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

November 7, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Hansen moved second reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

M. Hansen propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Hansen: I would like to explain the bill. The purpose of the bill is to require persons installing plumbing fixtures in new or existing buildings to use only prescribed fixtures intended to reduce the flow of water and the discharge of sewage. The use of the prescribed fixtures would be enforced by the municipal inspections carried out under the regulations.

Last spring I talked to the mayor of West Lincoln, Ms Packham. In Smithville, a small town in which the local well was contaminated with PCBs, a pipeline had to be installed from Grimsby to Smithville. The line that was installed to Smithville has actually choked the development within the urban boundaries of Smithville.

Discussing introducing private bills for the municipality for a bylaw, I conferred with other municipal mayors and they thought this would be a great idea, but introducing five bills would be very expensive for the five municipalities.

Fonthill is in the same state, in that it depends on water from the city of Welland. Grimsby is waiting for an environmental assessment for installing another water-pumping station and purification plant. Also, St Catharines is in the position that if it has the water it does not have the sewer capacity, so development in the west part of St Catharines has been slowed down also, within the urban boundaries. The town of Lincoln -- Mayor Konkle -- has also had a problem with mussels in the intake pipes, and there have been water restrictions in the town for a period of time.

I would like to share this bill with the province of Ontario and not just look after my constituents in Lincoln. I would like the members opposite and the government to buy into this plan and be part of this bill to also help their constituents and their towns.

That is just my local experience on this particular bill. The government has already taken the initiative to challenge Ontarians to reduce water consumption. Bill 141 will ensure that new users on the system will automatically use less. Bill 141 will go hand in hand with the long-term plan of the Minister of Natural Resources, who is conducting workshops on water efficiency with various groups in the province. If new homes or buildings are required to have efficient units installed, they will add less pressure to the municipal services.

This will allow municipalities which are being restrained from expanding because of infrastructure being at near capacity to expand, or at least to infill in areas that should be developed, without putting unnecessary strain on a system.

Also -- my riding is very rural -- in rural areas, efficiency units require less water to be drawn from the ground water supply and will mean less going into the septic beds.

One example is in Boston, the Marriott Hotel. The hotel replaced 430 guest-room toilets that used 3.5 gallons per flush with 1.5-gallon efficiency units. The changeover will reduce the Marriott's water usage by approximately 1.2 million gallons per year. They were also looking at a 38% increase in the next three years in water and sewage charges. As a local example, the Holiday Inn in Kitchener, Ontario, replaced all shower heads in guest rooms with low-flow shower heads. In addition, they installed simple toilet dams, and together the result has been a saving of $14,000 per year in energy, water and sewage charges. Reduction saves money.

Ontarians are big water users. Per capita, they use nearly as much as Americans -- 300 litres per day versus 426 litres -- and twice as much as western Europeans, who use 150 to 200 litres per day. Ontario households use more than one third of all the water provided by municipal treatment plants. The water supplying Ontario households and industries comes primarily from the Great Lakes. This water cannot be used as it is; it must be purified with chemicals. Waste water must be treated, and clean water must be distributed throughout the province.

This process uses energy and will likely cost Ontario about $1.7 billion in 1991. It also affects the quality of the environment. In 1980, the processing cost was about $600 million. Since then, this cost has nearly tripled.

Communities not situated near lakes or rivers, as well as most Ontario farms, use ground water supplies such as wells, which can run short. Water shortages in such areas as the regional municipality of Waterloo occur often during prolonged dry weather and, if demand continues to increase, most communities will face the substantial cost of expanding existing water treatment plants or building new ones. In addition, some communities that rely on ground water already face water shortages and may have greater problems in the future.

By adopting efficient practices used elsewhere, Ontarians can achieve zero growth in water use, at least to the year 2011. If we achieve zero growth, we will reduce stress on the environment, lessen the likelihood of water shortages and reduce energy costs.

To take an example in the United States, 14 states, including New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, have mandated or will mandate the use of low-flow devices such as toilets, faucet aerators and shower heads. A bill is before the House of Representatives which will require the use of six-litre toilets and other water-efficient fixtures.

What are the savings to the average household with four people living in it? The answer is dependent on the efficiency measures undertaken and how the family reacts to water efficiency. If the family is charged per litre of water use and is assumed to have the standard shower faucet and toilet which was installed in the past, and if newer water-efficient fixtures, including a low-flow toilet, are installed, then savings of $115 per year are possible. This represents a 33% saving on the average bill of $350 for water and sewer services for a family of four. There are 26,000 households in Lincoln; that would be a $2-million saving in one year.

Who will pay for this? The only source of funding will be water users. It is this group which makes use of the water and pollutes the water, and it is only fair this group should clean it up.

It is possible that some municipalities may choose to offer free retrofit kits to home owners or offer financial incentives. This has been done in Waterloo and in many US cities. However, it is important to understand that the water user will ultimately pay for those through their water bill.

If we use less water, are we going to be able to maintain the same rates? Utilities have fixed costs which must be paid even if less water is used or even none. If everyone suddenly cut back their water use, this could happen. In practice, some people will cut back right away and others will take longer.

During this time, new customers will be hooked up to the system, which will offset any decline in sales. Over time, more customers will be paying less, which will maintain revenues to the utility. The aim will be to hold demand at a constant level thus holding revenues constant.

Do members know that 26% of all municipal water supplies in Ontario are from well water? This services about one million people. In addition, most agricultural water used in households is from ground water sources. Toilet flushing takes 41% of the water used in our homes; washing and bathing, 37%; kitchen and drinking, 11%. As you can see, this bill is needed.

What about the cost of the toilets? They are between $125 to $350, depending on the model. What about the existing sewage lines that we have? They can be adapted to it. There will not be any problem with plug-ups or anything else.

The Ontario plumbing industry has indicated that if we change over to make water-efficient products in Ontario, if there is a sufficient demand, changing the code and launching a water efficiency program should create this demand, therefore preserving or enhancing the number of Ontarians working in the plumbing fixture industry. Only about 12% of plumbing fixtures are currently imported.

Mr McClelland: At the outset, let me say to the member for Lincoln that I appreciate, and I think many of his colleagues appreciate, the initiative he has taken here. I want to congratulate him for having taken this opportunity in private members' hour to introduce a very practical piece of legislation and something that in terms of the spirit, the underlying philosophy and thrust, of what is incorporated within Bill 141, any member of this House would be hard pressed not to support. I say to the member for Lincoln, he is to be congratulated for this job well done.

The bill sets out a requirement for new structures and new buildings to incorporate water-saving devices in their fixtures and plumbing. It is certainly worth while to consider that a number of jurisdictions, as the member for Lincoln has already indicated, have proceeded with similar legislation, particularly jurisdictions in the United States.

We note that some municipalities have shown leadership in this area and they too are to be congratulated. My understanding is that Waterloo and Wellington require low-flow devices in new homes. Niagara Falls has passed -- if not already passed it is certainly considering -- a bylaw that would require all hotel additions to use low-flow fixtures.

That is the kind of initiative being undertaken from place to place across the province. What the member for Lincoln is doing is, of course, to try and incorporate that in a general scheme across the province.

The member for Lincoln has indicated in his comments the tremendous amount of water that is used by the average household and the average person in Ontario. The very able people in research came out with some statistics that are quite astounding. The numbers are indeed staggering. I had no idea that an average toilet that is three or four years old loses up to 100 gallons of water a day just in seepage through seals and valves that have worn. That is yet another example. I had no idea, quite frankly, that if you have a household of four people and they brush their teeth and leave the water running, presuming they do it two times a day, you are looking at about 24 gallons of water wasted.

I water my lawn probably more than I ought to from time to time and I am not judicious in terms of controlling the time. Watering an average lawn in the summertime uses about 660 gallons of water. When I wash my car, do I leave the hose running? Washing a car uses approximately 125 gallons of water. Those are the kinds of things that sort of put in perspective the principle of the bill that the member for Lincoln has brought forward. It is very worth while. There is a tremendous opportunity for conservation and for using a very important resource that we have more judiciously and wisely.

We often forget as well in Canada, and particularly in Ontario, how very fortunate we are in having ready access to the quantity and quality of water that we have. Some of us have had an opportunity of visiting other parts of the world where it would be criminal to use water the way we do. Indeed, one of the greatest commodities is water and one of the greatest difficulties in terms of health and maintaining life in many parts of the world is the availability of water.

Again to pay tribute to the member for Lincoln, it is something that I believe, without sounding too esoteric and too flighty, has a really valid moral component, in terms of our responsibility to a world environment and to a world ecology, to show leadership. Having been blessed with an abundance of water in our province, we have a corresponding responsibility to show leadership in how we use that resource and to deal with it appropriately. Again I thank the honourable member for bringing this forward.

There are a couple of questions in terms of the bill itself that I would like to bring forward in a positive and constructive manner and that I ask the member to consider. Certainly I will be urging all of my colleagues on whatever side of the House they sit, for whichever party, to support the bill, because I think the principle is well regarded by each and every member.

In terms of the definition within the amendment, I would like to know, and perhaps the member could comment on, whether the use of the word "building" will refer to all structures. Would that include, for instance, cottages, single homes, industrial buildings, high-rises, etc? What level of change would be considered a renovation? What if I was to do a simple add-on to my home, for example, or some of those practical things? That would probably have to be thought out a bit more.

The other thing that is really key to this is the phase-in period. The manufacturers and the suppliers of the hardware, I think, would want to know very precisely, and appropriately ought to know, what the phase-in period would be. There have been similar initiatives taken in the United States, and the phase-in periods have been anywhere from 90 days to three years.

It seems to me, having done some very brief consultation, with able assistance from people on our staff, that a period of a year of phase-in would provide an opportunity for manufacturers to tool-up for the production of domestic hardware that would accommodate the requirements of the act and also provide an opportunity for in-stock materials. That is a consideration. Failing that, there has to be some consideration of what you would do with all the material in stock. We would have to come up with some creative ideas for either re-using those materials or, ultimately of course, they would have to be disposed of.

That is a concern I have.

It has been mentioned by my friend that there would have to be some integration with the building codes. That is something that could be done very readily in the building and plumbing codes. The Ministry of Housing has indicated, and I think it is clear, that it would be a relatively simple task legislatively to incorporate the changes through the acts that are under the responsibility of the Minister of Housing to make them consistent and comply with the requirements of Bill 141.

I also have a concern, if members will allow me to draw a little bit of a parallel, in terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act and Bill 121 that we will be dealing with and some of the initiatives that I want to see taken in that particular bill. I think I can draw a parallel with this. In the area of water conservation or conservation of anything, energy for example, one of the concerns I would have is to have some sort of guarantee or indication that a landlord or people involved in owning buildings would not be effectively punished for having shown conservation measures.

One of the difficulties I see with not incorporating it into a more holistic scheme is saying to landlords and people who run buildings: "Go ahead and do it. It's the right thing to do" -- which I think we all believe -- "and by the way, you're going to be punished for it. We're going to roll back your rents because you have a cost saving." There ought to be some incentive, some practical way those savings can be passed on to the home owner and the landlord in cases where they are commercial buildings, and residential tenancies particularly.

I want to leave some time. My colleague the member for Oriole wants to talk about this. There are some specifics I touched on. There are a few others we will save for another day.

In conclusion, I simply want to say that apart from some of the specific issues I would like to see addressed, there may be some refinements that would be in order. Again I say to the member for Lincoln, this is a job well done. The principle of what he is doing here is to be commended. It is a responsibility I believe we as legislators in Ontario have, not only to the people in this province but indeed to show leadership across this country, and may I say at the risk of overstretching our boundaries too much, a leadership role internationally. Because we are blessed with abundant water resources, I believe we have that responsibility, as the member has so very well taken up in this bill.

Mr Cousens: I would like to applaud the member for Lincoln for bringing forward a motion that has a great deal of thought behind it. He has a genuine concern about the resources we have in this province. Certainly his intention is an honourable one, to see what we can do to preserve our water supplies. Conservation is a term that existed long before we ever entered this House and we have to work towards it.

I want to begin with a compliment, because what follows is not all that complimentary. I happen to believe the member for Lincoln is an honourable man and his intentions are of the highest order, but what follows does not necessarily come under the category of laudatory comments.

If, through this bill, people become more concerned about conservation, if those who are taking in this debate will understand that each of us can contribute to the saving of water supplies through improved shower heads, taps, toilet fixtures and other fixtures in the home, that in itself will mean the debate is not totally a lost cause. But I believe there are matters in the bill that require some alternative point of view and I will try to bring that to the table.

There is another thing in this bill that is of a positive nature. I do not think there is any doubt that people across Ontario and North America who have such resources are now trying to save money and not use them any more than they have to. The power bill itself is an example of where the costs are going higher and higher, and because of the cost of electricity, people are beginning to turn off lights on their own. They can see there are dollars to be saved.

I cannot believe the government has paid $7 million to send out light bulbs to the people of Ontario to try to get them to save electricity. At least it is not coming along with free shower heads for people to try to save water. The government should not do it that way. This bill does not bring up the worst things that are coming from the New Democratic government; that is, sending out free light bulbs so people will save electricity. That $7 million could have been used for the 911 program. It could have been used for many other programs across the province. At least here the government has not tried to give them something for free.

I believe there are a number of issues that should be addressed in the bill before us. The first one has to do with a cost benefit analysis. Some remarks were made by the member's very close and dear friend from the Liberal Party, the member for Brampton North, who is obviously supporting this bill. Like the member for Lincoln, he has not thought through all the elements. It makes it very easy for the Liberals to go along with the New Democrats. Any time they have a chance to go to bed together, it seems they can crawl up under the covers and say, "We at least agree again."

I wish they would come out and have a cost benefit analysis that would allow people to ask, "Why is it in my best interest from an economic point of view to start doing something to help the ecology of our world?" In other words, what are the real numbers that are going to come into it to save people money, for instance, in Metropolitan Toronto and different other areas where they have to pay for their water? How much can a family of four save in a year, and how much extra is it going to cost if they install, when they are making modifications to their home, shower heads and taps and toilets and fixtures? How much extra is it going to cost them? Then how much is it going to save them?

One thing that never comes through from the New Democrats and the Liberals -- I do not want to let them off the hook at all -- is any kind of cost benefit analysis. They should figure out what it is going to cost people and say, "If you spend this, you are going to get this in return." There are going to be intangible benefits that help the ecology, but there are also going to be tangible savings that are going to help people have something back in their own pocket. What is the return on one's investment? What we really want to know is that there is going to be a return for the money that is spent for these fixtures.

Where there can be, there should begin to be far more explanation of the fact that it is going to cost people and then there is also going to be a saving. One thing socialists do not understand is cost benefit analysis because they happen to think everybody has money and money does not matter. I cannot believe that is the way the people want to operate.

That has to do with this bill, but I am leading up to other points, because to me that kind of information could be available and should be available and should be part of any kind of explanation.

Why is it that when this government comes along with a bill like this, as well intentioned as it is, it does not give any notice of it? My friend the Liberal counterpart from Brampton North has a little bit of concern about it. I have a lot of concern. This bill, if it were passed the way it is, would come into force the day it received royal assent. Ladies and gentlemen of the Legislature, that is exactly the way Bill 4, the rent control act, was done: no notice; in fact it was retroactive.

This government has no understanding that there are huge stocks of inventory that are not moving right now. If you have a plumbing supply business and you happen to have some toilets, shower heads and taps, you have a stock already. The member for Brampton North says, "Let's have an innovative way of getting rid of them." What is he going to do, sell them to the United States, sell them to California? They do not want them in California, because they know what it is to be short of water.

We know how rich we are with our water supply. We know it is an invaluable resource that has no price tag to it. But he is talking about all those investments that are held across this country, especially in Ontario,

whereas with this bill we are talking about people who have money tied up now for this equipment. How long is it going to take them to get rid of it? The way this government is driving the economy into the ground, they are never going to be able to install their existing inventory because no one is building houses any more. You can sure tell that when you come through my riding. There is no building going on to speak of.

Those people who already have a significant investment in the products we have been talking about here are going to be stuck with them. The Liberals say, "Give them a year." A year is not enough time for a business to deal with it.

Mr Speaker, could you quiet this rabble down here? The Speaker is not listening either. This is terrible. Here we are in the Legislature. I try to get the Speaker's attention to quiet down my good friends over here. I am listening to myself, but that is probably all that is really happening. It is just terrible in this Legislature. I wish you would quiet those critters down, Mr Speaker. That is all I was trying to get your attention for.

Mr Kormos: Listen, we are on your side.

Mr Cousens: You cannot tell it. Come sit over here. We could use a few more; 20 are not enough.

I am concerned that there is not notice to allow industry and business to really deal with this issue by making this law come into effect right away. I have a feeling, as the New Democrats all have the right words and the Liberals are coming along and supporting it, that I will probably be the only one voting against it. You just never know. I do not like the way the government is saying that this act comes into force the day it receives royal assent. It goes down the hall, the Lieutenant Governor will sign it, and then it is law, and anyone who is in the process of installing fixtures in his home will be breaking the law.

Ontarians do not want to be breaking the law all the time; they are doing it enough now with the GST and the under-the-table things and other things going on. All we are doing now is creating more barriers between the population of Ontario and the government. The government is saying: "We're making this a new law. You have to follow it. It has to be right away. There isn't any notice." What it has ended up doing, then, is forcing people into being lawbreakers. I do not think the people of Ontario want to be known as people who are breaking the law.

The government should give some notice. If there is anything I have learned as the Environment critic for the last year and a half, it is that the industry out there is saying: "Don't make such fast changes in the law or in the regulations that affect us without giving us some chance to react to it. We're not able to do things at the snap of the fingers of the government." The Minister of the Environment does that regularly. She comes along and says, "It's got to be done tomorrow or today, or retroactively."

May there be some sense behind this bill and other bills like it that gives a window of opportunity for people to react to it. The government should not make it come into effect the day it receives royal assent. One year is not enough time for things like this, especially when you have inventories, probably millions of dollars' worth of inventory, and it is just not moving right now. What are they supposed to do with it, throw it out? Is the government going to subsidize them for it? Is the government going to come along and pay down the inventory they cannot use?

To me, that becomes a problem for business. It is hard enough to operate a business today, but when you have stocks of inventory and now you are going to have to throw it out because the government has made a law to make illegal the use of existing toilets and existing shower heads and other fixtures, I say the government should back off a little. It should not just feel it has to legislate something. Instead of having no notice, they should spend more money on education.

If only we could get people who want to do things that are going to help conserve our ecology and conserve our resources and have people buy into it because they believe it, buy into it because they are going to get something back.

I think those benefits are there to be found. They are there to be found because the cost of water is going up. It has gone up in our community. There is a water surcharge we have to pay now, and the cost of sewers is going up. In fact, the cost of water is going to break through the roof once people really start paying for the infrastructure that is there. There is not any doubt that in our own city here in Toronto and across Ontario in many municipalities, you are talking about billions of dollars in order to repair the infrastructure.

The leaks that exist already in water mains that are just seeping away large amounts of water -- some of it goes back somewhere, but we have a major problem in that we have had water so cheap that once we start dealing with the real value of water, the cost of it is going to go up and then people will have more and more reason than ever to say, "Hey, I'd better do something about my fixtures and make sure they're coming along."

One of the other concerns I have is, why another law? Just because we are paid to sit down here 26 weeks of the year, does it mean we have to keep passing laws? The people of Ontario are sick of this place because of all the laws we are passing. We do not feel as if we are doing a job unless we are passing another law, and it is just getting worse and worse. All the government is doing is punching them in: "Hey, come on. We've got another one for you." People are so tired of the fact that the government keeps telling them what they have to do. May the government find other ways of getting people involved rather than just passing these laws.

We have a new area developing in Markham. It is called the Markham East project. I am going to use the member's motion as an idea that I will bring forward. It is a brand-new subdivision of some 600 acres that is going to be expanded by the province of Ontario. I will put together a resolution in the House that we call for the highest environmental and ecological standards to be built into the homes that are constructed in this new subdivision, so that we will require the fixtures and the toilets and the intent behind the member's bill to be there in all these new homes and structures that are built, not just the homes.

I believe in what the member is trying to do, and there are ways in which it can be done. Let that become a model community, as indeed the rest of our community is.

But to come along and have another bill passed into law, not giving the time for people to really understand its ramifications, not having spent the time to educate them even more on the value of conserving our very valuable water supplies -- these are elements missing from the bill. They were not missing from my good friend the member for Lincoln's

preamble when he began his presentation, but the bill itself will come into force the day it receives royal assent, and I think we have had enough of these fast acts by the province. It is time we slowed down a little bit, had a little more time to work it through within the communities and allow people to buy into the whole purpose we are all interested in, and that is to save our country, save our land, save our water and save money.

Mr Fletcher: It is a pleasure to rise and support my colleague the member for Lincoln and his private member's bill, Bill 141. Before I start what I want to say, I want to respond to what the member for Markham was saying as far as cost-benefit analysis is concerned. That is strange coming from a party that is about $3.5 million in debt, wanting to do a cost-benefit analysis when it cannot keep the cost of its own debt down.

As my colleague mentioned before, the current increases in water consumption can be traced to inefficiency. All water that is treated, whether it is being purified for use or being treated for discharge, requires chemicals and energy, both of which lead to higher costs. Our society has changed so much over the years to a conserver society, and it started when the Conservatives were in power, the third party, and also when the Liberals were there; their initiatives also helped changed society towards a conserver society.

I think in this society people are going to respect the member for Lincoln's bill and the intent of the resolution. It is also bringing to the attention of our society the need to start conserving our most precious resource, and that is our water.

If the current growth in water usage continues, municipalities are going to be forced to expand treatment facilities or build new ones. Of course, all this would cost the taxpayer in the end. We know the taxpayers of today are getting sick and tired of rising costs for the services provided to them.

Also, if we look at the new construction that has been going on in this province, we see that the trend is towards a conserver society. It is also towards using what energies we do have. In new houses the windows are facing more to the south to collect sunlight to help heat the houses. Solar panels are being used to warm water. Our citizens, especially the citizens of Guelph, my riding, are more than anxious to start conserving our energy resources and water resources. The water in Guelph, which was partly tainted last year, is well water, and the people finally began to realize just how precious this resource was.

As far as what this is going to cost the people of Ontario is concerned, I think we have to look farther down the road. If we do not start, what is going to be the eventual cost? We see what has happened in California, where water resources are so low that people are crying for water. That can happen here. If we do not start now -- and I think the member for Lincoln has started the ball rolling with this bill -- then we could be the people of California tomorrow, saying, "Where is our resource, where is our water?" Right now it is a timely bill and I want to congratulate the member for introducing it, and it has my full support.

Mr Cooper: As the member for Lincoln has introduced this bill and has spoken highly of Waterloo region and the efforts it has put into finding solutions to save our water, and as I represent the riding of Kitchener-Wilmot, the Kitchener part which is basically suburban residential and the industrial basin, which makes them the largest water users in the region, and as I also represent the township of Wilmot, from where the region draws a lot of its water, I feel I should speak on this briefly and support the bill.

What we are talking about here is new homes being built, but in Waterloo region they have taken a new approach, which is basically education. This is part of the education process: By getting new homes built that will be saving water and helping us in the future to reduce the use of water, we can send out an educational package that would get people thinking in the right frame of mind. Never mind the cost factor; what is the cost of not implementing these things?

What we are talking about in Kitchener right now is a pipeline possibly. I am saying that if we get a reduction in water use, we could probably put off the pipeline. And we should use the facilities available in the region, like the Waterloo Centre for Groundwater Research at the University of Waterloo. This facility is second to none in North America, and if we use this facility we could find solutions and maybe avoid putting the vast amounts of money that are necessary for a pipeline and start building up our infrastructure, such as our water treatment plants and maybe a distribution system.

If all these things are combined, obviously we will have a better solution and it will be cost savings in the future.

That is why I rise in support, and I understand there are several members on this side who would like to speak to this, so I will defer my time to the next member.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to have the opportunity today during private members' hour to speak to the member for Lincoln's bill, which is

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act. It is an important issue that is of concern to me as the member for Oriole, whose riding is in the heart of Metropolitan Toronto and is substantially developed. We may be seeing over the course of time some renovations and changes, but there are not huge tracts of vacant land in Oriole and therefore I would suggest that my constituents are like many people in this province who have taken the vast water resources for granted. You turn on your tap. You turn on your shower. We have never really concerned ourselves about the need to conserve our water in this province.

Therefore, I will be supporting this bill in principle, although I think there are some serious concerns that would have to be addressed before this bill could be implemented.

I am a little concerned with some of the comments of the member for Markham because I believe it is important that the people of Ontario, such as my own constituents in the riding of Oriole, understand that we have always taken both quantity and quality of water for granted in Ontario, just as we have taken for granted the supply of energy and power. Both of those, water and energy, have been the cornerstone of our economic prosperity. These have, because they have been taken for granted, sometimes not been used as efficiently as they can be.

Because we are all concerned about our environment, because we are concerned about future economic prosperity, I think it is important for us to look at the issue of water conservation, and at effective and appropriate use of all our natural resources so that we can continue to have economic prosperity at the same time as we have an ample supply of clean water.

If we use water ineffectively, if we do not conserve and protect the resources we have, this puts enormous demands on our sewer system. I think the statistics my colleague the member for Brampton North mentioned, the statistics around waste, are important for the people of this province to know. The waste that comes from using inefficient plumbing, whether it is toilets or water through shower heads, is something that is costing us. It is costing us as taxpayers because we have to build new sewers. It is costing us as taxpayers because our environmental concerns are not being addressed and we then have to clean up the effects of this wastefulness of the past.

I have some of the same concerns that were expressed by the member for Brampton North. While I will be supporting this in principle, I would like to suggest to the member for Lincoln, who has brought this bill forward, that it is very important, when bringing in a bill like this that will increase public awareness, that we have a plan which will provide incentives for public education and for municipalities, which are the closest to the people, to bring forth the kinds of initiatives we have seen from the municipalities of Waterloo, Wellington and Niagara Falls.

Niagara Falls has a municipal bylaw now that requires new hotels to install water-efficient shower heads. We know that in Waterloo and Wellington, they have brought forward a bylaw very similar to this, as have municipalities throughout the United States where they have water shortages.

I happen to know at first hand, because I have family that lives in Los Angeles, that they have a very severe water shortage and so they have taken all kinds of initiatives to conserve and save water. We have been very fortunate in this province. We have an opportunity today to bring forth the kinds of initiatives that will be friendly and save our environment for the future, for our children and grandchildren, and that will save taxpayers money today and in the future because we will not have to have the kind of infrastructure that would look after waste.

We want the infrastructure to look after what we need, but we do not want to have to build sewers and sewage treatment plants for water that has been wasted unnecessarily.

I want to point out how important good maintenance is. This bill does not provide for a maintenance strategy and a public education strategy. I think that would enhance this bill. We know the Ministry of Housing has a great opportunity as well to raise awareness.

I do not think there is a lot of concern about the principles and the thrust, but there certainly is in the definition of "building." There are concerns around phase-in. We cannot have this bill come into effect on the very day it is proclaimed. We have to allow the public education campaign and the phase-in that would allow for the proper incentives. I think there is an important role and opportunity for the municipalities that this bill does not address.

On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, who are just beginning to understand the need to be effective and efficient in our use of water, power and those natural resources that we take for granted, I will be supporting this bill in principle. It has allowed for an important debate in this Legislature, but this bill is far from perfect. It needs significant discussion and amendment. I hope the member for Lincoln would seriously consider amendments to this bill so that we could see it enacted in this House.

Mr G. Wilson: I am pleased to rise to join this debate that the member for Lincoln has initiated. I can see that with the debate that has ensued, the constructive criticism he has met, he is indeed becoming flushed with pride over bringing this into the House.

Some hon members: Oh.

Mr G. Wilson: Is that the first time that has been used?

I have to say, as several members have pointed out, that it is a province-wide problem. Certainly the examples we have used show it is a worldwide problem, the conservation of resources that we are dealing with here. In my own riding, we have an issue that highlights this problem in that we have to upgrade our sewage treatment plant at the cost of millions of dollars. As has been pointed out, if we could reduce the inflow into that plant, then we could make a significant saving.

I want to say too that although several people have mentioned that the problem has come to the fore recently, I took the opportunity to go into the library just to see what literature there was on this issue. It is quite easy to come up with some startling statistics.

For instance, a conventional toilet uses 19 litres for flushing. An air-assisted unit would reduce that to two litres, for a saving of 89%. A clothes washer uses 140 litres. Front-loading would reduce that to 80 litres, for a saving of 43%. Shower heads use 19 litres a minute; air-assisted would reduce that to two litres a minute and that is a saving of 89%. For faucets, the conventional litres per minutes are 12. A flow-limiting faucet would reduce that to six litres, for a saving of 50%. Members can see that there are some very significant savings that could be achieved by using the implements that are mentioned in the member's bill.

There are also some more innovative ideas I came across in a recently published book, a term called xeriscape, which is a strategy for changing monocultural lawns, that is, all lawns that are just devoted to grass, to more innovative uses of that kind of space that would free up not only the time it takes to look after a lawn, but also the amount of water we put on it and the amounts of herbicides some people use on their lawns. You have a saving too in the amount of waste that would be removed from the lawn.

Studies have shown that approximately 20% of municipal waste consists of grass clippings and other yard trimmings. There is a significant saving, not only in the water that would be used but in the waste that is at the other end.

I think there is a point that has been raised by a number of members: the savings we would have here in the energy that is used to heat water. Certainly the implements that are mentioned in the bill would cut down on the amount of water and cut down on the amount of energy that is needed, but also in the treatment of the waste water that we produce.

These statistics are readily available, as I pointed out. It just requires going to the library or listening to a debate like this and you know that significant savings can be achieved. The question then is, is the political will there?

I think the member for Markham highlighted that difference, that if you take the individual approach you might not realize all the implications. For instance, are people aware of the significant loss in sewer lines or even water lines? It takes, I would suggest, a social approach to this problem. By coming together to debate it, as we are doing here, we can see the problem and then look for solutions that I suggest require a community approach, because it is certainly at the community level where it can be felt. Beyond that it is a global issue.

I want to mention too a recent conference that was held here in Toronto in June, sponsored by the faculties of engineering at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute and the University of Toronto, as well as some professional engineering groups, to show that professional engineers are aware of this problem and are working on it.

An

article entitled "Engineers, Scientists Call for Sustainable Society" has this quote: "Technological transformations must go hand and hand with economic, sociocultural and political changes. We're heading for a disaster if we don't take any action."

It is significant that we know there is a problem, but beyond that, as these studies show, I think we will have a lot better society if we meet this crisis. It is not just a question of a disaster that we face but a much better way of living if we live a more ecologically sensitive lifestyle.

Mr Farnan: I appreciate the opportunity to address this private member's bill this morning,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act, by my colleague and friend the member for Lincoln.

The member for Lincoln and I have shared offices next to each other since he arrived at Queen's Park and we have often had the opportunity to discuss issues together. I can tell members I have been extremely impressed by his enthusiasm, dedication and commitment. I have been around here for four years now and I can say that the member for Lincoln is one of the hardest-working MPPs I have ever had the pleasure to work with.

There are two characteristics that stand out in my view of the member for Lincoln: his determination to serve his constituents in Lincoln and his commonsense approach to issues. He is a very practical politician, I can tell members. In addressing issues, he is a realist. He is more concerned with what is possible than with grandiose ideas that may never materialize. He takes on tough issues, and that is why he has taken on the issue of water conservation. It is an issue that would daunt many people, but he has approached the issue and he does it in his own straightforward, inimitable way.

He asks the straightforward question and then he provides practical, commonsense solutions that can be implemented.

We have seen many private members' bills come forward in this House, and all of them, I would hasten to add, have merit in their own right, but often they are lost because, quite frankly, they are not practical. That is the difference with the member for Lincoln. When he brings forward a private member's bill, members can be absolutely sure it is going to be practical. It will hit the tough issues, but it will have a manner of addressing those issues so that you can say, "If we do this, we'll be moving towards a solution."

As I have listened to people around this chamber this morning, even those who attempted to criticize the bill were consistently saying, speaker after speaker, "We agree with the principle of the bill." Of course they agree with the principle of the bill, because the principle of the bill has merit. It is right. It should be done. What is to stop us, as parliamentarians, when this bill goes on to committee, to come together and take the positive contributions of all members of the House?

That is the kind of politician the member for Lincoln is. He is not stubborn. He does not wear blinkers. He comes forward with an idea, and I can tell members that when this goes to committee, they will find in the member for Lincoln someone who is a conciliator, a mediator, a practical politician who will take the best of all the suggestions and will be prepared to fine-tune his legislation so that it then can receive the unanimous support of all the members of this House.

Not only is he a practical politician, but he is a practical politician who speaks from the heart of the philosophy of the New Democratic Party. Let me say that when the member for Lincoln sits down and asks, "What contribution can I make?" he looks at the importance of conservation within the entire New Democratic agenda, and being the kind of man he is, then goes and brings forward legislation that will support the government's overall policy direction. That is the kind of New Democrat he is, that is the kind of government member he is.

On the local scene, Waterloo region has been a pioneer in this area. We are proud of our industries in their efforts to conserve. We are proud of our region. We are proud of our school board in its education policy. We want this government to lead in conservation. I congratulate the member for Lincoln for taking that leadership role.

Mr Hansen: I would like to thank the member for Brampton North. In the bill I said all structures; it does not matter whether it is a cottage or an industrial site or wherever it may be. All toilets use so much water, so I think we have to take a look right across the whole province.

The other thing he is concerned about is these old toilets and fixtures going to dumps. The metal ones can be recycled and the toilets can be ground up and used in road construction. Those are two areas I did not get into in the very beginning.

It is very important. I think my friends the member for Markham and the member for Brampton North were talking about the phasing in, and that is something my friend had stated, that there has to be some fine-tuning here. I take the criticism quite well and I think it is useful in this particular bill. I think the cost-benefits, the costs that will be saved, also have to be looked at and passed on to the tenants or the householders in the end.

To wind it up, together with conservation education, Bill 141 will lead to a water-efficient Ontario. Examples have shown that efficiency units make an immediate difference to savings that can be easily made by municipalities and eventually the consumer. Bill 141 is a starting block. It will set the standard for the future. We have just recently realized that Ontario's water supply is not endless and that we must start to conserve in order to preserve clean water for our children and grandchildren and the generations ahead.

UNIVERSITY CROWN FOUNDATIONS

Mr Daigeler moved resolution 31:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should follow the example of British Columbia and establish immediately crown foundations at Ontario universities to increase private sector incentives for making major charitable contributions towards higher education.

Mr Daigeler: It is indeed a pleasure to speak to what I think is an important initiative to help our universities at a time when they are under severe stress in terms of their finances. Let me explain a little bit, first of all, what this particular resolution is all about, as I am sure not many members of the House may be familiar with it. It is a tax measure, and tax measures are always rather intricate, so I am sure the members want to know a little bit of what is behind this resolution.

The members will know that under the federal income tax, individuals can reduce their annual taxable income by 20% if they give that amount to registered charities. Of course, I encourage all members of the House and the people who are watching today to make use of that particular provision because many of our charities very much depend on those kinds of contributions. Our tax system wants to encourage people all across the country to contribute in that way to charities.

However, this 20% limitation does not apply if you make donations to certain government bodies; for example, to government bodies associated with medical research. In fact such gifts, called gifts to agencies of the crown, are fully deductible. In other words, donors can get a 100% tax deduction against their net income. Given the tight fiscal situation of our universities, not just in Ontario but across the country, they have argued for some time that provinces should establish crown foundations or agencies that act on behalf of the government and therefore on behalf of all people.

These foundations would be wholly owned by and be agents of the provincial government. Therefore, private donors to these university crown foundations could obtain the full tax deduction for their donations to the universities, without the 20% of net income limitation.

As I said, the funds raised would be used to support university programs. In this way, the tax saving for the donor would provide an ongoing benefit to the university community and as such, of course, to all the people of that particular province where the crown foundation is being established.

You may ask, Mr Speaker, and some citizens of the province may ask as well, whether the federal government, which is responsible for the Income Tax Act, will allow a 100% tax deduction for this university purpose. I am pleased to say the answer is yes. In fact, British Columbia has been a trailblazer in this matter. That province got a ruling from the Department of National Revenue and passed the University Foundations Act in 1987. It became effective on December 11, 1987. I have a copy of that act in front of me, and I should acknowledge the help and assistance of the Council of Ontario Universities in that regard. They sent me a copy of this particular act.

Ever since British Columbia passed this particular legislation, this concept of establishing crown foundations and therefore giving incentives to private donors has been widely discussed by the university community. Here in Ontario, Queen's University has been particularly active in this regard, with, I should say, the support of other university presidents. In fact it was at a recent visit to the University of Western Ontario that this issue was first brought to my attention as the Liberal critic for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, and also to the attention of MPPs who represent the greater London area.

I should acknowledge that the University of Western Ontario has a very excellent practice of twice a year inviting members from the local area and also members of all three parties who are responsible for the university's portfolio to come and hear more about the concerns of the university. I think that is an example that could be followed in other parts of the province.

On April 25 of this year, the principal of Queen's University wrote to the Premier saying the creation of crown foundations has the potential of providing significant benefit to all. I have a copy of that letter in front of me and I would like to quote some paragraphs because I think it explains very well the benefit of this particular initiative to the universities and to the province. Mr David Smith, the principal of Queen's University, writes as follows:

"The concept has very important public policy implications. It provides an incentive to those in our society who are most able to contribute to increase their support for our public universities. Once the decision to make a substantial gift to higher education is taken by a potential donor, the existence of the crown foundations at Ontario universities may significantly increase the size of the gift....

"The fact that some provinces" -- and I mentioned British Columbia -- "have already provided for the establishment of such crown foundations at their universities places Ontario universities at a distinct disadvantage. Members of our own group have lost significant potential gifts to other provinces because of this fact. Queen's University has one benefactor who had indicated that our gifts would have been fivefold if we had a crown foundation in place."

To the Premier therefore, "We urge that immediate consideration be given to the advancement of the process of creating crown foundations at Ontario universities."

My resolution today has as its objective precisely that, to make sure the Premier and this government move quickly on this request that was put forward by our universities.

We all know that higher education in this province and across the whole country is strapped for money. To increase private donations to universities is obviously one way to help them out. It will not, obviously, be the only way and the only solution, and perhaps not even the major solution to their funding crunch, but it is a solution, and it is a solution that is practical and immediately available, with enough political will. I hope the members will support me. It can be implemented quickly and without much bureaucracy.

There will be some cost to the province and the federal government because they are losing out on some income tax revenue. But of course, since BC already has crown foundations, individual donors could just make their donations to BC -- in fact they have -- and Ontario would thus lose the tax revenue anyway. Moreover, this initiative could be seen as a way to allow people to pay their tax for a particular purpose -- to designate their tax, as it were. I think we are all agreed that higher education is a very worthwhile purpose in this regard.

I note that my time is unfortunately up already. I hope members will support my resolution.

Mrs Cunningham: It is with pleasure that I speak to this resolution in the House this morning, presented by my colleague the member for Nepean. We were very pleased to have him at the meeting at the University of Western Ontario a couple of weeks ago, where he saw how that university was struggling to maintain the programs and the staff and the quality of the education system we have come to enjoy in Ontario.

He was also there to see how difficult it is in these times for our students as they face the challenges and the expectations to be able to compete in this global economy in a way that we ourselves never, ever thought would be needed. I have to say I think this is a very forward-thinking resolution. I hope it will receive the support of the government.

There is a precedent in the province of British Columbia for this. I could quote from many letters in the past number of years where donations to our universities have had to be returned because there was no incentive for the estate, in many cases, to make these presentations, based on the amount of money it would be involved with in terms of taxation.

In October of this year, the University of Western Ontario brought to my attention an issue where an estate lawyer in British Columbia working with a graduate of the University of Western Ontario now working in British Columbia suggested that our university may not receive $500,000 from a bequest because the estate would be unable to use more than a small fraction of the $500,000 charitable receipt as long as the 20%-of-income rule applied. So I think the member for Nepean is very timely in this presentation, and the government would be very responsible if it responded in a positive way as quickly as possible.

That particular lawyer is recommending that his client leave that bequest to the appropriate crown foundation in British Columbia, for the use of the University of British Columbia. Although that is a wonderful province to visit, and many of our young people spend time working in that great province in the summer, especially in the forestry industry, I would advise that here in Ontario we ought to have at least the same advantage when it comes to private donations on behalf of our universities.

We know that university students are facing many challenges. Post-secondary institutions are struggling to maintain excellence, there is a shortage of permanent full-time faculty, and buildings are rapidly deteriorating. Students are finding themselves in overcrowded classrooms with outdated facilities and equipment. It is becoming more difficult for students to learn in the environment they are being subjected to.

Without the resources to produce the highly skilled workforce and advanced research facilities, Ontario will be unable to compete in today's global markets, either inside our own country or around the world. We are currently experiencing job losses during these times of economic recession, and it is more important than ever before that we support creativity, competitiveness and commitment to a well-educated workforce.

We must remain in the forefront of scientific and technological development and educational achievement if Ontario is to maintain its competitive position in today's global economy. We know that Ontario's universities in the past have made, and hopefully in the future will continue to make a major contribution to this province's competitiveness, and that they do indeed play a vital role in the development of highly skilled human resources.

On Monday this week we saw a new alliance, the Alliance for Ontario Universities, release a study that demonstrated the vital contribution universities make to the economic stability of the province. The study interestingly showed that each year universities pump some $6.2 billion into the economy, and more than 138,000 jobs are associated with university operations.

They receive approximately $1.9 billion from government, which means for every dollar we invest in our universities, our universities generate $3 in the way of real dollars to our economy; for every dollar we spend on universities, they in turn inject into our economy $3, not to mention the number of young people and graduates around the world who make this country a country others want to invest in.

Last year the Council of Ontario Universities released its recovery plan, which suggested ways to improve the quality of educational experience for all students. On Monday of this week, again, the alliance released this impact study. I asked the minister that day where his government's multi-year plan was for universities. We did not get a specific response, which means this government is struggling with the kinds of resources it is going to be able to put into the universities.

I feel, as they have said themselves, as they look to the private sector for more support, as they look to students, perhaps, for more support, that today gives us a very specific idea and ultimately plan and ultimately tool to attract that kind of private sector support we need.

In Toronto, York University had to sell its property to provide the kind of new construction and buildings and some of the services the students need in order to attend that university campus in this city, which is very far out and does not have good transportation. We now have much better facilities for the students, but we only gained them because they, in turn, sold property to generate the kind of income that was necessary to support the program they needed, because this government just did not seem to have those resources. I thought it was a responsible thing for them to do on behalf of the students.

We now have a timely opportunity right here, and my colleague the member for Nepean has clearly identified the plan in British Columbia. We too have talked to them. In fact, we were out there for the Commonwealth convention this summer and took the opportunity to meet with a couple of the ministers and certain other representatives of their House to see the kinds of things they were struggling with and some of the responses they were able to make in a responsible way to taxpayers. This is one of them.

I should say that the staff from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities confirmed that this idea is something they had been considering, and I feel the concept is something the government will be speaking in favour of today. If the resolution passes, that will be a good thing.

From the standpoint of the provincial and federal governments, they are both going to lose income taxes if they create such a crown foundation. We know that seems to be the downside for them. But on the other hand, they would provide the needed incentive to greater revenue for Ontario universities by increased donations. If the Ontario government has a solid commitment to higher education, it cannot afford to pass up this resolution today.

Although we know there are legal costs and administrative costs, we do know that the crown foundation in British Columbia is basically a board consisting of five members who are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. They are voluntary positions and the universities take care of all the accounting and reporting, so the ministry is not involved in an excessive way with regard to time.

It is with honour that I speak to this. I congratulate the member for Nepean for this resolution today. Our party will be supporting the crown foundations, and we hope the government will act quickly.

Mr Lessard: I, too, will be speaking in support of establishing crown foundations at Ontario universities. There are several reasons I am going to support this resolution, one of them being that when bills and resolutions do come up on Thursday mornings during private business, many times I ask members of my community what they think about these issues.

On Tuesday night I happened to be at the roast for retiring Mayor John Millson. I spoke to the president of the University of Windsor and asked him what his impressions were of university foundations. He felt that this was an initiative that should be encouraged and pursued by the government.

Of course the University of Windsor, notwithstanding the comments in the ranking of Maclean's magazine, has a reputation as being an excellent university in Ontario. The law school, of which I am a proud graduate, is rated close to the top of law schools in Canada, the business school has a great reputation as well, and graduates of the school of dramatic arts are performing around the world.

The University of Windsor is one of the few growth industries in Windsor. It is a city that has been very hard hit by the free trade agreement and the change in industrial development. However, in order to maintain that position, that reputation of excellence and that growth in our community, it needs financing. Of course, it is difficult for this government to contribute additional financing to the University of Windsor or to other universities.

I want to state that this government is committed to post-secondary education in Ontario. It is a commitment, unfortunately, that is very difficult for us to meet: to increase the financing of universities at this time. Everyone knows the difficult financial position we are in. The only way to increase our commitment to post-secondary education is to look at alternative means of financing, and this is one.

The sad legacy we have been left with is that on a per capita basis funding for universities has actually decreased in the past few years. This is something we are now stuck having to deal with. Not only are universities concerned about that, students are concerned and they are upset as well. I learned how upset they were a couple of weeks ago on the front steps of the Legislature with the Minister of Colleges and Universities, to whom I am the parliamentary assistant, when a group of students protested loudly that they felt that universities were being underfunded, and they were throwing macaroni at me and at the minister.

I want to say to the students of Ontario that I think there are probably better ways for them to express their opinions, and they need to recognize we are all in this boat together and we need to work together to try to address those problems.

I know students are upset by things like GST on textbooks. They are upset by the 3% levy on Canada student loans that was imposed by Brian Mulroney and the Tory government. They are upset because they see their future job prospects being sold out to the United States and other countries as a result of the free trade agreement.

But as I said, notwithstanding all those factors, we still remain a government committed to post-secondary education, and some of the things we have done to support that commitment we did very early on in our term. We committed close to $100 million in anti-recession capital to the post-secondary system. This created jobs, this permitted schools to be able to complete projects that had long been neglected through 13 years of underfunding. It permitted buildings at the University of Windsor to be constructed, like the Odette School of Business. It permitted the faculty of education to finally move on to the campus. There were also many projects to permit access for disabled students.

The government has put forward an agenda to increase access to post-secondary education. We have established a native education strategy. We have contributed $3 million over two years to increase safety for women on campuses. We have made reforms to OSAP to help mature students and part-time students and international students. But we know more needs to be done, because we know that what we need in the future is a well-trained and well-educated labour force. We also know that the post-secondary schools will be a strong component and an essential part of economic renewal here in Ontario.

We are supporting this resolution to establish foundations here in the province because we see this as a positive beginning. It is not the complete solution, but it is something that will encourage those who are able and willing to contribute to the post-secondary education system. We want to encourage that.

It is our information that these types of foundations could be expected to generate up to $10 million in additional revenues to universities in the first year. The foundations would also raise the profile of the post-secondary education system. We need a strong system to survive economically. As I said, we need some innovative ways of funding education here in Ontario. This is just one way we would be able to do that.

Mr Conway: I am pleased to rise in this debate this morning and support my colleague the member for Nepean for his very thoughtful and timely resolution. It appears from what I have heard since 11 o'clock this morning that this will be one of those resolutions which will have either unanimous or near-unanimous support.

I want to make some observations in this connection because I think we are faced as a community and certainly as a Legislature, and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party are faced as a government, with very real budgetary pressures on the university account. I think as a result of not just those budgetary pressures but as a result of changing attitudes in the community, we are going to be forced to look at a series of alternatives we traditionally may not have looked at very carefully.

In this Legislature, and the previous speaker has indicated something of this, there has been a lot of debate over the years about underfunding in the system. He should not feel very badly, though I am sure he might have at the time, about having rice or whatever it was thrown his way. I cannot think of too many people associated with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities who, over the 25 years or whatever, did not have something of that kind, if not worse, hurled at them.

I do not ever remember a time here -- and I was here for some of the salad years -- when universities were not underfunded. It is an

article of faith that they are underfunded. I do not expect any transfer partner ever to come here and tell us it has adequate resources, certainly not adequate resources provided by the government, of whatever partisan stripe.

I had a brief period when I served as minister responsible for this area, and I must say I have a real interest in and support for the university community. It was the one I had planned to spend my life in before I was sidetracked in 1975. In some ways I have a bit of a conflict of interest, because I have maintained a fairly close relationship with some of the Ontario universities since my election here as a graduate student some 16 years ago, and I think the universities have a very good case for our attention and for the levels of support that, in most cases, they have put.

It is not, however, an absolute case, and I have been particularly struck by some of the recent reports that have been produced in this province and in this country. An old colleague and leader of mine, Stuart Smith, has just completed a one-person inquiry into Canadian universities, which report has been talked about in recent weeks.

I think my friend the member for Nepean may have said -- if he did not say it, he intended to say it in his remarks -- that the Smith study is an interesting one to review, because in that year-long or 18-month-long survey, Stuart Smith encountered quite a lot of interest, much of it positive, some of it downright negative in so far as the universities were concerned. He found, for example, a growing worry that universities are not spending as much time focusing on teaching, and in that I would tend to agree.

We have an ethic now that seems to place research and the writing of wonderfully arcane treatises as being significantly more important than teaching.

I went as a graduate student to Queen's University and as an undergraduate student to the old Waterloo Lutheran University. When I look back on both of those experiences --

Mrs Cunningham: You are really dating yourself.

Mr Conway: I am dating myself. But one of the things I would say to the member for London North is that I remember most fondly both of those institutions, in different ways, because they both focused a great deal of their energy back in the late 1960s and early 1970s on the teaching aspect of their mandate. I continue to believe that teaching, particularly at the undergraduate level, is an enormously important aspect of the university mandate, and I think all university boards of governors and administrators would do well to reflect upon some of the criticism that Stuart Smith picked up as he did his cross-Canada survey of attitudes to Canadian universities.

The resolution before us asks us to consider that "the government of Ontario follow the example of British Columbia and establish immediately crown foundations at Ontario universities to increase private sector incentives for making major charitable contributions towards higher education." I support that, because I think it is timely and I think it would be helpful. I agree with the previous speaker, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, that we should not imagine that this is going to be any kind of panacea, because it is certainly not going to solve all the budgetary pressures that universities have.

I know from having had some recent discussions with people at Queen's University, for example, that they are very keen to see this kind of public policy enacted, and I am sure the member for Frontenac-Addington has been similarly petitioned in this connection. I would expect, for example, that Queen's University and the University of Western Ontario, both of which, I think, are officially on record as supporting this, would do quite well,

whereas perhaps some of the newer universities in the province might have a bit more difficulty. This will be an interesting competition when this policy is decided upon. I would think that not all the institutions would be starting at the same baseline, if you know what I mean, Mr Speaker. But I do think it is a policy we should endorse and, I have some reason to believe, the government may in fact be very favourably disposed towards.

There are some real problems, as I say, in the financing of our post-secondary institutions. I have believed for some time that we should be looking for some additional ways to assist the universities. That is why I have felt, however appealing it might be to some, the idea that there cannot be any student contribution in the form of tuition is just not realistic.

I have defended reasonable tuition fee increases over the years and I will continue to do so, not because I want to unfairly single out those people of whatever age category who are participating in post-secondary education but simply because -- I think tuition income represents about 17%, 18%, 19% of the total income pie of our universities -- I do not think that is unreasonable, particularly when you look at the profile of who traditionally has gone to university.

If there ever was a middle-class commitment, it is the university commitment. We have tried, with varying degrees of success over the years -- and the new government has some very interesting initiatives to widen the participation. I certainly would support that, but the fact of the matter is that, by and large, it has been a middle-class commitment, and those people who graduate with that wonderful certificate from Western or Windsor or Wilfrid Laurier or Queen's or Carleton will carry with them, we are told by the analysts, a certificate that will substantially increase their lifetime earnings.

So there are those who argue, in the interest of fairness and equity, if Conway is going to spend half his life in university and benefit materially for the rest of his working life, why should he not make some kind of contribution to that not just intellectual stimulus but financial advantage?

I would say as well that government grants have increased, as I think many people have observed over the last few years. University administrators, if they were here, would say, "Yes, but they have not kept pace with real costs." To some extent that is true, because we have seen a very real pressure on the admission side, for whatever reason. When I think back to 10 years ago and the projections of where we would be, I think it was predicted by a lot of people that by about 1986, the total enrolment would peak and then it would start to trend downwards, when in fact that has not happened.

That interest in attending university continues to be strong, and in some sectors and in some ways dramatically so. So I want to say that the increases our government provided, and certainly that the new government is providing, are helpful, but they are not solving all the problems.

The Provincial Auditor has been looking at how some of these universities spend the millions and millions of dollars we have provided. There have been audits at the University of Toronto, at Trent and at Guelph, and they have been very interesting audits. I think those audits should be carefully looked at by members of this Legislature, and I want to congratulate the auditor, because he went about his work professionally and has produced reports that are very careful.

The standing committee on public accounts has made some recommendations in its most recent report. Reading from the June 1991 report, our public accounts committee recommends that there be amendments to the Ontario Audit Act to provide the Provincial Auditor with the discretionary authority to perform value-for-money audits of any government agency and all transfer payment recipients. In the case of universities, this audit approach will help to address the management accountability of each university's administration, while at the same time respecting the academic autonomy of these institutions.

I think in the main we are well served by our universities. I think over the years they have behaved quite responsibly, but there are aspects of the university question that bear very careful scrutiny. I have found that the doctrine of institutional autonomy is one that some in the university want to hide behind, to excuse some conduct that in a lot of other public places would not be tolerated.

I want to tell the honourable members that I have, as I say, a number of very good friends who work in the universities, and I hear some very interesting tales about what goes on. We are petitioned here by faculty associations and by administrative staff for more money, more money, more money, and that is perfectly fair and reasonable.

But I was stunned while out for dinner one day not too many months ago a very good friend of mine, at a very distinguished, large university found in the city of Waterloo, told me that the average salary a year or two ago at a humanities department at that university was something approaching $75,000. That had nothing to do with income earned outside that salary. In many cases, I know a lot of my good friends in the universities find a lot of very --

Mrs Cunningham: Kindergarten teachers get $65,000.

Mr Conway: Kindergarten teachers, I am told, get $65,000.

My only point was that I remember as minister the data that were quoted to me about salary levels, and to be told that the average salary in that department was $73,000 or $74,000, exclusive of moonlighting opportunities, which are not inconsiderable in the university community, I say to my friend the member for London North, was just a very interesting revelation.

We should, as responsible members of the Legislature, not take hook, line and sinker every petition which is offered by whomsoever comes to ask for more money. I repeat, I think in the main we have been served rather well by the universities. I think they deserve the program and the policy the member for Nepean has put before us in this connection, but there are some very real issues attendant upon the university question -- the issue of accountability. How are they spending their money? The audit at Trent University found some dramatic things.

The farmers and the retail clerks in my riding, most of whom did not have an opportunity to go to university, looked at some of that with some degree of concern.

I do not know how many members have been following the debate in the United States, but Congress hauled before it the distinguished president of the endlessly distinguished Stanford University, who had to explain multimillion-dollar misappropriations of public money funnelled to Stanford through, I think, one of the defence accounts. I have not seen a congressional cross-examination quite like that in a while.

Of course the universities have important work to perform. Of course they should have the highest level of public support, and they deserve that support. But I am telling members, I am finished with any kind of uncritical acceptance of every petition from that quarter or any other. I know my friends in the university community, whether they are part of the professoriate or the administrative élite, will hear me when I say that this Legislature and its agents like the Provincial Auditor are increasingly serious about the accountability question.

I think we would do well not just to support this resolution standing in the name of my friend the member for Nepean, but also we have to become more vigilant about exacting an accountability from those good men and women who serve us in the university community.

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to the resolution of the member for Nepean. I represent the riding of Waterloo North, and within my riding there are two universities, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University.

Yesterday I had an opportunity to tour the University of Waterloo when I was there on the occasion of the opening of the Guelph-Waterloo audio-visual link. This is a very significant step forward. It was a partnership funded by business, Electrohome, the government and the university. It allows the classes to be taught simultaneously in classrooms both at the University of Waterloo and at the University of Guelph. It is a tremendous saving for the universities. It also permits the students to sit in one city and not have to drive to another. This is what we need to be promoting. We need to promote partnerships among business, the government and the universities.

Yesterday I witnessed the fact that universities are facing many financial challenges. There was certainly a shortage of space in the buildings. I encountered many students in overcrowded classrooms and in portables. There were outdated facilities and there was outdated equipment.

I think we have to remember that universities make a very vital contribution to the economic stability of this province. They pump $6.2 billion into the economy and they receive $1.9 billion from the government, which means that for every $1 the government invests, the universities generate $3. If we invest in our universities, we are investing in our future and in the young people of this country.

I support the establishment of these crown foundations, which would encourage more private donations. This is going to go a considerable length in alleviating the very severe underfunding problem at our Ontario universities. This is going to help that very critical financial situation. At the present time we see that our universities are jeopardized. Their ability to effectively teach and conduct research is in jeopardy. What we need is additional funding and we need a long-range recovery plan from this government.

As has been mentioned before, we already have these crown foundations established in BC, Alberta and Nova Scotia, and what this would do, of course, is to increase the incentive of the private sector to make very unique and outstanding charitable contributions to the universities in this province. This would provide an incentive to those people in our society who are most able to contribute to increase their support for our public universities.

Unfortunately, because there is a situation in the three other provinces, especially BC, where they have already provided for the establishment of crown foundations at their universities, Ontario universities at the present time are at a very distinct disadvantage in their ability to attract major bequests and gifts. Many universities in this province have indicated to me that they have lost significant potential gifts to other provinces because of this fact, especially in BC.

The University of Waterloo in my own city is aware of at least a $1-million gift that is pending. If this legislation were to be passed, that is $1 million this university would not have to receive from the government, which is already stretched to the limit.

This type of philanthropy is vital to our ability to offer nationally and internationally acclaimed programs for the students of Ontario. At the University of Waterloo we have some of these programs that are world renowned.

We need to promote this concept. It is a concept that has been widely discussed and widely supported by the university community, and there is tremendous benefit for this government at this time, especially when it finds itself in a very constrained financial position. I would urge all the members today to support the motion to create the crown foundations for Ontario so that the young people in this province can be provided with the facilities, the staff and the equipment so that they can in the future make a contribution to this province.

As I indicated before, we need to look to our young people. We need to look at stimulating our economy. If we are going to fund those social programs, we need to create the wealth and universities help us in the creation of wealth.

At my own university, we have the Centre for Groundwater Research. This is a centre of excellence. It is supported by the Ontario technology fund. This centre is a world leader. People from Libya, Ukraine and China come to this centre in their demand for ground water technology, and this is one area where Ontario can compete globally and contribute to economic growth, because what has happened at this centre of excellence is that there have been spinoff industries created for people in this province.

I urge members to seriously consider supporting this motion, which would allow the private sector to make major charitable donations towards higher education. That is very needed at this time in this province when we are facing so many financial constraints.

Mr Frankford: As a member with a university in his riding, Scarborough college, part of the University of Toronto, I certainly take a great interest in this. I also happen to have a daughter who makes the almost impossible trek to York University. So I acknowledge the need for more funding of the universities. I would also point out, as people have before, that the universities' share of provincial budgetary expenditure has been going down progressively over many years. The per capita funding has not kept up with the inflationary growth of expenditures. I welcome the chance to debate this.

I would have some reservations, however, in contrast to most of the other speakers. I think the member for Nepean did not have sufficient time to go into some of the questions and perhaps I could bring up a few questions.

As he said, in British Columbia the Social Credit government brought in a crown corporation. My understanding is that it has not been all that successful. I think one has to look at this particular way of bringing in the possibility of targeting funds by donors, which may be good but may not be so good. It may produce distortions, from what those particular donors want. It may produce an excessive business bias. It may produce an ideology that universities are just to further the economy, which I am sure the member for Nepean does not fully support.

Universities have to cover the full range of disciplines and I think we need to spend in the humanities, in the social sciences. These also have spinoffs. I think there is something of an implication coming across that universities are part of an industrial strategy. I am sure people do not really fully feel that, but I think there is a possibility this is what comes across.

I really should close because I want to let my colleague finish, but I think one should look at whether this is the only way of doing it or whether we would be better off with a fair tax policy, and we do have a Fair Tax Commission sitting. I would like to elaborate more but I will defer to my colleague.

Mr Sutherland: It is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate this morning on the resolution put forward by the member for Nepean. As members know, before I came here I had extensive involvement in the university setting at the University of Western Ontario, being president of the student council. I remember quite vividly coming to Queen's Park and actually lobbying the former Minister of Colleges and Universities, the member for Renfrew North, and I always found it quite challenging then, as we all have come to find it challenging debating him on whatever issue.

I want to say that I give my support to this resolution and I compliment the member for Nepean for bringing it forward. We have a great challenge in this country and within this province, and that is to try to find the adequate resources necessary to sustain our post-secondary education system. Whatever we can do as legislators and as elected officials to enhance that, we should be trying to do that, and I think that is the purpose of establishing crown foundations.

We know that in many of the American universities, not so much the major ones, the Harvards and Princetons, but in some of the state universities, in some cases they are receiving more per-student grant from their state governments than we are able to give at this time as a province. We also know, though, that many of the universities in the United States have large endowment funds, and a great deal of those large endowment funds come from the fact that they have more generous rules and regulations allowing people to donate to universities and to set them up.

I know from my experience at Western that it is just in the process of completing a very successful fund-raising campaign, the Renaissance Campaign, where it has been able to raise about $95 million. But that has been a very targeted campaign.

What we have to look at in the context of this resolution is, over the longer term, how are they going to continue to raise those funds and to build up endowment funds and to build up research chairs and better opportunities, and hopefully scholarships, because I want to say to members today that I do not think I would be here today if it were not for my being fortunate enough to be able to attend university, and particularly to attend Western, and the many opportunities it gave me to grow and develop, not only in intellectual terms but growing and developing as an individual with a chance to develop my ideas and thoughts.

Universities are doing many good things in our communities. We know the recent report put out by Stuart Smith, and there was some criticism that universities are not representative. I would say that in my years at the university, I saw a significant change in the makeup and in the direction. When I first went, there were not such things as employment equity committees. They are dealing with the issue of pay equity and are just starting to deal with the issue of race relations. I compliment the universities, and particularly Western, for the progress they are making.

That is not to imply that there is not a lot more to be done. There is no doubt that there is a great deal more to be done, but I think from the institutional standpoint of recognizing that and putting some formal procedures in place to make our universities more accessible, they are doing a very good job in this province.

To conclude, I support the resolution. I certainly hope we can see some legislation at some point. I know there are concerns about tax breaks for corporations, but my sense has always been that we never evaluate what type of tax breaks we allow. I think this, an investment in our future, in our education system and allowing other people to share in the same opportunity I was fortunate enough to share in, is a good tax break to allow and is a good investment for the province as a whole.

Mr Daigeler: Let me say first of all that I appreciate the contributions made by the various members of the House, and certainly their support for my resolution.

It seems to me -- perhaps I am being a little bit immodest -- that the resolution I have put forward is the type of initiative that is particularly appropriate for private members' hour. I think it is a resolution the government can do something about. I think it is something important for the community out there, and in fact can be done quickly.

To the member for Scarborough East, I would like to say that the reservations he put forward are thoughtful ones and I appreciate that he has put them on the record, because I think I share them and any reasonable university member would share them as well. We do not want the academic sector to be tied into the particular interests of any community, be that the business community or labour or whatever it is.

I certainly agree with him that we will have to be very careful that increasing private donations will not increase the ties -- perhaps "ties" is the wrong word -- the obligations of the universities towards the private sector, because I think independence, academic freedom, is a very important objective and I do not want to deny that. I think he is right in his concern.

At the same time, I do not want to wait for the results of the Fair Tax Commission to put forward an initiative that can provide some support for the universities right now. So while I appreciate the concerns that were expressed, I also appreciate the support that was indicated by this House.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L'ONTARIO

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Hansen has moved second reading of Bill 141.

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Hansen: I would like to have it referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development?

All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to this question will please rise and remain standing.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité permanent du développement des ressources.

UNIVERSITY CROWN FOUNDATIONS

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Daigeler has moved resolution 31.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1203.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIABETES CELEBRITY CHALLENGE

Ms Poole: In Tuesday's Toronto Star it was reported that doctors are at a loss to determine why people suffering from diabetes, which is an acute disease that affects more than 1.2 million Canadians every year, are being diagnosed at the rate of 60,000 cases per year.

The most disturbing reality of this disease is that half the Canadians who have diabetes do not even know they have it. The symptoms of diabetes can be so subtle that they can be easily mistaken for everyday aches and pains. If only people realized that diabetes-related complications are the third leading cause of death by disease in Ontario today. Even the belief that insulin is the ultimate cure is grossly inaccurate. A daily injection of insulin can only help diabetics manage the disease, not cure it.

My colleague the Deputy Speaker and I have joined eight other MPPs in this House in participating in the Canadian Diabetic Association's celebrity challenge. As a participant in this challenge, I am required to live the life of a diabetic for one week. This includes activities such as injecting insulin into this teddy bear twice a day, taking a blood test by pricking my finger three times a day to test the glucose level, exercising regularly and following a strict diet.

I ask all members to join me in promoting the health of people across Ontario and Canada and recognizing the Canadian Diabetic Association's great job.

IVOR MCMULLIN

Mr Tilson: I would like to bring to the attention of members of the Legislature the passing away of Mr Ivor McMullin, former chairman of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and former politician for the town of Caledon.

Mr McMullin first became involved in politics in 1945 when he was the secretary-treasurer for the Albion township school board. In 1962 he was successful in obtaining a seat on the Albion council. One of the first jobs facing him as a council member was finding a new landfill site for Albion-Bolton. As a result of this experience, he was able to sympathize with the problem Peel is having with its landfill site.

In 1966 Mr McMullin was elected as reeve of Albion and in 1974 he became the first mayor of the town of Caledon. Following that, he served two terms as warden for the county of Peel. Mr McMullin was involved in the original formation of regional government in the area. He felt strongly that there were both advantages and disadvantages to the system, but was convinced that each area had to try to work hard at making it work. He considered that Peel region had achieved the best results.

In 1975 Mr McMullin became chair of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and held the position for 11 years. During his term as chairman, he saw many changes.

Mr McMullin made a valuable contribution to the town of Caledon and the surrounding area and will be greatly missed by all the residents. I would ask members of this Legislature to join me in extending our sincere condolences to his wife and family.

DIABETES CELEBRITY CHALLENGE

Mr Mills: I thought I was bumped off my statement, but I am told I am on it, so I am going to talk freely without notes.

I am going to take on the Canadian Diabetic Association celebrity challenge. Like my colleague the member for Eglinton and other members in this Legislature, I am a participant in this challenge. I personally find it very interesting. It gives me an insight into what it is really like to be a diabetic sufferer. Those people who have that disease indeed have my sympathy.

I have injected myself, taken my blood levels all through the week, and it has given me quite a lesson in what to eat and what not to eat. I really thank the association for giving me the opportunity.

On a humorous note, when I left my riding of Durham East to come back to Toronto on Sunday night, as I do, I was going out to my car and my wife came running out. Luckily no neighbours heard her. She said, "Have you got your teddy bear with you?" I thank the fact that it was dark and everybody had gone to bed by that time.

CANADIAN FORCES RESCUE TEAM

Mr H. O'Neil: I rise today to recognize the courage and bravery of the heroic men and women involved in the rescue of survivors from the Canadian armed forces C-130 Hercules aircraft which crashed in the Canadian Arctic last week. I trust that all members of the assembly will join me in paying tribute to the five people who sadly lost their lives in the crash and in offering our best wishes to the 13 survivors who were so heroically rescued.

Help was dispatched when crews from 424 Transport Squadron Trenton ferried a helicopter to Ellesmere Island. Prior to the helicopter's arrival, rescuers dropped flares from circling aircraft to shed light for the parachutists. The aircraft dove beneath the light of the flares and the parachutists dropped through howling winds in the pitch black of an Arctic night to open their chutes at an altitude of only 700 feet. They descended within seconds from the dangerous jump to reach the survivors below.

The loss of one of the victims is being felt at CFB Trenton, where Master Warrant Officer John Jardine was stationed. Among the three survivors from CFB Trenton is Captain Wilma DeGroot, a doctor who overlooked her own injuries to provide medical care to other members of the crew and passengers. Two of the other injured from Trenton were Bob Thomson and Susan Hillier.

I want to salute the men and women of the armed forces involved in the rescue, especially those from CFB Trenton. We also extend our sincere sympathy to the families who lost their loved ones in the crash and we wish a speedy recovery to those injured.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr J. Wilson: For several months the current Solicitor General and his predecessors sat silently while portions of my Simcoe West riding went without 24-hour police coverage. On October 8, I am pleased to inform the Legislature, in response to the identified need for 24-hour policing in the areas of Stayner, Wasaga Beach, Creemore and Elmvale, the OPP district 7 command unilaterally and without government help put in place limited 24-hour policing.

The 24-hour police coverage provided by the OPP in this area is very limited, however. In fact, one OPP officer described the new coverage as a stopgap, Band-Aid solution. The officer went so far as to categorize the situation as ludicrous.

Two weeks ago the OPP presented the Solicitor General with a proposal for new staff and the redeployment of existing staff to the hot spots of criminal activity. To date, neither the OPP nor members of this Legislature are aware of the government's response to this crisis.

I demand that the Solicitor General tell this House today what steps he is taking to help the people in my riding and in other areas who are hurting and who are at risk because of the shortage of OPP officers and staff. This government must act now to provide safety for these communities and to restore the beleaguered morale of police officers in Simcoe County and across Ontario.

WAYLAND DREW

On October 15, Mr Drew was presented with the Conservation Council of Ontario's annual Lieutenant Governor's award for his support of environmental issues. Well known in Muskoka for his outstanding achievements in conserving and protecting the natural environment, Wayland Drew was central in the organization of the Signs of Hope conference last April. The Signs of Hope conference brought together environmentalists from across Canada and provided Muskoka educators with a forum to discuss methods of communicating the importance of global environmental issues to their students.

On October 26, Mr Drew was presented with an honorary doctor of letters degree from Trent University for his literary contribution as an essayist and author. With 12 books to his credit, including three travel books, several radio dramas and numerous essays, he is best known for his Earth-ring science fiction series.

I thank Mr Drew for his commitment to Muskoka and I ask members of this Legislature to join with me in paying tribute to this dedicated environmentalist.

GOVERNMENT STRATEGY

Mr Phillips: Seven weeks ago we began this session. In those seven weeks we have seen very clearly the style of operation the government is going to pursue in the future. It is clear that in their first year they suffered greatly in their public image. Now we see their plan to correct that.

The first part of the plan is that we have seen very few ministers' statements in the House, and when a statement is made it is the flimsiest of statements with the barest of details. Obviously this is designed to minimize the opposition's effectiveness and allow them to craft the message.

Second, we have seen the Premier in this House, by my calculations, less than twice a week, and when he is here we see him for about half an hour; again, clearly designed to minimize this House and its role and to maximize the Premier's central control.

When the Premier's own caucus members get slightly out of line and try to speak their own minds, what happens? They fire the Chairman of the committee. The member for Lincoln has now gone off the committee and lost his chairmanship role.

They manage the committees. The standing committee on finance and economic affairs travelled across the province hoping to get an unbiased opinion. The public presentations were stacked.

It may seem effective in the short term, this sort of cynical, manipulative approach to the House, but I assure members, the public in this province is too wise to fall for it. They are seeing through it now and it must change.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mrs Cunningham: Bill 125,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts relating to Education, was introduced on June 13 by the former Minister of Education. This bill deals with 18 separate and unrelated changes to the Education Act, with implications for school boundaries, testing, employment equity, suspensions and pooling, to name just a few of the many issues that school boards and teachers need opportunities for public discussion about.

It will also remove existing provisions relating to religious education where "as his parent or guardian desires" has been a key phrase in the present legislation. Parents are very concerned that if Bill 125 is passed in its present form, the only clause which recognizes the principle of parental rights in the Education Act will disappear. They are trusting that the NDP government will consider their amendments in response to their interests.

When the bill receives second reading, I will be requesting on behalf of my Progressive Conservative colleagues that the entire bill be referred to committee for public hearings. I urge the new Minister of Education to seriously consider the concerns of so many Ontario citizens and to give sufficient time for public input so that we can clearly talk about the many issues that will affect the quality of education and the lives of students and parents in this province.

DIABETES CELEBRITY CHALLENGE

Mr Sutherland: I would like to join with my colleagues in talking about the celebrity challenge. As members know, to increase public awareness of the seriousness of the disease, which affects more than 600,000 Canadians, myself and nine other MPPs from all three parties are participating in the diabetes celebrity challenge.

For the past week we have lived the lifestyle of a person with diabetes. We have taken our blood sugar readings several times a day, injected an insulin substitute into a volunteer teddy bear, and followed a strict diet and exercise program.

At a press conference announcing the celebrity challenge, Dr Gerald Wong, an expert on diabetes, discussed its impact on health care. He said many diabetics also suffer other health problems, including a significant increase in the risk of blindness, kidney failure and heart disease. The most striking comment made by Dr Wong was that diabetics must take responsibility for their own health. They must regulate their diet and exercise and be more careful about their lifestyle.

However, this piece of advice rings true not just for diabetics but for all of us. Health care in Ontario today consumes $17 billion, one third of the provincial budget. All of us value our medicare system and want to preserve it, but to afford our health care system and meet the many other challenges, all of us must examine our own habits to make our lifestyles healthier. Eating a balanced diet, consuming less processed food, and broiling food rather than frying it are simple things that each of us can do to stay healthy and help control health care costs.

Mr Mills: I believe there is unanimous consent to spend a few moments speaking to Armistice Day.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Mills: This coming weekend, many of us will gather to honour the men and women of our country who gave their lives for us and freedom in two world wars. Many of our young people today have no comprehension of the magnitude of death and suffering these wars caused. We shudder in horror lest they ever be repeated.

Over the weekend many of us will honour our family members and friends who were involved in the campaigns in the North Atlantic, in northwest Europe, in Italy, in North Africa and in the Pacific. We honour those who served in the Dieppe raid and in the defence of Hong Kong, in the battle of Ortona and in the invasion of Normandy.

We also honour the 2,383 women of the Canadian Women's Army Corps who were employed in theatres of operation overseas. Many of these women who served in the United Kingdom were wounded by buzz-bombs. Twenty-five were killed on duty; 65 were decorated for bravery.

We also honour those who gave their lives in the First World War and in the Korean conflict, and also those who have given their lives for peace while serving with the United Nations forces.

Time has taken its toll and the number of veterans each year grows fewer, but we are still proud, and if with the passing years there is a small lack of precision among the marchers, we do not notice, for this, above all, is a personal parade. None of us can go back in time, and that itself is a grace bestowed.

On this weekend, as the memories are exchanged at public ceremonies and in the legion halls, we will remember with affection all those who answered the call to serve their country. Their contribution to the betterment of humanity can never be measured.

Mr Morin: Next Monday is Remembrance Day and, on behalf of the official opposition, I pay tribute to the brave Canadians who served that we might live in freedom and peace.

On November 11, we commemorate the 100,000 men and women in the Canadian Forces who were killed while defending our nation in the Great War, the Second World War and the Korean War.

I served in Korea with the 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment. I witnessed first hand the results of war.

At this moment, citizens in hundreds of countries around the world live in war zones.

Until our most recent experience in the Persian Gulf, an entire generation of Canadians had thought of war as something remote. We were isolated from its reality. The Persian Gulf War forced us to confront the reality and the ugliness of war once again. The results of that war are still unfolding before our very eyes. Our brave Canadian service personnel served with distinction in that conflict.

Through the organization of the Royal Canadian Legion, on November 11 we will pause to remember those who died for our democracy and the veterans who still feel the scars of those wars. On this occasion let us also pray for those countries less fortunate than Canada.

Mrs Cunningham: I am truly honoured today on behalf of our party to be able to speak on this important subject. All of us in this House and the people who expect us to represent them in this great democracy that some of us have come to take for granted are most interested in the leadership I think we show in this assembly today in remembering those who went before us and gave up their lives so that some of us are able to be here to represent our constituents and so that this great democracy could survive and this great province and country that we live in could move forward.

All of us have special memories. Mine were in the city growing up as a young child, when this special day meant, I think, much more then than it seems to now, when we took

part in our own Remembrance Day ceremonies, usually within our own neighbourhoods, and walked down to our parks and had our assemblies in our schools and remembered not just people who went before us but usually parents and grandparents and uncles and sometimes aunts. It was much more meaningful because it hit so close to home. So I think today in these times we have to work much harder to make sure that we do not forget those who gave up their lives for us during the great wars.

I just hope the young people across our province will take a moment in their schools on Monday to remember. Fortunately, in these days schools are still in session and there are times to remember. Probably each and every one of us will remember the times we had to at least say, sometimes by memory, the poem In Flanders Fields. I hope they are doing it on Monday.

The war came to an end at 11 am, November 11, 1918, some 70 years ago or more, and it was supposed to be the war that ended all wars. November 11 has since become an international day of remembrance in all the countries involved in that terrible war to commemorate those who made the supreme sacrifice.

Here in Canada we pay tribute to the more than 100,000 individuals who lost their lives not just in that war but in the Second World War and the Korean conflict. We also honour those who have served in our armed forces.

Fortunately our younger generation has not had to experience the horrors and tragedy of war themselves, but we all realize that with our modern weapons of total destruction, it is impossible for any country to win a war. We witnessed that just within the last year. That Great War that was supposed to be the end of all wars simply was not, and we continue to fight on behalf of families and parents and the world for peace.

Each year there are fewer and fewer veterans to march to the cenotaphs and deposit their poppies on the wreaths. Each year the memories of those wars become more distant and remote to many who were not there or who were not born at that time. Each year we must continue to remember and to make sure that our young people and those who come after us will never forget. Thus we wear our poppies.

The Speaker: In recognition of Remembrance Day I invite all members and visitors seated in the galleries to stand for a moment and bow our heads in silent prayer.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LABOUR RELATIONS

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am very pleased at this time to announce the release of the discussion paper on reform of the Labour Relations Act. Distribution of this document today marks the beginning of a full province-wide consultation which my ministry will conduct with business, labour and other interested groups. The goal of this government is to achieve greater fairness and equality in the workplace. We seek to modernize an important piece of legislation, to respond to Ontario's new economic and workplace realities and to include employees who are currently prevented from organizing by the law.

It has been 15 years since the Labour Relations Act was significantly amended. The collective bargaining process itself has withstood the test of time, but the government believes the act is in need of renewal. In our view, the act fails to deal with changes in the province's workplace and workforce. The Labour Relations Act was designed to serve an economy characterized by a stable, mostly male workforce employed in large factories and plants.

But times have changed, and the workplace and the workers themselves have also changed. Smaller companies in the service and retail sectors are taking over a larger role in our country's economic life. Workplaces are moving from traditional factories to small industrial parks and plazas. We have also seen the rapid growth of part-time and casual positions, particularly in the burgeoning service sector. These less secure and less-well-paid jobs are often filled by women, recent immigrants and visible minorities.

We believe the act should be revised to respond to this change in workplace and workforce. In particular, it must meet the needs of women, minorities and lower-paid workers. This government also believes that strong employee participation, made possible by independent representation and collective bargaining, can play a positive role in making the workplace more innovative and more productive.

Any reform of the act must seek to reduce the level of confrontation and antagonism that often characterizes labour-management relations. There are currently a number of elements in the existing legislation that prevent rather than encourage the kind of co-operative relationships that are needed to respond to rapid economic change in our country.

Beyond this, when labour-management disagreements do happen, as they will, we believe there are a number of ways to improve the bargaining process so that the parties can reach their own workable solution.

The government believes that giving a meaningful voice to employees through an improved collective bargaining process will make for greater industrial peace and improved efficiency. Such a result can play a major role in Ontario's economic renewal.

The government's commitment to reform of the Labour Relations Act fits hand in hand with the government's overall economic and social agenda. This agenda includes the newly introduced worker investment and ownership legislation, the upgrading and refocusing of worker training systems, continued investment in the province's physical infrastructure, employment equity and reform of the social assistance system to provide recipients with better access to training and employment.

Ontario's future prosperity will be based on successful efforts to maximize the ability of its workers to participate and be fairly treated.

This government believes that Ontario can move a long way towards achieving that goal by making it easier for workers to participate in collective bargaining.

Through the consultation process we want to hear from all sides on our reform ideas.

The discussion paper makes proposals and focuses discussion on five key areas: (1) increasing co-operation between labour and management when a workplace is undergoing major change; (2) streamlining and improving the grievance arbitration process and the work of the Ontario Labour Relations Board; (3) improving the process by which first contracts are finalized; (4) removing some of the obstacles which hamper employees' ability to organize and giving the right to form unions to some employees currently barred from organizing, and (5) limiting the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout to existing on-site management.

I invite all to take

part in these discussions.

Some business groups and individuals have expressed opposition to what they believed this discussion document would contain. I challenge them to deal with our p