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

June 15, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Jun-15 (PDF)

L073 - Thu 15 Jun 2000 / Jeu 15 jun 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE DISPOSAL

DRINKING AND DRIVING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

BOLTON ROTARY CLUB

GASOLINE PRICES

NDP CONVENTION / CONGRÈS DU NPD

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOMELESSNESS

CATHETERIZATION LABORATORY

FIREARMS CONTROL

NIAGARA GRADUATES

REPORT OF CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA COMMISSION DES COURSES DE CHEVAUX

PROTECTION OF MINORS FROM SEXUALLY EXPLICIT GOODS AND SERVICES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA PROTECTION DES MINEURS CONTRE LES BIENS ET SERVICES SEXUELLEMENT EXPLICITES

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TRAFFIC CALMING), 2000

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TAX DEFERRAL), 2000

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (GRADUATED TAX RATES), 2000

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TENANT PROTECTION), 2000

QUEEN MOTHER

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

WATER QUALITY

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FACILITIES

WATER QUALITY

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

HOMELESSNESS

WATER QUALITY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

CHILD SAFETY

ALLO STOP

PETITIONS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

SCHOOL CLOSURES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

KARLA HOMOLKA

EDUCATION LEGISLATION / PROJET DE

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

LORD'S PRAYER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES NORMES TECHNIQUES ET LA SÉCURITÉ

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I move the following resolution:

That this House,

(1) Acknowledges that only 30% of Ontario's waste diversion goal for the year 2000 has been reached so far;

(2) Resolves that the province of Ontario must commit to and embrace a diversion program which reduces the need for landfill space and garbage disposal;

(3) Resolves that the province must now employ cost-effective, modern technology, which is presently available as a progressive process to manage and dispose of waste; and

(4) Urges that a more aggressive objective than the present goal of 50% be established to divert waste away from landfill sites.

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

Mr Beaubien: It's a pleasure to bring this issue to the floor of the House today for the constituents of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, and especially the constituents of Lambton. Why am I bringing this resolution to the floor? The reason is that there is a proposal for the landfill site located in the community of Watford-Warwick wherein there are terms of reference that have been submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for the past two years. The terms of reference have changed in an ongoing process over the past two years. I'm certainly confused and I think my constituents in the area are confused as to what this company wants to do with this landfill site.

To give you a description of what the company proposes, they propose to extend a landfill site which has tonnage capacity of 2.5 million tonnes to 22 million tonnes. This would make it the second-largest residential landfill site after Keele Valley. Furthermore, what I and the residents in the area find totally unacceptable is that in the terms of reference submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, the garbage, the waste, will be piled 135 feet high. I submit to you that the water tower in the town of Watford, which is located approximately half a mile to three quarters of a mile away, is 135 feet high.

I think the highest hill in Lambton county is probably 70 feet to 75 feet. Needless to say, this is not acceptable to yours truly and it's certainly not acceptable to the residents of that area.

What is the problem? The problem is that many municipalities in small-town Ontario have dealt to a certain degree with the difficulties they have with their waste. However, the megacity of Toronto, after 20 years of debate and discussion, is still wondering what they're going to do with their waste. I don't want to make this an urban-rural problem; it may appear to be one. I think there are some solutions. As part of rural Ontario, we are willing to submit some solutions on how we can deal with this problem, but I submit to you that strictly land-filling and piling waste 135 feet high in rural Ontario is not acceptable.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): It's not high enough?

Mr Beaubien: It's not that it's not high enough; it's too high for us. For some people in Toronto it may not be high enough, but for us it is too high.

How do we deal with it? First, I've heard in the past few weeks that Toronto wants the province and the federal government to help with regard to upgrading the waterfront. Many people would probably co-operate and support that. However, on the other hand, we have to realize that Toronto cannot send its waste to rural Ontario and pile it up. There's technology available. I think there are better recycling practices we can use. There's composting we can do. There are all kinds of different technologies and processes we can use.

I don't want to enter into the debate this morning, because we don't have enough time, but certainly the packaging industry would be a good place to start. However, I realize there's a strong lobby-whether it's for metal, aluminum or plastic, whatever it is-for people to accept the packaging we have in place today. But I would strongly suggest to you that if, as residents of Ontario, residents of Canada, we are really, truly concerned about the environment, we have to look at how we package the products we consume today.

To show you how unpopular this proposal is, I have an

article here which appeared in the Sarnia Observer on May 15, 2000. It says, "Don't Dump Trash Here, Toronto Told." There's another article. This one does not deal with my riding but it again deals with Toronto garbage. It says, "Northerners Ready to Battle Toronto Trash." Another says, "Farmers Wary of Landfill if Garbage-Mine Plan Fails." It goes on and on.

When we look at the Watford-Warwick scenario, we do not have a host that is willing to accept Toronto waste at this point in time. Having said that-I don't want to speak for all of the constituents of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex at this point-if Toronto were willing to sit down with communities and discuss how they can deal with their waste, I'm sure some of it could be shipped to rural Ontario, if we had the proper recycling facilities, if we had the proper composting facilities. I say that because we could take a problem from urban Ontario, bring it to rural Ontario and create some jobs, create some economic activity with regard to trucks being repaired and fuel being consumed.

There are some solutions but I think the will is not there with the city of Toronto, especially when we look at methane digesters today. This is technology that has been accepted around the world. It's being used in countries like Japan, Germany and France. But for some reason we're still not willing to accept that technology. There are other technologies available also and, as I mentioned, better ways of recycling. Those are available and they're cost-effective. All we have to do is be willing to do it.

I received a letter from the Brewers of Ontario dated May 16. The Brewers of Ontario is a corporation, an amalgamation of brewing companies, that does a good job with regard to their recycling plan. I would like to read this comment, " ... 97.6% of beer packaging sold through the Beer Store is returned for reuse and recycling. The Beer Store packaging management system protects the environment by diverting almost a half-million tonnes of packaging form Ontario's blue boxes and landfills annually." We know the technology is there if the will is there.

Let me read an

article which appeared in the Toronto Star on June 10. It's entitled "Toronto Set Garbage Goal Backwards." It says, "Since 25% of the garbage is already being diverted through recycling and backyard composting, the city's goal is really a modest diversion increase to 50% of the total garbage by 2006.

"By pushing the technological envelope, it might have achieved an early diversion rate of 80% to 90% of the total, with no additional greenhouse gas emissions ... .

"The companies wanted to build methane digesters, turning garage into methane, soil and water, and using the methane as a fuel to generate electricity."

Toronto council was not very willing to accept that. It says, "City staff hope to negotiate a landfill contract allowing the city to divert progressively more garbage away from landfill, in line with its goal of diverting 80% by 2020."

Mr Guzzo: They'll be a separate state.

Mr Beaubien: I don't know if there's going to be a separate state. By the year 2020, I don't think I'm going to be here. Hopefully I'm going to be here but we never know. That's 20 years from now. That is not acceptable.

As the

article says, "But 20 years is an awfully long time to continue adding to global warming."

The problem with this is that I have a lot more to say. In closing: Yes, we have to look at packaging; yes, we have to be more aggressive with regard to our recycling and composting processes; yes, the municipalities must be willing to deal with their waste stream; and yes, the Ministry of the Environment must show leadership.

I don't mean we have to spend more money because we don't have to. It's a matter of policy. It's a matter of commitment. We must direct municipalities, whether they're small, medium or large, to deal with their waste stream to make sure of that 80% to 90% of their waste stream, which is an achievable goal and can be done immediately.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): I'd like to thank the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex for bringing forward this resolution. There probably hasn't been a private member's resolution brought forward in a long time that I agree with so strongly and so personally. It involves a very big and similar issue that affects my riding of Timiskaming-Cochrane. It also couldn't be more timely because Toronto is on the verge of making a decision as to the disposition of its garbage.

Unfortunately, the site at the Adams mine south of Kirkland Lake tends to be looked upon as being the favourite site at the moment of the city of Toronto, despite all the opposition that is coming to a head and developing in the Kirkland Lake region, especially in the region south of the dump. The water flows south, as we're at the top of the Atlantic Ocean watershed and the water moves north to south. Immediately south of the dump site is the little clay belt which is the biggest and most economically sound agricultural belt in northern Ontario, a very productive area.

The concerns of the farmers and residents who live south of the site are very strong and growing, especially after this awful tragedy that happened in Walkerton. People are more conscious now of groundwater, the source of much drinking water for residents across this province, probably much more than many people believe. Most of us, who don't live, as I do, on our own water system, open up a tap and take it for granted that a pure product comes out of that tap. Now our confidence has been severely shaken.

As I said, Toronto's on the verge of making a decision that I believe would be absolutely wrong, for many of the reasons the member stated, in that what is presented before them today from the Adams mine coalition is a 1950s megaproject solution where we find basically the biggest hole we have in Ontario and we bring all that garbage up and put 20 million tonnes in that biggest hole.

The site the member is talking about in Lambton I know has some very good heavy clay soils there. If we are to bury garbage, and I don't believe we should ever again be burying garbage in the ground, at least maybe you have a chance there of slowing down leachate escape, though there's not a dump anywhere that does not have an escape of leachate, which is the garbage juice that develops over the years as the water washes through the garbage. But what we have is a 600-foot-deep fractured rock pit that was blasted on a daily basis for 20 years up to the late 1980s as Dofasco extracted iron ore from that location.

We don't have a liner in this. What we have is a containment system at the bottom so that gravity brings down the leachate to the bottom and it's pumped to a water filtration plant and put out into a creek. To me, this is the biggest crap shoot you could ever imagine, as this 600-foot-deep funnel sits right at the top of this little clay belt. It is certainly not worth the risk to consider and approve such a foolish project.

I would say to the city of Toronto-I know I have to leave time for my members; I could go on for hours on this-that they should be more forward thinking, quite frankly. As the member said, they should be embracing new technology. They should, as the member says, be embracing greater diversion. Why should we be finding the biggest hole in the province and dumping all our garbage there? We could do a much better job of diverting most of the waste stream to composting, when we get a wet-dry separation system going, and all the other reusables and recyclables we should be developing so that there's very little residual waste left.

I make my plea, as I'm going to next week before the public works committee of the city of Toronto, that they need to be a proud city of the 21st century, and not embrace a 1950s-type of hide-your-head-in-the-sand solution but embrace the modern techniques of handling the waste stream. This is the way to go about it. The people in my area will not accept that garbage. As you saw from the rail blockade we had, that is just the beginning. I salute the folks who did that. I will be with them on the next one.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I rise to speak to this resolution on waste diversion submitted by my seatmate the honourable member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. This resolution suggests that the province of Ontario is not doing enough to divert its waste from landfill sites and that a more aggressive goal for waste diversion is needed. The honourable member's resolution is well-intentioned. I know personally of his concerns about landfill in his riding. I'd like to take this opportunity to put some facts on the record.

Ontario's waste diversion goal is to reduce the amount of municipal waste per capita that is sent for landfill disposal by 50%, compared to 1987 levels. We are well on the way to achieving this target.

Ministry of the Environment statistics differ a bit from what we've heard this morning. By 1997 the province had achieved a waste reduction rate of 35%. We expect that when the 1998 results are in, Ontario will be at a 39% per capita waste reduction rate. Between 1994 and 1998, Ontario municipalities increased their total waste diversion rate from 860,000 tonnes to more than 1.25 million tonnes. This is a 45% increase. Backyard and central composting of organic material increased by 57% over that same period, and blue box recycling has grown by 43%.

As members may know, Ontario's blue box program began in 1985 and it has evolved into one of the most comprehensive curbside recycling systems in North America. In fact, the blue box popularity has made Ontario's municipal curbside waste diversion rate among the highest on the continent. Under provincial law, municipalities with populations of 5,000 or more must provide residential blue box collection of at least seven recyclable materials. More than 90% of Ontario's population now has access to this program.

As I mentioned, in 1998 Ontario municipalities diverted a total of 1.25 million tonnes of waste from disposal, again, as many of us know, through reduction, reuse and recycling. Blue box programs were responsible for 650,000 tonnes of that figure, a 9% increase over the previous year. The total tonnage of municipal waste diverted from landfill in 1998 also increased by 9%. This amount of diverted waste would fill more than five SkyDomes-and don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting this is a use for the SkyDome.

In 1998, some 476,000 tonnes of waste paper was recovered from Ontario households, an increase of 11% over 1997. Over that same period, the total tonnage of material for centralized composting, such as leaves and yard waste, rose to 290,000 tonnes. In the same year, 1998, the average Ontario household recycled a total of 168 kilograms of material, compared to 159 kilos the year before.

I think it's important to point out that the blue box program is highly cost-effective. On average, the program costs Ontario households about $14 a year, just over a dollar a month. Over the past decade and a half, the blue box program has proved not only that it's good for the environment but also that it works, and Ontario's future waste diversion efforts are designed to build on the strengths of this popular and successful approach.

It's clear that Ontario has made progress in waste diversion, but in the future we aim to do even better, as urged by the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. To that end, the government has entered a new partnership with industry, municipalities and the Recycling Council of Ontario to create the Waste Diversion Organization, also known as WDO.

The WDO is a voluntary partnership that was set up through a memorandum of understanding. The organization's mandate is to ensure that Ontario meets its 50% waste reduction target-not only meets that target but exceeds it, as urged by the resolution we're debating today. To date, the WDO partners have contributed a total of $14.5 million to carry out a wide range of diversion activities.

One of the WDO's key tasks is to develop options for sustainable funding of up to half of the operating costs for the blue box program. This will ensure that this popular and effective approach to recycling remains a permanent feature. In addition, WDO has been asked to develop a household special waste program, again including options for funding.

As part of the partnership agreement, the Waste Diversion Organization is currently working on a number of important initiatives: programs to increase blue box efficiency, programs for centralized composting, funding to establish municipal household special waste depots and continued funding for the collection of glass wine and liquor containers through the blue box program. The WDO will provide municipalities with the funding they'll need to drive greater waste diversion to meet and to exceed that 50% waste reduction target and to provide recommendations to government for the long-term stability of the blue box program.

Referring back to the resolution, I'll quote one portion. It "Resolves that the province must now employ cost-effective, modern technology, which is presently available as a progressive process to manage and dispose of waste." By and large, this resolution has admirable goals: We all want to see more waste diversion; we all want to see less landfill, less garbage; we want to see more technology, as this resolution calls for.

In the resolution, if we employ more technology, we have to be cognizant of the cost, the cost to industry. The question is, does this resolution mandate the taxpayer to foot the bill for development of new technology or are options open that it be funded through the private sector, through the WDO, through municipalities, through users themselves? If the member means the broader scope in this resolution, I can support this resolution.

The blue box program, as I said, is only part of the waste management initiatives available. I believe it's important to note a number of other achievements. In 1997 the government introduced tough new landfill standards to protect the environment, while making the approvals process more timely, certain and more cost-effective. This has involved major reforms to improve Ontario's environmental assessment system, including a more effective approvals process that is more workable and efficient. The changes were designed to provide a faster yes to projects that are environmentally acceptable and a faster no to ones that are not.

These are several of a number of important reforms which, together with the track record in the blue box program and, as I am stressing, current and future efforts of the Waste Diversion Organization, we feel demonstrate the government's commitment to protecting Ontario's environment and to meeting our waste diversion objectives.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I would like to take this opportunity first to recognize a municipality that has not only achieved but exceeded the goals of 50% diversion by the year 2000, and that municipality is the city of St Thomas. The city of St Thomas recognized that they had to do something with their waste management and they have more than met that goal by 60% of the municipal household waste being diverted from landfill sites.

You talk about the province committing to and embracing diversion programs. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. But there has got to be a caveat attached to that statement, and that is that there has to be financial support from the province. You can't continue to download new programs on to municipalities. Municipalities require financial support. There used to be financial support for the blue box program, but when this government was elected they cancelled that funding to the blue box program. That was a real shame.

If you're going to look at issues, why don't you look at the possibility of deposits on bottles and cans across this province? Why don't you look at what you've done to your beer can levy, the environmental tax on beer can levy? That tax was supposed to be dedicated to help environmental programs. That has now gone into general revenues. Now for beer cans you're paying an additional levy, which is totally unfair.

You talk about consumers. We all here in this room very much have a choice. We can choose not to buy a product because of packaging and we do have that ability. But the province has to take the lead. But in order for them to be successful, they need to have that financial support offered to municipalities.

Let me just relay our own situation. In 1991 the city of St Thomas found its landfill closed. We recognized that we had to do something. In 1994 we introduced a pilot project with 1,000 households which developed a three-stream system of waste management: first, the blue box; second, your regular garbage system; but the most important component of the garbage system was the green box, the compostainer. Then we went city-wide with this project in 1995.

The large compostainer sits in your backyard just like a regular garbage can and is collected on a biweekly basis. Into that compostainer you can put your yard waste, your coffee grounds, your pizza boxes, your milk containers and a whole variety of items that previously weren't acceptable to go into the blue box and would have gone into a landfill. So for St Thomas, a city of 12,000 households, we have been able to achieve a waste diversion of 60%, all at a cost of $107 per household. It's a very cost-effective way to help the environment and also keep costs low.

The compost that goes through the central composting facility comes out 26 days later as new soil-soil we can use within our parks system, soil householders can use, soil that can be put on agricultural fields. There's a good end product as a result of that.

St Thomas has also taken the initiative to make sure that leaves and woodcuttings don't go into landfills. They offer a regular service so that you can take wood down to a chipping facility.

We've tried very much to be a leader; to ensure that we would keep out of landfills items that shouldn't be in landfills.

I want to talk a little bit about the Toronto garbage situation. I think it's incumbent on the provincial government to be making it clear to the city of Toronto, which wants to be the province of Toronto, if they're going to be shipping their waste elsewhere, that everything possible is done to ensure it has been fully recycled and blue boxed. It should be composted so that the residual that's going to a landfill site is inert and is not going to be producing a leachate.

I think there's a real opportunity for all municipalities in Ontario to look at what has been going on in St Thomas and use that example for other municipalities and for one of the largest, or probably the largest, garbage producers in Ontario, the city of Toronto. Before the city of Toronto starts to ship that garbage out, let's make sure we've done everything possible to ensure that garbage is going to be safe and is not going to be producing a leachate that's going to cause long-term environmental effects.

I commend the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex for his resolution, but the financial support of the province must be there.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I must admit when I read the resolution-and I'm going to read it aloud so I can tell you, although the word hasn't been mentioned yet, about a concern I have that I want to talk about.

"That this House,

"

(1) Acknowledges that only 30% of Ontario's waste diversion goal for the year 2000 has been reached so far;

"

(2) Resolves that the province of Ontario must commit to and embrace a diversion program which reduces the need for landfill space and garbage disposal;

"

(3) Resolves that the province must now employ cost-effective, modern technology, which is presently available as a progressive process to manage and dispose of waste; and

"

(4) Urges that a more aggressive objective than the present goal of 50% be established to divert waste away from landfill sites."

I have to admit that when I saw this resolution, alarm bells went off. I listened carefully to the member's speech on television from my office-I wasn't in here-for mention of the word "incineration," because it's not in here, and when we talk about modern technology and using the latest modern technology, alarm bells do go off.

I could say I started my political career fighting garbage incineration. I never knew I'd end up as a politician, as a result, fighting some other kind of garbage. That one went by, I believe. But here I am, and I would like a reassurance from the member who brought this before us today-although I admit he didn't mention it-because I want to support this resolution but I certainly don't want to do anything that will encourage garbage incineration again in any way.

There was a proposal back in the 1980s to build two giant garbage incinerators in south Riverdale, which had already been very badly polluted by lead, which I've mentioned in this House before, and by all kinds of other industry in the area. We had the old Commissioner Street incinerator there, and after we killed the plans to build two garbage incinerators in the riding, we finally got that one-the old, polluting incinerator-closed down.

Of course, there are a lot of people and a lot of big corporations who continue to lobby the government and others to allow incineration into Ontario, saying that the technology is so great now that there really is virtually no pollution. That's absolutely impossible. Even with the best pollution abatement equipment, you've got a problem where there are going to be some dioxins going up the stack and furans and other dangerous pollutants spewed into our air, into our water and into the food that's growing in our fields. Even if it's a tiny amount, there is zero-very clear now-zero tolerance for dioxins. That's one part.

Also, the more pollutants, the better the equipment, the-whatever they call it these days-abatement technology, the more you actually have going into what's called the fly ash, or the bottom ash, that becomes hazardous waste and has to be disposed of. That's getting increasingly difficult to do. With air pollution the way it is today, and more and more knowledge we have about the danger and the fact that air pollution and smog causes deaths and all kinds of hospital admissions and problems, the last thing we need is anybody talking about incineration as one of the new technologies we could be using in this province.

The other thing I'd like to say about incineration is that in fact it would go against the member's resolution today, which is really focused on the three Rs-I believe it is, it should be. Incineration has a negative impact on those three Rs, because these big, huge garbage incinerators need a lot of waste. They have to burn at a very high temperature, because it's the mixing of plastics and certain other things that creates the dioxins and furans right in the burning process. The higher the temperature, the less of that there is, so it's critical that it's kept at a very high, steady temperature at all times.

So in fact it's the wrong way to go just in terms of resource completion, when we're just burning this stuff up, and the need to have a lot of it.

Having said all of that and getting on the record again that we, as a government, banned garbage incineration as an option, and that is still very much the NDP position, it is the wrong way to go for all of the reasons I outlined and more. So now, coming back to what I hope is really the intent of the resolution today: the three Rs. On January 13, 2000, I released a press release entitled "WDO is more PR than three R". The WDO, for members who may not be aware, is Toronto's new Waste Diversion Organization, which was set up-I believe the minister then was perhaps Norm Sterling.

There have been so many environment ministers that I can't remember whether it was him or Tony Clement. What it did, and we pointed it out at the time, was let the private sector waste producers off the hook when it came to paying for Ontario's blue box program. If we want to make this work, we have to have a partnership between the province and the municipalities.

I can't help but, as a representative from a Toronto riding, when I hear a lot of Toronto-bashing this morning in terms of the municipality not doing enough-I know that the city of Toronto, having been a city councillor at the time because, as I said, fighting garbage incineration brought me to ending up running for Toronto city council as an environmentalist, worked very hard prior to that to get the blue box recycling program up and running. We've learned a lot from then about how we can do things differently and how in fact recycling should be the last option of the three Rs. We should be reusing as much as possible.

Toronto has done an awful lot to divert waste, and has been virtually on its own. The government allowed the provincial funding that had been in place to die and took some time before they got back to it, and then what they did was create this Waste Diversion Organization. It lets them off the hook because they would rather see municipal ratepayers continue to carry the blue box burden than ask their industrial friends to pay for the recycling of the waste they produce. The municipal taxpayers-this was at January 13, 2000-were paying $46 million annually to support the blue box program.

The announcement that was made devoted only $4 million a year from the LCBO and said nothing in the way of direct, private sector producer contributions to help municipalities.

I would say to the member that it's all very well to say that the city of Toronto isn't doing enough on its part. It's a huge city and there are a lot of people who come in from out of the city to work who generate garbage here as well. We've got to make sure that the province is there and that the industrial waste producers are paying their fair share. I recognize the member said packaging is a huge part of that, and I appreciate his comments on that and support them. A lot more needs to be done and industry itself needs to be doing it.

But this WDO did nothing to bring about private sector producer funding for the actual day-to-day cost of running Ontario's blue box program. It handed them control of the program, but did nothing to bring about any kind of funding. Blue boxing should be under public control. The government promised that environment and consumer groups would be represented on the board. They weren't there. The Recycling Council of Ontario was there, but it's all industrial reps, some of whom I have a great deal of respect for. We were promised those consumer and environmental representatives and, all but one, they're just not there.

The very industries that are the biggest producers of waste have a majority of the votes, giving them effective control of the WDO and the future of the blue box program. The provincial government then had an opportunity to come back in a good, strong partnership with the municipalities, including Toronto, to divert more waste. There is a goal to divert 50% by 2000 and the government has admitted that it's not going to be able to meet that goal.

The Tories cut blue box funding in the early days of their mandate, killed the project for the LCBO to implement the deposit-return system and opened the door to dramatic increases in the importation of US hazardous waste to Ontario landfills. That's some of the record of the government. Perhaps this resolution before us today can help convince the member's government that they need to come back and start funding and playing a real partnership role again in waste diversion in this province.

The hazardous waste issue is one I simply must get to for a moment in talking about waste because of the Safety-Kleen situation that was raised in the House yesterday, which is very troublesome. Hazardous waste from the US has increased. In 1995 there was already too much coming in, 50,000 tonnes a year. It's grown to 288,000 tonnes a year now. Ontario's now open for business for US hazardous waste. It's making Ontario into a waste dump. The toxic waste that goes to the Safety-Kleen landfill in Sarnia has just filed for

chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States. Safety-Kleen is going bankrupt and there will soon be nowhere to put the 288,000 tonnes of toxic waste that the Harris government has invited into Ontario.

The huge landfill, as pointed out, in Keele Valley will be closing in two years. We read in yesterday's newspapers that farmers in northern Ontario are so worried about the plan to ship Toronto garbage to the Adams mine site that they put up a roadblock to protest this crazy scheme. I understand why northerners don't want to take the garbage, although there are some who do because they've been bribed. They've been promised some jobs and people get desperate for jobs, but there's real concern about the water.

We've known for years that the Keele Valley landfill was going to close, and the government hasn't paid any attention to it and isn't ready for it. They tell you it's a municipal responsibility. Our government-I guess rather stupidly in hindsight-thought we were doing the responsible thing, because there are so many problems dealing municipality by municipality with garbage disposal, and we took it upon ourselves to take responsibility. Boy, did we get in trouble. It was the wrong thing to do because no matter who's dealing with garbage-wrong in the sense that it's really politically stupid. We nearly got killed over that one, but we did decide to take on that responsibility.

This government immediately-I understand the political reasons better than they do, believe me, the political downfall to this one-put it completely on to the municipalities to deal with, but their not taking any responsibility for it and their downloading and amalgamation have left Toronto ill-equipped to solve this problem. They know that at the end of the day citizens will look to Queen's Park for a solution. If you look historically at what's happened with garbage dumps, it's extremely controversial, extremely difficult.

At the end of the day, once it becomes an issue-believe me, this government has been very lucky. I know the Liberal government before the NDP government was dealing with horrible issues around landfill and then we continued to try to deal with those. It hasn't been an issue for a while, but it's coming up again, and let me tell the Harris government, the members who are here today, that when it does, they're not going to be able to escape taking some responsibility for it at the end of the day.

I would say to the member that I think I support his resolution. I know he's going to have two minutes to sum up at the end and I would like reassurance that this technology language in here just applies to the three Rs-composting, recycling and reusing and all of those things-and that we're not talking about incineration.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I'm happy to join in today's consideration of the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex's resolution regarding how we deal with the environmental choices, which are always tough in terms of garbage disposal.

It's interesting to follow the member for Broadview-Greenwood in terms of her being a fighter for the environment and her great concern going back to the release of dioxins in the air over the Commissioner Street landfill and the whole area of burning waste. But in point of fact the old city of Toronto made some progressive moves in terms of diverting waste to steam in the Toronto District Heating Corp. I think it's a good example of what the city has been able to do on its own, and it didn't get a lot of money from anywhere else.

What I find ironic in this whole debate over the last few days about the culture of blame involving the environment is that it's easy when you're out of government-and I have been out of government. When you're on a city council, you get this opportunity-the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale may get that opportunity some day-to engage a little more in the culture of blame, but one of the problems around the tough choices you make in selecting how you're going to deal with the garbage from society is the whole point of risk minimization.

It's quite ironic. The member for Broadview-Greenwood is very concerned about the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex's technology dimension, how he wants to move in this area. She is very concerned about the release of dioxins and that there are no technologies available that are 100% foolproof; if you have one component, one part per million of a dioxin from burning, then that invalidates the technology.

Yet it's interesting to note that when you look in the context of risk minimization in terms of choices in how you're going to deal with garbage, and the health problems related to it, there didn't seem to be too much of a problem when Dr Walter Pitman engaged in a two-year consultation, when Mrs Grier was the environment minister. They went around the province and then they produced this very fat, elaborate report-25 copies we got at Etobicoke city council, about three for each member-of where they could set up garbage sites on some of the prime farmland.

The member for Dufferin would know very much more about that than we do. We never hear anything about that from her. I think they spent about $50 million.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): They wouldn't tell us.

Mr Hastings: They weren't going to tell exactly.

Whitevale was another area, out in Durham, where there was a big fight over garbage.

Mr Guzzo: That was Ruth Grier, though. She's gone now. So is Bob Rae.

Mr Hastings: But it's a good idea to remember these things.

The one that I really want to put on the record today-you talk about risk minimization, where you want to make sure your urban population is protected, contained as much as possible, against the pollutants coming out, as the member for Broadview-Greenwood is with the burning of garbage, and I think it's a rightful concern. But there wasn't much concern back in the days of the NDP government when the Ministry of Health of that day-and it wasn't until Minister Wilson came in in early July 1995. Do you know what the ministry proposed in the government of that day?

A level 4 lab right in the middle of about 250,000 people in the ridings of Etobicoke North, Etobicoke Centre and Etobicoke-Lakeshore. What does this level 4 lab involve? Well, at that time the ministries of health in Ottawa and in Ontario wanted to locate an area where they could do some very serious research on the worst types of viruses that mankind has ever seen. Two of them are the most ravaging, if you've ever read anything about it-ebola. If you get ebola into you, and if you've ever seen some of the pictures of the victims, the blood rushes out, the skin darkens and you die a very painful death.

There sure wasn't much risk minimization when the NDP government of that day was proposing this level 4 virus lab in North Etobicoke. Marburg was another one.

What did we do? We cancelled the thing so that the federal government would take the appropriate responsibility, and they put it in Winnipeg, away from urban populations. Surely the member for St Thomas wouldn't want to defend that indefensible decision, to go ahead with this type of level 4 lab in the middle of a large urban population. And to boot, we had Pearson International Airport-flew right over it. Were we prepared? Did we have the security? Even the police-were they consulting about it?

The members opposite are great at always condemning us for never undertaking sufficient consultation. Guess how many hours of consultation we had on that proposal? Two hours, member for Broadview-Greenwood. This was a proposal-

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I would like to say that I'm pleased to speak on this resolution. This whole issue of environment and environmental responsibility, it's a culture of responsibility, it's not a culture of blame. The students who are sitting up in the galleries understand what it means when we talk about recycling and the culture of responsibility.

I want to say that Mr Beaubien's resolution acknowledges that only 30% of Ontario's waste diversion goal for the year 2000 has been reached, and I certainly have to agree with that.

Secondly, it resolves, "That the province of Ontario must commit to and embrace a diversion program which reduces the need for landfill space and garbage disposal." I say that the second part of this resolution, that Ontario "must commit to and embrace a diversion program," is quite simplistic. I understand we must look at how we dispose of our garbage. On the other hand, it's a lot more complex than that. I believe there has to be leadership on the part of the provincial government, and it has to also deal with the source. There are no incentives at the source, where this garbage is being produced.

One of the reasons that the waste diversion goal hasn't been reached is because there has been no substantive commitment on the part of the provincial government. Basically what they have done is make wonderful motherhood statements on diversion, but they really have taken away some of the tools of the municipalities by taking away funding for blue boxes etc, so that the burden now rests on the municipalities.

The other problem I have, and I guess it's quite confusing sometimes, because when we talk about diversion I have a contradiction in my own riding when it comes to the expansion of a hazardous toxic landfill site that was done in 1997. They went from 100 acres to 300 acres. In 30 years we filled that 100-acre site up, and over the last two or three years we've also filled the other 200 acres. Why? Because under this government the process of expansion-they did it quietly. They had no public hearings for the expansion under the Environmental Protection Act and under the Environmental Assessment Act.

They literally opened their doors to toxic hazardous waste from other parts of the world, not just the United States. That landfill has had importation of waste from as far away as Saudi Arabia and from the Caribbean, and it's coming to Sarnia-Lambton. Why? Because we have not kept up with regulations to keep the standard of how we landfill. First of all, impose stricter standards. No, we can't do that because there is no real will, because under this government we have to take hazardous waste and it's now a commodity. It's a commodity just like any other produce is.

Although I commend the wording of this resolution by the member, I must say it was under his watch that we actually expanded a provincial landfill site in my constituency that is causing a great number of problems and will continue to do so. It's a heck of a legacy to leave our young people for the future.

Number 3 of this resolution says that "the province must now employ cost-effective, modern technology." I would hope this does not mean we're going to go into incinerators. I hope this means we have to have a comprehensive and substantive discussion and substantive will to actually deal with all of the aspects of our waste, from where we produce it to our recycling and then our diversion or how we're going to landfill.

The Acting Speaker: In response, the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

Mr Beaubien: I would like to thank the members for Timiskaming-Cochrane, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Elgin-Middlesex-London, Broadview-Greenwood, Etobicoke North and Sarnia-Lambton for their comments.

As I mentioned, I didn't want to pit this problem between rural and urban communities. However, it does raise a few flags when I hear comments on an

article which appeared in a Toronto newspaper not too long ago. One councillor was quoted: "Asked why he didn't simply go for yesterday's portion of the tour, he said he wasn't going to spend four hours on the road getting back from Detroit. `Forget it ... that's stretching the envelope beyond reason.'" The second councillor said, "`They take me to see a garbage dump ... and I say, OK, there's the hole.'" That's exactly the problem that I'm talking about.

I don't want to see a fight between rural and urban Ontario. I think basically I'm urging the city of Toronto to talk to small communities, to discuss the problems they have. As the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London pointed out, his former community is dealing with their problems. I have many communities in my riding that are dealing with their problems by using the three Rs, by using further technology. I've heard "incineration"-I don't even want to talk about incineration.

I mentioned methane digesters, which is very acceptable, which has been proved quite safe in other jurisdictions, but there seems to be a reluctance to go on to new processes. Until we go on to new processes, we're going to be stuck in the same generation with the blue box. The blue box did a good job; there's no doubt about it. It educated the public. But we must go beyond the blue box system. We must expand on this. I would like also to inform the members that as a government, we have to deal with the packaging industry.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debating the item. The question will be put at 12 noon.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This morning I am moving that this House:

Commend the government's initiative of stiffer penalties for drunk drivers and the use of ignition interlock for those convicted three times, and after, a 10-year minimum sentence is served, and that remedial measures programs completed;

Ask the Ministry of Transportation to re-examine the use of ignition interlock for individuals convicted of impaired driving prior to the third offence;

Resolve that the province ensure that the use of ignition interlock would be an additional administrative sanction and would be in addition to court sentences;

Encourage the Ministry of Transportation to examine ignition interlock initiatives in other jurisdictions;

Encourage the Ministry of Transportation to continue consultations with stakeholders working to eradicate drunk driving;

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.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Cambridge has up to 10 minutes.

Mr Martiniuk: My resolution from this side of the House will also be addressed by my colleague Garfield Dunlop, member for Simcoe North, who, I should add, has worked closely with victims' groups in regard to the drunk driving issue and feels very strongly in that regard. I will also be sharing my time with John Hastings, member for Etobicoke North, who has always been a strong advocate for victims.

A sudden death, an untimely death of a young adult, an innocent victim. We read the declining statistic of 232 deaths due to drunk driving in 1996, but it doesn't seem to register. We seem to accept these numbers as a statistic of traffic accidents, the cost of automobile travel, but it is a great deal more than that.

Friends of mine for over 30 years recently lost their young son in an alcohol-related accident. When I attended the funeral, I saw the anguish and the grief of the family and friends and it had a great impact on me. It was a tragedy. It was a tragedy, because it could have been prevented, and we as a society must do everything possible to stop this slaughter of innocents on our roads.

At the beginning of summer, Ontario families will travel in record numbers to cottages, to visit with friends and family across this great province. It is more important than ever, then, that we send a strong message to Ontarians that we will not tolerate drunk drivers on our roads.

It must sink in that drinking and driving is the leading cause of death on Ontario roadways. Families who travel in our province deserve to be protected against this ever-present threat of a drunk driver. The victim may be a child, a mother, a brother, family or friends. In every case, the victim of a drunk driver is not only the family but in fact our entire community.

In the most recent statistics, 232 people were killed by drunk drivers using Ontario roads. This number was approximately 25% of all road fatalities. Yet in recent reports we have 21,481 Criminal Code convictions in one year for alcohol-related offences. To put that into perspective, that number of people would fill the Air Canada Centre to capacity, and then some. And these are only those who are caught and convicted.

In 1997, at least 4,018 drunk drivers, 11 per day, were involved in accidents in Ontario where injuries or fatalities were caused. We can no longer tolerate this behaviour as legislators, and we must use every available weapon against this horrific crime.

At present, Ontario has some of the toughest drinking and driving sanctions in Canada. In the early 1990s, to the credit of the former government, graduated licensing was introduced for new drivers on our roads, and drinking and driving for new drivers was totally prohibited. In 1995, we doubled the dedicated funding for RIDE programs, sending a strong signal that the police would be out in force combating drunk driving.

In 1996, we introduced a 90-day administrative licence suspension, and that hopefully will have an effect on the statistics being released. We also introduced a strongly focused marketing program aimed at drunk drivers and the risk to Ontario families.

In 1997, we increased fines for drivers who drive while suspended, and increased resources for courts and police enforcement.

In 1998, we introduced mandatory remedial measures prior to relicensing, and increased licence suspension periods to three years and a lifetime for second and subsequent offenders respectively.

In 1999, the government continued its tough stance against drunk driving by introducing a vehicle impounding program for drivers caught driving while suspended for Criminal Code offences. That vehicle is impounded no matter who the owner is.

In 1999 the government also acknowledged the value of devices such as ignition interlock by offering a potential reduction in lifetime suspension for third-time offenders, after 10 years, who met certain criteria, such as 10 years with no illegal driving offences; successful completion of remedial courses; graduated licence eligibility; proof of insurance; and agreement, of course, to pay for the installation and monitoring of the interlock unit. While this program is a good first step, I believe we can investigate how this technology can be used to save lives in the near future.

My resolution asks the Ministry of Transportation to invest in and implement the expansion of the use of a device known as an ignition interlock. I believe this new technology will save lives. Consultations will have to take place with the stakeholders, including the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, the umbrella group that includes PRIDE and MADD. It will also have to take place with the police, crowns and others. The Ontario automobile association has already approved this resolution.

Mr Speaker, could I take this time to ask for unanimous consent from this House to show the instrument we are dealing with when I talk about an interlock unit?

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Martiniuk: Through the miracle of modern technology and miniaturization, this is the total unit involved. This would be the computer part of it. This would be the connection for either downloading or for connection to the automobile. This, of course, is the instrument one would blow into. It's rather compact. The cost of installation, as I understand it, runs at about $150 and the cost of monitoring per month runs at about $90. With the miracle of miniaturization, this technology is now available to save lives.

The information recorded on this machine also would be things like the number of attempts to start the vehicle while breathing over a prescribed limit of alcohol in your blood and things of that kind, which could be subsequently monitored, of course, by the Ministry of Transportation. With the advances in technology, it is virtually impossible to bypass the system, and concerns about false readings from perfumes, cough syrups or substitute samples by others have essentially been eliminated.

I should say that the instrument in question was provided to me by Guardian Interlock Systems, Mr Ian Marples.

This device is truly a life-saving tool that could be used to its fullest as a weapon against drunk drivers on our roads. I would ask all members of the House to support this resolution. I should take this opportunity to thank my friend and colleague Mike Gravelle for pointing out the-

The Acting Speaker: Thank you; the member's time has expired.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I rise today to speak on this matter on behalf of the official opposition. We of course support the resolution. The resolution is in support of a crackdown on drinking and driving. The Ontario Liberals want safer streets and safer highways and want to stand behind Mothers Against Drunk Driving and all those groups both representing and supporting victims of drunk driving, so of course we will support the resolution.

That said, it is regrettable that this is simply a resolution. As ever when it comes to matters of justice, this government is all talk and no action. We should have a government bill dealing with mandatory interlock, not to be phased in over a 10-year time period, not to be phased in for third-time offenders or second-time offenders, but to be mandated for first-time offenders. We need a government bill on that immediately, and I call upon the government to do so.

It's interesting. This government is a little slow off the mark to deal with the important issue of ensuring that no conditional sentences are permitted for drunk driving causing injury or death. On April 13 of this year, both myself and Mothers Against Drunk Driving held a conference in which we called upon the government to ensure that no conditional sentences would be sought by the prosecutors, by the crowns, and if they were ever handed down by a judge that they would be appealed. In particular, we called for a zero-tolerance policy. That was on April 13.

What I said at the time was: "Ontario Liberals join victims of drunk drivers who believe that the Harris government is too soft on offenders. We need to send a loud message to Ontarians that drunk driving is a serious crime that simply won't be tolerated."

Thanks to the efforts of MADD on that day, the Attorney General had to meet with MADD. The Hon Mr Flaherty had not responded to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving letter to the Hon Mr Flaherty after he had been appointed which would have led to this meeting. As a result of this embarrassment, frankly, in the media, a meeting was held, and lo and behold, on April 24 the Attorney General announced that in fact a zero-tolerance policy would be instituted with respect to drunk driving causing injury or death. We obviously support that because we called on the government to do so.

My other comment is with respect to the specifics of the interlock program. Back when the bill that has been referred to, Bill 183, was initially introduced, 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 everybody was calling his office asking the question, "Why wait?" with respect to the interlock devices. He said at that time: "The interlock is a proven and reliable device.

There is no reason to wait to start implementing its use, even on a first offence, when we find a high BAC driver. The recidivist is most likely to be found in this group. But as the bill is written, we may have to wait 20 years to see the first interlock installed."

That's the problem right now with the state of interlock devices in Ontario. I would call upon this government to take the advice of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which was given a long time ago. We're talking about June 1997, and we're hearing a resolution patting themselves on the back here in the spring of the year 2000. So we would call upon them to take the advice of MADD and bring forth legislation that would ensure that the recidivist is addressed at the outset. As soon as somebody is convicted of such an offence, one of these interlock devices should be mandated and put in that person's car.

Lastly, I'm going to share my time with the members from Thunder Bay-Superior North and Essex. Again, we support the resolution, but the government is not doing enough in this area. They're talking the talk about doing something to stop the plague of drunk driving, but they're not doing anything.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey): Oh, give us a break.

Mr Bryant: The parliamentary secretary to the Attorney General says, "Give me a break." Stop bringing forth resolutions and start bringing forth some legislation so we can actually do something. Take the advice of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, take the advice of all those victims of crime who say, "Put the interlock devices in right now."

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to rise and support this particular motion. The member brings forward some valid points in his debate, talks about an issue that is important to all of us, and that is an issue of safety on our highways. We want to know, when we get behind the wheel of our car and are driving down the 401, 400, Highway 11 or wherever it might be, that we don't have somebody coming at us in their vehicle in an intoxicated state. Far too often, when those accidents happen-and I have no other way of finding the word-people get killed.

This is what this is all about, to make sure we as legislators find a way to minimize some of the danger on the highways from those people who habitually drive while under suspension, in some cases not allowing them to get that far, but more important, to deal with those people who are really habitual drinkers who have a problem trying to stay out from behind the wheel when they're drinking. So I want to say up front that we support this.

I also want to say that our former Minister of Transportation, Gilles Pouliot, had done a lot of work with various people within the ministry and within the private sector on this issue, did a lot of work to study this, take a look at it, see what needs to be done. I'm glad to see that the member opposite is taking some of that work and bringing it forward and recognizing the work we did as a government to deal with this issue. I'm glad to be here today to support this initiative.

I wanted to say I took the liberty of going across the way, of picking up what I now have the permission to utilize in the Legislature. It's a very neat little device, the idea being that if a person is charged with drinking and driving and eventually gets their licence back, in certain cases what would end up happening is that that particular driver would have this piece of equipment installed by order of the court. The equipment is very easy to use. It's put into the car, plugged into the electronics, and it works simply by putting your key into the ignition, turning it, and it won't start.

You've got to blow into the machine, and the machine will say if your blood alcohol level is below the acceptable point. If so, the car starts; if not, it doesn't start. This is a neat little device, when you think about it, made by Guardian Interlock; "WR2 model," it says-a little bit of advertising for the company. What it does that is more important, in my view, is that it also records those particular occasions when the driver has tried to take the car.

So we can go back and look, from a law enforcement perspective and a Ministry of Transportation licensing perspective, at the occurrences of that driver trying to drive that car while intoxicated. I think that is a really good part of the system, because it gives us some of the data we don't presently have sufficiently within the system. It allows us to look at the measures we're going to need to take to deal with it.

I want to thank Mr Marples for allowing us to utilize this equipment. If anybody's interested, they can telephone him at 905-670-2296. His e-mail is irmarple@acs-corp.com. I thought I'd give you a little plug in the Legislature free of charge on behalf of the NDP. We want to send some business your way, trying to make business grow in Ontario.

I say this categorically. I support what you're doing, no question, but we also have to realize that this doesn't solve the entire problem. What we're now doing by accepting this particular motion is to say we will deal with those people who have been charged with the first offence. It doesn't deal with those people who are out there driving who are going to get charged or, unfortunately, get into an accident and kill somebody. That's the other issue that this Legislature has to deal with.

In fairness to this government, it has been, as was the previous NDP government, very aggressive at finding ways to deal with drivers who are intoxicated. I can remember, in the last Parliament under the Conservative government, at least on one or two occasions passing legislation in this House where we tightened up the rules around drinking and driving. I commend the government for that. I don't often stand up and say the Conservatives have done good work, but on that particular issue I think we can agree that the government has been very aggressive in dealing with the issues of drinking and driving.

I also want to acknowledge the work our government did. When we were in government, from 1990 to 1995, we also went a long way to deal with the issue of those first occurrences of somebody who's drinking and driving, raising the bar in terms of when people lose their licence and for how long, and being a lot tougher on people who are driving while intoxicated.

I've got to say for the record, we know that the thing that really prevents people from getting behind the wheel and drinking and driving is the fear of getting caught. Unfortunately, no government-I'm not going to be partisan on this one-has really dealt sufficiently with that issue, I believe. This particular device is only going to deal with those people who did get caught and where there is a conviction. But we know most of the charges before provincial courts now are first offences. Unfortunately, this device is not going to work in that case, because how would we put it in the car if a person we don't yet know about has a habit of drinking and driving?

What we need to do as legislators is have the government move to find ways of deterring people from drinking and driving, and what's the biggest thing? It's the fear of getting caught. If I've had a couple of drinks and I know there's a real, good possibility I will get caught drinking and driving, I will not get behind the wheel of the car. That's how most people think. If people think, "Oh, I can get away with it. I saw my buddy at the bar.

We were at the Balmoral Hotel or the Palmour Tavern or the Kap Inn and I saw my buddy get in the car and he drove home and he didn't get caught," it sends a message to people out there that maybe it's worth taking the risk, maybe there isn't a consequence to our actions, and people end up going out and doing that.

Listen, it's a dangerous, dangerous practice. Unfortunately, we have far too many people who've been killed in this province and others where people have gone out and taken that chance. If we're able to put deterrents out there by making sure our RIDE programs are really beefed up so that when you go out on Friday night, Saturday night or even during a weeknight-we see police officers out on Highway 11, we see them in our communities, we see them on Highway 400 stopping people and doing the RIDE program activity of looking at what's going on in the car and in some cases getting them to blow and charging them.

If drivers know there's a really good chance of getting caught, they're not going to drive when they're drinking.

Unfortunately, we're at the point in this province where people haven't got the message, and far too many people still, even with the work we've done and the progress we've made up to now, are driving while they're drunk. I think the reason is that there are not sufficient deterrents to stop them. We can put in the strictest laws we want. We can decide as a Legislature to put laws in place that say, "We're going to ban you from driving for life." It might sound like a really good thing politically, but at the end of the day if the person thinks they can get away with it, it doesn't mean a hill of beans.

So I call on the government to make sure we have the funding in place to fund our police officers across this province, both at the municipal level and at the provincial level, so they've got the tools they need to do the deterrent things that need to be done by stopping people on regular occasions in those areas where they suspect there might be drinking and driving. For example, there may be weddings going on, activities going on within our communities, certainly around some of our more frequented watering holes, as we call them in northern Ontario. It would be a good thing that the police do a better job of that.

The other part we also need to look at is continuing our battle when it comes to public education. We can't stress enough that if you repeat a message often enough, people finally begin to understand, hear it and repeat it. You only have to look at McDonald's. My God, you drive by McDonald's and everybody's mouth salivates, even though we don't like them half the time. Why? Because we've heard the ad so many times, we want to stop in for a quarter-pounder.

My point is that if we spend the kind of money we need to in developing ad campaigns that appear on radio and television and in our papers that are aimed at getting people to stop drinking and driving and to break that habit, that also could be fairly effective.

I just say to MADD and other people who have lost children, husbands and loved ones in car accidents, what's the cost of saving a human life? Yes, it might mean we have to spend a fair amount of money-I wouldn't say it's billions but certainly in the millions of dollars-but when it comes to saving a human life, I don't think you can put a cost on that. Unfortunately, I think all of us have an experience in our life where we know somebody who died or we know of somebody who died as a result of somebody drinking and driving, and we know what the cost has been for the family.

I think back to one particular accident where a father and two children died in a car accident on Highway 576 going out to Iroquois Falls. Unfortunately, they were hit by a driver who had been drinking and driving.

Mr Murdoch: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It's my privilege to point out that students from a school in Grey county are here listening to Mr Bisson talk. I'd like to just point that out.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. As you know, that's not a point of privilege, but we all welcome them.

Mr Bisson: We welcome those people from Grey county. We certainly know they're well represented by the member, but they can do a lot better with one of us. I had to get that shot in. I know the member well. We actually get along fairly well together.

I just want to say that advertising would be another effective way of being able to find proactive ways to get people to stop drinking and driving.

The other thing we need to look at as well, and this is a very tough one, is the responsibility of people who are holding events where alcohol is being served. I'm a little leery of how you get into this one, because you don't want to be so obstructionist that you make the job of bar owners tougher than it already is. I think we all recognize that business is not what it used to be before and a lot of them are struggling out there in the hotel industry to make ends meet. We need to find some way of enforcing the ability of bar owners to pull the keys off somebody if they're drinking.

I've seen it when I've been in bars before where a waitress or a bar owner tries to do the responsible thing and is given a hassle by a frequent patron: "No, you're not taking my keys. If you ever do that, I'm never coming back to this establishment again." We need to find ways to give the bar owner and the waiters a little of the support they need to try to halt a situation before it actually becomes a potentially lethal one.

I don't know how you'd do that. I'm not this morning suggesting how, but it would be interesting if we were, by way of a standing committee of this Legislature, to look at that issue and to talk to people in the hotel industry to see what we can do to help them, in a proactive way that's not going to kill their business, to deal with the issue of drinking and driving. I think that's one of the other areas we're able to do, so I think that would be interesting.

I want to say again that we support this initiative. We think it is a good idea. I think it's long overdue. I certainly hope and expect that the government's going to adopt this motion along with the NDP, and I would imagine the Liberals will do the same. Once we've passed it here at second reading-I want to say for the record that far too often private members' bills don't get anywhere after they've been passed at second reading or a motion.

I want to say to Mr Marples that I will be one trying to make sure the government doesn't forget to get this thing to third reading so we actually adopt this policy to be able to make sure that over the summer months we're actually in a position to put these things in place.

Far too often there are some good ideas that members raise in this Legislature and, unfortunately, the process where government decides the business of the day makes it very difficult for individual members, even if they're government members-probably even more frustrating for them than it is for us, because I've been on the other side-to move those bills forward, which brings me to my very last point.

This is not to do with drinking and driving, but I'm sure you're all going to be interested. It is the issue of the need to advance parliamentary reform in this Legislature. I think private members' hour is one of the really neat places where we see members, more times than not-not always-bringing forward very good ideas that are good public policy issues, where we're able to progressively deal with an issues we need to give some attention to when it comes to dealing with some of the societal problems we have.

Unfortunately, the parliamentary system that we have today is very constrained by the sense that a government that's elected at 42% in the case of the Tories, or 38% in the case of the NDP, has an absolute majority in the House and can decide the business of the day and do what they want. Why should 42% of the population rule over the other 58%? I don't think it's fair. We need to take a look at the whole issue of proportional representation in this province, as across this country, so that we take away some of the partisanship in this place and we try to do more what we do here at private members' hour, which is to look at issues so that we can deal with societal problems.

You'll be interested to know that this upcoming weekend the NDP convention is going on in Hamilton. I know everybody wants to go and everybody wants to participate because one of the issues we will be dealing with is democratic reform. How do we move towards a system that's more the European system of parliamentary reform? How do we deal with issues like Internet voting? We want to increase the participation of people and how they vote. Should we look at the issue of how we utilize the Internet for that, or mail-in ballots or whatever it might be?

We also have to take a look at electoral reform so that big money doesn't play the role that it did in the last election. I believe the Tories got the majority that they got based on the amount of contributions they got to buy advertising. If we're going to really have fair elections that debate issues and not brand names, we have to have a system that limits campaign expenses in a way that we're actually talking about issues and not talking about, "I've got more money than you so I can outadvertise you," such as the difference between McDonald's and a private restaurant. Who's going to win out?

I invite people to participate by coming to my Web site, my advertising, my 40 seconds. People who want to be able to come and participate at conventions, we'll be telecasting our NDP convention out of Hamilton on the Internet, for the first time we believe in Ontario's history. You can come in, take a look at what's going on, take a look at the debates and participate by going to www.gillesbisson.com. That site will be up and running later on this afternoon. People will have the opportunity, as of tomorrow, to participate in the debates that I think need to happen.

With that, I thank you very much and am glad to support this resolution.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I'd like to start off consideration of this proposal by congratulating the member for Cambridge for again presenting an issue which has considerable concern not only in his riding and across southern Ontario and across this province but also in Canada. I know that he has done a lot of research in this area, brought in the technology on the interlock and gotten the permission of the Speaker or the members here to demonstrate how it would apply, how useful it can be.

From that start point, I think the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario has already, in a sense, incorporated this technology for third-time offenders in terms of a negotiated strategy for people who get the three-time suspensions. The issue here today is not only the introduction of the technology but how we as a government have proceeded over the last number of years.

I would commend the member for Timmins-James Bay. It's a fair acknowledgement to let him know that the previous government did bring in graduated driving. It was one of the first steps in this overall change of the culture of non-responsibility that we had from probably the 1970s and the 1980s. If you go back and look at the sentencing provisions, the actual sentences carried out by our judiciary, not only in Ontario but across Canada, I suspect you would see minor consequences: fines of maybe $250, perhaps up to $2,000 in some instances if you had a second- or third-time drunk driver, or somebody who was drinking and driving simultaneously, and we've seen that happen.

I think that was the start point to reversing the whole psychology of acceptance, that you could somehow drink and drive, because the consequences in those days weren't as detrimental, weren't as impacting as they are today. That has come about not only through changes socially and psychologically, but also in part-in great part, I would say-to the marvellous work of a whole set of concerned citizens and groups out there, from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to the Canadian Automobile Association, to the Ontario Trucking Association and other related groups. They kept pushing and pushing and pushing.

What unfortunately pushed them was the impact that many of their members felt personally through associations with relatives or family members.

We have seen time and again stories of tragedy and sadness involving loss of life or severe fatality or injury.

I think if you move from there into the graduated driving program, which we have made some adjustments to so that people can get the appropriate G1, G2 licensing today, to the comprehensive road safety bill that was introduced in June 1997-it's nearly three years ago now-on which we had committee hearings, that had been driven by a whole group of concerned people, players in this particular area, some of whom I've already mentioned, who worked in a group called Task Force on Road Safety `97 that brought in a whole range of recommendations dealing with how to focus on and channel and contain and put in place severe penalties for drinking and driving.

I think we have to some extent arrested that development.

But as the member from James Bay has mentioned, no government is ever going to stop, unfortunately, the acceptance in certain circles of drinking and driving. I'm not quite sure yet what groups they may be, but while society is pushing for a zero tolerance context, I believe there are still people in certain age groups who think it may be cool on occasion to drink and drive. In fact, I recall seeing in the media just recently a Quebec police officer on charges for dangerous driving after, ironically, taking a safe-driving course. It resulted in the death of four other police officers.

So I don't think there's any particular group that's immune from what can sometimes happen after you achieve a certain level of profes sionalism in whatever you do, and that was the case in that instance.

Getting back to what the Ministry of Transportation has done over the last number of years, particularly with the comprehensive road safety bill that we introduced, we put in place greater suspension timeframes: 90 days for people who drink and drive and refuse to have Breathalyzers taken. We have invested more money in and expanded the dedicated RIDE program, which I'm very proud of because RIDE was first initiated in Ontario. Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere was Reduce Impaired Driving in Etobicoke in the late 1970s.

John Bates was the primary influencer, the key hero, you could say, for establishing the start point of getting the culture of non-consequence changed into a culture of zero tolerance that we're moving towards much more vigorously today We also got rid of the flying tire problem with that legislation, thanks to the Ontario Trucking Association.

We've established lifetime suspensions for those who have three convictions for drunk driving, with an option to be reinstated after 10 years, provided they meet certain conditions, including that the offender has no subsequent driving offences, shows proof of insurance-which in some cases is very difficult for these people to achieve-and agrees to pay for the ignition interlock program. That's a new component here as you move towards this whole area of making people pay for consequences.

I think this is an excellent initiative and resolution on the part of the member for Cambridge and we will continue to see that it gets implemented in its various stages.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the member for Cambridge's resolution. I will be supporting it, and I think it's fair to say our caucus will be supporting it. It is an important resolution. I think it's one that all three parties would support. In terms of commending any one party, I think all three parties have moved along with society to understand that we need to do a great deal more to prevent drunk driving. The tragedies are still very much part of the reality of our existence. In 1996, one quarter of the road fatalities in Ontario involved a drinking driver and obviously that's an extraordinary amount.

I want to say, though, and my colleague from St Paul's made the comment, that this is only a resolution. We support it but I think it needs to be put into legislation. It's my understanding that the member for Simcoe North will be bringing forward a private member's bill in the fall that will put some teeth into this, and we would welcome that, but I also think it would be a good thing if the government brought forward a bill as well so that we can ensure we can get passage of these measures.

The truth is that ignition interlock obviously is a very effective device. To only be used for a third-time offender-I think we all probably would agree that we need to look at, as your resolution states, putting it in use in earlier stages.

It's also very important that we have the remedial measures program put in as early as possible. One thing I'm not entirely clear on, and perhaps you can clarify it for me, is that a first-time offender at this stage has a mandatory education program. I'm not sure if that's exactly the same as remedial measures program training. It's important that go in place earlier.

I have worked closely with the MADD

chapter in Thunder Bay. I believe Gary Duguid is the

chapter president at this stage.

The member for Etobicoke North pointed out that our culture and society have changed a great deal in the last 25 or 30 years and I think that is incredibly true. We are now at a stage in our society when zero tolerance is what is expected. I think we need to move towards ignition interlock being put in for first-time offenders.

The member for Timmins-James Bay made reference to the fact that there are people out there who have not yet been convicted. I would think that if the law were changed to make ignition interlock a reality for a first-time offender, that would have a real impact on people who continue to drink and drive, who would recognize that the consequences would be far more severe. Perhaps that's the best justification we can think of for moving in that direction, because there absolutely is no excuse for this.

It is extraordinary when one looks back to what it was like 25 or 30 years ago. I will say here, and perhaps I shouldn't, that I'm not immune from that criticism, and I think probably many others in the House as well. One needs to understand that things have changed. The tragedies that are absolutely part of this reality in our province in terms of drinking and driving are horrendous, and in every part of our province. Reference was made to certain parts of the province. The fact is it is something that is a tragic part of our society in all parts of the province and in all parts of Canada.

I am very pleased to support this with the recommendation that the private member's bill should come forward from the member for Simcoe North. I would be pleased to support it, but I hope there will be government action on this as well in terms of a government bill, because we need to continue to move forward, to continue to support stronger and stronger sanctions against drunk driving. The ignition interlock does work. I believe strongly that it works. I think there are real statistics that have shown that the ignition interlock has a real impact in terms of recidivism, and that's obviously something we need to think very strongly about.

I want to use this opportunity as well to congratulate the MADD chapter, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, in my Thunder Bay community and all across my riding for the extraordinary work they do in educating the public. Every year the campaign has a very high profile and it gets support from the Thunder Bay Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police who are out there working with them. They do an extraordinary job to educate the public. It's something we all want to work together on as parties in this Legislature. I will be supporting this resolution and I suspect all my colleagues will as well.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It is an honour to speak today on this very important resolution. I'd like to begin by saying thank you to the member for Cambridge for bringing this issue to light during this private members' time. I'd also like to thank the members for Thunder Bay-Superior North and Timmins-James Bay, as well as Scarborough, for their comments.

As a government, we've instituted some of the toughest anti-drinking and driving legislation in North America, and that legislation of course includes the creation of the administrative driver's license suspension program. Since that program was first introduced in 1996, about 35,000 drinking drivers in Ontario have had their licenses revoked for periods of up to 90 days.

First-time offenders convicted of a drinking and driving offence must successfully complete an education program and that is managed by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. The education program runs for eight hours and the treatment program covers a 16-hour period. The offender, not the taxpayer, pays $475 for that program. Offenders must complete their program. If they don't, they will not have their licenses returned.

Suspension periods for second-time offenders convicted of drinking and driving have been increased from two to three years.

Third-time offenders will lose their licence for life, instead of the three-year suspension that they used to receive. However, they will be eligible to have their licence reinstated if they maintain a clean record for 10 consecutive years and agree to meet certain conditions.

I'd like to turn for a second to the part of the resolution by Mr Martiniuk that says "ask the Ministry of Transportation to re-examine the use of ignition interlock for individuals convicted of impaired drunk driving prior to the third offence."

At this time I would like to welcome, in the gallery, Mr Doug Abernathy. Doug Abernathy is a constituent of mine. On May 15, 1981, Mr Abernathy and his brother Tim were travelling to their cottage near Huntsville. The family stopped for supplies near Gravenhurst. Tim and Doug got out of the car and were struck by a drunk driver who had crossed over the centre line of the highway. Both were seriously hurt before being flown to Sick Kid's Hospital. Mr. Abernathy survived the ordeal but his brother, unfortunately, did not.

A drunk driver ripped through this family and it strengthened Doug's resolve. Since that tragic accident, Doug has started the community-based Orillia Against Drunk Driving. Its mission is to reduce and eventually eliminate drunk driving through education. For the past five years, Mr Abernathy has been a champion at introducing ways of reducing the number of drunk drivers on our roads.

Just a little over a year ago, Mr Abernathy came to my office with an idea to convince me on the use of interlock ignition devices for those who have been convicted of a drinking and driving offence.

My staff have met with representatives of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Council on Drug Abuse to prepare a private member's bill that we hope to introduce this fall that would make mandatory interlock ignition devices in our province. The bill, I hope, will be named in memory of Mr Abernathy's brother, Tim.

I've had an opportunity to actually examine the interlock device, the one that Mr Bisson showed. We had an opportunity to view it in front of my office. I'm convinced it's a very important mechanical device that can and will be used.

The research I have done clearly shows that ignition interlock devices are an effective way to reduce the deadly practice of drinking and driving. Currently only Alberta and Quebec have ignition interlock practices in effect in our country, with Newfoundland recently adopting the practice on May l0 of this year.

In 1997, MTO issued a report to the standing committee on social development. The report looked at eight programs and 16 studies. The report found promising but inconclusive results. However, since that time, 11 major studies have been published looking at the use of this device. The results of those reports have found that interlocks definitely have benefits. As Mr Bryant said earlier, they are proven and they are reliable.

A non-partisan think tank called the Traffic Injury Research Foundation recommends that "All jurisdictions require installation of ignition interlock breath test devices on the vehicles of repeat offenders as well as first-time offenders arrested with high BACs." So far, the Ontario Association of Police Boards, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Police Association and the city of Orillia have supported the use of these devices.

Over the course of the summer, I will be meeting with as many anti-drinking and driving groups as I can so that a private member's bill can be tabled in this House and I hope passed as soon as possible in the fall.

In closing, I would like to again thank the member for Cambridge for tabling this resolution. One of the things I would like to add, though, as Mr Gravelle said earlier, is the importance of education. I think we've seen a significant amount of education on drinking and driving right on our TV programs. You notice now that our beer producers, Molson and Labatt, have a lot of anti-drinking and driving ads on TV.

I notice now there's some strong messaging coming across the TV screen from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and as well that the Ontario Provincial Police have continually made reference to their opposition to drinking and driving on the highways. Recently, the Solicitor General's office gave all the police services boards in the province a total of $1.2 million in additional money for overtime for their RIDE programs.

In closing, I would like to again thank the member for Cambridge for coming forth with this resolution today and tabling this. In his role as the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, he's also the co-chairman of the crime commission. As a member of our government, he supports and understands the importance of public safety, not only in our homes and on our streets but on the roads of our province. I hope later on, when this private member's bill is tabled in the fall, that I can get unanimous support in this House for it.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I'm pleased as well to stand today and make some comments with regard to the member for Cambridge's resolution and, along with my colleagues and my caucus, to support this resolution.

I also want to make note, as has been mentioned in the debate, of the role that MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, plays in the education in this province about the evil of driving while impaired. I believe that holding a driver's licence in this province is a privilege. Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a crime, and whatever we can do, first, to educate against this problem, and second, to enforce it, is a good move. RIDE programs have been in existence for years, and that's a good deterrent, I believe, to it.

The unfortunate part about drunk driving, or driving while under the influence of drugs, for that matter, is that the decision to do it is made when we are at our weakest point to make such a decision. What can we do about that? Can we get inside people's heads and prevent this altogether? No.

I think we all acknowledge that it's a problem that's been with us for a long time and that will probably be with us for a long time to come, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make every effort we can to, first, educate people so they understand the tragic results there can be from drunk driving; second, to carry out the enforcement when someone has been driving drunk or driving under the influence and has been caught; and third, what can we do to those who find themselves in that position so that it will make them think twice before they ever do it again?

What can we do, for example, that will make a person, while they're sober, plan so that if they drink too much, they have a way of avoiding getting behind the wheel?

The designated driver program is a good one. Many establishments in the province have drunk-driving programs within their bars or restaurants, that is, one of the drivers is designated and then they're served a non-alcoholic beverage so they can enjoy the evening but still have someone who can drive their friends home. I am inclined to think this is more prevalent among youth than we've ever seen before. I think the designated driver program is one that youth have taken to heart. They understand that by participating in the designated driver program they can save not only their own lives but they can save their friends from injury and perhaps even death.

The government has strengthened the law when it comes to the penalties for drunk driving. Some would argue that there's no end to what you should be able to do in that respect. Should a driver's licence be suspended for three years after your third time or for 10 years after your third time? Some would argue that there should be life suspensions, and maybe there are cases where there would be life suspensions from driving, but even then we still can't prevent that driver from getting behind the wheel. The fact that someone does not have a driver's licence isn't always of any real concern to that person.

I think education is the big thing we can continue to do and, at the same time, use technology to prevent a driver from ever starting the automobile.

Again I say how much I support this resolution of the member from Cambridge. I hope he continues in his efforts to bring technology into this issue so that our highways and roads and byways can be made safer and the public can be more aware of the consequences of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Cambridge has two minutes.

Mr Martiniuk: I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues the members for Etobicoke North and Simcoe for their support of this resolution. I would further like to thank the member from the third party, the member for Timmins-James Bay, for his kind words of encouragement. I'd like to thank all members of the opposition-the member for Essex, the member for St Paul's and the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North-for their support.

I mentioned that this machine was kindly donated, temporarily, by Guardian Interlock. This high-tech machine is manufactured at their plant right here in Mississauga, so we didn't have to go outside of this province to obtain a representative sample of what high-tech can do for us.

I must echo the words of many of the members that there has been a shift in attitude from, "Wink, wink, have a couple of drinks," to "We will not take this any more." I must applaud the various groups, primarily victims' groups, who have worked tirelessly. I have met them in the many crime-control forums at which I have presided. They are always out there working, bringing their view that drunk driving is not to be tolerated. I'd like to congratulate all of those groups, most of whom belong to the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, which includes PRIDE and MADD and all the others, for the good work they have done on behalf of the victims and the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: That completes the time allocated for debate.

WASTE DISPOSAL

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will first deal with ballot item number 31. Mr Beaubien has moved private member's notice of motion number 15.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? The motion is carried.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Now we will deal with ballot item number 32. Mr Martiniuk has moved private member's notice of motion number 20.

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

All matters relating to private members' public business now being completed, this House stands recessed until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1200 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today to take extreme exception to the comments made by the member for Northumberland during debate yesterday. His usual and typical lapdog ranting about Liberal ideas and self-promoting, pompous proclamations have stooped to an all-time low worthy of only earthworms, moles and low-flying seagulls.

To suggest that the members on this side of the House have not shown empathy and sympathy is at best ill advised and at worst without soul. Just because Dalton McGuinty visited Walkerton without press, in a solemn, private moment that does not suit the member for Northumberland's judgment, that doesn't make him less a leader; in fact, it makes him a caring, compassionate human being worthy of leadership.

No less than 10 times in Hansard has our leader, Dalton McGuinty, offered words of comfort and sympathy to the people of Walkerton, especially the bereaved.

I am sending across the floor my own words, spoken on May 30, in case the member for Northumberland actually believes his own drivel.

The member for Northumberland impugns this House and all its members by his comments, especially my colleagues Sean Conway, Jim Bradley and Dwight Duncan, to name just a few who have spoken on this issue.

Each and every member of this House has expressed in their own way heartfelt sorrow for the residents of Walkerton. We will, however, continue to hold this government accountable for its responsibilities in providing safe, clean drinking water for the people of Ontario.

BOLTON ROTARY CLUB

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Bolton Rotary Club on the celebration of their 50th anniversary.

The Rotary Club of Bolton was chartered in 1950, with a membership of 25 community-minded individuals. One of these members, Harold Egan, is still active today. Currently, Mr Egan is the honorary president in commemoration of the club's 50th anniversary.

Over the past 50 years, this organization has raised over $1 million for the community. Through fundraising efforts like the annual Cider Tyme event, the Dream Auction and the annual golf tournament, the Bolton Rotary Club helped create Riverside Park in Bolton, a project which was recognized by Rotary International.

The club members also contributed to Polio Plus, an international program to eradicate polio; Jamaican hurricane relief; and helped to fund sight-saving operations in India.

Closer to home, the Bolton Rotary Club provides local high school students with a variety of scholarships; supports the Boy Scouts, local sports teams and many other community organizations, including Transition Place, a home for abused women and children. The club also coordinates the Easter Seals activity in the area and contributes to Camp Enterprise, a three-day event for grade 12 students to discuss entrepreneurship and business ethics.

As you can see, our community and others throughout the world have benefited from the commitment and dedication of the members of the Bolton Rotary Club. I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to the Bolton Rotary Club as they celebrate their 50th anniversary.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Today, sadly, gas prices in Ontario have reached new record highs; they've almost reached 80 cents per litre-scandalous.

For nearly a year now, since last July when gas was 50 cents a litre, I have been asking the Premier to do something on behalf of Ontarians. I've been asking for a temporary freeze much like his predecessor, Bill Davis, did in 1975.

Back in July, the Premier dismissed my call for a gas freeze, saying, "Why would we freeze prices at an all-time high of 59 cents?" Now, as you know, it's about 79 cents.

When it comes to gas prices, Mike Harris is all talk and no action. He blames and finger-points and bellyaches and moans but continues to do absolutely nothing to protect Ontario motorists and consumers.

At the same time, Mike Harris is in cahoots with the big oil companies, collecting nearly $3 billion a year in gas taxes from Ontario motorists.

And what ever happened to the "pass the buck" task force they set up? Could it be that the "pass the buck" committee has been indefinitely delayed because it can't decide who to blame?

Who is Mike Harris going to blame today? Is he going to blame the oil companies? Is he going to blame the federal government?

Ontario consumers are fed up at being hosed day in and day out at the gas pumps while their Premier bellyaches and blames others. I say to Mike Harris, stop the finger-pointing, stop the blame, and do what Bill Davis did: Get control of those gas prices today.

NDP CONVENTION / CONGRÈS DU NPD

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): As all members of the assembly would know, this weekend is the NDP convention in Hamilton.

I invite all of you here in the assembly to come and visit our convention either in person or, more important still, to come on-line to be able to visit that convention.

For the first time, I believe, in Ontario's history, a political party is putting their convention on-line, where the public will have an opportunity to both participate at the convention, letting their thoughts be known, and participate as far as other people's comments, and also to look at what's happening by real-stream video feeds from that convention. I'm inviting people to do that by just visiting my Web site at www.gillesbisson.com, where you're going to have an opportunity to do that.

J'aimerais inviter tous ceux qui ont l'opportunité de regarder la convention annuelle du NPD, qui aura lieu à Hamilton cette fin de semaine. On a pour la première fois, on croit, l'opportunité d'aller sur Internet pour visiter la convention d'un parti politique dans la province de l'Ontario. On invite le monde à venir donner leurs commentaires, à regarder ce qui se passe, à participer aux débats et à aider à bâtir notre parti au point qu'on pense que c'est important pour être capables de bâtir un avenir pour la province. On invite le monde à venir à www.gillesbisson.com. Venez participer à notre convention annuelle.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to congratulate the Minister of Community and Social Services on the government's achievement of getting more than 500,000 people off welfare and into a job. Our workfare programs work, and they work for all Ontarians. A large number of people across Ontario support this initiative. I wish now to quote one of those people. One man said, and I quote from Hansard, "The Ontario government should be, and indeed needs to be, commended for streamlining the current social assistance systems into two new programs: Ontario Works and Ontario disability support program."

Do you know who said that? Ted McMeekin, the mayor of Flamborough, Dalton McGuinty's Liberal candidate for the by-election in the Wentworth-Burlington riding, said that. I'm pleased to note the change in the Liberal platform and welcome their support on this important issue, but I believe this to be just another flip-flop on an issue which is so important to the people of Ontario. They don't know where they stand on workfare, they don't know where they stand on the Hamilton amalgamation and they don't know where they stand on health transfers from their federal cousins.

We on this side of the House have been providing the leadership that Ontarians expect. We will continue to create innovative programs to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent wisely and effectively in Ontario.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Today, angry and frustrated poverty and homelessness activists will march on the Legislature to demand that the Harris government take action on the homelessness crisis in this province. The government will no doubt focus on the tactics that are used because they are a rudderless, do-nothing government when it comes to dealing with the problems that affect too many people in this province.

As the cynical $200 bribes demonstrate, there are two distinct classes of people in Mike Harris's Ontario: those taxpayers who will get $200 cheques and those in desperate need who serve as punching bags for Mike Harris's war on the poor. They do nothing to deal with the problems of health care for homeless people. Patients are released sicker and quicker and homeless people are routinely released to the street and to shelters. Mike Harris demonstrates his ignorance when he talks about shelters as housing. Anyone who has ever visited a shelter or attempted to sleep there, as I have, will know that they are not an adequate replacement for a home.

Mike Harris is closing the Wellesley Central Hospital on October 1, 2000, without any move to open the ambulatory care centre as directed by the HSRC.

The Minister of Health is failing the test of responsibility. While she fiddles, an epidemic of preventable deaths surges all around us.

We used to have a government for all the people. The sad reality in Mike Harris's Ontario is that we have a government for taxpayers and a policy of woeful and negligent ignorance towards those who are less fortunate. The message of the Harris government is simple: Ignore the poor.

CATHETERIZATION LABORATORY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Through the hard work and dedication of my constituents in Peterborough, along with the support of the Ministry of Health and our government, tomorrow will be a very special day. The new heart catheterization lab will officially open in the Peterborough Regional Health Centre. This lab will be the most advanced in Canada. It has a swing lab which will see the catheterizing machines on a huge hinge that will swing from one room to another, the first in the province. The swing lab allows for increased capacity. It also ensures that there won't be a waiting list for any patient needing emergency cath lab care.

As the provincial representative for Peterborough, I am very proud of the efforts of my constituents, who worked so hard on this initiative to raise over $2 million. I'd like to mention in particular the work of the co-chairs for the Community Health Services Foundation, Linda Whetung and Dave Smith; Dr Bill Hughes for his perseverance over the last 12 years to achieve the lab; Rob Devitt, CEO of the hospital, for his co-operation with the ministry; and the many individuals, young and old, in the entire Peterborough region who collectively made this happen.

Congratulations, Peterborough, on enhancing our health care in this community. Your commitment is appreciated.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): Today the government of Ontario was handed a colossal defeat by the Supreme Court of Ontario in a unanimous decision, rendered in record speed, upholding the federal gun control legislation, which the people of Ontario support. The Harris government, Ralph Klein and the gun lobby may have lost, but the people of Ontario today certainly have won.

The Supreme Court has upheld legislation which honours victims of gun violence, who support this legislation. The court has upheld legislation which honours the police, who protect us and who have to face gun violence ever day, and they support this legislation.

This decision honours the victims of the Montreal massacre. It was the Montreal massacre that inspired this legislation in the first place. The brother of Annie St-Arneault, one of those victims, said today in response to the decision, "This law is a living monument to the victims of gun violence and we will continue to do everything within our power to defend it and to ensure the lessons of the past are not forgotten."

This government needs to learn a lesson as well as a result of this decision. Today I call upon the government, first, to show some leadership and denounce all this talk about disobedience with respect to this law and refusal to obey this law, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. I call upon the government to come clean and tell the people of Ontario how much they've wasted on this act of neo-conservative judicial activism. Lastly, it's time today for the government to end its unholy alliance with the gun lobby.

Today is a good day for the people of Ontario and a colossal defeat for the government of Ontario.

NIAGARA GRADUATES

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I am pleased to stand in the Legislature today to acknowledge and applaud the graduating classes from both Niagara College and Brock University. Ceremonies are taking place at both of these schools all this month, and I'm very excited for the students and for their families who have so much to be proud of and so much to look forward to.

Last week, Brock University held two special ceremonies, one for a group of graduating students and, second, a groundbreaking ceremony for two new academic buildings. In May, Brock University received $15.5 from the Ontario SuperBuild Corp to help build the buildings.

Brock University isn't the only one to benefit from provincial government funding. Again in May, Niagara College received $4.2 million for the expansion of their Maid of the Mist campus. Niagara College also received a $1.6-million grant from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade's strategic skills fund to help with the college's technology-based programs.

As you can see, this is a very exciting time for Brock and Niagara College students. They are graduating from these schools and they have the necessary means now to provide them with the skills they need for the outside workforce.

I'm very proud of our government's record to reinvest in schools and education. The Niagara region has greatly benefited from funding from this government. Again, I thank the minister, the Premier, Minister Eves and Minister Hudak for working very hard to get this done in my community.

REPORT OF CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table a report from the Chief Election Officer, made pursuant to

section 2(5) of the Election Finances Act.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I also beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the annual report of the Ombudsman for the period April 1, 1999, to March 31, 2000.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 68,

An Act, in memory of Brian Smith, to amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 68, Loi à la mémoire de Brian Smith modifiant la

Loi sur la santé mentale et la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA COMMISSION DES COURSES DE CHEVAUX

Mr Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 94,

An Act to revise the Racing Commission Act / Projet de loi 94, Loi révisant la

Loi sur la Commission des courses de chevaux.

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

The minister for a short statement.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm pleased to introduce

An Act to revise the Racing Commission Act. The Racing Commission Act, 2000, would convert the Ontario Racing Commission to a self-financing agency and modernize it so that it can continue to provide efficient and effective services. I urge all members to support the revisions to the Racing Commission Act.

PROTECTION OF MINORS FROM SEXUALLY EXPLICIT GOODS AND SERVICES ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA PROTECTION DES MINEURS CONTRE LES BIENS ET SERVICES SEXUELLEMENT EXPLICITES

Mr Wood moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 95,

An Act to protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit goods and services / Projet de loi 95, Loi visant à protéger les mineurs contre les biens et services sexuellement explicites.

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

The member for a short statement.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): The purpose of this bill is to prevent those under 18 from being exposed to sexually explicit goods and services. It mandates the good practices already followed by most businesses in Ontario. If enacted, it would give a reasonable assurance to Ontario parents that their children will not be exposed to inappropriate influences of this nature.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'EAU POTABLE SAINE

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 96,

An Act to restore public confidence in the quality of drinking water in Ontario / Projet de loi 96, Loi visant à rétablir la confiance publique dans la qualité de l'eau potable en Ontario.

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

The member for a short statement.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): The bill I've tabled today is intended to restore public confidence in the quality of drinking water throughout Ontario. It recognizes that people have the right to clean and safe drinking water, that clean and safe drinking water is a basic human entitlement and essential for the protection of public health.

The bill recognizes that communities do not always have the financial and technical capacity to provide safe drinking water and that the province has an important role to play in providing that assistance and allows for the establishment of a safe drinking water fund. It contains mandatory reporting and notification requirements to water users, local medical health officers and the Ministry of the Environment. It establishes the clean water electronic registry, where Ontarians can readily obtain up-to-date information about the quality of water in their community.

The bill restores the fair partnership between the province and municipalities in providing Ontarians with clean and safe drinking water. The bill is the first step in ensuring that all Ontarians have access to safe and clean drinking water.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TRAFFIC CALMING), 2000

Ms Mushinski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr2,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TAX DEFERRAL), 2000

Ms Mushinski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (GRADUATED TAX RATES), 2000

Ms Mushinski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TENANT PROTECTION), 2000

Ms Mushinski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Because of the fundamental importance of the safe drinking water bill that I just introduced, I would ask for unanimous consent that it move to second reading so we can get it out to committee quickly over the summer and get third reading passed quickly in the fall.

The Speaker: Is there agreement of the House, unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

QUEEN MOTHER

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to seek unanimous consent. On August 4, 2000, the Queen Mother will celebrate her 100th birthday. This extraordinary woman has earned the respect and admiration of people around the world. As a leader, she has guided her people through adverse conditions while at the same time maintaining her characteristic charm and grace.

In light of her lifelong successes and accomplishments, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to send our most sincere birthday wishes to this exceptional lady.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. I thank the member.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that the following amendment be made to the membership of a certain committee: Mr Peters replaces Mr Conway on the standing committee on estimates.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The people living in the community of Walkerton would have had a hell of a shock this morning when they awakened to read a headline which read, "Harris Ignored Walkerton's Pleas in 1998." We knew, as did the people of Walkerton, that the Provincial Auditor had warned you about impending problems. We knew the