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

December 3, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L064A - Thu 3 Dec 1998 / Jeu 3 Déc 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CITY OF TORONTO XXIX SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES BID ENDORSEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 APPUYANT LA CANDIDATURE DE LA CITÉ DE TORONTO CONCERNANT LES XXIX E JEUX OLYMPIQUES D'ÉTÉ

GASOLINE PRICES PRIX D'ESSENCE

CITY OF TORONTO XXIX SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES BID ENDORSEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 APPUYANT LA CANDIDATURE DE LA CITÉ DE TORONTO CONCERNANT LES XXIX E JEUX OLYMPIQUES D'ÉTÉ

GASOLINE PRICES / PRIX D'ESSENCE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

JESSE'S JOURNEY

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES

EDUCATION IN DURHAM

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

CHILD POVERTY

WEARING OF RIBBONS

NIAGARA GATEWAY WELCOME CENTRE

WEARING OF BUTTONS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONSOMMATEURS EN MATIÈRE D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (PARAMEDICS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (AUXILIAIRES MÉDICAUX)

EMERGENCY VOLUNTEERS PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS AUXILIAIRES EN SITUATION D'URGENCE

FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DIVULGATION RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES

THISTLETOWN CENTRE FOUNDATION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA FONDATION DU CENTRE THISTLETOWN

VISITORS

PRESS GALLERY CHRISTMAS AUCTION

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / JOUR DU SOUVENIR ET D'ACTION CONTRE LA VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

VOLUNTEER LIABILITY

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

VOLUNTEER LIABILITY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

VOLUNTEER LIABILITY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

ABORIGINAL HEALING AND WELLNESS STRATEGY

VICTIMS OF CRIME

TUITION FEES

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

ABORIGINAL HEALING AND WELLNESS STRATEGY

SMALL BUSINESS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

MOTIONS

TIME ALLOCATION

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

ABORIGINAL HEALING AND WELLNESS STRATEGY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

BEAR HUNTING

PROSTATE CANCER

ABORIGINAL HEALING AND WELLNESS STRATEGY

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PALLIATIVE CARE

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES DU GRAND TORONTO

FAIRNESS FOR PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES CONTRIBUABLES DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT (CHILD WELFARE REFORM), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE (RÉFORME DU BIEN-ÊTRE DE L'ENFANCE)

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CITY OF TORONTO XXIX SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES BID ENDORSEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 APPUYANT LA CANDIDATURE DE LA CITÉ DE TORONTO CONCERNANT LES XXIX e JEUX OLYMPIQUES D'ÉTÉ

Mr Kells moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 77,

An Act to endorse the proposed bid of the City of Toronto to host the XXIX Summer Olympic Games / Projet de loi 77, Loi visant à appuyer la candidature que se propose de présenter la cité de Toronto pour accueillir les XXIXe Jeux olympiques d'été.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill 77,

An Act to endorse the proposed bid of the City of Toronto to host the XXIX Summer Olympic Games in the year 2008.

The bill recognizes that Ontario's participation in the bid process is a necessity if it is to be successful. This involvement can only be sustained through mutually acceptable terms enshrined in an agreement between Ontario and the organizers of the Toronto proposal. The bill also asks all municipalities in Ontario and citizens of Ontario to support the bid on a voluntary basis.

In my estimation, this bill is no ordinary offering under our private members' rules; rather, it is my summation of why and how the people of this great province can come together to show the world that we are united as one behind the bid of the city of Toronto to be the nominated host of the XXIX Olympiad. I will say nominal host because the very rules of the International Olympic Committee call for support and guarantees from the senior level of government under which the host city functions.

Perhaps at this point I should make mention of the wonderful efforts that have been put forth by David Crombie and his original group of supporters, who were appropriately called BidCo. Over a year ago, Mr Crombie assembled a group of interested business people and activists from all walks of life who shared one common goal: to attract the Olympic Games to the city of Toronto. As a matter of fact, at that time Premier Harris also pledged his support.

Last April, the Canadian Olympic Association listened to the detailed bid proposal and agreed to support the Toronto plan. Mayor Lastman was also present in Calgary for the meeting and lent his enthusiastic support to Toronto's dream to host the Olympic Games.

To solidify the COA's decision, it was necessary for the city of Toronto council to pass a motion in support of the BidCo application and to sign an agreement with the COA. This approval was received in July of this year and the subsequent agreement created the new entity known as TO-Bid.

As I mentioned, one of the rules set by the International Olympic Committee is for the host city to have a guarantee from the senior level of government. This necessity is covered in the agreement that forged TO-Bid. I mention this during our debate because it is the driving force behind the necessity to have this agreement, as I mentioned, between the province and TO-Bid, and it's a stipulation called for by the IOC.

As you may expect, no enterprise of this magnitude can be successful without the efforts of hundreds and thousands of Ontarians, but more importantly, it must be led by community leaders who represent all facets of what makes a city vibrant, practical and economically viable. In this regard, we are fortunate to have Steve Hudson, chair of the board of Newcourt, in the key role as chair of the executive committee of TO-Bid. He is, of course, ably supported by Mayor Lastman, David Crombie and Carol Anne Letheren of the Canadian Olympic Association.

Fourteen other key Torontonians make up the committee, and on them falls the onus of leadership and dynamics necessary for any successful enterprise.

The executive committee presides over subcommittees, and each subcommittee deals with a vitally specific area, including villages, venues, community relations, finance and administration, fundraising and others. This group is also supported by a board of directors of almost 100 significant individuals who cover the spectrum of human endeavours in the city of Toronto.

As many of you know, this is not Toronto's first try at hosting the Olympic Games, and there is a background of experience to call upon because of our initial attempt. The first bid did not receive unanimous support from the community, and a group known as Bread Not Circuses, funded by the city of Toronto council, journeyed to Tokyo to speak against Toronto's application. This unfortunate occurrence in effect sealed the doom of Toronto's hopes to sponsor the 1996 games, which went to Atlanta instead.

Ironically, the failure of the games to come to Toronto did not lead to a markedly better society, for we still have homeless people and food banks in our communities today. Nonetheless, David Crombie and his group of dedicated supporters learned a lesson and have taken steps this time to make the bid all-inclusive so that all elements of society can feel that their concerns are heard and met. For this I am thankful, and I believe that all members of the Legislature understand and share this approach this time around.

Preparing a bid is no simple matter, and it requires not only the approval in principle of the public at large, but a great deal of money too. Under Steve Hudson, and with the cooperation of Jim Ginou, Paul Godfrey and others, a substantial effort is under way to raise the $40 million that is estimated to be needed to prepare and illustrate to the IOC delegates and the world that Toronto is serious and totally committed to presenting the best training facilities, venues and infrastructure for athletes that any city can provide.

You can be sure that the world will be watching to see what improvements will be made to our infrastructure to best meet the demands, and the huge influx of competitors and spectators will require that. It's too early to guess at what changes will be made, but hopefully governments, citizens' groups, businesses, cultural organizations and the average Ontarian will all be pragmatic in support of what has to be built.

To ensure that our citizens enjoy the maximum benefits from bidding for and hosting the games, this bill includes clauses that call for agreements between the bid organizers and Ontario. Such an agreement was recommended in the report prepared in 1991 after the failure of the bid for 1996. I note that critics and supporters of that previously unsuccessful enterprise all contributed to the list of recommendations contained within the report. This list includes such varied names as Michael Shapcott of Bread Not Circuses, Jack Layton, Dick Pound and Carole Anne Letheren. My bill simply moves to enshrine this advice in law.

The agreement will promote the equitable distribution of venue sites across the province, as called for by this bill. The participation of Ontario's communities in the presentation of the games is an important way of welcoming the world to our diverse province.

The agreement will also contain a management plan, as suggested by the 1991 report. This plan will include methods for dealing with the daily activities involved in producing the bid and how the games should be administered.

As you know, I was appointed Ontario Olympics Commissioner in July by Premier Harris, with a mandate to support the bid to the fullest while protecting the interests of the Ontario taxpayers. May I gently remind the House that Toronto taxpayers are Ontario taxpayers too.

Toronto now faces strong competition from Beijing, Osaka, Monterrey in Mexico, and others. These competitors will challenge us to develop a technically superior bid that highlights Toronto's and Ontario's ability to deliver a memorable games. Once again, I believe this is attainable.

So I call upon the members, indeed my colleagues on both sides of the House, to unequivocally pledge their support for the 2008 summer games. The IOC, through the COA, calls for a sports and cultural legacy to be left behind upon the completion of the games, and this means equal opportunity for Ontario's towns and cities to participate and to build new facilities tied to the Olympics. Successful applicants will then be able to create opportunities to fund the sites to be built. There won't nor should there be any restrictions on creativity that may be used by potential applicants for the use of their community infrastructure.

The Olympic Games are universal in scope, and the Toronto bid should reflect the ability of our citizens to compete with the world when it comes to flair, innovation, messaging, volunteerism and presentation.

The rewards in pride are worth the efforts to win worldwide support. Perhaps I can best illustrate this by using the experiences of the Barcelona games in 1992 as a guide. That ancient Mediterranean port city in Spain has literally transformed its urbanscape in less than a decade, after years of decay. The city is still enjoying huge tourist influxes. Additionally, they now have a 21st-century commercial port facility, modernized rail service, new industrial sewers and a superb recreational waterfront.

Honourable members, I call today for your unanimous agreement that we may move forward together with the confidence that we too can make this possible. We can make the games ring and the world sing in harmony with us.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I rise today in support of the honourable member's motion and to perhaps give you some of the experiences that we've had in Kingston. Kingston, as you may know, is the only Ontario city that has so far enjoyed the Olympic experience, hosting the sailing events for the 1976 Olympics at that time. Let me just tell you a little bit about some of the pitfalls and some of the dos and don'ts that we were able to come up with.

Let me start by talking about the benefits. On an annual basis in the Kingston area, at the Kingston Olympic harbour, we still host about 10 international sailing events that bring sailors in from around the world. The main event I suppose is the annual CORK event, Canadian Olympic Regatta Kingston, in which 1,100 to 1,200 sailors take part annually in the regatta that takes place over a two-week time period. The economic benefits to our area and to the city are immeasurable.

Of course, we like to boast that one of the reasons why the sailing events were held in 1976 in Kingston, outside of the province of Quebec, farther away from Montreal than Kingston is from Toronto, was the fact that we have the best sailing conditions in the summer, the best wind conditions that sailors need to make for attractive races. We, as a matter of fact, like to bill ourselves as the freshwater sailing capital of the world.

I first got involved in this in 1973 when, as a newly elected councillor in Kingston, I opposed the Olympic bid. I was one of only two councillors who opposed it, having been raised and brought up within about two or three blocks of the Olympic site.

The thing that turned it around, which Toronto has already had experience with, with respect to an earlier bid, was the mayor at that time immediately set up a post-Olympic users committee and had the broadest consultation possible under the chairmanship of the late Leonard Dover, a prominent business individual in the Kingston area, and they were able to allay many of the fears that individuals and organizations had about the Olympics.

As a matter of fact, through tremendous co-operation of the provincial government, the federal government and COJO, the Canadian Olympic Organizing Committee, a facility was built that was worth at that time some $7 million and is probably worth well over $15 million to $20 million today. The province paid for the land acquisition, the federal government paid for the harbour development, and the Olympic organizing committee paid for the onshore buildings.

What's extremely important is that there has to be strict financial controls. Many of us may still be paying for the Montreal Olympics in one way or another through our income taxes, but we in Kingston were the absolute benefactors of a $7-million facility without a penny of local taxpayers' dollars. The reason for that was that there were good financial controls. Nothing was being built or done in the Kingston area without the money in the bank to do it.

Second, I urge Mr Kells to be really true to the concept of inclusiveness, getting as many people involved as possible, and that he be just as concerned about the after-use of a lot of the Olympic facilities that will be with us for many generations to come, rather than just about the two- or three-week time period when the Olympics actually take place.

Others will speak to the other economic benefits of the Olympics, but I can tell you that it has placed Kingston on the map. We get sailors from around the world. The harbour itself is probably one of the most unusual sights, having as a backdrop the Kingston Penitentiary, which is certainly unusual for a sailing facility and a harbour-like setting.

We in Kingston feel we have the expertise to run the sailing events, the capital structures are there, and we would simply ask Mr Kells to speak on our behalf to the organizing committee, as I know has already happened, to make sure that the Olympics, if Toronto should be successful, are run in as economical a fashion as possible. I can tell you, sir, we have the expertise in the Kingston area, through our many thousands of volunteers who have run these competitions on an annual basis for the last 30 years, to run this kind of competition. All the capital facilities are in place, and I know we will do a bang-up job.

This will really put Toronto, Ontario and Canada once again on the map, and I too join the Olympic commissioner in urging all the members of the House to support this unanimously and to be sure that the people of Toronto and the people who will be using the facilities that may be made available for them afterwards are integrally involved in every step along the way. There has to be a united effort shown if we don't want to repeat what happened in Tokyo some six years ago.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to rise today to indicate my support for Bill 77, introduced by Mr Kells, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and the commissioner for the Olympics on behalf of the government of Ontario, and to say to him and to all members that as a member from Toronto, as he is, we look forward to Toronto hosting the 29th Olympic Games.

We agree that there is a tremendous opportunity here. I personally believe that, and I know many of my colleagues share that view. We will certainly give our support to this legislation and to the drive that's behind it. We do have some concerns that I want to speak a little bit about, but I also want to say very clearly that we raise those concerns in the light of seeing the tremendous opportunity that lies ahead.

Whenever any venture of this kind comes on the horizon, there are two ways in which you can approach it. You can approach it by saying: "It's going to cause disruptions. It's going to cause problems. Therefore, here are 55 reasons why you shouldn't do it." Or you can approach it in the way that I believe we should and the way in which the Olympic committee organizers are approaching it, which is to say: "This is a tremendous opportunity. There are a number of issues and a number of concerns that have to be addressed.

Let's see how we can address those in the most inclusive way, in a way that deals with those issues up front in the early stages of the process by bringing people into the process and by ensuring therefore that as the bid goes forward, it has not just the formal support of the different levels of government but indeed the broad support of the citizens of Toronto particularly and of the province as a whole."

I would agree that while the games would be hosted principally by Toronto were we to be successful in this bid, the glory, the glamour, the benefit that would come from that would not stop at the city boundaries of the new city of Toronto. It's with that spirit that I stand today to indicate my personal support and I believe that of many members of our caucus, those who will be able to be here to express their own support for this bill.

In terms of the legislation that's in front of us, I would echo what Mr Kells said in terms of the requirement that one of the things that happens is that there be a guarantee of support from the senior level of government; in this case, the province of Ontario. Obviously, that could have happened without a bill such as this coming in because the government can indicate its support in the House and outside of the House simply as a matter of policy. I say that as a way of showing that I appreciate that we have this bill in front of us.

I think it's even more significant if we are able, as I believe we will be able this morning, to show that there is not just the formal support of the province's government, which is important and necessary, but the support of members of the House from all parties. I believe this bill will succeed in doing that. I thank the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for bringing forward this bill because it does give us that opportunity to formalize that support here in this Legislative Assembly.

There are some issues that we want to raise. I don't think these are issues that are strange to people. They are issues which the Olympic committee organizers are well aware of. I hope and believe that they will pay attention to them. But there are also things to which the government will need to pay attention.

During the Olympic period we're going to need some additional housing. We want to make sure that as the planning for that takes place, we don't get ourselves in the situation where we displace people who might be now in certain types of accommodation. That's an issue that has to be addressed carefully. We want to see that as new housing is built, if such is the case - and I presume some will have to be done - there are then provisions for that housing stock to be made available in an affordable way to people following the Olympics. I would say that in terms of all facilities.

I agree with Mr Gerretsen in his comments about the experience in the Kingston area and that one of the most important pieces of this is how we approach what will happen to the facilities after the Olympics. That has to be kept very much in mind.

Obviously, we believe that in any new development with respect to the Olympic facilities, the new environmental technologies need to kept very much in mind, and can be, in terms of what's possible, using that as a showcase for what can be done and what can be built in a way that looks to the future.

There is the whole issue of accountability in terms of the dollars that are spent, predominantly private dollars, but also to the extent that public dollars will have to be spent, and I expect that at the end of the day some will have to be spent, there must be clear accountability guidelines and, with respect to accountability, this continuing approach which we are heartened to see has begun between the formal committee and the rest of, not just the politicians at different levels, but indeed the broad citizenry.

If that happens and that continues, I believe that whatever concerns people have can be dealt with in a way that they can be addressed constructively, up front, early on in the process. They will not then become the barriers and the obstacles that will lead, as happened in the past, to certain groups being diametrically opposed, and to some extent that playing some factor in terms of the decision being made at the end of the day as to whether Toronto will receive the games or one of the other cities competing for the Olympics will receive the games.

As I say, I see this as a tremendous opportunity for the Toronto area, for the province of Ontario and for Canada. I am heartened by what has happened to date. I have some concerns about what will happen from here on in, but I am confident and optimistic that those concerns can be addressed if the goodwill we have seen so far continues.

I encourage that goodwill to continue formally by the committee organizers and the members and the leadership of that committee, and certainly Mr Kells, in his capacity as the Ontario Olympics Commissioner, to continue to oversee and to make sure the government support - and indeed what I hope will be the Legislative Assembly support that he will be able to take forward if we pass this bill today - is continued in that spirit of collaboration, cooperation, and the very open approach to dealing with the concerns and problems up front early on so that we can all be proudly

part in 2008 of having said we were fortunate to have an opportunity to indicate and lend our support in the early stages for this very important event.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It is a pleasure to rise today and speak about Bill 77.

Before getting into the bill, I'd like to congratulate the Premier on his choice of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore as the Olympics commissioner. The commissioner's ongoing dedication to sports, whether it be lacrosse or hockey, I know from personal experience. I owe him a personal thanks because it had been 11 years before coming to this Legislature, and I was convinced into getting the blades on and playing hockey again. I owe that to Commissioner Kells, and I want to thank him personally for that.

When the Olympics issue first came forward, I tried to think about how very specifically I could find some events that Toronto may not be able to avail to the Olympics so that we could bring it outside of Toronto and look at something. I started doing some research and found something that quite honestly was of question. The shooting events, the Olympic trap or the Olympic skeet, were the first events that came to mind that I didn't think Toronto had the facilities for. When I started doing research, I found that they were actually allocated outside of Toronto because they could not provide that facility within Toronto.

At that time, I looked through the local clubs and facilities and found that the Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club was extremely supportive of having the ability to provide those facilities outside during the 2008 Olympics.

Along with that, there were requirements for training facilities. Within that area, mostly in the riding of the member for Durham East, Mr O'Toole, there were both the Oshawa club and the other, the Orono Fish and Hunt Club, the Port Perry club and the Pickering Rod and Gun Club, all within about 20 minutes. Part of the requirement for a site is having alternative sites and training sites. These sites offered the ability to perform those events as training events outside and still have the Oshawa site as a main location.

When I checked, I found that the actual site that was put forward by the original commission was the Borden site, and to my knowledge, they did not have any of the requirements for skeet and trap at that location, although I could be corrected.

When I approached the Oshawa club, there was overwhelming support for bringing the events to Oshawa, not only from the club itself but from the industry as well. At that time I brought the commissioner out to Oshawa to see the facility and what was available there.

There were certain requirements for parking, for seating etc, and the Oshawa club has most of those facilities available at this time to comply with the Olympic requirements, which is something that will certainly help promote and bring an Olympic event to the Oshawa community and help the process along, in that the site may be fully available already.

Not only was there support from the club, but the commissioner who saw the facility was rather impressed with all the requirements that they currently were able to fulfill, and also the local chamber and the economic development office were fully supportive of bringing the events to Oshawa.

There are some of the effects the Olympics will bring: for example, a $2.7-billion impact will result from planning and construction activity from the operation of the Olympic Games and from visitors who come to Ontario for the games. Another thing I'd like to mention is the fact of 30,000 person-years of employment in the three to five years leading up to and through the games, and some of the things the member for Kingston and The Islands said about the ongoing support and having the facilities available.

I think that the Calgary example, about the Winter Olympics that took place there, and the training facility that was utilized for the bobsled team and built in Calgary has shown that in future Olympics those sorts of facilities brought to Ontario will certainly help in the long run; not only that but ongoing events and sponsoring international events will help a lot of the other communities around.

One thing I would like to emphasize - I know there are other members of our caucus who would like to speak, so I'm going to be very brief - is on page 2 of the bill, subsection 3(1), "The desire to host a part of the Olympic Games is one of the ultimate forms of support; Ontario represented by the members of the elected assembly confirms that all municipalities may offer their communities and facilities as potential sites for use as practice sites or venues during the games." I think that in itself will certainly help promote bringing all the events, and I think this aspect may help all events be spread around the province, because truly it will be the province that benefits from hosting these events.

I thank the member and I congratulate him. I hope all members support this, because I think it is going to be a huge benefit for the province.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to join with the other members in supporting the Olympic bid and supporting the act. I guess all of us have had experience with Olympic programs. One of those was with our family in Montreal, and it was a totally memorable experience for all of us, something we still reflect on all these years later.

In Atlanta, one of my sons and I decided we would go down just on the spur of the moment and drove all night one Thursday night, arrived in Atlanta, actually found a motel room cheap - $55, I think - and attended events. Fortunately we were there on the magical Saturday when Canada won, I think, two golds and one silver in rowing, and we then went that evening to Olympic Stadium to see Donovan Bailey win that fantastic race. Although Atlanta was criticized for the games, for us it was a magical experience.

During the last bid by Toronto for the Olympics, as a member of the Legislature at the time, I had an opportunity to work as one of the people helping to encourage the bid, and I would say to Mr Kells that there were some very good things in that bid. One of the strengths of it was taking advantage of the enormous diversity in Ontario. Without a question of a doubt, we are blessed in this area to have people living here who have come from virtually every country in the world and know, obviously, many of the important IOC members personally.

I hope that the bid committee once again involves the entire community and takes advantage of the enormous opportunity we have to bring the world to Toronto to see this rich diversity.

I'm also supportive because it is an opportunity for Toronto, but I might say for all of Ontario, to look at itself and at the strengths and weaknesses of our social and cultural situation and our infrastructure and determine what things we need to change and improve. The bid will force us all to look at what things are working well here and what things aren't working well. I hope also that the bid does what I know we plan to do, and that is to ensure it's more than just a Toronto event. We happen to cottage in the Haliburton area and there is a terrific white water course there for kayaking and what-not.

I would think that area could benefit. My colleague from Kingston and The Islands has already talked about Kingston. It is an opportunity to showcase the diversity of Ontario as well.

The final thing I would say is that I think it's important to recognize that there will be those who are not fully supportive of this bid for their own quite legitimate reasons. One of the challenges of the bid group will be to listen to those concerns, because they're legitimate concerns. I think people do worry, for good reason, about cost overruns and what the taxpayers will be left with. It's important for the bid committee to address those issues, to involve those people and to provide assurance on that.

I know that with the announcement that Beijing will be competing for the games the knees sag a little bit, because they will be a formidable competitor, but we're in a political environment and all of us have gone into proposals and elections where it may look like we're a little bit behind, and things change. I hope that the committee's knees don't buckle at all at the fact that Beijing is competing and that they will simply say, "Listen, that just makes us work a little bit harder," because things, times and events change.

I look forward to being as helpful as I can to the bid committee, and I have already said that in writing many months ago. I'm supportive of it. As I say, I hope we do not ignore the voices that have some concerns about it and that we address those legitimate concerns, and that we take advantage of what I think is perhaps our greatest strength in this bid, and that's the rich cultural diversity we have here where we can speak to IOC members and say, "Listen, there's no where in the world where your athletes will feel more at home and more welcome than in Toronto and in Ontario." I'm pleased to lend my support to this private member's proposal.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On behalf of our caucus, the NDP caucus, I would like to add my voice in support of this bill. First of all, congratulations and best wishes to the member who brings forward the bill. I think it's an important issue, not only for the city of Toronto and the benefits it will give to Toronto economically, but for the province as a whole, both economically and also to enhance our ability to train athletes, to get people involved more keenly in sports themselves.

I want to make two points. I want to add this to the record because when we get them, there's always a legacy after the Olympics and that's what I want to speak to.

The first thing is that we know we're going to have to build some sort of Olympic village or find some way to accommodate the athletes once they come to Toronto. The only thing I would caution the committee about when doing that is that whatever housing arrangements they make for the athletes, it should be done in a way that we can then convert those units to rental units, hopefully non-profit, back into the city of Toronto. We know that we have a housing shortage here in Toronto.

As a matter of fact, because of rent decontrol we saw rents go up 7%, and the reason is very simple: There are not a lot of apartments out there. If we get the Olympics, I think it's an opportunity to build some much-needed non-profit housing, and we need to do that in a way so that we know we can convert it easily afterwards.

The second point is that one of the great strengths Toronto has is the ethnicity of the city. We have people from all around the world who reside in our cities and participate in our communities. I just would want us to reach out to all of those people to make sure that our bid attempt really puts forward the face of Toronto, which is very diverse when it comes to various cultures of this world.

With that, I would like to wish the member good luck, and I look forward to having the Olympics come to the city of Toronto.

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague Mr Kells for the great work he's doing on behalf of Ontario as the Ontario Olympics Commissioner.

I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill 77. This legislation endorses the Toronto Olympics bid and asks that all municipalities in Ontario also support the bid. It makes sense.

I am wearing a pin today, and I notice that many other members here are wearing the same pin, for the bid by Toronto for the 2008 Olympic Games. I think it was a very nice touch of Mr Kells to provide us all with those pins today.

My wife, Meredith, and I were very involved in the 1996 bid by Toronto. I know from that experience that if Toronto is going to be successful in this bid for the 2008 games, the province must be supportive, and seen to be supportive right from the outset. This is obviously what is going on in this House today and I'm glad to see such support, and it's important that it get registered very quickly.

I was in Tokyo, along with my wife, and we could see that support by all aspects of a jurisdiction is very important. We were particularly impressed with the support that Atlanta had from all aspects of life in that region.

Had Toronto been successful in winning the bid for the 1996 Olympics, I want us all to think of the facilities that would now be in place around Ontario. There would be sports facilities, housing, more transportation, as well as the spinoff jobs that would have been created. Think about it, because it is possible that the economic downturn we experienced in Toronto and in Ontario in the early 1990s would not have been as severe as it was had we had the added economic activity that the Olympic Games would generate. Certainly Atlanta's gain was Toronto's loss.

From an economic standpoint, it is a win-win situation for Ontario and Toronto to have the 2008 games. An estimated 30,000 jobs in the three to five years leading up to the games would be the result.

Tourism is an important part of our economy. A city of Toronto report which was prepared in February 1998 estimates that 20,000 jobs in the hospitality and retail sectors will be generated. Think of the added long-term advantage that the exposure generated by the Olympics will have for Ontario. Olympic viewers around the world would see all that Ontario has to offer because, as previous speakers have said, this will not only be for Toronto, it will be for all of Ontario and the venues.

It is estimated that the economic impact generated from the games, if we were to be successful in achieving them, would be approximately $6 billion - a large amount of money. That also represents a large number of jobs for Ontarians.

I'm a great believer in the value of sports and physical activity for young people - for older people too, of course, but I want to emphasize just what it does for young people: It provides them with competition - our world is now full of competition; it embodies the desire to do your best - we need the brightest and the best people in Ontario; it develops team spirit - all people are members of the Canadian team; and it embodies the will to win. I think that exposure to the Olympic experience is a gift to our youth that we can give to them by getting these games.

I know all this because my son Brian participated as a rower in the 1988 and 1992 Olympic Games. The entire experience he had made a tremendous impression on him. It made him focus on his life and on his goals. One of those he has now achieved by becoming a lawyer. I'm not so sure this would have happened without that Olympic experience. This will happen for all of our youth. There's an enormous amount of work that goes into preparing for the bid process, and there are many factors that make up a winning bid. A great many volunteers give unstintingly of their time, and the Olympic committee and all those involved deserve our official support and our moral support as well.

Of course, there are concerns about the impact of a project of this magnitude on our communities and how we will balance the needs of Ontarians against the pressures of a project of this size. However, due to my good friend David Crombie's hard work and his committee's hard work, extensive consultation and research have been done. I'm confident that if we are successful, everyone will benefit in Ontario.

I'm proud of Ontario and of what we have to show to the world. I can think of no better way to showcase Ontario than to host these Olympic Games in the greater Toronto region.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I also want to speak in support of the bill presented by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in support of the XXIX Olympics here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. After all, we have been told by the world that we are the best country to live in. I believe that Toronto, Ontario, has participated in and contributed on a very large scale to this title that we all enjoy. Indeed, we deserve it. I think Toronto deserves to lead the world in 2008 to have the summer Olympics.

I congratulate the commissioner, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, for very promptly presenting this bill to the House and getting the support of all members. As the commissioner, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore knows, we have some hurdles with respect to the agreement between the province and the city of Toronto.

That entails some commitment on both parts, especially in the economic area, where even though we may not say that we don't want to trouble the people of Ontario with debt and stuff like that, I believe it's an area where we should be looking at contributing money and making sure we get the 2008 Olympics here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is our way of supporting not only the actions of the commissioner, but also the members of the IOC, to have a very successful bid and bring the Olympics to Toronto.

They are played in the summertime, of course, and it is a time when we are going to have many economic benefits. Especially during the summer a lot of our young people, students, look for summer jobs, and other jobs will be created; I'm sure long-term jobs will be created as well. It will be an opportunity for us here in Toronto and in Ontario.

I encourage the commissioner to include the active participation of the other regions, the other municipalities, and make this not only a Toronto event but an Ontario event as well. We not only have wonderful natural beauty here in the summertime, I have to say that within an hour or an hour and a half, we also have wonderful ski hills, where we could show the rest of the world what we have in Ontario. Of course, we have the wonderful mountains in western Canada, but I think Ontario also has wonderful winter activities. In support of my members, we have natural facilities, natural beauty all the way from Kingston and the Islands, the Bay of Quinte, to Niagara Falls.

This would be a wonderful opportunity to say yes, to offer our support to the member and this bill, to the city of Toronto, and to the committee that is doing great work in trying to bring this Olympic bid to a successful conclusion. I think we are ready; we are ripe. We are already on the world map, but this will be the icing on the cake and show exactly who we are, what we are and show this part of Ontario, Canada, and Toronto, show what we really represent.

I believe that it already has been mentioned that we should do a couple of things to improve our situation, especially with respect to housing, but all in all I support the bill. I congratulate the member. Let's hope all members will do the same.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm pleased to be able to speak on this bill today. It is a good PR bill, I think; it's a feel-good bill. I'm glad to see the provincial MPPs discussing the Olympic bid so it doesn't just remain a discussion in Toronto. Obviously, for a massive undertaking such as an Olympic bid, we need to have all levels of government in support, we desperately need that, and we need all Ontarians to be supportive and for all Ontarians to see the benefits to them, not just Toronto. That's one of the reasons why I'm glad to have this before us today.

One of the main reasons why I support the bid is that I see it as an opportunity for Ontario - I'm speaking as a Toronto member - to get some infrastructure that we badly need, that could take years and years or perhaps never be, in this city and across the province that will be of lasting benefit for Ontarians. That includes, which some of my colleagues talked about, affordable housing, which we badly need, and sports facilities for communities, which we badly need.

What I don't want to see is an event that makes a lot of money for a few and at the end of the day - I'm sure none of us want this - the taxpayers, we, the citizens, are left holding the bag without a whole lot of benefits back to the community, that lasting legacy. That is absolutely critical. The finances of this and the community involvement are of absolute importance.

One thing I want to speak to briefly is the environment. When things are being built in a hurry and we have a deadline, the environment can suffer as a result. What I would like to see - in fact, it would be critical from my point of view - is that the bid should have a plan to construct the Olympic facilities and operate the games in a way that does the least possible harm, in my view there should be no harm, to the environment, and which uses cutting-edge environmental technology.

This is critical because, particularly with the massive environmental deregulation we have seen over the past few years, when it comes to environmental protection it is really important that for this kind of massive undertaking we have that built right into the bill.

For instance, I'm concerned about the latest government proposal, and I'll be fighting it, which has something to do with what's called "inert fill." The government has proposed changes to that in allowing certain fill that used to be considered contaminated now to be considered not so contaminated. The idea is that now, if this passes, you can move contaminated soil from a site, say, in Toronto to an industrial site which may not be contaminated, but under these proposals that fill could be moved to a site which doesn't have any contamination. It could be moved there just because it's an industrial site.

Those are the kinds of things we have to look out for, that in the rush to get things built and in place, we don't ignore the environment and again, down the road, leave our children and our grandchildren with a terrible legacy of cleaning up the environment as the result of rushed and very bad planning.

I support this bill today. I, personally, and my party, the NDP, have bottom lines for this bid. I believe David Crombie has been doing a great job and I believe his goals are similar. We would all agree that David Crombie is very inclusive. He is working very hard to make sure all of the players, all of the citizens have a say in how our Olympic bid should look. Thank you very much.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Let me first say thank you to the member from Etobicoke and the commissioner of the Olympics for allowing me to speak to this bill.

They say it's only a dream until you write it down; then it's a goal. I suggest to you that with the legislation that is being presented today, it's a goal. It has been written down and it is the goal that we want to make sure happens in this province. The goal is not only the future of Toronto; it's also the future of the small rural and urban communities across this province if we indeed get the summer Olympics.

What better place than Ontario. What a great venue for these games. All of these communities will benefit not only from an economic standpoint but from renewable local pride, human resource development, partnerships and sports and youth development. The naysayers will project all kinds of negative thoughts but, in the long run, who will benefit from these games coming to our province and to Toronto? The people who will benefit are Ontarians. The people who will benefit are those who participate in these games.

Look what happened in Atlanta when they sold in excess of 71% of their tickets: new highways, new sports facilities, a new city core, improved public transit, improved infrastructure, new and upgraded community recreation facilities. That will happen not only in Toronto but in many of the host communities across this province. There will be an infusion of millions of dollars into the Ontario economy through tourism and related employment, something to the tune of 90,000 person-years between 1998 and the year 2008. We will establish a network of volunteers which will outsize the volunteers who took

part in the winter Olympics in Calgary.

The benefit to communities such as Peterborough, my own community, my riding in the heart of the beautiful Kawartha Lakes area, cannot just be counted in dollars; we have to look at the human aspect of this whole event as well.

Peterborough has made a proposal to the Olympic committee to have the Olympic youth camp in Peterborough. This is an international leadership opportunity for young persons from all over the world. In this community alone it will allow 500 to 600 teenagers to participate in the best of the Olympic values, ideals and spirit. Youth would be part of a 10-day event where they would participate in working groups, with challenges on such themes as environmental concerns, global issues, personal skills and sports.

With this type of showcase, a community such as Peterborough would experience worldwide exposure for future tourism and development. Certainly it would highlight the tranquil beauty of our area.

What of the other communities that have pledged their support for the games? Each community will be improved by its participation. The volunteer network that will be created will prepare all communities for future challenges. As I speak, the volunteer committee in Peterborough is having a meeting this morning.

As I said in the beginning, it's only a dream until you write it down; then it becomes a goal. Ontario's and Toronto's goal is to have the best Summer Olympic Games in the year 2008, and it will happen.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kells, you have two minutes.

Mr Kells: I rise to thank the honourable members on both sides of the House for their comments and for their support. It's very gratifying. I take it very seriously and I appreciate it.

Similarly, I take seriously the suggestions that things could possibly be better, or should be done better, than last time. I understand fully their concerns to protect the communities in Toronto and also to bring the communities outside of Toronto into the Olympic bid.

I know there are critics who claim that the disadvantaged in our society cannot and will not share either the celebrations or the lasting benefits that accrue from the games. My answer to this is that I am confident that it is within our power and ability to make this pursuit of world recognition an adventure that ultimately bestows benefits on all segments of the public profile. I really feel sincere and confident in that regard.

This bill, as you know, asks municipalities to pass motions in support on a volunteer basis. I will be contacting all the municipalities in Ontario as a result of this show of support today to indicate the all-party support and also to ask that they participate.

I've been around the province a bit already. I am willing to go anywhere and everywhere if requested by any member of the Legislature. Happily, I was down to Kingston early, and I feel confident that if we were to have the games tomorrow, Kingston could be ready almost overnight from a sailing point of view. I've been down to Oshawa, as the honourable member mentioned. I'll be going up to Wasaga Beach to look at a beach volleyball site. I've been in Halton Hills and I'll go to Haliburton.

By and large, I just want everybody to know that I do not make the final decisions, but our office will be eager to assess any site and offer suggestions.

GASOLINE PRICES PRIX D'ESSENCE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I move a resolution on the price of gasoline:

Whereas the gasoline pricing practices of large supplier/retailers continues to be a problem which threatens consumers with unreasonably high prices, and price increases timed to coincide with long weekends, and which undermines the important role played by independent gasoline retailers in Ontario; and

Whereas gasoline pricing is an issue of common interest to all Canadian consumers; and

Whereas ensuring fair competition in the marketplace is the responsibility of the federal government under the Competition Act; and

Whereas the federal report of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing in Canada, the McTeague report, tabled in June, 1998, concluded that the current Canadian wholesale and retail gasoline market is not truly competitive and that competition has steadily lessened in recent years; and

Whereas the McTeague report recommended that the Competition Act be amended to provide better protection for consumers, and that the federal government immediately act to replace the criminal burden-of-proof model currently used in sections dealing with predatory pricing and price discrimination; and

Whereas the need for immediate action on the part of the federal government to restore competition to the gasoline marketplace has been expressed by Ontario consumers to the Consumer Watchdog Commission of MPPs, appointed in spring 1998 by the Honourable David H. Tsubouchi, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations; and

Whereas the federal Competition Bureau is of the opinion that no marketplace problems exist in the gasoline industry which violate the Competition Act as currently drafted and a private member's Bill C-235 sets out amendments to the Competition Act to address certain of these issues;

Be it resolved that this House and the government of Ontario should call upon the federal government to address this problem of national dimensions by amending the Competition Act to address pricing practices within the gasoline industry and appoint a special investigator to enforce the revised act to ensure that Canadian consumers benefit from competitive and transparent gasoline prices across this country.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Rollins: I rise today as this motion addresses some of the concerns we have as far as the independent gasoline dealers throughout Ontario and the problems we have as consumers watching prices fluctuate all over the marketplace are concerned.

Today as we speak, in my riding of Quinte and in the Belleville area, gas from the major oil companies is selling at 43.9 cents a litre on the street. The wholesale price for gasoline out of the Toronto depot, the rack price with taxes rolled in, is 43.9 cents. If this is not detrimental to the independent dealers of this province, where there is no margin, there is nothing to put in - the last load of gas that was purchased at our station was 45.7 cents or 45.8 cents a litre, yet the competition - the major oil companies - is selling gas on the street at 43.9 cents. This is how the major oil companies are starting to put the squeeze on independent dealers across this province.

In 1992, the average gas price in Toronto was 53.26 cents; in Ottawa, it was 57.38 cents. There was a large variation in that. Today we have the same thing. In Sarnia, the price of gas today is 55 cents or 54 cents; in Barrie, it's around 54 cents or 55 cents. One of the reasons the market has been able to get away with this is because there are very few independent dealers in the Sarnia market. In 1992, 22.5% of the market in Ontario was independent dealers. In 1997, that had dropped to 18.2%. Now, in 1998, it has dropped to 17.3%.

Statistics right across this province and across Canada show that when we see the independent dealers removed from the marketplace there is only one thing that happens: It takes maybe a month or a month and a half, but then you see the price steadily increase, and then the major players sit there quite contented to sell their product equally down the street.

The federal government has looked into the pricing practices for a long time as far as the street price is concerned, but the street price is not the problem. The problem is that major oil companies have been allowed to produce product and sell it out of the refineries at no cost. They put it out in the tanks. They sell it and they price it after it goes into the consumer's tank. As long as they're allowed to do that, to put that price on the product after it's sold, then they're able to charge that dealer whatever they want. They can take the loss, and in that way the small independents are slowly pushed out of the marketplace.

I had the pleasure of being down in Charlottetown early this fall. That is one province that has priced gasoline.

Regardless of what the oil companies say, that they've been paying a lot higher price, I challenge anybody in this province who was able to buy gas all summer at 50.5 cents a litre across the province.

I know that Prince Edward Island is a very small place, but they took a stand and took the pressure and said: "OK, fine, we're going to have some control over the price. We've got to have some continuity, to be able to protect the individual and make sure that those people are not upset."

When we as a government started putting on a little bit of pressure, the main gasoline suppliers, who are Shell and Imperial and Sunoco and Petrocan, got together and spent $3 million to try to advertise to the public and say: "You're getting a good deal on oil prices. Look at what the price was back in 1957, look at what it was in 1960 and look at what it is today."

Those people are only interested in one thing: removing the competition from the marketplace. As long as that competition is in the marketplace, we as consumers have the opportunity to push for a little bit cheaper product in a fair market. But when the major oil companies decide they want to take hold and run out the independents, the Imperial Oil manager and the Shell Oil manager will stand up and say: "Well, we don't control the price. We only have 250 or 300 dealers across Ontario and we only set the price in 25% of them."

It's very nice for them to say that, but the 25% of the places they set the price in deal with about 80% of the total market. They don't set the price in a small station in Belleville, they don't set the price in a small place like Carrying Place; they set the price in downtown Toronto, where they go through millions of litres a day. That's where they have the input and the practices pushing that out on to the cost of the consumer.

When you look at the independent retail gasoline marketers together, you have to compare a little bit once in a while to the United States. In the United States, Shell has 7% of the whole market, Mobil has 7%, Amoco has 7%, but here in Canada Esso has 22%, Petrocan has 17% and Shell has 16%.

When they control that much of the market, who is going to be the loser? I can tell you, the consumers of the province of Ontario are going to be the losers when the major oil companies have no competition from the independents to put the opportunity for choice in the marketplace when we fill up with gasoline.

Mr Speaker, you said you aged yourself because you can remember buying gas at 30 cents a gallon. I can remember selling it at 29 cents a gallon, so you and I must not be too far off.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I don't remember that.

Mr Rollins: Some of those younger people don't remember that. They don't even remember gallons. They know that small quantity called a litre.

When the Canadian petroleum industry and the institute pushed out their reports, they wanted to make sure they were proving to the public: "If we're fleecing you and giving you a bit of a price hosing at the pumps, it's not a bad thing. You're getting a good deal, because in Germany, in France and in Switzerland they're paying a lot more." Well, our consumers don't drive their cars in those places; they drive their cars here in Ontario.

I know that the McTeague report was an improvement and tried to have some input. The committee believed that predatory pricing does occur in the province of Ontario. The committee found that there was a coalition and that there were predatory pricing practices. Mr Manley decided he would accept that report and has said he would table it and appoint some people, but that report has been given absolutely no teeth. As far as the federal government is concerned, yes, it's nice to go out and allow the people to look at it.

What I would like to see happen with this resolution is to put some more pressure on the federal government to bring transparency to the pricing practices. When an oil company can stand and tell you that they have 113 pricing zones in the province of Ontario so that they can have good competition, is it fair that somebody in the Quinte area today is buying gas at 43 cents a litre to put in their tank and yet in other parts of Ontario people are paying 55 cents? I don't think that's a fair practice, not only in Ontario but anywhere in Canada. We're Canadians. We have a lot of our own product. We have to stand up and make sure that as consumers we're protected.

Also, the McTeague report and Mr Manley's report said the independents don't have a big voice. No, they don't have a big voice, because they're only small compared to the oil companies.

We had a tax bill brought in by this government not too long ago to try to bring in some fairness as far as the pricing of gasoline and the tax level was concerned. There again, the major oil companies aren't too enthused with it because they don't want to put the tax money they've collected from the consumers of Ontario into the bank account of the federal government, into the province of Ontario's treasury. They would like to use it for the 30 or 40 days for themselves. It may not be collecting a whole lot of interest, but it saves them writing out that big cheque for the tax man. For anybody else, when you buy something, it's paid for at that time.

Those are the kinds of things that we, as people who try to make the laws in this province, should push for to make sure that the consumers of Ontario are better protected by ensuring that we have the opportunity for independents, that we can have the opportunity to pull into any station that we see fit to and not kowtow to the major oil companies and the major markets of this province.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's a pleasure for me this morning to speak to this resolution from the member for Quinte, as I have been over the last almost two years speaking to this government about our concern with gasoline pricing in the province of Ontario.

I want to point out just a couple of things in the few minutes I have. The resolution certainly encourages the federal government to make recommendations that there be revisions to the Competition Act. We would all be supportive of any revisions that can be made that will make the Competition Act more binding on the major oil companies to price gasoline.

But the member for Quinte spent a significant amount of time talking about the independents, and we too are concerned about where it leaves the independent gasoline retailer in this province. The member should know, the Competition Act aside, that pricing is under the control of the province. If the government were really serious about the peril of the independent dealer in the province of Ontario, they would be looking at predatory pricing, because that is under their jurisdiction.

It's interesting to note that again a lot of reference has been made to the McTeague report. I attended those hearings and made a presentation to the committee. I point out today that in the government's concern over gasoline pricing, to my knowledge at least, having checked with the federal member, no government member appeared before that committee. I would have encouraged that at the time and I think it would have been helpful if they had brought the concerns of the province to that committee and been supportive in that way.

Having said that, though, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is supposed to look after the consumers of this province, has appointed the commission, the gas-busters, as they're better known, but that's very limited in its scope and its ability to do much of anything. If the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations were serious about this issue, I would have hoped it was not left to private members' business, because as we know, it doesn't have the opportunity to get the full debate that a resolution brought by the government before the House would have had.

Another thing the government of the province of Ontario can look at, that it has under its control, is that we are the second-highest-taxed province in the Dominion of Canada when it comes to gasoline pricing. The government can show leadership, if they really have the consumer at heart, by looking at gasoline taxes in Ontario, particularly where they could be used to benefit northern Ontario.

I have on record from one of the Ministry of Finance people that not one red cent from gasoline taxes is specified to go towards highway construction, for example. In other words, it goes into the general fund, into the general account, and is used in a number of ways. The government, if they didn't want to reduce gasoline taxes, could certainly specify that a certain amount of gasoline taxes would go into highway improvement in the province of Ontario.

The resolution that's before us today is similar to the McTeague report, and I suggest, although it may not say that specifically, that it supports that. As I said at the outset, I think we all support the fairest gasoline prices in the province that we could have.

But we've been at this now a year and a half. In fact, I quote from a Toronto Star report in August 1997, where "The Premier said if the federal government won't do so, Ontario will go it alone to get the answers, he vowed," as he was outraged after we had brought the gasoline pricing issue up in the House that day.

The Premier also said in another report, I believe in the Globe and Mail, "I think the federal government should show leadership, but I am certainly prepared to lead the way with the other provinces. And if we have to, at the end of the day, we will go it alone, but we will have more impact if we go together."

All I'm saying is, I encourage the province of Ontario to do what it can in its jurisdiction, and that we also press for any violation of the Consumer Protection Act to be looked at by the federal government.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ça fait combien de débats ? Ça fait au moins deux ou trois débats auxquels je peux penser dans l'année passée, et on a encore un projet de loi qui vient ici le jeudi matin pour demander qu'on fasse quelque chose en ce qui concerne le prix du gaz dans la province.

Chez nous, dans le nord de la province, le prix du gaz est beaucoup plus élevé comparé avec le sud de la province. Vous savez que cela représente un problème.

Ce que je trouve intéressant, c'est qu'on a encore un membre du gouvernement conservateur qui vient ici aujourd'hui avec une résolution, puis il faut croire que ce membre est honorable et que, franchement, il essaie de faire quelque chose pour résoudre le problème. Mais il n'y a pas d'action. Ça fait pas mal longtemps que ce gouvernement est en place. Ça fait au-dessus de trois ans et demi, puis ils n'ont fait quasiment rien quand ça vient à trouver des solutions au prix du gaz.

Pourquoi ? C'est très simple. Le prix du gaz est réglementé par le gouvernement fédéral. Ce qu'on a besoin de faire, si on est très sérieux comme députés provinciaux, pour être capable de contrôler le prix du gaz, c'est convaincre notre gouvernement fédéral de prendre sa responsabilité et de trouver des solutions.

On sait ce que c'est, le problème. Le problème est bien simple: les compagnies de gaz se mettent ensemble puis ils disent : «Écoutez, nous, on veut faire plus de profits. On va jouer avec les prix. On va s'entendre pour être capables de tous élever les prix à un certain temps. On va jouer avec les conditions du marché et on va faire un plus gros profit quand ça vient à l'argent qu'on fait du gaz.»

Mais à la fin de la journée, c'est le gouvernement fédéral qui a besoin de prendre cette responsabilité, parce que ça tombe sous les responsabilités du gouvernement fédéral.

Là, comme politiciens provinciaux, il y a certains parmi nous qui disent, «On veut faire quelque chose.» Je veux dire encore que le membre conservateur qui amène cette motion est honorable. Il essaie de faire la bonne affaire. Mais le point que je veux faire est que c'est une responsabilité fédérale. Combien de libéraux de la province de l'Ontario sont élus au gouvernement fédéral ? Tout le gang bien proche, à l'exception d'un seul. Est-ce qu'on ne peut pas avoir dans ce gang-là un couple de libéraux qui vont voir M.

Chrétien pour dire, «Écoutez, on veut avoir une réponse pour ce qui est un vrai problème dans le nord de l'Ontario, comme dans le sud, et on veut trouver des solutions. Monsieur Chrétien, on vous demande d'agir.» ?

Moi, je n'entends pas Réginald Bélair, mon député fédéral, parler de cette question. Je n'entends aucun député fédéral en parler. Les seuls que j'entends parler, ce sont les députés ici à l'Assemblée provinciale parce qu'ils essaient de trouver des solutions, puis on n'a pas les outils.

Le seul temps que quelque chose a été fait sur le prix du gaz ici dans la province, la seule action de la province, c'était sous le gouvernement de Bob Rae. Notre gouvernement en 1990 - vous le savez, monsieur le Président - avait dit après les élections qu'on était pour ôter les frais d'utilisation sur les plaques de nos automobiles.

On avait fait ça pour le monde du nord de l'Ontario parce qu'on a réalisé, comme députés du nord, que le prix du gaz était entre 10 et 12 cents de plus le litre comparé au sud de la province. Notre gouvernement a dit : «On ne peut pas réduire le prix du gaz. Ce n'est pas nous autres qui le faisons. On ne peut pas réglementer les compagnies de gaz, parce que c'est une responsabilité fédérale. Mais on a un choix.

On peut essayer possiblement de réduire les taxes sur l'essence», comme l'autre député l'a mentionné, ou on pourrait faire ce qu'on a fait pour le monde du nord : ôter les frais d'utilisation sur les plaques. On a choisi de faire ça. Ça veut dire que pendant le temps de notre gouvernement, pendant cinq ans, si on demeure dans le nord de la province, on ne paie pas les frais d'utilisation pour ses plaques chaque année.

C'était le gouvernement de Mike Harris, quand ils ont été élus en 1995, qui ont remis en place ces frais d'utilisation. Loin de faire quelque chose de positif pour aider sur le prix du gaz, monsieur le député conservateur, c'était votre gouvernement qui a rechargé les frais d'utilisation sur les plaques.

Je comprends qui vous avez un problème, je comprends que vous voulez que quelque chose soit fait et j'ai deux suggestions pour vous : Un, allez parler à Mike Harris et à son cabinet et convainquez-les d'agir là où ils en sont capables comme province ; par exemple, comme nous l'avons fait, d'éliminer les cotisations pour les plaques. Ou, deuxièmement, essayez de convaincre Mike Harris - et nous dans le parti NPD, allons vous aider sur cette question - de se mettre ensemble pour aller voir M. Chrétien à Ottawa pour dire: «Vous avez une responsabilité.

C'est un problème dans notre province, et on exige que notre gouvernement fédéral fasse quelque chose pour réglementer les compagnies de gaz pour qu'elles s'arrêtent de nous escroquer sur le prix du gaz qu'on achète à la pompe.»

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): First of all, I want to thank Mr Rollins for bringing forward this resolution. He is a member I have a tremendous amount of respect for. He has an awful lot of experience and expertise in this particular area.

His resolution speaks to the issue we've heard about consistently around this province, not just since this government's been around but previous governments as well, an issue of gas pricing and how gas prices rise consistently before long weekends and fall afterwards. It's a consistent volatility price issue and we've heard it for a number of years.

We have also heard, and we are all aware in this Legislature, that competition in the marketplace is the responsibility of the federal government through the Competition Act. We have also heard in his resolution that it speaks to the McTeague report, which is by a Liberal committee that talked about gasoline pricing. It went around the provinces and heard from other people about gasoline prices. They stated quite unequivocally in their report that the retail gasoline market is not truly competitive and that competition has steadily lessened in recent years. We can all attest to that.

As a matter of fact, yesterday I spoke with an independent retail gas station owner in my riding who told me that he drove from Windsor to Hamilton the previous day, and in Windsor gas prices were about 55 or 56 cents all across the city. That's because there are no independents there. In Hamilton yesterday we were experiencing prices around 44 or 45 cents, so there's quite a difference in pricing across the province.

The McTeague report also recommended that the Competition Act be amended to provide better protection for consumers, and we fundamentally agree with that recommendation.

I might also say that when you talk about this issue, it's not, as I said, an issue that is unique to this term of government; it's an issue that's been ongoing for a number of years. It's also not unique to this province. As the member said, in Charlottetown at the consumer ministers' conference this issue was discussed. It's an issue that's of concern to many people, not just in our area but in Newfoundland and New Brunswick.

The member for Essex South talked about regulating prices. They've regulated prices in PEI. What it's done is that it's stabilized prices, but they're stabilized in a high area and there's no competition - none whatsoever.

He also talked about the fact that the resolution would have been better coming from the government, but I'll say to him that a resolution from the government needs unanimous consent, and he knows that. When the minister brought it forward last year, the Liberals would not give unanimous consent. So it's not fair to say that when he knows full well it was his party that voted against it.

The member for Cochrane South talked about federal jurisdiction, and they understand. I must say to their credit that the NDP understands that it is federal jurisdiction. It's their responsibility to look at gas prices.

I urge all members in this House to vote in favour of this resolution. One of the best things I think we can do is send a message to the consumers to shop the independents, go to the independent gas stations, support them. Send a message to the big guys that we want competition in the marketplace.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm delighted to rise today to support once again the motion standing in the name of my friend from Belleville. I've never known a Rollins who didn't know a lot about the oil business. He has brought forward a resolution that I think we've seen before, Doug. This is pretty well the one, I think, that we had a year and a half ago. It doesn't change the fact that it's an important resolution. I want to take a few moments this morning to talk a little bit about the concern that a number of other members have also identified.

I represent a large part of rural eastern Ontario. We have no TTC, we have no OC Transpo, we have no public transit of any kind - I should correct that. We have a public system, sort of, in the city of Pembroke, but it's under some review at the present time and it's been changed to a private operator, essentially, running the Pembroke city transit. But by and large, if you live in communities like Petawawa or Deep River or Renfrew, which are the towns in the county, there is no public transit, and certainly if you're one of the tens of thousands of people who live in places like Barry's Bay and Rolphton and La Passe and Beachburg and Griffith, there is no public transit.

There's not even a bus in many of those areas. So you depend on your half-ton truck and you depend on your car. That's absolute reality for the vast majority of the people I represent, and I'm not alone. Mr Danford represents an area, north Hastings, which is very similar, and I'm sure the member for Chatham-Kent knows what of I speak for his rural constituency.

When we talk about gasoline, we're talking about a subject that touches on the vitals of the daily Canadian experience, whether you live in rural Ontario or in rural Saskatchewan or in rural New Brunswick. That's why this subject is so important for legislatures, whether it be Queen's Park or New Brunswick or wherever.

I share the concern that other members have. The member from Hamilton is right to tell us there is some consumer preference that can be applied by going to support your local mom-and-pop operator, if you can figure it out. It's not always easy to figure out who's where any more in this business.

I was speaking this morning to a former member of the Legislature, the former member from Muskoka, who's in the business now up in Muskoka, and I was asking him how things were going. He had some very interesting things to say about dealing with one of the big oil companies. I'm not surprised because I've heard it, and we've heard it again this morning from Mr Rollins who's bringing forward this resolution.

Something else has changed, though, in the last little while and that's the consolidation that's occurring within the oil business. I brought yesterday's Wall Street Journal to make the point. It is 127 years ago, I think - it was in the early 1870s - that John D. Rockefeller created the famous Standard Oil cartel. Was it Standard Oil of New Jersey? It started out as that. The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting example of what became of those companies.

In the late 19th century, Rockefeller had something like 85% of the market for petroleum products in the United States, and governments at the state and particularly at the national level in the United States in the early days of this century said: "You're running a trust, you're running a cartel. We're going to break it up." The breakup was ordered I think in about 1910 or 1912. But isn't it interesting what's happening these days?

We heard this week that Exxon was going to be taking over Mobil. You'll be interested to know that they are both part of the old Rockefeller cartel. We heard again this week that the French multinational Total is buying out PetroFina. We heard just a few weeks ago that British Petroleum and Amoco, both again I think substantial products of the old Rockefeller cartel, are coming back together again. So what are seeing? We are all standing and saying, "God, let's support the mom-and-pop operator," and I agree, but is anybody noticing that John D. Rockefeller's cartel is coming back together again?

If you think it was tough a year or two ago, or five or 10 years ago, what do you think it's going to be like if you're Doug Rollins out in Belleville or someone up in Cobden or Petawawa in my constituency when Exxon and Mobil get together? We are seeing a massive consolidation in this critical sector.

The Wall Street Journal tells me that this is good for consumers and, you know, if probably will be as long as crude oil prices are at their near-record lows. But I ask this Legislature and I ask the government, is anybody giving any thought to what this consolidation is going to mean over time, because it is now being reported that the other majors in the North American market, people like Atlantic Richfield and Chevron and a few of the others, can't sit still, that there's probably going to be even more consolidation.

So where does the average consumer and, more important, where does the small retailer stand in that scheme of things? It's not just in petroleum products.

One of the things that really concerns me about this current pork crisis is the situation where we're seeing pork prices at the farm gate dropping by 70% in the last 10 weeks, a 70% drop in the farm gate price in 10 or 12 weeks, and hardly a move on the retail price. What are we seeing at the retail end? Well, you've read it all in the last couple of weeks: Loblaws is buying Provigo; Sobey's and IGA are getting together. In central Canada the retail business in food is going to be very substantially consolidated, and what is that going to mean to a pork producer or any kind of a food producer in Renfrew or in Kent or in Oxford or in Perth or in Glengarry?

You've got to think that there's something wrong with this marketplace. I thought competition was something to be applauded, and I want to applaud, but as one of the representatives of the OFA said to us yesterday morning in our briefing, it seems that the primary instinct of competition these days is to eliminate competition.

Whether it's in gasoline or petroleum products or whether it's in the retailing of food, I think this Legislature representing the broad community had better start to think about what kind of strategies we can reasonably develop and reasonably employ to give the average consumer of petroleum products or the regular consumer of food, and we're talking about critical staples that affect the daily lives of everyone, what we are going to do to bring some reasonable pressure to bear on conglomerates and cartels that are combining to develop market shares that in the areas of gasoline and petroleum products we haven't seen since the last days of the famous John D.

Rockefeller.

That's why I want to support my good friend from Belleville for bringing this issue to the House, and I support the resolution again for those and other reasons.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It's interesting around here today. I've had a number of people ask me why I'm wearing the green tie that I have on. Some will remember -

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): He's Irish.

Mr Martin: No, it's the tie that we in this caucus wore almost a year ago today to object to the passing of Bill 160, the attack by this government on teachers, on trustees, on the school system.

Mr Wettlaufer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe the explanation given by Mr Martin, the member for Sault Ste Marie, means that his tie is a prop and it should then be removed.

The Acting Speaker: I won't go that far. You have the choice of colours that you can get today for ties. Look at mine.

The member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Speaker, which brings me to my point, which is that this government seems to have no difficulty, no sense of right or wrong when it comes to attacking public servants, teachers, the poor, the labour movement -

Mr Wettlaufer: We're talking about gasoline here.

Mr Martin: I'm getting to it - to move their agenda forward. But when it comes to their own friends, when it comes to the big business interests of this province, when it comes to those people who peddle gasoline in this province, there seems to be an interesting and obvious lack of intestinal fortitude, backbone.

I find it passing strange that this member should again, in front of an issue that is very concerning to all the constituents of all our ridings, be bringing forward a private member's resolution. Why doesn't your government take this bull by the horns and bring -

Mrs Ross: We did.

Mr Martin: You didn't. You didn't do a darn thing. There's nothing on the books, on the table, in this jurisdiction about gasoline prices from this government, not one thing. All you've done is point fingers at the federal government. All you've done is pass the blame. All you've done is continue that thing that you're doing these days, that mantra that you're doing these days: "We're not the government. We're here to fix the government."

Well, you are the government. Wake up. You were elected on June 8, 1995. We all know it only too well. You are the government. Have some intestinal fortitude. Have some backbone. Take on the big guys. Never mind the little guys in the playground. You're the bullies. You guys are showing yourselves to have the big muscles, ready to go out there and fight the labour movement and civil servants and trustees. How about the gasoline industry? What about the petroleum industry? Where is your commitment? What is that power? Where is that drive that the Premier has raised in North Bay and across this province?

"We're going to take the gasoline prices on and we're going to bring them to their knees. We're going to tell them that it's not proper that on long weekends they should raise the prices before the long weekend starts, and then lower them again after the long weekend's over. We're going to take the petroleum industry to task," says the big, bad Harris Conservative government in Ontario. "We've shown them that we can take on the poor, we can take on the labour movement, we can take on the civil service, we can take on the very government of this province. But we can't take on the petroleum industry," because you've done absolutely nothing.

A whole lot of bombast and air and big talk and gas-buster commissions and people out there on long weekends, saying, "We're going to fight the good fight for our constituents," yet, at the end of the day, what do we have? Another private member's resolution; not even a bill that would tie your government to something that we could call your government on, to say: "Bring it forward, bring it on, table it, we'll discuss it.

We'll pass it with all due haste in this place so that we can all together send a message to the petroleum industry," and in fact to all those other industries, which, as the member for Renfrew rightly suggested a few minutes ago, are coming together now to make ever-increasing profits on the backs of all of us.

But no, you won't do that. When it comes to actually fighting with somebody who has some power and strength, you back down. It's so typical of the bullies, so typical of that bully image that you've rightfully gained for yourself over the last three years.

You'll take on the little guys, you'll take on the poor, you'll take on the single mothers, you'll take on the children on welfare, you'll take on the union movement, which has been the only institution that has done anything in this province to increase and improve the quality of life for the middle class over a long number of years, you'll take on the government that works on behalf of all of us to deliver programs, to make sure that everybody across the province receives equitable and equal service and access to education and health care, but you won't take on the gasoline industry.

It's interesting. In this place, every time this issue comes up - and it has been brought up on a number of occasions. I brought it up myself. As a matter of fact, I was the one who introduced the motion to have unanimous agreement to bring Ontario's voice to the gathering of ministers of consumer and commercial relations from across the country to say: "Let's deal with the gasoline industry. Let's tell them that they can't do this any more."

What did we get? We got a battle going on between the Ontario Tory government, which doesn't think it's the government any more, and the Liberals on this side of the House who want to protect their federal cousins because they know they have some responsibility too. Who loses in that? The consumer loses. Every time he loses.

I understand why the member across the way is bringing this resolution forward. If he's frustrated in his part of the province about this fluctuation up and down and the seeming lack of competition out there in the petroleum industry, particularly when it comes to the pumps and filling up your gas tank, I am as frustrated as he is. I wish we could do something. I know that you can. You're part of the government. You could bring this to your cabinet colleagues. They've done it in PEI. Prince Edward Island, the smallest province in the union, had the intestinal fortitude to say to the gasoline companies -

Mrs Ross: They have the highest prices across the country as well.

Mr Martin: It doesn't matter whether it's high or low. The point I'm making here is that they had the intestinal fortitude to meet with the gasoline industry and say, "Unless you do this, we're going to bring in regulation," and they did. The province has the power to bring in regulation to take care of this.

I know there is a bigger issue here that was referred to by the member from Renfrew, which is the issue of competition and the Competition Act. We know that's in the federal domain and that the federal government needs to move on that very quickly.

When you look around at the banking industry coming together now and the petroleum industry coming together now, we really do need to take a look at the Competition Act so that in fact there is existing in Ontario and in Canada today a market system that is free, that allows for some competition, that allows for some entrepreneur to come forward and pick up on an idea or take a gift he has or something he's designed and put it into the marketplace and sell it and get fair return for the effort he's made.

But we know that more and more, as we allow the powers that be in the world today, the global economy, to take over Ontario and Canada, less and less of the marketplace is free, that fewer and fewer of our friends and neighbours and family members who want to get into business can really get into business with any expectation that they'll make a few bucks over time, because the sale of commodities is controlled by financial interests who are not actually interested in the selling of commodities; they're more interested in making money on selling the right to sell commodities. I think that's what you'll find when you get into the whole question of gasoline prices.

As I said today, I find it passing strange to be standing here once again in this place entertaining a resolution by a private member at private members' hour when he's part of a government that could do something. Not only that, I find it passing strange that he's bringing a resolution forward, not a bill. If he brought forth at least a bill, the House leader for the Liberals and the House leader for the New Democrats would be more than happy to bring it forward, debate it for second reading, bring it out for some discussion and bring it back here and pass it for third reading and do something.

This smoke and mirrors, this standing up in great splendour and making statements about how you're going to fight for the constituent and the little guy and the consumer, about how we're going to take on the petroleum industry, but then at the end of the day, nothing - it isn't going to sell. People in Ontario today are not that stupid. They're a bright bunch out there. They know, they can see through this, and they will see through this resolution here this morning.

I know that the member from Renfrew said he was going to support this. I have to tell you, I'm not sure whether I'll be supporting it or not, given the circumstances within which it has been presented, but I'll tell you, I'm listening this morning.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate with respect to this resolution, which essentially is dealing with fair gas prices and also dealing with the unreasonable removal of competition with respect to independent gas dealers. The bottom line is that this very same resolution was introduced in August 1997 by Minister Tsubouchi. He tabled a resolution which required unanimous consent to send a message to the federal government, which is responsible for gas pricing in this country.

There wasn't unanimous consent, because the Liberal Party didn't give it in this House, so we couldn't send a clear message in August 1997 because the twins - the provincial Liberals and the federal government - didn't want to do anything about this.

The facts of this matter are very simple. The federal government is responsible for gasoline prices in this country. A report was put out by the private member, Dan McTeague, Report of the Liberal Committee on Gasoline Pricing in Canada, in June of this year. That was followed up by a response by the Minister of Industry, John Manley, to Dan McTeague, responding to the recommendations in the report and dealing with it. Clearly, the federal government is responsible for it. They're trying to deal with it at this point in time.

In response to that, as part of the watchdog commission, we put out a fair price policy at the retail gas pump. Quite frankly, we're doing all we can, from a provincial jurisdiction, to try to make sure that the federal government lives up to its obligations. We're not going to take the road of PEI, which has the highest gas prices in this country, and basically inflict meaningless price regulation where it's just going to harm the consumer. We're not about harming the consumer; we're about making sure that the consumers are protected. We know the federal government doesn't care how those consumers are protected.

This week, I sent a letter to the Honourable John Manley asking him to deal with this problem, because we have very specific problems we have to deal with. I basically started the letter off by saying: "I am pleased that the federal government has agreed that a detailed research of gasoline retail pricing is appropriate, and in particular that a steering committee will be drafting terms of reference for the study within the next month." The federal government, through the Minister of Industry, has acknowledged that they're responsible for gasoline pricing.

I went on further and I said to Mr Manley: "In my riding of Simcoe Centre, which geographically encompasses Bradford-West Gwillimbury, town of Innisfil and the city of Barrie, gasoline pricing practices of large suppliers/retailers continue to be a problem which threaten consumers with unreasonably high prices, price increases timed to coincide with long weekends" - we all know we get gouged every long weekend and the federal government does nothing - "and in particular, predatory pricing practices related to high-traffic volume that result in my constituents paying gas prices substantially more than in other parts of southern Ontario."

The bottom line is that when the McTeague report came out from the federal government, they were basically looking at southern Ontario, acknowledging that gas prices in northern Ontario were far too high. What I said to Mr Manley is that in my particular area of Simcoe Centre, in the city of Barrie, we're paying higher gas prices than any other place in southern Ontario, and the prices are astounding in terms of what they range. As of the week of November 16, we were paying 55.7 cents per litre,

whereas in Toronto they're paying 49.5; in Tillsonburg, in southwestern Ontario, they're paying 48.3; and even north of Barrie, they were paying more than 55.7 cents per litre.

I said to the minister: "I further understand that the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute is of the opinion that gas pricing practices are simply a case of supply and demand, with retailers charging prices to keep up with their competitors. In addition, industry representatives say that weekend and holiday price jumps are coincidental, not planned and not related to high traffic periods." I basically said to the minister, "That is a bunch of bunk, and you know that."

The bottom line is that we have tremendous commuter traffic from the city of Barrie down to Toronto and we have tremendous traffic from Toronto and the southern areas coming up to Barrie, because that's one of the areas where they have to stop and gas up their cars to keep on going up north. We have tremendous high traffic volume. The bottom line is, we're getting gouged in our area because we have high traffic volume.

It has nothing to do with supply and demand, because we know the oil industry has a glut and they may be bringing down the price of crude to $10 a barrel, but also we know they can make the most money because of the high traffic volume. It has nothing to do with supply and demand. It's highly offensive when you go through Orangeville and they're paying seven cents per litre less than the city of Barrie, and throughout southern Ontario. We know that basically what they're trying to do has nothing to do with supply and demand; it has to do with making the best dollar they can.

I'm not against anyone making the best dollar they can, but don't come out and say they're dealing with supply and demand, because all they're trying to do is gouge the consumers up in my riding of Simcoe Centre.

Returning to the point and to the facts, the member for Sault Ste Marie doesn't have the facts. He knows that the federal government is responsible for gas prices in this country.

The provincial Liberals have the gall to sit there and say, "John D. Rockefeller is going to deal with this and there's a consolidation of the industry." The bottom line is that the minister of the federal government, John Manley, recognizes that they've got a problem. What we're asking them to do is address this problem immediately, because consumers are getting gouged. One of the figures I've looked at for my own riding, for people who have to travel all the time, is that they're looking at paying an extra $200 per year per car in terms of dealing with these high gas prices, so I support the resolution.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The jurisdiction is provincial. I wish the member would bring in a bill which would prevent predatory pricing practices. That happens in many provinces. It happens in over 30 states in the United States.

If the member for Simcoe Centre is very concerned, he should write his letter to the Premier. He's as large as life bullying other people around, but when it comes to dealing with the oil barons, the people who set the gas prices in Ontario, he's a pussycat. He does nothing about it. He talks a lot. He makes some noise. He huffs and he puffs and then he does nothing about it. The honest minister, Mr Saunderson, made a statement in this House that said the provincial government had no interest in getting involved in it, and he was being honest about it. The rest of you play this little game. He's the honest guy sitting in this House.

Bill Davis brought in a bill which froze gasoline prices in 1975. It's within provincial jurisdiction. If you're that concerned about it, I say you have provincial ministers who can take the action: the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Minister of Energy, and of course the person who runs the government, the Premier of this province.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to join the debate on the private member's resolution standing in the name of Doug Rollins, the member for Quinte.

All Ontarians have experienced the rise and fall of gas prices. They've experienced the fluctuation of gas prices, they've experienced the volatility of gas prices and they know, as we know, that this usually seems to take place just prior to a long weekend or in another period that is generally associated with increased travel volume. Ontarians perceive that major oil companies are taking advantage of their dominant position in the Canadian marketplace and are free to raise prices without fear of penalty or retribution.

Many of my constituents in Scarborough have asked why these events have taken place, and I know members across the province have had the same questions from their constituents. In fact, we've had hundreds of calls to a gas busters' telephone hotline, which was set up by the Consumer Watchdog Commission on September 2, 1998. Ontario consumers have used the hotline to express their anger and frustration at what they see as a flagrant disregard for fair pricing policy on the part of oil companies.

If true, these actions would clearly indicate that consumers are being targeted by gas companies. These consumers are the hard-working taxpaying people of Ontario who have called this hotline. They've used expressions, such as "price fixing," "price gouging" and "collusion" in describing the actions of oil companies and their retailers.

Through the efforts of the Honourable David Tsubouchi, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Consumer Watchdog Commission, we've been successful in forcing the federal government to recognize the problem and the need to find solutions.

These are important first steps, but in order to continue the process of returning fairness to retail gas pricing, we must first examine the method used by oil companies to establish the price of gasoline.

According to the Petroleum Communication Foundation, some of the major factors that contribute to the fluctuation of gas prices consist of competition, refining and marketing costs and the retail portion of crude oil costs. They claim that gas prices are driven by market forces and not necessarily by costs. Different competitive conditions and marketing strategies, along with upgrades and modernization to meet present and future environmental standards, and the distance that gasoline has to be transported to market also affect the cost. Marketing costs can also vary from region to region. Finally, there is the cost of crude oil which is priced on the international market.

The industry has also suggested that the reason for the volatility or fluctuation is a simple case of supply and demand, with the retailers changing their prices to keep up with their competitors. However, three major players dominate the Canadian petroleum industry: Imperial Oil, Petro-Canada and Shell. Together, these companies wield considerable influence on both the wholesale and retail markets and have a dual distribution position. This means they are both suppliers and competitors for their own dealers as well as for independents.

The industry has also stated that the overall average price per litre has dropped over the last decade. The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute released a study on gasoline prices. The main objectives of the study were to assess consumers' perceptions and attitudes relating to the topics of concern about gasoline prices. The CPPI goes on to state that in current dollars, inclusive of taxes, gasoline prices have increased in Canada. However, exclusive of taxes, prices have declined by four cents per litre since 1986, and this has led to savings of some $3.5 billion.

The CPPI believes that 32 price wars in the Toronto area last year were based on a healthy and competitive market but the Independent Retail Gasoline Marketers Association of Canada disagrees. They state that in Canada the wholesale and retail markets, dominated by the three national players - Esso, Petro-Canada and Shell - and a few regional refiners - Husky, Sunoco and Ultramar - directly account for 70% of the retail volume and 80% of the wholesale volume. In essence, the market is an oligopoly, the majors being the price-setters.

Even though the prices may have dropped over the last decade, it does not account for the vast fluctuations in price that traditionally appear before and during peak periods, such as long weekends and holidays.

I urge the federal government to take action on the issue of gasoline pricing, and I ask the Liberal members and the NDP members here today to send a strong message to the federal government by voting in favour of this resolution.

As my colleague from Quinte has stated, we are not trying to dictate what the price should be, we're only trying to ensure that the pricing policies of the gas companies are fair and just and do not victimize the consumers of this province. I want to commend my colleague for -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Time has expired. Mr Rollins, you have two minutes.

Mr Rollins: I'd like to thank all the members in the House today who have spoken in support of the resolution I have brought in. I'd also like to bring to the attention of the members of the House that we have Randy Turner here. He's not a constituent of mine but he lives in Northumberland, not far from the boundaries of my riding. He is one of the members who has worked on the Dan McTeague committee that the federal government has set up, yet they don't have the feeling that they have a real listening ear as far as the federal government is concerned.

I'd like to also remind the member for Sault Ste Marie that since he moved out of the backbench, he has lost track of the person who spoke ahead of him. If he had been in the House and listened to the man who spoke ahead of him - he was quite in support of the NDP telling the federal government that it's their responsibility. I don't know whether the colour of the tie upset the member for Sault Ste Marie or what happened, but something went wrong.

I also want to remind the members of the Liberal Party that, yes, we had a resolution brought in by Minister Tsubouchi last year, and those people in the Liberal Party chose to talk the clock out so we didn't have the opportunity to vote on it. That tells us where some of those people - it wasn't all the members of the Liberal Party who spoke here.

I want to thank you very much for listening and giving us support. We all have to keep in mind that if we continually push the independent oil companies and businesses out of our consumer market, you and I that down the road are going to pay an extremely high price. I know the province of PEI set a price, but I can also say it wasn't the highest price in Canada last summer. I thank everybody for supporting it.

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

CITY OF TORONTO XXIX SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES BID ENDORSEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 APPUYANT LA CANDIDATURE DE LA CITÉ DE TORONTO CONCERNANT LES XXIX e JEUX OLYMPIQUES D'ÉTÉ

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 35, standing in the name of Mr Kells.

Mr Kells has moved second reading of Bill 77. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Kells: I ask that the bill be ordered for third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

GASOLINE PRICES / PRIX D'ESSENCE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 36, standing in the name of Mr Rollins.

Mr Rollins has moved private member's notice of motion number 33. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

We have debated everything that had to be debated. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1203 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): The government has embarked on a disastrous policy of forcing a number of our local schools to close by imposing a nefarious funding formula.

Quality education for our children cannot be based on 100 square feet per student. Quality education must take into account class size, teacher training, special programs, parental input and community relations with the local school.

The Minister of Education and Training has not taken into account the essential nature of local schools and their symbiotic relationship with the surrounding community. For instance, the province does not support nursery schools, daycares or parenting centres in our schools, yet these are an essential part of our communities.

The province does not care whether children go to school in their neighbourhood. Most parents believe children should walk to school. It makes neighbourhoods safer and helps prevent excessive traffic.

If the minister cannot recognize that inner-city schools have special needs and are an irreplaceable part of community life, he should step down and have someone else with a much clearer vision of quality education take over.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Neighbourhood schools, community-based schools are in danger of being shut down across this province, in Niagara region as well.

I want to tell you that I'm proud to stand firmly with the supporters of Monsignor Clancy High School in Thorold. The school council, led very capably by its chair, Dennis Landry, along with parents and students and former students of Monsignor Clancy, appealed to Thorold city council earlier this week, calling on them to support these families in opposition to the anticipated and feared closure of Monsignor Clancy.

Monsignor Clancy is the only Catholic high school in Thorold. If Monsignor Clancy isn't kept open, those Catholic students will have to be bussed outside of their community. It's not good for the students, it's not good for their families and it's not good for the community of Thorold.

Yet another high school, Merritton High School in the community of Merritton, once again is very much at risk, real risk of imminent closure.

This government should be intervening to make sure these schools stay open, to make sure that the communities they serve are indeed well served by them. Rather, this government, with its policies of abandonment of public education, publicly funded education, is facilitating the closure of schools like Monsignor Clancy and Merritton and similar community-based neighbourhood schools across this province at both the elementary and secondary levels.

This government has stolen $1 billion out of public funding for education. The impact is being seen and heard and felt loudly and clearly by folks down in Niagara.

JESSE'S JOURNEY

Mr Bob Wood (London South): It is with pleasure that I provide the House with an update on Jesse's Journey - A Father's Tribute, which is Londoner John Davidson's walk across Canada in support of genetic research. Following on the heels of the successful 1995 Jesse's Journey, when John Davidson pushed his wheelchair-bound son, Jesse, across Ontario to raise more than $1 million for research, this year John is walking alone. He began his 8,300-kilometre walk in St John's, Newfoundland, on April 10 and is currently approaching Calgary, Alberta.

John has traversed more than 7,000 kilometres across nine provinces and is looking forward to the culmination of the journey in Victoria, BC, on January 20. John's goal is to raise $10 million to establish an endowment fund which will continue to direct $1 million each year towards research to eventually find cures for muscular dystrophy, ALS, cystic fibrosis, breast cancer and many other genetic diseases. To date, John has generated more $1.6 million through the generosity of grassroots supporters across Canada.

John is walking across Canada to educate the public about his work and vision to fund genetic research. I invite each and every member to consider supporting this very courageous and special Ontario resident and his worthwhile endeavour to make a difference in the lives of thousands of Canadian families suffering the ordeal of genetic disease.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have stood here many times in the past and told the members of the Legislature how northwestern Ontario does not receive health care funding and support equal to the rest of the province. Today I need to tell you of another crucial service that the people of northwestern Ontario will be losing unless the Minister of Health acts quickly to correct it.

On April 1 of next year, the Ministry of Health is delisting from its OHIP formulary publicly funded rehabilitation services across the province, leaving the only access to publicly funded physiotherapy services in northwestern Ontario to hospital-based and community care access centre services.

The problem is that hospital-based physiotherapy services right now are only providing 15% of patients' needs, and even with that small percentage, the waiting lists are extensive and only priority-needs clients can access care within reasonable time frames.

The minister has acknowledged this province elsewhere in the province by allocating $39 million to provide these needed services through

schedule 5 clinics. However, there are no

schedule 5 clinics in northwestern Ontario - I repeat, none - and, as a result, this April 1 delisting will leave 85% of the people needing physiotherapy services forced to pay out of pocket or through private insurance plans for services that people in the rest of the province receive under OHIP.

This is nothing more than two-tiered health care, and it is shameful that this situation should be facing all of us in northwestern Ontario. Minister, you can't leave us hanging out to dry here. We deserve the same level of service as everyone else in the province. Fix this problem, Minister, and fix it now.

PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I rise to inform the House that today I introduced a resolution calling on the government to take action to prevent the sale or diversion of Great Lakes waters to foreign countries, commercial enterprises and individuals.

This resolution is similar to one passed unanimously in the United States House of Representatives in October. That US resolution was introduced by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan in response to the Harris government's granting of a permit to Nova Group of Sault Ste Marie to sell three billion litres of Lake Superior water over a five-year period to an Asian company.

We cannot allow Great Lakes waters, our most precious natural resource, to become a tradable commodity under the free trade agreement. We must act now to keep the floodgates from opening. I am calling for a more comprehensive and detailed regulatory policy designed to protect Ontario's water. That's especially needed in light of the threat to water from the Canada-US free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement. The failure to pass laws to protect Ontario's waters has opened the possibility of unfettered commercial exploitation.

The federal Liberal government has promised a plan to ban water exports, but months have passed and still we've seen nothing. I hope my resolution will provide some strong encouragement to act.

EDUCATION IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my pleasure to rise today to inform the members of the House of the good things that are happening in education in Durham.

At a special meeting held on November 30, the Durham Catholic District School Board and chair Jim McCafferty approved their 1998-99 budget of $166,157,321. It's a budget filled with good news for students, parents and, most important, taxpayers.

The average class size in secondary schools has been reduced from 27 to 22 - down. At the elementary level, the average class size has also been reduced to under 25, as outlined in Bill 160. As well, almost $4 million is being spent on technology in the classroom.

Clearly, the student-focused funding model is working for my citizens and my constituents in Durham, along with the member from Oshawa.

Jim McCafferty, chair of the Durham Catholic board, had this to say about the approved budget: "I am quite pleased with the improvements we have been able to fund including reductions in class size...increased services in special education and significant steps in providing more student accommodation." I'd like to commend director Grant Andrews and the staff of the Durham Catholic board for their hard work in preparing the 1998 budget.

I believe that with every board that's responsible for the student-focused funding model, listening to the input of their ratepayers, the students, we have a better system in Ontario thanks to our Minister of Education, Dave Johnson.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Today is International Day of Disabled Persons. It is a sad day for the 1.5 million Ontario citizens with disabilities who were betrayed by this government's introduction of a sham Ontarians with Disabilities Act last week. People with disabilities were appalled that the government would attempt to claim that it has fulfilled its promise to them with a bill that could have been written on the back of a paper napkin. Legislation is not even needed to bring about the minor changes they are offering.

There is only one way for the government to redeem itself. It must withdraw Bill 83 and recommit to a genuine, full and open consultation that will produce a bill with substance and teeth. Persons with disabilities need to have the barriers they face in every facet of daily life addressed by forward-thinking and progressive measures. Often the accommodations that need to be made are small but not obvious and would make a tremendous difference, while the cost of not including vital and talented people in the economic life of this province hurts everyone.

The government must assume a leadership role and provide effective incentives for positive change throughout all sectors of society. People are willing to change, but need to know how. Meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee now to set up a process to put this initiative on the right track. Withdraw this sham legislation now and do it right.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise again to bring to the attention of the government members the kind of devastation that's happening in communities like mine in Hamilton as a result of your agenda. On the front page of the Hamilton Spectator today is an

article entitled "Lower City Trailing in Grade 3." When we look further at the story, the next headline is "Don't Point Finger at Teachers: Experts say poverty a significant factor in lower city's poorer grade 3 test scores."

It goes on to quote Gina Brown, who's a McMaster University nursing professor:

"`There is more that determines health and competence than health care and education.

"`Everything we know shows that there is a higher concentration of problems in children - be they emotional, learning, social or conduct problems - in poorer areas.'"

Jackie Gordon of the Hamilton-Wentworth Social Planning Council says that poverty is one of the major risk factors affecting children's ability to learn:

"It is hard to learn math when you are hungry.

What has the agenda of this government been? You've cut the income of the poorest of the poor by 22%. You've downloaded public housing and public health. You've cut education funding and health funding, and the growing gap shows us that the middle class and poor are going further and further down while your rich corporate friends go up and up with your 30% tax scam.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent for permission for male members of the Legislature to wear the white ribbon today indicative of the support of the White Ribbon Campaign.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder -

The Speaker: I have a statement left. Do you think I can do the statement?

Ms Churley: I'm sorry. I didn't know there was another one.

NIAGARA GATEWAY WELCOME CENTRE

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): It's my pleasure today to announce that after seven years of planning and dreaming, the Niagara Gateway Welcome Centre in Grimsby is officially a go. Construction will begin next year at the site, located at Casablanca Avenue, the South Service Road and the Queen Elizabeth.

The project is unique in that it demonst