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

November 16, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Nov-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 16 November 2006 Jeudi 16 novembre 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

SAFE NEEDLES SAVE LIVES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'UTILISATION

D'AIGUILLES SÛRES

POUR SAUVER DES VIES

LANDFILL

SAFE NEEDLES SAVE LIVES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'UTILISATION

D'AIGUILLES SÛRES

POUR SAUVER DES VIES

LANDFILL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WILLIAM BELL

OTTAWA SWIM CLUB /

CLUB DE NATATION D'OTTAWA

TOM TAYLOR

VISITORS

FIRST NATIONS CHILDREN

LOUIS RIEL DAY

LIGHTHOUSE PROGRAM

KINDERGARTEN

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT /

RENDEMENT SCOLAIRE

ALPHABÉTISATION DES ADULTES /

ADULT LITERACY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

ADULT LITERACY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

ADULT LITERACY

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 DU MINISTÈRE

DES SERVICES GOUVERNEMENTAUX

SUR LA MODERNISATION DES SERVICES

ET DE LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

ENERGY SUPPLY

LANDFILL

PROPERTY TAXATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

CONSUMER PROTECTION

GRIDLOCK

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

GRIDLOCK

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

GREAT LAKES CHARTER ANNEX AGREEMENT

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

FETAL ALCOHOL

SPECTRUM DISORDER

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

WATER QUALITY

TUITION

BORDER SECURITY

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

LONG-TERM CARE

IDENTITY THEFT

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

AUTISM TREATMENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTORAL SYSTEM

REFERENDUM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE RÉFÉRENDUM

RELATIF AU SYSTÈME ÉLECTORAL

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

SAFE NEEDLES SAVE LIVES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'UTILISATION

D'AIGUILLES SÛRES

POUR SAUVER DES VIES

Ms. Martel moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to reduce the incidence of needlestick injuries / Projet de loi 30, Loi visant à réduire les incidences de blessures causées par des piqûres d'aiguille.

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

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I want to begin by acknowledging Linda Haslam-Stroud, president of ONA, who is in the gallery today. She is here with a number of health care workers, making

their way in, who are represented by ONA, SEIU, OPSEU and UFCW. I want to say to all of you as you come in that this bill is about your right to be safe at work. It's also about the right of other workers and the general public to be safe from

harm, if and when unsafe sharps and medical devices are improperly disposed of.

This is the second time this bill has been debated at second reading. Last March, the bill was sent to committee but never saw the light of day after that. I'm hoping that this time the bill will be passed so

that we can truly protect workers and the general public.

Bill 30 will protect workers and the public from needle-stick and medical sharps injuries. These injuries result from medical devices that have points or blades capable of puncturing the skin. The most common

sharps injury is the skin puncture by a needle attached to a syringe. A worker punctured by a point or a blade may then be exposed to more than 33 blood-borne diseases, including very serious or deadly ones like hepatitis C or HIV/AIDS.

SEIU, ONA and OPSEU estimate that some 33,000 needle-stick injuries occur in the health care sector in Ontario every year. Of that number, some 17,000 occur in the acute care sector. From April 2005 until this

month, one Toronto area hospital alone had 64 injuries involving sharps. Each needle-stick injury, on average, costs the health care system $2,000 in testing and treatment, although for those suffering from serious or deadly diseases, the costs

far exceed that.

In Ontario, some $66 million are spent every year on workers who have had needle-stick injuries. This doesn't include the WSIB costs associated with lost-time claims, and it doesn't include the emotional cost to

workers and their families as they undergo months of testing to determine if they have contracted a disease from a used needle.

The fact is, workers don't have to suffer from needle-stick injuries. The technology exists to replace conventional needles and sharps with safety-engineered medical devices that have been approved by Health

Canada. They have built-in features that, when engaged, prevent the blade or point of the device from coming into contact with the user of the device or another person. While the safety features differ, they all eliminate the possibility of injury

by contact with contaminated blood in or on the device.

My bill would make it mandatory for employers in prescribed workplaces to provide for and ensure the use of safety-engineered medical sharps in any circumstances where a worker is required to use a medical

sharp. The employer must consult with the joint health and safety committee on the selection of the safety-engineered device and must provide training in the use of those devices. In workplaces without committees, the employer must still provide

training in the use of these devices. The bill includes sections from Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act regarding inspectors, inspections, orders, whistle-blower protection and penalties for non-compliance by employers. The provisions

make it clear that needle-stick injuries are serious health and safety issues and have to be dealt with as such.

I've reintroduced this bill for two reasons. First, it's clear that the use of safety-engineered medical devices and sharps reduces injuries and saves money. In the United States, the Needlestick Safety and

Prevention Act came into effect in 2001. Although it is federal law, it applies to state jurisdictions. Twenty US states have also enacted their own, even more stringent, legal requirements involving safety-engineered sharps. In 2003, a study of

the impact of the federal law was published by researchers at the International Health Care Worker Safety Center at the University of Virginia. It showed that after only one year of implementation, with only one quarter of workplaces in

compliance, there was a 51% reduction in needle-stick injuries.

But an Ontario example is also valuable in this regard. At Toronto East General Hospital, a detailed audit of sharps-related injuries in the workplace showed an urgent need for best practices to deal with this

serious health and safety issue. The hospital identified blood collection, patient injection and IV insertion as the areas with the highest risk. The joint health and safety committee presented a proposal to senior management to move in a staged

way to safety-engineered devices. The original goal was to reduce sharps injuries by 20% in the first year, but this was easily surpassed when the hospital went from 41 reported sharps injuries in 2003 to eight in 2004. Injuries during blood

collection were completely eliminated that year as well. Not only were the injuries reduced, but so were the costs associated with needle-stick accidents. In 2001, with conventional needles and sharps, accidents cost the hospital $28,000. After

2004, these costs dropped to $8,500.

The second reason I have reintroduced this bill is because Ontario lags far behind other jurisdictions, and it's embarrassing and shameful that this government can't get the message about what needs to be done.

In 2004, Alberta implemented safety sharps legislation. On January 1, 2006, sharps regulations went into effect in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Nova Scotia's sharps regulations will be implemented on January 1, 2007, and British Columbia's

regulations take effect on January 1, 2008. But in Ontario, the McGuinty Liberal government has done precious little, even though the unions representing workers who are most at risk have made it clear that this is a priority for them. In three

different meetings with the former Minister of Health, the health care Health and Safety Action Group told the minister that mandatory use of safety-engineered medical devices was essential. In a November 19, 2004, letter to the minister, the

group said:

"First, we need legislation to ensure that safety-engineered medical devices are introduced within the next year to health care workplaces across the province. Over 33,000 health care workers suffer needle-stick

injuries every year in Ontario.... A regulation requiring the mandatory use of safety-engineered needles and other medical devices will not only eliminate up to 90% of such devastating injuries, but will actually result in a net savings of

precious health care dollars."

This government's response was a one-off, one-time-only announcement of some $11 million to hospitals in March 2005 to help them buy some safety-engineered devices and sharps. When the money was gone, workers

were put at risk again with the use of conventional needles. How silly was that? The Sault Star had it right. In an editorial it ran on March 14, 2005, which was carried two days later in the Toronto Star, it said:

"Ontario's Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has taken a step in the right direction by earmarking extra cash for hospitals to buy safer medical equipment this year, but it's not good enough....

"The government should make instruments such as safety-engineered needles mandatory in all hospitals and clinics -- and funding for the equipment should be allocated as part of every facility's annual operating

budget rather than a one-time infusion of $11.6 million....

"Health care workers put themselves into dangerous situations every hour of every day to help the people of Ontario, and it is unconscionable to subject them to ... unnecessary risks when a ready solution

exists.

"Needles also pose a danger to everyone who might come into contact with the instruments until they are safely destroyed or buried. That includes hospital custodial staff, refuse collection personnel and even

members of the public.

"Ontario already suffers a dearth of health care providers in many disciplines. Every effort must be made to protect them from infection that can remove them from the front lines temporarily or, even more

tragically, permanently.

"This one is a no-brainer: Replace all conventional needles with safe versions, the sooner the better."

Regrettably, 20 months to the day since the Toronto Star said this was a no-brainer, here we are again, trying to convince the McGuinty Liberals to do the right thing. No doubt, this morning, some government

members will defend their lack of action by noting that in September 2006 the current Minister of Labour appointed a permanent health and safety advisory committee to provide advice on protecting health care workers. No doubt a government member

will say that this committee should look at this issue, and if the members recommend the mandatory use of safety-engineered devices and sharps, then maybe the government will finally do something on this front. This is not good enough. The

mandatory use of safety-engineered medical sharps is a serious health and safety issue in Ontario. No one has to suffer a needle-stick injury, because the technology exists to replace conventional devices with safe devices. Five other provinces

have seen the wisdom of making safe devices mandatory in their workplaces. When will the McGuinty government get serious about protecting our workers and the general public too?

In closing, I want to thank SEIU, OPSEU, ONA and UFCW for their support of Bill 30. Most importantly, I'd like to thank the workers who are here today. This bill is about what we can and should be doing to

protect you when you go to work. I hope we can get Bill 30 to and through committee so it will become the law in Ontario.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker: I would remind our guests in the gallery that only the members on the floor are to participate in the proceedings. Thank you.

Further debate?

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill today. Of course, all members of this Legislature are very much concerned about the safety of our front-line

workers. I want to join Ms. Martel in welcoming the SEIU and ONA representatives who are here and our other front-line workers. Oh wow, we've got a whole crowd moving in up there. Great. Nice to see you all here today. We certainly appreciate the

work you're doing on the front lines.

As most in this House know, this is the second effort by Ms. Martel to introduce this legislation; it was first introduced as Bill 179. We do have some concerns with this particular piece of legislation, while

recognizing that there is a need, of course, to protect all of our front-line workers across the province.

One initiative that the government has undertaken in order to ensure the safety of our front-line workers was, as Ms. Martel, the member for Nickel Belt, indicated, the introduction through the Ministry of

Labour of a new special committee that will be looking at different ways to ensure the safety of our front-line workers in the health field in particular. I think this is an important initiative. It's important that we receive a great deal of

input from our front-line workers directly on how we can better protect them and how we can ensure their safety in their work on a day-to-day basis.

In her submission, Ms. Martel referred to other jurisdictions and the fact that, in her view, we are lagging behind. I'd just like to set the record straight. Manitoba may have introduced their legislation in

2004, but it only came into effect in January 2006. As well, the Saskatchewan legislation that she referred to, which introduces the use of SEMDs in some circumstances, came into effect in July 2006.

I would like to point out that with respect to the legislation in other jurisdictions, they differ from the member from Nickel Belt's bill in that they are taking a very limited approach by identifying only

high-risk activities for the first stage of implementation. In fact, Bill 30 would apply to all medical sharps right from the beginning. So I wonder if, in her response at the end of her submissions, the member for Nickel Belt perhaps would

reflect on a more staged approach in the implementation of these requirements as opposed to the immediate approach to all medical sharps and, as well, reflect on the wisdom of the other jurisdictions in taking this staged approach.

We recognize that there has been some study done in this area. Certainly the Toronto East General Hospital example is a good one of where we've seen a reduction in sharps injuries with the introduction of an

SEMD program. However, there is much variation on the actual cost of the introduction of that program at that hospital, and I think it is one of the factors we do need to look at when we look at the introduction of this kind of initiative.

I'd also like to ask the member for Nickel Belt a few specific questions about her legislation. In her legislation she talks about medical sharps, and it's a very broadly defined word. It could be interpreted to

include almost any sharp equipment that's used in a hospital or a medical facility. I would like to ask her what her position is on defining that perhaps a little more narrowly.

As well, I understand that there is some concern in the sector about a certification system for safety-engineered medical devices, and the fact we don't have such a certification system, so that any manufacturer

could call any of their products an SEMD without any assurance that in fact they are an SEMD or that they meet the requirements or the safety standards in any medical facility.

Also, SEMDs may not be available to substitute for some current sharps, such as spinal taps, bone marrow, and surgical instruments such as suture needles and acupuncture needles. That's my information, and I

wonder what provisions the member for Nickel Belt would see putting into place in order to address some of those concerns.

We have in fact made some headway with respect to this issue in the medical field. In 2005, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care announced an investment of $11.6 million for hospitals to purchase SEMDs.

That's a substantial amount of money. It was to improve the health and safety of our front-line workers.

We've made substantial investments in a number of areas to improve the health and safety of front-line workers over the last number of years, in both long-term care -- which of course is near and dear to my

heart -- and in our hospitals. We've invested in lifts in order to assist our front-line workers and to assist some of those front-line workers to continue their careers longer than they had possibly planned.

Our goal, of course, is to ensure a safe workplace for all Ontario health workers. We certainly value the good work that's being done by all representatives of the health care field across the province. I again

would like to acknowledge those who are here today supporting Ms. Martel and this bill.

I look forward to hearing from Ms. Martel on those specific issues that I raised with respect to her legislation and hearing what remedies she would see moving forward.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm pleased to have a few moments this morning to speak to Bill 30,

An Act to reduce the incidence of needlestick injuries, which was introduced in this

House by the member for Nickel Belt back on November 15, 2005. I understand that this bill was introduced previously, in a previous session of this Parliament. The member is bringing it forward again because, unfortunately, the government did not

see fit to allow it to move forward at that time.

I want to begin by complimenting the member for Nickel Belt. I've worked with the member in committee over the years from time to time, and certainly in this House for the past 16 years. I see her as a very

effective and smart member of this Legislature who is passionate about her beliefs, committed to her philosophy and hard-working in the pursuit of her objectives. I know that next year the member will be celebrating 20 years in this Legislature.

I'm not sure if she's going to be celebrating or not, but that's quite a feat, certainly, especially given the youth of the member. I happen to know exactly how old she is. To have served in the Ontario Legislature for 20 years is something that

is commendable indeed.

I also wish to recognize and thank the people who are here representing front-line health care workers for their presence and their interest in this bill. Hopefully the government will take note because of your

presence.

This bill, Safe Needles Save Lives Act, 2006, is a bill for which I want to express strong support in this Legislature this morning. Our caucus in the past has expressed support for this. I think it's a bill

that needs to be passed by this Legislature this morning and sent to committee for further discussion. I know that the member for Nipissing in her presentation this morning, speaking on behalf of the government, expressed a number of issues that

she sees. Surely we can address those issues at committee so as to allow this bill to move forward. I hope that the government won't get caught up in the technicalities of this in such a way that it prevents the bill from moving forward, because

this bill is certainly needed, from what I understand.

I'm told that every year in Ontario there are more than 33,000 health care workers who are accidently stuck with needles. Obviously, in every single one of these cases the people who are affected by these

accidents would go through a period of severe concern for what might happen after that because of the contagious diseases that they're confronted with every day in the course of their work. We have to be sensitive to this, obviously. The member

for Nickel Belt has talked about the fact that in a number of other provinces, and even in the United States, there has been progress on this issue in a way that demonstrates that Ontario is lagging behind, so we have work to do in that

regard.

Private members' business is an important opportunity for MPPs to bring forward issues that otherwise the government of the day is unwilling or unable to address. This bill certainly falls into this category.

It's an important issue that needs to be accepted by the government and allowed to move forward.

I believe in private members' business. Right now I have four private members' ballot items before the Legislature: three resolutions and one bill. The resolution that I introduced almost a year and a half ago

calls upon the government to instruct the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to immediately begin an investigation into Ontario's industrial and economic competitiveness to develop an action plan to maintain and expand our domestic

and international markets in the coming years. Today I was informed that Lear Corp. in Kitchener, which is an important manufacturering plant in Waterloo-Wellington in the Kitchener part of my riding that I've visited many times, is going to be

losing 111 jobs as a result of a restructuring. It's something that obviously concerns me as the MPP, concerns the city of Kitchener and concerns the union that represents these workers, as well as the company. This again underlines the need for

dramatic action on the part of the government by instructing the standing committee to come up with a jobs plan. I'm going to be talking about this in the coming weeks, certainly, in the Ontario Legislature.

I also have a resolution which calls up on the government of Ontario to establish a fund to support the families of first responders such as firefighters, police officers, paramedics and medical personnel who

lose their lives in the line of duty, providing a benefit of at least $500,000 to the families of these fallen heroes. I had a chance to discuss this issue with my friends at the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association lobby day yesterday

and at their reception last night, and a number of them are very interested in this issue as well.

I have another issue which I've called upon the House to address, and that is the fact that we don't get enough opportunities, as private members, to discuss issues in this Legislature on Thursday mornings. Most

of us, as private members, perhaps get an opportunity once, on average, every 18 months, and I'm suggesting and proposing that we begin private members' business at 9 o'clock every Thursday morning so that we can do three private members' ballot

items each week. I believe that is a relatively modest reform, but it would dramatically increase the number of private members' ballot item opportunities that members of this Legislature have. In all likelihood, I believe we'd then have at least

one chance every year instead of one every year and a half. I think that would be of benefit in enhancing the role of the private member, and it's something I've called upon the government to do for quite some time.

I also have a private member's bill, which most members are aware of -- certainly the members who served in the previous Parliament --

An Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Waterloo-Wellington, I remind you that we're discussing Bill 30 this morning.

Mr. Arnott: Yes, I'm certainly aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your assistance in that respect. I want to talk about Bill 30 in the context of the other private members' ballot

items that all of us bring forward in this Legislature.

My Bill 44 would protect double-hatter firefighters, who, as we know, are full-time professional firefighters who work for a fire department, typically in a city, but may live in a small town nearby and want to

serve their home communities as volunteer firefighters. Of course, there is a need for legislation to allow them to do that without the threat of expulsion from their union. I continue to advocate for that issue as well.

You're quite right, Mr. Speaker. I need to get back to the health care issue. Bill 30 is an important issue, not just in hospitals but also in nursing homes. Last week, during constituency week, I had the

opportunity to address a fairly large group at the Chateau Gardens nursing home in Elmira, and they were very concerned about the government's Bill 140 and the need to have an upgrade program for the residents who live in B and C nursing homes.

Something like 35,000 residents live in older nursing homes, and they have asked me to bring forward concerns in the Legislature and to encourage the government to make renewal of a home's licence dependent on what matters most to residents,

families and communities: the home's performance in meeting the act and taking away the cloud of uncertainty by not linking the licence renewal to the structural classification of the home. Instead, they are asking that the government introduce a

new

section in the act that empowers the minister to establish an appropriate capital renewal program with mandatory time frames for operators to complete this renewal.

This is a very serious health care issue in my riding, as well, I know, as in other ridings across the province. I would expect that most MPPs were approached by long-term-care homes in their ridings during

constituency week. Of course, this comes into the broader health care issue, but I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House today. I appreciate the response I have received from members today to the issues I have raised.

I want to congratulate, once again, the member for Nickel Belt for the good work she is doing on this issue and implore the government to support it, to allow the bill to go to committee and have meaningful

hearings, and to bring the bill back to the House and allow a third reading vote so that the bill can become law.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): There's a famous quote by Burke that goes: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." I think you've witnessed --

and I welcome our visitors here today -- a little bit of that nothing and how it happens. You heard from our colleagues across the floor the way things don't happen here -- that is, you constantly make excuses or poke holes at small portions of a

bill so that the bill stagnates or doesn't pass -- and over here you heard an eloquent discussion, not of the bill on the floor but about every other bill that is before the House.

I'd like to actually talk about the bill and Shelley Martel's brave act in bringing it forward, because we're not talking about anything here; we're talking about

an act that will actually save lives, and when

we don't pass it, lives are lost. It's that simple and it's that serious.

What caught my eye this morning, in looking over the information about this act, was this Vancouver Sun article, where "Two grade 3 boys were on their school's playground with little more to worry about" -- it

says -- "than their free time running out before the Tuesday morning bell rang.

"Now one of the boys will need to endure blood tests, anti-viral medication and a long six-month wait to find out if he's been infected with a communicable disease from the poke of a dirty syringe.

"When the Ten-Broeck elementary pupils found the two used needles in their play area, one boy picked up the needles and jabbed the other in the shoulder." Children at play. What do they know?

"The pierced pupil was tested for HIV and hepatitis B and C." Children. Now, that's not you; that's not OPSEU members; that's not SEIU members; that's not nursing staff who have to ensure this, day in and day

out; these are children in a playground who are affected by the lack of this legislation.

I want to bring my own story from Parkdale-High Park, my own riding, about a wonderful individual who has now passed away. This individual was part of our Sunday afternoon drop-in and dinner program. He, like

many in that program, had mental health and addiction issues. This particular individual had the addiction issue of heroin abuse and used needles all the time, and, trust me, they were not safe. He took it upon himself to do a little bit of good

Samaritan work in our riding, such as he could. What he would do is he would walk around the neighbourhood, particularly around the schools, and pick up used syringes and take them back for recycling. I want to repeat that. He would walk around

schools, walk around the riding, and pick up used syringes. These were syringes used by heroin addicts and others. These were not clean syringes; these were syringes that carried all sorts of disease, around schools.

I remember sitting at a wonderful restaurant on Queen Street, Mitzi's Sister -- and if you sit at Mitzi's Sister and look out the window, you can see a driveway there next to an abandoned old building on Queen

Street and you can watch drug deals going down every hour. You can watch people disappear into the alleyway, and they come out, and they disappear, and they come out. They're also using drugs and they're also shooting up in that alleyway. Then, if

you stay there long enough, past 3:30, you can watch the children from Parkdale high school and other schools in the vicinity coming home from school, walking through that same alleyway.

I went out on a drive-around with 14 division -- it was an honour -- on Friday night and saw what they have to do for a living. That morning I met with parole officers and saw what they had to do for a living. I

asked the staff sergeant on Friday night about this very issue, and he said, "We have 20 cars for 200,000 people. We can't even do the calls that we need to make -- the assaults in progress, the B and Es in progress -- never mind take time out of

our cruisers, take time off our bikes, to look around the dirt in the alleyways in Parkdale-High Park to see if we can find syringes lying there."

It's not just the alleyways, of course; it's the lakeshore. Anybody who likes to run -- and I like to run -- along the lakeshore will know that if you go out early enough, you'll see the same thing: littered

syringes. This is not only true, of course, of Parkdale-High Park; it's true of many areas in this city.

So it's not only about people who are in the field, those who risk their lives for us in delivering health care and keeping our correctional facilities open; it's also about those little children who just happen

to be walking home from school one day or the average passerby just wandering along who picks up the wrong thing at the wrong time.

I just wanted to run past the stats again in case we missed them, because these are horrific. They're not just figures; they're lives. Sometimes when we debate business in this House, one would think we were

talking about widgets and not people. These are lives we're talking about.

Thirty-three thousand is the estimated annual number of needle-stick injuries in the health care sector. Sixty-four million dollars is the estimated annual cost of testing and treating needle-stick injuries in

the health care sector. Thirty-two million dollars is the estimated annual cost of testing and treating needle-stick injuries in acute care. Twenty-two million dollars is the estimated cost to completely convert all acute care workplaces in

Ontario to safety-engineered devices -- so there's a difference there. Four million dollars is the estimated amount the Ontario government will save by replacing conventional needles in acute care after realizing an 82% drop in injuries. Sometimes

when you read these figures, you have to pause -- an 82% drop in injuries. That's what we're talking about, as well as saving money. Two thousand dollars -- a piddling amount, but still -- is the minimum cost of testing and providing preventive

treatment for each worker who suffers a needle-stick injury, multiplied by thousands. One hundred and ninety is the estimated number of needle-stick injuries every day. Again, I bring that number home to this House -- 190. As we're speaking, as

we're listening to why we can't do something, as we're listening to other bills that have no relevance over this bill, 190 people right now are wondering whether they're going to be HIV-infected, whether they have hep B or hep C. They're waiting,

their families are waiting and suffering along with them, until they get that result -- 190 people. It's interesting that this debate lasts an hour. It would be interesting to break it down. How many people at this time, while we're debating this

bill again in this hour, are suffering and waiting for that result? Interesting. What will the result be? What will the effect on their lives be?

To continue along, it's not like we don't have examples of other bills. I heard my colleague Ms. Smith talk about some of the problems, let's say. Well, we have legislation. Where do we have it? We have it in

Manitoba. We have it in Saskatchewan. We have it in Alberta. We have it in Nova Scotia. We have it in British Columbia. Surely, we have examples already of legislation that has been passed that managed to make it through. Surely, with those

examples, we can rework this in any way necessary. I'm sure Ms. Martel knows this. She has encountered this before. This is no reason not to pass this now. This is no reason not to save the next 190 people who will have to go through this

tomorrow. Here's one, Bill 13, given royal assent on July 14 in Nova Scotia. They managed to do it. Manitoba managed to do it. Saskatchewan managed to do it. British Columbia managed to do it. Alberta managed to do it. Why can't we?

Just to conclude, I'll remind everyone about that quote. It's a quote that offers some hope to me when I think of myself as a good person some days, and that is, "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good

people to do nothing."

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the chance to comment on Bill 30, introduced by the member from Nickel Belt. I believe she tried to introduce it

before, under a different number, I think Bill 179.

I was listening to many different members speak in the House and of course the member from Nickel Belt when she was explaining why she wants to pass that bill. It's a very important issue. We talk about the

front-line workers in the health professions, and we see a lot of people giving their life. As you know, many of those workers are subject to many different diseases, to different obstacles that might hurt them, that might cost them their life. I

was one of them at one time, in a previous life. I used to work at a big facility. I was also exposed to many different diseases and different objects. I think it's very important to create safety around the people who work on the front line. We

have a lot of people from the health sector with us here today in the gallery. I want to welcome them. I believe they do an excellent job on behalf of all of us in the province of Ontario.

I was listening to the member from Nickel Belt when she was talking about it and also was listening to my colleague Monique Smith when she was talking about there being no

definitions about the sharp objects.

As you know, we have to define which objects we are talking about. It's very important for all of us to know which objects are the most dangerous ones. I have strong faith in the people who work in that field to choose the best and the most

effective instrument to deal with their clients on a daily basis.We don't take safety in this province lightly, especially in health care. When we took office in 2003, we had the lowest number of inspectors in that field in the whole nation: 3.8

for every 100,000 health care workers. When we took office, we hired more than 200 health care inspectors to make sure that safety was being applied in many different spots in the province of Ontario.

Also, in order to maintain safety in health work, the Minister of Labour has a round table of the people who work in that field to advise on a regular basis. It's important for all of us to create a safety

mechanism for all the people who work in the health professions. I myself and my colleague visit many long-term-care homes in the London region and many different spots in Ontario on a regular basis to make sure all the workers use the right

safety equipment. Also, the Minister of Health invested a great amount of money to supply many long-term-care facilities and homes with safe and new equipment to help the workers to lift the clients and not injure themselves. We invested more than

$12 million in that field to supply the hospitals and clinics and many places in the province with tools to deal with their clients in a safe way.

Also, as I mentioned, we pay a lot of attention to health care in Ontario, and we want to make sure that all the health workers on the front line are safe and using safe equipment. It's important for all of

us, because those people, the health workers in Ontario, maintain our health, maintain our capacity to go back to work, and we want to give them the chance, the capacity and the tools to continue to work and to serve the great people of

Ontario.

We don't take this issue lightly. We have faith in the hospitals and the health professionals to use safe equipment. We believe that if they have any concerns, any issues, they have a right to have all the

tools and mechanisms, to ask the Minister of Health to equip them with the best and the most sophisticated equipment being used, not just in Canada but maybe in the whole world. We have great faith in them because they provide the best and most

advanced health care, not just in Canada but probably around the globe.

I think this is an important bill. It's an important issue, to create awareness about safety in the workplace. That's why we debate this issue all the time, because all of us, from both sides, care about it.

We care about the safety of everyone, not just health care workers but anyone who commits himself or herself to serve the community, especially in the health care field.

I'm here to listen for more comments, and hopefully in the end we will create awareness, not just among ourselves but also send a great message to all the people of this province.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): It's a pleasure to stand this morning and speak in support of Bill 30, brought forward by the member from Nickel Belt, the Safe Needles Save Lives

Act, and to compliment her on the work she does in the Legislature, her strong advocacy on many issues, especially health care.

I welcome the members in the gallery who have supported her and helped her bring forward this legislation for the second time. Welcome to politics. It takes a while sometimes to get things done, but we all try

to do the right things for the communities in private members' bills. As my colleague from Waterloo-Wellington mentioned, it is a non-partisan type of morning where we can bring forward issues that we could all benefit from.

We certainly support the legislation and did support it before when it was brought forward. From a personal perspective, I was actively a nurse for 20 years. I still have my licence. You never know in

politics; you may have to go back to a former profession. There's not a lot of job security. I still have my licence and am still in quite close contact with many of my nursing colleagues.

The member from Nickel Belt certainly also personally understands the importance of the concept of safe needles and protection for our health care professionals, protecting our front-line workers. You're

always surprised. I worked in the industry 20 years before there was any type of safety-engineered needles, back in the old days, and I saw the evolution of technologies as they advanced and what we can do. The technology is there; we just need to

do some more active regulations to enforce it so we can protect everyone.

The provinces have been mentioned, and the US, that have already brought in this type of legislation to protect workers. It's surprising that Ontario is as behind as it is, but that's why we're here. That's

why the member from Nickel Belt has been a strong advocate and why we are also supporting this bill before you today.

It's obvious that nurses in the field are in direct contact, but sometimes you forget the doctors who are involved, the nurse assistants, the health care aides, the people in training in programs, and of

course you forget the hospital staff: the janitors, the cleaning crews, the volunteers, the auxiliaries who are in the hospitals working alongside the health care professionals. They are all in contact. Yesterday we had the Ontario firefighters'

association here. So I think we should include emergency medical personnel, paramedics, firefighters, police services, professionals and people who are simply just trying to care for others who are in need of care. This would help protect us

all.

I know that the Ontario Nurses' Association had some interesting statistics. Annually, there are 33,000 needle-stick injuries that occur in the health care sector alone; 17,000, of course, occur in the acute

care sector, which is the sector that I worked in. The cost associated with needle-stick injury -- it's all part of education; we're educating the public -- is $2,000 in testing and treatment, although for those suffering from the seriousness of

deadly disease, the costs far exceed that. But it also includes the patients. So if a needle stick occurs, the health care worker or whoever has been stuck gets all the blood work etc., but patient also has to go through the blood work and all the

process that's involved. Because we have the technology, we should be using it. The estimate in Ontario alone is that $66 million is spent every year on workers who have needle-stick injuries.

on. This is something that, sure, is going to cost something, but the costs are definitely worth it, and it's protecting our health care workers. They don't need another reason to leave the system. We need front-line health care providers, and

there are things we can do that show that they are appreciated, they're respected, that we want to protect them and we want to work with them. This is an example of one of the things we can do.

Ms. Martel has been an excellent advocate on health care issues, in her tenacity in sticking with this -- don't mind the pun; we try to have a little humour in politics -- to see this go through. The political

process, say, to bring this to committee to debate, whichever way possible -- the government has that ability to call this bill any time they want to and to get it out to committee to discuss, to hear from all sides. We see that the sides that are

here today are supportive. If we're missing something, then that's the time it's brought forward.

How do we best implement it? You have to work with the health care system. Some of the other provinces, as was mentioned earlier, are at certain stages. At least they're in stages. At least they're working; at

least they are going in that direction.

The bill provides awareness. The bill provides protection. We need to prevent these injuries from happening, and we have the heightened responsibility to do this. As I say, it's a small cost. It's what should

be done. My colleague from Waterloo-Wellington mentioned long-term-care facilities. I think that you really have to educate the public, and it's becoming more so. They have the patient councils in long-term-care centres. Make as many people aware

of the issues as you can, because public pressure is what drives us to bring in bills that are going to protect all of us. Again, it's the awareness, the moving it along this process. I always say that in nursing things moved a lot quicker than

they do in politics. You have to develop a whole new level of patience, but you get there. You figure out how to work within the system. I know Ms. Martel will soon be 20 years in the Legislature. She certainly has learned to work the process, the

legislation, and knows how to get things done. I support the bill brought forward by her today.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for --

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Beaches-East York.

The Deputy Speaker: I just had a block on that. Beaches-East York.

Mr. Prue: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure and an honour to speak to this bill here today, but before I actually deal with the merits of the bill, I would like to comment on

some of the statements that were made by my learned friends opposite. There were two in particular when they spoke, and, keeping in the same vein as my colleague from Parkdale-High Park, quotes came instantly to mind.

To the member from London-Fanshawe, I'm reminded first of all of Goethe. His most famous quote, at least the one I like best: What is the hardest thing for a man to see? That which is right before his very

eyes.

So there it is. He questioned the definition: What was a sharp? You need go no further than the actual bill. It defines what a medical sharp is in very plain, although technical, language. It means "a needle

device or any non-needle sharp used for withdrawing body fluids, accessing an artery or vein, administering medications or other fluids, or any other use resulting or likely to result in parenteral contact." It may be kind of hard language, but

it's there. That's the definition; that's what is included.

To my friend from Nipissing, who was going on and on about the costs, again I go back to quotes. I love quotes, as members of the Legislature know, and one of my favourite ones is from Oscar Wilde in

describing a businessman -- I think one he particularly detested -- and he quoted the guy as someone who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. That's what I would suggest to my friend from Nipissing. "How much is this going to

cost?" she asked. How much is going to be involved from the treasury? The reality is that the value of what is being done here is not so much in terms of the costs that are going to be expended or saved but the value in the life of the people we

are going to save, the value of the work that they do, and the obligation we have to each and every one of them to ensure that their workplace safety is maintained.

I started with those two quotes. I'd like to throw back to the Liberals a quote that, every time it's used in this Legislature, all I see is applause from the opposite bench, whether it be from the Premier or

from Minister Bountrogianni, who is in charge of intergovernmental affairs. They always say that Ontarians are being shortchanged, that the federal formulas don't work, and that if you're a worker in Ontario you don't get the same monies or the

same privileges as if you were a worker in any other province, especially if you're laid off, if you're on unemployment insurance, and why is it that we get less in Ontario? I would ask the same question. I hope you'll all applaud me. I'm going to

ask exactly the same thing. Is it fair that a worker in Ontario has less protection than an identical worker in most other provinces of Canada? You have to ask yourself that question if you're going to be totally fair. If you're going to applaud

the Premier for asking the question, you should applaud anyone else who asks the same question. Is it fair for these workers to have less protection than if they worked in Saskatchewan or Manitoba or British Columbia or Alberta or Nova Scotia? The

answer is very simple: It is not fair.

All that is being asked here is that a five-step process be undertaken:

(1) That there be mandatory adoptions of safety-engineered devices. That's not that difficult. Just do it.

(2) That there should be an exposure control plan so that if these objects are available, if they're in the hospitals, if they're in the care centres, there be an exposure control plan to make sure that they

are not taken out or used more often than not and that the people who use them are careful.

(3) That there has to be effective training and education, which has been done in Toronto East General Hospital, which I'm going to deal with in a minute.

(4) There needs to be a sharps injury log kept.

(5) There needs to be post-exposure protocol so that we know how to follow up and how to remedy all of that.

In the two minutes I have left, I'd like to talk about Toronto East General Hospital. That is my hospital. It's in my community. It's in Beaches-East York. We're very proud of it. It's a very innovative

place.

There is a study written by Laura Visser in the Healthcare Quarterly, volume 9, number 1, in 2006, and it talks about Toronto East General Hospital. I'd just like to quote a little bit from this. It says:

"Since the safety program was started at TEGH, sharps injuries have declined by 80%, easily surpassing the original first year goal of a 20% reduction in injuries. There were 41 reported injuries in 2003,

decreasing to eight in 2004. This included the complete elimination of injuries during blood collection procedures for that year."

It goes on to quote Rob Devitt, who is the hospital's president and CEO, saying what a wonderful thing it is. But I think the important aspect is what has happened since then. The author goes on to write:

"Encouraged by this success, TEGH has now extended the program to include a needleless IV system, along with IV catheters and more portable sharps disposal containers. It is also now investigating the

introduction of safety-engineered scalpels and blades to address sharps injuries in the operating room."

The will is there. What it needs is legislation so that the Toronto East General Hospital is not the only place where this occurs. It needs to happen in every hospital, in every doctor's office, in every

health care facility and in every long-term-care facility. The workers deserve the protection; the bill will make it happen.

I congratulate my colleague from Nickel Belt for bringing forward this bill and having the tenacity to bring it forward again. I ask the members opposite not to use excuses but common sense to make sure it

proceeds.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): First, let me welcome to the Legislature the front-line workers from the Ontario Nurses' Association, the Service Employees International Union and the Ontario

Public Service Employees Union.

On private member's Bill 30 by the member from Nickel Belt,

An Act to reduce the incidence of needlestick injuries, I want to remind our viewers that this is private members' hour. That means we are not

constrained by government policy or by a government program, and we're certainly not being told how to vote in private members' hours. I will most likely support this bill, depending on how the member from Nickel Belt answers three of my

concerns.

First, the good news. As all of us know, in March 2005, the Ministry of Health announced an investment already -- this is very proactive, in a way -- of $11.6 million for hospitals to purchase

safety-engineered medical devices. This was identified as one-time special funding, as we know, to improve the health and safety of the province's health care workers by investing in safer medical equipment and safety-engineered medical devices at

all Ontario hospitals.

My question to the member for Nickel Belt is, did she consult the following groups: stakeholders from groups such as doctors in private practice, dentists or others who may be affected by this bill and who

would likely have concerns, as was said before, that it is very expensive? And does it allow the flexibility to address hazards in a manner proportional to this risk?

Second, if this bill proceeds, will there be consultations? Has the member consulted with health sector stakeholders, such as the health regulatory colleges, health professional associations, the Ontario

Association of Medical Laboratories and the Ontario Hospital Association?

Third, my final question: Neither the Ministry of Labour nor the Ministry of Health have a reliable estimate of the expected upfront costs or of possible savings to the health care system through reduced

injuries to workers, such as lost time, WSIB costs, retraining costs and so on. Please note that the Toronto East General Hospital implemented the safety-engineered medical devices program between 2001 and 2005. We saw an 80% to 85% drop in sharps

injuries -- congratulations -- but the increased cost for the safety devices varied between an 83% increase, from almost $1 to $1.68, for IV catheters, and a 1,200% increase, between 2 cents to 26 cents per unit, for injectable needles.

The member from Parkdale-High Park made a good point, and that is, this is not only an issue that concerns hospitals or health care workers as such, because many times, I know in my office, we get calls on

syringes in back lanes. Good point. If members of the public want to know, "Who do you call if you see a syringe that your kid picks up on the road, on the street or in the back lane?" you call the police or the health department.

Finally, I want to simply remind you of this, which is a good point: The technology exists to produce safe devices. That, to me, is an important item.

I want to congratulate the member from Nickel Belt for bringing Bill 30 forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. Martel, you have two minutes to respond.

Ms. Martel: I want to acknowledge the presence of Leah Casselman, president of OPSEU, in the gallery.

I want to say to the member for Nipissing, the bill doesn't say that we're going to have these devices in all workplaces all at once. It says, very clearly, "prescribed workplaces." It can be done by

regulation in a staged approach. Secondly, she talked about what kind of sharps. It says "as approved by Health Canada" right in the bill, so you're not going to be using just anything from anybody. I forget her third concern, but I'm sure we can

deal with it at commitee.

Who did I consult with? These folks here, those workers up there, the people who are most at risk every day in their workplace of getting a needle-stick injury. That's who I consulted with, that's who I have

been working with for the last two years, because they deserve to be protected, and we deserve to have a law in Ontario that protects them. I'm very proud of my work with these groups and with the Alliance for Sharps Safety and Needlestick

Prevention. Anybody else who we want to consult with, we can do that at public hearings once we get the bill to public hearings.

The reality is this: On July 26, 2006, four union leaders who represent the majority of workers who are impacted by needle-stick injuries wrote to the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour

and said this was a priority for them. They said, "Where is Ontario?" Your government has inspected health care workplaces, studied the situation since your election, and provided limited, one-time funding in 2005 to help hospitals purchase

safety-engineered sharps. The money ran out in March 2006. What your government has not done yet is require the use of this equipment and thus reduce or eliminate preventable injuries to nurses and other health care workers.

The Minister of Labour responded in the same way that I knew the government members would today: "We set up a committee of health care workers, and we're going to look at it there." And do you know what he

said? "The use of safety-engineered medical devices could" -- could -- "be a topic of discussion for this committee." The time for "could" is over. It's time now to have a bill in place to protect these workers. Five other jurisdictions in Canada

have moved to protect workers from needle-stick injuries. We need to do that in Ontario. This should be the law in Ontario.

LANDFILL

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of the Environment must confirm that the region impacted by the Green Lane landfill purchase is a

"willing host"; and

That the government of Ontario must guarantee that the landfill will not be in operation after the current scheduled closing date of 2018; and

That the city of Toronto, acting as a "good neighbour," must develop a comprehensive plan to ensure that the necessary policies and technologies are adopted and in place so that, as of January 1, 2012, the

city of Toronto will no longer dispose of any waste at the Green Lane landfill site.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Miller has moved private member's notice of motion number 31. Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Miller, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Miller: I'm pleased to rise today to speak about this very important resolution. Ontario is facing a waste crisis under the McGuinty Liberals, and we in the Ontario PC caucus believe it is

time we had a debate surrounding waste.

Before I outline vital steps this government should take in terms of Green Lane, I'd like to express my disappointment with the Liberal members from the London area. There are no fewer than five Liberal

members who represent the ridings surrounding the Green Lane landfill. Two are ministers, and one actually represents the riding where the landfill site sits. Of these five members, only two asked the Minister of the Environment softball questions

on Green Lane. Not once did we in this House hear from any of these five members when Green Lane was allowed to increase their capacity in June 2006. Not once did we hear from these members when the city of Toronto surprised us all by buying the

dump.

One voice heard from is the Oneida of the Thames River. On November 9, 2006, the Globe and Mail reported that the area native band is voicing its concerns over Toronto's garbage, and that they are looking into

their options with lawyers in Toronto. The

article states, "Oneida Chief Randall Phillips said he is hoping for co-operative negotiation with the city, which is scheduled to take possession on December 20. He said the band will wait no later than

January before considering other tactics."

It goes on to say, "Standing at his reserve's town line yesterday, Mr. Phillips and other council members swatted at flies and pointed to the nearby dump. The stench eased up as the heavy early-morning fog

lifted, but there was no mistaking the smell of garbage that reserve residents say plagues the Oneida's land."

I don't envy those five government members. They'll have some explaining to do to the people of London and the surrounding areas. They'll have to be accountable for their lack of action or representation.

Today's resolution provides those five members of provincial Parliament with an opportunity to rebuild trust with their constituents.

This resolution simply seeks to ensure that some of the most basic protections that the Ministry of the Environment should have provided from the outset are indeed provided.

The first thing we want to ensure for those families who live in the area surrounding the Green Lane landfill is that they are a willing host. The concept of willing host is something that the Liberals once

said they believed in. Of course, they once said they believed in a lot of things in order to get elected. Dalton McGuinty, their leader, was very clear when it came to willing hosts. In fact, he tabled a similar resolution to the one I introduced

today. On October 2, 2000, Dalton McGuinty rose in the Legislature and said the following:

"Be it resolved that the Ontario Legislature demand that the Minister of the Environment use the statutory powers entrusted to him to prevent the creation or operation of a waste management facility at the

Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake until the following conditions are met: a full environmental assessment has determined that there will be no negative impact on the region's groundwater; and the residents of the region confirm through referenda

that they are in fact a willing host for the shipment of waste to their community."

That is what Dalton McGuinty said then. Flash forward to today, and we have no referenda and no debate.

The five provincial representatives who should be asking questions have failed their constituents, and because of that failure, we do not know if the region surrounding Green Lane landfill is indeed a willing

host.

The resolution today takes a more balanced approach in terms of the willing host. We simply call on the Minister of the Environment to have the discussion, do the consultations and prove to the people of

southwestern Ontario, Toronto and the province as a whole that the impacted region is willing to accept the shipment of Toronto's garbage: a simple request and, quite frankly, something that should have been done before the sale was even

allowed.

The second aspect of the resolution calls for a guarantee from the minister that the Green Lane landfill will cease to operate after 2018. The people of southwestern Ontario have an enormous environmental

burden thrust upon them with no clear expression of interest. We in the Ontario PC caucus believe that the least this Liberal government can do is give the people of the London area an assurance that they will not be a dump forever and that there

is indeed a guaranteed light at the end of Dalton McGuinty's garbage crisis tunnel.

The third and final piece of the resolution is arguably the most important because it speaks to working with the city of Toronto to find a way for them to deal with their own waste. John Tory believes, and I

agree, that fundamentally Torontonians want to deal with their own waste. They want the days of their garbage travelling down the 401 to become someone else's problem to be over, and, until that day, they want to act as a good neighbour. The

people of Toronto want to be a good neighbour by reducing their waste and finding new ways to utilize it. I know they care about the environment, and reducing waste is the right thing to do.

The great news is that this is possible. The possibilities are endless if the province is willing to be a partner with the city of Toronto. What can we do? Take immediate, bold action. John Tory is in favour

of looking at all of the new and innovative technologies that the rest of the world seems to have adopted to turn waste into energy. Newly elected Toronto mayor David Miller, in his victory speech on Monday, emphasized that he wants to see a 70%

diversion rate for the city of Toronto by 2010 -- an admirable and ambitious goal. If we can take ideas like these and put them into action, we can begin to see significant progress.

Personally, I have a keen interest in what we can achieve through greater product stewardship. In 2005, I introduced a private member's bill which essentially called for a version of bottle return as well as a

greater role for product stewardship in terms of how we manage our waste. Product stewardship works because industry comes up with the solutions. They know their business best and will come up with solutions that are cost-effective and get the job

done. Deposit-return systems work because there is an incentive to return the product for the deposit, and those who end up not returning it are in fact paying for the system; the polluters pay. Of course, the Liberal government has announced

something that seems to try and look like a bottle-return plan; however, the flaws in that policy by photo op are best left for another day and another debate.

In terms of better dealing with our waste, we can also learn from other jurisdictions around the world. I mentioned earlier that John Tory supports looking at advanced technologies, such as energy from waste,

that are being used across the world. But it isn't just energy from waste. There are best practices to be found in many countries, such as Sweden. There's an area in southern Sweden which has so many advanced ways of diverting and dealing with

waste that at the end of the day, less than 10% ends up in a landfill. The Swedish Parliament has established 15 environmental quality objectives, such as clean air and good-quality groundwater, to guide Sweden towards a sustainable society. The

15 environmental objectives will function as benchmarks for all environment-related development in Sweden, regardless of where it is implemented and by whom. The overriding aim is to solve all the major environmental problems within one

generation. Sweden is taking bold steps, with definite deadlines, and they are seeing real results. The Ontario Liberals could learn from that example.

By encouraging the city of Toronto to act as a good neighbour and to work towards stopping the shipment of waste to Green Lane by 2012, we are proposing a deadline, one that is close enough that the people in

and around Green Lane can take some comfort in knowing that their concerns have been heard and acted on, but also far enough away that the city of Toronto can realistically make the necessary changes to meet the deadline.

If the city of Toronto were to succeed in this task, it would be a win-win-win situation. The city would win because it will finally accomplish a goal that residents and politicians alike have wanted to

achieve for years. The people in the area surrounding Green Lane will win the right to breathe a little deeper when they go to get their paper in the morning. Finally, the province of Ontario will win because it will have drastically decreased the

amount of waste going to landfill.

In conclusion, I want to make a few items perfectly clear. This resolution calls for three simple things: proof that the region surrounding Green Lane landfill is a willing host; a guarantee that Green Lane

landfill will cease to operate after 2018; and, finally, a call for the city of Toronto to work towards stopping shipments to Green Lane by 2012, all the while acting as a good neighbour. This resolution respects the rights and jurisdiction of the

city of Toronto, which we know wants to move towards dealing with its waste. Finally, this resolution gives a voice to those who have had the misfortune of having five silent members as their representatives.

This is an important resolution and I look forward to seeing our friends in the Liberal caucus supporting it, especially the members from the London area.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It's a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to spend a few minutes this morning talking about this particular situation in southwestern Ontario.

First of all, I would like to get a few remarks on the record based on some letters I have here. The first one I have is from James McIntyre, the mayor of the township of Southwold, which is the location of

the landfill site. It says:

"Attention: Mayor David Miller....

"Through various media sources, the township of Southwold understands that Toronto council has authorized proceeding with the acquisition of the Green Lane landfill located within the corporate limits of

township and county of Elgin.

"It is further understood that the city of Toronto has provided assurances to media outlets and to the city of London that it intends to work with affected municipalities in ensuring that the public interests,

benefits and objectives respecting waste transport and disposal are met.

"On behalf of our municipality, we welcome these initiatives and look forward to an initial meeting and discussions with representatives of the city as the matter of acquisition progresses."

This is signed by James McIntyre, the mayor of the township of Southwold.

A letter back to the township regarding this matter:

"Thank you for your letter of November 3, 2006. In order to meet your requested response date of November 10, I am responding on behalf of the city....

"Toronto is intending to acquire only the landfill itself, but not the collection operations, so the obligations assumed by Toronto will relate to disposal. Having said that, it has always been the city's

intention, assuming it reaches an agreement with the vendor, to accept waste as provided under all current municipal waste collection contracts with Green Lane and to work with local municipalities for the life of the landfill. Toronto also

"We would be happy to meet with representatives of Southwold as we proceed with the acquisition, which we hope will be completed on February 1, 2007."

Indeed, my five colleagues from this area have, on numerous occasions, been meeting with municipal officials in Southwold and certainly working with them, spearheaded, of course, by my colleague the Minister

of Labour, the Honourable Steve Peters, the member from Elgin-Middlesex-London.

To look at a number of options, the current government has made some changes to the EA process to look at some alternatives for handling waste management. Indeed, Rod Bryden in Ottawa has a pilot project with

plasma gasification to see how that will work in terms of handling waste management. We've made some changes to the EA process to allow those pilot projects to move forward and collect the data, and to make sure that any emissions from these

operations meet the air quality standards in the province of Ontario, which are among the highest in the world. Indeed, if these alternative technologies prove successful through the pilot projects, they will then be subject to the full

environmental assessments that we go through in Ontario to provide waste management approaches.

My friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka mentioned Sweden. Just recently, I had the opportunity to review a comprehensive report done by the federal government in Sweden looking at waste management. Of course, in

that jurisdiction, landfilling is the last of the three options that they pursue.

The Ministry of the Environment is certainly working on product stewardship. Mr. Speaker, you're just recently a new grandfather, and you will inevitably be buying a number of gifts for that new grandchild.

And when you look at the product -- I've had this experience myself -- the toy you get, it's about that large, and the packaging is about this large. Often it's those blister packages, which are made of material that is not recyclable, or the

cardboard in that package is of a material that can't be recycled. So inevitably, that goes into a landfill site.

We have announced just recently -- it will occur early in 2007 -- an opportunity through Brewers Retail to have a deposit-return system in place for bottles that are sold with various spirits and wines through

the LCBO system. We know that the Brewers Retail is probably the most successful recycling operation in North America. We know that the participation rate, the return of bottles to that organization, is some 96% to 97%. We're certainly hoping, as

we put the final details in place for the LCBO return, that individuals will take the opportunity to recycle wine and spirit bottles.

I know that's been welcomed by AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I just had the opportunity yesterday to talk to Doug Reycraft, who is the new president of AMO, and he certainly is very

supportive of that decision and that approach, as municipalities have been struggling for a long time. Not only does it create workplace problems for individuals collecting material, because often blue boxes get shuffled around, bottles get broken

and employees have to pick them up, but there hasn't been, over a long period of time, a real market for those bottles. Inevitably, they end up in landfills or they become part of asphalt.

I just got the signal and I'm going to conclude, but I wanted to get those remarks on the record dealing with this particular issue.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise to speak in support of the motion brought forward by my colleague. I'm happy to speak to the resolution, but I'm really somewhat concerned that the

resolution is necessary. Had this process been followed appropriately, in my mind, this resolution would not have been necessary. The process of approving landfill sites and the Environmental Assessment Act and the process of approving expansions

relate to waste management in general, not just whether it's a good place to put the garbage.

First of all, I just want to go to the first part of the resolution: "That, in the opinion of the House, the Minister of the Environment must confirm that the region impacted by the Green Lane landfill

purchase is a `willing host.'" I just quickly wanted to touch on that. It's important to recognize the word "region." For those watching who are not aware of where the Green Lane landfill site is -- I see the government side shaking their heads,

but they definitely know where it is -- it's right on the edge. It is in Southwold township, in Elgin county, but in fact it's right on the edge of the city of London. As you drive down the 401 -- and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you go by there on a

regular basis -- you will find that the interchange going into London is right on the corner of where the Green Lane landfill site is located. That is important, because I think it's important to recognize that the region and the host area that's

going to take the waste from Toronto is aware and is accepting of that fact.

I recognize that the approval was granted and the expansion is there, so it's not the city of Toronto that has inappropriately purchased the landfill site. The problem is that the Ministry of the Environment,

in their approval process, did not do due diligence to make sure that they knew what they were approving it for. When the news came out in the newspaper about the purchase by the city of Toronto, there were a lot of comments from the local members

of the area, including, I see here with us, the member from London-Fanshawe. All the comments were, "But this doesn't mean we're going to get Toronto waste here. Of course I will do everything I can" -- I think this was the statement, and the

member across can correct me if I'm wrong -- "to stop it from happening, but I'm not sure I can do anything." That was the comment that was in my local paper, called the London Free Press, and I think it covers the same area that the member is

from.

That's really the problem here. That situation would not have arisen had the city of Toronto had to go through that process on their own to get that expansion. I think it's important to recognize, as we deal

with that expansion and the approval process, that in 2005 the city of Toronto was also approached about purchasing or utilizing the Green Lane landfill site, and they decided it wasn't for them. They decided not to do that. They made other

arrangements. Of course this year, when they were approached again, they decided they liked the idea, so they bought the site. One has to ask, what changed between the 2005 and the 2006 process? We realize what changed was that the minister had

approved a large expansion for the landfill site, so all of a sudden it looked more appealing to the city of Toronto. I think that would be why they purchased it.

We also know that had the city of Toronto purchased it themselves in 2005 and had to go through the environmental process, they would have had to deal with their total waste management plan. They would have

had to commit to the amount of waste that would be removed from the waste stream. They would have had to look at alternative ways of disposing of their waste before they could get approval to expand the site. They would have had to go through that

in the environmental assessment. While they were doing that, they also would have had the public involved to talk about waste diversion, to talk about the other alternatives for waste disposal, but of course none of that was required when the

operator or the owner of the landfill site prior to Toronto went for the application. Of course, that's when the government should have been addressing it. The minister approved the expansion of the landfill site, and at that time the members were

all quoted as suggesting they didn't know it was being done for Toronto waste, that this was just an expansion for one of our local landfill sites. I find that hard to believe.

The expansion, the permit, is for 10 million tonnes of waste -- somebody applying for an expansion to deposit 10 million tonnes of waste. I think the minister would have to look around and find out why someone

would want that size of an expansion. Of course, the minister would immediately see that there is only one municipality in the province of Ontario that would generate that amount of waste that would require that expansion.

The member for Elgin-Middlesex-London, the member for London-Fanshawe and the members for London North and London West would all, at that point, have been aware that this application was coming through, that

there was an approval process the minister was dealing with. Two of those members were, of course, sitting at the cabinet table with the Ministry of the Environment as these types of decisions were made.

To put it in context, in 1999 those municipalities -- Elgin and Middlesex counties and the city of St. Thomas and that area -- produced 30,000 tonnes of waste, and the minister approved this expansion for, as

I said, 10 million tonnes. If it wasn't for the city of Toronto garbage, the minister-approved capacity in this landfill site would last 333 years for the present users before that space would be occupied. They would have landfill space until the

year 2339. That's how much capacity was there. So I think it's unreasonable to assume that the minister thought that's what the approval was for.

I don't think that, realistically, the minister approved it for that purpose. I suppose that, in the news release announcing the expansion, the minister said it was good news for municipalities "that are

seeking disposal capacity within the province rather than sending it to Michigan." So I guess, if we look around now at the municipalities that are sending their waste to Michigan, we'll find that there is only the main one, of course the city of

Toronto, and some of the 905 municipalities that are sending some there. I think it would be very difficult to assume that the members representing that area, who at the time said the expansion had nothing to do with Toronto waste, said later on,

"Oh, my gosh, if we'd known this, we wouldn't have let it happen." I find it hard to fathom that, when you look at those figures.

The member for London North said, "Where we have waste, let's look for the most environmentally sensible place to put it. Green Lane is as good as any, I understand." Again, it is kind of hard to relate that

to, "We are opposed and we will do whatever we can to stop it from going there," when we have resigned ourselves to the fact that there it is going to go.

It's important to recognize that a municipality that applies for an expansion has to study more than whether the site is safe. As I said, they have to look at all the other alternatives to get rid of their

waste, and not just where it is going to be buried.

If Toronto had gone through the process, the fact that the McGuinty Liberals had not lived up to their 60% diversion or recycling promise would have been highlighted, because obviously they would have had to

show how much waste they were going to divert from the waste stream and they immediately would have seen, and the public immediately would have seen, that they were never going to need it.

Also in a recent poll, 60% of Torontonians believe that they should be looking after their own waste. Again, that is why I think it is so important that the resolution have a timeline on it.

The member of London-Fanshawe actually questioned why the city of Toronto isn't exploring new technologies to deal with their waste. He said, "Why haven't they already done that?" I agree with the member from

London-Fanshawe, and I think he, as a member of the government, should have been forcing the city of Toronto to look at that, as opposed to sitting back and watching this happen and not telling anyone about it. If Toronto had gone through the

proper process, if the Liberals hadn't created the back-door way to avoid it, then perhaps we would have had an energy-from-waste pilot project right here in Toronto now. We will never know. The answer is that the Liberal Minister of the

Environment has made it so that they don't have to. That's why I object to this landfill decision and I support the resolution on behalf of my fellow member.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's a pleasure for me to participate in this debate at this time. Today's private member's motion, if nothing else, confirms that irony is alive and well in

Ontario, because we have a motion before us that has been introduced by the opposition Tories that, among other things, requires the Minister of the Environment to determine whether or not London and its surrounding area is a willing host to

Toronto's garbage. If that sounds familiar to some members in this House, it should, because in substance it mirrors a Liberal opposition motion that was advanced in October 2000 which sought to ensure a community receiving a another community's

garbage is a "willing host."

We've heard the text of the Conservative motion today, but I want to read into the record the Liberal opposition motion from October 2000 for the benefit of those communities that are facing massive dump

expansions courtesy of the McGuinty Liberals. This is a quote from Mr. McGuinty, October 2000:

"I have an opposition day motion which reads as follows:

"Be it resolved that the Ontario Legislature demand that the Minister of the Environment use the statutory powers entrusted to him to prevent the creation or operation of a waste management facility at the

Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake until the following conditions are met: a full environmental assessment has determined that there will be no negative impact on the region's groundwater; and the residents of the region confirm through referenda

that they are in fact a willing host for the shipment of waste to their community;

"Be it further resolved that the Ontario Legislature demand that the Minister of the Environment keep his promise not to extend the operating licence of the Keele Valley landfill site."

Back on October 2, 2000, when this motion was introduced, Dalton McGuinty had this to say about one community exporting its trash to another: "Our motion also calls for the residents of the region to have a

say. We want a referendum to determine that they are in fact truly willing hosts." That's from Hansard, October 2, 2000.

I want to read into the record as well some further information that talks about "willing host." This comes from comments that were made by Premier McGuinty at the time that his colleague the member from

Timiskaming, now the Minister of Natural Resources, introduced a private member's bill also talking about "willing host." This is what the now Premier had to say with respect to the idea or the principle of a willing host. It's a long quote, but I

want to read it all into the record:

"The second principle the bill embraces is that of a willing host, and I guess there's some looseness with respect to the definition of a willing host. The principle here is that no community can be compelled

against its wishes to take another community's waste. I think that is eminently supportable as well. It's one thing to have to take responsibility for your own garbage, for your own waste, but it's quite another to have to assume responsibility

for someone else's.

"In the former case," said Mr. McGuinty, "where you are required to assume responsibility for your own garbage, your own waste, it's only right and fitting and just and all those good things, and there is a

real obligation on the part of a community to take that kind of responsibility. It provides a real incentive to reduce the amount of waste you are producing within your community.

"But in the latter case, where a community is being asked to take in within its borders, within its boundaries, somebody else's waste, that's a different matter altogether. In that case, I would argue there is

no obligation on that community to do so. Secondly, that very option being made available to the community which is getting rid of its garbage can act as a very real disincentive to reduction of waste production. It's only appropriate that in that

case that community, that proponent which is asking that its garbage be sent elsewhere, seek the consent of the recipient community or willing host. That's only fair and reasonable," said Dalton McGuinty.

"The member puts forward that one way of ensuring we have a willing host is to hold a referendum. That is clearly a means by which we can determine whether or not the community is willing. He is not creating

any kind of unfair burden. It's simply a majority of the members. With respect to this issue of how wide we ought to spread the net, who ought to be entitled to cast a vote in this referendum, that's a subject of some fair debate. But I don't see

why that subject could not be addressed more fully at committee. I don't see it as something fatal. We hardly want to involve our American cousins in that kind of consideration. I don't think that was the member's intent. Surely we can all agree

on that.

"In brief, what the member" -- Mr. Ramsay -- "is trying to do here is eminently supportable. The bill is sound. He's embracing a couple of principles which, in fairness, have been embraced by governments of

all political stripes during the past 25 years or so, one of those principles being that if a community is going to receive waste from another community, it ought to do so of its own accord; it ought to be willing to take the garbage in.

Otherwise, if not, we should not be able to compel it to do so."

"The second principle is that an environmental assessment ought to be heard in these kinds of cases where we're dealing with landfill sites. The member has a particular concern related to his own constituency,

a very valid and legitimate concern. In that particular case, we're not talking about a small operation; we're talking about a very large operation. It's important that a full, complete environmental assessment be heard and that the community

there be found to be truly willing to receive that waste. I have no reservation whatsoever in lending my full support to the member for his good work, as contained within this bill."

Extensive as it was, that is from the Premier, Mr. McGuinty, in support of a private member's bill that had been put forward by one of his own, the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane, now the Minister of Natural

Resources, with respect to a willing host, who was a willing host, and why a full environmental assessment was important on these matters.

This begs the question: Did the Premier -- or the Minister of the Environment for that matter -- ask the people of London and the communities surrounding the Green Lane landfill if they were in fact willing

hosts? Second, did the Premier or the Minister of the Environment call a referendum in London and its surrounding communities to see if they were willing hosts? Not a chance. Instead, what the people of London and the surrounding communities got

was a mega-landfill expansion based on a deficient environmental assessment that was started by the Harris Tories and rubber-stamped by the McGuinty Liberals -- an environmental assessment process, by the way, that Dalton McGuinty while in

opposition described as "gutted" by the Harris government. That can be found in Hansard on October 2, 2000.

At the end of private members' business today, we're going to witness a rather bizarre spectacle whereby the opposition Tories will be supporting a motion that is substantially the same motion they voted

against while in government, and the McGuinty Liberal government will be voting against a motion that is substantively the same as the one they introduced and supported in this House when they were in opposition. It's been quite a morning.

Such a role reversal would be comic if it wasn't for the communities across the province being forced to accept the environmental risks associated with the misguided waste management policies of the

Harris-Eves Tories and now the broken waste diversion promises of the McGuinty Liberals.

The failure of Dalton McGuinty to live up to the waste diversion principles that he held so strongly in opposition and the promises he made during the election in 2003 is not funny to the citizens of London

and the surrounding communities who have had a mega-expansion of the Green Lane landfill forced on them against their will.

It's not funny to the residents in Carp, Ontario, also facing a massive landfill expansion, when Dalton McGuinty promised to ban the landfilling of organics but has done nothing about it.

The McGuinty government's failure to keep its promise to divert 60% of waste from landfills is not funny to the residents of Sarnia and Warwick township who are now facing a proposed mega-expansion of the

Watford landfill site by Waste Management Canada.

It's not funny to the residents in communities that face the prospect of a new garbage incinerator springing up in their backyard thanks to the McGuinty government's embracing of incineration and proposals to

reform the Environmental Assessment Act to make incinerators easier to site.

The fact that less than 30% of waste is presently diverted from landfills, despite Dalton McGuinty's promise to divert 60% by the end of 2007, is not funny to the people of Simcoe county who are now fighting a

mega-landfill known as site 41. It was just one month ago, on October 20, that the McGuinty government gave provisional approval to site 41 despite the fact that the aquifer under the proposed landfill has been scientifically shown to contain

among the purest water on the planet. In fact, it turns out that the water under site 41 contains levels of two heavy metals that are five times lower than even 5,000-year-old Arctic ice. According to Bill Shotyk, director of the Institute of

Environmental Geochemistry at the University of Heidelberg in Germany, one of two laboratories in the world that are capable of conducting such an analysis, the water under site 41 "could well be the cleanest groundwater on earth." That was a

quote by Bill Shotyk, the Toronto Star, April 6, 2006. The McGuinty government's response: Approve a massive landfill directly over the aquifer.

In opposition, Dalton McGuinty had a lot to say about mixing garbage and water. For example, during the Adams mine debate he stated that "one would assume that the government would now move heaven and earth in

an effort to protect Ontario's water, in an effort to make sure that poison doesn't get into the water in the first place. But instead of moving heaven and earth to protect our water, the Mike Harris government seems hell-bent on moving southern

Ontario's garbage up north in a scheme that does not go nearly far enough to protect our water." That quote is from Hansard, October 2, 2000.

But now in government, it's clear that the McGuinty plan is no plan: no plan to keep the election promise of 60% waste diversion across the province by the end of 2007, no plan to ban organics in landfills as

promised, just mega-landfill expansions, new incinerators, and approval to pump the cleanest water on the planet out of an aquifer so that the resulting hole can be filled with garbage. Does that sound like the Adams mine?

New Democrats and those communities that are impacted across the province want action on waste diversion. We want action on reducing packaging and we want action to protect communities' source water from

contamination. What we don't want is a rehashing of the failed waste management policies of the Tories now carried out under the McGuinty Liberals as a result of their broken election promises.

Speaker, it's been a pleasure for me to participate in this debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the chance to speak on an important issue that is dear to my heart. I have spoken about this many different times on

several occasions.

I heard the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka talk about the resolution. I know he is bringing this resolution forward not because he believes in it, but just to score a point for political gain. But we are here

to debate a very important issue. I've said it before, I say it today and I will say it tomorrow: My thinking about waste is that we should deal with it in a modern way, where we use technology to deal with waste. Many different countries in

Europe -- Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands -- have already introduced great technology to deal with waste.

I want to tell the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, the member from Oxford and the member from Nickel Belt that my colleagues and I don't take this issue lightly. As you know, Mr. Speaker, many people went

before me who are ministers of the crown. They know that so many applications, so many requests come to the ministries, especially the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment, or any ministry, has standards; they have

requirements. Any person or any request that meets those requirements gets approval or gets a licence.

Specifically, we're talking about the Ministry of the Environment here. First, Green Lane has been in existence since 1978. That company has been a great neighbour to the municipality surrounding that site.

They respect all the environmental rules and regulations on a daily basis. When they applied to increase their capacity to the Ministry of the Environment, I believe they went through very rigorous conditions and requirements. When they met those

requirements, they got a licence to expand and increase their capacity.

I believe the Ministry of the Environment receives on a daily basis many requests in many different parts of the province from many different landfills in Ontario. They request an expansion, and not all these

places get a licence or get permission to expand. But Green Lane got permission because they met all the requirements which had been put forward by the Ministry of the Environment. I believe there are very rigorous conditions, which they met.

Having said that, I don't believe the city of Toronto should send their garbage to Southwold, where Green Lane is, or to northern Ontario or to western Ontario or to eastern Ontario. I believe strongly that

the city of Toronto should deal with their own waste, not bully any small municipality or send it to any spot in the province of Ontario, because they have the capacity, they have the potential, they have the financial ability to follow many

cities in Europe which deal with their waste by technology.

What I've said many different times is that I'm against Toronto sending their garbage to the Green Lane landfill in the Southwold area. But as you know, Mr. Speaker, it's a private deal, done by a private

company and the city of Toronto. This issue is totally a municipal issue. I cannot interfere in this capacity. As a matter of fact, I've talked to the municipalities many different times and I've told them, "I'm there to support you, for whatever

you need me for and whenever you need me." I work with them closely on a daily basis. I'm still working with them. So when they need me to support them and support their actions, I'm there for them.

I also sent a letter to the mayor of Toronto, David Miller. I urged him to change his direction, to pursue a different avenue, not to send the garbage to Southwold, to Green Lane. This is my position. This is

our position, on this side of the House, to convince all the municipalities across Ontario to deal with their own waste within their own boundaries. It is very important to all of us in order to create harmony and peace between the communities. We

should work closely with them and help them to divert their own waste in a professional and modern way. I believe that Toronto is doing it. They reached an important target; it was almost 54% diversion. I know they have a rigorous goal to reach:

about 70% by the year 2010.

I want to tell the members from Oxford and Parry Sound that we're not quiet about this issue. We want to urge the municipalities. We are supporting any way to help the municipalities deal with their own waste

within their own boundary. As he knows, this issue is a municipal issue. This issue is done between a private company and the city of Toronto. We cannot interfere with any deal that goes between private to private, because we'll have a chaotic

situation in the province of Ontario. If, every time a private company wants to do something and meets all the requirements -- the legal requirements and the conditions and terms put up by any ministry -- and we want to stop them because that

isn't good for our political gain, that would be a chaotic situation.

Therefore, Green Lane applied to the Minister of the Environment and they met the conditions and terms which were set out by the ministry. That's why they granted the expansion. We don't know what is going on,

whether this company is going to use it for their local area people or to host any different municipalities.

As a matter of fact, we went and talked to the municipalities. We met with the Southwold mayor -- the honourable member from Peterborough mentioned his name several different times -- and we talked to him. He

are being met and that the requirements that Green Lane is obligated to respect are being respected. That's why the Minister of the Environment gave them permission.

Before I finish I want to say that I still wish that the city of Toronto changed its direction to deal with their own waste within their own boundary because they have the financial capacity and the ability to

be a leader in the province of Ontario.

I want to tell the mayor of Toronto -- hopefully he's listening to me today or somebody will listen to me -- that I hope he will not send their garbage to that area. It's not good for Toronto. It's not good

for anyone. We don't want to keep burying garbage. We have to deal with it.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to stand in support of the resolution brought forward by the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka that "must confirm that the region" of

London -- this is what we're talking about -- "impacted by the Green Lane landfill purchase is a `willing host'; and

"That the government of Ontario must guarantee that the landfill will not be in operation after the current scheduled closing date of 2018."

It's been interesting to listen to the various debates this morning and to hear what Mr. McGuinty said on November 24, 2003, when he was Leader of the Opposition. Let me quote: "We are going to get serious

about waste diversion in the province of Ontario" -- Liberal platform, page 9 of Growing Strong Communities, in big, bold, promise-breaking, Liberal red ink. "We will divert 60% of waste from landfills within five years."

We asked the Minister of the Environment many times about what's happening with that 60% diversion rate. She said, "Well, there is a little bit of doubt. It is a very high hurdle." But they said they would do

it in their platform and they didn't do it.

That leads us in part to the resolution that's before us here today. The member from Perth-Middlesex said, "You know, we have an amazing plan to meet that promise of 60% waste diversion." Well, where's the

amazing plan? We've asked so many times, we're getting tired of waiting, and they're kind of saying, "Well, maybe it's not going to happen" -- again, saying anything to get elected, breaking promises, but it doesn't seem to matter to them. I don't

know if there's any other place in the world where keeping a promise means so little. Here the present Liberal government makes all these promises, but, "It's okay. We're not going to keep them. People will forgive us." Well, they shouldn't

forgive you. You shouldn't have said it. You knew better. You're not giving municipalities the tools to work with, in this case, with waste diversion.

That's the situation today in the Green Lane landfill site near London. It's in the community of Southwold, where the Minister of Labour is the MPP -- a minister sitting at the cabinet table where these

decisions are made.

There's a press release right here from the Minister of the Environment. I was looking for a photo op; I couldn't find it, but I'm sure there has to be a photo op out there. This press release is dated June

28. It's promoting the fact that the Minister of the Environment has approved the expansion of landfill capacity of the Green Lane site. It says, "The expansion is good news for municipalities and businesses in Ontario who are seeking disposal

capacity within the province rather than sending it to Michigan."

The line about Michigan is very interesting, in light of a few things. Firstly, I think it's no secret to anyone here which cities currently ship their garbage to Michigan. Secondly, in the approval letter,

which I have over here, sent by the minister to the Green Lane group, the member from Elgin-Middlesex-London was also notified of this approval in the region. Thirdly, not so long after, we heard that Toronto city council approved the purchase of

the Green Lane landfill site shortly after the minister made an agreement with Michigan to reduce its shipments of garbage. It's an interesting turn of events, and I thought it was important that we put that on the record. I'm wondering if the

city of Toronto would have been interested in purchasing Green Lane prior to the expansion that was approved by the Minister of the Environment.

My colleague from Oxford mentioned what some of the Liberal members from the London area said in response to the Toronto purchase of Green Lane.

The member from London-Fanshawe, who just spoke, said, "I am willing to choose any path, legal path, whatever possible path to block it." Shortly afterwards in the same article, he said he's not sure if

there's anything he can do to stop this deal.

I can see that some members of the McGuinty Liberal government are feeling helpless, so how do you think the residents of their communities are feeling? Well, they're feeling pretty darned helpless that

Toronto trash is trumping their trash. Toronto votes trump all other votes for the McGuinty Liberals, I guess.

Today my colleague brought this forward to try to protect Ontario and all the hard-working, taxpaying residents of London and the surrounding areas. It will be interesting to see in just a few minutes how

those members on the government side are going to vote on this.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Miller, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Miller: I'd like to thank the member from London-Fanshawe, the member from Nickel Belt, the member from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, the member from Peterborough and the member from Oxford

for contributing to the debate today.

The Liberal government members from the London area have been strangely quiet on issues regarding the Green Lane landfill.

This is what the Premier said, when he was in opposition, to do with the issue of a willing host. He said, "It's only appropriate that in that case that community, that proponent which is asking that its

garbage be sent elsewhere, seek the consent of the recipient community or willing host. That's only fair and reasonable." That's Premier McGuinty.

He goes on: "It's important that a full, complete environmental assessment be heard and that the community there be found to be truly willing to receive that waste."

That was then; this is now.

I want to emphasize the three key intentions of this resolution for the members of this House. They're simple, really, and very important to the people of London: first, the concept of a willing host; second,

a guarantee that Green Lane will cease to operate after 2018; third, an assurance from the city of Toronto to work toward ceasing shipments to Green Lane by 2012, while acting as a good neighbour.

This resolution respects the rights and jurisdictions of the city of Toronto. We understand that they want to move toward dealing with their waste. We know they care about the environment for all Ontarians.

Finally, this resolution gives a voice to the people of London.

I'm surprised that not all of the London government members spoke to this resolution today. As they have in the past, they've been very quiet on the issues to do with Green Lane landfill site.

I hope that all my colleagues on all sides of this House will support this resolution.

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

SAFE NEEDLES SAVE LIVES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'UTILISATION

D'AIGUILLES SÛRES

POUR SAUVER DES VIES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll first deal with ballot item number 59, standing in the name of Ms. Martel.

Ms. Martel has moved second reading of Bill 30. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Speaker, I would ask that the bill be sent to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. Martel has asked that the bill be sent to the standing committee on regulations and private bills. Agreed? Agreed.

LANDFILL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 60, standing in the name of Mr. Miller.

Mr. Miller has moved private member's notice of motion number 31. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Brownell, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Leal, Jeff

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Ramal, Khalil

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Delaney, Bob

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 22; the nays are 3.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WILLIAM BELL

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): It is my privilege to publicly acknowledge the many and important contributions to the community of Richmond Hill and to the province of Ontario by His Worship

Mayor William Bell, who will retire from public office on November 30, 2006.

Mayor Bell has served our community with distinction for more than a quarter century, both as councillor and, for 18 of those years, as mayor, having been elected mayor of Richmond Hill in 1988. In addition to

his many civic responsibilities, Mayor Bell has served as the chairman of the York region transportation and works committee, as honorary chair of the S'port for Kids Foundation, as honorary trustee of the York Central Hospital, and as honorary

director of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in York region. His principled and inspired leadership and genuine concern for the people of our community have been recognized and acknowledged by all levels of government, and I have

considered it a privilege to work with him on behalf of our shared constituency.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mayor Bell's wife, Jackie, and his two daughters, Julie and Kate, for their steadfast support of his public service. We recognize the many personal

sacrifices they have made as a family for the benefit of the community their husband and father has served with such distinction.

On behalf of all members of the Ontario Legislature, I am pleased to extend to His Worship Mayor William Bell and his wife, Jackie, our gratitude for their service to Richmond Hill, to York region and to the

province of Ontario. I know that all members of the Legislature will join me in extending our sincere best wishes for many years of health and happiness and for success in their future endeavours, whatever they may be.

OTTAWA SWIM CLUB /

CLUB DE NATATION D'OTTAWA

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): On Friday, November 10, I had the privilege of presenting a grant for an organization that not only fosters the growth and well-being of youth in

Orléans, but also sparks their competitive edge, fostering in them a sense of self-confidence.

At the Ray Friel complex in my riding, I presented a cheque for $16,200 from the Ontario Trillium Foundation to the Ottawa Swim Club, a non-profit organization that provides an open and transparent swim

environment where young people of all ages can develop their swimming ability. The goal of the club is to be the centre of excellence for competitive high-performance swimming in the Ottawa area. This type of competition instills in young people

the importance of physical activity and leading an active lifestyle at a young age. Competing in a sport like swimming shows how healthy living can help you to excel in other areas of life.

La Fondation Trillium de l'Ontario, organisme relevant du ministère de la Culture, reçoit chaque année du gouvernement 100 $ millions provenant de l'initiative des casinos de bienfaisance

de la province.

La fondation accorde des subventions aux organismes de bienfaisance et aux organismes sans but lucratif admissibles oeuvrant dans les secteurs des arts et de la culture, de l'environnement, des services

sociaux et des sports et loisirs.

The grant that I presented on Friday will be used to provide training to coaches and swimmers, allowing them to compete at their very best. They will also purchase new exercise and monitoring equipment which

will track the underwater performance of swimmers during competitions.

I was proud to present this grant to the Ottawa Swim Club and I look forward to attending their swim meets to cheer on our Orléans athletes.

TOM TAYLOR

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to pay tribute to Tom Taylor, who is retiring this year as mayor of Newmarket.

Tom Taylor was first elected to Newmarket council in 1962. He has served as a town councillor and regional councillor and, for the last nine years, as the mayor of Newmarket. As councillor and mayor, he has

always been ably supported by his wife, Kate, and their four children.

A founding director of York region Habitat for Humanity, Tom Taylor also served as the first chair of Housing York Inc., which operated more than 1,700 non-profit housing units.

Many of Tom Taylor's key struggles in public life have been to help manage the incredible growth of Newmarket while preserving the quality of life and of the environment for Newmarket residents. He has worked

hard on many environmental concerns, including the Oak Ridges moraine, the Holland River, and fighting against pollution.

Tom may be retiring as mayor, but we all know that his commitment to the betterment of the lives of local residents as a private citizen will continue. On behalf of all of my constituents in York North, I

would like to thank Tom for his service and dedication to the people of Newmarket. Congratulations on a job well done.

VISITORS

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): I rise to recognize two people in the gallery, Mr. Terry Butt and Mr. Dave Cook. Mr. Dave Cook has written two books on the Dixie area, the most recent

being From Frozen Ponds to Beehive Glory, which details in great accuracy the history of that area and is one of the great examples of community-building in Mississauga South. Mr. Butt is with him today as the financier and the promoter of these

books. Thank you for allowing me to introduce them to the House.

FIRST NATIONS CHILDREN

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise today to recognize and give thanks to a number of groups and organizations, of which there are so many in Oshawa, for a project recently completed.

Over a year ago I had the opportunity to meet with Treaty 7 Grand Chief Stan Beardy, where we discussed the opportunity to have organizations from Oshawa aid distressed youth in the Nishnawbe Aski Nation.

Chief Beardy was deeply concerned that far too many First Nations children, especially in rural communities, had developed severe social problems at a very young age and were becoming severely troubled and/or distressed. He demonstrated that in

equipment was realized, this could go a long way in assisting the troubled youth in these communities.

My staff and I, and a large number of Oshawa organizations, worked hard over the summer and the fall. I'm glad to say we were able to send nearly a transport truck load of equipment to aid youth of the

Nishnawbe Aski Nation and give them opportunities: hundreds and hundreds of pairs of skates, over 100 full sets of team hockey jerseys, sticks, pants, gloves, helmets, dozens of pieces of goalie equipment and numerous other sports equipment as

well.

I would like to take this opportunity personally to thank Rockbrune Bros. Moving for moving the goods to the north, Dave and Jill and all at Crow's Sports for their hard work, the Oshawa Minor Hockey

Association, the Oshawa Lady Generals and all the individual donors who contributed to such a great cause.

Lastly, remember, as I say in hockey: Never mind the luck. Give it your best and the luck will take care of itself.

LOUIS RIEL DAY

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Today, November 16, is the day that people come from all across Ontario, the Metis people in particular, to celebrate Louis Riel Day here at the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Today, in spite of the rain, there were more than 100 people who showed up, and I'm proud to say that speakers came from all three parties to address that multitude.

The people who were there from the Metis associations talked about the struggles of a people that continue after more than 120 years and that there seems to be no end to the struggles and what is happening to

them. The speakers talked about the injustices of the Metis going back 120 years, most famously, of course, of Louis Riel, a learned and educated man, a man who wrote poetry, a man who was the father of his people, a man who is today recognized as

a father of Confederation, and who was hanged. They talked about the fact that the Parliament of Canada denied him, in spite of the fact he was elected three times, an opportunity to take his seat. They talked about Ontario and this Legislature's

role in putting a bounty on his head.

But they also talked about the present and about what is happening to the Metis people and the continuation of their struggle for aboriginal rights. I was most appalled to hear that Canada is one of only two

nations on earth which have voted against the UN resolution on aboriginal rights. They are continuing to struggle, and we are all with them.

LIGHTHOUSE PROGRAM

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): At the beginning of November, I had the opportunity to visit one of the schools in my riding for another important announcement about education in the

province of Ontario. Port Elgin-Saugeen Central School was named one of Ontario's Schools on the Move under the Ministry of Education's Lighthouse program. This is the second school in Huron-Bruce to receive this honour, joining St. James

separate school in Seaforth, which was announced earlier this year. These schools were selected, along with 21 other Ontario elementary schools, for outstanding literacy and numeracy results over the past three years. These 23 schools will now

play an important role in boosting student achievement across the province by sharing their best practices and strategies with other schools.

The Ministry of Education has provided resources and support to all of these schools to assist in developing and sharing its unique lessons, materials and other resources with educators. Throughout the current

school year, teachers from these schools will assist others across the province by delivering presentations, participating in model classroom programs and exchanging information during in-person visits and through virtual visits using Internet

technology.

This program is one of the many that the McGuinty government is supporting in an effort to continually improve Ontario's once-faltering education system. Helping successful schools share their best practices

with other schools across the province is part of this government's strategy to ensure that 75% of the students meet provincial standards in reading, writing and math by 2008.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Speaker: It's a little unorthodox, but I believe the member from Mississauga South made a slight mistake by not asking for unanimous consent or

seeking a point of order to introduce somebody in the gallery. It ended up being a rotation. I seek unanimous consent to have the rest of the rotation back the way it should be.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is there unanimous consent to continue the rotation? Agreed.

KINDERGARTEN

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Calling All Three-Year-Olds: This is the name of the kindergarten registration program created through a wonderful partnership by the Perth county health

unit, their sister organization in Huron county, and both the Avon Maitland District School Board and the Huron Perth Catholic District School Board. It is entering into a second successful year.

Those of us who are parents know the incredible ability of our children to overcome challenges, most especially if these potential problems are caught as early as possible.

This creative joint program provides a free cognitive evaluation for all children registering for JK to determine areas in which they may need extra help. Moreover, parents are given contacts to community

services where help can be found.

The Ontario government has invested a total of $17.5 billion in education this year. Much of this has been targeted at early learning, ensuring that class sizes for children in kindergarten to grade 3 are

limited to 20 students by 2007-08. I'm proud that both school boards are provincial leaders in this regard. Smaller class sizes build on the skills parents develop with their children at home. Teachers in smaller classes are able to give greater

attention to each individual child, focusing on early literacy and numeracy skills, preparing them f