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

June 10, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Jun-10 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 10 June 2004 Jeudi 10 juin 2004

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

PRICE FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE GEL DU PRIX

DE CERTAINS PRODUITS PÉTROLIERS

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

PRICE FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE GEL DU PRIX

DE CERTAINS PRODUITS PÉTROLIERS

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

PRICE FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE GEL DU PRIX

DE CERTAINS PRODUITS PÉTROLIERS

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TREE PLANTING

IN WELLINGTON COUNTY

TIME ALLOCATION

SOCCER

DIALYSIS

MARKHAVEN HOME FOR SENIORS

NIAGARA FALLSVIEW

CASINO RESORT

ONTARIO BUDGET

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

KYOTO PROTOCOL

VISITOR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIQUOR LICENCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

FIRST NATIONS RESOURCE REVENUE

SHARING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE PARTAGE

AVEC LES PREMIÈRES NATIONS

DES RECETTES TIRÉES

DE L'EXPLOITATION DES RESSOURCES

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA PLANIFICATION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DE L'ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA

TRANSPARENCY

IN PUBLIC MATTERS ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES QUESTIONS D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LIQUOR LICENSING /

PERMIS DE VENTE D'ALCOOL

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR L'EXPERTISE COMPTABLE

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR L'EXPERTISE COMPTABLE

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

TAXATION

CANCER TREATMENT

CHILDREN'S IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM

LIQUOR LICENSING

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND

AUTISM SERVICES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF POLICE

MINISTRY INTERVENTION

FORMATION D'APPRENTISSAGE /

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

PETITIONS

TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

RECREATIONAL TRAILERS

TRANSITION BENEFITS

TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

TAXATION

PENSION PLANS

PROPERTY TAXATION

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

PRICE FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE GEL DU PRIX

DE CERTAINS PRODUITS PÉTROLIERS

Mr Tascona moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 48,

An Act to provide for an interim freeze in the price of certain petroleum products / Projet de loi 48, Loi prévoyant le gel provisoire du prix de

certains produits pétroliers.

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

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Bill 48, the gas price freeze act, was introduced by myself on April 5 of

this year in a move to stop consumer gouging at the pump and, more importantly, to bring stability to the gas marketplace in terms of pricing.

Since then, in the period of time of April, May and June, we have seen wild swings in the price of gasoline, swings sometimes of 20 cents per litre in the price

of gasoline, which is just not supportable with respect to how the marketplace is actually working and in my view is strictly designed to take advantage of people who rely on it, and in particular,

in my riding, where there is heavy, heavy commuter traffic to get to work; in other words, to take advantage of them in terms of the price of gasoline. After all, that is something they rely on day

to day. What we are seeing, as opposed to last year when the price of gasoline at the pump was 62 cents per litre, is at times almost a 50% increase in the price of gasoline, which is detrimentally

affecting not only the economy but also the pocketbooks of people who rely on gasoline to get back and forth to work.

So what this bill does is deal with price stability for 90 days, for April, May and June, and also an additional 60 days, which would takes us through this

summer, to bring stability into the marketplace.

The province has the power to set the price, as they do already in Prince Edward Island. In fact, what the Liberal government is in effect doing for the price of

energy is that they set the price with respect to what we pay for electricity. They can also do that with gasoline. Why they're not doing it, I really don't know.

As you are well aware, Bill 48 puts an interim freeze on the price of gas at the pump at the dollar amount of the product as of March 31, 2004. The act comes

into force 10 days after it is passed by the Ontario Legislature and lasts for 90 days, with an option to be extended for an additional 60 days by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

I recognize that the federal government is responsible for the gasoline marketplace under the federal Competition Act, but they continue to do nothing to stop

consumer gouging. One of the main reasons is that they have not put in place realistic measures with respect to ensuring fairness in the marketplace by holding companies to a civil standard of

proof as opposed to a criminal standard of proof. We are dealing with competitive activity in the commercial marketplace and the civil standard of proof is what should be put. We tried to get them

to change that back when we were on the gas price task force in 1999, but the federal government has done nothing, notwithstanding that they had their own task force that recommended a civil

standard of proof, and also the elimination of the GST on the price at the pump.

It is clear that consumers have had enough. I believe a freeze on the price of gasoline will bring a much-needed break and stability to the scene. I have always

said that the solution to high and volatile gas prices lies in a more stable and competitive marketplace. The federal government needs to step up to the plate and manage this issue. A good start

would be to fix the Competition Act so that the tools and powers are there to protect consumers and ensure the market operates in a fair and transparent manner, while at the same time making the

industry responsible for defending its own pricing strategies and business practices.

After all, there are three main companies that control the gasoline marketplace. They also refine the gasoline and they sell it. They have controls at all levels

of the marketplace. Quite frankly, that's something the government should be looking at with respect to what kind of profits they're making at each level. They'll say they're making nothing at the

retail level, but rest assured, from what I understand, they're making a very handsome profit at the refinery level, to the tune of about 26%. That's something that is not fair.

I know the Speaker shares with me the concern about the marketplace, because he's put forth bills himself with respect to notice in terms of changing the

pricing, which would also leave the marketplace a little bit fairer with respect to changes in the price. Due to the lack of action on this issue by the federal government, I introduced this bill.

If they won't do anything to stop the price-gouging monopoly, then the province needs to step in and provide the necessary protection for the people of Ontario.

Former Ontario Premier Bill Davis got it. He was the Ontario Premier who said he would not stand by and let the people of Ontario be taken advantage of as a

result of high gas prices. He froze them. In 1974, after OPEC cut oil production and gas prices went through the roof, Bill Davis froze them. If Davis could do it then, we can too. That is what's

needed right now.

I also want to mention a recent survey that was taken. I refer to an

article in last Sunday's Toronto Sun. On June 6, the Toronto Sun reported the results of a

poll. The poll asked Ontarians what they thought was the biggest rip-off. Guess what they identified? Across Ontario, 38% of the people stated that gas prices were the number one rip-off.

Anyone who knows my record on this issue is well aware that I have been pushing for lower gas prices since I took office. When I first addressed the issue of

high gas prices to the current Liberal government, the response I got was laughable. The Minister of Energy, the Honourable Dwight Duncan, said, on May 13, "There is a world problem right now and

for Ontario to act unilaterally to put a freeze on anything could do potential harm to the economy." To the minister I say, high gas price are hurting Ontario taxpayers, the same taxpayers who were

recently hit with huge tax increases in the budget.

The minister also said that he can't see how either freezing gas prices or having gas stations post potential increases a few days in advance will do anything to

help the gouged consumer. I respectfully disagree. If he feels it is within his power to control pricing in the hydroelectric industry, why wouldn't he do it with respect to gasoline prices? To him

I say, then what will?

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Stephen Harper wouldn't like this.

Mr Tascona: The Minister of Tourism is going to be facing a tourism industry under pressure. I can tell right now that there are a lot fewer

cars coming up through Barrie because of the price of gasoline.

If you are so concerned and are watching the issue so carefully, what is your plan? What does the government plan to do about this? I hope the answer is not the

same as that of his federal cousins in Ottawa. As we all know, what they have done or plan to do is absolutely nothing. I have a plan and it works. We know it works because it has been done

before.

This is a serious issue facing the economy of Ontario and it's a serious issue facing the pocketbooks of many Ontarians. We've been having a petition put across

the province with respect to this issue in terms of encouraging the government to pass Bill 48 and make sure it comes forth in a timely manner. This is second reading. Also, we're putting in it

that the federal government remove the GST, which is an illegal tax, a tax on a tax. The federal government has known from their own task force back in 1998 that the GST should be removed.

To make it clear in terms of where we stand on taxes, certainly the province's is a flat tax, 14.7 cents per litre. The federal tax is 10 cents per litre plus

the GST. So when we were paying 62 cents for gasoline, the tax structure was still in place. The only variable tax was the GST put on by the federal government. Now at certain places you're paying

up to 95 cents a litre, depending on where you are in the province, and the taxes are the same. What you're going to see, I imagine, once we get through this quarter, are unbelievable profits by

the Big Three oil companies. They won't be made at the retail level; they will be made at the refinery level.

What I am asking for is a simple solution: price stability -- it's within the jurisdiction of the province -- until the marketplace sets itself in a way that the

price of crude and the price in terms of what is happening at the refinery level are stable. It is unstable when you're seeing price fluctuations of almost 20 cents per litre back and forth. The

price is going up 10 cents per litre and then decreasing. We have to have price stability. Otherwise, the economy is not going to function properly.

What's going to happen, with the Liberal budget that is taking, in general, between $1,400 and $2,000 out of the taxpayers' pockets, along with these hydro

increases, along with car insurance increases and along with the price of gas is that we're headed toward an economy that's going right down the tubes.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I certainly understand the frustration people are going through with regard to the price of gas when they

go to the pump and see the price going up and down. I think there is a great deal of, if you want, both scepticism as well as trying to -- there is no clear understanding in the general public as

to why these gas prices are going up the way they are, and they differ from gas station to gas station.

The member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford is bringing forward a bill. It's perplexing to me because I know he co-chaired a task force with Mr O'Toole, I believe,

and they reported to the minister at that time, who was the Honourable Mr Runciman, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relation, on June 29, 2000.

That task force, by the way, apparently provided to the minister at the time -- the previous government also appointed a task force in 1998. I guess my question

to the member is, if he feels that this is doable, that it's something the provincial government can do, why, then, did they not act to freeze the prices at that time? I don't understand why now,

when he is in opposition. This is certainly good political fodder, but the reality is that the agreements we have under NAFTA and others do not give Ontario that flexibility to freeze the

rates.

Now, I certainly understand that there should be discussion with our Minister of Energy and our petroleum industry in Ontario, and I believe that the minister

has spoken with them and will be meeting with them in regard to this issue, because we don't want to see our consumers at the pumps feeling that they're being gouged with these prices.

But let's look at the reality of this. I know that Mr Tascona has said that Premier Davis could do it, but he froze gasoline prices for 90 days in 1974 when OPEC

cut production at that time. The irony in this place sometimes is that we can talk and compare things without anybody looking at the evidence and at the facts so that when we have an argument to

this, there is actual substantive fact underlying what we're presenting. It kind of troubles me.

There's a huge difference. I know the member stated that, for instance, if we can somehow control the price of electricity -- well, there's a tremendous

difference. He's comparing apples and oranges here. I want to go back to when Premier Davis froze gasoline prices. He's trying to copy what Davis did. However, it was a different time, and in 1974,

gasoline prices were regulated by the federal government, there was no NAFTA, and the 90-day delay reflected the timing for crude from Alberta to show up at gasoline pumps in Ontario. Under NAFTA,

favouring domestic suppliers is not allowed. He knows that, and he understands that.

Again, I believe that the government certainly has a responsibility to meet and to discuss with the petroleum industry why these prices are going up and see what

we can do for consumers; but to try to pretend that freezing prices at March 31 rates is a way to attain stability in Ontario is disingenuous, because the member understands full well that that's

unrealistic and that the jurisdiction is not there for us to be able to do that. Nonetheless, I do believe that consumers need to have some protection in the fluctuation of prices from, as I said,

increases of prices that seem to be sometimes not understood by the consumer.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of the bill before us, Bill 48,

An Act to provide for an interim freeze --

I think it's important to recognize that it is an interim freeze -- in the price of certain petroleum products. I commend the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for introducing this bill. From all

the information I've had, the member has been actively and very strenuously working on this issue for some time, from the time that he was appointed as a member of what was commonly known as the

gas-buster committee. He has been actively involved in this situation and worked very hard on it.

I do believe that, as the member across the way and the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford pointed out, this really is a difficult situation to step in and

freeze the price of petroleum products when generally the situation revolves around the federal government and their rights and responsibilities.

I do want to take exception, though, with the comment that it can't be done under NAFTA. Under NAFTA, you can't give preferential treatment for domestic

suppliers. I don't see anything in the bill that deals with domestic suppliers. The results of this bill would in fact treat imported products exactly the same way that it treats our own domestic

products. So I think it may be a little far-fetched to have that comment.

I think it's important to recognize that this problem isn't just new today, but it has been ongoing for some time. I was looking through some of my

correspondence this morning, and I have a letter here -- I just wanted to refer to it -- from one of my constituents. It says, "I wrote your office in 1999 and 2000 concerning exorbitant gas prices

that needed regulation, due to lack of competition and/or price-fixing that existed at that time, continued to exist in 2003" -- he included some clippings with that -- "and continues to exist

today on a larger scale than ever...."

The gas price in Ingersoll the day that he wrote this letter -- this letter was written May 16 -- was 90 cents a litre. In Nova Scotia, it was in the mid-90s. In

British Columbia, it was $1.02.

"The need for regulation was never greater, as obviously absolutely nothing has been done to curb these exorbitant prices five years later, federally or

provincially. When, if ever, can we expect some action to control these completely unjustified prices?"

He has a PS on the bottom that I found rather interesting. I guess this is kind of a note to me: "Please don't refer to high crude prices. According to scale" --

$1 on the crude price is less than one penny a litre for the gasoline.

Just very quickly, I wanted to touch on when we talk about the price per litre at the pumps. I do a lot of travelling, as you do, Mr Speaker, up and down the 401

to come here to Queen's Park. I stop to fill my car up at least every other day when I'm travelling back and forth. It takes two trips per tankful. On the pumps, we have a little sticker. Now, I

wouldn't want to suggest that it's misleading advertising, but if you read the sticker, it points out the amount of the per litre price that is crude, the amount that is tax, how much is for

refining and so forth. The amount is in a percentage for each one.

Now, when these stickers were put on, if you read the very small lettering, it says that this was based on 2002 pricing. If you read that, then the percentage of

crude or the percentage of the refining cost is very low. But, as the member mentioned in his introduction, the taxes are fixed. So the 13 cents provincial tax, the 11 cents federal excise tax and

the GST -- incidentally, the GST is the only one that does fluctuate -- are an ever-decreasing percentage of the price of gas at the pumps.

Again, that goes to the PS on my letter here from my constituent, who says that isn't the total answer. There is more to it than the oil companies are telling

us, as far as setting the price and it ever going up. It is, I suppose, based on consumer demand in an open marketplace, the problem being that there are so few refiners and so few actual

distributors that they can really set the price wherever they want. They know that, as I'm going down the 401, I have no choice but to stop and buy the gas. When I was in the livestock feed

business, competition meant that I had to keep the price in line or they would just purchase from someone else. There was no set price that everybody was charging, and that's really what's

happening here.

I just want to quickly go over what was related earlier by the member from Sarnia-Lambton, that there's really nothing that the provincial government can do.

Well, I think this bill this morning points out that something can be done on behalf of the provincial government, and passing this bill would do that.

I have here some quotes. Also, I should mention that I've been in this House for a number of months and years, I suppose, and when the Liberal Party was in

opposition, I heard some of the members saying that they had the answer to this. I have to assume, from when they had the answer, all the government of that day had to do was implement their

answer. I believe it was Mr Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury, who said, "All we had to do was implement their answer." I can only assume, since all this Legislature really has the power to do is

pass legislation, that there was something -- when he said they had the answer, that they were proposing to legislate at least a temporary price freeze or some way of controlling the price from

going up.

I think it is somewhat, I wouldn't say dishonest, but different, that they would suggest at one point that they had the answer and now say there is absolutely no

answer available on behalf the provincial government. I think there's a conflicting story in those two.

The Minister of Energy said, I read from the paper of May 13, "`I'm deeply concerned about the price of gas, far beyond what its impact is on automobile users,'

Duncan said." It would seem to me that, if that's the case, we should be looking at every opportunity we have to bring those gas prices in line.

"Dwight distanced his government from a responsibility to combat the inflated costs, however.

"`We don't regulate gasoline prices,' he said. `There's a world problem right now and for Ontario to act unilaterally to put a freeze on anything could do

potential harm to the economy.'"

The exorbitant gas prices are, in my opinion, doing more harm to the economy than any temporary freeze on the prices would do.

I was also looking through some of my information, and I remembered a question that was asked by the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford a number of weeks ago in

the Legislature. It was to the Premier. It was referred to the Minister of Tourism for an answer. The minister said that he was "monitoring this matter carefully" and is "prepared to take whatever

action he deems appropriate at the appropriate time." I see the Minister of Tourism coming in now, and that being his quote, I'm sure he will agree that that's exactly what he said. I would think

this might be the appropriate time, as he refers to "the appropriate time," to do something. I think at that time we were talking about 70-cent, 75-cent gasoline. Now when we are seeing people on

the front page of the newspaper changing the signs so they're capable of putting three figures instead of two for a litre of gasoline -- that means the price is going to go over a dollar -- I think

this might be the appropriate time.

To finish off, I don't want to take all the time; we have some other members who would like to speak to it. The supplementary to that question to the Premier is,

"Will you stand up today and make a commitment to all the suffering businesses and taxpayers who are being gouged at the pump as a result of the outrageous price of gas, pass my Bill 48...." Again,

this was a question from the member who introduced this bill. I would just hope that after debate this morning, when it's time to vote for it, the Premier will be in the House to support this bill

to deal with the outrageous gas prices that are at the pumps today and help our economy and help our average citizen going to work with the uncontrollable cost that they have absolutely no ability

to deal with. They cannot get to work without gas and they cannot go places without gas.

I think this is a small first step in dealing with the matter and I commend the member for bringing this bill forward.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is indeed an honour --

Hon Mr Bradley: Always an intriguing tie.

Mr Prue: Yes, it is an intriguing tie. Do you like the tie today?

It is indeed an honour to stand to speak to this bill today. I have to tell you at the outset that we will be supporting Bill 48, introduced by the member for

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford.

I let my turn go around the first time before actually standing up to speak, because I wanted to hear what a Liberal member might say. It was quite instructive

to listen to the member from Sarnia-Lambton as to exactly what the position is that she is taking. I would perhaps glean from that what the position might be of other members of the Liberal caucus

on where they are going with this particular bill.

This is a bill whose time surely, at this stage, has come. The purport of the bill is to freeze the price of gasoline as it existed on March 31, 2004. That is

before the price of crude oil began to rise -- but not so much before the price of crude rose, it's before the gasoline companies starting to reap, I would think, excessive profits, raising the

price of gasoline in this province beyond 90 cents for some weeks, although it has since declined somewhat. The purport of this bill will do one thing: lower the average price of a litre of

gasoline from this week's current average of 81.4 cents a litre to 68.6 cents a litre, a reduction of some 15.7% of the cost of gasoline.

At the outset, I have to state that we are not, in our party at least, blaming the operators, those who own the gas stations in the city, who own or operate the

gas stations in this province. You have to clearly delineate the little guy who is out there pumping gas, making about a cent a litre for all of his labours -- for paying taxes, for working in the

community, for doing what he or she needs to do to earn a living -- from the big oil companies.

It is said worldwide; they are called the Five Sisters. Those Five Sisters make enormous profits, not only in Ontario, not only in Canada, but literally around

the world.

The price of crude oil, although it has started to go up and there are many factors for making it go up, is only around $40 a barrel. If you do the mathematics

-- and I invite all of the members to do the mathematics -- of how many litres are in a barrel, there are over 200 litres of crude in a barrel of oil. For a minute, stop and think about that.

That's about 20 cents a litre. There are refining, processing and transportation costs, there are all of those things, but west Brent goes for around 20 cents a litre. That's what the big oil

companies pay for it on the spot market.

The big oil companies also have a supply in this country that lasts a long time. The oil that you pump into your gas tank today arrived in Canada -- if it came

from outside of Canada or came from Alberta -- 90 to 120 days ago. It has been in the system for a long time. Yet, if you watch -- and we all watch -- as the price of a litre of gasoline goes up

every day, when the spot market says, "The crude oil price is going up a nickel or a dime today or a dollar a barrel today," you can literally see that the price of the litre of gasoline being sold

at the neighbourhood garage is going up at the same time. That is totally unfounded and unfair because the gasoline being pumped was paid for, shipped, processed and was sitting in a vault, reserve

or a tank somewhere for 120 days. They know how to raise the prices and they know how to use the arguments of the spot market, but they are not beholden to that spot market for at least 90 to 120

days.

That's why I like this bill: because the bill will freeze the price for 90 days. If there is a good argument to be made on the spot market and if there is a good

argument for the oil companies to make that the price of a barrel of oil, be it Brent, west Texas, North Sea or Alberta, has gone up a significant amount in the previous 90 days, then that's a fair

comment. If it has gone from 20 cents to 21 cents a litre, or 22 cents a litre, maybe gasoline will have to go up a penny or two, or whatever it goes up, but the wild fluctuation every day is

certainly nothing more than price gouging. The commuters know it, those who run automobiles know it, and even those who take public transit know it, because the public transit authorities, like the

TTC, have to pay those prices too, unless, like the TTC, they're very smart and buy their gas in bulk at the year's beginning; the prices actually didn't affect them very much this year.

I was surprised -- or I shouldn't have been surprised, I guess -- to listen to the member from Sarnia-Lambton when she lambasted the member from

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for not being successful in his previous government in putting his issue forward and having former Premiers Harris and Eves follow him in the direction he wanted to go. That

is correct: He was not able to get them to follow the direction he wants to go. But he should be commended, because he has never deviated from the direction he thinks this province should go. If it

takes him one or two or five times to pass a bill like this, I am sure he will continue in his efforts.

I am asking the Liberals to follow him. I am asking you not to castigate him or say he was wrong or anything else about what happened before in a previous

government. I am asking you to do what you have always said you would do if you were in government. You know, it's been very nice these last couple of weeks; we finally have a researcher, and I

have some quotes of what some of you gentlemen have said in the past. I would like to read some of them out because I think they're quite instructive.

I'd like to start out with one that happened recently. Norm Miller, the member from Muskoka, asked Mr Bartolucci, who is now the Minister of Northern Development

and Mines, a question on May 10 of this year about the bill. Mr Bartolucci replied, "It's incumbent that the petroleum products industry understand the significant impact that gas prices have on

the people of northern Ontario." He then said he'd been meeting with executives from the industry and that this was "the first time" blah, blah, blah, "that they met with a northern minister."

He went on, though, to add that he would "never apologize for" what he did in opposition. He said that in light of the Conservative government, "We in the

opposition had to be very creative and articulate the concerns of northerners." He concluded by stating, "We will not be raising false expectations or hopes."

This is from the same minister who introduced bills himself, but now, because he's on that side, he seems to be taking a diametrically opposite position than he

did when he was on this side of the House. I have to tell you, he's not alone.

Interjection.

Mr Prue: No, he's done other things. I mean, here it is, Mr Bartolucci, April 12, 2000. He stood in this House, again on this side of House,

with a petition. It was a wonderful petition because he, at the end, signed and said he was in agreement. It called upon the government to pass "Bill 16, the Gasoline Pricing Act, introduced by ...

Jim Bradley;" -- who is now a minister and who's right over here -- "Bill 18, the Gas Price Watchdog Act, introduced by ... Mike Colle;" -- who is sitting over there today and who is now the PA to

the finance minister -- "and Bill 52, the Petroleum Products Price Freeze Act, introduced by ... Rick Bartolucci."

The whereases in that petition he presented had the sentence, "Furthermore, we the consumers want Mike Harris to know that we want to be able to go to the

pumps and fill our tanks without emptying our pockets."

On May 17 in Hansard, Mike Colle, who's sitting here today, noted that in 1975, Bill Davis had stepped in to protect consumers by freezing prices for 90 days.

He urged the then Premier to "stop the bellyaching and take concrete action, because frankly people don't want to hear any more complaints. They want you to do your job. Prices are at 75 and 78

cents a litre.... Stop whining and do something."

On November 23, 1999, Mike Colle, again in Hansard, asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, "Why don't you protect consumers? Why are you so

afraid and unwilling to take on the big oil companies? Why don't you use your power to freeze and roll back gas prices just like Bill Davis did in 1975? When are you going to stand up for the

consumer and bring these oil companies to account just like Bill Davis did in 1975?"

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): And what was the response?

Mr Prue: Well, I'm going to get to that.

On November 22, 1999, Mr Bartolucci tabled a petition he had signed asking government "to introduce predatory gas pricing legislation in order to control the

amount of money we, the consumers, are forced to pay at the gas pumps."

Mr Speaker, I don't want to leave you out either. In the Legislature in December 1998, Bruce Crozier, now the Speaker, and a very capable one, said, "Pricing

is under the control of the province. If the government were really serious about the peril of the independent dealer in the province of Ontario, they would be looking at predatory pricing, because

that is in their jurisdiction."

Last but not least, I'd like to go back to Mr Bartolucci. He seems to be a favourite in all of this. On September 3, 1997, Mr Bartolucci told the Legislature,

"Our constituents, from any riding in Ontario, are tired of people passing the buck. They're tired of the provincial government putting the onus on the federal government. They're tired of the

government saying it was the Liberals' fault or the New Democratic Party's fault.... Then I wrote to and discussed with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations the idea that a commission

should be set up, a commission to investigate when prices rise to see if it's acceptable and justifiable, so the consumer in Ontario would be protected. Again, nothing has happened with regard to

that recommendation."

The opportunity presents itself again today. We have a bill that has been put forward by Mr Tascona, the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, a bill that will do

exactly what at least four members of the government party, when in opposition, were asking to happen. It is a bill whose time has come again. It comes in cycles, but the time is very relevant

today.

We can see in this province what is happening in terms of the trucking industry. We can see what is happening in terms of our industrial capacity, with the

cost of manufactured goods being transported back and forth. We can see what is happening to tourism, with the number of tourists coming from the United States in decline and the number of our own

internal tourists from Canada or from Ontario seeming very much to be in decline. We are seeing our restaurants and our tourist areas being hurt. We are seeing consumers every day being forced to

pay increasing amounts of money merely to go back and forth to work. They are looking for answers.

Last October, we went through a general election. There were at least 231 promises that came forward from the governing party. They promised to do many things:

They promised not to raise taxes, they promised to make things better, they promised to increase the staff in our hospitals and they promised to do things in the schools. But they promised to

listen to what the people wanted and that they would do consultations in a way that had not been done in many years. I invite the members opposite to go out there and ask your constituents what

they think about this. We already know what they think about your hospital tax and we already know what they think about your ability to lead, but go out and ask them what they think about this

price freeze.

I will tell you, if you pass this bill, if you support this bill, if you do something to regulate the high cost of gasoline and price-gouging in Ontario, you

will redeem yourselves with some of those very people who have turned their backs on you in the last number of weeks and who have turned their backs on your Liberal cousins seeking election to

Ottawa. This is an opportunity for you to do something right, to do something correct. This is an opportunity for you to actually help in keeping one of the promises you made last October.

I commend the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and I would ask that members opposite support his bill as well.

Hon Mr Bradley: It's always interesting, if you go back in Hansard, to read the speeches of people who sit on the opposition side and the

government side. It seems only the names change; the arguments are the same.

I commend my friend Joe Tascona, as an opposition member, for bringing forward this bill. There's a bit of mischief in it, but I think he genuinely feels

annoyed and angered, as we all do, by the high price of gas. I'm not one to say this is strictly politically motivated, but this is a political House and I understand that.

There are many quotes that could be made about what has happened years back. We have to say this, Joe: You were a member of the task force, the gas-busters or

whatever it was called, that the last government set up to give the appearance of doing something about high gas prices. There were 14 recommendations that came out, and one of the 14 was

implemented by the previous government, of which my friend Joe Tascona was a member.

When I asked questions of the previous government, they talked about the virtues of the free market system. I know this Conservative Party, with the exception

of a few moderates in it, are very, very committed to the absolute free market determining all prices.

So I understand that when people are in opposition, they are able to bring forward this kind of legislation. In government, they get new information provided

to them. I once said, Joe, that for the last 25 years Ministers of Energy have had the same briefing note about gas prices in the book when they get up to answer, because I have heard those

answers.

But I'm as annoyed as I think most members are at what I consider to be -- and you always get in trouble when you say this -- the collusion that we see at the

gas pump. Nobody can tell me, when everybody puts up the price at the same time and it is just about the same -- it goes up to 79.9 cents or something like that -- that somehow there's not

collusion. I don't know if you can call it price-fixing, but it's collusion. The other thing members have mentioned -- and my friend Bruce Crozier on a number of occasions has talked about this

annoyance -- is the price jumping huge amounts almost overnight.

I think if you examine it carefully, you'll see that in these times of very high gas prices, the people who make the most money are the oil companies. You're

right, Joe. You will see the next profit, and it will be listed as a huge profit by the oil companies in their next reporting. To say it's simply reflecting the price of crude oil -- I find that

not believable. Maybe I'm being unfair, but I don't think so. If you ask anybody out there, "Is it a problem?" it is a problem.

I look around the country and say, "So what are other parties, other governments, doing?" I thought, because I heard my good friend from Beaches-East York talk

about the NDP, the prices must be lower in Manitoba. Indeed, they're not lower in Manitoba, with an NDP government. Then I said. "Well, OK, that's an aberration. Saskatchewan, surely." I looked in

Saskatchewan and they are higher than they are in Ontario, and they're right next door to the oil patch.

I remember that when the NDP was in power -- I hate to go back to these things -- they raised gasoline taxes by 13%. I have some quotes here from Jenny Carter,

a former energy minister, and Brian Charlton, both saying, in essence, "There's nothing we can really do about it." And I could say that of my many Conservative friends, but that's not what we're

talking about today.

One thing I'm glad the member did mention is that it's not taxes that are the problem. The right wing also says that. I did hear Stephen Harper say, "If only

you drop the taxes, all will be solved." Is there anybody in this House who thinks that if you drop the tax by five cents, the oil companies wouldn't simply put the price of gas up five cents? Of

course they would. So that isn't the solution. The solution from the oil patch in Alberta, from Stephen Harper and Ralph Klein and so on, of simply dropping the tax, is not the solution. It's the

companies putting the price up. I know where the strongest support comes from for my friend Stephen Harper and my friend Ralph Klein; it comes from that oil patch. In fact, they were dictating

Conservative policy on environment. Just yesterday I heard him say, "We're going to abandon the Kyoto accord because I know how popular the Kyoto accord is in the oil patch of Alberta."

When this was done before, it seems to me we didn't have NAFTA at the time. I remember Brian Mulroney, that great Conservative Prime Minister, said, "NAFTA is

absolutely necessary." He went to Washington and sang an Irish song with the late President of the United States, to whom people in the US are paying tribute at the present time, President Reagan.

They put together the NAFTA agreement. The NAFTA agreement doesn't allow a two-price system. This is why, back when Bill Davis did it originally, you could do it.

There are a lot of people in the east who liked the national energy policy. It wasn't popular in Alberta. I understand that.

Mr Tascona: PEI.

Hon Mr Bradley: The member mentions that PEI, which I think is about the size of the city of St Catharines, has some control. But when you

examine what the prices are in those provinces, I wish they were substantially lower. When you examine them, they really aren't lower if there is a huge demand taking place.

What I like about the member bringing this forward is that it focuses some attention on the gas companies. That's what I like about it. That's not his only

purpose. He wants to focus some attention on the government and say, "What are you going to do about it?" I understand that.

I met with the people from the United States and they said, "What is this doing with tourism? We're really hit with gas prices." They were talking about the

United States, even though theirs are somewhat lower than ours. So all over the world we are faced with this situation.

I actually think that the more we can rail at the oil companies about this, the more focus of attention we put on them, the better. From that point of view, I

want to commend the member for bringing forward this legislation at this time. I want to suggest to him that he speak to Stephen Harper and explain to him that it is the oil companies -- his

friends in Alberta that support the Conservative Party so strongly provincially and federally -- that are the problem, not the gas tax. I want to commend my friend from Barrie for saying that. He

understands that and is deserving of the greatest of praise for that.

This is an interesting piece of legislation, as I say. In opposition, everybody loves this. In government, they are a little bit afraid of it. They do remember

that the federal Progressive Conservatives deregulated oil prices in Canada in 1985. It's unfortunate that that happened at that time, back in 1985. I think a lot of us would like to have seen that

rolled back, but again, that's all to do with the NAFTA agreement and the inability to implement some of these tools, such as Premier Davis brought forward, because of that NAFTA agreement.

Good for you, Joe, for focusing attention on this issue. I'm sorry that as a member of the gas busters you were unable to bring the prices down when you were

in office. It was all a big show. They stood out there in front of various places. I remember the pictures -- always in the Toronto Sun, of course -- of the gas busters, and the price of gas went

up or went down according to what the market was going to do at the time.

The worst things that happens is when you bring forward this resolution and the gas prices are going down at the time, because you always want to bring forward

a resolution or a bill at a time when the prices are heading way up. I don't think they are going to go down substantially over the next while.

I think it would have been good if Premier Harris and Premier Eves had brought the oil barons into their office and laid the law down with them. The only time

that Mike Harris and Ernie Eves seemed to meet with the oil barons was at the Tory fundraisers. That's that only place, because they were there at the fundraisers.

Let me say this, I think on behalf of all members of this House: We are angry about this. The environmentalists within the New Democratic Party would be

saying, "We should be raising gas prices." I've heard them say that. Of course, it's a very fashionable --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Bradley: You're not really a New Democrat, because you're from East York as well as the Beaches, although I think the member for

Beaches-East York is the future leader of the New Democratic Party. I want to say that to him.

But I think we've got consensus in the House that we're all angry about the gas prices in this province. The oil companies should be called on the carpet and

told how unhappy we are about them, and any action that is legal and is possible should be taken to control these prices that are outlandish.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and respond

somewhat to his comments. I would agree with him that in our constituencies, substantial numbers of people are very, very angry about gasoline prices, the fluctuation of gasoline prices, certainly.

I think the fluctuation has an impact on our economy and there are reverberations felt throughout our economy.

I want to commend the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for bringing forward this legislation. I think he brings it forward in the best tradition of private

members' hour, representing his constituents and putting forward the plan and the idea that there needs to be a temporary freeze on gasoline prices.

As the member indicated, this is an idea that was pursued by a former government, a Progressive Conservative government, in 1974 in response to a serious

increase in the gasoline prices at that time. I think it is quite right and proper that we would focus attention on this issue in the Legislature and quite right and proper that we would inquire

what the government, if anything, is prepared to do about this problem. Certainly there have been speeches made in the past when Liberals were in opposition and New Democrats were in opposition,

and I think we need to bring those ideas forward and inquire what exactly the government is prepared to do.

One thing the government could do is reduce the provincial tax on gas. Right now it is 14.3 cents a litre, I believe, if I am not mistaken.

Interjection: It's 14.7.

Mr Arnott: It's 14.7; I stand corrected. That is something that could be undertaken directly by legislation of this House, and I am sure that

if the government brought forward a bill of that nature, it would enjoy the support of certainly the Progressive Conservative Party, and most likely the New Democrats as well. So I would leave that

as an idea.

I know that my colleague the member for Simcoe North wants to participate in this debate as well, so once again, in closing, I will congratulate the member for

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for bringing forward this important legislation.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'd like to congratulate my colleague from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, a good friend of mine and a person who

works very hard on behalf of his riding to make sure these types of issues are dealt with.

I have to very briefly comment on something the member for Waterloo-Wellington mentioned, and that is the fact that the provincial government in fact does have

the ability to drop the sales tax. When we see the types of tax increases we have seen with things like the health premium, which is going to add probably $2,200 -- I'm sorry; let me rephrase that.

The 2004 budget that was just recently presented will add approximately $2,000 to every working family in the province of Ontario in one form of taxation or another.

I think this is a real opportunity for the government when it is trying to rebuild the economy and trying to strengthen the aftermath of their budget. I think

the proper and right thing to do is to actually drop the prices. However, I do believe with the interim freeze that the member has mentioned -- I can remember sitting on the opposite side of the

House when he was a member of the gas busters, and we had very minimum increases over those years. It was a difficult thing, a very difficult challenge he had. But since this government has taken

power, we have seen about a 35% or 40% increase in the gas prices. Something must be done. We are not getting any leadership from Ottawa. Of course, we know they've got other problems, and we

probably won't have a Liberal government in Ottawa very shortly. But the very fact of the matter is that we need leadership in this country. Based on the gas prices we are seeing here, Dalton

McGuinty doesn't appear to be doing anything. We know that Paul Martin is doing nothing. So the official opposition will have to take the leadership role here.

I would ask that all members of this House support Mr Tascona's bill, Bill 48. It is an important bill, and I think that by implementing this, it will help

rebuild the economy of the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has two minutes to reply.

Mr Tascona: I want to thank all the members who spoke on the bill and debated it: the members for Sarnia-Lambton, Oxford, Beaches-East York,

and Simcoe North, and also the Minister of Tourism. I would urge the members here today to vote for this bill. It is important to get to the bottom of what's going on with respect to the gasoline

price industry.

The government should be expected to do more than what the Liberal member for Sarnia-Lambton says. She says they have a responsibility to meet and discuss. I

would say they have a lot more of a responsibility than that to the taxpayers of this province. The member for Oxford is correct: The time to act is now. It's the appropriate time to send a message

to the big oil companies. As the member for Beaches-East York said, they have a reserve of 90 to 120 days. There's no relationship to the price of crude at the spot market. What we see is a price

gouge, in his words, and wild fluctuations day to day.

In the words of the Minister of Tourism, he states very clearly that he feels there's collusion at the gas pump. The problem is these high-price fluctuations.

He indicates that there's no reflection of that in the price of crude oil. There's no relationship whatsoever.

I think the gas companies are very clever to mirror, saying it's the taxes. They also say that's it related to the price of crude oil, when they have a 90- to

120-day reserve.

The Minister of Tourism says, "NAFTA stops us from doing that." Well, it doesn't stop the province of PEI from setting gas prices, and it also didn't stop the

Ontario government from setting hydroelectric prices.

So I would say to the members, let's pass this bill. Let's send a message to the oil companies that we're serious here. As the Minister of Tourism says, "They

need to be put on the carpet." This is the way to do it.

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise today to move the resolution that in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario should do everything within its power to ensure that the Great Lakes, the largest source of fresh water in the world, be protected from pollution and degradation of all kinds, through

appropriate legislation, monitoring and enforcement, and through intergovernmental relations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member for Stoney Creek has 10 minutes.

Ms Mossop: I had a dream the other night. I dreamt that I was very old and very frail, a grandmother sitting inside a small institutional

room. There was a window, but I couldn't open it. In fact, it didn't open. It was made that way. I sat in a chair looking out. Through a sepia haze, I could see the lake, one of the Great Lakes of

our planet.

Someone came in the room, and in my dream I knew that she was my granddaughter. She looked to be about seven years old. I asked her why she wasn't outside

playing in the sun, on this summer day, down at the beach. She looked at me and furrowed her brow, a look of confusion and worry working her face.

"Granny," she said, "you know we can't go outside any more."

I nodded, remembering. I saw the pity in her young eyes. She climbed on to my knee and asked me to tell her again about what it was like in the days when we

were allowed to go outside, in the days when you could feel the sun, still hot even in the late afternoon, warming our bare arms and legs, a gentle breeze ruffling our hair, the lake glistening and

sparkling. Gradually the reflection of the light on it would turn the surface into a shimmering silver lamé. As the sun lowered itself to the horizon, it cast a path of gold across the water,

ending at our feet at the shore. I told her, again, how it felt to plunge into the cold, clear water, the sense of invigoration, the sheer joy of playing like dolphins in the waves in the

water.

I woke up from that dream, but it's a recurring nightmare for me.

Some in this House may remember that one of the key reasons I ran for election was what I was witnessing along the shores of our Great Lakes, particularly the

shores of Lake Huron and Lake Ontario, where routinely beaches are closed to swimmers. In fact, on Lake Huron a stretch has been permanently closed. It is the canary in the coal mine. We're being

given a clear signal that our health is threatened.

One of the highest rates of breast cancer in the world is found on the northern shore of Lake Ontario. It is a clear signal that we are at risk and something

is going very, very wrong.

In my early days as a reporter in the Niagara region, I covered the aftermath of the Love Canal crisis. Poisons had leached out of an old industrial chemical

landfill site into a neighbourhood, into people's basements. It was believed that those toxins and many others were finding their way into the Niagara River and Lake Ontario, the source of drinking

water for millions of Canadians and Americans.

There was a reporter at the St Catharines Standard at the time by the name of Doug Draper. He covered the environment exclusively, and he raised my awareness

of the damage already done and the need for stricter regulations. I started to focus my work on the issue. I visited the Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington and I saw fish that had tumours on

their gills and on their lips. I remember interviewing government officials who stubbornly refused to acknowledge that our water was becoming a health risk. I covered the efforts of various groups

like Operation Clean Niagara, which at the time was headed by Margherita Howe, to get governments at all levels to recognize the threat to our drinking water and to move to protect it.

I have watched over the years as the algae has become thicker and thicker on the shores of Lake Ontario. Then, unbelievably, it showed up in Lake Huron. Three

short years ago, walking along the beach of Lake Huron, I had to pick my way among the dead and dying waterfowl and fish. It was a scene of carnage, a slaughter. Why? We don't really know why,

because the resources to find out had been slashed from government and agency budgets.

I have watched over the last few years as the lake turned from crystal blue to cloudy green, yellow and brown. I watch as the population along the lakes grows,

both humans and animals, both of them being housed in larger and more abundant structures. Small family farms have given way to factory farms. Small cottage communities are turning into suburbs.

Fertilizers and pesticides are liberally applied to our land and our lawns, lawns that are ethnically cleansed of all species but green blade grasses, as if people will be more worthy or perhaps

die happier if they have spent much of their time and their money, and risked the health of their children and animals, to have a manicured and uniformly green lawn. Those substances eventually

make it into our lakes in runoff.

Of course, there is the toxic particulate that falls from the sky in raindrops into our waterways, particulate from the smog created by an ever growing number

of cars, cars that seem to get larger and larger, idling monsters on these ribbons of concrete, they seem to be, eating up much of our green space. There is particulate, too, from industrial

smokestacks, especially the coal-fired generating plants supplying us with much more light and power than we actually need, but we consume it all with a gluttonous zeal. Despite all that light, we

still cannot seem to see our folly.

If we do nothing as politicians, as government, as a society, as individuals, we should protect the elements that sustain our very lives, although at times I

think our suicidal behaviour brings into question the worthiness of saving humanity.

We impale ourselves on our vanity and our foolhardiness, our petty little wants, our short-sighted visions. We fall victim to seductive fantasies of a utopian

lifestyle. We've lost touch with what is essential. We bow to pressure groups and lobbyists who think only in the here and now. We destroy the very things that sustain our very lives. No matter how

rich or how powerful or how influential or how popular or how beautiful or pious or self-righteous, no matter how good or worthy we are, we cannot live without clean water and clean air. None of us

can.

It is possible to turn around this damage. I remember the International Joint Commission celebrating victory over the high levels of mercury in Lake Erie in

the early 1980s. That proved that, if recognized and acknowledged, environmental damage can be reversed. Mother Nature's ability to rejuvenate is remarkable. In fact, when I'm feeling particularly

despairing about what we are doing to our magnificent lakes, I take solace knowing that what we are doing will only serve to wipe us out, and without us around, the lakes and the rest of nature

will have an opportunity to renew. Forever, the setting sun will cast its path of gold across the lake, even if we are not here to revel in its beauty.

I know the McGuinty government is moving in the right direction on water quality and air quality, and I mention both water and air quality because they are

inextricably linked. I know that the Minister of the Environment, Leona Dombrowsky, understands the tragedy of permanently closed beaches along Lake Huron, and I know we are introducing many

initiatives that will be addressed by my colleague the member from Perth-Middlesex. He'll be discussing those a little bit later.

I know we are moving to address the pollution of our lakes, and I know that this government gets it, but we must be ever vigilant. We cannot take our lakes and

all they mean to our quality of life, to life itself, for granted. We must all, every one of us in this society, wake up and take responsibility for the damage we are collectively doing.

If not, I fear that one morning I will not wake up from my recurring nightmare: Those halcyon days in the sun with the breeze in our hair, swimming in the

clean, clear water, will all be the stuff of lore, tales from granny.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on such an important issue. I would hope the member knows,

although she's new to the Legislature, that there has been a great deal of action has taken place in this area already. I would hope the member knows that in June 2002, the Ontario-Canada five-year

agreement to restore the Great Lakes took place, and $51.5 million was put in place at that time to support the Great Lakes basin ecosystem

Also, a number of years ago, $5 million was set aside to establish an agency called the Great Lakes Renewal Foundation. Their function at that time was to

clean up the areas of concern. It was a joint commission between Ontario, Canada and the United States, talking about cleaning up the Great Lakes. This foundation was brought forward to help clean

up these AOCs: areas of concern. They have spent a great number of hours of work on projects, including the ones in the St Clair River.

At the Bay of Quinte, I know they had Ducks Unlimited in as a partner, doing a lot of restoration in the marshes there. For those who don't realize it, marshes

are one of the best ways to clean our waterways. As a matter of fact, I know of one place in Florida where they had problems with their water quality, with the taste and smell of their water. They

put in a 50-acre marsh above where they got the water, and it cleaned up the water substantially. That's adding to it.

There are a lot of groups and organizations in the province of Ontario that are working very hard. In the member's own area, in the Randle Reef there was $1

million that was set aside, in the Hamilton area, because Hamilton Harbour was one of the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes. Also, $3.5 million and a lot of partners were brought forward in

the Thunder Bay area, with Abitibi Consolidated, a lumber company, Canadian National Railway, as well as the Northern Wood Preservers, all contributing to the cleanup in that area.

Once upon a time, it was viewed that we could flush all this stuff down our streams. It takes a lot more than that. It's not just cleaning up the Great Lakes.

It's the feeder streams. It's when we build houses and construction throughout Ontario. Everybody notices now how we have these ponds there. Once upon a time, we put up subdivisions and the water

would go right into the streams. Then the banks would flood and cause problems later on. They've come to realize that what takes place, with all this blacktop and roof-top, with blacktop being

driveways and roadways, and obviously roof-top is all the roofs -- they collect water that used to seep into the system and then slowly drain into the water courses. As we build these subdivisions,

we eliminate those opportunities. Now they build these nice storm-water retention ponds in these areas to collect all that. Everybody thinks it looks great and wonderful, and it's nice, but there

is a real reason why they have those.

Not only that, but you'll see the fountains there. People wonder why we have those fountains. The fountains are there because mosquitoes won't be able to breed

in them. The way they use their proboscis to stick it into the air to catch air: The fountain stops that and it stops the breeding of mosquitoes to some extent in those areas.

So there's a lot of movement moving forward. Personally, this is an area I had a strong concern with, in my own riding and with other people around. It's an

area where you have to start right at the youth. As a matter of fact, on Wednesday I had a classroom of kids going out. We released wild rainbow trout back into the Oshawa Creek. What I'm trying to

do there is reinstitute the value of the stream system and the ecosystems within our community right in the schools. So as those kids grow, they learn.

We've done six schools in the riding so far this year. We take the kids down and we show them rainbow trout coming up to spawn in the stream. Some of the fish

are 15 to 18 pounds. Then we take the eggs, put them in aquariums in the school, and then we let the eggs hatch. The kids watch the entire process. I provide a video and a classroom preparation

document for the teachers in the schools. They do an entire learning subject in their curriculum with this.

Then, on Wednesday, there was the last school we were doing. We took the kids down and we actually released the rainbow trout back into the stream. They see

the entire life cycle of that stream. They gain an understanding of how planting trees along the stream -- we plant trees as well -- actually adds to the entire benefit of this program because it

slows the seepage that goes into the stream. It allows it to retain those waters so it doesn't flood. It shades the streams, providing cooling.

There are a lot of things happening that take place in this area. I know that a lot of companies have been actively getting involved. I know that the

governments of Canada and Ontario and several private sector companies have signed a pollution prevention memorandum of understanding that aims to reduce emissions of priority toxic substances into

the environment. Because of signed agreements like that, over 390,000 tonnes of toxic substances are no longer contributed back into the environment. There are a lot of things taking place in this

area. All we have to do is look out and work with the companies.

In my own riding of Oshawa, I work with the city, Ducks Unlimited, OPG and the Great Lakes renewal trust fund foundation to rework with the Second Marsh in

Oshawa. Actually, I work with the South Central Ontario Big Game Association in providing thousands of hours cleaning up the stream and the watercourse.

People don't realize what takes place here. It's an entire life cycle. It's like that show, the Lion King, where it talks about the "great circle of life." It

all comes together there. In these areas you look at what takes place. We actually took out the log-jams there. What log-jams do in a river -- people don't realize -- is slow down the water, and as

the water slows down, it heats up. Guess what happens when the water heats up? Bacteria start to grow. If you can increase that flow down through the streams into the Great Lakes so there's not so

much stoppage and heating up, it will reduce the amount of bacteria growth.

I know there are a lot of members within my own caucus who wish to speak as well, so I'm going to share my time. Thank you for the opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I am standing to support this bill and commend the member from Stoney Creek for what I think were very

nice words. I don't have dreams like that that I ever remember. I have to tell you that. I wake up in the morning wondering what I dreamed. Although I know I dreamed, it's gone. Anyway, we support

the protection of the Great Lakes. I think every rational human being on this planet would support the protection of our environment.

Having said that, there is no alternative but to accept the motion that is here and hope that the motion will trigger some further action, because we believe

further action needs to be taken. It is not enough to say the nice things that I'm sure are going to be said here today, but there has to be a commitment by this government that goes well beyond

what we saw in the budget that was presented in this House just a few weeks ago.

I invite the member who put forward the motion to turn to page 12 of the budget, because what you'll find on that page is something very chilling. You will

find that the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment are both slated, this year, for a freeze in the expenditure. They will have to do what is necessary to protect the

very Great Lakes that we hold dear. What is even worse on page 12 is that these are two of 15 ministries that between now and the year 2007-08 will actually see a reduction in the budget to the

point of some 12%, so that they cannot even protect what they are doing today; they will be less and less able to protect in the years between now and 2007-08.

The statement is an excellent statement. The actions, though, belie what we are trying to do or what the member is trying to say. The same statement has

already been made and in fact has been a part of the governance of this province since 1971 -- for 33 years -- the Canada-Ontario agreement respecting the Great Lakes basin ecosystem, 1971. That

act contains almost identical words to the motion that is put before us today. That act clearly set out in that time frame how we were to protect the Great Lakes.

There has been some good action. I remember as a boy not being able to swim at the beaches of Toronto at all, and now they're only closed down half the

swimming season. I remember seeing no fish at all in the Don River, and now we do see some minor fish -- no sport fish.

Interjection.

Mr Prue: Yes, but things are improving. I travel every year down the Don River as part of a group of canoeists who travel down from Lawrence

Avenue to the lake, and you can see that the banks of the Don River are being cleaned up. You can see that Lake Ontario is a cleaner and better lake in the last number of years than it was in the

past. But so much more remains to be done, and I am afraid that with the gutting of the environmental bills and ministries between this year and 2007-08, which has happened in this budget, all of

the good wishes of the member from Stoney Creek will not happen and she will wake up from that dream saying, "We should have done more." That's really where we should be headed.

In this very chamber, in April, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources stood up to announce that there was going to be some $13

million put into Great Lakes cleanup. I would have thought that was a good announcement, but it wasn't. In fact, all that was, was a reannouncement of what the Conservatives had promised in their

$51 million spread out over five years. This year they had already promised $13 million. So what we got from a new government was nothing more than saying, "We are going to continue with the

program of the previous government."

Now, it would have been worse, I will put it to you, had they announced, "We're going to cut that." But there was nothing new. There was no new commitment that

had not already existed and been passed by this Legislature. It was the same old arguments, when in fact you recognize and I recognize, and most thinking people recognize, that we are simply not

doing enough to protect the Great Lakes and the waters that flow into the Great Lakes. We are not protecting them enough for ourselves, and we are certainly not protecting them enough for our

children and for those who come after us.

I put it to the member that although we will be supporting this motion, there are six things that we need to do, six actions that this Legislature must pass,

six things that the government must find the money to do, if the wonderful words that she said are to have any meaning at all.

The first is that we need to have a separate office for the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are, of course, as she put it in her motion, the largest single source

of freshwater in the world. They are not in and amongst themselves the largest lakes -- because the Caspian Sea is, for anyone who's a good geographer -- but Lake Superior and right down to the

smallest lake, Lake Ontario, are magnificent and huge bodies of water, and have enormous potential, not only to provide fresh water to communities, but also to have a full range and ecosystem of

life, support a huge development of fisheries, a huge development of birds and all of the life that comes from a water environment. And it is simply not there. There are too many places where those

ecosystems are damaged, and too many places where there are problems.

We need to have a separate office that looks only at the Great Lakes and can work in conjunction with the Canadian government, the state Legislatures and the

American government, to make sure that those are cleaned up and are made at least as good as they were, at least as pure and as clean and as vibrant as they were when people first started to settle

on these shores. I should say, when western people first started to live on these shores. I'm sure that our native Canadians treated the lakes with much greater respect than we of European heritage

did in subsequent years.

The second thing we need to do is have real plans and funding to look at invasive species. We can read every day in the newspaper about some of those invasive

species that have found their way into the Great Lakes systems. We know about the lampreys and how they completely devastated the lake trout industry and fishery in the Great Lakes. We know about

zebra mussels and how they, although they appear to be cleaning up the water a little, or making it clearer, are also making it much more difficult for many, many fish species to continue to exist,

particularly walleye fisheries around the Bay of Quinte. We know about other invasive species that are finding their way in -- everything from quagqa mussels to fish -- round gobies -- spiny water

fleas, all of those things that are finding their way into the Great Lakes that ought not to be there. We need to have real plans to get rid of them and we need to have the funding to do it. There

has been funding for many years, as an example, for getting rid of the sea lampreys, by using lampricide, but we also need to find other ways of making sure those invasive species do not grab hold

and drive out the native species from our lakes.

We need to look and have plans and real funding to make sure that contaminated discharge is looked after. A great amount of contaminated discharge continues to

flow into the lake. Places like Love Canal are not unique. Love Canal was discovered, but there are others that we don't know about but that we need to know about.

We need to also look at a real problem that is emerging, and that is in terms of pharmaceutical discharge. People don't look at this. We have no real plans for

pharmaceutical discharge and how that is going to impact life in all of the Great Lakes. We need to have some plans and funds for at least these three things.

The next item we need to look at is to restore the Great Lakes program. The Great Lakes program was largely gutted by the previous government in the middle

1990s. The Great Lakes program needs to be reintroduced and it needs to be funded. There is no money in this current budget, and perhaps no one thought that it was needed. But with the passage of

this motion, I am asking the members opposite, in discussing the budget bill -- and we heard yesterday that it may go out to committee -- to actually look for money for restoring the Great Lakes

program.

We are asking next that there be remedial plans. The Canadian Environmental Law Association says that in order to remediate the Great Lakes -- those that are

in the province; there are four of them -- we need to have remedial plans to bring back the lakes where there are problems. Those remedial plans are going to cost about $1.9 billion, if the Great

Lakes are to be restored. That is a lot of money for a government that is struggling to find it. That is a lot of money. I'm sure it's going to take place, not in one budget year, but over many

budget years, in order that the Great Lakes can be revived and in order that that little girl can go out and swim in the lake that was in the dream. It certainly cannot be done with just statements

that we want it to happen. It's going to take a government budget that is a good deal more enlightened on the environment and natural resources than the one we saw introduced here a couple of weeks

ago.

We know that the remediation needs to be improved. The previous government passed a $51-million plan to help the Great Lakes over five years. And it has worked

to some extent -- I'm not going say it hasn't worked -- but it certainly is not enough. If we are to do the whole job, the Canadian Environmental Law Association says we need $1.9 billion, and I

would think it should be spent sooner rather than later. That might be an amount over 10 or 20 years, but it certainly needs to be spent. They assess the cost of remediating Hamilton harbour alone

-- and I think the member from Stoney Creek will be interested in this -- at running somewhere between $545 million and $600 million, if that is to be a clean and safe harbour, if you are to swim

in and around the beaches or areas of Hamilton, Stoney Creek and the like, if you are to have fish that you can catch and eat, if you are to have sports fishing and all the things that we would

like to think that you can go out and do on Lake Ontario.

So what I am saying is that the words are good. The action that we need to take is clear to us; we have to have the resolve as a Legislature and the resolve as

a government party -- you being in the government party -- to literally put your money where your mouth is, because I am afraid that we know the problem but that we can conveniently sometimes as

people turn and say that it may go away, that Mother Nature is wonderful and can remediate herself -- and of course she can. But she can't remediate herself when there are invasive species. She

cannot remediate herself when there is pharmaceutical dumping, she can't remediate herself when there are discharges we don't know about and she certainly can't remediate herself in the presence of

human beings without those same human beings having the wherewithal to spend the necessary funds to assist Mother Nature as the population grows, as the number of people on the planet increases, as

new housing subdivisions are being built in and around Ontario, as we continue our love affair with the car, as acid rain falls, and the 100,000 other things we do that we should not do to our

Great Lakes.

In the minute that is left, I would like to commend the member for Stoney Creek for her thoughtful analysis of where we should go. She has set out very well

what a grandmother might see through sepia windows -- I haven't heard that word in a long time -- and how she would like to leave a legacy for her granddaughter. I would like to reiterate, though,

that the problem is not in the dream, the problem is in the action that will follow that dream. If the dream was a wake-up dream -- and we've seen many stories in history where a dream has set

someone to great action or forewarned them about a future they were able to divert -- let this be one you are able to divert. Go back to your caucus, go back to the cabinet ministers and tell them

that the amount of money that is being spent on the Great Lakes cleanup is not sufficient for that little girl.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I'm pleased to stand and support the member for Stoney Creek, and I thank her for bringing this motion

forward. Each of us in this House has some tools at our disposal to bring forward issues that are extremely important to us. I have to say that this is something that is also near and dear to my

heart. As you know, I have a constituency that is at the tip of Lake Huron and into the St Clair River. As well, we have the petrochemical industry there. We have a clustering of industry there

that is the largest in Canada.

You may not know this, but when I was in opposition, one of my biggest battles was trying to get stricter standards for the disposal of hazardous waste. Why?

Because it's about the future, it's about degrading our environment, our habitat. I don't want to have the nightmare you spoke of -- you called it a dream; I call it a nightmare. I have to say that

one of the more frightening aspects of what's happening in this election is the fact that the Kyoto accord is not going to be -- it's an issue federally. Yesterday I heard Mr Harper say that he

doesn't agree with the Kyoto accord and that we don't have to do this.

Each one of us has a responsibility for the future, and you're absolutely right when you say that if we cannot have clean water and clean air, then there is no

purpose, in my opinion, in government. Government has to have the will to leave this a better place than we found it.

I know that our government is doing a great deal in my area, with the spills action team. We have a SWAT team. You talked about the Love Canal. Those standards

for disposal of hazardous waste came about in the United States because of the Love Canal.

As I say, I certainly pressed the former government. I'm really thrilled to know that we're taking at least one step further and that we are going to have

stricter rules for the disposal of hazardous waste very shortly in this province, which is another step in taking that nightmare away. Hopefully, we can improve this place because of the direction

this government is going.

I thank you for bringing this forward and reminding all of us that we have a responsibility here to do something about it and not just to talk about it. One

more thing I have to say in respect to the Great Lakes is, that certainly is a hot point where we have to stop these spills that go into the lakes, and we have to stop these emissions that go into

the air. We can only do that through regulatory stewardship, if you want, that government imposes.

I thank you very much for bringing it forward. I'll certainly support it, and I know that we, as a government -- I wouldn't be a Liberal; I wouldn't be here if

I didn't think our government is committed to cleaner air and cleaner water.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'm pleased to address this motion from the member for Stoney Creek. I think it goes without saying

that everyone in this House would agree that this government should continue to do everything in its power to ensure the Great Lakes are protected from pollution. Quite simply, it's essential that

the efforts continue. The Great Lakes are a natural resource for environmental reasons, but they also support so much of Ontario's and Canada's economy.

I think of Canadian industries, and we certainly know of cases of industrial pollution. Of course, we bear in mind the $100-million commercial fishery that is

supported by the Great Lakes, and the recreational fishing industry comes in to the tune of $300 million a year in revenue. That's why our government -- and this goes back certainly to 1972,

previous Tory governments dating back to the Canada-Ontario agreement respecting the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. We've introduced a number of measures coming from that, and continued to do that up

till last fall.

In June 2002, Ontario and Canada announced the five-year agreement to protect and restore the Great Lakes basin, and in 2002, our government alone committed

$51.5 million over five years. Certainly on this side of the House, we trust that the new government will carry on that five-year commitment and that minimum commitment of $51.5 million respecting

the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Provincially, so many ministries are involved: certainly the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture -- measures and funding that came out

of much of the nutrient management concerns -- and, of course, the Ministry of the Environment. The five-year agreement does set aggressive targets to clean up the Great Lakes, and co-operation and

sharing is very important in that regard.

I'd also like to mention that while this motion addresses the Great Lakes, there are other lakes in the province of Ontario. And lo and behold, with the

recently introduced Adams mine legislation we have a whole new definition for lakes. I don't know whether this kind of resolution could handle the kind of definition coming from the Adams Mine Lake

Act. In fact, the definition is found in

section 7: A lake is now defined as "a body of surface water that ... results from human activities, and ... directly influences or is directly influenced

by ground water," and is larger than one hectare -- that's about 2.2 acres.

I'm wondering about these other sites, other lakes by this definition: obviously no new landfill or refuse will be going into these man-made, defined lakes.

However, there are many bodies of water out there under this new definition that contain garbage, and given that we have this new definition, will this legislation be broadened to encompass the

cleanup of all these newly defined lakes -- pits, quarries, gravel pits, iron ore mines, whether it be Dofasco or Stelco? Under this new definition of "lake," are we now looking at committing to

cleaning up all these other existing sites? I'll leave that for members to deliberate.

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I, of course, speak in favour of this motion. The motion of the member for Stoney Creek is more

of a vision statement for this Assembly. The member from Lambton -- Sarnia-Lambton, I should say; I'm the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex -- was also talking to her constituents. She and I share

the same lakeshore. Our constituents live along the St Clair River. There certainly has been a lot of media focus on the issues of water and air pollution in that area.

There was a great deal of concern last summer, in August, when there was a spill that affected the people of Walpole Island and Wallaceburg. There was an

initial panic when people realized what could potentially be in their tap water, in their drinking water. But even beyond the panic comes the anxiety and frustration of the people in my

constituency and in my riding. They argue among themselves about what should be done. They argue among themselves within their own families about what to do. Some are living with only bottled

water. They've now refused to drink water from their taps.

As a young person, I would never have believed that some day I would pay for bottled water, and yet we do it all the time now. It has become part of our life.

Yet, 20 years ago someone would have said I was crazy to pay good money for water. It was available in abundance, and everybody expected that. But that is no longer the case. My grandchildren see

bottled water as a normal part of their lives, and I find that really frightening. Where we thought getting something like pop or chocolate milk was a great thing, they think water is a great

thing. That tells me something about how we've changed as a culture. We no longer have the confidence that we should have in our tap water.

In my constituency, we also have issues of air pollution and issues of fly ash that comes from the stacks in the industries in my area. That has brought about

a lot of concerns among farmers in my community, who see this ash floating on to their crops, on to the hay fields, and that hay, in turn, is fed to the cows and gets into the milk. There's worry

about what's going to happen and if it is really impacting. We are told it isn't, but there's always that gnawing fear, that concern that somewhere there might be something getting through.

We've had studies done in my community, actually by a former federal member, the Honourable Ralph Ferguson, who did studies on the incidence of cancer in his

farm community of Alvinston, in Brooke. They found a higher incidence of cancer there compared to neighbouring communities. They're trying to find out what's causing this. Why are we seeing pockets

of increased cancer incidence in certain areas and not in others?

We heard earlier in private members' business about

an act that would ask us to freeze gas prices. I have concerns about such things. I know we all drive

vehicles, and we talk about gas and that we need to have something that's affordable. But if we freeze gas prices, we encourage people to continue to buy gas and not look for alternative fuel

sources to power our vehicles. Are we necessarily doing a good thing there?

I hope we can learn from the things we have seen in the past and that we will be able to clean up our environment. I thank the member for Stoney Creek for

bringing forward her motion.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I want to speak on this resolution with respect to the Great Lakes and just point out a couple

of facts on the record. I note in the budget speech that the Minister of Finance, Greg Sorbara, says that between 2004-05 and 2007-08 the budgets of 15 ministries are either being flatlined or

decreased. Natural resources and environment are among those 15 ministries. So that raises a question about anything the government would want to do with the Great Lakes that costs money.

Another fact, and I report it out of the Windsor Star of August 22, 2003, is that a subsidiary of Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara's former company, Royal

Group Technologies, was responsible for three chemical spills into the St Clair River last year. In 2003, Royal Polymers, a Royal Group subsidiary, was responsible for three chemical spills, two in

August and one in November. The company failed to notify the Ministry of the Environment of the spills for several days.

In the

article it states, "... from Royal Polymers of Sarnia entered the water system and almost a week after an initial spill during the power blackout on

Thursday.

"While the chemical would not have contaminated the water supply by the time it reached the Windsor area, city water officials are concerned they weren't

notified immediately." That's a quote of Saad Jasim, director of water quality and production for the Windsor Utilities Commission.

"`The MOE was not informed about the spill until well after the fact,' Jasim said. `We still don't know a lot of the details ... but there was an unfortunate

communication gap'" about this major issue.

"Despite the fact the MOE spill hotline was up and running on generator power during the initial blackout -- and officials were receiving calls about sewage

spills and other emergencies -- they did not receive word about the Royal Polymer incidents until late Tuesday, said John Steele, ministry spokesman.

"`Whenever there is a chemical spill the (ministry) action centre must be notified immediately,'" Mr Steele said. "`And we were not. This incident has been

turned over to our investigations branch.'"

That was on August 22, 2003, from the Windsor Star.

From the Sarnia Observer, November 27, 2003:

"Royal Polymers Ltd discharged an estimated 828 kilograms of toxic vinyl chloride to the air Saturday morning after a process computer failed. The company

notified the Ministry of the Environment and says it called local radio stations the same day.

"But a news release wasn't issued until Tuesday morning and the four-sentence

summary the Observer received explained little about the incident and nothing

about its impact. Royal Polymers is already under investigation by the environment ministry for failing to immediately report a chemical spill to the St Clair River this summer." That's as I quoted

with the Windsor Star, which was in August 2003, and here we have in November 2003, from the Sarnia Observer, the actions of Royal Polymers, which is a Royal Group subsidiary -- as indicated

earlier, Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara's former company -- with respect to these spills into the Great Lakes without notifying the Ministry of the Environment. Quite frankly, that is really,

really difficult to understand, that type of irresponsible conduct which was being reported in the Windsor Star in August 2003 and then again in the Sarnia Observer in November 2003.

So I think the member who has put forth this resolution should be talking to her Minister of Finance, should be talking to her government, because quite

frankly, they have no intention of doing anything about the Great Lakes. They have flatlined the spending for natural resources and the environment, and in fact there are actions going on on the

Great Lakes with respect to the Ministry of the Environment that are not being reported. They have a hotline to make sure that things are reported about spills and also what's going into the air

with respect to discharges from this particular company. So I would say that the member is good-intentioned, but I don't think her government is.

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It's a pleasure to speak to this resolution today, and certainly the previous speaker trying to give us

lessons on environmental protection was worth the price of admission this morning.

I don't think there's a resolution, I don't think there's anything you can do, that's more pro-business for the province of Ontario than to have a clean,

strong environment.

It's not just words. Everybody, I think, had "green" in their last campaign slogans. Politicians seem to think that if you drop "green" into every second

sentence, then you're doing something good for the environment. But, certainly, it's action that's got to be taken.

As it is on most environmental issues, and as it has been for the last eight years in this province, the politicians have been lagging far behind the public,

when you're looking at the urban impact of growth on the Great Lakes. There's nothing as basic as clean water to sustain life. There's no business -- not one business -- that could operate in this

province without clean water, and we just have to look at examples.

In my own community, we found we had a problem with algae in the Great Lakes, on the shoreline. It was impacting the local economy. It was impacting the

lifestyles of those who lived close to the shoreline. Simply, it was fouling the shores. Who led the charge on that? It was not the local politicians. It was certainly not the provincial government

at the time, the previous Eves-Harris government. In fact, I'm not even sure if we could get anyone to answer the phone during those years. It was the people in Halton. The people in Halton came

together and formed what's called the Lake Ontario Shoreline Algae Action Committee, which eventually drew the support of local politicians, Conservation Halton and the University of Waterloo.

Now we're going into what's called a yellow fish program. Most of the storm sewers in the urban areas in Oakville and Burlington will have a yellow fish

painted on them this summer. The idea is that before you pour anything down a storm sewer, you remember that it's going to find its way into the lake. You remember that there's wildlife in that

lake. You remember that that lake's part of our ecosystem.

So I am so pleased to see a resolution as forward-thinking as this. Hopefully this signals a change, a turnaround from the previous eight years of

environmental mess we've lived with.

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I'm delighted, as the newly minted parliamentary assistant to the Honourable Leona Dombrowsky, the

Minister of the Environment, to speak to the member from Stoney Creek's resolution.

Our government is committed to higher standards of numeracy and literacy. We're committed to that. But, for some people, it's a little bit too late. I had the

member for Beaches-East York say to this House that somehow, on page 12 of the budget, we were reducing our financial commitment to the Ministry of the Environment. Then the member from

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford had to jump in as well, because some people obviously have trouble with literacy and numeracy. He also agreed with the member that somehow there wasn't a commitment.

I refer you to page 71 of the budget papers, under operating expenses for the Ministry of the Environment: last year, under the previous regime, $260 million;

this year, $304 million. Now, where I come from, that's an increase. That's not a decrease. I look at the capital budget of the Ministry of the Environment: $4 million with the previous government.

What are we spending? It's $13 million. To walk into this House and talk about page 12, and you can't find your way to page 71 and page 72 -- my God, that's amazing.

I want you to know that the Ministry of the Environment is committed to the resolution today. I want to remind the members of the House that in April the

Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources reinforced that commitment with a $13-million investment, that this government is supporting the cleanup of contaminated sediment

in Ontario's 15 identified problem areas, known as the Great Lakes area of concern.

Our government is committed to developing a renewed relationship with both the federal government and the Great Lakes governors to protect this shared

resource, and we're meeting our commitments under the Canada-Ontario agreement on Great Lakes water quality. Source protection will help protect lakes and the many smaller watersheds that feed

them, and source protection plans will help prevent the excess buildup of harmful pollutants.

But I wanted to say to the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, now that I've been able to develop the corporate message, I want to talk from the heart. There

was a previous government in this land that slashed -- slashed -- the Ministry of the Environment's budget by a third. Half of the people were gone. What did we get from that? We had a government

that sent a signal that they weren't committed to the environment. There are families in this province who paid a tremendous price for that decision.

Our government is committed to the environment. Our government --

Mr Tascona: Point of order.

Mr Wilkinson: Go right ahead.

Mr Tascona: Mr Speaker, can you have the member speak to the resolution? He's not even remotely close to it.

Mr Wilkinson: Oh, the truth hurts, my God, and I only have 59 seconds left.

I want to let you know that the first bill introduced by my ministry, the Adams Mine Lake Act, Bill 49, says to the world that we don't take trash, dump it in

the aquifer and then somehow figure that it's not going to end up being in the Great Lakes. That's why we passed that act. I might mention that the opposition voted against that -- not the NDP, but

the Progressive Conservatives.

Now, why would they do that? Because they still haven't got the message of the last election, that the people of Ontario want a government that protects the

environment, that puts more resources into it.

I want to commend the member for Stoney Creek. That's why I want to commend her for this. I urge all members that they should vote on this resolution, because

Ontario will want to know whether a previous government has learned the lesson.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Stoney Creek has two minutes to reply.

Ms Mossop: I want to thank all the speakers today, who largely greeted my tales from granny with the spirit in which thay were delivered. A

lot of dollar figures have been thrown about -- how much money was spent, how much money is being spent, how much money should be spent -- but there are two things that are far more important in

this.

The first one is education. We all have to understand exactly what we are doing when we pollute our lakes. We have to understand that in every choice we make,

in every decision we make, in every action, if we are polluting our lakes, what we are doing is akin to manslaughter -- period.

The second thing that we need to do -- and I found this out when I went to a conference in Hamilton recently on heritage. It was largely about heritage

buildings, and the preservation of heritage buildings, but a world expert was there, author Anthony Tung. He travelled all over the world to determine why some places, some societies, were more

successful at preserving their heritage, both man-made and natural, than other societies.

The answer was simple: The ones that were successful had binding laws that said, "No, you cannot do that. There are no exceptions. There are no appeals." You

can throw all of the money in the world at the problem, but if you don't have a binding law, you will not have any success at all -- period.

I understand that it's important to have money for the enforcement and all the rest, but the bottom line is we have to all understand, every one of us, the

intrinsic value of our lakes to the very lives of all of us, now and in the future. We have to reflect that in a binding law that says, "No, you cannot pollute the lakes -- period." Thank you for

the mathematics, the arithmetic, and all the rest, but my efforts will be focused with this government, and all other governments, to have binding laws to protect our future.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

PRICE FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE GEL DU PRIX

DE CERTAINS PRODUITS PÉTROLIERS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We shall deal first with ballot item number 25, standing in the name of Mr Tascona.

Mr Tascona has moved second reading of Bill 48,

An Act to provide for an interim freeze in the price of certain petroleum products.

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

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will call in the members after we've dealt with the next ballot item.

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): We'll now deal with ballot item number 26, standing in the name of Ms Mossop.

Ms Mossop has moved that in the opinion of the House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should do everything within its power to ensure that the Great Lakes,

the largest source of fresh water in the world, be protected from pollution and degradation of all kinds, through appropriate legislation, monitoring and enforcement, and through intergovernmental

relations.

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

I thought I heard a no.

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

I actually need some help. I thought I heard a no in that. It's a no. OK, thank you. I've gotten my assistance now.

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

PRICE FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE GEL DU PRIX

DE CERTAINS PRODUITS PÉTROLIERS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Tascona has moved second reading of Bill 48,

an Act to provide for an interim freeze in the price of

certain petroleum products.

All those in favour will please stand.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Hardeman, Ernie

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Tascona, Joseph N.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please stand.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Caplan, David

Delaney, Bob

Gerretsen, John

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mitchell, Carol

Patten, Richard

Racco, Mario G.

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 24; the nays are 17.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to --

Mr Tascona: I'd like it referred to the standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Tascona has moved that the bill be referred to the committee on agencies, boards and commissions.

I hear a no.

All those in favour, please stand and remaining standing. Take your seats.

All those opposed will stand and remain standing. Take your seats.

A majority of the House being opposed, this bill will be referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr Tascona: I'd move that it be put to the Legislative Assembly committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that this motion --

I heard a no.

The doors will be open for 30 seconds before we deal with ballot item number 26.

GREAT LAKES PROTECTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Ms Mossop has moved that in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should do

everything within its power to ensure that the Great Lakes, the largest source of fresh water in the world, be protected from pollution and degradation of all kinds, through appropriate

legislation, monitoring and enforcement, and through intergovernmental relations.

All those in favour will please stand.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marsales, Judy

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Racco, Mario G.

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please stand.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 42; the nays are 0.

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 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TREE PLANTING

IN WELLINGTON COUNTY

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I want to inform the House of a very special celebration taking place in 2004, that being the county of

Wellington's 150th anniversary. To mark this occasion, our county came up with a fabulous idea: As a lasting green legacy, 150,000 trees would be planted in Wellington.

Over a two-week period, school classes, municipalities, service clubs and private landowners took part, planting trees throughout our scenic and beautiful

county. Other key partners in the project included the Grand River Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Wellington County Stewardship Council, and both of Wellington

county's school boards. For their

part in planting this living and lasting legacy that will improve the environment in Wellington county for generations to come, they all deserve enormous

credit.

I'm very proud and glad to support this important initiative. We all know the importance of planting trees, and if greenhouse gases and excess carbon dioxide

are a problem, humankind around the world should respond by planting hundreds of thousands, even millions, of trees. Wellington county has shown the way.

I want to thank and acknowledge Wellington county Warden Linda White, who a few days ago planted a sugar maple, tree number 150,000, as well as county council

for their leadership that has improved the environment for our children and grandchildren. Chief administrative officer Scott Wilson and county staff also deserve recognition on a job well done and

for a program that should be adopted by other municipalities across the province.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Here it is: We're in time allocation. The government, while in opposition, purportedly said they were

going to start a new Legislature and find a new way to make sure that members of the assembly all had an opportunity to participate fully in debate. They said they were opposed to time allocation

motions. I remember those speeches. I remember Dwight Duncan, the now government House leader, and a whole bunch of others who used to stand up in opposition to time allocation.

What's the time allocation motion? Surprise, surprise, it's on the budget. Let me tell the government House leader something. I see this as nothing more than

an attempt to cut short debate on the budget bill so that you can try to put that under the radar screen, so that your federal cousins, who are all yelling at you for having done the most unpopular

budget in the history of Ontario, can somehow get through this federal election.

It ain't going to work. At the end of the day, there has to be a democratic process. You're the guys who stood for transparency and said you were basically not

going to do time allocation and were going to change the way we do business in the Legislature of Ontario.

I'm here today to say there is no change. Your government has introduced time allocation. The budget will be a done deal by Thursday of next week. I say to the

government, you can try to hide your unpopular budget all you want in this federal election, but at the end of the day people get it and they're going to turf out Liberals across Ontario, not only

because of Paul Martin but also what this government has done with that budget and all their broken promises.

SOCCER

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): Every summer, people across the province look forward to a number of world-class sporting

events. This year, the European soccer championship, or football as it is known around the world, will be held in Portugal and will begin this Saturday, when Portugal faces Greece in the city of

Porto, and will culminate in Lisbon on July 4, 2004, with the championship game.

These tournaments bring Ontario's vast ethnic diversity to the forefront, as soccer fans, either born elsewhere or having parents or grandparents born

elsewhere, come together across the province. Soccer is one of the most vastly played recreational sports in our province, played by children and adults alike.

Cafes and restaurants across the GTA will be serving food like Greek souvlaki, Portuguese churassco barbecued chicken or tasty German frankfurters while fans

flags and flags from countries all over the world.

Most importantly, this tournament represents fair play between nations. In our province, this will be seen as an overwhelming sense of coming together by

people from different cultures and different countries as they celebrate world class sport and ethnic diversity in Ontario. I'm extremely proud of Ontario's ethnic diversity.

I encourage every member in this Legislature to participate in cheering on their favourite team and to encourage the sharing of cultures in their

constituencies. Hopefully, Ontario and Canada will one day host a world-class event like the World Cup of soccer.

DIALYSIS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise today to urge the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to fulfill his budget promise to make dialysis

treatment a health-care priority, and to sign off on the capital improvement for the Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital satellite dialysis unit.

His ministry has already approved the unit and committed operational dollars to it. The community has shown its support by raising all the funds necessary to

purchase the equipment -- over $700,000. Now everyone is waiting, and has been waiting for some time, for this minister to allow the rooms to be renovated.

When this government was in opposition, the now minister, Ms Pupatello, came to Tillsonburg and stated clearly to the citizens and the media that if they

became government, they would not play political football with something as serious as dialysis treatment. Now it's becoming clear that this is exactly what is happening.

Perhaps Minister Pupatello could talk to Minister Smitherman and impress upon him how important this is to people like Ed DeSutter who suffers not only from

the ravages of his disease, but from the stress of constant travel to get the life-saving treatment he needs.

Young and old, people from three counties have been waiting patiently for this minister to take action. I have submitted a petition signed by thousands for

that action to take place as soon as possible.

I ask the minister not to make this a political football, but to think of the citizens of this province who want to enjoy a better quality of life without

further delay. I ask him to make good on his budget promise to make dialysis treatment a priority and make it possible to receive treatment closer to home for these very sick people.

MARKHAVEN HOME FOR SENIORS

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): I rise to congratulate Markhaven, a long-term-care facility in my riding of Markham, on its grand opening this past

weekend. I would also like to thank Minister Smitherman for coming out to Markham in support of this very important event.

Markhaven was founded in 1960, when a nurse named Lois Neely and her husband welcomed seniors into their home. With an increased need for long-term-care

facilities in Markham, the board of directors expanded and rebuilt Markhaven in 1970. By 1996 it was evident that a larger facility was urgently needed.

Markhaven's celebration this past weekend was the result of a very successful community-based fundraising drive. I wish to acknowledge the hard work of many

people involved with the successful reopening of Markhaven, including Ralph Aselin, Pauline Loney, Eric Tappenden and Harry James. I thank them for their dedication and support that ensure

Markhaven continues to provide Markham seniors with valuable and high-quality service. As a member of the fundraising committee for its gala last year, I was impressed by the enthusiasm of

Markhaven's staff and volunteers.

In addition to having Markhaven as a valuable part of their community, Markham's seniors will also benefit enormously because the Liberal government is

fulfilling its promise to seniors by creating thousands of additional long-term-care beds, 12,000 bed-lifts for hospitals and long-term-care facilities, and an additional investment in long-term

care of $406 million, that will grow to $546 million by 2007-08.

Seniors in Markham recognize that this government, working in partnership with institutions such as Markhaven, is fulfilling its promises to provide them with

access to timely medical services and a higher quality of life.

NIAGARA FALLSVIEW

CASINO RESORT

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): On Tuesday I had the honour of opening the new Niagara Fallsview Casino Resort, located in the heart of my

riding in Niagara Falls. There are now 6,500 people directly employed at the Fallsview casino and Casino Niagara, which has been open since 1996. Last year, Premier McGuinty announced Casino

Niagara would remain open, giving Niagara Falls two more attractions and all the economic benefits that go along with them.

The new Fallsview casino is a real gem for the city of Niagara Falls. It is on 10 hectares of land overlooking the magnificent falls and was built as a

complete entertainment centre, including a theatre, convention centre and a new luxury hotel. The Niagara Fallsview Casino Resort is now officially open to the public today.

When the casino was being built, it was listed as the second-largest construction site in Canada, behind the new terminal at Pearson International Airport.

During the construction, the Niagara Falls casino used 85,000 cubic metres of concrete, 7,500 tonnes of structural steel and 7,000 tonnes of reinforcing steel.

I would like to invite all the members here, across Ontario and across Canada to come to Niagara this summer and marvel at the Niagara Fallsview Casino Resort

as well as the Niagara Parks Commission attractions, our world-class golf courses, our award winning wineries and the magic of the Shaw Festival.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Yesterday at Queen's Park literally hundreds of people from across the province came --

Laughter.

Mr Klees: -- and the members laugh. The House leader laughs, and members of the opposition laugh. Let me tell you, folks, your constituents

are not laughing. You're trying to shrug off what the people of this province consider a very serious transgression: a government that shrugs off the responsibility to keep the law.

There were people here yesterday who travelled from right across the province to send a very strong signal to this government: first, that they expect that

their government, which is charged with the responsibility to keep the law, will in fact keep the law; that the Premier, who is the chief person in this province responsible for upholding the law,

should uphold the law, namely the Taxpayer Protection Act, which he has broken.

The Premier of this province should be listening, and his backbenchers should be listening, rather than laughing at the people of this province when they say

to them, "Keep the law of the land."

If you're going to have a tax increase, at least do it in accordance with the act in place in this province. The people of this province have rated this

Premier the least-trustworthy Premier ever to hold the office in the province of Ontario. It's because he has no respect for the law.

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): Today is a very special day for me. I rise today not only as the provincial member of Parliament of

Mississauga East but also as a Portuguese Canadian MPP. Today marks the third anniversary of Portuguese History and Heritage Month here in Ontario.

May I take this opportunity to thank those of you who joined my guests and I as we raised the flag of Portugal here at Queen's Park earlier today. Today's

event has been but one of many events being held right across the province in honour of Portugal's heritage, an opportunity for people of Portuguese origin to celebrate their heritage and, perhaps

more importantly, to share their culture with others.

Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the first Portuguese pioneers. It was a chance to reflect on the trials, tribulations and successes of those first

Portuguese immigrants. It was because of their hard work, struggles and determination that we are able to celebrate today.

This year, I chose to celebrate the next 50 years, an opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of Portuguese Canadian youth, as well as a call to the youth

of Portuguese heritage in Ontario to continue the work that has been begun by their parents and grandparents.

Portuguese Canadians have contributed so much to our success as a province, and we have so much more to offer. Please join me in thanking those first pioneers

-- the celebration of Portuguese heritage here in Ontario.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I was shocked yesterday when Stephen Harper, leader of the federal Tories, said that he would scrap the

adoption of the Kyoto accord. Mr Harper said, "Carbon dioxide, while linked to global warming, is not a threat to air quality."

Where does that come from? Most scientists concede that the burning of fossil fuels emissions is increasing the earth's temperature, leading to smog in many

cities, including my own, Hamilton.

Elizabeth May, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, said Harper's plan to abandon Kyoto is foolhardy: "Acting as though air pollution and climate

change are separate issues is both bad policy and bad science."

Smog can cause eye irritation and shortness of breath, and for people with asthma such as myself it means having to be confined indoors if the air quality is

poor.

I'm proud to say that our government understands the importance of the Kyoto accord. We are committed to doing our

part in Ontario to ensure that Canada lives

up to the accord. We have already made our emissions standards for large diesel trucks and buses the toughest in North America, and we will generate 5% of Ontario's energy from renewable sources by

2007. So I ask you, where did he become a scientist?

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery the consul general of Portugal, Dr Artur Magalhaes, on the

occasion of Portuguese History and Heritage Day. Please join me in welcoming him here.

REPORTS BY COMMIT