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

June 9, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS / ÉDUCATEURS DE JEUNES ENFANTS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

FRED PARGETER

VETERANS' HOUSING

THOMAS R. MOORE

ETHNOCULTURAL COUNCIL OF LONDON

CARE OF ALZHEIMER PATIENTS

OPTIMIST CLUB ANNIVERSARY

NORTHLAND POWER PROJECT

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

VISITOR

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

COMMODITY LOAN PROGRAM

INSURANCE TAX

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

DAY CARE

PENSION LEGISLATION

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

POLICE SERVICES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

CHARITABLE GAMBLING

TOBACCO PACKAGING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

SCHOOL FACILITIES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

GAMBLING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

NURSING STAFF

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

ANNIVERSARY OF MEMBERS' ELECTION

VISITORS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

HERITAGE BAPTIST COLLEGE AND HERITAGE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT, 1994

TOWN OF ORANGEVILLE ACT, 1994

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DROITS À L'ÉGALITÉ

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Ms Carter moved private member's notice of motion number 44:

That in the opinion of this House, since Canada is a signatory to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, now in force, which recognizes the catastrophic environmental, economic and social consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and calls for decisive international action to curb these emissions; and

Since the federal Liberal government has committed to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over 1988 levels by 2005, as urged by the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere and endorsed by the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy; and

Since the federal government is working to develop a national action plan on climate change, together with the provinces and territories, that will reverse the continuing trend towards higher emissions and achieve the 20% target; and

Since the recent Canadian Options for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, or COGGER, report for the Royal Society of Canada concludes that it is both technically feasible and economically beneficial to implement a 20% reduction in emission levels;

Therefore this assembly supports the federal government in its commitment to a 20% reduction in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions over 1988 levels by 2005, and further supports leadership on the part of Ontario in helping to develop and implement a national action plan to achieve this environmentally imperative goal.

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

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have introduced this resolution on climate change because of the extreme importance and urgency of the issue. In spite of all the talk about the issue and the signing in June 1992 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by Canada and 166 other countries, concentrations of greenhouse gas are still rising.

By the time our constituents are affected by climate change, it will be too late to take effective action. Some change is already inevitable. Sea levels will rise, drowning many now-inhabited regions. Prince Edward Island and other coastal areas of Canada may be affected. There will be refugees. Higher temperatures and changed climate patterns will put animals and plants, and particularly trees, in an inappropriate habitat. There could be massive die-offs. Tropical diseases may spread to new regions.

Nobody knows exactly what will happen, but the costs of adjustment, both financially and in human terms, will be large. Environmental problems can lead to social disintegration. There are times when governments must give a lead. This is such a time.

Many studies have been done on how greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced in Canada and in Ontario. A 1991 study for the Ontario Ministry of Energy concluded that a 20% reduction from 1988 greenhouse gas emission levels by the year 2005 is feasible in Ontario.

In September 1993, we had the final report of the COGGER panel to the Royal Society of Canada. The panel addressed two sets of questions: Firstly, how much potential for carbon dioxide reduction through energy efficiency and fuel switching is worth doing anyway over the next several decades for economic reasons and how much of this potential is achievable, assuming different approaches and strategies; and secondly, what would be required to achieve much more aggressive energy efficiency and fuel-switching targets if these are necessary for climate stabilization. I shall address only the first set of questions, as this is where immediate action is needed.

The worth-doing-anyway changes are so because they reduce costs and improve efficiency. We're not asking business, industry and individuals to disadvantage themselves in any way. We're asking them to get more cost-effective, more up to date and efficient, more competitive, something they should be doing anyhow for strictly economic reasons. The

article "Firms Find Gold in Green" in the Globe and Mail for June 7 makes this point quite strongly, and I cannot overemphasize this point. The environmentally friendly way is the way of the future, the way that will pay and also provide jobs. This improved job creation has been studied and proven.

Under the "What's Worth Doing Anyway?" heading, the COGGER report looks at the economic potential for reduction of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. There are two general strategies available. One is improvements in the efficiency of energy conversion and end use: better furnaces, better lightbulbs and so on. The other is switching to fuels with lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of useful energy produced, notably from oil and coal to natural gas.

The panel concludes that improved efficiency rather than fuel switching is the key to stabilizing energy-related carbon dioxide emissions over the next two decades and that an absolute reduction of emissions by 20% by the year 2010 can be achieved in a cost-effective way if both strategies are pursued to the full.

However, the report emphasizes that these changes will not come about by themselves and suggests that the barriers to greenhouse gas emission reduction are not economic but political:

"Few provincial or federal government agencies or energy industries in Canada either have in place, or intend to implement, substantial energy efficiency policies that go beyond provision of information to consumers. Many organizations have no plans for, or expectations of, significantly increased levels of energy efficiency and fuel switching. And no organization that responded to the COGGER survey projected a stronger CO 2 target than emission stabilization. Many have no emission targets, and even when a stabilization goal exists, it is not clear that the policies required to achieve even that goal are in place."

The authors say that more effective government policy is required, including real targets and timetables for emission reductions, carbon taxes, the elimination of policies that distort energy prices, regulations to set minimum efficiency standards for energy-using equipment and buildings, building retrofit programs, financial incentives for energy-efficient programs and more support for research and development in the area of energy-efficient products and procedures.

The federal government is committed to a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from 1988 levels by 2005, both in its red policy book and in the words of federal Environment Minister Sheila Copps. Bob Rae has also expressed support for this objective but is concerned that all implications be fully understood before a firm timetable is adopted.

Ontario has been cautious in its commitments, having fully endorsed only a national goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000, but Ontario is building up a good record of action actually taken. The Ontario government is planning further action, but cannot achieve optimal results without active cooperation with the federal government on a national plan.

It's also necessary to involve the public through incentives as well as through education. It's easy in times like this for overriding issues like joblessness to overshadow in people's minds environmental issues which, if not attended to, will lead to drastic problems down the road. And then the public will ask politicians why they didn't take action to prevent these problems from becoming unmanageable.

If we want to know whether these questions do figure in people's minds, we need only look at a report prepared for the Children and Youth Project of the Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice in February 1993 to find that the questions are present where they should concern us most, in the minds of children. Some children mentioned the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems as reasons why they and their children could not look forward to a good life. Our kids know the environment matters, even though they don't call us about it.

It's a strange thing, but nuclear power stations pay off the debts that are incurred in building them over 40 years, which is probably their lifetime,

whereas equipment for improving energy efficiency seems to be expected to give a payback in one or two years, showing just how environmentally beneficial it actually is.

Things are happening, but not enough. Greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing.

I urge all members to support this resolution. If Ontario provides leadership in developing and implementing a national action plan while expanding its own activities, and Ottawa keeps its promises, I shall have achieved my objective in bringing forward this resolution.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I am very pleased to join in this debate. Let me say at the outset that I am in support of the resolution put forward by the member for Peterborough. It behooves us to recognize that the resolution asks for the support of this assembly in supporting the federal government "in its commitment to a 20% reduction in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions over 1988 levels by the year 2005, and further supports leadership on the part of Ontario in helping to develop and implement the national action plan to achieve this environmentally imperative goal."

This type of resolution is one which I certainly can support. In fact, I believe it is incumbent on all members of this Legislature to lend support for environmental initiatives. It should not matter what the level of government is, because we know that our air, our water and the way we use our land indeed draws no distinctions between levels of government or political parties. I believe we must continue to stand up and collectively work for the preservation, the protection, the enhancement and the betterment of our environment. It is important to us; it is important to our children and to our children's children.

I believe we must have as our overriding motivation and our goal the best interests of the people of Ontario. We must, as legislators in this province, continue to be vigilant in supporting worthy initiatives and must also be ready to criticize actions we do not feel are in the best interests of the environment. We must look to all levels of government, and for that there is no difficulty for me in supporting this particular resolution.

It is clear that we are looking for leadership from the federal government in supporting that. We are looking for leadership from the provincial government, and because this resolution deals with this, I believe it is also important for us to take a look at what is within our jurisdiction and responsibility in this province and whether we are meeting the goals, meeting our own targets.

We can look, for instance, to the dry-cleaning regulations that have been announced by the province. We can look to the issue of smog; we can look to the issue of the ozone layer; we can look to the issue of landfill and waste management. We must be able to examine ourselves and to analyse our efforts in these areas that also affect the environment.

I have before me, in the area of the dry-cleaning regulations, a news release by Pollution Probe. Pollution Probe has indicated that they find the dry-cleaning regulation inadequate. The environmental group Pollution Probe indicated in a news release of February 28 of this year that Ontario's draft dry-cleaning regulation misses the mark in terms of its goal of reducing carcinogens that contribute to ground-level ozone formation.

Pollution Probe has indicated clearly in a letter of February 28 to the Minister of Environment and Energy that they "reviewed the regulation and conclude that it is inadequate for achieving significant reduction in VOC emissions from the dry-cleaning industry. It puts forth no goals and no time lines. A training program alone offers no guarantee that VOC reductions will be achieved."

I think it is incumbent upon us as members in this Legislature, as we lend support to this resolution and our support to the leadership aspects in the federal government, that we also take a look at what is or is not being done in the provincial area.

In the area of smog, it is important to recognize that Pollution Probe, with the Lung Association, has indicated that Ontario is falling behind other provincial and US jurisdictions in the fight against summer smog. This was a report issued just at the beginning of this month, June 1, 1994.

It was stated by Janine Ferretti, the executive director of Pollution Probe, that "if we're going to clean the air in Ontario, we have to clean up the car."

She goes on to say: "But Ontario isn't leading the way -- it isn't even matching the efforts being made elsewhere; we've got the country's worst smog problem -- and we deserve the best smog-fighting program. We're not getting it."

Pollution Probe, again with the Lung Association, states that the one-year voluntary pilot project announced by the government is "little more than a test of emission-testing equipment. It's a baby step in the right direction, but will have little effect on smog."

So we have from other sources, people who are involved in this area, a real condemnation of the actions and reactions by the government in this area.

In the area of ozone, we know that Friends of the Earth have just released a report which gives Ontario a dishonourable mention as the country's largest producer of ozone-depleting substances. For that, this government should feel, rightly, concerned.

They have not done anything in the area of ozone. They have not done anything in the area of smog. They have not done anything in a variety of other areas. And as we found out just last week, the provincial government has reduced the emergency response times in the event there is a toxic spill in this province. If there is a toxic spill which takes place after 10 pm on weekdays or any time on the weekend, there will not be an immediate response to that spill. I believe that is something for which the provincial government should be criticized.

The last point I wish to make deals with the way in which the provincial government has dealt with the waste management issue. I think we all recognize the intense criticism that the government has received over its actions in Bill 143: the creation of the Interim Waste Authority, the incredible waste of dollars that that authority is expending each and every day, and how people in the communities in the greater Toronto area have been excluded in no small measure from participating in how they feel waste can be disposed of in the best environmental manner possible. That criticism continues day in and day out to this government.

The other area where the government has been roundly criticized, once more in the waste management area, and this is coincidental, happens to be in the Peterborough area. I think the member who has put forward this resolution recognizes that because of her government's policies, there are now, I believe, four waste disposal sites. All have been recognized and situated on usable and in-use farm land: People have been working that area as farm land. They are extremely critical that the current government puts in place a waste management policy which will in effect take farm land out of the agricultural sector.

They believe the government is wrong, wrong and wrong in the way in which it is addressing this particular issue. It is an issue that they address in a way that can be described in one word, and that is "chaotic."

So as I speak in support of the resolution, because I believe all members should lend support to whatever level of government there be -- it doesn't matter what the political party happens to be; we should be ready, willing and able to support initiatives that are in the best interests of the environment, that are good for our water, good for our land, good for our air, good for our children. We must continue to stand up in support.

But there is a quid pro quo. That is that as we are ready to say yes, we must also be ready to say, "No, we do not agree with particular actions" or "No, we believe that a particular matter is being met with an inaction." It doesn't matter what level of government, or indeed political party, happens to represented; we must stand up and say that there is inaction.

This resolution is important because it gives us the opportunity to stand up -- certainly I will be supporting the resolution -- and say, and we should all be standing up and saying, "Where has the provincial government been in terms of the protection of the ozone layer, in terms of smog, in terms of an effective waste management policy?"

There is criticism by groups such as Friends of the Earth, Pollution Probe, the Lung Association. We will do well as legislators to listen to those very important groups on a matter and issue which will affect all of us, will affect our children and our children's children. We have a duty and a responsibility.

I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to stand in support of the resolution, but also giving me the opportunity of indicating where I believe the provincial government has fallen short of its responsibility for the protection and the enhancement of the environment.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity this morning to make a few comments on the resolution from the member for Peterborough.

Part of the resolution reads,

"Since the federal Liberal government has committed to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over 1988 levels by 2005, as urged by the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere and endorsed by the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy; and

"Since the federal government is working to develop a national action plan on climate change, together with the provinces and territories, that will reverse the continuing trend towards higher emissions and achieve the 20% target; and

"Since the recent Canadian Options of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction...report for the Royal Society of Canada concludes that it is both technically feasible and economically beneficial to implement a 20% reduction in emission levels;

"Therefore this assembly supports the federal government in its commitment to a 20% reduction in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions over 1988 levels by 2005, and further supports leadership on the part of Ontario in helping to develop and implement a national action plan to achieve this environmentally imperative goal."

I agree with the aim and the parts of this resolution which certainly want to reduce by 20% -- this action plan -- the greenhouse gas emissions. It's important for the people of Ontario to know that the member from the governing party is relying on the federal government to protect our environment because of the attitude of the provincial government since it was first elected in 1990.

In August 1990, Bob Rae unveiled his famous Agenda for People by saying:

"We have to make tough choices on the environment and make the polluters pay to clean up their mess. For too long the environment has suffered while the Liberals refused to get tough on polluters. The commitments we make today cover a broad range of the most pressing environmental issues in Ontario today and will end the free ride that corporate polluters have been getting from a friendly, toothless Liberal government."

That's what Bob Rae said August 19, 1990. Under the "Clean Air" portion of the Agenda for People, Bob Rae said he would extend the acid rain program because the Liberals' Countdown Acid Rain program didn't go far enough. He said it didn't control acid gas emissions from the Big Four -- Ontario Hydro, Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel -- beyond emission targets set for 1994. He said it did nothing to control all the other sources of acid gases. He said, "We need to plan for post-1994, including further reductions for the Big Four and new regulations for the other sources."

Bob Rae went on to suggest that "the general industrial air pollution law should be amended to mandate zero discharge of toxic chemicals into the air by the year 2000." He noted that Liberal election promises had "no zero goal at all."

Sadly, Bob Rae and his merry band of socialists have followed up on none of those clean air promises from the Agenda for People. Instead, they've been dumping on the people of Ontario.

I'm referring to the fact that under Liberal and NDP governments, the people of Ontario have had a series of conflicting policies with regard to landfill sites. It has always been my personal opinion that we do not require any new landfill sites. In fact, I believe landfill sites have gone the way of the dinosaur and it's now incumbent upon all levels of government, industry and the public to devise new and environmentally sound methods for handling waste management in Ontario.

Having said this, perhaps a little background would be in order to clear up some of the matters that have concerned me in the recent past. At one time, the provincial government encouraged municipalities to band together and establish local organizations to review waste management in their jurisdictions and urged them to come up with creative solutions to waste management problems.

In 1989, the Liberal government passed

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, which gave municipalities power over waste management and directed them to establish waste management plans. The premise behind this legislation was sound in theory, because municipalities are best equipped to know their own waste management requirements, problems and solutions.

Two years later, the NDP government brought in Bill 143,

An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act. Bill 143 was precedent-setting because it gives the Ministry of Environment and Energy power to unilaterally dictate waste management procedures which have traditionally and legally been overseen by municipal governments.

It expropriates the rights of municipalities to make their own waste management decisions, steamrolls years of legislation outlined in the Municipal Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act as they pertain to waste management systems, and limits waste disposal options and makes null and void all waste management agreements a municipality may have.

Now we have a member of the governing party suggesting that we must hang our hopes for environmental protection on clean air measures taken by the federal government. There's a completely unacceptable response from the government here if it seriously recognizes what's happening in Ontario. With regard to the emissions, I say that the new-found ethanol gasoline is certainly a step in the right direction. I think it should be an undertaking by this government to promote that further, to make sure that there is more green being used in our gases, therefore cutting down on the pollutants we put into the air.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I first of all want to commend the member for Peterborough, because it is my belief and it has been my experience that there really is no one else in our caucus who more consistently brings forward issues on the environment. I know in her discussions within caucus that this is an issue she brings forward on a regular basis, and so I know that for her it is a long-standing concern, and I personally admire her commitment to that cause.

Her resolution very much speaks to that long-standing concern, and it definitely shows that it is her belief, and it is also mine, that whatever each of us does, both large and small, really does have a palpable effect on the world around us.

I know that many in this House and in the galleries will have heard this phrase: "Think globally; act locally." "Locally" means not only our communities or our province, but it does mean in our homes, too. Reducing our energy consumption saves the environment. Such little things as changes to the Ontario Building Code, which has been revised both in 1990 and in 1993, have seen issues like changing the home insulation and thereby making sure that individual homes are using less in the way of heat.

I would like to point out that insulation requirements in the building code for new housing were updated in 1990 and full-height basement insulation standards were added in 1993, along with even higher energy efficiency standards for electrically heated homes. As a result, the average new gas-heated home built in 1995 will be 15% more efficient than one built in 1988.

Many of us probably don't think a simple thing like controlling a leaking tap has an effect, but water consumption -- and frequently it is the hot water tap that does leak -- will affect the energy that's required to heat that water, and controlling that kind of usage in the home, however small it may be individually, does have, across the province and across the continent, an effect. So there have been amendments to the plumbing code.

The plumbing code amendments will affect water flow in commercial and residential structures by establishing maximum flow rates for shower heads, toilets and faucets. Energy savings are a result of reduced demand for hot water. All of this, however small, has an effect on the kind of energy that needs to be produced to heat that water and obviously affects our air quality.

I wanted to also point out that the issue of transit is one that we have talked about locally. I know this is something that the member for Peterborough also holds very dear, and that relates to the use of transit. I think we all have to be very mindful of how we travel from point A to point B, the efficiency of our automobile, but also the availability of public transit.

This government has moved on this kind of an initiative to make sure that there is more rapid transit available. I'd like to point out that Ontario has announced detailed plans to substantially expand the public transit network over the next decade. Enhanced regional commuter service will be augmented by over 40 kilometres of new rapid transit lines in Toronto alone. I know there have been discussions within my own region, in the Niagara Peninsula, about increased rapid transit to Toronto.

I have some concerns about the Ministry of Transportation focusing on road expansion, but it does make recommendations with regard to GO buses and a range of other services that my constituents can make use of, basically thereby eliminating the use of the automobile and making sure that our energy use is minimized.

Along the line of the use of the automobile, we should make sure that our cars, as I said earlier, are efficient. Currently, there is a voluntary pilot program in place here in Metropolitan Toronto which allows for the inspection and maintenance of cars. These plans call for a full program to apply to the 3.4 million vehicles in the GTA fleet by the year 2000. An estimated 30% of the automobile fleet is in need of repair. That will reduce emissions.

Experience with programs in other jurisdictions shows that substantial fuel economy savings also result from repairing non-conforming vehicles. I want to point out to the member from one of the Mississauga ridings that we really and truly are acting, time and time again, on these issues. We are improving our air quality, dealing with these smog issues. I would counter his comments. We are acting.

I know there are other members of the government side, other members in this House, who wish to speak to this, so I want to thank the member for Peterborough again for the opportunity to raise these very valuable points.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The issue that's been raised by the member for Peterborough is certainly one that we should spend some time on. I congratulate her for raising it and certainly I do support that type of resolution and congratulate her for bringing it to the Legislature today.

There's no question that much of her resolution, if you read the resolution -- several members have read it -- talks about what the federal government should do, that we should be encouraging the federal government to do certain things. There's no question she's right; we should be doing that.

I guess the problem is that because of jurisdictional issues there has to be a partnership, there has to be cooperation with the provincial governments, not just in Ontario, but governments. There has to be a partnership with the United States and other jurisdictions that we need to look at, and perhaps we've been overlooking that. Perhaps the province of Ontario and the federal government and the jurisdictions, the state of New York and the various American jurisdictions as well as the federal jurisdiction in the United States, have been overlooking their obligations on the very serious issues that are being raised by this resolution.

When I say I support it, I do support it, but there is no question that the member for Peterborough has been a member of the cabinet of this government, has sat in that cabinet. With due respect to her, I have seen very little to improve the issues she is raising from the provincial perspective of this government. Quite frankly this resolution, being brought in the dying days of this government, is rather strange when she has had a wonderful opportunity as a minister, as a member of this government, to actually do something.

Yes, there is no question that she may stand in her place and talk about some of the things that the current government has done with respect to refrigeration and other environmental matters, and she is correct.

I remind her what her party did when it was seeking office in 1990 and put forward An Agenda for People. There was a paragraph in this document which dealt with this very subject. You raised it then and yet you've done nothing since as far as being a member of the cabinet or a member of the New Democratic government is concerned. I'm going to read that to the member for Peterborough.

The Agenda for People is quite clear as to the whole topic of clean air. In fact, clean air is a topic in it. It says: "Extend the acid rain program: The Liberals' Countdown Acid Rain program didn't go far enough. It doesn't control acid gas emissions from the 'Big Four' (Ontario Hydro, Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel) beyond emission targets set for 1994. It does nothing to control all the other sources of acid gases. We need to plan for post-1994, including further reductions for the Big Four and new regulations for the other sources."

I have heard nothing from you, as a former minister of the crown, or this government on this topic. So I find it strange that you come to this place at this particular time and bring forward this resolution encouraging the federal government to do a number of very serious things -- and I repeat, I agree with you on those -- and yet your government, which has an obligation to do a number of things, has done absolutely nothing.

On the topic of the overhaul you suggested in your Agenda for People, the New Democratic Party says, "Overhaul the air pollution laws: The general industrial air pollution law should be amended to mandate zero discharge of toxic chemicals into the air by the year 2000. Liberal election promises have no zero goal at all."

Again, you've been talking about this for four years. You've been talking about this since 1990 and yet your government has done next to nothing. You in government have an obligation on this very important issue that you bring to this House, and you've done nothing. Your government has put forward the issue of voluntary vehicle emission inspections and maintenance in this province,

whereas other jurisdictions, particularly British Columbia, as I understand it, have mandatory vehicle emission inspections.

I quite frankly think that clean air doesn't seem to be on your government's agenda. I encourage you in suggesting that the federal government get its act together, but I suggest that you and your government get your act together, because the whole topic of clean air is important to us. The province has set no time lines itself; it has set no time lines on the very issue you're speaking of. You're saying to the federal government, "You set time lines," but you're setting none.

I encourage you, I plead with you to do the very thing yourselves that you're asking the federal government to do. You have set no targets and no plan for controlling the yellow haze that blankets our cities. You have a responsibility. Yes, the federal government does and the American jurisdictions do, but you do, and quite frankly we have seen no targets, no time lines, no plan.

On one of the most obvious solutions, the emission inspection program for cars, really very little has been spent on that. To date, to my knowledge, your government has made that voluntary.

I have only a few minutes left, and I'd like to raise another issue with respect to air emissions. I raised this before with your Minister of Environment and Energy, Mr Wildman, in a question to this House several days ago. It has to do with your whole policy of waste management. Your government has simply said: "Build gigantic landfill sites. Build gigantic dumps in the GTA, 400 acres, 500 acres on top of water aquifers, on top of prime farm land." You won't look at other options.

One of the things that you won't consider, won't allow this province to even consider, is the expansion of energy-from-waste facilities, even though they've been so successful in other jurisdictions, even though they've been successful in Europe, Japan and the United States.

I read to your minister a report that came forward in a magazine article. I hope he has looked at it and changed his policy. In the time remaining, I'd simply like to read again the statistics that show that the amount of emissions that are coming from landfill sites, as opposed to energy-from-waste facilities, are gigantulous. Yet you continue with your policy of saying. "Do not even consider, do not look at, the option. Do not allow the municipalities to look at the option of incineration."

This

article of Professor Kay H. Jones, called Comparing Air Emissions from Landfills and WTE Plants, comes forward in the April 1994 edition of Solid Waste Technologies. Member, I encourage you to read this article. For example: "In the past, health risk concerns about landfilling have centred on the potential for groundwater contamination...liners and leachate management have lessened the potential problems, but haven't resolved them entirely. Air emissions from landfills also can negatively affect health."

Yet your government does not even have a process for monitoring the emissions that come from landfill sites. You don't even monitor them. You have no idea of the amount of emissions that are coming from landfill sites. You can't even intelligently discuss this topic, yet you go away with your blinders on and have simply ruled out that whole issue.

I encourage members of this House to read this

article which I've referred to in this House in the past and I thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too am pleased to rise in support of the resolution put forward by the member for Peterborough. It's quite clear, according to an issue of the Global Warming Report, which I have, that:

"Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the dominant, human-induced contributor to the greenhouse effect. Improved energy efficiency, greater use of renewable energy, and development of new energy technologies will all be needed to reduce emissions of CO 2 .

"As an example, energy use and CO 2 emissions in Ontario have dropped more than 8%" between 1989 and 1992, so the suggestion made by the opposition critics that we're doing nothing to monitor carbon dioxide emissions and nothing to reduce them is hogwash, to put it mildly. We are doing a lot as a province. We're playing a key role in this country to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

There are progressive measures that have been taken and should be taken in the future to change patterns of energy use and consumption. The key things are, of course, energy efficiency, switching of fuels where appropriate, and improving our technology to reduce CO 2 emissions.

I think too that there is significant economic potential for increased energy efficiency and fuel switching. I note with some interest, in an

article of the journal of the chartered accountants entitled "Who Pays? Now that Business Wants to Go Green, It's a Question of Finding the Money," that "Daniel Rubenstein, a principal...in the office of the Auditor General in Ottawa and one of Canada's foremost environmental accountants, says...'The debate is moving. You don't have to argue pollution's dangers with the leaders of industry any more.... Most of them want to go to zero impact. For them, the next logical questions are, "What do we have to fix to get there?" and "How do we pay for it?"'"

I take issue with some of the comments of the opposition critics that Ontario has done little or nothing to limit the emissions of CO 2 . Energy retrofits in our own social housing are an important and innovative measure that we've taken in converting to natural gas to reduce consumption; tightening up our Ontario Building Code to ensure that higher standards for energy conservation are built into our new structures. One of the first things we did in our budget of 1991-92 was to impose a gas-guzzler tax on cars that consume more fuel.

These are all the kinds of measures, including the more recent announcement around dry-cleaning industrial restrictions, which I think go a long way towards reducing the emission of greenhouse gas.

I know my time is short because there is another speaker for the government who wishes to add to this debate. I would just quote from a booklet called Visions 2020: Youth Environment in the Future, which was the response of Canadian students to the Brundtland report. In it, the group from Glebe Collegiate in Ottawa said:

"We live in a consumer society and use staggering amounts of energy every day. The major source for this energy is the burning of fossil fuels, which emits large amounts of airborne chemicals.... Carbon dioxide has been linked directly to global warming."

Also, a booklet put out by the Global Action Plan for the Earth tells people how they can reduce energy consumption in their own homes and over the course of a year reduce consumption and emission of CO 2 by nine tons for an average family of four.

I could go on, Madam Speaker, but I yield the floor to the next speaker for the government.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have just a few minutes to participate in this exceedingly important debate on an issue that gets far too little attention in the Legislative Assembly and far too little attention nationally and internationally these days. All of us can well recall the attention that the environment received in the mid- and late-1980s and into the very early 1990s, until such time as the recession struck and attention switched to other issues.

I want to say that it's timely that this motion is before the Legislature. I want to inform those who would be listening that what you have to understand about Canada is that virtually all of the action is at the provincial level, and always has been. The federal government has a role and responsibility to set out the guidelines. It makes policy and pronouncements, and has over the years, and has certain operational obligations.

But by and large in Canada, unlike perhaps some other countries, the provinces have jurisdiction over operations, and that's why Ontario has the opportunity to provide leadership in this particular field. What is lamentable is the fact that because there is little attention paid to environmental issues today, the pressure on any government to move forward as it should is diminished considerably.

I notice that the Ministry of Environment and Energy budget has been ravaged each time there is a budget that comes out. I've always believed that governments should not simply cut every ministry the same way. It should select its priorities and some ministries are going to be cut more than other ministries.

My concern for a Minister of Environment, for instance, trying to do his job in this particular case, is that we see cuts in the Environment and Energy ministry budgets: cuts in staff, cuts in resources, cuts in equipment. That means that the government doesn't have the same opportunity to meet its obligations that would be implied by this particular resolution.

My understanding is that the clean air program which was announced in 1990 has been deep-sixed in the ministry. It's totally abandoned. It's a very comprehensive program -- it's not a cheap program; it's not a program that has no disruption on the private sector -- but that has been totally abandoned by the government, which is very disappointing to see, because I think there were a lot of people elected on the government side in 1990 who would have been hopeful that the government would have proceeded vigorously and comprehensively with the clean air program in the province of Ontario.

We have a chance to be leaders. I like the fact that the member for Peterborough has raised this particular issue in the House. We should have more debates of this kind to put pressure on members of the cabinet who have responsibility for these things, to put pressure on the senior advisers to the Premier and to the ministers so that environmental issues of this kind can get the attention they should.

I notice that Friends of the Earth, which is an independent group, in one of its surveys gave Ontario a C- in terms of dealing with substance, dealing with issues related to air quality.

I hope the government will proceed to fulfil its obligations that it has in Ontario to help meet the national goals which have been set out by the federal government.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Further debate? Then the member for Peterborough may reply to the debate.

Ms Carter: I'd certainly like to thank all the contributors to this debate. I think they all agreed on the importance of the issue and that we need to work towards this objective.

I'd like to point out that there is no negativity in the motion I've put forward. I am not attacking anybody for what they have or haven't done. This is something where we need to take a positive approach. We all need to work together because this is a global thing. It's no good for Ontario to act if nobody else does. It is going to be a question of cooperation.

I have a letter that was written by Sheila Copps, the federal Environment minister, and I'd just like to read part of that:

"This government takes its obligations seriously and, consistent with the red book, has established a process for designing a national action plan to achieve emission targets. On November 17, federal, provincial and territorial energy and environment ministers approved a joint action plan on air quality issues and made a commitment to ongoing cooperation in this area.

"With respect to climate change, ministers agreed to instruct their officials to proceed with the development of options that will meet Canada's current commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000, and to develop sustainable options to achieve further progress in the reduction of emissions by the year 2005.

"The Canadian government supports the objective of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1988 levels by the year 2005. It will continue to work with the climate change task group and the measures working group to reach that goal. Environment Canada, working closely with all its partners, will be an active contributor in devising the case for an appropriate set of measures that will meet these objectives."

That is set out there. I hope Sheila and the federal government will live up to that.

It has been suggested during this debate that the Ontario government has not been taking action in this field. I'd certainly like to refute that. I have in my hand a document which lists the things that the Ontario government has been doing and is planning to do that are going to help towards this goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.

It's far too long a list for me to be able to read it. Some points have been mentioned, such as action involving Ontario Hydro and the gas utilities, housing policy and the building code, transportation policies, green communities initiatives, the industrial energy services program and far more.

Speaking as the member for Peterborough, I would like to mention that we have a green communities project in Peterborough. It's been tremendously successful. Households are visited; an audit is done of their, as it were, private energy situation; suggestions are made and, if followed up, consumers can find that for ever afterwards they will have reduced energy expenses so that the goal of helping the environment also helps people's pockets. It provides employment and it is putting large sums of money back into the local community, so it has very direct economic advantages.

There's no divergence of interests in this. Everybody's interests do come together on this issue: short-term economic and job interests and the question of the future that we're all looking at. I ask everybody to support this motion because, as I say, it is something that affects us all and it's something where we can all work together to get results.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the ballot item has expired. A vote will be held on this resolution at 12 noon.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS / ÉDUCATEURS DE JEUNES ENFANTS

Mr Beer moved private member's notice of motion number 43:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should give formal legislative recognition to the profession of early childhood educators; and

Since early childhood educators have a large share of the responsibility for the care and education of young children in Ontario; and

Since despite the importance of this profession there are no formal entry standards for early childhood educators beyond the ECE diploma; and

Since there are no formal standards of practice nor any mechanism to ensure that early childhood educators are held accountable for their professional conduct; and

Since the Association of Early Childhood Educators, Ontario (AECEO) is an organization of early childhood educators and concerned individuals whose objective is to improve the quality of early childhood care and education, and has long held that some form of professional regulation is required to ensure that the needs of children and families are met;

Therefore, in order to protect children and families and increase the quality of care and education of young children, the government of Ontario should formally recognize the need for professional regulation of early childhood educators and should develop

an act that prescribes, among other things, minimum entry standards, standards of practice and a code of ethics for early childhood educators. Draft legislation should be presented to this Legislature no later than the end of the 1994 legislative session.

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

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I welcome the opportunity to discuss this motion with members, because I think it is very much one that can have the support of all members.

I believe that there are many positive reasons why at this time we want to move towards legislative recognition of early childhood educators and where some of the issues or some of the questions and the problems, many of which are similar to those in relation to the question of social workers which we discussed earlier in this House, are ones that can be met so we can ensure both that we recognize the professionalism of the early childhood educator and set up a system that is going to provide for the appropriate regulation and accountability of that profession and that we improve the provision of child care generally in this province.

At the opening of my remarks, I would like to note that in the gallery with us today are Velma Doran, who's the president of the Association of Early Childhood Education of Ontario; Kathy Stearns, who is from the provincial office and who is the membership coordinator; Robyn Gallamore, the executive director of the association; and Miss Carol Page Heyding, who is the chair of the legislative recognition committee of the AECEO. They have all been very much been involved in this issue for some time, along with others in the early childhood education field.

I would simply like to note their presence and also to recognize the hard work that they have done over the past number of years in trying to bring about legislative recognition.

Let me then address some of the issues as we approach this matter.

Over the course of the last number of years, certainly the last four years, we have had brought to the attention of the Legislature a number of specific things: Children First, which many members will recall was an important document that was presented in November 1990; more recently the Premier's Council report, Yours, Mine and Ours; an interesting document that was brought to the attention of the standing committee on social development called Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest Children, which comes from the Carnegie Foundation in New York; and for those of us who sit on the standing committee on social development, the hearings that we have been going through over the last number of weeks on children at risk.

I mention those documents and those hearings simply because I think what we, as members, have been hearing and are being made aware of is that the issue of children and youth, the issue of early childhood education, is a very critical one, an important one. Child care is very much a part of that, and therefore the role of the early childhood educator is critical.

I believe we're at a point where we can move forward and set out, as the association itself is urging, a process that will lead us then to a body for the early childhood educators that will be able to set out standards of practice, that will be able to set out an accountability function, propose entry standards and develop a voluntary reporting process and registration process.

The importance of that is twofold: One is that we all recognize how important it is going to be, for the rest of this decade and beyond, to develop greater flexibility, a greater variety of child care opportunities in this province. Everyone who has talked about the provision of better, more accessible child care has indicated clearly the importance of early childhood educators being part of that. I don't think there is any argument among the three parties on that issue.

We now have, after a decade or 15 years in which community colleges have had diploma programs for early childhood education -- Ryerson has a special degree program for early childhood education -- a wealth of individuals out there with a great deal of professional competence, but there is no body in a sense to be able to speak on their behalf and to act as an appropriate regulatory body to ensure that the profession is indeed as competent and as accountable and, quite frankly, as professional as the members want it to be, and I think as all of us would want it to be, whether it's as parents with young children in child care or just simply as citizens of this province who want to see the most effective system of child care that we can have with the best-trained people within that system.

I want to hasten to add here, I think one of the issues that always comes up around developing self-governing professions is, will that be exclusive?

I think in the deliberations which the association has had, they have been taking great pains to ensure that this will be an inclusive organization, seeking to bring within it all of those who have earned early childhood education diplomas, and that the purpose of the legislative recognition is then to ensure that this professionalism can continue, that the appropriate programs can be developed to ensure proper in-service training and to continue to work at making the early childhood educator in Ontario the best-trained, the best-educated in Canada, in North America, in the world.

Assisting them in doing that, I want to bring to the attention of members that the association did a feasibility study. This study was funded by Health and Welfare Canada, and in it they surveyed some 1,000 parents and users of child care, some 2,000 early childhood educators and 25 key groups involved with children across the province and set out to ask a whole series of questions about how they might proceed in bringing about legislative recognition.

Now that particular group has followed up in response to this questionnaire, where I think it would come as no surprise that those who are active in the field of early childhood education are saying. "Yes, we need standards of practice; yes, we need an accountability function; yes, we need a number of things to make sure that we have an association, a collection of professionals who are going to be able to meet the needs that are out there." They have gone forward and taken that and have developed a process for drafting legislative recognition, and that particular document is going to be discussed with their membership very soon.

That's why I believe that if today we as a Legislature can say that we approve in principle the need for legislative recognition, the association itself is then going to be able to sit down with the Minister of Community and Social Services with a model, to say: "How would this look? Is this something we could put into legislation? We as early childhood educators believe it has broad support from all of those who are active currently in the field." That could mean that we would be able to have draft legislation come back to this House in the fall, be able to deal with it and to pass it.

As the minister himself has said in another place, with myself and with the member for Burlington South, he sees this issue of legislative recognition as an important one. I know the ministry is looking at some other options to do with the Day Nurseries Act and some other models, and I think it is appropriate that it does that, but I know I have been persuaded that in terms of whatever changes we make to the Day Nurseries Act or to other acts, one of the key components of ensuring that we have the kind of child care we want and that we have an active group of professionals working within it should be legislative recognition.

I'd like in my opening remarks just to close with some comments that were made by John Sweeney, a former member of this House and former Minister of Community and Social Services. He said this in early 1989:

"With the best will in the world, we, the government, are simply not going to be able to do the number of inspections and the kind of monitoring that is probably necessary in a number of situations relating to child care. If we leave it totally up to us, we are not capable of doing the job by ourselves."

That is as true today as it was then. For us as legislators to ensure that we have an accountable profession of early childhood educators -- they want to be accountable so they can help us to ensure that we have those child care programs that are accountable -- we need to bring legislative recognition to the field of early childhood education. That is what this motion is all about, and I would ask for the support of all members of the House.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I once again welcome the opportunity to comment just briefly on this resolution from my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie. Parts of this resolution are interesting and I want to read some of it into the record:

"Since despite the importance of this profession there are no formal entry standards for early childhood educators beyond the ECE diploma; and

"Since there are no formal standards of practice nor any mechanism to ensure that early childhood educators are held accountable for their professional conduct; and

"Since the Association of Early Childhood Educators, Ontario (AECEO) is an organization of early childhood educators and concerned individuals whose objective is to improve the quality of early childhood care and education, and has long held that some form of professional regulation is required to ensure that the needs of children and families are met;

"Therefore, in order to protect children and families and increase the quality of care and education of young children, the government of Ontario should formally recognize the need for professional regulation of early childhood educators and should develop

an act that prescribes, among other things, minimum entry standards, standards of practice and a code of ethics for early childhood educators. Draft legislation should be presented to this Legislature no later than the end of the 1994 legislative session."

I congratulate the member for York-Mackenzie for bringing this resolution to our attention today, because it deals with one of our most precious resources, and that's our children.

I have always believed that modern Ontario families need a variety of child care supports to allow them to fulfil modern obligations, including raising children, participating in the labour force and public life.

All children should have access to child care services regardless of family income or their parents' employment status. Parents should have the right to determine the nature and extent of their children's participation.

Child care should be of high quality. To ensure this high quality, child care services should be licensed and regulated, reflecting the best current knowledge about early childhood development as well as the varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Canadian families.

I would suggest that a wide range of service options is needed to assist modern families in their child care responsibilities, including full-day group day care, half-day nursery school programs, regulated family day care, parent and child drop-in programs, opportunities for parent education, toy-lending services, training and advice.

On page 10 of the Common Sense Revolution, Mike Harris notes:

"Our obligation to those in need is even greater in the case of our children. Children living in poverty suffer from significantly higher infant mortality rates, lower life expectancies and tend to receive poor nutrition and education."

We recommend the implementation of a learning and earning and parenting program: "Young single parents on welfare will be encouraged to stay in school and complete their education. If they meet attendance standards, they will be eligible for child care and bonuses in their welfare cheques."

On June 7, I received the following letter from Ms Lisa Teskey, who is the president of the Huronia branch of the Association of Early Childhood Educators, Ontario. She'd indicated to me that this resolution was coming before this Legislature today and was hoping that the resolution would have support. The basis of it, or the bottom line, as she says, is, "To protect the children and families of Ontario and to increase the quality of care and education for young children, we ask for your support of this resolution." I can assure Lisa that she has our support.

As well, Louisa Dyck of the early childhood education faculty of Conestoga College in Kitchener-Waterloo sent me a fax on June 8:

"As a follow-up to our conversation yesterday, I have had the opportunity to briefly outline the upcoming resolution with several colleagues. Unanimously, it is felt that this type of legislation is long overdue. While the Day Nurseries Act clearly sets out minimum standards for the physical facility,

schedule and operation of a child care program, there are no safeguards in place with respect to standard practice and ethical behaviours of the staff which operate these programs and provides care for children and families." I think that's the basis of this whole resolution. They are "wholeheartedly behind this resolution and its implications for ensuring excellent care for young children in Ontario."

Once again, I'm behind this resolution too. I thank the member for York-Mackenzie for bringing it before us today.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): As my colleague opposite Mr Beer, the member for York-Mackenzie, has brought the issue forward, I think it's a valid one that we need to work on. I know he carried at one time the portfolio of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and understands the issue around the professionalism, because he used the word "professionalism." Some people still accept child care as a babysitting service in some communities. It's now becoming more evident that it is required as a professional, and people are trained as professionals during this process.

He also indicated documents called Children First, Yours, Mine and Ours and Starting Points. He talked about the committee, which is examining this issue and early detection and early prevention of high-risk children in our society. I believe the reports were very clear that we need to make sure that in the early years of our children we're developing and making sure that we do prevention in the most important way and also do detection. Detecting disabilities or children at high risk is very important for anyone, and especially for society, not necessarily the government. It's very important for a community.

I understand the attention that the member is trying to get in developing legislation extensively. I'm questioning whether it can be done so quickly, because I fully support the intent of the resolution, the intent of early childhood educators to improve the quality of child care. I know that the association presented a brief to the ministry staff this spring. Staff have been working with the association -- and I know that even when you were there, Mr Beer, there was work going on through that process -- in trying to develop a working plan that can be established.

I know that they have made a presentation to the ministry. I also know that they have laid out in the presentation a sketch and the needs considered in order to make this work.

However, dealing with the legislative requirement -- everybody always refers to legislation, that legislation is required -- I believe that through amendments in regulation, making the regulation changes, we can improve the process. It's not only legislation in order to meet time lines and to put programs into place.

I understand what he's saying about a self-regulated body, but it's important for us to move in a process in which we can start to address some of the concerns that were expressed in a document by the Premier's Council -- Yours, Mine and Ours -- and work towards the ultimate goal of legislation to create a self-regulated body. But we as a government and as a Legislature can move very quickly on improving things in the work that is already there without having to bring legislation forward.

Qualifications: We need to address that. We could amend the number of qualified registered ECEs and put more time in place. We should continue to establish and approve courses of instruction. We could provide for granting of certification for those who are graduates already. This is one of the ways of helping the professionals, with certification of this process.

As we move forward in addressing it, I don't believe only the province should do it. I know the federal government's commitment to child care and establishing better child care. I believe we need a national strategy to making sure we are looking after our children throughout this country and throughout this province.

I believe the government's intention is still to move forward. I know the member opposite is very sincere about this, because during the committee process we all are very interested in resolving the problems facing our young people. As our society becomes more of a twoincome society, with more dependency on the system or for child care to be provided for our children, we want to make sure everything in is place so we do not run into high-risk children in our communities.

But I have a very serious problem, and I don't know if it can be achieved. It's the legislative requirement of 1994, and I'm being sincere with the member. I fully support the resolution that has been put forward. I understand clearly. We should have done this years ago; we always say we should have done things years ago.

I just know that with the presentation that was done to the ministry in the spring -- as a matter of fact, the ministry is even going to be attending a planning workshop tomorrow -- the government's commitment is still there. I'm wondering if we can move very quickly to establish the legislative requirement that will be needed to make this thing move forward.

If the year 1994 wasn't there, you'd have my total support, but I'm afraid to mislead individuals into thinking it's going to be achievable. We always hear people say: "You have to have full conversation. You have to make sure you involve the groups. You have to make sure we can get all-party consent to expedite this legislation." Usually, once we get legislation in the House, it gets stalled.

We need to make sure that all partners are involved in this process so that when legislation is tabled, it is expedited through its normal process so we can establish the criteria needed for these professionals, needed by the families and the children of our communities so we can try to start to eliminate some of the problems that exist in our communities around high-risk children.

To the member opposite, I respectfully regret that I will not support the resolution based on the 1994 legislative year, but he has my total support in his resolution, which he has clearly put forward.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am indeed pleased to enter into the debate today. I certainly feel that our primary role as legislators is always to ensure that whatever policy, whatever legislation, whatever direction we take, we'll protect our children. That is something I think we actually have unanimity on in this Legislature, and I can tell you from experience over the last seven years that there are very few issues in this Legislature that we are unanimous on.

I guess the question is, how do we do this? We have to protect our children in many ways. We protect them by ensuring that the care they need is there. We ensure that their future is protected. And that's why even the deficit is a child's issue and an issue for the protection of our children: It's that generation that indeed is going to end up having to share and deal with our legacy.

Having said that we as legislators believe in the protection of our children, what does that have to do with the resolution by the member for York-Mackenzie that is before us today? First of all, I would like to commend the member for York-Mackenzie for bringing this issue forward.

We all know that over the past 20 years the role of women in this province has expanded. At one time, we were primary care givers and many of us did not work outside the home. But that has changed over succeeding decades to the stage where in the last 10 years many women have gone back into the workforce, and those women have children. While men in our society have taken much more of an evolutionary role towards caring for the children and men are in many cases sharing that role today, there still becomes the problem: If the women go back into the workforce, who is to care for our children? So there's been a dramatic increase over the last 10 years in the need for childhood educators.

As the member for Chatham mentioned, some people still believe this is babysitting, but there are many members of this Legislature who do not believe that to be true. We are educating our children, we are informing them, we are guiding them, we are nurturing them. All this is provided in early childhood education.

The question is, do we need certain standards in the guiding of our children? Of course we all say yes, there must be standards, and we know the Day Nurseries Act provides standards, but I would point out to you that they are minimum standards. What we need here for early childhood educators is a clear indication that they may set standards, that they may set accountability mechanisms for their profession, that in fact they can ensure the quality of child care in this province.

The member for Port Hope, I believe it was, said he's concerned about the timetable. This timetable is a goal, because we all know how long it takes us to do anything in this dysfunctional Legislature. We have to have a goal. We have to have a time frame. But I for one -- and I'm sure the member for York-Mackenzie will make the same pledge today -- we will say to the government that if you with goodwill go forward with this draft legislation, and if it comes to December and you find you need some more time, we will say: "Yes, let us work together. We will grant you that time." We just want to set a time frame so that it doesn't drag on for ever.

There have been questions, not only, "Why do we need this?" but also, "What about the cost?" The cost is not going to devolve on government.

Somebody has just told me that Randy Hope is the MPP for Chatham-Kent. I thank the member for that information and correct the record.

The cost of this will not be funded through taxpayers' dollars. It will be funded through membership of the organization and through other revenue-generating activities. It is probably the Association for Early Childhood Education, Ontario, that will take the lead in this, because it is the largest group involved in this issue and it has certainly taken the lead in bringing this to the fore, but that has yet to be determined.

The important thing is that this is not a measure that's going to have a lot of cost to the taxpayers. This is a measure to ensure accountability, to ensure standards, to ensure that the quality of child care is upheld.

Some people may say that we have a diploma or a degree in early childhood education provided by either Ryerson, where it is a four-year degree, or by many of our community colleges, so there's already a standard. I say to them that I suspect most of the members of this Legislature have degrees of one sort or another; I would also submit that because we've gone to university it does not mean we're competent, it doesn't mean we're qualified, it doesn't mean we're aware of standards, it doesn't grant some right to know what we're doing. I also don't mean to imply that those of us who are university educated don't know what we're doing.

I'm saying, let's make sure that early childhood educators who come out with a substantial body of knowledge are aware of the ethics, the standards, and very high standards, that we must meet in the care of our children. Let's have that extra measure of security. That's all we're asking for. We aren't asking for an onerous system. We aren't asking for bureaucratic regulations. We're asking for a very simple thing: Let us ensure the quality of child care in this province, and that those who are providing that care have the highest standards possible.

I ask all members of this Legislature to support the member for York-Mackenzie. I thank him for bringing it forward, and I think it's indicative of his care for children and for the care of children by all members of this Legislature.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): First of all, let me say that I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the resolution. Throughout my political career, both 10 years as a public school trustee in Halton region and nine years here in the Ontario Legislature, I have had occasion to work closely with early childhood educators. I've watched the progress and the development of their professional accreditation and the work they do, and I'm pleased today to join my colleague from York-Mackenzie with this appropriate resolution.

I've come to respect and appreciate the work of the early childhood educators' organization. I'm not sure whether my colleague mentioned it earlier, but they formed in 1950, so they have a rich history of contribution and certainly were there at the beginning of the development of the growing need and the awareness of early childhood education in this province, whether in the form of formal or informal day care or earlier entrance to school, or the Montessori movement, perhaps more expensive but still a form of earlier access to educational opportunities for our children.

Today I want to set out some of the concerns I have, not with the approach that's being taken, because I fully support that, but what I think is some of the hazardous turf this organization is about to embark upon if in fact the resolution comes forward. But having listened to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services for this province, I sense that the government will not be supporting this bill and therefore, unfortunately, in spite of the protestations that this is an open and free-vote forum, it may not succeed.

That would be truly tragic, but it would be not inconsistent with the government's approach in these matters around Community and Social Services support agencies and the work they do in this province.

I can only say, to put on the record very clearly, that the NDP government of Bob Rae promised adoptees and adoption agencies in this province that it would bring forward legislation, and when push came to shove, the minister, Mr Silipo, bailed out and said, "No, we're not going to do it," and a private member of the Legislature had to bring forward an agenda based on the promises made by the minister and Bob Rae's government that they would proceed.

I cite the second example, which is now about a year old, of a social worker act for Ontario, the exact same situation: a legitimate request to formulate professional accreditation with standards of practice and disciplinary actions that are necessary for very noble and worthwhile purposes in this province because of the unique work in social services and education involving children and vulnerable people, that the social worker act should be promoted.

Again Bob Rae and his government promised it, but when push came to shove, they pushed it and shoved it off to private members' hour and it has disappeared somewhere in the bowels of one of the ministries, if in fact it's being looked at at all.

So now we come to this third one. I believe this is only the third bill in social policy or social-educational policy or human resources policy within this government that deals with the notion that it's time we got on with formulating a professional accreditation and regulation framework for them.

I don't wish to be a pessimist, but when Tony Silipo, the minister, promised this group on May 22, 1993 -- and Mr Beer and I were in the room at the time he promised it, each representing our respective caucuses. We were present for it. We had unanimity, we had agreement. The member for York-Mackenzie, to his credit, worked closely with the organization and put forward a private bill as well.

But the government has again seen fit to abandon that third promise to the third group of persons working in the social policy field to say, "No, it's off; I didn't really mean what I said." So now we're here before the Legislature with a private bill which should be supported by all members of the House, which, for reasons, the government is saying no to now.

One has to ask, why is the government saying no to this? Why would the NDP government of Bob Rae, who made so many promises in the last election about day care and early childhood education, abandon the interests of these cornerstone, front-line workers who provide the professional services? Why would he abandon that?

We can speculate that one of the aims and objectives of any professional accreditation group is to enhance their wage package, to make it more equitable, to make it relative to the work done by a teacher in a kindergarten classroom and to look in comparative terms on those salary scales.

That's pretty intimidating to the government of the day, because they are the primary funder of day care in this province. We won't get into the debate of commercial day care versus non-profit day care, but that's the chosen direction of the government. Every time they destroy a private centre and engage in creating a new government-run facility, they are creating a straight-line debt to the government and less so to those people who pay a portion of their day care services.

This puts incredible pressure on the government's current overextended budgets, and it seems rather ironic that the very ideological motivation for expanding day care may ultimately be the very reason why the government is saying no to this organization, because, "Once we regulate you, your salaries are all going to go up."

If that's what the government's game is, I think it's wrong and it's inappropriate. People should be compensated fairly and equitably in this province for the work they do. The work of early childhood educators is of a very, very high quality and they need the authority to make it even better, make it even better because, as a regulatory body, they can discipline those members who act out.

During the debate on a social worker act, we were dealing with a case of a person who was working with children, had sexually assaulted a child, but because there wasn't a framework of regulation, this person was allowed to serve time for the crime of sexually assaulting a child but then could return to that profession because there is no professional regulation.

In fact, in many respects that's the same situation. I have been fighting for a case of a small child who was sexually assaulted in a day care centre in Halton, and the case was never taken to court because they felt there was insufficient evidence. But that individual is still out there, working in a day care centre. It's absolutely, fundamentally wrong. If we had a regulatory body, government could say: "Look, this is your own member. You discipline and you set some standards. Talk to us as a government and tell us what we would do to ensure the safety of those children." There are some really valid, strong reasons for the concept of regulation and those are supportable.

I will indicate to the early childhood educators that I don't want to leave the issue of salary scale, because sometimes organizations are used by governments, who say, "You back us up and say nice things about some of our moves on day care and then we'll promise you, quietly on the side, that we'll bring in your act to support you." This goes on all the time.

But the fact is that when bump funding occurred for day care workers in this province, it was only given to those women workers in non-profit day care centres. I was disappointed.

I had hoped that the early childhood educators would have supported fully the notion that all women workers as early childhood educators deserve to be treated the same, and not to have fallen into the trap the government had made: to create a definition that early childhood educators were scab labourers if they worked in a private centre, but if they worked in a non-profit centre they were deserving of equity and funding and enhancement. These would have been terribly underpaid, highly professional women workers in this province, and I was rather disappointed.

Sometimes organizations fall into the trap of saying yes to the government's actions, when in that case they discriminated against a whole group of predominantly women early childhood educators.

I wish we had more time in this debate. I wanted to speak about the seamless day and how this organization could be a very powerful tool to help develop a seamless day for our children. I will be supporting the bill and I thank my colleagues.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It is indeed a pleasure to rise today in this place and speak with regard to this subject and to lend some support to the member for York-Mackenzie in his efforts to get some recognition for this profession and to get this issue put on the table so that some of us are speaking about it. Certainly, it is being spoken about in many other venues and in many other rooms around this precinct, but this is the first time in this package that it has come to the Legislature so that we could have this more formal debate and discussion around the resolution that he has put forward.

I join with him and the members for Eglinton, Burlington South and Chatham-Kent in speaking, and speaking very positively, about the contribution that the professionals who work in this field offer by way of their time, their energy and their talent and to recognize the tremendous effort and time and resources that they themselves have put into preparing themselves to work in this field. It is certainly an important field.

I don't think there's anybody in this place who would in any way suggest that we shouldn't be putting whatever resources we can get our hands on into making sure that this field of early childhood education is given an opportunity to do the job that we all know is necessary in today's society.

So I have no difficulty in supporting this resolution. I do, though, in parallel with my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent, have some difficulty with some of the time frame in that this is a big subject, quite complicated, and I think it deserves, because of the importance of the subject, some discussion and whatever discussion is required to make sure that we do the job right from beginning to end and that we don't end up in a situation, as we do so often around this place, where we're trying to ram something into a short time frame, get it done to appease one particular group, and in the end make less than the best job that is possible happen around it.

I've had some very brief discussion with the member for York-Mackenzie here this morning telling me that if that is the only issue that would get in the way of us supporting this, then we can talk about that. He put some time frames in so that this thing doesn't drag on for ever, so that there's some block of time that we're looking at, and I appreciate that and understand that. I think it's important that we do give ourselves some targets, some time lines, and if you're flexible in that, certainly I think we can work together to move this thing forward and get it done in a timely fashion.

I just wanted to raise a few issues this morning that come to my mind as I look at this that I think we need to consider as we look at this particular piece and try to do something with it that will be in fact helpful in the long run. It comes to me from my previous work in the community. My wife is an early childhood educator -- at least was before we started to have kids. I have four small children, so she's an early childhood educator in another sense.

Mr Jackson: She still is.

Mr Martin: She still is, yes. Certainly, watching her and watching her interact with her colleagues I've come to a greater appreciation and understanding of this field. I've also had some significant interaction with the folks in Sault Ste Marie, my home riding, who work very hard at making sure that in our city there is every opportunity for young people to get the best that there is possible by way of early formation.

I also sit, as some have referred to here, on the standing committee on social development and have sat in on a number of interesting discussions over my three and half years here around the question of the kinds of provisions to be put in place for the development of young people in our communities, the mental health of young people in our communities, and have found that very stimulating and interesting and helpful.

I also sat for a long period early in my time here on this committee looking at the whole question of the Regulated Health Professions Act, which talks to me as well about how complicated this kind of thing can become. So I have some understanding of the complications that can happen.

Just a couple of thoughts. It seems to me that we have to be in this very careful that we understand that the care of children is not just the jurisdiction of one particular group of people, however trained and prepared to do a very good job at that. In putting this piece of legislation together, we need to know how this particular group of professionals will interact and fit into that whole mix of things that are out there.

I think it's somebody out of the native community who said it takes a whole community to educate a child. I certainly believe in that. In getting our heads around this particular initiative, we need to be looking at how this professional group interacts with other professional groups and indeed the rest of the community out there.

The other piece that I'd like to put on the table as something we need to look at as well is the question of what we're doing in education today around lifelong learning and, as the member for Burlington South referred to, this issue of seamless service, not seamless just in terms of a day, but from birth to death. Certainly the early childhood piece, in terms of education, is one of the most critical and crucial of the pieces that we look at.

In the Ministry of Education, in which I have served for three and a half years as parliamentary assistant to the minister, we're looking at the question of early childhood education and how it fits and how we best deliver that in the community. I think we have to get a ways down the road with that as well so that we're not putting the cart before the horse in any sense, so that all of this fits together and moves forward in a way that is consistent and supportive, one piece to the other. So those are two pieces that I put on the table that we need to look at.

I think this is a worthy initiative to support. I will be supporting it, with the proviso that we have to be careful about the time lines. We need them but we can't be bound by them.

I congratulate the member for bringing it forward and look forward to further activity in the not-too-distant future.

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : C'est tout un honneur pour moi de me lever aujourd'hui et d'appuyer mon bon collègue le député de York-Mackenzie.

Ne me demandez surtout pas si je suis surpris qu'un tel individu ait présenté un tel projet de loi. Je ne suis pas surpris ; il est tout à fait normal. C'est bien typique de l'engagement de longue date de mon collègue le député de York-Mackenzie de présenter un tel projet de loi pour la reconnaissance législative des éducateurs et des éducatrices de jeunes enfants en Ontario.

Il est évident que ce projet de loi est requis, et ce depuis très longtemps, requis parce que, entre autres, au cours des 10 dernières années le système de service à l'enfance a vécu une expansion fulgurante. De plus en plus d'éducateurs et d'éducatrices de jeunes enfants offrent leurs services à travers la province, à l'extérieur des foyers et un peu partout. On sait très bien que les familles sont de plus en plus mobiles, avec des carrières et des emplois à poursuivre, d'où un besoin d'offrir une gamme d'options plus adaptées aux besoins de ces familles.

Évidemment, toute cette expansion fulgurante ne s'est pas faite sans problème. Par exemple, les éducateurs et éducatrices ont ainsi acquis une responsabilité accrue face aux enfants. Il y a aussi de plus en plus de demandes de services, les attentes des parents et des familles et, tristement, le gouvernement s'admet débordé dans ses capacités de surveillance et d'inspection.

Mais quels sont les points forts de ce projet de loi ? Pour moi, il est très évident que le projet de loi aidera à standardiser les normes de services à l'enfance. Il augmentera la protection offerte aux enfants et aux familles. Il pourra ajouter aux normes de la qualité du service offert aux enfants et aux familles.

Il y a une chose qui est très évidente également : que le projet de loi a joui d'un appui massif auprès des intervenants intéressés au dossier de service de l'éducation des jeunes enfants. Je salue tout particulièrement les représentantes ici présentes de l'Association ontarienne des éducatrices et des éducateurs de jeunes enfants. Cette association-là a préparé un sondage auprès d'intervenants, et ce sondage a démontré un très vif intérêt, un très vif désir d'une telle reconnaissance législative.

Les gens veulent voir la mise sur pied de normes, de pratiques et d'un code de déontologie avec un mécanisme de surveillance et de discipline. Ils veulent voir également la mise sur pied de normes d'admissibilité. De plus, les répondants ont dit vouloir le développement d'un processus pour apporter librement toute infraction perçue au code de déontologie et d'un processus d'adhésion libre à un regroupement d'éducateurs certifiés. Je pense que ça fait longtemps qu'on le demande. Ça fait longtemps que l'Ontario est prêt pour ce genre d'association de reconnaissance législative.

Vous vous rappellerez, il y a quelques années j'avais présenté un projet de loi similaire pour faire une reconnaissance législative des traducteurs et des interprètes de l'Ontario. Ça a été adopté à l'unanimité quelques mois plus tard et ça a été une première à l'échelle mondiale. On me dit que, malheureusement, ce projet de loi-là ne serait pas une première à l'échelle mondiale, mais quand même ce serait évidemment une première à l'échelle de l'Ontario. Ce n'est pas un luxe ; c'est une nécessité.

Ce que la société est en train de vivre, et ce depuis nombre d'années, et ce que la société va vivre au cours des prochaines années : il est évident qu'une reconnaissance législative de ces éducateurs et éducatrices auprès des jeunes enfants de l'Ontario est un besoin qui est présent.

J'espère que tous les députés présents et députées présentes daigneront accorder dès aujourd'hui un appui à l'unanimité à ce digne projet de loi visant une reconnaissance très honorable à un groupe d'individus qui fait de l'excellent travail auprès des jeunes de l'Ontario.

J'ai entendu les craintes de mes deux collègues néo-démocrates face à l'échéancier de la mise sur pied d'un tel projet de loi. J'espère sincèrement que cette crainte qu'ils expriment, et que je regrette, ne les causera pas à ne pas appuyer ce projet de loi-là.

Vous avez dit clairement que vous êtes inquiets de l'échéancier. Bon, soit, ça c'est votre perception, mais sachez, et je dis ça sans méchanceté, que j'aurais pensé que votre gouvernement aurait apporté ce genre de projet de loi il y a déjà très longtemps. Puisque vous ne l'avez pas fait, mon bon ami le député de York-Mackenzie le fait.

Mais ce n'est pas le temps d'être partisans, parce que les besoins des enfants sont là, ils nous attendent. Cette reconnaissance législative également est dû depuis longtemps.

Donc, j'espère que tous et toutes ensemble, nous daignerons accorder un appui unanime dès aujourd'hui et que mes collègues du parti gouvernemental s'affaireront d'une façon diligente à encourager leurs propres collègues qui siègent au Conseil des ministres à développer et à faire reconnaître et à passer en sanction royale dans les plus brefs délais, tel que demandé par mon collègue de York-Mackenzie, à demander et à voir à ce que, très prochainement et aussi prochainement que possible, l'on puisse voir apporter en Chambre un tel projet de loi, celui de mon collègue de York-Mackenzie, qu'on y aille de l'avant et que ce soit réalisé dans les plus brefs délais.

Je m'en voudrais, avant de terminer, de ne pas souligner l'excellente contribution que fait l'Association ontarienne des éducatrices et éducateurs de jeunes enfants jusqu'à présent, d'appuyer notre collègue de York-Mackenzie, qui présente en Chambre aujourd'hui ce projet de loi.

Je souhaite, je le répète, que tout le monde va voter à l'unanimité au nom de l'enfance et des jeunes enfants en Ontario.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm very pleased to stand and speak, for the very short time I have, in relation to the private member's resolution in regard to early childhood educators in this province.

While I'm in full support of the intent of the resolution by the member for York-Mackenzie, I do indeed have some problems around the time frame suggested by the member. I believe this is such a very important issue that we need some time for in-depth discussion and analysis with respect to the accountability mechanisms, roles and responsibilities related to drafting and regulating the profession. I believe that is required before any legislation could be drafted.

I believe there are many opportunities where we can work with the professions outside of the regulations. For example, we could begin to look at how we can set standards for staff qualifications; look at other mechanisms for improving quality, including enhanced training; board accountability; site accreditation etc. Those are some of the areas we could look at outside of legislation, but I indeed welcome the very brief opportunity I have to get up and support the intent of the member's resolution.

With four kids going through the school system, I know how important early childhood education really is. I support the intent of the resolution, but I do have some problems with the time frame suggested by the member. Because of that, I feel I will have to be voting no on the resolution.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for York-Mackenzie, you have two minutes in reply.

Mr Beer: I want to thank all the members who have participated in the debate for the support they have given to the basic intent of the motion.

I'd like to address the concerns around the timing, because I would like to urge the government members to support this motion. I think it's important that we do try to speak with one voice on this, and perhaps I can say some things in my closing remarks that will give you a way of supporting it. It is not put forward in the sense of trying to put you on a particular hot spot. The reason that we put in the reference to the end of the legislative session -- if you look at the wording it refers to draft legislation.

I know, and as my friend and colleague the member for Chatham-Kent has said, there has been a lot of work going on between the government and the association to do with this issue and others that relate to child care, and I think on the whole it's a good working relationship. In any government, whether it's you or us or the third party, there are always going to be some issues and some problems, but I think the reason we put that date in and what we were after was to just give it some impetus.

Reference has been made to the RHPA and other regulatory acts that we've dealt with. I know we don't want to spend 10 years on this, but I think we've learned a lot, quite frankly, from going through that specific exercise that will help us.

With respect to the time frame, we see that as a goal. Certainly, it may be that we arrive at the end of the fall where a lot of work has been done but a specific legislative act can't be presented to the House, or where perhaps the government has in the fall or at some point decided to issue a white paper that may include, as the original RHPA did, draft components they want for discussion.

I think that is fine, and I'm not going to stand up and say that the member from Chatham-Kent is a miserable whatever and whatever, because he's not. But I think what is important, and what is important to the representatives from the association and for those who are involved in early childhood education, is a clear sense that we in this legislative body are seized of the issue, that we see it as being terribly important in terms of the provision of good-quality, accessible child care and that we want the early childhood educators to be a key part of that as a professional self-governing body. I believe that is the goal they have.

I am optimistic, quite frankly, that with the work they have done and the work that has been ongoing, we have a chance to bring in draft legislation. But I say to the government members, let's not get hung up on that. I think the intent is just to set a good, strong working pace, and if we can do that I think that is sufficient, and in 1994-95 we'll get this thing dealt with. So I again urge all members to support this motion.

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

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 61, standing in the name of Mrs Carter. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Carter has moved private member's resolution number 44. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 62, standing in the name of Mr Beer. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Beer has moved private member's resolution number 43. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

I declare the motion carried.

All matters related to private members' business have been debated. I will now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health will be aware that there is a great need for expanded dialysis services at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital in my riding of Kenora. I have received many calls and letters from people throughout the riding who have relayed to me their frustration and concern over this issue.

In particular I would like to bring to the minister's attention the case of Virginia Zroback, who is a resident of Kenora and one of many who has to travel to Winnipeg three times a week for treatment. Mrs Zroback and her husband, Carl, travel every Monday, Wednesday and Friday for a total of 18 hours per week by car out of the province to receive care that is not available to her in Kenora.

I understand the frustration of Virginia and Carl Zroback and their two children, and I regret that this government and the Minister of Health have chosen to overlook this issue. Clearly, for the minister to ignore the plea of people such as Virginia and Carl and many more in my riding is cruel and unjust.

I would like to know when this government will review the request of the Lake of the Woods District Hospital board for funding and when the people who desperately need this service will no longer have to leave their families and homes to travel outside the province for this service.

I am told that the board members and the district health council have acknowledged the need for expanded dialysis service at the hospital and have made a request to the Minister of Health for assistance. Apparently the only thing that is holding up the funding for this service is the minister's signature.

How long are people like Virginia and Carl and many other families expected to wait before this minister and her government provide the services that my constituents deserve and expect from their government? Northerners are tired of being ignored by this NDP government.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I rise to inform all members of the House that the second annual Memorial Conference for Victims of Violence will be held on Sunday, June 12, at Brant Bible Church in Burlington.

The event is organized by Debbie Mahaffy to honour the memory of victims of crime. It is also a time for the victims' families to join together with those who try to share their burden of pain and to promote victims' rights and the reform of our justice system.

The conference is held annually on or near June 15, for it was on that day three years ago that the Mahaffy family first learned of the disappearance of Leslie. June 15 represents the experience of prolonged victimization suffered by all crime victims and their families.

This conference is not just a memorial service. It is a time for all advocates for victims to rededicate themselves to the cause of reforming Ontario's justice system, which continues to have its primary focus on the criminal rather than on the victims and their families.

Last year, at Debbie's personal request, I tabled private member's Bill 86,

An Act to establish a Victims' Memorial Day in Ontario as a day to help increase public awareness of victims' rights. On their behalf, I appeal to Bob Rae to go beyond condolences and to respond to their pleas for justice with decisive legislative action, as outlined in several private bills before this House such as Bill 19,

An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime; Bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime; Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Coroners Act; and Bill 150, the Registration of Pedophiles Act.

The families of crime victims look to all members of this House to protect their rights. As Priscilla de Villiers stated, "Believe me, everyone can become a victim."

FRED PARGETER

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to pay tribute to a D-Day veteran from Smithville, a fine man who unfortunately passed away six weeks before the 50th anniversary of D-Day.

Fred Pargeter was in his mid-80s when he died, but those who knew him say he had the vigour of a much younger man. He was involved in countless community activities. Fred is best remembered as the sergeant at arms at the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 393, in Smithville, for his hard work on the board of the Legion Villa senior citizens' complex, and no one will forget his witty sense of humour.

Although he was proud to be one of the many soldiers who helped liberate Europe, Fred never played down the horror of war. During Poppy Week each November, Fred urged local school children to remember those who fought and died for our freedom.

In 1991 Fred was kind enough to tell his D-Day story to the local newspaper, a story I'd like to share. According to the article, the most terrifying part was hitting the beach. Bullets and exploding mortar shells were everywhere. He described it as hell and said a lot of good men were lost. Fred's own landing craft was immediately sunk by fire, but the jeep he was in touched down in the surf and made it to shore. Eventually they fought their way inland, and the rest is history.

I'd like to thank Fred for his valiant effort. If Fred were alive today, he'd probably give me hell for bringing attention to his story. He was a modest man with a big heart and he will be missed.

VETERANS' HOUSING

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): There are over 250,000 veterans and their families in Ontario. Now some of their comrades need help with their housing. These veterans require the housing now, and instead they're getting a snow job by the Ministry of Housing.

It is an unmitigated disgrace that this government continues to stall these needy veterans who in their youth served their country faithfully. Many of them fought on D-Day and want to know where their housing is today. This group is not getting any younger and their housing needs are getting more acute.

The war veterans have applied to the Ministry of Housing and the Jobs Ontario Homes program for a funding commitment for their Wingate Manor non-profit housing project.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Do you support the moratorium?

Mr Kwinter: This very deserving group has applied for funding on three separate occasions, only to be met by a blitzkrieg of paperwork. They have made many sacrifices for our country and a more deserving group cannot be found. They were flying planes for Canada against the Nazis long before Flying Toad ever existed, and I would say that they should be given the kind of consideration they deserve.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Well, tell them you want a moratorium.

Mr Kwinter: It isn't a matter of whether or not there is a moratorium; there are housing units being allocated, and you will not find a more deserving group. This is a group that is deserving of the government's support.

THOMAS R. MOORE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It is a privilege to honour a colleague and friend. Today in London we are celebrating the retirement of the greatest parliamentarian this province has known since the Honourable John P. Robarts.

I refer of course to Thomas R. Moore, executive secretary for the London Board of Education. Tom singlehandedly kept faith with Robert's Rules of Order and ensured that trustees always spoke only to the topic at hand and never exceeded their allotted time. Would that Mr Moore's skills were evidenced in this House -- well, with a few exceptions.

I had the privilege of working with him when I was a trustee from 1973 to 1989. My friend Mae Parkinson and I often blamed Tom for encouraging us to get into politics after our frustration at not being allowed to vote on the board's budget committee.

He was a committed person to students, teachers, staff and trustees; a prolific writer, educator, historian in charge of archives; president of the Ontario Association of School Business Officials; campaign chair for the American Association of School Business Officials president Jack Morris, and the list goes on.

We worked together on many board projects. We attended professional development seminars where we learned and presented. The OASBO and AASBO conferences provided us time to visit, travel and argue educational issues.

Tom is a gentleman and a scholar. His contribution to education in London was significant. The Board of Education for the City of London will never be the same. We will miss him very much and extend our best wishes for good health and happiness to Tom, Alice and his family.

ETHNOCULTURAL COUNCIL OF LONDON

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to congratulate the Ethnocultural Council of London on the success of its recent forum on multiculturalism and education. Through presentations by a panel of speakers and lively debate and discussion, this forum raised awareness and explored a number of issues.

Professor Peter Chimbos examined multiculturalism in the Canadian context and highlighted its essential role as a bulwark of unity. Dr Jean Hewitt, superintendent of schools for the London Board of Education, stressed the necessity of equity and multiculturalism in creating a strong framework for our educational programs. Merv Caldwell, London education officer for the western Ontario region, discussed ways in which the success of the international languages program relies on the work and involvement of the entire community.

Over 15 ethnocultural groups from London were represented at this event, held at the Ukrainian Cultural Centre in London.

Increased awareness, exploration and open discussion: these are the beneficial outcomes and examples of the positive process used in this forum on multiculturalism and education.

In concluding, I recognize London ethnocultural council president Lionel Worrell for his work in organizing this event. Such forums offer an excellent opportunity to build unity through diversity.

CARE OF ALZHEIMER PATIENTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am rising once again in the House to plead the case of Alzheimer patients and their families and friends, who are all impacted by the inadequate facilities and services available to meet the medical needs of an extremely vulnerable group of people in our society.

It is not uncommon for family members to call the constituency offices of MPPs to ask if there is some way that the Alzheimer patient in their family can be moved to the top of the waiting list for admission to a medical facility that can deal with the very difficult challenges presented by people suffering from the advanced stages of Alzheimer disease.

Naturally, it would not be appropriate for political representatives to insist that a particular patient be moved to the front of the line and that others be required to wait longer.

What is appropriate, however, and what I'm doing again today, is requesting that the Minister of Health provide adequate funding to ensure that more beds are available in nursing homes to serve the needs of Alzheimer patients and that home care and respite services be increased to alleviate the unfair and tragic burden now being borne by family care givers who themselves are facing mental anguish and physical fatigue as they struggle to assist a person dear to them.

Those seniors' homes, such as Linhaven in St Catharines, that serve patients at this time have experienced greater difficulty in assisting Alzheimer victims because of inadequate provincial funding. Let's remember those who themselves cannot remember by investing in the kind of care that seniors with Alzheimer deserve.

OPTIMIST CLUB ANNIVERSARY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise to acknowledge the worldwide celebration of 75 years of Optimism. Optimist International is one of the world's largest and most active service organizations, with over 165,00 members in 4,200 Optimist Clubs across the United States, Canada and the Caribbean. Following their motto, "Friend of Youth," Optimist Clubs annually conduct over 60,000 service projects which reach out to five million young people. For 75 years, Optimist Clubs have taken a hands-on approach to youth and community service.

Optimist Clubs were formed in response to the major social change brought on by the Industrial Revolution. The first official Optimist Club was started in Buffalo, New York, in 1911.

The Optimist creed best conveys what being an Optimist entails:

"Promise yourself...To be so strong that nothing can disturb your peace of mind. To talk health, happiness and prosperity to every person you meet. To make all your friends feel that there is something in them. To look at the sunny side of everything and make your optimism come true. To think only of the best, to work only for the best and expect only the best. To be just as enthusiastic about the success of others as you are about your own. To forget the mistakes of the past and press on to the greater achievements of the future.

To wear a cheerful countenance at all times and to give every living creature a smile. To give so much time to the improvement of yourself that you have no time to criticize others. To be too large for worry, too noble for anger, too strong for fear and too happy to permit the presence of trouble."

I congratulate the Optimist Clubs of North America.

NORTHLAND POWER PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise today to extend my congratulations to the community of Iroquois Falls after a year and a half of hard work and being able to secure the Northland Power project to its community.

Members would know that back in December 1992 Ontario Hydro made a fairly difficult decision around non-utility generators and froze the applications of a number of proponents before Ontario Hydro at the time to construct non-utility generating stations. At that particular time, Northland Power had before Hydro a project of some 150 megawatts that was going to be constructed in the community of Iroquois Falls.

What's interesting to note, and why I want to congratulate the community, is that rather than turning on each other and turning on us, what we ended up doing is working together: Northland Power with the people there, Mr Timerty, Mr Brown and others, working with the mayor and council, Mr Brown and his council; working with the community through the unions in that community, what used to be the Canadian Paperworkers Union back then, Jim French, Ed Godfrey, and a number of others I haven't mentioned; working with the economic development council, with the downtown business association, the chamber of commerce and, most importantly, the citizens of Iroquois Falls and other citizens around northeastern Ontario.

We managed to work together in order to demonstrate to Ontario Hydro that this was indeed a project that was viable to go ahead, not only important to Northland Power but important to Abitibi, because what this project will do in the long term is not only to create much-needed employment within the community, but to secure the major employer there, Abitibi.

My congratulations to the community of Iroquois Falls for the job well done. Finally we can go ahead with this most worthy project.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures report for the fiscal year 1993-94. The members will find a copy in their desks in the chamber.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members to join me in welcoming a former member of the assembly seated in the members' gallery west, the former member for Don Mills, Mr Murad Velshi. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'm pleased to inform members today that the Ontario government has approved $620 million in capital funding for school boards.

This funding extends our commitment to building facilities for quality education in which students can learn and grow. It continues the province's practice of committing capital funds to school boards for future years, which has been a feature of Ontario's school capital funding program since 1989. It also continues the policy of providing funds for the construction of quality child care settings in school facilities.

As minister, I have visited schools throughout the province. I have seen the contribution that first-class facilities can make to learning. I've also seen that there is in some areas a need for new or replacement schools and for renovations to improve existing schools. There's also a need to provide quality child care settings in school facilities. These are among the priorities this $620 million in funding will address.

In the two fiscal years starting 1996 and ending in fiscal year 1997-98, the funding will support 176 projects throughout Ontario. These projects include 63 new schools as well as a number of additions and renovations to existing schools and 43 child care centres and elementary schools. We are creating space for 39,605 pupils and 1,720 new child care spaces.

This funding, when combined with the local school boards' share of cost of the funding, will generate construction of a total estimated value of more than $800 million and provide an estimated 9,800 person-years of employment. I am pleased to advise the members that further portions of the $620 million in funding will be targeted to specific needs.

Starting in 1996, we will make funds available to boards to improve and update existing schools. This funding will help boards meet their obligations to maintain facilities in good repair. It will also help boards ensure that schools meet current building and fire code requirements and are energy-efficient and that facilities such as science and technology labs are up to date and able to meet the needs of students studying these important subjects.

Over the coming months, my ministry will work with treasury board and representatives of school boards to develop appropriate recommendations for the best way to allocate this portion of the funding. Also, from the $620 million in funding, $10.5 million a year will be designated for a separate child care centre capital fund. Capital funding for the building of 30 child care centres will be available each year through this fund. All new and replacement elementary schools will still receive funding for child care. In addition, a limited number of centres will be created in other projects, enabling us to expand the availability of quality school-based child care.

I am also pleased to announce that, in addition to the $620 million in funding, a further $35 million will be provided in the next two fiscal years to assist boards that are implementing junior kindergarten programs. This funding will help boards renovate and build additions to existing elementary schools according to their plans for the implementation of junior kindergarten. School boards will be advised of the funding for individual capital projects tomorrow and early next week.

The people of Ontario already have a substantial investment in their school buildings. There are currently more than 4,700 publicly funded school buildings in the province, with an estimated replacement value of more than $20 billion.

Since 1990 this government has committed $962 million in capital funds for schools, yet there are still many communities throughout Ontario without the kind of facilities people want for their children's education. This significant commitment of taxpayers' money to our schools is therefore an opportunity to send a message that school boards must make greater efforts to find ways to stretch capital dollars. Local partnerships and multi-use facilities can help boards deliver quality education facilities at less cost to the taxpayers.

The funding I have announced today builds upon Ontario's current capital funding program, which supports the construction and renewal of school facilities throughout the province. This program is also an important part of the government's plan for economic rene