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

December 8, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

NATURAL GAS VEHICLES

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

NATURAL GAS VEHICLES

TAXATION

SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

HAZARDOUS WASTE

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

ACADEMIC STREAMING

DOMINIC CARDILLO

TOP 10 LIST

LANDFILL

ONWARD WILLOW CENTRE

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

PHOTO-RADAR

VIOLENCE IN SPORT

INTERNET

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

CASINO GAMBLING

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

LABOUR UNIONS

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

ORDER AND DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER

GASOLINE PRICES

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

PENSION FUNDS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CONTROL OF SMOKING

BUSINESS PRACTICES

GASOLINE PRICES

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HEALTH INSURANCE

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

AUTISM SERVICES

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

ADOPTION

HIGHWAY 42

WHITE LAKE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MUNICIPAL TAX RELIEF ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR L'ALLÉGEMENT DES IMPÔTS MUNICIPAUX

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

MEMBERS' INTEGRITY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR L'INTÉGRITÉ DES DÉPUTÉS

VICTIMS' RIGHT TO PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LE DROIT DES VICTIMES AUX GAINS RÉALISÉS À LA SUITE D'UN ACTE CRIMINEL

1994 ONTARIO BUDGET

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1994

SARNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1994

COBALLOY MINES & REFINERS LIMITED ACT, 1994

COLUMBIA METALS CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1994

PARKWAY DELICATESSEN LIMITED ACT, 1994

S.A.W. GALLERY INC. ACT, 1994

PAYS D'EN HAUT WILDERNESS EXPEDITIONS LIMITED ACT, 1994

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF HOME INSPECTORS ACT, 1994

COUNTY OF KENT LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1994

COUNTY OF KENT ACT, 1994

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

Mr Bradley moved private member's notice of motion number 54:

That, in the opinion of this House, since Ontario has one of the most severe summer smog problems in Canada, and

Since summer smog is a serious public health threat, particularly for the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who have asthma and other respiratory ailments, and

Since about half of the air pollution which forms smog is emitted by automobiles and trucks, and

Since Ontario has fallen behind more environmentally advanced jurisdictions in North America, which have instituted mandatory annual vehicle emission testing, and

Since in Ontario, we are spending several million dollars to test vehicle emission testing equipment which has already undergone more than a billion dollars of testing by the US Environmental Protection Agency;

Therefore, this Legislative Assembly supports the immediate implementation of a mandatory annual vehicle emission testing program to get polluting vehicles off the road and reduce summer smog.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It should probably come as no surprise that as an individual who has had the privilege and honour of being the Environment minister of Ontario for a period of over five years, the resolution that I would bring forward when I had the opportunity to do so would be one that would be connected with the environment.

The recession has been very hard on environmental advancement throughout the world, and certainly that is the case with Canada and Ontario as well. The period of 1985 to 1990 was one of probably unprecedented interest and coverage of environmental issues. What one finds is that when governments are subjected to additional scrutiny in one specific area such as the environment, it tends to cause governments to move more rapidly and comprehensively in dealing with problems in that area.

This government has had to deal with a very deep economic recession and many other governments have had to do the same. As a result, environmental initiatives have been put more on the back burner than the front burner. I don't say that in any partisan sense. That is something we're seeing in a number of jurisdictions, though not all jurisdictions.

It may seem odd that I would be bringing this resolution before the House in the midst of winter because, politically, the best time to bring this forward would be in June of the year, when the smog is at its worst and the newspeople, particularly television cameras, can go out and show photographs of the smog that's out there, particularly in larger metropolitan areas such as Toronto.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Is this something you forgot to do when you were minister?

Mr Bradley: You know, it's very unfortunate when you hear the interjections. You try to be relatively non-partisan in this House and you get interjections. I'm not being critical. I'm trying to present a resolution, and all you do is barrack critical partisan comments. That's why people I think get frustrated in this Legislative Assembly, because you do that. I could stand here and condemn the government --

The Acting Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Bradley: -- for doing nothing in the environment for five years. I haven't. I've apologized for the fact that we're in a deep economic recession, and I understand why the government has addressed other issues. How many people would do that in any Legislative Assembly? And you still barrack partisan comments from the sidelines. I guess the only thing to do is to be partisan. It really amounts to that. The member for Durham East would say that.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: One example that we have for us, which is now completing, is the example of the Countdown Acid Rain program, which was supported by all members of the House back in 1985. That was an example of being able to move forward with an environmental issue, an environmental problem, despite the fact that there was considerable opposition. Members will recall that it compelled the four major polluters -- Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma in Wawa and Hydro -- to reduce by two thirds their emissions by 1994, and overall there must be a 60% reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions across the province of Ontario.

What is interesting is that initially there was a lot of opposition to that. Some of the major polluters said that this was absolutely impossible, that there was not the technology or science to do it, and that besides, there was no money.

I thought one of the most interesting press conferences I've ever watched was the one Inco had after a three-year reporting period which said, "Not only is it possible with our technology and with our science, but we're going to spend $500 million to do this and we will implement this program and, by the way, we will make a profit on one portion of it of 6% and on another portion the profit will indeed be some 17% or 19%." That's a clear demonstration that despite a tremendous opposition, we had three parties in the House that were supportive of the initiative and it worked very well.

There are a number of programs that are up and running now, some not moving as quickly as I would like to see as an environmentalist or perhaps as a person who knows about those programs. The municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program, MISA, and the clean air program would have been nice initiatives to see moving. I hope they will begin to move more rapidly than has been the case to this point in time.

I had great expectations for this particular party in power, because when I listened in opposition they made some very compelling cases, I thought, for environmental improvement. I read many of the resolutions that were passed at the party annual meeting and at provincial council. There were a lot of people very concerned and very committed, some of them elected to this House, to environmental improvement. I guess again as a result of the recession and the lack of movement, I've been disappointed in that area, not on a partisan basis, because I think many of the parties across the country, regardless of what they are, have had difficulty in moving forward.

British Columbia, which has an NDP government, has moved rather rapidly in this particular area. I commend Moe Sihota for the initiative that he took in this regard in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

This is an area, I think, where their action is possible. Yes, it's an extensive program; yes, there is some cost to it, but it seems to me that it is a very practical program that can be implemented across the province. The Environment minister needs support in this regard because the Ministry of Transportation will say that it has more initiatives that it wants to deal with. They would rather build more roads and bridges and things of that nature. That is their primary purpose.

So dragging the Ministry of Transportation along, kicking and screaming, is something every Environment minister has to do with initiatives of this kind. I think the Environment minister needs support from members of this House to be able to implement this kind of program.

I also know that there are many people in the environmental community who would like to see us virtually abolish the use of personal vehicles, and that is a Utopian dream that many have. I must add that for the auto workers in St Catharines, Niagara Falls, Windsor and other parts of the province, that is not a consideration they take as being very serious.

So we have to then address the problem of how do we deal with reality, the reality being that most people like to have a personal vehicle in a country or province such as ours which is so large, and how do we deal with the emissions from that particular vehicle? I think that's what this addresses today.

We can make vehicles more fuel-efficient, and there's been some good progress made throughout North America, better than Europe in this case, in fuel efficiency, and we can make them better vehicles in terms of the emissions they give off. The real problem exists with the older vehicles. The newer vehicles, particularly the brand-new vehicles, are much less of a problem in terms of pollution than the older vehicles. If we can get the clunkers off the road or at least fixed up, we will go a long way to solving an important problem out there.

We can reduce volatile organic compounds in summer months through regulations. I believe we can move even more rapidly than we have. The northeastern United States has an excellent program. I remember meeting with those people and seeing what they were implementing.

Members of the House will find perhaps amusing but not surprising the fact that there was one company, because you always get resistance from the oil companies on these things, that said: "We can't possibly produce the kind of fuel that you want in Canada from our factory. It can't be done." The same company, of course, was producing the fuel for the northeastern United States, because the regulation there stipulated the Reid vapour pressure, which deals with volatile organic compounds. So that is one area I think we can move rather rapidly in and it would help an awful lot.

There is a significant problem with vehicle emissions, as I mentioned, particularly from older cars and from trucks. There is a bad-air corridor in the summer from probably Windsor right through to Kingston, maybe even farther down there, that we all want to address; we want to see an improvement. Summer smog is a severe health threat, particularly for hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who have asthma and other ailments. I was talking to the member for Chatham-Kent in the House last night. He was mentioning that you're seeing more asthma these days, particularly with the younger people, and how it would be nice to be able to address that problem.

We have the opportunity to do that. A little later on in the debate I hope to expand upon how we can do that, how serious the problem is and how I believe members of this House can assist the Environment minister in persuading his colleagues in cabinet and in government to proceed with what I think is a very sensible program.

The Acting Speaker: Now each party will have 15 minutes to debate Mr Bradley's motion.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate the member for St Catharines. I guess today is Environment Day. This morning we have two resolutions before the House, both of which involve environmental matters. I congratulate him for bringing it forward.

I think the issue of smog is a principle that we're all concerned about in this province. As to this particular government that's before us -- and Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, may have some defence to deal with his position when he was Environment minister -- there's no question that this government hasn't really done a great deal with respect to smog and the problems of smog, particularly in the larger urban areas. It seems to have concentrated most of its time on dumps.

I look at the resolution and I look at the provisos and I agree certainly in principle with the provisos and I look forward to perhaps more explanation from the member for St Catharines as to the intent of his resolution. I quite frankly support in principle the resolution. I do have one major concern as to what the intent of the resolution is, and of course that's one of the problems with resolutions; that sometimes, as opposed to a bill, one isn't able to perhaps clarify what the resolution means.

I think it's unnecessary, for example, to test brand-new vehicles that come off the assembly line that have had strict requirements in the manufacture of those vehicles. I don't know whether mandatory testing should be done on new vehicles and I don't know when an appropriate time should be, whether one year, two years or three years. I've driven three-year or four-year-old cars and sometimes they get pretty bad with respect to problems. I have no idea. I would have to look at the experts with respect to that.

I do know, however, that with respect to this specific resolution and the way it is worded, I would have some concerns with the intent of it. It may not be that that's the member's intent, to require all vehicles, although that's what it says, but I cannot believe that he intends all vehicles including brand-new vehicles. If he does, I may have some problems with respect to supporting the resolution.

The current government, of course, Mr Wildman, the Minister of Environment and Energy, has a policy now. It's a pilot project which has been referred to in the past and was announced some time ago which says you have an option: You can go and have your vehicle tested -- which, quite frankly, we all get rather cynical about when we hear that.

If I have a vehicle that's four or five years old and I've got problems with the emissions that are coming with my vehicle or I suspect that, do I really think that I'm voluntarily going to go and have my vehicle tested and run the possibility of great expense of having it repaired? I suppose if I'm a keen environmentalist I would do that, but I must say I get cynical at spending all of that money and effort.

If you're going to get into a project like that, I would support the principle of British Columbia, which essentially is what this resolution is doing, to support that type of philosophy, and it's really a meaningless type of position that this government has taken with respect to voluntary testing.

Michael Valpy wrote an

article back in September which many of you may have read. I'm certain the member for St Catharines has read it. He starts off his

article talking about what happened in England this past summer and that there were a large number of asthma sufferers as a result of the smog, particularly in the city of London. Mr Valpy says, "The end of another summer smog season -- and British Environment Secretary John Gummer, responding to public alarm over record numbers of asthma sufferers hauled off to London hospitals in June and July, announced a few days ago that he is considering rationing car use by London commuters." That shows you that the problem is like many things particularly this government has done: When a crisis develops, it takes a crisis to do something.

In that respect, I think the member for St Catharines is right: We have foreseen that each year we have more and more smog. At the top of the headline of each paper it tells you what the rating is of the smog in each particular city. So it is getting worse, and if we don't take action, certainly the smog that's being caused by automobiles is getting more and more serious.

I support in principle the resolution. I look forward to hearing more from the member as to what he means by his resolution. Mr Valpy talked about a number of other things. I'd like to refer to his article, which essentially supports Mr Bradley's resolution: "Pollution Probe and the Canadian Lung Association, in a joint report released early in the summer, said Ontario is falling behind other provincial and US jurisdictions in the fight against summer smog. The report was blunt: Provincial government measures are ineffective." And there's no question they are. Each summer has gone by and we've had smog and air problems and the government seems to be doing nothing, and this problem --

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'm telling you that the smog continues. The problems from emissions from automobiles continue. Mr Bradley, whether you want to criticize him as the former Environment minister -- I as a different member from his party would love to. He had an opportunity, and you're right, he didn't do that, but the fact of the matter is he's acknowledging the fact that this is continuing and if we don't do something in the very near future we are going to have a problem.

Mr Valpy says, "The Ontario government, for example, has failed to follow British Columbia's NDP in requiring annual emission testing, with cars being thrown off the road if they fail the test." I must say I don't know -- and perhaps the member for St Catharines does, who, I'm sure, has researched this area a little bit more than I have -- what British Columbia does with brand-new vehicles and perhaps he will be able to enlighten us.

There's another issue as well: the cost of all of this, how much smog is being caused out in the country. I suppose it's hard to distinguish in many cases certain vehicles, but I'm certain the rural people will have problems with respect to that. In general, I'm sure even they will support this type of resolution.

Mr Valpy continues: "It has not followed the lead of a number of US jurisdictions" -- referring to Ontario -- "in curtailing fuel evaporation at the pumps by means of special hose collars, or in requiring summer-grade gasoline to be composed of fewer highly volatile compounds which pollute the air.

"It has not followed the lead of the US Environmental Protection Agency in setting emission limits for such machinery as tractors, bulldozers, chainsaws and lawn mowers....It has not followed the lead of, say, California in establishing targets for vehicle manufacturers to market low- and zero-emission vehicles."

Mr Valpy continues; I won't spend any more time with that, but it's a good article.

The issue that's being raised by the member for St Catharines is just one of many things that this government could do and could have done with respect to dealing with smog. I can't let it go by -- the current government's policy is voluntary testing -- to make some comments with respect to the current government policy and why I think it's really of no use whatsoever.

I put a number of order paper questions to the minister on this topic and if I have time I'd like to refer to some of the answers that were given to show that the government's policy is really one of folly, and that you're either going to have a policy of the type of testing that's being suggested by the member for St Catharines or you're not going to have any at all. For example, in this particular case, I asked some questions with respect to costs, and it appears that "All costs being incurred in establishing the project are to be borne by the contractor with no guarantees that he will be awarded the contract at the end of the year's pilot period."

Cost is an interesting issue. Again, to be fair to the member, he could have pages and pages in his resolution, but I'd like to hear more about the issue of costing, about how that is going to be controlled. Will it be, as he's suggesting, for example, that the testing will be contracted out to individuals or will the government be obliged to construct buildings? In other words, I get worried about cost and bureaucracy and how he would propose it be administered.

It really is dubious what results can be achieved if the project is based on voluntary testing, which is what this government has. The only people who will voluntarily have their vehicles tested will be those people whose car or automobile or truck is in good condition. No one else is going to do that.

In fact, in one of the order paper questions that I put forward I asked, "Would the Minister of Transportation please provide any results of public opinion polls regarding the imposition of mandatory inspection fees and how such a program will be enforced?"

The answer was, "Results from a January 19, 1993, Environics study of a Metropoll show that 60% of the greater Toronto area residents were supportive of the idea of mandatory testing for vehicle emissions," and I believe that. It may have even increased. Anybody who lives in the city, if you don't have an air-conditioned car that you can close up your windows as you're driving along any of our main highways, you're going to have a difficult time. All of that is called smog. I am surprised actually that the poll isn't higher. This was done in 1993.

"When asked how much they would be willing to pay for inspections, the average amount mentioned was $44. With regards to enforcement of such a program, other jurisdictions enforce the program by making vehicle registration a condition on passing the emissions inspection." Then they say, "Of course there will be no fees charged during the pilot program and no enforcement required." That's meaningless rhetoric, quite frankly.

I'd be interested to know whether the member has any concept of costing, of fees. We've seen the corporation fee, the $50 fee that the public has to pay for corporations and other such fees. Fees seem to be going up and they're going to complain about that. We need to know more about what the member for St Catharines has with respect to that.

I asked the question, "Would the Minister of Transportation advise the House how it plans to monitor vehicle testing?" This is the pilot project of the current government. The answer was, "Emissions data will be collected for each vehicle tested and then analysed. A database containing all results will be developed and will provide a basis for monitoring the vehicle testing program."

I don't know whether any information is yet available from the government. It's been doing this for some time. I'm sceptical as to what the results are and whether it will really provide anything.

I think the experiment that the government had was a complete waste of money, complete waste of time, and that what it should've done is to look towards the type of issue that the member for St Catharines was suggesting.

I asked a question to the Minister of Transportation as to how the ministry, "due to the time needed to perform the emissions tests, intends to avoid traffic congestion on busy roads and will there not be an even greater problem if the ministry is anticipating that 30% of the cars will need to undergo secondary testing."

I think we better be prepared for that because there's quite a number of cars out there that are causing problems, and where are they going to be tested? Are we going to do it on our main highways? How is it going to take place?

The government gave, as usual, a vague answer. They said, "Since this is a pilot program capturing perhaps 1% of the local light duty vehicle population, we estimate 100 vehicles per day, which is not expected to cause local traffic problems."

I'd be really amazed if they even get 100 vehicles per day, voluntary, 100 people a day going to take their vehicles in for voluntary testing.

"Due to the voluntary nature of the pilot program the contractor may wish to arrange appointments to evenly distribute the testing load over the one-year period. Specific requirements have been made in the RFP asking respondents to address local traffic impact and thus responses will be evaluated with this in mind. The pilot program's intent is to help us learn how to handle volumes of people in a mandatory program."

I look forward to hearing more from the member for St Catharines as to what he intends with his plan.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): The member's resolution begins by saying that Ontario has a severe summer smog problem and that smog is a threat to health as well, and that's certainly true. He goes on to say that half of the smog is emitted by automobiles and trucks, and that's certainly true as well. But I know if there's any resistance in the Windsor area that I represent to mandatory testing, it would have to be because of the fact that most of that pollution comes from cars and trucks in the United States.

He also goes on to say that we've fallen behind more environmentally advanced jurisdictions in North America. If that's the case, then I think that period that he was talking about in his remarks, between 1985 and 1990 when he was the minister for the Liberal government during a time of high economic growth and when there was a lot of attention being paid to environmental matters, certainly something could have been done at that time so that we wouldn't have fallen behind. But it wasn't.

This government is doing something about it. On April 21 of this year, as part of our efforts to deal with the problem of smog, the ministries of Environment and Energy and Transportation announced the vehicle inspection and maintenance program to test emissions from cars. The member for St Catharines would like the people of Ontario to believe that somehow this is a flawed initiative. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.

He's playing cheap politics by saying that our program isn't good enough because it's not mandatory. The member's saying that because we're not forcing all motorists to submit to an operationally unproven technology, our program isn't good enough. This is nothing less than irresponsible politics, and the member should know better.

What this government is doing is a giant step ahead of the vehicle emissions program that the member for St Catharines introduced when he was the Minister of the Environment, which was nothing. If he had done this kind of pilot project, we might be in a position to move sooner to a province-wide program which all motorists in Ontario could take advantage of.

The vehicle emissions testing program that we have introduced and that will be under way in the spring should be one of the most advanced in North America. It will evaluate state-of-the-art technologies over a one-year period at no cost to vehicle owners, and we expect that some 25,000 vehicles, cars and trucks, will be inspected over the one-year life of this program. In addition to this, we've begun a heavy-duty vehicle emissions pilot project as well. That began in September.

The member for St Catharines is introducing this resolution today so that he can try to impress environmentalists and green organizations in the province of Ontario and somehow convince them that the Liberal Party is more serious about dealing with smog than the New Democrats.

Environmentalists and activists in green organizations in Ontario are well informed. They know about these issues and they know that we are doing more about smog and environmental issues than the Liberal government did when it was in power. They also know that if the Liberals had introduced the pilot project when they were in government, we'd be much further along than we are now.

Our government is serious about tackling vehicle emissions and that's why we're taking a responsible approach to make sure that the program we implement is one that's going to work. This resolution does nothing to advance the fight against smog, but our testing program certainly will.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to join in the debate this morning on this issue, and, let me say at the outset, in full support of the resolution put forward by the honourable member for St Catharines.

As a first comment, I am quite surprised by the remarks by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who has taken a resolution put forward in good faith, has heard some of the opening debate and has responded as if this is some political type of excursion, or incursion.

The fact of the matter is that a resolution of this kind is most important to be brought forward not in the summer months, to be very frank, when our minds are directed more visually to the issue of smog, but really in the winter, because that is the time when action can be taken so that we can be prepared for May, June, July, August and September. You don't start to take the action in those months, because by that time it's much too late. What you have to do is start to deal with the issue in the winter so that you are prepared for the summer.

I think we all recognize, notwithstanding the significant partisan comments of the member for Windsor-Walkerville, that the issue of smog, that the issue of respiratory disease, that the effects those have know no political bounds. They care little about what particular political party one has come to. They affect people, they affect children, they affect our elderly. They are very real and very significant, and action can and must be taken in this area.

As an aside, I certainly just discount the baseless political jargon coming from the member for Windsor-Walkerville on an issue which I believe will very much affect his constituents, the children in his riding, the elderly, those who have any athletic training, as it affects everyone throughout the province.

Now we are dealing with an issue referred to as smog. I have an

article written June 22, 1994, by Suzanne Elston, who indicates: "Smog is composed mostly of ground level ozone. It is created" -- and I think it's important to talk about what actually this is -- "when nitrogen oxide" -- referred to as NO x -- "emissions from cars and trucks and volatile organic compounds" -- referred to as VOCs -- "from solvents and gas fumes mix together and are exposed to sunlight." Basically it's a mixture of the emissions of cars with the gas solvents under sunlight, and that causes smog.

Obviously, "it is thickest and most offensive on hot, muggy summer days." That just underscores the reason why you have to deal with this issue in the winter, so that you can be prepared when those hot, muggy days appear.

She goes on to say: "Most vehicles are the greatest culprits of smog emissions. They emit roughly 40% of VOCs and 60% of NO x ." These, of course, are the ingredients mixed together under sunlight that create the smog.

The

article goes on further to say:

"Ontario's recent record-breaking temperatures have been accompanied by unusually high levels of smog. While most of us are more concerned with the heat and humidity, smog can be a serious" -- and let me say this is not a political statement; this is written by someone who cares deeply about the issue -- "health threat for some. Even low levels can sting the eyes and burn the lungs, and can cause shortness of breath, coughing, wheezing, dizziness and fatigue."

Again in the Toronto Star from just last June, I have an

article that says, "Metro Smog Linked to Rise in Hospital Admissions." I say this for no political purpose, no partisan purpose, but rather to underscore the resolution put forward by the honourable member for St Catharines that this is a very real issue, that it is a very real problem, and that the effects and impact of not dealing with it result in a rise in hospital admissions. The

article by Caroline Mallan of the Toronto Star reads: "Metro's smoggiest summer days result in a major jump in the number of people arriving at hospitals with breathing problems, international studies show."

"Dr Alfred Munzer of the Lung Association produced three studies of air pollution in southern Ontario, showing admissions to hospitals for respiratory problems jump anywhere from 24% to 50% when smog reaches levels considered acceptable in the United States."

What we've got here is a very real issue which causes some very real problems to a variety of people in this province, and there are ways in which it can be addressed. Vehicle emission testing, as was indicated in the article, can have an effect on this issue which will result in fewer hospital admissions. We know that this has a direct impact on our seniors. We know that it has a direct impact on those with any respiratory problems. It has an impact on any people who work out, who exercise. Smog will affect their health.

It is very important to note that the organization known to all of us in this place and to so many outside as Pollution Probe has combined with the Lung Association to underscore the importance of this issue. I have a news release of June 1, 1994. It states:

"'Ontario is falling behind other provincial and US jurisdictions in the fight against summer smog,' the Lung Association and Pollution Probe said in a report issued today. 'Although southern Ontario has the worst chronic smog problems in Canada, the province is not taking effective action to reduce air pollution,' the two groups said," Pollution Probe and the Lung Association.

This summer millions of Ontarians will be exposed to levels of smog known to harm human health. They have asked the provincial government to take action. Action can be taken. This can be addressed. We can combat the issue of smog. We can make this place a better place, a cleaner place for our citizens and residents of Ontario, for the young people, for those who have respiratory disease, for our elderly and for so many others.

I am more than pleased to be fully supportive of the important resolution put forward by the member for St Catharines, and I would hope that members of the government would look at a resolution of this kind and respond in substance and in principle, instead of cheap, partisan, political meandering on an issue which is important to the people of this province.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am surprised that on such an important issue, there are not the speakers coming forward from the third party. However, I'm glad to stand on my feet this morning to speak against the resolution introduced -- I was going to say "revolution," but I caught up with that -- by the member for St Catharines.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville has done a good job this morning here of explaining the initiatives that our government is taking to test vehicle emissions. He was right to point out that this is far more than the member for St Catharines ever did when he was the Minister of the Environment in the Peterson government.

I find it, to quote one of his colleagues, the member for -- I forget, but he always says he finds it "passing strange." I find it very passing strange that here we are this morning talking about smog and emissions and the member for St Catharines had it in his grasp when he was the Minister of the Environment of a government that had the biggest mandate, the biggest monopoly in this House that this province has ever seen, and he did nothing. Then he stands here today and has the gall to give the impression that a mandatory program is the approach he would have taken. Where was he when he was the minister?

Why didn't he do that if he was so sure that was the way to start off? Why didn't he do that?

Mr Offer: You're embarrassing yourself.

Mr Mills: No, no. Why didn't you do it? You had the biggest mandate in the history of this Legislature and you did nothing.

Mr Tilson: Give me a break.

Mr Mills: And you haven't got any room to talk at all. What the member for Windsor-Walkerville is --

The Acting Speaker: Order, order.

Mr Mills: He bugs me. He keeps bugging me. I didn't bug him when he was speaking and I don't expect to be bugged when I'm speaking.

What the member is trying to do with this resolution is to create an impression that our government is not sufficiently concerned about the problem of smog, and of course that's complete baloney. I can tell you that, in addition to what the member for Windsor-Walkerville has described, there are a lot of other initiatives our government has taken to deal with the problem of ground-level ozone, and I'm going to list a few of them.

On June 7, 1994, our government finalized a training and certification regulation for dry cleaners. This regulation will require dry cleaners to be trained in the safe handling of dry cleaning chemicals by certified professionals by June 1996.

On July 8, 1994, our government promulgated a draft regulation to control hydrocarbon vapour emissions -- gas fumes -- from fuel distribution at refiners' terminals, bulk plants and gasoline stations.

Performance standards for new combustion turbines were announced on March 25, 1994, and, as the member for Windsor-Walkerville has already said, on April 21, 1994, the MOEE, along with the Ministry of Transportation, announced a vehicle inspection and maintenance program to test emissions from vehicles.

A light-duty vehicle inspection station will open in the spring of 1995 and a heavy-duty vehicle educational enforcement program has already been initiated by our government in September by MTO.

MOEE, in conjunction with Environment Canada, announced on April 26 the extension of the air quality advisory to include the northern Ontario cities of Sudbury and North Bay.

MOEE is consulting with industry on voluntary pollution prevention initiatives to curb the release of NO x and VOCs. For example, Ontario Hydro has agreed to voluntarily reduce 1985 levels of NO x emissions 40% by the year 2000 -- 40% by the year 2000.

We are also pressuring the federal government to negotiate an 80 parts per billion ozone standard, now a 120 parts ppb average in the US, with the United States. The Ontario standard is 80 ppb.

MOEE has made comments to the US EPA objecting to the reclassification of Michigan as a attainment area for ozone, and the final decision on that has been delayed by the US EPA.

Gasoline now sold in Ontario has one of the lowest benzene contents of gasoline sold in the whole of North America, and I think that's commendable.

We think it's important to have better emission inventories, so MOEE has undertaken a survey, due later this year, of roughly 1,300 large emitters of air pollutants in Ontario. Further, in cooperation with two Ontario dry cleaning associations, the MOEE is surveying Ontario dry cleaners for solvent emissions. Improved inventories are also an initiative under the NO x /VOCs management plan.

I think that from those initiatives I've read out into the record here this morning, it's easy for everybody to see that our government has taken a workable, responsible and serious approach to smog, and, given that our government has taken that attitude, I think that it is well to defeat this resolution this morning.

The resolution is to obscure the fact that the Liberals, when they were the government, failed to introduce any kind of program to do serious vehicle emission testing in Ontario, and I say again I find it passing strange that the member who was the minister at the time now comes up with some wonderful plan that he says we're not doing when he could have done something and they did nothing. This government is doing something which contributes to the battle against smog much more than the resolution does.

I want to talk about back in the summer this year. I was over in England visiting, and I can tell you that I was almost forced to go around with a handkerchief over my face. I'd only been there two days and I got a sore throat, running eyes, and I felt terrible. Three days I had all the symptoms of bronchitis. Four days when I lay down to go to bed at night I had this horrible crackling continue in my chest. Every day I felt terrible. I felt ill.

Interjection.

Mr Mills: No, it isn't. I'm better now.

What I want to tell you is there are a lot of complaints that we are doing nothing in Ontario. Here I was, over there -- the pollutants are terrible -- crackling, wheezing and everything. I came back to Canada, and I was so glad to come back here, Madam Speaker, you wouldn't believe it. Two days after I was breathing the wonderful air in my community, the hamlet of Orono in the beautiful municipality of Clarington, I was like a new man. I have been rejuvenated with that wonderful air that we have in Ontario. So for you folks to sit there and blame us for doing nothing, when you had the huge mandate that you could have done anything you wanted in the whole country and you did nothing --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): No political will.

Mr Mills: You had no political will, as my friend from Essex-Kent says, and he's quite right. With those comments, Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity. There's a minute or so left if there are any of my colleagues who want to comment on that, but I thank you for the time.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any members who wish to further debate this motion? Seeing none, the member for St Catharines may reply.

Mr Bradley: I take it this is it? I want to deal with some of the legitimate comments that have been made about the resolution. First of all, I want to say I am really disappointed that people would view this as a partisan shot at the government, because it's not designed to be that. I had a lot of things I could have brought forward as a resolution. I tried to pick one about which I felt very strongly personally, about improving the environment.

It didn't matter, I think, to the members of the government, I've listed some of the things the government is endeavouring to do to help the environment and I'm happy to see that is taking place. I wasn't critical of those things. But when we're trying to develop something for private members' hour we usually try to pick something that is either particularly important to our constituencies or to ourselves.

I notice from time to time that private members' hour has been utilized for partisan purposes by all parties, and I've seen some of those. I could have chosen a really government-bashing resolution or bill and I didn't want to do that. I wanted to say, "What is something I would like to see done, whether I didn't do it or the Conservatives didn't do it or this government didn't do it?" I didn't say, "You've had four and a half years or whatever to do it and you haven't." I simply put forward a resolution that I think will help the province.

I think it will help the member for Windsor-Walkerville's area, the member for Durham East's area, to improve even more than we have over the past 10 or 15 years.

I want to say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville that some of the arguments he has made are the very arguments I encountered from polluters constantly and that every Environment minister encounters: It's too tough a program to implement; it's too complicated; the problem is really the American problem. Constantly, and some of the members who have been in the House a long time would know this, we face this argument, whether it's in committee or wherever, from polluters, from people who don't want to see environmental action.

There's a page in the Globe and Mail today where there's a writer who is constantly debunking everything that has to do with the environment. That happens. That's why I'm surprised and disappointed to hear the same arguments advanced by members of the New Democratic Party.

In answer to the member's question, when you try to develop the various programs, it does take a while to develop them, and I appreciate that for the government it does take a while.

One of the things we were working on as 1990 came was cooperation between the MTO and the MOE to implement this kind of program. The minister who came in in the day, Mrs Grier in this case, who was a very committed environmentalist, would have had that program brought forward by MOE officials and MTO officials. That would have been, I think, an opportune time, but I recognize her other priorities that the government had to deal with. I appreciate that.

I know it's always hard to believe in this House, but this is not a politically motivated resolution. It's simply something I feel strongly about. I tried to pick something in the environment where I thought we could implement a program that would be a good program for our province.

The member for Dufferin-Peel asked a couple of very pertinent questions about how practical this is. What I envisage -- I did not make it as precise and detailed as a bill can be, and he pointed out that a resolution usually doesn't do that -- is that you would not have new vehicles, you'd have vehicles that would be three years old or over that would be subject to this annual inspection.

The member for Dufferin-Peel points out appropriately that even some of those vehicles can begin to have problems with their emission controls. So that's what I envisage there. I envisage that it would be done by contractors just as, when a car changes hands, we have a safety inspection done by private organizations, private garages. In fact, that's how this could be implemented in Ontario.

I would understand the problem of trying to do every brand-new car in the province -- that would be very difficult -- but I think these problems can be overcome. We had a lot of discussion in the ministry when we were in government about that, and of course the Ministry of Transportation raised a lot of the concerns that Mr Tilson raised in this House, and I think those certainly can be overcome.

As far as the cost is concerned, to me that's a cost that I bear as a driver of a vehicle. I believe that the main problem as well is certainly in the urban areas, not in the rural areas, and that when you stage programs -- if you look at British Columbia, what they selected was the lower mainland where there's a problem with groundlevel ozone. I remember going to a conference in Washington where a professor from British Columbia made this compelling case to the Americans and he used as a good example the lower mainland in British Columbia where they had been able to move.

I don't know whether the government could move all over Ontario on this in its initial stage. It certainly, in the major metropolitan areas, could move as a start. It's not something you jump into immediately, I understand that. Although I'd like to see that happen and my resolution suggests that, I know the government would want to phase that in.

I think the member for Durham East makes a good case for what can happen when we don't have the best possible laws. His description of Britain is one which many people have brought back in terms of the smog that exists there. We're fortunate we're a bigger country. We're more spread out and the air corridors are different, but we do encounter those problems. As I said, the member for Chatham-Kent and I were discussing at some length last night the new respiratory diseases, particularly asthma, that we're seeing in people.

I think it's a supportable resolution. I don't criticize the government for action or lack of action. I think the government has been ahead of other jurisdictions in some areas of the environment and behind in others, and there are some jurisdictions which have taken some initiatives that I think we can learn from and proceed with.

I hope that the arguments that are made are arguments that in fact are not accepted, those arguments being those made by polluters. I cannot emphasize too much how the government members will be told by some people in government why something can't be implemented.

If I did not move forward with or try to move forward with initiatives that I was told by other ministries couldn't be implemented or by the private sector or by business, labour, citizens, whoever, I'll tell you you would have no environmental improvement taking place. There's a constant assault on environment.

There's a new group out there deliberately debunking the environment set out there. It's a well-financed group. It's a group that attacks the Niagara Escarpment Commission. It's a group that attacks the environmental initiatives that this government brings forward or any other government brings forward, and we have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of using those arguments.

That's why, and I like the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I was surprised that the material that he read into the record really sounded like what some of us who have been in this House for years and years had listened to from the polluters over the years.

I think it's a supportable resolution. I hope members of the government don't see it as a partisan shot at them, as cheap politics, as the member for Windsor-Walkerville saw it. I hope you see it as a good potential initiative for a government to implement, and I would certainly applaud the government if it were to implement that and be very supportive of the minister in any efforts he would make to try to improve the environment in this way.

I think the cautions that have been suggested by the member for Dufferin-Peel are reasonable cautions that one has to look at in the implementation of such a program, but I deliberately put it forward as a resolution to try to get the support of members of this House for a Minister of Environment who I'm sure would like to move more comprehensively than he has to this point in time. I certainly appreciated that kind of support when I was minister; I hope we can give it to this minister.

NATURAL GAS VEHICLES

Mr Cooper moved private member's notice of motion number 53:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the Ontario New Democratic government has stated job creation is its number one priority; and

Since reducing government operating costs is of paramount importance to controlling the deficit and preserving the services people have come to reply upon; and

Since economic renewal depends upon high value added manufacturing, export success and increased research and development; and

Since we must use the principles of sustainable development by promoting the wise and efficient use of energy and conservation of resources; and

Since we must lead by example through the procurement of factory-supplied natural gas vehicles and/or retrofit of existing vehicles to natural gas; and

Since we must preserve our environment for future generations;

Therefore, this House urges the government of Ontario to review the feasibility and where possible implement the systematic conversion of government vehicles to natural gas as a means of creating higher value added jobs, reducing government operating costs and achieving a cleaner environment; and

This House also urges the government of Ontario to call upon Ontario municipalities to review the feasibility of conversion of municipal vehicles to natural gas.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Cooper has moved motion number 53. He will now have 10 minutes for his presentation. Following that, each party will have 15 minutes to debate this motion.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Basically, the purpose of this resolution is to urge the review of the systematic conversion of government vehicles to natural gas.

The conversion to natural gas is similar to the chicken-and-egg riddle: Potential customers want to see fuel availability before they will switch to natural gas vehicles, while fuel station owners want to see natural gas vehicles before they will invest in a new fuel supply system.

This resolution is in keeping with the NDP government's plan of investing in jobs, controlling spending, reducing the deficit and preserving services.

The present Ontario natural gas vehicle market is not sustainable without growth of local markets. While it's a $62-million industry here in the province of Ontario, we're looking to the long-term economic benefits for the government of Ontario to become a leader in the field of natural gas. The New Democrats have always supported policies to reduce transportation's energy intensity and the production of carbon emissions.

I guess first what we should do is talk about what natural gas is. Natural gas is inherently the cleanest of all fossil fuels. It is primarily methane, and methane is chemically a simple fuel, especially when compared to the very complex chemical compositions of gasoline and diesel. This characteristic of natural gas allows automotive engineers to design for and achieve extremely low exhaust emissions.

For example, Chrysler Corp has recently produced a natural-gas-fueled version of the popular Magic Wagon, available now in the United States and Canada for the 1995 line. The natural gas Magic Wagon is designed and produced in Ontario by Chrysler Canada. This new minivan has been certified to meet California's future vehicle emission standards, which have been recognized as the most stringent in the world. Moreover, Chrysler's natural gas vehicle minivan is the world's first production vehicle and so far the only production vehicle to be certified to meet the ultra-low-emission vehicle standards.

Natural gas is a proven safe fuel. The inherent characteristics of natural gas vehicles that provide this important advantage include the fact that since natural gas is lighter than air, natural gas will rapidly dissipate into the atmosphere should a leak occur. Gasoline and propane are both heavier than air and may lie or collect near the floor or ground, providing conditions for combustion. Natural gas needs a very high temperature to cause combustion: 632 degrees Celsius. By contrast, gasoline ignites at 280 degrees Celsius and propane at 466 degrees Celsius.

And the natural gas fuel cylinders approved in Ontario for use on vehicles are much stronger than gasoline tanks and there have been no reported incidents of cylinder failure as a result of vehicle collisions in Canada.

Natural gas has a strong infrastructure base already in North America, and this is where I came to know about this: There's a company in the city of Kitchener called GFI. Their system, they claim, can reduce fuel costs by 30% to 60%. At the pumps presently, natural gas runs at about 32 cents a litre. The mileage is as good or better on an energy basis and the maintenance costs can also be lowered through reduced engine wear.

There are approximately 15,000 vehicles equipped to run on natural gas, and this amounts to about 50% of the Canadian natural gas vehicle market, here in the province of Ontario. There are about 2,000 people employed in this industry at the present time. Right now there are 35 public and private refuelling stations, and over 800 vehicle refuelling plants are situated in individual customers' premises.

GFI's Canadian-developed computer technology has been described as a conceptual breakthrough. It's a viable alternative fuel system and it has produced technological advancement in research and development. It serves to protect and create higher value added jobs here in the province of Ontario and it's putting people to work in our communities. The job spinoff is considerable. GFI estimates that 10 jobs in related parts production and technology development, as well as service and installation, are created for every job at GFI.

Our government's mandate includes the responsibility to find commercial partners and ensure that Canadian manufacturing jobs, specifically here in Ontario, are part of that mandate. We need a high level of export potential. We need the preservation and growth of clustered development industries here in the province of Ontario.

The cluster stakeholders here in the province of Ontario right now are Alcan in Kingston; Engine Control Systems, Newmarket; FuelMaker, Toronto; GFI Control Systems, Kitchener; Motion Concept Vehicles, Mississauga; Ontario Bus Industries, Mississauga; Ortech, Mississauga; Overland Coach, London; Sherex/OPW, Burlington; Steel Cylinder Manufacturing, Tilbury; Sulzer, Toronto; Williamson NGV Fleet Systems, Georgetown; and Wilson Technologies, Kitchener.

This means a great deal to the province of Ontario in the sense of business. The vehicle refuelling appliances, VRAs, are assembled in Mississauga. The GFI system is manufactured in Kitchener. A Burlington company manufactures NGV nozzles. A Tilbury company makes NGV cylinders which hold the fuel. And Trillium Alternative Fuels is located in Chatham.

What we're saying here is that we have to integrate our efforts with the corporate sector and get the research and development going to help commercialize this new technology. A coordination between the government to establish technological standards for environmental products and services is absolutely mandatory. At the present time, Hamilton currently has a natural-gas-powered fleet of approximately 40 buses and London Transit currently has the first indoor natural gas vehicle refuelling station in North America.

Gaseous fuel injection is the best alternative fuel solution, in my opinion. Gaseous fuel injections are safe, economical and dependable, and maximize the potential for clean burning of abundantly available natural gas. This enhances the environmental benefits to the province of Ontario. But I want to state at this time, right now, that the introduction of this resolution does in no way impact on the government of Ontario's commitment to rural Ontario in the use of ethanol for agricultural use.

Ethanol, made from corn or grain, can be blended with conventional gasoline to create a cleaner-burning fuel that reduces carbon monoxide emissions and displaces several toxic gasoline additives. The planned plant in Chatham will use 20 million bushels of Ontario corn a year, and I know for the corn producers in my area of the province this is good news.

The natural gas program promotes the responsible use of a non-renewable resource and environmental protection through the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Conversion to natural gas enables our government to conduct its business in an environmentally responsible manner, using the principles of sustainable development. Promoting the wise and efficient use of energy in the conservation of resources is a priority for our government and provides for the government of Ontario to provide leadership in seeking ways to reduce the environmental impacts of our doing business.

The GFI system offers convenience and flexibility through a bifuel system, and GFI control systems are recognized by the Ford Motor vehicle company through their qualified vehicle modifier program, which means that GFI now has the potential to go in and do factory installations to cut down on the cost of retrofits.

Right now, the F-series trucks with a 4.9-litre engine can be purchased as an NGV or can come equipped with a bifuel system. One of the advantages right now of the bifuel system is that while the natural gas refuelling stations aren't widely available across the province, this allows the consumer to have a bifuel system where if you run short of natural gas, with a flick of the switch you can switch over to gasoline so that you can get to the next station. So while it does cut down on the amount of storage space you have, it is still a convenience, especially if you get into the northern areas.

I know one of the booklets that was really good, and I guess it was just produced, was Driving Ontario with Natural Gas, which is put out by the Ontario Natural Gas Association. These are widely available right now and they actually come with maps showing where the refuelling stations are available. I know it's hard to see, and I'll make these available to some of the members, but if you look, it's basically clustered around Toronto westward, down to southwestern Ontario. But you'll note that Thunder Bay also has services, Timmins has services, Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury.

So while it's expanding, we have to show leadership here at the government level. I guess the thing here is that by the Ontario government converting its fleet, it gives an incentive for the people to set up the refuelling stations. I know people like Bell Canada are looking at this, because they have enormous fleets and if they can reduce the cost of doing business it would be an advantage to them.

But somewhere, somebody has to show leadership by doing the conversions or at least send the signal that they're going to be doing the conversions so that the natural gas industry will start setting up service centres across this province. This will help benefit everybody. Obviously, with the cleaner environmental fuel, we're going to be preserving our atmosphere and the environment for the future generations.

I look forward to the discussion that will be taking place and I hope everybody will support this resolution.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): As far as private members' motions go, I think this is a very good one, and I would say for two reasons.

First of all, a substantial reason, I think: Who can argue with having a cleaner environment? In fact, it's rather strange that on this last day of our sitting we should have two motions that are quite similar in intent, one coming this side of the House, from the member for St Catharines, who would like to also make sure that our fuel emissions don't pollute the air any more, and I think the basic intention of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, with his motion, is the same when he says we ought to encourage more conversion of gasoline vehicles to natural gas.

So from a substantial point of view, we have two very good private members' motions before us that I think are quite innocuous, as it were, not very controversial. I was somewhat disappointed that earlier on during the debate on the motion from the member for St Catharines it was quite partisan. Mind you, I think in the motion from Mr Cooper, I won't be too non-partisan either, because there are some other spinoff questions that can be raised. I must admit, Madam Speaker, that I might stray a little bit from the topic, but seeing that this is sort of the last meeting we have to put some points of view on the record, you hopefully will permit me a little bit of latitude.

I also am somewhat wondering why the member would have chosen this particular motion. He obviously, and I must congratulate him, has done his homework well. When he just spoke, he obviously had a lot of facts and figures. I don't know whether he prepared it himself or had someone else do a bit of research there. Certainly I will look up with interest in the Hansard all the figures that you put forward, because I think they're useful and, in the furtherance of his objectives, I think it's good to have that background and these facts in front of us.

But frankly, I would have expected a different kind of motion from the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, and he won't be surprised if I say that I was expecting to hear something about motorcycles. I remember, about half a year ago, we were outside the House and there was a tremendous lineup of all kinds of bikers. You should have seen it; it was very colourful, I must say. I'm not a biker myself, but I happened to be here with my family, and I have three teenagers, and they were quite impressed by seeing all these motorcycles outside the Legislature. I don't think they were on the lawn, but they were circling.

There must have been 400 or 500 bikers here with their regalia, some of them dressed more than others.

The concern was that the insurance for certain types of motorcycles is very, very hard to come by. It's hard to come by because of certain changes this government has made making it more difficult to get the proper coverage. I know the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has tried several times with the Treasurer, albeit unsuccessfully, I think as late as a couple of weeks ago, to get this issue to the forefront of the attention of the government, because I am still receiving, and I guess he is receiving as well, concerns about insurance coverage for motorcycles. So I was expecting something along those lines.

I hope this is not a sign that Mr Cooper has given up on the motorcycle people in the province. I see he's shaking his head, and I'm glad to see he will continue, and Mr Hansen as well, who's also a friend of the motorcycle industry and the motorcycle fans, to fight for these people, fight with their own government, I guess, because I'm certainly convinced -- even though the other side would argue -- that it was the changes the government has made to the insurance bill that make it so hard now for certain motorcycle fans to get insurance coverage.

But to come back to the motion before us, it's a good one. As I indicated earlier, who can be against trying to convert government vehicles, to start, and I'm sure his intention is perhaps for private vehicles as well, to natural gas? They burn in a cleaner way.

He's also phrased his motion in a very acceptable manner, because he doesn't say, "Do it," but "explore the feasibility of." I must say, he's very diplomatic in that language. I don't know whether it is the almost five years now that he has been here that he has learned to drop some of the more radical rhetoric we usually used to hear from the NDP, but he's saying here, "Let's explore and encourage other levels of government to explore the feasibility of." Again, who could argue with that? That's certainly a good approach to take, because clearly it would be the wrong thing for the provincial government to simply impose that requirement on other levels of government.

I should say, though, that there's one element I have a bit of a question about: Why just natural gas? I happen to have attended, about two months ago in Nepean, in the part of the riding that belongs to Ottawa-Rideau, Mrs O'Neill -- we went to the opening of an electric vehicle research institute and in fact the opening of the Electric Vehicle Association of Canada. That too is a different approach to motor vehicles that I think we should encourage.

When the member says we should try and get the governments, including the provincial government, to convert to natural gas with their vehicles, I think we should not exclude the possibility of using electric vehicles. In terms of the technical advancement, they may not have progressed to the stage where natural gas has arrived, so it would probably be a little more complicated to do with electricity and batteries. But I think there's quite a bit of promise with regard to electric vehicles.

There are some vehicles on the road in Ottawa -- and I presume in other parts of the province as well, but I'm not familiar with that -- for example, vehicles used by the University of Ottawa, that use batteries; they're used to further advance the research going into those types of vehicles.

I would just like to point out to the House that when we say natural gas, that's fine and I certainly support that, but there are also other means of cleaner air. Electricity in this case would probably be the cleanest air, although there are other dimensions to the impact on the environment that electricity has -- all we need to think of is PCBs and all that stuff -- so it's not totally a clean alternative either, but certainly cleaner than gasoline fuel. I'm sure the member does not have any great difficulties with this.

But as I indicated, I'm a little bit surprised to see this motion at this time of the term of the government. It's a little bit late, since we may not even be coming back before an election, so I guess he just wants to put this on the record as a hope and a desire for the next government. That's probably good, and why not?

But when we're talking about hopes and desires for the next government, in particular what we could do for the environment, one dimension I want to point out is that we cannot force people. Sometimes we have to put in place bills, but as much as possible -- and I think the member has tried that -- you try to work with the people, with the governments and the other institutions. You don't just put in laws and say, "That's it and you follow it." That's the way he has phrased his motion, and I appreciate it.

There's an example where again the intent by the NDP government is to protect the environment but the way it's doing it goes very much contrary to all fairness and to all reasonable democratic expectations of consultation, and that has to do with the wetlands policy. It strays a little bit from the motion, but I do want to put on the record that in eastern Ontario, and now in other parts of the province, they have very, very serious concerns that people have brought to my attention and to the attention of our caucus with regard to the wetlands policy established by this government.

The people are saying, and they've made presentations to us and they're furious, that they're being expropriated without any kind of compensation. Under these new rules the NDP government has established, the government can simply say, "This land is all of a sudden a significant provincial wetland and there's not going to be any kind of development."

These land owners have been telling me, often people who have inherited these lands or perhaps who are pensioners now and have banked on these lands as their insurance for their retirement, that all of a sudden these lands are worth a lot less than they planned. The government simply went on to their land and said, "We say this is a designated wetland under provincial policies," and the people are very concerned about that. They're not against protecting the environment, including the natural environment, but they want a fair hearing; they don't want to just see these matters imposed.

I'm glad the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, with his motion, doesn't just want to impose. He says "encourage the other levels of government to review the feasibility," and I think that's good. That's the way you achieve good government policy, and I would have wished that the same thing had happened with regard to the implementation of the wetlands policy.

I want to leave a little time for the member for Ottawa East, but I did want to indicate to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot that I will be supporting his motion, and if he would bring along a similar motion with regard to insurance for motorcycles, I probably would do the same.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): First of all, I'd like to welcome a class from my riding of Dufferin-Peel who are in the gallery today.

With respect to the motion, I'd like to congratulate the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for bringing this issue forth. Natural gas certainly is cleaner, less expensive, better for your car, and of course in Canada we've got lots of natural gas. It has many benefits, and there's no question about that.

I do have several reservations with respect to the resolution, and I guess it boils down to the same type of philosophy this government has with many of its waste management policies, for example.

With respect to this government's philosophy on waste management, it says, "Thou shalt have dumps, and," the government says, "you will not be allowed to look at energy from waste facilities, you will not be allowed to look at long rail-haul to willing host communities, you will not be allowed to look at other types of disposal of waste." Similarly, with this resolution, it appears to be saying, from the way it is worded, "Thou shalt use natural gas." In fact, the government says, "Thou shalt spend all kinds of money and create all kinds of bureaucracy setting up that type of motor vehicle."

Notwithstanding the good points -- and I think we will all agree about the benefits of natural gas. The member referred to ethanol fuel, although that really wasn't part of his resolution, yet it's an alternative to natural gas.

Noble Villeneuve, the member from -- I won't even attempt to say where he's from, it's got so many names in it. He's our Progressive Conservative agricultural critic and he has spent some time on the topic of ethanol fuel, and I'm sure the member for Kitchener-Wilmot agrees with many of the things he says. He, along with our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, has put out a booklet on rural economic development where we spent some time on this topic of ethanol fuel.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, give me a chance and I'll tell you about it, because obviously you aren't interested in looking at other alternatives.

He lobbied several governments, both federal and provincial, for the use of ethanol fuels. He's argued that "the development of an Ontario fuel ethanol industry provides potential for significant economic growth and prosperity in the province's rural areas." I'm reading from the booklet. He refers to the fact that "ethanol, produced through the fermentation of corn, is a fuel additive blended with regular gasoline to produce cleaner fuel combustion and lower emissions." He talks about one of the areas you talked about in Chatham. Your resolution seems to refer specifically to natural gas, yet on the other hand, you start talking about another alternative, which is ethanol.

There are other alternatives that could be looked at. One is the issue of propane, and yes, there are some downsides of propane. It's currently being used in the trucking industry and in some passenger cars as an alternative to traditional gas fuels. Some people are getting into that, for different reasons. It may be economic in some areas and not in others. It's the same with electric cars. Electric cars are being heavily tested and developed in California.

So the question I have for the member in his response, dealing again with the issue of alternatives, is, why can't we look at everything? Why would the government take the lead and look strictly at one issue? There are all kinds of environmentally sound and economically better ways than we are doing now, and we have to continually develop these alternatives. But why can't individual consumers and organizations decide what is best for their particular use and needs and plan accordingly, rather than simply going with only natural gas?

All kinds of articles and books have been written on the benefits of natural gas, and I'm not going to challenge those; I agree with them. I'm just asking, why does your party say, "Thou shalt do this, and you're not allowed to look at anything else"? Your resolution doesn't say that, but you're coming on very strong and saying: "This is the resolution. This is the way in which the province of Ontario may go." Why can't the province of Ontario look at these other alternatives?

It appears that Canada has all kinds of natural gas at the present time. For some unearthly reason -- we don't know; I have no idea; I'm not an economist -- natural gas prices skyrocket and become too expensive as compared with other fuels. Meanwhile, we've put all our eggs in one basket. We've converted all our government vehicles and perhaps other vehicles to deal with natural gas. Why can't we look at other alternatives? The auto and gas industries are constantly improving their products so that their emissions are lessened and the fuel is being burned more efficiently. So I caution the member for saying, "Let's just look at natural gas."

Natural gas is a non-renewable resource just as gasoline is. I quite frankly emphasize that notwithstanding the good points of natural gas, you have to continually remember that. It's a non-renewable resource just as gasoline is. Both of them can be criticized in the same fashion. The government shouldn't be favouring one form of non-renewable fuel over another. We must be continually looking at better ways of doing things.

I ask the member perhaps a second question, as to who is going to pay the costs necessary for converting these vehicles. Of course, he's dealing strictly with the provincial government. I shudder as to what that's going to cost. I just shudder at what that's going to cost, looking at the debt and the taxes of this province. We're trying to cut down on taxes. We're trying to cut down on the debt of this province. I have no idea what the cost is, but I shudder at the issue of the cost of implementing these vehicles all across this province.

There are other problems which have been referred to. It may have been the member, Mr Cooper, who raised it, the issue of northern Ontario. There have been problems in northern Ontario simply because of the availability of sources to obtain the fuel. The switch-over is one issue, but all of these things are very expensive.

The biggest problem I think in northern Ontario is the issue of availability. The city of Thunder Bay accordingly now has four natural gas vehicles, as I understand it, but it's only using two natural gas vehicles. So the lack of availability of natural gas has an effect. There's only one natural gas vehicle with the Ministry of Transportation. It's a van. It's regularly used because the ministry is unable to gas the other one up.

I'm referring to an article, if people are wondering, from the Thunder Bay Chronicle of June 1992, so things may have changed since then, but I doubt that very much with the economy. The

article continues, "The only natural gas dealer in Thunder Bay is Centra Gas Ontario Inc and it has no natural gas pumps open to the public." So that's a problem.

I understand where the member is coming from and I think many of us support the resolution in principle, but obviously we can't go in blind. I realize his resolution perhaps is very purposely vague by encouraging the federal government to look at a feasibility study, but hopefully he would consider his resolution to be amended to look at all alternatives. The system we have now has many problems, but we should be looking at all alternatives.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak at this particular time. I congratulate the member again. I emphasize, just to conclude, that with respect to the subject of natural gas, it is cleaner, it is currently less expensive, although we don't know what's going to happen in the future, it is better for our automobiles than it is now and there's no question that our country has a lot of natural gas that could be used.

One of the problems, of course, is that in the United States they don't have a lot of natural gas and they're not encouraging it as much perhaps as we are because they will be relying on natural gas from this country. So we have a natural resource, and the member is quite right; we should be considering using it. I just caution him in putting all his eggs in one basket.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I rise in support of this resolution put forward by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. I'd like to begin what I have to say today on this issue by saying that we have an abundance of natural gas in this province, and for that matter in this country, and I can say that this fuel at this point, even though it's used in heating homes and so forth, is underutilized.

When I talk about that fuel being available here and produced here in Ontario, it certainly has ramifications. It has ramifications as far as not being held for ransom down the road by oil cartels or oil conglomerates is concerned. I believe that the other advantage, of course, is that we are talking about a fuel that will keep our environment much cleaner as the number of vehicles and motor vehicles dramatically increases on our roads, and that's indicative, I would say, of the recent news of major increases in auto production and auto sales.

We have to be constantly thinking and measuring what that means when it comes to the environment and what kinds of environmental situations may face us in the future. I can tell you that I'm concerned about that.

I believe this is good for business. It's good for business because I think there are the new blossoming businesses related to this issue out there ready to take advantage, but of course they need the market. Market is very important. Other speakers in this House have indicated market, and who better to help diversify the fuel consumption in the auto industry than by a push and a realization by government itself to move in that direction?

I can tell you that it's time there was real competition in this field. Gasoline has always been number one and will probably maintain its position for the foreseeable future. But we should be able to say that the consumer will have a better choice, from here, on what kind of fuel consumers would like to pass through the engine of their vehicles. At this point in time I don't believe that many governments are interested in doing this.

I gave a statement in the House yesterday, and that statement was in and around the concern of many of my constituents who were, and still are, extremely concerned about the unrealistic fluctuations in gas prices. I believe that by creating a competitive situation with the use of natural gas, with the use of ethanol, with the use of gasoline, with the use of diesel, whatever, the broader you can make that, that creates a competitive situation,

whereas the games that can be played by forming cartels in certain areas to possibly fix prices can't go on.

I would say that when you create that choice you're moving not only in an environmentally sensitive way forward, but you're also moving in a way in which consumers will have choice, and their environmental concerns can be dealt with with their choices on what kind of vehicle they would operate.

The issue is also promoting local businesses, and local businesses with the drive to move towards alternative fuels for vehicles is important. But I have to say that it takes a government willing to do that. It takes a government that's willing to move in that direction. People look to their governments to lead the way, and I believe that's what we should do.

Unlike the situation where we've had the investigation into gas pricing, not one consumer was considered in that investigation at the federal level. Not one consumer made a presentation. We're talking about consumers and consumption and lessening our dependence on foreign sources; what it means to have a cleaner environment; promoting small business in this province; what is right; and also choice, consumer choice. I believe this resolution to be a good one.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I think the members' session is ending on the right note. When you look at the two motions this morning, the first one introduced by the member for St Catharines and this one from the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, I think we're ending on the right note.

A great deal of progress has been made in the last five or 10 years. I think engine manufacturers are continually improving not only the size but the efficiency of our vehicles or engines and we have a long way to go.

This motion will provide us with an opportunity to improve our environment. Financially, it could be negative, like some of the members were when they talked to Mr Bradley's motion. I would have preferred a bill, a government bill, and not only to say, "Review the feasibility and where possible implement the systematic conversion of government vehicles to natural gas"; I would have preferred a government bill to say: "Yes, we are committed. Yes, we will do it."

I agree with the member for Kitchener-Wilmot that we have to start somewhere. I will certainly support his motion because I think this is the way to go. Natural gas is the way to go. It's the cleanest fuel on the market today. Possibly ethanol will be on the market very shortly and I will be supporting --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): When the feds do something --

Mr Grandmaître: Well, you see, again as long as the feds are doing something. Why don't you do something about it instead of criticizing? Instead of criticizing, they should be doing something.

I will support this motion because it makes a whole lot of sense.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'm pleased to rise this morning and speak a short time on this resolution by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. Its main thrust, to me, is that the member is thinking in the right direction. He is trying to find ways to save money for this government, because we know the debt that is facing us here in the province of Ontario. If the member feels that this transfer of all government units to natural gas is going to bring in a major saving to the government, I certainly understand his bringing it forward.

However, I have concerns in that here we are, all ready to go and switch all of our fleet of the Ontario government without putting forward some of the studies that have been done on other types of energy for transportation.

I would just like to draw the member's attention to his own resolution. He says, "We must use the principles of sustainable development by promoting the wise and efficient use of energy." This is what I've been saying for a long time regarding our own source of energy here with Ontario Hydro, that we should be promoting the wise and efficient use of energy, not trying to come out with a negative approach.

We've got many reports here on the electric car. It's reached the stage now that it can go 160 kilometres at 100 kilometres an hour. It takes five hours to recharge the batteries. There's more research going on on the batteries at all times. The state of California has certainly decided that this is the way it's going to reduce its emissions in the next five years, through the electric car. General Motors is already setting up a special plant to not only improve and produce that car along with Ford but to have the parts for it.

Metro Toronto, in conjunction with the federal government, is testing the electric minivan here as a test run over the next 30 months to try and decide what it should do with its fleet.

Rather than just jump into this, I'm saying to the member, I think we need to study it a little more.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'm very pleased to rise and support my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, Mr Cooper, on this resolution. When I read the resolution, that in the opinion of this House the number one concern of this government is job creation, let me tell you, in Guelph job creation has also been our number one priority. Jobs Ontario is flowing in Guelph. The unemployment rate in our area is about 5%, the lowest in the country. Why? Because of the initiatives of this government, not some pie-in-the-sky stuff about, "We'll cut your taxes. Vote for me and we'll create jobs. That's how we'll do it," not that but a systematic approach to job creation.

When I look at the second part of this resolution, "reducing government operating costs," not by slashing government services but by preserving government services, that's what this government has been able to do. Again, I have to applaud the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, who has been able to present a resolution in such a way that he not only captures the spirit of what this government is doing, but also is promoting what this government is doing in a systematic way of job creation, and reducing government costs but preserving services -- not slash and burn, as the Conservatives are talking about. The Liberals won't even do anything about it anyway.

"Economic renewal depends upon high value added manufacturing, export success...." Let me read what it says from this little book the member gave me, "The growing NGV industry in Ontario now employs about 2,000 people in equipment/vehicle manufacture, installation, maintenance service, research and development," and much of this is exported business. I think the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has hit upon a solution, one of the solutions, one of our programs that can work as far as economic renewal is concerned.

When I look at the next part of the resolution, "We must use the principles of sustainable development," that's an approach that, as far as I can see, is probably the most sensible, systematic way of approaching what this government is trying to do. It is not a politician coming up saying: "Vote for me. I'll cut your taxes 30%." That's dumb. That'll never work. We have to have an approach that is going to be sustainable development, and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has captured the spirit of what this government has been doing for the last four years. It is working.

The plan of this government is not only working; we are seeing all the development of job creation, lower unemployment and services being maintained.

I applaud the member for Kitchener-Wilmot and I'm very pleased to be able to stand here in the House and support his resolution today.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): For the short time I've got, I want to put a few things on the record. It was back some years ago when the government brought in a $1,200 reduction for propane. It was about a few years later after that, when the Liberals were in power, that they came along and taxed that. Now I wonder, if the Liberals got back in power again, would they want to tax natural gas? They probably would.

I want to say there is a GM electric car that's now being promoted, so we have a lot of clean fuels that are going to be produced in this province, and natural gas is one of them.

I think it's important that this resolution come before this Legislature to have a debate on such an important issue. When we look at the federal government initiatives with regard to natural gas, they are few. They don't want to help. The federal government wants to leave it up to the province of Ontario to promote this. When it looks at the taxes that it's collecting and revenues from the gas wells in the west, the federal government gets its funds from there.

I commend the member for bringing this resolution forward so that we could have some debate on the natural gas issue, and it gives us the opportunity to talk about the electric cars that are going to come in the near future, because that's going to be the way. Metropolitan Toronto's even getting funding to do a study on electric.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I've very pleased to be up here today to support my colleague and friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. One of the things, when you talk about using natural gas, is that everybody will benefit. Everyone will benefit on this because it is an economical fuel that saves money. It helps us to improve and preserve our environment and it's the same safe fuel that heats your homes and your businesses.

I'm very pleased to be up here to support this resolution and I also would like to make some comments in regard to ethanol. The bifuel vehicles, for example, offer the practical advantage of extended total range and the ability to revert to gasoline if you run low on natural gas. But at the same time, you can also use ethanol in that other tank when you convert back from the natural gas. Both of those fuels certainly complement the environment and they're environmentally friendly.

On the subject of ethanol, I'm very pleased and very proud to be a member of a government that has taken the initiative to not only support but also to promote the use of ethanol in this province. Not only is this initiative environmentally friendly, but it creates jobs, and it creates jobs in rural Ontario and also in urban Ontario.

One of the things that I want to mention today with my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent here is that as people use more natural gas in their vehicles, it also helps promote our community down in Chatham and Kent county because that's where Union Gas's headquarters is now. If we can get the federal government to follow suit like this province has -- we exempted the tax on ethanol for 15 years and also gave the ethanol consortium $5 million to get started -- if we could have the federal government today follow the example of the provincial NDP government, then we'll be getting somewhere.

Not only does this clean the environment, it also creates jobs, and many jobs which are much needed in our community. Also, it will help the farmers and many small businesses and other people. There's nothing better than cleaning up the environment and also creating jobs at the same time.

One very, very important point in this resolution that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot talked about is, "We must preserve our environment for future generations," and that is what he is doing with this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Is there further debate on this motion? The member for Durham West.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I am also the parliamentary assistant to the Chair of Management Board and, in that capacity, I'd like to speak for a minute or two, I guess, on this resolution because I believe wholeheartedly that it's a good resolution.

At Management Board, we have been involved extensively for some years now in recycling, making sure that the government is green, that we're using non-bleached recycled paper, post-consumer waste. We have created composting technology at the Ontario Science Centre where all of the institutions in the Metro area can send their food scraps to be composted.

We have worked hard to create a green workplace. If you look around, you can see all of the containers. We're recycling toner cartridges, just for an example. In fact, in my riding we have a small business that recycles and refurbishes toner cartridges. This is a move in the right direction. The green workplace is definitely here.

We also have at Management Board a Build Green program which is to encourage, within the Metropolitan Toronto area and the province of Ontario, that new buildings that would be built by Management Board would be done to a green design, that insulation from there would come from glass, which would be manufactured in Ontario, in the Ottawa area. We have wood that is recycled and cleaned. The Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association has been participating in this Build Green program.

We even have instituted a green curriculum program where we get students in the high schools to enter into a contest to make sure that they understand green. They have come forward with some very creative ideas.

When I look at this resolution, I can simply say that the next logical extension from Management Board would be to start the Drive Green program. The Drive Green program would mean the change from petroleum products to natural gas products in the vehicles of the government of Ontario, and that would also help us save money.

The Acting Speaker: Is there any further debate? The member for Kitchener-Wilmot has two minutes to respond.

Mr Cooper: I'd like to first thank all of the members of the House who participated on this and who will be supporting it: the members for Ottawa East, LanarkRenfrew, S-D-G & East Grenville, Norfolk, Guelph, Essex-Kent, Durham West, and also the member for Nepean, who I'll respond to, and the member for Dufferin-Peel, who I'll respond to.

One of the big things here is that we have to lead by example. I think it was already stated --

Mr McLean: Simcoe East.

Mr Cooper: S-D-G & East Grenville; I said that.

Mr McLean: No, Simcoe East.

Ms Cooper: Simcoe East. Sorry about that. My apologies, but I only have a few minutes, and obviously we needed more time to debate this.

This government is leading by example because, as it was stated earlier, the Minister of Environment and Energy is driving a natural-gas-powered vehicle. It's not a limousine, but it is a very nice car and it drives well. I've talked to the driver of the vehicle, who reports that driving a natural gas vehicle is no different than driving a gasoline-powered vehicle.

But one of the big things that I want to respond to here is, why am I promoting the use of natural gas? The point is that we have breakthrough technology in the field of natural gas vehicles and what we've got to do is encourage this. As it was stated, most of this technology is exportable. We want to encourage this business to develop here in the province of Ontario where we have leading-edge technology that's not available anywhere else in the world.

To the member for Nepean, I haven't given up on motorcycles and I have talked to the Treasurer, who has stated there is progress coming in the field of motorcycle insurance. That is one thing. But the one thing is, I also did a resolution on motorcycles, at the beginning of the term of this government, which also promoted the wise and efficient use of our fossil fuels. Motorcycles use less and they take up less parking space and they're environmentally conscious. This is a follow-through on what I was talking about.

All members have been talking about electric vehicles and ethanol and things like that. Yes, we do promote that. I'm not asking for the total conversion. That's why it says "systematic conversion," so where it's feasible you'd bring in natural gas vehicles.

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We will first deal with ballot item number 75 standing in the name of Mr Bradley. If there are any members opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This is up to a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Will all members take their seats.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carter, Crozier, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Fawcett, Frankford, Grandmaître, Hansen, Hayes, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, MacKinnon, Malkowski, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Murphy, O'Connor, Offer, Perruzza, Poole, Sterling, Sutherland, Tilson, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Bradley's motion will please rise and be recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Cooper, Fletcher, Gigantes, Hodgson, Hope, Lessard, Mathyssen, Martin, Mills, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36, the nays 13.

The Acting Speaker: I declare this motion carried.

NATURAL GAS VEHICLES

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We will now deal with ballot item number 76 standing in the name of Mr Cooper.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Cooper's motion carry? Carried.

All private members' business having been completed, I will now leave the chair and we will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Yesterday, the leader of the third party asked a question about tax reduction and the tax legacy of the NDP government and, indeed, the former Liberal government. I thought that it might be a good idea to look even further back, at the legacy left to us by the government Mike Harris was part of.

I went back to the Progressive Conservative budgets for 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984, and guess what? I found 24 tax and fee increases, including expanding the provincial sales tax to trees, smoke alarms, household pets and 19 other things.

Interestingly enough, for the same Conservative years there are only two tax decreases, or "tax reductions" in the current lingo of the leader of the third party.

Let's count the tax reductions during the Liberal years. From 1985 to 1990 the Liberal government reduced taxes 26 times.

Now Mike Harris thinks tax reductions are a good thing.

But let's go back to those Conservative tax increases. Members of the Legislature must vote to approve the budget and the tax and fee increases included in it. I thought it would be interesting to look up who voted in favour of those budgets of 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984.

In 1981, with the Progressive Conservatives voting in favour of the tax increases was a person by the name of Harris. As well, in 1982, 1983 and 1984, there he is again, a person by the last name of Harris.

I thought the leader of the third party will want to track this other Harris, this impostor, down. After all, this other Harris didn't miss a chance to vote for higher taxes and fees for Ontarians. Surely, the leader of the third party and this Harris character can't be one and the same person -- or can they?

SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On January 31, Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington gave one week's notice to 120 families in active treatment and 90 families on a waiting list that it was terminating their speech-language pathology services for preschool children.

These families were told their main alternative was to continue with the same therapist but at a private rate of $80 per hour -- quite unaffordable for most families.

When the Education minister is funding second- and third-language programs at a cost of millions of tax dollars, parents ask why another minister would sit by idly while preschool children cannot access this vital health service to learn their first language because their parents are forced to pay user fees.

Today, I call again on Ruth Grier to make good on her May 2 promise to investigate and restore this essential children's health service. She will know that one in 10 children experiences some form of language difficulty. Speech therapy should not be delayed since it is most effective with early identification and intervention. Without the early investment in our children, the cost to our society will be much greater in the future.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Let's talk about toxic waste. It's been a nightmare for the people of west Lincoln since 1985. It's been a decade since the Ontario Waste Management Corp chose west Lincoln as a site for its proposed toxic waste treatment facility.

Two weeks ago, the consolidated hearings board rejected the OWMC's proposal, and the thousands of people who opposed OWMC's toxic monster thought the battle was finally over. The battle has just begun. Rumour has it that the OWMC will appeal the board's decision. If this happens, the Ontario cabinet will have the final say on OWMC's proposal.

I call on the cabinet members to reject outright the appeal by the OWMC. Why? Because the people of west Lincoln do not want a toxic waste treatment plan in their backyard. They believe it is not needed. They believe that Ontario can best deal with its toxic waste problem by forcing industry to reduce toxic wastes through recycling and by embracing new Canadian technologies that would alow industry to treat toxic waste onsite.

Cabinet must put an end to west Lincoln's suffering once and for all: First by rejecting any appeal by OWMC and, second, by forcing OWMC to give up its option on the land that was to be used for its proposed facility. They must listen to the people of west Lincoln.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of killing OWMC's proposal. Read my lips: no new toxic waste plants in Lincoln.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Today, we want to salute the advisers to Mike Harris who are trying to help turn him into Newt Gingrich, the government of Ontario, the 51st state in the Union.

We see, on the one hand, Tom Long, one-time party president and leadership contender, who reputedly was the adviser who got Frank Miller to say on that ill-fated day, "I am the Ronald Reagan of Ontario." Tom Long, the former Mulroney aide, is a great admirer of the policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. In fact, when Long was running the show at the Conservative campus association he had a jar of jelly beans to munch on, just like Mr Reagan.

We also see the new Tory adviser, Mike Murphy, the Republican dirty tricks consultant, the master of negative advertising, who almost took Ollie North, a convicted liar and thief, to the US Senate. These two had a plan: Turn a down-home golf pro and teacher into the consummate actor, able to shift shapes, images and convictions at a whim, depending on the circumstances and the audience he's talking to.

He has reversed his position on user fees. Once for them, he's running radio ads against them. In the last Conservative government, Mike Harris never found a tax increase he couldn't vote for. Now he says he's against all the taxes he voted for.

Mike Harris has gone from just being another Conservative to being the Taxfighter to Mike the Knife to the Bleeder, a sensitive, new-age guy for the 1990s, sort of a Mr Spock with feelings, a Data with emotions. Well, in the next election I expect the voters to beam him down.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): London teachers have given destreaming a failing grade, stating that it frustrates students, lowers self-esteem and pushes more youths through the cracks of the education system.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation conducted a province-wide survey which illustrates that 80% of its teachers do not support the destreaming process. The teachers were asked a number of questions and the results were included in a report that concluded: There have not been enough support services; destreaming has reduced the opportunity to help individual students; it has reduced the ability to challenge stronger students; students' self-esteem hasn't improved and frustration has increased; classroom management is more difficult.

According to Bill Brooks, president of the London branch of the teachers' union, "...the better students aren't challenged, the weaker students don't get the help they need and in trying to please everyone, few are pleased."

Minister, I believe that all students, no matter what level of learning they are at, deserve to be challenged in the classroom. We support excellence in education for our young people, not mediocrity.

In my role as critic for Education and Training, I have been discussing this issue with students and teachers from across the province for over a year. Both criticize the lack of opportunities for students with learning difficulties, students with literacy challenges and students with special program needs. What we should be focusing on, Mr Minister, are programs, including technical and cooperative, that lead to jobs for students.

Your Common Curriculum document and your destreaming policy do not support excellent job training for students and do not support excellence for entrance into our colleges and universities either.

DOMINIC CARDILLO

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to pay tribute to Dominic Cardillo, who retired as the mayor of the city of Kitchener.

Dom Cardillo served 32 years in municipal government, and throughout those 32 years he maintained this basic philosophy: "How can I help this city?" His focus was on quality of life and, "How can I help make this city truly user-friendly?" Dom was totally committed to the community and to serving the people of Kitchener.

I would like to mention a few things that have taken place during Dom's tenure at the municipal level: improved recreational facilities; relocation and construction of a new city hall; additional parkland in the Chicopee area; funding for industrial lands; efforts to assist the Working Centre of Kitchener; and expansion of Kitchener Memorial Auditorium.

Dom Cardillo entered municipal politics because he likes people. He is truly a people person. He believed in putting people first. Their needs, concerns and basically just how they were doing was very important to Dom Cardillo.

If Dom said he would do this or that or talk to a certain person, he did what he said he would. He was reliable and consistent. It may have taken a couple of months, but he followed through on his commitments.

To most people in the city of Kitchener and to visitors to the city, Dom was also known by another feature. Most who met Dom received either a city pin or pen, and sometimes both.

To Dom I would like to say that on behalf of the city of Kitchener, we wish you well on retirement. We thank you for your 32 years of commitment to the city of Kitchener, and henceforth in Kitchener, BC will be Before Cardillo and AD will be After Dom.

To Mayor Christy I say congratulations. I wish you well and look forward to opportunities where we can work together for the city of Kitchener. To Gary Leadston, Carl Zehr and Will Ferguson, who all served the community well, I wish them well also.

TOP 10 LIST

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On what could be the last sitting day of this government in the Legislature, I have here in my hand, from the home city in Mississauga, the top 10 list of NDP government firsts:

(10) The first cabinet minister to appear as a Sunshine Boy. Peter Kormos no doubt ranks as one of the most talked-about, if not one of the best-looking, Sunshine Boys ever.

(9) The first cabinet downsizing to result in a larger cabinet. They went from a cabinet of 25 to a cabinet of 27 ministers, supported by 31 parliamentary assistants, an amazing feat of streamlining.

(8) The first campaign manager to be appointed secretary to cabinet.

(7) The first time the auditor refused to sign off the government's books, and the first government to keep two sets.

(6) The first casualty of the information highway: John Piper caught leaking information to smear a member of the public.

(5) The first investment in a Peruvian utility by Ontario Hydro. But don't worry, folks, this will not be the last foreign investment Hydro makes if Chairman Mo of the Jungle has his way.

(4) First half-million-dollar sabbatical for a political backroomer: Robin Sears, the most expensive exile since King Faroukh.

(3) The first minister to resign twice.

(2) The first minister to refuse to resign twice but finally relent and quit the cabinet.

And my personal favourite:

(1) The first minister to take a lie detector test to prove that indeed she did lie.

LANDFILL

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): For those who may not be aware, there is a smaller version of the IWA landfill site selection process going on in Victoria county. The process, which began in 1989, is not expected, in the most optimistic view, to be a functional landfill for another three to four years. As it currently stands, residents around five short-listed sites have had to put their lives on hold while this bureaucratic nightmare unfolds around them. They can't sell their properties. Potential new residents are turning away and looking elsewhere.

Designating possible sites and then effectively freezing development around them for nearly a decade is unconscionable, unfair and is simply a way for the provincial government to throw a political hot potato into the hands of municipal politicians.

What you've effectively done is created a never-ending make-work project for consultants. By setting rigid, non-negotiable guidelines that apply no matter where you live in this province, you have eliminated commonsense proposals from people who know what will work best in their communities. The flexibility to respond to local circumstances is absent from the whole process.

High tipping fees are forcing millions of tonnes of Ontario garbage to the United States.

This government is still determined to bury waste in agricultural land, the very land that sustains crops and farm animals that feed the people of this province.

My message to the provincial government is this: The field of knowledge about waste management has surpassed your ideological crusade to simply bury things out of sight and out of mind. It's time to open up the process. Let the people see all the facts, not just the ones that support your outdated mode of thinking.

ONWARD WILLOW CENTRE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): The Onward Willow Better Beginnings, Better Futures project continues to have very positive outcomes in the Willow Road neighbourhood, which was labelled in 1991 as Guelph's largest problem. The police have reported a dramatic reduction in vandalism and an increase in community involvement.

In fact, Paul Morant, a staff sergeant from Guelph police, said: "From my observation Onward Willow has had a very positive input, that particular area, in the way of police-related calls was a very busy area, and those calls have dropped dramatically. From my observations Onward Willow has allowed the people living there to share and build in their future rather than just being occupants...."

Another person said: "The Wellington-Guelph Housing Authority reports a dramatic increase in housing residents taking a more active role in community building, cooperation with the housing authority on the tenant advisory committee and there has also been a reduction in complaints of vandalism.

"The project has assisted a number of young offenders placed by the John Howard Society to return to school and to participate in community activities. Keeping one adolescent of a young offender out of a...facility saves the taxpayer over $100,000 per year.

"The principal of the primary school in the neighbourhood reports that fewer children are going to school hungry. This has come about because families have access to bread and other food staples donated by neighbourhood stores from their unsold stock....

"The community mental health clinic reports that the support provided to adolescent women who have been abused is resulting in many of the women seeking professional help and making positive changes in their lifestyle.

"These various outcomes are cost-effective not only in dollars but lead to better parenting and more adjusted children."

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in showing appreciation to the pages who have served this chamber and the members so exceedingly well during the past several weeks. Will the members please show their appreciation to the pages.

Applause.

The Speaker: The Minister of Citizenship.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I seek unanimous consent to mark International Human Rights Day.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): It gives me great pleasure to rise today in honour of International Human Rights Day, which will be celebrated on December 10. Nearly half a century ago, the members of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The United Nations had just been formed. A long and agonizing world war had finally drawn to a close. The world for many was again a place of hope, and the members of the United Nations moved, in their wisdom, to construct a fundamental pillar of civilized society -- a declaration of human rights.

That was some 46 years ago, in 1948. To this day it is a document that should inspire and challenge us all. The declaration recognizes the inherent dignity and the equal rights of all members of the human family. It notes that the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief -- and freedom from fear and want -- has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of a common people, and it proceeds to proclaim fundamental human rights that we all hold close to our heart.

It is a substantial document, of course, one that we should reread regularly. It stands as a measure of our successes and our future challenges in ensuring the dignity and equality of all members of the human family.

The world remains a very troubled place. The magnitude of difficulties facing some people of the world should make us feel thankful for our relative security and prosperity in this province, but we can never afford to lapse into complacency when it comes to protecting the freedoms, rights and opportunities of all women, men and children.

Here in Ontario we still have a way to go to building a society free of barriers for all people in this province. Examples of acts of hate activities still exist in Ontario. In fact this week, we saw that three businesses in North York were defaced simply because the owners of those particular businesses were members of a group, of the Jewish family. But we have also seen in my own riding some acts of hate as well, hate against teachers who work in our school system who are trying to provide education to all our young people. At Humberside we all are very upset about this particular type of occurrence.

That is why this government is working with the people of this province to identify and dismantle barriers to our full social and economic development, as individuals and as a society.

The government of Ontario is advancing its equity agenda on a number of fronts. I'd like to share a brief overview of some of these initiatives.

In the human rights area, we are taking active steps to protect and promote human rights in the province of Ontario. We recognize that the protection of human rights requires effective and efficient administrative operations, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission has taken a series of steps to improve such operations.

As a result of a new case-management strategy, the number of cases pending investigation was reduced from 924 cases, which was 45% of the caseload, in March of this year to only 352 cases, which is 15% of the caseload, in September.

As of October 31, 1994, just 208 cases, the lowest number in five years, had been on file with the commission for more than three years. By way of comparison, at the same time last year the commission had 332 cases over three years old.

The number of cases formally closed by the commission between April and October of this year increased by 85% over formal closings in the same period in 1993.

The Employment Equity Act, which took effect on September 1 of this year, will help ensure that workplaces in Ontario provide equitable recruitment, treatment, training and promotion to all employees. It specifically calls for employers to identify and remove barriers to employment for members of four designated groups, namely aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women.

The Employment Equity Commission, headed by Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, is providing employers, unions and employees with the information and support they need to make employment equity integral to the way they do business.

The Advocacy Act will undoubtedly stand as one of Ontario's most important initiatives undertaken for vulnerable adults. The act is designed to build bridges to independence for vulnerable adults wh