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

June 26, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 26 June 2003 Jeudi 26 juin 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE DE TRAFALGAR

FAMILY RESTROOM

FACILITIES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LES INSTALLATIONS

SANITAIRES FAMILIALES

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE DE TRAFALGAR

FAMILY RESTROOM

FACILITIES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LES INSTALLATIONS

SANITAIRES FAMILIALES

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE DE TRAFALGAR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ENERGY CONSERVATION

OSPCA AWARDS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

CANADIAN BASEBALL HALL OF

FAME AND MUSEUM

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

VISITORS

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

TVONTARIO

REQUEST TO INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

CONTROL ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE CONTRÔLE

DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION DE

L'EMPLOI DES POMPIERS VOLONTAIRES

AMATEUR BASEBALL

MONTH ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LE MOIS

DU BASEBALL AMATEUR

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBER FOR OAKVILLE

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

CANADA DAY

ENERGY CONSERVATION

FIREARMS CONTROL

CANADA DAY WEEKEND

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

LONG-TERM CARE

HYDRO RATES /

TARIFS D'ÉLECTRICITÉ

MEMBER FOR OAKVILLE

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Thursday 26 June 2003 Jeudi 26 juin 2003

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE DE TRAFALGAR

Mr Colle moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to protect the Trafalgar Moraine / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à protéger la moraine de Trafalgar.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): It's a great privilege to be here in the Ontario Legislature to stand up and support the good citizens of

Oakville, some of whom are here today, who care so much about this beautiful part of the greater Toronto area and who care so much about the future of the Oakville area and the legacy that this

will mean for their children and their children's children.

I commend Councillor Allan Elgar, who is here today, who has been soldiering on many fronts in Oakville and I think is a councillor in ward 4; Iris McGee and

Renee Sandelowsky from Oakville Green; Mike Lansdown, another brave soldier, and so many others who have taken on all comers in standing up for what's right. They basically have said our future

health and our future natural environment is more important than the developers making dollars at the expense of the health and well-being of the people of Oakville. So I really commend them for

taking on in many cases city hall, taking on the provincial government, taking on the developers, with a great deal of, as I said, abuse at times. But they've been brave and they've been persistent

in standing up for what they think is right.

The Trafalgar moraine represents more than just a pure ribbon of very important geography. It represents a symbolic battle that is going on all over southern

Ontario between proper planning, sustainable planning, and cheque book planning. Right now in Ontario we in essence have planning that is dictated by who has the biggest bank account. In essence,

what has happened too is that an unelected, appointed group of individuals who are nameless and faceless are also making decisions about the future of the people all across Ontario, as they are in

Oakville. Those are the appointed, unelected members of the Ontario Municipal Board.

In other words, the people who have lived and worked in a region and care about its wildlife, care about the air they breathe, no longer have a say in its

future. That's what's happening in Oakville. They feel disenfranchised. They say they're taxpayers, they're part of the Lions Club, they care about their community, yet they have no say in the

future of their community. That right to be heard has been taken away from them. Now it seems the development industry and unelected people of the Ontario Municipal Board are in charge of mapping

the future of their community, and that is not right.

This is, ironically, the third anniversary of when I introduced the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act in this very House. I remember that at that time members on

the opposite side said, "This is a silly proposal." They said, "You can't do it." They said it wasn't necessary. They said, "There is a local process in place in Richmond Hill. There's the Ontario

Municipal Board; there's the region of York. All these things are already in place. You don't need to protect the Oak Ridges moraine." In fact, I remember they even questioned whether there was an

Oak Ridges moraine.

We have a repeat scenario here today, where people who are for unbridled sprawl are saying, "You don't need to protect the Trafalgar moraine." Some even say

there is no Trafalgar moraine. Some say it's a silly proposal to protect this. It's the same naysayers as were here in this very chamber three years ago saying, "You don't need to protect the Oak

Ridges moraine."

Ironically, as you know, there was a hue and cry from Pontypool all the way over to King City. People stood up and said, "Yes, there is an Oak Ridges moraine.

Yes, we have a right to protect it. Yes, we want to be heard on this. Yes, the provincial government has a role to play in protecting communities against sprawl and planning our communities

properly." People got up by the thousands to shame this government into finally admitting there was an Oak Ridges moraine and finally getting them to freeze development of the Oak Ridges moraine

for six months until they put in a plan. They did it because the public stood up and were not afraid to stand up.

I'm asking for the same thing here. This bill asks for a temporary hold until all the studies are put in place so that we know exactly where we're going. It's a

map to the future. We need all the watershed studies. We need all the mapping to be completed. We need the provincial government in here because they can at least mitigate the interjurisdictional

disputes. Because the Trafalgar moraine and its future not only affects the people in Oakville; the critical thing about the Trafalgar moraine that is very much of provincial interest is that it is

right on the border of the Niagara Escarpment, which goes from Tobermory all the way down to Niagara, one of the true treasures that even the United Nations has named as an international biosphere

site.

The Trafalgar moraine is a corridor on the edge of the Niagara Escarpment. So whatever we do to the Trafalgar moraine not only affects protection in Oakville;

it's going to affect the internationally recognized Niagara Escarpment. If you allow unmitigated sprawl north of Dundas, you're not only, as I said, going to bring about horrendous congestion and

smog; you're going to wipe out over 300 wetlands -- 300 wetlands. I've seen them: Shevchenko Park, north of Dundas, a beautiful little oasis where there are fowl and fish and birds still thriving

on the edge of cookie-cutter homes to the south of Dundas.

If the province doesn't step in and say they care about the future of the Trafalgar moraine and the Niagara Escarpment, they're going to basically allow creeping

sprawl to go north of Dundas, and as you know, in the town of Milton, there's going to be more sprawl coming from the north. We don't want all of Oakville to look like Mississauga.

There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere, because this Westward Ho of sprawl is going to eat up farmland. As you know, right now most of the area north

of Dundas, in the Trafalgar moraine area, is farmland -- countryside. At what point does the provincial government ever stand up and say that this countryside-farmland area in the western part of

the GTA has to have some protective plan? They haven't said that.

There are even more pressures: we have the proposed escarpment expressway, which this government is trying to jam through the escarpment. So you add the

escarpment expressway. The 407 already cuts through the Trafalgar moraine, and then you're going to have 55,000 people living in the natural areas north of Dundas.

This is about stopping smog. We know that if you have more people in that area, you're going to have more cars, you're going to have more smog, you're going to

have lower quality water. The air quality index in Oakville yesterday was up, I think, to 69, one of the worst air qualities you'll ever get in southern Ontario. How can they absorb another 55,000

people, another 35,000 industry jobs with all their cars in that Trafalgar-Oakville catchment area?

My bill tries to say, "Let's have a time out. Let the province look at a way of protecting this area from the impacts, not only on people, but on the escarpment,

on the wetlands, on the wildlife corridors."

We have Bronte Creek Provincial Park, the only provincial park in the GTA, right on the edge of the Trafalgar moraine, a beautiful gem. This government just the

other day sold off 60% of the public lands right on the edge of Bronte Creek Provincial Park.

We need some long-term vision. We need to pause for six months, put in a plan that recognizes the sensitive areas, looks at the transportation issues, looks at

the air quality issues and plans for 100 years from now, not for what the developers want to get at the Ontario Municipal Board. That's no way to protect the future of this beautiful, precious area

known as the Trafalgar moraine.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Our wonderful page Tyler Goettl from London-Fanshawe would like to welcome

his mom, Lise; his dad, Kyle; his brother Travis; and his sister Hannah to the Legislature. They've come to rescue him at the end of the day.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That of course is not a point of order. Welcome.

Further debate?

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): Thank you, sir. The children from Fanshawe are missing their last day of school today. I'm sure that's a hardship

they can withstand to visit their brother.

We have an interesting bill before us. The Oak Ridges moraine was of course a wonderful piece of Ontario that I voted to protect when Ms Churley brought forward

a bill -- I think you brought forward a bill on the Oak Ridges moraine perhaps about a year and a half ago. I was pleased to support that, although I remember distinctly as I rose to support that

bill, there were a whole bunch of people sitting down over on this side. So my record on supporting environmentally sensitive land in this place is one that I'm proud of.

The member mentioned smog. Well, driving in this morning, it looked like a very early morning on a plain somewhere in western Canada. The mist was beautiful --

except that it wasn't mist; it was a pea soup of smog, chemicals and everything else that's probably very bad for us. So protecting land and making sure that we have green space available to us is

a very important part of being a government in Ontario. Finding that balance between what is good for the environment and what is good to keep the economics of a province booming as we have in

Ontario is the job of government, and it's a very sensitive job.

The Trafalgar moraine is indeed a moraine, as is most of southern Ontario. I was talking about a moraine the other day to a chap here, and he didn't realize what

a moraine was. As the glaciers that covered Ontario some 20,000 years ago receded, as the weather began to warm up and the glaciers flowed south, they hit this warm front -- just south of Lake

Ontario, originally, their southernmost extreme -- and they began to melt. As they began to melt, of course they continued to flow, and that built-up soil and land at the end of the glaciers. That

buildup of soil is known as a moraine. If that moraine occurred at the southern limit of the glacier, it was known as a terminal moraine. If it occurred on the edge of a glacier, it was known as a

lateral moraine. If the glacier just receded in a somewhat consistent fashion, it was known as a moraine.

Now, most of Ontario is a moraine, as is the Trafalgar moraine. It's a defined geological area, and it's very important. I think it's important that we put into

perspective what this government has done just last week with regard to the Trafalgar moraine. One small portion of that moraine is owned by the Ontario Realty Corp. That corporation has about

1,100 acres of land north of Dundas highway. Within those 1,100 acres are about 175 acres that are in river valleys and extremely environmentally sensitive lands. As Mr Colle pointed out, there are

really some beautiful spots. If you walk up through the Sixteen Mile Creek, it is unbelievably beautiful. You would think you were standing in a location that was there prior to the arrival of

Europeans on this continent.

So it's a beautiful piece of land and it deserves to be protected. Originally, about two years ago, we had looked at about 175 acres of land being protected in

that area. Through the efforts of myself and Ann Mulvale, the mayor of Oakville, that level of land has been increased so that, as of a week ago, 420 acres were protected, over twice what was

originally thought to be protected. Not only have the north-south corridors of the river valleys been protected but, because wildlife doesn't always travel north-south -- it has to travel east-west

as well -- east-west corridors were also protected. So within that 1,100 acres, there is the beginning of a network of trails and environmental land that eventually can go up rivers like Oakville

Creek, for instance, or Sixteen Mile Creek and join the Niagara Escarpment, where most of these rivers rise. That would provide an environmentally sensitive area with a trail system that runs

basically from Lake Ontario and Oakville -- Oakville harbour -- all the way up to the Kelso conservation area and Rattlesnake Point and the areas that are known to be around the Niagara Escarpment

and tie in with that most sensitive area as well.

Finding that balance -- and it's been an interesting project, certainly a very rewarding one -- in how much environmental land has to be set aside or can be set

aside is important. I'm personally very pleased that the Chair of the Management Board, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Natural Resources have all come together

and supported this 420 acres of environmentally sensitive land that has been set aside on the Trafalgar moraine to begin the process -- this is not the end of the story; this is to begin the

process -- of protecting that land for future generations in Ontario. I'm very pleased that we were able to do that.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I couldn't tell whether the previous speaker is supporting the bill or not, but his comments caused

me to even further support Mr Colle's bill.

I might just say that I appreciate the member for Eglinton-Lawrence's work on this bill. Mr Colle was really the first member of the Legislature that I can

recall who got very active on the Oak Ridges moraine issue. I can remember many days when I'd talk to Michael and he'd say he was off to a meeting that night in Richmond Hill or Aurora or

Pontypool. It almost seemed like every night of the week he was heading toward a meeting -- this was a couple of years ago -- dealing with the Oak Ridges moraine. That really started with the

community there, which identified the Oak Ridges moraine as a treasure that, if we collectively didn't look at it in its totality and put together a plan to deal with it in total, would disappear

piece by piece by piece.

I take my hat off to Mr Colle. As I say, he was, in my memory, the first provincial politician who really got extremely actively involved. So he doesn't come to

this issue cold. He has that experience of having dealt with another very similar situation. His bill is an extremely sensible bill which essentially -- to quote him, "The purpose of the bill is to

temporarily freeze development on and around the Trafalgar moraine until all environmental studies underway are completed and the province puts in place a protective plan that identifies and

protects the moraine's environmentally sensitive features." It's essentially the process followed with the Oak Ridges moraine.

I represent an area in Scarborough and have some experience with another similar issue, and that's the Rouge park. I salute the members of the community who,

actually in the early 1980s, identified the Rouge as another of our treasures in the province of Ontario and began to work very hard to preserve that. It started with relatively few people but grew

to an enormous movement -- that probably is not too strong a word for it.

I don't live in the past, but it happened we were in government in those days, from 1985 to 1990. It was the government of the day that needed to address it. It

was the result of community activists, people who understood and cared about the environment, who took a long view of the environment against some very considerable odds. There were enormous

interests at stake in the Rouge park. Developers stood to make a considerable amount of money developing the Rouge park. For the provincial government itself, there was a major road that had

probably been planned for decades that was going to go right through the centre of the Rouge park. The Ministry of Transportation of the province of Ontario was very determined to protect their

future roads. One of the most difficult parts of preserving the Rouge was persuading the Ministry of Transportation to remove that road from the centre of the park.

The purpose of saying all this is that I've learned from experience to listen to the community, to recognize that things that seem relatively challenging can be

overcome. In this particular case, it's putting a pause on development until there is a chance for all of us to look at a long-term, comprehensive plan. If the people who mounted the campaign to

preserve the Rouge had not been so determined and so committed -- all volunteers -- we wouldn't have that enormous resource. I walk my dog in the Rouge probably twice a week, year round. It's an

absolute treasure that's there only because the community felt it was important and put the time and effort into it. Finally, the politicians of the day were dragged into making the right

decision.

My second experience with a major thing such as this was the Oak Ridges moraine. I was relatively uninvolved in it but my colleague Mr Colle was there from the

start. Once again, the community there identified the dangers we were all facing. I might add that sometimes these things kind of creep up on you, so that it's happening one piece at a time and we

never force ourselves to take the decision to say, "Let's look at this in a comprehensive way."

My colleague Mr Colle also mentioned the Ontario Municipal Board. I have had some experience with the Ontario Municipal Board where a significant local planning

issue was sent to the OMB so quickly -- because the rules of the OMB are such that a planning issue can move to the OMB before the local community is even aware of it. It was the sale of some Hydro

lands in the area I represent. The local community had virtually no opportunity to have a say in the planning for that. It went directly to the OMB. Then they were forced to try and represent their

interests to the OMB, with limited resources, against the enormous resources of the developer. My colleague rightly points out the problem communities face in trying to deal with the OMB with their

limited resources, often against almost unlimited resources on the other side.

I think the bill is modeled on an approach we took on the Oak Ridges moraine, supported, I might add, by all three parties. I would hope we would find an

opportunity today to support Mr Colle's bill and give ourselves a chance to preserve another of the treasures in Ontario.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Before I begin my remarks, I want to take this opportunity to introduce Ken and Helen Cressman who are

here today from New Hamburg, sitting in the gallery. I'd like to welcome them. I believe this is their first time in the Legislature, and I hope they have a nice day in Toronto.

I am happy to stand and support this bill before us today. It's not the first time I've supported a bill from Mr Colle. In fact, Mr Colle and I worked closely

together. We each had a bill on protecting the Oak Ridges moraine. Mr Colle has, I believe, made this almost his life's mission. The work he's done on the Oak Ridges moraine and now on this is to

be commended and congratulated.

I also want to take the opportunity of course to thank and congratulate Oakville Green. I believe that's the name of the local group that I met on one occasion.

That is the group that's been working very hard, fighting against development of the moraine. I know they're very supportive and perhaps worked with Mr Colle on the bill that's before us today.

This bill is about protecting, in the same vein that we worked and fought so hard for so many months to protect the Oak Ridges moraine. You will recall what we

had to go through to get the Oak Ridges moraine protected -- numerous local meetings where thousands of people came out to protest the government's plan for development on the Oak Ridges

moraine.

I put forward a bill, along with my colleague Shelley Martel, as did Mr Colle. We raised the issue many times in the Legislature. I guess people learned through

that whole process -- it's kind of sad in a way; good in one way, but sad -- that the squeaky wheel does get heard sometimes. It is unfortunate that citizens have to spend so much of their time,

freely given -- they're not paid to do this -- to fight these proposals that will cause great damage to their communities perhaps and to environmentally sensitive land. It shouldn't have to be this

way. You would think we would have learned from what happened around the Oak Ridges moraine, that it's not fair and it's in nobody's interest to put people through this kind of process.

We're here again today -- it's almost like déjà vu all over again, really. Here we go again. Again, I want to congratulate Mr Colle for his dogged --

he's like a dog with a bone who will not let go -- approach to protecting these sensitive lands.

I know it's private members' hour, but I want to say categorically that we in the NDP all support this bill before us today, and we do that because support for

this cause is consistent with the NDP's green planning principles of stopping sprawl, creating compact growth, which we've talked about a lot in this Legislature, and supporting green space and

ecological preservation. That's what this bill embodies here today.

Just let me tell you, though, what I think we have to do. Certainly I would recommend that people take a look at Public Power: Practical Solutions for Ontario,

the NDP's platform for the coming election, which is going to be called, we think, soon. You can get it on a Web site, www.publicpower.ca. You can turn to pages 34 and 35, and within these

practical solutions, there are two very important -- and this does relate to your bill, Mr Colle. I'm not going off subject here. Because one of the concerns --

Mr Chudleigh: Don't worry about it.

Ms Churley: I always try to stay on subject. You know that.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: I had great fun grilling Mr Wilson yesterday over barbecues -- ha ha.

Mr Chudleigh: He had fun too.

Ms Churley: Yes, I think he had fun too. However, that in itself is a very serious issue: curtailing smog in this province. That's one of the

issues that Mr Colle raised, and I know it's been raised by the member for Halton, Ted Chudleigh, that smog is a very serious problem now.

Yesterday we had a little fun with it, but we were also deadly serious that we have to do everything we can, not only to reduce pollution by phasing out and

closing down the coal plants by 2007 and bringing in very strong conservation and efficiency targets, which is what the NDP has been calling for for a long time now and we still don't have, but

also to increase and enhance public transportation and not increase urban sprawl in an area where, in fact, the lay of the land is such that you have to drive to get anywhere. Mr Colle has outlined

how much smog will be increased by the development if it takes place as planned.

In our document Public Power: Practical Solutions for Ontario -- the web site is www.publicpower.ca, but that's for another day. Seriously, I want to talk about

two things. When our government was in power, many people here -- I understand the government and the Liberals; we all do this to each other -- point out the things that you consider we did wrong

when in government and, yes, there are a couple of really good examples. But what you don't do is talk about some of the many things we did right when we were in power.

One of the things we brought in was the green planning act. Many of you were not here at the time. Mr Colle was not here and many of the Liberals who are sitting

here today were not here, so I'm not going to blame them. But I will say that both parties, the Tories at the time who were sitting right here as the third party -- it must be Gerry Phillips's and

Alvin Curling's fault; they were here -- voted against our plan for a tough green planning act.

We didn't just willy-nilly bring in a plan without examining it very carefully. We had a team of experts -- John Sewell was the chair of that panel and Toby

Vigod was then from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and others -- who went across the province. John likes to brag that not only did he come in on time but under budget, which is very

rare in this place. Developers, planners, environmental groups and local communities all worked together and, yes, there were some compromises. However, at the end of the day people were generally

happy with our comprehensive bill that in fact did what Mr Colle talked about today and what we all talked about when we were trying to protect the Oak Ridges moraine: that is, a green planning act

that looked at the province as a whole.

We shouldn't be doing this piecemeal. We need a comprehensive green planning act, once again, that automatically puts in place processes that protect this kind

of land, prevents urban sprawl and protects our drinking water at the source. All of those things were embodied within our green planning act.

It was one of the first things the Tory government threw out when they came to power. I found it very regrettable because, not only did they revert back to the

previous planning act that was in place before we brought in this new green planning act, but they brought in some other very regressive measures that would actually make it easier for developers

to develop on these environmentally sensitive lands.

That is part of our platform. It's the fifth practical solution: "Implement a tough green planning act to fight urban sprawl and preserve valuable agricultural

land, wetlands, woodlands and other important natural areas ... from development." We did it before and we must do it again.

The second thing I want to talk about, and this is on page 34 of our Public Power platform, I believe is the second practical solution. That is bringing in my

Ontario Drinking Water Source Protection Act. You will recall that after the tainted water tragedy in Walkerton there was a comprehensive inquiry which we demanded, the people of Walkerton

demanded, the Liberals demanded, many of us demanded, and eventually we were able to force the government to appoint Justice O'Connor, who I must say did an incredible job that we're all very happy

with.

One of the key recommendations, the linchpin of all of those recommendations, was to bring in the source protection act. Justice O'Connor said that even with the

Safe Drinking Water Act -- you may recall I had put forward a private member's bill on that which came very close to being passed, but at the end of the day the government did its own. One of the

differences between my Safe Drinking Water Act and the government's was that I tried to bring at least some components of source protection into it as we did under the NDP's Oak Ridges moraine act.

We also brought in pieces of the green planning act which had been thrown out, and pieces of, even before Justice O'Connor recommended it, on source protection. In many ways, what the bill before

us today is about is source protection. When the government says, "You guys did nothing when you were in government on source protection," it's not true. There was not a specific source protection

bill at the time, but under the green planning act, there certainly was source protection.

Practical solution 2 talks about bringing in the NDP's source protection act. I'm going to tell you what that would do, because it's relevant to this bill before

us today, which is for us to protect a specific environmentally sensitive piece of land. In a nutshell, it "establishes watershed planning boards across the province with the mandate and resources

to protect the quantity and quality of water in the watershed. These boards would produce source protection plans that would prevent water contamination by human activity, intensive factory hog

farms" -- I must say, that's another bill I brought forward some time ago that I've been urging the government to pass; that is, curtailment of these huge factory hog farms, which are also causing

environmental havoc in some locations in our province -- "massive water taking and other development." The bill is more comprehensive than that, but that, in a nutshell, is what the source

protection act would do.

It is absolutely essential, so that we don't have to keep coming back over and over again, as Mr Colle has had to do today and we had to do on the Oak Ridges

moraine piece -- we're about to do it over another highway the government is talking about bringing in that goes against the grain of their own recommendations of Smart Growth. This is another

example of it today. The government received a fair amount of credit for their Smart Growth panel and the recommendations. I gave them some credit for that. I do that from time to time. When I

think a government is doing something right, I will stand up and say I think they're doing something right. What is disturbing to me is that after I give them those compliments, they really

severely disappoint me by then turning around and going against their own recommendations. That's what we're seeing here again, the government practising dumb growth, not smart growth.

We have to put together comprehensive legislation that protects environmentally sensitive land across this province so that we don't have to keep coming back and

doing this over and over again. We need to protect green space, preserve important ecological features and stop urban sprawl. I must say to the government today that you must not allow the Ontario

Realty Corp to sell the land it owns on the moraine to developers. You just can't do that. Once again, it belies everything you said about protecting the Oak Ridges moraine and protecting water

sources in this province.

I have to add before I close that if land is deemed to be appropriate to develop on, another good thing the NDP did -- there were many we had in place when we

were the government -- was that government-owned land be set aside to build affordable housing. I know this is an aside. This land, in my view, should not be developed. But certainly there's a

great concern now that when there is land owned by the government that is available and appropriate to build housing on, instead of setting aside some of that land to build affordable housing, it's

all sold off to developers.

Their friends get to buy it and get to build condos and high-priced houses so they can make money. That's an aside, I know, but one that's very serious,

because as we stand here today talking about protecting our environmentally sensitive land, curtailing smog and urban sprawl, we also have a very serious affordable housing crisis in this province

because the government stopped building housing, as did the Liberals in Ottawa. They've put some money back on the table and we're waiting for this government to match that money -- they haven't

done so -- so we can start building housing again.

I know I digressed a little bit, but it's another passion of mine. I want to speak in favour of Mr Colle's bill and hope the government will see fit to pass it

today, to pass third reading, and let it go through so we can protect this environmentally sensitive land.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate on Bill 27. Essentially, the purpose of the bill is

an emergency freeze with respect to the Trafalgar moraine. It says very clearly that it's to take effect May 1, 2003, and the act is repealed on the day the plan made by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and Housing to protect the environmentally sensitive areas and other natural features of the Trafalgar moraine from development comes into force. Essentially what the member is asking for

is a freeze with respect to anything the municipality can do, and also for a plan from municipal affairs to deal with this land. That's the nature of the bill.

I would say that our government's record with respect to protecting environmentally sensitive areas speaks for itself. We were the first government to protect

the Oak Ridges moraine for future generations. Other parties may have talked a big game when they were in government, but they did nothing to deliver real protection. I think it's appropriate that

the Environmental Commissioner recently presented an award to the province for its historic protection of these lands.

More recently, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Young, protected the Pickering agricultural reserve from the prospect of development by issuing a

ministerial zoning order. This bold action ensured that these lands would be protected forever, just as the people of Pickering were promised back in 1999. While the city was looking to possibly

reopening that agreement as part of a developmental study, the province made it clear that this land was to be protected in perpetuity. I'll be touching on both of these examples at greater length

in a few moments.

It's interesting that the candidate who is running in Pickering, Mayor Arthurs, was not happy with the provincial action taking away the powers of the

municipality with respect to dealing with the lands in Pickering and in fact wanted those lands back for development by the municipality, and that's what triggered the province to bring in the

zoning order. It's interesting that we have one Liberal bringing forth a bill that will strip municipalities of their powers to deal with the Trafalgar moraine,

whereas another Liberal wants to

make sure the municipalities have the power to deal with lands that are in the municipality. It would appear that, as usual, the Liberals are going both ways on a particular issue.

Before development can be considered in the study area covered by Oakville's official plan amendment 198, a secondary plan will have to be put in place. As

part of the secondary planning process, a sub-watershed study of the area will have to be completed. Let me tell the members of the Legislature about the terms of reference of that sub-watershed

study. The terms of reference will ensure that all the environmentally significant features in the area being considered for development will be identified. Those terms of reference include the

identification and evaluation of wetlands, woodlands, wildlife travel corridors, habitat areas, areas of natural and scientific interest, environmentally significant areas, watercourses and

associated characteristics of the Trafalgar moraine. They call for analysis and determination of water recharge and discharge areas. I repeat, all this will happen before any secondary plan is

prepared, and before any consideration is given to individual development proposals. So an emergency freeze, as proposed in Bill 27, is strictly premature.

This government has demonstrated time and again that it is not afraid to act decisively when such action is necessary. When the Oak Ridges moraine was

threatened by proposed development, this government stepped in with the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, which created a six-month moratorium on planning applications on the Oak Ridges moraine.

The idea was to provide an opportunity for competing interests to get together to reach a consensus on what parts of the moraine needed protection, how that protection should be accomplished and

what areas could be developed with certainty. For more than a decade, people had been arguing about exactly how much protection was needed and how it should be done. Much of the debate about the

Oak Ridges moraine had been before the Ontario Municipal Board at tremendous cost in both money and time to municipalities, the province, environmental groups and developers. Three different

governments had faced this issue; this government was the first to take action.

In 2001, the government committed to resolve the issue. The situation had come to a head, and the only way to find a solution was to create a six-month

moratorium on all planning applications on the moraine. As I said earlier, we are now in an excellent position to protect what needs to be protected in north Oakville through the planning process

before we get into the situation we faced on the Oak Ridges moraine.

Let me mention some other examples of the government's commitment to protecting environmentally sensitive areas. In 1999, when the Ontario Realty Corp agreed

to sell land it owned in what was then the town of Pickering, it did so on the condition that those lands would remain in agricultural use forever. Pickering, the province and the region of Durham

all signed an agreement to that effect. When the city of Pickering decided last year to undertake a growth management study that included these agricultural lands, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and Housing acted decisively. He imposed a zoning order to make sure the agricultural and open space lands in the agricultural reserve would be protected.

Let me give you another example. The province has plans to exchange lands it owns in north Pickering for privately owned lands on the Oak Ridges moraine. Last

December, the government made a commitment to retain in public ownership more than half the lands we own there, because these lands have been identified as environmentally sensitive.

These lands were identified and mapped by provincial staff using the principles in the Oak Ridges moraine conservation plan, as recommended by the North

Pickering Land Exchange Review Panel. Protecting these lands will ensure a robust natural heritage system in north Pickering.

I mention these examples to demonstrate that this government is more than willing to make tough decisions and act decisively to protect the environment when

such action is called for. In the case of north Oakville and the Trafalgar moraine, the legislation we are considering today is unnecessary, because the system is working as it should.

The town of Oakville, the region of Halton and the provincial government are working together to ensure that all environmentally sensitive features in north

Oakville, including the Trafalgar moraine, are identified and protected, and that is being done within Ontario's existing land use planning system.

This government is committed to environmental protection. That commitment has been proven by our actions, and not only by our words.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to the bill

that my colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence has put forward with regard to protecting the Trafalgar moraine. I have been very inspired by the good work of my colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence in many

ways, and particularly his commitment to the Oak Ridges moraine. This man walked the entire length of the Oak Ridges moraine to make a point with the public that he was absolutely committed to its

protection. The member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford indicated that a situation came to a head and so the government acted. The situation that came to a head was the consequence of the good work of

my colleague Mr Colle, the member from Eglinton-Lawrence, who worked tirelessly to bring the public's attention to the travesty that was about to happen should development of the Oak Ridges moraine

have been allowed to unfold as was happening, so I'm inspired by this man.

Here again we see a piece of legislation before the House. The member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford just suggested it's not necessary. I suggest that Mr Colle,

with the experience he had with the Oak Ridges moraine -- that is an example that demonstrates why it is absolutely essential that there is legislation to protect the Trafalgar moraine. When it

comes to matters of the environment, you cannot trust this government to act in the best interests of the environment.

I know there are many examples even in my own riding where this government has demonstrated an abysmal record in terms of protecting the environment. I point

to water-taking permits. There has been an issue -- it's ongoing -- with the OMYA company out of Perth that was granted a permit to take 1.5 million litres of water per day. That amount will

increase to 4.5 million litres of water a day that will be taken out of the Tay River. The people in the community reacted to that. They said, "Wait a minute. We don't think that is in the best

interests of our local environment, of the surrounding ecosystem." So they challenged the decision to allow the permit. They took it to the Environmental Review Tribunal. There were 30 days of

public hearings where members of the public who are concerned about their local ecosystem made their points to the tribunal. The review tribunal handed down a decision in consideration of all the

issues that were placed before it by the community, and certainly the government had an opportunity to make its case at that tribunal hearing as well. The tribunal handed down a decision saying

that the company should only be able to take 1.5 million litres of water per day. The tribunal was convinced by the arguments put by the people in the community that it would be only that amount

that would not put undue pressure on the local ecosystem.

What did this government do? What did the Minister of the Environment do? On Valentine's Day, when the House wasn't sitting, when he thought that no one would

notice, he overturned the ruling of the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford would like to suggest that the people of Ontario should be confident in the record of this government protecting the

environment. The people in my riding do not have confidence that this government has the better interests of the environment at heart.

Another, more recent example: last week the Superior Court of Ontario ruled that the terms of reference for a proposed landfill expansion in my riding were not

sound. The terms of reference were approved by the Minister of the Environment. The people in my riding, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte and concerned residents in the Napanee area, petitioned the

minister. They explained all of the reasons why they believed the terms of reference were not adequate to address their concerns around this expansion. They presented to the minister that they were

scoped and that it prevented them from considering alternatives which the Environmental Assessment Act would say they have a right to consider. The terms of reference prevented the community from

providing those alternatives. This government did not listen to them. Their only option was to appeal to the courts. They did, and last week the courts found in favour of the people and even

awarded their costs to them. The courts obviously recognize that the law that's in place now is rather redundant. On one hand, the Environmental Assessment Act says that communities should have the

right to consider alternatives, and yet on the other hand the act does give the minister the ability to approve a scoped EA. It is that point exactly that the court ruled on.

Of course, the other issue in my riding is Mellon Lake, where with Ontario's Living Legacy this government has supposedly created acres and acres of parkland.

However, there's an insidious little caveat there that talks about forest reserves within the boundaries of these conservation reserves. What can happen in forest reserves? You can mine; you can

log; you can produce hydroelectric power. It is another inconsistency. I know the Premier is getting all kinds of e-mails, because I'm getting copies in my office, about the inconsistency and the

lack of concern for the environment. They produce a document that says one thing but in fact allows something else. Mellon Lake is a classic example of that.

So I commend my colleague Mr Colle. He has identified yet another area that needs protection.

We are not confident in this government. In fact, it is only the record of this government that inspires my colleague to move forward with legislation of his

own, because he knows their record. They would suggest that they have been protecting the environment. Their own record would demonstrate that that is not the case. So I am delighted to have this

opportunity to support my colleague. I know the people in the communities that include the Trafalgar moraine are encouraged by his commitment to preserving it as a green space in a part of the

province that is very beautiful and that in fact needs that; our environment needs it. So I do intend to support this bill, and I encourage all members on both sides of the aisle to support this in

the best interests of the environment of Ontario.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure, in the very few seconds left, to comment with respect to the contradictions made by the mayor of

Pickering and their position on a permanent agricultural zone, and on this debate here today.

What really appals me is, first of all, if a person looks at the bill -- I'm not sure it's in order. If you look here, there is "No action to be taken" on

decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board. Its retroactivity clauses are also, in my opinion, very provocative in terms of nullifying any decisions made by local council. I'm sure this bill has been

put together by Mr Colle --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Response?

Mr Colle: Again, I just want to say that I remember three years ago when the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, who is the mouthpiece for the

backroom boys in the Premier's office, stood in this House saying the same thing, "You don't need this bill," that it was a silly bill. They had things in place. He talked about their record. The

people of Ontario know the record of this government. It's abysmal.

They talk about the Oak Ridges moraine act. They said it was a Communist plot. They ranted and raved about me having the audacity to protect the Oak Ridges

moraine. Then they rose up because they were afraid of losing the election and they came up with

an act to protect the moraine. But the day after they put in the act, Minister Hodgson passed a

secret order to allow 10,000 homes to be built right in the middle of the moraine -- the day after they passed the bill.

They talk about the area in Duffins Creek. They don't mention, again, that one half of the area in Pickering is going to be protected; there's another half to

the agricultural preserve that's in Markham that is publicly owned and that they are allowing to be developed. They don't mention that. Always half the story.

But I want to talk about this beautiful, precious area called the Trafalgar moraine that needs to be protected if we're going to stop sprawl. This is a litmus

test to see if this government really wants to stop sprawl. It's a litmus test to see if this government really wants to do something about smog. It's a litmus test to see if this government is or

is not in the pockets of developers.

Well, they ask, will the developers like my bill? They won't. They're afraid to stand up to their developer friends. They are going to say, "We don't need this

because the developers have millions to make by paving everything from here to Fort Erie." We need to protect the escarpment. We need to protect air quality in the Oakville-Trafalgar area. We need

to protect the birds, the wildlife, the water for our future generations. We don't need to put money into the developers' pockets any more. They have enough money.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debating ballot item number 17. I will place the question to decide --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr O'Toole: What a charlatan.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: No, you won't. You'll withdraw that.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I will place the questions dealing with ballot item number 17 at 12 o'clock noon.

FAMILY RESTROOM

FACILITIES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LES INSTALLATIONS

SANITAIRES FAMILIALES

Mr Parsons moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

An Act to facilitate families by requiring that all buildings open to the public be equipped with family restroom facilities / Projet de loi 73, Loi

visant à assister les familles en exigeant que tous les bâtiments ouverts au public soient équipés d'installations sanitaires familiales.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Several months ago, a gentleman named Jack Palmer approached me with a wonderful smile on his face

to indicate that he was getting married or had just gotten married. I'm very pleased that Jack is with us today and that his wife, Kay, has joined him.

I first met Jack when he approached me about a year ago with an issue. Jack's wife at that time, Rita, was very, very ill. She very much appreciated and

enjoyed getting out into the community, but one of the challenges they faced at that time was access to a washroom where Jack could be of assistance to Rita. They really don't exist. So for

families that have a need to assist a partner or a child or a friend, a companion or whomever -- a very simple issue to most of us is using the washroom, but to some people it's a very difficult

challenge and they require assistance.

I should mention before I go on how very pleased I am that Jack and Kay are with us in the back row of the members' gallery. I welcome them to Queen's

Park.

Jack said he felt there was a very simple solution to solving the dilemma of people who required some assistance with washrooms. I thought and thought about

that. I thought, "What an amazingly simple idea, not terribly complicated, but the provision of a family washroom would profoundly change the quality of life for hundreds, if not thousands, of

individuals in our province."

I introduced a bill that would provide that provincial or municipal government buildings that are open to the public on a regular basis or commercial stores

with a floor area in excess of 50,000 square feet would have, along with the men's washroom and the women's washroom, a family washroom.

Once I introduced the bill, I started to be contacted by a number of individuals who shared with me how absolutely delighted they were that this came forward.

Some of the stories were very moving. I had some people approach me who are responsible for residents in a group home. These individuals require assistance with virtually every aspect of their

lives, but they also get a great deal of enjoyment from being out in the community. It's good for the community and it's good for them. But the people said to me, "When we go out, the major

challenge is, if we have female staff with male clients, how do we use the washroom? We can't go in with them. We can assist them at the group home but we can't assist them when we're travelling."

The solution they have arrived at in many cases -- in too many cases -- is to not take the residents of the group home out. So they are in some ways prisoners in the group home, when for so very

little money they would be able to travel and be part of our community and enrich their and our lives.

I also have become increasingly aware, and I guess I faced it for myself when I was a parent with extremely young children, travelling with my daughter when

she was five or six years old. You go to use public washrooms -- she would go in one, I would go in the other. Then when I came out, I would wonder, "When will she be out? Are there any problems?

Are there any difficulties in there? Are there people in there that I should be concerned about?" Or indeed, if she had not come out, I'd wonder, "Did she come out before me and someone engaged her

in conversation and led her off or whatever?" We've now seen some absolutely tragic and horrible instances, instances that would have been unbelievable years ago, of people literally snatching

children off the street. So from a safety viewpoint, this bill would provide the opportunity for a parent to say, "There's a family washroom. I know that if my daughter or son goes in there,

there's no one else in there. I can wait outside with absolute security that there is no one else using that washroom."

Following up on Jack's idea, I talked to some businesses in my riding of Prince Edward-Hastings. Dennis McCulloch operates a Canadian Tire store in Belleville.

Dennis voluntarily, I believe about 1995 or 1996, put in a family washroom. He knew that it was the right thing to do as a corporate citizen, knew it was the right thing to do as a parent, and knew

that it also opened his business up to additional people who could come in and shop in the store knowing they had access to it.

Right across the street from the Canadian Tire in our community is a very large mall, the Quinte Mall. Questions went to them: "What's your reaction to the

idea of having a family washroom?" Their reaction to it was to build one. They said, "It's good business, it's good corporate citizenship, it's just a smart thing to do."

I confess that this bill isn't the most glamorous that has ever come before the Legislature. It isn't terribly exotic and exciting, but it is exciting in the

sense of what it can do for the people of Ontario. I applaud the businesses that have chosen to do it voluntarily. The reason for the bill is to require that it's done, and I quite frankly don't

expect opposition from businesses. The conversations that I have had, not just within my riding but across Ontario, have been highly supportive of it. But the purpose of the bill -- to have it

compulsory -- is so that someone can travel from one area to another and have complete and total assurance that they will have access to what is a very basic need. We live in a society that has

been described as an aging society. We have a large number of people, described as the baby boomers born just after World War II, who are now in the 57 or 58 age group. The fact is that the older

we get, the more help we need from our friends. We need to address the reality that we will have an increasing need for people who can support us. What are our most basic needs in some ways? We

need food and we need access to a washroom. This bill will ensure that all across Ontario a citizen can set out knowing that they will have access to it. I would even strongly suggest that it will

make the province more open to tourists. People from outside the province and from outside the country will be able to travel to Ontario knowing that they have assurance that it's somewhere in the

larger ones.

It is certainly not the intent of this bill that individual stores be confronted with it. The smaller stores in a mall or the smaller free-standing stores,

quite frankly, have what is probably best described as a unisex washroom now and can meet that need. The need applies only to very large businesses.

My belief is that if there was ever a non-partisan bill before this Legislature, this is it. This is a bill that has the potential to make every member in this

room look good. All of us came to make a change. Some of the changes that we can make are very profound, like improving education or improving health care or improving the environment. But there's

an expression that says all politics is local. This is a very small, local issue in every one of your offices. I guess it was so obvious that we have in the past collectively not thought about it.

This demonstrates the wisdom and the advantages of how politics works in Ontario, where one citizen can come in and say, "Have you thought about this? Would you consider this?" This has been my

experience.

As I mentioned earlier, the response from across Ontario has just been overwhelming, from virtually every part of Ontario saying, "This would help my father;

this would help my mother; this would help my brother who is developmentally handicapped" -- from a sister who said, "He lives with us and it has made us prisoners."

For people who require this assistance, what we're talking about really is much more than just access to a washroom. We're talking independence; we're talking

freedom; we're talking a simple little -- almost no cost -- change to large malls and large stores that would provide freedom for the people of Ontario to travel. In a sense, it's almost an equity

issue. For the people who require assistance, for our citizens who reside in group homes and need assistance, for the safety of our children, I urge every member in this House to support this bill.

We need to get it in place as quickly as possible because we have literally thousands of Ontarians waiting to enjoy the freedom, to enjoy the access, to be a full and complete part of our society,

to get out, to contribute to us rather than literally being prisoners in a house, which I'm sure every member will agree is unthinkable.

So I urge every member of this House to support this bill. We have a unique opportunity, with almost no cost, to improve the lives of the people of

Ontario.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): The government of Ontario fully supports the principle behind Bill 73. What's more, our government is

committed to the families of this province. There are approximately 850,000 children under the age of six in Ontario. The government wants to make sure that they and their parents are

accommodated.

In principle, Bill 73 is striving for the same goal that our government is working towards: family-friendly facilities for young families. However, rather than

have a separate piece of legislation, any laws or regulations governing buildings in Ontario should be part of the Ontario Building Code Act. I am happy to report that the Eves government has been

actively working on revisions and amendments to the Building Code Act that would serve many of the same purposes as Bill 73. As you know, the Building Code Act already has enforcement mechanisms in

place. In addition, the building code applies to new or substantially renovated buildings and is not retroactive, that retroactivity being a weakness of Bill 73 that my colleague has pointed

out.

Finally, there is nothing in Bill 73 that describes what would constitute an adequate family restroom facility. How many stalls should it have? How many sinks?

How wide must the doors be? For instance, Bill 73 states that a family restroom facility means a restroom facility that "is large enough to permit a member of the family or group to accompany

another member of the family or group to assist him or her in using the facilities." The difficulty is, how big is that?

These are just some of the questions left unanswered by Bill 73, and these are questions that would be answered if the laudable goals of Bill 73 were achieved

through the building code.

I've talked about the benefits and suitability of working through the building code to reach the same goals as those intended by Bill 73. Now let me tell you

what we are doing toward that end.

Starting in 2001 and continuing until March 2002, our government consulted intensively and extensively on barrier-free requirements for the Ontario building

code. We have a technical advisory committee that includes persons with disabilities, advocates for those with disabilities, building designers, builders and municipal building officials. That

committee worked diligently through the public consultation process and then reviewed what it heard to come up with recommendations it considered a priority for any amendments to the Ontario

building code. Included in these recommendations were proposals related to family washrooms.

We held another round of consultations from February 12 to May 12 of this year, a round of consultations that just ended. In this most recent round, we asked

Ontarians with disabilities, the general public, building officials, designers and builders for their input on the recommendations set out by the technical advisory committee. Our government is

just now reviewing the comments we have received from the latest round of consultations, and they will be incorporated in our code review process.

Our government is on the right track. We are reviewing and considering existing legislation and, where warranted, amendments will be made to the body of

legislation we already have, legislation that already has enforcement mechanisms in place, legislation that is well thought out and legislation that has received the benefit of stakeholder

input.

Our government's package of barrier-free design requirements includes amendments that encourage the installation of family washrooms in all buildings used by

the public. These requirements are being given careful consideration.

All that said, the intent of Bill 73 is both welcome and laudable, and I'm pleased that both the opposition and government members are calling for further

positive steps to be taken. Supporting Bill 73 is a good way to show this Legislature's commitment to supporting families and disabled citizens, and I'm proud to join my colleagues in supporting

this bill at second reading.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): First of all, I would like to commend and congratulate my colleague from

Prince Edward-Hastings for bringing this bill forward. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of persons with disabilities in this province, and on this side of the House we're all very proud of the

very good work and advocacy he does.

While I am aware this issue perhaps first came to his attention as a disability issue, I intend to respond this morning as a colleague, but in my role as

critic for children, considering children's issues in this province. This bill, I believe, is very important for families with children.

I can perhaps also comment with regard to what the member from Cambridge has presented already. He indicated that perhaps a way to address the concerns raised

by my colleague would be to revise the building code, and that the government is in the process of doing that, on some of the questions around the size of washrooms that would be large enough to

permit a member of the family or a group to accompany another member of the family or a group in the particular facility. I would say to the member from Cambridge that while I appreciate the point

he's making and while I would not argue the Building Code Act might be an area where this issue can be addressed, the fact of the matter is it's not there. They are considering it. This bill is

immediate. My colleague is bringing it forward and it would be an effective law if it were passed right now.

That is why I would hope the members of the government -- I believe my colleague will be supported, certainly on this side of the House, in an overwhelming way

-- will move this issue forward so that the government has the will -- it certainly has the ability -- to move it for immediate third reading, so that families in this situation who have disabled

members can see some action on this, and also families with smaller children.

I want to go to that. Particularly today, in recent weeks, sadly we are aware, now more than ever, that parents of younger children must be ever more vigilant

about their safety in public. As a mother with four children myself, I can remember those days when we'd go off on a shopping trip or some kind of expedition with the family, and of course with

children one of the inevitable stops we make along the way is a washroom.

I think my colleague from Prince Edward-Hastings has described a situation where dads will take their daughters with them. It comes time to go to the washroom

and dads cannot bring the young girl into the men's washroom and they cannot accompany the young girl into the ladies' washroom, so there's a dilemma. What do you do? You stand outside and you wait

and hope that everything is OK when she is in there. In today's society there are all kinds of situations that can arise accidentally that could, I believe, put children at risk. The presence of a

family washroom in a facility would pre-empt all of those needless concerns, or those concerns would be needless if there was a family washroom. They are certainly very valid now. I think families,

now more than ever, are conscious of not letting their children, particularly their small children, out of their sight.

A number of months ago I was on a radio-television program and one of the calls I received was on this very issue: why isn't there a law in the province of

Ontario to assist individuals who need to be assisted in this way? They thought it was something that was very important. They were also able to name businesses in the community that provided this

service. My colleague talked about some businesses in the community that have very wisely incorporated family washrooms into their building plans. Sadly, though, they are more unusual than

usual.

The purpose of my colleague's bill this morning is to change that so that people either with the need to have someone assist them or whose family member needs

to be assisted or if they're in a work situation where they would need to accompany a person of the opposite sex to assist them in this area -- they are very restricted. This bill will alleviate

that.

My colleague talks about people feeling like they're prisoners in their own community, that they would like to get out, but when they get out they encounter

these particular challenges. We have an Ontarians with Disabilities Act which is supposed to level the playing field for persons with disabilities. It's supposed to be enabling legislation and yet

there continue to be many situations and circumstances in our communities when that is not the case.

My colleague has identified one of those and has brought forward a private member's bill to try to address that in a very meaningful way. I think it's

fortuitous that, while it will have an impact particularly for persons with disabilities who have a need, it's also going to benefit families. It will enable them to travel and feel more safe and

confident when their younger family members have a need, because they're now going to be able to address that in a more safe way.

I was encouraged when I heard the comments of the member from Cambridge. While he did identify that there might be another act that could achieve this

assistance, I believe that this bill today will do that more quickly. The questions raised by the member from Cambridge could be addressed with regulations around size and how they can be located

or situated, but I sincerely hope that all members of the Legislature will support this bill so that Ontarians, disabled and able and families, will be able to safely access these very necessary

facilities in public.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House this morning in private members' public business to lend

support to this piece of public business brought forward by the member for Prince Edward-Hastings, Mr Parsons. I think it's an important piece of public policy that we deal with here this morning.

It may not present as very gripping or large in terms of some of the issues that we are confronted with here every day, but I suggest to you that it is an important issue when those occasions arise

when all of us are confronted with the need to get to a bathroom with a young child or somebody who's in need of assistance and all you have are the more public offerings that you run into.

The fact that Mr Parsons has brought this forward speaks to probably some of his own experience with family and the people in his care whom he has needed to

look after in his travels across the province. I was fortunate to travel with him earlier this week up into northern Ontario, where he and I got a first-hand look at the vast amount of territory

and the roads that we find in this province. Never mind family washrooms, they don't even have washrooms. You find the nearest tree and you pull over, and in those instances --

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): That's not environmentally friendly, Tony.

Mr Martin: It is, actually. You contribute a little water and nutrient.

Mr Caplan: Nutrients.

Mr Martin: Yes, nutrient. No big deal there.

Interjection.

Mr Martin: Yes, getting a little slippery.

In northern Ontario, to put this in context, we're in need of some bathrooms, clean and accessible, in many of the places that you, Speaker, and I know about

as we travel, as you travel in particular to cover the vast territory that you represent in northern Ontario, and understand that when you travel with family you're not out of your house more than

five or 10 minutes when some voice from the back says, "Dad, I need to go to the bathroom," and then you're into wondering where you might stop and where you might go. We all know that if you stop

at a restaurant or a place of business, in most instances you have to buy something before you can actually use the washroom. Of course, the first place you stop is oftentimes a coffee shop, and if

you have a coffee, then you have to stop another hour down the road, particularly those of us who are getting a little older and are starting to have some difficulties with our plumbing. When we do

need to use the facilities it's often in a big hurry and when it's family, of course, it's always in a big hurry.

I think this bill is a timely one and will respond to some of the very real challenges that families in particular face out there as they go shopping or

travelling with youngsters and want to assist them in looking after their very personal needs, not to speak of some of the safety issues we all have to deal with these days as well. I have four

children, two boys and two girls, and from time to time out in a public space, when one of them needs to go to the bathroom, you think twice before letting them go off on their own to a washroom.

You hear stories. How many of them actually happen in any particular place is another question, but you hear of stories that are very real, in many instances, and you have some concern and would

like to attend with your child. I've spent many a five or 10 minutes standing outside of the washroom door waiting for my young daughter to come out, hoping that she'll be OK. This bill certainly

would go a ways to being much more helpful on that front.

My only concern is that this may end up being another cost on municipalities. It would be a problem if that became an issue. We know that over the years this

government has already downloaded almost everything the provincial government used to be responsible for in terms of cost. To put another challenge in front of them I think would be difficult.

This bill reminds me a little bit of the exercise that both Mr Parsons and I went through in critiquing the Ontarians with Disabilities Act that came forward

last year and that certainly went a small distance to indicate that there's a concern and a real need out there to do something. But again this government wasn't willing to come forward with the

kind of money that was necessary to make sure that some of what was required under an Ontarians with Disabilities Act would get implemented.

I would hope that in passing this bill, and I hope it will pass -- certainly our caucus will support it -- the government will also recognize the need to make

sure that there's money made available to municipalities, if that's where this ends up being taken care of, that there's money made available to those organizations to make sure that they can in

fact provide these washrooms.

We're in need of these kinds of facilities across the province for all kinds of people. Certainly the bill as it's presented speaks of the need of children and

people with disabilities travelling with attendants. I would guess that probably our elderly are another group of people who need to be considered when we look at the issue of providing comfort

stations across the province, knowing where those comfort stations are and making sure that they're accessible and free for people to use. I remember back in the 1960s, as a young person coming

down to Toronto to visit from northern Ontario, running into the phenomenon of pay toilets and having to spend a dime to get into a toilet. If you didn't have a dime, well, you were out of luck.

Many of us, though, became very creative in that we would wait until somebody came out and grab the door and get in and do our business. I don't know if we'd be charged with that or not --

Mr Parsons: You're speaking for your party.

Mr Martin: I'm speaking for me. I don't know whether it was a criminal activity involved in at that particular point in time: robbing the

Interjection.

Mr Martin: Yes. Well, you might want to do an FOI on it. I don't know; how do you get to the bottom of something like that?

Here I am in Toronto, confronted with a toilet that you have to pay for to use. I used to take the bus down, the old bus station down on the corner of Bay and

Dundas -- I guess it was there someplace. Here you are, you've spent the night on the bus and you get off. You've drunk a lot of coffee and the first thing you want to do is use a washroom, and you

either don't have a dime or you don't have the change. You're confronted with quite a dilemma. I have to say that on more than one occasion I actually waited until somebody came out and grabbed the

door and got in and did my business.

You don't understand the currency in an issue like this, as I said earlier, until you're confronted with it yourself in the first place. So I hope that

whatever we do here to make it easier for families to access comfort stations and provide relief for their children in a supportive and safe way, we'll make sure the resources are available so we

don't end up going back to a time -- although it wouldn't surprise me with this government; they've found ways to add a fee to almost everything or to privatize almost anything that moves in this

province over the last eight years. It wouldn't surprise me that we would find ourselves returning to the issue of pay toilets.

I would guess that the government's response to this would be: "This is a really good idea. We'll see if there's a private sector operator out there who wants

to run these things, and then we'll find a way to make people pay."

Mr Parsons: Don't give them ideas, Tony.

Mr Martin: I'm not saying this is where we should be going. All I'm saying is that I can imagine a return to the days of having to put --

well, it wouldn't be a dime any more, would it; it would probably be a loonie or a toonie that you'd be putting in. We're now paying for parking anyplace you go. There's another thing they might

do: first you pay for the parking around the facility and then, when you actually get to use the facility, because it's a private sector operation under the ideology of the government of the day,

we would probably have to dig into our pocket for a loonie or a toonie to actually get into the facility.

The Speaker would know that up in northern Ontario now, if you pull in to use a restroom -- and there are a few --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Every 500 miles.

Mr Martin: There are a few, every 500 miles. But now there is actually a little box that you have to put a coin into, first of all to park, if

you want to use the restroom or if you want to go for a little swim on a hot day like we've had in the last couple of weeks. You're out in the middle of nowhere, nothing but you and the blackflies.

There's nobody parked for miles around, but there's a little box there that you've got to put money in, because this government feels that it doesn't matter where you are, they want to fleece

you.

Mr Parsons: That's when you have the coin with the string on it.

Mr Martin: We could do that, too. I never did that before -- the coin with the string on it.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Do you call that downloading?

Mr Martin: The debate is really starting to slide now.

Anyway, up in northern Ontario you're starting to have to pay for facilities and the great outdoors that you used to take for granted when you lived up there

before -- it was just there, it was yours and you would use it. Don't be surprised, if they accept your bill here this morning, that that in fact is where they go.

Just by way of a little commercial for a local entrepreneur in my area, there's a fellow by the name of Jimmy Fitzpatrick, who builds very comfortable stations

that he sells to the Ministry of Natural Resources or the Ministry of Transportation. They've very clean and affordable, and the ventilation is excellent. If anybody is interested in making sure

there are facilities for families, particularly in some of the more remote areas of our province, they might want to give Fitzpatrick Industries in Sault Ste Marie a call -- it's on the Web -- and

check that out.

I think we do need to be looking at making sure we are providing these kinds of facilities, these kinds of comfort stations, these kinds of opportunities for

the travelling public in the province. Just recently in the Soo I was at a meeting of the seniors health advisory committee, and one of the issues identified by them was this issue of comfort

stations or rest stations, because seniors like to travel, like to go places. If they're like me -- as I'm getting further into my 50s, I find that I'm in need more often of a place to stop to take

advantage of a comfort station. But they identified that there weren't very many of them; or if they were available, they weren't readily identifiable; or they may in fact be opportunities you have

to spend some money to access. As I said before, if you have to buy a coffee in order to use the comfort room, usually an hour later you have to get rid of the coffee and do it again.

So they took upon themselves a project to identify every rest station available in Ontario and put it in a little brochure, and they shared it with the

membership of the various senior groups across the city of Sault Ste Marie. I thought it was a great service and a great idea. It speaks to the issue in a way that reflects how, in some instances,

it's sort of an innocuous sort of piece of public business -- or should I say private business -- that we all need to deal with from time to time, but it becomes rather critical when it's your time

or the time of your family to actually participate in it.

So we in this caucus will have no difficulty supporting the bill brought forward this morning during private members' public business by the member for Prince

Edward-Hastings, Mr Parsons. We think it's a good move forward in this time of real concern about the safety of children, and about how we support each other as we travel across the province and

provide opportunities for people with disabilities and people oftentimes with seniors, so there's a level of comfort around that kind of business as we do that. We need to support any effort to

further that agenda.

My only concern, and the concern of our caucus, as I said, is the question of who pays for it and that it not become another exercise in downloading, that

something we think is a great idea and should be provided out there for the travelling public, families, the disabled and seniors across the province not be downloaded on the backs of

municipalities or other not-for-profit groups or, in fact, be turned over to the private sector and we go back 20 or 30 years and begin to have to pay for these kinds of facilities again.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join the debate with respect to Bill 73, which essentially would

require that "family restroom facilities be available, as of January 1, 2005, in significant public buildings, including privately owned buildings such as shopping centres, arenas and stadiums that

have significant public access."

"Building" is defined as including "an arena, stadium, shopping centre, casino or other structure to which the public has access."

What's important is what this is meant to cover. It would appear that it's meant to cover privately owned buildings over 50,000 square feet and municipal and

provincial buildings that are open to the public. What is meant by "family restroom" is one that allows for babies to be changed, is accessible to people with disabilities and would allow an adult

of either gender to help a child or disabled adult of either gender to use the facilities.

Certainly the government supports the principle of this bill. In 2001 we passed the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and that act states that, "In consultation

premises, or parts of buildings, structures and premises, that the government purchases, enters into a lease for, constructs or significantly renovates." That act also requires that every municipal

its policies, programs, practices and services."

As well, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires each municipality to report on:

"(

a) the measures the municipality has taken to identify, remove and prevent barriers to persons with disabilities;

"(

b) the measures in place to ensure that the municipality assesses its proposals for by-laws, policies, programs, practices and services to determine their

"(

c) a list of the bylaws, policies, programs, practices and services that the municipality will review in the coming year in order to identify barriers to

persons with disabilities;

"(

d) the measures that the municipality intends to take in the coming year to identify, remove and prevent barriers to persons with disabilities."

The Ontarians with Disabilities Act also applies to educational institutions and hospitals, and requires every educational institution and hospital to:

"(

b) consult with persons with disabilities and others in preparing the plan."

"(

a) a report on the measures the organization has taken to identify, remove and prevent barriers to persons with disabilities;

"(

b) the measures in place to ensure that the organization assesses its proposals for bylaws, policies, programs, practices and services to determine their

"(

c) a list of the bylaws, policies, programs, practices and services that the organization will review in the coming year in order to identify barriers to

persons with disabilities;

"(

d) the measures that the organization intends to take in the coming year to identify, remove and prevent barriers to persons with disabilities."

The government of Ontario is committed to working with every sector of society to move toward a province in which no new barriers are created and existing ones

are removed. This responsibility rests with every social and economic sector, every region, every government, every organization, institution and association, and every person in this province.

The right of persons with disabilities to equal treatment without discrimination in accordance with the Human Rights Code is addressed in a number of Ontario

statutes and regulations. We have the Assessment Act, which provides for exemptions from property taxation where improvements, alterations or additions to existing homes or designated portions of

new homes are made or built to accommodate persons with disabilities who would otherwise require care in an institution. We have the Blind Persons' Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in

services, accommodations, facilities or occupancy against blind persons using guide dogs and prohibits persons who are not blind from using white canes. We have the Building Code Act, 1992, and the

structures for persons with disabilities.

I've taken the time to list the work this government has done to advance the cause of all Ontarians with disabilities because I want to emphasize the strong

support this government gives to the principle behind Bill 73. As you will recall, in October 1998, this government gave its full endorsement to 11 principles in support of Ontarians with

disabilities. There are, however, some concerns about Bill 73 that will need further discussion.

Before I get to that, I want to be clear that what the member is dealing with here is not just persons with disabilities; he's also dealing with families, with

respect to their children. Certainly, the family restroom is something that, myself being a father of four children aged five to 12 -- when you're travelling or you're going through areas of the

community and you have to deal with situations with children, it's nice to know that there's a consideration with respect to the needs of families. I think that's what the member is trying to put

forth here, a recognition that, as it says, allows for babies to be changed. Having those facilities available I don't think is a lot to ask for, in terms of dealing with your children in public

facilities.

There are some concerns about Bill 73 that, as I said, need further discussion. For example, the bill is retroactive. Many businesses may have to undertake

expensive renovations that they'll have to put into their cost figuring and their budgets that they may not have yet done; it includes no enforcement mechanisms in terms of making sure that the

organizations that are covered by this bill in fact do what is requested. It does not describe what constitutes an adequate family restroom facility in terms of standards, which may have to be

addressed in regulations. It doesn't say whether an owner or a tenant is responsible to undertake the modifications in dealing with this situation. Those are issues we can discuss in the future. As

I said, the principle behind this bill is commendable and I'm pleased to support it in terms of supporting families and also persons with disabilities.

Mr Gerretsen: First of all, let me congratulate the member from Prince Edward-Hastings for being an ardent advocate for the disabled in the

last four years that he's been here. The number of issues he has raised, the number of times he has requested that the government increase the ODSP payments, the number of times he has just talked

about issues relating to the disabled and wanting to better their lives so that they can lead as normal a life is possible has been just tremendous over the last number of years. I think he should

be congratulated for that.

Certainly this bill is another example of where he has taken an issue that maybe doesn't mean very much to most people out there and said, "Look, there are

individuals who have real difficulties when they're travelling dealing with family situations where somebody has to use a restroom, whether they're a child, whether they're disabled or whether

they're elderly."

I understand that Mr Jack Palmer, in his riding of Prince Edward-Hastings, actually brought this idea forward because he had circumstances that caused him some

difficulty in not having these kinds of restrooms available. He brought this idea forward and he's put it in a bill that to some people may be laughable or may not be all that important.

But let me just remind you that there have been many changes that have been brought about in our society over the last 100 years, I suppose, that have started

with an idea. It wasn't that long ago when there were literally no public washrooms available at all in many of our towns and villages and in many of the early shopping centres that were built.

Somebody then said, "Hey, we have to do something about it." Eventually, it almost became a norm that as municipalities developed, as they redeveloped, as shopping centres were built, as arenas

were built, these kind of facilities were put forward.

The other one that comes to mind immediately is our whole attitude toward smoking. I can remember years ago being approached by the non-smokers societies of

Ontario suggesting that perhaps there shouldn't be any smoking in public places. That wasn't necessarily accepted at that time. Maybe it was because a greater number of people smoked. But again, it

was the idea that was brought forward and over a period of time of 10 to 15 to 20 years, it gained general acceptance in our society,

whereas by now it's the norm that smoking should only be done

in areas where it's not going to interfere with the rights of other individuals. This bill, this law is much the same.

I should also give tribute to my other colleague from eastern Ontario. It does look from this bill as if it's eastern Ontario day as far as our caucus is

concerned, having heard from both the member for Prince Edward-Hastings and of course the eloquent debate that was made by Ms Dombrowsky, the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington,

that great riding that covers almost the entire part of eastern Ontario that lies between Kingston and Belleville, all the way up to Algonquin Park.

The other nice thing about this -- and I know the members of the government have some concern about this -- but I think from what I've heard so far, it is

wonderful to see that we can actually work together on an idea collectively. That's what private members' hours should be all about. Here, an individual member has brought an idea forward that has

been given to him by one of his constituents, and there seems to be general acceptance of this in the House. What we obviously hope will happen in a situation like this is that the bill will be

given second reading, it will then be referred to a committee so that all the kind of difficulties that some of the government members talked about can be ironed out. It's only at the committee

stage where the committee can hear from some of the experts, hear from the general public, have some input from a variety of people and from a variety of sources, because undoubtedly we want to

hear from the shopping centre owners, from the arena owners, from some of the municipalities how perhaps this bill can be strengthened, how it can be implemented, what changes should be made to it.

That is the whole idea of bringing this kind of bill forward, so that in effect it can be given approval in principle on second reading, then be referred to committee and come back.

I'm somewhat concerned when the government members talk about the fact that this can be dealt with through the building code, when I hear them say things like,

"The building code encourages a certain kind of development." The word "encourage" I suppose is better than not doing anything, but I can tell you that the word "encourage" doesn't really lead to

action necessarily, and in most cases it doesn't lead to action. There really has to be the will there of the individual owners and operators of these facilities to actually make it happen.

Sometimes when we don't see that will there, then in effect it has to be imposed through government action. That's really what this is all about.

Just talking about the restroom issue in general, it wasn't that long ago when the notion of having a change table for babies in restrooms was almost unknown.

I don't know how long they've been around. It may even have been some of the commercial establishments, quite frankly, like the McDonald's or the Burger Kings, that started that. I'm not quite

sure. But it wasn't that long ago when that wasn't the norm. Now you see that in most public facilities and in most restrooms that are associated with public facilities.

This is just one step forward, that we do this not only for individuals with small children but also for individuals who are elderly. We all know we live in a

society where our median age is getting higher and higher. People live longer, but they also need then the kind of situations presented to them whereby they can still be involved in the normal

activity and the normal way of life by having the kinds of facilities that are talked about in this bill.

I just want to once again say to the member that he should be congratulated on bringing this idea forward. I hope that this House will give it unanimous

approval, that it will send it to a committee. Over the summer, perhaps, we could have public hearings on this issue, not only here in Toronto but elsewhere as well, so that when we come back here

in September one of the first courses of action that we could take at that point in time would be to have this bill brought back here and given third reading and implemented as soon as

possible.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Transportation): I'm pleased to provide a couple of comments on this bill. I suppose that I'll speak in my

capacity as Minister of Transportation as well as from my former position as Minister of Tourism.

Anything that can be done in this province to make life better for travellers, for people who are either visiting from outside of the province or visiting

within the province, is appropriate. So I certainly look forward to some more detail on this. As my colleagues have expressed, there are some implementation concerns, whether in fact it's the right

level of government to deal with this. That's yet to be determined. But certainly there's nothing wrong with considering the ideas that have been brought forward, nothing wrong with further

discussion relating to them.

At the end of the day, Ontario is a great place to live, to work, to raise a family, and it's a great place to visit. Anything we can do throughout our

communities to make Ontario more attractive is supported by me.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mr Parsons: I'd like to thank the Minister of Transportation, the members from Cambridge, Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, Sault Ste

Marie, Kingston and the Islands, and Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for their discussion on this item.

I especially want to thank Jack Palmer, who cared so much for his late wife, Rita, that he came forward and said, "I'm going to try to make a difference and

I'm going to try to make a change for everyone."

I can appreciate the comments that the building code encourages the provision of washrooms, but, folks, the building code doesn't encourage the provision of

washrooms for people with special needs; it requires and mandates that there be washrooms for people who do not have special needs. Surely in the name of equity, then, it should not encourage but

require washrooms for those who have special needs. It's insane to have it otherwise.

We have the opportunity to do what may be a very small step to profoundly change the lives of thousands of people in Ontario. Everyone here can think of

someone who would benefit from that. Everyone has a friend, a neighbour, a relative, a son or a daughter whose lives would be changed by doing this. Seniors and people with disabilities are not

second-rate citizens. This gives them the equity to enjoy and be fully part of our Ontario.

For children, this bill has the potential to literally save a child's life. We have seen some things that cause us to say, "What is the world coming to, that

someone would do that?" We have a wonderful province with wonderful people. But this bill could literally save a child's life. I urge you to support it, and I urge you to move it through the system

so that we can say collectively we made a difference in someone's life today.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item 18. We will now deal with ballot item 17.

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE DE TRAFALGAR

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Colle has moved second reading of Bill 27.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have the division after I deal with ballot item number 18.

FAMILY RESTROOM

FACILITIES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LES INSTALLATIONS

SANITAIRES FAMILIALES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Parsons has moved second reading of Bill 73.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The motion is carried.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA MORAINE DE TRAFALGAR

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We'll now take the division on ballot item 17. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute

bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Martin, Tony

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 33; the nays are 41.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

It being after 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): The Minister of the Environment turns a blind eye to the importation and landfilling of untreated

hazardous waste in this province. He takes no responsibility to toughen the rules to raise the standards with other jurisdictions. These lax rules are making Ontario the dumping ground for other

people's toxic waste, yet this minister thinks that this is acceptable for our environment.

The coal-fired plants continue to burn about 2,000 pounds per person in this province, and the Conservative government has not provided any material to educate

the public on how to conserve energy. We know that the use of cars continues to rise. But have no fear because the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Jim Wilson, had a brainstorm to solve

our air quality problems. He is asking the people of Ontario to stop using their barbecues. This ridiculous advice shows the level of incompetence and lack of knowledge of the minister and this

government.

It's the lack of leadership in this current government and tremendous ignorance of the causes of our smog that should be a concern to the people of Ontario:

the government that says it's acceptable to landfill untreated hazardous waste and it won't hurt the environment, but that a barbecue does.

OSPCA AWARDS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Last Saturday I had the honour of attending the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals awards

luncheon, along with my colleague, the Honourable David Tsubouchi, Chair of Management Board and Minister of Culture.

Although all of the staff and volunteers should be praised for their efforts, I only have time to mention a few here today. The Queen's Golden Jubilee awards

went to Frankie Gowland and Terry Looker. The Inspector of the Year went to Mindy Hall. The Agent of the Year went to Angie Babiak.

One Animal Award for Courage went to Tootsie, who is an elderly quarter horse. Tootsie has been rescued not once but twice in her lifetime by the OSPCA and is

now living out her old age in a loving home. The second Animal Award for Courage went to Carlos. Carlos had been subjected to such severe abuse that one of his hind legs had to be amputated. Carlos

is now a happy dog in a loving home. I had the honour of presenting the animal awards to Carlos, his owners, and Tootsie's new owners.

The Appreciation Award recipients were the Honourable David Tsubouchi, the Honourable Robert Runciman, Dr James Young, Dr Mona Campbell, Lloyd and Lindsay

Robson, Dr Brian Westgarth-Taylor, Centennial Animal Hospital, Warden Animal Clinic, and retired Brigadier-General Chris Snider and I.

The Animal of the Year award went to Marilyn. Marilyn is a Doberman who had been abandoned after weaning a litter of puppies. The same volunteer who was

helping Marilyn also had an orphaned litter of kittens. It was not long before Marilyn became their new mom.

Volunteer Agent of the Year went to Terry Graham. The Frankie Gowland Volunteer of the Year award went to Rose Hogg and Anne Forward. Staff Member of the Year

went to Connie Mallory.

I am sorry not to have the time to mention all the winners. Congratulations.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Two hundred days: 200 days of inaction from that government.

Interjection.

Mr Smitherman: The member for Kitchener Centre says, "Cool down," because he doesn't care about dealing with auto insurance. Two hundred days

of inaction from that government since they passed Bill 198, 200 days since the promise of some relief for Ontario's motorists, and nothing from that government. They've focus-grouped it. They've

gone out and talked to little groups, they've had roundtables, and they've conducted everything except anything that will lead to action and will lead to any relief for Ontario's driving

motorists.

The Ontario Liberal Party is working hard to offer solutions on this matter, and over the course of this summer, while they play run-and-hide, while they duck

their responsibilities, we'll be moving around from town to hamlet to city in this province and we'll be talking to people about the solutions for automobile insurance in this province.

I say to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Finance has a shameful record on the issue of automobile insurance in this province. While Ontario's

motorists are facing an average increase of 19.2%, she has taken 200 days -- 200 days -- and still no action on the issue of rate increases in the province.

We're counting the days. They are numbered for that government, and they are numbered because they are unable to act in the face of the crisis facing Ontario's

driving public. But Dalton McGuinty and Ontario Liberals will.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, I think it is, is certainly under

some stress --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of order. I thank him anyway.

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to relay to the House my privilege of launching the Polar Bear Protection Act.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We'll allow the member to start again. It wasn't fair. There were some carryings-on. If you could reset the

clock, and the member for Scarborough Centre.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I rise today to relay to the House my privilege of launching the Polar Bear Protection Act. As members will know, I introduced the bill on Tuesday in the

Legislature, and earlier that day I announced my intention to introduce the bill at the Toronto zoo. I was joined there by Kimberley Davies, who is the director of sales and marketing at the Best

Western Executive Inn in my riding of Scarborough Centre. Kimberley has also agreed to take the lead on a special committee I set up to assist Scarborough in its economic recovery from the SARS

crisis. Also present were Dr William Rapley and Dr David Barney, who are both from the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo. They take care of Inukshuk, our little orphaned polar bear, who in

part is the

inspiration for my bill to protect Ontario's polar bears.

I was happy to see children present, who can learn that one part of our ecosystem is integrated with the others. I was happy to see the children learning to

respect nature and all of our natural resources.

In closing, the Polar Bear Protection Act will prevent the abuse of this precious Ontario natural resource. I urge all members to support the bill when it

comes up for second reading, and I encourage everyone to visit the Toronto zoo to witness first-hand the magnificence of little Inukshuk and the other wonderful animals.

I should also add that the pages in this place have collected out of their own pockets money to give to the protection of our polar bears, and they are to be

congratulated.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It is with great sadness that I stand in the House today to inform the Legislature that as a

result of continued underfunding by the provincial government, the Lakehead Regional Family Centre, which provides vital mental health services to children in the Thunder Bay area, has been forced

to announce major staffing and service cuts, an announcement that is in fact taking place at this very moment in my community.

It is difficult to contain my anger, as the reality of this forced cut would not have been necessary if the government and specifically the Minister of

Community, Family and Children's Services were simply prepared to provide the necessary funding to enable children in desperate need to receive these services.

Last year the LRFC announced its first ever deficit, a deficit caused specifically by a constantly increasing caseload and the province's absolute denial of a

funding increase to meet this growing need. The family centre, desperate to justify the need for increased funding, agreed to an operational review by the government, which has been completed and

has resulted in the agency being told it was using its budget properly, was well managed and superbly led.

Minister, you are tearing the heart out of children's mental health services in my community. The funding you are providing for fundamental, core services to

children and families in need is simply not enough to meet the increasing need, and you cannot be allowed to get away with it. Staff cuts announced today will double by the end of this fiscal year

unless you are prepared to do the right thing and provide this desperately needed funding.

The provision of mental health services to children cannot be viewed as anything other than vital. Today I put the minister on notice that all of us advocating

for the necessary funding will not rest until she and the Premier treat this as the absolute priority it should be.

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On this the last day of the 37th Parliament, and my last day in any Parliament for that matter --

Applause.

Mr Christopherson: I hope that's wishing me well as opposed to "good riddance and glad you're going."

I had a chance a couple of weeks ago in a member's statement to thank all the dedicated staff I've had personally over the years. Today what I'd like to do is

express my thanks to all the support people who make this place operate, all the way from the Clerk and the staff at the table, to the Sergeant-at-Arms, to the people who work in the mailroom, to

the people who clean this building, all the folks who actually make this place go.

I was struck that when you walk up the stairs today you could literally shave based on the reflection of the floor; that's how beautiful it is and we need to

thank those people who do that every day. We need to thank the Hansard people who put up with so much from all of us. Harold in the parking lot is just perfect in dealing with those problems we all

have and we want to thank him; the page support staff who make it possible for the pages to be here and provide the support they do; the people down in the restaurant and the snack room; the

ministry staff who are non-partisan and are there to do the job for the people of Ontario; the leg counsels who write laws when we have great ideas and when we have boneheaded ideas -- they're to

be thanked for what they do. There are the people down at the information desk who are there to greet the public, make this place comfortable for them and let them know that this is their House,

that this is the people's House.

Lastly, I saved a special moment to thank the security staff. We talk a lot in this place about the policy of where that fine line is between public access to

a democratic building and providing security for the public and people who work here. That's fine and dandy, but at the end of the day, it's the individual security people who have to make that

immediate call when the adrenaline is pumping and there is the possibility of things getting out of hand. They have to make that judgement. I want to say to the security staff that you are

professionals who do an admirable, honourable job for the people of this place and this province, and I want to thank you for what you have done to make this the kind of place it is.

CANADIAN BASEBALL HALL OF

FAME AND MUSEUM

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): A decade ago, many of us in this House and people across this province watched spellbound as the Jays won a

second consecutive World Series. Few of us will ever forget watching Joe Carter leap in the air as he realized he had hit the three-run homer that would win the World Series. I remind my colleagues

of that moment because this weekend I'll be proud to be on hand when Joe Carter is inducted into the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame in St Marys, Ontario.

Joe Carter will be inducted, with former California Angels and Chicago White Sox pitcher Kirk McCaskill; former president of Baseball Canada and former

director of the International Baseball Federation youth commission, Richard Belec; and Vancouver's Asahi Japanese baseball team of the 1930s.

The Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is in St Marys, because that is where Adam Ford, an early settler, organized a league after chronicling the first

recorded game played in nearby Beachville, Ontario.

I also want to take this opportunity to remind all members that the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, at 386 Church Street in St Marys, is one of many

treasures found in my great riding of Perth-Middlesex, and I invite you and the member for Windsor-St Clair to visit over the summer recess.

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Like my colleague from Hamilton West said, this may be the last day of the session. Unlike him, I hope to

return. But that's certainly someone else's decision and not mine at this point.

I'd like, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, to thank everyone in this place: the ushers and pages for their excellent work ensuring that the chamber runs

smoothly; our friends at the table, who always have sound advice and good judgment, even though we often don't agree; Hansard, and the dedication and accuracy that Hansard brings to their job; the

broadcast and recording services, who at least try to make us look good and, considering what they have to work with, do a fairly good job of it; and of course, the public servants in the

Legislative Assembly -- the library, food services. We all benefit from their outstanding contributions.

Democracy has a beautiful and vibrant home in this province and Legislature, and we thank all those dedicated staff and volunteers for helping make it

work.

We're also proud of and want to say thanks to the thousands of Ontario government workers who make all of us proud.

On behalf of the members on this side of the House, we want to thank all the MPPs in here of all parties. We have an important obligation to represent the

people of our communities, and I don't think anyone here takes that responsibility lightly.

Finally, we want to thank the media. They have a hard job listening to all of us down here and trying to make sense of it. There's always a tendency in this

business to shoot the messenger -- I know I have fired a few shots myself -- but the media bring professionalism in bringing the news to the people.

This will be an interesting summer and definitely, from our perspective, time for an election. I look forward to the people of Ontario having the opportunity

to choose change. But unfortunately, we have a feeling we might all be back here on September 22 nonetheless.

Have a good holiday -- except you, sir. I understand that you will be leaving for colder, icier patches, if you will. We wish everyone the very, very best.

VISITORS

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to take this opportunity, if I may, to introduce my family.

They're here in the House today. For that reason, I hope that everyone might want to behave. I'm very happy to introduce constituents of mine of course, my family: my big brother, Walter

Pizzolitto; his wife, Linda; the twins, Nadia and Niklas; the eldest, Dominic; and my mother, Ada Pizzolitto.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): If we're all introducing family that's here today, I'd like everyone to

welcome my father, Victor Newman, who's here today to watch question period.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Not to be outdone, my wife and daughter are here in the members' gallery east, and they're joining us as

well.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): After a briefing this morning, I thought members might be interested in the forest fire situation in Ontario.

While there has been cooler, rainier weather in the northwest part of the province, the fire situation remains very serious. Without additional rain in the

next few days, conditions could again become extreme.

There are currently 51 active forest fires of various sizes, burning over an area of almost 184,000 hectares. Ontario is spending about $2 million a day to

combat these fires. Our priority is to protect human life and property as well as timber values.

Ontario's 700 fire rangers and 600 contract firefighters are being supplemented by over 500 firefighters and support staff from as far away as British

Columbia, including Alberta and the Northwest Territories. All our nine water bombers are in operation and we've got four water bombers from outside the province also in operation. We're also using

94 helicopters in support of firefighter operations moving firefighters from one zone to another.

The restricted fire zone in the southern half of the western part of the province has been lifted, but much of the north remains a restricted fire zone. That

means that all open burning, including campfires, is banned, with a goal of ensuring that no fires caused by humans will add to the difficult situation that we face already. I call on the residents

of those parts of northern Ontario covered by the restricted fire zones to strictly observe these provisions. Don't start a campfire or conduct any outside burning.

I would also ask members of the public and stakeholders to be patient with their requests to the office of the Ministry of Natural Resources. The ministry is

directing its focus almost exclusively on fighting these forest fires.

TVONTARIO

Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): I'm pleased today to see that my resolution of last fall with respect to the board of directors of TVO

has had a positive effect on the government. For quite some time now the francophone community has been very concerned over the lack of adequate representation on the board of directors of

TVOntario, also responsible for the French-language educational television network TFO.

The fundamental problem is that very few of the current board members speak any French or they have little or no understanding of French language and culture.

How can one govern with competence a television network that operates in a language one does not comprehend?

I'm proud to say that recently a third francophone, Madame Diane Simard, has been appointed to the 13-member board of directors of TVOntario. Madame Simard is

a credible member of Toronto's francophone community, active in local institutions, and she has a background as an independent radio and television producer.

Croyez-moi, sa nomination au conseil d'administration est un pas important pour rectifier le déséquilibre actuel au sein du conseil. C'est une mesure

positive qui démontre que ce gouvernement a su écouter les demandes de la communauté francophone exprimées par l'entremise d'une députée.

I have just heard that the newly appointed vice-chair of TVO is a current francophone board member, Madame Gisèle Chrétien, president of Collège

Boréal of Sudbury.

I therefore wish to thank the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Dianne Cunningham, and the president of TVOntario, Isabel Bassett, for listening

to the requests of the