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

December 13, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEAF PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT, 1990

Mr Abel moved second reading of Bill 22,

An Act to provide for Certain Rights for Deaf Persons.

Mr Abel: It is my pleasure to speak today on private member's Bill 22. This particular type of bill is not new to this House. In fact, it was not long ago that the former member for Durham West proposed a similar bill, and I wish to commend her for her hard work and efforts put towards that bill. Unfortunately, the bill did not make it through, and myself being hearing-impaired, it was with great pleasure that I was given the opportunity to introduce Bill 22 for first reading on Monday last.

This legislation would prevent discrimination against deaf people accompanied by hearing-ear dogs. This legislation will give deaf people with hearing-aid dogs the same rights of access as those that are now enjoyed by blind people under the Blind Persons' Rights Act. My bill is patterned after that act.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that deaf people are not discriminated against because they are accompanied by hearing-ear dogs. These dogs are guide-dogs and should be treated the same as seeing-eye dogs. If this bill is passed, it will be against the law to deny any person accommodation, services or facilities available in any public place because he or she is a deaf person accompanied by a guide-dog. In addition, no one would be able to deny a deaf person with a hearing-ear dog occupancy of any self-contained dwelling unit.

Under this legislation the Attorney General or a designated officer can, upon request, issue to a deaf person an identification card. This card would identify a deaf person and his or her guide-dog. This card would be proof that the deaf person and his or her dog are qualified for the purposes of this legislation.

This bill also contains a clause that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the qualification for guide-dogs. I would anticipate that those would be along the same lines as the Blind Persons' Rights Act, which recognizes the dogs that are trained at particular facilities as seeing-eye dogs.

Contravention of this act would carry a fine of $2,000.

In approving this bill, the Legislature will continue a relatively new trend for recognizing the rights of deaf people in this country. With the exception of British Columbia, there is no other province in this country that protects the rights of deaf people to be accompanied by guide-dogs. This is the case even though there are at least three training programs for hearing-ear dogs.

As I have mentioned, British Columbia is the only province in Canada that has this legislation. In contrast to that situation, those rights are almost universal in the United States.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the work being done by Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada in training dogs to alert hearing-impaired people to sounds such as a baby crying, an alarm clock, a smoke detector, a malfunctioning car, and a telephone. As hearing people, including myself with only partial hearing, we take all these sounds for granted, but that is not the case for a deaf person.

To date, Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada, which is based in Ancaster, has placed over 60 dogs throughout Canada, with the majority going to hearing-impaired people in this province. The organization has approximately 20 people on its waiting list and 24 dogs that are currently being trained. Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada is a non-profit, charitable organization which has been training dogs to assist the deaf since 1979. It costs about $4,000 to train a hearing-ear dog, which takes approximately six months to train.

All the dogs are donated to the program, but not just any dog is cut out to be a hearing-aid dog. There are certain criteria that must be followed. The dog has to meet the requirements, such as having a friendly and outgoing personality, being of small to medium size and being healthy. The dog must also be under one year old. In fact, we have a dog in the House today accompanying the visitors in the gallery.

These dogs are donated to the program and many of them come from humane societies. Training begins with basic obedience and all commands are taught in both sign language and verbally. Each of the hearing-ear dogs is trained to match the specific lifestyle of the deaf person with whom the dog will be placed. For example, if a deaf person is a woman with a young baby, the dog would be trained to alert her to the sound of that crying baby, or if a hearing-impaired person lives in an apartment, the dog is trained to respond to the apartment intercom.

When a young dog begins training, it is placed in a foster home for several months. This way the dog can learn how to interact in a family situation. Once the dog is ready for placement, the trainer accompanies him or her to the new home. During this placement period, which lasts about a week, the trainer helps to get the dog acquainted with the new home. It also gives the dog and the owner a chance to learn to work together and get to know each other.

It is interesting to note that the deaf person does not have to pay for the hearing-ear dog. As a non-profit organization, Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada relies on donations to support its program.

Hearing-ear dogs can be identified by their special orange collar and orange lead. Deafness is often referred to as the invisible handicap. You cannot see hearing impairment, but you can see that orange collar and orange lead. It is hoped that soon that signal will be as readily recognized as the harness on the seeing-eye dog.

The hearing-ear dogs program has the support of agencies such as Lions clubs, the Canadian Hearing Society and others, which also includes certain transportation organizations.

The deaf are probably the most socially isolated of all of our handicapped groups in this country. Hearing-ear dogs have opened up a whole new world for many deaf people. I feel this legislation is a logical step in recognizing these dogs and their tremendous importance. No deaf person should be denied access to any public place or accommodation when accompanied by a hearing-ear dog. I want to make sure that there is absolutely no question about rights of access for deaf people with their dogs. It is absolutely essential, in my view, that these rights should be recognized in legislation.

At no time should a hearing-impaired person be discriminated against because he is accompanied by his dog. I want to make sure that deaf people with hearing-ear dogs have unrestricted access to public transportation, that they can get accommodation even though they have a dog, go out for a meal in a restaurant accompanied by their dog and have no fear of being turned away from any door.

These dogs are not pets. They are working dogs. They are an extension of the deaf person who relies on that dog. I urge all members to support this bill and I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue.

Mr Ruprecht: I am delighted to participate in this debate and would like to congratulate the member for Wentworth North on introducing, or should I rather say reintroducing, this specific piece of legislation, which had been introduced one time, as he kindly mentioned earlier, by Mrs Stoner, who in fact had someone who was hearing-impaired working in an office. Her name was Jill Johnson and she did bring her working dog in to the office.

I would like to address myself first to this specific bill before I indicate a few more details later.

This legislation before us I hope will be supported by everyone unanimously, first because we have in place already legislation of a similar kind in terms of seeing-eye dogs, and that of course is essential for people who would like to participate in the good life of Ontario.

In terms of Bill 22 there are some sections, I think, that are important to notice; first, that the hearing-ear dogs should be permitted in public places anywhere a person can go, whether it is on the subway, whether it is to rent a room or an apartment or a house, whether it is a public library, whether it is a theatre, any place where the public gets access.

Second, if a person who is hearing-impaired would like to rent accommodation, that sometimes of course may be prejudicial because of an animal being brought into that accommodation and I think it is only fair and right that this should be part of the legislation, that there should not be and must not be discrimination in terms of a hearing-ear dog or a seeing-eye dog, that that might be or should be a problem for anyone who would like to rent accommodation. It is important that this is in this bill.

In terms of identification cards, yes, there may be a minor problem inasmuch as the bill may not be specific enough. On page 2, subsection 3(1), it says:

"The Attorney General or an officer of the ministry designated by the Attorney General in writing may, upon application therefor, issue to a deaf person an identification card identifying the deaf person and his or her dog guide."

I would only hope that that will be specifically worked on and that would not cause any problem to anyone. Consequently, there should be one specific person identified in the office who has got the authority to issue these identification cards and that person obviously should be trained and understand the problems that might arise.

I think that in terms of

section 3, it may be clear enough that there will be no delays in how to get an identification card. Should this bill pass, is the person who is hearing-impaired almost immediately issued a card, how long will that process take, who will be responsible and how can it be checked? I assume that may only be a minor problem and it certainly should not hinder the passage of this particular bill.

And yes, there should be a penalty. If there is discrimination in whatever area, whether it is public transportation or access to any situation where everyone else has access, should there be discrimination in terms of renting a place because of a seeing-eye dog or a hearing-ear dog, yes, there should be a penalty.

I think the $2,000 fine that the member has increased from, I think, the previous bill, a $1,000 fine, is a good thing. I would only hope that we may never ever resort to a penalty, but nevertheless it is essential that it be part of this legislation.

In short, I think I, as the former minister for disabled persons, will certainly have no problem whatsoever supporting this legislation and I would only hope that this government and this particular member, who I think has a lot of influence with cabinet people -- because the member for Wentworth North is a very able person in terms of pushing through this legislation. He has seen a need.

That need is great, and in terms of discrimination, there should be none and I would expect that the government will not subject or relegate this specific legislation to the back burner or to some sideline or that there should necessarily be a great deal of cabinet discussion, or that in the end, Mr Speaker, you might have to resort to your final authority to make sure that this is pushed through. I know that may put you on the spot, but in any case, I would hope that we will move on this as quickly as possible.

I would like to read for the record a letter that was written by Jill Johnson which will identify quite specifically why a hearing-ear dog is really essential to the functioning and to the enjoyment of life of a person with a hearing disability. She writes a very interesting story.

"My family was at home, somewhere around the house, and I was in the kitchen, preparing for supper. Toby, as usual, was in the room with me, despite the fact the family was at home. I was cooking something in the oven at a very high heat, and when I opened the door of the oven, Toby came to me, bumped his head on my knee (his way of alerting me) and walked away. My concentration was on the supper, so I thought he was being silly and patted him on the head: but he was persistent, and I had no choice other than to follow him...right to the smoke alarm.

Our back door is about four or five paces away from the smoke alarm, so he was pushing me to the door, which I opened, and went outside. I finally became aware my family was not with me, and tried to go back to the house, but was prevented very firmly from doing so by Toby. To cut the story short, I finally got in the house to find my children downstairs with the TV apparently blaring, so the children told me, and my husband reading the newspaper in the living room. He heard the smoke alarm but did not put much importance to it.

This literally made me finally realize that no matter whether a life or death situation, Toby works for me, and for me only. Needless to say, we now have a fire escape plan!"

But it took a guide dog to prevent a possible accident that could cost someone his or her life. It therefore becomes essential that this bill is being passed and that hearing-ear dogs are being permitted in public places.

This really is special legislation because it has support from a number of institutions. When we look across the landscape of those organizations and institutions that are supporting this bill, we find a lot of them that are quite enthusiastic about this. There may even be some organizations or associations which might have some concern, but nevertheless they can see the essential significance of this bill. For instance, the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association is supporting the bill.

GO Transit, FunTrek Coach Lines, the Motion Picture Theatres Association of Ontario and the hotel and motel associations have no difficulty with this specific piece of legislation. Therefore, we should support this quite heartily.

Now just a word on the whole community of deaf persons. The significant actions that the community had taken not too long ago, in 1988, really put the whole deaf community on the map. Members will remember Gallaudet University. Suddenly, we had literally heard from the deaf community as a whole. Suddenly, the whole picture changed when deaf persons decided to demonstrate to ensure that they would have a say in running the university, which was totally for deaf persons in the United States. They wanted people on the board of governors. They wanted to be part of the decision-making process of that university.

Previously, who had ever heard of the deaf community and deaf people taking such an active role? I think that previously they were probably relegated to a different kind of association, a different kind of role in public life. For the first time, all of us, especially public decision-makers, became aware of their significance and that they wanted above all else to participate in life. And they demonstrated.

I give the member for York East a great deal of credit that just before the cabinet was chosen -- I think it was the weekend before -- he actually showed up in front of the Legislature steps and participated in a demonstration. I think that we as legislators should never be afraid to stand up for the principles which we believe in. He decided to do this. He decided that it did not matter what anyone thought in this Legislature, whether it was the Premier or any one of us. He decided he had to go and show his support. That to me is

an act of courage, because it could mean various significant things for his future in his life in this Legislature. He decided to do it. So we have a great example from university life and a great example from our own member of this Legislature that there is now a different attitude within the whole community of disabled persons.

That to me is of great significance, because if we do anything here in this House that is of significance we must open the doors. Our previous government tried to do that, and to a great degree we succeeded. We tried as much as we possibly could to open the doors to anyone, anywhere. Most likely the proudest moment of my being here, and certainly the proudest moment in my former capacity as minister responsible for disabled persons, was to declare the Decade for Disabled Persons in Ontario, which had not been declared previously.

We in this party could never figure out specifically why it had not been done, but we felt it was important enough and the former Premier felt it was an important enough step to give a signal and a symbol to all of the issues that have to do with disabled persons, and that is to set aside that special department and to set aside a person to highlight the needs of disabled persons and to establish a minister to overlook and to try to encourage enthusiastically, so that all ministries across this government would have a greater sensitivity and would be sensitized to the needs of disabled communities.

We see a great change of attitude within our own consciousness in this Legislature, within the members of the public, certainly within the community itself. Our job consequently -- this is one of the indications -- would be to open up and permit people to participate as fully as possible in the life of Ontario, and that means in every significant aspect. It should not be that we would say it cost too much. I remember when we had long discussions about changing the Ontario Building Code. It should not be a question of financial pride itself that we would say it is too expensive to do it. It should simply be

an act of principle that we open the doors and encourage full participation so that all members of society, including every Ontario person, will feel that they are part of the community, that they can fully contribute. I support this bill and I thank the member for Wentworth North very much.

Mr Jackson: I am delighted to be able to rise, I believe for the fourth time in my short career here at Queen's Park, to address important legislation which deals with a matter of concern to those citizens in Ontario who are severely challenged.

I tend to look at legislation, on the face of it, as worthy of support if it improves the quality of life for the citizens of this province or if it advances their legitimate goals and needs and their agenda, because of their right to the same quality of life that is enjoyed by society here in Ontario; in fact, legislation which is sensitive and fair. For that reason, I believe this legislation clearly fits that test and is worthy of support by all members of the House.

My support for legislation for profoundly deaf people comes from my own personal background, as I have indicated on previous occasions. My uncle Taeodeor Marcyniuk was deaf from birth and went through his life suffering from very cruel prejudices growing up in the 1930s and 1940s in western Canada. He taught all of my brothers and sisters very much about the need for society to change its handicap in terms of its understanding of what the legitimate needs of the deaf community really are.

So I wish to commend not only the member for Wentworth North for his very first private member's bill in the House, which I am quite sure will be unanimously approved, but also the members who have gone before him: the member for Durham West, Mrs Stoner, who has been mentioned, who first introduced the whole program for hearing-ear dogs to the standing committee on social development, and I will come back to that in a moment; my close friend and colleague the former member for Scarborough West, whom I worked with on the social development committee and worked with closely to advance the issues of education for the profoundly deaf in this province, as well as for other rights that they legitimately deserve to have; and of course I recognize the current member for York East, who brings an important opportunity for us to learn and grow by his presence among us.

I would like to share a small story with the House in the time that I have allotted, because this bill has just not been presented to the House for the first time. It is a product of public hearings conducted by the social development committee in which I had the privilege of participating in May of this year. We had the opportunity to listen at first hand to those profoundly deaf persons who benefited from the hearing-ear dog program. As such, we were introduced to a whole world of understanding about the importance of not just the program but the program's relationship to the rest of society.

The bill, quite frankly, was introduced with that in mind -- it deals with access and accommodation, it talks about identification cards -- to ensure that the process of normalization, which is what all persons who are severely challenged expect and would hope, will allow us to accept them without seeing them as handicapped.

The social development committee decided, as we do on these occasions, on the spur of the moment that we thought that since we were in the Amethyst Room in this building -- and for people who are watching this morning's Hansard, the importance of the Amethyst Room to this building for public hearings is that it has electronic Hansard; in fact, it can be televised all across Ontario to the citizens of this province -- the Liberal chairman at the time thought it would be a good idea if we did a split screen and had the signing as we now have occurring in our House, that that same signing would occur for the members of the deaf community who had presented themselves at the time of the social development hearings.

Apparently at that time someone in the building complained about this process and an end was put to it. I feel it was indeed unfortunate that the ruling from a previous Speaker -- it was certainly not this Speaker, he has enough problems handling prayer in the Legislature at the moment; I am not going to hang this one on him -- felt that there was no assurance that the persons doing the signing were in fact saying what was being said by the deputants before us.

I thought, how sad, how prejudicial and how poor, because the hearings could have been an opportunity for the entire deaf community to have witnessed at first hand what was such an important presentation to us as legislators. We were being educated but we had an opportunity to share that with the rest of the province, and that was denied.

I am pleased that is no longer going to happen and our committee, all three political parties, was unanimous in support for electronic Hansard recognizing the profoundly deaf and their needs.

I would like to indicate that we are indeed fortunate that today in the Legislature we have a citizen of this province who uses the services of a hearing-ear dog. She has brought her close friend and companion of two and a half years, Heidi, who is in the Speaker's gallery. I certainly would like all members to know that we are very fortunate that this important companion is in the House with us today.

I would like to briefly talk to a couple of issues in the bill, because once this bill is approved today it will either go to committee of the whole House or go to committee. It certainly will not become law today, so that one of the functions of our debate is to offer suggestions for potential amendment should the bill proceed to, say, the social development committee so that it can become law as quickly as possible.

I had a couple of concerns which I wanted the member from the governing party to consider. He may wish to respond to them in his

summary statement or he may wish to pass them on to the minister responsible for disabled persons.

I had a concern with respect to access. I believe that it might be interesting to note that when the original bill was drafted there were certain restrictions in Ontario for pets to co-habit in rental accommodations. I think the Attorney General of the day was unfairly branded with his Fluffy bill, but that became the moniker to describe legislation to allow tenants in Ontario to keep their pets. I am not so sure that since the Liberals brought in that legislation and had it approved that it does not offer a blanket safeguard for all pets and that the deaf community could not be discriminated against on that basis because no citizen can be discriminated against in Ontario on that basis.

section 3 of the bill, which talks to identification cards, I would specifically ask the Attorney General or his ministry to provide identification cards. I hoped that the member would have addressed that issue to indicate that he had talked to the Attorney General and that he had received some assurances or feedback that in fact these cards will be forthcoming. I currently am having some difficulty with certain matters from the Office for Disabled Persons with respect to the Meals on Wheels program and licensing and identifications.

There has been some recent tightening up in that ministry and I have concerns that when we offer identification, that in fact we have been given some signals from another ministry that it will be forthcoming.

I have a concern with respect to clause 2(1)(b), which talks about discriminating "against any person with respect to the accommodation, services or facilities available in any place to which the public is customarily admitted, or the charges for the use thereof." There have been recent reports in the media of a very offensive practice, both in public transit and in licensed transportation such as cab driving, there have been incidents reported of the disabled community being bypassed. I take this matter very seriously and I question whether or not the current fine system is sufficient or, more important, that that

section of the bill I referred to clearly covers that public transit or private transportation for fee cannot discriminate by driving past a person who presents himself to be picked up. I would not raise this if it had not been the subject of an investigation in this country, at least in one city, and it has been widely reported as a practice in one or two American cities. I think that

section of the bill should be strengthened to clearly state that, for the protection of these people with their companions, their hearing-ear dogs.

I have a couple of other items I wanted to raise, but because of the rotation in this morning's debate, one of the members in the official opposition has not been able to get on a few comments, and with the unanimous consent of the House, I would yield my last three minutes in favour of the member for Scarborough North. I thank the members for listening to my concerns with respect to this bill, but predominantly, my absolute support.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the member for Scarborough North when, in rotation, he can use the remaining time? Agreed? I heard a "no"?

An hon member: Nobody said "no."

The Speaker: Okay. Further debate.

Mr Malkowski: First of all, I want to congratulate Norah Stoner, a former Liberal member of this House for Durham West, for initiating this bill and bringing to the attention of the House the issue of hearing-ear dogs. I also want to extend thanks to my friend the honourable member for Wentworth North for establishing this bill and for bringing it to the House, looking at the issue of hearing-ear dogs.

Having heard from various members here, the information has obviously shown a real sensitivity and people really do care about this issue. I have certainly heard stories from other deaf people. We heard about the story of Jill Johnson who lives in Oshawa, who raised her concerns and actually was instrumental in getting this whole thing started. I think it is very important that we do recognize the needs of people who use hearing-ear dogs and become very sensitive to those needs. I would also like again to thank the members from the third party as well as the Liberal Party for bringing support to this bill.

I would like to just share a little bit of my own personal experience, having met with various deaf people in the community. I think it is extremely important that we do have hearing-ear dogs available to make people feel that they are safe, that they are in a position to feel very secure in the community.

Hearing people tend to depend on sound in this world and this is a world that is based on sound, and hearing people take that for granted as part of their lives for safety reasons as well as for feelings of security and comfort. But those experiences are not common to deaf people. That is something that is not a common experience in our lives. For example, a deaf person within his or her own home or apartment or in a place such as a hotel or motel is often deprived of a lot of information.

We live in a world of vision and yet there are not visual alarm systems for fires, for example. If somebody comes to the door, often there is no system available, so the deaf person is not aware that somebody is there and that is a real lack, in many ways, in our own community. If somebody in the house were to fall, for example, or were to hurt himself, a deaf person would not be alerted to this occurrence, and that is an issue of safety.

On the issue of security, if there is a possible break-in or if a child is sick during the night, the deaf person is not aware of this, is not alerted to it, because he is not able to hear that this is going on. On security issues, we have heard of people who basically have almost spent their day in the kitchen because they do not know what is going on around them, they do not feel very secure in getting out into the world.

What is going to change that is having a hearing-ear dog. That helps in a variety of ways. It helps to identify sounds, such as somebody knocking at the door. The dog is able to alert the deaf person to this or to the phone ringing. Again, that is a system that is set up for the dog to alert the deaf person and as has been mentioned, something such as the water boiling in the kitchen. All of these things the dog is trained to alert its master to.

It is not an uncommon experience to have a sink run over because a person has forgotten to turn the tap off and has not heard the water running. In fact, it is an experience that is very common within the deaf community.

Often somebody comes to the door. For example, it was very common during the election that deaf people were not enumerated because they did not hear somebody come to the door to take their names for enumeration.

There have been incidents where the police have come to the door, not had a response and basically broken into the house, practically, only to find out that the individual was deaf. These are very common experiences within the community.

On the issue of security, deaf people alone in a home or in an apartment building, for example, often are very concerned about break-ins, and that is something that they are constantly on guard about. With something like a hearing-ear dog around, that is a form of protection for these people. I feel that this certainly impacts me, and obviously I personally am involved in such an issue.

I knew an individual who had a hearing-ear dog and seemed to be very excited about it. The two of us went to get on a bus and the bus driver refused to allow me and the other individual to get on. Even though he had a licence for his dog, we were not permitted on the bus. We had quite a way to walk. We thought we would signal a cab and take a cab over to our destination, but again we were not allowed in the cab because there was no legislation that would allow the two of us to have access to this form of transportation. So the two of us ended up walking quite a distance.

This is open discrimination against both of us. I feel it is important that legislation be established. The two of us then went to seek legal advice and found that there was nothing in place that would prevent discrimination of this nature from occurring. This is a horrendous experience.

In

summary, I have met various people, and met one woman named Diane Holt, who in fact is sitting up in the visitors' gallery at this time with her dog. This morning she was talking to me and related a bit about her own experience. In fact, she mentioned that she felt she could not live without her dog and that if she did not have the dog with her, she basically would spend her days in the kitchen, not feeling comfortable getting out, feeling that she was not in a secure position and that the dog instead has actually provided her with the confidence to get out into the world and be more active.

In fact, she feels very safe and secure with her hearing-ear dog and this has increased her own self-confidence.

I think the message that this shows all of us is that this is very important legislation. This is very important to her life. Having this dog has allowed her to function in a very free and secure fashion in society. Therefore, I am certainly very pleased to say that I support Bill 22. I think this is a way to provide complete access for all people to be able to participate on an equal level in society so that deaf people are equal to hearing people. This is a world, an environment that is based on sound, and this allows us access to that world. I feel that deaf people should have the same rights as all hearing people.

Again, I want to congratulate my friend the member for Wentworth North for initiating this bill. I am very supportive of it and I am sure all of the members will be too.

Mr Curling: I want to thank the member for Burlington South for generously giving up his time for me to say a few words on this Bill 22. As you know, Mr Speaker, my party supports this very strongly. Bill 143, as it was previously, in its first life, was presented here by Norah Stoner, a very able, capable and well-respected member of this party and this House.

Monday 10 December was International Human Rights Day. When we do celebrate days like this, the thing is to bring awareness to people about some of the discrimination and the violation of people's rights as human beings. We as legislators have a responsibility, a very, very strong responsibility, to make sure that all persons in the province enjoy the rights delegated by law. But we have a further obligation and a further responsibility, and that is to identify individuals or groups who need protection or assistance to further enhance their ability to enjoy, and to serve in, this community.

I myself was privileged to talk with the member for York East, who himself brings a new dimension to this Legislature, and I say that we have many such people who can contribute to this society.

While, of course, in principle and while, of course, in force we support this bill, I just want to target on one area of the bill. It talks about the fine that should be increased from $1,000 to $2,000 or fines that are to be increased from $100 to $200. I do not think that even if we increased them from $1,000 to $10,000, it would make a vast difference. I think where the difference is in bills like these or laws like these is in educating people to change their attitudes towards people. We have to sensitize people to this. So while laws are being made, we have a responsibility as ambassadors here and as legislators to get out to sensitize people in that issue.

We are in very strong support of this bill, but to say and to continue to be more sensitive and to be more human and to bring more people into the fold, as we recognize people's rights are being violated.

Mr Drainville: It is my very great honour and privilege today to speak in support of this bill that has been put forth by the honourable member for Wentworth North. I would also like to say that it is a privilege to be in this House and experience the opportunity of speaking to a bill that was put forth first of all by a member of the Liberal Party, Mrs Norah Stoner. It is a wonderful experience to know that we in this House can speak about these rights and these freedoms, which all our citizens in Ontario should enjoy, and to have the opportunity to bring these things forth as a means of helping people in society.

There is no question -- and I am not going to speak very long on this bill because it is a bill which has obvious merits -- that to support this bill means to help prevent discrimination against deaf people accompanied by hearing-ear dogs. We have heard moving testimony by the honourable member for York East about the difficulties experienced by deaf people, we know that discrimination is still a reality in our society and we need to fight this and combat in as many ways as possible.

It is said that justice may be long in coming but that its coming is inevitable. We are attempting, through this bill that has been put forth by the honourable member for Wentworth North, to ensure that justice is done for those persons who are deaf in our community, and it is my very great honour to support this bill in the House today.

Mr Christopherson: I also rise to support Bill 22, presented by my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth, the member for Wentworth North. Hamilton-Wentworth has played an important role in fighting for the rights of the hearing-impaired, and I am pleased that the hearing-ear dogs training centre is indeed in our region and also the regional base of the Canadian Society for the Hearing-Impaired is in our region. It is something that we feel very strongly about and we take great pride in.

I also would like to just reflect on something that happened within the last 60 minutes that I think encapsulates the feeling of the public about these kinds of issues. I had the honour, a little while ago, of stepping out on a staircase, which many of the veterans here have done on many occasions, to go out with one of the school groups and have a picture taken. It was with the Cathedral Girls' High School in my riding.

In my introductory remarks I mentioned to them that if they come into the House and we are having a debate, this is the issue and we are talking about the rights of the hearing-impaired to have a hearing-ear dog present similar to the rights that we have for the blind in our province. The response was spontaneous. They felt so strongly and immediately that that was something that clearly should happen, without a doubt. Actually, I think they would probably find it rather surprising that in this day and age that right is still not entrenched in legislation.

I think that it is incumbent on us, particularly in light of the historic seating of the member for York East, that we ensure this kind of legislation passes through this Parliament as quickly as possible. In the realm of social justice, nothing is more important right now than the area of human rights, and that is basically what we are talking about.

I heard my colleague the member for Burlington South and also the member for Wentworth North talk about this being the hidden handicap, and the member for Burlington South said "without seeing them as handicapped." That is what this is all about. For those of us who came into this Parliament, being in this House with the translators for the member for York East is as natural to us as seeing you in the Speaker's chair, Mr Speaker, as having the clerks here and indeed our own desks. It is that normal for us.

We do not see anything unusual, and I think that is exactly what we are trying to establish with this type of legislation -- to ensure that we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary other than, "There is the member for York East," and on with the debate and on with the issue.

I would feel very, very proud, as a member of this Parliament, if indeed I were here when we were able to pass this legislation and others like it, and I hope that it will have the unanimous support of this House. I say that without having a clue where the cabinet is on this one. But this is one of those issues of conscience that is extremely important to all of us. I would close by again complimenting my colleague the member for Wentworth North not only in presenting his first bill, but as I understand it, it is also, I think, the first private member's bill to be debated in this Parliament.

I congratulate him for the historic, to us who are new, opportunity that has given him, but I also express my congratulations to him in the manner in which he has presented this and also the issue. I think it is most appropriate for our government that this is the first private member's bill and it is an issue of this nature that we would deal with.

Mr Sutherland: I just want to add my words of support for this bill. I think it is very significant that we are able to deal with this as the first private member's bill. I also want to mention that in one of my first responsibilities as the member for Oxford, I was at an engagement where the guest speaker was Ed Kincaid from the Canadian National Institute of the Blind, and he was there talking about funding for the school that trains the dogs not only for the blind but also for the deaf, just to let everyone know that there is a serious problem in there not being enough trained dogs in the province. So, I hope all of us will keep that in mind and support this bill.

Mr Abel: I want to thank everybody who participated in the debate. I thank members for their support and also for their constructive criticism. I think it is very important that we not discriminate against the hearing-impaired and that there never be a situation where the hearing-impaired with their guide dogs are denied their right to rent an apartment or to take a cab or to take a bus or even enter restaurants or theatres. I hope that Ontario would follow suit and follow the pattern or the trend that was set by British Columbia and support this Bill 22. I want to thank members very much and I look forward to their support on this bill.

The Speaker: Time allotted for consideration of this ballot item has expired. The matter will be voted upon at 12 of the clock.

PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTION

Ms Poole moved resolution 4:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the National Packaging Protocol (NAPP) was endorsed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on 20 March 1990, and included a target for the reduction of packaging waste by 50% by the year 2000; and since the environment protection industry offers unique opportunities to create new employment in Ontario; and since legislation had been drafted for presentation to this Legislature in the fall of 1990, after extensive consultation with special interest groups, affected parties and the waste reduction advisory committee; therefore the Minister of the Environment should, during the 1991 spring sitting of this Legislature:

1. introduce legislation or regulations to meet the targets of the National Packaging Protocol in Ontario;

2. require the reduction, reuse and recycling of packaging materials to divert a minimum of 20% of packaging waste from landfill or incineration by 1992, and 35% by 1996;

3. provide funding and other incentives for research and development in packaging reduction, reuse and recycling;

4. provide programs and incentives for market development for reuse and recycling of packaging products;

5. ensure that provincial government procurement policies reflect stringent packaging reduction guidelines.

Ms Poole: In the last few years, every member of this House has become aware of the fact that we are a very wasteful society in the consumer products that we use. In fact, we as Canadians lead very wasteful lives. Each Canadian every day of the year creates and sends to the garbage heaps 1.7 kilograms of garbage. This is one of the largest amounts of garbage per capita of any industrialized nation in the world.

Over the course of a year, the average family produces one ton of packaging waste through normal consumption of products. Of all this packaging waste, 80% is disposed of through incineration and landfill. In Ontario, packaging represents more than 30% of this province's municipal waste. These are indeed alarming figures and it is time to act and act now.

In this House I have listened to member after member talk about the garbage crisis we face and as we speak our new government is struggling to come to terms with this major problem. The Minister of the Environment has even advocated what I would call desperate measures, saying that if necessary she would use her emergency powers to extend the life of existing landfill sites even though there is no environmental assessment. We have to address this garbage crisis, this garbage nightmare, and we have to do it soon.

We realize that this is not a simple problem and there are no easy answers. We also realize that the answers are going to take time. But after taking a hard look at our society's consumptive nature, I believe that we as legislators have to stop waste at its source. Products do not have to be harmful to the environment. Packaging can be reduced. Packaging can also be substituted with materials that are biodegradable. Packaging can be made of materials which can be reused and, the best of all possible solutions, some packaging can be eliminated.

Excessive packaging has been a topic for much discussion over the last few years. The National Packaging Protocol is a policy paper on packaging management. It is a document that was born out of the investigations of the national task force on packaging which met extensively through 1989. The task force studied the management of packaging in relation to the famous 3Rs and looked at packaging from many different viewpoints, from the environmental life-cycle of packaging to the economic considerations, in developing a comprehensive packing strategy.

I am going to read the six recommended packaging policies of the protocol. First, all packaging shall have minimal effects on the environment. Second, priority will be given to the management of packaging through source reduction, reuse and recycling. Third, a continuing campaign of information and education will be undertaken to make all Canadians aware of the function and the environmental impacts of packaging. Fourth, these policies will apply to all packaging used in Canada including imports. Fifth, regulations will be implemented as necessary to achieve compliance with these policies.

Finally, all government policies and practices affecting packaging will be consistent with these national policies.

Included with those six policies were targets for reduction and deadlines for them. The first deadline is about to pass. The Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers had hoped to have nationally co-ordinated data collection programs in place to monitor the targets by 31 December 1990. Now, with less than three weeks to go before that date, I fear that it is extremely unlikely that the first of the targets will be met.

The second target was the 20% reduction of the 1988 level of disposed packaging waste. That target is to be met by 31 December 1992. The third target was a further reduction of 15% by 1996. Last, a full 50% reduction by the year 2000. These are indeed ambitious targets, but I think they are realizable and they are certainly laudable.

The above policies and targets have a national thrust, but they do require provincial legislation to make them effective and responsive to each province's own particular needs. The protocol is a worthy start in the battle against unnecessary and excessive packaging.

The National Packaging Protocol has even been endorsed by our Premier. In a 14 August 1990 letter to various environmental supporters, the Premier gave his support to the philosophy behind the National Packaging Protocol, but had certain misgivings regarding the proposal. I will quote him directly:

"We support the intent of the National Packaging Protocol signed earlier this year but believe its time lines are too generous and its goals too modest."

When our current Minister of the Environment was in opposition, she proposed resolutions with strong packaging clauses to cut down on waste and to curb the use of excessive packaging.

Just a little over a year ago, the minister pushed the former government for a commitment to "phase out containers and packaging products that cannot be diverted from the waste stream."

I know that both the Premier and the Minister of the Environment want to cut down on waste that is diverted to landfills every day and that they are in complete agreement with the need to cut down on the use of necessary packaging. But what this House is looking for today is a commitment by this government to help reduce the amount of packaging used in the province. I believe that the goals I have outlined are both reasonable and attainable. I want to stress that these percentage targets are minimum. That means that if the Premier and the minister are concerned that these minimums are too weak, they can make requirements to have them more stringent.

I have absolutely no problem with that and I hope that means that any member of this House, including the Premier's and the minister's colleagues, would not stop them from saying "aye" to this motion, because any other vote than "yes" to this resolution would show the people of this province that all the fancy rhetoric is simply that, rhetoric. It would leave the impression that the politics of the issue are of more importance that the substance. We cannot afford to leave the public with that impression.

I also believe that the public can be trusted to make their commitment and do their part to conserve and to recycle, but they have to be given a helping hand and this is where we come in.

I should add that our former government had plans to introduce new packaging legislation this fall to reduce waste in landfills and incinerators and improve the use of materials. The legislation had specific targets. It had set 1995 as the year to eliminate disposable packaging. The new laws would have required all containers and packaging materials to be reusable or recyclable and be made with a regulated amount of recycled material by the target date. All packaging, both domestic and imported, would fall under the guidelines. Manufacturers would have to comply or face provincial-wide bans of their packaging.

The waste reduction advisory committee was in a position to recommend to the government packaging reduction regulations. These draft regulations were to be subject to public input before they were to become law. Our former government had plans that we feel would have addressed the packaging issue. The whole problem has been given a great deal of thought and I am sure that the Minister of the Environment has taken the opportunity to review the draft legislation and to formulate some ideas of her own on what could be done.

Up to this point I have not touched on those who would be most affected by government action on the issue, but I would like to point out to the Speaker and to the Legislative Assembly that business has already started to look for ways in which it can help solve the problem of its own wasteful habits.

Companies are changing their products, and in fact changing and improving the use of packaging. For example, Procter and Gamble Inc has made its powdered detergents more powerful. This means that less detergent has to be sold. Consequently, that means there is less packaging.

Business people have also become innovative in their search for better packaging methods and some unusual solutions have been developed to combat waste. Cork Foster, a small business person from St Thomas Ontario, has been using popcorn to pack his farm supplies instead of the non-biodegradable foam chips which he used to use. The solution saved him money. He is paying $19 for 45 kilograms of popcorn, while he used to pay $80 for the foam for the same amount of packing. But it has also been an environmentally friendly solution. Now when customers receive their purchases, they do not have to throw the foam chips into the garbage, they can take the popcorn outside and feed the birds.

Other companies are taking Mr Foster's lead and looking into alterative packaging methods. He has been contacted by IBM, Xerox and a number of companies from Europe.

Solutions to this problem do not have to be as complex as changing the chemical structures of products, and many will not be as innovative as Mr Foster's idea of the packing popcorn. But one thing we need is a solid commitment from all parties. I think a good start to that would be a commitment from all members of this Legislature.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I would first of all like to thank you for the excellent support you showed last evening to the whole Jewish community in allowing the menorah to be lit and participating in that ceremony. It was a credit to the Legislature, the job you, the Premier, the member for Wilson Heights and all members of all parties, did. I think there is something good that happens in this Legislature once in a while.

I would like to compliment the member for Eglinton for her resolution. I have never questioned the member for Eglinton's sincerity, because certainly anyone who works as hard and as conscientiously as she does has to be recognized as some solid worker. She got elected 6 September when the rest of Metro went NDP, and that had an awful lot to do with her own work.

Yet I have great questions about her timing on this motion. Notice that I am being very careful, because the member for Eglinton and I are on the same committee and we have been agreeing. This member has had four or five years -- I forget how long; it seems like a long time that the member for Eglinton has been in this Legislature -- a good chance to influence the Minister of the Environment when she was on the government side, and all kinds of opportunities to see this kind of change brought in.

Her timing is out. She should have done it before 6 September, not after, because now it is just as if she suddenly read the book and she is coming to life. I am glad she is alive. I am glad she is around. It does not take much to look at what happened on the Liberal benches when she was sitting there on the government side when the House debated a very similar motion that was presented by the present Minister of the Environment. She was calling for something of the same kind of thing to be implemented in a waste reduction strategy by March 1990. It was a good resolution then, but she is going through another problem now and I will come to that one in a moment.

The Minister of the Environment, when she was the prophet, the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party, has become -- and she said yesterday, "Don't call me toothless." She will never be toothless. That lady has so much power in the Ministry of the Environment, everybody in the province of Ontario should be sitting up and listening to her. Unfortunately, she is not saying anything. When she does come along and say something, I am worried about what it is going to be, because by then there will be so much pent-up demand.

In the meantime, we are dealing with this honourable member for Eglinton. You know, the Liberals had a great chance to implement the strategy that was then proposed by the present Minister of the Environment and did not. So when you look at the minister's motion, which called on the provincial government to "phase out containers and packaging products that cannot be diverted from the waste stream" and to "introduce the needed legislation and establish the required policies at the opening of the March 1990 session of the Legislature," it was a good motion then. It is a good motion now.

I am going to support the member's motion, even though I just wish she had been awake and alert on this subject a few years ago when she could have influenced the member for St Catharines, maybe. No one else did, but she might have been able to, with her marvellous charm. So now we look at the Minister of the Environment. Let's not forget this is the most powerful person second to the Premier and the Speaker in the province of Ontario. When you start realizing that she has already gone out and said to the bottling companies, "Here is what you are going to do.

You are a symbol of what I am going to do to you," and she is doing it. If they do not implement a strategy by reducing the amount of cans, etc by 30% in a short period of time, heavy fines will be levied.

I think the industry in the province of Ontario is worried when the minister suddenly wakes up and realizes that her strategy of the 3Rs is not working and she is going to have to come along and force people to start following these new guidelines. So it worries me that this minister who has had plenty of opportunity to come forward with her agenda has not done so.

Anyway, we have an interesting motion before us. One of the things that slipped out in this motion, and if you read it carefully, one of the things that the member for Eglinton has said is, "and since legislation had been drafted for presentation to this Legislature in the fall of 1990." I want to just repeat that: "legislation had been drafted." That would have been drafted by the Liberals prior to the election call for 6 September.

That means when the Liberals had that legislation drafted, when they came out with this discussion paper, Towards a Sustainable Waste Management System, asking for all kinds of ideas up to 31 October, they already had the legislation written. Then they come along and say, "We want to have some dialogue with everybody, so we put out a discussion paper," and the discussion paper involves this whole business of packaging as well, to some extent, and they had the legislation written.

How inconsistent, how inconsiderate. Is it any wonder that politicians have a bad name in the province of Ontario, when on the one hand they are saying, "We want to have dialogue, we want to participate," and then they have legislation drafted and at the same time they have a draft report for discussion.

It is not pleasant, and this new government, unless it wakes up, is going to fall into the same trap of speaking out of both sides of their mouths rather than dealing concretely, objectively and honestly with the issue and coming forward with some resolution to the problems that are really bothering the people of the province of Ontario.

We do have a crisis. The minister has finally acknowledged it. We have a bigger crisis that the minister is not coming forward with any of the guidelines or any of the ways in which we are going to implement the 3R strategy. It is really going to be a problem for us, because we have no sense of how much landfill space is going to be saved by the 3R process that the minister has brought in.

I will tell the members that by 1993, three years from now, we are going to be in the middle of it, unless we begin to put some tightness around the issue. I support the protocols here of reducing the amount of waste by 20%, 35% and up to 50% by the year 2000. All these are worth while, but we have got to have leadership, not only from all of us in the Legislature through a fine motion like this, but through the minister who is going to say, "Here is how we are going to do it," and a minister who is going to give the kind of leadership that the province is looking for.

She had it when she was in opposition. I venture to say that there is not a person who does not begin to believe now that she is a different person now that she is minister. She is not grabbing hold of these issues. She is not coming forward with the strong initiatives that she is capable of doing to help us achieve success in handling the environmental crisis of this world of ours.

It is a world problem. It starts with each one of us who can come along and say: "Hey, that packaging that I've got" -- something is wrapped in it; don't buy the product or leave the packaging at the Canadian Tire, or some other store. Do not get caught in the thing where you are buying those products. Let's see that those who are selling those products that are over-packaged -- we are paying for it -- let's not buy some of those things, and look for the bulk items where you do not have it.

I would love to go into it. We are short of time. I want to let the honourable member behind me make some points. The popcorn idea is good, but the people who are wrapping the things in popcorn now have to cover everything with plastic so that the oils and so on do not get into it. So you solve one problem but you create another problem. That is the delicate balance we have with environmental issues. There is not one easy answer to it all.

We should get a composite picture, where the government, where business, where members of the Legislature, every one of us, buy into it and help with it, help the Packaging Association of Canada. Let everybody sort of do his thing. Sing from the same hymn book. Let's get on with it.

These words today are fine. They are a little late from the member for Eglinton. I am going to support them. I think she is sincere in what she is trying to do, but I just wish she had been about three or four years earlier when she could have done something about it. She did not then. It is good to see her join the club now.

Ms Churley: I am very excited and absolutely elated that this motion for first reading is before us this morning. I am very pleased that it came so quickly in our sittings because, of course, this fits in perfectly with what we are doing at the Ministry of the Environment right now. I am really glad to see that the members of the Liberal and Conservative caucuses are finally putting reduction before recycling in the scheme of the 3Rs. May I add that we are going to do what they refused to do, and that is regulate? That is what I call the fourth R. We are going to do that.

The members from the past Liberal government had ample opportunity to go ahead and regulate packaging. I am really pleased to see, now that the New Democrats are in government, that both other parties are on side and are finally willing to put reduction ahead of recycling and get on with it.

It is also an important piece of legislation for me. I would like to move on it quickly. It is something that I was very concerned with at the city of Toronto. As I mentioned in a previous speech, I moved the motion, which got support at city council, that we ask for enabling legislation to allow the city of Toronto to go ahead with certain anti-packaging bylaws. I realized, when I had made that motion, that it is a piecemeal approach to do it municipality by municipality.

But we were frustrated at the time with the Liberal government for not moving on it, while we were, at the same time, feeling the pressure of trying to figure out how we were going to deal with this awful waste management crisis. I am very pleased that now that I am here in government the motion I made in city council should become redundant because the province will be moving on this.

It fits in very well our plan for the waste reduction office that we will be setting up. We will be focusing very, very much on the 3Rs. While on one hand we are looking for a landfill, we are taking away the whole focus on landfill as the way out of the crisis. I would just like to say that in the past -- this is a nice change to see -- the whole focus was on landfill and disposal as opposed to a different way of looking at our garbage. This is going in the right direction.

What was done in the past was to say, "We have a crisis and we need landfill, and you the community over here are going to have to put up with dealing with this crisis or taking the crisis on your back by not going through a full environmental assessment process, whether a dump is in your community or not," but not saying at the same time to industry that, "You are also going to have to be part of this crisis in helping solve the problem; you are going to have to be regulated in terms of the packaging you're producing."

What was said and, in fact, was said at the national protocol as well, is that, "We're going to give you all the time in the world to consult and talk about this and then we're going to allow you to take your time and volunteer to try to meet those targets, and maybe then, if you haven't met them, we'll talk about regulating." That is the wrong approach to this.

I am very pleased to see that two members from the opposition have, as individuals, stated that when we come forward with -- I believe, in fact, that that is what they are saying -- our tough stand on packaging regulations we are going to all work together to reduce the amount of packaging in this province. I am very pleased to see that that is the attitude that we all have in this House right now on reducing packaging: a co-operative effort.

One of the things that I did shortly after my election was talk to the member for Beaches-Woodbine about the greening of the Legislature in terms of packaging, and I received in my office -- and I am sure other people do at times too, just in terms of the stock for their offices -- Scotch tape wrapped up in Saran Wrap or plastic of some sort. I asked why we here at the government are receiving things like Scotch tape wrapped up in plastic, and it appears as though the problem is that factories that are producing things like plastic and other items get orders from all kinds of different places.

If we, as the government, were to say to them, "We don't want our Scotch tape wrapped up in plastic any more; we would like ours to just come without wrapping," that would cost the plant more money to produce. They would then have to produce the Scotch tape for everybody else in plastic and for us out of the plastic, so they would have to set up essentially a whole different process. It seems to me very simple that we get together with hospitals, with other levels of government, with all kinds of other people who are ordering from this particular factory and say, all of us, "We don't need our Scotch tape wrapped up in plastic."

I was very pleased also to see that all three parties are interested in proceeding with the so-called greening of the Legislature. I think this is a very good place to begin. We can start looking at what kinds of items we are getting here that are unnecessarily packaged and just start the procedure, making it very clear that we, as a government, do not want to receive these kinds of items all wrapped up.

One of the most interesting situations that I was in in terms of excessive packaging was that one day I went into a bank downtown and handed in my deposit slip and asked for $100, and the cashier handed me that $100 all wrapped up in plastic. It is true; I was just astounded. I immediately, of course, took the plastic off and put the money in my wallet because obviously I am not going to walk around with my money wrapped up in plastic.

I asked her why the money was wrapped up in plastic, and she said it was because it was decided that it was faster for them to be able to give out money that is all wrapped up, all packaged nicely, and she can just reach in and know that there is $100 in there so she did not have to count it in front of me. Of course, I ripped off the plastic to count it in front of her to make sure I had the right amount of money. So it does not really work.

I think that is an extreme example of excessive packaging. It is in the same vein as going into the grocery store and picking up a coconut, of all things, and I am sure everybody in here has experienced this: a coconut wrapped up in plastic. So clearly it is a very complicated issue in that the packaging industry is forever finding new ways to create packaging and ultimately we have these ridiculous situations.

Industry is aware of the fact that this government is moving and will be regulating. I can say categorically that that is the direction in which this government is moving. We are very pleased to see this motion before us today. I think it is a very good motion to examine and see how it does fit in with the kinds of targets in regulations that we will be making in the very near future. I am very pleased to see the co-operation and the support of the members opposite in moving forward in this very important step in solving the garbage crisis.

Mrs Sullivan: I want to begin by congratulating the member for Eglinton for bringing forward what I think is a very useful resolution to the House and one that I think can provide a base for action by the Minister of the Environment in terms of an action plan. I think it is quite clear that the majority of people in Ontario are very concerned about the state of our environment. One area that has assumed a great deal of prominence, of course, is garbage and waste management. Generally across the country Canadians are sensitized to waste management issues. It is something that they are familiar with; it is something they deal with every day.

In Ontario, we have seen very much an indication of the concern through the participation in the voluntary blue box program and demands for an enhancement of recycling. Certainly people have indicated that they can play a part and they are willing to play a

part in those recycling efforts. Some two million households now are involved in 50% of Ontario communities. Our feeling on this side of the House is that mandatory recycling should be a matter of course in the province and we are looking forward to the Minister of the Environment moving in that area. That was certainly promised in the New Democratic Party green plan and we have not seen any action on that to date.

I think Canadians and Ontarians understand that not only are we running out of room for disposal of waste but they must also as a society confront the dangers and the risks associated with the waste. They understand as well that there are both social and economic costs associated with the production of waste. Nowhere is that more evident than in excess packaging. Any excessive packaging represents a loss of natural resources, it increases our expenditures in manufacturing and it increases our societal expenditures as well when materials are not fully utilized.

The Recycling Council of Ontario estimates that packaging makes up about 50% of municipal garbage by volume and about 30% by weight. The trend in the recent past has in fact been not to a decrease in the production of packaging waste but to an increase, and indeed what is more frightening is an increase in the rate of the increase. We know that packaging is necessary for health, for safe transportation of goods, for security and indeed that there will always necessarily be an element of packaging included in the goods and products that we buy.

Lévesque, Beaubien, which is a Canadian investment firm, did a report in 1985 which was one of the first analyses on a national basis of packaging that is produced in Canada, indicating that the food and beverage industries are responsible for about 60% of all packaging, followed by the chemical industry at about 13%, the paper industry at 6% and the tobacco industry at 3%. The breakdown of total Canadian packaging use gives an 18.5% share to corrugated boxes, 16% to metal cans, 14% to folding and setup boxes, 9% to glass, 7% to plastics and the remainder to a variety of other package types.

Plastics, which of course are creating a different kind of disposal problem, are becoming an increasing part of the cycle as well.

The member for Eglinton has put forward a resolution which supports stronger provincial action and proposes that Ontario put into place, at minimum, the protocols which were developed through the national packaging protocol, which was initiated by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. I think that in doing that, the member has recognized that a strong base of national standards is very important in dealing with the packaging issues, not only in Ontario but across the country.

A patchwork of different and inconsistent regulations does in fact create impediments to international and interprovincial trade, and I think that that is something that we should recognize. They also deny manufacturers efficiencies of scale, and therefore increase their costs and hence decrease their competitiveness.

Additionally, changes and alterations in packaging requirements from province to province create confusion for both the manufacturing and distribution sector, and indeed for importers of goods. As well, I should add, if you have tough regulations in one area and an absence in another area, what we may see is an encouragement of operations which move to the less onerous jurisdictions to get around the national requirements.

I think we have to also recall that federal law now enables the national government to implement consumer and health protection requirements that are very much a matter of importance to every one of us. I say those things because I believe that it is important to use the national packaging protocol as a base for anything that we do in Ontario -- perhaps expand from there, but it is very clear that we cannot work outside of a national system.

That is not to say, however, that Ontario cannot continue to take the lead. Certainly we have seen the example of local jurisdictions taking the lead in areas like California, and we could well emulate those models.

I think that there are many things that can be done here. The member for Eglinton has mentioned some; other members have spoken of others. The minister has talked about the phase-out of containers and packaging for which there are waste reduction alternatives and there are other alternatives, as well -- product bans from landfill, taxation and deposits on materials which do not meet minimum standards, and a surcharge vis-à-vis performance in the marketplace. Reuse requirements can be altered, whether it is beverage containers or corrugated containers, crates, or wooden pallets. I should say that crates and wooden pallets now occupy about 13% of the packaging waste that is going to landfill.

I do not believe recycling efforts ought to be out of the waste management alternatives and I believe that the recycling efforts that have taken place over the past five years have indeed helped and encouraged the work that we have been doing in environmental issues throughout Canada.

I would like to stress to members that I believe that we need more research and development work in this entire area. So much of the information that we have about the characteristics and quantities of our solid waste are in fact extrapolations from United States experience, rather than based on our own technical database. I think that some of those strategies that we are developing over both the short and the longer term must indeed be based on an experience of our situation here and based on the particular composition of our own waste stream.

As well, we need additional research into areas of the use and application of packaging materials which have been produced and of technological and technical options for the management of that packaging.

I am going to conclude now. I applaud the member for Eglinton for bringing forward this resolution. I urge all members in the House to support it.

Mr Turnbull: I would like to compliment the member for Eglinton on this piece of legislation, which we certainly are very happy to support.

I was going to open my comments with saying I think we should depoliticize the whole process of the environment. I do indeed believe that and in fact I was quoted on the night of the election as saying that. I would just particularly say to the member for Riverdale that her remarks suggested that somehow we have found a faith. We have not just found a faith. It was in fact the Conservative Party in Ontario that established, as far as I know, the first ministry of the environment of any province in Canada, including an NDP province. We are extremely concerned about this issue and we must address it urgently.

The need for legislation is overpowering. We know that Canadians are producing the most waste per capita in the world. This is a situation we cannot allow ourselves any further. Perhaps we have been lulled into the sense of security that we have such a huge land and ultimately there were always the schemes, "Well, we'll tow it up north and shove it down a mine shaft."

We must reduce the amount of packaging. There are so many concerns. It affects global warming and all other aspects of our life. Instead of our simply tagging along with the rest of the world, let us lead the world. There is a real need for this, and probably the best way of achieving this is by all parties joining hands, as we are doing today in supporting this motion, and saying, "Yes, we agree with this, it's a good first step." But let's hurry with the next step and the next step. It is something where I truly believe the electorate is further ahead than most politicians in its view as to what should happen.

With a little bit of a political bias, I have to say I was very disappointed with the previous Liberal government when it abandoned the 30% quota on refillable 750-millilitre bottles. But I am sure they have found the light now and we will certainly help them to keep the light.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: I am told that I should be consistent. I am simply pointing out the fact that when parties get elected to government, then suddenly it is very easy to forget the promises we have made. We must make sure that nobody forgets the promises that they have made, because I think every party made promises in the last election with respect to the environment. Let's make sure that we completely depoliticize that.

We made certain recommendations in the last election and I would just like to read some of them. We wanted to bring in a strategy which would introduce legislation to limit packaging-to-product ratios, and this is a good first step; prohibit environmentally irresponsible materials where alternatives exist; establish a consumer hotline; establish an education campaign and set reduction targets for solid waste entering municipal disposal systems.

Let's do this urgently. This bill is very good as a first step. Let's make sure that we move to the next step as expeditiously as possible.

Mr Sutherland: Cheese slices are a perfect example of the problem that is being highlighted by this bill. Here you have a very good natural product, cheese, that everyone enjoys. I, coming from what, as I have stated before, is supposed to be the dairy capital of Canada, know very well about cheese and dairy products. But it is a prime example of the problems we face with excess packaging. Not only are all the slices individually wrapped, but the advertising promotes that as part of the way of selling it, that you can get your cheese slices individually wrapped.

The honourable member for Riverdale talked about grocery stores and the problems associated with them. I worked in a grocery store for seven years and know very well some of the problems of excess packaging.

What about drinking boxes? Here is another prime example. Everyone has to have his or her juice in these convenient little boxes and they come to you in threes, and not only is each individual box wrapped with extra plastic, but all three of them combined are also wrapped in plastic, clearly another prime example of how a good natural product such as juice is being in some ways perverted by excess packaging and causing harmful environmental effects.

I think there are lots of other areas. I know sometimes when you go into deli departments of grocery stores or other things and they are cutting your meat, each individual slice gets a separate little piece of wax paper put in between it. Do we really need that? Is our society that fast? Do we have such a strong demand for convenience and making life that easy that we have to have drinking boxes, that we have to have individually wrapped cheese slices, that we have to have these other things, that we have to have our coconuts wrapped in plastic?

Clearly we do not need that, and if we are going to come to terms with the realities that we are all facing in trying to deal with the garbage issues, in trying to deal with what is helping our environment, then we must all become very smart consumers.

I am not here to lecture people, to say that I am some saint on this issue, because I as much as anyone else have been a victim of this. I bought cheese slices for many, many years. I no longer buy cheese slices because they are individually wrapped and there is too much waste product with it. I buy my cheese in bulk and I want to encourage all members to keep buying cheese, and particularly to buy Ingersoll cheese, because it is very good and it is produced right in my riding and the people who work there would be greatly appreciative if members did that.

I want to talk about another example. The member for Riverdale talked about issues within the Legislature. I cannot tell members how pleased I am to see that in the legislative dining room we no longer get our butter in a packaged form. We get it now on a plate and it is not excess packaging to go in the garbage. That may not seem like a significant step, but I do think it is an important one. Also, my fellow member for Dovercourt has pointed out that we do not have individual packages of sugar any more. They put it in a nice china dish and do it there.

These are all little things, but each of us in our everyday lives must make a constant effort to deal with these issues, to make sure that we are being smart consumers, that we are not supporting products that have excess packaging.

In conclusion, I want to remind everybody: cheese slices, drinking boxes, butter, sugar. Remember when you shop to shop effectively and shop for the environment so we do not have a problem with excess packaging.

Mr McClelland: It is a pleasure to participate in this part of the resolution put forward by the member for Eglinton. The member for Markham is busy in the lobby at the present time, and I do wish he were here, because I would like to comment very briefly on some of the things he drew to the attention of the members of the House.

He indicated that the member for Eglinton had suddenly, at a recent date, been inspired to bring this forward. I want to put on the record that the member for Eglinton had drafted this resolution, and members opposite would certainly know that in terms of the lottery process where we work down depending on the time frame available, quite frankly she just did not have the opportunity to get it on. I think it is important that we know that.

With respect to some references made by the member for Riverdale of what the government refused to do, I just want to put a little bit of chronology on to this whole issue in terms of packaging and what happened.

To the member for Riverdale I will say I had the opportunity of serving in the capacity that she does, as parliamentary assistant to the former Minister of the Environment, and I recall in the spring of 1989 being asked by the then minister to make an announcement contained in a speech with respect to packaging and waste management.

Bear in mind that it has been so ably said by other people speaking here that we live in a very, very wasteful society. I am a pretty simple person, and concepts of tons and so on do not really help me a great deal; I cannot fathom that. Talking to high school students I try and put it in perspective and say that in Ontario we as a society produce enough garbage from our households that we could put bumper-to-bumper garbage trucks from Windsor to Whitehorse and back again. It gives you an idea of the magnitude of the amount of waste that we are producing. In fact, each of us produces approximately 16 times our own weight in waste in this province.

But waste management is also an opportunity for innovation and involvement in the business and industrial sector in a way that I believe is unprecedented. I believe Ontario has an opportunity to be a leading jurisdiction internationally in terms of what we could do with good waste management, and packaging is certainly an essential part of that.

But getting back to the chronology, when I served as his parliamentary assistant, the member for St Catharines, the former minister, undertook a series of consultations. We talk about the way that these things take place. The reality is, I say to the member for Markham, that what you do in consultation is at some point in time you produce draft legislation. The operative word is "draft." You ask people to comment on it; you ask them to refine it; you ask them to work with you.

The former government met separately with a variety of groups in terms of a packaging protocol, met with grocery distributors, retailers and the packaging industry, with a view to having their partnership and involvement in this together and opportunity to work effectively with them to create something perhaps comparable to Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc, which has been very, very successful in the soft drink industry working with a packaging protocol.

It was also very clearly stated by the former Minister of the Environment that we, as the former government, were prepared to impose regulations that would ensure the participation of all relevant industries and to make sure that they took the responsibility of the environmental fate of their products.

I wanted to get that on the record because I think it is important in light of some of the comments that were made by the member for Markham and the member for Riverdale. This is not something that has a time frame that is restricted to governments. It has a life of its own, it is a process that is ongoing, and regardless of what takes place, I would suggest to the members of this House, whatever legislation is forthcoming pursuant to this resolution that is apparently going to be supported by all three parties, the job will not have been done. It is a type of situation that we will continue to move towards improving and do a better job with.

I also want to say in terms of that chronology that shortly after the former minister made his announcements in the spring of 1989, he then met with the Minister of the Environment in Quebec one week later. A week after that he met all environmental ministers from every jurisdiction in Canada, and the product of that was the packaging protocol.

So a tremendous amount of work has been done. Sectors of industry and the packaging industry -- as I mentioned, grocery, food distributors, retailers -- have been involved in a significant way.

Ontario and Quebec were prepared to commit to that goal, but we looked for a national standard. It has not come, apparently, and I think it is time to move ahead.

We have stated very clearly a time frame of the fall of 1990. Its time has come. Consistency, uniformity, objective policies and standards on a national level would be preferable. That was being worked towards. It has not come to fruition. A tremendous amount of work has been done. The groundwork has been laid, as evidenced by the resolution put forward by the member for Eglinton. It is time to move forward and deal with this appropriately with regulations that are ready to go. I am enthused and pleased to hear that we will be getting support from all parties and I congratulate again the member for Eglinton for the fine work and leadership which she has shown in this important matter.

Mr O'Connor: It is indeed an honour to speak on such a special motion. It does have a lot of meaning to all of us here today as members of this society that we live in, and it is a problem that can be related back to any riding in this province. It probably would be hard to avoid an environmental group being found and coming to speak if you were not to support this, because there are environmental groups in every riding and they are very concerned and they realize that as consumers we are the main offenders in this problem, which has created this crisis that the greater Toronto area has to face right now of landfill.

If we can start working towards reduction as part of the key to the 3Rs, then we could start looking at something different. We have got a lot of groups out there that have a lot of good ideas and we need their input, groups such as STORM, SAGA and TNT; they are all over the place. But the real key is reduction. We have to go back to being the conserver society that we used to be.

Ballpoint pens are something that is new to this era of our waste. There were fountain pens for years, and they were sloppy and they were messy. They improved them, but now we have got ballpoint pens. There are so many different things that we could look at that are a matter of convenience and now we have to start thinking about being conservers instead of being consumers of this wasteful society.

I applaud the member for Eglinton on this motion and I am sure the minister will take this into very serious consideration.

Ms Poole: I would first like to thank all the members of the House for their support for this resolution today. I do not think we should doubt anybody's commitment to the environment, but it is time that we put some of those deeply held beliefs into action.

I very much agreed with the member for Riverdale when she was talking about the fact that all of us have to work together and it has to be a co-operative approach. It is very difficult, because this is a very partisan place, but I do not think it serves anybody's purpose if I as a Liberal criticize the Tories who went before us or if those who go after us criticize us for not going far enough. We will never go far enough. I am the first to admit that there were times when we as Liberals did not go far enough. The day that we do is probably the day we can all retire as legislators because our job will have been done. There is a lot more to do.

I do not see it as a very useful exercise to say that the new government is not committed to the environment. First of all, I do believe it is committed. Certainly our new Minister of the Environment will continue the excellent work of her predecessor, the member for St Catharines, on many issues.

I would like to clarify one point, about the timing of my resolution. I was fortunate enough in the last three years to finally get my private member's hour in on the last day of the session. I waited three years. I tabled my resolution on the environment, and lo and behold they cancelled private members' hour that day to get through the government business. So I am trying one more time, and hopefully this time we can get this resolution through.

I would say that the previous minister, the member for St Catharines, was very concerned. I talked to him many times about this issue, but he thought it had to be a national solution. He was taking the lead at the table for Ontario and he was saying, "We have to have it across this country." Now I am glad that we as members of the Legislative Assembly have a chance to work together to make these words on paper a reality. I thank the members for their support.

The Speaker: The time allotted for consideration of private members' public business has expired. We will deal first with ballot item 1.

DEAF PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT, 1990

The Speaker: Mr Abel has moved second reading of Bill 22.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Under the standing orders, the bill is automatically referred to the committee of the whole House. Is that agreed to?

Mr Jackson: I respectfully request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social development so that we can continue work on this bill.

The Speaker: We require a majority. Those in favour of the bill being referred to the standing committee on social development must rise and remain standing until counted.

An hon member: Standing in your places.

The Speaker: In your place.

It is unanimous. You may be seated.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Some of us, including the Speaker, are a little slow to respond this morning.

So ordered to the social development committee.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on social development.

PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTION

The House divided on Ms Poole's resolution, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 63

Abel, Arnott, Bisson, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Christopherson, Churley, Conway, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Drainville, Duignan, Grier, Harnick, Haslam, Hope, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, McLean, Mills, Morin, Morrow, Murdoch, B., O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil, H., Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Poole, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Scott, Silipo, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Sutherland, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward, M., Waters, White, Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 0

The House recessed at 1209.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE / CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

M. Grandmaître : Les francophones de l'Ontario ont bien des raisons de s'inquiéter de leur avenir et il a fallu qu'ils se rendent dans une autre province pour le dire.

Hier, les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes, encore sous le choc des coupures massives à Radio-Canada, sont allés dire devant la commission Bélanger-Campeau qu'ils s'inquiétaient des conséquences qu'aurait une éventuelle séparation du Québec sur leur vie.

Les francophones de l'Ontario ont grandement à coeur l'avenir de leur pays. Ils ont aussi, comme on a pu encore une fois le constater hier, des solutions à proposer, des éléments de la stratégie constitutionnelle de l'Ontario à suggérer. Quand les francophones de l'Ontario auront-ils la chance de faire part aux francophones de leurs vues sur l'avenir de leur pays chez eux ? Quand le gouvernement créera-t-il sa propre commission sur l'avenir du Canada ?

When is the Premier of Ontario going to recognize the urgency of the problem and outline his constitutional plans in the Legislature? When is the Premier of Ontario going to consult with the people of Ontario? It is unacceptable for members of this House to have to read about the Premier's views in the news media when he refuses to discuss the matter in this House.

DEER POPULATION

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It is my understanding that Environment Canada plans to have six staff members shoot 120 deer in Point Pelee National Park because the deer are supposedly destroying rare plants in the park.

I believe that the use of six tax-paid staff to eliminate 120 deer is ridiculous when members of the public would enjoy an opportunity to hunt in a part of the province where they currently cannot. As well, the park staff have no plans to deal with the thousands of pounds of meat which would be created by the hunt. The minister is no doubt aware that park staff cannot distribute or sell the meat under Ontario regulations.

This planned hunt will serve no one. Instead of providing an opportunity for hunters, thereby creating local economic benefits, Environment Canada promises to create a no-win situation. The park will have to devote tax-paid staff to kill the deer and bring in outside help. It is my understanding that much the same situation exists in Lanark county.

The minister should urge Environment Canada to expel and cancel the plans for six park staff to shoot the 120 deer, and instead he should press for a controlled hunt by the public to effectively reduce the herd and save the fragile environment and leave the job to skilled hunters who will put the meat to good use.

PORT COLBORNE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Mr Wiseman: I am rising on behalf of the party whip today to welcome the Port Colborne High School students who are here. I am the MPP for the riding of Durham West, and it is my pleasure to welcome you here today to this sitting of the first session of the 35th Parliament of the province of Ontario.

I would suspect that for most of you this visit marks your first time at Queen's Park and I am certain that you will find your time here both interesting and informative.

The member for Niagara South has informed me that a good many of you are participants in the Leadership Project, a program conducted by the John Howard Society of Niagara, which strives to help teens to choose a responsible lifestyle free of drug and alcohol abuse.

As participants in the Leadership Project, you should be commended for your efforts to improve the quality of life in your community, and this House would like to congratulate you. In many ways, your efforts and those of the elected members of government who sit each day in the Legislative Assembly are quite similar. Although different in method, we are both attempting to bring about change and address society's ills.

As many of you may already know, the member for Niagara South was elected for the New Democratic Party and she sits as the party whip. She would like to welcome you here today and wishes that you all have a wonderful afternoon and hopes that she can help you in the future.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Kwinter: I rise in this House today to speak about an issue that is crucial to Ontario's supply management system, and specifically our dairy industry. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology flew to Brussels with their cronies, stayed in the finest hotels and enjoyed the finest of European cuisine. They were there under the pretence of representing Ontario's interests at the current GATT talks. They returned to this House so well fed and so well rested that they were numb to the concerns of our threatened dairy industry.

This set of talks was crucial to the future of Ontario's dairy industry. Just over one year ago, a GATT council, the body that governs world trade, accepted an American complaint and ruled that Canada, and specifically Ontario, was unfairly blocking imports of American and European yoghurt. Implementation of this ruling could mean the dismantling of our supply management system for milk products, as the doors will be thrown open to a flood of cheap, subsidized American and European dairy products. This could be the end of the competitiveness of Ontario's dairy industry.

On 11 December in this House, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology betrayed his lack of understanding of this issue. The minister said, and I quote Hansard, "Ontario was well satisfied with the circumstances that related to

article XI at the recent GATT talks." He also said, "We were successful in having

article XI maintained."

Reports in the financial media of today indicate that not only were they not successful, but they were not even discussed. The federal --

The Speaker: Member for Wilson Heights, would you take your seat, please? The member for Wilson Heights may wish to consult with some of his colleagues and he will no doubt be informed that allowance was provided beyond the minute and a half. I would ask the member in future to really carefully consider the time allocation.

TVONTARIO

Mrs Marland: I recently received from TVOntario's chairman and chief executive officer a glossy, multi-coloured and expensive-looking book called Stay Tuned for the Future, which celebrates TVOntario's 20th anniversary.

Along with several other members in this Legislature, I recently took

part in TVOntario's public membership campaign. We are proud of the outstanding work done by Ontario's public educational TV network and we are grateful to the people of this province who have pledged their support for TVOntario. On behalf of my colleagues, our sincere congratulations to TVOntario on its 20th anniversary. May the next 20 years build upon the successes of its first two decades.

However, when individuals, businesses and governments everywhere are struggling to make fewer dollars go farther, one has to wonder if the money spent on the Stay Tuned for the Future publication would have been better used to develop or acquire more of the excellent programs for which TVOntario is known. I hope this book's reference to a contribution from Telesat Canada and its list of corporate funders means the amount of money spent by TVOntario to produce this book was minimal. I am placing a question in Orders and Notices to clarify that matter.

Despite being impressed by this book's beautiful artwork and the eloquent text, I am concerned that it does not appear to have been printed on recycled paper. Again, an order paper question should provide the answer. It is a lot of money, and I really would rather have seen it in TV programming.

SENIOR CITIZENS' FACILITY

Mr B. Ward: I rise to bring to the attention of this House a ceremony I recently attended with the honourable Leader of the Opposition, that being the rededication of one of our seniors' homes in the city of Brantford that is jointly owned by the county and the city.

This renovation project cost approximately $14 million and a number of innovations were brought into the concept which I think can be used as an example for other communities to follow, one of which is a controlled climate in each individual room rather than a central control area.

What is also unique about this project is that it involved MPPs from all three parties. It originally started with Phil Gillies under the Progressive Conservative government, it continued under Dave Neumann under the Liberal regime and finally myself under the new NDP government.

I am pleased to rise to announce that it was through this commitment from all three parties that are dedicated to improving the quality of our seniors that this project managed to be completed to fruition. I look forward to having the seniors of Brantford-Brant county enjoying these fine premises.

RAIL SERVICES

Mr Mancini: Last night I was invited to attend a public meeting in the community of Ashburn. The meeting was called by the Toronto-Peterborough/Havelock Line Rail Passenger Association.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the NDP promise made during the last election campaign. The Premier stated in writing, and I quote, "I am pleased to make a commitment to extend GO Transit service to Peterborough and Brantford." As we all know now, this is another broken NDP promise.

All seven MPPs from the affected region were also invited to last night's meeting. All seven ridings are represented by NDP members. The following is a list of the members who did not attend the meeting, and I repeat, did not attend the meeting: the member for Durham East, the member for Durham Centre, the member for Durham West, the member for Durham-York, the member for Peterborough, the member for Hastings-Peterborough and the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Seven out of seven of the NDP members who represent the region did not go to the public meeting. The people who were at the meeting told me to bring the following message to the Legislature, and on their behalf I quote. They said they will have a long memory of last night's meeting.

Hon Mrs Coppen: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As the chief government whip, the members who were just listed were all in attendance at this House last night because one of their first priorities is to this government of Ontario. They sent condolences.

The Speaker: I am sure we all appreciate the point of information.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Cousens: The problems around the greater Toronto area do not just seem to be with attendance of the government members. The people in the province, especially around the greater Toronto area, are suffering post-commuting shock. Post-commuting shock is when you get on a highway and have to go from point A to point B and by the time you get there it has taken you two to three times longer than it should have and you are just exhausted from all the strain and stress of traffic, because of all the problems that we are beginning to see happening.

We get a few little dribbles of white flakes of snow and it seems that everything grinds to a halt, at least around the greater Toronto area and the other great cities of our province. We have to begin to take very seriously the needs of the drivers on our roads. We need to have Highway 407, for example, built as quickly as possible to get around Highway 401 so that people have a way of getting around the stressful problems of Toronto.

I think we also need to see a comprehensive program from the Minister of Transportation. It has not yet come. We want to see something more than what he has begun to do for commuters. We have to see something on the road with better supervision of the roads, not just the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program, but to get rid of the bad drivers, to get rid of the poorer cars. Let's start making the roads safe so that people can get to where they want to go on time.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS AWARDS

Mr Duignan: It gives me great pleasure today to rise in this House and offer praise to the thousands of volunteers across Ontario who have participated in the Good Neighbours program. In particular I would like to congratulate the hundreds of volunteers in the Halton region and in my riding of Halton North who have made the Good Neighbours program such a success. I am also proud of the fact that the Halton region was one of the first to launch the Good Neighbours program.

As members know, the Good Neighbours program is an initiative of the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs and is designed to encourage individuals and communities to offer special kinds of services to meet the needs of the frail and disabled in their communities. For example, one of the towns in my riding, Georgetown, has set up a transportation service for individuals to meet important appointments.

I know it makes me feel good knowing that senior citizens and the disabled in my neighbourhood can call on a group of volunteers and be able to get assistance with yard work or shovelling show in the winter, or just have a person to drop in for a chat.

On behalf of my constituents, I would like to say congratulations and thank you to all those volunteers who work together to make the Halton region and Halton North a friendly, welcoming and caring place to live.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Before continuing with our routine proceedings, all members of the House may wish to welcome today two former members, one of whom is seated in the members' gallery, the former member for Scarborough East, the Honourable Ed Fulton, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, a former Speaker of the House, the former member for Perth, retired Speaker Hugh Edighoffer.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Hon Mrs Grier: The people of Ontario have made it clear many times and in many places that they want positive steps taken to preserve and protect the environment. This government responded to this call for action with a promise in the throne speech to bring in an environmental bill of rights which will provide people with an important tool to help them exercise greater control over the quality of the environment in their communities.

Members will recall that I and other members while in opposition brought various models for an environmental bill of rights to this House for debate as private members' bills on several occasions. The most recent was a bill I introduced at the last session. Each time, the basic principles expressed in these models enjoyed support from all parties during second reading, but never made further progress through the Legislature.

Today I am pleased and proud to inform the House about important first steps my ministry is taking to prepare an environmental bill of rights. The government's objective is to introduce an environmental bill of rights in this session. We believe it is important to gather the views of a variety of interest groups -- environmental groups, municipal, industrial, health, business and labour organizations, first nations and legal advisers -- before we sit down to craft the final bill.

I have established an advisory committee, the members of which represent that variety of interests. They have been asked to give us their best thinking on the basic principles an environmental bill of rights should contain and the options they see for turning those principles into workable realities for all the people of Ontario.

The principles the advisory committee and the public will be asked to comment on include: the public's right to a healthy environment; the enforcement of this right through improved access to the courts and/or tribunals, including the right to sue polluters; increased public participation in environmental decision-making; increased government responsibility and accountability for the environment, and finally, greater protection for employees who blow the whistle on polluting employers.

In developing this legislation, the advisory committee will also review legislation in other jurisdictions, such as the United States. But I have advised them not to be unduly influenced by what has gone before. What works in the US will not necessarily work in the context of Ontario's traditions and legal system. Instead, I have urged them to focus on basic principles in the context of Ontario's jurisprudence and environmental concerns. In this way we hope to receive the advice needed to write a made-in-Ontario bill that tackles our environmental problems and works for our people.

An environmental bill of rights will have profound implications for the way we live, work and govern in Ontario. Its application involves several ministries and many separate provincial statutes. The Ministry of the Attorney General, in particular, will play an important role. My colleague the Attorney General is working on questions, such as legal standing and class action suits, which will complement our proposed bill of rights.

There is no doubt that it will be a tough bill. An ailing planet and the health and continued prosperity of the people demand toughness. But the bill's true aim will be to encourage enlightened consensus rather than confrontation. It will be tough only for those who fail to appreciate the new imperatives of the age of ecological renewal and who persist in old polluting ways and attitudes. For others, it will support a new environmental ethic and inspire the mechanisms needed to develop creative partnerships between workers and employers, ratepayers and local politicians, citizens and their government.

The advisory committee will be chaired by Bonnie Wein, director of legal services for the Ministry of the Environment. I have assured the committee members that they will receive the full co-operation of the government and its ministries in their deliberations. We look forward to the astute advice it will surely provide to my ministry as we craft practical and forward-looking legislation. It will be legislation made in Ontario that will serve the people of Ontario, their communities and their shared natural environment now and in the future.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS / CONFIDENTIALITÉ DES DOSSIERS MÉDICAUX

Hon Mrs Gigantes: Later today I will table a bill to provide protection for the confidentiality of individual health card numbers.

Comme bon nombre de députés le savent, la nouvelle carte Santé, qui remplacera le numéro d'assurance-santé, entrera en vigueur le 1 er janvier 1991. Le gouvernement a l'intention de faire en sorte que la carte Santé ne soit utilisée que pour la prestation des soins de santé.

Permettez-moi de préciser, Monsieur le Président, que seuls les fournisseurs de soins de santé et le ministère de la Santé peuvent exiger qu'une personne présente sa carte et eux seuls peuvent l'utiliser à des fins administratives, de planification ou à toute autre fin touchant le domaine de la santé.

We also intend to protect the confidentiality of the information associated with the provision of health services. The abuse of the federal social insurance number since its inception is well known.

The legislation I will introduce today will prohibit individuals, businesses and organizations from requiring people to show their personal health card as a condition of providing goods or services. It will also prohibit the collection or use of a person's health number to obtain information for data banks, credit checking, mass mailing or the like.

The right to individual privacy and the confidentiality of health information is far more important than the convenience to business and other organizations of having yet another way to establish the identity of individuals.

Senior citizens' privilege cards have been used in Ontario for many years by people to qualify for the benefits of the Ontario drug benefit plan. This has also proven a convenient way for Ontario's senior citizens to establish their eligibility for various discounts and special offers. Because the new individual health card is potentially a very powerful tool for collecting and using personal information about individuals, our government does not wish to support a pattern of use of the health card for purposes other than for its intended purpose, the delivery of health-related services.

Senior citizens will use their new Health 65 cards for all their health needs, including the Ontario drug benefit plan. We would also like to help senior citizens establish a method for conveniently identifying their eligibility for discounts and special offers without meeting requests for disclosure of their unique health identification number. To this end, we will be providing senior citizens with a special method to keep their names and numbers private.

The protection of the privacy rights of citizens demands the constant attention and care of government in an age of computers and information systems. This government will maintain vigilance on this issue on behalf of all Ontarians.

We have designed this legislation with the advice and guidance of a number of people, but I would like to single out two for special mention: the assistant commissioner of information and privacy, Ann Cavoukian, and professor David Flaherty of the University of Western Ontario. Both are advocates of privacy rights and provided valuable insights to my ministry as we framed the new legislation.

The Ministry of Health is committed to maintaining the confidentiality of health records. That is why we will also be introducing a wide-ranging health information privacy bill in the future.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Hon Mr Cooke: Later today, I intend to introduce an amendment to the Planning Act, 1983. This amendment will prevent the division and conveyance of land by last will and testament.

The existing Planning Act does not mention the division and conveyance of land through wills, but the courts have ruled that lands may be subdivided under the provisions of a will without obtaining the usual planning approvals. Over the years, this has resulted in many cases where lots have been created by wills which would not have been approved if they had gone through the usual planning approval process. If this practice is not stopped, the resulting unplanned development will place a severe burden on municipal services and might result in residential developments eroding our valuable agricultural lands.

In some particularly troubling cases, third-party investors have approached elderly or terminally ill people with attractive offers. The investors sell land to these people with the agreement that they subdivide the land into a number of smaller lots through their wills. This land is then bequeathed back to the investors. The intent, of course, is to circumvent the Planning Act and to allow the development of such land without municipal or provincial approval.

Most recently, the regional municipality of Niagara has requested that the government take action to stop this practice. In May of this year, the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, raised this matter in the House and requested that this practice be prohibited. On 26 July of this year, my predecessor, the Honourable John Sweeney, announced his intention to amend the Planning Act to stop this practice. It was to be retroactive to 26 July 1990.

This afternoon, I shall introduce our amendment to the Planning Act so that this abuse of the planning process will be halted. It will be retroactive to 26 July 1990 so that the land use planning will again be applied fairly across Ontario.

RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mrs Sullivan: I am responding to the statement of the Minister of the Environment. I believe that with her statement today she has lost any credibility she had left as an environmental advocate. What was good for her in opposition is clearly not good enough for her now that she is in government.

I want to backtrack for a second: Stuart Smith first introduced an environmental bill of rights in June 1981; the member for Bruce reintroduced a bill in April 1982; the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Bill 13, November 1987; the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Bill 12, 15 May 1989.

The Minister of the Environment constantly complained that the previous government had blocked her bill. Now she is in the seat and she has not introduced it.

I also want to say that in the Agenda for People, the pledge was made to pass the environmental bill of rights immediately. In the throne speech it was stated that the NDP will introduce the environmental bill of rights in this session. In a letter to environmental organizations signed by the Premier, the government pledges to enact an environmental bill of rights immediately. We have no bill. We have a consultative committee, consultation that could have taken place after a bill had been introduced in the House, in a standing committee, in public where people from the community and experts could have participated.

There is no bill. There is no action. It is a continuing example of freeze, moratorium, pause. As I said before, it is no damned plan.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS

Mr Phillips: In response to the statement by the Minister of Health, we were a little surprised in that I think what we had expected was what is in the last paragraph of the minister's statement, that is, a more comprehensive privacy bill. Certainly that was what the previous government had intended to introduce this fall, dealing with not only the health card but also with individuals' access to their medical files, to hospital files.

The minister has indicated that she will be introducing this shortly. My hope was that we would have seen the health card bill within that overall bill. Members will appreciate that we are going to be unable to deal with this bill before the House rises, so, as I say, I had hoped we could have had that more comprehensive bill.

My broader concern is that things are beginning to pile up in the ministry. We had hoped we could have the health professions legislation -- it is not here; the northern health care plan -- not here; the grants to the hospitals -- not here; the community-based care -- not here. Things are backing up. I would suspect that before we finish with this, we will be looking at the more comprehensive bill that would include the other important things the previous government had planned to implement this fall.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mrs Caplan: In response