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

March 3, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Mar-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 3 March 2005 Jeudi 3 mars 2005

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

VQA WINE STORES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES MAGASINS DE VINS

DE LA VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

BETTER BUILDINGS PARTNERSHIP

VQA WINE STORES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES MAGASINS DE VINS

DE LA VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

BETTER BUILDINGS PARTNERSHIP

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KEMPTVILLE DISTRICT HOSPITAL

TECHNOLOGY DAY IN MISSISSAUGA

MCMASTER UNIVERSITY

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

HOURS OF WORK

ACQUIRED DEAF-BLINDNESS

EPILEPSY

GROWTH PLANNING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT

LE CONSOMMATEUR

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(NO CONVEYING OF PASSENGERS FOR

COMPENSATION), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (AUCUN TRANSPORT

DE PASSAGERS MOYENNANT

RÉMUNÉRATION)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

GREENBELT

PENSION PLANS

SKILLS TRAINING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

HYDRO GENERATION

TRUCKING SAFETY

PETITIONS

ONTARIO FARMERS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

ONTARIO FARMERS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CONTROL OF SMOKING

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

(CONTINUED) /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(SUITE)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

VQA WINE STORES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES MAGASINS DE VINS

DE LA VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

Mr. Hudak moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 7,

An Act to authorize a group of manufacturers of Ontario wines to sell Vintners Quality Alliance wines / Projet de loi 7, Loi autorisant un groupe de

fabricants de vins de l'Ontario à vendre des vins de la Vintners Quality Alliance.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm very pleased today to begin the second reading debate on Bill 7, which, if passed, would create a new type of

retail establishment in the province of Ontario: 100% Ontario VQA wine stores. It is time for us to uncork the potential of our VQA wineries in the province of Ontario. We need to uncork the VQA

wine stores today, because our wine sales for VQA are currently in decline. We need to uncork our wine sales as well, to assist our agriculture sector, our tourism sector and our wineries, not only

in Niagara and Prince Edward county but in Lake Erie North Shore and Pelee Island as well.

This bill, if passed, would create a new type of retail establishment. We call it a VQA Ontario wine store. Basically, it would allow different wineries to come

together in groups and sell each other's products. It would give cabinet the authority to determine the number, location and ownership model of these Ontario VQA wine stores.

Let me say from the outset, to frame this debate, the clear and simple illustration of the problem that this bill seeks to fix. This weekend is Cuvée, the

Ontario Wine Awards. It's like the Academy Awards for wines in the province of Ontario. Of the top 49 wines nominated -- the best of the best that the province has to offer -- only 10 are currently

available at the LCBO. So approximately 20% only are available at the LCBO.

One famous winemaker from Pillitteri Estates in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Sue-Ann Staff, said in the National Post: "It drives me crazy. How come I can't buy Ontario

wines at the LCBO?" I'm pleased to introduce Sue-Ann Staff, an award-winning winemaker, who is joining us in the gallery here today. Welcome, Sue-Ann.

Let me first illustrate the problem that causes only 10 of 49 wines to be available at the LCBO. Government policy in the province today actually hinders Ontario

VQA wine sales and restricts the profitability of VQA wineries. For example, government policy currently limits the number of retail outlets a winery can have to a single winery. Any winery created

from 1993 through the future is allowed only one retail outlet. So consumers may have exposure if they happen by in Niagara, Pelee or Prince Edward county, but otherwise, they wouldn't have

exposure to all the wines that operator has to offer.

Second, not only that, but government policy strictly limits the single store. The retail store cannot be in a village or a town, or in downtown Toronto. It can

only be at the site of the grape crush itself; so at the winery, as opposed to a place of potentially higher traffic. The Niagara Escarpment Commission today is putting increasing limits on what

that retail space can be -- if it's to be a restaurant, the number of seats it can have and the type of food it can sell -- with the goal of protecting the environment, which we all respect. But

there are increasingly more restrictions being put on that on-site winery, which wouldn't exist to the same extent if it were in a town or village.

The greenbelt legislation recently passed by this government -- with our objections to it -- Bill 135, can bring an entire new planning regime out of the office

of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In fact, if the Bedggood and Vanclief recommendations to the government are put in place, all the wineries that currently exist in the greenbelt area would not

exist, under those recommendations that limit the square footage and how much value can come out of that. The greenbelt is a spectre of further restrictions on wineries as they exist today. It

means that Henry of Pelham or EastDell Estates, for example, would never exist under those rules.

Third, government policy restricts the product itself. Only those wines produced at that particular winery can be sold at the retail outlet. By way of example,

if a young entrepreneur like Sue-Ann Staff wanted to open up her own winery in the province and seek a retail license, she would find herself restricted to a single retail outlet in rural Ontario,

with restrictions on the size and shape of the establishment and on the products she could sell.

The typical answer to that entrepreneur is, "You could always sell your products at the LCBO." But let me address that issue as well. The LCBO, as a creature of

government, is increasingly mandated to maximize its net revenues. This is a legitimate policy option, but there are downsides as well. It means that policies that promote domestic products like

VQA wine and microbreweries could be the sacrificial lambs on the altar of revenue maximization. Similarly, maximizing net revenue drives the LCBO to favour large, non-Ontario wineries that can

supply large volumes of wine and do so quickly. In other words, the LCBO has become the Wal-Mart of our beverage alcohol retail system. Larger wineries, French and Californian --

Interjection.

Mr. Hudak: Well, with some exceptions --

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Wal-Mart needs a union.

Mr. Hudak: -- they go with the big box retailers. So especially French, Californian and Australian wineries help the LCBO meet these demands,

because their size enables them to meet the LCBO door-to-floor policy. Smaller Ontario wineries are disadvantaged in this system, because they produce a high-quality product but in smaller volumes

and cannot consistently meet the terms required by the LCBO.

The LCBO will make inroads. The craft winery program, for example, is a success in that area. However, I would argue that the Wal-Mart of any retail system will

never be a satisfactory solution for the craft product market. As in Leamington or Niagara Falls or Welland, while you're going to have Wal-Marts, you also need specialty stores at the same time.

VQA Ontario wine stores are an example of that kind of specialty shop.

I stand proudly on our record in government. I had a very good, strong working relationship with Andy Brandt and the LCBO, and I thank them for their support for

the wine industry. For example, we introduced over 1.1 kilometres of additional shelf space for Ontario wines. We saw a 20% increase in Ontario wine sales at that point in time. I refer to the

craft winery program, VQA advocates and such. These were important steps that were helpful to the industry, but there is a lot more that needs to be done. If we are mandating the LCBO to maximize

revenue to move toward being the Wal-Mart of our system, it will never be a satisfactory solution to the problem that exists. Let me give some examples. Over two thirds of the wine currently sold

in the LCBO is non-Ontario wine. Only 5% of the wine sold at the LCBO is VQA. So for every bottle of VQA wine sold, 14 litres of imported wine are sold at the same time.

How does the bill solve the problem? The bill, if passed, would create a new type of retail outlet called Ontario VQA wine stores to show off our award winning

100% Ontario product. Effectively, it would allow wineries to group together and cross-sale each other's brands, giving cabinet the authority to determine the number and location of these Ontario

VQA wine stores. I would encourage cabinet to look at high-traffic and busy tourism areas to maximize the exposure of Canadians and tourists alike to our award-winning VQA wines.

Currently, this model exists in British Columbia. It began in 1995 with 12 stores; in 2003, BC authorized nine more stores. BC has not yet had any difficulties

with international trade issues, as we may hear arguments about from the parliamentary assistant. In the United States, New York, California and Pennsylvania, among other states, have policies that

favour exclusive outlets for their domestic wines. I'll anticipate some arguments from the parliamentary assistant about NAFTA and WTO regulations. My colleague from Niagara Centre says they have

spurious arguments from the other side. Maybe he won't go down that path, and I hope he doesn't.

What aggravates grape growers in wineries to no end is that when you walk into the LCBO today, you see two thirds of the shelves dedicated to imported wine. If

you walked into the LCBO in this past week, there's a major promotion for French wines in newspapers and on radio and in in-store promotions; this on the heels of a huge promotion for Australian

wines. I have no presumption that in Canberra or Sacramento or Paris, France, they're watching this argument here today to bring forward some sort of trade dispute, but if they care, my God, they

worship the LCBO as heroes. The biggest seller of French, Australian and Californian wines in the entire world is the LCBO itself.

Second, Canada and the EU recently negotiated changes to an agreement dealing with wineries and wine sales. In short, as part of that agreement, there are no

restrictions on off-site stores in that agreement. Third, VQA wine stores exist already in British Columbia. With the review of the beverage alcohol system taking place today, there's no better

time for the assembly to pass this bill, to send a strong signal to the government and its review panel to do more for Ontario VQA wineries.

Let me say once more, only 10 out of 49 nominated best Ontario wines are currently available at the LCBO. The wine council will tell you that for every dollar of

imported wine sales, there's only a 50-cent spinoff for the local economy, but for VQA sales, there's a $4 spinoff on the activities. It's good for jobs, it's good for agriculture and it's good for

tourism. I hope fellow members will support this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Kormos: My colleague Mr. Prue from Beaches-East York will be addressing this private member's bill as well.

First, I want to applaud the member from Erie-Lincoln for his enthusiastic advocacy for VQA wine producers in Niagara and elsewhere in the province. I want to

reinforce his observations and comments about the growth of these small boutique wineries -- labour intensive -- understanding, of course, that VQA means that you're buying wine made of 100%

Ontario grape, unlike how this government rolled over to the big-bottle wineries when they insisted on being able to include as little as 30% -- and in some exceptional circumstances, as little as

10% -- of Ontario grape and grape juice in wine that's labelled Ontario wine. That is a fraud on consumers.

Just as an aside, I want to indicate that New Democrats are adamant that wines labelled Ontario wines have to be 100% Ontario grape. Quite frankly, I don't think

you'll find a grape grower in Niagara or elsewhere in the province that would dispute that. Once consumers are aware of the fraud being perpetrated on them -- they're buying cheap plonk imported

from South America, amongst other places, and it's being bottled and sold masquerading as Ontario wine. That is a shame, and it is an insult to incredibly hard-working grape growers in this

province, many of whom have farmed their land and displayed incredible stewardship of land in that unique microclimate down in Niagara -- at great cost, because quite frankly, there isn't a whole

lot of money yet to be made in growing grapes or any other crop or produce.

So we applaud the enthusiasm of Mr. Hudak and share his concern about the lack of exposure that small wineries, small vintners, get on LCBO shelves,

understanding, of course, that LCBO is doing exactly what LCBO is supposed to do in the context of its stores. LCBO is the largest single purchaser of wine, spirits and alcohol, and quite frankly

has demonstrated an incredible level of skill. Every day, we're confronted with amazing new projects being undertaken by LCBO and its staff that have revolutionized, I say to you, the sale and

distribution of spirits, wine and other alcoholic beverages. And they do it in a socially responsible way.

Now, I want to have members of this chamber understand some of the history of privatization of spirit alcohol sales in this province. Mr. McGuinty is a

collaborator and a party to the attack on publicly controlled and owned distribution and sale of alcohol and spirits. I spoke with John Coones, of course, from the Ontario Liquor Board Employees'

Union. Mr. Coones, whom I know well, explained to me that Mr. McGuinty promised -- Mr. McGuinty promised -- in the course of campaigning during the last provincial election that he, Mr. McGuinty,

and the Liberals, if elected -- and they were -- would put a halt to the franchise stores south of Highway 17. Mr. Coones tells me that Mr. McGuinty promised, and I have no reason to doubt the

accuracy of Mr. Coones's recollection of that promise.

Rather than putting a freeze on growth of private liquor stores south of Highway 17 -- look, nobody has any quarrel with the franchise stores north of Highway

17; they're historic and they serve a legitimate purpose. But the creeping backdoor privatization has proliferated since the Liberals were elected here to Queen's Park. I tell you, yet another

broken promise by Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals.

I tell you that I cannot support a proposition which would ride the Liberal current of enhanced privatization. I am prepared to acknowledge that the LCBO should

receive a mandate -- in fact, New Democrats are encouraging this chamber to give the LCBO a clear mandate -- to set up, quite frankly, another stream of marketing, another stream of retailing, and

it should be in direct response to the proposition being put forward by Mr. Hudak today. I think it is time in this province that the LCBO -- and it's done a splendid job. You go up to the old

Summerhill station on Yonge Street and there you see what a big spirits, wine and liquor store ought to have been: a far cry from Mr. McNeely's early days, when you had to sort of pull your hat

down over your eyes and fill out a little slip of coarse newsprint with your X mark and slide it under the cage --

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): Brown bags.

Mr. Kormos: That's right. You'd have some fellow scurry to the back and deliver it to you sort of under the counter in a brown bag. That was for

just a bottle of rye, never mind anything particularly exotic. They didn't even carry tequila in those days, and the only wine you got was the wine in the big four-gallon jugs --

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): The 571(b).

Mr. Kormos: Well, 571(b), Mr. Yakabuski tells me; he remembers it well.

Mr. Yakabuski: Oh, yes.

Mr. Kormos: Which older brother's ID were you using, Mr. Yakabuski?

But look, I want to be very clear: We support the principle of setting up specific retail outlets that are designed to market Ontario VQA wines, especially in

high-traffic and tourist areas. I am amazed that this hasn't been done already in places like casinos -- and Mr. Bradley may want to speak to that, because I know Mr. Bradley, as Minister of

Tourism and Recreation, has had occasion to cut casino-opening ribbons. He will have another occasion down in Windsor to cut yet another ribbon as Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I suspect that

Mr. Bradley may well, in his capacity as minister, attempt to persuade his counterpart Mr. Watson to do something about specific marketing of VQA wines in those high-traffic tourist areas. You're

right, Mr. Hudak. Places in Niagara, Toronto, northern Ontario and, quite frankly, airports -- what an ideal place for the LCBO to be operating specialty boutique VQA outlets. I believe that we

don't have to continue to pursue the privatization of the sale-and-distribution-of-alcohol road to achieve the end sought by Mr. Hudak in this private member's bill.

I will not be able to stand to support this bill. I hope, quite frankly, that the bill gets passed, because it then gives the legislative committee an

opportunity to examine LCBO-based alternatives to the private alternative being proposed by Mr. Hudak. I'm not going to be lending my support to the bill. I encourage others to ensure that, if they

do support the bill, it's conditional upon this bill being amended so that the sale and the retailing proposal inherent in the bill is undergone and undertaken by LCBO and OLBEU employees. That,

quite frankly, is the deal-breaker for me at the moment in terms of this particular piece of legislation. But I don't want my lack of support specifically for the bill to indicate in any way my

lack of enthusiasm about seeking out creative ways of doing specific marketing and retailing of VQA wines, especially from small vintners like those in Niagara region. It's imperative for me that

it be done through a publicly owned sale process and that the actual hands-on retailing of it be done by OLBEU employees, who have demonstrated expertise and responsibility in marketing wine, not

only from the point of view of creating profits for the LCBO and the people of Ontario, but also from the point of view of ensuring responsible distribution of wine and spirits.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): Last week, this assembly passed the important greenbelt legislation to preserve the farmlands of Ontario. In my

riding, the farmlands are primarily the finest grape and tender fruit lands in North America. With the greenbelt legislation, our government made an important first step to preserve the land, but

now we have to take another step to preserve the farmer; for what good is one without the other?

The member from Erie-Lincoln has had many opportunities, as a minister in the previous government, to help our grape growers. He failed to do so. However, I do

want to applaud his initiative to move forward today.

During the greenbelt hearings, I became absolutely convinced that our Ontario grape growers must sell more Ontario grapes at a better price right here in

Ontario. I'm not sure that VQA stores are the best answer, but I do know that selling more VQA wines is a must. I'm absolutely positive that part of the solution is to have more VQA shelf space

across Ontario. Frankly, I don't care how we get there. The number one challenge for small wineries is not just producing the wine, but attracting customers. We already produce world-class wines,

but our Ontario grape growers face special homegrown obstacles, one of which is the archaic and self-destructive rules we have in Ontario to sell our wines. Most wine regions of the world celebrate

their locally grown products. They do not promote the competition. Ontario restricts nearly all of its VQA estate wineries to selling through a single on-site wine store, while it spends massive

amounts of money to promote New Zealand, Australian or Chilean wines. To top it off, the five biggest wineries control 98% of the off-site wine stores. This is just not right.

The small winery doesn't have a snowball's chance in heck of growing strong. To most of them, the LCBO is not a friendly partner, because its listings and

merchandising practices are not helpful. They set minimum volume requirements, but most small wineries can't meet them, and at margins too low to be profitable. The larger wineries have clogged the

LCBO's Ontario wine sections with 70% imported wines from Chile and elsewhere.

You may not know this: If your bottle of Ontario wine does not have a VQA label on it, it could contain as much as 70% imported wine in it. This practice does

nothing to help our growers and preserve our farms. This practice takes up space that can showcase our best Ontario VQA wines, and this is really stupid. We must promote Ontario VQA wines. Our

government can certainly help by opening new retail channels. This does not necessarily mean VQA stores only, because a few VQA stores will not allow the industry to achieve the mass market that it

needs in order to succeed.

So here is what I'm suggesting. We need to help the wine industry by making real changes in the LCBO practices to: allow VQA-only wineries working as co-ops to

have the ability to sell wines off-site; allow grocery stores to sell VQA-only wines; allow Ontario wines that have at least 75% content to be sold on the LCBO Ontario wine shelves; change the LCBO

merchandising policy to sell primarily VQA wines.

Current policies and regulations from previous governments discriminated against Ontario grape growers. Current content regulations encourage wineries to import

foreign wines instead of using the Ontario grapes. Labelling rules permit foreign products to be passed off as "wines of Ontario." Wineries that sell mostly 70% blended products have the exclusive

rights to 95% of the off-site retail locations. VQA-only wineries have fewer incentives and privileges than wineries that blend Ontario grapes with 70% imported product. This is just nuts.

The current support for Ontario wines needs changes. Unfortunately, VQA-only stores as proposed in Bill 7 are only the window dressing on a much larger problem.

We can do better. Let's start helping our farmers today. Let's have a comprehensive, Ontario-first VQA policy that helps our growers. Let's really enjoy the best of Niagara and what it has to

offer: a great VQA wine in a prosperous greenbelt.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 7, the VQA Wine Store Act, introduced by my colleague

from Erie-Lincoln, who first introduced the bill on Thursday, November 27, 2003.

I just want to respond to the member from Niagara Falls. When the member from Erie-Lincoln was the minister, we had the largest increase in Ontario history for

Ontario wine sales in the LCBO, in partnership with the wine council, creating over 1.1 kilometres of new shelf space for Ontario wines and overseeing a 20% growth in Ontario wine sales during his

tenure. I just want to put on the record that when we were in government we had a good record. I want to thank the former minister for his work.

We're in support of this bill today. It's a good bill. It would allow the promotion of and increased sale of more VQA wines. Ontario has a wine industry that we

can certainly be proud of. We produce world-class wines, and I'm certain that Ontarians would welcome the opportunity to try a larger selection of these wines than they are able to get through the

LCBO.

The member opposite has given me a couple of recommendations for Ontario VQA wines he tried this week, so that's good.

VQA wines are made entirely of Ontario grapes. This is distinct from Ontario wines, which contain as little as 30% Ontario grapes. Ontario VQA wines do not enjoy

special status at the LCBO, and for every litre of VQA wine sold, the LCBO sells 14 litres of imported wine. So the LCBO has become an easier place to obtain Ontario wines in recent years, thanks

to the increase in shelf space that we mentioned before, but it's not enough space to provide Ontarians with access to some very fine Ontario wines. Recently, there was an

article written in the

National Post about the number of top Ontario wines that are not available for sale through the LCBO. It's a shame that only 10 of the top 49 wines in Ontario are available through the LCBO.

Wine sales take place in three different ways in Ontario: the LCBO being one, the on-site winery retailers being another, and the third being direct delivery

from a winery to the consumer and the restaurant. I know that shelf space is at a premium and that not every wine can be available for sale there, but this is why the bill is a good compromise.

It's good for the wineries and it's good for the consumer.

My colleague has indicated that the goal of his bill is to uncork Ontario VQA wine stores and to allow wineries to sell more than one brand of wine. Cabinet

would have the authority to license groups of wineries to sell a variety of VQA wines.

I just want to put a statistic in here about the experience in BC. They created VQA stores in 1995. There were originally 12 outlets; in 2003, BC authorized the

creation of nine more. Eight have opened, and the last one is almost ready. BC has not yet had any difficulties on the international trade issue. It is worthwhile. It shows off our home-grown

industry.

This is what we want to do. Small and medium-sized wineries have difficulty cracking such a market. It's good for jobs, investment in agriculture, tourism and

the grape and wine industry, and it gives these wineries access to a broader market. I'm pleased to see the wide range of support that this bill has. The Minister of Agriculture likes it; the

papers are reporting that he is impressed by the bill.

I want to take a few moments to read into the record the names of several municipal politicians, wineries and grape growers who have lent their support to the

bill: Len Troup, chairman of the tender fruit growers; Robin Brock, mayor of the city of Thorold; Peter Kocsis, owner of Crown Bench Estates Winery; Doug Whitty of the Niagara Peninsula Fruit and

Vegetable Growers Association; Linda Franklin, executive director of the Wine Council of Ontario; Fraser Mowat, president of Harbour Estates Winery Limited; Albert Witteveen of the Niagara North

Federation of Agriculture; Katie Trombetta, mayor of West Lincoln.

Despite the high quality of the VQA wines, there has been a recent trend of slowing sales of these wines. Since 2002, sales growth has slowed from approximately

20% in 2002-03 to 7% in 2003-04 to a projected negative growth in 2004-05. As of the 2004 VQA annual report, there were 71 VQA Ontario members. It's time to give this industry a boost.

I want to take a couple of minutes to let members of the House know that Niagara is not the only area in the province that is home to wineries. I discovered

myself, in my own riding, two new wineries that have set up. I know that's pretty hard to believe in Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, but yes, it's true. Kawartha Country Wines is located in the heart of

the Kawarthas, in Buckhorn, close to the member from Peterborough's riding.

For those of you who would like to try maple syrup wine, some of my constituents are looking at producing that product as well. Maple syrup wines are produced in

other provinces -- again, this is new to me -- and it's time to look at allowing them here in Ontario. They do not fit into any existing winery category, but I think that this would be an

opportunity to develop unique qualities of wine to complement the existing wine industry. Maple syrup, as of course you all know, is one of the oldest crops in Ontario. For many years, maple syrup

has been harvested each spring in the province, and it has gone beyond its traditional use, which I'm happy to hear. Maple Moon is the name of the company that is trying to produce the maple syrup

wine, and Eric and Carol Thompson in Haliburton are pushing this forward. I know they've been in touch with the minister. Hopefully, they will get this recognized, and there will be maple syrup

wine available here in Ontario.

Sorry I've gotten a little off topic there, but I think that the member from Erie-Lincoln has put a lot of work into crafting this bill. It has broad support.

I'm pleased to support it, and I agree with him that it's time to uncork the VQA wines in Ontario. Thank you very much.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is a privilege and a pleasure to speak to this particular bill.

In Ontario, it wasn't all that many years ago, probably 20 or 25 years ago, when the mere sound of Ontario wine would make people recoil in some kind of horror.

It was made largely from labrusca grapes, the native Concord grape variety of North America. It had what one wine writer said was a foul gasoline taste. It was known for being very foxy on the

tongue, for those who are wine aficionados. You would know it was something you would not run out to the store and buy. In fact, even when you were a teenager and trying to sneak it, it was not

something that you relished going back to.

But those days have changed quite remarkably in very short order in this province. I remember 20 years ago or so reading about the remarkable success of one Don

Ziraldo, an Algerian native who had determined that he could make better wine than he was tasting out of some of the old, established wineries that were using non-noble grape varieties. He went

down to Niagara and started to grow his own vines, his own grapes, and it was hugely and spectacularly successful as one of the pioneers -- certainly he was not alone -- in changing how we view

Ontario grapes and Ontario wines.

Today, with the replanting of most of Niagara -- and I think there's hardly a soul who still grows Concord grapes except for making jam -- with the replanting of

all of those vines there is a broad range of grape varieties, everything from Cabernet Sauvignon to Merlot to Syrah to Viognier to Riesling to Zinfandel. Everything is grown here in the province of

Ontario. In fact, the wines are starting to become, as one speaker has already said, world-class.

I'm going to support this bill, notwithstanding that I agree with my colleague from Niagara Centre that we have to be very mindful and very careful of how this

is going to impact the LCBO and its employees.

Having said that, I honestly believe that we need to move forward for the wineries of Ontario. They have become, and are, world-class. They are quite unique.

If you travel around the world, to various wine regions as I have done, to South Africa, Chile, Australia, Greece, France or Spain, you will see that the wines are all unique to those regions. The

wines of Niagara on the north shore of Lake Erie -- and even in the growing and brand new industry of Prince Edward county, the wines and the wineries are unique, the growing climates are unique,

and the terroir of the soil is unique. Each one of those produces a unique flavour.

When you come to Ontario, I have to tell you that,

whereas years ago you wouldn't have drunk the wine, today you're absolutely delighted to taste the new wines

that are coming from this province and how special they are.

My colleague Ms. Scott asked me about some wines just today, and I had an opportunity to taste two very unique wines from Ontario this past week. There was a

Château des Charmes Gewürztraminer which was to die for. I don't remember tasting Gewürztraminer from Germany or from Alsace that was quite as good as what was produced right here in

Niagara.

I also had an opportunity to taste a Cabernet Sauvignon produced by Marynissen. Now, Marynissen has a small winery and their wine is not available in the LCBO,

but a very good Cabernet Sauvignon that was produced by Marynissen was available, of all places -- and I commend the place heartily -- at the Osgoode Hall Law Society dining room. They have a

policy that I hope restaurants across the city and across this province will adopt. They have a policy of discounting the Ontario wines on their menu, a little asterisk beside the wine denoting

that these wines are discounted because the Osgoode Hall Law Society believes that Ontarians ought to taste the wines of their own province and that they are discounted by a couple of dollars more

than the imports are. So it was an opportunity to drink those wines, to taste them, and for me to say, "Wow, Ontario wines have really come of age." These were two absolutely excellent examples

that competed as well as, or in some cases better than, the international competitors.

I believe that we have to do everything to help these wineries. I'm a little bit nervous about the LCBO and the employees of the LCBO, but I'm willing for this

to go to second reading and, when it does, I think we can really do something wonderful for Ontario's wineries.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I too want to applaud the member's enthusiasm. I don't want to spend any time

lamenting about what could or couldn't have happened when he was minister. I think that would be unfair. We've got to move forward. So I just want to put that out there.

I think what you uncork is really important. I happen to enjoy Ontario wines. In fact, I purchase quite a bit of Ontario wine and distribute it each Christmas.

It makes an ideal gift. But I think we need to watch that we don't do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and that in so doing we end up uncorking trade turmoil that would not be helpful to the

industry. Lord knows we've got enough trade turmoil in this country right now. You just have to follow what's been going on with softwood lumber and the BSE situation and what have you.

Under the NAFTA agreement, which I just pause to note was brought in by a Conservative federal government, the off-site wine stores in Ontario and British

Columbia were limited to those in existence or under construction or in the process of being licensed as of October 4, 1987. Ontario currently authorizes 290 off-site stores. On January 5, 2004,

the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade actually wrote to the Ontario government with a reminder that any increase in the number of wine retail stores selling Ontario-only wines

risked eliciting a negative reaction from our trade partners, particularly in the European Union. The negotiations we had with the EU were to make available in the EU a selection of Ontario VQA

wines, and we need to be careful that we don't put that effort at risk.

We on the government side certainly support ongoing efforts to develop the Ontario grape-based wine industry but believe at this time it's really premature,

particularly given the in-depth review that we're undertaking, which has set out five clear principles. The report should be available at the end of the spring of this year. The principles are; to

safeguard socially responsible consumption, storage, distribution and sale of beverage alcohol; to enhance convenience, variety and competitive prices for consumers; to maximize the value to

taxpayers; to ensure responsible reuse and recycling practices; and fifth, and very important, to promote Ontario's products.

My colleague from Niagara Falls mentioned a number of options which I thought were quite enlightened and useful. With the review taking place, this would

appear patently premature. I think it's sad that only 10 of 49 of Ontario's finest wines are on the shelf; I share that. I happen to agree with the member from Welland that there ought to be a

broader and more discernible mandate for the LCBO, and I noticed as recently as last week that even the member who proposed the bill was reported to have said in a newspaper story, "Mine is an idea

to create greater market access. If the government has other ideas to achieve the same result, I'd certainly be supportive." I think that's insightful.

We are supportive of the general thrust of getting more Ontario wines on greater shelf space throughout Ontario, but we don't want to do it in a way that

actually puts the industry at risk. Therefore, notwithstanding my enthusiasm for the enthusiasm of the member opposite, I won't support this bill.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It's our jobs as legislators to help, wherever possible, our constituents, local industries and businesses.

Ontario's VQA wines, unlike any other type of wine, are made from 100% Ontario grapes. No other wine can make this claim. Quite obviously, it's our job and our responsibility to do whatever is

possible within our powers to support, encourage and help grow Ontario VQA wineries.

At present, an Ontario VQA winery is allowed to sell and carry only wines of their own production. Ontario VQA wineries are not allowed to carry wines from

other wineries that also have the VQA brand. This needless government regulation prevents Ontario wineries from gaining the shelf space needed to be successful against their competitors from around

the world.

Ontarians are presently able to purchase their VQA wines through three methods: the LCBO store, on-site winery retailers and direct delivery. While this may

seem well and good, there are some problems. Direct delivery is often costly and it is increasingly hard to discover which wineries would offer this service. On-site retailers are certainly good,

but obviously, as I said, they only sell one type of wine, made by one company, and how would I know which one to go to to get it? The LCBO is a creature of our own government and of course it's

revenue-driven. Policies and procedures to promote domestic products quite obviously take a back seat to the non-Ontario wines and the profit they can make. The LCBO must stock products that will

bring in the most money and make the most profit for the government, not to support our farming community.

Ontario wineries find it difficult to compete against big wineries from around the world. These foreign wineries can deliver an almost endless supply of wine

for minimal cost. Ontario's VQA wines are part of a fledgling industry, and it is our job as legislators to support the tender fruit farmers who grow our grapes and the different wineries that

employ our citizens. These smaller wineries are potential employers, taxpayers, consumers and producers. The time is now for the Ontario government to step in and take an active role in supporting

our Ontario tender fruit farmers and Ontario VQA wines.

Yesterday, I saw many Ontario tender fruit growers on the front lawn of the Legislature. Just like our cash crop, grain, oilseed, tobacco and beef farmers, the

tender fruit farmers are also struggling with the rising Canadian dollar, increased costs of doing business and lack of government support.

The LCBO is the only multi-location outlet for Ontario wine. It only makes sense that we should better promote Ontario VQA wine over other countries and

regions. Passing this bill will allow Ontario VQA wineries to potentially open their own VQA retail outlets. Passing this bill will allow increased shelf space and competition among Ontario VQA

wineries. Passing this bill supports our farmers. Clearly, it is our job as legislators to promote and support Ontario VQA wines. Passing this bill into law will do just that.

Why don't we give Ontario's VQA wines a chance to compete? This bill will support our tender fruit farmers. This bill will encourage growth and development and

investment in Ontario. This bill is good for jobs. This bill opens up a broader market for our wineries, potentially increasing revenues for the wineries and the province. Why should we do anything

else but support this bill?

I support the Ontario tender fruit farmers, which is why I support Mr. Hudak's bill.

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): It's a privilege to speak to this bill. Mr. Hudak has identified a very real problem in this

province. I don't know how LCBO operates -- I'm not sure anyone knows how LCBO operates -- but here is what I do know: In my riding, in Prince Edward county, we now have eight wineries. Six years

ago, we had none -- a significant difference. These wineries exist because individuals chose to take a gamble. Knowing them, it is more than a business; it is in fact a passion on their part that

they chose to invest in this wine industry.

Their investment has brought tremendous benefits to all of our community, to other businesses and to the community itself. They make wine that I believe is

world-class. They win awards. That doesn't seem to matter to LCBO, but they win awards, and they make their wine with grapes grown in our county -- an absolutely first-rate product.

The problem is, how do they sell it? How do they get LCBO shelf space? How do they market their product? The rules seem extremely complex. In fact, we struggle

to determine why LCBO gives the majority of shelf space to other countries. I don't understand that. No other country would do it.

The LCBO itself makes life very difficult. We have a very unique producer in our community that makes fruit wines, and there's no encouragement. Here's a

wonderful, unique product that the individual owning it has struggled to sell. He makes a great product, but the selling is difficult. The current system is not even neutral, but works against my

local wineries. I believe this bill, if nothing else, will flag that we need to do something differently.

I certainly support the current LCBO system. But I know in Prince Edward county we are attracting tourists from afar who now come there as a destination. They

may not have the opportunity to visit every one of the eight wineries. It is certainly worth looking at whether there is a possibility or if it's feasible to allow one winery to carry the products

of the others so that they could purchase Prince Edward county wines at any of the wineries. The wineries themselves may not want that, but at least the option should be considered and

reviewed.

I'm certainly going to support this bill, because I think it will precipitate some questions.

We need to do more for Ontario products. I'm proud that our government is committed to putting $2 million a year into the marketing of what is a fine product.

Wouldn't it be nice if the LCBO came on board with us? We in Ontario shouldn't have to lobby LCBO to carry our wines. They should want to come forward and increase the shelf space.

I can say that all of my wineries located in Prince Edward county need support and encouragement. They need to be able to sell what is absolutely a world-class

product. Hopefully, this bill will start us on the road to giving credit and support to our own industry here in Ontario.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm extremely pleased to support this bill that has been put forward by my colleague Tim Hudak. Of

course, he had put this bill forward when he was Minister of Consumer and Business Services through the rural red tape reduction bill. As has been stated, this particular bill will amend the Liquor

Control Act to give Ontario's VQA wine industry the ability to partner together, cross-sell each other's brands and of course further promote VQA wines.

I want to congratulate my colleague Mr. Hudak. He has been one of the most outstanding supporters and advocates of Ontario wines. He has done everything he

possibly could do on behalf of the agricultural and wine industries to make sure that people in this province have access to Ontario wines.

In fact, I was quite concerned when I read the National Post story which indicated that only 10 of the top 49 wines in Ontario are for sale through the Liquor

Control Board of Ontario, so obviously people in this province don't have access to the fine wines that have come on the market, particularly in recent years. We need to make sure, first of all,

that we do everything we can to promote the tender fruit growers, the wine industry, and provide increased access to the outstanding wines that are available in our province. In fact, I think the

wine industry is now pretty well everywhere in the province. I'm always surprised when I travel to different parts of the province to find out that another small winery has started operation.

This particular bill, if passed, would certainly allow our excellent wines to be further exposed and available not only to people in Ontario and all Canadians

but to our tourists as well. I think it would be a great boost for the grape and wine industry, a great boost for tourism and agriculture.

These types of VQA wine stores already exist in British Columbia. If you take a look south of the border, we have California and New York, which also have wine

stores dedicated to promoting the local industry. I think it is extremely important that we open up our industry as well and ensure that there are more opportunities than ever before.

I'd like to quote Linda Franklin, the executive director of the Wine Council of Ontario who says, "This is an important initiative to improve access to the

marketplace for 100% Ontario VQA wines." She goes on to say that "Tim Hudak has been an outstanding advocate of Ontario wines, both in government and now in opposition." Of course, I said that at

the outset, how supportive Tim has been of that industry and the promotion of Ontario wines and improving access to them.

The chairman of the tender fruit growers' association, Len Troup, also said, "It just makes common sense. We live in Ontario, and we should be promoting

Ontario wines. To do anything less makes no sense." Then, of course, we have the owner of Crown Bench Estates Winery, Peter Kocsis, who says, "Tim Hudak's bill will give the Ontario consumer an

opportunity to be exposed to Niagara premium -- world-class -- wines. It would also help to level the marketplace for the fledgling Ontario wine industry." He goes on to say, "It's a win-win

solution."

I can tell you that I certainly will be supporting this bill, and I would encourage all members of the House to support our wine and grape industry.

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): I want to start by saying that it certainly is our government's position to support the ongoing development of

Ontario's grape-based wine industry and VQA wines in a big way.

Shortly after I was elected in October 2003 and after I had been appointed as PA to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, I was approached by many

Ontario wineries. They said, "Tony, we're so glad that you have been appointed to this ministry and you can now help us crack the Chinese market, because we know that wines are getting very popular

in China." They are right. But I do want to echo the comments of the member from Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, that supporting this bill at this time would violate Canada and Ontario's

international trade obligations and would be premature, given the current beverage alcohol sector review.

In the May 2004 budget, our government committed additional funding of $2 million per year for five years, beginning this year, 2005. A key focus of this

funding is increased marketing for VQA wines.

I know that my time is running out, but I do want to share with members here that we are confident that Ontario's award-winning wines can compete with the

world's best. About three days ago, I hosted a dinner on behalf of our government to the delegation from our sister province, Jiangsu of China. Guess what we served them. Ontario VQA wines -- they

loved it. We are confident that we can compete anywhere in the world.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? There are about 50 seconds left.

Mr. Yakabuski: It's hard to say everything we want to say in less than a minute, but we'll try to be brief. I want to point out the great

record that Tim Hudak had while he was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I guess, at that point, and how much work he did for the wineries and how much he continues to do for them

as a member of the opposition.

I do want to say that last night my wife and I shared a bottle of Château des Charmes Sauvignon Blanc, and I've got to tell you, it was delicious. I'm

fully supportive of Ontario wineries and I'm fully supportive of Tim Hudak and this bill. I hope that the House joins me in supporting that this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Hudak, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Hudak: I appreciate the comments of various members on this legislation. I do appreciate the attendance of my Niagara colleagues here

today. Thanks very much for the comments of the member from Prince Edward county, who clearly stood in his place and said he would be supporting this bill in favour of the wineries in his riding. I

know the gentleman from Essex -- he was in the Speaker's chair today -- is a strong advocate of VQA wineries as well.

But I say to my colleague from Niagara Falls, we do need to stand together as Niagara members, and Stoney Creek and St. Catharines as well. Private members'

bills are often more about the symbolism through second reading, supporting a concept. If you support the concept of doing more for VQA wineries, then send it to committee. If you have some

concerns about particular language in the bill or certain parts of the approach, send it to committee, and let's go over those details. But I do say to my colleagues, "Stand in your place and serve

it." You don't always have to read these too-eagerly partisan treatises from staff that say the previous government did nothing. It seems to be the first thing they always say.

We stand proudly on our record of a record increase in VQA wine sales; the biggest promotion of Ontario wine in the history of the LCBO; 1.1 kilometres of new

shelf space. I could go on and on. I thank the LCBO for that support and I thank the folks at MCBS for that support. But there are more steps to go.

To my colleague on the trade issue, this bill is about cross-selling, it's not about the number of licences. Cabinet retains that number. We don't have

anything in this bill dealing with the number of licences, but we do talk about cross-selling of brands. I find it regrettable that the parliamentary assistant for MCBS takes the position that our

policy for the LCBO should be dictated in the halls of Canberra or Paris or Sacramento. In fact, they worship the LCBO as heroes there because they are the biggest sellers of Australian, French,

Italian and California wines in the entire world. Andy Brandt, who has done a lot for the wine industry, was recently hailed by the French wine industry for the work he has done for imported French

wines. I do hope we'll have our colleagues' support. Send this to committee and let's do the right thing for Ontario VQA wineries.

BETTER BUILDINGS PARTNERSHIP

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should further its energy

conservation and emission-reduction agenda by taking steps to encourage and support province-wide development of robust Better Buildings Partnership programs, as exemplified by the city of

Toronto's highly successful and world-renowned Better Buildings Partnership program.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. McNeely has moved ballot item number 54. Pursuant to standing order 96, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. McNeely: I'm pleased to use this time to talk about an issue that I believe is very important to the future of this province. That issue

is conservation -- environmental conservation and energy conservation -- and how Better Buildings Partnership programs can contribute to conservation in Ontario.

One of our government's main priorities is ensuring that future generations of Ontarians can enjoy a clean and green Ontario. I am proud that we are taking

proactive steps toward this goal. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues, the Minister of Energy and his parliamentary assistant, the honourable member for Etobicoke Centre, in widely promoting the

conservation message around Ontario. I especially applaud some of the courageous decisions that have been made to cut back on harmful greenhouse gas emissions to improve air quality in our cities

and to hopefully slow the climate change process that is an imminent global threat.

In Toronto a few weeks back, a smog advisory was issued. It was a mild day with no wind and the pollution hung over the city like a cloud. You couldn't even

see the top of the CN Tower. One windless winter day, and Toronto's entire skyline was hidden behind a screen of pollutants. A smog day in Toronto, our nation's biggest and most populated city;

"Well, that's one thing," you might say. But think about this: Last summer, a smog advisory was called for Algonquin Park, one of our province's environmental treasures. To me, that's a clear sign

that we must start turning the tide.

The closing of our coal-fired plants by 2007 is a very meaningful move toward cleaner energy for our province. I think it's great that we're looking to more

environmentally friendly resources like wind, biomass, water and ethanol to produce the power we all depend on. Our commitment to cleaner energy also strikes a strong contrast to the direction

other nations are taking. According to Robert Kennedy Jr.'s recent book on US federal environmental policies, Crimes Against Nature, our neighbours to the south have 100 to 200 new coal-fired

plants on the drawing board. By closing our plants, we are planning for the future because we know that a cleaner Ontario will be a healthier Ontario and a more prosperous Ontario for years to

come. Meanwhile, asthma attacks are doubling every five years in the US. According to Kennedy, emissions from coal-fired plants containing poisonous mercury could represent the cause of permanent

IQ loss, as well as birth defects and even autism in children who are exposed while still in the womb. This is dangerous stuff, folks, and the US federal plan seems to keep adding to the

problem.

Personally, I firmly disagree with people who say that just because the US isn't working toward conservation, or because it hasn't signed on to Kyoto, we

should just throw in the towel too. There are many strong environmental voices in the US, and we should supporting those voices by standing up for our principles and doing something about air

quality and climate change here.

I believe we have an opportunity to continue to show leadership. In fact, I believe we have a responsibility to show that leadership, to show our neighbours

and our friends around the world that environmental responsibility is in everyone's best interests and that it does not have to come at the expense of urban development or economic growth.

When I was a city councillor in Ottawa and vice-chair of the city's environmental committee, I was attached to a program that had the potential to demonstrate

that kind of leadership, a Better Buildings Partnership program. I believe, and the records show, that Better Buildings Partnerships are excellent investments in conservation.

A recent report by the National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment looked at energy use and emissions by end use. According to the report,

residential, commercial and industrial buildings represent 69% of energy use in Canada and contribute 63% of our greenhouse gas emissions, and at least half of those percentages are for heating and

cooling.

By means of renovations to improve the energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings, these programs reduce demand on the energy system, reduce

emissions of greenhouse gases and also contribute to economic activity and, more importantly, even job creation. They are in fact one of the best value-for-money investments that we have for energy

conservation.

Unfortunately, the city of Ottawa Better Buildings Partnership program never got off ground, thanks to the actions of senior bureaucrats following municipal

amalgamation. Without warning, explanation or fanfare, the program was scrapped and its great staff was given their walking papers. I was extremely disappointed that Ottawa was giving up on such a

positive initiative.

The city of Toronto, on the other hard, recognized the value of implementing a Better Buildings Partnership program. They went ahead and haven't looked

back.

I want to take a moment to introduce Richard Morris, who is with us today.

Applause.

Mr. McNeely: Richard, as some of you know, is the manager of the city of Toronto's energy efficiency office and one of the world's experts in

developing Better Buildings Partnership programs and making them a success. He will be leaving for England on the 19th of this month where the city of Toronto is helping the city of London to set

up a Better Buildings Partnership program.

The city of Toronto's Better Buildings Partnership program is an innovative program that has had a great deal of success since it was started in 1996. The

principle of the program is simple. The city of Toronto made a one-time investment of $8 million in what is called a revolving fund. The money came from the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program.

Seed funds were also provided to hire staff to manage the program. The $8 million in the revolving fund is loaned out, interest-free, to the private and non-private sectors to help finance

improvements to existing buildings, making them more energy efficient.

City experts and partners from local distribution companies, such as Enbridge and Toronto Hydro, advise and assist owners in developing retrofit or renovation

strategies to improve efficiency. By making these renovations to buildings so that less energy is used, owners can realize huge savings in terms of energy costs. And because less demand is placed

on the energy system, emission levels go down as well.

The beauty of the program is that the money invested by the city in the program is loaned; it's not given. When the project starts to generate significant

energy cost savings, the owners repay the loan to the city, and it goes out again to finance another project. The original investment, therefore, sustains the program well into the future. The same

original dollars fund new projects. It's kind of like the gift that keeps on giving.

There are economic gifts, too. According to the city of Toronto's experience, the program only needs to lend 10% to 30% of the dollars necessary to fund

individual projects. So the project can generate economic activity up to 10 times the value of the original government investment.

And with this economic activity comes jobs. The city of Toronto's results since 1996 speak for themselves: 440 buildings have been retrofitted; almost $20

million is now saved annually in energy costs; CO 2 emissions have been reduced by 173,000 tonnes per year; economic activity has been generated in the amount of $131 million; and over

3,900 person-years of employment have been generated.

Not only does the city retain its original $8-million investment -- Torontonians are very frugal -- but over time it has actually grown to $9 million.

I want to suggest that the province could adopt the model put forward very successfully by the city of Toronto. If we were to make a significant investment,

say $20 million per year for five years, we could see impressive numbers. Assuming an average repayment term of 10 years, and assuming that the $100-million investment could be leveraged by a

further $200 million from the private and non-profit sectors, we could retrofit 1,000 buildings across the province in the first five years of implementation. By year five, we could be eliminating

up to 400,000 tonnes of CO 2 emissions every year. By year five, operating costs for buildings -- the energy costs -- could be reduced by $50 million annually and, over five years, we

could generate $300 million in economic activity and nearly 10,000 person-years of employment. These are modest estimates of what we could do and the kinds of benefits a province-wide Better

Buildings Partnership program could have.

As someone who cares about the environment, who believes the science clearly shows we are in great peril from global warming and who is concerned about the

kind of province our children and grandchildren will inherit from our generation, it is with a feeling of hope that I stand in this House today to promote a province-wide Better Buildings

Partnership program. We have a successful model in the city of Toronto's world-renowned program and excellent resources with its experts. If we follow their example, Ontario will realize many

benefits, many times over, for many years to come.

I urge this House again to support this resolution and I request that our government take a closer look at how a province-wide Better Buildings Partnership

could contribute to our conservation efforts and help cement our province's status as a leader on environmental issues.

I wish to thank all those on both sides of the House who have volunteered to speak to this motion. I look forward to their contributions.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am very pleased to join in the debate in terms of the member's motion. Certainly it's good

to see the Minister of Energy in here today. I know he's very interested in what is happening in this area. I expect him to speak on this and maybe provide a little bit more flesh to the bone since

he has come here today. I look forward to the Minister of Energy speaking on this motion.

Also, I want to say that certainly everybody in the House, without exception, would have support for energy conservation and emission reduction. That's very

important. It looks like what the member is trying to propose here is a program -- it's my understanding from my friend from Beaches-East York, who is a former mayor of East York -- that was put in

place by the city of Toronto in 1996 and was essentially dealing with the retrofit of commercial-industrial properties, an interest-free loan, and was run by the municipality. I would imagine that

what he is looking at here, and I stand to be corrected, is for this to be put forth across municipalities in this province in terms of the industrial-commercial sector, which certainly makes

sense. I don't know whether it applied to the institutional sector or if that's something that he is envisioning, because certainly the institutional sector that should be leading the way. The

Minister of Energy will probably comment on that.

We've seen great initiatives not only in the industrial-commercial sector but also recently in the low-rise residential sector in terms of builders making

their houses much more energy-efficient. I think that's a tremendous marketing tool. I was at an opening a few months ago in my riding for a builder by the name of Mason Homes, which has become

part of the green program in terms of how they design their houses, making sure that energy conservation is the focus of the house.

I know that may not sit well with the deputy House leader, who is a big proponent of high-rise density -- and I have nothing against that if he comes forth

with respect to high-rise programs in the downtown areas. I know he has been to the city of Barrie and he knows that the high-rise is an area that obviously has to be looked at in terms of

revitalizing our downtowns. Certainly the city of Barrie is looking forward to that. I know Minister Caplan will be coming forth and putting some meat on the bones in terms of what his initiatives

are. The city of Barrie was designated as a growth area and would be looking for Minister Caplan to come forth and provide some information in terms of how much money will be coming out of the

infrastructure program that should be coming down. I know they are expecting municipalities to change their official plans to conform with Minister Caplan's vision of the great province of Ontario

in terms of downtown revitalization. I think that's something that should be encouraged.

I know his initial 25 areas didn't include the city of Windsor. The Minister of Energy and the Minister of Children and Youth Services would certainly be

looking to work with city of Windsor officials to make sure that downtown Windsor -- it's a great downtown but it needs to be looked at as a whole in terms of high-rise and different developments

that we need to revitalize our downtowns.

I know Minister Caplan is in conversation with the Minister of Energy. They are going to be discussing that at length, making sure that we come forth with fair

funding across the province with respect to downtown revitalization, because Minister Caplan is a big proponent of high-rise development. And that's fine, because that's something we should be

looking at in terms of energy conservation.

I'm getting lots of letters from condominium owners saying, "My taxes are going through the roof. Why aren't we fairly treated?" I forward those to Minister

Sorbara, because I know he is looking at that area, especially from an assessment point of view. I know Minister Sorbara has a good handle on how to deal with land development and other property

issues. But energy conservation is a big issue in terms of condominium owners.

Mr. McNeely certainly has my support with respect to an energy conservation program. I look forward to listening to the Minister of Energy, because he is

probably very interested, and I'm pleased to see that he's attending the House today for this motion.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I am just so happy to have an opportunity to speak to this motion this morning. Do you want to know

why? It gives me an opportunity to talk about energy policies in northeastern and northwestern Ontario.

I have to say, I support this particular bill. I've got no problem. It goes in the right direction. In fact, you would know that Marilyn Churley has done a lot

of work in this particular area, and the city of Toronto specifically has done a lot of work. I agree with the member that this is something we should move forward on in regard to trying to figure

out how we can deal with some of this across the province within a public context. I wanted to say that right way.

The other thing is, I want to come back to my first point: I am so happy to be here. The Minister of Energy is in the House. He is here and he wants to hear

what I have to say. I know he is keenly interested. He had a good night's sleep, he's here and he's ready. I have to say, Minister, there are a whole bunch of hydro utility customers in northern

Ontario really angry with you. They are saying, "Listen, the Tories started this whole initiative of privatization and deregulation. As a result, we have hydro rates and extra charges on the hydro

bills." Remember before, you used to get a hydro bill that used to be for the kilowatt hours, everything included? Now they give you a bill and say, "So much for kilowatt hours, and, by the way,

here's double again," so that you pay for everything else. People like Falconbridge, Tembec, Abitibi, a whole whack of utility customers that we send hydro bills to, in fact the largest hydro

utility customers in the province --

Mr. McNeely: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think this is private members' time. This is normally non-partisan. We're talking about

energy conservation. I don't understand what the member is getting at.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: I'll keep my eye on the clock. Thank you to the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. I'll listen very carefully that we

stick to the resolution.

Mr. Bisson: I want to thank the member for -- oh, no, you've got to stay, Dwight, or else I'll send you the Hansard. I'm sending you the

Hansard, I'm telling you. There you are. Stay.

My point is, there are many employers who are really worried about what all of this energy policy means. Conservation can be part of how companies save money

when it comes to being able to afford the high energy bills they're getting and the extra 12% they're going to be socked this spring because of this government's hydro policy. Certainly, if you

look at companies like Tembec in Smooth Rock Falls -- now, they have their own generating capacity; they don't buy from Hydro. Actually, they sell back to Hydro, as the minister well knows. But one

of the things they've done is looked at conservation as one way to reduce the overall amount of hydro they need, lessening their cost, and that's a good thing. That's part of what the member talks

about in the bill.

But the basic fact is there is still a whole bunch of employers out there: big companies like Falconbridge, which operates a mine smelter division in Timmins;

Tembec, with their TMP plant; the paper mill in Kapuskasing, and list goes across the north. They are huge customers, and there is only so much conservation they can do. You can do as much

conservation as you want -- and that's a good thing; I encourage the kind of policy the member has brought forward -- but the basic fact is that there are still utility customers.

You sit down with these employers and talk to Terry Skiffington at the mill in Kapuskasing, or to Picard, the manager in Timmins at the Kidd Creek Met. site --

they're really worried. They're saying, "Listen, a big part of the cost of doing business for us is energy," because of the types of processes they use. For example, in Kapuskasing they have a TMP

pulping process. It's very much an energy user as far as the process; rather than grinding the wood into pulp, they're actually going through a TMP, a thermomechanical pulping process, which is a

high energy utilization method of doing it but a very efficient way to deal with making pulp for paper.

That's the same story as those of many pulp and paper mills across northern Ontario. If you look at Kidd Creek, they operate a refinery, which is a high-energy

utility. There's no way of saying, "We're not going to use the hydro; we're going to turn the power off," because they just couldn't run their plant. They're saying to me, "We've got a problem.

Energy is a big part of the cost of doing business for our plants. As energy prices go up, it is making us less viable as mills that we operate." They are saying, "At one point, we're going to hit

the wall. The energy prices are going to be so high that no matter what we do on the efficiency side, we are not going to be able to pay the bill at the end of the day because there is not going to

be a profit after we pay our energy prices."

For example, after Kidd Creek Mines in Timmins, on their metallurgical site, got the last set of increases in hydro, they went out and invested a significant

amount of money in order to find ways to save energy. They did that in order to offset the investment to offset those increases in electricity. They were somewhat successful, I wouldn't say

completely, but they certainly went a long way to deal with what were the last hydro increases. I met with them and they said, "If we get a hydro increase of 20%, we'll have lost all of our

investment in energy efficiency, and we are going to be at the point of having to make some decisions about what we do next." I'm telling you, there's a whole bunch of employers out there who are

having to make decisions: Can I or can I not afford to run my plant? Why? Because energy prices are going through the roof.

Mr. McNeely is shaking his head. I know that he's shaking his head saying no, but that is what the truth is. We saw in Terrace Bay just this week that one of

the plants is closing down up there, and part of the issue is energy. Yes, there are other issues out there. I'm not going to stand here and say it's only electricity, because we know it's partly

the low American dollar; it's partly the regulations -- for example, some of the regulations around the environment are making it expensive for them to operate. Everybody believes that we need to

make sure they are environmentally responsible, but all of these things have costs associated with them.

Basically, what we're creating is a perfect storm for industry to fail. Energy is a big part of creating that perfect storm to fail. I'm just saying to the

member across the way that I applaud your initiative to deal with the whole issue of energy efficiency, and I agree with you that we've got to go that way. In fact, we have a number of ideas --

Marilyn Churley and Howard Hampton have listed numbers of them, along with members of the Conservative Party, and now yourself with this bill -- and we need to go in that direction.

But if you don't get a hold of rates and we don't get a hold of how we deal with hydro policy in the province in a positive way, we are going to be in the

position where we lose more employees across northern Ontario and other parts of the province. Since McGuinty has been elected, we've lost 6,000 jobs in northern Ontario, either temporarily or

permanently, because of energy prices and other things that have created this perfect storm.

So I say to the members that we've got to get this under control. Yes, we're going to hear the argument, "It can't be done." Well, do you know what? Why is it

that Manitoba, Quebec and other places where they have public utilities are able to do it?

We have to say to ourselves, "Is electricity a basic infrastructure?" I think the answer is yes. And if it's a basic infrastructure, then we've got to operate

as we used to without Ontario Hydro, where we basically operate with no profit and we deliver electricity to the consumer at cost. Why? Because it's as important as having a highway or a telephone.

You can't do business if you can't travel to the plant, you can't do business if you can't telephone out, and you can't turn on the lights and do the process if you don't have electricity at an

affordable price.

I say to the member, hurray for you for having brought forward what I think is a good bill, but shame on your government and shame on your Minister of Energy

for continuing down the road of deregulation and privatization that is going to kill jobs across not only northern Ontario but the rest of this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I would encourage members to stick to the subject matter of the resolution before us as best they can.

With that, we will have further debate. The Minister of Energy and member for Windsor-St. Clair.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I want to begin by commending the member for Ottawa-Orléans for

bringing forward this resolution to help Ontario become a more energy-efficient province. I will direct my comments to the resolution itself after I respond briefly to a number of the, shall we

say, less than fulsome points that were made by my colleague opposite.

First of all, prices aren't going up 12%. That's nonsense. That's number one. Last year, your leader said they were going up 40%, and they didn't. They didn't

go up 40%; they went down 19%.

Number two, the member forgets quite conveniently that his government cancelled every conservation program in Ontario when they were in power -- every one of

them.

Then the member contradicts himself. On the one hand, he says we have to pay the full cost of electricity; on the other hand, he says that welfare people in

Toronto ought to subsidize big industry. We say no to that. If you use it, you have to pay for it. We are managing it in such a way that we will have an adequate, reliable, safe supply going

forward.

Through the efforts of the member for Ottawa-Orléans, Mr. McNeely, this will help encourage and promote conservation. I would urge all members of this

House to vote in favour of this private member's resolution. It is because of members like Mr. McNeely from Ottawa-Orléans looking at these types of projects -- this particular one happening

in Toronto -- and making people around the province aware of them that we can in fact move to a culture of conservation. I see that my parliamentary assistant, the member for Etobicoke Centre, is

here. Her efforts have been absolutely outstanding. She led the conservation action group, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that her efforts and the efforts of a number of other members here in the

House will become law and will help us move to a culture of innovation and conservation that ultimately will lead to less expensive electricity bills for consumers.

The other thing that I think needs to be said is that in promoting this type of initiative, what individuals like Mr. McNeely are doing is helping Canada meet

its emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. This government believes we ought to reduce CO 2 emissions, because we shouldn't be having smog days in Algonquin Park; we

shouldn't be having smog days in Toronto in February. We need to be a leader, not a follower. We need to set the example, not follow the example. Members like Mr. McNeely deserve a lot of credit

for helping us address these very specific issues.

This culture of conservation can be built through a number of initiatives similar to what Mr. McNeely talks about. For example, we have announced an ambitious

plan to install a smart meter in 800,000 Ontario homes and small businesses by 2007, and in each and every Ontario home and small business by 2010. The Conservatives and the New Democrats oppose

that. They want the old way. They want the status quo. They don't want people to be able to manage their bills. They want to perpetrate the myth that they can subsidize electricity prices and do it

in a responsible way. The fact is, they can't. The fact is, it is through members like Mr. McNeely pointing out programs of this nature that we get a responsible energy price. That is how we ensure

that the constituents of the member for Beaches-East York don't subsidize the price of electricity for large corporations, which I know his leader wants them to do.

So this party's policy and this member talk about the sorts of initiative that can empower people to manage their consumption, to manage their bills, and

ultimately to reduce their bills. We hope this Legislature will endorse this. We believe all of you should support it. We certainly support it. I hope we can persuade the Legislature to recognize

in a unanimous fashion the work of -- and I understand we have leaders like Richard Morris, the manager of the city of Toronto's energy efficiency office, here today, and there is the work of the

member for Ottawa-Orléans. We hope you will work with our member on this.

By the way, our new Conservation Bureau will be set up and running fairly soon. It was created under Bill 100. You opposed that. The NDP opposed setting up the

conservation office, as did the Conservatives. They opposed it. They voted against it. They're on the record, not once, not twice, but three times. It will be set up, I say to the member for

Ottawa-Orléans. This resolution will hopefully have the unanimous consent of the House, and we will give it to the new chief conservation officer. I give you my undertaking, as energy

minister, that I will ask the chief conservation officer to make sure we follow up, not only with ideas like this but with the good ideas that are all over the province.

I will be here to vote if there is a vote called on this resolution. I urge members on all sides of the House to support this very progressive and

well-informed initiative my colleague has brought forward. I congratulate him. I congratulate those in Toronto who have used this so effectively. I look forward to working with the member for

Ottawa-Orléans as we go forward on interesting projects like this and many others. Thanks very much for putting this resolution.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It's a pleasure for me to be here this morning as well. I want to commend the member for

Ottawa-Orléans for bringing forth this initiative. I think it's one that, in general principle, we can all support in this House. Energy conservation is something we all need to pay close

attention to as we move forward in the economic future of this province because our rate of growth in the consumption of energy simply can't continue to escalate the way it has in the past number

of years, simply because our ability to provide it is certainly compromised.

One of the reasons I want to talk about energy conservation, and also our commitment to the Kyoto accord and all those kinds of things as well -- and this kind

of initiative is important -- is that the ways in which we can reduce those gas emissions, the different ways we can do that, are important for us to achieve those goals both provincially and

nationally.

One of the reasons energy conservation is so very important -- and I want to commend the city of Toronto for their initiative back in 1996 when they pioneered

this program. It has borne great results for businesses in the city and has reduced emissions, but it also has helped a lot of commercial and industrial properties reduce the amount of energy they

use, thereby reducing their costs.

Why is energy conservation of such great importance and so urgent right now? Part of it is the policy of this government, poorly thought-out, to shut down our

coal plants -- boom -- in 2007. If they proceed with that without investigating clean coal and some alternatives to shutting them down, we are going to be in one heck of a mess. This spring we're

going to shut down Lakeview. That's 500 megawatts. We're talking about 8,000 megawatts that we need to actually close down the coal-fired generating stations. So we're a long way from achieving

that goal.

We've talked about an initiative with regard to wind power that is going to produce about 330 megawatts, I believe, and then there's a biomass project that's

going to use manure to also produce some energy. Other than that, there's nothing new in the foreseeable future. I think that's something we have to consider very closely before we shut down those

coal plants. So this is all about conservation, as you can see.

As to where I believe the province needs to be going, the answer is right in my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. We need to

be producing for the future needs of the province, and the future energy needs of Ontario must come with the nuclear source as our primary baseload. AECL in Chalk River, with 1,900 employees, is

state-of-the-art, world-class, a world leader. We have to take a really close look at the advanced Candu reactor for solving the energy needs in the province of Ontario. They've got great people

working there. They've had great success internationally.

I am concerned. I've actually heard that this government is looking at a French consortium -- Framatome, I believe the name of it is -- to buy their nuclear

reactors to produce nuclear power in Ontario. I caution the minister and I caution this government and I implore them -- we have the best nuclear program in the world in AECL right here in Chalk

River, in my riding. That is the source of nuclear power. We have to get the power from them as we solve the energy needs in the province of Ontario.

As I said, getting back directly to the bill of my colleague from Ottawa-Orléans, I do want to commend him. We are going to support this bill. It's

something that's been successful in the city of Toronto and it certainly can be successful across the province of Ontario. I know the minister didn't make much of a commitment, other than to send

it for more study today, but I think the government does need to fess up with some of that money to make this program work.

One thing I'm very disappointed in with this government and this minister is the cancellation of the Energy Star program for energy-efficient appliances. We

bought new appliances while that program was on because we wanted to reduce our energy consumption at home and we also wanted to contribute to the energy conservation programs here in the province

of Ontario. Without any warning, just holus-bolus, bam, bam, it's all over, the Minister of Energy cancelled that program. I think that was very negative for the people of Ontario, to cancel that

without an alternative in place.

So, as I've said, we're supportive of the bill but there are many, many issues in the energy file that need to be addressed that this government simply isn't

doing because, quite frankly, they don't have a plan and they don't know how to get there.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I stand in support of this bill. I stand in support of this bill as a person from Toronto; I'm from the

Toronto area. I stand in support of this bill because I have seen how well it has worked in our community. Hopefully, this will spread to be used equally well in other parts of the province.

This is an idea that is a little bit older than people actually understand or realize. It was started by the Toronto energy efficiency office, which was set up

as an independent group with the city of Toronto a number of years ago. Its first CEO, its first person in charge, was none other than our own Marilyn Churley. That's really where she got her

start, around all of the issues of the environment.

It morphed and it changed in 1996 into the Better Buildings Partnership. The city of Toronto did a very novel thing with infrastructure funds in that year.

Whereas many municipalities, including my own municipality of East York, spent money redoing our community centre and paving some sidewalks and spending money in standard municipal ways, the city

of Toronto took $8 million of the money they got from the federal/provincial partnership and they spent it for a revolving fund, and that revolving fund is the partnership itself: $8 million, which

was given out largely to commercial and industrial establishments. People would make their buildings energy efficient and they would draw from the fund, usually between 10% and 30% of the cost of

making the building energy efficient, and then, with the monies that were saved -- and it was easy to calculate that because you could see how much your electricity and gas bills and other bills

went down -- they would reimburse the city of Toronto and the fund back that same amount of money. It took anywhere, on average, from five to eight years for the fund to be replenished. Then that

same fund is loaned out to new people who want to make their buildings energy efficient.

I'm not sure where this bill is going with this because the motion is kind of open and I acknowledge that it needs to be open. It doesn't say whether we intend

that all municipalities do this in Ontario. If we do so on a per capita basis, that's going to cost the province of Ontario and/or the municipality some $50 million.

Having said that, we think it's a good idea. If it's for the province to adopt and do the same within its mandate, it's going to cost probably considerably

more, since the budget of Ontario is certainly larger than the budgets of even all of the municipalities combined.

Having said that, we think much more needs to be done. We applaud the member in what he is doing, and we will be supporting that. I draw some considerable

experience and some considerable knowledge here from the Pembina Institute. I'd like to quote them; it's not that long a quote. According to the Pembina Institute:

"...other jurisdictions in North America are implementing the types of program that will be needed in Ontario to reduce energy dependency. California, for

example, has reduced peak power demand by 20%, or 10,000 megawatts, over the past 20 years, with a combination of utility demand-side management programs and building and appliance standards. The

study concludes that with an appropriate regulatory foundation in the form of minimum energy efficiency standards and labelling, Ontario Energy Board incentive mechanisms for utilities and improved

grid access for cogenerators, major reductions in electricity consumption can be achieved without excessive cost to government or energy consumers or by penalizing low-income members of Ontario

society."

The Pembina Institute, the city of Toronto -- everyone who is interested in conservation has given us a guideline. This bill will ensure that the city of

Toronto's success reaches out and goes to other municipalities and to other governments. We believe this is a good start, but we think there is much more that needs to be done. I am going to send

the minister a copy of my speech, perhaps; I hope he will read it.

Even more important than building new energy-producing vehicles such as coal plants, as suggested by the member from Renfrew, or building nuclear devices, as

also suggested by him, we believe that the greatest thing this government can do is to exercise energy efficiency, to make things efficient so that we as Ontarians use less electricity. If we can

reduce the peak demand by 10%, that's 10% of extra power that we don't have to produce. It's as simple as that: Reduce the demand and you don't have to build the coal-fired generating plants, or

you could shut them down. You don't have to rely on nuclear; we can use other forms and safe forms.

The Pembina Institute has listed 20 policies that will get us there. In a few seconds, I'd just like to outline some of those: Energy Star appliances by the

year 2010; R2000 in all buildings by the year 2010; energy efficiency requirements under the Planning Act so that municipalities are required in all new buildings to do that; incentives and grants

for energy efficiency, for retrofits of buildings; sales rebates on Energy Star appliances; tax credits to industrial energy-efficient equipment; and protection of low-income consumers.

With that, we surely can go on the road to that kind of energy efficiency which will make sure that we will not have brownouts in this province and that the

costs will remain low and affordable for industry and consumers alike.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I am pleased to have the opportunity to get a few words on the record to support my colleague from

Ottawa-Orléans's Better Buildings Partnership programs. This is an important resolution this morning. I know my colleague from Ottawa-Orléans played a significant role in the development

of conservation programs for the city of Ottawa.

When you look at the history of municipalities in Ontario, they have been at the forefront of designing energy conservation programs for their local buildings,

because for the longest period of time, municipalities have had the opportunity to have a longer payback when they make investments into energy conservation programs than the private sector. Often

the private sector, because they have private shareholders, have this need to have a short payback period of three or four years,

whereas municipalities have the luxury of extending that, perhaps

to the six- and seven-year area.

I know, in my own municipality of Peterborough, we've had the Peterborough Green-Up going for quite a long period of time. My colleague the member from

Etobicoke Centre had an opportunity to visit with the Peterborough Green-Up folks a short time ago and had an appreciation of the energy conservation members, that they've had a place to encourage

residents of the Peterborough riding to conserve energy. This can be a program as simple as encouraging people to do energy audits in their own homes, which often come up with some very simple

solutions. For example, small loans to encourage the weather-stripping of doors and windows and the acquisition of new doors and windows often can have a dramatic impact on the amount of energy

saved. I think it is important that we push this resolution forward this morning for the sake of Ontario's energy conservation programs.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of the resolution brought forward by the member for

Ottawa-Orléans. His resolution states: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should further its energy conservation and emission reduction agenda by taking steps to

encourage and support province-wide development of robust better buildings partnership programs, as exemplified by the city of Toronto's highly successful and world-renowned better buildings

partnership program."

I am pleased to speak in support of this resolution today on behalf of my constituents in Waterloo-Wellington. I want to first take a moment to speak about the

member for Ottawa-Orléans himself. It seems appropriate that this member has chosen to propose the expansion of a partnership program developed here in Toronto, Ontario's largest municipality,

to the rest of the province. I understand that the member for Ottawa-Orléans entered the Legislature after a term as city councillor in the amalgamated city of Ottawa, so he enters this place

with some degree of municipal experience, which I am sure assists him in his day-to-day responsibilities as an MPP.

I am aware that the member is by profession a civil engineer. This resolution that he's put forward today certainly has an aspect which involves his

professional expertise. I haven't yet had the opportunity to get to know the member well. I understand that he and his wife are the proud parents of three sons; we have that in common. I also

recall quite vividly his work while serving on council to advocate for assistance for western farmers, with the idea for a program that came to be known as Hay West. For that, he deserves

acknowledgement and credit.

I expect that this is the member's first private member's ballot item. I would say that I believe that private members' business is a very important part of

our legislative week, because it gives us an opportunity to raise issues that might not otherwise be on the legislative agenda. In my own work as the MPP for Waterloo-Wellington, I have three

private member's bills currently before the House.

Bill 52, the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, is intended to ensure the highest possible standards of emergency protection and response in our

rural communities, and to ensure that double-hatter firefighters have the right to volunteer in their home communities on their own free time. I continue to raise this issue in the Legislature from

time to time, and I commend to the members an

article in this month's Municipal World magazine on that particular subject.

Bill 77, the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, if passed, would give families a tax break on the purchase of children's booster seats. The bill would correct an

inconsistency in the government's tax policy. Currently, car seats for infants and smaller children are exempt from the 8% provincial sales tax, while no exemption is available for the booster

seats for older children that are now being made mandatory by this government. Bill 77 would extend that PST exemption to all seats. This is a modest proposal that will help young families at very

little cost to the treasury. I will ask again that the finance minister include this idea in the 2005 provincial budget. These seats are not cheap, and I believe parents, especially those with

those with three or more, would benefit from this policy.

Bill 95, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Amendment Act, would prevent the government from establishing any new gaming premises or expanding any

existing ones until it appoints a commission under the Public Inquiries Act to study the negative social impacts of excessive gambling and gambling addictions. I am disappointed that the government

has sidestepped my bill with its recent announcement to expend $400 million, a massive amount of money, to entice more gamblers to go to the Windsor Casino. This questionable expenditure -- when

hospitals need money, when farmers need money, when our post-secondary institutions, our colleges and universities all need money -- is very hard for the government to defend. So far, their

attempts have been feeble.

All of these issues are important to the people of Waterloo-Wellington, and I'm privileged to voice them today in this House. To return to the specifics of the

member's resolution, I would say that there's merit in exploring how we might expand the successful program province-wide, as long as it does not represent downloading to our local levels of

government.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): I am pleased to stand in support of the member from Ottawa-Orléans's resolution in the

House.

Obviously, the issue of conservation is critical as an integral part of a strategy for energy for this province, but I think there's a broader issue here as

well. The Better Buildings Partnership program was actually started to deal with and focus on CO 2 emissions. It's had great success, and you have to ask yourself why.

It's interesting; greenhouse gas emissions from about 13 million households will be about 72 megatonnes for the year 2004. Space heating accounts for 50% of

those emissions and, interestingly enough, hot water heating for 28%. The average home emits about 50% more than an average apartment or condominium. To put that into perspective, along with 46

smog alert days in this province last year, you realize that we really have to do something about CO 2 emissions.

When I was doing some research, one of the most fascinating things I found is that the province that has the highest gross national product is Alberta, and yet

farmers from the have-not provinces are actually donating feed to those farmers in Alberta because of their drought situations. The impact and effect of climate change on our economy is

significant. In BC, because it's been warmer longer, the beetle is taking a terrible ravage on the forests.

Here in Ontario, we are suffering the same in terms of the number of days of smog and smog-related respiratory disease. When you look at the issue of burning

fossil fuels and deforestation and the impact it's having as a whole, then you know you have to look to those solutions.

One of the solutions that has come forward is the Better Buildings initiative because it can be replicated throughout the province, depending on the size of

the small town, the city or the municipality that would like to undertake it. The fact is, it generates money and jobs and, at the same time, saves money for institutions, as well as for individual

buildings.

I'll give you a couple of examples. The YMCA of Greater Toronto was a $2-million project. They have $172,000 a year in savings and their CO 2

reductions were 5,755 tonnes per year. Flip to another side: Toronto Housing Co., $176,000 in annual savings and a CO 2 reduction of 2,013 tonnes per year. City buildings right across the

city: $570,000 in annual savings.

You can see how that $132 million so far hasn't been that difficult, and it's anticipated that there will actually be $3 billion in savings as they follow out

in the years to come.

I'd like to just quickly leave you with a quote that comes from Dr. David Suzuki. In essence, Dr. Suzuki has indicated, "The BBP demonstrates the art of the

possible -- the positive and practical link between the economy and the environment. It's a cause to celebrate, a situation where everybody wins."

I'd like to acknowledge as well Mr. Morris for the work he has done in the city and in being a world leader. I think he gets to travel the world talking to

people about his initiatives and what they're doing. Hopefully, that expertise will be translated into the Conservation Bureau and we can move forward with this kind of positive change.

I acknowledge my colleague for bringing this forward, because he knows it can work, from his municipal experience and also from the practical as an engineer. I

thank the others for ensuring that this is the type of initiative we will all bring forward.

On the quick side, 394 megawatts of new renewable energy has been put into this province -- $700 million into this economy. This is a whole new world out here,

a place where we can save and, at the same time, be prosperous.

I would be delighted to sit down with some of the members who are not really aware of the number of initiatives that we have out there and help them to

understand what is actually happening in this province.

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I just want to echo the comments of the member from Waterloo-Wellington, how important private members'

business is, especially when some of us get maybe two minutes every two weeks to speak. So I'll try and use my two minutes wisely here. There has got to be something wrong with a system that does

that. I think we should fix that.

I just want to say that the member from Ottawa-Orléans has a pretty simple and straight winner economically and environmentally. What it means is that

there is a revolving fund set up whereby monies that are put in the revolving fund can be used by small business, large buildings, by non-profits or by governments that want to use some of that

money to retrofit their buildings to make them more energy-efficient so they save money. With the money they save, they repay that fund. That's the essence of it and that's why in Toronto's fund,

they've actually increased the value of the fund by $1 million, up to $9 million.

I think what the member from Orléans is saying is that we should do this on a province-wide basis. It is something that has to be done, not only for the

environmental reasons, but I think there are all kinds of opportunities to make our buildings more energy-smart. It will also create employment opportunities for all kinds of energy-saving

industries and conservation industries, which I think are the new cutting edge for employment in the future in all of Ontario.

It is a very astute proposal that the member puts forward, and I think, as the Minister of Energy said, these are the kinds of proposals we need to look at

seriously. I think from the Minister of Finance's perspective, it's something we are taking a good, hard look at because anything that essentially improves the financial climate and can save some

money at the same time, that doesn't really cost any money out of the budget, makes economic and environmental sense. I applaud the member from Orléans for this intelligent initiative.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. McNeely, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. McNeely: I want to start by thanking the honourable members who spoke to this resolution.

To the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, I'd just like to say that MUSH has been done pretty well. The municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals --

that's been done. Those are the groups that have looked at this. I think that with oil at $50 a barrel, they'd have to go back and look at it again.

I'll ignore the member from Timmins-James Bay.

I want to thank the Minister of Energy for supporting me so well and for correcting the record that was put in a very non-partisan way at this time.

The member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke was supportive, and I thank him for that.

The member for Beaches-East York knows probably more about this issue than I do, and certainly I thank you for your words. But I would like to correct part of

the statement that the city of Toronto spends about $700,000 on its program now. That's what it costs the city, I believe. That saves $20 million in energy and creates all those jobs. So the city

has taken that on in a responsible fashion. And the federal government has identified $225 million in the five-year budget that just came out for retrofitting buildings. So, hopefully, that money

doesn't have to come from our cities and our municipalities but will come from the two senior levels of government. It is a loan, in a way.

I want to thank the member for Waterloo-Wellington for his kind words, the member for Etobicoke Centre for all the work she's been doing in energy conservation

in this province -- I thank you for that -- and the member for Eglinton-Lawrence, who mentioned that this is going to be considered in the budget -- that's very important to me -- that it's going

to be considered by finance. So I thank everyone for their kind words.

I'd just like to read one thing here. It's from Robert Kennedy's book: "A one-mile-per-gallon improvement in gas mileage would yield double the oil that could

ever be extracted from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," and would do it without destroying the country's last great wilderness. So I think that's a good way to end this today. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allowed for private members' public business has now expired.

VQA WINE STORES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES MAGASINS DE VINS

DE LA VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with ballot item number 53, standing in the name of Mr. Hudak. Is it the pleasure

of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I move that the bill be sent to the general government committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be sent to the standing committee on general government? Agreed.

BETTER BUILDINGS PARTNERSHIP

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 54, standing in the name of Mr. McNeely.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having now been dealt with, I do leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1200 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KEMPTVILLE DISTRICT HOSPITAL

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): With great pride, I wish to share with the House an announcement made earlier this week by

the Lean on Me fundraising campaign for the expansion of the Kemptville District Hospital. In less than nine months, the good people of North Grenville, one of the fastest-growing communities in

Ontario, have contributed over $4 million.

The efforts of the fundraising committee and the support of the community for this outstanding small hospital are nothing short of phenomenal. On Monday, Ken

Mews, chair of the hospital board, said that a $1.36-million pledge by the municipality of North Grenville had pushed the total raised to over $4 million, close to 50% of the total cost.

The expansion will produce modern emergency, outpatient and diagnostic units from 12,000 square feet of new space and 15,000 square feet of renovated area.

Last year, there were more than 30,000 ER and outpatient visits to the hospital -- a demand that has increased by about 65% in three years. The current emergency department is cramped and split up,

and utilizes halls as treatment areas, yet the hospital under its terrific administrator, Lynne Budgell, continues to receive high praise for both patient care and financial efficiency.

The citizens of North Grenville have shown their commitment. Now it's time for the Minister of Health to approve the plans languishing at the ministry and

allocate the funding for this desperately needed expansion. Get on with the job.

TECHNOLOGY DAY IN MISSISSAUGA

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I rise to recognize Technology Day in the city of Mississauga. This Friday, March 4, the city of

Mississauga will celebrate 30 years of technology excellence by showcasing its leading-edge information technology initiatives at Tech Day 2005. City of Mississauga staff will demonstrate more than

two dozen projects, each one supporting Mississauga's service delivery needs and benefiting the city's 680,000 residents.

By the end of the year, or earlier, Mississauga residents will be able to use the new Connect 2 Rec system to register for courses and activities on-line -- 24

hours a day, seven days a week.

Recruiting Web software will help the city of Mississauga attract the best applicants for career opportunities. The event will also showcase Mississauga

eStore. This initiative allows the purchase of souvenirs, transit passes, business directories and the download of tax and compliance certificates on-line.

These are only a few of the many technology-based initiatives that will soon provide Mississauga residents with better access to the information they need,

whenever and wherever they need it.

The city's existing municipal Web site is one of the best of its kind. As a former Web developer and still a weekend dot-net code hack, I appreciate not only

its intuitive functionality but the clean design and its good writing.

I congratulate the city of Mississauga and join them in celebrating 30 years of technology excellence in Ontario's best-managed city.

MCMASTER UNIVERSITY

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): Another step was recently taken on the road to Hamilton's economic vision of success. McMaster President

Peter George, named today as the winner of this year's CH-Hamilton Safe Communities Spirit of the Community Award, demonstrated leadership and innovation by finalizing a purchase of an old

appliance manufacturing site in west Hamilton known locally as the Camco site.

In 1912, George Westinghouse turned electrical manufacturing into Hamilton's second-largest industry. Today, the strategic and visible location will be the

dynamic new research park where Mamdouh Shoukri, McMaster's vice-president of research, said that the park complements the university's wide-ranging research by creating the opportunity to

collaborate with government and industry: "The possibilities of expanding the intellectual and financial capital for Hamilton are absolutely endless."

The future is Hamilton's. We are building it together. McMaster University was named Canada's Research University of the Year by RE$EARCH Infosource and has

world-renowned faculty and state-of-the-art research facilities. McMaster's culture of innovation fosters a commitment to discovery and learning in teaching, research and scholarship. We are

immensely proud of the leadership demonstrated by McMaster University.

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It's with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate General Motors, its workers and its partners on

reinvesting $2.5 billion in the Canadian auto sector. This announcement includes agreements with the provincial and federal governments and will strengthen automotive engineering, research and

development, and manufacturing capabilities in Ontario and Canada. This project will include new vehicle programs, enhanced vehicle engineering activities, flex manufacturing, environmental

leadership, employment and skills training, and a new Canadian automotive innovation network.

This government's financial commitment builds on the commitment the previous government made to the auto sector in our province, and will enhance the skilled

workforce in Oshawa and other GM cities in Ontario. Yesterday's reinvestment from General Motors will bring more high-tech engineering jobs to Ontario and, of course, my riding of Oshawa.

Today General Motors of Canada makes more automotive supply purchases than any other automotive manufacturer in Canada. Together with Ontario and the federal

government, the company will create a new automotive centre of excellence at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology to better link participating automotive companies, suppliers,

universities, researchers and students in the area of automotive innovation and technology.

I would like to thank General Motors and the hard work of the CAW and the other partners for their continued commitment and confidence in our local community

in the province of Ontario.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have been intrigued by the provincial Liberal government's attack against the federal Liberals for

not getting the kind of money and support they want. I recall that in 1990, when the NDP was in government, I couldn't remember Brother McGuinty at the time or other brother Liberals saying to the

NDP and Bob Rae, "We're right behind you, Bob. We need to go after the federal Liberals because they've slashed our support for welfare programs and for post-secondary education."

I certainly didn't expect Brother Harris to be on my side, but where were the sisters and brothers, Lyn McLeod and Dalton McGuinty, at a time when the federal

Tories and Liberals slashed our support, at a time when the economy was not doing very well? We were in a recession, and what we had from Harris and Brother McGuinty and Sister Lyn McLeod was

something to the effect of, "NDPers do not have a revenue problem, they've got a spending problem," they used to say.

I don't remember Brother Harris or Brother McGuinty saying, "We need to help you, NDP." Now they've adopted a different approach. Now, with a good economy,

they refuse to use the tools they have at their disposal to get the money they need to fund post-secondary, social programs and our health care system. They're whining and whimpering like little

children saying, "The federal Liberal government is not giving us money." Their response is, "We're going to be robust and muscular in attacking the federal Liberals, and if they don't give us what

we want, we're going to whine and whine and whimper and whimper," and on and on.

HOURS OF WORK

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I'm pleased today to speak about our government's commitment to fair labour practices in Ontario. The

Employment Standards Amendment Act, which came into effect on Tuesday, ends the Conservatives' 60-hour workweek. In the recent past, governments have skewed labour legislation in favour of one side

or the other. I'm proud to be part of a government that has made it a point to find a balance in labour legislation.

The act balances employees' rights and employer concerns. It will let employees choose whether to work more hours or to spend that time finding a balance

between work and their personal lives. For businesses, it ensures they have the flexibility necessary to compete in today's global economy. The act protects employees by allowing them to decide

without undue pressure whether or not to work extra hours. At the same time, it recognizes the need for longer hours of work in some workplaces. It also makes sure employees know their rights and

that their employer understands their obligations. Finally, there is going to be tougher enforcement against those who refuse to operate responsibly, preying on workers and undermining

competitors.

The end of the 60-hour workweek is another step our government has taken to strengthen Ontario's greatest competitive advantage, our people, and I want to

commend Minister Bentley for his leadership on this issue.

ACQUIRED DEAF-BLINDNESS

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I rise on behalf of Ontarians with acquired deaf-blindness who are being discriminated against by this

Liberal government, which is denying them funding for their needed intervener and intepreter services.

In December of last year, the Ministry of Community and Social Services received a report from Cathexis Consulting, which conducted a review of these services

in our province. The report found that while those Ontarians who are born with deaf-blindness have their services fully funded, many others, such as seniors who acquire deaf-blindness during their

lifetime, receive no funding at all. The December report urges the Ministry of Community and Social Services to engage the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in the development of a fair and

equitable intervener service system that takes into account the increasing number of acquired deaf-blind individuals in an aging population, with their changing needs.

The rights of deaf persons to access services are already recognized in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, and the Human Rights Code. I call on the

recommendations of their own report to create an equitable system with adequate funding for those with acquired deaf-blindness in Ontario.

EPILEPSY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): March is Epilepsy Awareness Month. Epilepsy is a neurological disorder. It's a physical condition which

causes sudden bursts of electrical energy in the brain. These electrical discharges produce sudden, brief seizures which vary from one person to another in frequency.

Epilepsy is not a disease, it is not a psychological disorder, and it's not contagious. My constituency assistant, Nancy Clark, has epilepsy. She can remember

having her first grand mal seizure in high school and the feelings of uncertainty in not knowing when another seizure might occur. At that time, epilepsy was an unspoken subject. Nancy's parents

referred to her seizures as fainting spells. She is currently seizure-free, and has been for many years. She is extremely grateful for the milestones she has experienced.

More research and education have to be done. Epilepsy Ontario is a registered non-profit organization that is dedicated to promoting information, awareness,

support services, advocacy, education and research. As March is Epilepsy Awareness Month, Epilepsy Ontario has launched the lavender ribbon campaign. I hope Ontarians can learn more about epilepsy

during this month and learn to break down the number of myths and misconceptions that surround the disorder.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent for the wearing of lavender ribbons in this House during the month of March.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent to wear the ribbon in March? Agreed.

Mr. Flynn: If I might just note that these will be available from the staff in the government House leader's office.

GROWTH PLANNING

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about this government's growth strategy: Bill 136, Places to

Grow. Our government is dedicated to ensuring that Ontario grows in a positive way, ensuring prosperous, healthy and diverse communities in all parts of the province.

Guelph is one of the targeted areas. If Guelph continues to grow as we have in the past, we will consume an area nearly twice the size of present-day Toronto

over the next 30 years. Gridlock will intensify, commuting times will increase, we will experience a loss of economically valuable prime agricult