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

November 17, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

WILLIAM KROETSCH

DRIVERS' LICENCES

JOBS ONTARIO

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

NUCLEAR ENERGY

SUBSTITUTE DECISION-MAKING

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

SCHOOL TEACHERS

OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS

FURNACE VENTING SYSTEMS

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

ANTI-RACISM ACTIVITIES

ENVIRONMENTAL PAMPHLET

JOB SECURITY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

WATER QUALITY

CANCER TREATMENT

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

HAEMODIALYSIS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

GASOLINE PRICES

FIREARMS SAFETY

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

HEALTH INSURANCE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

CITY OF YORK ACT, 1994

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ÉLECTIONS MUNICIPALES

TIME ALLOCATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

JOB SECURITY

CANCER TREATMENT

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

Mr Brown moved private member's notice of motion number 51:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should change the present Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983, to grant the users of three- and four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles the same rights and privileges, combined with the duties and obligations, as listed in the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, RSO 1990.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to say at the outset that this is an important and significant motion, particularly as it applies to northern Ontario. It is an issue that has been with us for going on 10 years, an issue that affects the way of life we have in northern Ontario, a way of life that is important and includes the use of crown lands. I think that's one of the things we must be very clear about. This resolution relates particularly to the way that northern Ontarians and Ontarians from southern Ontario, and for that matter people who are visiting our province, utilize crown land, which represents 85% to 90% of our province. That's my concern.

My concern relates directly to ATVs, the three- and four-wheeled variety. I don't think members maybe are aware, but there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100,000 of these ATVs presently being used in this province. Now, the three-wheeled variety mentioned here have not been sold new in the province since 1988. There are some issues about safety that relate more to the three-wheelers than to the four-wheelers, but I think although the resolution talks to three-wheelers, the four-wheelers are the only ones that have been sold new since 1988.

This resolution comes from my good friends at the Espanola Game and Fish Protective Association, who have been working at this issue on behalf of hunters and anglers and outdoors people across the province since about 1986.

I want to quote here a letter from the minister of the day in 1986. He says, regarding this act, "The act has now been in force for over two years and its provisions, including the use of these vehicles on certain public roads, are currently under review." Under review. Sometimes the most terrifying words we ever hear in this place are "under review." I have a letter from the Ministry of Transportation dated February 10, 1994. It indicates that, again, the program is under review. So the ministry has only been reviewing this for close to 10 years and has yet to address the problem.

The problem is a problem of access and it's a problem of safety and it's a problem of recognizing the realities in northern Ontario. The use of ATVs in northern Ontario in particular is something that has been going on for quite a while. It's a way of life for many sportsmen. It's a way to get to their favourite places for fishing, favourite places to hunt, to birdwatch and, yes, even to sightsee.

The problem is -- well, there are a couple of problems. One of the problems is definition. I'll get to that in a minute. But the problem is in the definition of "highway." Really, we think of a highway as the 401 or the 400 or Highway 27 or Highway 4. We find, if we read the definition, that the definition is not that at all, although it includes that. The definition of "highway" includes a "street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof."

"Therefore" -- this is from a letter from the ministry to the Espanola club -- "when you request the right to travel on access roads and secondary gravel roads, according to the act, these are highways."

Well, in northern Ontario, they're not highways. They're roads. Sometimes you might even classify them as paths. Particularly in the spring, when we have frost boils and all the interesting things you get in spring breakup, the only way to get to your cottage or your camp is by these ATVs, particularly if you happen to be a person of advancing years, a person who is perhaps disabled. There's only one way to get in there. No longer can you walk that 10 kilometres, no longer can you ski 10 kilometres, no longer can you get in under your own physical power. You need a machine, and this is the only machine that will work.

So it makes perfect sense for the ministry to address this issue. It makes perfect sense if we believe that Ontarians should have access to the crown land and that they should have access to the crown land regardless of their ability to walk, run etc.

These ATVs are already licensed. They already are heavily insured. They are far more visible than the snowmobiles that we talk of changing the act to reflect. They have good braking, they have superior steering to snowmobiles, and therefore, in our view, are a safer vehicle than a snowmobile. And yet the way we regulate them, they are not permitted to do the same things as snowmobiles. Certainly we don't want snowmobiles or ATVs on travelled highways. It would be dangerous for everybody. But that's not what we're asking. The snowmobile act regulates which highways you can go on, which you can't, and we think that could be extended through to this act.

I want to suggest also, as has been suggested by my friends, that this act would permit the safety concerns to be directly addressed. This law is presently probably obeyed more in the breach than actually in the way it's enforced today, because people are using these roads. They are technically using them illegally. The enforcement really can't happen. What we want is

an act that will be respected and that will permit the formation of clubs, as they have with snowmobiles around this issue, and permit people then to address those various safety concerns that snowmobilers have been actively working at for the last 10 years, I suppose, in this province.

The other thing the act would do, the other part of this act, is that it would give municipalities the opportunity to regulate in their own municipality how these vehicles would operate. It would allow the municipalities, for example, to say: "On this particular road, you can use these machines in a certain way, in a certain place, and you must drive this speed. It can only be used on these days. It can only be used between these hours." Because especially in my part of the world, often the crown land is directly adjoining a municipality.

Often, to go the 100 yards from your house to the crown land where you're permitted to use the machine, you have to load it into the back of a half-ton, you have to drive it that 100 yards, park the half-ton truck, leave it at the side of the road where it stands a good possibility of being hit by another vehicle, and then you take it into the bush. It makes absolutely no sense.

Now, the safety concern that I think we'll hear from the government, which I realize is a very substantial safety concern, is the fact that these machines have low-pressure tires. That makes them unsuitable for driving on paved roads, for example. It's quite dangerous to use them at any kind of high speed on paved roads. We don't want that to happen. Nobody's asking for that to happen.

What we're talking about is access roads, bush roads, those types of things, and what I'm attempting to do in the little bit of time I have to make this resolution is to support Miroslav Welyhorskyj in my riding, the Ontario hunters and anglers association, and all those who want to see a reasonable regulation of these vehicles, as they say, which number 100,000 now in this province and have been growing. That's a growth of about 80,000 vehicles in 10 years. So it's a growing concern in the province.

It's time the minister stopped reviewing this and got down to making reasonable regulations that can be enforceable and will work for the safety of all concerned.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): As Transportation critic for our party, I'm very pleased to join this debate and compliment my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin in bringing forward this motion. It's overdue.

As he's outlined, the Ministry of Transportation has been considering this for 10 years. In the meantime, we have had extensive use of snowmobiles with the ability to be able to cross roads at a time when we're saying that these vehicles will not be allowed to cross the roads. As he has adequately pointed out, many of the roads that we're talking about are little more than trails themselves, and yet they are municipal roads and therefore these are prohibited from use on those roads.

Clearly this is a case where we should give more responsibility to the municipalities. They know their local conditions a lot better. Many of my constituents go hunting and like to be able to use these vehicles to get in. They also go sightseeing and there are many cottages which are inaccessible in the springtime except with these vehicles because it isn't realistic to use any other vehicle at that time of the year. It certainly enhances tourism in this province. Certainly in northern Ontario it is absolutely the only vehicle that is suitable at some points in the year.

We should indeed have one set of rules which are consistent for both these all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. Snowmobiles are less visible than these vehicles and, in fact, snowmobiles have less sophisticated steering and braking systems than these vehicles. It has been pointed out that there are some concerns with the three-wheel all-terrain vehicles, but in fact they're not sold any more and they will become less and less of a factor, so it makes sense to include them in this legislation. But indeed, four-wheel ATVs are much more stable than the previous three-wheel vehicles.

The safety issue is something the government has not addressed in any serious way. They've said there's a safety issue and yet they have never come forward and told us what the difference is between these and snowmobiles. Indeed, in a brief from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which they put forward on February 26, 1991, they emphasized the importance of having a consistent set of guidelines.

Certainly I will be supporting this, both for people who live in northern Ontario and also for tourists who like to get into inaccessible places.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I, too, would like to join in the debate. I will be supporting the resolution, but I do have some concerns. First off, I think we have to have the discussion happen and then we can start to deal with some of the concerns.

As a person who has worked quite actively with the snowmobile groups, one of my chief concerns is private land. When you take a snowmobile and you put it on three feet of snow and cross a person's property, you really don't damage the property. If you take the four-wheel, all-terrain vehicles across private or public property, they create an erosion problem. One of the things I believe, whether they be on the roads -- because they're not only going to stay on them, they're going to move off the roads and into crown land and on to private property.

First off, we have to know how to shut down that property so that it's only winter use and also how we're going to protect our crown lands. We don't want to see them eroded away. I believe those things can be dealt with through discussion and maybe through some form of organization, as we have with snowmobiles, where we have the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the safety aspect. I think that's why it is so vital that we move forward on this and have the discussion. There are really no rules on safety and no organization out there working towards making this sport or this type of recreation safer.

Hunters use ATVs out there. They don't wear helmets. They're bouncing over logs. They're doing a lot of different things on them. It's rather difficult to fire a rifle when you have a bell helmet on. I think we have to look at the safety aspect as well as looking at where we want to take this recreation. I think it's a discussion that we have to have.

As far as allowing ATVs to run on rural roads in the province of Ontario, I can tell you that where I live in the rural area of Muskoka, they pass my door on the roads every day and so definitely these people -- some of them are wearing helmets, other ones aren't. Some are riding two and three people on these machines with their feet dangling down beside the wheels. We have to come up with some sort of standards and some sort of rules to make the sport at least as safe as snowmobiling is for that particular winter type of off-road activity.

I will be supporting Mr Brown and his motion and, at the same time, I think all members of the House should work together for going ahead with this to look at how we're going to deal with some of the concerns that are out there in the more populated or more privately owned sections of the province where this recreation has grown at a remarkable rate.

With that, I would conclude my comments on Mr Brown's resolution.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to join with my other colleagues from York Mills and Muskoka in supporting the resolution brought by my friend the member from Algoma concerning the ATVs. I was upstairs watching the member from Algoma bring forward his resolution. He's left for the moment, but have you noticed -- none of this will make much to many of you -- Mike Brown looks like a young John Robarts. I was watching him on television and he does, he just looks like a young John Robarts and he brings the same good sense and wise counsel on matters of public policy, including the resolution today.

I was pleased to hear not just Mr Brown but the member from Muskoka -- I should be careful here not to be breaking the rules -- but the members, Mr Waters from Muskoka and the Conservative Transportation critic, Mr Turnbull, bring their words of support as well.

I represent a big slice of rural eastern Ontario, part of which includes the district of Nipissing. Mr Speaker, I very nearly touch on your wonderful summer resort up there in Papineau township which, however, does fall into the area represented by Mr Eves. But you, Mr Speaker, will know, as I'm sure many members here -- I see the member for Hamilton East and the member for Sudbury conversing over there. My friend the member for Hamilton East has a cottage in my part of the world. He's I think quite familiar with the pattern of activity in rural and northern Ontario that involves ATVs.

It's hunting season in the Ottawa Valley and much of the rest of the province. I dare say that if I were to go out this afternoon on a beautiful November day and look at the forest access roads in Renfrew county, as my friend from Montague township, the member for Lanark-Renfrew will know, I am almost certainly going to encounter more than a few ATVs, as hunters -- good people, law-abiding people -- are going about their business.

Technically, the law does not permit much of the activity that normally and naturally occurs, and I wholeheartedly agree with the resolution brought forward by my friend Mr Brown, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin because, among other things, it seeks to legitimize and regularize and legalize very normal, natural activity that occurs in rural and northern Ontario.

It's hard, I know, sometimes for members who represent urban communities, in Metropolitan Toronto, Hamilton-Wentworth and Ottawa-Carleton, to understand just exactly what the rhythm and the reality of rural life is, and I point out again, it's hunting season.

It would behoove a lot of urban members from southern Ontario to come into midnorthern and northern or southeastern and southwestern Ontario to watch just exactly how hunting season works. I myself am not a hunter, but I know that thousands of my constituents, this week and last, are engaged in one of the really important recreational pursuits of the season.

Increasingly, as technology develops, and as Mr Brown the member who's bringing forward this resolution has pointed out, as our population ages, 65- and 75- and 80-year-olds, men and women, who want to continue doing what they have done for decades, rely upon ATVs to move them and their materials about.

I don't know, Mr Speaker, you probably have had the experience that I have not had of trying to bring out a moose that has just been shot in the back of some quite inaccessible part of your hunting zone and I'll tell you, you want to be about as fit as Mr Brown and Mr Waters are to do that. I couldn't. I would certainly need the help and the support of an ATV. As the sponsor, Mr Brown, has pointed out, under the current rules, ATVs are not allowed to travel across forest access roads, bush roads and the like, and that is simply not sensible. It's not reasonable.

It violates what good law-abiding people in my part of eastern Ontario know to be sensible. I recognize that there are, as the member has indicated, concerns about safety and they have to be addressed.

Snowmobiling: I see the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay who's done much good work in supporting our snowmobiling industry and he knows that a lot better than I. Certainly 25 and 30 years ago, and even today, there are still some unresolved snowmobile safety issues, but we have made progress.

Again, I think it is very much a concern to me to find out that the current rules, as they relate to ATVs, force people to behave outside of the law. I don't think we want that. I think we want to recognize that ATVs have become a very important part of rural life and, again, not just for young people but perhaps, most importantly, for older people. I get really annoyed when I hear some of my yuppie friends, some of whom are 35 and really fit, who think that the only kind of recreational experience you ought to have is one that really often involves and requires the fitness of being 30 years of age.

I think some of our park policy, for example, is quite discriminatory in an unintentional kind of way. To meet somebody who's 58, who's really been a very active, outdoors person but who's had a heart attack, is to meet somebody who's pretty frustrated with some of the barriers that are placed in front of that individual because of some of the rules and regulations that we've had.

I want to say, on behalf of the thousands of people in Renfrew county whom I'm proud to represent, along with my esteemed friend from south Renfrew and Lanark, that they would want me, as their member, to support this resolution, to say to the government and to all members of all parties here today that it is not fair to not allow legally the use of ATVs on bush roads and forest-access road, and to provide the kind of protection this resolution calls for under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

As my friend, Mr Brown, has indicated, what we really want to do, in bringing forward this resolution, is to regulate ATVs in the same way that we regulate snowmobiles. There are protections built into the existing statutes as they relate to what snowmobiles can do and where they can go, and we want those same kinds of protections to apply, perhaps with some adjustment and amendment, to ATVs.

I take my seat saying that I'm proud to support this, because we have a situation today which is not sensible and is not comfortable for a lot of people who recognize that ATVs are increasingly important in terms of their recreational lives. They are now being used in record numbers and my law-abiding constituents, along with tens of thousands of others, would want this Legislature to recognize that reality and to legislate in a sensible and fairminded way. That's what this resolution brought forward by my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin calls for, and that's why I'm happy and proud to support it.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise this morning and briefly comment on this resolution from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, which calls on the provincial government to "change the present Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1993, to grant the users of three- and four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles the same rights and privileges, combined with the duties and obligations as listed in the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, RSO 1990."

I will be supporting this resolution, because ATVs are growing in popularity. They're here to stay and are currently being used on gravel, farm, logging and access roads as well as on town lanes and bush trails.

It's my understanding that currently only farmers and licensed trappers are granted an exemption for travel-related work with regard to the farms. I know we have one on our farm. They want to make limited use of public roads for trips related to their livelihood, and they're allowed to do that. All others are only allowed to drive directly across the highways.

It's my hope that if this resolution is supported it will lead to the creation of ATV clubs, the development of ATV education courses and the establishment of a code of ethics and a form of self-policing that occurs with the operation of motorized snow vehicles. The ATV operators would then be responsible for duties and obligations such as yielding right of way. When they make turns they will have to signal. Everything to do with safety would all be part of what would be in this act.

I'm confident there will be a great coexistence between ATVs and motorized vehicles provided there are appropriate rules and regulations in place that are strictly enforced. We want to stress the fact that the safety aspect of ATVs should be number one, where we're stressing the use by licensed drivers with proper safety and road ethics training, as well as the appropriate safety equipment. Individual municipalities too could pass bylaws governing travel routes from towns, flags, speeds and times to be off or on the town roads.

This matter closely resembles my ongoing campaign to promote boater safety and education on our waterways. I realize that my proposed boater safety and education legislation cannot govern an individual's behaviour or attitude while driving a motorized vessel, but it would establish educational safeguards and set forth regulations whereby an individual could be charged and convicted if that individual's behaviour or attitude endangers public safety. I'm an avid boater and I enjoy operating ATVs. I have one.

Mr Conway mentioned about the hunters being in the bush and on the rural back roads. I never thought I would see the day that we needed tough regulations to impose on operators, but the carelessness and what goes on I think causes that to change. In part, the responsibility of this Legislature I think is to make sure that safety is the number one promotion.

The number of motorized snow machines in the last years have increased drastically. Sales are up. Controls are in place. Snowmobile clubs across this province are making great use of the trails that are being established. Not only that, there are many people who are joining these clubs to make it a more viable and safer sport. The same thing should apply to the ATVs, because there are going to be more of them used all the time. There are more of them being sold. They tell me there are about 80,000 all-terrain vehicles registered in Ontario, and that's expected to increase dramatically.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters some time ago saw the need and they were the ones who initiated this. The original resolution came from members in the Espanola area. So they are well aware. If you travel the north and you see the vast lands that we have, they are being used more all the time. It's a wonder it took so long for them to get these in the first place, because these machines are great.

I believe in safety. I believe in the helmets that you have to wear when you're operating them, because that is the number one priority. To be debating it here today is something that is long overdue because of the safety features and the need for protection in the north, and not only in the north but in all parts of the province.

The Ministry of Transportation argues that ATVs are not stable enough for roads and highways. They are concerned that they would be a danger in mixed traffic as well. Well, isn't that what this debate is all about, to try to bring these aspects out in the open so that they will have some input from the members in different parts of this province, so that there can be some rules and education put in place for the safety measures that we need?

I compliment Mr Brown from Algoma-Manitoulin on bringing this resolution forward, because there are many hunters in the area where I hunt. I know they have to use the roads in some cases and we want to have them insured. We want the safety features to be part of it. When we look at some 100,000 of these vehicles scattered across the province, we know there is a need.

The book in my machine tells me that they are not to be operated on a paved road, and there is a difference when you're operating them on a paved road and when you're operating them on a gravel road. A lot of people don't realize that. They think the paved road would be the best, but the gravel road is the best because of the large tires. They only hold three and a half to four pounds, each one of them; that's what you're supposed to put in them. So it is a low pressure tire.

But the aspect of the ATVs is great. If you have the occasion to shoot a moose back in the bush a mile or two, the ATVs are certainly an asset to getting it out. As Mr Conway indicated, you have to be in pretty good shape to take a moose out of the bush, but the ATVs can certainly help you do that.

So I compliment the member for bringing this resolution forward and I look at the safety aspect that the ministry will be looking into for people in Ontario who are operating these, because it is important that their education and safety be number one.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm pleased to rise today in support of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin's resolution. I think it's about time governments starting working together. I'm glad he brought this forward because it seems we have a myriad of rules and regulations. Some cover cars, some cover motorcycles, some agricultural vehicles, some snowmobiles, and I think what we're all trying to do now is to get some consistency out there so that we all know exactly what rules and regulations we're following.

I come from the north. I was raised up in Larder Lake, which is a bit farther north than Manitoulin, and I also have a sister-in-law who lives on Manitoulin Island. I understand there's a large difference between the way people in southern Ontario think and the reality in the north. I think the member for Renfrew North explained it very well, that there is a real difference out there. Basically what you're doing is finding that a lot of people are breaking the law because they really don't know the rules and regulations that they have to abide by.

One of the things I'd like to address here is the Slow-Moving Vehicle sign. I know when the member for Essex-Kent brought this issue up and I spoke on it, what we're trying to do is find some consistency so that when you're out on the highways you know exactly what a slow-moving vehicle is. Basically what they want to do is have it so that everybody in southern Ontario, when they go into the north or when they go into a rural area, knows exactly what they're following when they see a slow-moving vehicle. So perhaps we can get some consistency.

I know Ontario Drive and Gear, the makers of the Argo all-terrain vehicles in New Hamburg, which is in my riding, had a problem a couple of years ago where there was something going on in the government and they didn't really know whether it was going to come to fruition. There was talk that they were going to outlaw these. Well, the fact is, a lot of people who aren't in very good shape but still are active hunters need a way to get into the bush to get their game out. So there was great concern there.

We need some consistency where we know exactly what rules we are following. I think the member for Algoma-Manitoulin is looking at this, trying to get some consistency so the people know exactly what rules they're following, so they aren't out there breaking the law every day and they know what rules and regulations they have to follow.

I think the safety features have to be built in. As with anything, somebody eventually makes it into a sport, and if it's just recreational and you get a sport -- I know I've been doing a lot of things on motorcycles and now they're trying to get a sport where they're trying to get off-road tracks basically for recreation out in the woods so they can ride through. As long as it's organized, then you don't have the problem with crossing private property. We've got to get these rules together.

The same with these. There was a concern that people might be crossing private lands. If you look at what the snowmobilers have done across this province, they've gotten very well organized. They've made arrangements with certain property owners and they've set up some trails and now they have a real recreational thing that brings in lots of dollars for this province in tourism because they're travelling around. They're very well organized and they do a lot of charity work. I think the same thing here. This is probably what it will evolve into.

Obviously, they've said the government's been studying this for about 10 years. I think that's what happens; the government does study a lot of things to death. But it seems like each one is operating in a vacuum and I think it's about time they started having some consistency across ministries. If we're going to talk about any off-road vehicle, such as the snowmobile, the three-wheel vehicle or the four-wheel vehicle, let's try and do it in some sort of sense of cohesion so that we get a rule and regulation that applies to them all, that they all know exactly what they're living under.

I'm very pleased to support the member. I wish him well in this resolution and I hope the government reacts positively on this and we get some rules and regulations that we all know what we're going to be following and we don't make the honest citizens be out there breaking the laws. They'll know exactly what rules they have to follow.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It gives me great pleasure as well, as a northerner, to rise in support of Mr Brown's resolution. As you noted, the previous speaker from Kitchener-Wilmot just indicated that he was from the north way back. I must say that as a member of this Legislature for the past seven years, as I travel across the province I only meet two types of people. Those, of course, are those people who are from the north and those people who wish they were from the north. I just wanted to let him know that.

The previous speaker also talked a lot about consistency. In bringing this resolution forward, Mr Brown has indicated that yes, of course, we need consistency in terms of the Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983. I must say, representing the second-largest riding in the province, that being the northern riding of Kenora, this is a very important resolution to not only my constituents but to a good number of people who visit the area.

As the Speaker will know, I have actually been involved in this sport and have been the owner of three-wheelers in the past and have come to know exactly what they can do and the use that they can be of to us as residents there. But again, I go back to the visitors who come to northwestern Ontario. I often think of Jones, Ontario, which is located north of Kenora, and a function that is run out of there, a hunting camp, Rocky Lake Camp. I note the number of people who come up from the northern states to the south of us and partake in the hunt which goes on on a regular basis every year.

As well, there's a good number of folk who use these vehicles in that area for both sightseeing and to get into their favourite fishing lakes; so a great amount of activity and great amount of importance to see this come forth, particularly in my area.

The figures have been tossed around as to the number that are registered in Ontario. I believe it's growing to somewhere around 100,000 of these actual ATVs registered in Ontario, but I must say that does not include the many that are brought into the province as well, as I indicated, by the tourist sector that comes in to my area of the province. After 1988, we know that these have been changed. There has been a safety regulation added to ATVs where the three-wheelers are no longer manufactured.

As a previous owner, I can certainly testify as to why that would be and know that we are going to have to have some sort of regulation come in to actually identify what we are talking about here, and some safety regulations to go along with it.

The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay talked about helmets earlier on. It is my understanding that at the present time helmets are mandatory in terms of riding these vehicles, as they are in terms of riding snow machines.

I go back to the people who particularly need this type of transportation in order to carry on maybe their hunting activity or fishing activity into their later years. I quite often come across a good number of people, whether they be disabled or elderly, throughout the riding who are making good use of these.

We've heard about the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters as well. They too have a very distinct interest in this resolution that we are putting forward today. They have indicated a good amount of support for that.

We come from municipalities that have had regulations in terms of where snowmobiles can travel, the times they can travel, the speeds they can travel within their municipalities. I can see that they too would have a very distinct interest in the resolution.

We talked about the definition of highways and we indicated earlier that the definition included access roads and secondary gravel roads throughout the province. I must say that if you took a look at my riding you would find that well over 50% of the travelled portion would include both of these, so that's another reason why we must include this portion of users of these ATVs in the act.

When we go back to the actual history of what has happened in terms of inclusion of the ATV in the act, we take a look at the history going back almost 10 years to find out that yes, there has been a review, and again, as some of the members have indicated, when you hear that word "review" you sort of shudder. I must say that finding something like this under review would fly in the face of what people in, as I indicated earlier, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the municipalities and the tourist operators are trying to do to bring organization to this industry and to the use of these.

I look forward to the support that I can give this resolution on behalf of my constituents and, as I indicated earlier, representing the second-largest riding in the province of Ontario that really depends on the folks who are using the activities brought forth to us by tourism, by hunting and by sightseeing. We depend a lot on not only the snowmobile industry, but what Mr Brown has also asked to include, the four-wheelers.

I talked about anglers and hunters earlier on. There is also another helpful aspect to this resolution to many cottage owners who are now moving on to crown land, whether it be a crown land lease through the Ministry of Natural Resources or actually owned property, a remote cottage lot, and they too have come to depend a great amount on the ATVs that we are talking about, just another group within my constituency that will be looking forward to the consistency that this resolution will offer them.

In concluding, I would just like to thank Mr Brown, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, for bringing forth this resolution. I too will have no problem, on behalf of my constituents in the Kenora riding, in supporting the resolution that Mr Brown has brought forward today.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I am pleased this morning to also support the resolution of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. I would just like to draw the people's attention, however, to the fact brought forward by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay regarding their use on private property.

I know in Renfrew county we have acres of pasture land that cattle are grazing on from early May to late October. During the summer months, when these machines are of great use to the cattle owner in that he can go to the pasture and go among the cattle slowly and check them out for pink-eye, hoof rot or disease or whatever, or to just measure the general gain, it's going to be a real service to him.

But to the person who is just out trespassing, and I know you say, "Well, that's illegal, to be trespassing," I can tell you from experience that just putting up a per hansardictionary's For Sale sign/lbNo Trespassing sign does not stop these vehicles from coming in on your property. Once they spook the cattle by speeding among them and see them run, then they tend to take that up as a form of sport to see how far they carry it on. This has happened in some instances to the point where, on a hot day, the cattle run out of breath and certainly sickness sets in and sometimes even death.

We say, "Well, there are regulations for that." But I'm concerned, who is going to do the policing? Who is going to be the one who keeps these machines where they are meant to be and being used for the real purpose?

I just feel that what we're doing here in this resolution is legalizing what's already taking place. People are using these on the roads and for hunting. If my friend the member for Simcoe East ever invites you to go fishing, don't turn him down, because he gets you across the ice on one of these machines and he makes sure he has the necessary medicine with him for cold days and you can have a very enjoyable day with him. So I wouldn't want to say that to use them off-road would be wrong; the municipalities, I know, are the ones that should have the legislation to control them, but it's going to be difficult.

I would like to have some control that they would have to form clubs or something like the Ski-Doo clubs have done, because some of the Ski-Doo clubs don't like these machines on their trails either, for some reason. I'm not that familiar with why. As they came through, I know in one instance the snowmobilers had been crossing the property and they returned very faithfully, put all the fences back up in the spring, put on a dinner for the property owners and everybody has good relationships.

But then, two weeks or a month later, along comes one of these other machines and they are following the trail, so they take down the fence and they come through, following this trail. The farmer or whoever is using the land doesn't realize it. He had checked it once and everything was back in place, so he put cattle in. The next thing, there's a problem in that they're out on the road or they're in the neighbour's. So I can see a big responsibility coming down on the municipalities to try and control this in such a way that it's useful to everyone as a sport and as a means of transportation.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd just like to say that I'm pleased the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has brought forth this resolution. There's no doubt that over the last number of years things have changed, technology has changed, where you see more and more three-wheelers and four-wheelers out there. The resolution is basically saying to change the present Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983, and give the same privileges and rights combined with the duties and obligations listed in the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1990.

Representing a northern riding, and some of the areas are remote, going up the Hudson Bay coast and James Bay coast, I know the way that snowmobiles and three-wheelers and four-wheelers are used. In a lot of cases they're used to replace, in the urban and country areas, where we would see a pickup truck used, because they're able to use the four-wheelers to put a sleigh behind and haul the firewood for the seniors in the community, because there are a lot of them who still have wood stoves for cooking and for heating the building.

There's no doubt that there's going to have to be a dialogue and some discussion and negotiation as to how we can make changes, whether we allow municipalities to make their own bylaws and regulations to bring the three-wheelers and four-wheelers under the regulations of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act. I'm sure this dialogue probably should have taken place before now, but I'm pleased and sure that it's going to take place with a resolution of this kind.

All the speakers today have come out supporting and realizing that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has had a lot of dialogue with the hunt and fish clubs and with the various municipalities and townships and county members out there, and as a result he's brought this forward to the Legislature, asking that the Minister of Transportation take a look at this and see if we can have these regulated so that they will be safe for everybody out there.

We take into consideration that some of the previous speakers have said that if there's going to be damage done to private property or if there are animals being run by it, that we make sure we have the regulations in place so that we can protect property owners but at the same time make sure that for the people who need them, whether it be industry, sawmills, pulp and paper mills, whatever, these vehicles are out there in large numbers and are being used.

I'd just like to conclude by saying that I will be supporting this resolution and looking forward to some dialogue and negotiations with MTO to make sure that the changes take place.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm pleased also to join in this debate this morning. I'm going to support the member across the way there for a number of reasons. The member of the official opposition has already spoken on some of the things that I was going to say about this bill. It's always one of the tragedies -- no, that's too strong a word. It's one of the upsetting problems that when you speak after somebody, they've said many of the things you want.

I want to talk about how this reflects on senior citizens in the province of Ontario, being as I am one of that kind myself, and I always like to stand up for their rights. Senior citizens, as the honourable member said, still enjoy their pastimes, or "they're"/lbtheir hunting, their fishing. I'm not going to suggest you're in that category, Mr Speaker, but as we get older, we find it more and more difficult to walk across the hills and dales to pursue some of those places that we hitherto before had enjoyed.

I know that no matter how we get older, how much we try to keep fit, it's very, very difficult because it's an aging process that seems to catch up with all of us. No matter what our diet is or how we try to remain spry, somehow nature won't allow this.

So I encourage this bill. I think that it would enable the older citizens to still pursue and take

part in many of those activities they have enjoyed for so many years, and I know I speak for many, many seniors in my riding who still enjoy hunting, fishing and the likes that this type of vehicle will allow them to pursue. My congratulations to the honourable member. I think it's good legislation and I will stand in my place later this morning and be supportive of that. Thank you for this time.

Mr Brown: I appreciate very much the contributions that have been made by the members for York Mills, Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Renfrew North, Simcoe East, Kitchener-Wilmot, Kenora, Cochrane North and Durham East. I didn't hear anybody objecting to what we are trying to do here.

What we are attempting to do, and I'm hopeful we'll have a unanimous vote later on this morning, is to get some regulations that can be obeyed, enforced and that will make life safer and also permit people to do what they should be able to do in Ontario's outdoors.

I think I should, in speaking, relate that there is some difficulty. I heard some members talk about the private lands issue, and that of course is an enforcement issue. It's an issue that really isn't addressed in this resolution, but it's one that needs to be addressed. It is now not legal to do that. It shouldn't be legal to do the things the member for Lanark-Renfrew and Mr Waters, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, were talking about. We don't want those things to happen.

But I think right now I want to pay tribute to those good folks in the Espanola Game and Fish Protective Association, and particularly Miroslav Welyhorskyj, who has doggedly, since 1986 at least, pursued this issue and tried to get the government to move. The government I hope will pay attention to what the members are saying this morning and bring forward the appropriate changes in a reasonable time frame so that we can move on with this issue so that people, the sportsmen in this province, have an opportunity to continue to take advantage of Ontario's great outdoors and all the benefits that brings to them and that it be done legally, sensibly and safely.

The Deputy Speaker: Time for the first ballot item has expired.

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

Mr Wiseman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 174,

An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and to protect Threatened and Vulnerable Species / Projet de loi 174, Loi révisant la

Loi sur les espèces en voie de disparition et visant à protéger les espèces vulnérables et les espèces menacées.

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

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I'd just like to begin by saying that a form of this bill was originally introduced in 1992 and didn't make it through the proroguing of the Parliament that year, but I've brought this back in a rewritten form having received countless suggestions from a large number of people who have an interest in this topic.

They made the bill stronger so that the version that is before this House now is a reworked version of the earlier one. It has gone through a long history of evolution. In fact, my honourable colleague Bud Wildman originally introduced a bill similar to this back in the 1980s and it's been some time since we've been moving forward.

The bill itself, in terms of my own education, has come about through a large number of people in my own riding who have educated me and helped me understand the issues. I'd just like to name a few of those and hope I don't miss anybody.

Originally, the move towards a private member bill began in Catherine Murray's kitchen. Catherine Murray has worked very diligently to save the Altona forest and is a member of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists. I've worked with Dale Hoy, who lives in the Ajax portion of my riding and has been very involved in species protection locally and has contributed a great deal. Also, Steve Marshall and Glenn De Baeremaeker of Save the Rouge. I've met with John Lounds of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and I've also had the honour and privilege of meeting with World Wildlife Fund.

We've come to this point where we have this bill. So why do we need a bill like this? This is a very long topic, but I'm going to try and summarize it in a very few phrases. I'd like to read just a little bit from the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and its comments on my bill, the bill that is being presented today. "Ontario endangered species legislation has not been revised in 14 years." In fact, Ontario does have an endangered species legislation now. This bill goes one step further and talks about threatened and vulnerable species so that we can intervene earlier to prevent them from getting to the point where they are endangered.

This is from the World Wildlife Fund: "If enacted the bill would represent a major step forward for the protection of the many species of wildlife which are now at risk in Ontario." That's from Stewart Elgie of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. It says, "Most importantly, the legislation includes protection, not only for endangered species but for threatened and vulnerable species and for their habitats as well. This would help ensure that species are protected before they reach the brink of extinction." Currently, there are approximately 258 species that are endangered in Canada today.

This is from the Canadian Nature Federation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club of Canada, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the Union québécois pour la conservation de la nature and the World Wildlife Fund. It's the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition. They say why we need a bill like this: "Most people are shocked to learn that Canada has no federal legislation to protect species at risk." They go on to say, "Without a immediate legal protection, we'll be faced with expensive critical care measures as the only option to save many of our ecosystems." The coalition is calling on the federal government to live up to its commitments under

article 8 of the Rio convention. If one remembers, that convention also called upon the provinces to pass legislation to protect endangered and threatened and vulnerable species. They say, "Canada will lose its leadership position on the international scene if it doesn't start implementing the convention which it signed over two years ago." That is, again, from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund.

What will my bill do? What will this bill do once it becomes the bill of Ontario and becomes the form of protection? It will enable the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations around the protection of species. It will allow them to declare any species or any animal or plant to be endangered if on the basis of biological assessment and research the species is determined to be at risk of extinction by reason of the following: destruction of its habitat, overexploitation, disease, the trading in animal parts or the deterioration of its habitat.

It was raised just a few moments ago by one of my colleagues -- in fact, it was the member for Muskoka, who so kindly let me have this time period to bring forth this bill -- that we have a problem in that we have external species threatening the environment and habitats of our indigenous species; for example, zebra mussels and purple loosestrife. It should be noted that the Canadian defence group has held a press conference this morning in Ottawa. While I don't have the exact details of everything they said, it would probably, in my assumption, be that they would be calling upon the federal government to do what

article 8(

k) of the Rio de Janeiro act has asked them to do. I'm looking forward to finding out exactly what they have to say.

Also, this bill would give the minister the right to create recovery plans, to set out ways of rehabilitating areas for the species and would move very quickly to prohibit the buying and the selling of parts and the trading of parts, but would continue to license those domestic suppliers that are raising plants and animals for commercial use. It wouldn't be an ending to the commercialization of the use of animals, but it would certainly protect the animals at risk.

We hear so much today. I think the World Wildlife Fund of Canada has hit a nerve here by publishing a book called The Economic Benefits of Conserving Canada's Endangered Spaces. They want to increase the amount of parkland area available in Canada, but the species that are in those areas are absolutely crucial because of the role that they play in the entire ecosystem. They talk about the economics in this publication and the contribution that is made in tourism; in animals and plants being part of the food chain, our food chain; the snowmobiling; the amount of money being spent on wildlife photography.

They really raise a good argument, an economic argument, that not only protecting the environment is good for us as human beings within an ecosystem, which is an argument that is important in itself, but that within the context of our economy it's absolutely crucial that we continue to defend and protect our environment.

There is also another reason that I think is important: We have seen that within the ecosystem we receive a lot of our drugs and medicines from the natural environment. For example, I first became acquainted with this through the periwinkle from Madagascar and how some of that plant has been instrumental in curing a very rare form of leukaemia or cancer. If we continue to destroy these species without knowing what they contribute to us in this regard, then we lose a huge potential in the future.

I ask all members of this House to support this bill, to give it speedy passage and put Ontario and Canada back in the forefront of endangered species protection and legislation, and protect the environment and the ecosystem within which all of us live, work and enjoy our lives and standard of living.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I am pleased to rise this morning and indicate -- and I always think an opposition member should do this right off the top so that the government member who proposes this legislation is not held in any kind of suspense -- that we are supportive of the principle of this bill. We too are very concerned about the endangered species and we realize that the present act is inadequate.

Having said that -- and that's usually the way opposition speeches go -- I want to quote to the members a copy of letter to Mr Wiseman from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. It says:

"Dear Mr Wiseman:

"We are writing to congratulate you on the introduction of Bill 174, which contains a number of important and long-overdue reforms to Ontario's endangered species legislation.

"Given the urgency of reforming the existing Endangered Species Act, we are somewhat surprised that Bill 174 is proceeding as a private member's bill rather than as a government bill. Nevertheless, we request that the government and opposition parties work towards the expeditious passage of Bill 174.

"While we support Bill 174, there are minor amendments that we would suggest to improve the effectiveness of the bill. Accordingly, we would suggest that Bill 174 be referred to committee following second reading of the bill."

That is our attitude. They make two good points here. The first point is that this should be a government bill. While we applaud Mr Wiseman for raising it in the House this morning, you will recognize that we have but one hour this morning to debate this on second reading. A bill of this magnitude potentially means to Ontarians a great step forward. But also, as with anything, there is sometimes the law of unintended consequences. It needs a full debate in the Legislature. This morning, in the space of one hour, we are supposed to be, on a major piece of legislation presented by a private member, giving it full debate. I don't think that's possible.

I think it's necessary that we have a committee hearing so that we can determine what the possible downsides of this bill are, if any, where improvements could be made to this bill, if any. We have the Canadian Environmental Law Association suggesting that there are improvements that need to be made and that they should be made. I am just indicating here that while we are supportive, we want this bill to go to committee, we want people to be heard on this bill, so that we don't have some of the ramifications that are happening around this province as we speak.

As Mr Wiseman pointed out in presenting this bill, it follows on the steps of something like Bill 232. Bill 232 was introduced by the member for Algoma, Mr Wildman, in June 1990. As we know, Parliament did not sit much after that date. There was an election and, lo and behold, Mr Wildman became the Minister of Natural Resources, the minister responsible for the Endangered Species Act. What happened? Nothing; zero; nada. Out of that regime, out of the time that Mr Wildman was the Minister of Natural Resources, he presented but one bill to this House under the name of the Minister of Natural Resources and it was this one. It was Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Do you know what happened to this bill? It did not even receive second reading. There was nothing happening with this bill. Some members say, "Thank goodness," and that may be true, but some of the things that Mr Wiseman was talking about -- for example, in this bill we talked about the selling of animal parts illegally; there needed to be some control. This bill addressed that particular situation. But the Legislature did not address this bill. There was never a debate. There were never public hearings. So the only bill that the government had presented to do with natural resources, following upon Mr Wildman's Bill 232, did not occur, did not happen; it was a total wipe-out.

Then in November 1992 we had Mr Wiseman presenting a very similar bill to the House to the one he's presenting today. Apparently Mr Wiseman lost that bill because he didn't get on the order of precedence, as we know around here, and he had to replace the bill, after the Legislature prorogued, with Bill 174. That's why we're here today.

I'm very surprised that Mr Wiseman has to take these initiatives and the government won't. The problem is that a bill of this magnitude proceeding as a private member's bill does not have the same opportunities and the same input that it would if the government were sponsoring it. I can see some problems with this bill. I just know.

There's something in this province called the wetlands policy. The wetlands policy is a good idea conceptually. Where the rubber hits the road, it is not necessarily a great idea. I have met, as many of my colleagues have met, with people throughout Ontario who were amazed to find just recently that they got rebate cheques in the mail on their property taxes. Why did they get those? They didn't know. Then they discovered that they were the proud owners of wetlands and, because someone in MNR had decided they had wetlands, that their property value had gone down. They didn't even know and they're not even sure they have a wetland.

The mapping in these cases has been not very good. Wetlands have not been properly identified, and land owners are now getting a rebate because the price of their property went down. But that will have cost people in Ontario millions upon millions of dollars in property value, and there's no way to appeal this. If the district biologist says it is a wetland, how do you fight that? I'm not sure.

Now that we're steamrolling Bill 163 through here,

an act that amends the Planning Act, among other things, the wetlands policy becomes even more onerous on individuals. We have a policy that makes perfect sense: We've got to protect Ontario's wetlands. Nobody disagrees with that. But where the rubber hits the road, where people are dealing with this on an individual basis, we have a situation where millions upon millions of dollars are being lost to individuals without compensation of any kind and you are having to deal with a Natural Resources bureaucracy where you have to argue with a biologist about whether you have a wetland.

My colleague from Cornwall was telling me the other day that he himself was out walking a field that had been designated a wetland. Well, that field was a field. It was a productive agricultural field, and had been for many years. It had been taken out of production for a short period of time. It had grown up with things that perhaps farmers don't want, but it was as hard as my desk. It was not a wetland by anybody's definition, but it could no longer be farmed; it had been decided that it was a wetland.

We've got a good idea here in terms of wetland policy, but as it comes down to deal with individuals, there are mistakes of huge magnitude about identification of wetlands and there are huge costs to individual property taxpayers and owners who are not being reimbursed in any way by the public.

I saw a study the other day, and I forget the numbers, but I think it's about $10 million that this wetlands policy is going to cost private individuals. I don't think we as legislators wanted that to happen. Certainly I didn't. Certainly anybody involved here, I don't think, wanted it to happen, but that's what happening out there.

That's my concern with this bill. If we go through this bill in committee and ask for proper public hearings, we can ensure that those kinds of mistakes in big government and big bureaucracies, which conceivably could surround what is a very good idea put forward by Mr Wiseman, I think could be avoided and we could proceed.

I'm sure that if the government would like to take over this bill, it could proceed in a way that we would find more satisfactory from our point of view, and I'm certain other members would, because it puts the resources of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Environment and Energy and any other ministry that we need directly behind the proponent and gives you all the resources of the bureaucracy to identify concerns, to identify what problems might happen and to suggest ways of improving the legislation with the full power or ability of the province of Ontario to look after that.

As I look at this bill, I see a bill with a title that sounds terrific. I don't know how anybody could oppose a bill that is going to protect endangered species. I'm standing here as the critic for Natural Resources for the Liberal Party when actually at this very second I should be downstairs in one of the committee rooms going through clause by clause on Bill 171.

The bill has a great title. How could you be opposed to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act? Forest sustainability. That's got to be perfect; you've got to be in favour of that. But do we have

an act that does that? We don't. The act doesn't define what sustainability is. We don't know. It doesn't set goals. It's worse, in the opinion of most people. People from the environmental community, people from the industry, people from virtually anything to do with the forests of Ontario, are opposed because it doesn't contribute to sustainability.

For people in the north, the bill calls for a huge transfer -- $100 million to $200 million -- from northern Ontario to the south. There will actually be less money spent in the forests of Ontario once it's passed, and yet the government calls this sustainability. I mean, how could you not do that?

I guess I'm just suggesting today that the principle of this bill sounds fine, but then we look at other government actions, especially those in the Ministry of Natural Resources over the time of this government, and say to ourselves: "Whoa, you really haven't done what you said you were going to do. The legislation has huge flaws in it, costs many people a great deal of money and accomplishes often the exact opposite of what you're intending to do." That's happened in a number of instances already. I've outlined them with the wetlands policy. I've outlined them with the forest sustainability act.

Good ideas, but the legislation accomplishes exactly the opposite at tremendous cost to the people of Ontario.

I would suggest to Mr Wiseman, since Mr Hampton only sits four or five seats down, you should talk to Mr Hampton and have him put the weight of the Ministry of Natural Resources behind this bill so we can get the expertise of the bureaucracy fully behind it and so members of the opposition will be able to question those members of the bureaucracy when it gets to the committee stage.

Mr Wiseman should perhaps also understand that if he does that and has his government adopt the only piece of environmental legislation it has had anything to do with, he may be able to go out in the next election and actually campaign as an environmentalist instead of with a bag over his head, as most New Democrats should have to do in terms of their record on environmental concerns.

While we support the principle, we've got a lot of problems in understanding the various parts of this bill. We think Mr Wiseman could do a good thing and talk to his own minister, who just sits a short way away, have him adopt the bill, let it go through the process in a reasonable sort of fashion and then maybe we'll have a good piece of legislation that is long overdue.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I rise today to express some concerns with Bill 174, serious concerns that I would like to put on the record.

I personally will not be supporting this legislation, firstly because the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs does not appear to have had any input whatever. This government did extend the official title of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to include Rural Affairs, and this has very much to do with rural affairs.

Interestingly the NDP, particularly when in opposition, have always tried to wrap themselves in the environmental flag and claimed a monopoly on environmental sensitivity. Of course, no one has a monopoly on this. I think we're all very concerned. The gist of the legislation, to protect endangered species, is a very motherhood issue. Of course, we all want to protect endangered and vulnerable species -- no doubt about that -- however, at what cost?

There is existing legislation in place now, and I just wonder if Bill 174 will strengthen what's already in place, or does it simply provide some window dressing to show the concerns of the government of the day regarding endangered and vulnerable species?

I certainly can understand my colleague from Durham West bringing it forth a bill such as 174. He's involved with many environmental groups, a lot of them urban-based. However, the problem goes way beyond the urban fringe in that it's something that does and will occur almost entirely in those areas that are not urbanized at all.

Bill 163, for which I notice from the order paper today closure is being brought in, encroaches very dramatically on the rights of property owners. My concern is that Bill 174 would probably be in a position of basically doing the same.

I had the opportunity of sitting in on some of the hearings of the justice committee on Bill 163, and I have here a presentation to that committee from the Ontario Woodlot and Sawmill Operators Association. They are based across Ontario; however, they are quite predominant in eastern Ontario. Their concerns with Bill 163 would be exactly the same as they would be with Bill 174.

I realize that in agriculture, herbicides and pesticides particularly are used, and we have the travesties that were caused by DDT. I know we have some falcons, some cranes and a number of reptiles that are endangered. However, going from there to encroaching on the rights of property owners -- yes, we must protect these species as best we can; big fines will be in place -- the challenge is to pinpoint the culprits and bring them to justice, which is a story in itself.

We have to agree with the purpose of the bill, but to a certain extent we're already doing what this bill calls for under the current Endangered Species Act. Yes, this will reinforce and bring it up to date, but will it really do what it's supposed to? That's our concern and my personal concern. Under the agricultural and natural resources policy, which methods will be used and how do we identify the species that we will be managing and attempting to support and to render less vulnerable or less endangered? That is not very well spelled out.

A status report shall be prepared on proposed species prior to final declaration. How many species will be covered in total? Who will decide what is an endangered, a vulnerable or a threatened species and what remedial action will be taken, remedial action within the environment, and then the encroachment on this remedial action as it will affect property land owners?

It's interesting that in the wilds of Ontario, the managed woodlot tax rebate was all of a sudden cancelled by this same government --

Interjection.

Mr Villeneuve: We're not sure under what pretext. It never did come to this Legislature.

As the previous participant in the debate was speaking of, lo and behold wetlands show up particularly throughout eastern Ontario; large tracts of land which all of a sudden wind up designated as wetlands where the use of the property is very limited and the value of this property, according to some of the people who made presentations, not only was reduced but cut in half in many instances, and in some instances there's really no effective market value because no one wants to purchase this land.

In Bill 163 we have a sort of predecessor to Bill 174, and in 174 we have to agree that yes, we must protect these endangered species. However, at what cost? That is the concern I have. Within what limits would an order-to-cease activity occur?

What if the beavers all of a sudden wind up being declared a endangered species? We all know what a beaver dam in backing up water can do to a woodlot. It absolutely destroys it completely. If some of the wildlife people decide that beavers must be protected, for whatever reason they've become endangered, we have a major problem, because we have beavers in eastern Ontario and indeed throughout Ontario, but particularly in eastern Ontario, that are called nuisance beavers.

Municipalities at this point are having some difficulty just keeping up with the destruction of some of the dams that have been created where entire large acreages of woodlots would be destroyed and would be destroyed very quickly, once they come under water.

The designation of wetlands has been a travesty, because many people were not even aware that their land had been designated a wetland. In the rural economic development report that our party has recently put out, we've addressed the provincial wetlands policy, and I will quote just a bit here, because we had very concerned land owners in rural Ontario that made presentations to our task force, indeed telling us the travesty and the very real suffering that these people have had financially because of the designation of lands.

"In July of 1992 this government released a new provincial wetlands policy. Opposition to this policy has been intense, particularly in" the area you and I, Mr Speaker, come from, "eastern Ontario.

"Under the new policy, wetlands classified as class 1, 2 or 3 are categorized as 'provincially significant.' Classification of wetlands is determined by the Ministry of Natural Resources evaluation system. In the Ottawa-Carleton region, approximately 3,000 private land owners are affected" directly by wetlands or the buffer area adjoining them.

"A class 1, 2 or 3 wetland designation on private property virtually freezes that property for future development purposes. Along with the classification of the actual wetland itself, the Ministry of Natural Resources established a 120-metre (400 feet) buffer zone," which is treated exactly as if it were wetlands.

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party would have a very serious look, and this is our policy.

"The wetland policy is the product of an unbalanced political process -- it has recognized the benefit of wetlands but failed to recognize the staggering economic loss that wetland owners are forced to endure." That is from the Association of Rural Property Owners.

Our commitment to the review and restructuring of the provincial wetlands policy will be a priority if the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario forms the next government. We have it down in black and white.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): Shame.

Mr Villeneuve: It's not a shame, property rights of people. I am not ashamed to tell you that I protect the property rights of people. I have no hesitation. I also want to protect some of the endangered species, but I have no problem protecting the property rights of the taxpayers of Ontario.

I could go on considerably but, in its present form, I personally will not be able to support Bill 174.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I really welcome Bill 174 and I congratulate the member for Durham West for bringing it forward. I think I shall take rather more of an overview than we've had in this debate so far.

This is an issue which pits individual and special interests against the common good. Certainly the member for S-D-G & East Grenville has underlined this in his defence of property rights, but I would like to bring forward something which has been called the tragedy of the commons. This was explained as being, for example, if you have grazing land on which different people graze their cattle, if one person increases his herd because he personally is going to profit from that, he will indeed profit but at the expense of leading to the collapse of the whole setup so that there will be no future grazing for anybody, and this is the kind of thing we could be looking at here.

Human beings are damaging the wildlife around us in three principal ways, which of course sometimes do overlap, but I'd just like to point out what those are.

Some species are at risk because they're valuable and therefore they get exploited for private gain. For example, as technology progressed, the once plentiful northern cod which first brought Europeans to Canada couldn't keep up with the efficiency with which they were being exploited. Nearer home, species after species of Great Lakes fish were fished out, and those who profited left very little for those who came later. Buffalo became buffalo robes and piles of bones and a memory.

Secondly, of course, pollution is deadly to wildlife. Rachel Carson blew the whistle on toxic chemicals in her seminal book, Silent Spring, in the 1960s. Since then, DDT and other toxic substances have been controlled, but inadequately tested chemicals or even chemicals known to be toxic continue to be released into air, soil and water and to become part of the food chain. Rising cancer rates and reproductive problems in wildlife and in the human population are the result, and we have a new and intractable disease which is a sensitivity to chemicals in the environment, which means some people have to withdraw to a controlled environment in order to survive.

The third and perhaps the most important way in which we damage wildlife is sheer takeover and destruction of habitat. Displaced plants and animals can't just pick up and go somewhere else. That isn't how it works.

All of these three things will continue to happen on an increasing scale if nothing is done. Some restrictions are in place but we need more. Humanity has almost succeeded in conquering and taming the world and its flora and fauna, including, funnily enough, other human beings. Territory occupied by aboriginal peoples worldwide has been drastically eroded and their lifestyles threatened or destroyed. Grizzly bears are at risk because they have to be kept separate from people.

Does all of this matter? Well, of course it does. Modern civilization is less obviously dependent on the wildlife of this earth than past societies have been, but the dependency is still there and some of the ways in which it is so are only beginning to be understood. Psychologically, spiritually, as well as physically, we're an integral part of the totality of life that has evolved on this earth, which has been called Gaia, notably by Dr James Lovelock. Gaia is a complex self-sustaining feedback mechanism. We don't now and never will understand Gaia completely and how it works.

If we damage the equilibrium of this wonderful and complex system we could set off uncontrollable, vicious spirals of change. We may even have done that already.

What has all this to do with the loss of whooping cranes or frogs or beluga whales? Well, firstly, I would say we need them all as part of our shared world, but secondly, we should remember the miner's canary. If the canary keeled over dead, the miner knew he had to take action to save himself. Whatever is affecting amphibians like frogs, for example, worldwide affects us too.

This bill extends the range of the Endangered Species Act and provides for preventive and corrective action and for fines and imprisonment for non-compliance. It is necessary and timely. This is, as I said, a clear issue where the good of all has to transcend the selfish acts by individuals and groups. There can be golden eggs for all if no one kills that golden goose.

Certainly we need biological diversity to maintain and improve the quality of our lives, and the loss of wild species of the few main crops of the world that the world depends on, such as wheat and corn and rice, has already put our food supplies in jeopardy. The more complex these matters become the more we depend on them, for example, hybrid varieties, the more at risk we are for diseases that could wipe out a crop worldwide. We must have that genetic diversity there to guarantee our own survival.

But I see the destruction of life around us also as a kind of blasphemy. Our culture and traditions, whether it's stories or literature, songs, visual arts, the toys we give our children, and even the structure of our language, or a total environment in which we can get away from buying and selling and recreate ourselves, all depend on the living things around us.

Canada already lacks biodiversity because of its harsh conditions and very harsh climate. This makes for a fragile ecology where loss of one species can trigger serious consequences. We do have legislation, but as pressures increase it must be updated. It is not adequate to the needs of the present.

I should point out that, although Canada has a relatively small population in a very large area, we have developed extravagant lifestyles that means we put demands on, for example, the water supply, which has meant that we are looking at problems even in this huge country which has more fresh water, I believe, than any other country in the world.

Now, we do not have to sacrifice quality of life. There are many ways in which we can maintain that quality and yet reduce the pressure that we're putting on the world around us.

I particularly commend this bill in that it provides for an advisory committee that ensures broad public input. Where we have public participation we are going to get better results than if this is just something that is left to government and bureaucrats. Eighty three per cent of Canadians believe that we should protect endangered wildlife. I had hoped that everybody in this House would support it. Unfortunately, I understand that the third party is putting the narrow, short-term interests of private property ahead of this much larger issue that we have here.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Once again the NDP is being highly judgemental before they listen to all of the arguments, which is fairly typical.

I intend to vote in favour of this bill because I'm certainly very concerned about the biodiversity that we have not just here in Ontario, but indeed throughout the world. I can't help remarking that perhaps the most endangered species is sitting across the benches from me today, but that would be partisan and I'll leave this.

It's absolutely essential that we have laws which ensure that all of the species we now have are protected. We know there are many species that have been lost this century which probably held the key to some breakthroughs in medicine, and we must halt this erosion. We've got to stop the wanton destruction of wetlands, and in fact of any habitat of fauna and species, animals and fishes, which make up our biodiversity.

You have to wonder what this government is doing. Over and over again they have brought forward important pieces of legislation in the guise of a private member's bill. The minister responsible for this, in opposition, was always talking about the bills he would bring forward, and he has done nothing. Instead, he relies on a private member's bill which gets minuscule study.

I want to juxtapose those fines with something from the report Environmental Convictions in Ontario, 1992. I note that St Andrew Goldfields Ltd, on October 30, 1992, was ordered to pay a fine of $16,000 for spilling mine tailings contaminated with cyanide into the North Driftwood River. Some 55 million litres of untreated mine tailings escaped, and during the three days following the spill, cyanide levels were 10 times higher than provincial water quality guidelines.

The judge in the case noted that the company's mine manager was largely responsible for the spill because he failed to keep senior management informed of the problem at the site, and he was fined $1,000 for his role in the offence. So $16,000 to the company for a spill which lasted three days where the cyanide levels were 10 times the acceptable level, the manager fined $1,000, and yet here we've got a bill which contemplates fines of up to $100,000 per day for the individual and $200,000 a day for the corporation.

If the government wants to set a whole new direction in protecting the environment, let them spell it out in a government-sponsored bill. I too am concerned about protecting the environment, but I'm also concerned about protecting private property rights, and there can be no doubt that the NDP and indeed the Liberals over the years have consistently eroded private property rights.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It is indeed an honour and a pleasure to rise in my place this morning to speak to my colleague's bill, Bill 174,

An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and to protect Threatened and Vulnerable Species. I've encouraged my colleague to pursue this to the utmost -- not that he needed much encouragement, because his stance as an environmentalist and an activist is very well known throughout his riding. Nevertheless, I've tended to encourage him to pursue this.

I was interested and I find it rather saddening when politics is introduced in a debate about this. I heard my colleague across the way from the third party talking about standing in his place protecting the rights of property owners etc, almost like the wetlands were encroaching on property owners and somehow doing them a disfavour. I think it's absolutely scary that today, 460 acres -- and I prefer to call them acres because I'm from yesteryear when we hadn't got into the hectare business -- every minute of every day of every year are being paved over. That in itself is a threat to the survival of so many of our endangered species.

Everybody goes around and they wonderfully wear the panda in their lapel to signify their concern about endangered species. Everybody says, "Oh, yes, we've got to protect this little animal." It's wonderful how people seem to respond to the cuddly creatures of the world. They get it in their hearts, "Oh, these lovely cuddly creatures, we've got to protect." But unfortunately, when it gets away from those cuddly creatures who have got some empathy from the population, when you get out to the other types of mammals, creatures, amphibians --

Ms Gigantes: The beavers.

Mr Mills: -- and the beaver, as my colleague from Ottawa said, this becomes a bit of a problem.

I think the preservation of biological diversity in this province must be maintained as a fundamental cornerstone to the quality of our environment and indeed the quality of our life in general. As a key signatory to the world convention on biodiversity, this country, and specifically this province, must take active steps to confront the depletion of species and habitats across our lands. The current statistics have indicated that 19 mammals, birds, plants and fish were added this year to the list of Canadian species at risk, bringing the total to 255 species. Of the 19 additions, 11 can be found in Ontario.

It has long been recognized that the endangered species legislation is inadequate and relatively toothless. It has not been revised for 14 years, which makes all the more reason why I should commend my colleague the member for Durham West. It is out of touch with the realities of the modern world. This legislation offers concrete solutions for the rehabilitation and reintroduction of species and the overall health of these creatures in this province.

The proposed legislation takes a very proactive approach to the designation and classification of the species at risk, which represents a very substantial improvement over the existing legislation. By extending protection to the threatened and vulnerable species before they reach critical levels of extinction, this legislation adds to preserve and maintain populations with levels at risk, rather than simply responding to a crisis situation once the species have been labelled as endangered.

The proposed legislation provides a legal basis for a recovery plan for every endangered and threatened species within the province, and goodness only knows we need that legislation.

I think it's important to understand that the proposed legislation will provide the Minister of Natural Resources with the power to acquire land in order to protect, manage or restore the animals or plants declared to be endangered, threatened or vulnerable. I find it interesting that that part of this legislation poses such a worry and a concern to members of the third party, which I suppose really is nothing new there.

The penalties and sentencing provisions under this legislation take a much more aggressive approach towards offenders, ensuring that the environmental damage they do can be reversed or that restitution can be made. I think that is very much needed in this legislation.

Finally, as the clock ticks away to my time to run out, and perhaps most importantly, the proposed legislation places a strong emphasis upon hearing the concerns and ideas of the general public by providing for an advisory committee that would ensure broad public input on any decisions taken to designate species as threatened, vulnerable or endangered under the act.

In my last eight seconds I appeal to all members of all parties to support this very much needed piece of legislation.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you to all the members who have participated in this debate. I'd like to respond to some of these comments.

First, it was almost implied that somehow this is hasty legislation and not clearly thought through. Every member of this Legislature was given a copy of this text. It's rather voluminous, and so I can't go through it in detail, but this has been in our hands since May 1991.

Prior to that there have been many studies clearly indicating that this kind of legislation is necessary. There have been hundreds and thousands of hours of work done by people in the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the World Wildlife Fund and a whole host of other groups of people who have been involved. So this is not hasty legislation. They have all seen it and they have had comment on it, and you've heard some of those comments this morning.

As to the wetlands policy, I was instrumental in that wetlands policy. It was in response to a resolution passed in this House, by the entire House, to go forward with wetlands policy. I think it's essential that we go ahead and we continue to build on the protection that the policy puts into place. I think the failure to act and to move forward continues to put animal species and flora and fauna at risk in the province of Ontario.

In concluding, I would like to say that I am here both as a member of the government and also as an individual member who has obligations and responsibilities to his constituents. I do not believe that every action taken by this House should be from the government's executive branch. I believe that this House must regain control of the legislative agenda and that this House must show the responsibility to the people of Ontario that it is elected to demonstrate. So I again request that all members take their legislative responsibility seriously and pass this bill.

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

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 69, standing in the name of Mr Brown. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Brown has moved private member's resolution number 51. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 70. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Wiseman has moved second reading of Bill 174,

An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and to protect Threatened and Vulnerable Species. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall this bill be referred to the committee of the whole? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1200 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WILLIAM KROETSCH

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Today I rise to pay tribute to the late Rev William Kroetsch, a leader in Toronto's German-speaking community for over 40 years. Father Kroetsch, who celebrated his 75th birthday last May, passed away suddenly on October 30.

Born in Saskatchewan, Father Kroetsch joined the Redemptorist order in August 1939 and became a priest in 1944. Since June 1948, he was pastor of the German St Patrick's parish on McCaul Street here in Toronto.

As you can appreciate, in this central position he played a major role in the spiritual care of German-speaking Ontarians in and around Toronto. Beyond his responsibilities as a religious leader, he also helped numerous immigrants of Germanic origin make the difficult adjustment from war-torn Europe to their new homeland.

Not only his parish, but our civic community at large has lost in Rev Kroetsch a man of rare wisdom, compassion and courageous leadership in difficult times. Ontarians from all walks of life owe him deep thanks for his untiring, selfless efforts to build strong and contributing communities of new Canadians.

I invite this House to join me in expressing our heartfelt sympathy to his family, his parish and his Redemptorist brothers.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Finance, and it's based on a letter I received from Mr Nick Unitt of Orillia about this government's continuing tax grab policies. Mr Unitt writes:

"Dear Sir:

"Yesterday, my daughter went to renew her driver's licence. She is not presently earning a great deal of money and lives on a very tight budget. She was informed that she must renew her licence for seven years at a cost of $70, rather than as she expected for one year at $10.

"I am very concerned about this matter, not only because it upset my daughter, but because of the deeper problems that I foresee.

"The government is forcing people to prepay their taxes since, of course, the driver's licence is a tax. I believe this type of taxation is not within the power of any government and is illegal.

"Secondly, this is an attempt by the present government to boost revenues at the expense of future administrations. At a guess of four million licences in Ontario at $10 each and an average required renewal of five years, the government is collecting an extra $200 million this year that will result in a shortfall spread over the next five years....

"This is fiscal irresponsibility! I hope my comments are of use.

"Regards,

"Nick Unitt."

I agree with Mr Unitt's assessment that this is just one more fiscally irresponsible tax grab from a government that has no hesitation about stripping the people in Ontario of their hard-earned cash. It is irresponsible, unwarranted and unacceptable.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard, prior to my election, a small businessperson and employer who complained about programs that the government announced were going to help business to hire people, but when they went to apply in my county they found out their business was either too small or there was a hiring quota or, worst of all, that there was still so much paperwork that they just forgot about it -- a real waste of their tax dollars.

We heard that concern and that's how we came up with the Jobs Ontario Training program. We listened to their problems, and over the last eight or 10 months, when we've gone back to talk to those businesses, it's been no surprise to me that many businesses have said this program is working. As one person said when Bob and I, Bob Rae and I, were meeting with employers --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Oh, "Bob and I." It's "Bob."

Mr Klopp: -- in Goderich, "It's the first time a government ever created a program for which we didn't have to hire five people to do the red tape when all we wanted to hire were three people in the first place."

Mr Bradley: Must be the president of the association. The president of the NDP said that.

Mr Klopp: From the catcalls across the hall, it must really be bothering them.

We answered the questions about no quota: a business that wants to hire one person or 100 people. This program is flexible. We also for the first time recognized that farmers are a business too in this province and we didn't have them having to come afterwards and say, "We'd like to apply." I remember some other program that said, "You're not a business; you can't get involved in this." We listened.

I just want to say, where are Lyn and Mike, the tag team? This program is working. They're not friends of business. We're friends of business and we're going to continue to work for them.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yesterday the Minister of Finance was asked a question about the serious issue of mall property tax apportionment. Today I'd like to ask the minister, where is your legislation?

You know, Minister, that mall tax apportionment is a worry to many small businesses in Oriole's Fairview Mall and other large malls in the province of Ontario. These businesses are struggling to survive. Urgency is therefore a factor, as the legislation must be passed this session in order for the changes to be implemented for the 1995 tax roll.

My caucus has been calling for a solution to this matter for some time. Now, through the hard work of the anchor tenants and the smaller retailers, an agreement has been reached. Your continued stalling is creating monumental problems for all mall retailers. I repeat: The legislation has not been tabled. What are you waiting for?

This, in my view, is an example of legislative incompetence by the NDP. By not introducing this legislation, the government has proven that it's not concerned about mall retailers. The only solution to this problem of mall tax apportionment is legislation.

I know how important this issue is. You say you have a deal, but we haven't seen the legislation. If the government won't act, then I will. I put you on notice, Minister: I will table a private member's bill on Monday if you don't.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Now that the Premier has promoted the Candu nuclear reactor in China, we hope he might champion this technology at home. In the past, this government and various ministers of energy who have come and gone have blamed Hydro's fiscal problems on Darlington. Candu is not to blame. The government is to blame for creating cost overruns amounting to $6 billion.

Before our Premier saw the light, it was his anti-nuke sentiment which brought about a moratorium on Candu development during their partnership with the Liberals. However, in light of the Premier's recent conversion, I would like to share the facts and dispel the fiction about Darlington and Candu technology.

Darlington, which produces 20% of Ontario's electricity, is both an efficient and cost-effective producer. At a price, without debt overheads, of only one cent per kilowatt-hour, operating costs at Darlington are the lowest of any nuclear station in the province. With all four units at Darlington running at 100%, the station is producing power at a rate which will allow the station to retire $500 million of debt by the end of this year.

With this information in mind, I expect this government to promote Candu reactors as the most effective and environmentally benign source of energy for the province of Ontario.

SUBSTITUTE DECISION-MAKING

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Mayor Michael Prue in the borough of East York for his resounding victory in last Monday's municipal election. Mayor Prue has worked tirelessly to benefit the lives of the people of East York, and I look forward to continuing to work in partnership with him and the borough of East York.

Also, I would like to speak about the importance of the Substitute Decisions Act not only to the people in East York but to all Ontarians. This act updates the law that deals with what may happen when someone is not mentally able to make important decisions in their life. I feel it is essential for members of this Legislature to inform their constituents about this important legislation and how it may help them if they were to become incapable of dealing with their own affairs.

To this end, I want to encourage all constituents to attend any one of several information meetings that will be held across the province. These meetings are sponsored by the Substitute Decisions Project. Because of the tremendous interest in my riding, I have assisted some local members of the Leaside United Church in organizing a meeting which will be held on November 22 at 7:30 pm. I plan to host similar meetings in other parts of my riding over the next few months, and I'd like to invite all my colleagues in the Legislature to join me in my efforts to share this vital information with the public.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today the government will be introducing yet another time allocation motion or a motion which limits the ability of the members of the Ontario Legislature to adequately debate legislation before this House.

The public would like to know, of course, that this session of the Legislature will be only a 20-day session, that the Premier decided that the House would not be called back into session normally, as it should have been, the third week of September but rather almost November 1. Then, with only 20 days of sitting, the government would introduce closure motion after closure motion, time allocation motion after time allocation motion.

We've already seen this applied to one bill. We will now see it applied to Bill 173, which is the act that relates to long-term care for many people in our community. The bill in fact may kill volunteerism across this province. It creates a much more bureaucratic system which will be difficult to administer. It will likely result, in the final analysis, in higher costs and less service to the people, and even Price Waterhouse, which had given a letter of some support in the past, has withdrawn that.

Clearly, this government does not want to see an adequate debate of this piece of legislation which has so much opposition in the province of Ontario. This is once again a sad day when this government stifles debate and stifles the opportunity for the public to have input on an important piece of legislation.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This Monday, every voter in Ontario had the opportunity to choose which elected officials they wanted to run their municipal governments for the next three years. Unfortunately, in many municipalities voter turnout was less than stellar, often just one third of all eligible voters. That's half the 60% to 65% turnout recorded for most provincial elections. In my home town of Brockville, only 35% of eligible voters bothered to cast their ballot. In Toronto, the turnout was 36%.

Later today I will be introducing a bill entitled the Municipal Elections Amendment Act. The thrust of the bill is straightforward: to provide that polling stations for municipal elections shall open two extra hours in the morning, so they shall open at 8 am rather than 10 am as the Municipal Elections Act currently provides.

Statistics have shown lately that workers, those fortunate enough to have a job in this province, are working longer and longer hours. Opening the polls at 10 am does not permit most people to vote before they begin their busy working day. My amendment will help long-distance commuters or those on shift work. It will help those who, while provided by law with three hours in which to vote during the day, feel they are just too busy to go back home and cast their ballot.

The cost for this change will be minimal. It will bring municipal voting hours closer to provincial poll hours and, most importantly, it will boost the number of voters able to exercise their democratic right.

SCHOOL TEACHERS

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Recently, I attended the annual meeting of the Wellington County Women Teachers' Association, and while I was there I was talking with a lot of teachers. It reminded me of the important jobs that teachers do every day.

You know, Mr Speaker, being a former teacher, how hard the job is. As front-line workers in our education system, they deserve our respect and our support, and we, as parents and community leaders, should recognize and thank our teachers openly for their dedication and their perseverance. Even though they, teachers, have taken the brunt of the criticism being levelled at our education system, they are still the ones who are going to be there for our children.

Teachers must always be seen as partners in our system, not as a problem. They are a major reason that our system has survived through countless years of change, some of which has put teachers in an environment of being all things to all people. They deal with drug and alcohol problems, stress, sexism, racism and violence. They must identify family abuse and be the moral leaders of our children. Teachers deserve a fair shake from government, communities, parents and the media.

Each of us can remember a teacher who did something special for us. It's time we remembered what we should be doing for teachers. I give the teachers of Guelph and Wellington county an A+.

OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Members will be aware that there appears on today's Orders and Notices paper two notices of an opposition day to be debated next week. Under standing order 42(

d) the Speaker is required to select one of these notices for consideration, taking into account the order in which they were received. I would like to advise the members that the motion by Mr Harris will be the one that will be selected for debate next week.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FURNACE VENTING SYSTEMS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): In the absence of the Minister of Housing and in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, my question will therefore be to the Premier, the leader of the government.

Premier, despite the very unseasonal November weather, we all know that winter is coming. We have in Ontario evidence that 10,000 homes domiciling tens of thousands of our residents and constituents are, as of this moment, confronted with potentially defective venting systems for recently installed heating devices.

Your government has known of this for several months, and I put the question to you today -- I regret that the two ministers to whom I would ordinarily direct this are not here, but I have to tell you, Premier, that there is a widespread concern in the homes of those 10,000 dwellings where these defective devices have been identified.

Premier, can you or anyone else in the government today indicate what help, what action, what comfort you and your government are going to provide on the eve of winter for these thousands of Ontarians faced with a potentially serious health hazard?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Good question.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It is a good question, and it's a serious one. I would say to the member that I take the question seriously, but I will have to take it as notice and will undertake to speak to the --

Interjection: He has come in.

Hon Mr Rae: No, that would be for an MNR question. With respect, this isn't to do with water; this is to do with heating.

Since it has to do with heating and since it has to do with some 10,000 residents, the member is asking a reasonable question. I hope that in the circumstances he will appreciate that what I will do is undertake to have the ministers respond to him on Monday.

Mr Conway: I appreciate that. The reason I raise the question today is that I just received a copy of a letter that's been sent to the government, to the Minister of Housing, copies to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and the Premier got a copy of it as well and I'll be happy to provide him with another. It's from the Ontario Home Builders' Association, and I will be happy to send it over.

Let me just read one part of the letter which was sent by the Ontario Home Builders' Association to the Ontario government, including the Premier, a few days ago. I realize he may not yet have seen this. This is a very real problem, because these venting systems that are potentially defective could, if they fail, release carbon monoxide into these homes. They're not just single-family dwellings. My information is that we have some government of Ontario social housing units that are also involved and affected.

Our evidence is that there are 10,000 homes in Ontario that have been identified as having these potentially defective venting devices. If these devices fail, they could send carbon monoxide into these homes and dwellings.

The Ontario Home Builders' Association, in its letter to the government of November 14 says, in part, "In light of the time that any remedial action is going to take for the homes involved and in light of the very real risk of serious injury, any program, any remediation must be implemented and announced to homeowners within days, if not hours."

Premier, I ask you again to indicate to the House and to all of these affected people that you will take immediate action to coordinate a remedial program before winter sets in, because these are mostly furnaces. We've been lucky we've had very, very unseasonably warm weather in November, but the first bit of cold weather is going to send these furnaces into action and, I repeat, 10,000 homes serving tens of thousands of our residents are affected.

Hon Mr Rae: Since it's customary, when a member refers to a letter or a piece of correspondence, that he would share it with me, and obviously there's an issue here, I would like simply to say to the member that we take the concerns that have been expressed very seriously. I can assure him that in terms of the House there will be a response to him on Monday. I can also assure him that in terms of the issue he has now raised today, obviously I'll be speaking directly to the deputies involved as soon as I leave this place and discover exactly what the situation is.

Mr Conway: I appreciate that the Premier has given an undertaking that we will have a statement by the government on Monday of next week, because it is a matter of urgent and pressing concern to a lot of people. I appreciate the Premier's undertaking, and we will await a response on Monday of next week.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My next question is to the Minister of Health and it concerns the Mental Health Act. It is now nearly two years since the coroner's inquest filed its report following upon the tragic death of Christopher Stephenson, who was brutally murdered in Ontario a few years ago.

The minister will know that that coroner's inquest recommended changes to the Ontario Mental Health Act that would keep predatory sex offenders off the streets. Making these changes called for by the Stephenson inquest is well within your -- our -- Ontario jurisdiction. In fact, one of your senior officials told the Stephenson inquest that changes could and should be made to the Mental Health Act to keep these predatory sex offenders off the streets and away from our children.

Minister, I ask you: Since these changes to the Ontario Mental Health Act are needed, and needed immediately for the reasons stated, and since you clearly, by the admission of your own officials and the Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, have it within your jurisdiction and competence, will you, for the protection of the children of Ontario, commit today to make immediately those changes to the Mental Health Act?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me start by saying that the recommendations of that coroner's jury and of others, and of course the question of public safety and the protection of children and families, are of very real and serious concern to us and we take them very seriously. After that coroner's recommendations were received two years ago, in fact we established within the Ministry of Health a group to examine all of our forensic issues and policies.

We are very encouraged by discussions we've had between ministries, because this is not merely a case of making changes to the Mental Health Act. It is a case of working in a much more coordinated way between ministries both provincially and federally. In many cases the kinds of people the member refers to have been confined under the Criminal Code and then, when their term is served, it becomes an issue for communities, because under the Criminal Code they may well be released.

We are working with our own ministries and with the federal government to deal with these issues. I'm not in a position today to give the member an assurance in a blanket way as to what that solution will be, but I do say to him that we take it very seriously.

Mr Conway: The public out there, particularly the parents of children, doesn't care about intergovernmental committees. All they know is that two and a half or three years ago an innocent 11-year-old child, Christopher Stephenson, was brutally murdered by a repeat sex offender who somehow got through the cracks, and two years ago or a year and half ago the Deputy Attorney General, George Thomson, and the senior official, Gilbert Sharpe from the Ministry of Health, said that these kinds of changes that were called for by the Stephenson inquiry could and should be made by this government in this Legislature.

Tomorrow, Wray Budreo, another tragic case of a predator with a long record of molesting children, is eligible to walk out the doors of the Kingston penitentiary and to return to the streets and the shopping malls of Ontario. On behalf of the parents of millions of kids in this province, I ask you, I beg you, will you today commit to do what people like the Deputy Attorney General and your own officials said months ago could and should be done? Will you please, in the interests of and for the protection of innocent, defenceless young children, amend the Mental Health Act so these repeat sexual predators do not return to the streets and shopping malls to prey upon defenceless kids?

Hon Mrs Grier: As a mother, as a grandmother and on behalf of everybody in this House, I don't think any of us needs to be lectured about the need to protect the safety of kids on the streets in our communities.

If I move today amendments to the Mental Health Act as the member suggests, that would not deal with the particular instance that he refers to that is occurring this week.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): You've had lots of time, Ruth.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Mrs Grier: What I am saying to him and what I continue to commit us to is making sure that in every case where there is any risk to the safety of the people of this province, the work, the collaboration and the coordination that needs to occur between corrections and between health institutions occurs and is occurring. In a case such as the one he refers to, corrections and the ministry and any other institutions involved, I can assure him, have the discussions that are appropriate to deal with any particular case.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Madam Minister, your responses and inaction in this matter are, in a word, irresponsible. You have a duty and a responsibility to act.

I introduced into this Legislature this Monday and gave to you a piece of legislation which would amend the Mental Health Act. This legislation has as its purpose a mechanism by which the public can be protected against dangerous sexual offenders who are about to be released into the community. You have the legislation. It is tabled. You have the authority and the responsibility to act. Will you pass legislation which protects our children from dangerous sexual predators?

Hon Mrs Grier: The opposition begins its question by saying this coroner's jury was two years ago. Then it tells me that this week it has produced a solution and that we should have answered immediately.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): You're the minister.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me tell the member what has happened over the last two years since those coroner's jury --

Mrs Sullivan: It's her job to do it.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take her seat. The member for Halton Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: The coordination, collaboration and cooperation between ministries and between the federal and provincial governments that has been established over the last two years is unparalleled in the experience of previous governments.

We immediately, after the coroner's jury which was referred to, established within our own ministry a group to look at our forensic services. We have established with the provincial ministries of Health, Solicitor General, Correctional Services and Attorney General a mental disorder justice review committee that is developing a common framework, that is articulating a strategy for mentally disordered offenders. We have two federal, provincial and territorial working groups examining policy, operational and legislative issues.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Do something, Ruth.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Oriole please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: For the first time, all of the various ministries involved are working together to protect the safety of the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Attorney General and it as well is about the fact that Wray Budreo, a convicted, sadistic paedophile, is going to be released into Ontario within a matter of days. This man has a 30-year history of molesting children and it seems everybody agrees that he shouldn't be out on the street, but we're powerless to do anything about it.

Minister, you are the seniormost minister in the Bob Rae government responsible for justice in this province. Could you please tell the parents of children in this province just exactly what you are doing and your government is doing today regarding the release of Wray Budreo? What are you doing for the safety of our children?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The member needs to be reminded, as the Health minister reminded us all, that this sort of situation is a concern for all of us. I would say, as I always say in this House, it is not appropriate for us to be discussing specific instances but it is important for us to realize that the law has certain provisions within it and that it is the responsibility of governments to support the provisions of the law.

What we are doing --

Mrs Caplan: Then change the law.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I cannot change the federal law --

Mrs Caplan: You can change the Mental Health Act.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- and the minister has already responded around the Mental Health Act.

What I will say to the member is that in cases like this our government has taken a very strong stance that where it is appropriate and where the recommendation from a crown attorney is that we apply for a dangerous offender application, that is what we do. We have been very vigorous, much more vigorous than other administrations in this province or in fact the administrations of other provinces, to apply for dangerous offender applications, which are the provision in the Criminal Code to deal with this kind of case where there has been repeated behaviour that has not been changed by the efforts of the correctional system.

I would say to you that when sentencing has already occurred, when a situation has already occurred, the actions are limited when a person has already served their sentence and those actions cannot be done through the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code once that has happened, that in cases that occur now --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- we are very vigorous in our pursuit of dangerous offender applications, which is the method we do have at hand.

Mr Jackson: On October 31, Christopher Higginbottom, a known homosexual paedophile, was acquitted in Milto