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

September 25, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L236 - Thu 25 Sep 1997 / Jeu 25 Sep 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HUMBER RIVER

BIOTECHNOLOGY

HUMBER RIVER

BIOTECHNOLOGY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

FIRE IN HAMILTON

ONTARIO APPLES

FAMINE IN NORTH KOREA

EDUCATION FINANCING

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION REFORM

TEAM CANADA 1972

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

HOSPITAL FINANCING

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

PROPERTY TAXATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ROAD SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOME CARE

TEAM CANADA 1972

PETITIONS

COURT DECISION

ROAD SAFETY

FIRE IN HAMILTON

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FIRE SAFETY

BLOOD SYSTEM

COURT DECISION

CREMATORIUM IN VAUGHAN

PAY EQUITY

TVONTARIO

FIRE IN HAMILTON

ROAD SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS (N O 2)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

VISITORS

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Can you please check for a quorum.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present.

HUMBER RIVER

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): It is with pleasure that I present the following resolution:

That in the opinion of this House, since the Humber River is the largest watershed of the nine river systems in Metropolitan Toronto, and

Since the history of the Humber River is one that parallels the growth and development of Toronto, and

Since the Humber River is currently home to many outstanding recreational, educational and tourist facilities, and

Since the province of Ontario through the Minister of Natural Resources is a signatory to the Canadian Heritage Rivers System Charter, which is a voluntary national program that for the last 13 years has recognized and promoted a total of 33 rivers in Canada, including four in Ontario which have been deemed to be culturally and historically important;

Therefore, the government of Ontario should recognize the importance of the Humber River to the history and character of the city of Toronto and the development of Ontario, and encourage the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board to nominate and ultimately designate the Humber River as the first urban river in Ontario recognized under this charter, and

The Minister of Natural Resources should accept the recommendations of this nomination bid and allow for a three-year management strategy to be put in place for the voluntary coordination of all concerned parties to work towards the enhancement of this precious natural resource for the benefit of all Ontarians and their future generations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): According to rule 95, the member for High Park-Swansea has 10 minutes.

Mr Shea: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's always a great pleasure to see the distinguished member for Perth in the chair. I know that he, like all other members of this House, shares my sincere concern with the issues of clean water and clean air. It is without doubt that we all understand that fresh water is essential to life on earth and that Canada is blessed with more than one fifth of the world's fresh water supply, much of it in the province of Ontario, and that our rivers are a priceless and irreplaceable part of our national and provincial heritage and identity.

So it is with great pleasure that I advance this resolution today in the hope that my colleagues in this House will support this resolution and allow us to get on expeditiously with the designation of the Humber River.

I was particularly pleased in my research to note that the Minister of Natural Resources and the government of this province are signatories to the Canadian Heritage Rivers System Charter. We signed on in 1996, although other governments have been giving support to this system. I applaud all of them, because I think all Ontarians would like to see us take very careful care of our natural resources to ensure that we can return them in a condition that is appropriate as a legacy for our children and their children.

I'm pleased to see that we are beginning to recognize the movement that is certainly North American, if not worldwide, as an attempt to restore some natural balance to our environment.

I want to give a little background about the Canadian Heritage Rivers System and why I think it's important that we support this resolution today and encourage the board to designate the Humber River as part of the system. I remind this House that the Canadian Heritage Rivers System Charter was established 13 years ago. It is a national program. It is signed by all 10 provinces and two territories, and Parks Canada acts as the lead agency. The program has no legislative power to enforce compliance, but it is based on voluntary compliance by all parties, private and public, who have interests in any designated river.

I want to pay particular tribute today to the tremendous effort that has been made already in this regard by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and by other agencies that I'll mention a little later on in my comments to bring us to this point where we hope the Humber River will be advanced through the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board for designation.

I want to indicate very briefly the vision that is considered appropriate for this designation: that our rivers will be nationally recognized and managed through the support and stewardship of local people and provincial, territorial and federal governments to ensure the long-term conservation of the rivers' cultural, natural and recreational values and integrity.

The charter of the rivers system is nationally recognized and managed through the support and stewardship of the local people, and I think that's terribly important for us all to remember.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sorry to interrupt this very important speech. It is indeed a very important matter and I don't believe there is a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Will you please check for a quorum.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): Quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: Quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr Shea: I will remind us that the charter of the system "defines a framework for cooperation between Canada and the provinces and the territories...to recognize, protect and manage, in a sustainable manner, Canada's important rivers and their natural heritage, human (cultural/historical) and recreational values."

That's an important statement for us all in this province that has so many marvellous rivers and fresh water resources. It's important that we manage them to the very best of our ability to the benefit of the ecology and as an appropriate legacy to leave to our children and to their children.

In Metropolitan Toronto we are blessed with a number of fresh water resources, but I want to remind us that they have been under threat for years and years and years. That threat has come to them as a result of the growing urbanism that has been attendant with the economic growth of this province. I remind us of the issue of the fresh water question for Lake Ontario, the Don River, the Humber River, Grenadier Pond, the Credit River and so forth. All of these fresh water resources in the Metropolitan area have been under threat for years and years and years. This rises far above partisan politics; it is an issue that goes to the very systemic nature of our developing community.

In recent years we have discovered I think a new sense of stewardship about the environment that is causing us all to recognize the importance, not only of clean air but also of clean water, and the importance of beginning to take seriously the stewardship issues of those resources. One of the responses in that regard has been the formation of coalitions and alliances of communities and groups to deal with these issues and to apply for designation -- in this instance dealing with rivers -- to the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board to allow a three-year strategy to be put in place for the recovery and refreshment of that fresh water source.

This resolution that I bring before the House today reflects and applauds the tremendous public effort made by so many on behalf of the health and the vitality of the Humber River in this particular instance. As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, I refer specifically to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. I could remind us of the Humber River Heritage Committee. There are a number of others that are involved in the coalition and the alliances for the Humber River.

My background as a former chairman of the Metropolitan water pollution committee, chairman of the Metropolitan works committee, has always been one that has been dealing with the issue of water quality. I can tell you we have a long way to go in terms of restoring our fresh water resources to the natural condition they rightly deserve among us. We have, in this community, struggled hard to refresh our fresh water sources. Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers have, to their credit, over the years contributed significant amounts of their property tax dollars to water reclamation issues.

I would like to hope that this House would give its support now to designation of the Humber River, which would allow us to advance this process one step further. I remind us that in the process, when the application is made, the river has to go through a number of quality checks before it is given any designation. It must prove it has natural heritage value; it must prove it has human heritage value, recreational value and integrity value. I can tell you, in terms of recreation value -- indeed when I grew up, and that was just a few years ago, it was a river --

Laughter.

Mr Shea: Thank you so much for my colleagues and that burst of laughter. All right, so it was a little more than just a few years ago. But I learned to swim in the Humber River and I learned to canoe in the Humber River, the river along the banks of which I walked and learned to appreciate the flora and fauna of the area. I hold it in very high regard. With sadness I have watched its degradation over the years and would like to see us restore it more and more to its appropriate condition that makes it a natural part of the heritage of this great city.

I remind us of the tremendous value of that river in terms of the economy of this province many years back, not only its prehistoric importance, but I talk about its historic importance -- Étienne Brûlé, for example, and his great travel down the river. I might also mention the name of someone by the name of Florence Nightingale Graham, otherwise known to many of us as Elizabeth Arden, who was in fact a resident of Woodbridge, who herself had some associations with the river. So the river has natural heritage values, human heritage values, recreation values and integrity values. I suggest it meets all of the criteria appropriate for designation.

I would ask this House to support the designation advancement to the board for consideration so that it may join other Ontario rivers that have been so designated -- the Bloodvein, the Missinabi, the French, the Mattawa, the Grand -- and others that are in the nomination stream, such as the Trent-Severn waterway, the St Marys River and the Thames. I ask for the support of this House on this resolution.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is with pleasure I rise today to support the motion put forward by the member for High Park-Swansea.

The Humber River runs through the riding I represent in York South. It is a vital part of the greenway in Metro and one of the largest river and greenway areas anywhere. Even more important when we talk about heritage rivers is what the Humber River has meant to the development of Toronto and the Toronto area. We look at its historical place as a trading route that connected virtually all of North America in terms of its vital connection to the Toronto carrying place, up to Lake Simcoe.

As a native trading route, it contributed hugely to the history of this particular area. We wouldn't have developed if it hadn't been for the established patterns through the Humber River involving the different trading patterns. It sometimes took as many as 20 years for different items of trade to work their way up from as far away as Mexico to this region.

The French found this to be the route they would use as part of their initiation of trade. They made Baby Point, which is in the southern reaches of my riding, in the part of the Humber River travelling through Metro, into magasin Royal, one of their first forts, and subsequently contributed to the location here of the permanent site put on by Mr Simcoe.

We find indeed that the trade links were so important as to create some of the first families of Toronto. In fact the first European child was born into one of the families of the French traders and was there to greet Governor Simcoe when he came to found the city of York.

We have a political connection arising substantially from the existence and the nature of the Humber River. We would not have been a non-slavery colony had it not been for the water power provided by the Humber River. The Humber River allowed Governor Simcoe to put forward

an act to make this one of the first jurisdictions to ban slavery, because the water power on the river substituted for the slaves. So the economic rationale was there for one of the earliest human rights gestures in that regard.

The Humber River drops 1,100 feet from the moraine down to the lake and is able to provide that water power. In fact, at one time there were 23 sites for the use of lumber and other types of mills -- just mill sites; that doesn't include the actual number of mills -- between Bloor and northern Weston. It was a tremendous source of early economic activity. It defined some of the essential character of Toronto, and it's important to understand that wouldn't have happened without the existence of the lake.

We just need to understand slightly how the water power begat the mills, how that itself brought on the need for trades, for carpenters, for masons, for coopers, for people involved in things like belt-making for the mills, and then they became harness-makers who became the locus of the building steps of industry, and that industry eventually became the heartland of Canada's industrial development.

There certainly is no shortage of the heritage requirements to be met by the Humber River. I think many of us living in the current-day Metropolitan Toronto area can glide right on by the Humber River and not realize the contribution it makes. It has every bit the standing in terms of heritage and contribution to our essential forming history as do rivers existing in more raw and natural form without the incursion the rest of us provide in terms of our current-day use of the area.

We recognize that rich history which saw the continuity of this river provide some of the basic definition for Toronto. It was at one time known in fact as the Toronto River, just as Lake Ontario was known as Lake Toronto. When you look at the very name of this place, which means trees reflecting in the water, it was at the mouth of the Humber River that they had stakes for fishing nets that provided that graphic description which led to the place name initially of that river, the lake it came into and this whole region in terms of Toronto.

We know too that this river continues to have a tremendous amount of relevance. For the people who live in the northwest part of Metro, it is their source of current-day relief. It doesn't have the same economic implication, but it certainly does in terms of recreation and quality of life. The trails for biking, for walking up and down the Humber are the essential ingredient for the leisure activities of people who live in this part of Metro.

Something we probably don't recognize on our own is that the Humber River has an essential visual beauty and enjoyment that is comparable to world rivers anywhere. The people who put the work into drawing the Humber River to our latter-day attention compare it to the Seine or the Thames, anywhere in the places that those rivers course.

I think it's essential for us to recognize and celebrate the Humber River in order to recognize the type of quality of life that is available to us and to recognize too that the Humber River is not just a river for Toronto. It comes from the Oak Ridges moraine, it feeds off the Niagara Escarpment, some of the most defining features of the province that we recognize. The Niagara Escarpment has UN designation for its uniqueness, and we recognize too that that part of our natural heritage needs also to be preserved.

We recognize the essential importance that the Humber River has as a linking of the present day with some of our defining characteristics as a city certainly, and probably as a province when we think of the central importance the economic activity I spoke of has played in the development of the whole province.

It behooves us very greatly, as we think of the kinds of things we need to do to sustain quality of life, as the word "Toronto" comes into play, encompassing a political entity, it is essential that the values of connection with our past, connection with nature -- there has been a tremendous effort made by the people associated with the Humber River heritage to make sure that the Humber River sustains its place as a living part of our heritage. We see they have identified that 64 out of 75 species of fish that used to be there are still in the river.

There are tremendous efforts made to clean it. I've participated with Frontlines, our youth centre in the city of York, and with the Weston Ratepayers' Association in annual cleanups of the shore along the river. When you see the people out there picking up everything from large tires down to cigarette butts, you see the kind of relevance and importance this still has.

I think the Humber River's particular importance is one of the hidden secrets of Toronto. The heritage designation brought up by the member for High Park-Swansea is very timely and very important to the essential development of this city and of the province, to make sure that we pay attention to the things that have contributed to our quality of life.

In making this commitment, which, as I think the member explained quite well, is something of an official gesture that doesn't bring with it a lot of sanction to support the river, it also reflects our commitment to make sure that the Humber River continues to come back to us as a living natural resource, as something that can be enjoyed without the incursions it has had.

Ms Churley: I'm on my feet a little more quickly than I thought I was going to be and I'm not prepared, but I notice that the member for York South, after receiving a note, sat down abruptly.

I don't know if I can speak to this for 15 minutes without becoming very partisan and slamming the government for so many of the cuts they've made in terms of environmental protection, which includes protecting our water.

Let me start by congratulating the member for High Park-Swansea -- I know the good doctor across the way is really looking forward to my later comments -- for bringing this forward. As he said, and the member for York South said, I suppose overall this is more symbolic than necessarily a call for action to clean up the Humber, to do the kind of work that needs to be done, but indeed a very important symbolism.

As you know, my riding is in Riverdale. My riding is right on the edge of part of the Don River so I certainly understand -- I remember my youth a little bit more clearly than the member for High Park-Swansea, but not a lot, not so many days ago. In fact I wasn't here. I grew up in Labrador, right on the edge of what was then called the Hamilton River and was changed eventually to the Churchill River. I grew up on the edge of a large and beautiful river.

I just spent some time there last summer. For the first time ever you could drive right through Happy Valley, Labrador, which is where I come from. It was a terrible drive. I could spend 15 minutes talking about that. It was the first time ever you could drive all the way from Quebec right up to Goose Bay, Labrador. It took two days of very bad road.

I'm mentioning this because having grown up in the wilds, really, and spent my life canoeing, and still enjoy canoeing, I, like many, feel very strongly about preserving and taking care of our natural heritage. Over the years we have forgotten that, and thus we're reaping the problems now that come as a result of the buildup of the area in Toronto.

I know more about the Don River and what's been happening there. Back in 1988 or 1989 -- my very brief but productive stint at city council -- one of the things I did with Barbara Hall, who was then the councillor for ward 7, and with Jack Layton, who was the councillor for ward 6, was that the three of us worked together and called the first ever Clean up the Don community meeting at city hall.

I remember the first notice we put out. We didn't know how people would respond. I believe the headline in our notice for the meeting was something about, "Do you know that you could once swim in the Don River?" It was that sort of thing, inviting people to come out to a founding meeting to discuss ways that we could get involved, as communities, in our community in Riverdale and then in other communities throughout Toronto where the Don runs, if people would be interested in getting involved.

We were quite surprised and very pleased to see the large turnout. Often, in my experience, I'd get a lot of people out to meetings when I'd call a meeting on traffic, and particularly parking problems, those kinds of things that are very relevant to people in their neighbourhood. It hits them right at their home and they tend to come out in large numbers to deal with issues that affect them directly daily. Sometimes, on other issues, not so many come out.

We were quite surprised and gratified to see how many people, from all walks of life, came out to that very first meeting to talk about ways we could start, as a community, cleaning up the Don. As you know, the Don is extremely polluted. There was a time -- we have pictures of people swimming and fishing in the Don, as I'm sure the member for High Park-Swansea remembers himself fishing and swimming in the Humber, but you can't do that any more.

I know that now, after the late 1980s when we started this organization, it runs clear across the city. There are thousands of individuals, citizens, who work together with their various city halls, who go out every year. They take

part in events. They have cleanup days, just like they do for the Humber River. The citizens come out as volunteers to help clean up the river, a very dirty river now. There are a variety of activities that take place every year on the shores of the Don. People canoe down the Don, being very careful, I might add, not to fall in. The activities every year -- I notice the member for High Park-Swansea is laughing about that. I bet he wouldn't want to fall in the Humber at this stage, either.

There are so many citizens across Toronto who are involved in these efforts and it's quite encouraging to see that. So I strongly support this today.

Now I'd like to speak for a few minutes about what I think the government needs to do so that this is not just a symbolic gesture. Let me say , before some of the government members say it, this is private members' hour and it's supposed to be non-partisan, so I'll be partisan in a very nice way this morning.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): A change.

Ms Churley: You'll see, right? As I've said many times in this House --

Interjection: Is that possible?

Ms Churley: I'm going to try, I said. It depends on the reaction from the parliamentary assistant. The cuts to the environment, the financial cuts and the deregulation, are already starting to have -- I know the parliamentary assistant says it's not deregulation, it's re-regulation. It is deregulation. The cuts and deregulation have already had a huge impact on the water quality across our province.

I know the member for High Park-Swansea mentioned conservation authorities. We all know their budgets were cut by about 70% shortly after the government took office. It's become much harder for them to do the kinds of work they did in terms of protecting wetlands and our rivers and doing educational tours, providing educational materials, a lot of the work they did to aid us in these fairly monumental tasks of cleaning up our rivers after so many years of very bad, profound levels of pollution: the runoff, the sewers, the garbage thrown into it, the toxic materials, very polluted. We need these conservation authorities to be part of the effort to preserve and clean up these rivers.

I would like the government -- I'm asking politely, as I've asked many times not so politely -- to take another look at what -- I know it's not being talked about out there a lot because we have problems with health care, education, labour matters and women's shelters, and it goes across the board, so people are concerned about a lot more things. But overall, when polls are done on what people feel about environmental protection, the polls will show very high numbers, over 80% in most cases, who believe governments should be responsible for cleaning up the environment and preserving our environment and our health. On the whole people expect by now that governments are doing that.

When you get a barrage of cuts to the environment, there may be the brief headline or so, and then there are the dedicated people whose professional or daily lives, on a volunteer basis or whatever, are involved in environmental issues, who try to get the attention of the government, try to point out the problems with some of the cuts.

This is a good indication. The reason I believe the member for High Park-Swansea has brought this forward is that he is aware that, beyond a very important part of Ontario and our heritage, there are a lot of problems with the pollution in our rivers and that we need to call on not only the citizens, but we also have to expect -- and he's right that the Metro government, the Toronto city government, have over the years put money and time and effort into the cleanup of our rivers, but the provincial government has a role to play as well, beyond a symbolic gesture today.

I don't see any reason why all members in this House will not support this today. If I may say so, it really is a motherhood resolution before us today. The member will be able to feel good at the end of the session today. I'm sure everybody will support his motion. But I'm glad to find out today that -- do we have a tree hugger in the Tory caucus? Do we? I don't know. But I know if there is a tree hugger in the Tory caucus, he should beware because they don't like tree huggers in that caucus. I don't know if I'm inviting him to join our caucus or not. There might be a few other questions asked first. But starting off as a tree hugger is good.

I believe that if the member for High Park-Swansea is interested in the Humber River he may have interests in other environmental matters as well. I would say to him that we very definitely need an ally, one ally, in the Tory caucus to help us in our quest to get some of the funding and the regulations that have been thrown out brought back in.

Do you want to speak to this for a few minutes?

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): You're doing fine.

Ms Churley: I was just asking my new colleague here, the member for Windsor-Riverside, if he wanted to say a few words, because I know he's very interested in the environment and has been for many years. I know that in his city of Windsor he has been very active over the years in environmental concerns and issues.

In terms of the environmental problems that have come about because of some of the cuts, the monitoring stations, for instance, for water have gone way down. There are hardly any left in the province any more. One of the big concerns about water in Ontario is the real concern that the government is in the process of starting to privatize our water, which is something we strongly object to, because our water is not only part of our natural heritage; the air we breathe and the water we drink are what keep us alive.

Some of the downloading, for instance, of responsibilities to municipalities in terms of sewers is worrisome as well, because you tend to think when you hear the word "sewer" that not a lot of people get into it, I must admit. The member for Welland-Thorold might be interested in sewers --

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Very interested.

Ms Churley: -- but not a lot of people are interested in it. But as you know, sewers have played a very large

part in the polluting of our waterways over the years, and it still is a problem. I'm concerned to see that the government is downloading that responsibility, without giving the municipalities the proper tools and the proper funding. The government has cut all kinds of funding in terms of keeping our water clean.

Mr Galt: Now we know how the debt got doubled.

Ms Churley: Well, health comes first. I can tell the member how the debt got doubled, but people's health comes first, and keeping our environment clean comes first as well. You can't just decide to cut because you need it for your 30% tax cut and then figure out -- which is this government's policy overall: Cut first, let it all fall apart, create the mess, ask questions later, and then start cleaning it up. That's why we're in such a mess today in terms of the environment and why rivers like the Humber are becoming so dirty: not enough attention has been paid to it.

In closing, I firmly support your resolution today and am happy to do so.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I'd like to thank the member for High Park-Swansea for bringing this resolution forward today.

The Humber River is a living reminder of the importance of waterways in the history of our great province of Ontario. In fact, it was down the Humber River in 1615, I believe, that Étienne Brûlé first travelled. Étienne was a personal aide to Samuel de Champlain. He came down the Humber River in the year 1615 on a mission to visit the Carantouan tribe of Indians in eastern Pennsylvania, and my apologies to the tribe for that pronunciation of their name. As such, he was the first European to gaze upon the waters of Lake Ontario. That first gaze was taken from the mouth of the Humber River, so it's a significant river in the history of this province.

Brûlé was on his way down to visit that Indian tribe in eastern Pennsylvania to bring about 500 braves up to do battle with the Iroquois, the Onondagas in those days, in around the Finger Lakes area. Champlain was travelling with his Huron friends with another 500 friends, warriors, and they were to meet in the Onondaga area and do battle against their arch foes, the Iroquois.

However, Brûlé, having travelled across Lake Ontario and up the Niagara River, was delayed, and I suspect he was delayed because he was probably also the first European to lay eyes on Niagara Falls. Being an explorer and enjoying the pastime of exploring new lands and being the first European to cast eyes on new geographical formations, I'm sure that he would not pass by Niagara Falls without visiting it.

As such, he was two days late visiting the battle site, in which Champlain was wounded in the leg and had to be carried home. Étienne Brûlé decided that perhaps the better part of valour would be not to return to Montreal right away, and he spent the next 15 years, with the exception of one visit, among the Indians.

During that period of time, the reports of missionaries and coureurs de bois of the area reported seeing him in various other parts of the Great Lakes basin, and it is probably arguable that he was the first European to view each of the Great Lakes, and that would include Niagara Falls. I think Étienne Brûlé is to be remembered in Canadian history not only as perhaps a character but as a true explorer, because he made no maps, he kept no journal of his journeys. As such, he travelled and explored merely for the joy of doing so.

The Canadian Heritage Rivers System is a cooperative program of governments of Canada in all 10 provinces, as the member for High Park-Swansea has mentioned. Ontario's representative on the board is the director of Ontario Parks. If a nomination is deemed worthy of inclusion in the system, it is recommended to the Minister of Natural Resources and the federal Minister of Canadian Heritage.

In the member's resolution, he speaks about the size of the Humber River watershed. It covers about 900 square kilometres. It's a huge area from its headwaters in the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges moraine all the way down to the shores of Lake Ontario.

The point I'd like to make this morning is that the input and acceptance of all the local municipalities along the watershed are very important to this government, which is strong on consultation and listening to the local municipalities and their points of view.

The designation of a river is a symbolic honour. However, some municipalities have raised concerns that this designation may lead to future intrusions in municipal planning. This would certainly not be the government's intention, but it is important to note that the Ministry of Natural Resources will not move ahead with this designation without the support of local municipalities in this watershed.

That being said, I'd like to commend the member for High Park-Swansea for bringing this resolution forward and highlighting the great contributions the Humber River has made to the development of Ontario.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am delighted to join the debate and spend the next few minutes on this topic. I commend the member for High Park-Swansea for bringing it forward.

It occupies a special place for me, since I represent the area that is completely straddled by the Humber River and I have myself resided in the so-called Humber Summit, which is an old settlement area. For the last 30-odd years, that's where I have lived. As a matter of fact, one of the early settlers, Joseph Rowntree, and the Rowntree family back in the late 1800s had a very successful mill, as the area was known for the mill's operations.

Now we enjoy, not only as local residents but as a community within the Metropolitan Toronto area, and we have groups that come from far and wide to enjoy, the so-called Rowntree Mills Park. It's a beautiful area. It's wide. The river meanders around the now-residential area and it affords a tremendous recreational opportunity for everyone, visitors and residents alike.

I also have the very distinct pleasure, if I may say so, to live on what is now called Rowntree Mill Road, which was dedicated to the Rowntree family, and we also have at the mouth, at Rowntree Mill, at Islington Avenue, an old settlers' cemetery which is an historic site. Just up the street we have the Pine Ridge Presbyterian Church, which dates prior to Hurricane Hazel back in 1954. So the area abounds with history.

But let me get back for a second to the matter in front of us here, because I only have four minutes, unfortunately. I think we have to support today the initiative and support the designation of the Humber River as the first urban river to be recognized by the Canadian Heritage Rivers System.

It's most important that we allocate the Humber River its place, and rightly so, in history. The Humber River is full of history from top to bottom, as we heard from the last speaker. Even today you can appreciate and visit and see in South Humber Park a plaque commemorating the arrival of the first white person, Étienne Brûlé, who came down through the then-known, as it is today, Humber Trail, which used to be the only passage, which was first used by the aboriginal people and then by the settlers who arrived later, the only connection to Huronia, as we now know.

With the passage of time and the opening of other roads and with things like horses and cars, that became less known. But I have to say that at a particular time, the Humber River, especially in the north end, at the Humber cemetery now, contained I believe some 84 mills back in 1817, and then they started to diminish as time went by.

I have to say thanks in the House today to a number of people who on a continuing basis, a voluntary basis, are giving their time to support the natural beauty of the Humber River and maintain it. I would be remiss if I didn't mention a particular group in my own area, the Humber Crang, which continually does numerous projects cleaning up the Humber River. They are one of the very active participants in maintaining and raising awareness of the Humber River.

As well -- and who doesn't know? -- I'd like to give credit to my colleague from York South, Mr Kennedy, because there is a group of people working from the south end, especially Madelaine McDowell from Humber River Heritage. And who doesn't know Jane Jacobs? She continually holds tours and conferences with respect to the Humber River, and I think this speaks very loudly to the importance of the river.

I don't have time to go into the various aspects, the object as to why we should support the motion and make sure that the Humber River is recognized as such. If it's not done, I'm afraid that what we have enjoyed in the past and what we are enjoying now -- I have to say that there is a trail which is part of the 84 kilometres along the Humber River which is being enjoyed by everyone. It is full of flora and fauna. There are deer, there are rabbits, there are raccoons, all kinds of wild animals for the enjoyment of the residents, kids and everyone in general.

In finishing, it is important that we ensure that the integrity of the natural heritage, the human heritage and the recreational value of the Humber River is kept.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It is my privilege to rise and speak to Mr Derwyn Shea's ballot item number 99 and his resolution number 73. Mr Shea's resolution, for those who may be bringing it into context, is to recognize the important heritage significance of the Humber River, the largest watershed of the nine river systems in Metropolitan Toronto.

I respect Mr Shea very much, and on a personal note I would have to say that Mr Shea and his lovely wife, Julia, reside on the most beautiful Grenadier Pond. Recently I was asked as a guest to attend a small reception at their home and was pleased to watch what seemed to be remote-control white swans gracing the beautiful Grenadier Pond. That, as I'm sure Mr Shea recognizes, is meant in a very complimentary manner.

Mr Shea's resolution further goes on to serve as an education for perhaps each and every one of us who is paying attention today. Respect for our heritage: really, that's the theme. It's learning and respecting our heritage through knowledge. To me, the most important thing is to look at the importance of history. The waterways of this great province have served to both develop and explore, and still nurture each one of us today. Mr Chudleigh has given us a very fine history lesson as well.

I thank Mr Shea for bringing this to our attention. That the Canadian Heritage Rivers System was developed some 13 years ago was completely new to me. I apologize for my lack of knowledge on the subject, but it serves as a very definite focal point for us to examine why people like Mr Shea take the initiative to recognize these important geographical features and heritage aspects of our country.

In preparing to respond to Mr Shea and support his resolution, I looked to my immediate riding of Durham East. I looked to my own riding to see what I could learn about the history and heritage of our river systems. I am pleased to share with people that my riding of Durham East is east of Oshawa, is part of Durham region, and its southern boundary is the north shore of Lake Ontario. Lake Ontario is a great heritage body of water as well. In fact, the shoreline is graced by three or four very significant class 1 and class 2 wetlands.

I might add that the Lynde Creek Marsh, as well as the Second Marsh, east of the General Motors headquarters building in Oshawa, and the Eastside Marsh, which is in Bowmanville, adjacent to the St Marys Cement property, are three very important class 1 and 2 wetlands that act as the lungs or filtration system for a very important creek system.

I was pleased, when preparing for this morning, to examine the creek systems which feed these marshes; the water eventually goes to Lake Ontario. The creek systems are the Lynde Creek, of course, Black Creek, Farewell Creek, Bowmanville Creek, Soper Creek and Wilmot Creek. These are all widely known in the area, and not really appreciated for their importance. There were mills and all sorts of activity in the early economy and development of Ontario settlements. Bowmanville Creek had a number of important sawmills.

In fact, Bowmanville's history can be traced completely to the establishment of a mill for milling flour and other agricultural products. If I move further north in my riding of Durham East, I come immediately to the Ganaraska Forest, which is an important forest stand, and also the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, which looks after the creek system and the flooding issues around the conservation mandate.

I run into the Oak Ridges moraine. I heard one of the previous speakers mention the Oak Ridges moraine. That almost completely crosses my riding of Durham East. We all know that the Oak Ridges moraine was the shore of the ancient Lake Iroquois, a once-great lake during the glacier period that has since receded.

It's important to go back to the basics of this discussion this morning, to talk about the heritage. I thank Mr Shea for encouraging me to look into the heritage of my own riding. I would ask everyone to do that. It's not just about the Humber or the Don or Soper Creek. It's the whole aspect of the importance of our waterway systems in Ontario and indeed our great country.

I just want to wrap up my remarks. Moving north in my riding of Durham East, we have Lake Scugog. Lake Scugog is more or less a manmade lake. I've got a bit of history on that which I'll share. It served as an important part of Port Perry; in fact it gave it its very fundamental economic purpose for existence. It served to transfer logs and other kinds of things down through the Trent system. I'll cover that in a moment.

The history of Lake Scugog -- I think this is important; I just learned this, actually -- is that in 1828 the government gave a Mr Purdy permission to build a dam at Lindsay to power a grist mill. That mill was destroyed in 1929 and there was another dam built. Anyway, Lake Scugog then became a flooded area for the purpose of transferring both grains and lumber downstream. It eventually feeds into the Trent system, and I know my friend Mr Rollins is going to talk about the Trent system.

I want to conclude by saying that I have a cottage on the Otonabee River. This was once my grandfather's farm. The Otonabee River is just south of Peterborough and it's part of the Trent-Severn waterway system, which in itself deserves a complete discussion. But I know the Trent system is going to be covered by Mr Rollins, so I'm going to relinquish the rest of my time for him. I thank Mr Shea for the opportunity to speak on this subject this morning.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It will do me great good to support the member for High Park-Swansea in bringing forward the Humber as a designated river. As my colleague from Durham East mentioned, I am going to talk about the Trent. It's also on the nomination list. I think it is the greatest inland waterway there is in Ontario, stretching from the shores of Lake Ontario up to the shores of Georgian Bay, with many locks and rivers and streams feeding into that great Trent system. We need to make sure we can travel that, as did our forefathers before us, and be able to see to the bottom of that great river. We've always been able to do that.

It hurts me, and I know it hurts a lot of us, to drive by the Humber and see the stuff floating down it. We've got to protect that environment for our children and particularly our grandchildren. I know it's only one little step for the future to put forward this nomination that our member has to make sure our grandchildren and great-grandchildren have the opportunity to see to the bottom of some of these rivers. It's very unfortunate to see how they have been polluted and mismanaged.

This is one step closer back to our heritage, back to our basics, where we've got to respect the soil, the water and the air. It has been said in this House that we as a government have done a lot of cutbacks to those. I can tell you that there are more people in this 82-member caucus on this side who are concerned about the waterways and the lands we all grew up on and breathe and work with than a lot of people want to give us credit for. We're going to have to make sure those waterways are left clear for us.

The Trent-Severn stretches from Trenton; it goes through my riding. The amount of boat traffic that goes up and down that each year is absolutely fantastic. When we see people from other countries express appreciation about the beauty of the Trent and being able to float up and down that, through all the canals and everything, it does me good to stand up and support the resolution this morning. Thank you and congratulations.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr Shea: It's been very gratifying to hear the comments in the chamber today, to hear the comments from the member for York South, who represents the riding just immediately north of mine, who has echoed many of the points I raised during my outlining speech.

I appreciate the member for Riverdale, particularly her diligence in environmental issues. She expressed a number of questions about the issue before us, also reminding us that while this may appear to be symbolic, there is an opportunity, particularly in the three-year plan, to make this much more than symbolic, in fact to drive a recovery plan that's extremely important for this river, and I hope similarly for all the other freshwater resources that are so designated around this province.

I'd like to thank the parliamentary assistant of natural resources, the member for Halton North, who I think gave a remarkably fine historical setting for the river and reminded us of its contribution. He went back to 1615. I have to respond to the comments of the member for Riverdale: I was not swimming in the river in those years; it may only appear like that. But I do appreciate the comments of the member for Halton North, who also reminded us of the significant contributions of this river to the Niagara Escarpment and to the world biosphere and so forth. We should be conscious of all of that.

The member for Yorkview has given his comments about the quality of the water. I appreciate the comments of the member for Durham East, who has reminded us of the importance of the wetlands in his riding. That was picked up by the member for Quinte, who, in a very heartfelt way, reminded us of the determination we all have to restore the environment and make sure we leave a legacy for our children and their grandchildren that is one of honour.

I seek the support of this House in moving the Humber River one step closer to its designation.

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I move that in the opinion of this House, given that plant breeding and the science of biology (the study of living organisms) have been used for years in enhancing the quality of our food supply and are critical to the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of a safe agriculture and food industry in Ontario; and

Given the understanding that agricultural biotechnology is becoming an ever-emerging field of importance in transforming the global agriculture and food production industry by creating an increasingly competitive global food commodity market; and

Given that in a world of change, if government and industry fail to form strategic partnerships and lead the way as innovators towards this 21st-century industry, they face being driven out of the competitive global marketplace;

Therefore, the government of Ontario should recognize the importance of safe and cost-effective biotechnology and support well-researched science in advancing Ontario's agriculture and food production to ensure the industry's viability and competitiveness in the global marketplace and continue to work with all levels of government to ensure a safe food supply for the consumer and protect Canada's high standard and world leader status as a safe supplier of food; and

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs should provide leadership and support to Ontario biotech initiatives and recognize their importance to future opportunities for growth, jobs and investment and continue to coordinate and support biotech research and development, and to lead efforts in pursuing investment from financial institutions for biotech and its applications for the agriculture and food industry in Ontario and become the political champion of this budding technological industry of the 21st century.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Chudleigh: I'm pleased to rise in the House today and discuss the future of agriculture and food in Ontario and indeed the world. Much like the Industrial Revolution was to mass production, or the invention of the microchip was to the advancement of computer technology, biotechnology is a 21st-century tool that will change agriculture and food production and productivity forever. My resolution calls on the government to recognize the importance of this new technology to Ontario's agrifood industry, provide leadership and support to Ontario's biotech initiatives, and champion this new field politically and in the financial community.

When I refer to biotechnology as a new technology, this isn't necessarily accurate. While many applications of agricultural biotechnology are new, the practice of plant breeding, seed selection and the study of living organisms have been around for over 10,000 years. In fact, as far back as 8000 BC people have saved the best of their crop to use as seed for the following year.

Today the study of genes has taken us to a powerful level of understanding, where we can use information to improve our overall quality of life. There are, however, many obstacles and myths to overcome while dealing with the powerful new applications of this science. Many of those in the House today will undoubtedly have heard about experiments regarding cloning of sheep and other organisms. There has been a mountain of speculation in the media as to the perils of these practices and their effects on people, especially when the technology is applied to humans.

Biotechnology, and specifically agricultural biotechnology, has in the past been poorly defined and generally misunderstood. Dr John Aw, president of Calex Biosciences in Nepean, gives us far more poignant reasons to pursue this technology and highlights some very real concerns with the future of food safety. Dr Aw wrote to me in support of this resolution, stating, "Agrifood biotechnology is not only one of the fastest growing industries in the world today, it represents one of the most critical of all human enterprises because of its potential to provide for safer foods, a cleaner environment and better health."

He goes on to say that recent outbreaks of E coli diseases in various parts of the world and BSE, more commonly known as mad cow disease, transmitted in beef in the UK, are clear examples as to why Ontario as a province should be concerned with food quality and food safety.

Canada is recognized as a world leader in the production of a safe food supply. The Canadian Seeds Act, the Canadian Feeds Act, the Health of Animals Act and the Canadian plant act, among others, provide the basis of regulations for food production in Canada. Through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the principles of this regulatory framework are put into action.

The agency maintains standards, develops guidelines for testing and new products, provides a scientific assessment of risk and evaluation of products, and most importantly, ensures that the regulations contribute to growth and investment in the agrifood industry. Other countries, including Japan, have based their entire food safety systems on the regulatory framework we in Canada have enjoyed in developing and maintaining a safe food supply of their own.

That is why it is imperative that we take the steps necessary to lead the way for the development of biotechnology in Ontario. As recognized leaders in the safe production of food, Ontario has an opportunity to be a world leader in agricultural biotechnology and food production. We must be innovators and accept the challenge which is rightfully ours. If we fail to capture this opportunity, we risk being left behind in agrifood production and, more importantly, as world leaders in the safe production of foodstuffs.

Don't just take my word for it. There is a long list of supporters of biotechnology and of my resolution in the House today.

They include the following organizations and individuals who wrote in support of this motion: Richard Penner, chair, and Paul van den Berre, vice-president, of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association; Murray McLaughlin, president of Ontario Agricultural Food Technologies Inc, which represents over 30 industry groups including growers' associations and universities; Ray Mowling, vice-president of Monsanto; Terry Daynard, Ontario Corn Producers' Association; Larry Anderson, chair of the Ontario Bean Producers' Marketing Board; Tom Lassalin, chair of the Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board; M.

Rozanski, president of the University of Guelph; and Larry Milligan, vice-president of research, University of Guelph, to name a few of the supporters of this resolution. Seated in the members' gallery today are a few of these supporters of the resolution and I'd like to recognize them at this point and thank them for coming here and showing their support today.

If the names and faces of Ontario's biotechnologies haven't yet swayed you in support of my resolution, the following should: Recent estimates predict that worldwide sales from current biotechnology products will hit $150 billion by the year 2000. It is a technology that is already upon us. Ontario currently has the biotech infrastructure to become a world leader in biotech. If it does, it means much-needed jobs and stability for Ontario's farm community and rural heartland.

Not only will there be jobs for Ontario's farmers, but a wealth of investment and growth for our intellectual community and the benefit of attracting global industries to Ontario with billions of dollars in spinoff potential. It's good for agriculture, it's good for safe food production and it's good for Ontario.

The proof is already here. Just last Friday, the Premier helped plant one of the 75 transgenic grapevines developed in Ontario at the University of Guelph to produce a stress-resistant grape that could revolutionize the growing of grapes and the production of wine in Ontario. The vine is expected to have a greater resistance to cold of between three to five degrees of Celsius. It doesn't sound like much but that's a tremendous amount in horticultural production, enough to avoid serious crop damage when winter temperatures fall to below minus 25 degrees Celsius.

Products like the grapevine and others currently being developed will give us a worldwide reputation as leaders in the field of biotechnology. The time is now for Ontario to lead the way to this new technology for the 21st century. If we fail to take this initiative, we'll be forced to follow in the footsteps of others and eventually get pushed out of the way. The innovators of agricultural biotechnology will not wait for us to get our act together while a rapidly growing world population, developing nations and depleting resources for food production put greater pressure on world food supplies.

Ontario must take this opportunity to provide leadership in Canada and the world in developing and producing products as a result of agricultural biotechnology. We must also, as a government, be willing to provide the political leadership and assistance necessary to get us there. Passing this resolution is a good start and it sends a signal to everyone involved in agriculture and food production that their government is listening and understands where the future is going but, more importantly, is committed to helping Ontario get there first. I ask the support of the House for this very important resolution.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I am indeed pleased to speak to the resolution put forth this morning by the member for Halton North. This is the second time we've had a resolution put forth by a government member urging the Minister of Agriculture to get on and do his job, to get on and do what is normal within the realm of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. It was not long ago in this House that the member for Huron stated that she thought that the minister should get out there and speak with the farmers and farm organizations of Ontario, and once again we have a member of the government stating that the minister should be acting.

In part, the resolution says, "The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs should provide leadership and support to Ontario biotech initiatives and recognize their importance to future opportunities for growth...." It says the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs should provide leadership; it doesn't say that he has been providing leadership. The member is urging the minister, Mr Villeneuve, to get on and do what is correct.

I have often spoken about research and development in this House and I've stated before that for every dollar of investment there can be a $40 return in terms of research and development. That is a return that is absolutely phenomenal. We must be able to develop our research in regard to biotechnology and other areas here in Ontario. We can keep the technology here -- we don't need to buy it from other sources -- and then we can sell quality food products to a growing population not only here in Ontario, not only here in Canada, but indeed throughout the world.

We need research and development, as does any industry. Agriculture is no different than any other industry in the world. We need to maintain our competitive advantage with a proper regulatory system and of course financing and support from all levels of government.

Examples of what research and development has done for agriculture can be seen in the area of corn production where we've had a 100% increase since 1975 and we are using 25% less energy to achieve that goal. The same could be said of soybeans. There have been great advances in soybean technology. The member who has put forth this resolution would know full well that in the apple industry there have been great strides and great changes in how we produce that crop and how indeed it is grown.

What we have in Ontario currently is a situation where the University of Guelph and the agricultural colleges have come under one umbrella. The faculties have been downsized by 20% at the University of Guelph. For example, the effect on pig research is that when 12 researchers left, only five were replaced. I quote from an

article in the Kent and Essex Farmer: "Generally, we're replacing one researcher for every three or four that we lose." That's sad.

Ontario Agricultural Food Technologies, whose president is Mr Murray McLaughlin, is made up of grower associations, 12 in number, universities, five in number, and from industry, 11, and they recognize the importance of agricultural technology here in Ontario. Indeed they are a non-profit organization formed to focus Ontario's participation in developing, promoting and adopting biotechnology in the agrifood sector of this province.

I have been a proponent of agricultural research for many years. We will support this resolution put forth by the member opposite. I hope this is a foreshadowing of a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs on his commitment to technology and biotechnology research here in Ontario, and I hope it happens soon.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to speak in support of this resolution for a few minutes, because this is another of those sort of mom-and-apple-pie types of resolutions that it's very difficult for any member to vote against. As the member for Essex-Kent has indicated, the resolution says, "The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs should provide leadership and support to Ontario biotech initiatives...." Really this is a resolution to encourage the Minister of Agriculture and Food to basically do his job, and how can any of us really object to that?

It also goes on to say that he should "lead efforts in pursuing investment from financial institutions." That is important as well, but we all recognize that government has a role to play in providing financial initiatives for business and for farmers as well and providing the resources to promote research into biotechnology as well. This isn't something that farmers are going to be able to do all on their own. This is something that they need some backing from the government to do as well.

My area is not an area that is predominantly farms or family farms -- it's a suburban area that I represent -- but we do have a major food producer in that area. It's Family Tradition Foods, formerly known as Green Giant. A few years ago Green Giant was going to take its plant out of the town of Tecumseh and take the jobs that were connected with it from the town, and it was the assistance that was provided by the then NDP government that ensured that the plant continued to exist and those jobs were maintained in the town of Tecumseh.

A couple of weeks ago I was back at that plant to celebrate the grand opening of a freezer-packing facility. That's a situation, an example, of where the government and industry in partnership can create jobs and advance the food packaging and production industry. Of course that plant uses farm products, products that have been developed and improved over the years because of improvements in production and hardier, resistant-type crops. They package things like corn, tomatoes, cauliflower, cabbage and products like that. They ship these all around the world.

We know with further research, if they were products or vegetables that were more resistant to frost, they would be able to increase their production in that area, so this sort of research is something that is necessary.

We also have great production in our area of grapes that are used for wine-making. It's not just the Niagara Peninsula that specializes in the production of wine grapes. We have those down in Essex county as well. Once again, developments in more frost-resistant types of grapes would certainly benefit the wine-making industry in Essex county.

Having said that, we also know it's important to have a regulatory background when it comes to research and development in the biotech area. This is something that we all need to put our minds to as regulators, because we can't have research and development going on in an unfettered manner. We need to ensure that the products that are being developed are nutritious and safe and they increase product yield but they're not being done without any input from regulators. That's not such a big concern when it comes to fruit and vegetables, but it is a bigger concern when it comes to animal research.

The member who has introduced this resolution has made reference to the cloning of sheep that took place in Scotland, and that's an area that we all need to be concerned about, further developments in the cloning of animals and the development of different types of agricultural products.

Leadership and support of these initiatives are important, of course, but a strong regulatory framework in which this research and development can take place is important as well, because we've seen examples of what unfettered development of different types of products does to our environment. I'm thinking about products like CFC. Not an agricultural product, of course, but at the time that was developed there wasn't a great deal of thought about the future impact that CFCs were going to have on our atmosphere and the patterns in our weather. We've seen that has been very disastrous in increasing global warming.

We want to make sure that when we're developing agricultural products we're not creating something that is going to be more harmful in the future, even though initially there may be increased yields and benefits to our communities.

I want to raise one other concern. I want to share some time with the member for Riverdale as well. We need to address our minds as to how we can ensure that increased advances in biotechnology are going to benefit people who are on the family farm and ensure that this isn't something that is going to just benefit large corporate farms. This is an expensive type of development and we need to ensure that when these products are developed, people who are on family farms are able to take advantage of that technology and the cost of it doesn't become prohibitive and therefore ensure that only large corporate farms are going to be able to benefit from this improved technology.

Just in closing, I support the motion and I do agree that government and industry need to form strategic partnerships, as has been indicated in the resolution, but those partnerships also need to include, on occasion, financial assistance and regulation as well.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak on the resolution of the member for Halton North. Just before I really get into that, I'd like to set the record straight on some of the comments that were made by the member for Essex-Kent. I know he is not in his seat, but he is still in the House. It has to do with some of the criticism of the Minister of Agriculture and Food and some of the support.

I bring to his attention that some $5 million is being given to the University of Guelph, as I understand it, for research. Also, I suggest that our Minister of Agriculture and Food is an exemplary minister. He has been on three circuits of the province since election time, on consultation to find out what it is the farm community wants. I was very impressed to be at one of those last July and to hear the response from the public, and to be here last night to see the number of people in this House supporting the minister and his right-to-farm legislation being brought in for second reading last evening.

He also made reference to the member for Huron criticizing the minister, when in fact I was here last night -- I thought he was -- and she was complimenting the minister for the number of times he has been in her riding and consulting with the constituents of Huron county, so I was a little surprised with that comment.

Also, in connection with research and development in general in this province and what came out in the last budget, some $3 billion is to be spent over the next 10 years, in partnership with business and with universities and with the Ontario government. I don't know of any government in the past, particularly theirs, that really did that kind of thing for research and development. That is just to set the record straight and bring those to your attention.

Speaking on biotechnology, I'd like to talk for a few minutes about the father of high-yield agriculture. His name was Norman Borlaug and he was really the one who sparked the green revolution. If it hadn't been for him, literally millions of people today would be starving in this world.

We don't know too much about him, because he spent most of his time working in Third World countries. He developed the specialty rice varieties in the Philippines and the wheat varieties in Mexico. Really, in our part of the world, he received very little recognition until he received the Nobel Peace Prize back in 1970.

In the 1960s, when we had a population of between two billion and three billion in this world, there were great predictions that there was going to be massive starvation over the next few decades. There was even a book written at that time -- it was a bestseller -- called Famine 1975, but because of this plant breeder, we reversed the world food shortages that would have occurred. When you think about people who are starving today, it has nothing to with food production; it has to do with wars, particularly civil wars within countries. The food is there if we can get it to the people who desperately need it. It's quite a turnaround from what we had back in the 1960s.

I had the opportunity to work for a year in Indonesia, on the island of Java, in the city of Jogjakarta, and I saw first hand what this green revolution was doing for the people there, the biotechnology that created the green revolution. That was a country that was a massive importer of foods back in the 1960s and into the 1970s. Today that is a country that actually exports some food, all because of the green revolution. They are able to produce enough rice that they have small quantities to export, but at least they have come to a balance and are not in the position they were before.

They have a very rich soil, very heavy clay. Some dozen volcanoes spew out some very rich volcanic ash, so the quality of soil hadn't been a problem, but what they needed was biotechnology and to come up with the kind of plants so that they could plant rice three times a year and get the kind of production that was needed for that country.

The island of Java is about the size of southern Ontario, roughly 100 miles or 150 miles wide at the most, and they had a population when I was there of well over 100 million. They guessed it was in the neighbourhood of 120 million and growing quickly. Something like 50% of their population was under the age of 20 at that time. You can see the kinds of pressures that are going to come to a country such as that.

There is no question that more food, because of biotechnology, is being created on less land, and because of this -- I'd like the member for Riverdale to take particular note of the fact -- it preserves tremendous tracts of areas for wildlife habitat, and certainly into the future is going to preserve a tremendous amount of forest habitat for our wildlife.

Borlaug also had many other accomplishments. Shuttle breeding was one, for example, whereby they were able to speed up the disease resistance of certain strains of crops that previously weren't resistant. He developed cereals that could grow in various climates and various kinds of daylight. He developed a dwarf spring wheat that was very productive. Certainly he was very much recognized in the 1970s when the world global population took off.

Of course, it may be argued just a little bit, if you think about Malthus and his thesis going back, I believe, into the 1700s. His philosophy was that the world population would expand to fill the kind of technology of the day we had to produce food. If we hadn't come up with this technology, maybe the population wouldn't be increasing quite so rapidly, but we also know what the result of that would have been, and it would have been starvation. That's what would have limited the population.

Back in 1950 the global production of grain was in the neighbourhood of 692 million tons on an annual basis for a population of approximately 2.2 billion. By 1992, that production had increased to 1.9 billion tons of grain, and that was to feed a population of 5.6 billion. We increased the grain production 2.8 times and we increased the population by only 2.2. Obviously more people were being fed with a better quality diet. The global grain yields on a per acre basis have increased over that time period from about 0.45 tons per acres to 1.1 tons per acre.

As we look around Ontario and see some farms disappearing and we see some reverting to habitat for wildlife, the media develops a crisis about vanishing farms, when in fact the high-yield agriculture that is going on is very environmentally friendly, very favourable to developing and maintaining our wildlife habitat.

Just to quote from Borlaug himself, he stated, "Without high-yield farming, either millions would have starved or losses of pristine land would be 100 times greater than all losses to urban and suburban expansion." I think that's a quote very worth hanging on to.

If we were to feed today's population with organic farming, or the way we were doing it back in the 1940s and early 1950s, we would have to put under the plow another 10 million square miles, or put another way, we're saving that many from being plowed today. That equals, just for simplicity, about 1.5 times the size of South America.

If you were to project the population growth we have, we would be looking at putting another 25 million to 30 million square miles under the plow by 2050, and that's an area equal to North America, Europe and most of Asia. So it's certainly significant what high-yield agriculture is doing for the population of the world, especially the size we have today.

I mentioned a few minutes ago the support of OMAFRA and the Ontario government for research and development, and particularly OMAFRA through the University of Guelph: tremendous potential for biotechnology and what it can do to reduce the quantity of pesticides used. We don't need to put pesticides on nearly the number of acres. For example, we've tripled the production of corn, and therefore those two acres that do not get any pesticides are two acres that are left for wildlife habitat. Good biotechnology has reduced the quantity of antibiotics needed. It has reduced the soil erosion problems just because there's far less under the plow.

There's a great industry in biotechnology. The potential by the year 2000 is for an industry of some $46 billion. In Canada in 1993, it was in the neighbourhood of $50 million and rising, and still on the increase.

There have certainly been a lot of interesting developments in biotechnology, including cloning, as mentioned by the member for Halton North, when Dolly was born. That raises all kinds of moral issues in our human population: Just how do we handle this kind of thing? We've handled many others. Recently we heard that you can take human embryos in the very early stages and examine them for some 27 various genetic defects and therefore save some people from some very, very serious genetic problems.

These are just some of the examples of biotechnology that's out there, that's working. We've evolved a long way in the last century because of it. I look forward to further research in biotechnology and therefore enthusiastically support the resolution being put forward by my friend from Halton North.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Is there any doubt that science and technology have had a very positive and critical effect on our society? Is there any doubt that there's a high correlation between the kinds of products that have been created, the kind of research that has been done, and the quality of life that we now enjoy? Is there any doubt that research and technology are not just the domain of some academics in ivory towers, but are very real in our lives by creating jobs and by creating products which are worthwhile for us?

Just a small example, a statistic that I think continually shocks many people: For every dollar that is spent in science, about $5 is generated in spinoff products, everything from transistors to better agricultural strains.

So this resolution is timely. The private member's resolution notes that the government has a responsibility and a critical role to play in the funding of science. That, of course, is a position that the Liberal Party has always taken and that I endorse. The fact is that many of the experiments that are required to be undertaken simply cannot be done without funding, and that funding will normally, most naturally, come from a government that is committed to the betterment of society.

Having said that, I think all of us have to pause and look at the record of this government and be shocked by what has happened since they took office. I'll be very brief and I'll simply cite for the record some of the statistics that I think will illustrate the point.

One of the very first things they did was to cancel a grant of $1.7 million to the Ottawa Life Sciences Council, a move that the director of the council said was "a serious blow" because the council had expected those funds to attract a further $9 million in private sector investment in companies working together to create medical devices and other biotechnology products.

Almost from the word go, there was little appreciation of the importance of science and technology, and biotechnology as well. Perhaps I could just cite from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the estimates that have been tabled with the Legislature over the last three years.

If you look at the centres of excellence program, in 1995-96 it was reduced 2%; in 1996-97, another 2%; in 1997-98, another 9%.

The industry research program, 1995-96, 16% eliminated; 1996-97, a further 40%; 1997-98, a further 28%.

International agreements -- those are agreements that are entered into with three countries in particular; it's a joint committee of researchers to expand areas of scientific and industrial exchange -- 1995-96, 23% cut; 1996-97, 27% cut; 1997-98, 28% cut.

We move to the Radarsat program: totally eliminated in 1995-96 with the coming into power of this government.

The science and technology awareness program: totally eliminated in 1995-96.

The technical personnel program in 1995-96 was cut by 14%; in 1996-97, 52%; in 1997-98, 27% in addition to the other cuts.

The technology and adjustment research program in 1995-96 was cut by 62%; in 1996-97, by 93%; and eliminated totally in 1997-98.

The university research incentive fund in 1995-96 was reduced by 19%; in 1996-77, by 77%; in 1997-98, a further 78%. It went from a $3-million budget to $178,000.

This is shocking, quite frankly. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs can stand up and say that they have done so much in this sector, but the reality speaks otherwise. The reality is that this government has very little commitment to science and technology. I applaud the member for bringing his government to task. I hope he can do more than just pass a resolution. Let's have some real programs.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm pleased to be able to speak to this resolution today. I don't know a lot about biotechnology; I have to admit that. A number of years ago I did read a book by Jeremy Rifkin about more animal research, I think it was, animal biotechnology, where some alarming and unpredicted things happened to animals. The animals were being genetically changed and altered. Some of these animals ended up -- I don't want to describe it here -- just terribly deformed and in a lot of pain. I guess what it has to remind us is that we're dealing with nature here, that we're altering nature. When we do that, we have to be very, very careful.

The paragraph in this resolution that I like and that is significant for me and I believe allows me to be able to support this resolution is the second-last paragraph that says, "The government...should recognize the importance of safe and cost-effective biotechnology and support well-researched science in advancing Ontario's agriculture and food production...."

I don't know if people here are aware, but I know there is a major controversy in Europe, in the European Union, about genetically engineered crops. It's true they are further ahead of us there, so they've now reaped some of the rewards, but they've also seen some of the problems. The concern is about whether or not there has been enough research done to introduce certain varieties at the commercial level, which is what's been happening, and there have been problems.

In Canada, one of the few areas that I do know something about is that you may recall that there were genetically altered seeds in a canola variety of crop and then the product had to be withdrawn because it did not contain some of the genetic materials that the company that developed said were in it. That turned out to be a big problem, and that's an example of something that can go wrong if the research isn't done properly and isn't well verified.

We're hearing a lot today about the federal government because of downsizing and cutting and all kinds of, I suppose, other reasons. There's some controversy about Agrifood at the federal level creating a new food agency. I understand that they will be charged with the evolution of new foods. Now, this could possibly be a good thing. There could be problems as well, but certainly Agrifood now is a bit like the Ministry of Natural Resources on the provincial level: They have a conflict of interest.

Agrifood has been very involved with the development of these new strains, these new genetic materials, the development of new foods, but they're also the regulator, as we see here with the Ministry of Natural Resources, for instance, having the Niagara Escarpment Commission turned over to them. They also are advocates for the aggregate or gravel industry. We see that real conflict here, and that is a conflict with Agrifood.

As we get more and more into development -- new strains, new genetically altered crops -- it's very important that governments don't just look at the bottom line for the big corporations or at developing these new genetic materials, new foods, but that there is a strong regulatory body in place that makes sure the proper research has been done.

I know a little more about this as well; I believe it's soybeans. There was a genetically altered soybean which was designed to resist certain kinds of pesticides -- I believe it was Roundup -- and it works. You can spray tons of the stuff out of the sky from an airplane into the crop and the soybeans have been genetically altered so they can survive it, but everything else in the field can't.

You might think this is a good thing. I don't think it is. I don't think that developing crops that become totally dependent on dangerous pesticides, which is something we're trying to phase out, is a good idea. Of course, you have the added problem that as you develop more and more of these genetically engineered crops which can be resistant to certain kinds of sprays, well, guess what happens over time? A new kind of bug is developed. The bug will evolve to such an extent that it's a new, different breed of bug which can resist the particular chemical. It will not be bugged by it, in other words.

Then you've got a whole new problem. You've got a whole new bug and you've got technology that's going to have to be created to deal with that.

I'm just pointing this out because I believe that in the process of developing more and more biotechnology, genetically altered seeds, you are playing with nature, and there are things, as has been discovered in Europe, that can go very wrong.

The part of this resolution that I believe is important, which I will reiterate, is "support well-researched science." The Ontario government has to make sure there's an arm's-length body making sure that not just the short-term corporate bottom line is being looked at, but that consumer protection and the long-term viability of the many varieties of crops we have now will remain, because that is another danger as you develop more and more of these genetically altered crops. They've seen that in Europe as well. What happens is that some of the crops that exist today start to slip away. They disappear.

You could end up losing a lot of the diversity within the agricultural system, which also is something that needs to be looked at.

I support the resolution. I'm sorry I didn't hear the mover of the motion, but I've read it and I support the words of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy to some extent. I believe we have to explore this, but I want to make sure that the money and the effort is put into the research so we know what we're getting into, so we know we're not putting crops out there which will cause huge problems later. That is the real danger, and I believe you would agree with that. With a proper regulatory system in place and good research, this should be carried through.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I rise this morning in support of the member's resolution on biotechnology. It's encouraging to me that the agrifood industry is working hard to help ensure that we will all reap the benefits of new foods that are being, or will be, introduced into the marketplace. As a government, we have to make sure that we have a strong, more competitive agrifood sector. This will mean more job creation, investment attraction and certainly export development. The member for Halton Centre recognizes one of the tools that can help strengthen the agrifood sector.

He also raises some very important issues in his resolution. Almost every day there are stories in the newspapers or on TV about biotechnology. What is clear is that the agrifood industry must not only be responsible for the development of this emerging science but be seen to be responsible. I believe that by working with the industry we can do a better job both in developing food product innovations that meet consumer demand and in communicating the benefits of these innovations to the public.

This will benefit everyone, because that's the way we do things here in Ontario. Industry partnerships are beneficial in several ways, not the least of which is making good use of the research being conducted. There are several examples of this kind of cooperation already under way.

The Ontario government has partnered with the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada. That will see the results of consumer research previously conducted in Canada, and indeed in other countries, combined with the information gathered here in Ontario. This was done through a grant from Grow Ontario. This government is supportive of any advancement that gives consumers what they want and deserve, namely, a wider choice of safe, high-quality food products.

I'd like to give the members an idea of the depth of support that OMAFRA already gives to biotechnology. In 1996, approximately $3.3 million of the total $39-million research budget was allocated to biotechnology research. Last summer the ministry launched a 1-800 number -- 1-888-ONT-AGRI -- to make it easier for investors and researchers to obtain information about the province's biotechnology industry.

We are an important part of Ontario agrifood technologies, a not-for-profit corporation aimed at coordinating and promoting the commercialization of technologies and products derived from biotechnology research. OAFT was launched in January and includes representatives of universities, agriculture groups, banks, agrifood companies and government. The ministry has committed $1 million over five years to this cooperative effort and is represented on its board of directors. It may interest members to know that the head of OAFT is Dr Murray McLaughlin, one of Canada's leading experts in biotechnology.

I would like to ask all the members of this House to support the member's resolution on biotechnology. As a government, we will continue to support biotechnology as a tool to allow the agriculture and food industry to prosper in the province of Ontario.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): In the short time I have to address this resolution put forward by the member for Halton North, I thought I'd focus in on one aspect. I want to read it because it's so important: "Given that in a world of change, if government and industry fail to form strategic partnerships and lead the way as innovators towards this 21st-century industry, they face being driven out of the competitive global marketplace."

This government has yet to adopt any strategic partnerships with Ontario's colleges and universities as far as research is concerned. The Conservatives have called for research to be driven by the interests of private sector business, with little regard for basic research -- and as you know, that is extremely necessary -- before any applied research can occur. They've not done any of that.

"The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs," the resolution says, "should provide leadership and support to Ontario biotech initiatives and recognize their importance to future opportunities for growth, jobs and investment and continue to coordinate and support biotech research and development."

I want to bring to the attention of the member and the ministers too, especially the Minister of Education, that the Smith report was presented. They had two reports: One was presented in December 1996, and the second one, on research, in May 1997. Yet we have not had any response. I just want to remind him that that report called for an increase in the research overhead infrastructure envelope, which is now at $23 million. The government responded energetically and put it to $27 million. What they asked for in the Smith report was that it should have gone to $100 million. They put a mere $4 million on it and said, "We are moving forward." It's quite inadequate.

The report also recommended that the province develop a research policy covering basic and applied research and encompassing both the public and the private sector. As you know, I heard many of the members echoing the fact that this is a good step. The fact is that you have excluded universities, one of the most important partners in all of this research. There is no mention whatsoever of universities. Why would you exclude the universities, where actually most of the research is being developed?

While I support this resolution, because I can see what the member for Halton North is saying, his frustration, that the minister has got to get on with it and do his work and, as members have said, not only put the right amount of funds into research so the work can be done, my emphasis also is that the universities be included in all of what they're doing, because that's where it should be.

The Smith report released a framework for research policy for Ontario. It said that emphatically. Among the 20 sections, Smith recognized the value of the challenge fund and the tax credit announced in the budget and repeated the advisory panel's finding that base funding for research in Ontario is seriously deficient. If you recognize that, how can you move forward into the 21st century while pulling back so much of that money from research and development? The framework argues for clear public statements on the importance of research. You have not yet done any of that.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize very much that if this government is serious about promoting not only the development of biotechnology but also basic and applied research which would benefit all Ontarians, it should begin by implementing the research recommendations of its own report on research policy. The first step is to acknowledge the report; the second step is to act on it. A key component on acting on this report is clear: Talk to the colleges and universities of Ontario and include them in the planning and implementation of a research policy.

So far we have heard from many universities; they have come before me and have said that somehow they are being excluded from any sort of consultation that is meaningful. I commend you for bringing this forward and I commend you for telling the minister to get on with it and do his job.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Halton North, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Chudleigh: It's a very short period of time to cover such a large subject, but I would thank the member for Essex South for his comments and refer him to the comments of the member for Hastings-Peterborough, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, as to the support the minister continues to give to the food and agricultural industry in Ontario.

The member for Windsor-Riverside indicated that this is a motherhood-type statement. It may well be inside this House, but let me tell you that it represents a strong statement to companies around the world that are involved in research and development in the biotechnology industry. They want to go and locate in provinces where they are needed and wanted. Ontario supports these initiatives, and the best researchers are attracted to those areas which have a benevolent climate to these types of developments.

The fears that are expressed by a number of members are perhaps indicative of the lack of understanding that many people in this country have, in that we take our food supply so much for granted. We expect our food supply to be safe. That doesn't happen by accident; it happens because we have one of the best food inspection and food development systems in the world, a system that is copied by other nations around the world and one which we should be extremely proud of. The quality of Canadian and Ontario foods in particular is never at risk, and it's something that I take great pride in.

I think if you go to visit other countries where you have some concerns about the foods you eat, you'd never express those concerns when you're eating food at home.

I thank the member for Northumberland for his kind remarks. Dr Galt is perhaps, among us, the best qualified to give an opinion on these types of research, and his unqualified support of this resolution is indeed appreciated in this case.

The member for Downsview talked about the funding. The focus of our funding, as the member for Hastings-Peterborough pointed out, is far more targeted than it has been in the past, and I think that targeting of research dollars will make much better use of them.

I'd just say briefly that the member for Riverdale indicated that she honestly didn't know much about the subject, and I'd leave her comments at that. I thank the House for your support.

HUMBER RIVER

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item 99 standing in the name of Mr Shea. Mr Shea has introduced private member's notice of motion 73. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

BIOTECHNOLOGY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item 100 in the name of Mr Chudleigh. Mr Chudleigh has introduced private member's notice of motion 70. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters related to private members' business have been dealt with. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have in my hand a news release issued September 22, 1997, by the St Thomas detachment of the OPP from which I would like to quote. It reads:

"With less than one month into the school year, the Elgin County OPP have received numerous complaints of vehicles failing to stop for school buses when they are picking up or dropping off children." It goes on to say: "The consequences for failing to stop for the bus when it has its `bus signals' activated can be disastrous. A child could be severely injured or killed because you were either not paying attention or in such a hurry that you thought you could beat the...signals" on the bus.

Not three months ago a child was killed in a school bus accident near St Thomas.

Mr Palladini refuses to give the law teeth. He refuses to give the law a mechanism to convict drivers who pass school buses illegally. Raising fines is not enough to protect children. Your bill is a failure, Minister. There is no deterrent. Your job is to protect innocent children, not guilty drivers. Police should not have to beg drivers to heed the law. Lives are at stake. Pass vehicle liability.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise again in reference to the Plastimet fire in Hamilton and the absolute need for a public inquiry. I want to preface my remarks by saying that we have a tradition in Hamilton, a very proud history, that when it comes to community matters, regardless of the level of government and regardless of the party affiliation, we unite around each other and around a common cause. I've seen that since I've been in public office for 12 years now and I know it was there before I arrived.

I also referred yesterday to an editorial in Saturday's Hamilton Spectator, the fifth one, I might add, that spoke to a number of the questions that are outstanding. It refers to the fact that both Dominic Agostino and myself have called for the inquiry but that we are opposition. Then they go on to say:

"Lillian Ross, Trevor Pettit, Toni Skarica, Cam Jackson, Ed Doyle: Where are you? What do you think? Do you agree with Sterling and Wilson that calls for an inquiry are much ado about nothing? How about you, Premier Harris?

"Where do you stand on a short, concise, authoritative investigation into the Plastimet fire?"

I rise today to remind the Minister of Environment that one of his own members, Trevor Pettit, is on side with this issue. The minister keeps saying it's about politics and it's about partisan politics. The reality is that it is about community, it is about safety and it is about finding answers and making sure it doesn't happen again. I'm glad to see Trevor Pettit is on side. Now where are the other Tory MPPs? Where are they on this issue? Where are you standing up for our communities?

ONTARIO APPLES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Despite the hot, dry conditions farmers experienced this summer, all indications are that this year's apple harvest will be the second-largest in Ontario's history.

According to the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission, Ontario's producers expect to harvest about 15 million bushels of apples this fall. McIntosh, Empire and Red Delicious appear to be well above last year in volume. These are the three main varieties grown in Ontario, but we have lots of Spartan, Courtland, Northern Spy and Golden Delicious apples as well.

Now that I have everyone's attention focused on their stomachs, I'd like to remind the honourable members and the public that one of the premier apple festivals is set to take place this weekend. It's called the Brighton Applefest, and I'm proud to invite everyone to come to Brighton and enjoy a slice of what Northumberland apple producers have to offer.

The apple growers of Ontario are indeed an important component of our farming industry, especially in Northumberland, where the scenic apple route winds through miles of roadways lined with apple orchards.

The Big Apple at Colborne and the Applefest in Brighton make it a perfect destination for a fall drive in the country. That is all the more true this weekend, as we celebrate another great apple harvest in Ontario.

FAMINE IN NORTH KOREA

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Today at Metro Hall in Toronto, a group of outstanding Canadians called Canadians for North Korean Famine Relief met to call for help for the famine in North Korea.

North Korea has experienced four straight years of significant natural disasters. The result has been a massive shortage of food and it is having a devastating impact, particularly on young people. The estimates of the death toll indicate that there are tens of thousands of young people dying of starvation in North Korea.

I appreciate that we have our own challenges in dealing with issues here in Ontario, but Ontario has always had a generous and caring attitude that responds to these enormous human tragedies, even when they are far removed geographically.

I understand the Bank of Montreal has agreed to accept donations. I have asked the Premier to consider providing some coordinating assistance on behalf of the people of Ontario. I recognize the challenges of a provincial government providing international relief, but certainly Ontario has responded to situations like this in Italy and Poland and Jamaica. I think Ontario could provide some coordinating activities. I realize that many of us disagree violently with the North Korean government, but in this case it is young people who are suffering terribly.

I would encourage, as always, Ontarians to have that caring, compassionate heart and to provide some assistance.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Make no mistake about it: This government hurts kids. Its cuts to funding in education have forced five- and six-year-old youngsters in Niagara South in the Welland area to face hour-long rides to and from school, including kindergarten students. One parent reported to the Niagara South Board of Education earlier this week that his child actually spends more time on the bus than he does in the classroom with his half-day of kindergarten.

The Niagara South Board of Education has made it clear that it's as a direct result of the cuts in education funding of this government that it has had to eliminate some 25 buses and amalgamate bus runs, creating these longer and longer distances for five- and six-year-olds to travel.

This government simply doesn't understand that its cuts to education, along with a whole lot of other things, including health care, all in the name of funding a phoney tax break, two thirds of which is going to go to the top 10% of income earners, hurt some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

This government is prepared to attack the welfare of five- and six-year-old youngsters on their way to school and their way back home again so that those youngsters can be called upon to help pay for the phoney tax break.

When is this government going to understand that its policies are hurting people, hurting innocent people, hurting youngsters and their parents and grandparents, none of whom deserve to be attacked in the manner that this government is attacking them? I say shame on this government. When will it finally listen to the people of this province?

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): My constituents want their government to be responsible and accountable, and I as their representative am here to help make this happen. Next Thursday I'll be introducing a private member's resolution to the House which asks that fiscal responsibility be compulsory for the province of Ontario.

Following the balancing of the budget by this government in the year 2000-01, my constituents and I would like to see legislation that would make it mandatory for future governments to balance their budgets and not overspend. I look forward to receiving support for this endeavour from the members of this Legislature, as I receive much support from the people of the great riding of Perth.

In 1995 the people of the province stated clearly that the time for government overspending had to end, governments should be accountable and spend within their means. They gave the job of straightening out the province's finances to the Mike Harris team, and I'm proud to say that we are succeeding.

As the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, announced recently, we are on or ahead of

schedule to balance the budget and we're witnessing the return of jobs, hope, growth and opportunity in Ontario.

The people of the riding of Perth made it clear to me during the election and afterwards that they wanted a provincial government that could provide quality service at a reasonable cost. They saw themselves living within their means while being forced to support a government that could not do the same.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): This morning we had reported that the medical director of trauma and the chief of emergency medicine at Hôtel Dieu and Windsor hospital are resigning effective the end of this year because, in their words, they can no longer be held responsible for what goes on in that emergency ward.

Another one of the doctors indicated that they are concerned and confused by the government and the government's inaction with respect to restructuring in the Windsor area.

Months ago, March of 1996, the Minister of Health for the government of Ontario acknowledged that money needed to be reinvested in the Windsor emergency rooms, indeed across Windsor's remaining hospitals, to accommodate the changes.

As of today, not one penny of that money has flowed. Patients' health is at risk, the quality of care in our community is at risk, and the minister hides behind the Health Services Restructuring Commission, which we now know is no more independent than any other of the façades this government has established.

Emergency care for patients in Windsor is at risk, health care for Windsorites is at risk. If this minister is not prepared to deal with it in a proper and expeditious manner, the minister ought to resign, and he ought to resign immediately.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I've been following with great interest the Minister of Education's about-face on the length of the school year. I found it really striking to hear that the main reason he's backing down on his proposal to bring students into school a week before Labour Day is that his rural colleagues have talked to him in the last few days and they're very concerned about starting school before Labour Day. "There's a real problem in the farm community," the minister is quoted as saying. That of course is a very astute observation on the part of this minister.

What I find most striking is that what this tells us is that even the Conservative caucus members are more and more being shut out of decisions as the minister continues to ram through his $1 billion in cuts across the province. Because we know that at the end of the day, while the minister will continue to fudge back and forth, while he will continue to play with numbers, play with figures and play with days of the school year, his basic bottom line is to take $1 billion out of the system.

I just want to say to my Conservative colleagues opposite that I hope now you're beginning to twig to what the real agenda is, that in the same way you've brought the minister to his senses on this question of the school year, you will also bring him to his senses on the insanity of proceeding to cut another $1 billion out of the school system, because that would wreck greatly the system we have in place now.

TEAM CANADA 1972

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): It is truly an honour today to rise in the Legislature to recognize the anniversary of a milestone event in Canadian sports history. September 28, 1972, at about 4:45 pm Canadian time, history was made. Everyone in Canada knows where they were at that moment. This was history -- Canadian history. What government hasn't been able to do, a group of gutsy, spirited, fierce Canadians accomplished. Across the nation people jumped for joy and spontaneously sang O Canada.

Our nation was united as Team Canada `72 won the summit hockey series against the Soviets with only 34 seconds to go in the deciding game. Hearts, guts and spirit prevailed. Yvan Cournoyer, Serge Savard, Rod Seiling, Ron Ellis, Ken Dryden, Bobby Clarke and a whole host of great hockey players: just a few of the guys who never quit playing Canada's game the only way they knew how. We won. We beat them. Canada won. Shortly in the gallery we will have some of the members of Team Canada.

At the Ice Palace in Moscow, I sang O Canada with the 3,000 fans there. It was a passionate and proud O Canada, followed by, "We're number one." I was there. I was covering the series for the Toronto Sun. I remember the Russians taking away our horns. I remember them staring in amazement at a native Canadian in full head dress. I remember the snow in early September, the lineups, the hardships. The cry was, "Da, da, Canada; nyet, nyet, Soviet." We're number one, and with glowing hearts they did stand on guard for thee. They fought a war and they won.

This weekend marks the 25th anniversary of the summit series for hockey supremacy. The Soviets won two, lost one and tied one in Canada. After losing the first game in Russia, Team Canada had to win them all, and we did. Some of those players are here with us today and I honour them. Yes, thank you for uniting Canada. Thank you for exemplifying the Canadian spirit. Thank you for showing the world Canadian skill, guts, grit, spirit and heart --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would have let you go on, but the member for Durham East wants you to sit down. Sorry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to let him finish his statement? Agreed.

Mr Jim Brown: Thank you.

Thank you, Team Canada, for uniting Canada. Thank you for exemplifying the Canadian spirit. You will long be remembered not only for what you did, but how you did it: in adversity, on foreign shores, with your backs to the wall and with sheer determination. I don't think Canadians will ever forget. Thank you, Team Canada, for making us very proud Canadians.

I will be tabling a resolution calling on the Ontario Legislature to support the inclusion of Team Canada `72, the whole team, in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I gave you notice of my intent to raise a point of privilege. I apologize that I wasn't able to give you further details, given the short time line and the fact that this just came up this morning. It's a point that I believe is quite a serious infringement not just of my own privileges as a member, but of those of committee members as a whole.

As I indicated in my notice to you, it relates to an issue that arose this morning in the general government committee. That committee is charged, as you know, by order of the House with holding hearings last week, today, and then clause by clause next Thursday on Bill 148, which is the companion bill to Bill 103, the megacity bill.

One of the groups that appeared before us last week at the request of the committee was the transition team. Because the committee was not able to hear them for the full time because of disruptions that happened in the morning of last week, there was agreement that the transition team members would return today during the second day of hearings.

This morning at the committee we learned that they would not be coming, and I put a motion to the committee, which the committee passed, to have the Chair or the clerk again contact the transition team and request that they attend.

I did that at the time, as I explained, because I believe very strongly that the transition team, as a group that is appointed by order in council, as a group that's dealing with the issues of implementation of the megacity, is crucial to be at the committee for us to complete our questioning of them so that we, as the committee that is dealing with Bill 148, which also has as its main objective the bringing about of the megacity, have the opportunity to question them on the work they are doing.

The refusal of the members of the transition team to attend I think raises a serious question and a serious issue about our abilities as members of the Legislature to do our work, and that is compounded when two things happen which are true in this case.

The first is when it is a committee that has requested that presence; it's not an individual member of the committee that wants to have a particular group of people there.

Second, I believe it is fundamental when we are dealing, as we are here, with a body that is appointed by order in council -- it's not a group of citizens out there, it's not elected people at other levels of government; it's a body that is appointed by order in council and a body that is dealing more directly and is dealing exactly with the nature of the issue that's in front on the committee, which is the transition to the megacity.

I think it poses serious limitations and hence causes an infringement on not only my rights as a member of that committee but indeed other members' rights to be able to properly do our work if there is an outright refusal by those individuals to attend to the committee. I ask you, Speaker, to rule on that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me just say first, before the government House leader gets up, that I, as Speaker of this House, will not hear nor am I allowed to rule on points of privilege at committees. Those are to be taken up at committees.

If the committee determines that they would like me to hear points of privilege, they then have to report to this House by way of the committee itself. If the committee chooses to report here, I can hear it, but until that takes place, I can't hear a point of privilege taken by an individual member at the committee level.

Further, there is a process by which a witness may be compelled to attend before a committee, but such a process again requires a motion properly made and passed by this House.

In essence, I say to the member for Dovercourt, your argument or discussion need be taken up at the committee level. If you don't find success there, the committee then must request the Speaker to hear submissions with respect to the point of privilege. Until that time happens, until I receive that request from the committee as a whole, I cannot seize the issue.

Mr Silipo: May I just rise on a very brief point?

The Speaker: A brief point, the member for Dovercourt.

Mr Silipo: I would just point out to you that I raised the issue of privilege this morning with the Chair of the committee. I was told, and I believe the Chair of the committee was correct in doing this, that he has no authority to deal with questions of privilege. I hope you can appreciate the position that this puts individual members of the committee in.

I hear and I appreciate your point that the committee can make certain decisions. But what it does is it leaves this vacuum, then, if a member is told that a committee Chair does not have the authority to rule on a question of privilege and that the only resort is to the Speaker, and the Speaker says that I have to go back to the committee Chair. If that's what you're telling me to do, then fine, that's what I will do. Otherwise, you're creating a vacuum here in which the committee Chair says, "Go talk to the Speaker," and the Speaker says, "Go talk to the committee Chair."

The Speaker: Let me just help you clarify the Chair of the committee's ruling. He or she -- I'm not even sure who it is, to be honest -- from what I understand is fundamentally saying the same thing that I'm saying. In essence, if they are to hear the point of privilege at the committee, they must do so by the committee, if they want to report it out to this House. They can't do it by an individual member, that particular point of privilege. I believe what they're telling you is that the only way to hear this point of privilege at this level, in this place, is for the committee to report it out here.

Mr Silipo: Speaker, I'm not arguing on that point. What I'm seeking some clarification on is that it seems to me what you are saying is that as an individual member I do not have the right to raise a point of privilege at a committee of this House and have the committee Chair rule on whether there is or is not a point of privilege, because what I was told by the Chair this morning was that he could not rule on that.

The Speaker: I understand the point you are making, that your point of privilege in committee was made, but the Chair ruled that they couldn't hear your point of privilege and they suggested you take it up here.

Mr Silipo: That's right, and that the only person who could deal with it was you.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): That's not true.

The Speaker: Order. You've got to withdraw that comment. You can't say that. You should know that, member for Scarborough East. You can't say that.

Mr Gilchrist: I didn't --

The Speaker: No, you said, "That's not true." I heard you very clearly say that.

Interjections: Withdraw, withdraw.

Mr Gilchrist: I certainly withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: You're going to have to give me an opportunity to review it and see exactly what happened, to review the situation and report back. It's only fair. I don't want to get all this information at this place, at this time. I think I should try and get the information myself on a firsthand basis, if the member for Dovercourt would allow me that opportunity. I will report back subsequently.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this time at this point to introduce some guests in the Speaker's gallery. I'd like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a South African parliamentary delegation. Please welcome them.

We also have in the gallery today, whom the member for Scarborough West was speaking about earlier, five members of Team Canada 1972: Mr Rod Seiling, Mr Ron Ellis, Mr Yvan Cournoyer, Mr Frank Mahovlich and Mr Bill White. Welcome, gentlemen. And the waterboy, Mr Jim Bradley.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. We have just learned that teachers across this province are ready to take job action in response to your attacks on them and on education. They are ready to go on strike and you are about to get the fight you've been looking for. This is a very frightening time. It's a frightening time for students, who are worried about their education; it's a frightening time for parents, who are worried about their kids and about how they're going to manage. It's a frightening time for the teachers, who feel that you have driven them to this.

You have the crisis you set out to create. You've played a game of brinkmanship. You've taken students and parents to the edge of the precipice. I ask you this afternoon, will you pull back from the brink? Will you back off your $1 bill