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

June 19, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L208a - Thu 19 Jun 1997 / Jeu 19 Jun 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE DISPOSAL ON NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SCHOOL BUSES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES)

WASTE DISPOSAL ON NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SCHOOL BUSES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES)

WASTE DISPOSAL ON NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

VISITOR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

DAVID CHU

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

ARTHUR ECONOMY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM / RÉFORME DU RÈGLEMENT

COBOURG WATERFRONT FESTIVAL

CASE REPORTS, OMBUDSMAN

ORAL QUESTIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

TOURISM

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

CANADA SUMMER GAMES

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

COURT BACKLOG

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

CHARITABLE GAMING

JUGEMENT DE LA COUR D'APPEL / COURT DECISION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EDUCATION FINANCING

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

BEAR HUNTING

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

EDUCATION REFORM

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

JAPANESE CANADIAN CULTURAL CENTRE ACT, 1997

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE DISPOSAL ON NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I move that in the opinion of this House, spent limestone quarries within (

a) the Niagara Escarpment planning area of the Niagara Escarpment plan as defined in the Niagara Escarpment and Planning Act, or (

b) an area that is within a five-kilometre radius adjacent to the said Niagara Escarpment planning area, are not suitable locations for solid waste disposal landfill sites.

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

Mr Skarica: As I'm sure you're well aware, there are a number of spent limestone quarries on or near the Niagara Escarpment planning area of the Niagara Escarpment plan. The current law is that spent quarries on the Niagara Escarpment planning area cannot be used as landfills. That came as a result of a private member's bill brought by the New Democratic Party member Mr Duignan in 1993, and it was given royal assent in 1994.

I have the debates surrounding that act, and basically it was conceded by all the members of all the parties that if you were to preserve the Niagara Escarpment and if you were serious about having it continue forever as a UN-designated biosphere reserve, you couldn't put landfills on it.

The current law, however, allows the spent quarries that border the Niagara Escarpment planning area to be used as landfills and, in my opinion, that is an anomaly in our law. Very often, the spent quarries that border the Niagara Escarpment area are still part of the Niagara Escarpment. They're just as much a part of the Niagara Escarpment as areas within the Niagara Escarpment planning area.

Most, if not all, of the spent quarries bordering the planning area suffer from the same fragile conditions as the quarries within the planning area. It was those fragile conditions that led to the passing of Mr Duignan's private member's bill.

Further, water and air streams travelling from spent quarries bordering the Niagara Escarpment planning area often flow on to the land, water and air within the planning area. An example would be the proposed but now denied Redland proposal in Wentworth North. Both water and air flowing over the Redland site spill directly on to the bordering Niagara Escarpment planning area.

Common sense dictates, therefore, that landfills just outside the planning area would contaminate the escarpment within the planning area with the same amount of devastating force and effect as if the landfill were in fact physically located within the planning area.

Spent limestone quarries both within and without the Niagara Escarpment planning area have two essential features which render them unsuitable as landfills: (1) any natural buffers have been removed by quarrying; and (2) the remaining bedrock consists of fractured limestone, a geologic feature which makes it virtually impossible to predict where and how quickly leachate contaminants are spreading out from landfill sites.

Golder Associates Ltd, experts in the field of hydrology, had this to say in a report to the Wellington county and city of Guelph council on a proposed dump that was being suggested in Wellington county. The report is dated June 1991, and it had this to say about fractured bedrock areas that could have proposed dumps on them:

"Contaminant migration within these aquifers would pose a significant risk to the groundwater resource. The hydrogeologic characterization of fractured rock, necessary to implement an acceptable monitoring program, to predict contaminant arrival times and to implement remedial contingency measures if warranted, cannot be accomplished to the same level of confidence as for porous media (sand, gravel, silt or clay). Therefore, the siting of a landfill in an area that potentially could result in contaminant migration in fractured rock is considered unacceptable."

The Ministry of Environment experience has been that this is true. The Ministry of Environment has guidelines that indicate that certain hydrogeological settings, such as upland gravel areas and areas of near-surface fractured rocks, are less amenable to landfilling than others.

Accordingly, in May 1988 the Ministry of Environment adopted policy 14-15, which states in part, "It is the ministry's position that there are limitations to engineered facilities and it prefers sites in environments with characteristics that provide a high degree of natural protection (eg, thick clay deposits)." Spent fractured limestone quarries provide no natural protection of any kind.

The Toronto Star indicates -- and you know the truth is forthcoming when a Conservative member relies on the Toronto Star -- in an

article on August 11, 1994, dealing with the proposed dumps in limestone quarries in Maple, that people have no faith that clay liners won't leak. They say, "That view is supported by experts in hydrogeology who say landfills should be located on clay soils."

I have with me a number of reports, articles and judgements which point out numerous problems with using spent quarries on landfill sites even if liners and other modern engineering technologies are used. Proponents of engineering and liners often say that with the technology we have today the quarry will be tight as a drum and the public is safe. That in fact is not the truth. In the short time I have I'd like to point out some of the potential problems that no engineering can deal with.

There's always the danger of pop-ups with limestone quarries. Pop-ups occur when bedrock layers buckle upwards to relieve stress. Documented case records with the NEC indicate that limestone quarries in southern Ontario are prone to floor heave. A pop-up would severely damage any engineered liner and a Pandora's box of contamination would leak into the fractured limestone and proceed in unpredictable directions. The only certainty would be an ecological disaster.

The life of contamination in landfills is considerable. The life of any engineered site producing leachate would be hundreds of years, according to the hearings that have been heard on proposed sites. In the proposed Steetley dump in my riding, the pumping of leachate and water containing any escaped contamination would have to be maintained and continued for 300 years. It is hard to imagine any system working that smoothly for that long. A failure for only a short time would unleash severe ecological damage.

Scant attention has been paid to the possibility of earthquakes. Recently, major geological faults have been discovered in Ontario's bedrock. Over a 300-year period it is safe to say that quakes of any magnitude could occur. A major geological fault lies deep in the bedrock just directly underneath the proposed Steetley dump in my riding. A significant shifting of this fault could severely damage any engineered site and let loose countless tons of contaminants on an area with no natural defences.

The unfortunate reality, as well, according to the experts, is that all dumps eventually leak.

The Toronto Star in an

article dated July 14, 1994, reviewing the proposed Oak Ridges dump in the city of Vaughan, detailed a report that was prepared for the city of Vaughan. What was being suggested there was a dump liner which would contain three layers of compacted clay. Experts examining the proposal indicated as follows: "Landfill will start leaking contaminants into the groundwater within a decade," notwithstanding the clay liner.

So far I've discussed only water contamination. There's another contamination all dumps have and that is air contamination. Rather than refer to experts or predicted causes of failure, I'd like to refer to an actual dump that exists in an abandoned quarry in Montreal. I'm referring to an Ottawa Citizen report dated November 22, 1994. The third-largest dump in North America is in Montreal and it's called the Miron dump. "The Miron dump is a hole in the heart of a residential neighbourhood at the north end of the city.... Hundreds of people live around its perimeter.... As many as 70,000 people live in the area."

That's not terribly different from the situation here in Ontario where millions of people live very close to the Niagara Escarpment, if not on it.

The biggest problem there is that gases rise from the decomposing waste. According to the residents there, the stench is nauseating and residents worry about the effect the gases are having on their health. A resident indicates as follows: "The smell can be bad and there are a lot of animals, rats and raccoons."

"A visit to the 250-hectare site is like sinking into another world," according to the report. "Hundreds of gulls circle among the trucks. Roads wind down around the garbage.... A series of black pipes have been sunk through the layers of trash to collect biogas.... The dump produces an estimated 500,000 cubic metres of biogas a day." It is burned off.

Preliminary research that is now being conducted indicates there is cause for concern for the health of the surrounding residents. "The area has 20% more low-weight births than normal and a significantly higher incidence of liver and prostate cancer in men."

In conclusion, I would suggest that if this resolution is not approved, the not-so-pretty picture in Montreal may be the future of the Niagara Escarpment. Landfills have no place in a UN-designated biosphere reserve. That's our law already. Contaminated air and water don't respect manmade designations or planning areas. If we're serious about preserving the Niagara Escarpment, I suggest the House adopt this resolution.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am pleased the member has brought this matter for consideration of this House because it allows us to focus on the importance of the Niagara Escarpment as a biosphere reserve. Its designation by the United Nations in my view was a major event here in Ontario.

My concern is that the new administration is taking a different view of the Niagara Escarpment and the need to protect it than the view that was expressed by the previous NDP and Liberal governments and the previous Conservative government of William Davis.

You will remember that the present Minister of Environment and Energy, Norm Sterling, was responsible back in the 1980s for bringing forward a plan for the Niagara Escarpment territory. He was very proud of that and justifiably so. He was then the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, a cabinet post that was known in those days and does not exist at present.

My great concern is that we now have the Niagara Escarpment taken away from a person who had an interest in protecting it -- the Minister of Environment and Energy, Norm Sterling, a person who had a personal commitment to the Niagara Escarpment -- and placed in the hands of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Some people refer to it in the environmental field as the ministry of exploitation of natural resources, because many people within the natural resources ministry see their clients as those who exploit those resources, rather than preserve those resources.

That was a major step backwards, to have the Ontario government take away responsibility for the Niagara Escarpment from the Ministry of Environment and place it under the jurisdiction of the natural resources ministry.

You can already see the difference in the appointments that have taken place. There are now people who have been placed on the Niagara Escarpment Commission who have openly opposed the Niagara Escarpment plan and the activities of the commission. There may even be people who have an amendment application before the Niagara Escarpment Commission to remove the land they live on from the jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. This is information which has come to me.

I believe that when you see the appointments that are made, good people as they might be in many fields, not everybody who is on the escarpment commission now may be dedicated to its preservation, and that indeed is a major step backwards.

We have now, as the member would know, new information about landfills and the member has shared that with those of us in the House today. Years ago the same kind of information, the same kind of experience, wasn't available. Today that information is available and he has shared it with the House and has expressed justifiable concerns about the future as it relates to potential landfills on the Niagara Escarpment lands, on quarry lands.

The United Nations did not easily recognize this as a biosphere reserve. They looked carefully at the land and then they saw it as a genuine asset for Ontario. It is, I would say, an environmental gem, and yet if we see the development that I hear some people want to see on it, we will have the Escarpment Hilton, the Escarpment Howard Johnson's, the Escarpment Holiday Inn, the Sheraton Escarpment. We'll have golf courses, we'll have all kinds of active recreational uses, instead of reserving it for passive recreational uses.

The Bruce Trail Association just had a gathering in Niagara Falls -- I think it was in Queenston -- on the weekend. The Minister of Natural Resources was in attendance. There is a group which has tried to preserve the escarpment.

As you drive past it, as you see it from highways and secondary roads in the province, it is a genuine asset. If you want to go and look at development from wall to wall, just go to Cleveland and drive in the outskirts of Cleveland and you'll see that. I don't think that attracts anybody in terms of tourism. I don't think that produces any kind of interest in terms of the natural environment.

But when you drive along the escarpment, we have preserved that in Ontario, governments of three different political stripes -- we now have a government of a fourth political stripe -- who have preserved it. Surely the Reform party in power now in Ontario would want to preserve it as well so it becomes truly ecumenical. This is an area which all of us can enjoy.

But there are people who are outright opponents of the Niagara Escarpment plan, who themselves have been rallying against the Niagara Escarpment for reasons they believe to be legitimate, who are now placed on the Niagara Escarpment Commission and are able to make decisions related to potential development on the escarpment lands. This would be a substantial step backward. What is so important about it -- the member knows when he talks about landfills -- is that once you make that decision to develop or once you make that decision to place a landfill on this land -- it's been done before -- you can't reverse that decision; the decision is made for good.

That certainly would be detrimental to the tourism in our province, to the acceptance and enjoyment of the natural passive terrain in this province, and would certainly be a major step backward in terms of the designation as a biosphere reserve by the United Nations.

I want to commend the member for bringing forward this particular motion at this time. It really means we have to move forward even more aggressively with reduction and reuse and recycling so that we severely reduce the amount of garbage produced by our society that would have to go into some kind of disposal, either landfill or another kind of disposal. If we are to take that aggressive action to reduce, to recycle and reuse items, we would find we wouldn't have the same need for landfill sites.

I certainly want to commend the member. This allows us to talk about an important part of the natural history and the natural setting of Ontario, the Niagara Escarpment, which I believe should be preserved for all time. This government has a chance to do it rather than to allow it to be exploited for other purposes.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to commend the member for Wentworth North for bringing this matter before the House. As he said, we have an international treasure in the Niagara Escarpment which has been recognized by the United Nations as an international biosphere reserve.

As he indicated, this resolution is an extension of the private member's bill which was passed under the previous government, sponsored by the then member for Halton North, Noel Duignan. He brought forward a bill which would prohibit the use of spent limestone quarries in the Niagara Escarpment planning area for landfill because of all the kinds of concerns the member for Wentworth North has raised. The fissures in the rock make it impossible to predict where leachate might go, so this is a very serious problem.

For that reason, many members on all sides of the House supported the former member for Halton North's bill when it was brought forward to the House. It was one of those few private members' bills that actually was passed into law. Of course, we then had a government that was willing to allow private members' bills to move beyond second reading if they passed and was willing to allow them to go through the process and to be passed at third reading into law. This government of course does not allow that to happen.

The member for Wentworth North has extended the issue with this resolution, in saying that landfills should not be allowed in spent limestone quarries within a five-kilometre radius of the Niagara Escarpment planning area. Some might say this could be quite controversial, and I know the member for Wentworth North realizes this could indeed raise a good deal of controversy in the area.

As the member for St Catharines indicated, we all should be ensuring that as much as possible, the three Rs should be used to avoid materials going into landfill. But there will always have to be some sort of disposal, and what the member for Wentworth North is saying is that it should not be in these kinds of rock formations that could contaminate the surrounding area and contaminate the international biosphere reserve, the Niagara Escarpment.

I want to express some serious concern about the protection of the escarpment. This is something that I, as Minister of Environment and Energy, like my predecessors in the environmental portfolio, was very concerned about.

We now have a situation where the responsibility for the protection of the escarpment as an international biosphere reserve has been transferred from the Ministry of Environment to the Ministry of Natural Resources. I submit to you that the Ministry of Natural Resources, of which I was also previously minister, has a conflict of interest in this matter, because the Minister of Natural Resources is also responsible for finding quarry sites. The Minister of Natural Resources is responsible for ensuring that we can find gravel in this province and that we are able to develop aggregate resources in this province.

You now have one part of the ministry responsible for finding gravel pits and quarries and exploiting them and providing that resource to the province, and another part of the same ministry responsible for the Niagara Escarpment, one of the areas that many quarry operators look at and say, "This is where we're going to get our resource." It's a conflict of interest.

The fact that this government has transferred the responsibility for the escarpment from the Ministry of Environment to the Ministry of Natural Resources unfortunately is an indication that this government is not interested in protecting the escarpment and preserving the escarpment but is more interested in developing and exploiting the resource, the quarrying, in the escarpment. That would be disastrous for the international biosphere reserve.

I think this is demonstrated by the appointments this government has made to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Just recently -- I know this is hard to believe -- they've appointed a person who a year ago was arguing that the escarpment commission should be eliminated, that this kind of protection shouldn't be provided, that his own land, his property, currently within the Niagara Escarpment planning area, should be removed from the Niagara Escarpment planning area, because he didn't believe it should have these kinds of restrictions.

This individual has now been appointed by the cabinet to the Niagara Escarpment Commission, someone who doesn't believe we should have a Niagara Escarpment Commission.

I think this is an example of how this government is not interested in protecting the Niagara Escarpment, and it's a tragedy. I commend the member for Wentworth North for bringing this matter forward. I hope his resolution will be passed, and I hope that if it is passed by the majority in this assembly, the government will have that as an indication that all members in this House value this important resource and want it protected and believe it should be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): While I recognize that the intentions of the member for Wentworth North are certainly good and his concerns for the environment are admirable, I believe that if this motion were to be passed it would essentially be duplicating what we already have as existing legislation.

As mentioned a little earlier, in 1994 the previous government did pass Bill 62, with unanimous consent from all parties in the House at that time. It resulted in amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, commonly referred to as the EPA, that essentially prohibit the establishment of landfill sites in the Niagara Escarpment planning area. At the same time, the Niagara Escarpment plan was amended to exclude new waste disposal facilities from the planning area.

I think it's important to note that after Bill 62 was passed, a developer who had been planning a landfill site in the Acton area took the ministry to court challenging this exclusion. The ministry won the case, which means the protection of this area has already been tested and proven valid. As well, under the Environmental Assessment Act, every significant plan for landfill sites anywhere in the province, absolutely anywhere, must meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act.

I'm very proud of the updated act, through Bill 76 that recently passed. We've had many very positive comments about Bill 76, from the environmentalists as well as from municipalities. In that bill we've enshrined public consultation, which was not in the act previously. It's enshrined for the public in the design as well as in the process of working through environmental assessment. With this bill we have a transparent exercise that people can at least understand what's expected of them; the requirements are really up front and they know where it's at.

What's really important about that bill and the change in the Environmental Assessment Act is that we get faster to a yes where it's environmentally sound, and we get faster to a no where it is not environmentally sound. I see the critic laughing. She well remembers working through that particular bill.

Environmental assessment is indeed a decision-making process used to promote good environmental planning. It assesses the potential effects of defined activities on the environment. Its purpose is to provide for the protection, conservation and wise management of Ontario's environment. The Environmental Assessment Act is a very precise piece of legislation that requires a comprehensive review of the social, environmental and economic issues. If there are good reasons why a site should not be approved, they will certainly come out during this assessment process.

This government is committed to ensuring that Ontario's high standards of environmental protection are maintained, and wherever possible, improved upon.

I'd remind the members opposite that recently the International Wildlife Foundation upgraded our rating in Ontario from an F when the previous NDP government was there, based on its activities, to a C, and that certainly relates to the activities of the Minister of Natural Resources.

The fact is, the protection this motion is seeking is already provided for under both acts. For the reasons I have given, I cannot support the motion before the House today. The resolution is unnecessary, in that mechanisms already exist to provide the protection for special areas such as the Niagara Escarpment as well as for the rest of the province.

We must continue to use existing legislation and the environmental assessment processes that are already in place and make sure they are applied consistently and equally across this province. I have great faith that the Minister of Natural Resources will look after the Niagara Escarpment, and our Minister of Environment and Energy is very genuine and genuinely concerned and is indeed very effectively looking after the environment of this province.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise in support of the resolution from my colleague from Wentworth North. I first of all want to commend the member for his continuous efforts to represent his constituents. It's refreshing to see members on the government side of the House actually step out of the propaganda machine of this government and decide they're going to speak on behalf of the people who have elected them.

It's an example that many members on the government side of the House should look at very carefully and follow, if for no other reason than because, when the next election rolls around, Mike Harris's coattails may not stretch into your riding. Your constituents are going to judge you on what you've done in your riding and how often you have spoken out on their behalf rather than on behalf of your government. Clearly you should take the example of the member for Wentworth North and follow his lead for your own political survival.

On this particular issue, though, the member speaks to a concern that is real. The member speaks to a concern that affects his own riding, affects many of us who represent areas along the escarpment. There was a protracted battle in that particular area over a site that would have been excluded through this resolution. This resolution is even more important today, in view of everything else this government has done in regard to the escarpment. Very clearly, this government has taken the Niagara Escarpment from a ministry of protection to one of development.

I was interested in hearing the member for Northumberland basically be the apologist for the government today on its regressive policy of turning over the Niagara Escarpment to the development industry, basically putting up a For Sale sign on the Niagara Escarpment and saying: "Folks, it's open season. We're going to sell it to the highest bidder. We're going to allow you to do whatever you want."

They have taken the responsibility for the escarpment from a minister who -- although I disagree with many of the decisions this government has made in regard to the environment, I certainly believe that Mr Sterling, the Minister of Environment, was fully committed and dedicated to protecting the Niagara Escarpment. You had a minister there who understands the need for government to protect this beauty we have, and what does this government do? It takes that responsibility away from that minister and gives it to a minister who couldn't care less about the Niagara Escarpment and has been an advocate of more development on the escarpment.

It's extremely important for us to realize that there's a long-term impact to what we're doing here, that this is not something that's only going to affect us today or tomorrow or next week. When you look at the directions of this government, this motion today is even more important. It gives us a very clear message. It says to the government, it says to the private sector, "We believe this must be protected." The five-kilometre radius makes a great deal of sense, because it allows the distances necessary so you don't get the runoffs, don't get the damage, don't get the impact of a landfill site to affect an area such as the Niagara Escarpment. It's an extremely important signal to send out.

It's a signal that's even more important today, in view of some of the changes I've talked about and in view of some of the appointments this government has made. There are seven openings on the escarpment commission. The appointments that have been made generally -- and there are some good people there -- tend to a pro-development type of commission. The commission now, instead of looking at trying to protect the escarpment, is going to be more concerned about trying to fast-track developments around the escarpment. This resolution today I think is going to counter some of that.

I hope the people who don't represent areas of the province directly impacted by this really understand what this is all about, really understand that it's not simply another piece of land we can give away, or that we can let someone borrow for 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 years and develop on it and then hope they give it back to us in the shape we gave it to them in, because that's not the case. Once you start destroying what we now have with the Niagara Escarpment, you will never, ever get it back.

I hope the government members will look at this. I hope they won't take the lead from the PA to the minister, who is obviously trying to protect the government's position and trying to justify the position. This is your opportunity. Private members' bills are your opportunity as members not to toe the party line, not to have to worry about what the whip tells you or what the Premier's office tells you or what the whiz kids in the Premier's office tell you you must do. This is an opportunity for you to do what you believe is right, to do what you believe the majority of your constituents would favour.

Put yourself in a situation where your area is affected by this type of issue and this type of decision and say, "What would be in the best interests of protecting my constituents here?" If you did that, I think you would support the resolution.

It's a very good resolution. It makes it very clear in many ways that the government's direction, when it comes to the escarpment, may not be the best route to go; that this government maybe should take a step back and realize that it is an area we need to protect. It is not an area that we can give away to developers.

All the bills the member for Northumberland talked about -- he used all the right buzz words: "If it's suitable, we can fast-track it. If there are problems we just say no." The reality is that every piece of legislation this government has passed when it comes to development, every single piece of legislation, has been slanted heavily to favour the development industry. It's been fast-tracked, favourite. You hide behind cutting red tape, which means cutting regulations and making it easier, making it faster, at the expense of the environment, at the expense of the Niagara Escarpment. I think we need to take a step back.

The development industry is important in this province. They create jobs, they create revenue, they pay taxes. Of course they're very important, but at the same time there is more to it than that. We simply cannot give the whole house away, the whole province away to one particular industry because of the short-term gain and the short-term development we may see, because of the long-term price to pay.

I will support this resolution. I commend the member for Wentworth North for once again standing up for his constituents, the people he represents, the people who have brought him here to Queen's Park, and I hope the members of the government will look at that, will see some courage and leadership in that and will support the resolution in front of us today.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm happy to hear today that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, the member for Northumberland, has faith in the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment. How very nice. We're happy to hear he has faith in the minister who's responsible -- standing here saying he has faith.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): What a lapdog.

Ms Churley: As my colleague from Nickel Belt is saying here, a lapdog. Is he telling the people of Ontario: "Not to worry. We don't need strong laws to protect the environment in Ontario. Just have faith. Trust the minister"? Come on.

I've got to tell the member for Wentworth North, hearing the parliamentary assistant today, his resolution is doomed because the parliamentary assistant is speaking on behalf of the Minister of Environment and therefore Mike Harris, the Premier, and the government. No matter how many people from your caucus today support this motion, this resolution, it's dead because of that.

I'm shocked that the member for Northumberland can get up and say that we don't need it because laws are already in place; and not only that, this government has strengthened the Environmental Assessment Act. To put it in a parliamentary way, that is not my

interpretation and what all the outside environmental experts in the field would say. In fact, what has happened with the Environmental Assessment Act is that it will now be easier for the developers to develop, because up front at the very beginning now there's what's called a scoping process where the parties get together and scope out how the Environmental Assessment Act for this particular undertaking will work.

Guess what? During that process, the very heart and soul of EA that gives the most protection, particularly around items and issues like landfills which can be extremely polluting for a very long time, now what can be scoped out would be the need for the undertaking, alternatives to the undertaking and alternatives to the site. That can be scoped out now off the top.

When you have an EA Act that takes out the very heart and soul, that actually makes it -- we had the most progressive EA system probably, I don't know about in the world but certainly in North America. This government steps in and deregulates. They gutted the most important aspects. The parliamentary assistant stands up today and says: "Don't worry, member for Wentworth North, we've got all the protections in the world. This is a duplication. We don't need it." We know that is hogwash.

I am more worried about what's going to happen to the Niagara Escarpment than I was when I came in here to speak to my colleague's resolution today, because of the deregulation and the cuts to the ministry, and particularly, as all the other members from the opposition who spoke pointed out here today, as the escarpment has now been transferred from the Ministry of Environment and Energy over to the Ministry of Natural Resources.

We also know that this government, after waiting a long, long time -- and I think it was public pressure and the knowledge that this big huge story about the escarpment was coming out in the Toronto Star -- suddenly, after leaving many openings on the escarpment commission for a long time, finally at the last minute appointed people. At least one of those people, as has been pointed out already, opposes the existence of the commission. That in itself is very worrisome when you add it to the other issues I and others have brought up today.

The fact that the government today, through the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment, is saying, "No, there's no reason to support this," if we had any doubts before that this government is heading in the direction of more development in the Niagara Escarpment, we can be assured today because of the fact that the parliamentary assistant won't support this added protective measure.

I want to tell the member for Wentworth North that I am willing to work with him and I'm willing to stand in this House. I hope he will do so. I hope that as a backbencher he will get questions to the minister frequently and publicly raise this issue, and ask and ask and ask again, if it passes today, that it go forward. I remember our former member for Halton North did that on occasions. Our government passed that bill and it's now the law. What this one does today is extend that in a very necessary way. But I remember that the member for Halton North at the time did ask some questions in the House.

He kept the pressure on, he did his lobbying behind the scenes and he made sure that the members of the government did not forget this. I hope the member for Wentworth North will do the same, notwithstanding the difference that in our government the Minister of the Environment actually stood up for and protected the environment.

I know the member today has a different problem. He has a minister against the environment. He has a minister who has deregulated and cut to the very bone and is continuing to do so. We have a Minister of Natural Resources who has absolutely no concern for the environment. We have the member for Grey-Owen Sound as a sort of quasi-member of that caucus over there, on again, off again. I don't know how wide his influence is these days on those matters to do with the Niagara Escarpment, but we all know where he stands. We certainly do: "Pave it all over."

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Oh, he wants to leave a few acres, I believe he said. A few what?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): A few places.

Ms Churley: A few places, right. That's the attitude of some in that government. I know not all, and that's why I'm very pleased today to see that the member for Wentworth North is bringing forward this resolution. I would ask the members to seriously consider supporting it and I would ask that you look carefully at the words of the member for Northumberland today, because in my opinion you should not put your faith in the words of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment. That is my advice to you.

I know it's hard for colleagues in the same party to not just take as true every word that is uttered by one of their members. Obviously in this House I would not for a moment -- the Speaker isn't listening; maybe I will. I lost my train here; I'm going to be in trouble with the Speaker. I'm not suggesting for a moment that what the member for Northumberland is saying isn't true -- I wouldn't do that -- but what I would suggest is that he is misguided, that he doesn't understand the implication of what his government is doing.

I remember that same member saying about the Environmental Assessment Act, when he was complaining about all these things you have to do: "In some cases at landfills you don't have to look at all these complicated rigorous things. You've just got to figure out what the best-engineered lining is and just dig the hole and put it in the ground." I remember he said that. These words I will leave you with.

I will say to the member, I support your motion very strongly and so does all my caucus. Good luck with it.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The motion before us today is, "That in the opinion of this House, spent limestone quarries within (

a) the Niagara Escarpment planning area of the Niagara Escarpment plan as defined in the Niagara Escarpment and Planning Act, or (

b) an area that is within a five-kilometre radius adjacent to the said Niagara Escarpment planning area, are not suitable locations for solid waste disposal landfill sites."

I wish to address this motion put forward today by my colleague the member for Wentworth North because I am personally in favour of this motion. In fact, I am sure anyone who appreciates the natural beauty of this province should be in favour of this motion. Any one of us in this House could spend hours talking about the escarpment and why it is one of the world's unique natural resources. As residents of this province and members of this Legislature, it is our duty to protect the Niagara Escarpment.

I served on the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority for some 17 years, chairing that authority for two years. Of course the Nottawasaga Valley runs through the escarpment. My experience in the conservation authority has given me a thorough understanding of the delicate nature of this region of Ontario. I know at first hand the inspiring scenery, rich farm soil, abundant and rare plant life and flourishing wildlife. This region abuts this country's most densely populated area, yet it remains unchanged by commercial development.

The lesson here for all of us is that a continuous natural environment can live and flourish in the centre of growing human habitation and large productive cities. The dilemma we now face is protecting this environment while finding a solution to the waste generated by these large productive cities.

In searching for answers, we must look at three areas: product packaging, recycling and resource recovery.

In the area of product packaging, let me describe a recent incident where I was given an automotive accessory gift by my wife. The product was fastened to a large, heavy gauge cardboard and then shrink-wrapped in a skin of clear plastic, which was placed in a plastic bag. The disposed packaging was actually larger than the purchased item. The

article could just as easily have been hung on a hook in the store with an instruction tag attached.

I suggest we start at the beginning and create less packaging which can be recycled. We also must look at increasing our volume of recycling. In Japan as an example, 30% of ordinary waste is recycled.

Resource recovery is possible. They are doing it now in Switzerland where 75% of its garbage is converted into energy. The other 25% of that country's waste is targeted for recycling. None of Switzerland's trash will be sent to landfills. These are the goals we must establish here in Ontario.

There are other ways. Other countries are doing it and they are successful. In fact, several states in the US are finding alternatives to landfill. In Lee county, Florida, they began cremating 950 tons of garbage a day in August 1994 with no threat to our environment. That is energy from waste. In my opinion, there is no need for new landfill sites. We must find more creative ways of reintroducing the Niagara Escarpment's spent quarry sites back to a natural, friendly use.

We are the caretakers of our environment and our habitat. It is our responsibility to protect the earth we grow our food in, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the life-forms that share our environment and habitat.

Garbage stinks. It attracts rodents. Leaking gases from dumps is sickening. Rotting refuse seeps into natural aquifers -- which happened in Tiny township some years ago -- polluting our life-giving water supply. Life, human or otherwise, next to a garbage dump, is life deteriorating.

We cannot afford to let that happen to the Niagara Escarpment, or for that matter we cannot let that happen anywhere in Ontario. The passing of this resolution will continue to protect the natural beauty and the significance of the escarpment for all of Ontario for now and in the future.

We have some 17 garbage sites in the county of Simcoe. I often wonder what's going to happen in the future. We have them on the lakes, near our cities and in our cities. When we continue to dump garbage continuously, I can see some problems down the road. I'm saying the biggest emphasis should be on the recycling, the reusing and packaging. That packaging to me has got to be one of the biggest issues. What we're doing about it is not enough.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to address the resolution from the member for Wentworth North, Mr Skarica, on spent limestone quarries being used for solid waste landfill sites within the five-kilometre radius of the Niagara Escarpment planning area. I want to say to the member for Wentworth North that I will be supporting his motion.

The Niagara Escarpment limestone is heavily fissured, as has been mentioned by the member for Algoma. No one knows exactly where these fissures and underground channels lead. To find out where they lead would be extremely costly. I know there are technologies available using dye and other technology, but there's no assurance where any of the seepage from any of these landfill sites would go. There's a great likelihood they would drain into the groundwater which is used for drinking water and also is used commercially for bottled water, which means there's both a health and a commercial livelihood factor; in other words, there's an effect on the economy and jobs in this area.

Where would the seepage from the landfill end up after it went through the fissures and underground channels? We really don't know. Experts tell us they're not able to actually determine where it would go. That's something that is of concern to me. There are some consultants and companies that say they can prevent seepage by lining the fissures with a sealant substance, although I believe the linings or liners would actually leak. There is a risk to commercial bottling. There's the personal use risk. There's the health risk, a commercial livelihood risk and, again, we don't know where that seepage would go.

Apart from these, a landfill will destroy the aesthetics of the area and threaten the wildlife and plant life that people from all across Ontario enjoy, including people from Scarborough and Scarborough Centre. I have many constituents who have spoken to me about the Niagara Escarpment. Although it's a good drive from Scarborough and Scarborough Centre to the Niagara Escarpment, they care about preserving this part of Ontario.

Originally the plan was to ensure that quarried areas were rehabilitated, but they were rehabilitated to their original landscape, not to commercial landfill sites. I don't think it's worth risking. Liners and linings will potentially leak and seep into the groundwater.

The member for Wentworth North is from a different part of Ontario than I'm from. If this was an issue in my riding, I would ask him to support me on a motion like that. Constituents of mine like Bill Baker care deeply about the Niagara Escarpment and he has spoken to me extensively about it before the election, during the election and after the election in June 1995, that his concerns be brought forward.

I thank the member for Wentworth North for bringing this forward. I will be supporting him on this. I appreciate the opportunity.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I also am pleased to have an opportunity to speak very briefly about the resolution that's been brought forward by the member for Wentworth North. The Niagara Escarpment extends from Niagara all the way up to Georgian Bay. It is an area of great beauty and value, not only to the Niagara area but to all those counties leading up to Georgian Bay.

The environment is an issue that I think doesn't relate to left or right on the political scale. It's an issue that concerns all people who think reasonably about the future of our lives in Ontario, and therefore I am pleased to support the resolution brought forward by the member for Wentworth North. I compliment him on bringing it before this House this day.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wentworth North, you have two minutes.

Mr Skarica: I'd like to thank all my colleagues in all parties in the House for their support of this bill. Quite frankly, when I heard the member for Riverdale use the word "doom," I thought she was talking about my political future, as opposed to the resolution.

If I could just address some of the points, particularly the point made by the member for Simcoe East when he said the real solution to this problem is to get at the source of the problem, and that's the garbage itself, and he talked about recycling: In my former life as a parliamentary assistant I attended many schools in the province. There was in my riding an elementary school with approximately 200 to 300 children. On a daily basis they produced garbage that could be put into a bag approximately the size of a Toronto Sun newspaper. They recycled everything there.

The children had tremendous enthusiasm for recycling. They of course were inspired in their effort by the fact that this school was just under the escarpment, and the dump, if it had been put in, would have been hovering just over them both physically and in their future.

The real future for this garbage problem is recycling. I have a lot of faith in recycling. My own future depends on my being recycled to some extent as well. I thank all the members for their support.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SCHOOL BUSES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES)

Mr Froese moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 137,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to school buses / Projet de loi 137, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui a trait aux autobus scolaires.

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

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My bill proposes to amend

section 163, subsections (1) and (2): that school buses stop at railway crossings, whether protected or unprotected and whether or not transporting children and adults with developmental disabilities. It also amends

section 175, subsections (6), (7), (8) and (13), including a clause that states:

"

(6.1) Every school bus driver who stops on a highway immediately behind another school bus driver who has stopped for a purpose set out in clause (6)(

a) or to whom this subsection applies shall actuate the overhead red signal lights and the stop arm on the bus while stopped."

As a government, as parents and as concerned citizens we do all we can to bring up our children in a way that will prepare them to be productive members of society. We also do everything we can to keep them safe. When they are young we teach them to walk, climb, run and to look both ways when they cross the street. What we tend to forget to teach them, at least up until now, is that bus drivers are human and make mistakes and that many Ontario drivers cannot be trusted to look out for their safety.

Those are tough words, but when I hear of young children dying in the vicinity of our school buses, I am outraged. There was the recent tragedy to young Andrew Friessen in Aylmer, as well as tragedies that happened to Ryan Marcuzzi in Essex county, near Windsor, and Tyler Guenette of Sudbury. These are young lives that needn't have been cut short.

All adults know that children get excited, that children run to meet their friends, to meet their brothers and sisters when they see them and that they slip and fall. They are, after all, children. Children are spontaneous, they get excited, they assume all is right in the world. Why can't the Ontario driving public drive defensively when it comes to children and school buses and expect the unexpected, slow down, check and stop when they are required to do so?

I was born and brought up in rural Niagara. As a youngster, school buses were part of my everyday life. In rural Ontario, school buses are part of the very fabric of the educational experience. That is where you spend time with friends, that is where you grow up and that is where you should be safe from harm, whether on the school bus, getting off the school bus or being a passenger.

When I was approached by Rodger Bailey, a St Catharines resident and property manager a few months back, it was my first experience as an MPP with the extent of the dark side of school bus safety. Mr Bailey told me about a near tragedy that he had personally witnessed. He said he had seen two school buses travelling in tandem, and when they stopped, one immediately behind the other, only the front bus had its warning signals activated. Although the front bus was the only one discharging passengers, the warning lights could not be seen behind the second bus.

As a result, he said someone attempted to pass before they saw the warning signals. In this case the accident was averted, but only just in time.

I made inquiries on behalf of Mr Bailey and discovered that the driver of the second bus was not in contravention of the Highway Traffic Act and had no obligation to put on his or her warning signals, that only the bus that was receiving or discharging passengers is required to so.

I also made inquiries of the Ontario School Bus Association and discovered that school bus drivers are expected to stop well behind the first bus and position themselves slightly to the right so that the vehicles coming from behind have a clear line of vision of the warning signals of the first bus. I can tell you from the years I've travelled on buses or behind buses and stopped behind them, I have never seen this type of stopping manoeuvre.

As a result, I decided I would put forward this bill, with the amendment being the provision that when school buses are travelling in tandem and stop one behind the other, no matter which bus is receiving or discharging students, they activate their warning signals and stop arm to warn the drivers behind.

The industry has recommended educational programs for the driving public, educators, parents and children. I agree education is important and there should be more done. We need more programs of this type. However, I disagree that the act should not include the additional safety measure of insisting that the stop-arm warning-light system should be activated on all school buses stopped in tandem. Obviously, some school bus drivers contravene the act. Equally obvious is the fact that Ontario drivers need to be given sufficient warning that children are being discharged from the bus.

The other amendment in my bill resulted from discussions with the industry's school bus association. It was brought to my attention by the industry that they were going to ask that all school bus drivers stop when approaching railway crossings, whether protected or unprotected, with or without passengers on board. We have to protect our children and we have to provide consistency to Ontario drivers: that school buses stop at all railway crossings all the time.

The potential for tragedy is incredible. On October 25, 1995, at Fox River, Illinois, near Chicago, seven children were killed when the school bus they were travelling in was hit by a train at just such a protected railway crossing while waiting in line for a traffic light.

This is a clear reminder of school bus driver misjudgment and that technology can fail. Had the school bus been required to stop five metres before the nearest rail, regardless of the traffic light beyond, the driver would have seen or heard the oncoming train. Ontario drivers need to know that no matter what, that yellow school bus has to stop five metres from the nearest rail at a railway crossing and that they will need to be patient while stopped.

I'm aware that the Minister of Transportation is reviewing the legislation pertaining to school buses and that the Ministry of Education and Training is in the process of compiling a comprehensive school bus safety resource package. I am also aware that there is another private member's bill in committee related to school safety and changes to penalties. However, I would ask the members of this House to consider my bill on its own as it is not, in my view, a duplication of other perspectives or pending legislation. I ask all the members of this House to support this bill.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I take

part in this private member's bill from the member for St Catharines-Brock on school bus safety out of a concern for the students in my riding and the students across the province. My comments won't be long, but I feel compelled to add a few words.

Let me begin by saying I have great faith in the men and women who take on the responsibility of busing our children to and from school. They do a great job. For those who have spent time on the yellow school bus, perhaps chaperoning our children, they are almost saints in the opinion of many.

However, through time and, unfortunately, incidents at railroad crossings, it seems that the provincial laws governing school buses may not be adequate for the protection of drivers and in fact may be punishing the drivers for just trying to do their job to the letter of the law.

This is something I feel very strongly about and very personally about. As the basis for my concern, I point to an incident that happened last winter when a busload of students in my riding were caught. I understand that the incident was through no fault of the driver but rather the driver applying the rules of

section 174 to the Highway Traffic Act and thus encountering a faulty mechanical arm at a railway crossing.

Before I tell you exactly what happened, let me say I am grateful that no one was injured, but the consequences could have been very serious. I shudder to think what might have happened. I hope I am recounting this exactly the way it was. The bus driver having stopped, looked both ways and proceeded on to the railroad tracks at the Avonmore Road in Cornwall township. Then there was a mechanical fluke. Almost as quickly as the bus encountered the railway, signal lights came on and the arm dropped, striking the roof of the bus.

The driver stopped, reversed the bus until the arm mechanism fell from the roof on to the hood and reached the mirrors. The train then passed. No one was harmed, but the children and the driver were very frightened.

Why did this happen? Was it because the driver wasn't obeying the rules or because he wasn't careful enough? Not at all. The driver was following the rules. After hearing about the mishap from a concerned constituent of mine, Wayne Locke, and one of the two boards in my riding, my staff and I dug into the provisions for school buses at rail crossings. Through this I learned that the Ministry of Transportation's truck and bus drivers' manual stipulates that drivers approaching unprotected crossings must halt, open the door, look in both directions and then proceed.

However, the requirements for drivers nearing protected crossings, those with gates and signal lights, are quite different. When a bus approaches such a protected crossing, if the signal lights are not flashing and the protective gates are not lowering, the bus need not stop but only should use normal caution, such as slowing down and looking both ways before crossing.

I then consulted a memorandum from legal counsel of the Solicitor General's ministry. Not only did this memo confirm these facts, it further said that if a bus stops at a protected railway crossing, it may impede traffic and does so without legal basis. If an accident were to arise out of such

an act, the driver could be charged under the Highway Traffic Act.

I admit I was surprised at this information, especially as I know I have witnessed many school and municipal buses as well as private coaches stop at protected, unprotected and abandoned railroad crossings. I had assumed that was the right procedure, but it's not. Bus drivers do not have to stop at protected crossings, and if they do and any kind of accident results, the government has laid out rules that the bus driver could be charged. Charged for being cautious. Charged because the wording of the Highway Traffic Act may not be in the best interests of bus safety.

After the Avonmore incident and after confirming bus laws at railroad crossings, the board for whom this particular bus was working requested that the distinction in the Highway Traffic Act be amended so that buses be required to stop at all crossings, protected or unprotected. Upon receiving this request, I contacted the other board in my riding as well as the Minister of Transportation. I asked for their views on this statute, wanting to secure complete support that the existing provisions should be changed.

I recognize that only one board, the Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry County Board of Education, which had this incident happen, lent its support. The other board, the SD&G Catholic board, indicated that they preferred to wait for recommendations from the Ontario School Bus Association. To date, I have not received confirmation from either the association or the Catholic school board.

Nevertheless, in my view, and I know in the view of many of the parents and the drivers I have spoken to, they would like to see the same rules, whether protected or unprotected. I think back to this incident last February and it scares me to think what might have happened. Before we vote on this bill, I ask all members of the House to picture a bus being trapped at a railroad crossing. This is not a pleasant sight.

I have spoken to the minister on several occasions and I am very confident that this will happen so we don't have any other incidents like that in the near future.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I am pleased to be able to stand today on behalf of the New Democratic caucus as the transportation critic and give support to this private member's bill.

I think far too often not so much us but people forget that there is a time in the Legislature where members try to come here to be able to respond to issues that exist within their ridings or issues that exist within the province and to bills that are brought here, really in a non-partisan way, to address what are real issues within the community of Ontario.

In this particular case, the member across the way has brought forward a bill that deals with fixing up the Highway Traffic Act, because the Highway Traffic Act, when it comes to school buses, is fairly explicit in regard to the laws that the operators have to use their flashing lights when stopping and unloading children and they're supposed to stop at railway crossings. But there are some gaps within the law that I don't think were put there for any reason; that was just the way the bill was written. There were gaps that were created.

The member is coming here before the House today to try to fix those gaps in order to hopefully in the end save lives and make sure the children who are travelling on our school buses are that much safer when they're being transported to and from school.

Specifically, the member is trying to deal with two areas. This, I want to say, is not an overwhelming problem, but none the less there have been accidents where there have been tragedies because of this and I think this is what the member is trying to respond to. Any loss of life or endangerment of life of any child is something that we as legislators within this precinct should be able to try to address, and I want to commend the member for doing that.

To the point, there are two parts of this bill that the member is dealing with. First of all, he's trying to make amendments to the Highway Traffic Act in regard to

section 175 dealing with how a bus approaches railway crossings because, as you know, not all railway crossings are guarded by either a barricade system or lights.

In short, what the member is saying is that when a school bus approaches those particular crossings, regardless if there is a gate system or a light system, the school bus driver must stop the bus, must flash the lights, must open the door, must look both ways and then, when crossing a railway crossing where it is an unprotected crossing, must do so in a very cautious way by not taking off and trying to switch gears as you're going over the tracks but rather going across it an in orderly fashion, not switching gears while you're going over the tracks.

Some people might say that's kind of silly. Why would the government or why would a member even be concerned with something like that? In fact, there have been cases where buses have crossed railway crossings -- I'm not aware here in Ontario and I'm sure the member might bring one to mind, but I remember one particular case, I think it was in Minnesota, where a bus was crossing an unprotected crossing.

As the bus driver was trying to go across, that driver didn't see the train coming, number one, should have been able to make it, but in switching the gears somehow lost the momentum of the bus because they didn't make the change in gear adequately and ended up getting the back end of the bus cut off. Unfortunately that resulted in the tragic loss of life of I think some five or six school-aged children. That's what the member is trying to address here, and I'm sure all members in the House will support this legislation. I would be very surprised if it didn't pass by unanimous consent.

The second part that the member is trying to address is equally an interesting amendment that he's bringing to the Highway Traffic Act, again

section 175. The member is saying that if three buses are following each other and the first bus stops to unload children, by law only the first bus that has stopped is required to flash the signals on the front and the back of the bus. The second bus and the third bus behind don't have to. Again, there have been incidents where a driver, arriving upon a school bus, sees a stopped school bus but doesn't see the bus all the way in the front of the line with the flashing lights and thinks, "There are no flashing lights. It's probably just a bus that's stopped for some reason.

Maybe I can go around it," and swings out around the third or the second bus behind only to find that there are flashing lights, and quite possibly a child might be trying to cross the road on that flashing light from the bus and the driver would not know.

In the first place, I would say most drivers exercise caution when it comes to any school bus but I think again the member is pointing out correctly that there is a

section in the Highway Traffic Act that needs to be amended in order to make sure we take no chances when it comes to the safety of our children. What he's saying is that if there are three buses lined up consecutively, all of them are responsible for flashing their warning lights in order to make sure there is no question in the driver's mind that that is a school bus that is stopped and the reason it's stopped is that it's unloading children.

So again I commend the member: two amendments to the Highway Traffic Act that make a lot of sense. It's something that all members should really take a look at in order to be able to support.

Je voudrais seulement dire par rapport à ce débat qu'on a aujourd'hui que souvent ici à l'Assemblée on a l'opportunité comme députés de la Chambre de rentrer ici à l'Assemblée et de passer une législation ou essayer d'arranger des problèmes par résolution d'une manière vraiment non politique. Je pense qu'on se sert très bien, la plupart du temps, comme députés, de cette opportunité qu'on a le jeudi matin.

Ça démontre, je pense, à la population ontarienne que quand on veut travailler ensemble, nous les députés de l'Assemblée, peu importe si on est conservateur, NPD ou libéral, à la fin de la journée on est tous des députés qui étions élus par nos citoyens. On a tous le même intérêt, et cet intérêt est simplement de servir le public de notre comté et de venir ici pour adresser les questions qui sont importantes aux citoyens et citoyennes de nos comtés.

S'il y a une leçon à apprendre dans tout ce qu'on voit ici faisant affaire avec les jeudis matin, c'est possiblement qu'on a besoin de regarder d'une manière à être capable de moderniser notre Parlement pour allouer beaucoup plus d'opportunités où les députés peuvent venir ici et travailler d'une manière on dirait non politique quand ça vient aux partis.

Je pense que, si les citoyens de la province et du pays sont écoeurés de la question des politiciens, de la question des partis politiques, c'est parce qu'ils nous voient souvent ici à l'Assemblée nous ranger dans une confrontation politique bien farouche à toute occasion. Je pense que c'est la manière dont le Parlement marche parce que c'est la manière dont le Parlement était mis en place.

Une des questions qu'on a besoin d'adresser ici à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario, c'est comment moderniser notre Parlement afin qu'il travaille vraiment pour la population ontarienne d'une manière beaucoup plus positive. Cette motion que le député conservateur amène répond et démontre à la population que quand on le veut, comme représentants politiques de nos comtés, on peut venir ici et avancer la législation qui est très positive pour nos citoyens et citoyennes et travailler ensemble.

J'attends pour voir la journée où que le Parlement va arriver à ce point-là non à travers les changements aux règlements de la Chambre que le gouvernement conservateur amène, mais vraiment regarder comment on modernise le système, la manière par laquelle on élit nos parlementaires et la manière dans laquelle la Législature elle-même travaille.

I just want to say to the member, congratulations. I think a motion well done, obviously something that needs to be done. I hope all members of the House find it in their hearts and in their minds to support this very good resolution under Bill 137.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Thank you very much, Speaker, for allowing me to join in the discussion on Bill 137 presented today by the member for St Catharines-Brock.

I think this particular piece of legislation is presented by him not only out of concern from residents in his riding bringing up this particular issue in all its consequences, but also in his role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training. I think he sees the necessity of understanding the consequences for effective protection for our most precious resource: our future young citizens in this province. On that basis the member for St Catharines-Brock is to be congratulated for bringing this initiative forward to private members' hour and for some action from the Ministry of Transportation.

With regard to the first

section of the bill, or that aspect that deals with requiring school buses to stop at all protected and unprotected railway crossings, as you know, protected Canadian railway crossings are designed in a fail-safe manner. This means that in the event of an electrical problem, the crossing lights and barriers are activated. School buses are not currently required to stop at protected railway crossings. However, some school bus companies have adopted a policy of stopping at all railway crossings, whether protected or not.

Although there are arguments both for and against this practice, as some bus companies have decided to stop, by policy, at all crossings, the transportation ministry favours this particular dimension of the bill, and it would achieve consistency across the province for all school bus companies.

With regard to the second issue raised in this bill -- that any vehicle following a school bus that has its lights and arm engaged must stop at least 20 metres behind a school bus -- as other members have mentioned, this would also apply to a school bus that was following another, and there is some degree of concern that this could create confusion.

However, the ministry's position on this, and it's probably consistent with the Ontario School Bus Association, is that in our public school bus safety initiative to be presented this fall, we will be stressing that the motoring public ought to be observing that 20-metre separation between the first bus stopped to take on children and any other school bus or any other public vehicle. I think that will be very heightened in the public education program that we will be undertaking this fall.

Also, I think I can say with impunity that the school bus operators have, as does the Ministry of Transportation, the protection and safety of our children at heart in all instances, and I think they would probably cooperate in looking at how we can further remove that confusion in the motoring public's mind about the provision of the current law, that the vehicle following behind the first school bus that has stopped to take on children, whether it be the private motoring citizen or another school bus operator -- I think we need to look at further investigation in that particular area.

Let me conclude by offering the Ministry of Transportation's cooperation with regard to that second matter of the 20-metre separation between the first stopped bus vehicle and the second. I think we need to work together as motoring public, as members of the School Bus Operators' Association and anybody else who are parents concerned with the future of their children. As many members have pointed out, there have been ongoing unfortunate tragedies over the years, and we must take all efforts to ensure that our children, when they are going to and from school, getting off and on buses, are protected as much as is possible.

Bill 138, dealing with aggressive behaviour of drivers, enhanced penalties for drunk driving, particularly for repeat offenders, will have a very drastic and positive impact on aggressive driving behaviour in this province. In the estimation of many members of the motoring public, whether those drivers be truck drivers or private citizens or school bus operators, we must attempt to curb the aggression we see in many folks in this province, unfortunately driving at aggressive speeds and totally oblivious to the concerns of parents and young children.

Today is a good day to start reminding people, anybody viewing this discussion, if they know of sons or daughters or members of any family who are aggressive drivers, that they look to what is going to happen in Bill 138, with the enhanced penalties for impaired driving, and this type of initiative brought forward by the member for St Catharines-Brock. This government has at hand the best interests of protecting our future citizens in this province, as it does everybody else, in terms of transporting our young people to and from school or any related activity that goes on through the school boards.

Thank you for allowing me to support the initiative today in Bill 137.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I welcome this opportunity to speak on school bus safety and the bill that was brought forward by the member for St Catharines-Brock. I support the measures contained in this bill as it is an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, and I support the bill because the goal is to protect the children of Ontario.

The bill calls for the school bus driver to stop at both unprotected and protected railway crossings. The member's reasoning for this is to bring continuity and remove confusion from the driving public about what school buses are doing in that regard. Currently, they do not have to stop at protected railway crossings. We must remove the confusion for the driving public, and perhaps this is a very good step towards that.

Second, the member is talking about buses that stop in tandem, whereby only the lead bus turns on its red flashing lights that demands that all vehicles stop behind that bus. He is suggesting that perhaps all buses in tandem should turn their lights on.

Maybe this is something that should be discussed further, but at first glance I think the member is trying to protect the children of Ontario, those who ride school buses daily, the 16,000 buses that travel across Ontario. I'll support that particular part of the bill in principle, because I have some other thoughts about it as well.

The member for St Catharines-Brock has provided no information in his backgrounder to the bill of any deaths or injuries caused by either the protected or unprotected railway question or buses moving in tandem.

However, there is a bill before this House, Bill 78, that was introduced 12 months ago, a year ago this month, that does address the issue of deaths and injuries. Eleven school children have been killed in the last 10 years and 80 injured when owners of vehicles passed school buses when the red lights were flashing. That bill was brought forward in this House a year ago now, passed second reading in November of last year and has still to be brought forward to committee. This bill is to protect the 810,000 children that ride our buses.

I know that the minister in his comprehensive road safety bill has brought in a new level of fines for those that break this law. I agree it is a small step in the right direction, but getting convictions is very difficult, and the reason is because the school bus driver must identify the driver of the vehicle who passed that bus while the red lights were flashing. They must identify their face. It's very difficult, with blacked-out windows in many vehicles and the speed of vehicles, or if they pass from the back of the bus to the front.

It is nearly impossible to identify the driver of a vehicle who flagrantly breaks the law in this regard. Bus drivers tell me that people are passing their buses twice a day. If there are 16,000 buses on our roads in Ontario, that is far too many chances taken by owners of vehicles in passing school buses.

Bill 78 goes further than the minister's bill in regard to fines and allows for vehicle liability. That would allow the bus driver to identify the vehicle by licence plate, and the owner of the vehicle would receive a fine. However, if the vehicle owner can tell us who was driving that vehicle that day, the fine would be applied to the driver of the vehicle. The bill does not fine both the vehicle owner and the driver of the vehicle on that given offence.

We need vehicle liability so that our bus drivers can identify the vehicles that are passing school buses with the red lights flashing at an alarming rate. I repeat that we have had deaths and injuries because the public is not paying attention to the law. We must give the law some teeth. We must give the law some meaning over and above raising fines, because there were fines for this offence long ago, and people disregard the law.

I remind the members that there were 30,000 names on petitions supporting Bill 78 and the clause requiring vehicle liability. The police believe that vehicle liability is the only approach to enforcement of this law. Municipalities, school boards, teachers and of course the many parents across Ontario support the bill.

I hope the member for St Catharines-Brock will support Bill 78 further and will be speaking up in caucus and talking to the Minister of Transportation to say that Bill 78 has been in this House since June a year ago, had unanimous consent in November of last year and has yet to be called before the resources development committee. I'll be very curious to see how quickly the member's bill moves along in the legislative process. We need to get this bill into committee so that we can have full debate and the people who want to come and speak to Bill 78 can give testimony that it is the only way of getting convictions.

The member for St Catharines-Brock and I both share a willingness and a desire to protect the children who ride school buses daily. He says his bill -- I'll use my own words -- is a standalone bill from the comprehensive road safety bill. I believe that to be true. It's in his name; it's his bill. So is Bill 78. It is a standalone bill from that of the comprehensive bill that the Minister of Transportation has brought in.

I was surprised to learn on the news this morning that police were asking the public to take down the licence numbers of reckless or dangerous drivers and call the police to let them know what those licence numbers are. There's a precedent that we should have vehicle liability brought forward from Bill 78.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): May I first congratulate the member for St Catharines-Brock for bringing forth this private member's bill. I think it's a very positive initiative and I commend him for doing so.

I also must say that the member who just spoke, the member for Essex-Kent, has very quickly established himself as a voice of compassion and reason in this whole area of school bus safety. When he speaks about school bus safety, we all should listen, because he really has done a very good job in that regard.

This particular bill is a step in the right direction. As I understand the bill, it basically says that if a school bus approaches railroad tracks, whether there are any signals on the track or whether there are gates on the track and they are activated, the school bus still must stop before crossing the tracks, must open the door and look both ways in case there's a noise or he hears a train coming, and must then put the bus into gear in such a way that he will not have to change gears before he or she has crossed the tracks.

The other aspect of it has to do with when there's more than one school bus and perhaps the first bus is discharging children and the second or third one behind it are not but they stop as well. The way it is now, they don't activate their signals or the Stop sign that comes out from the side of the bus. This bill would require that the buses behind that school bus have to do that.

Just this past week I was driving behind a couple of school buses; they both stopped but neither one of them activated their lights. It was in the afternoon, and I was somewhat puzzled about what was happening, so I stopped behind the school buses. The driver of a car coming behind me was leaning on the horn telling me to get moving, even though most prudent people would have done the same thing I had done, stopped in case the driver had forgotten to activate the lights or the Stop sign or perhaps they weren't working.

There still needs to be a lot of work done in regard to school bus safety. We need to take these steps until we get to the right place, where our children have the maximum protection.

I'm somewhat sceptical of the chances of this bill getting very far, because I doubt the Ministry of Transportation will support it. I listened to the member for Essex-Kent. His private member's bill -- a very reasonable bill, in my view -- received the unanimous support of this House, as I recall, and the government won't call it before the resources development committee for further debate. If they won't do it with that bill, I suspect they won't proceed with this bill either.

That's a disturbing trend we see happening in this House with private members' bills. Earlier this morning, the member for Wentworth North brought forth a bill to protect the Niagara Escarpment, a very reasonable bill. There's nothing radical about it. Can you imagine anything radical coming out of the Tory rump caucus? Not a chance. I thought it was a very reasonable bill, yet the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment, not one of our leading environmental luminaries, I might say, spoke against it. So there goes the member for Wentworth North's bill. It hasn't got a chance of succeeding.

I think the member for Wentworth North has a higher chance of getting in the Harris cabinet than his bill does of passing through this chamber.

I'm a little sceptical about what happens now with this bill from the member for St Catharines-Brock. I wish him well in that regard, because I think it is a step in the right direction.

I simply commend once again the member for St Catharines-Brock for bringing forth this bill. I think it's a step in the right direction. Unless we take those steps, we won't get to where we want to be, which is maximum protection of our children who ride on our school buses.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm honoured to have this opportunity to address private member's Bill 137, entitled the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (school buses), 1997, brought forward by my colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock.

The school bus is a fixture of rural and urban Ontario. It is an essential part of the machinery that keeps households in this province functioning. None of us gives much thought to the big yellow bus going past our homes in the morning or afternoon. It is just like putting your shoes on in the morning. We put our children on the bus and send them off to school. We have every confidence they will arrive at school safely and return home unharmed by that same bus.

Precisely because there's so much at stake in the use of buses, it is essential that the public have confidence in basic travel safety procedures. Any family that has lost a family member by accident knows the suffering and agonizing loss of a child. We must take every measure possible to protect these young lives and protect their families from the devastating loss of life or injury to our precious children.

In my riding of Simcoe East, the transportation committee of the Simcoe County Board of Education dealt with a petition from the Essex county boards last November. That petition was asking for support for private member's Bill 78, which imposed liability on the owner of a vehicle that fails to stop for a school bus that has its overhead red signal lights flashing, and it set out proposed fines for failing to stop. The Simcoe County Board of Education endorsed the Essex board's petition. Currently, this bill has received second reading and has been referred to the resources development committee of this Legislature.

Bill 137 protects our school bus riders from the unexpected. It will require school bus drivers to stop at both unprotected and protected railway crossings. Warning signals are mechanical and can fail. Stopping and taking a physical look at the railway track is a simple human backup system, further protecting lives from the unexpected.

A second part of Bill 137 deals with buses stopped in tandem. For me, the second part of this bill is just good common sense. This bill calls for all buses to activate their stop signal and stop arm when receiving or discharging passengers. Obviously, it is difficult for the driver of an automobile who is behind or approaching the inactive bus to have a clear view of the bus that is receiving or discharging passengers. This creates an unfair situation. Currently, only the bus that is receiving or discharging passengers is required to do so.

Every bus driver in Ontario who has driven more than half an hour a day has some kind of situation that causes them to miss a heartbeat or two. Caution is needed. Bus drivers and motorists face many unpredictable circumstances suddenly and unexpectedly when on Ontario's roadways.

One day on Highway 12 between Orillia and Coldwater, I was heading west to Orillia. A school bus was coming towards me and the lights started flashing. I immediately put on my brakes and I stopped. The school bus stopped some 50 feet beyond where I was stopped. I often wonder what education these drivers have when it comes to when to turn on their flashing lights and when not to, but I also wonder what the travelling public out there feel their responsibility is when they stop: Do they stop when the lights are flashing? Do they stop when the arm comes out? When is it feasible for them to stop?

I think a little education needs to be done within the whole system with regard to drivers who put their flashing lights on too soon and with what happened to me, that after they had gone by, they stopped.

I think we must support this bill and protect our most precious cargo: our children. Bill 137 makes available a simple measure to guard against low-probability, high-consequence events, and I suggest it is wise to vote in favour of this bill.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure to add a few comments to this morning's debate on my colleague's bill, comments that, I might add, will be in support of his initiative.

I've come to know the member for St Catharines-Brock very well over the past two years, and he certainly brings a strong degree of conviction about education and the safety of children in this province. As a father, he obviously and routinely brings personal experiences and applications and concerns he may have on a variety of issues to the educational forefront, and I think that practical approach is very appropriate in terms of finding solutions to some of the problems we deal with.

I'm obviously very pleased to be working with him as well in the capacity of parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training. I know this is an issue that's very important to both of us as well as the ministry in this regard. His motivations are obviously well intentioned, as one could expect, and certainly the motive to protect the safety of our children is of primary importance to all of us. Too often we hear of tragic scenarios involving young people due to lack of enforcement or situations involving school buses across the province.

I thought it was important that I provide some remarks to the member for Essex-Kent, who I think raised an important issue, and that was in part the issue of driver behaviour. Too often we hear of cases that are reported to law enforcement agencies or by bus operators, but similarly, we do not hear about the numerous cases which aren't reported because of speed or other related factors that contribute to the bus operator being unable to recognize the individual or the situation. Too often I think we take for granted that we're speaking about issues that we know are occurring and not about what we don't know is happening.

I think this bill in part speaks to that. But as we look to the comments of the Ontario School Bus Association, which I think generally endorsed the viewpoint expressed by my colleague, they also raise the issue of behaviour and the consistency of behaviour, knowing the expectations of vehicular movements as they apply to school buses. That's an area of public education and awareness that drivers need to be aware of and need to inform themselves of. That will only parallel our efforts to provide the strong legislative frameworks that are needed to provide enforcement procedures and provisions that would ensure safety for all children in this province.

I think the focus is important in terms of not only the railway crossing provisions but also the provisions that address a tandem situation of school buses. The railway crossing speaks to the automated system, but too often as well in rural Ontario we have situations where visibility is somewhat impaired at crossing intersections due to a variety of reasons. I think, as a cautionary note, this provision would go a long way in addressing some of those practical concerns that happen from time to time.

In speaking with bus operators in my own community, I know they fully endorse the provisions the member is pursuing with respect to his bill. It's something they support as an industry. The individuals I've spoken to constantly retain or keep public safety in the forefront of their minds as school bus operators and in terms of the policy decision-making they're involved in with the various school boards they're serving.

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to add a few brief comments. As someone who has 85% of his students bused in the province, I certainly will be supporting the recommendations of my colleague.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines-Brock, you have two minutes.

Mr Froese: I'd like to thank all members of the House who gave their comments and spoke to the bill. I'd like to thank Rodger Bailey, who lives in St Catharines, who brought this issue to my attention. I'd also like to thank the Ontario School Bus Association and particularly Rick Donaldson, who is here today. He has always been concerned about child safety and we've had excellent discussions and I have had some excellent advice as well on my bill.

This bill is about our children, our most precious resources. We need to do everything we can to protect them. I believe that my bill, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (school buses), 1997, will do that. But just as important as this bill, and again I would request support from all members of the House, is the education factor around school bus safety and our children. I believe we need the law first and then the awareness must follow. There are excellent education programs out there already: the Peel safety program, the OPP officer on the train program, the OPP traffic management teams.

There needs to be more education of parents and children through the schools. The school bus industry as well must include each of these issues in their training programs.

We all need to work together because, as I said before, our children are our most important resources. The lives of our children and our grandchildren depend on good bus driver practices, training children about safe school bus practices, correct loading zones and, last but not least, the defensive driving habits of the driving public.

WASTE DISPOSAL ON NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 85, standing in the name of Mr Skarica. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Skarica has moved private member's notice of motion number 60.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We'll deal with it afterwards.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SCHOOL BUSES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 86, standing in the name of Mr Froese. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Froese has moved ballot item number 86, second reading of Bill 137.

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

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You didn't order it to committee. I would like it to go to the standing committee on social development.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

We will now vote on the first ballot item. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

WASTE DISPOSAL ON NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Skarica has moved ballot item number 85. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Gravelle, Michael

McLeod, Lyn

Barrett, Toby

Grimmett, Bill

Munro, Julia

Bisson, Gilles

Guzzo, Garry J.

Newman, Dan

Boushy, Dave

Hardeman, Ernie

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Bradley, James J.

Hastings, John

Phillips, Gerry

Churley, Marilyn

Hoy, Pat

Pupatello, Sandra

Cleary, John C.

Johns, Helen

Ruprecht, Tony

Colle, Mike

Jordan, W. Leo

Shea, Derwyn

Conway, Sean G.

Klees, Frank

Sheehan, Frank

Cordiano, Joseph

Kormos, Peter

Skarica, Toni

Crozier, Bruce

Kwinter, Monte

Smith, Bruce

Doyle, Ed

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Tilson, David

Flaherty, Jim

Lankin, Frances

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Fox, Gary

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Froese, Tom

Leadston, Gary L.

Wood, Bob

Gerretsen, John

Martin, Tony

Wood, Len

Grandmaître, Bernard

McLean, Allan K.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Galt, Doug

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 1.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before we adjourn, I'd like you to recognize the former member for Wentworth East, Mr Mark Morrow.

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

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): It's very important that the people, not only in my riding but across Ontario, understand that Mike Harris wants to shut out every semblance of opposition to his government. We've seen him, through all his behaviour in his first two years of office, have absolute disdain and disregard for anyone who opposes his views.

We know that we are members of the loyal opposition and we understand that we have a key role to play in government here at Queen's Park. We insist, as members of the opposition, that we're given that right to act as the official opposition and to do so in an appropriate manner. That means we need to have all the tools available to us that we have had this far.

We believe the government is trying to change the rules of this House because we have been effective, because we have been able to effect change in policies that have been set by this Mike Harris government that have not been in the best interests of the public all across Ontario.

I'd like to read just a portion of what Ernie Eves himself had to say in opposition. He said it "is through the opposition parties' ability to debate, and yes, on occasion even stall or slow down the progress of a particular bill, and that has worked very effectively over the years against governments of all political stripes."

What is the finance minister saying today when he is part of the ruling hand of Mike Harris that tries to shut down the opposition?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Ontarians are witnessing the most vicious assault on democracy that's ever been committed in this province. This government's adamancy and insistence on creating so-called new rules is an abandonment of the role and responsibilities and duties of every member of this Legislative Assembly. This government shows nothing but disdain for this assembly. It shows nothing but disdain for the responsibilities that elected members, be they government members or opposition members, have to their constituents and to the people of this province.

It is an important element in this parliamentary tradition that debate is used to address and resolve issues. This government prefers to abandon debate. I tell them now that they are inviting tactics by citizenry and by members of communities across this province that are going to be as harsh in kind as the harshness with which they're attacking democratic institutions.

This government doesn't want to undergo the scrutiny of an opposition. This government knows its policies are condemning this province to increased poverty, joblessness, unemployment and despair for sick people, for seniors and for young people and students alike. This government is abandoning democracy, just as it is abandoning Ontario working --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Scarborough Centre.

DAVID CHU

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I am pleased to rise in the House today to honour David S.H. Chu, a great Ontarian and true supporter of education in this province.

On Friday of last week, Mr Chu was honoured by the University of Toronto with an honorary doctorate of laws degree, conferred upon him at Scarborough College's convocation ceremony.

David Chu, a Canadian citizen and resident of Hong Kong, is one of the leading business exponents of vigorous technology-based economic development as a means of widening contacts between China and the rest of the world. He has been a leader in promoting economic stability and was recognized by the People's Republic of China by being appointed as a member of the selection committee to choose the first chief executive of Hong Kong. Chu is known as a businessperson of the highest integrity and trustworthiness.

David Chu is also a committed supporter of education in this province. Recently he made a generous gift to support initiatives of the faculty of arts and science in the study of the Asia-Pacific region which will make possible the creation of an endowment chair and establish scholarships for U of T undergraduate and graduate students studying in Pacific Rim countries.

His gift will also fund a public program to increase understanding of modern China and allow the university to host scholars, business and government experts from the Asia-Pacific area who can contribute to the university's growing education and research focus there.

I would ask every member of the Legislature to join me in congratulating David Chu on this most deserved honour.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mike Harris's government is always in a hurry to ram through its agenda, but for the Minister of Education that's never fast enough. John Snobelen needs the new rule changes to go through because he has a lot to do and he doesn't want to be interrupted with inconvenient things like consultation or public hearings. In fact, the less people know about what the Minister of Education is doing, the better, because then no one will get in his way.

The Mike Harris government has already declared war on non-teaching school board employees and municipal employees. Now Mike Harris's education minister wants to do the same thing to teachers. If he gets the rule changes he can bring in a bill to strip away teachers' rights next week and have it passed before the summer break. Better yet, he can bring it in in August and pass it in less than a week, before anyone even notices it's happening. If students face striking teachers in September, so what? The government's dirty work will be neatly, quietly, already done.

The Minister of Education doesn't believe in working with people to bring about change. He says that "leadership is the act of getting where you're now already going." Translation: "Get out of my way." He defines power as "the rate at which your intentions become reality."

With these rule changes the Harris government will have much more power to make its intentions reality a lot faster. They will ram their agenda through, but that isn't real leadership and it certainly isn't democracy.

Mike Harris and his colleagues should take time to --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): "Unilateral actions by governments...will result in nothing but chaos and acrimony around here for the next two or three years...."

"You can't always have everything your own way. When you don't get something you think you should have, don't be too petulant abut it, don't be too autocratic about it and don't be too dictatorial about it. Try to approach it with a sense of spirit of generosity and compromise and you might find you get a lot more things done than you're getting done this way. Just some free advice for the government House leader."

"If any government ever did proceed unilaterally with rule changes, it would become a very acrimonious place indeed."

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Who said that?

Mr Wildman: You want to know who said that? The member for Parry Sound made those comments when he was the House leader for the third party because he understood how things work around this place. He understood democracy, he understood that rules must serve all the members and serve the public and the people of Ontario. He understood that governments could not act in a dictatorial fashion in a democracy. He understood that if governments attempted to act that way, there would be so much acrimony around this place that even the government wouldn't get its agenda through, no matter how tight the rules they make, no matter how serious they are about ending the debate in this place.

The member for Parry Sound knew what he was talking about. He knew what he was talking about in July 1992, and the comments he made at that time apply now as this government is attempting to ruin the --

The Speaker: The member for Wellington.

ARTHUR ECONOMY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have some exciting economic news I wish to share with the House. Musashi Seimitsu Industry Co Ltd of Japan announced last week its intention to open a new manufacturing plant in Arthur.

With a $3-million investment, the company plans to employ 30 people when the plant begins operating in March 1998 and it plans to employ 100 in three years' time. The plant will provide automotive suspension parts for the Honda Canada manufacturing plant in Alliston.

Last week I had the privilege of joining Arthur village council and Mr Iwase of the company in an announcement ceremony to mark this good news.

I want to extend my congratulations to the village council and staff for their work in making Arthur a desirable place to do business and create new jobs. I'd also like to thank Mr Iwase, president of Technical Auto Parts Inc, Musashi Seimitsu's US subsidiary, for his

part in selecting Arthur as the location for this new plant.

Mr Iwase's comments at the ceremony reflect my own beliefs that Wellington has many positive features to offer prospective businesses. He said that Arthur "has a skilled workforce, a good infrastructure and a high quality of life," and I couldn't agree more.

I am very encouraged by the brighter economic outlook for Ontario which our government has encouraged through its policies. However, our work is not over. Our focus as a government must continue to be on providing opportunities for new and existing businesses that create the new jobs we need.

As the MPP for Wellington and the parliamentary assistant for small business to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, I will continue to work with the minister and the government to do all we can to improve conditions for business investment and the creation of new jobs in Wellington and Ontario.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM / RÉFORME DU RÈGLEMENT

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): The government is proceeding with rule changes that affect most dramatically the people of this province. I am reminded of the Bill 7 fiasco. You'll remember that. It was the government's labour legislation. Politics aside, that legislation created problems that are happening at the Ontario Labour Relations Board now that'll take years to solve. Why? Because they jammed through hundreds of amendments without the opportunity to review them, talk about them or discuss them.

I'd like to remind the government, more important, the people of Ontario, that virtually every other democratic institution that derives from the British Parliament has at least one system of checks and balances, two legislative bodies to look at legislation, to study legislation, to discuss its impacts. Ontario doesn't have this. This government is jamming through rule changes that will affect people, will affect business people, will affect average citizens in negative and harmful ways because the only check will be what the government wants.

"Let's not discuss bills, let's not think them through, let's not have sober second thoughts. Let's simply proceed first and ask questions later." That may not -- may not? -- will not work in this province. It will not work anywhere. Ontario will be the only jurisdiction in the world where a government can get away with that kind of nonsense and still call itself democratic. Take back your rules. Let's make this House work in the interests of all the people of Ontario.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Encore une fois ce gouvernement se démontre comme gouvernement non démocratique, un gouvernement qui dit, «On veut avoir tout le pouvoir, toute la puissance, tout l'appui en arrière du Cabinet de la province afin de passer des lois,» sans respecter la responsabilité qu'ils ont comme gouvernement envers la démocratie de cette province.

Ils vont changer le Règlement de la Chambre. Pourquoi ? Pour exactement cette raison. Ils essaient de nous faire croire qu'ils veulent le faire parce que ça va mieux faire marcher la Chambre. Cela n'a rien à faire avec «faire marcher la Chambre». La Chambre devrait marcher pour le public de l'Ontario, et M. Harris et M. Eves et le reste de son Cabinet veulent que cette Chambre travaille seulement pour le Cabinet et non pour la population de l'Ontario.

On dit dans le Nouveau Parti démocratique qu'un gouvernement est élu pour une raison, et une seule raison : passer des lois pour tous les francophones, tous les anglophones, toutes les personnes de la province, et non seulement pour donner le pouvoir au Cabinet.

Ils vont avoir le droit, quand cette loi sera passée, de faire des changements massifs aux lois de la province qui vont affecter toutes les personnes de l'Ontario. Il y a quasiment rien qu'on peut faire comme membres de l'opposition ou même comme membres des arrière-bans après que le Règlement sera changé.

Je dis que ce gouvernement doit prendre garde, parce que la population de l'Ontario ne va pas accepter que le gouvernement de Mike Harris agisse comme une dictature et dise à la population de l'Ontario que ce n'est pas une démocratie. Je vous le dis.

COBOURG WATERFRONT FESTIVAL

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): July 1, Canada Day, is fast approaching. The UN has for the fourth time chosen Canada as the best place in the world to live. We as Canadians have much to celebrate and to give thanks for on this very special day of July 1.

As a prelude to the festivities of Canada Day, I invite all members and their families to visit Cobourg's annual waterfront festival and join in the celebration of Canadian art, music and culture. This art show is absolutely second to none in Ontario. I can guarantee that the entertainment will be excellent, the people friendly and Cobourg's Heritage Harbour beautiful. The only thing I can't guarantee is that there will be sunshine for those days.

However, come rain or shine, this is indeed a top-quality Ontario festival which I know you and your family would certainly enjoy. So remember the Cobourg Waterfront Festival, June 28 through 30. It is a "must" visit. If you don't have plans for July 1, please join us in one of the many communities in Northumberland for the Canada Day celebration.

As I close, it is my pleasure to acknowledge the tremendous effort and commitment of organizers and volunteers who have made the Cobourg Waterfront Festival, the Canada Day celebrations and the Canada Day parades possible. I look forward to another celebration.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: For the last couple of days the government has come into this House and has tried to tell us that their proposed rule changes are based upon the federal Parliament. We have checked with the federal Parliament. They are in no way based upon the federal Parliament. Would the government please correct the record --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. To the leader of the third party, first, there wasn't a point of privilege. Second, I think I ruled with respect to buttons, pins, stickers and other paraphernalia. I would ask that you remove it at this time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order from the government side, please.

Mr Hampton: No disrespect to you, Speaker, but I will not remove this. We cannot participate --

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Throw him out. He wants a long weekend.

The Speaker: Order, Minister of Agriculture.

Then you know I have no other option than to name the member for Rainy River, Mr Hampton.

Mr Hampton was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, I would ask that you remove the sticker, please.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): No disrespect to your position, Mr Speaker, but I cannot remove it either.

The Speaker: I then have no option but to name the member for Sault Ste Marie, Mr Martin.

Mr Martin was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I would ask that you remove that sticker, please.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): No disrespect to you, Speaker, but I will not remove the sticker.

The Speaker: Then I have no option but to name the member for Hamilton Centre, Mr Christopherson.

Mr Christopherson was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, I ask that you remove that sticker, please.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Pas de manque de respect, Monsieur le Président, mais c'est une question de démocratie pour la Chambre et pour la population ontarienne, et je ne peux pas l'enlever.

The Speaker: Then I have no option but to name the member for Cochrane South, Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury East, I ask you to remove that sticker, please.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Mr Speaker, with no disrespect to you, this government is operating in a completely anti-democratic fashion, and I will not live with it in this House.

The Speaker: I have no alternative then but to name the member for Sudbury East, Ms Martel.

Ms Martel was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, I'd ask that you remove that sticker, please.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Speaker, I have the highest regard for you, and I also have the highest regard for democracy and the democratic traditions that take place in this House; this government has put them under direct attack.

The Speaker: Then I have no option but to name the member for Welland-Thorold, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Member for Dovercourt, I would ask that you remove that sticker, please.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Speaker, with all due respect, the members opposite, the members of the government, think this is a light matter, think this is something to make light of. This is the only way --

The Speaker: I have no option but to name the member for Dovercourt, Mr Silipo.

Mr Silipo was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, I would ask that you remove that sticker, please.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): With the highest regard for you, Speaker, and respect for your office, because of the actions of this government with regard to unilateral rule changes and the threat to democracy in this province, I have no option but to protest on behalf of my constituents and the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: Then I have no option but to name the member for Algoma, Mr Wildman.

Mr Wildman was escorted from the chamber.

CASE REPORTS, OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the Ombudsman's case report in the matter of Mr H and the Ministry of Finance and Mr S and the Ministry of Health, pursuant to subsection 21(4) of the Ombudsman Act.

ORAL QUESTIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. This is only the beginning. Over the last two years your government has faced an unprecedented number of public demonstrations and people opposed to your government. You've had to face protesters from all across this province from all walks of life. You've had to face people who were angry about Bill 26, parents, teachers, students, public service workers, injured workers and, most recently, the people of Metro Toronto, who overwhelmingly rejected your megacity.

What has your government's response been? It has been to dismiss and intimidate. Your approach is to deal quickly and severely with those who oppose you. When you change the rules to shut out opposition, you're not just shutting us out; you are making it virtually impossible for anyone who disagrees with you to be heard. Why are you afraid of anyone who disagrees with you? Why are you making it impossible for those people to be heard?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I have never been afraid of anybody who disagrees with me, nor is anybody in the government. It is commonplace in a democratic society for people to have the right to disagree and to have freedom in expression of their opinions.

Mr Cordiano: Do you not agree that these changes will severely limit debate? You'll be able to shove through law so quickly the public will have no time to react to it. Your plan will take away the right of teachers to strike in the future. That can be introduced on a Monday and by week's end it will be gone. It would make it possible to pass your plans to destroy rent control within a matter of days.

Legitimate concerns that people have, citizens from all walks of life -- tenants, teachers, small business people, property taxpayers -- they'll all lose their right to respond to what your government proposes. If you think you've seen a lot of protest now, wait until you take that democratic right to protest, to respond to your government's initiatives, away from those people. Why is it that you are taking the right to respond away from the people of this province in this assembly?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm sure if he thinks about it, and I'm sure even the member from Scarborough would agree, this place obviously hasn't been working too wonderfully in the last few months. If it had, the member from Scarborough wouldn't have felt inclined to take the extreme measure he took several months ago. A lot of the proposed rule changes the member will know come directly from our counterparts in Ottawa.

It is my understanding that the three House leaders had a meeting of some length last evening. Understandably, there are still some differences of opinion between and among the House leaders, but it is my hope that those discussions will continue and ultimately lead to some resolution of the matter.

Mr Cordiano: A few years ago this member stood in this House and said, "The only way opposition," including public opposition, "can be effectively dealt with...is through the...ability to debate, and yes, on occasion even stall or slow down progress of a bill." Those were your words, Minister.

Imagine, under your proposed changes the public would never have had the chance to look into the omnibus Bill 26 and you would never have been forced to make the more than 150 amendments that were made to that legislation. Your megacity law would have been rammed through without giving the public any chance whatsoever to respond. Democracy, I say to you and to members of the back bench in this government, just doesn't happen every four years. The public has a real right to respond and to be heard.

I ask you again: Why do you want to eliminate the public's right to respond legitimately? Why are you taking this right away from the people of this province? That's what you're doing when you try to