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

June 2, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L073 - Thu 2 Jun 1988 / Jeu 2 jun 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

CROP USES

PLASTIC PACKAGING

CROP USES

PLASTIC PACKAGING

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

ITALIAN NATIONAL REPUBLIC DAY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

DRINKING AND DRIVING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ACCESS FUND

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

MINIMUM WAGE / SALAIRE MINIMUM

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

RESPONSES

MINIMUM WAGE

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EARL’S SHELL SERVICE

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS SOCIETY OF CANADA

ITALIAN NATIONAL REPUBLIC DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

RENT REGULATION

VISITOR

HOSPITAL SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TENANTS’ FIRST RIGHT TO PURCHASE

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO WHEAT PRODUCERS

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

EXTENDED CARE

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

FUNERAL SERVICES

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT

ENVIRONMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AMENDMENT ACT

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT /

LOI SUR L’ARBITRAGE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN ACT

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN ACT

BUDGET DEBATE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The House met at 10 am. Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

CROP USES

Mr. Villeneuve moved resolution 33:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should play an increased role in promoting and developing new crop uses, particularly the use of grain corn for ethanol-methanol gasoline, for the production of calcium magnesium acetate, and in promoting the increased use of biodegradable bags, and that to further these aims, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should be more active in promoting these alternate uses to the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Villeneuve has moved the resolution standing in his name. Le député a jusqu’à 20 minutes pour faire sa présentation. Il peut en réserver une

partie pour la fin. Le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is with particular pleasure that I rise today on this my private members’ resolution. First, I believe that it is a timely one in terms of both the environmental approach to the issue and the agricultural aspect. Timing also seems to be of some significance because of coincidence. Today’s other motion deals in considerable detail with degradable plastics, one product in which corn can quite easily be utilized, and I compliment my colleague who is also bringing in a very similar resolution from the Liberal Party.

Timing is also important for another reason. The federal government has announced that lead is to be removed from gas by 1992. Further, even the unleaded gas we use contains a manganese compound -- MMT, methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl -- which is already banned in the United States and parts of Europe because of its high exhaust pollution emissions. What this means is that we should not feel too self-righteous in the knowledge that we will be banning leaded gas. As a province, we should be looking towards the alternative octane enhancer to both lead and MMT.

The large oil companies are reluctant to act in this area. They are protecting their own domain and that is understandable, especially when there is a chance that up to 10 per cent of gasoline consumption could be replaced by alcohol. The oil companies would rather see chemical substances such as MTBE. methyl tertiary-butyl ether, be used to mix with gas.

The proposal that I would like to see in this province endorsed and supported by the government is for a blend of 92 per cent gasoline, five per cent methanol and three per cent ethanol to be used in our motor vehicles in the near future. Not only would this cut down on light crude consumption which Canada imports, but also it would aid western Canada in methanol production as well as western grain producers and Ontario’s presently very depressed corn producers in reducing surplus stock of substandard -- and I underline substandard -- grains. We can create alcohol with inferior grains.

Even Quebec is expected to be a surplus producer of grains within 10 years, a development which would benefit an eastern Ontario ethanol facility.

But all this can only happen if Ontario takes the initiative now so that facilities are ready long before January 1993, in order to take advantage of this changing standard. This can only happen if cabinet ministers, basically those named in my resolution, co-operate to a much greater degree than they have to date. I want to illustrate with one particular example.

Earlier this year, on February 8 to be exact, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) was asked at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association convention, more commonly known as the ROMA convention, about a substance called CMA, calcium magnesium acetate, which is a potential replacement for road salt.

For those who are aware of it, the Ministry of Transportation has been examining CMA since 1983. A 1984 report mentioned the following about producing CMA: “Grain corn was identified as the most favourable biomass feedstock in view of the tonnage projected to be required in large-scale use.” That is the end of quote from a report which was prepared in 1984.

For its testing, the ministry has been buying chemically produced CMA at a higher price than the corn biomass system would cost: a much higher price I must say. Yet when asked, the minister was completely unaware that CMA could indeed be produced from corn. The minister was also completely unaware that his cost estimates were for a more expensive version of CMA derived from other sources than corn.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) was also present at the ROMA convention and he could have easily informed his colleague of the potential that corn has in producing CMA. It certainly would have been easy to inform the Minister of Transportation in the intervening 24 hours before I asked my question in the House, but that did not happen. I wonder about communications within cabinet.

When one considers the terribly depressed prices that Ontario’s grain growers have faced in the world marketplace recently, it would have made some sense for the province to examine ways of using up our domestic surplus production.

With ethanol the situation is just as obvious and I would like to deal with ethanol in some greater detail. The idea of using alcohol in fuel and indeed for fuel is not a new one. In fact, jurisdictions such as the United States and Brazil are far ahead of us and provide us with a few ideas on how we should approach alcohol fuels here in Canada and particularly in Ontario.

Support for an ethanol plant was part of the Liberal Party campaign platform in 1985. It seems like ages ago and is totally forgotten. Fuel alcohol was also a prime promise made by one David Peterson, when he was campaigning for the Liberal leadership way back in 1981. The Liberals were even talking about replacing gas entirely with wood alcohol from northern Ontario, and I am sure members in this Legislature will recall those promises, long since forgotten by the government.

The idea has not been costed out and, of course, did not make technical sense either then or now, given the effects of burning pure alcohol in existing automobile engines. The problems of producing different engines would have cost enormously in the production of motor vehicles. But since 1981, we have accumulated much more information, and circumstances have also changed.

Fuel alcohol first became popular as a result of greatly increasing oil prices in the 1970s. That crisis led to a number of reactions, such as the Liberal Party’s suggestion to convert our forests into automobile-fuel wood alcohol. I would point out, however, that while trees are indeed a renewable resource, it takes much less time to grow an acre of corn when compared to growing trees. In recent years, of course, the price of oil has dropped, but there are now two newer factors, and I will touch on them.

First is the existence of grain surpluses, particularly that of corn where Ontario is concerned. Members should know that Ontario grows about 70 per cent of the total production of corn in Canada and, as a result, the problems faced by corn producers are really and strictly an Ontario issue. The surpluses have led to poor prices, to the extent that earnings increases for Ontario’s cash crop farmers in the past two years have been largely due to federal support via the special grains programs and other subsidies.

The second factor -- and I emphasize this one -- is that of the environment, which is of great concern to everyone. To the public, especially in urban centres where the problem is most apparent and acute, the environment is one of the most important issues of the day and one which alcohol fuel additives can help to address to a great degree and to correct.

Currently, our gas-burning engines use fuel with either lead or MMT as the octane enhancers. As I have already mentioned, lead is to be banned by 1993 in Canada. But the manganese in MMT, which is also an octane enhancer, is very much a pollutant, and it would be to our advantage to ban that as well. Alcohols are able to replace both lead and MMT as octane enhancers and to reduce harmful emissions.

There are essentially two types of alcohol that can be used, ethanol and methanol. Ethanol is the more expensive of the two, while methanol cannot exist in a mix with gas without the presence of a co-solvent such as ethanol. These two facts have resulted in two different formulas for Canadian gasohol. One is a blend of 90 per cent gas and 10 per cent ethanol, and the other is, as I already mentioned, 92 per cent gasoline, five per cent methanol and three per cent ethanol.

The United States has, for a number of years, witnessed the production of 90 per cent gas and 10 per cent ethanol fuel, supported by generous state and federal subsidies. For example, the US federal tax exemption is 16 cents US per litre. The 1986 report from the standing committee on energy, mines and resources recommended the use of ethanol-methanol or EM gas, but rejected the idea of the US-type subsidies, and I agree with that. This question of subsidy should be examined further, because the Ontario situation cannot be compared to the American.

First, the after-tax gas price in the US is considerably less than that here in Ontario. As a result, more expensive production costs for ethanol require subsidies to reduce the cost to consumers. Taxes here now, since the most recent Ontario budget, have driven up the final price of gas to surpass the plant-gate cost of ethanol. That is important. As a result, no substantial subsidies would be necessary if minimal provincial and federal tax breaks were available initially to set up the plants.

The plant-gate costs for unleaded gas are about 22 cents per litre; for ethanol, they are 40 cents per litre, and for methanol, they are 14 cents per litre. Any price increase to consumers could easily be negated by adjustments to taxes on fuel alcohol, while losses to the Treasury would be offset by taxes generated from new employment created by an improvement in our trade balance and, of course, always greatly reducing the exhaust pollution in the process.

It is obvious that the EM mixture is the most cost-effective, as the ethanol content, the most expensive of the components, is only three per cent. It should be pointed out, however, that E10, the name used by Mohawk Oil for its blend of 90 per cent gas and 10 per cent ethanol, has been selling for a number of years. Mohawk Oil has a commercial fuel ethanol distillery in Manitoba producing 7.2 million litres per year, derived primarily from corn but also from barley and oats, as well as from other substandard or fire-damaged grains.

Always remember that this alcohol will be used in the gas tank of your car and not in the glass.

To date, some 1.5 billion miles have been travelled on Mohawk’s E10 fuel. It is estimated that E10 fuel requires tax breaks of one to two cents a litre to maintain a price parity. This already exists in Manitoba, where there is a two-cent-per-litre tax break. Mohawk Oil also sells EM gas in western Canada, where Alberta provides a tax break of 0.04 cents a litre; Saskatchewan, of 1.2 cents a litre, and British Columbia of 0.6 cents per litre.

EM gas is available in Ontario from the United Co-operatives of Ontario stations in Guelph and Listowel. Ontario does not tax ethanol or methanol, equating to a tax break of 0.64 cents per litre and making ethanol-methanol gas very competitive. I should also mention that I have visited the UCO station just outside of Guelph and have seen the widespread acceptance of the EM gas blend.

It is popular among those with environmental concerns -- and that includes all of us -- and it is also popular among farmers who stand to have an increased use of some of their own production. You should always remember that farmers on the national basis use from 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the fuel consumption here in Canada.

By supporting EM gas, we are not talking about getting the province into any form of ongoing subsidy program, and I emphasize that. I think, however, that the province’s promotion of EM gas does provide the opportunity for capital assistance without much alteration to existing programs. I believe the government can accomplish this if the Minister of Agriculture and Food shows some effectiveness and some initiative in lobbying his cabinet colleagues.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) should be made aware of the importance of acting and acting soon in this area. At current prices, an economically-sized ethanol production plant would cost some $20 million. Assisting with a capital grant of such a size is certainly within the province’s capacity. It would even be less than much of the assistance that the province has provided to the auto industry and recently to the Goodyear tire industry, just to name a couple.

The other area where we could look at providing assistance on a one-time basis is in assisting retail service stations with retrofitting costs to handle the new blend. That would cost in each and every individual service-station case from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $1,500 per service station -- not an alarming sum. The total investment, therefore, for creating an entirely new provincial industry would not be excessive, while greatly reducing exhaust pollution.

Just as with the auto plants, new jobs will be created. If all Ontario were to utilize EM gas -- which is maybe wishful thinking -- using Ontario ethanol, thousands of jobs would be created. Statistics Canada’s model shows at least 5,000 jobs would be created in Ontario, not saying that it would strengthen some very weak grain markets at present. Initially, we certainly cannot hope to get a 100 per cent EM gas usage. But even at 20 per cent ethanol-methanol blend usage, it would result in over 1,000 jobs being created while reducing pollution. This is certainly substantial, and it is a start in the right direction.

There are a number of locations in Ontario that would be suitable, many of them in high-unemployment areas. An ideal site would have good facilities for receiving corn, a heat-energy supply, water and access to transportation facilities to ship the ethanol to fuel refiners and blenders and, of course, the byproducts which could certainly be used in the feeding of livestock.

Possible locations include the Bruce, Sarnia and Chatham areas and, of course, Prescott, which happens to be in my riding, where the Elders Co. has very recently taken over the elevator at Prescott in Edwardsburgh township right on the seaway with existing rail facilities and along Highway 401.

I should also mention that a byproduct of ethanol distillation from corn is a high-fibre protein substance called DDGS, distillers’ dried grains and solubles, and is in high demand for animal feed here in Canada as well as in Europe.

I could go on for an hour, but I would like to reserve the time left to answer my colleagues who will be addressing this private member’s motion.

Mr. Miller: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on ballot item 27 brought in by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) concerning the promotion and development of new crop uses in Ontario’s agriculture and food sector.

First of all, I would like to recognize the Ontario corn producers who are present. There is Cliff Leach who is sitting in the gallery this morning. He just happened to be coming along at the right time to hear the debate on this resolution. There are Terry Daynard, executive vice-president, along with members of the association, and Gordon McNern, who is vice-president of business development for grains, St. Lawrence Starch Co., which is one of the manufacturers of ethanol at the present time, perhaps the only one in Ontario. Also there is a representative of Ontario co-operative, Glen Perchbacher. It is fitting that these people are here this morning to hear the debate.

As the third party’s critic for Agriculture and Food -- I am referring to the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry -- the member’s input is highly valued on this side of the House. We appreciate the diligence with which he performs his duties as an opposition critic.

The resolution introduced by the honourable member contains three examples of specific ways in which he would like to see the development of new crop uses take place, and I would like to address these examples individually.

The first is the use of grain corn for ethanol-methanol gasoline. As I am sure the honourable members are aware, ethanol can be produced using cereal grains or corn and it can be made out of many other products such as potatoes, and even straw. It is not only corn that can be used to make it; it can be made out of many other materials. It is used as an octane enhancer in gasoline to reduce the lead content in the fuel.

Agricultural groups consider ethanol to be a potential alternative use of agricultural commodities in Canada. Specifically in Ontario, the greatest benefit would be realized by the corn producers. We all know that for a farmer corn prices have been at depression prices over the past several years.

Many private companies have indicated an interest in building an ethanol plant in Ontario. The proposals have been evaluated by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

The fuel ethanol market is not yet well established in Ontario, and although St. Lawrence Starch has two ethanol-methanol-fuelled automobiles on the road at the present time, the industry is still in the experimental stages of market development. Therefore, full-scale government involvement in the fuel ethanol industry is somewhat premature.

The public costs of establishing a fuel ethanol industry in Ontario, as projected by the proposals received, are perceived to be prohibitively high. I think that is the input cost versus the return. Distillers’ grain, a byproduct of the fuel-ethanol production process, can be used in feed rations and this product competes directly with soybeans and hay and other sources of feed that would be displaced by distillers’ grain.

Mr. Villeneuve: Imported soybeans.

Mr. Miller: I think we are almost on a balance on the soybeans and we can produce more. I think this year is going to be a good example for the honourable member.

The price of corn could be expected to rise slightly and this would impact negatively on corn users. I think you have to take all the factors; we certainly want to get an increase but it has to also be competitive.

The Ontario government has a road tax exemption for ethanol and methanol used as gasoline additives in Ontario. This initiative has recently been adopted by the government of Alberta and is under consideration by the federal government as well. I think our federal friends do have a role to play in assisting, if we want to get this product in use.

When all the above factors are taken into consideration, including the impact on other agricultural products, the public cost of capital assistance in plant construction and the cost of production subsidies and tax exemptions, balanced against the as yet unproven marketability of fuel ethanol, it makes sense that prudent, careful management of this potential alternative use of Ontario corn is the best course of action.

Although the potential of fuel ethanol appears promising, more work needs to be done by the industries concerned before large expenditures of public money can be allocated. We believe that industry should be encouraged to take the initiative to research and develop new technologies, and I think that is what St. Lawrence Starch is doing. I think there has to be co-operation with not only St. Lawrence Starch, but also our oil refineries because there is where one of the problems lies, to get the oil refineries to get the mix. I think Petro-Canada, one of our own companies, is not too co-operative along those lines. That is another federal problem.

We believe industries should be encouraged to take the initiative to research and develop these new technologies.

The second suggestion for a new crop use in the resolution is the promotion and development of calcium-magnesium acetate. This product, also corn-based, is being tested as a replacement for road salt. There are several advantages of this product over road salt. For example, it does not rust automobiles and is less harmful to the environment. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation is conducting research on this product now, but the production costs are still out of line for full commercial use on highways in Ontario.

The third proposal of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is with respect to biodegradable plastic bags. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food is aware of the potential of this product developed from a starch derivative, again based on corn. I understand St. Lawrence Starch has developed a biodegradable carry-out shopping bag and it is to be commended for its work in this area. Indeed, I met with representatives of this company two weeks ago to discuss this specific new product initiative, as well as the ongoing ethanol efforts.

Further research is needed before biodegradable garbage bags are commercially produced and various companies are now experimenting with different levels of cornstarch in the plastic to obtain the desired strength. We are optimistic that the impact of this product on the waste management industry could be enormous.

Finally, I would like to again voice my appreciation to the honourable member for drawing the attention of the House to these three potential nonfood uses of grain corn. I might add that sugar is another product that can be produced from corn and there is a tremendous market for that too, but we are still having to compete with other sugars being dumped into Canada, a free trade issue, which is really destroying the industry.

I wish to assure him that members on this side of the House are concerned as well and are doing what we can to encourage these developments. In fact, the rural caucus of the government met as recently as this morning to discuss this very issue with the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has taken a lead role in promoting and developing new uses for a variety of Ontario crops, and I would like to direct the attention of the members specifically to the Ontario crop introduction and expansion program whose purpose is to expand crop opportunities for the Ontario farmer by encouraging more co-operative research efforts between the public and private sectors.

The Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food is in frequent contact with his cabinet colleagues to co-ordinate the government’s initiatives in these areas and to facilitate interministerial co-operation where areas of jurisdictional overlap occur. I want to make that point very clear.

I would like to wind up my portion of the debate on this resolution. I guess I have a word of warning. My colleague from Kent has brought to my attention that this is the driest year on record since 1890, and it could be a disaster as far as our grain supplies are concerned, not only in North America but also affecting overall world markets. We have to be very careful that we have the food supply that is so necessary. While we seem to have mountains here, those mountains can disappear very quickly. I suppose we have to take that in perspective.

Also, for the farming community, as our Prime Minister found out on his trip to Europe, 45 per cent of the net farm income in Canada is from government assistance; in the European Community countries it is 49 per cent.

I suppose those things have to be considered in the overall use of corn for ethanol.

Mr. Wildman: I want to rise and congratulate the member for the united counties in introducing this resolution this morning. It is my pleasure to participate in the debate in favour of the resolution.

I am tempted to point out that on occasion members of this House, as well as others of the general public, have used alcohol as a fuel and it has certainly got them revved up. I do say though that --

Mr. Villeneuve: They spun their wheels.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, many of us are spinning our wheels.

Seriously though, I think it is a significant proposal to suggest that in a period of depressed markets, we should be actively, as a government in Ontario, promoting alternative uses for our food products, particularly ones that will be beneficial to the environment.

I must say I was disappointed in the comments of my good friend the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) who, I suppose, was not just speaking as a representative of the rural caucus of his party, but also in a way as a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food this morning in this private members’ debate. He seems overly cautious in his approach. To state that there is not a well-established market for ethanol-methanol fuels is to beg the question of the resolution, I submit, because the resolution is proposing that the government should be promoting these alternative uses for corn and grain products.

I think it is incumbent upon the provincial government, for the reasons of trying to improve the markets for these products, lessening our dependence on petroleum products and cleaning up the environment, to promote actively, as is proposed in the resolution, the production of these products and their use and to promote the market. That is, I think, what the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is proposing.

It has been suggested over the years that the cost could be prohibitively high and that this type of fuel alternative would not be competitive with purely petroleum fuel. I do not think that is the case, as was pointed out by my friend from the united counties. With the current end price for fuel in Ontario, that is no longer as serious a concern.

I am disturbed, though, by the member for Norfolk’s suggestion that in producing these new products from corn, that might gain a market but that might then raise the price of corn, which would adversely affect other consumers of corn. Surely we should be doing all we can to improve the price of corn with the terrible depression in the price right now. The fact is that the farmers are facing a very serious debt crisis in this province. It seems to me that we should be doing all we can to improve the price of farm products, not worrying that they might go up. I really do not understand that argument.

I do agree with my friend from Norfolk that the federal government should be involved. I am sure my friend from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would agree with that. I think that both levels of government should be doing all they can to promote experimentation with and development and marketing of the products. He did say that the Liberal Party was in favour of encouraging industry to develop these products. I would like to know how they want to encourage industry. I think they should be doing that. I think they should be promoting it, but I think they should also be involved in terms of helping to fund research and development in these areas.

I should point out that in some countries, methanol fuels have basically taken over the market. All you have to do is look at Brazil, for instance. Certainly, in the midwestern United States there is a significant market for mixed gasoline fuels that are using methanol products. I really think there is a potential market that should be encouraged by the government.

With regard to the other two products proposed in the resolution, I think we should be less cautious than the member for Norfolk indicated. I look at the state of Michigan, for instance, which has banned the use of road salt. The climate across the border, across the St. Marys River from my house is not significantly different than it is where I live. If the state of Michigan could ban the use of road salt, we could in fact be doing a similar thing in Ontario.

I am not suggesting necessarily we need to ban it, but surely we should be looking at alternatives, particularly when you consider the environmental damage and the damage to agriculture that is done by road salt. Certainly, all consumers with automobiles would be interested in having the government do whatever would be possible to lessen the rust our automobiles face.

This may sound like a funny reason, but, as a northerner I am also concerned about the number of animals, particularly moose, big game, that are killed on the highways because they are searching for salt in the summertime, the salt in the ditches. The Ministry of Natural Resources right now is doing experiments to try to keep these large animals away from the highways because one of the reasons they are coming out on to the highway is to get the salt. Salt residues might be lessened if we could be using other products.

Mr. Miller: Put salt blocks out.

Mr. Wildman: They are putting out salt blocks. That is one of the things they are doing. They are putting salt blocks in the bush and they are also building grates along ditches to try to make it impossible for the animals to walk in the ditches, so that they will not go there.

The other suggestion was biodegradable bags, the use of cornstarch. We once did use biodegradable bags almost completely. They were called paper. It is unfortunate, frankly, that we have moved to plastics so much in our society because we have a tremendous environmental problem, particularly in southern Ontario but right across the province, with landfill.

One of the biggest difficulties we have with landfill is these plastic garbage bags that people use. A lot of the garbage that is put in those bags is indeed biodegradable. But when you put it in those bags and seal them up, they can last for ever. I think we should be attempting to protect the environment by ensuring that whatever research needs to be done into biodegradable bags that could be used for shopping bags and garbage bags will be done, rather than attempting to increase the use of plastics in our society. Plastics increase our dependence on petroleum, of course, and they are harmful to the environment. They last for ever.

I congratulate once again my friend from the united counties for introducing this resolution this morning. I realize the concern that was raised by the member for Norfolk with regard to the dry year and the fact that because of the difficulties that are being experienced, particularly in western Canada and other parts of the Prairies where grain production may be down substantially, the price may rise. But I think we should be doing all we can to try to level off the tremendous experiences we have had with peaks and valleys in prices, where we are dependent on bad weather that harms one farmer to improve the price for another group of farmers.

I do not think that is the way we should be dealing with farm marketing and pricing in the modern world. I think we should be doing all we can to develop alternative markets that will help to increase the price on a more steady plane and to ensure that farmers are able to market their products and that these products will benefit consumers in the overall society by being ones that will lessen the cost to consumers and improve the protection of the environment.

I would hope that all members of the House will join in supporting this resolution and that if the resolution passes, as I hope it does, the government will respond and there will not just simply be another expression of opinion by the House that it is in favour of something as if it was sort of a motherhood issue and it just stays there.

I hope that if this resolution passes, the government will, in fact, take action and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, in conjunction with his cabinet colleagues, will set up a task force to determine how they will move in this area, what kinds of grants will be provided, what kinds of marketing promotion will be provided and what kind of research will be encouraged so that we can indeed develop alternative products in this way.

Mr. McLean: I want to read this resolution into the record once again.

“That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should play an increased role in promoting and developing new crop uses, particularly the use of grain corn for ethanol-methanol gasoline, for the production of calcium-magnesium acetate, and in promoting the increased use of biodegradable bags, and that to further these aims, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should be more active in promoting these alternative uses to the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.”

I think that resolution really says it all. I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to speak about and show my support for this resolution from my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. By supporting this resolution, the members of this Legislature will be demonstrating this province’s commitment to reducing pollution, conserving our shrinking reserves of conventional light crude oil, creating employment for those required to produce ethanol and developing new uses or markets for Ontario’s corn.

There are several reasons I suggest it is in the public interest to encourage the use of grain corn for ethanol-methanol gasoline additives in Ontario and right across this country for that matter. The first, and to me the most important reason, is the protection of our health through the reduction or complete elimination of lead in our gasoline.

For many years, lead compounds have been added to gasoline to raise its octane rating -- thus improving the fuel’s anti-knock capabilities -- in this time of high-compression engines. However, we have all heard about medical research that suggest lead released into the environment through the combustion of fuel can cause serious health hazards, especially in area of high traffic volume such as Toronto or Hamilton or London. There is also evidence that elevated blood lead levels are associated with harmful biochemical effects in children.

This country is among the growing number of nations restricting lead concentrations in gasoline. We are all no doubt aware that the permissible lead level was lowered to 0.29 grams per litre of gasoline from 0.77 grams in January 1987. On March 25, 1986, the federal government indicated its intention of effectively eliminating the use of lead in gasoline by the end of 1992.

Both ethanol and methanol would serve ideally as octane enhancers in replacing lead. Not only would replacing lead with ethanol or methanol reduce pollution and risks to our health, it would also prove to be excellent high-octane fuel.

Ethanol would boost octane from one to two points and automobile manufacturers could then increase the efficiency of car engines to utilize the increased octane. Ethanol is a clean-burning fuel and that means fewer deposits on car engines and a reduction in existing deposits. This will contribute to longer engine life, reduced run-on and smoother acceleration. The lower emissions would lead to a reduction in pollution equal to taking one car in five off the road, provided all cars use the new blended gasoline.

Another feature of this new blended fuel is something we can all probably identify with. It would prevent gasline freeze-up because the alcohols eliminate condensation in the fuel tank. Motorists would not have to bother ensuring there is some gasline antifreeze in their tanks every time they pull up to the gasoline pumps during the cold winter months.

Conserving Canada’s dwindling reserves of conventional light crude oil is something we are told to do, it is something many of us are trying to do and it is something we could do better through alcohol blending. Alcohols can serve as fuel extenders by displacing some of the crude oil required in gasoline production.

Methanol is currently manufactured from natural gas, which is a resource more plentiful in Canada than light crude oil, and could also be made from other carbon-rich materials such as coal and wood. Ethanol can be manufactured from ethylene, a chemical produced in petroleum refining, derived from ethane, a constituent of natural gas, or fermented from starch and sugar containing feedstocks such as grains and root crops.

Expanded production of ethanol, using a variety of agricultural materials, could also benefit Ontario’s agricultural industry by increasing public demand at a time when the agricultural community faces stiff competition selling its produce abroad. It should also be noted that ethanol production provides a market for substandard produce, crop residues and crop surpluses.

Ontario grows approximately 70 per cent of Canada’s corn and is a province where 35 per cent of Canada’s gasoline is consumed. Even if all of this gasoline was blended with three per cent ethanol produced from Ontario corn, the supply of Ontario corn would still be sufficient to meet all existing domestic markets and a surplus would still exist to be sold internationally.

Ethanol can be produced cheaply from high-cellulose wastes. If only corn cobs, which are ejected from the rear of the combine harvester after the grain is separated during corn harvesting, were used for ethanol production, the supply would theoretically still be in excess of the amount necessary to add three per cent ethanol to this province’s entire gasoline supply. Fuel ethanol could be produced year-round from grain corn preserved direct from the combine as wet corn silage, thereby eliminating the usual $10 to $15 per tonne cost for artificial drying.

As I mentioned earlier, ethanol can also be produced effectively from lower-quality grain which exists in almost every year because of poor weather in certain agricultural zones. This fact could enable higher-quality grains or corn to be concentrated and devoted to other uses such as export markets, where reputation for quality is vital to the marketing success.

It is my understanding that nearly 8,000 jobs could be created if this government took a serious interest in ethanol production. The plants for this production could be spread throughout the province, creating employment in numerous sectors rather than just in one or two. This government must take an active role in job creation, pollution reduction, health protection, light crude oil conservation and farm market creation. This government can take a more active role in these areas by supporting the resolution of my colleague.

I would like to conclude by restating my reasons for supporting this resolution before us now. Agriculture is in a position where it is capable of supplying feedstocks required for ethanol production well in excess of the potential requirements without any major impact on its ability to supply existing and potential markets. A large-scale ethanol industry could result in a three per cent to four per cent increase in grain corn prices to Ontario farmers, because ethanol can be produced from weather-damaged crops and from ensiled, wet grain, therefore avoiding the expense of artificial drying.

As the technology is perfected to produce ethanol from high-cellulose materials, our farmers will also benefit from new markets for crop residues. But even if the impact on agriculture was not included, ethanol-methanol blended gasoline could be judged as being successful and beneficial to the long-term wellbeing of Ontario for the following reasons.

The facilities required to process ethanol could aid economic development in rural Ontario and low-employment areas by creating an estimated 7,750 new jobs. The byproducts of ethanol are distillers’ grains and solubles which are valuable feed supplements with international market potential. Ethanol-methanol blended gasoline is an environmentally safer fuel which works better than traditional gasoline currently available to consumers, and ethanol is a renewable resource which would ease the stress on diminishing conventional crude oil resources.

I urge all members of this Legislature to support this resolution from my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and I join with him in urging the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong), the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) to also support it.

The income of farmers has not increased like those of other people in this society. Farmers are still the backbone of the country. Why should farmers work long hours and still lose at the end of the year? The money these farmers receive in Ontario is nothing to compare with what industry wages are. Everybody gets an increase in salary except the farmers. The Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program of this government has been decreased by 60 per cent. The day will come when people will be paying dearly for what they eat if they do not look after the farm community.

Mr. Tatham: I am pleased to take part on the resolution proposed by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

I know a man who is sometimes asked for a letter of recommendation by people he does not know. This man applies two rules to each request. First, he finds out whether or not the individual has paid his taxes. Second, he also finds out from legal sources whether the individual has been involved with the law and to what extent. If the answers are favourable, a letter of recommendation is forthcoming. If the answers are not, no letter.

The honourable member’s resolution, in my view, must pass two tests. Let me describe test number one, the ecosystem approach. What is it? Ecosystems are natural or artificial subdivisions of the biosphere, with boundaries arbitrarily defined to suit particular purposes. It is possible to speak of your personal ecosystem -- you and the environment on which you depend for sunshine, air, water, food and friends; the Great Lakes basin as an ecosystem -- interacting communities of living and nonliving things in the basin; or our planetary ecosystem -- the biosphere.

The ecosystem concept recognizes that you are new, yet not new. The molecules in your body have been parts of other organisms and will travel to other destinations in the future. Right now in your lungs, there is likely to be at least one molecule from the breath of every adult human being who has lived in the past 3,000 years. The air around you will be used tomorrow by deer, lake trout, mosquitoes and maple trees. The same is true of water, sunshine and minerals. Everything in the biosphere is shared.

There is something very strange, deep and mysterious about the way the building blocks of life are arranged as wholes that are, in turn, parts of larger wholes. Everything from atoms to galaxies is literally interconnected. Sharing and interconnectedness are the reasons why the boundaries of ecosystems overlap. Although most people vaguely understand the concept, they do not see how it relates to or affects them.

There is a simple yet profound difference between environment and ecosystem. The notion of environment is like that of a house, something external and detached. In contrast, ecosystem implies home, something that we feel part of and see ourselves in even when we are not there. A home has an added spiritual dimension that makes it qualitatively different from a house. It is a happier place because of the caring and sharing relationships among its inhabitants.

The emergence of an ecosystem approach to planning, research and management in the Great Lakes basin is not accidental. It is a most recent phase in the historical succession of management approaches from egocentric to piecemeal to environmental and now to an ecosystem approach.

This succession arose from stresses imposed by the burgeoning growth of population and technology in the Great Lakes basin. The ecosystem approach emerged in the 1970s with the realization, in part from the discovery of toxic chemicals and human food chains, that people and environments can only be managed effectively in relation to ecosystems of which they are a part.

The essence of an ecosystem approach is that it relates wholes at different levels of integration -- us and ecosystems containing us -- rather than interdependent parts -- us and our environments. This calls for four-eyed vision, two eyes from the egosystem -- a person, corporation, voluntary association, professional discipline, government or nation -- looking outward at its external environment; and two from an ecosystem looking at the egosystem and its operational environment as a whole. This perspective, hereafter termed an ecosystem perspective, is crucial to human wellbeing and survival.

What must be done to practise an ecosystem approach?

1. Know your ecosystem. Develop a perspective that takes account of influences on us of larger systems of which we and our external environments are parts. This requires improved knowledge of the operation and relationships of systems in nature.

2. Act in ways that are ecological -- taking account of that knowledge and perspective -- anticipatory -- forestalling events that could bring later regret -- and ethical, showing respect for other systems of nature comparable to our respect for our other persons.

Because the consequences of preventing something from happening are invisible to the untrained eye, the benefits of an ecosystem approach are not readily discerned. Some examples of the evolution from indifferent to ecosystem management styles may help to clarify what is meant by ecosystem approach and to show the extent to which it is now in development.

1. Organic waste. First, it was dumped wherever convenient -- best of all, in streams or lakes. Next, because of downstream problems, we developed energy-consumptive sewage treatment systems. Now, an ecosystem approach focuses on recycling energy efficiently and material recovery from sewage.

2. Eutrophication. First, it was ignored. When the odours become too strong, nutrient-rich effluents were diverted downstream. Then phosphorus was removed from sewage effluents. An ecosystem approach promotes low-phosphate detergents, more efficient use of fertilizers and nutrient recycling.

3. Oxides related to acid rain. At first, the pervasiveness of the acid rain problem was not recognized. When problems arose locally, the solution was to build taller smokestacks. Then came removal of acids by scrubbing. Now, an ecosystem approach advocates energy conservation and the recycling of sulphur.

4. Water diversion and consumptive uses. The first rule was to divert, the more the better. Then the scale of operation was increased to meet new shortages, encouraging export as a commodity. An ecosystem approach might recommend diverting water sparingly and only in the context of overall regional planning. It might also set limits on overall use or provide incentives for nonconsumptive uses.

5. Cancer. People were never indifferent to cancer. However, it is still commonly viewed in terms of single causes. In an ecosystem approach, real cures -- prevention techniques -- must be based on the knowledge that cancer is to a large degree environmental, with many contributing causes.

6. Toxic chemicals. At first, toxic chemicals were used indiscriminately. Then they were dealt with one by one with regulations after the fact, as in the case of pesticides. An ecosystem approach requires designing with nature, particularly for long-lived compounds.

7. Energy shortages. Successive “solutions” were, first, to ignore the problem, then to increase the energy supply and expand the grid with pricing to encourage greater use. An ecosystem approach encourages conservational pricing with inverse rate schedules to discourage greater use.

8. Traffic congestion. Successive “solutions” have been to curse, build more roads and superhighways, improve public transportation and stagger commuters’ work hours. An ecosystem approach might encourage a broader look at commuters’ work and travel needs and at overall land use planning.

Then we go on to energy accounting: how many energy inputs for how many energy outputs. Although the figures I am presenting are taken from a research paper provided by representatives of New York State College and Cornell University 15 years ago, a principle has been established. In 1970, about 2.9 million kilocalories was used by farmers to raise an acre of corn, equivalent to 80 gallons of gasoline. The 2.9 million kilocalories input of fossil fuel represents a small portion of energy input when compared with the solar energy input.

During the growing season, about 26.6 million kilocalories of solar energy is converted into corn. Thus, when solar energy is included, man’s 2.9 million kilocalories of fossil fuel represents about 11 per cent of the total energy input in corn production.

The important point is that the supply of solar energy is unlimited in time,

whereas fossil fuel supply is finite. Would you give this idea a recommendation? Is it of good character? Has the idea paid its way? The answer to those three questions is yes.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is a real pleasure to have had some of my colleagues comment on this private member’s resolution. In the three minutes left at my disposal, I will try to touch on a few of the things that were mentioned.

First, I thank the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham). The ecosystem I do not quite understand. I got a bit of a lesson in ecosystems, but I do hope that this message echoes to cabinet. If it does, then it will have accomplished some of the reasons why I brought it forth.

Some of the people who participated in this debate this morning were concerned that maybe if we take too much corn out of the traditional methods of usage, we will create a shortage. I must tell the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller), and I thank him for participating in this debate, what we are really doing is squeezing a little bit of alcohol out of this corn and we still have a 28 per cent protein livestock feed that goes right back into traditional uses. We will have more than 95 per cent by weight left to go back to the livestock industry.

We are taking very little from the corn itself other than removing the alcohol content, which goes to waste anyway as a livestock feed; it is in the starch there. However, it will be enhancing and reducing the pollution, enhancing our atmosphere, our air. I do not see how anyone can object to that.

The St. Lawrence Starch people who are here this morning I had occasion to meet last fall. They have all of the technology now for the processing and distilling of the product. The government need not take an initiative here. All the government has to do is send a clear message: “Yes, we are concerned about the environment. We are concerned about weak grain prices. We are concerned about creating jobs.”

Mr. Miller: We sent the message.

Mr. Villeneuve: I hope the message continues to come out, because following what the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) said, that the state of agriculture was in very difficult times because of the Massey Combines closing and that agriculture was really going through some tough times, the Minister of Agriculture and Food yesterday almost broke his arm patting himself on the back when I questioned him about a 60 per cent reduction in the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program. He did not answer that question. Leading up to the September 10 election, there was no talk about reducing the OFFIRR program by 60 per cent.

Mr. Wildman: That’s true, but last year it was 100 per cent and the Treasurer could have continued it at 100 per cent if he wanted to.

Mr. Villeneuve: To the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), I thank him very much for participating in this debate.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Villeneuve: I did not want to light a fuse here, but those are facts and they happened very recently in this Legislature.

United Co-operatives of Ontario has also taken the initiative. They have two service stations in Ontario, and I visited one last fall when I met with the people from St. Lawrence Starch. They are taking the initiative. They know there is a market out there. They know the public of Ontario is concerned. The message has to come from all the different ministries, and it is the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) primarily who have to sell this.

I certainly hope that this private member’s resolution has in some small way created some activity or some thinking. We do have all of the technical things in place. All we need is the will of the government to act.

Le vice-président: Le débat de la résolution de M. Villeneuve est maintenant terminé. À l’ordre du jour.

PLASTIC PACKAGING

Ms. Collins moved resolution 34:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that plastic packaging often poses serious environmental problems, and recognizing that research into possible solutions to these problems is required, and recognizing that plastic packaging materials are important in our economy, and further recognizing that the development of initiatives to develop environmentally sound plastic packaging use and waste management practices could prove economically valuable for Ontario, the Minister of the Environment should develop, as soon as possible, a plastics waste management policy affirming a clear preference for the reuse, recycling, recovery and reduction of plastic packaging materials where feasible, and in such cases where the reuse, recycling, recovery or further reduction of materials may be deemed inappropriate or impractical, the minister should consider safe and environmentally benign degradation as a desirable method of waste disposal for certain plastic products.

To develop a comprehensive plastics waste management program, the minister should:

(

a) identify the areas of plastic usage where degradability may be desirable;

(

b) identify the pros and cons of the available and potential degradable plastics technologies for different plastics usages;

(

c) identify the degradable plastics capabilities of Ontario industry and make recommendations regarding public policy initiatives to assist this development;

(

d) conduct research into the effects of plastics degradation and its breakdown products both in the environment at large and in landfill sites;

(

e) involve the plastics industry in encouraging the reuse, recycling, recovery and reduction of plastics;

(

f) identify areas where further research is needed;

(

g) make recommendations regarding the co-ordination of intergovernmental action where necessary;

(

h) make recommendations for legislative or regulatory action regarding specific plastics usages;

(

i) make recommendations concerning the performance standards of degradable plastics; and

(

j) identify the economic and environmental effects of recommended actions.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make her presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Ms. Collins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to reserve a few minutes for later, but I must tell you I was relieved to hear that the reading of the resolution was not included in my time allocation.

Mr. Callahan: It usually is. We made an exception.

Ms. Collins: Thank you.

As members may be aware, this is Canadian Environment Week. It is a time not only to reflect on the health of our environment but also to take further steps to protect it. The consideration of this resolution presents this House with an excellent opportunity to do just that. Many members may remember the popular 1960s film The Graduate. There is a scene in this movie in which a young college graduate, wondering what he is going to do with his life, is advised that the future is in plastics. Prophetic words.

In recent years, the use of plastic products and materials has increased dramatically in our society. In particular, we seem to have fallen in love with plastic packages, containers, wrapping and other short-life products. The reasons are not difficult to determine. Plastic is lightweight, safe, durable, inexpensive and highly protective of packaging contents. All the indications are that this love affair will continue and, if anything, intensify.

By the year 2000, in the United States alone, it is expected that the demand for plastics will rise by 36 per cent, to reach the staggering figure of 76 billion pounds annually. Of this amount, 25 per cent, or almost 20 billion pounds a year, will be used in packaging or other short-life uses. That is a lot of plastic bags.

However, if we do not change the way we dispose of these materials, our future in plastics could look very bleak indeed. The problem we face is simple, and actually, it was mentioned earlier on the last resolution. After we use plastic products such as garbage bags, food and beverage containers and six-pack carriers, most of us just throw them out and forget about them. As such, these materials are highly symbolic of our fast-paced, throwaway society, as a visit to any fast-food outlet will readily attest. However, they are not just symbols. Most plastics are made from petrochemicals and take a long time to break down.

When we dispose of our plastic garbage, it may go out of sight and out of mind, but it does not go away; at least, not quickly. It is estimated that plastic debris takes 2,739 years to degrade into a harmless state. The results of this durability are more and more evident. Our society faces a growing problem of where to put its garbage. We are running out of room in our landfill sites. Every proposal to create a new one generates often intense opposition from local residents.

Serious environmental concerns exist about air emissions from refuse incinerators, also often resulting in opposition to their construction or continuation. Plastics are increasingly adding to these waste disposal difficulties.

Although plastics currently comprise only a relatively small proportion of municipal solid waste, estimated at about seven or eight per cent, this proportion is steadily rising. That is not the only problem with plastic waste. Plastics also endanger many forms of wildlife. The biggest culprits in this regard are garbage bags and six-pack holders. The numbers are chilling. It is estimated that 100,000 marine mammals and hundred of thousands of sea birds die each year from eating or becoming entangled with plastic debris. Finally, as any outdoor excursion will confirm, plastics litter our lands and waterways.

It is true that this defacement of our environment is due to careless behaviour. However, because of the durability of plastics, the shortsightedness of this generation will be visited on our descendants for many years to come. Litter is not just an eyesore; it is also the violation of a trust.

We must take steps now to deal with the problems posed by short-life, single-use plastic products. Just to clarify, I include in this category plastic items such as packaging and wrapping, food and beverage containers, six-pack ring carriers, swab sticks, agricultural mulch film, fishing lines and nets, and even diapers.

It is generally agreed that the recycling of waste materials is the best way of meeting the challenge for our growing garbage crisis. In the last few years, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has begun to actively promote the recycling option.

The most visible sign of this campaign, of course, is the curbside blue box, which is appearing in more and more Ontario communities each year. In my own riding of Wentworth East, the city of Stoney Creek has had blue boxes for several years, and the city of Hamilton has just started its city-wide blue box campaign. However, to date, aside from some types of bottles, these recycling efforts have not really touched plastics.

The purpose of the resolution I am moving today is to change this situation by calling upon the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to develop a plastics waste management policy as soon as possible. This policy would affirm a clear preference for the reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery of plastics, where feasible.

Nevertheless, a recent study has suggested that a maximum of 25 per cent of plastic waste produced during the coming decade has a realistic potential of being reused or recycled. It is possible that this figure is a low estimate. We just do not know until we put in place a comprehensive plastics recycling program whether or not that is the case. However, it is quite likely that the four Rs still would not effectively cover all plastic products.

Fortunately, there are technologies available now which cause plastics to break down relatively rapidly after use. Plastics of this type are termed degradable and they fall into one of two categories: first, biodegradable, in which breakdown is accomplished or assisted by natural organisms; or second, photodegradable, in which breakdown is accomplished by exposure to ultraviolet light.

Some Ontario firms currently are in the forefront of the development of these technologies. We have already heard this morning, for example, that St. Lawrence Starch Co. of Port Credit is producing a product known as Ecostar, a blend of plastic and corn starch.

The resolution I am proposing states that safe and environmentally sound degradation should be considered a desirable method of waste disposal for certain products for which the four-Rs option is deemed impractical or inappropriate.

I should mention to members that when I originally thought about introducing a bill or a resolution to address the problem of plastic pollution, I intended to set a long-term but mandatory deadline after which the sale of nonrecyclable or nondegradable short-life plastic products would not be allowed. A number of legislatures in the United States and Europe have enacted measures of this type, although usually they are specifically directed at particular plastic products, such as ring carriers. Almost a dozen US states, for example, now require degradable beverage ring-top containers, and Italy has recently passed a law requiring all packaging materials to be degradable by 1991.

However, I believed that a comprehensive plastics program dealing with a whole range of short-life, single-use products was required. Yet the more I examined the issue, the more obvious it became that, although we definitely need a plastics waste management policy as soon as possible, a number of questions must be answered before we can implement this policy in detail.

For example, it is not clear for which plastic products degradation rather than recycling would be desirable. It is also not known exactly how degradable plastics behave in a landfill site or in the environment at large. In addition, there are quite legitimate concerns that degradable plastics may have the undesirable effect of encouraging people to litter.

Accordingly, this resolution calls upon the Minister of the Environment to establish a comprehensive plastics waste management program to address these concerns. Based on this research, the body or task force set up to oversee this program will then make recommendations for further action, such as waste disposal regulations for specific plastic products and government initiatives to assist the development of degradable plastics technologies.

The implementation of this program will benefit both our environment and our economy. The growing trend throughout Europe and North America to recognize and act on the problem of plastic pollution opens a real window of opportunity for companies that produce recyclable or degradable plastic materials.

The development of a plastics waste management program could provide the critical boost our industry and research establishments need to become world leaders in this area. Policy initiatives introduced in this regard could dovetail nicely with the work presently being done by the Premier’s Council.

For example, the strategic procurement program could possibly be adapted to require that the government purchase recyclable or degradable plastic bags, or perhaps need for further research into degradable plastics could spur the creation of a centre of excellence in the highly promising field of environmental technology.

It has become evident in recent years that economic development must be compatible with environmental protection. If we want our children to enjoy a prosperous future, we must bequeath to them a habitable planet. To achieve this objective, we must begin now to pursue the path of sustainable economics, not just in words but in deeds. I believe that an environmentally sound plastics waste management program could provide a concrete illustration of the wisdom of this approach.

Once this program is in place, its ultimate success will depend on the co-operation of each citizen; and after its implementation, it should be much more difficult for each of us to put out a garbage bag, grasp a six-pack holder, open a fast-food container or drink from a Styrofoam cup without considering where these plastic materials will end up. Perhaps the future does lie in plastics, but we must act now if we wish to live in that future.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The honourable member has eight and a half minutes left. Do you wish to reserve any amount of time with respect to that or the whole eight and a half minutes?

Ms. Collins: I should not require more than a couple of minutes, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Then the honourable member will reserve two minutes?

Ms. Collins: Yes.

Mrs. Grier: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am very glad the private member’s motion which the member for Wentworth East (Ms. Collins) has moved is before us today, because it gives us an opportunity to talk about a subject that is becoming increasingly important to those who try to protect the environment. I think the analysis that has been given by the member of the problems with plastics -- the problems they cause and the problems of getting rid of them -- is a very good analysis.

I regret, however, that in her examination of what to do about the problem, she rejected the idea of suggesting legislation and controlling the use of plastics in our environment. I think the program she has outlined, while worthwhile and obviously necessary, does not go nearly far enough. It smacks too much of more research while we decide what we are going to do, rather than actually coming to grips with the problem and initiating at least some action to prevent the degradation of our environment any further by plastics.

I would remind the honourable member it was the government that is now in office which, in fact, introduced the two-litre plastic bottles to our environment and it is those bottles that have really contributed to the increase of plastic in the waste stream. In fact, since their introduction in 1978 in the United States, almost 22 per cent of the volume of carbonated beverages is now sold in those large plastic bottles and there is no way of turning a used polyethylene terephthalate or PET bottle into a new one. If we really want to do something about the plastics problem, we have got to stop their entry into the market if they are not recyclable or reusable.

I want to talk a little about the four Rs the member mentions in her resolution. We all of us say we support reuse, recycling, recovery and reduction. Unfortunately, though, when we talk about recovery, that too often means incineration. Incineration is not a good answer to the problem of waste management and it is a particularly bad answer when we come to talk about plastics.

I want to make it very plain that while I am supporting the member’s resolution there are some aspects of it that really trouble me. If, in her definition of recovery, it becomes incineration, then that is certainly something I have reservations about. As to the problems of burning materials which contain chlorine compounds, plastics and bleached paper are two of the major sources of those compounds.

During combustion those are exactly the compounds which produce dioxin, and that is one of the problems which has been evidenced in much of our food and in much of the human body and is certainly one of the most carcinogenic substances showing up in the food chain. I think we have to be very clear that incineration of plastics is not a solution we are about to support.

The other difficulty with one of the four Rs when it comes to plastics is that recycling is not easy. It is easy to recycle paper, it is easy to recycle metals and it is easy to recycle glass and aluminum, but it is not easy to recycle plastics. In fact, in New York state, I understand two thirds of the plastic soft drink containers that were returned under its recycling or deposit systems ended up being buried because there is just no way of reusing that material and putting it back on the market.

If it can be reused, though, there are certainly some advantages, because reusing plastic is a great saving in energy. In an

article by World Watch Institute, there were some facts that indicated by developing a process for recycling plastics, we could save twice as much energy as burning them in an incinerator. I quote Dr. Jack Milgrom, a plastics analyst: “Producing a fabricated plastic product from scrap instead of virgin resin saves 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the energy otherwise used, including the energy of the petroleum feedstocks used to manufacture the resin.” Certainly, if we could begin to recycle some of that plastic, we would not only be saving the disposal costs, but we would be saving the energy used to create the plastic in the first place.

Essentially, what we have got to focus on if we really want to come to grips with the plastics problem, and what this resolution, in my opinion, does not focus upon sufficiently, is the source reduction. Certainly, we support biodegradable plastics and we support any ecological solutions to the problem of plastics, but we have got to really look at how we can reduce the introduction of plastics into the waste stream if we are to prevent them ultimately ending up as an environmental contaminant.

The kind of technological solutions which are identified in the member’s resolution might well serve to divert attention away from that essential element of reducing the source. I think we also do not know enough about the actual conditions under which plastic products do biodegrade. Is it in the earth? Is it in sunshine? How are we going to know how it will really work in the real world? All of that will take a long time to develop. The kind of research the member outlines in her resolution is perhaps going to delay for far too long legislation to prevent the entry of plastics into our economy.

We do have the constitutional ability to legislate against the introduction of plastics and we have done far too little of that. I made reference to the present minister’s permission to allow these plastic containers into the soft drink industry. Not only have we allowed that new product on to the market, we have done nothing and this government has done nothing to prevent the entry of other kinds of plastic into the waste stream. I think more attention needs to be diverted to the kind of legislation we need and to enacting that legislation quickly, as well as to the very laudable research which is suggested in the member’s resolution.

I hope, if this resolution is adopted, it will not be seen as the end of the problem but merely a beginning, and that the time frame which is contemplated for the kind of research the member is outlining and the kind of examination and the kind of policy discussion will be a very brief one. As the member has outlined, the problem is very great and, in my opinion, we cannot delay any longer before really coming to grips with it. We have to begin to legislate on this aspect, not just study it further. I thank the member for allowing us to have the opportunity at least to raise the issue and debate the subject.

I hope we can move forward from here and really take some action, not just research into what action might be necessary.

Mrs. Marland: When I came into the House this morning, I thought this was really a historic day, because at that time we had seven women in this Legislature and five men. I feel that is worth putting on the record and should be recognized. I am happy to have a woman in the chair, as I have mentioned before. I am also happy to support the resolution of the member for Wentworth East.

The member’s resolution calls on the Ministry of the Environment to develop a plastics waste management policy which states a clear preference for the reuse, recycling, recovery and reduction of plastic packaging materials. Where this is inappropriate or impractical, the resolution calls on the minister to consider safe and environmentally benign degradation, a desirable method of waste disposal for certain plastics.

Although progress is being made in the areas of recycling newspapers, metal cans and glass bottles, the disposal of plastics is presenting a rather stubborn challenge. An ever-increasing number of convenient but nonreturnable plastic containers is adding to an already troublesome household waste stream.

In 1987, soft drinks sold in nonrecyclable two-litre plastic bottles accounted for 10 per cent of the pop market. Dairy products are increasingly packaged in plastic, and now other groceries such as ketchup, jams and relishes are being sold in the squeezable plastic containers.

Although plastic packages have the advantage of being lightweight, unbreakable and flexible, they do not easily lend themselves to reuse or recycling and they do not really decompose.

Recyclers already have their hands full in expanding collection of newspapers, glass bottles and metal cans. Plastics are not as efficiently collected. Their relatively cheap production costs and low weight make the economics difficult, and their physical properties do not always facilitate compaction, making them take up considerable space on recycling trucks.

Plastics cannot be separated and cleaned for recycling as readily as cans and bottles because of their physical properties. For instance, a squeezable ketchup bottle is made of six layers of plastic, each engineered for shape, strength, flexibility and impermeability. Plastic containers for different products have different characteristics and properties.

Some progress has been made by a Toronto company, Ecoplastics Ltd., which has developed a resin that allows plastic packages to disintegrate in the sun. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have vacation time where we walk beaches anywhere in this world would certainly know that if we did have a plastic that disintegrated in the sun, we would have an instant cleanup on the beaches.

I think it is abhorrent, when we do have that opportunity, to see the amount of plastic that is on the beaches. It speaks for itself about the fact that this is a severe, worldwide, garbage problem. This process is being promoted for use in a variety of plastic products, such as clear packaging, fishing nets and six-pack rings.

In the United States, trends of increased use of plastics are emerging rapidly. The two-litre plastic soft drink containers there represent 22 per cent of the volume of soft drinks sold, and the plastics’ share of US municipal waste has nearly doubled in the past 10 years. Plastics account for a 17 per cent share of a $19-billion food-packaging market and are projected to grow to 50 per cent of a $44-billion market by the year 2000.

The reason what is going on in the United States is significant is that our Canadian consumer preferences usually follow quite closely those of the Americans, if not for any other reason but the fact that we are so inundated with their advertising. Actually, we are already experiencing similar trends here.

Awareness of the difficulty in recycling this large share of waste plastics is also increasing rapidly, especially in light of the problems facing municipalities currently searching for new landfill sites. Those of us who are directly involved with that issue and some of us who were at the municipal level before we came into this Legislature, know what a severe and serious problem the search for new landfill sites is.

At least seven US states and as many European capitals have introduced bills to limit or ban some plastics. There has been some research in the area of plastic recycling. The Toronto Recycling Action Committee commissioned a report in 1982 which concluded that plastics deserve to be considered as a priority in the identification of potential recycling developments.

In 1984, Environment Canada published a study entitled Plastics in the Waste Stream: The Needs For and Benefits of Recycling. Subsequently, in 1985, the department published two handbooks on plastic recycling. Despite the research work which has already been completed, there has been very little in the way of action.

The resolution of the member for Wentworth East is timely in that the rising costs of landfill and incineration and the public’s concern with the state of the environment might now help deal with the economic problems of recycling plastics. Certainly, if we are sincerely committed to the preservation of the environment, I hope we will see a greater emphasis by this provincial government and other jurisdictions across Canada on the development of a sincere commitment to the three R’s.

When we talk about “reuse and recycle,” we also have to look very seriously at the reduction at the original source, of that kind of material being used in as many products as it is. I have thought how fantastic it would be if a company like McDonald’s, for example, would take the initiative, with all their publicity, to decide they were going to be the company which would use a biodegradable product for the containers of the food products they sell, rather than all the plastic products they use.

I think if we can look at reduction, then obviously we solve the problem at the other end. Our world and our environment are obviously far too valuable to all of us and to all the generations that will follow to put it at risk unnecessarily. We have a lot of convenience and in the long run perhaps we have a lot of economy in the use of plastics in terms of inexpensive or less expensive forms of packaging. But I feel very sincerely that sometimes we have to make an investment that is more expensive in some areas in order to have something we have worked for and protected at the end.

I hope this resolution will receive the support of the Legislature. I hope, being a private bill, that it will not just sit on the shelf. It is possible, because it is a government member’s private bill, that it will not sit on the shelf. The only negative comment I must make is that I feel it is unfortunate that the private member has to bring this bill forward because the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and his staff have not yet seen fit to develop a policy in the past three years which would deal with this increasing problem.

It would be very simple to make it mandatory to have a deposit, particularly on the PET bottles. The jug milk stores have done that on their plastic containers. I think the incentive to return those large PET bottles by charging a deposit on them in the initial purchase would be at least one step towards the reduction of the number of those that end up in the domestic waste stream. Even though they are not recyclable in terms of reuse, they are recyclable by the manufacturers, and that is one step that should be taken.

Ms. Hart: I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this worthwhile resolution brought by the member for Wentworth East.

Proper waste management is an important issue which must be addressed by all of us. It appears that, almost simultaneously, most municipalities in Ontario are experiencing a waste management problem. You can tell that if you read the local papers in any municipality in this province.

This problem has arisen for a number of reasons: population growth, change of lifestyles, the NIMBY, not-in-my-backyard syndrome, lack of earlier planning and the nature of the materials we now use in packaging.

I am pleased that this resolution recognizes the complexities of waste management and puts the proposed plastic waste management strategy into the proper context. As with all the proposed solutions to waste management, the use of biodegradable products has its advantages as well as its disadvantages. I am pleased the resolution indicates that this government should develop a waste management policy that affirms a clear preference for the four Rs. That has been and will remain this government’s first priority in dealing with waste management, be it plastics, glass, newspapers or other waste-stream components.

Our first priority must be to reduce the amount of waste we produce. This is particularly important in the area of packaging. Much of today’s packaging is made of plastic. Current estimates show that packaging waste represents about one third of municipal solid waste. Plastics represent about seven per cent by weight of all municipal solid waste. However, when that is represented by volume, plastics represent about 30 per cent of municipal solid waste. Anybody who goes to the grocery store can tell you that. It is a dispiriting experience to come home and throw out a whole garbage bag full of waste packaging.

Obviously, there is a problem which needs to be addressed. This government’s recycling program is an attempt to address this problem. When our government came into power in 1985, the amount of money set aside for recycling was a mere $750,000. This year, our budget for recycling will be $7.7 million, up 10-fold.

By the end of this year, most major urban centres in Ontario will have a curbside multi-material recycling program. The challenge facing this government is to expand the curbside recycling program to include composting, to include apartments and to include materials that are not currently part of the program.

Plastics often represent underrecycled materials. Of the plastics in the municipal waste stream, polyethylene terephthalate is the most recyclable. PET is the type of plastic used for packaging, and the most prevalent PET package is the two-litre plastic soft drink container. It has been estimated that the potential market for recycled PET is 1.33 billion pounds per year. That is more than twice the total amount of PET currently sold annually in North America. We need to encourage the recycling of PET as part of the curbside recycling program.

Another type of plastic that should be recycled is polyvinyl chloride. PVC is the most common plastic found in packaging. We could use PET to induce a broader recycling of PVC and others, in effect, to be the engine that drives the initiative.

We need to look at reducing the amount of waste we produce. Packaging of consumer products and industrial goods serves many worthwhile purposes in our society. One I can think of is cleanliness. Nutritionists tell me that for years they fought to have bulk goods packaged so that the cleanliness could be determined and made consistent.

Excessive packaging, on the other hand, creates unnecessary waste and results in disposal problems. I heard a good example of this the other day. It used to be that banks provided to their business customers for their daily deposits sturdy canvas bags. I understand that they are now providing, and of course charging for, disposable plastic bags to make daily deposits, and these bags are not reusable. That is clearly one of the areas we could look at.

The Ministry of the Environment’s approach is to encourage industries and the public to accept responsibility for waste produced by minimizing the consumption of goods with excessive packaging, thereby reducing waste-generator levels. This issue is being reviewed to determine specific additions that may be warranted. The four Rs approach to waste management that we have heard of today to reduce the amount of waste entering municipal landfill sites will remain the first priority of this government.

Biodegradability may be appropriate under certain circumstances. The region of Durham has recently passed a resolution saying that plastic shopping bags sold and used within the region must be biodegradable. This is an innovative approach to waste management. We should approach the use of biodegradable plastics carefully, however. We need a complete breakdown of the plastic structure into harmless components. It is not helpful if the breakdown results in more plastic chips.

As well, if and when the biodegradable plastics break down, there is a lack of knowledge as to what the plastic breaks down into. If it is just breaking a large sheet of plastic into smaller bite-size chunks, then the question of the toxicity of the plastics has not been resolved. If the biodegradability breaks the products down into its basic elements, then there are advantages to the use of biodegradable packaging.

The lack of knowledge on this topic needs to be addressed. Some feel that the use of biodegradable plastic shopping bags will lead to increased litter. Therefore, the use of any biodegradable bags must be coupled with an education program to teach people how to use the bags in an environmentally sound manner.

Another problem with biodegradable products that needs to be looked at is the fate of biodegradable plastics in landfill sites. The most common use of biodegradability is that which breaks down under sunlight. However, in a properly engineered and operated landfill site, each night the landfill site is covered with soil. Therefore, the sunlight would never be able to penetrate into the landfill site to break the plastics down. Some of the benefits, therefore, are lost when the plastics enter a landfill site.

We must never allow the use of biodegradable plastic to interfere with the recycling program. The presence of biodegradable plastic will make the sorting of plastic waste into the different types much more difficult -- not impossible, but much more difficult. I feel that this resolution calls for a comprehensive waste management strategy for plastics, a resolution that states that the first priority must remain the four Rs of reuse, recovery, reduction and recycling; a resolution that also calls for further study into the advantages and disadvantages of the use of biodegradability.

These questions must be answered before the proper use and role of biodegradable products and our waste management strategies can be properly assessed.

Proper waste management requires that we look at all options in handling our waste, from the four Rs to biodegradability to new technology that constantly is appearing in our marketplace. The development of these and their place in the proper context within the overall waste management master plan in this province will be a challenge that this parliament will face for many years to come.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support this resolution and applaud the member for Wentworth East for bringing it forward.

Mr. Swart: I do want to speak on this issue, even though I am only a mere male. After four female speakers, with a female in the chair today, I have the temerity to rise and speak on this issue. The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) mentioned that there were more women in the House than men at a certain point this morning.

There are now, proportionate to their numbers, far more women in the House and it is not untrue to say that in many environmental issues, women have given a great deal of leadership in this province. In fact, again compared to the number of women in the legislatures and holding senior positions in many organizations, their involvement in environmental matters has far exceeded their involvement in many other areas.

For this, I compliment them. It shows, I think, that they have perhaps more fundamental good sense, proportionately, than many of us males have in our society. I would be less than fair today if I did not pay tribute to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) for the leadership she has given on environmental matters in this House and the very high degree of competence she has brought to the matters dealing with environmental issues.

This resolution that is before us today is, I think we would all agree, a good resolution. Nobody is going to vote against it in this Legislature. In fact, it is rather interesting that we have two resolutions here today before us that are somewhat similar, both dealing with the matter of environmental pollution, at least the first resolution to some extent pertaining to plastics and suggesting alternatives to them.

I would have liked to have spoken on that resolution as well. However, I find that demands on my time, which I thought might lessen during this period, have in fact increased. By apparently trying to catch up and through the normal demands which a person has on time, I was not able to speak on that.

We need action. As the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said, we need action on this matter, not just resolutions which call for research. Nobody denies that research is necessary, but we need action. I was thinking of this matter the other day when I took out the garbage and took out the blue box we have in Thorold and put some plastic bottles into that blue box. When I went out the next day, because the garbage had not been picked up, they were lying beside the garbage.

In our municipality -- I am not sure this is true in other municipalities -- in the recycling they do not take the plastic. They will take the bottles and they will take the other items that can be recycled but they do not take the plastic. So the plastic ends up in the garbage bag and goes out to the landfill, which is the way it is handled in our area. Of course it will rest in that landfill for decades and decades and perhaps centuries.

So we need some action to ensure that plastics are recycled. They can be recycled. The technology is there. There is no question about it. It may be more costly but they can be recycled, and there should be action taken quickly on items such as that.

I think we have to recognize that plastics are here to stay. They serve a great need in our society. No one can deny this. The public wants them. Therefore, we are going to be using them and continue to use them. It is wishful thinking that somehow or other they are all going to be replaced. Sure, some of them can be replaced with something other than plastics, but in many of their uses they are going to stay. That means, of course, that we have to do one or both of two things: there has to be a high degree of recycling and we also have to move to the biodegradable types of plastic.

I think all of us know that will probably be more costly. Whichever one of those we use, at least for a period of time, it is going to cost society more. The costs of recycling, at least at the present time, they tell us, are more than just producing the products new. With going to biodegradable plastics, first, there may be a real technical difficulty of having them as tough as the plastics we have at the present time, a difficulty replacing them. Again, they are going to be more costly.

I just want to say that if they are going to be more costly, it is a price society is going to have to pay, because although the production of the present plastics may not be terribly costly, the cost to society over a long period of time is going to be much greater in clearing up the mess at some time, and we will have to clear up the mess at some time, just like the burying of chemicals in the past.

We find now that to treat those chemicals and to eliminate the danger is going to be tremendously costly. Perhaps not to the same degree but to some degree the same thing is true with plastics. The cost of cleaning up the mess of our present types of plastic is going to be extremely costly and we must move quickly.

It is important -- there is no question about it -- to develop a plan, and the resolution we have before us deals with most of the issues we must deal with in developing a plan.

It is stated that “the Minister of the Environment should develop, as soon as possible, a plastics waste management policy affirming a clear preference for the reuse, recycling, recovery and reduction of plastic packaging materials where feasible and in such cases where the reuse, recycling, recovery or further reduction of materials may be deemed inappropriate or impractical, the minister should consider safe and environmentally benign degradation a desirable method of waste disposal for certain plastic products.” Then it goes on with all the things that need to be done.

I say that those things do need to be done, but the bottom line is that of action. That is where this government is going to fall down. That is where the Conservatives and Liberals fall down in our society all the time. It is all very well to talk in general terms, in platitudes, about needs; nobody disagrees with that sort of thing. But the problem is that when it comes to the bottom line, you have to interfere with the marketplace, and that is what those people will not do. They will not interfere with the marketplace.

It does not matter whether it is in auto insurance; there is no question about public auto insurance, but they will not interfere with the marketplace. It does not matter whether it is the bereavement industry; everybody knows that people should not be bothered on that matter, but they will not interfere with the marketplace. It does not matter whether it is the high cost of housing that we bemoan, where in Toronto now over 50 per cent of the cost of the houses is due to speculation on land. Ah, but we must not interfere with the marketplace. They will not do anything about those things.

Even on health, it was not the Liberals and the Conservatives in this nation who brought about public health. It was the New Democratic Party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Why did they not bring it about? Did they not know it was needed? Of course they did, but they would not interfere with the marketplace at that time. That is the bottom line. If the government means it, there should be this plan of action. It should be brought forward within a certain period of time. We can do it if we have the will to do it and are willing to interfere with the marketplace.

Ms. Collins: I have only a couple of things to say. First of all, I want to express my appreciation to all the members who have spoken and said that they will be supporting this resolution. I do appreciate it and I think it is very appropriate. I mentioned earlier that it is Canadian Environment Week, but this Sunday is also World Environment Day, so I think both resolutions are quite appropriate this week.

I listened carefully to the comments of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in regard to the fact that this is not a bill but a resolution, and legislation is needed. I do not argue that fact. In my remarks earlier, I did talk about the possibility of having a comprehensive policy and also making recommendations for legislation and regulations.

The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore went on to talk about some of the problems with the four Rs and some of the problems with degradable products. It is for that very reason that I think we have to look at all of those things before bringing in the legislation and the regulations.

I am quite familiar with the problems of recovery. As an alderman and a regional councillor in east end Hamilton in my former life, I had the Swaru incinerator in my ward at that time. It was the first incinerator in the province, and we had a great many problems with it just three or four years ago, when the dioxin levels were extremely high. I was very involved in the fight to have the incinerator retrofitted.

But again, technology moves very quickly. The incinerator was built in the early 1970s and already the new technology has been improving incinerators across the province. We do not know how much further that technology will advance in the next few short years.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Ms. Collins: I did not realize I would use my two minutes so quickly. I thank the members for their support.

Mr. Speaker: I know the members are aware that the standing order states that the vote shall be taken at 12 noon. It is so close to 12 noon, would the House be in agreement?

Agreed to.

CROP USES

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Villeneuve has moved resolution 33.

Motion agreed to.

PLASTIC PACKAGING

Mr. Speaker: Ms. Collins has moved resolution 34.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 11:59 am.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. Mackenzie: Yesterday hundreds of Massey-Ferguson retirees and their spouses demonstrated in front of the Downtown Holiday Inn where the annual meeting of the Varity Corp. was held. Varity is the company set up with the usable remnants of Massey-Ferguson, which, as Massey Combines, went into bankruptcy. These retirees have been robbed of their benefits, as outlined in this House yesterday.

When questioned about the demonstration, Jack Nowling, a Varity spokesman, first said, “What demonstration?” and then said, “Angry people often do irrational things.” What a sick comment from a company which, while cheating long-time, loyal workers, had just announced a healthy profit and a bonus of 2.5 million shares to key executives of the company only -- executives like Chairman Victor Rice, whose salary last year was only $600,000 from this company, or President Laurenzo, whose salary was only $463,000. What an example of corporate morality and justice in the province of Ontario.

The Ontario government holds shares in Varity, a company which also refuses to stop doing business in South Africa. How were the Ontario shares voted at that meeting yesterday? If this government has any belief whatsoever in justice and morality, it will end all its dealings with Varity, and very swiftly.

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr. Jackson: I rise to give notice to all members of the House that today, in committee of the whole, I will be introducing an amendment to Bill 128, the Planning Amendment Act, that will prohibit municipal councils from passing exclusionary bylaws.

Members will be aware that during the last election campaign all three political parties told the Ontario Federation of Students that they oppose these bylaws, which discriminate against unrelated persons who wish to share residential property. Unfortunately, there has been no action by the Liberal government to fulfil this election promise. Seniors, the disabled, single parents, students, the working poor and others are all affected by these municipal attempts to prevent them from sharing accommodation in order to cut housing costs.

Not only do these bylaws restrict access to the available housing stock, limited as it is, but they also constitute a form of discrimination which has no place in the Ontario of 1988.

The amendment which I will introduce this afternoon is modelled after my own private members’ bill, Bill 94, which I introduced in January. That bill has the endorsement of the Ontario Federation of Students, the University of Western Ontario Students’ Council, the Wilfrid Laurier University Cord, the McMaster Silhouette and the countless student councils in Ontario. Members will remember that 10,000 university students from across this province have signed postcards asking the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to stamp out exclusionary bylaws.

This afternoon our commitment to affordable, accessible housing for all, especially students, will be put to the test. Let us not fail.

ITALIAN NATIONAL REPUBLIC DAY

Mr. Leone: Today is the 42nd anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Italy. As someone who has fond memories of this important event in Italy’s history -- in fact, I was only 17 then and I was there -- I think it is appropriate for me to rise and offer my warmest congratulations to the President and the people of Italy, to the diplomatic corps in Canada and the consular representatives here in Toronto and to the Italian community of Ontario and Canada.

This gives me the opportunity to remind this assembly of the great contributions made by Italians towards the growth of this great province, Ontario, and this great country, Canada.

There is no place here in Ontario and Canada, there is no sector of our lives, where the presence of Italians is not present, from the initial contribution and discovery of Canada by Giovanni Caboto, from the physical work of our first immigrants who worked -- and many lost their lives -- in the mines; on the railroads; in the building of cities, hospitals and schools, and in the construction of highways and airports, to the presence of Italian Canadians today in every facet of life: industry, commerce, education, science, religion, medicine, professors and deans of universities and public life, including this assembly, which accounts for --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member’s time has expired.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Reville: Martha Macdonald was admitted to the Arthritic and Orthopaedic Hospital today. She is 81 years of age. She lives in the riding of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). Originally, she had been scheduled to have both her knee joints replaced. She has extreme difficulty in getting around. She was called just before entering the hospital and advised that only one of the joints can be replaced because of budget cutbacks.

In discussions with her surgeon, we are advised that this particular surgeon was doing 20 such operations a month and is now doing only six. It is because of government cutbacks that people like Martha Macdonald are going to be required to undergo two convalescences when in fact the medical requirement was that she undergo only one.

I think it is a particularly touching accusation of the lack of planning this government has done in terms of our health care system that this elderly woman is going to have to suffer at least twice as long and perhaps find it even more difficult to get around in the time she is waiting for the second knee joint to be replaced. I think it is shocking.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Harris: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to inform the House about an organization called SADD, Students Against Driving Drunk, in Nipissing riding and indeed across many communities in Ontario.

They are united by the belief that friends do not let friends drive drunk. A community awareness day is held each year to help eliminate drunk driving, to save lives, to alert high school students about the dangers of drinking and driving and drugs, and to promote alcohol awareness and peer counselling programs which are organized by the students themselves.

This year, a joint SADD Day will be held by students at Widdifield, West Ferris and Chippewa secondary schools on Friday, June 3. Once again, it is my privilege to serve as honorary chairman. School assemblies are being held. Free bus transportation is provided to students displaying the SADD keychains provided by the municipality. The local Lions Club of West Ferris is involved in helping with their promotion, and many other contributions are being made by local businesses.

It is a community-wide effort organized by students for students, and I commend them. It is more than just a good cause, it is vital, because good friends do not let friends drive drunk. I congratulate today all those students across Ontario who this week are committing themselves and their friends to a very worthwhile cause.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Ballinger: I wish to address my remarks today to the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) and his great commitment to affordable housing in this province.

On May 2, the member told this House, and I quote, “There is an increasing constituency of people out there in this province who do not have a home or who have to travel so far from their apartment to their work and their employment that it ceases to make life as meaningful and as good as it could be.”

Last December, in a committee of the House, the member for Markham declared, and I quote again, “We have to somehow break through the logjam that begins to open these opportunities for low-rental and new kinds of developments.”

I thought the member’s words were well intentioned until I came across a recent issue of the Markham Economist and Sun newspaper. The headline on that article, which was based on the member’s comments, was “Peterson ‘Premature’ Pushing Housing Units.” The member went on to say, “It’s wrong to try to put low-income-type housing into an expensive area.”

It is clear that the member says one thing down here in this House and quite another when he returns to his riding. Will the real Don Cousens please stand up?

ACCESS FUND

Mr. McLean: I just want to comment briefly on the program that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) has in the province of Ontario whereby he announces about $4 million to help people with access in their homes. He said the program will help 87 families.

I have to tell members that that is not much help to people in my area and other parts of Ontario who are looking for it, when there are only 87 people who are going to be helped in an approximately $4-million program. I say that the minister for the disabled is not doing his job. He is not providing the funds that are needed in the province for these people. I say he should make announcements that are going to involve every part of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: At the heart of our government’s commitment to health care in this province is the belief that many health services traditionally associated with hospitals can be better provided in the community.

Great strides in technology have allowed many treatments and procedures formerly confined to hospitals to be carried out in other settings. With the development of this new technology, the ministry found itself without the appropriate funding and quality control mechanisms that governed and paid for these procedures in hospitals.

We recognize the tremendous potential that new technology holds in moving more health care into the community. At the same time, we must provide a mechanism for funding, planning and monitoring community-based facilities. I am today introducing legislation to achieve these goals.

The Independent Health Facilities Act will provide for the licensing of facilities providing some services which have traditionally been available primarily in hospitals. Funding may be negotiated with the ministry to cover those expenses which would otherwise be covered through a hospital’s global funding.

The licensing process, as laid out in the act, will be fair and open. Despite any international treaty or obligation to which Canada is a party and any legislation implementing such an obligation, preference will be given to not-for-profit and Canadian proposals.

The need for new facilities will be determined with the participation of district health councils. The ministry will issue a call for proposals where appropriate. All applications will be reviewed under the procedures laid out in the act.

Once licensed, a community health facility and the ministry may enter into either a global or partial funding arrangement. Global funding would cover the facility’s operation, including payment for professional services. Partial funding would cover overhead costs and doctors would be reimbursed through the Ontario health insurance plan on a fee-for-service basis.

The act also gives the Ministry of Health regulatory authority to assess and enforce standards of quality of care at these facilities once they have been licensed. The facilities under the licence will establish an appropriate method for monitoring and assessing the treatment and care they provide.

There are currently a number of facilities operating where a patient is charged a facility fee; that is, a fee for overhead costs associated with an insured service which has traditionally been performed in a hospital. This act allows these facilities to continue to provide services for a period of one year from the date this bill becomes law. During that time, they can submit an application for licensing under the new legislation. The ministry will assess these applications based on the quality of service being provided, the cost-effectiveness of the facility and the demonstrated need for the service in the area.

This legislation will allow the Ministry of Health to plan for and provide specific community-based services where they are most needed. It will provide further opportunity for program and service expansion of our tremendously successful community health centres, CHCs, and health service organizations, HSOs.

We are also confident that we can use funding incentives under the act to promote and foster for the first time viable expansion of community-based health care in northern Ontario.

This act will encourage a variety of procedures now being done in hospital to be safely provided in the community. As a result, our institutions will be free to direct their expert care to those most in need, which in turn will result in substantial savings and efficiencies in our hospital sector.

The government believes this legislation is pivotal to the new change and direction we are planning for health care in this province.

MINIMUM WAGE / SALAIRE MINIMUM

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am announcing today an increase in the general minimum wage to $4.75 an hour from the present level of $4.55 an hour. The change will take effect in the work week in which October 1 occurs.

Cela me fait un grand plaisir d’annoncer que le salaire minimum provincial passera de 4,55 $ de l’heure à 4,75 $. Mon homologue québécois, aujourd’hui, est en train d’annoncer les mêmes changements dans la province de Québec.

My Quebec counterpart is also announcing today that the government of Quebec will raise its general minimum wage to $4.75 an hour at the same time. The co-ordinated action of our two governments will ensure parity in the general rates in the two largest labour markets in the country.

In addition, I am pleased to announce that the special minimum wage for liquor servers in Ontario will increase by 20 cents an hour to $4.25 an hour, and the special minimum wage for students under 18 will increase by 20 cents an hour to $3.90. These changes also take effect in the work week in which October 1 occurs.

As well, the minimum wage for fruit, vegetable and tobacco harvesters will be increased from $4.55 an hour to $4.75 an hour, effective January 1, 1989.

Finally, I wish to announce an increase in the maximum amount that an employer may deduct from minimum wage earnings in return for room and board. Also effective in the week in which October 1 occurs, this maximum will go from $57 a week to $59.50 per week.

As has been the case in each of the past two years, these adjustments are in keeping with the government’s decision to conduct a regular annual review of the minimum wage in this province.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This afternoon I will be tabling the Environment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988.

This bill is the result of careful examination of three acts which form the basis of our environmental protection programs. They are the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act.

The new bill includes amendments which will streamline and clarify hearing procedures and strengthen the decision-making authority of the Environmental Assessment Board. As well, several of the amendments will be aimed at a more efficient use of staff and their time.

The ministry’s powers of entry and inspection will also be made more precise in light of developing jurisprudence under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is of particular importance to our enforcement procedures, to make sure they are strong as well as fair.

Consistent with our recent program to expand the use of tickets for minor offences, the bill provides more practical methods to serve such tickets, especially in cases involved in the use of motor vehicles.

The bill also clarifies the ministry’s authority to set operating conditions and certificates of approval for facilities which produce air emissions and for water and sewage works. This will strengthen our authority to reduce pollution.

This bill also incorporates housekeeping amendments to correct

definitions and references, remove redundancies and provide consistency. These amendments are designed to ensure our legislation is as strong, fair and effective as possible and they reflect our commitment to clean up the environment.

RESPONSES

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Mackenzie: I want to respond to the very generous offer of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) to workers of 20 cents an hour more or $416, I guess, a year, to bring them up to the magnificent rate of $9,800 a year, which is still well over $2,000 below the poverty level for a single person in Ontario today.

I am wondering when this minister is really going to do a review of the minimum rates and quit insulting the workers in this province. Why is he in lockstep strictly with Quebec? We have the richest province. We should be taking the lead for once in some area when it comes to labour legislation.

I think 20 cents an hour is an insult. It is not a review. It is a token, pathetic little payout that he has done once a year now for the last two years. The minister should be ashamed of himself. Because I do not want him to be out, I would like to send 20 cents across to him to help him with that increase of 20 cents an hour in the minimum wage.

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Mr. Reville: Responding to the statement today by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I should note that the minister was kind enough to share her intention with the opposition Health critics several days before the item appeared in the Toronto Star, and here we have it again today in the Legislature.

I am disappointed in the statement the minister has made. There was an opportunity, for instance, to really take a stand to indicate the government’s opposition to free trade and to prevent American health care industries from coming into Canada. Yet all this government can come up with is a preference being given both to not-for-profit, on the one hand, and Canadian proposals on the other hand. I really think that is a weak-kneed approach on behalf of the government.

It would be interesting to find out as well whether the Minister of Health subscribes to the opinion of her colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) that this legislation is designed to ensure that there will be only two free-standing abortion clinics receiving funding in Ontario.

Does the government have some plans, after all, to ensure that women in Ontario will really have access to abortion services? Can we expect to see the work of Dr. Powell come back to life? It has been clearly on the back burner for some time now.

The views that community health centres and health service organizations should vastly increase in the province are views that we share and views that we have been urging on this government for a long, long time. Yet the government’s ambitions in this regard are so modest as to be somewhat embarrassing. The views are that they want to double the number of people using CHCs and HSOs over the next five years. That will bring it to the grand total of about four per cent of the population. That is not good enough.

Mr. B. Rae: I just want to remind the minister that the last time a government expanded the health care system in this way was when the Tory party in 1970-71 brought nursing homes in under the aegis of government insurance, thereby causing an expansion of for-profit care in this province which we have been doing our very best, our level best to try to turn around in the last few years.

But the institutions that have been created in place for our senior citizens are primarily run on a for-profit basis by larger and larger corporations. I say to the minister that because of the weakness of her statement today and the weakness of the backgrounder that she has issued us, I fear that what we are going to see is an expansion of corporate medicine, rather than anything else, as a result of the statement she has made.

If it is for-profit firms that are providing laser technology, if it is for-profit firms that are providing a range of services across the board, then it is for-profit firms that this government is going to be regulating and now supporting with taxpayers’ dollars. That is something we cannot support.

I will have an opportunity, I know, to pursue this later on; so I want to give my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) a chance to say a few words about the really outstandingly vague statement made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION