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

October 19, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Oct-19 (PDF)

L092 - Thu 19 Oct 2000 / Jeu 19 oct 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT (WATER TAKING PERMIT NOTIFICATION), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L'ONTARIO (AVIS RELATIFS AUX PERMIS DE PRÉLÈVEMENT D'EAU)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANTLE CODE DE LA ROUTE(DISPOSITIF DE VERROUILLAGE DU SYSTÈME DE DÉMARRAGE)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

WELFARE REFORM

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ANN MORTIMER

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

SCHOOL CLOSURES

NIAGARA REGION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF TRAINING, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AU MINISTÈRE DE LA FORMATION ET DES COLLÈGES ET UNIVERSITÉS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

WELFARE REFORM

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

ORGANIZED CRIME

HEALTH CARE REFORM

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO YOUTH COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

KARLA HOMOLKA

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

REGISTRATION OF VINTAGE CARS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

LORD'S PRAYER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOUGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL PENALTIES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SANCTIONNANT PAR LES PEINES LES PLUS SÉVÈRES DES INFRACTIONS DE NATURE ENVIRONNEMENTALE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT (WATER TAKING PERMIT NOTIFICATION), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L'ONTARIO (AVIS RELATIFS AUX PERMIS DE PRÉLÈVEMENT D'EAU)

Mrs Dombrowsky moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 121,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act with respect to water taking permit notification / Projet de loi 121, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario à l'égard des avis relatifs aux permis de prélèvement d'eau.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes to make her presentation.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I am honoured this morning that I have an opportunity to address a bill that I've brought forward for consideration. I think it's a very important bill. It's certainly important within my riding. From what I've come to understand since we embarked on the journey of a private member's bill, there are many municipalities, communities and agencies across Ontario that believe this is an important first step to establishing a plan to manage the water resources of this province.

I'll just take a few minutes to talk a bit more about the genesis of this bill. Within my riding, residents in the community of Centre Hastings became aware that a permit had been issued to take 1.3 million litres of water a day out of the springhead of a stream that fed many local communities. Understandably, the residents in the area were most concerned. They were concerned for a couple of reasons. Of course they worry very much about their water source.

Historically, there have been issues of wells going dry during the summer months, and with the removal of that much water at the springhead, there was the very real, and I think justifiable, concern that that condition would probably worsen.

The other issue was the fact they had not been notified, that there had not been any kind of notification to the community, either to the municipality or to the conservation authority, prior to the issuing of the permit. So they were most surprised that a community water resource could be impacted in this way without an opportunity for the community to provide input on that. So the concern came to me.

As we investigated the issue of water-taking permits, we came to understand, with regard to notification, that when a permit to take water is applied for in Ontario, it is a part of the regulation that the director of the Ministry of the Environment, upon reviewing the application, may contact municipalities and conservation authorities or community agencies, but there is no requirement that says the director must. What we've come to understand and what we've come to determine in our research is that it rarely happens, if at all.

In fairness to the ministry, there is the EBR Web site and permits to take water are published on the EBR Web site, but not all permits. I think it's important for members of this House and the people of Ontario to understand that any permit that would be for a period of less than one year, or any renewal, would not be posted on the EBR Web site. We are aware, as well, of cases where requests for permits that should have been put on the Web site were not. It was an oversight, and that certainly happens. But the reality is that a community did not have appropriate notification.

The other problem with the Web site, of course, is that not all communities or people within communities in the province would have access to that technology. So we don't believe that is the best way to ensure notification.

When we thought about how this might indeed happen, we have the bill before us this morning. It's very short and very simple. It is the result of some consultations I've had with people in my riding, with constituents who are very concerned about this issue. I've had an opportunity to talk with my colleagues about the best way to deal with this important issue within the province in the most expeditious fashion. So we've brought to the Legislature today a very short and concise piece of legislation that we believe is a first step to the responsible management of water resources in Ontario.

It's very simple, and it's something that can be implemented almost immediately. Certainly, with regard to the people who have contacted me in support of this, that is what they would say we need.

At this time, I'd like to make reference to a letter on this bill, which I have received from the Credit Valley Conservation Authority. They say:

"The Credit Valley Conservation Authority has long been advocating reform to this ineffective permit process, and we believe that your bill provides a first step in this direction.

"We trust that all members of the provincial Parliament will support this bill and the modest change in the process that it represents."

This is one of the agencies that have offered support to this bill.

It's also important to note that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario wrote to the Minister of the Environment in May 2000 to indicate that the regulation should be changed.

The AMO recommended that rather than reading "the director may ensure that governmental authorities are notified," the word "may" should be changed to "will be notified." Consequently, and I'm sure you won't be surprised when I share it with you, on October 16 I received a letter from the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and I'll quote from the letter: "The amendment to the Ontario Water Resources Act that is proposed in the bill would be a step in the right direction toward better consultation and better coordination with regard to water-taking permits."

I think it certainly is important for all of us to understand that those constituent agencies feel very strongly that this is a first step in the right direction, and I appreciate very much that it is a first step. I appreciate there are many other issues that relate to our water resource and water-taking permits that need to be considered, certainly issues around permit categories. We know that at the present time there are three permit categories. We know there are issues around possible fees for water-taking permits, particularly in those cases when the water that would be taken from a water source would be sold, especially outside of the province.

There are issues with regard to the self-monitoring of the permits. For example, in my riding, when the permit was issued, there was an expectation that the proponent would monitor water flows themselves. People within the community have some concern about how appropriate it is to rely on the reports the person who is dependent upon the permit would bring to the ministry in terms of the integrity of the water source. There certainly are other issues that relate to water-taking permits that I believe require comprehensive review and consultation. I look forward, at one point in the future, to having the opportunity to address those important issues.

But right now, today, this is a very simple, small step we can take in the right direction that is going to have a significant impact within the community. It will allow municipalities and conservation authorities to begin to catalogue the use of water sources within their area. It's something we need to take as soon as possible. I think it would not be prudent for us to look to include this in something that would be much more far-reaching and would require, and would deserve, some significant time and consideration. This is very simple. It's to the point. It's necessary. It is needed immediately.

For all these reasons, and because I know that the many constituent agencies that would be impacted by this bill support it, I bring this bill to the House today for your consideration. It is my sincere hope that you will be able to appreciate how very much we need this kind of legislation as soon as possible.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I would first like to thank the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington for her concern about this very important issue of water. The Ontario government shares her concern about water-takings that will or are likely to affect our water supplies.

While we support the proposed bill in principle, we do not believe it is necessary. It is not needed. The existing legislation currently addresses, and in most cases surpasses, what is being proposed by the honourable member.

I would like to turn to some of the key proposals being made in this private member's bill.

The bill proposes that if a director of the Ministry of the Environment receives an application for a permit to take water, then the director must notify the responsible municipality or conservation authority if that undertaking will affect or is likely to affect the water supply. Please allow me to point out that the Ontario Water Resources Act currently does not allow the granting of a permit that would interfere with existing uses.

While, among other things, the permit to take water program, the PTTW program, is designed to prevent interference with existing users in the area, that is not the only consideration. Applications are carefully reviewed not only to prevent interference, but also to ensure that proposed water-takings are sustainable and will have no adverse affect on the environment.

This government has shown international leadership on the issue of water-taking. In 1999 we brought into force the water-taking and transfer regulation. Under this regulation, MOE directors, when reviewing permit applications, must take several issues into account: first, protection of the natural functions of ecosystems; secondly, the effects of ground and surface water-takings on other source uses; thirdly, the interests of others in the permit to take water; and finally, the Great Lakes charter.

Last year the ministry improved its procedures for reviewing permits to take both ground and surface water. Our government was involved in holding a series of focus discussion groups with stakeholders to address low-water issues, and we're all aware of the drought of two and three years ago.

As a result, applications are now subjected to increased scrutiny and will only be approved where the sustainability of the resource can be assured. As an example, during the summer of 1999, the issuance of permits was curtailed in light of anticipated drought. Conditions were placed on permits to take water, which may include the restriction that takers may not withdraw more than 10% of the stream flow in order to protect the natural stream functions.

For intensely farmed regions in Ontario, the ministry has encouraged farmers to consider off-line pond storage in order to take water into storage at less critical times during the year. We have also imposed conditions that require permit holders to gauge the available stream flow in order to comply with their permit conditions.

MOE's regional operations-I'm thinking of the Hamilton office, for example-to their credit were involved in a number of case-by-case stakeholder consultations and have partnered on local water management solutions that arose as a result of individual permit applications. Most recently, as I mentioned, the partnership of MOE, MNR and OMAFRA, along with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the local conservation authority, was formed to address water-taking issues during potential shortage from Big Creek, which flows through the Norfolk sand plain in my riding.

This private member's bill also proposes that where a conservation authority or municipality is to be notified, 30 days' notice is to be provided, and that the director must take into account their observations in deciding whether to issue the permit.

I would advise the honourable members that all water-taking permits of a significant amount are posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry, providing for a 30-day comment period. The comments received must be taken into account by the issuing director.

As well, in the spring of this year, the minister sent a letter to the municipality of Centre Hastings assuring them that MOE will notify municipalities of any significant takings in their area. Subsequently, the ministry has sent the same reassurances to over 25 municipalities that had similar concerns.

I have addressed two key proposals included in the private member's bill we are debating today.

Again, I would like to express our appreciation to the member from Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington for her concern and her efforts in the vital area of protecting Ontario's water resources. I would also like to advise the Legislature that the government does not see the need for this bill.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to tell you that it's with a great deal of pride that I am speaking in support of this private member's bill. I do so for a number of good reasons.

First of all, I'm very proud of the work my colleague has done on this matter. I had the opportunity to visit a community inside her riding that was very upset and very disturbed by the fact that the government had proceeded to issue a water-taking permit, unbeknownst to the people who benefited from the water in their very own community. I know that served as a very strong motivating factor in the member's decision to move forward on this bill.

I am proud of the fact that she is putting forward a positive idea. I can tell you that she is working very hard to make a positive difference for people. We are determined to oppose this government whenever it is wrong, and believe me, there is no shortage of material to work with on that front, but we also take seriously our responsibility to propose positive policy alternatives, and that's exactly what the member is doing here today.

The other reason I'm so pleased to speak in support of this bill is because this bill speaks to the need to protect and conserve our water. I think that as a result of Walkerton and people's growing feelings for and desire to protect our natural environment, we have a collective responsibility now to move forward in any possible way to help all of us better understand the need to protect our water.

We have been asking the government to introduce a comprehensive groundwater strategy now for years; to put it another way, simply a plan to protect our water. In 1996, the Provincial Auditor urged the Ministry of the Environment to come up with just such a plan. I can tell you we're still waiting for that plan, still waiting for that strategy years after the auditor sounded the alarm, years after the Environmental Commissioner repeated that alarm and months after the alarming reality of Walkerton.

Finally, I am pleased to speak in favour of this bill because quite simply it's good legislation. As the member put it, it's a good step forward. It's simply going to require that the provincial government give notice to a community that somebody has an interest in taking some of their water. Surely if anybody can lay claim to water, which is a common resource, it has to be the community that benefits from that water on an ongoing basis. It highlights a very important perspective that we should consider on this issue, which is, what do we think of communities? Are they resources to be tapped or obstacles to be overcome?

It seems to me that in the fight to protect and conserve our water, we should not be denying a community knowledge of a prospective water-taking permit; we should be inviting them into the process, seeking their opinion, getting their input, understanding that nobody has more energy and more goodwill and more dedication to the preservation of that natural resource than the very people in whose community the water can be found.

I ask members, who could be opposed to letting a community know that somebody is about to take some of their water? If anybody's got a claim on water, as I said, it has to be the community itself. If Walkerton taught us anything, it's that we can't take our groundwater for granted. But here in Ontario the government is literally letting company after company take our groundwater, no questions asked, this at a time when we don't know how much groundwater we actually have, when we don't know how safe that water really is, when we don't know-and this is the critical point-how the community itself feels about losing that water.

So I ask all members, should we not at the very least-and surely this is a minimalist obligation on the part of the provincial government-notify the people in the area when water is being removed from their communities? Don't people have a right to know? This is a good step forward. The member could have brought forward much more, and she made reference to some of the things that she might have done. But she knows, as we know, that this government has failed to act on a much broader action plan that we have put forward when it comes to protecting our drinking water, just as we put forward a broad action plan when it comes to addressing the emergency room crisis found in our province today.

Rather than bring forward a sweeping action plan, the member has brought forward a good first step. So I ask again, how could any member fail to support this? How could any one of us go back home to our ridings and tell our constituents, "I don't think you people have a right to know that someone wants to suck water out of your backyard. That information is of no value to you, and you, in terms of your input, are of no value to us"? I can't see any member in this Legislature wanting to go home and deliver that kind of news to their constituents.

This is a good first step toward the comprehensive groundwater strategy that should have been in place in this province some years ago. It's a comprehensive groundwater strategy that may even have helped us avoid the Walkerton tragedy. I urge all members to support this good first step and then, once we take this first step, let's all take a few more and let's start a march forward toward a groundwater strategy, a real plan, a comprehensive plan to protect our water, toward clean water and toward clean air, toward a province that protects our environment and, by so doing, protects the health of all Ontarians.

This, to say it one more time, is a good first step, and if we fail to take it we're standing still, and we are standing still at a time and on an issue which demands that we move forward.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): It's with pleasure that I get an opportunity to speak in favour of this bill. Basically, the purpose of the bill is, as it says here in explanatory notes, "to require the director to notify a municipality or conservation authority of an application for a permit to take water that, if granted, will affect or is likely to affect its water supply."

You have to ask yourself the question why it is that the member comes forward with this bill. I think most of us who've been around here for a while understand what this is all about. It's that over the past number of years we have seen a lessening of the standards when it comes to both law and regulation and also by way of programs when it comes to the programs and regulations that the provincial government utilized to safeguard our drinking water.

Unfortunately, a big part of that has been the focus around Walkerton where we've seen what happens when a provincial government decides that it doesn't have to take its responsibility in the way that governments did in the past when it comes to ensuring the quality of safe drinking water. In the case of Walkerton, what we've seen was a move first of all by the provincial government to reduce the staffing at the Ministry of the Environment by 1,000, which meant they didn't have the staff necessary to process all of the internal documents and all of the internal monitoring programs that are there not only to safeguard our drinking water but a number of other issues around the environment.

Then again you saw a provincial government-and this is a fact that hasn't been said loud enough or often enough for people to comprehend just how big it is-make a 60% cut in total funding to the Ministry of the Environment between the operating budgets and the capital budgets. It means the provincial government, since 1995, reduced by 60% the amount of money that it spends on the Ministry of the Environment.

A big part of that was the money that used to go to the Ontario Clean Water Agency, OCWA, as we used to call it, which was responsible to help municipalities build, maintain and improve on water filtration plants and sewer treatment systems.

If I remember correctly, and I'm just going by memory here-and I might be correct and I might be a little bit off in my numbers-there used to be somewhere around $200 million that was earmarked from the provincial budget to that particular ministry and through the Ontario Clean Water Agency to help flow dollars to municipalities to upgrade water and sewer systems to make sure that we weren't polluting our environment by way of our sewer systems and, number two, to make sure that we had good, clean drinking water when it came to the water that people took out of their taps.

One of the unfortunate things that happened is that this government reduced that funding significantly, as I said at the outset, by a 60% total cut to the Ministry of the Environment budget.

The unfortunate lesson we've learned here is what can happen when a government decides it's not going to take its responsibility vis-à-vis ensuring the public safety when it comes to the environment. I, for one, along with the rest of my NDP colleagues and other members from the other party, have been pointing out since 1995 that the government is wrong and is going completely in the wrong direction when it comes to its whole approach about trying to diminish government and do all of these things by way of those red tape bills that they've passed where they get rid of what they call pesky regulation that gets in the way of economic development.

The other part of the story is that the government, by way of red tape bills and by way of amendment to other acts, has done a number of changes that have weakened environmental standards within the province of Ontario, and we have now quite frankly started on a road backwards from where we were in 1995, certainly by way of actions of this government. What Mrs Dombrowsky is trying to do with Bill 121 is put in place at least one regulation by way of law that would make it mandatory that if there is a permit application to draw water, the affected parties would at least be notified so that they know what is going on.

I had an opportunity not too long ago, I believe about three or four weeks ago in the work that I was doing around the Adams mine, to meet with Ministry of the Environment officials across the region, not only in northeastern Ontario but also in Toronto. One of the scary things, and this is directly to the point of Bill 121, one of the things I was told by ministry officials, is that the ministry goes in on sites and does testing of water. I'm not talking about drinking water at this point. I'm talking about discharge of water from plants.

If you operate a papermill, a mine, a car plant, whatever type of industry, and you discharge water from your plant or mill, the Ministry of the Environment on a regular basis, I believe every quarter, goes in and tests the water being discharged to monitor the water going out into our environment. The reason for that is very simple. We need to safeguard, to make sure we're not putting toxic chemicals and toxic substances into our environment and into the water that eventually comes into our water systems.

The thing I was told by a couple of Ministry of the Environment officials-and they said, "Gilles, you can quote us on this"-is that now, to even look at the data collected in the quarterly inspections, it's backlogged by as much as eight months.

That means that if, for whatever reason, there is a fault within the discharge system in a mill, which may not even be a fault the operator knows about-something broke down and they don't realize they're discharging some sort of toxic chemical into our environment-the Ministry of the Environment will be there at least within three months to do the inspection, but it will take up to another eight months before they look at the results of the inspection. That means it will be over a year after the point of discharge that the Ministry of the Environment even knows there's a problem.

These are officials within the Ministry of the Environment.

I would think, when I hear the Minister of the Environment and the Premier stand up and boast about their good environmental record and the leadership job they're doing-in the words of the Premier yesterday, he said, "We are marching forward." I would say your troops are marching backward, Premier. The reality is that your record when it comes to the environment has been abysmal. Quite frankly, what your government has done is to take Ontario, in its legislation, regulations, programs and policies, and do a 180-degree about-face and march it backwards to before 1995. I would argue that in some of the regulatory changes you've made, you've marched us back into the 1970s.

We forget why it is that governments before us made changes to environmental legislation. It's because of the disasters that happened within the province of Ontario that we swore as legislators we would not let happen again.

I remember, as Mr Bradley would-he was the Minister of the Environment at the time-the Hagersville tire fire.

Interjection: Those were the good old days.

Mr Bisson: Well, they weren't so good, because that didn't last. Anyway, that's another story.

The Minister of the Environment at the time was Mr Bradley. If you remember, the Hagersville tire fire was not only an environmental disaster; it was also a question of public safety. At that time, the official opposition, Bob Rae's New Democrats, and Mike Harris's third-party Conservatives supported your government when it came to making changes to legislation to allow that we don't pile tires on to one big site, the way it was done in Hagersville. We made changes to legislation for reason and for cause.

What bothers me about the Conservatives is that they seem to forget that legislation built in this Legislature to protect the environment was done for a reason. It was done because of a disaster. In the case of the Hagersville tire fire, we said as legislators that we are not going to allow that type of concentration of old tires into a dump, not only for public safety but because if there is a fire, the leachates will end up going back into the groundwater, with the impact on the environment. So we put in place regulatory changes to safeguard against that happening again.

Well, the Harris government gets elected in 1995 and says, "Hell, we're smart. We don't have to take into account what happened in the past. We don't have to take a look at what's best for the public. We are concerned with what is"-in their view-"a hindrance to economic development."

I watched the member Raminder Gill-I forget which riding he's from; if I knew, I would name it-the other day in a debate on the environment say, "If it comes down to who I should trust about making an environmental decision, a person who's the proponent of a project or the government, I would trust the proponent of the project." I couldn't believe my ears. I know that's their agenda, but I never believed for a second that a Conservative would be stupid enough to admit it in this Legislature. But in fact he did. The cat's out of the bag.

I think somebody should talk to Mr Gill and tell him to keep quiet, because he's leaking your caucus discussions and possibly cabinet discussions. What your government's agenda is about, quite frankly, is putting the power, when it comes to environmental regulation, in the hands of the developers and the proponents of projects.

I say that's wrong. It's not that we should be trying to hinder development, it's not that we should be trying to build roadblocks to prevent these people from investing in the province of Ontario, but we need to make sure we have rules and regulations that safeguard our environment and, yes, at times say that if something cannot be sustained environmentally, maybe it's an action that shouldn't be taken.

I want to give you an example that happened in my community. An operator of a gold mine at the time-I believe it was just before Royal Oak, the gold mine at the McIntyre mine in Timmins. At the time a project was proposed, called the ERG project, which was basically going to reclaim the old tailings in the McIntyre mine and the Hollinger mine to take the gold out of tailings and extract that for a profit, with the promise that at the end of the project they would rehabilitate the entire site to at least its former state, which was a tailings dam, which is not very nice, but to a better state.

At the time, I was not a member of this Legislature or municipal government. I remember at the time some of the people of the community said, "That project shouldn't go forward." I remember some of my own friends said, "Gilles, how can you do that?

It's going to prevent the creation of some 50 jobs in our community." I said, "They have not put the financial assurances in place to make sure that if they go bankrupt, we're not left with an environmental disaster that we, the taxpayers of the city of Timmins, will end up picking up to cover the damage they'll create in the environment." At the time, the then provincial government-and I'm not going to start pointing fingers; I'll say it was in the late 1980s and you can figure out who it was from there-allowed the project to go on without the assurances, and so did the city of Timmins.

As a result, that operator went into operation, started the gold mine operation which was the extraction of gold out of the tailings, and guess what happened after a couple of years? It went bankrupt.

We are now left, in the middle of the city of Timmins, with a fence around what used to be a park run by the Lions Club, called the Pearl Lake Park. It's now a great big hole of slime in the middle of the city of Timmins, with a fence around it. We drive by it every day as we drive between Schumacher and Timmins. People who don't know the history of that, because they've come to our community since then, say, "What the heck is that all about?" Well, at one time it was a park.

My point is this: At times, yes, government has to step in and say, "OK, you have an economic project you want to put forward." Put together some environmental protection, by way of legislation, to make sure we don't adversely affect the environment. If there is a danger, such as there was with the ERG project, put in place financial assurances to make sure the taxpayers are not left holding the bill when the company goes bankrupt and we're left with a problem. For what was the creation of 50 jobs for two years, the price tag on cleaning that thing up is astronomical. We have examples like that across the province in all of our ridings.

I say to the member in regard to Bill 121, it's certainly not a comprehensive bill in the sense of covering off all the issues we could be talking about in the environment. I think she understands that, but Mrs Dombrowsky also understands that there need to be some steps forward to try to safeguard what was in place to protect our environment. At the very least, what we should do by way of Bill 121 is to make sure that if anybody does try to get a permit to draw water from whatever source within the province of Ontario, those affected-the residents, whoever it might be-need to be informed so they can find out what's going on and if there's a problem they're able to raise it.

This is the point I want to end on. This is the part that really bugs the government, why I think this bill, if it does pass, will never get past the committee level. This government does not like the idea of the public being informed. If you take a look at all the changes they've made in the red tape bills, it's all about taking voice away from the public when it comes to its ability to question projects at the Ontario Municipal Board.

Both through changes they've made to the Planning Act and to other acts that affect municipalities and through a number of other changes they've made in red tape bills, they've taken away the ability we have as the public to, first of all, be informed that there is something going on that may adversely affect our community in terms of the environment or for whatever other reason, and second, to intervene through the courts and various bodies such as the Ontario Municipal Board. They've put in place legislation that very much weakens our ability to do so.

I want to say to Mrs Dombrowsky that I, along with other New Democrats, will be voting in favour of this bill. We see this as a good step forward. But we want to remind the government that it has an abysmal record when it comes to environmental protection. I, for one, as an Ontario citizen, am really bitter-I shouldn't say bitter, but upset- when I see the government get up and talk about how it's a world leader on environmental protection. If that's leading, boy, have we gone completely in the wrong direction.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's certainly a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to respond to part of the debate on Bill 121, the Ontario Water Resources Amendment Act, put forward by a member from a neighbouring riding, Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. I agree with her and compliment her on being concerned about clean water, especially in a province-and a country-that has so much fresh water in the world. It's a privilege to have that quantity of water.

I look at her bill, I read it and the bottom line is it's just not necessary. This kind of thing is being done that she is requesting. It's in place; it's happening. We already heard from the parliamentary assistant, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, who mentioned that this proposed bill doesn't go further than our present legislation. I think I heard the Premier say the other day that maybe she should have been putting more into it than she really is. It's something that this government's been responding to, this particular issue. We've been responding in a very proactive way.

I'm a little concerned for the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington that her leader would come in to give her support. She does a pretty good job. I'm embarrassed for her that the leader would actually come into the House to give her support. Other members would be able to support her, like a past Minister of the Environment who waived things like environmental assessments, thought those weren't necessary. Maybe that's why the leader came in, because of the concern that he had for previous Ministers of the Environment and how they screwed up. Maybe it's understandable why he'd be here.

I wanted to speak for a moment as chair of the water resources management committee. Some eight parliamentary assistants formed this committee for the Minister of Natural Resources back in April and met several times with stakeholders across this province, very extensive numbers of stakeholders.

Just to name a few that might be of assistance to the member who's brought forward this bill: Trout Unlimited, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Ducks Unlimited, the Canadian Water Resources Association, the Ontario Society of Environmental Management, the Soil and Water Conservation Authority, the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law, Conservation Ontario, the Ontario Municipal Water Association, and the list goes on and on.

The objective of the committee was to seek input from stakeholders from across Ontario to promote water conservation through public and private sector activities focused particularly on education and awareness-building and ways to better use Ontario's water resources to minimize wastage and optimize use for public and private benefits.

We sought opinions on ways of guiding local decision-making regarding water allocation in areas that may be threatened with water supply problems. As you look at some of the states-I happened to be in Wyoming to notice what goes on there: first come, first served. If you're upstream and you have the right to take water, you can take it all if you want. Those are some of the ways it operates in other jurisdictions. I'm proud of the steps that we've taken on water-taking permits. I'm positive at the end we will end up with a long-term strategy that will address those particulars. We're putting out monitoring wells for groundwater.

We hear the opposition screaming. It's always too late. They come in after the fact, like Dalton McGuinty coming in to Peterborough-Northumberland riding about intensive agricultural operations after we've been doing quite extensive studies. Finally he gets involved. Here we have the member bringing forth this bill, finally getting involved. Too little, too late, but at least they are getting involved.

I was pretty embarrassed for McGuinty coming in, finally taking an interest in intensive agriculture. Why he didn't invite the member from next door, who has an environmental interest, I don't know. It's sort of like jumping up and down on someone's head and then complaining, "My foot's hurting." That's about what's going on here.

The member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington should stop jumping all over this government and realize that we're already taking action. This bill doesn't do anything more, but rather less, than what's already being done.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate on private member's Bill 121, the Ontario Water Resources Amendment Act. One can appreciate the concern of the member from Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington about what is obviously an important issue.

It has been stated by other members that they support the bill in principle, but I want to comment on the bill in terms of its factual content.

The key policy proposals in what she's trying to get into this bill-she's looking at one

section which proposes, "If the director receives an application for a permit to take water that, if granted"-and I emphasize the wording "if granted"-"will affect or is likely to affect the water supply of a municipality or conservation authority," only those two bodies, "the director shall give it notice of the application."

It behooves me to wonder why anyone would be granting a permit if it's likely to or will affect the water supply. To me, it's almost nonsense. When you look at it, the Ontario Water Resources Act does not allow the granting of a permit that would interfere with existing uses. Therefore, consideration of such proposals would be contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act. What is the member talking about?

While, among other things, the permit to take water program is designed to prevent interference with existing users in the area, that is not the only consideration. Applications are carefully reviewed to prevent not only interference but to see that they are sustainable and will have no adverse impact on the environment. What the member is asking for here is to give notice in a situation that would never happen.

The other proposal she's looking at is, where a conservation authority or municipality is to be notified, that 30 days' notice is to be provided, and that the director must take into account their observations in deciding whether to issue the permit. Why is it being restricted to conservation authorities and municipalities? What about the neighbouring residents? What about other organizations that might have an impact within the community or the surrounding area? Her approach here is very narrow in terms of the right to know. The right to know what? About something that would never happen?

I want to refer to a regulation called the "Water Takings and Transfer Regulation," Ontario Regulation 285/99, which stipulates the following. Under subsection 2(2), "A director who is considering an application under

section 34 of the act for a permit to take water shall"-and I emphasize the word "shall"-"consider the interests of persons who have an interest in the taking, to the extent that those interests are relevant."

Then under subsection 2(6), "A director who is considering an application under

section 34 of the act for a permit to take water may require the applicant to,

"(

a) consult with the other persons who have an interest in the taking, including government authorities for other jurisdictions."

Also, I'd note, in the spring of this year the minister sent a letter to the municipality of Centre Hastings assuring them that the Ministry of the Environment will notify municipalities of any significant takings in their area. Subsequently, the ministry has sent the same reassurances to over 20 other municipalities with similar concerns.

The bottom line is, what's the impact of this legislation being proposed? Quite frankly, the government has been acting proactively. The measures are already in legislation, and it exceeds what the private member's bill is asking for. The right to know is already out there.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Speaking in support of the member's bill, I think it's an exceedingly important step. Obviously, she has chosen a modest step because it's very difficult to get this government to move in an expanded area. Members in the opposition tend, if they wish to have something actually pass, to choose a relatively straightforward and modest step that they hope will elicit support from everybody in the House. Instead of approaching this as a private member's bill, which I think it is, and a concern locally, members of the government have decided to dump on it and simply read what the Office of the Premier has to say about it.

I want to share with members of this Legislature what the Environmental Commissioner has to say about it.

The Environmental Commissioner is, of course, a two-time Progressive Conservative candidate provincially. He was president of the Progressive Conservative Association federally in Nipissing riding, yet here's what he says. This is Gordon Miller, and this is what he has to say. I attended the press conference he had on July 27, 2000. This is his press release and report. This is not a paraphrasing; this is precisely what he had to say about this government's water-taking permit policy and its record. He says:

"Moreover, the quality of groundwater is as important as quantity. Sensitive aquifers and groundwater recharge areas need to be identified and protected.

"Yet the Ministry of the Environment, which clearly has the legislative mandate to protect our groundwater under the Ontario Water Resources Act, seems unwilling or unable to act decisively.

"The ministry continues to approve permits for potentially massive takings of groundwater without adequate technical analysis. At best, this may result in an inappropriate private allocation of a public resource. At worst, it may threaten the sustainability of the water supply of hundreds of people drawing on the same aquifer."

Remember who's saying this. This is the Environmental Commissioner, who was appointed by the majority in this House, that is, the government. He says this:

"In addition, on at least two occasions, the Ministry of the Environment has appeared to deliberately mislead the public by announcing management measures that were not carried out. Such actions are entirely contrary to the ministry's Statement of Environmental Values and to the purposes of the Environmental Bill of Rights."

That's Mr Gordon Miller at his press conference, commenting on his concern about water taking in this province.

By the way, I was up in Walkerton to hear Dr Murray McQuigge's presentation on October 10. I must say, the man did an excellent job of presenting to a public meeting. There were people there who were from Flesherton, Ontario, who have some grave concerns about potential water-taking in the area of Flesherton as well. That is something that we hope the ministry will look at extremely carefully and deny.

Here is a magazine called In the Hills, a magazine of country living in Erin, Caledon, Mono and Mulmer. Nicola Ross, in her story, "Water Woes," says the following:

"Headwaters Country is so named because of its robust supply of water. Four significant rivers-the Grand, Credit, Humber and Nottawasaga-rise up in these hills before branching out in all directions. Streams and rivers, ponds and lakes dot the countryside. The region is doubly blessed by the water-cleansing properties of the Niagara Escarpment, the Oak Ridges moraine, and numerous other moraines. However, the past few years have proven once again that, even in an area where water seems abundant, it can be fickle. Too much or too little rain can spell disaster for farm crops, wells, roads, rivers and aquatic life.

Now, in the aftermath of the e coli deaths in nearby Walkerton, the quality of our drinking water has come into question.

"So what is the state of water in our hills, and who is minding the shop?" she asks.

Of course, that's a very valid question for her to ask. She goes on to say, "[B]oth the Credit Valley Conservation Authority ... and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ... responsible for the Humber River watershed ... have raised red flags. They're calling for an end to urban sprawl, the development of a sustainable water management strategy, and the adoption of watershed management tools that promote sustainability.

"CVC, TRCA, Grand River Conservation Authority ... and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority have all identified the absence of a coordinated approach to water management in Ontario as the major problem facing the region's water quality and supply.

"`If you think someone is looking after the shop, then you are naïve,' says Vicki Barron, general manager of CVC.

"While the 38 conservation authorities across the province manage their respective watersheds, it is the Ministry of the Environment which issues water-taking permits to municipalities, golf courses, water bottlers, farmers and the like.

"However, there are no processes in place for determining the total amount of water that is available in a watershed, for assessing the combined impacts of all water-taking permits or for allocating water fairly among competing users.

"But even if these processes were in place, they wouldn't do much good because the actual consumption by the permit holders is not monitored. The ministry does not consult the conservation authorities before it issues permits"-I'll repeat that. "The ministry does not consult the conservation authorities before it issues permits, even though they are responsible for managing the watersheds.

"When the Credit Valley Conservation Authority staff added up all the permits the ministry had handed out, they discovered the total water given away exceeded the Credit River's supply. Fortunately, not all permit holders use their full allocation. Long before the Walkerton tragedy, CVC was actively issuing warnings that the resource was in jeopardy from increased demand, declining supply and inadequate management."

What Ms Dombrowsky has done is brought forward a bill which is one step in the process. If you bring one that's too comprehensive, the fear is the government will find a thousand things wrong with it and not support it. In this particular case, there's an individual member with a real problem in her specific area, one that can be found across the province. She has brought forward, at the request, I'm sure, of people in her area, conservation authorities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and others, all this information, has brought forth their concerns and put it in a bill for consideration of the members of this House.

This is truly what private members' hour should be about. This is not some bill that's firing cannons at the government. It is simply a bill which is identifying what has been brought to her attention as a specific problem that exists and she has a simple, straightforward solution for that specific problem. If the government wishes to expand upon that, if the government wishes to bring in other initiatives, that certainly is acceptable, and this House will consider the value of those particular measures when they come before the House.

But for members to use the arguments that have been given by the Premier's office for members to read in this House as an excuse for either defeating this bill, or sending it into oblivion if they happen to approve it, I think would be unacceptable and would certainly be a denial of the rights of individual members in this House.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has two minutes.

Mrs Dombrowsky: I'd like to thank the member from Ottawa Centre and my leader. I was proud that Dalton McGuinty was able to join us this morning. I think it reflects really how important this issue is. I'd also like to thank the member from St Catharines, the member from Timmins-James Bay, the member from Northumberland, the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, and the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for participating in the debate this morning.

I want to leave everyone with this comment. It has been presented by members of the government that this bill is unnecessary. You are wrong. It's important for the people of Ontario to understand who has asked for this change: 167 municipalities have written in support of this change; over 900 individuals have signed petitions; 325 people have written letters.

I can't believe it has been suggested by members of the government that this is happening. Only this week, one of the first presenters at the Walkerton inquiry, Dr Kenneth Howard, said with regard to permits to take water in this province, "It's like you're writing cheques and you don't know how much money is in the account." That's what came out at the Walkerton inquiry. It's important that we remember this.

For the members of the government to suggest that it's happening, don't you understand that's the reason we're talking about it here today? In fact it hasn't been happening. Notification has not been getting to the communities where permits have been granted. This is an opportunity for all of us in this Legislature, in a very simple step, to have a significant impact and provide some real comfort to people in the communities of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for this ballot item. The question will be put at 12 o'clock noon.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANTLE CODE DE LA ROUTE(DISPOSITIF DE VERROUILLAGE DU SYSTÈME DE DÉMARRAGE)

Mr Dunlop moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 120,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to establish an ignition interlock device program / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant le Code de la route afin d'établir un programme d'utilisation de dispositifs de verrouillage du système de démarrage.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning on my first private member's bill, Bill 120, the Highway Traffic Amendment (Ignition Interlock Device), 2000.

I could begin by explaining to those present what an alcohol interlock actually is. An interlock is a small, breath-testing unit that is connected to an engine to prevent a vehicle from being driven if the driver's blood alcohol content is above a low, pre-set blood alcohol content, which is usually set at 0.02% or 0.04%. The driver must blow into the instrument to provide the breath sample from which his or her blood alcohol content is determined. If the sample is below the pre-set level, the driver will be able to start the vehicle. If the sample is above, the vehicle will not start.

The level should be set at 0.02% to reinforce the importance of separating drinking and driving. Setting the level at 0.04% may be interpreted as approval for any drinking and driving whatsoever, a message that is not appropriate, particularly for those convicted of at least one drinking and driving offence.

The current devices are quite sophisticated and contain various anti-circumvention features. Interlocks contain data logs that record all attempts to drive the vehicle. They contain the driver's blood alcohol content, and any efforts to tamper with the device are also recorded. Research indicates that impaired driving offenders with interlocks on their vehicles had a significantly lower recidivism rate than offenders who did not.

Interlocks should not be used as an alternative to existing federal or provincial sanctions, nor to shorten the length of an offender's suspension or disqualification of his or her licence. Rather, they should be a mandatory component of a prescribed remedial program for all impaired driving offenders. The driver should bear the cost of installing and maintaining the interlock, and in Alberta that's set at about $120 for the installation and $90 for the monthly charge.

Many times it has been said, not only in this House but in all Parliaments and council chambers across our country, that everyone should feel safe in their homes, their communities and on our streets and highways. Certainly I've said this many times myself as we have debated different pieces of legislation. Our Attorney General, our Solicitor General, our Minister of Correctional Services, our Premier and our Minister of Transportation have repeatedly referred to a safe society. This piece of legislation, this bill, will help us achieve more safety, more security and more credibility on our streets and on our highways.

A constituent of mine, Mr Doug Abernethy, who is president of Orillia Against Drunk Driving, lost his brother Tim in 1981 when Tim was killed by a drunk driver north of Orillia. Doug was also seriously injured in that accident. Since that time, Doug has been an advocate of anti-drinking and driving. Doug first approached me about a year ago and asked how he could go about having alcohol ignition interlock used in the province of Ontario. He had a supplier of interlock demonstrate the technology to me in my office in Orillia.

I felt very confident that there was a use for this technology here in the province. I made a commitment to Mr Abernethy that I would pursue alcohol ignition interlock through a private member's bill. I didn't realize at that point how complex it would be and how much work would be required to get the bill to second reading, and I have a number of people to thank. First of all, besides Mr Doug Abernethy, I want to thank my assistant, Dallas Saunders, for the dedication he has shown in having this bill drafted. Dallas has worked very hard on it, and in fact having more amendments and more drafts of the bill, which we introduced yesterday.

I'd like to also thank Mr Gerry Martiniuk for introducing the resolution last June that allowed me to explain to this assembly my intention to introduce this bill when my private member's time came up. I would like to thank Pat Hoy, Mike Gravelle and Michael Bryant, from the Liberal caucus, and Gilles Bisson, from the NDP caucus, and all the members of the PC caucus, who have supported my efforts on this bill.

And many thanks to all of the interested stakeholder groups that have helped and provided encouragement to see this legislation drafted. We have with us today in the gallery representatives from MADD: Carol Swanson is the national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. We have Brian Mitchel and Janetta Lavery from the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, and we have Ian Marples from Guardian Interlock. I would just ask you people to nod your heads.

As well, I'd like to thank the MTO staff and legislative counsel staff for their hard work on the bill as well. Particularly I would like to thank Minister Turnbull and all of his staff at the ministry who have provided assistance in analyzing the details included in this bill, and also for putting up with the persistence of myself and my friend and assistant, Dallas Saunders.

This bill is not about the policies of a political party or about federal or municipal jurisdiction. This bill is about safety and accountability of the operation of vehicles on the streets and highways in the province of Ontario.

Let's look at our history, and yes, we have come a long way. I can remember in the early 1970s, just after I was a teenager, when it was a big joke, or cool, if someone was pulled over and warned about being drunk. Rarely was anyone actually charged with being impaired. That began to change when lives were lost and people were disabled as a result of impaired driving.

In the 1980s a number of changes were made: one, two and three-year license suspensions for convicted first, second and subsequent offenders; 12-hour roadside suspensions for above 0.05% blood alcohol content or refusal to use the breathalyzer; province-wide RIDE programs; and public education and community awareness programs.

In the early 1990s came graduated licensing, meaning zero blood alcohol content for novice drivers. In 1995 the government doubled dedicated RIDE funding. In 1996 the government introduced 90-day administrative licence suspensions, and the government, again in 1996, introduced community-based road safety marketing, focusing on drinking and driving. In 1997, fines were increased for drivers who drove vehicles while their licence was suspended, and also in 1997 the government increased resources for court and police enforcement.

In 1998 the mandatory remedial measure program prior to re-licencing began, and also increased licence suspension periods to three years and lifetime for convicted second and subsequent offenders.

Also in 1998 we had the first thought of interlock happening in Ontario, but not until after a 10-year period, until the year 2008, would it have taken effect. In 1999 came the vehicle impoundment program for drivers caught while suspended for Criminal Code offences, and additional funding for the RIDE program.

It is now the year 2000. Driving while under the influence of alcohol is not accepted whatsoever. Today it is embarrassing and very expensive, and yet MTO statistics will tell you that 42% of the traffic accidents today are alcohol-related. In my own riding, only a month ago, two young people lost their lives on Highway 12 as a result of drunk driving. Every day we hear of impaired driving as a factor in an accident.

As a government and as parliamentarians we must continue to make our roads safer. Alcohol ignition inter lock as a mandatory requirement for first-time offenders and for subsequent convictions is a reasonable and responsible way to proceed into the next century. The bill, if passed, will confirm the province of Ontario as the leader in the war against drinking and driving, not only in all of our country, but perhaps throughout the continent. I would appreciate the support of all parties in seeing this bill proceed. The people of our province expect no less from us, their elected representatives.

I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I appreciate all the support I've received from the Liberal caucus-we don't always agree on everything-and from the NDP caucus as well. This is a very important step in our battle against a major problem that we have in the province of Ontario and I really do appreciate the fact that the people who have come here today have shown up, and the stakeholders who have made an appearance as well. Thank you very much, and I'll wrap up later.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to thank the member for Simcoe North for bringing forth this bill. Certainly this is a good bill and this is a bill that I'll be supporting. There are some alarming statistics that I believe are important for the people of Ontario to know and why the whole House should be supporting this bill.

Every 24 hours more than four people are killed, more than 125 people are injured because of impaired drivers. That's 4.5 people killed, 125 people injured every 24 hours, 52 weeks of the year. That's an alarming figure. Drinking and driving is the largest single criminal cause of death in Canada. Take all your biker wars, take those who rob banks, take those who are hired to assassinate people, and when you put it all together the largest single cause of criminal death in the province of Ontario and in Canada is impaired driving.

The message has got to get out to the people of Ontario, and rules like this, laws like this one and certainly a law that I've introduced-and I may spend a few seconds later on in my presentation talking about it. We have to get the message out that drinking and driving is no accident; it's a choice. The stakeholders involved in this are trying to get the message out to people in Ontario and in Canada. It is an important message.

Any young person out there has to understand that it is not an accident that you drink and drive; it's a choice. It's a choice that you should not make because of the new rules and new laws that are taking place in municipalities, in this province hopefully, and in Canada.

Every four hours someone is killed by a drunk driver-every four hours. Understand that between now and 3 o'clock someone will die because of a drunk driver, which is even more alarming. This debate will take approximately 60 minutes. You should know that every 20 minutes someone is injured because of a drunk driver. Clearly, this is unacceptable and this is why we should be passing the member from Simcoe North's bill into law-which is frightening. Why we have to have these types of laws in place is that 30,000 people are charged with impaired driving every year in Ontario-30,000 people.

So although we may have done some work in this area there is much to do, because 30,000 is far too many people to be charged, and one person every 17½ minutes is charged with impaired driving-one person every 17½ minutes. I reinforce each one of these statistics because I believe they're alarming.

Another alarming statistic that we have, and I think it's the latest statistic that we have, is that the average age of impaired drivers is 34 years. That's why it's important that we speak to a targeted audience, and that's why I commend the stakeholders who are putting these ads on television that clearly put an emphasis on informing the young-our young drivers, our young Ontarians, our young Canadians-that you can and will make the difference by making sure that these statistics fall over the course of the next one, two, five, 10 and 15 years.

The member from Simcoe North noted the past and compared the past with the present. And it's true. As all of us could stand in this place, we can realize where we were wrong in the approach that we used at some point in our life, and we should not be afraid to admit it.

The message is that we look to the future and we look to strong legislation to ensure that the present and the future are much more secure and much safer for those who will be (1) driving, (2) pedestrians, and (3) the general public at large.

Every year, 40% of all traffic collisions involve alcohol. It's an important statistic to reinforce. The member for Simcoe North said that. It's a very important statistic for our young drivers to understand.

You know, at the end of all of this it doesn't only cost us lives but it costs millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars through the court system, through our health care system, through our rehabilitation system. All of those can be avoided.

This is very strong legislation. I commend the member for his strong legislation. I also commend groups, some of which are in the audience.

But I want to talk locally about my group in Sudbury, and the people who are in the audience know my group only too well. It's called Action Sudbury and I'm very, very proud of Action Sudbury. It was founded about 17 years ago by the late regional chair, Peter Wong, along with Rolly Mousseau and Reggie Caverson. Reggie and Rolly are still very much involved in it. It does excellent, excellent work in our community.

Let me tell you about Operation Lookout, because I think it's unique to our community. Others have adopted it but it really is a very, very important one because it's a community initiative, a year-round, public-awareness campaign encouraging people and businesses to report impaired drivers to the police. Want to get them off the road? You can do it through legislation, but you know what? If you see a drunk driver you should be contacting the police and you say, "Get this driver off the road," because he or she is a potential disaster waiting to happen.

Do you know we have in our city, in our region, signs at each of the major intersections saying that we are an Operation Lookout community and that if you're drinking and driving, if you're impaired, we're not afraid to call the police and say get them off the road?

Of course, we have the Red Ribbon program at Christmas time, which is certainly successful. It is very successful in Sudbury and you see red ribbons on cars and you see them on lapels, and I'm proud. I'm proud of Action Sudbury. I commend Action Sudbury. It's present chair is Ron Roy, who does an excellent job.

I am going to sit down and sum up by simply saying I will be supporting this legislation. This is excellent legislation.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I'm very delighted to join in the private members' hour regarding the ignition interlock technology presented in the bill by the member for Simcoe North.

I think the member's initiative reflects a widespread concern and consensus, not only in this House but throughout our society, throughout the province of Ontario. There is a history from the member for Mississauga South and the member for Cambridge, who have been urging us to get on with this particular initiative.

I'd like to commend the member for presenting this particular bill today because what it reflects is not only his concern and this government's concern about road safety, which has been, is and will continue to be a number priority. You can see it in our Blueprint, put out in 1999. You can see it in our efforts since our election in 1995 and, despite the member for Sudbury's concerns about where the drinking and driving index is of people still doing this, we have made some significant progress.

For example, we have been able to reduce by 36%, between 1995 and 1999, the impaired driving people who have been on the roads. That needs to be set into the record to indicate that we have made some progress. I'm not disagreeing with the member for Sudbury that we need to do a lot more. Along with the whole set of initiatives from Reduced Impaired Driving Everywhere, which was initially an Etobicoke initiative back in the 1970s, it reflects very well on the actions taken in a number of communities across southern and northern Ontario where they saw a concern, particularly focused on our young people.

It's too bad some of young people didn't stay to see the completion of the debate on this significant issue.

As well, as a government, we've undertaken the administrative driver's licence suspension proposal and made that law. It has, in itself, helped to remove impaired drivers for 90 days from Ontario highways, also recognizing due process of law in that exercise.

In addition to the enforcement side of this whole issue, we have also undertaken significant education and prevention measures. While you may want to throw me out of the House for showing this, Mr Speaker, I think this particular issue of road safety groups across Ontario, through MTO, is one of the ways to get that message out. People wearing this sort of stuff certainly send the message again.

It's also important that we see that these remedial measures, consisting of education, assessment and treatment, are instituted as well. What is significant about that is it's at the cost of the user, the impaired driver, not at the general expense of the taxpayer.

We've also increased the suspension periods for repeat offenders. Unfortunately, we still have a lot of people out there in this mindset that you can drink and drive and there's little consequence. Well, there is a big consequence.

We've also introduced the vehicle impoundment program to stop those who drive while their licence is suspended, under the Criminal Code. For the really bad and aggressive drivers who just can't seem to get the message, whatever their problem is-it doesn't matter what the gender-those convicted of drinking and driving for a third time will lose their driving privileges for life, with no option for a reduction for 10 years.

As I said, we've made some real progress, but I think the member for Simcoe North presents another option that needs to be examined. We need to keep sending this message home: that this government, and I think the opposition parties to a great extent as well, supports a whole set of broad-based initiatives, from RIDE to the administrative driver's licence suspension program to education, assessment and treatment. These things have to be ongoing, and it's not only through the government's efforts but also through local initiative.

So I'm very happy to join in the debate and recognize the member for Simcoe North for his great initiative today.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I'm pleased to join the debate. Obviously, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals support this bill. In particular, we support any measure that attempts to take a serious look at how we can exercise retribution at the same time as exercising prevention. That's what this bill is about. There is obviously a moment of retribution in having to engage this device every time an offender steps into a vehicle. The rest of society, which is not engaged in that culpable behaviour and has not been convicted, will not have to use this device.

But at the same time, in addition to there being that retribution, which has to be a goal of our criminal justice system, there is also a measure of prevention. I commend the member from Simcoe North for producing a preventive measure from the side of the House he's sending it from. He spoke for a time on how this is consistent with the policies and practices of the government of Ontario. I'm going to have something to say about that in a moment, but I want to reserve most of my comments for the private member's bill.

More often than not the criminal justice system has to carry a fairly blunt tool. It's either jail or no jail. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. We have the highest prison population in the province of Ontario for any jurisdiction in North America. We have a huge prison population. While we obviously have to continue to seek prison terms for anybody who is convicted of an offence for drinking and driving causing injury, harm, death-yes, we have to do that-we have to do more than that, because that's not good enough.

We know, as we've been taught by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others, that for many of these repeat offenders jail time just isn't enough. The disease of alcoholism is not one we're going to be able to discuss in four minutes or less, but it's sufficiently complicated that the deterrents out there don't always work, so there are times when there is a role for the state to play in the motor vehicles of our nation. Here's an opportunity for that to happen.

There are other things the government can be doing. This is private members' business, and I applaud the member for bringing this bill forward. All of us who have brought private members' bills, and I assume that's just about everybody in the Legislature, understand the amount of work that goes into it. This bill in particular was quite complicated. Thank goodness for the folks working in the member's office, for the assistance he received from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others, and for legislative counsel, who perform their magic day in and day out.

Be that as it may, we have had this topic before this House before and we have had this topic in the public arena for some time. It's not the member for Simcoe North's fault, but it is the government of Ontario's fault that we are now dealing with this as a private member's bill in the year 2000 instead of having it as a government bill years before.

Bill 183 at one time was up for debate. At that time, Mothers Against Drunk Driving appeared before the standing committee on social development, on June 17, 1997. John Bates made the presentation on behalf of MADD. He said that everyone was calling his office asking the question, "Why are we waiting with respect to these interlock devices? Why are we waiting? The interlock is a proven and reliable device. There's no reason to wait to start implementing its use, even on a first offence, when we find a high-blood-alcohol-content driver. The recidivist is most likely to be found in this group." We've had a resolution on which we spoke to this as well.

We support the bill, but in a nutshell the government, as a priority, should have put a priority on this far earlier than today. As the member from Sudbury said, this is the largest single criminal cause of death-drunk driving, not squeegees. The squeegee bill, of course, was the flagship bill of this government in 1999.

I applaud Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This is an organization which, in addition to educating the public, works within our legislative system to get things done, and not just with the governing parties. It has a very good understanding that sometimes opposition parties need to blow wind into the sails of government to get things done.

We've done that together before. Mothers Against Drunk Driving representatives and victims and I called on the Attorney General on April 13 as a matter of policy always to seek jail time in circumstances of drunk driving causing death or harm. "We need to send a loud message to Ontarians," I said at the time, "that drunk driving is a serious crime and won't be tolerated." Then on April 24, lo and behold, the Attorney General announced that the zero tolerance policy we called for would be implemented.

This was a way to get the result that was the right result and the just result. I am pleased to see representatives of Mothers Against Drunk Driving here in this House. None of us care what side of the gallery they're sitting on. They are to be commended for all the work they do.

This member is to be commended for the work he has done to bring this bill forward. I would just urge all members, in addition to supporting it, to get this passed and get these devices into the vehicles of Ontario because the reality is, if we can end up preventing just one accident, one injury, one death, it's going to be a success, but it's going to be a far greater success than that.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): It's my privilege and honour to support the initiative shown by the member from Simcoe North.

Yes, we have made progress, and it's interesting in our democracy because I believe this progress has been made by government reflecting the initiatives shown by individuals and organizations. Mothers Against Drunk Driving comes to mind, first and foremost. In my riding, it is a very strong organization, and nationally and in Ontario. It's not an organization; it's a group of thousands of dedicated volunteers, working very hard to ensure that the tragedies that have been suffered in the past are not repeated.

I should also mention the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, who also have shown great initiative in bringing it to the forefront and, in effect, forcing governments to act to save lives.

I don't want to talk about statistics because I think we all in this House have supported the initiatives in the past, and we have all been touched by tragedies. I personally was greatly affected by the loss of a young man, a son of a very good friends of mine. When I attended the funeral as a result of his death arising out of a drunk-driving incident, I saw first hand the grieving and the effects of this tragedy.

So, though we have made progress, that is not good enough. We must work with these organizations as a government to eradicate this blemish from our society.

In June 2000, a resolution was passed unanimously by this House that I moved. If I just may read two parts of it, the House wished to "encourage the Ministry of Transportation to examine ignition interlock initiatives in other jurisdictions" and "to continue consultations with stakeholders working to eradicate drunk driving." Lastly, and I think this is the aim of us all, was to "resolve that the province of Ontario must continue to ensure the safety of motorists travelling our highways by continuing to strengthen and enforce drinking and driving laws."

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): As many of my colleagues may know, I worked for the Addiction Research Foundation for a number of years, and I know the member from Niagara Centre was associated with that organization as well. During my first year of employment there-it was 25 years ago-I attended the sixth international conference on drinking and driving. It was hosted by our executive director, H. David Archibald, and attended by people like Marc Lalonde and Mel Lastman.

Today, I'm pleased to speak on behalf of Bill 120, to establish an ignition interlock device program. Tougher laws, strict enforcement and media ads, and rehabilitation programs have all helped to reduce drinking and driving in our province and across the country over the past 20 years. In fact, since 1995, drinking and driving fatalities have declined by 36.6% in this province.

Despite these positive measures, I feel further change is needed to tighten the Highway Traffic Act and to address this problem. Technology does play a major role in everyone's life, and therefore it's no surprise we're debating this device today.

In 1990, Alberta became the first province to introduce a pilot alcohol ignition interlock program for those convicted of a second or subsequent DWI offence. Over the past 10 years, the use of alcohol ignition interlock devices for those convicted of impaired driving has expanded significantly. Today there are over 30 jurisdictions in the United States-California, for example-that have legislative authority to install ignition interlock devices in vehicles of persons convicted.

Results from an initial study in the west indicate that the ignition interlock has had a positive effect on recidivism. These results not only point to the fact that the program should be continued in Alberta, where that study was done, but they also encourage support from other provinces, such as Ontario. In the state of California, officials are currently performing a study on the effectiveness of the ignition device, and a report is forthcoming to their Legislature in January 2002.

The ignition interlock device is not new. In fact, it was developed in the 1960s. It has been considerably improved. Devices now are highly sophisticated and provide accurate samples as well as resistance to circumvention. Along with sophistication and technology, however, come high prices. My concern with the interlock device is that some offenders may feel they cannot afford what's estimated to be an $80-a-month fee. We must also avoid the temptation to substitute this device for licence suspensions or any other remedial programs.

I encourage the ministry to examine this program, and I call on all members in the House to support this legislation.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join the debate from my colleague from Simcoe North dealing with Bill 120,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to establish an ignition interlock device program.

I think we've heard from the other speakers in terms of the necessity and the measures that need to be taken, but quite frankly, there were some comments made by the member from St Paul's that were just totally silly. He made a comment about: "The criminal justice system has to carry a fairly blunt tool. It's either jail or no jail." Anyone with any sense and any knowledge of the criminal justice system knows there's a wide range of sentencing options, and that is essentially what this bill is about in terms of an alternative to dealing with an offender. Specifically:

"The bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to provide for the implementation of an ignition interlock program in Ontario for persons who violate laws related to drinking and driving. First, it requires a two-year interlock order for first offenders whose blood-alcohol concentration was in excess of 0.16 per cent at the time of the offence, or who refused to provide breath or blood samples without a reasonable excuse. It also stipulates an indefinite interlock order for second offenders, which can be reduced to five years if the registrar of motor vehicles feels that it is no longer necessary for the safety of the public. The interlock order for third offenders is permanent."

To cast aspersions on a bill that is trying to help people-when the Liberals were in government between 1985 and 1990 they did nothing with respect to drinking and driving. And the federal government-these initiatives are being taken by the provincial government-has chosen to do nothing, as usual. I support the member from Simcoe North, and I think the bill is in order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): First, the New Democrats support this proposition and are eager to see it go to committee. I think it's compulsory that it go to committee. The sponsor may well have some amendments he wants to move in committee. That's entirely possible. As well, though, let me put this to you-and I don't want to get involved in this partisan wrangling that's been going on, lawyers attacking lawyers. That's what happens when you get two lawyers in a room. There was one over here and one over here, and they were criticizing each other.

I'll tell you right now that one of the things I'm eager to ask in committee is, why aren't motor vehicles being manufactured with this kind of device, regardless of whether there's a statute compelling the device to be put into vehicles of convicted drunk drivers? One would think that consumers, the motor vehicle industry and the insurance industry would have a strong interest in having interlock devices in vehicles so you can't drive a motor vehicle when you're drunk. What a simple proposition. What a modest proposal.

I suspect that provincially one of the answers will be that the federal government has responsibility for mandating what's contained in a motor vehicle as it's manufactured. But I as a consumer would like to find out, during the course of committee hearings, what the cost would be to install this sort of device. I'd be more than pleased to enjoy what I anticipate would be a significant insurance discount for buying a motor vehicle that can't be driven by a drunk driver.

I would think the insurance industry would have a strong interest in providing that discount because of, in this one crass, mercenary perspective, the incredible cost drunk driving imposes on all of us in monetary terms, in dollars and cents, as payers of insurance premiums and on the insurance industry as the provider-I wish they were-of effective insurance coverage. I'd like to put that question.

I was skeptical about the technology. My Luddite response to high-tech and new-tech prevailed once again. But I understand that in Alberta and Quebec the technology is a proven reality, and Mr Barrett makes reference to some 30 American jurisdictions that I presume use the same or similar technology, not necessarily the same manufacturer.

I think it warrants that discussion. People have been citing statistics and reference was made to the fact that probably not one of us or our families haven't been scathed by the horrible consequences, the great human consequences of drunk drivers. I don't think there's any us. I certainly fall into the same class as some of the other participants in this conversation this morning. We have a strong societal interest in not just reducing drunk driving but eliminating it. A drunk driver is as dangerous and as criminal as a madman with a loaded military rifle.

Comment has been made about the transition or the change in attitude perspective. I don't believe we have accomplished enough in terms of identifying drunk driving as the reprehensible criminal activity it is, and that the drunk driver is as criminal as any other inmate of a reformatory or penitentiary. It isn't somehow more pristine or one of those accidental offences, like going through a stop sign when you're momentarily distracted-please. We've got to overcome what still remains as some element of trivialization of the crime of drunk driving.

I was very pleased, on Tuesday morning, to be invited to join students over at Don Bosco Secondary School, at Islington and Dixon here in Toronto. It was the kickoff by Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, OSAID. Young Jenni Rowe, now a Guelph university psychology student, was, some six years ago at the age of 16, crippled by a drunk driver. She lives in Woodstock. She's the spokesperson for Students Against Impaired Driving, and was there. The students at that school were incredibly impressive in their commitment to this campaign of students influencing other students not to drink and drive.

The president of the student group based at Don Bosco, Dilaila Longo, was impressive, as were the faculty there, the teaching staff. Edna Bennett is the teacher adviser to this group.

Not only was I terribly impressed at the commitment of these young people to using peer influence to encourage their colleagues not to drink and drive, but I was pleased that in this instance the operation, the campaign, was being supported by Co-operators insurance. They of course used the opportunity to advertise their company's participation, the big banners with "Co-operators." I confess that I'm not a fan of insurance companies, but if you're going to deal with an insurance company, I suppose Co-operators has to be among the better ones, just by nature of the type of company it is and the people involved in its ownership.

Having said all that, though, yesterday morning, I, along with the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, joined the Minister of Transportation downstairs in the media room, where the same organization, Students Against Impaired Driving, held a press conference announcing a very clever CD-ROM they've developed that young people can use to access information about drunk driving. It involves all these interactive, computer-type things young people are so tuned into. I was equally pleased about that, but for the fact that what did I see on the packaging of that CD-ROM but the Labatt's Blue logo of one of the corporate sponsors.

Sorry, friends: we've got a lot of thinking to do about what's going on in the beer and spirits industry, when so much effort is being put forward by so many people across the board-across this province, across this country and internationally-to deal with drunk driving, to respond to what has been identified as the crisis of binge drinking by students on university and college campuses. We've matured enough to understand that tobacco manufacturers have no social interest at heart.

Their job is to manufacture tobacco, which kills people, and sell it to as many people as possible and encourage as many people as possible to smoke it, notwithstanding their glib efforts to somehow disguise the real interest of the tobacco industry, which is to make profits. Similarly, we've got to take a look, for instance, at the breweries and who they market their product to. They don't market it to middle-aged, grey-haired, overweight members of the Legislature. They market it to young people.

Take a look at what's going on. Take a look at the incredibly clever, expensive and skilful advertising the beer industry does-incredibly powerful stuff. The quality is exceptional; there's no two ways about it. One can't help but stop clicking and continue watching because of the incredibly skilful production of beer ads, and it's all about convincing young people to drink. I'm not suggesting that the spirits, wine and beer industries be outlawed.

I am suggesting that some serious attention should be paid to whether they should be permitted to advertise, or certainly whether they should be permitted to advertise in the manner they do. They will argue, "Oh, it's all about brand identification." Horsefeathers. Breweries don't make money on people who drink one beer a week. That's not their interest. If beer drinkers across the board drank one bottle of beer a week, the breweries would go out of business. They're interested not in selling beer a bottle at a time, but in selling it a case at a time, and two and three cases and keg after keg at a time.

I call upon this government, if it's serious-and I think it is serious about this initiative-to start talking about curtailing the type of advertising engaged in, particularly by the beer industry, that targets young people and encourages them in a very persuasive way to drink, and drink more and not less, notwithstanding the modest participation by breweries in anti-drunk-driving campaigns and in so-called drinking responsibly campaigns.

I also all upon this government to end any policy of collaborating with the beer or spirits industry in any of the government-sponsored promotions against drunk driving. It is repugnant that the CD-ROM by Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, sponsored in part by the province of Ontario-and I'm pleased to see my tax dollars invested in that-should also have on it a brewery's logo, again, which is designed to familiarize consumers, beer drinkers, with that particular brewery.

I think we have to start getting tough with the beer and spirits industry which, we have to understand, is motivated far more by profit than it is by any genuine interest in promoting responsible drinking or in advocating against drunk driving. So I put that to you.

I would like this government to adopt a policy that it won't permit the beer and spirits industry to participate with logos or other advertising interests in the efforts that this government engages in directly or indirectly through sponsorship against drunk driving. The first speaker was quite right. He spoke about the importance of separating drinking and driving. You do that not just in word, but in deed as well.

Speaking about young people, I think it's important to understand-I obtained this data over at Don Bosco school on Tuesday morning-that the rate of drunk driving among young people has dropped at a significantly faster pace than it has among their parents. That's an interesting observation in its own right. It indicates, among other things, that peer influence groups like Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving are very effective.

I want to praise MADD, along with all the other speakers, because I've had a long relationship with MADD and particularly with John Bates, who served MADD in an exemplary way for so many years, and who had an almost permanent presence here at Queen's Park ensuring that he was lobbying, on behalf of MADD and its sister organization, for better legislation.

I share MADD's disappointment, and the disappointment of a whole lot of people that-it was Bill 138 in 1997-the Comprehensive Road Safety Act did not contain the interlock legislation. I also share this concern. I don't fault the author of this bill, the sponsor of this bill, but let's understand that this bill, as a private member's bill, may never get to committee. You see, friends, it's the rule that a private member's bill has to defer to government bills in the committee.

And we have seen far too many times private members' bills, week after week, slip by the wayside as there's yet another government bill put before the committee. No amount of enthusiasm on the part of opposition members can change that.

With respect, this bill should have been a government bill, and no disrespect to its sponsor or author. I applaud him and his commitment and I understand that commitment. But with the greatest of respect, this should have been a government bill. There are some games being played here that leave me a little bit apprehensive. I'm not sure what the game is yet. We're going to find out. I'm going to do everything I can to get this to committee in a speedy way. Because there are questions and there are issues-I've already related some of them-that I want to see discussed in the context of this bill.

I think there are meaningful things that all of us can contribute to the committee process, including that fundamental question of, why can't car manufacturers build cars with these devices in them so you as a consumer can choose to buy one? I think most consumers would recognize the distinct benefits and the enhanced value in making that investment.

New Democrats are supporting this proposition. New Democrats will press for the government to formalize its support of it and ensure that it receives appropriate debate, discussion and passage.

The Acting Speaker: There are far too many private conversations occurring. Would members take private conversations outside. Order.

The member for Simcoe North has two minutes.

Mr Dunlop: I want everyone to know that, with the Speaker's permission, I have an actual interlock here that I can show everyone after. I know Mr Bisson had shown one a little earlier, last June.

I want to thank all those who supported the second reading here this morning: the words from the parliamentary assistant, Mr Martiniuk, who put a personal touch on it, the case of someone he actually knew who had been hurt by an impaired driver; my colleague from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, my neighbour Joe Tascona; and Mr Barrett. As well, Mr Bartolucci brought some very interesting points up, talking about Action Sudbury. It's very similar to the organization that Mr Abernethy represents in the city of Orillia, Orillia Against Drunk Driving.

It's funny. I want to share a very quick story. I was in Barrie last year, in a car wash with my car, and a gentleman ahead of me backed into my car in the car wash. I put the brakes on and that stopped the car wash, and this guy drove out through it. I got to the other end. The attendant came over and I said, "What happened?" He said, "The guy was drunk and he took off." I said, "Why didn't you stop him?" The guy was going out on Bayfield Street in Barrie, and there are six lanes of traffic. There are thousands of people and little kids out there. Anyhow, he got away. That's the kind of case we want people to report. It's unacceptable that the guy backs into you inside a car wash.

He brought some other points up also about the health care system and the importance of keeping impaired drivers off the road as a result of our health care system.

I also thank Mr Kormos for his comments and Mr Bryant as well. I hope we can somehow work this legislation through so that we have something possibly by Christmas. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for this ballot item.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT (WATER TAKING PERMIT NOTIFICATION), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L'ONTARIO (AVIS RELATIFS AUX PERMIS DE PRÉLÈVEMENT D'EAU)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now revert to ballot item number 41. Mrs Dombrowsky has moved second reading of Bill 121. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I move unanimous consent for immediate third reading of Bill 121, given the clarity and conciseness of this bill and given the immediate need for notification.

The Acting Speaker: I'm afraid that request is out of order. You may request referral to committee. No, I stand corrected. You may ask for unanimous consent to have it referred for third reading.

Mrs Dombrowsky: I ask unanimous consent that it would be referred for third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Consent is not granted.

Mrs Dombrowsky: I move that the bill would be directed to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Dombrowsky has asked that the bill be referred to the committee on general government.

All in favour of having the bill referred to the standing committee on general government will please stand.

All those opposed will please stand.

A majority is not in favour. The bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (DISPOSITIF DE VERROUILLAGE DU SYSTÈME DE DÉMARRAGE)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 42. Mr Dunlop has moved second reading of Bill 120. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

All matters before the House this morning being completed, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1201 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): The independent truckers in Ontario are under severe financial pressure that could result in total disruption of commercial activity in this province. The price of diesel fuel has risen 75% since July 1999. Truckers want a regulated fuel surcharge of 24%. This would provide independent truckers an additional 24 cents per mile to pay fuel costs. Many of the major carriers have exacted fuel surcharges to cover the rising cost of fuel, but a share of those surcharges has not always been passed on to the truckers.

The Minister of Economic Development and Trade has tried to broker a deal that has been called by Bill Wellman, the president of the national trucking association, "ridiculous and meaningless." Wellman said that he and other truckers would end up making less money under the provincial deal than was worked out with the companies that ship freight. Compounding the problem is that major associations in northern Ontario and in Ottawa are not even at the table.

Dwayne Mosley, head of the Greater Ottawa Truckers Association, said that his group will continue protesting until the province enacts legislation forcing shippers to share surcharges for fuel costs. All truckers agree that any deal must have guarantees supported by government regulation as to when and how the surcharges are to be distributed.

Unfortunately, the Premier and the minister are at odds as to the solution. The minister is on record saying that, if forced, he will intervene and regulate the trucking industry. The Premier, on the other hand, maintains that the industry is telling him that what he is negotiating and doing is far better than any provincial-only regulation. Clearly we have a case of the minister not listening and the Premier not understanding.

WELFARE REFORM

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Our government's welfare reforms are helping more and more people get off welfare and find a job. When the Harris government first took office in 1995, Northumberland county's welfare caseload was more than 2,500. But just last month, only 724 cases received welfare assistance. In neighbouring Hastings county, the welfare rolls were almost as high as 8,000 cases. But last month, this figure was as low as 3,700.

The opposition constantly criticizes our work for welfare reform. I've got a success story for the members across the House and one that they should hear. Just a few weeks ago, I attended an open house at the Trenton Resource Centre for the Community Partners for Success. This is an organization that works with many partners to benefit the children, families and residents of Trenton, Frankford and Stirling. Two individuals involved with this organization were not able to attend the open house because they had just found jobs. They found jobs through their workfare placement that turned into full-time employment, a perfect example of how work for welfare is producing.

We've come a long way in Ontario. We've helped thousands of people escape welfare dependency and realize the benefits of having a job, but there's still more to do. I assure the people of Northumberland and Hastings that we, as the government of Ontario, will continue with those welfare reforms.

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'm responding to this morning's reannouncement of private universities. The ministerial statement in a little while will be made six months after this was announced in the spring of 2000. It was announced on a Friday afternoon while most students were writing their exams.

The fundamental issue facing universities in this province is not fear of competition, as the government would have us believe. Ontario universities provide an excellent education to our students. It is this government's consistent and ongoing lack of funding which is eroding our universities' excellence.

The Tories claim to support our post-secondary education system but fail to invest the necessary resources to enable them to meet the increased demands upon the system. The government plans to introduce private universities to make up for their lack of a comprehensive plan.

Private universities seeking to establish themselves in the province may be able to do so as early as September 2001. Private universities will be eligible to administer OSAP funds. These are taxpayers' dollars. Private universities, under the NAFTA agreement, will be eligible for research dollars. These are taxpayers' dollars.

Every time the government denies this, they are clouding the facts. Private institutions already have the highest default rates, at 30%. They are willing to pour already scarce dollars down a black hole rather than invest in our excellent public institutions. They cut $400 million to post-secondary funding in 1995. Private universities cannot and will not make up for the shortfall of spaces.

SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to let people in Ontario know about the launch of the small business enterprise centre in the beautiful town of Whitby-which, by the way, is the home of Attorney General Jim Flaherty-on Tuesday this week. This is the 14th enterprise centre to open across the province and a perfect way to mark our Salute to Small Business Month.

As everyone knows, small business is the engine that drives our economy. In fact, the small business community accounts for no less than 80% of all the new job creation. The small business enterprise centre in Whitby will make an important contribution to the economy of Durham region. It also provides entrepreneurs with consultation services, information and advice about small business planning and management to ensure success over the years. I'd like to thank Terry Bainbridge and the organizing committee.

In my constituency of Durham, the centre will also build on the leadership shown over the years by members of the Scugog Chamber of Commerce, for instance, and its president, Les Gower; by members of the Clarington Board of Trade and its president, Adrian Foster; and by people like Sandy Archibald, who have really made a commitment.

This government respects the enormous contribution made by small business to our economy. Since 1995, we have cut taxes, reduced red tape and removed barriers to growth. With the creation of these small business enterprise centres across Ontario, we have now added an additional resource that allows entrepreneurs to build, grow and expand in the growing economy.

On behalf of my constituents of Durham, I want to commend members of the business community for their ingenuity and tireless effort, but I'd also like to thank Minister Palladini for being a constant champion of small business.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Today Minister Runciman crowed at a press conference about building safer communities. He was doing that to release a report on a summit that was held in March, fully seven months ago, to ask for recommendations to build safer communities. So after all the fanfare today, there was nothing to report on action, nothing to show that the government was actually dealing with raves and booze cans, which were the focus of the discussion at the March 14 summit. Instead, today we have a bonanza in Ontario.

We have what bootleggers say is the wild, wild west right here in Ontario, and why is that? Because the word is out that the task force on illegal alcohol under the LCBO is being disbanded and its duties are not being assigned anywhere.

When asked today about this at the press conference, what did the minister have to say? "I don't know anything about that. You'd better ask Duncan Brown; maybe he's got the answer." Over to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. Are they up and running? Who has the expertise to look after the store? At the moment, no one is minding the store, and all we can say to the people of Ontario is that if you're a bootlegger, it's a bonanza out there.

Instead, we're calling for real action to deal with issues like booze cans and raves. We put a raves bill on the table right here in this House and it passed twice. It still hasn't come forward for action by this government. Shame on Bob Runciman for that performance this morning.

ANN MORTIMER

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to talk about a resident of my riding of York North, Ann Mortimer. Ann Mortimer has spent decades fighting for more support of Canadian artists, and now the Newmarket artisan has opened the door for artists to be recognized in a big way by being named to the Order of Canada, Canada's highest honour for lifetime achievement.

As past president and a board member of the Canadian Guild of Potters, the Canadian Crafts Council and the Ontario Crafts Council, Mortimer has been committed to the growth of the craft community and has encouraged international recognition of Canadian artists. Mortimer's own handcrafted ceramics are featured in exhibitions and collections around the world, and she was elected to the International Academy of Ceramics in 1998.

She has just returned from an eight-week stay in China, where she worked in a factory with other artists to create a large sculpture for a sculpture park. She is also currently on the advisory board for the International Museum of Ceramic Art in Alfred, New York.

In countries such as China and Japan, ceramic art is revered. Mortimer hopes to build more momentum for the craft in Canada. Locally she has juried for the Newmarket Artisans Festival and lectured all over the region of York.

My congratulations to Ann Mortimer for receiving this great honour.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On Tuesday this week, we experienced in the Legislature one of the most extraordinary examples of ministerial incompetence that we've seen in some time.

The Minister of Health appeared at the estimates committee with numbers that were grossly inaccurate and wrong. It's important for the public to recognize that it is at estimates that the minister is supposed to come and explain his or her priorities and numbers, and the minister was incompetent. The numbers were wrong by $2.5 billion. The minister was asked about it. Remember, she has been preparing for weeks for this meeting. She showed up and was forced to adjourn the session immediately. Her very first comments were, "I think our preference would be to adjourn, get the appropriate numbers.

I guess we could resume next Tuesday." The minister had to adjourn for an entire week because of this gross incompetence.

No wonder the public have concerns about the health care system when the minister doesn't understand the numbers and is out by $2.5 billion. It points to a bigger problem, and that is, in my opinion, the government is now cooking the books. The bureaucracy has so many separate numbers they no longer are able to report on the accurate numbers. So we will find over the next few weeks that the variety of numbers we've had on education and health care now have so confused the ministry they don't know what the right numbers are any longer.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Hamilton West.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Thank you very-

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Stoney Creek, come to order, please.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I wish the government benches were as animated about the potential closure of schools in our inner cities as they are in the small politics crossing the floor here.

I rise today to bring to the attention of the government members that all across Ontario, parents, student councils, teachers and communities at large are fighting among themselves over your school funding formula that is forcing the closure of far too many inner schools. Last evening, in the gymnasium at Allenby public school, there were presentations made on behalf of the community to trustees imploring them to keep Allenby open. It's just one example of a lot of inner-city schools that need to stay open. If I had the time, I'd go into the figures surrounding the lack of funding that is causing these closures.

Historically, we have had public school closures. What we have not had in the past is closures because of underfunding. We've had closures because of demographics alone. This is the first government that has forced school trustees to close these valuable community assets. It's not just bricks and mortar; in many cases in these inner communities, it's the focal point, it's the heart of the community. Without it there is no open space, no recreation space. This is far too important to be left to the whims of your bottom-line endeavours.

NIAGARA REGION

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): While I'd like to talk about the Liberal member from Scarborough's statement about the Minister of Health, which was totally erroneous, I won't.

The Mike Harris government has always shown a keen interest in and commitment to the Niagara region. Just this week it was announced that Roberts Street in Niagara Falls will be given a $14-million makeover, transforming the roadway into a beautiful gateway into the city. Our government is allocating $9 million for the project.

We've previously paid for the widening and improvement of the Queen Elizabeth Way from Fort Erie to St Catharines, and we've committed over $500,000 to a study of the transportation needs facing the Niagara Peninsula, as well as other million-dollar projects like Thorold Stone Road overpass.

So it was with great interest that I read comments this week by Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty following his visit to my riding. An

article in the St Catharines Standard read, "McGuinty said the mid-peninsula corridor is a key project to protect Niagara's ... markets." Yet it appears Mr. McGuinty held a different view of the proposed highway in July, when he stated, "Well, you know, we would insist on a full environmental assessment, and we'd want to look at the alternatives." Do the Liberals want the project to proceed? Do they want more studies? Just what do they want?

I'm proud to say our government is taking action on behalf of the Niagara region. Important roads are being upgraded and detailed studies are underway which will assist in determining how best to address the future needs of the region.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF TRAINING, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AU MINISTÈRE DE LA FORMATION ET DES COLLÈGES ET UNIVERSITÉS

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 132,

An Act to enact the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, repeal the Degree Granting Act and change the title of and make amendments to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act / Projet de loi 132, Loi édictant la Loi de 2000 favorisant le choix et l'excellence au niveau postsecondaire, abrogeant la

Loi sur l'attribution de grades universitaires et modifiant le

titre et le texte de la

Loi sur le ministère des Collèges et Universités.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1345 to 1350.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 42; the nays are 29.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The member for a short statement?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I'll make a proper statement in ministers' statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): For some time now, students, parents and employers have asked the Ontario government to allow greater flexibility in the educational opportunities available to students so that they can acquire the marketable skills they need to prosper in today's world.

They have been asking for more flexibility in the way they can learn; they want new combinations of skills and expertise; and they want greater collaboration between our post-secondary institutions. And they are right. We need to increase the range of choices available to Ontario students to earn a degree. Students need more opportunities, not fewer, and we must ensure that the post-secondary system provides them with the full range of choices that they require to succeed.

In April, I announced the government's intention of giving Ontario students an exciting new range of opportunities to earn a top-quality post-secondary education. Today, I'm introducing legislation which, if passed, would allow us to meet that goal. The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Statute Law Amendment Act, 2000, would make amendments to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act and would replace the Degree Granting Act with the new Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000.

The new act would make it possible for Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology to grant applied degrees and would pave the way for more private post-secondary institutions to establish themselves in Ontario.

Over 35 years ago, the province proposed controversial changes to post-secondary education with the creation of community colleges. We know today's announcement is also necessary to make the system more responsive to the needs of today's students no matter where they live. It's part of our plan to address lifelong learning.

By increasing the range of options available to students in Ontario, we would be promoting excellence in our degree-granting institutions and making Ontario's education system the envy of the world by ensuring that our institutions are responding directly to the changing needs of our students, as well as to the requirements of those who need to upgrade their education.

To ensure the quality of new post-secondary programs, the act would enshrine in law the Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board. This independent body would assess new degree program proposals submitted by Ontario colleges, out-of-province degree-granting institutions and new degree-granting institutions in Ontario, including privately funded institutions.

Using rigorous criteria established in accordance with recognized educational standa