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

December 2, 1999

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 1999-Dec-02 (PDF)

L022 - Thu 2 Dec 1999 / Jeu 2 déc 1999

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DES GRANDS LACS

STUDENT HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAMS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES PROGRAMMES DE SANTÉ ET DE SÉCURITÉ POUR ÉTUDIANTS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CYRIL BOLLERS

THORNWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOL

PARENT AIDE PROGRAM

CAMBRIDGE HORNETS HOCKEY CLUB

LANDFILL

RENT REGULATION

NESTLÉ JOB TRAINING PROGRAM

HÔTEL-DIEU GRACE HOSPITAL

DALTON MCGUINTY

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

VISITEURS

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

AGRICULTURAL OFFICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

POLICE OFFICERS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILD POVERTY

PARAMEDICS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

MILLENNIUM MEMENTO

EMERGENCY SERVICES

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

PETITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

KARLA HOMOLKA

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

KARLA HOMOLKA

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

KARLA HOMOLKA

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

KARLA HOMOLKA

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DES GRANDS LACS

Mr Ouellette moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 15,

An Act to regulate the discharge of ballast water in the Great Lakes / Projet de loi 15, Loi réglementant le déchargement de l'eau de lest dans les Grands Lacs.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Before we start, I have to say that we could be just a tad groggy this morning. Last night Dad was on night shift and Josh, my oldest boy, was waking up from about 2 to 5 and I had to take care of the scary monsters that were sucking on his thumb. But we've had our caffeine fix and we assured our oldest son, Josh, that there were no scary monsters under the bed or in the closet, although I can't really say that there are no scary monsters in the Great Lakes.

I can't say that to my son, Josh, of the things that are happening out there, that have taken place, such as the zebra mussel, where its accidental introduction through ballast water discharge has now brought in the zebra mussel, which is costing municipalities and agencies thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars in clearing these areas to make sure our water discharge or our water intake are clear, or at the nuclear plants, that everything is clear for the intake and the discharge of water there. There is a large number of invading species that have come into Ontario because of accidental discharge in the Great Lakes.

Essentially what we are trying to do here is address the issue of the accidental discharge and, as I did with Josh, or try to do with Josh on a nightly basis, do a little bit of prevention. To make sure there are no scary monsters, we check underneath the bed and in the closet, or we read a story about Winnie the Pooh and the gang on what goes bump in the night and explain everything to him.

The best thing that takes place is prevention. According to a federal study in 1991, 29% of the releases associated with the introductions is through ballast discharge water in the Great Lakes. Essentially what happens, for those who are watching and don't understand, is that a ship coming from another port in another area will pick up ballast water to make sure if they're coming empty that they're stable within the ocean.

While they are picking up this ballast waters in the ports, other than a Canadian port, or it could be on the other side, in the Pacific Ocean, for example, they would pick up new species such as the zebra mussel or the spiny water flea, which has had a significant impact in the recreational fishing industry in the Great Lakes. Then they come to Lake Ontario, to the ports in Lake Ontario where they would then discharge the ballast water when they pick up their cargo.

When they discharge that water, whether it's the actual species that's introduced or whether it's the eggs that are introduced there, they now become part of our ecosystem in the Great Lakes. We have to do something about that.

According to the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, there are three typical types of invading species and the way they come about. There are the natural invaders, such as opossum or the white-tailed deer; they normally just expand their territory and move into Ontario. Once upon a time, we never had white-tail in Ontario. It has now moved from Virginia north into Ontario and has expanded its territory, as has the opossum, along with others. So there is natural.

Then there are the accidental invaders, which are the ones we are trying to address now, such as the zebra mussel; or in 1959, when the St Lawrence Seaway was opened, the sea lamprey came into the Great Lakes and caused a great number of problems.

There may be some questions and I hope there is some debate later on about the onus of the federal government, being that the control of the waterways is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. However, a lot of these programs, for example, the sea lamprey program, are under a lot of pressure. Every year the province is pressuring the federal government to commit to doing the program to reduce the sea lamprey because of the impact it has.

I would like to bring forward one area just to emphasize the extreme that this could take. For example, six years after the accidental introduction of the comb jellyfish, which came from a ship from the US from the Black Sea, they saw a reduction in the fish harvest of 90%. Think of the impact on the fishing industry within the Great Lakes, both commercial and recreational. The recreational fishing industry in the region of Durham represents approximately $75 million annually. That is being substantially impacted now by the spiny water flea.

For those who don't know, it attaches to the lines of charter boats that are out and bends around the line. You can't even reel in your lines when you're fishing. So you have to regularly clear the lines. If something along the lines of the comb jellyfish were to be introduced, it could have a substantial impact on all aspects of the fishing industry.

I mentioned the accidental invaders, such as the zebra mussel, the sea lamprey, and there are others, of course. Then there are the intentional invaders, such as the ring-necked pheasant, the rainbow trout or the wild turkey, which has been reintroduced in Ontario. These are under controlled situations.

We get into problems with things such as the spiny water flea when it's accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes. There is no natural predator out there to control it. In the locations it comes from, it has controls and predators which, through evolution, now feed on the spiny water flea, but we don't have anything in the Great Lakes that will take care of that. It's the same thing with the zebra mussel, although we do have some diving ducks which are feeding on the zebra mussel now.

Mind you, the population is still expanding, and the ability for the zebra mussel to expand is far greater, reaching into the Kawarthas and the other lake systems within Ontario. So it's not just the Great Lakes that are being affected; it's all the other lakes as well. The natural predator is not evident when the release takes place, and this is where we get into difficulty.

Essentially what we're asking for is a ballast water exchange. The preference is a deep-water exchange, where a ship coming across the Atlantic Ocean to Ontario, to the Great Lakes, would be asked to exchange its ballast water at depth levels of about 2,000 metres. The reason for that is the saline level, the salt level, of the water and the fact that there is a low concentration of wildlife or species concentrated in those depths. So when the ship comes out of a port, it now moves into the centre of the ocean, essentially, where it does a ballast exchange.

It now brings in salt water, and when that is brought into Lake Ontario and exchanged in ballast because they're taking on their freight, there is less chance of introducing species, first of all because of the high salt content in those areas-when introduced into fresh water, they have less chance of living-and secondly because there are fewer species in those areas.

We also get into areas where the ships are not coming across the Atlantic, they're coming up the Laurentian channel. It is about 340 metres deep and has a high saline content as well, which will reduce the chance of species being introduced for the same reasons I explained earlier. Of course, there is the problem of rough waters. That is taken into consideration in the bill to ensure that in the event of severe weather, the ship is not obligated to do a deep-water exchange. However, quite possibly when they come into the Laurentian channel they could do a shallower-water exchange to reduce the incidence.

There was a study, as I mentioned earlier, in 1991 that showed it was 67% effective in reducing the possibility of the introduction of species. As I mentioned earlier with Josh and his night-last night was one of those-prevention is the best method of stopping any of these from occurring.

There are some other areas, and I only have 10 minutes. I want to touch on areas that I think the people who may be watching can relate to. We have another introduction that has not been noticed very substantially yet. The reason I say "yet" is because the Eurasian ruffe, which has been introduced, will directly compete with walleye and perch. The other night we had an event here with outdoor organizations. There were a lot of them in attendance and perch was one of the items served. When you get into competition with walleye and perch, the average recreational or commercial fishing person will certainly have a greater say about whether we should or should not be trying to control this.

In closing, the one thing I'd like to say is: Don't worry, Josh, we tried to take care of the scary monsters or the big snake last night that was sucking on your thumb, but we're going to try and do something. Because that's what we're here for. It's the children of tomorrow we have to try and take care of.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join the debate for the private member's bill from the member from Oshawa. As an explanatory note, the bill "prohibits ocean-going ships on the Great Lakes system from docking in Ontario if they have not complied with ballast water control guidelines prescribed by regulations" in order to reduce the occurrence of invading species, which obviously have a tremendous impact on our ecosystem in the Great Lakes system.

I would also add that it has a tremendous impact in my riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. We have Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe, Kempenfelt Bay. We have seen zebra mussels invade cottage country and the water systems in our area. They start out on the shoreline, and in our area they now have moved to the middle of the body of water and have a tremendous impact on other species within the ecosystem of our lakes.

What we have found is that the algae being removed from our water system results in a clearness of the water and actually increases the growth that would happen in the body of water as a result of the sun not being reflected by the less clear water. So we have tremendous impact in terms of the clarity of the water and also the other species within these bodies of water.

This particular piece of legislation has restrictions on ships that dock: "The master of a ship shall not dock the ship at a provincially or privately owned dock or wharf in the Great Lakes system if the ship has not complied with the ballast water control guidelines since it last entered the system," and, "No one who has the management or control of a provincially or privately owned dock or wharf shall permit a ship to dock there if the person has reasonable grounds to believe that the ship has not complied with the ballast water control guidelines since it last entered the Great Lakes system."

The impact, as I think the member from Oshawa has indicated, is significant in terms of the species that enter. I have an

article from the Globe and Mail, November 1999: "Asexual Flea Threatens Great Lakes." It's called the fishhook water flea. "The Great Lakes have some new inhabitants. Nesting side by side, 50 to 80 of them could fit within 6.5 square centimetres of space. But their small size belies the potential that these fishhook water fleas hold for causing big damage. The new inhabitant is a native of the Black Sea." And now it's in our body of water in the Great Lakes.

"The new arrival has worried scientists, who call it and other foreign invaders biological pollution that can be far more dangerous than the chemical contaminants often viewed as the biggest threat to the Great Lakes.

"Unlike chemical pollutants, which eventually break down, biological pollution can replicate and is almost impossible to remove once it becomes established." That's the threat we are facing with respect to our Great Lakes water system.

I fully support this piece of legislation by the member from Oshawa. It'll have a tremendous impact. Obviously what we're facing now in our ecosystem in the end also will affect tourism, cottagers, the economy of what we have in our waterway systems, which is a fundamental support in terms of the economic well-being of the tourism of this province. It's going to be detrimentally impacted.

I would say that since the federal government is refusing to do anything on this issue, has raised a deaf ear, I think it's about time the province has done something to regulate this area.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'm very delighted to support this private member's bill from the member for Oshawa. It's certainly a very responsible bill. But I stand and wonder, where on earth has the federal government been, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of the Environment? For 40 years they could have been doing something about this. Why is it a Legislature in the province of Ontario that has to come in and look after the waterways in Canada? It's most unfortunate they didn't act ahead of time and get this kind of thing looked after.

As a long-time cottage owner on the lake called Kashwakamak, just south of the Mazinaw, there's an indication that we may have zebra mussels coming into that lake. I don't think it's a matter of will it happen in some of those lakes, like the Kawarthas, that were mentioned earlier, it's a matter of when is it going to happen.

As a veterinarian, I see new diseases, new parasites, new organisms coming into our country without a natural predator. We all know the quantity of eggs-we've heard that in our biology class-that some insects can lay and how they can multiply at just a phenomenal rate, particularly if there isn't any predator there.

A good example of that is the fishhook water flea that has just recently been introduced. We hear about the clogging of fishing nets in the Black Sea, and that's probably the kind of thing that we're going to see here in the province of Ontario, at least in the lakes and rivers.

Just at a time when the Great Lakes are recovering from some of the pollutants that have been in there and we're seeing a lot of new fish returning to the Great Lakes that haven't been there for some time, it's rather ironic that some of these other problems are coming in.

I think it's interesting that Professor Paul Herbert, head of the zoology department at the University of Guelph, makes reference to this water flea. He says: "We are at risk of losing many of the native and novel species of North America. It strikes me as a tragedy." I agree. Indeed, it is a tragedy.

Just simply changing the water out in the ocean-the salt water is going to kill these organisms, whether it's zebra mussels or fleas or insects or whatever. The test on the water ballast is pretty simple, a little taste test. Is it fresh or is it salty? We don't have to go to a great chemical analysis to sort out whether they did it or not. I just can't believe that we've come this far and this long without this being in place. It's certainly a federal responsibility.

Just in winding up, to leave some time for others in our party to speak, this kind of thing is so important to the waterfronts in all of our ridings, the tourism. I look to places like Campbellford, Hastings, Cobourg, Rice Lake, which want to upgrade their waterfronts, and then we have this kind of thing coming in in ballast water. I'd just say to Herb Dhaliwal, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and I say to David Anderson, the Minister of the Environment for Canada: "Where are you? What have you been doing? This is a most important thing.

Why does Ontario have to bring in legislation to walk you into this?" I brought in a resolution on animal abuse roughly a month ago and finally, yesterday, it was released by Justice Minister Anne McLellan that they're going to do something on animal abuse. They're going to change the Criminal Code.

Why on earth does this party, the Conservatives of Ontario, have to hold the feet of these federal ministers to the fire and finally get them to do something by holding their feet to the fire? Here's another example. Maybe the Liberals in this House could talk to their federal cousins to get things moving, to make things happen in Ottawa. They're at their fundraisers. They were just down there last weekend. Surely to goodness they could do something with their federal cousins.

I look forward to this bill passing, and compliment my cohort from Oshawa for bringing in an excellent bill.

Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): It's with great pleasure that I rise in the House to debate this bill and give my support to it. I want to compliment the member for Oshawa.

I want to do this in a little bit different fashion, if I may today. I'd like to talk to you about a specific micro-organism that exists in the sea. It's a very tiny micro-organism. It's so small that really it wouldn't take up much space on your nail on your baby finger, but it is one of the most powerful micro-organisms in creatures in the great seas.

This particular creature is responsible for controlling some tide patterns; it's responsible for creating tide pools. It actually creates spawning grounds for fish and separates predatory fish from smaller fish. It is a tremendously powerful creature and yet it's so small that you could crush it with your finger. It could dry in the sun within minutes, and it could be swept away in the tide or the wind.

The creature is a coral and that coral has created one of the biggest ecosystems in the world, the Great Barrier Reef. So when people thought talking about this particular bill, "You know this is a silly bill that doesn't make much sense because we're talking about micro-organisms. What impact can they have on such an infinite quantity of water as the Great Lakes?" The Great Lakes are not infinite. They are a finite resource and they can be impacted. If you consider the impact-the great impact, the positive impact-of coral on the seas, the Great Barrier Reef and what they have created, the reverse can also happen.

When you have micro-organisms come into our Great Lakes that are foreign species, the reverse can happen. The impact can be untold. When you have a number of these species come in and they start interacting with each other and impacting the ecosystem, you get a synergistic effect that is untold, unparalleled, and absolutely no scientist on earth can guarantee with any degree of certainty what the long-term impact from these creatures would be. So this bill is more about a motherhood issue. For many people it means nothing because it's such a tiny creature, but you have to look at the larger picture. You have to stand back and realize that the impact over a long period of time is devastating.

I hope the bill passes and I congratulate the member for bringing it forth.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): After hearing previous speakers to this bill, I must say that there is some silver lining to this cloud of controversy surrounding the arrival of the zebra mussel and the quagga mussel, and I'm now referring specifically to Lake Erie. Changes have occurred in Lake Erie, particularly since the arrival of the zebra mussel, and the lake has become significantly clearer.

One positive in all this is the fact that the clearer lake has inadvertently given a real boost to the dive tourism industry, and around my town of Port Dover, divers like Jim Murphy have been advocates of writing new legislation to protect some of the wrecks that are much more accessible. Again, I thank the members for their vote last week on this legislation.

However, the fact that Lake Erie is getting clearer is not good news for everyone, particularly if you're a species of fish that thrives in an ecosystem based on low visibility, Ministry of Natural Resources data collected from commercial fisherman daily test reports show that bass and rainbow trout are benefiting significantly from the changes to Lake Erie. Unfortunately, walleye, also known as pickerel, and yellow perch are being negatively effected.

Ministry data shows that commercial harvest has declined significantly since the introduction of the zebra and the quagga mussels to Lake Erie. This is particularly true in the east basin of Lake Erie, that

section from Long Point east down towards Buffalo. Landed value of east basin fish harvest has declined by 59% since the zebra mussel and the quagga mussel have been established.

It's hard to believe that the invasion of our Great Lakes has been allowed to continue unchecked by the federal government.

I support this move by MPP Ouellette to force Ottawa to stop this invasion of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Ottawa needs to take immediate action to work with industry to develop the technology to effectively treat ballast water in a safe manner, to establish ballast water treatment facilities and to develop policy and regulations to stop this continued invasion of our lakes.

Once these exotic species become established in a large open system like the Great Lakes, they're almost impossible to eradicate, hence the importance of prevention as mentioned by MPP Ouellette. The best we can hope to do once they are established is to slow their spread.

As we've heard today, to date there are about 140 exotic species that have entered the Great Lakes, including the quagga mussel, the zebra mussel, the round goby, the ruffe has been mentioned, sea lamprey, plant material-purple loosestrife, for example-and more recently, the fish hook water flea. Many of these invasions have caused significant environmental and economic impacts to the Great Lakes.

Most of the exotic nuisance species have been introduced through ballast water in ocean-going ships. Current federal guidelines require ballast exchange at sea to kill freshwater exotic species. However, these guidelines do not apply to the majority of ships. They do not apply to about 90% of the ships that carry exotic species in the slops down below in their empty ballast tanks. These exotic species are eventually released into the Great Lakes and, very clearly, constructive action needs to be taken.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to commend my colleague the member for Oshawa for his concern about this particular matter on the Great Lakes and inland waters.

He's quite a star now, I'm told. A lot of people have seen him in commercials, even on CNN-I can't remember if I've ever made CNN-the infomercial for the National Rifle Association that he's been involved with. He is really a person now, not only this bill. This bill comes right after the member being part of the National Rifle Association commercial. It must have to do with gun laws or something like that if it's the National Rifle Association.

It's good to be able to be in the same room as somebody that famous. I don't think I would ever go on one of those commercials. It was on television. People are phoning me, and saying that they're seeing the member for Oshawa in this commercial with the National Rifle Association. I know that you wouldn't agree with their position of not banning assault weapons and some of the positions they've taken on such things as guns getting into children's hands. But I digress. I just wanted to say the member looked quite impressive in these commercials.

With regard to this bill, I want to say that it is a problem. He will recall, being a member who represents a constituency which is adjacent to the Great Lakes, the great problem with zebra mussels. There are other problems as well, we recognize, but that problem was one which focused a lot of attention on species that would come from elsewhere to Canada. We probably have some species here that others wouldn't want introduced in their inland waters either. But it did focus on a problem that I think is an important problem.

The dilemma is how to solve the problem. I looked at the bill and I said-maybe the member will clarify this in his final two minutes-did his bill go to the Red Tape Commission and to the economic policy committee of cabinet before it was developed? Because what usually happens with a bill of this kind, if it were a government bill coming through, is it would go and it would get some comment from those two bodies, because it does involve red tape. Sometimes red tape is required.

But my friend Mr Wood tells me that he would be concerned about something that would have any affect on red tape. I know he will probably want to even express his view on this if he gets a chance. Perhaps we can give him some of our time and he can do so.

I'm not trying to be negative, because I like to see members come forward with an issue of this kind. I talked to a few people about it. A person by the name of Reg MacGregor in St Catharines has done some considerable research on it. Again, we're on the shores of one of the Great Lakes. Listen, I can tell you, I'm not an expert on shipping and the oceans, but I understand there's a problem-and the member may have addressed it before I was able to be here today-of the exchange of ballast waters out in the high seas, out in the ocean and how there is some danger to that.

Is it true that you have to take all of the water out and then new water comes in, something like that and the balancing of the ship and so on?

I understood that was a problem. There is some considerable research perhaps going on now. When you talk about tax cuts, for instance, I've been a person who's critical of these continuous income tax cuts which I think deprive us of the kind of government services that we require. One incentive I would like to see, either federally or provincially, is an incentive type of change to the taxation system-and perhaps it's there today-which would allow people to conduct some research into this matter.

I think the member would agree with me and would seek this to happen as well: We could develop some technology to address this matter even without having to change the ballast water. People tell me that can be done. I'll believe it when I see it.

The very fact that you're raising it in the House is useful in that it may prompt individuals to go even further in the research into this matter. Somebody else has said to me-maybe the member knows this-what happens if a ship comes to Hamilton or Thunder Bay and we say it can't go in? Where does it go then? Does it go back up the St. Lawrence Seaway and so on? I wonder if the economic policy committee of cabinet would have given you a hard time about that because it's interference with business.

Frankly I don't think it's valid to say that because something happens to interfere with a particular business operation it automatically should be rejected. I'd be interested in the member helping me out with that, as to what would happen in that case. To be fair, I didn't have the opportunity to hear his initial remarks, which I'm sure covered a lot of the territory I'm talking about now.

If you want to talk about water quality, I have a great concern and I hope we would see more work on the whole issue of water quality, which is important for the Great Lakes. One of the ways to improve that water quality is to continue to implement the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement, which deals with the actual toxicity and quality of water around the province. That was a program which was initiated in the 1988 period, somewhere around there, and was designed to deal with all effluent going into the Great Lakes from any waterways in Ontario. It was to squeeze tight the taps on pollution going in.

I suspect much of that program might have fallen by the wayside because what it requires, I can tell the member, just as any program that's suggested by any of us, is resources and staff to be able to do it.

I have a great fear that the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement, the very substantial and important water pollution regulation, is not being enforced as it should be and that further work is not being done in that regard. That deals with industrial discharges, it deals with discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants and it even deals with some indirect discharges which come from streams and rivers going into the lakes.

The member has centred his remarks on specific species that come into this country from somewhere else. One of the solutions that is recommended and that I'm always very apprehensive about is heavy chlorinization-I think that's the word-applying a lot of chlorine. The problem with that is that chlorine acting with other substances in the water can produce some toxicity we wouldn't want to see. While I know that in some cases in desperation people have tried more chlorine, or different ways of applying the chlorine, which is probably better; in that case it would be certainly something we could look at.

I would like to see more research. I'm hopeful that the member raising this in the House will bring about that research as to how we can solve this problem without actually having to prohibit ships from coming into our ports. Although he and I don't want ships coming into the ports that are going to cause problems for us, getting to stop them is another matter.

I understand as well-he may have said this-that there's a conference in February of this year, I think in Toronto, dealing with this matter. I was informed of that. It would be interesting if perhaps the member and I, and some others, could try to get to that conference. The member could talk about that with some of the people who are at that conference. Raising that issue with that kind of profile would be very interesting.

Developing the technology, I keep hearing from people who are more expert than I on this, is certainly going to be very important.

The complication of changing the bilge water in open seas is something I guess you're going to address; people have brought it to my attention. The Americans I think have the ships go to Massena, New York, and the coast guard inspects them there, but what they do if they don't pass the inspection I'm not really sure, whether they send them somewhere else. Massena is, as we know, quite a way up, as people are coming in. It's not as though it's in one of the inner Great Lakes.

We have only voluntary guidelines now. I'm not a fan of voluntary guidelines at all. I think the member and I will agree that some enforced regulations, when they are agreed upon, would be the best way to go. The cost of shipping: Some of the more expert people in the business field on the other side, who often speak about the impact on business, may know this. Somebody told me it costs about $25,000 a day to operate the ships, and if you stop them for a certain period of time, it costs them money. I don't know if that's true and the member may be able to help me out. I hope he can help me out on that, because that is certainly a problem they would put forward.

The member from Sarnia, by the way, left me some of her notes. She was not able to be here because of the crisis in her riding where there's a toxic waste dump that's leaking, a toxic waste dump that was expanded considerably, without a full environmental assessment. That's one of the problems we encounter.

I look at the total problem of Great Lakes water quality. This is one aspect of it that should be addressed. There may be other aspects. I certainly hope we work on water quality. I saw the last report of discharges in Ontario. It was abysmal, the amount of toxic waste going in. Sewage treatment plants are not being upgraded the way they used to be because municipalities don't get the money to do it any more. Sometimes we can add more sophisticated equipment to those sewage treatment plants.

There are many ways of impacting our inland waters. This is one way of addressing it, and I think we should address it, but I also hope members of the House will want to address, through treaties with the United States, through federal-provincial agreements and actually through tough action on polluters, the problem of the poisoning of the Great Lakes with various substances which are discharged either directly or indirectly into the Great Lakes.

I hope we have in this province a renewed effort to press forward with the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement, both as it affects direct discharges from industries and discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants, because that's where a lot of the material is being dumped at this time.

I have a note that someone else wishes to have a moment or two on this, so I'm going to relinquish my time right now.

Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre): I want to thank the member for allowing me to have a couple of minutes. As a former chairman of the Toronto Harbour Commission, I fully support this bill. I just want to raise a couple of concerns.

Members may know that when the St Lawrence Seaway was built, it was meant to turn Toronto and the Great Lakes ports into world ports. Unfortunately, by the time the seaway was built, it was already obsolete because the depth that it was built to was 27 feet and most of the very large ocean-going vessels have a draft of 48 feet. What that has done is create a problem for some ships; as they come in, they get rid of their ballast so they won't run aground.

One of the problems I really wanted to address-I assume there's both provincial and federal involvement-is that as a sailor I've noticed, this summer in particular, that the water levels are extremely low. Certainly in Lake Ontario and in the port of Toronto, I've been talking to the officials and there has been a greater number of small pleasure craft running aground because of this. Not keeping the water high enough compounds the problem. If goes down a foot or two, the big ships have to compensate in exactly the same way to make sure they don't run aground.

I think it's an area we all have to get involved in. There's no question-the data have been confirmed-that the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes water system has been traced to a foreign vessel offloading its ballast. That has done that, and who knows what other foreign marine life has been introduced into our system.

I really feel that this is a bill we should support. My only concern is whether we can get that message to the responsible authorities for them to do something about it. I think it's good that we're presenting this message; I just feel it really is something that has to be done in coordination, not just with Canada-you have to understand that the Great Lakes certainly border on the United States as well and they have to get involved. I want to commend the member for introducing it and certainly I will be supporting it.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate you on how quickly you've learned all the new ridings of the members in your new job. I don't know if I've ever congratulated you on your new position.

I want to also commend the member for Oshawa for bringing forth this bill today which I'm happy to support. If you'll bear with me, I want to read a little bit from an

article to put this in perspective, as many members have done, but even more so, why it's so important that legislators try to deal with this issue, which has been around for a very long time and in fact is getting worse.

There's a story by Martin Mittelstaedt in the Globe and Mail, November 22, 1999, called "Asexual Flea Threatens Great Lakes," and there's a subheading to that: "Creepy Infestation." I'm going to read a little bit from that story by Martin Mittelstaedt.

"A creepy looking, asexually reproducing water flea, translucent except for its single black eyeball, is the latest foreign animal to be discovered in the Great Lakes, alarming wildlife experts.

"First noticed by anglers on Lake Ontario last year, the fishhook waterflea, with its space-alien looks and long tail, has since spread to Lake Michigan and to six of the Finger Lakes in western New York.

"Large numbers of the flea clog fishing nets in the Black Sea. Nets become so coated the animal is called `frost,' and stinking masses of the creatures have to be cleaned off before the gear can be used again.

"It is expected to infest the entire Great Lakes ecosystem eventually and could seriously disrupt sports and commercial fisheries."

That's just one example which I'm sure the majority of people aren't aware of. Most people are familiar with the zebra mussel, I believe. We've not addressed this issue very consistently throughout the years. It continues to grow, it continues to be a problem, and I'm happy to see the member attempt to address it. I want to say that I see it as a Pr bill, and I think that's important. It's important to raise those issues in the House. I think it's important to pass this bill today, but upon reading the bill, I have a lot of questions about the enforcement capabilities and who is actually going to regulate it and enforce it. How is it actually going to work?

The member talks about the federal government's responsibility in this, and of course he is quite right. He says in his

preamble, which, by the way, I was very grateful to get-and I thank the member for Sault Ste Marie who quickly provided me with this background today. It means that I can talk more directly to the bill in the 15 minutes I'm taking here, although I will spend a little time as well talking about some of the other problems we have in the Great Lakes because I think it's all connected and all relevant, not just to our commercial industry but to our environment and to the people of the province as well.

It says in your

preamble, "If ocean-going ships adhere to appropriate guidelines, such as the Great Lakes ballast water control guidelines of the Canadian Coast Guard, it should reduce the probability of additional non-native species being introduced, that can be harmful to the balance of nature that now exists."

This has been in existence for a long time, and I applaud the member for trying to get the province involved. But at the same time, I can't believe that a member of the government actually, when the government is cutting environmental protection like crazy-and I know you don't like to hear this, but it's true. There are not enough people left in the Ministry of the Environment now to regulate and enforce the Environmental Protection Act we have in place. I hear that daily as the environment critic.

You don't hear me get up in the House a lot to talk about it-we only have so many questions a day-but I have a list this long of environmental problems that have not been dealt with by this government and the Minister of the Environment because the workforce is no longer there to deal with it. So I think it would be a legitimate question, even if the environment hadn't been cut so much, how this is going to work.

I know that the member would like, after this bill is passed, I'm sure, by all parties, for the government to actually take it seriously, even though it's a private member's bill, and work with the federal government to finally find ways to effectively deal with this problem. This bill isn't going to do it. However, what this bill does is raise the issue once again, up the ante, and say that the province does have to get involved.

The member for St Catharines raised a good question-and I'm sure the member for Oshawa thought about this and he does mention it briefly in his

preamble-about what you do with a large ship that comes to port with a load of goods on a tight timeframe and it is discovered that the captain hasn't followed the guidelines. Right now we have guidelines, but if this is law, do you then send that ship right back into the ocean to dump before he can unload the goods? I don't know, but I presume that's what has to be done.

Obviously a huge education program would have to be put in place so that ships coming into Canada, and into Ontario specifically right now, would know that not just a fine-because as mentioned in the act here, they might be willing to pay a fine rather than going back to the ocean and dumping, as prescribed by the law. The fine has to be significantly high enough that it will be seen as a big enough deterrent, so that they will either have to pay a very large fine or will have to go back out to the ocean and dump before they can come back in.

I want to talk a little bit about the water quality in the Great Lakes, and certainly the member knows-and I understand he's dealing specifically today with a problem-that the problems in the Great Lakes are much more complex than dealing with exotic marine species. There are still millions of tonnes of toxic waste going into our Great Lakes, and I would like to see the government bring forward strong bills to deal with that and to fund the citizens' body that has been dealing with the Great Lakes cleanup for a number of years, to deal even more effectively with the toxins that are going into our Great Lakes.

In fact, the government cut the funds for these bodies that have been working on this, and it is thanks to them that the cleanups that have happened over the years have come about.

The other issue that I want to touch on briefly is the taking of water from our lakes in Ontario. I understand that the Minister of the Environment just came back from an environment ministers conference in Calgary and that the provinces failed to reach an agreement with the federal minister on the wording. Who knows? Different provinces had different problems, but at the end of the day we're most disappointed, as I'm sure everybody in the House is, that the provinces and the federal government could not finally come to an agreement on how to prevent bulk water from leaving our provinces. They were unable to do that.

I would also like to see the government take this on, not just as a private member's bill-and I'm sure the member would appreciate that as well-

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Private members?

Ms Churley: The member from Dufferin-Peel has something to say here. In fact, I would say that I had a private member's bill passed in the last term of office of this government on carcinogens, cancer-causing carcinogens. You may recall, when we were in government we did a study-Ruth Grier, then as the Minister of Health, did a comprehensive study-on cancer prevention. That was just released shortly before the election in 1995. That document has been shelved.

I took one little piece of that and brought forward a private member's resolution, on which I got all-party support for the government to start the immediate phasing out of known or suspected cancer-causing carcinogens that are being released into our environment.

He may have more luck, because he is a backbencher in the government, in getting to meet with the Minister of the Environment and bringing this bill forward should it pass today, but I haven't had any luck in meeting with either the Minister of Health or the Minister of the Environment to talk about setting up-and part of my resolution was to talk about setting this up, which was one of the recommendations-a stakeholders group to start this process. That resolution, which was passed enthusiastically by the entire House, is still sitting there. There has been no action on it.

That is often the fate, as we well know, of private member's bills from all three parties, including the government party. I would say that the member for Oshawa, being a government member, probably has more of an opportunity to push his bill forward than I had. But I want him and the House to know that that was passed by all members in the House, and we have not moved forward one little bit.

I would say to the member that there are a number of questions that we asked today. Again, I want to say I recognize that this is a private member's bill. I'm sure the member for Oshawa knows that once it's passed, a lot more work has to be done. Some of the questions we've asked today: How will this be enforced? Who's going to regulate it? How is all of this going to work? Will the ships have to go back out to the ocean if they don't dump their water? What kind of educational program will be put in place? Are they going to sit down and meet with the federal government?

I don't think, frankly, this can work, and I think the member for Oshawa agrees, unless the federal government steps up its laws as well and its enforcement and regulatory power.

Having said all of that, it's really nice to stand here today and, for once, see a member of the government bring forward for us all to debate a positive-what I consider to be, yes, an environmental issue as well. Of course, he brought it forward-and very importantly, and I'm not dismissing this-for our commerce, our anglers, fishers and tourists. For economic reasons, it's important that we debate this, but it's also important to our environment. Our whole ecosystem is affected by these foreign and exotic marine creatures and plants being dumped into our waterways, which causes huge problems.

It's easy for us to forget about it as we debate daily and read stories about so many other things daily in our newspapers. It's important that we're debating it today. I'm sure it will pass. Who could not support this resolution? If I can be helpful in any way, I realize I'm just a lowly third party member here-

Mr Tilson: Oh, you're more than that.

Ms Churley: Thank you to the member for-what's your riding now, not Dufferin-Peel?

Mr Tilson: Wellington.

Ms Churley: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington. He assures me that I'm not just a lowly member in the House, that I actually do have some clout. I'd be happy to work with the member.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Pardon?

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Every member is equal.

Ms Churley: That's right. "Every member is equal in this House," he says.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Some more equal than others.

Ms Churley: Some more equal than others, but I don't see too many of those in the House this morning, actually. I believe we have one cabinet minister here. Of course, she's more equal than the rest of us, I would say. She's not even looking up. She knows who we're talking about.

Coming back to the bill, I do support it. I look forward to its passage today. My offer still stands. If there's anything I can do to assist in making sure that the government actually, after it's passed, moves forward on it, takes some responsibility for it and works with the federal government to make sure that something actually happens here, I would be very pleased to do that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate? The member for Oshawa has up to two minutes to reply.

Mr Ouellette: I'd like to thank all members, the members for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Northumberland, Stoney Creek, Haldimand-Norfolk, Brant, St Catharines, York Centre and Broadview-Greenwood, for their kind words today. I'll try to answer some of the questions that were brought forward.

Yes, there is going to be some difficulty in dealing with the federal government on the enforcement of the actual act, but I should point out that the American coast guard currently stops and inspects all ships entering the St Lawrence Seaway to ensure that the ballast water has been exchanged. The difficulty is that they're dealing with US ports.

However, the Canadian and the American coast guards currently have monitoring or demonstration methods of showing ships coming into the Great Lakes how to do exchanges. So, since the Canadian Coast Guard is already doing it and the American coast guard is regulating what's taking place on the US side, although it doesn't have any bearing on what takes place on our side in Ontario, hopefully we can get the feds to work with the coast guard to push it a little bit further.

Some of the concerns that were coming forward from the member for St Catharines regarding deep-water exchange in heavy waters, I mentioned earlier that typically you try to do a 2,000-metre exchange, where the water level is about 2,000 metres, because of the saline level and the minimal species content in those areas. Also, in the event of heavy water, you have the Laurentian channel, which is about 340 metres deep. It has a high saline and a low species content in those areas. So the possibility is reduced, not as much as the deep-water one, the 2,000-metre one, but it is reduced.

So when they come over and they can't do an exchange in deep water, they have the opportunity in the Laurentian channel to do an exchange there.

There is other work that needs to be done as well. There are some new methods of filtration coming forward, as well as treatment in the event that somebody comes in who has not exchanged. I thank all members for their support today.

The Acting Speaker: The time for this ballot item has expired. It will be further dealt with at 12 noon.

STUDENT HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAMS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES PROGRAMMES DE SANTÉ ET DE SÉCURITÉ POUR ÉTUDIANTS

Mr Gravelle moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 10,

An Act to bring health and safety programs to Ontario students / Projet de loi 10, Loi visant à offrir des programmes de santé et de sécurité aux étudiants de l'Ontario.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Let me begin by saying how pleased I am to have the opportunity to bring forward a private member's bill that, if successfully implemented, will have a positive impact on young people entering the workforce today and in the future.

Bill 10,

An Act to bring health and safety programs to Ontario students, is quite deliberately non-partisan and in fact is meant to bring together in a coordinated fashion many of the health and safety initiatives that have been developed over the years by government, safety associations, educators and injured workers' groups across the province.

This legislation will create a health and safety educational council made up of students, injured workers, workplace health and safety experts, employers, educators, school boards, labour and community organizations. This empowered council will recommend programs to educate secondary school students on their rights and responsibilities when it comes to health, safety and occupational disease in the workplace.

We believe this council will be able, at virtually no expense to the government, to take health and safety instruction for students, which is now an identified part of the high school core curriculum, and turn it into a reality in the classroom. As with so many aspects of the new curriculum, many educators and school boards have had difficulty figuring out how to realize these outcomes. This legislation can serve as that vital link between good intentions and real success by involving all key sectors in an effort to put the right health and safety information directly in the hands of students-the future workers and leaders of our province.

There's no question we must continue to find ways of reducing accidents and fatalities in the workplace. By properly educating our young people before they enter the workforce, we can hopefully move towards a time when these tragedies no longer occur on a daily basis. But as of today, the facts speak very clearly to the need for us to treat this issue of workplace health and safety as a top priority. It is on that basis that I am seeking the support of all members in the House for my private member's bill today.

Every day, 50 young workers are injured on the job in Ontario, adding up to 18,000 injuries a year. The Industrial Accident Prevention Association has confirmed that workers between the ages of 15 and 25 have an injury rate 35% higher than any other age bracket. In 1999, so far, five young people have died on the job; 19 more young people lost their lives over the previous two years.

It is for those young people whose lives were so tragically cut short, and indeed for all workers and their families who have endured tragedy in the workplace, that we have put together this particular piece of legislation. I say "we" because this bill has been developed through the hard work of so many people who have dedicated their lives to the elimination of workplace injuries and fatalities, people who have lost a family member or who have experienced a workplace injury themselves.

Since first being elected to this House in 1995, I've had a close working relationship with the injured workers' support group in Thunder Bay. Together we have fought many battles on behalf of injured workers and, I will admit, have been strongly opposed to many of the measures this government has brought forward, measures that have impacted negatively on workers' rights and compensation to those injured on the job, battles that we will continue to fight. However, the main goal of injured workers' groups across this province has always been to work towards the prevention of workplace accidents, a goal that I know is shared by people of all political stripes.

In any event, about two years ago, I had a conversation with Ross Singleton, a Thunder Bay resident with the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups, related to the need for provincial legislation to inform young people of their rights and responsibilities in the workplace; in other words, to take some positive action that could reduce or eliminate the accidents and fatalities that were occurring at a disproportionately high level to young people entering the workplace for the first time. After much work and consultation, we developed my private member's bill, with the hope that it would receive support from the Legislature and indeed from the government itself.

Let me make one thing very clear: While I recognize that private members' bills, and particularly those from opposition members, do not often receive support from the government, I am hoping that the non-partisan nature of this bill will allow it to receive consideration by the government members in particular.

In that regard, I am grateful to the Minister of Labour for meeting with me prior to today's debate and committing to arrange an initial gathering of interested parties to move forward on the goals of this legislation regardless of today's vote.

Let me once again be very clear: Our goal is to find a vehicle that will provide needed, appropriate and useful education to young people all across the province that will help reduce tragic and preventable accidents and fatalities in the workplace. I believe, as do Ontario's injured workers, that this legislation can be the vehicle by which we achieve this very important goal.

I am pleased to tell you that we are receiving support for this legislation from all across Ontario. I am grateful for that support and I want to thank everyone for their efforts and energies on our behalf. Particular thanks must go out to Ross Singleton, the true driving force behind this bill, and Steve Mantis, another Thunder Bay resident and national coordinator of the Canadian Injured Workers Alliance. I am pleased to have the strong support of Karl Crevar, president of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups, who is with us in the members' gallery today.

Special thanks also to Francis Bell, executive director of the Injured Workers Resource Centre in Thunder Bay, who has worked so hard to rally support for this bill, and Muriel Poster of Thunder Bay, who tragically lost her husband in a workplace accident and has since become an extraordinarily effective advocate for survivor issues in this province.

I also very much appreciate the strong support of all the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups across the province who passed a resolution in strong support of this bill at their annual convention this year. I also want to thank Ken Jones, a Thunder Bay district representative for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers national safety task force. All of you, and countless others who are supporting us in our efforts, have lifted our spirits and made us determined to achieve our goals.

I'm very grateful for the input provided to me by Paul Kells, whose son Sean died tragically in November 1994 in a workplace accident. After the inquest into his son's death, Mr Kells committed himself to ensuring that this needless accident would not be repeated. He established the Canadian

chapter of the Safe Communities Foundation, a non-profit organization that brings public and private sector organizations together with the goal of making Canada the safest place to live, work and play. His advocacy for safe workplaces has now extended into 13 Ontario communities.

Mr Kells's input into my efforts here meant a great deal to me, because in many ways it is young people like Sean who are the motivation behind this legislation. We need to work with organizations like the Safe Communities Foundation to coordinate access to health and safety education for all high school students. As Mr Kells pointed out to me: "It would be a surprise to me if any one person or group had a complete handle on all that is now happening within both the school and labour systems. If that is indeed the case, then it would be a major advance to quickly inventory what is happening, access what is working best and then help with coordinated implementation across the province."

That is exactly what the Health and Safety Educational Council proposed by this legislation can achieve: a quick inventory of what is out there, a quick assessment of what works, and the ability to implement it across the province.

We know that Sean Kells's tragic passing, and the subsequent coroner's inquest into his death, also motivated the Ministry of Labour to put a great deal of effort into designing a student education package on occupational health and safety. This project, which unfortunately never saw the light of day, is remarkably similar to the goals set forward in my bill. This education package was developed in consultation with the Ministry of Education and Training, the Industrial Accident Prevention Association and various other internal and external supports.

The rationale for this project, as put together by the Ministry of Labour staff, said:

"The project's purpose is to instill at an early entry level into the student's work life an awareness of basic occupational health and safety concepts, rights and responsibilities and locally available resources. Creating student awareness will assist in the transition from school to the workplace as it relates to the Ministry of Labour's mission of advancing safe, fair and harmonious workplace practices."

Fine words. It is indeed unfortunate that after so much hard work and devotion by dedicated ministry staff, the project never was implemented. But perhaps today we can properly honour Sean Kells, as well as the hundreds of Ontarians who have lost their lives on the job, by supporting this legislation I am putting before the assembly today, legislation that can potentially make a positive difference in the lives of all Ontarians and can make all of us here in the Legislature today feel that we have done our part for the people and the workers of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to congratulate the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North for bringing this piece of legislation forward, if for no other reason than that it gives us in the New Democratic Party a chance to get up and point to some of the very devastating and destructive things that this government has done where health and safety of workers is concerned in this province, and to encourage the government in support of this resolution this morning to begin to talk to people about health and safety in the workplace, and in particular talk to young people who will inherit in years to come the programs and protections, or lack thereof, that we have passed on to them.

Anybody who understands what is going on in the workplace knows that it's organized labour over the years which has fought and gone on strike and negotiated and worked with management and others to put in place the health and safety regulations that we now so often take for granted.

They sometimes work their way, if you have a government in place in a province like Ontario-and we've had a few over the last 10 to 15 years, but certainly not in the last four years-which understands the need to enshrine in legislation through employment standards etc, through the development of offices like the Workers' Compensation Board and attendant committees, and structures that work with workers and others, to make sure we understand the health and safety hazards that are out there, and that we do things to not only minimize but to wipe them out altogether.

This government has the unenviable record of consistently and systematically, first of all, diminishing the role, the power and the influence of organized labour in this province, over four years, at a rate not seen certainly in my lifetime.

Others I talk to in the labour movement, who have been in this business in a bigger way and for a longer term than I have, say to me that over a number of years health and safety regulations and other regulations fought for and negotiated for and agreed to by enlightened management, in some instances, have evolved and have been put into legislation and have become part of all kinds of standards across this province. That came to a screeching halt in June 1995 when this government, with its anti-labour, anti-organized labour, anti-union rhetoric and program, systematically and slowly chopped away at that.

It's there for all to see who want to visit Web sites from our caucus in this place. If you want to look at the record of the government, it's there as well.

The NDP labour law reform that was brought in with so much excitement and enthusiasm by all workers in this province in the early 1990s was totally wiped out by Bill 7, on Tuesday, October 31, 1995, allowing scabs to steal workers' jobs again in this province.

The card majority system of union certification, which has been in place since 1950, was replaced by mandatory certification votes. This permits the employer to organize an anti-union election campaign every time workers try to form a union.

In addition, employers are permitted to instigate petitions for a decertification vote. This was the beginning of the erosion of the rights of workers and their organizations to speak for themselves and to demand developments in the area of health and safety.

Successor rights were stripped from crown employees. This means that when the Harris gang wants to privatize public services, the workers will lose both their collective agreement and their bargaining rights whenever a department is sold. We know that over the last four years that's been just moving along lickety-split, and nobody seems to know when it's going to end.

Workers in the contract service sector, like building cleaners, lose successor rights and their jobs whenever a contract changes hands, pounding wages back to minimum wage levels. Already, the workers who clean the Tories' Queen's Park offices around this place have lost their jobs.

This draconian legislation, Bill 7, was introduced on October 4 and rammed through the Legislature on October 31 without a single day of hearings because they didn't want people out there to know what they're doing.

If the resolution that we're debating here this morning is passed and this government is serious about it and they move on it, the youth and the students of our province will be given the history of labour laws and labour developments in this province in a way that will help them understand who's their friend and who's not, and what we need to be doing in order to enhance and further develop protections for workers in the workplace. The first thing they need to do is to recognize and honour the role that has been played by organized labour in this province over a long number of years now.

To move on very quickly, people in this province know very clearly that one of the agencies or organizations that has been front and centre in protecting the rights of workers where health and safety is concerned, the Workers' Compensation Board. We, as government from 1990 to 1995, had initiated a royal commission to take a look at it because we knew that it needed some fixing and some working with in order to make it work better for everybody concerned, particularly for workers and those who are injured. That was completely and totally derailed.

One of the first things that this government did where it concerned workers in this province was to derail the royal commission and take that very important board that was set up to protect both industry and workers at a time when there were lawsuits lying left, right and centre because of all of the accidents and deaths that were happening out there, so that companies weren't put under by lawsuits that were successful and would completely bankrupt them, and that would protect workers so that they didn't have to go to court and pay out the big money that they inevitably had to in order to make their case.

Following the proposals to gut workers' compensation in the Jackson report, Bill 99 was introduced in November 1996. Bill 99 takes $6 billion in benefits from injured workers and gives them to employers, allows employers to force injured workers back to work prematurely, removes the independence of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, gives workers' private medical records to employers, erodes inflation protection for WCB benefits, terminates the Occupational Disease Panel, and forces injured workers to get their accident claim forms from the employer.

Accident cover-ups will be massive. This returns Ontario to the days when the burden of proof is on the worker and the benefit of the doubt goes to the employer. It outlaws compensation for chronic stress and limits benefits from chronic pain.

I, with the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North, am going to be supporting with my caucus this resolution this morning because it's time we took the cloak of secrecy off what this government is doing to workers across this province, particularly where it concerns their health and safety. The youth of this province need to know what health and safety is about. They need to know who the champions have been. They need to know who has gone to bat for them and they need to remember that if they don't pay attention and do something about it, what we have lost will be compounded and all of us will be the losers.

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I'll be sharing my time with the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford.

I'm a little worried today. My daughter Natasha, who is 16, is going to take her driving test today. She's very much looking forward to obtaining her driver's licence. I and all Ontarians are concerned that as our children grow, progress in life and very enthusiastically enter the working world they are very safe. Our government wants to ensure that Ontario is the best place to live, work and raise our families.

It is my pleasure to rise and speak in response to Bill 10. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for his bill. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, I would like to say that we welcome the private member's bill from the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North. However, I would like to state from the outset that we will urge the House to vote against it, as most of its key objectives are already being met by our government.

Bill 10 provides all parties in the House a great opportunity to debate the important area of health and safety protection for young workers. Our government's goal is to make Ontario workplaces among the safest in the world. Bill 10 speaks of the need for greater co-operation between our partners in safety. More can always be done, we agree, but many would agree that in the past few years the province's occupational health and safety system has blossomed into a true partnership. Many agencies and organizations are working together to help achieve this goal and to reduce Ontario's injury rate by 30% between 1995 and 2000.

Health and safety is very important to us for two basic reasons: the human toll of death and injury, as well as the economic toll of lost productivity in the billions. No one can put a price on human life or injury, but we do know that the price tag in compensation costs and lost productivity to Ontario employers is in the billions annually. I agree.

We all agree that healthy workplaces are productive workplaces. They give Ontario a competitive edge over other jurisdictions in North America. Investors are looking to invest in places with excellent health and safety records. It is seen as a plus and an indication of a skilled, dedicated workplace culture. In Ontario we are fortunate. We have a good reputation in this area, and I believe our health and safety record has contributed to Ontario's economic boom, as relayed by the finance minister earlier this week.

The other half of this equation of course is the turnaround that has taken place at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. It is a huge success story. Tough changes were made in our first term. The board is no longer a drain on employers' pockets, nor a barrier to new investment. Its finances are in order. Its unfunded liability has fallen from $11 billion when we took office to just under $7 billion, and it has jettisoned the compensation mentality of years past in favour of a new prevention mandate.

This week the board announced its new premium

schedule for the coming year. Average premiums have fallen 24% since 1996. The credit goes to improved management at the WSIB, as well as the board's new focus on injury prevention and return to work. About two thirds of the rate groups, which is 128,000 employers, will see reductions in their premiums next year. This is because our government's policies have reduced on-the-job injuries, and we have worked hard to get injured workers back to work in a safe and timely fashion.

By and large these are positive times for health and safety in Ontario. But there are still high-risk workplaces out there. Add young, inexperienced workers to those workplaces and you have a recipe for disaster. Hence our renewed emphasis on young worker health and safety.

Mr Speaker, we have a special obligation to reach out to young workers and those about to enter the workforce, just like my daughter. They need timely education and information that will help prevent needless tragedies. Young people can be intimidated by the working world at first. Too often the instinct is to keep one's head down and do what one is told. Young people need to know that they can ask questions and even refuse work if they believe it is dangerous. Much is happening on this front. There are a number of initiatives under way that realize the key objectives of Bill 10, including:

The young worker awareness program, bringing health and safety messages to over 60,000 Ontario high school students each year, plus website and advertising campaigns. It is supported by funding of $750,000 annually from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board;

Peterborough Safe Communities Coalition sponsored the passport program, which credits local students for health and safety training taken, a great novel idea, typical of what we need to capture kids' attention;

The Introduction of an occupational health and safety component to grade 9 curriculum, which began in September this year;

Expanding this health and safety education program to cover all secondary grade levels by the year 2002.

The last point is a big breakthrough. It was a key element of the ministry's prevention strategy. In conjunction with the young worker awareness program, students will be aware of the employer's obligations to protect their health and safety, what questions to ask, and they will learn the safe behaviour and the use of personal protective equipment.

A steering committee has been formed consisting of the Ministry of Labour, WSIB, most of the safe workplace associations, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and other interested parties. It is developing resource materials to assist school boards and teachers at the local level.

The labour ministry's assistant deputy minister of operations is inviting key stakeholders to a meeting next month. They will discuss coordination of programs and further measures to raise awareness of young worker health and safety.

In general, young people will also benefit from recent advances in health and safety enforcement, education and prevention.

Using data supplied by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, the Ministry of Labour is concentrating its enforcement resources on workers in high-risk workplaces.

Prevention programs and initiatives are being devised under the leadership and new mandate of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. These programs are then delivered on the ground by the safe workplace associations and other agencies.

By targeting bad actors and high-risk venues, we are reducing the risk for young people accepting jobs in these areas. Our government will do all in its power to see that young people working at their first job or who are about to enter the workforce are provided with information and education that they need to deal with the hazards in their new environment.

Our government is already meeting the key objectives outlined in Bill 10. As such, I would urge the members to vote against the duplication and added bureaucracy proposed in Bill 10.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise in support of this private member's bill brought today by the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North. I would just suggest to the government that their initiative isn't good enough and they should be looking at an enhanced level. This is what Bill 10 does. It gives a direction, an approach, an opportunity for everyone in the province to get together and work so that we can realize what we all want to realize, and that's a safe workplace for our young workers.

The reality is still that 18,000 young workers in Ontario between the ages of 15 and 24 are going to be injured. Obviously that tells us-it certainly told the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North-that there is need for some legislation that will provide optimum opportunity to ensure there is a safe workplace.

Certainly Rob Ellis, whose 18-year-old son Dave was killed on the second day of work in a bakery in order to get enough money to go to university, is supportive of this legislation. That's why he's worked tirelessly with all members in this House to try to establish some form of program in the schools of Ontario.

The member from Thunder Bay-Superior North has highlighted some experts. Let me tell you about another group of experts that this government should be relying on to ensure that a proper program is put in place. It's District 6 of the United Steelworkers of America from Sudbury. Four years ago, in response to the day of mourning for workers who are injured or killed in the workplace-and for the government members who don't know, that day is April 28-this district put together a safety awareness program for high schools. It started off very, very simply at five schools, affecting 300 students.

It's now blossomed to 25 schools, affecting 3,000 students in Sudbury and North Bay. Two schools have adopted it as active curriculum, not passive curriculum.

District 6 includes Ontario and the Maritimes, and it's their hope that this program will spread across Canada in their area because they've announced that 60,000 workers across Canada between the ages of 18 and 24 were injured in the first three months of their employment. I would suggest to the parliamentary assistant and to the government that there is indeed much work to be done. The establishment of this council, which is the essence of this private member's bill, would ensure that proper programs, proper implementation, proper direction, proper and timely resources are put towards the program. Whatever any government member wants to say, that is not in place now.

I would like to commend Anne Rinneard and Al McDougall from District 6 for their excellent work in the Steelworkers' health and safety student awareness program in Sudbury, and of course commend the direc tion of District 6 and urge the government to use it as an example. Use what District 6 is doing in Sudbury and in North Bay as the example of what the member from Thunder Bay and Lake Superior is advocating today. It is not in place. It could be in place with minimum resources being used if in fact you accepted the private member's bill and the direction of the member from Thunder Bay-Superior North.

Let me read two very, very short stories: "When Jamal Banks got a summer job in a warehouse, he never thought about getting hurt. But the building he worked in had no safety guards, and Jamal fell 14 feet on to a concrete floor.

"Christy Spencer didn't worry about safety when she started to work after school in the fast-food restaurant-until she slipped on the greasy floor and broke her back.

"Christy and Jamal survived their accidents, but their injuries have changed their lives forever."

With this legislation, government members, we can change the lives of all people who are going into the workplace by educating them towards proper health and safety in the workplace. The member from Thunder Bay-Superior North should be congratulated. He is not asking too much. He is only asking for the safety of our students.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to join in the debate on private member's Bill 10. The key point with respect to the member from Superior North is set out in the

preamble of his bill and I would just like to read that:

"All Ontarians must work co-operatively to positively address workplace health and safety issues for all Ontario workers, including our young people. Young people should enter the workforce with an awareness of their rights and responsibilities regarding workplace safety and occupational disease. Raising community awareness about workplace injury prevention measures and promoting health and safety is good for Ontarians, good for society, good for Ontario workers and good for business."

Who can argue against that? It certainly is a principle that everyone shares.

What I'd like to deal with here is to show you why the remainder of the bill is not necessary. The legislation that's being proposed is redundant. As the member has indicated, he's met with the minister. There are going to be government initiatives taken with respect to this issue. Quite frankly, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which has been in effect since 1979, sets up a procedure and the framework to deal with internal responsibility. There is a responsibility of all the workers and management and the company directors to deal with and promote health and safety.

The member from Sudbury is not incorrect when he says that much more work needs to be done-certainly it needs to be-but increasing the bureaucracy and taking a big-government approach to dealing with this issue is not going to answer the questions we have to deal with. What we have to deal with is what the government is being proactive about.

The government is committed to reducing the number of young people injured on the job. As of September 1999, Ontario grade 9 classes have the occupational health and safety component, and by the year 2002 grades 9 to 12 will also have it. What that means is that the new four-year high school curriculum includes specific health and safety expectations in six courses: science, health and physical education, technological education, business studies, the arts, guidance and career education.

So on the educational front the government has taken initiatives to make sure our young people understand what occupational health and safety is all about. Also, there is a young worker awareness program which brings the health and safety message to 60,000-plus Ontario high school students each year.

The focus of what we have to do is to make sure that once this education component is instilled in our young workers, when they go into a workplace it is set up properly through the joint responsibility system under the Occupational Health and Safety Act; that the framework is in place to make sure there is a priority put on not only young workers, but also that when workers enter a new workplace they understand their duties and responsibilities and that management and the other experienced workers within the workplace understand their duties with respect to dealing with health and safety within the workplace.

It's a joint responsibility system, internal responsibility, and we have to make sure it works.

A number of government initiatives that are well on the way to realizing the bill's key objectives include:

-As I said, the young worker awareness program, which brings the health and safety message to over 60,000 Ontario high school students each year.

-A Web site and an advertising campaign.

-An introduction of the occupational health and safety component to grade 9 curriculum in September 1999.

-Expanding the health and safety education program to cover all secondary grade levels by the year 2002.

Also, the Peterborough Safe Community Coalition sponsored the passport program, which credits local students for health and safety training taken. My good friend Gary Stewart, the member from Peterborough, is certainly a true and strong supporter of that initiative in Peterborough.

The ministry has led a steering committee developing health and safety resource material to assist school boards and teachers at the local level. The assistant deputy minister of operations invited key stakeholders to a meeting as of January to discuss shared best practices, coordination of programs, and possible improvements to awareness, education and training in health and safety matters.

So the government has taken initiatives.

We have to do as much as we possibly can to ensure that all workers, not only young workers, receive the proper education, the proper understanding, so they are not only competent in terms of understanding their duties and responsibilities and familiar with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but also that we can ensure that when workers go into a new workplace they're going to understand their requirements and can also be an active participant to make sure their duties are followed through; also, the duties and responsibilities on other workers, on foremen, on the upper management team, the company directors-that they all work together to make sure there's fairness and safety taken in terms of training our new workers.

With the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which became law on October 1, 1979: We certainly have gone a long way and we have a longer way to go, because we have to make sure that the underlying principle and intention of the Occupational Health and Safety Act are the concept of joint or internal responsibility for health and safety in the workplace. This concept, which was recommended by the Ham royal commission, is something that we have to make sure actually works, and I think that's the message that is being put forth by the member from Superior North and the member for Sudbury, that we have to make sure that we not only provide the education but that it works in the workplace.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I want to commend my colleague the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North on bringing forward Bill 10,

An Act to bring health and safety programs to Ontario students. I also want to commend him for the kind of consultative work that I know my colleague did in bringing forward this bill, consultative work with people who have been affected by the tragedies that occur with workplace accidents, particularly with young people, and consultative work with people who are involved in understanding what needs to be done to prevent these tragic workplace accidents and deaths from occurring in the future.

I can only wish that the government could follow this kind of model of consultation so that they would bring forward legislation which is as relevant to real problems as Bill 10, which is being brought forward today by my colleague from Thunder Bay-Superior North, and that addresses real problems in ways which can work effectively.

When my colleague first spoke to me about his intention to bring forward this bill, I thought it was probably a very good idea. We're all conscious of the tremendous number of accidents that occur in the workplace. One statistic I have in front of me that may have been used already today is that on an average day in Ontario at least one employer in the province is informing a family of a fatality; another three workers will have amputations; 70 will be permanently disabled; and 500 injuries will result in lost time-horrendous statistics. Clearly, workplace safety is something we need to do much more about.

I thought my colleague's idea of bringing workplace safety into the high school curriculum would be a way of shaping the attitudes of young people so that they would have a lifelong awareness and understanding of how to practise workplace safety. What I hadn't fully realized until I'd had further discussions with my colleague was that this bill will do more than shape the attitudes of future adults in the workplace and prevent tragedies for adults in the workplace, but that there is an incredible number of young victims of workplace accidents. The statistics were shocking to me, and I think that warrants reading them once again in this place.

As many as 25% of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 18 are working on a part-time basis. According to the Ontario Farm Safety Association, which employs many of these young people, 119 children died in farm accidents between 1977 and 1993. According to the Industrial Accident Prevention Association-Ontario, workers between the ages of 15 and 25 account for an injury rate 35% higher than any other tax bracket. Tragically, in 1997 and 1998, 24 young Ontarians lost their lives in the workplace. In 1999, five young people have died on the job already. It's tragic that these young people are the victims of workplace accidents and death.

It's tragic that since 1995, there have been at least nine inquests conducted into such deaths, and my colleague has referred to the tragic death of 19-year-old Sean Kells. Sean Kells's father was quoted as saying: "Sean didn't know he was handling dangerous chemicals. He had received no training and he wasn't wearing proper protective equipment. His death was no accident-it was a killing," a killing because of the lack of enforcement of workplace health and safety regulations, a killing because of the lack of awareness on the part of young workers of the precautions that they need to take to ensure their safety in the workplace.

My colleague, in speaking to this bill, said that his bill was in large measure in honour of Sean Kells. Quite clearly, this bill is put forward in order to ensure that there are fewer reasons to mourn the deaths of young victims of workplace accidents.

I want to, again, recognize the importance of bringing this bill forward and of receiving support from all members of the Legislature today because, as my colleague has noted, there is no province-wide coordination of health and safety programs in our high school curriculum, and I say there's unlikely to be coordination as the government is going through a widespread review of high school curriculum. This is not likely to be a high priority.

There are models that could be readily adopted-as my colleague from Sudbury has indicated, a model developed by District 6 in Sudbury-so it wouldn't be an onerous task to provide a curriculum which could be readily introduced into the high school curriculum and would provide coordination of workplace education in our high schools.

I commend my colleague for bringing forward this bill. I fully support it and I urge all members of the Legislature to support it, recognizing the intent and value of its passage.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Let me join in with those who are paying tribute to the member for introducing this bill, and I join with that. Obviously it's a matter that he cares about deeply and has taken the time to use one of the rare opportunities we get to raise issues in this place to bring attention to the issue of health and safety in the workplace, and in this particular instance a clearer focus on young people.

I'd like to begin my remarks with regard to this by referring to an

article in one of the local weekly papers in my region. It's the Flamborough Review. The

article is written by Arend Kersten and it begins with a quote: "I'm not a professional speaker, I'm just a dad. But I'm a proud dad." Those are the words of Robert Ellis, and he's speaking of the death of his son, David Ellis, who was just 18 years old and on the second day of his job he didn't come home. He died in that workplace.

I think we owe a lot to Mr Ellis, who was able to overcome this terrible personal tragedy and tried to bring something, if it's possible, positive out of it by going around and speaking at the schools. This

article is referring to a speech he was giving to the Waterdown District High School and he says: "We are a close family and we have a close relationship with God ... but we miss David desperately."

Mr Kersten goes on to point out in his

article that "David Ellis also demonstrated a real love for those less fortunate, helping to peel potatoes for hours at an inner-city mission and providing food to the hungry and homeless in Hamilton out of the back of a truck. `David didn't speak a lot,' Robert Ellis said. "`He just put his love into action.'"

The

article closes by saying, "With summer approaching, Robert Ellis pleaded with the students to educate themselves and speak with others about workplace safety so that the tragedy his family has experienced won't be repeated."

I also want to point out that local 1005, the United Steelworkers of America, much like the Steelworkers in the Thunder Bay area, have also taken it upon themselves to do the job that this government won't do, which is to educate the young people directly as to what their rights are and what the risks are for them when they go into the workplace. They do that at their own expense, their own time, their own initiative, and it's really well received by the students because it's information they didn't know. I don't imagine that there's one student who doesn't see himself or herself as a possible David Ellis or Sean Kells when hearing these stories.

I'm going to read from a letter that was sent less than two months ago to the new Minister of Labour from Wayne Samuelson, the newly re-elected president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. I only have a couple of minutes, so I'm only going to read it in part but it starts out:

"Dear Minister:

"It was with dismay that I read of the death of yet another young worker-a 16-year-old boy crushed to death on September 15 in a dough-making machine. On June 25, 1999, I wrote to you raising concerns regarding the ministry's role in stopping print and radio ads, which were part of a health and safety awareness campaign directed at young workers. These ads were to include information about David Ellis, a young man who was killed inside a commercial dough-making machine. The ministry prevented this information from going public over concerns that it could have an impact on a future prosecution of the case.

Now just a few days ago, Ivan Golyashov, a 16-year-old youth, was killed in a similar machine under similar circumstances.

"But this is not the first time that your ministry has stopped advertisements directed at informing young workers about health and safety in the workplace. In May of 1995, the former Workplace Health and Safety Agency launched an awareness campaign designed to educate young people about the dangers they face at work."

I want to stop there momentarily. I don't want to make a big deal of this and I won't to belabour it or take away from what the member is doing, but I feel it's important that it be on the record that in 1995 the Liberal Party did indeed run on a platform of disbanding the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, an action the government ultimately took, and to recognize that that agency had 50% representatives from workers on that board and that part of their mandate was to educate.

So both the government and the Liberals were in favour of killing the very agency that carried out the mandate of the bill that's before us. That's the last I'll say on that in the context of my remarks about this bill.

"The campaign included public service announcements on radio and television, print advertisements and billboards. The campaign centred around Sean Kells, a 19-year-old youth who was killed in a workplace chemical explosion. This campaign was to include paid television advertisements. Unfortunately, an election"-by the way, that was all during the term of the NDP government-"was held in the middle of this campaign and a new government elected." That would be the Mike Harris government. "The Ministry of Labour directed that these paid television ads be cancelled just a day or two before they were to be aired.

"We will never know how many injuries or deaths could have been prevented if these training programs and advertising campaigns were permitted to continue as designed. Perhaps young Ivan would be alive today if his co-worker had been properly trained or even if last summer's campaign had been permitted to proceed as intended."

I think we need to recognize that every October 28, which is the International Day of Mourning, tens of thousands of workers all across Ontario, hundreds of thousands and literally millions around the world mourn and pay tribute to those who have died in the workplace and commit themselves to ensuring that rights and laws are put in place to protect the living.

The fact that Karl Crevar, who is the president of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups and a Hamilton resident, is here speaks to the importance all of us place on workplace health and safety. The only ones who don't seem to get the message, unfortunately, are those who could do something about it and that would be the Harris government. I hope the backbenchers here will support this bill in the interests of all our children.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm very pleased to support my colleague from Thunder Bay-Superior North on a very clear and wise proposal that he has come up with. Having been the labour critic and sat through all the hearings on the passage of Bill 99, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, believe me, I'm more than well aware of the extent and the nature and the importance of health and safety in the workplace and the training that is required.

I also would like to point out, from the Ottawa and District Injured Workers Group, that on behalf of the executive, Doug Perrault sent in a supportive letter and I'm very pleased to be able to share with him my sentiments as well.

I'm told that over 25% of students-this is just high school students-are working part-time these days, some in more than one part-time job. This number is increasing all the time. Students work to help support their families and to support themselves, and of course they are vulnerable in the workplace because they're often keen and they do what's asked of them, and it's often their first experience and they also don't know their rights, understandably, including the right to say no to an unsafe workplace.

Because as part-time and seasonal workers they're often not properly trained on safety issues, and I think we all know that, and because as youth they often believe that they are invincible, certain things happen. Students also work under the table for the same reasons, where they have no protection.

Although I commend the government for having a young workers' awareness site on the Web, I'd like to point out that many students do not have access to computers or to the Web, especially those in many of our rural communities. Furthermore, are they likely to go to the Ministry of Labour in the first place as high school students? I would think probably not. That is why it's important to have a universal program in all high schools.

Every day 25 workers are injured on the job in Ontario, I'm told; over 8,000 injuries a year. Over the last three years, 25 young Ontarians have lost their lives and that has been cited already with some specific examples.

I'd like to share an experience of one of my staff who two nights ago dropped into a retail store on Yonge Street. Much of the stock was stored above reach but the perky seasonal sales staff were there to help. They are trained to fetch from up above or down below or in the basement stockroom. She asked to see an area rug and the part-time student willingly climbed up on a store ladder to fetch it for her. While on the ladder she was required to pull out rugs from beneath the one she wanted to see, while precariously balancing herself, with the other four rugs on her left arm, until she fetched the one she wanted. You can see how this is a situation of precariousness.

In casual conversation she learned that she's often required to do this, to use the ladder to get stock for other customers, because there isn't enough floor space to display all the merchandise. She further learned that she's a part-time student, aged 17. She has not had any workplace safety training, either at work or at school. It never occurred to her that balancing herself while balancing heavy stock could cause her to lose her balance and have a nasty fall.

I note that the minimum age for window cleaning in Ontario is 18 years of age, but this isn't true in many workplaces. There are lots of youngsters who are working in fast-food outlets, who are slicing deli meats, who are working with tools and devices that are potentially injurious to them.

I think the recommendation from my colleague from Thunder Bay-Superior North is a sound one. I think it would go a long way to being very supportive of helping young people in particular become aware of the cautions that are required in a workplace environment. Therefore, I will be supporting this bill.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay-Superior North has up to two minutes to reply.

Mr Gravelle: I want to thank all my colleagues in the House for responding to my private member's bill, particularly the members for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Sudbury, Ottawa Centre, Sault Ste Marie and Hamilton West, but if I may, I'd like to spend the bulk of the time I have left responding to the government members who spoke on this bill.

What I will say is that I certainly hope this is truly private members' hour, that the recommendations of the two members there are not simply government recommendations and policy being put forward.

I think what has become compellingly clear to those of us who worked so hard on putting this legislation together is that there are many programs out there across the province. Certainly the members for Hamilton West and Sudbury talked about the United Steelworkers and their involvement in the schools. The reason they are working so hard to get into the schools is because we do not have that coordinated policy across the province.

What we were able to identify in the work I did with Ross Singleton and Steve Mantis and the others in Thunder Bay's Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups was that we needed a coordinating body, which the health and safety educational council would truly be, to coordinate all the programs, to do an inventory of it to define which ones were working and to make recommendations as to what should be in the schools. We recognize that it's in the core curriculum of the high schools, but the problem is they don't know how to get it into the schools.

It's very frustrating to listen to the two government members who were speaking in opposition to this, because we know that what is needed is to continue to fight the battle, to find a way to continue to reduce or eliminate accidents and fatalities in the workplace. The health and safety educational council is one we worked on very carefully to see that it would work. We got support from all those across the province who were involved in workplace safety. I think the government members should be very careful here because to not allow full province-wide implementation would be something they'd be very sorry for.

I still ask the government members to support this legislation. It will help in our battle against workplace accidents and fatalities.

The Acting Speaker: The time for debating ballot item number 8 is now complete.

GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE DES GRANDS LACS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will move to ballot item number 7.

Mr Ouellette has moved second reading of Bill 15,

An Act to regulate the discharge of ballast water in the Great Lakes. Shall the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'd like to refer the bill to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a majority in favour of general government? Agreed.

STUDENT HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAMS ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LES PROGRAMMES DE SANTÉ ET DE SÉCURITÉ POUR ÉTUDIANTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Ballot item number 8.

Mr Gravelle has moved second reading of Bill 10,

An Act to bring health and safety programs to Ontario students. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

DeFaria, Carl

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Mazzilli, Frank

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Brenda

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hastings, John

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 35; the nays are 21.

The Acting Speaker: I declare this motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Mr Speaker, can I have the bill referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy?

The Acting Speaker: Justice and social policy? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CYRIL BOLLERS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Recently there has been a lot of talk about our youth, keeping our communities safe and taking action on youth crime. The connotation: Youth are bad.

Youth don't have exclusive rights to acts of violence or crime. In fact, in my visits to the schools on Fridays, which I have done for the last 14 years, I'm inspired really by the activities young people are engaged in to promote social responsibility.

Just two weeks ago I had the honour of meeting the 1999 YMCA Peace Medallion recipient, Cyril Bollers, a young person working hard to break the cycle of violence. Cyril Bollers, as an avid volunteer, karate instructor and dedicated fundraiser with the United Way campaign, recognized that youth can participate in the resolution of their own disputes as the key to answering the questions of violence and conflict in our city. He initiated a training program called Prevention Management of Aggressive Behaviour.

The program uses interactive personal growth and development techniques that help young people manage uncontrollable behaviour without resorting to physical violence and aggression. Bollers's program is a great success.

I stand very proud of our young people in Ontario and I hope that our government and the members of Parliament will all recognize and salute those wonderful people of our province.

THORNWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): It is with pleasure that I rise today to recognize the efforts of teachers and students at Thornwood Public School in my riding of Mississauga East.

Thornwood Public School recently received $2,000 from the Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation to establish a green school program. This exceptional program gives students hands-on experience in planting seeds, labelling plants and caring for them as they grow in the school. Students are also learning about plant species and their environmental benefits.

Because teachers have volunteered to care for the plants over the summer, a new outdoor garden will be established at the school in the spring of the year 2000, using the plants the students have grown.

This is a wonderful project. The environment is the most precious commodity of our new millennium. I applaud the many people who have dedicated their time and energy to this project. Great work, students and teachers at Thornwood Public. Keep up the good work. Hands-on learning is as important a method of learning as any other method. On behalf of the parents and residents of Mississauga, I congratulate all of you for this excellent initiative.

PARENT AIDE PROGRAM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): As a result of ministry guidelines and directives, the Frontenac Children's Aid Society will be forced to fire nine members of their highly successful parent aide program, a program that has operated for over 15 years. These support workers are the individuals who work frontline with families in need. They work with the parents of children to give them the necessary life skills and assistance they require. They teach parenting skills and provide much-needed stability.

I have received numerous telephone calls, urgent pleas from parent aides, from teachers, from individuals who have benefited from the program.

We all know that the caseloads of CAS workers is so heavy they do not often have the time to give the personal care and teach prevention to individual families. Removing parent aides from the homes of these children at risk is jeopardizing their safety and chance for a positive life and healthy relationship with their family.

No blame should be attached to the CAS, for they are placed in the horrible position of choosing between different effective programming because of lack of funds.

Ministry officials themselves confirmed this morning at our public accounts committee hearings that CASs are struggling to keep up because of more services, more children at risk and new child protection reporting requirements.

I beg the Minister of Community and Social Services to increase the funding to CASs so that the parent aide programs in Kingston and elsewhere will continue for the benefits of the children, their parents and all of us in society.

CAMBRIDGE HORNETS HOCKEY CLUB

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): It's my pleasure to stand in the House today to acknowledge the launch of a new sports team in Ontario. After a 12-year hiatus from Ontario hockey, sports fans will be pleased to hear that the Cambridge Hornets Hockey Club has been reassembled.

The Cambridge Hornets began their season on October 1, 1999, playing against the Aylmer Hornets at Preston Memorial Auditorium. They've been playing to nearly sold-out crowds for the last eight weeks.

Area families and many in this Legislature will remember the Hornets as the former Allen Cup champions back in 1982.

This hockey club is steeped in Waterloo region tradition, dating back to their original debut in 1963 in the Galt Arena Gardens.

I would like to congratulate the many volunteers who have worked so hard to bring back senior A hockey to Cambridge.

I would like to acknowledge the commitment and determination of my good friends president Jim MacDonald, Gord Chaplin, the players and the entire Cambridge Hornets executive. On behalf of Cambridge families and Hornets fans everywhere, we appreciate your efforts and we look forward to many successful seasons ahead.

LANDFILL

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Day after day we're reminded in this House that when it comes to the environment in Ontario, those who want to destroy it have no better friend than the Minister of the Environment himself.

Tuesday night, I joined some 250 residents of the area who met in clear opposition to any expansion of the Richmond Township megadump site. The minister should be aware that there was determination in that room, determination to fight this proposed expansion, determination to do what their Minister of the Environment is unwilling to do, and that is to say no to big business, who are more concerned with profit than with the health and safety of my constituents.

Why should residents of my riding be expected to be a dumping ground for all those communities that are unable to take care of their own waste? Not only has the minister been silent on the issue, he has not provided one cent to the residents' group that wishes to conduct independent studies to determine the effect of this dump on their environment.

It's time for you as Minister of the Environment to put the interests and concerns of Ontario residents ahead of the financial interests of your business friends.

I travel through the Don Valley most evenings on my way home, and I marvel that a city the size of Toronto has been able to protect the Don Valley from being used as a dump site by the Americans. My constituents want the same protection against this proposed megadump.

The Minister of the Environment's silence and refusal to reply to letters on this issue clearly show that when it comes to environmental concerns in Ontario, big business has no better friend than Ontario's Minister of the Environment.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This morning Rosario Marchese and I were at two high-rise buildings: 103 and 105 West Lodge Avenue. Between these two buildings, owned by the same slumlord, there are 720 units, ranging from one-room bachelors to multi-bedroom apartments with families. The tenants there range from young people and young families to senior citizens.

What we saw was criminal. We saw one apartment in which the toilet was leaking waste water into the bathroom downstairs. A young mother and her two-month-old baby have had to endure that for two years. No response from the slumlord owner.

In another apartment, the stove had but one burner working. The elements in the oven don't work and the burners on top didn't work. As a result of a complaint to the landlord a month ago, the tenant and his family face eviction.

In another, the holes through the plaster and lathwork provide easy access for the hordes of cockroaches and rodents that invade this woman's kitchen on a daily basis.

But the biggest insult was that these tenants showed me rent-increase notices of 30 to 50 %. These tenants, 720 families, are being forced into homelessness by this government's collaboration with greedy slumlords and this government's abandonment of any affordable housing policy.

NESTLÉ JOB TRAINING PROGRAM

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise today to bring your attention to a job-training success story in my riding.

The Nestlé Company in Trenton, employing slightly under 300 people, is well known for its chocolate, coffee and ice cream. It is also active in the food service industry. I, along with the mayor of Quinte West, His Worship Jack Arthur, toured the plant last week and was mightily impressed.

As Nestlé continues to improve its products and compete in the global marketplace, there emerges a need for a better-skilled workforce. The Ontario government has assisted Nestlé, enabling them to provide input and access to specialized food and beverage training from Loyalist College. Nestlé recently hired 10 people who were trained for one month in the Loyalist program.

The end result has been skilled graduates who are trained in health and safety, food safety and team building, who know how to work in the Nestlé environment. This qualified workforce contributes to increased productivity as well as an immediate $10,000 saving in training costs. Savings are reinvested in the facility and its people, positioning this company for further and anticipated growth in mid-2000.

HÔTEL-DIEU GRACE HOSPITAL

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Yesterday the board of directors of Hôtel-Dieu Grace Hospital in Windsor reported that their earlier deficit figure was off by about a million dollars, and our hospital is now forecasting a $9-million deficit by the end of this fiscal year.

We have raised this issue repeatedly with the Minister of Health, not only with regard to Windsor hospitals but indeed hospitals throughout the province. What's more troubling is how the hospital intends to deal with the deficit. Let me quote a senior official at the hospital regarding the cost of surgical supplies such as pacemakers and spinal implants:

"We are asking that there be a closer review of spending at the departmental level. For example, if a doctor has a choice between two devices for a patient, with one device more expensive, both the patient's needs and the hospital's ability to pay should be considered."

What that means is that patients in these hospitals-and these devices must be paid for out of the hospital's operating accounts-will not get the highest quality of care available. I would predict that, with these continued deficits, the problem will worsen. It's a shame the minister won't respond to these issues.

DALTON MCGUINTY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Southwest): I would like to speak today about leadership.

The Ontario Liberal Party has been without an effective leader for so long they forget what true leadership really is. So, in an effort to keep his own job, it is painfully obvious that Dalton McGuinty has launched a smear campaign against the only truly effective leader he knows, Mike Harris.

I have newspaper articles from across the province, written after the Liberals held their own recent mini-leadership convention in Ottawa.

From central Ontario, in the Welland Tribune: "Ever hear of the gang that couldn't shoot straight? Welcome to the Ontario Liberal Party and their so-called leader, Dalton McGuinty. McGuinty may be a good, decent man, but a leader he's not."

From eastern Ontario, in the Kingston Whig-Standard: "Some people dream of winning the lottery-Dalton McGuinty dreams of scandal and political devastation striking the Conservatives to send him to power."

In the Toronto Sun: "It doesn't matter if the Tories are actually arrogant and corrupt-the Liberals will just keep repeating that mantra in the hopes of fooling the electorate."

From this so-called leader's own hometown, in the Ottawa Citizen: "McGuinty's problem is the same one he had in the election. He is a leader without compelling ideas of his own. As such, he's left with nothing but cheap attacks on the government voters choose."

Mr McGuinty, I too believe that you are a good and decent man, but you are not a leader. Stop the mindless attacks and start coming up with some specific and workable ideas. Nobody in this House believes your cries of arrogance and corruption, and now it's obvious the rest of Ontario doesn't believe them either.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal year 1998-99.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Mr Kennedy from the standing committee on estimates, reported the following resolution:

"Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the following ministries be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000:

"Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Ministry administration, $29,025,400; local government-

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Dispense? Dispense.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ON SCHOOL BUSES ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS DANS LES AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES

Mr Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses / Projet de loi 24, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en vue