see this in any way shortening the period for getting a casino?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: Quite frankly, I can't explain the Liberal leader and her position on this issue. I can tell you that it has no impact on what this government will do. I mean, the Liberal leader goes to Niagara Falls and attends a Liberal fund-raiser and tells the community what it wants to hear. They want a casino? Lyn McLeod says, "I'm with you all the way for a casino."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: I'd suggest to the residents of Niagara Falls that they should take a look at the record. When the bill was passed in this Legislature, every single Liberal voted against it. The leader explains that to the press. She actually says: "It's not inconsistent. I support casinos and I support a casino for Niagara Falls, but I didn't support the NDP legislation."

Maybe she could explain this to us: In September, the end of September, she sends a letter out -- it's her signature, her letterhead -- in which she says, "Prior to embarking on any additional casino initiatives" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- "a Liberal government would commit to undertaking" --

The Speaker: It appears that members are determined to destroy their question period. I will stand here. The clock will tick. You can utilize the existing nine minutes and 52 seconds to make noise. I will stand here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could the minister briefly conclude her reply.

Hon Ms Lankin: I started, Mr Speaker. I was reading from a September 26 letter from the leader of the official opposition in which she says, "Prior to embarking on any additional casino initiatives, a Liberal government would commit to undertaking a full analysis of the social and economic impact of the Windsor casino project on the local community." Yet she committed herself. And she went one step further. She actually criticized the Conservative leader. This is amazing. She says --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- "Predicting what the other two parties will do isn't easy. While anything's possible with the NDP" -- here's what she said about the Conservatives -- "the Conservative leader said he would require a referendum across the province before he would even consider it."

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her reply.

Hon Ms Lankin: It's clear that she's criticizing open consultation that the Tories are suggesting. It's clear that she's criticizing our cautious approach.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please. The question has been answered.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Some time ago a question was asked in this House, and perhaps just to refresh your memory I might want to read it to you; you probably don't have the Hansard right in front of you. But the question was like this:

"What has the minister" of Transportation "to say to the residents of Cambridge on the issue of passenger rail service?... Our request is very modest. There is a train to Guelph. We're asking that that train go on one journey in the morning and one journey in the night to Cambridge. The track is in place. The signals are in place. The station is in place. There is community support. There is a projected ridership for this. Cambridge is waiting and we want that service now."

Minister, how would you answer that question?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): My predecessor made a commitment to the people of Cambridge that this matter would be reviewed on an annual basis, and I am prepared to meet the commitment made by my predecessor: It will be reviewed.

I find it ironic from the member from the Liberal Party who say they will cut taxes by 5%, and this is just another example where they want to spend more. The member for Nepean wants to spend more on 416; the member for York Centre, more money for high-speed rail; the member for Kenora, more money to build a Cadillac version of the Kenora bypass; the member for Timiskaming, more money for road repairs; the member for Fort William, more money for municipal transfers, more money for Red Hill Creek; the member for Manitoulin, more money for more road maintenance. The Liberals would spend us to death. We have to look at projects realistically.

Mr Daigeler: I know perhaps the minister's memory is a little bit short, but if I could just refresh his memory as to who wants to spend here, the question that I just asked was put forward on November 6, 1991, by someone by the name of Mike Farnan, who I understand is now the Minister of Transportation.

I think you'd be interested to know what the member at the time said, and I quote from Mike Farnan: "The people of Cambridge are fed up with studies on this issue." That's what the member said on November 6, 1991.

Minister, have you changed your mind on GO Transit to Cambridge since you became minister?

Hon Mr Farnan: I have said that indeed the commitment of my predecessor would be met, but let me say this to the member: This government is not simply interested in one aspect, and neither are the people of Cambridge. The people of Cambridge are interested in good government. The people of Cambridge are interested in responsible fiscal spending by this government. All decisions that will be made will be made in the light of a balanced fiscal approach to the issues facing the province.

LABOUR UNIONS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Late last week I received a letter from a constituent, Mrs Janice Lockyer, who works at Euclid-Hitachi Heavy Equipment Ltd in Guelph, which is a manufacturer of heavy off-highway trucks. For the past six years the Canadian Auto Workers Union has been the workers' bargaining agent at Euclid-Hitachi, but many of the employees are dissatisfied with the CAW and want to get rid of the union, so the Ontario Labour Relations Board held a decertification vote earlier this year, in March. Nine months have now passed since that vote and the employees still haven't been told the results. In fact, the labour board refuses to disclose the outcome of the vote. My question to the minister is, why is it taking nine months to count the ballots?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for Wellington -- he always has a caring attitude about his constituents -- for bringing this matter to my attention. I apologize to the member. I do not know why it has taken nine months for the response. If the member would be so kind as to allow me to go back to the office after question period, I would be very happy to bring an answer back to him as soon as possible.

1530

Mr Arnott: Our Conservative Labour critic, the member for Waterloo North, for the past four years has fought tirelessly to bring democracy to unions in Ontario. As late as last Monday, she again called on you to introduce legislation to democratize the unions. If it takes nine months to count the ballots, as it has in this case, there is no democracy in our unions in Ontario.

In addition, Ms Lockyer in her letter has called into question the impartiality of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. She writes: "As you can see from my letters the vote went well and we feel, as the association, that we had a higher percentage of the votes. I say this because I cannot figure out any other reason for the labour board to be stalling. I think they're afraid of having the CAW kicked out."

I have to agree. It appears that the NDP government's board doesn't want to further antagonize the CAW immediately before a provincial election.

Will the minister intervene to ensure that, before Christmas, the workers receive the results of their decertification vote?

Hon Mrs Coppen: If I'm correct, all the critic from that party has been doing in asking me questions is trying to slam Bill 40. I believe Bill 40 will protect workers in this province.

The member brings this problem to my attention today, and I have very willingly said to him that I will go back to the ministry office and bring back to him the explanation of why this has taken very long. He knows very well that I cannot intervene in the board's decision, but I can very willingly bring him back the response he needs as soon as I'm given it by the board.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Norfolk.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member has an opportunity now to place his question.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I will take this opportunity to ask a question, although I think this House in general owes the people of the province of Ontario an apology for its contempt for question period today.

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As you know, the third party, the Tories, have committed themselves to a Republican-style all-out war against government regulations. I read recently that the Liberals in their blue book -- or their red book turned blue, I should say -- have also promised to cut government regulations by 50%.

This all sounds very good, but I would say that I think regulations serve an important aspect in the regulatory system we all exist in. Although I would say that reducing regulations in certain sectors is an important aspect, I wonder what your views are on this issue.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The member has been trying to ask this question for three days. I'm glad he got on today with one second left.

Both opposition parties are calling for radical dismantling of regulations. It sounds really sexy, but it can be really misleading. Not one party across the way has said what regulations it would cut, and that's very dangerous.

I can tell you that the people out there and in fact business -- I deal with business, because it's a regulatory ministry -- come to me asking for regulation on frequent occasions. Let me make it perfectly clear that this government has made the public sector more efficient and this government is fostering a first-class business environment. We have improved government efficiency by making changes to over 100 statutes through Bill 175.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Like Clearing the Path? Give me a break.

Hon Ms Churley: Clearing the Path, yes, revolutionary legislation. We have been clearing out legislation and regulations that don't make sense any more. It's important to continue that. But let us hear from the opposition, as they talk about dismantling regulations, just what it is they have in mind so the people of Ontario know what they're talking about.

ORDER AND DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I realize this is probably the last day of the sitting, but I think it's important to raise an issue with the Chair in terms of the standing orders, with respect to the section dealing with the adjournment for disorder.

I think you will share my view and the view of all members of the House that there should never be any question or doubt about the independence of the Chair, the impartial way in which the Chair reaches decisions, and the "Adjournment for disorder" section of the standing orders speaks to "grave disorder."

Mr Speaker, you made a decision earlier today to declare a recess, and I think it's caused some concern in respect to your actions. I can recall last spring when we had a situation in this Legislature where members of both opposition parties were very upset about actions of the government and we in unison were pounding our tables in here for about 10 minutes while you stood in your place. We've seen a number of situations occur over the years that you've been in the Chair where you have reacted in a much more cautious manner than you did today.

Perhaps I was mistaken and other members were mistaken, but it appeared your decision today was a response to the actions of the Premier and not any clear definition of what constitutes grave disorder.

Mr Speaker, I think it's very important that you put on the record your views in terms of how the Chair, the Speaker of this House, defines and reaches conclusions in terms of the standing orders on how you define "grave disorder."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Indeed I appreciate the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair and of the House.

It is a sad time at any point when there is such disorder that we do not have any semblance of decorum in the chamber. Such was the case today, and not on just one occasion. Indeed it was the judgement of the Chair that we had unhappily reached a point where grave disorder was about to occur. In fact I am convinced that had the Sergeant at Arms not been present, we would have had some very unfortunate occurrences both in this chamber and outside.

I do not take the matter lightly when it is necessary to recess. I realize that whether you stop the proceedings and allow the clock to continue, thus taking away valuable time from members who wish to ask questions, or whether you recess for a few minutes, which generally speaking intrudes upon the government's agenda to bring forward legislation or to debate legislation, either course of action causes concern for members on both sides of the House.

The Chair has a responsibility to maintain order and decorum in the chair, and the Chair will always exercise judgement and try to maintain, to the best of his or her ability, order and decorum in the House. I've said on many occasions and I repeat again today that this is not something that can be achieved by one person alone. It requires the cooperation of all members in the House. That cooperation was sadly lacking today from all three caucuses, but the Chair must suffer that frustration in silence.

I repeat, I appreciate that the member has brought the matter to my attention. I can tell the member quite candidly that I do not like recessing the House. I do not like standing here while the clock continues to tick. I value the time that members have so precious little of in order to bring matters to the attention of the House and the public. It saddens me when there's anger in the chamber, because I have seen the other side of it too, where members rise above partisan politics and where they distinguish themselves on behalf of this province. Today was not a happy day for me and I trust it was not a happy day for anyone else in this chamber.

I again thank the member for raising the issue and giving me an opportunity to put some thoughts on the record, and I appreciate the indulgence of the House.

1540

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To try to perhaps bring some happiness to this place, I would ask you to indulge me in a point of order, a request to the government House leader for unanimous consent to have the government House leader update this place on the status of the memorandum of settlement that was sent over to OPSEU with regard to the parking lot attendants in this place who have been waiting for three years for a raise.

We're less than three weeks from Christmas and they're very anxious to see if this settlement agreement is going to be ratified by OPSEU and sent back so they can get their money. I know the government House leader shares my concern and I think it would be helpful if he would agree to unanimous consent to update us.

I only do this because it is the last day of sitting. There was no time to get it on question period, and I think it's an issue we would all be very concerned about.

The Speaker: The member in fact has answered his own question. He does not have a point of order. He has a question.

Mr Mahoney: I'm asking for unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the government House leader to make a statement?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice and it may have come from the government House leader.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario has long represented a serious inequity between the two regions; and

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario is often between 10 and 20 cents per litre; and

"Whereas residents in most northern Ontario communities have no access to public transportation options and are therefore dependent on private automobiles; and

"Whereas 1990 NDP election promises to 'equalize' the price of gas across the province have not been kept; and

"Whereas" I as the Liberal MPP for the Kenora riding have "called upon the NDP government to keep their 1990 election promises; and

"Whereas the elimination of motor vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario residents does not compensate for the high price of gas in the north;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the NDP government of Ontario fulfil its election promises to the people of northern Ontario by equalizing the price of gas across the province."

That's signed by residents from Dryden, Keewatin, Kenora, Balmertown, and other places throughout my riding.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition signed by scores of residents from my riding and across Ontario. It is a petition to the parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas we the citizens of Ontario agree that clear dealings between the present justice system and the public establish a positive relationship for all concerned; and

"Whereas one building block for such a relationship is a fair and accurate way of dealing with habitual child sex offenders;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We believe that one way of dealing with convicted habitual child sex offenders upon release is that his/her photo and address be made available to the public for a minimum of seven years in whatever area of the province he/she takes residence."

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"Whereas the NDP government has stressed that equality of treatment is essential in a modern society; and

"Whereas the former Liberal government chose to exclude thousands of workers from the Pension Benefits Act (1988) whose employment was terminated prior to January 1 1988; and

"Whereas workers are being denied access to pension funds that are, in fact, deferred wages;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact changes to the Pension Benefits Act that will enable workers whose employment was terminated prior to 1988 the option to:

"(a) purchase a locked-in retirement account (LIRA) or life income account; or

"(b) transfer the pension money to the pension fund of a new employer. And that these workers be allowed the right to begin to receive payments from their pension fund or LIRA at age 55."

These are signed by a number of people from the city of Chatham, and I do affix my signature to it.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I keep getting these petitions to shut down the 20-bed jail on Queen Street. It's addressed to the assembly:

"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming-houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are other neighbourhoods where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated;

"Whereas no one was consulted -- not the local residents and business community; not leaders of community organizations; not education providers and child care providers; and not even the NDP member of provincial Parliament for Fort York;

"We, the undersigned, therefore sign and petition the government of Ontario to urge that the NDP government immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I have signed my name to this petition.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This petition is sent by Denys Hamilton of Smiths Falls:

"We, the undersigned, wish to complain about the no-smoking law in the County Fair Mall in Smiths Falls."

He is a smoker himself and addicted to cigarettes, which "the government has contributed to by reducing the tax on cigarettes.

"Besides this, the restaurant next door to our store has an area for smokers, but I'm not allowed to accommodate my customers in this manner;

"Whereas this is discrimination against me and the people who sign this petition; and

"Whereas this law has affected business, we want something done to bring about justice in this matter."

This petition is signed by 187 people, and I affix my signature.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas there is a gross inequity in the relationship between a franchisor and a franchisee; and

"Whereas this inequity results in unfair business practices by franchisors, with little or no recourse practically available to the franchisee;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to enact Bill 182 or other such legislation to protect the current and prospective franchisees from unfair businesses practices by franchisors."

That bill I believe stands under the name of Mr Wiseman, and I affix my name to this.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario has long represented a serious inequity between the two regions; and

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario is often between 10 and 20 cents a litre; and

"Whereas residents of most northern Ontario communities have no access to public transportation options and are therefore dependent on private automobiles; and

"Whereas 1990 NDP election promises to 'equalize' the price of gas across the province of Ontario have not been kept; and

"Whereas Kenora Liberal MPP Frank Miclash has called upon the NDP government to keep their 1990 election promises; and

"Whereas the elimination of motor vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario residents does not compensate for the excessively high price of gas in the north;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the NDP government of Ontario fulfil its election promises to the people of northern Ontario by equalizing the price of gas across the province."

I affix my signature hereto.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas 81% of all driving fatalities are alcohol-related; and

"Whereas 59% or 18,000 of the 30,000 total convictions for drunk driving in 1992 involved repeat offenders;

"Whereas the Drinking and Driving in Ontario Statistical Yearbook released by the Ministry of the Attorney General's drinking/driving countermeasures office confirmed that drunk driving is on the rise;

"Whereas drunk driving is the number one killer of young people;

"Whereas the existing measures and penalties have failed to deter chronic drunk drivers from reoffending;

"Whereas driving is a privilege, not a right, and chronic drunk drivers have failed to take their driving responsibilities seriously;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact Margaret Marland's private member's Bill 195, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, or similar legislation, prior to the recess of the Ontario Legislature on December 8, 1994."

There are over 1,000 signatures on this petition and I'm happy to lend my support.

1550

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Florida wants snowbirds to return, and I have a petition, signed by a number of residents of Scarborough East, which will deal with that problem in an economically effective way for this province.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas Canadians and Americans have been accustomed to travelling freely in North America; and

"The price, availability, conditions and degree of coverage by health insurance (both public and private) are restricting that mobility, thereby jeopardizing the wellbeing of individuals and families as well as destabilizing tourism economies;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario Minister of Health to discuss and arrange with the Governor of Florida the establishment of reciprocal health insurance coverage for the residents of their respective jurisdictions."

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition from several seniors from Brighton, Warkworth, Campbellford, Port Hope, Hastings and Frankford.

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We are concerned that Bill 173, if unamended, will result in less service, more costly service, a decrease in volunteers and less flexibility for communities to develop a model that works for them."

"We urge the Minister of Health to respond forthwith to issues raised above."

I've signed the petition.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have two petitions here, the same petitions, one from the member for Simcoe West and of course one that I've received at my office.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is a dearth of therapeutic/educational programs for hundreds of children in the province of Ontario who have autism spectrum disorder; and

"Whereas 'Giant Steps Centre' for neuro-integrative disorders will provide the needed treatment and programming for these children and their families;

"Whereas the 'Giant Steps' model has been presented to the triministry committee, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and Training, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Premier's office;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for help in bringing this project to fruition so that the needs of these children can be addressed."

I have, of course, signed this too.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"Whereas large grocery stores and shopping centres are now allowed to open on Sundays;

"Whereas convenience stores have suffered a major economic loss due to the generalized practice of Sunday openings by the larger stores;

"Whereas small business is responsible for the creation of a majority of jobs in Ontario;

"Whereas there is a dire need for job creation in Ontario with current high unemployment and welfare cases;

"Whereas convenience stores could profit economically and thus maintain and create jobs by offering the sale of beer and wine in convenience stores;

"Whereas Ontario consumers' attitudes now support in the 1990s the sale of beer and wine in convenience stores;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, humbly beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support legislation authorizing convenience stores to sell beer and wine to their clients."

That's signed by people like Mike Dakin from McCabe Avenue, Rod Matthews, RR 1 Welland, Morris Moroz and a couple of hundred other people from the Welland and area community.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Has the honourable member signed the petition?

Mr Kormos: I submit this with pleasure.

ADOPTION

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario believes that existing adoption secrecy legislation, although originally based on unresearched good intentions, is outdated and unjust;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN Declaration on Human Rights, these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario;

"Whereas 10% of persons in Ontario are directly affected and 20% are indirectly affected by restricted rights to personally identifying information on themselves and on birth and adoptive relatives in the Ontario Child and Family Services Act and other acts;

"Whereas the birth certificate issued to an adopted person is a legally sanctioned erroneous document;

"Whereas the current system for disclosure of adoption information is discriminatory, psychologically cruel and expensive, with unacceptably long waiting periods for indeterminate results;

"Whereas research shows that not knowing basic personal information has proven harmful to adopted persons, birth parents and other birth and adoptive relatives,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario:

"(1) To enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to move as quickly as possible to permit unrestricted access to full personal identifying information to adopted persons, adult children of adopted persons, birth parents, birth siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted person reaches age 18.

"(2) To permit access to identifying information to adoptive parents of minor children and emancipated minor adoptees.

"(3) To allow adopted persons and birth parents to file a notice stating their wish for non-contact.

"(4) To eliminate mandatory reunion counselling.

"(5) To encourage and support client self-determination.

"(6) To permit access to agency and court files when original statistical information is insufficient to identify and contact birth relatives.

"(7) To recognize open adoptions in the law."

I too affix my signature.

HIGHWAY 42

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition from constituents in my area expressing concern about Highway 42 in the Athens-to-Delta stretch and the significant damage that has been done to vehicles following a surface treatment of the highway.

This has been signed by approximately 100 users of the road. I'm affixing my signature in support.

WHITE LAKE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I also want to put on the record a petition from my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew from constituents who are very seriously concerned about the lowering of the water levels in White Lake. They are urging the ministry not to do this in the future, that the level should not go below the 4.5-foot level.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): This completes the time allotted for petitions.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I would like to ask unanimous consent that we extend the petition --

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to continue with petitions?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I heard at least one negative.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here I'd like to file with the Clerk -- is that possible? -- from the moped industry.

The Acting Speaker: It's my understanding that petitions are to be presented only to the House.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's third report.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): The standing committee on regulations and private bills has had a very busy session. We've actually had a very productive session, and I want to thank all members for their help in making sure that we got through probably 25 private bills from various communities across the province, and likewise in the last session have been able to get through the annual reports dealing with regulations since 1989. I want to compliment my colleagues on all sides of the House for their efforts in making sure that we could complete that task.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Cordiano from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's 1992 and 1993 biennial report.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): This is a report that's filed for those two years. It includes a number of other reports that have not been tabled elsewhere, information regarding conferences and other seminars that have been held regarding public accounts. It's a compilation of those reports and those proceedings.

1600

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL TAX RELIEF ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR L'ALLÉGEMENT DES IMPÔTS MUNICIPAUX

Mr Henderson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 207, An Act to provide relief from Municipal Taxes for certain property owners / Projet de loi 207, Loi prévoyant un allégement des impôts municipaux à l'intention de certains propriétaires fonciers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): This bill provides that where a person owns property in more than one municipality that is subject to municipal taxation, the person will not be liable to pay education taxes in the different municipalities, but only in the municipality where the education portion of the tax bill is the highest.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

Mr Stockwell moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 208, An Act to amend the Condominium Act / Projet de loi 208, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les condominiums.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

MEMBERS' INTEGRITY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR L'INTÉGRITÉ DES DÉPUTÉS

Mr Charlton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 209, An Act to revise the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and to make related amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 209, Loi révisant la Loi sur les conflits d'intérêts des membres de l'Assemblée et apportant des modifications connexes à la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The Members' Integrity Act that I'm introducing today will replace the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. The new act puts into effect recommendations from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Gregory Evans, who administers the act. Justice Evans worked with legal counsel representing all three parties in drafting the legislation.

This bill includes ministerial conflict-of-interest obligations previously contained in the Premier's guidelines on conflict of interest. For this reason, separate guidelines will no longer be required.

The highlights of the amendments include broadening the scope of the act to deal with parliamentary tradition as well as issues of conflict of interest in the economic sense; amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act restricting contracts between members and the government; cabinet members will not be allowed to acquire land; the scope of members' private disclosure statements will be expanded as will the scope of the commissioner's statements based on information provided by members.

These amendments will help to clarify members' responsibilities and take the partisan political wrangling out of conflict-of-interest issues, hopefully. I believe this will reinforce our ongoing commitment to the highest possible integrity and accountability on the part of our elected officials.

VICTIMS' RIGHT TO PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LE DROIT DES VICTIMES AUX GAINS RÉALISÉS À LA SUITE D'UN ACTE CRIMINEL

Mr Jackson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 210, An Act to provide for the payment of money awarded in civil law suits to victims of crime / Projet de loi 210, Loi prévoyant le versement aux victimes d'actes criminels des sommes adjugées dans les poursuites civiles.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Again today, before I actually call the first order, we need to go through a number of issues that the three House leaders have discussed and agreed on because I need the consent of the House to proceed with them.

The first issue is that there are another 12 bills that have been reported out of the private bills committee for which we need the consent of the House to deal with both second and third reading on the same day, today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the members agree? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly, I need consent to call the 11th order and that immediately upon the 11th order being called the bells will be rung and the members called in once to vote on all three motions which make up the 11th order. These motions deal with the government's budget motion as well as the two amendments proposed by the opposition parties.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: Thirdly, we need consent to proceed with both committee of the whole House and third reading on Bill 191.

The Acting Speaker: Members agree? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: There are two bills being introduced today for which I would ask the consent of the House to deal with first, second and third reading on each of those bills all in the course of today. One is the bill dealing with the proceeds of crime, which has just been introduced by the member for Burlington South, and the other is the bill which I've just introduced, entitled the Members' Integrity Act.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement from members? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: Lastly, I need the consent of the House to discharge the order for committee of the whole House for Bills 158, 179 and 192, and that they be ordered for third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement from members? Agreed.

1994 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government (1994).

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): On Thursday, May 5, 1994, Mr Laughren moved, seconded by Mr Rae, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

On Monday, May 9, 1994, Mrs McLeod moved that the motion moved by the Minister of Finance on May 5 "that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government" be amended by deleting the words following the words "that this House" and adding thereto the following:

"Recognizing that the budgetary policy put forward by the Minister of Finance offers no news, no jobs and no hope to get Ontario working again; and

"That the NDP budget fails to respond to the 590,000 people in Ontario that are unemployed, and accepts that high levels of unemployment will be part of our future for years to come; and

"That this budget does little to offset the NDP's legacy of $4 billion in new taxes and $400 million in fee increases which are the highest tax increases since the Tories were in office; and

"That the budget does virtually nothing to address the $40 billion in new debt added by the NDP, which is the largest increase in the provincial debt since the Tories were in office; and

"That the NDP's refusal to pursue a fiscally responsible plan for the first three and a half years of its mandate has created a fiscal crisis which has resulted in job losses and hampered the economic recovery in the province; and

"That the NDP have refused to recognize the job-killing economic impact of their anti-business legislation; and

"That the NDP's more than $2-billion hidden deficit plan of hiding debt through loan-based financing, debt-financing capital corporations, delayed pension payments, and the one-time fire sale of government assets are short-term solutions which do little to restore business and investor confidence; and

"That the NDP have refused to implement the Provincial Auditor's recommendations to fully account for the real deficit of the province; and

"That at a time when the people of Ontario were looking for bold new ideas and leadership, the NDP decided to throw in the towel and release a stand-pat budget that is clearly the last gasp of a dying government; and

"That the NDP budget is as full of empty rhetoric and as unable to put the people back to work as the Tories' economic framework; and

"That the NDP refuse to implement a realistic Liberal plan to bring unemployment down to at least 6% by:

" -- Cutting the overall tax burden by 5% over five years;

" -- Reducing the cost of dealing with red tape by 50% over five years;

" -- Achieving a balanced operating budget within a Liberal government's first mandate;

" -- Keeping a firm lid on WCB premium increases;

" -- Improving businesses' access to financing, through challenging banks to improve their service to small and medium-sized businesses and requiring financial institutions to prepare and publish codes of conduct for such financing;

" -- Renewing our commitment to global trading and improving our infrastructure; and

"Failing to implement this realistic plan,

"Therefore the House has lost confidence in this government."

On Tuesday, May 10, 1994, Mr Johnson (Don Mills) moved that the amendment to the motion be amended by adding after the words "Failing to implement this realistic plan" the following:

"Recognizing that the 1994 budget does not radically reform the tax-borrow-and-spend policies which have been pursued in Ontario for the past decade by successive Liberal and New Democratic governments that have undermined both the economy and finances of the province of Ontario; and

"That the budget, in so far as it is lacking in detail, vision and courage, appears to have been written by the Liberal Party of Ontario which in office sowed the seeds of the province's current fiscal and economic crisis; and

"That the budget fails to respond to the demands of Ontarians for a revolution in the way government conducts its business and for a reduction in the size and cost of the public sector; and

"That the budget ignores the need to substantially lower the deferred tax burden in the form of multibillion-dollar deficits on the people and economy of Ontario; and

"That the budget again missed the opportunity to foster the development of a competitive entrepreneurial culture in Ontario by failing to provide meaningful and substantial tax relief to small businesses, workers and consumers, by ignoring the need for reform of the welfare system which currently discourages initiative and promotes dependence and by refusing to eliminate regulations and laws that are strangling investment and job creation; and

"That the budget did not include any proposals to ensure that the province would be able to continue to adequately fund priority programs; and

"Finding that the budget failed to implement a range of commonsense measures including a 30% reduction in the personal income tax rate, a small business exemption from the employer health tax, a 20% reduction in non-priority government spending, the appointment of an arm's-length commission to eliminate anti-business regulations, a reduction in Workers' Compensation Board premiums, the repeal of job-killing labour laws, measures which would have helped balance the budget while creating some 725,000 new jobs,

"Therefore the House has lost confidence in this government."

The first question to be decided is the amendment to the amendment to the motion.

The question now: Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Johnson's amendment to the amendment to the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; up to a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1615 to 1645.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would all members please take their seats. The first question to be decided is the amendment to the amendment to the motion in the name of Mr David Johnson.

Mr Johnson has moved an amendment to the amendment of the budgetary motion. All those in favour of Mr Johnson's amendment will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Carr, Eves, Harnick, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), McLean, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment to the amendment will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Abel, Allen, Beer, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Buchanan, Callahan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cordiano, Crozier, Curling, Dadamo, Daigeler, Duignan, Eddy, Farnan, Fawcett, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Henderson, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Murphy, North, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Silipo, Sorbara, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 16, the nays 86.

The Acting Speaker: I declare Mr Johnson's amendment to the amendment lost.

We will now deal with Mrs McLeod's amendment to the budgetary motion. All those in favour of Mrs McLeod's amendment, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Conway, Cordiano, Crozier, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Fawcett, Henderson, Mahoney, Murphy, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ruprecht, Sorbara.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mrs McLeod's amendment to the budgetary motion please rise one at a time.

Nays

Abel, Allen, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carr, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Eves, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hodgson, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson (Don Mills), Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Runciman, Silipo, Sterling, Stockwell, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood, Ziemba.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 19, the nays 83.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

We will now deal with the motion standing in the name of Mr Laughren, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. All those in favour of Mr Laughren's motion will rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Laughren's motion will rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Carr, Conway, Cordiano, Crozier, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Henderson, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Mahoney, McLean, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 67, the nays 35.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried and that it is therefore resolved that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1994

Mr Cooper moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Cooper moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

SARNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994

Mrs MacKinnon moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr139, An Act respecting the Sarnia Community Foundation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs MacKinnon moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr139, An Act respecting the Sarnia Community Foundation.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

1700

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1994

Mr Abel moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr140, An Act respecting the city of Hamilton.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Abel moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr140, An Act respecting the city of Hamilton.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

COBALLOY MINES & REFINERS LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Murphy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr143, An Act to revive Coballoy Mines & Refiners Limited.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say 'aye.'

All those opposed, please say 'nay.'

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The motion carries.

Mr Murphy moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr143, An Act to revive Coballoy Mines & Refiners Limited.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

COLUMBIA METALS CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Murphy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr144, An Act to revive Columbia Metals Corporation Limited.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Murphy moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr144, An Act to revive Columbia Metals Corporation Limited.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

PARKWAY DELICATESSEN LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Phillips moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr145, An Act to revive Parkway Delicatessen Limited.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Phillips moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr145, An Act to revive Parkway Delicatessen Limited.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

S.A.W. GALLERY INC. ACT, 1994

Mr Murphy, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr152, An Act to revive S.A.W. Gallery Inc.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Murphy, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr152, An Act to revive S.A.W. Gallery Inc.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

PAYS D'EN HAUT WILDERNESS EXPEDITIONS LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mrs Fawcett, on behalf of Mr Ramsay, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr155, An Act to revive Pays D'en Haut Wilderness Expeditions Limited.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Fawcett, on behalf of Mr Ramsay, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr155, An Act to revive Pays D'en Haut Wilderness Expeditions Limited.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF HOME INSPECTORS ACT, 1994

Mr Mills moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr158, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Mills moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr158, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

COUNTY OF KENT LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1994

Mr Hayes moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr159, An Act respecting the County of Kent and the Local Municipalities in it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the house that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Hayes moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr159, An Act respecting the County of Kent and the Local Municipalities in it.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

COUNTY OF KENT ACT, 1994

Mr Hayes moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr160, An Act respecting the County of Kent.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Hayes moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr160, An Act respecting the County of Kent.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Report continues in volume B.