Hansard Transcript 1993-Sept-28 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Charles Beer (York North): York County Hospital in Newmarket is facing an extremely difficult funding problem. The 413-bed acute care community hospital provides a full range of medical, surgical, palliative, mental health and long-term care services to a population of approximately 145,000.

The hospital has one of the lowest bed utilization rates in the province. In order to balance its 1992-93 operation budget, the hospital reduced its staffing levels by approximately 80 and over two years closed 80 acute care beds.

The potential crisis the hospital now faces is that with the rapidly increasing population in its service area, further cuts will directly affect the quality of care the hospital can provide.

In July, a special report commissioned by the hospital and the Ministry of Health concluded that the hospital was in fact well managed and "faced a significant fiscal challenge as a result of the rapidly increasing regional population."

It is clear that the government must work closely with the hospital to recognize these extreme growth pressures. On a per capita basis, York region's share of hospital funding is well below the provincial average. The province has to ensure that a new funding formula is developed to take into account the needs of fast-growth areas.

I call upon the Minister of Health to respond directly and quickly to the special report and to make sure York County Hospital is appropriately funded. To do any less will be to seriously compromise the health care of residents in both the northern part of York region and the southern part of Simcoe county.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): On September 23, following the conclusion of several meetings with federal and provincial governments, the Ontario Mining Association joined with its federal partners for a press conference at the University of Toronto. This conference, entitled "Keeping Mining in Canada," proposed policies designed to secure the future of the mining industry in Ontario by changing the harsh regulatory environment created by this government.

The industry has called for the government to establish a better process for land use planning. The current system designates lands for single purposes without consideration for potential mineral exploration and development. There must be an integrated plan that serves to protect Ontario's natural heritage while encouraging access to mineral resources.

The mining association also recommended that provincial and federal governments streamline environmental regulations to avoid costly duplications and waste. As it stands now, the system is so muddled it can take up to 10 years to open a mine.

The industry also called upon governments to respect mineral property rights. I would encourage the minister to take special notice of this point, as we need to reduce uncertainty and restore investor confidence by creating the economic and regulatory climate that will secure the future of Ontario's mining industry.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): The number one issue on the minds of my constituents is jobs. I am pleased to say that the government has demonstrated leadership on this issue in my riding through the Jobs Ontario initiatives.

There have been a number of Jobs Ontario Capital projects. The village of Drumbo received $1.7 million for a new water system. Another $2.3 million went to the Oxford County Board of Education, most of which was used to build a long-sought-after addition to the Tavistock public school. In Woodstock, the Oxford Children's Aid Society got $708,000 in Jobs Ontario funds for an addition, while the Woodstock Museum received $488,000 for its renovation and restoration.

Another Jobs Ontario program, Community Action, has also had a positive impact on my riding. Recently, the town of Ingersoll received $960,000 to help revitalize its downtown.

These endeavours share one common denominator: jobs. Each of those Jobs Ontario Capital and Community Action projects means jobs, jobs that may not have been created or preserved if not for Jobs Ontario. That gives people the confidence to spend money on consumer goods and stores in Woodstock and Ingersoll. It means they will build new homes in Tavistock or buy resale homes in Tillsonburg.

While the government cannot solve all of Oxford's unemployment problems, these investments in public facilities and support of private investment, along with the capital corporations act and economic development act, clearly demonstrate the government's commitment to put people back to work in Oxford and Ontario. I wanted to share these success stories to demonstrate that Jobs Ontario is working in Oxford and Ontario.

1340

BRIDGE RESTRICTION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have some good news and I have some bad news. First, the good news: I am pleased today to announce on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and the member for Nickel Belt that both lanes are now open on Highway 17 on the bridge over the Spanish River on the Trans-Canada Highway. The bridge, as anyone travelling in the area knows, had been operating with only one lane for many months.

This had caused significant travel delays in both directions, but more importantly had caused difficulties for the movement of oversized loads to construction projects in my constituency and others. As we all know, maintenance work on Ontario's roads and bridges necessitates inconvenience to commuters, shippers and receivers, trucking companies and the general public, but it must be done. Or does it? In this case, it has not been done. There has been no work done on the upper structure of this bridge for many months. There has therefore been a restriction of traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway while no work at all has been done.

Now for the bad news: The bridge work will probably be retendered, we are told, for the next fiscal year. The bridge will be again restricted. I would call on the Minister of Transportation and the member for Nickel Belt to make sure that this time when they close the bridge, they do the work.

MEALS ON WHEELS

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The goods news is that I would like to invite all members to participate in Meals on Wheels Week, which extends from October 3 through October 8.

Meals on Wheels is a province-wide, non-profit organization which provides in-home meals to individuals over the age of 60 years, as well as adults with disabilities. Hot prepared meals are delivered directly to an individual's home over lunch-hour through the help of hundreds of volunteers.

In my riding of Don Mills, the True Davidson Meals on Wheels in East York has been serving its community since 1973. In an average month, this program caters to 150 to 160 individuals with the support of over 100 dedicated volunteers. Just last year alone, over 28,000 meals were served by this one organization, and I would like to congratulate them on their tremendous effort.

Through my association with both True Davidson Meals on Wheels and East York Meals on Wheels, I have come to realize that this program means much more to the recipients than just a hot meal. It's a friendly face, a chat about last night's ball game or about what's happening in their community. It's an opportunity to have contact with caring people, as this is sometimes difficult for the frail or elderly who are unable to leave their homes. Quite simply, the Meals on Wheels clients look forward to the volunteers' visits.

On behalf of this Legislature, I would like to offer congratulations and continued encouragement to all Meals on Wheels organizations in this very special week.

KIDS CAN PLAY

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): No child should be denied the right to participate in any activity that children usually participate in, and that's why Kids Can Play, a grass-roots organization, was formed in Guelph and has been helping hundreds of children to participate.

Kids Can Play was started about eight years ago by five single mothers and about a dozen community members who saw that many children were not able to take part in sports and cultural activities because their families could not afford it.

In their first year, they had a budget of $2,000 and they helped approximately 12 children by paying fees or buying equipment for activities such as hockey, summer camp, karate, swimming, music, dance and school trips. Last year their budget was $30,000 and they have helped 255 children.

Kids Can Play has grown to become a presence in the community that is making a difference in the lives of many families. This success is due to the work of dedicated board members, a network of volunteers and a generous pool of donors, including the United Way, the Royal City Kiwanis and other service clubs and individuals.

Kids Can Play is supported by the community and it supports the community. It really makes a difference for kids by providing them with activities that are an important part of their growing, because it helps build self-esteem, confidence and friendship.

I wish to commend the board members and supporters of Kids Can Play for caring enough about our children to build this vital community organization.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to take this opportunity to remind the Minister of Health that the people of Ottawa-Carleton continue to demand paramedic services equivalent to those now operating in Hamilton, Toronto and Oshawa.

The minister will know that Ottawa-Carleton has one of the lowest survival rates for heart attack victims in a large metropolitan area in North America: 2.4%. In the more than 50 Canadian cities benefiting from full paramedic service, this rate approaches 20% and even 25%.

The principle behind paramedics is very simple: When someone stops breathing or when someone's heart stops beating, time becomes a critical factor if that life is to be saved.

There are two ways to deal with these kinds of patients: Put them in an ambulance and take them to the emergency ward or treat them right there on the spot. In other words, the options are to take the patient to the treatment or to bring the treatment to the patient.

Obviously, when timing is critical, it makes more sense for ambulance officers acting as fully trained paramedics to treat the patient on the spot.

Studies have consistently shown that a 911 telephone system, in combination with early access to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation and paramedic services, constitutes a strong chain of survival. The people of Ottawa-Carleton are asking that the Ministry of Health supply the final link: paramedics.

To date, the Ottawa-Carleton Action Paramedic Committee and I have collected over 14,000 individual petition cards, and we have only just begun. We are not asking for more ambulances or even more ambulance officers. We are simply asking for training to upgrade the skills of our ambulance officers so they can provide the quality of care the people of Hamilton, Toronto and Oshawa have come to enjoy.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This week we are debating the Environmental Bill of Rights, which will establish an Environmental Commissioner to ensure that the government complies with the bill. It will also set standards for public participation and let residents take legal action to protect public resources.

In Mississauga South, we have an excellent example of why Ontario needs an Environmental Bill of Rights. St Lawrence Cement, SLC, burns chlorinated waste solvents which are hazardous wastes, yet SLC has done no testing for hazardous byproducts and no monitoring of its stacks.

In 1991 the Environment ministry ordered SLC to reduce its particulate emissions. The company appealed the order, then failed to do most of the testing required by the Environmental Appeal Board. Now SLC wants to exclude the public from the hearings.

SLC also operates an unauthorized landfill site, which raises concerns about groundwater contamination. Nine years ago the Environment ministry identified local groundwater contamination below the SLC lands. A ministry official recommended ongoing monitoring, which was never done. The ministry has now drafted a director's order regarding the landfill, yet it plans to sit on that order until next spring.

There is something very wrong when individuals like the Residents Against Cement Company Pollution need an Environmental Bill of Rights to take action which should be the responsibility of conscientious companies and a vigilant Environment ministry.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF UKRAINE

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On Saturday, September 25, I had the privilege of attending a publication launch for the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. This is an exciting achievement of academic and cultural importance for Ukrainian people and I was honoured to share in the celebration.

An incredible amount of effort went into researching and publishing these works. The five-volume encyclopaedia tells us about the history of Ukraine, its people, geography, economy and culture. This information is now accessible to people throughout the world. It will no doubt be an invaluable reference tool for business, government, journalists and students.

Joining us today in the gallery is the editor-in-chief, Professor Danylo Husar Struk, and the president of the Ukrainian Foundation for Ukrainian Studies, Mr Morris Diakowksy. Gentlemen, I applaud your commitment to this extremely worthy venture.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): In the spring, I announced plans to reorganize the trade and investment activities of the Ontario government, which included the closure of our 17 foreign offices. I would like to report to the House that considerable progress has been made towards our goal of establishing a more effective and collaborative system of developing trade and stimulating investment in Ontario. This is an essential part of our effort to renew the economy and put Ontario back to work.

Earlier this month, I conducted a mission to Germany and can attest to the commitment of provincial and federal authorities and the private sector to a greater level of teamwork in pursuit of our common objectives. Our officials worked closely with their federal counterparts in the planning and execution of the mission, which featured the appearance of seven Ontario-based automotive companies at the international auto exposition in Frankfurt, the largest of its kind in the world.

Ontario was operating the exhibit space for the first time, and each of the firms reported excellent results. All said that they had identified a number of solid leads which are actively being pursued and everyone was optimistic that new business would result.

In the course of the mission, I was able to conduct a number of meetings with current and potential German investors who expressed a genuine interest in Ontario. I also met with companies to encourage them to increase their reliance on our Ontario suppliers.

While Germany is wrestling with major challenges posed by such things as unification and industrial restructuring, I am confident these contacts will lead to further investment in our province.

The expansion plans announced this week by Toyota demonstrate Ontario's growing appeal as a North American base of operations for foreign investors.

The mission to Germany also provided an opportunity to meet with officials at Baden-Würtemberg. Our alliance with the Four Motors, which also comprises Rhône-Alpes in France, Lombardy in Italy and Catalonia in Spain, is an important link in our international network. I told them that Ontario wants to increase its involvement, particularly in projects geared to transfer of technology and the formation of strategic alliances between Ontario and European companies.

In an address to the first conference of the Canadian- German Lawyers' Association, a group of influential advisers to investors and corporations in Germany, I outlined the advantages of doing business in Ontario and underlined our commitment to our commercial ties with that important region of Europe.

As I mentioned last spring, the new trade and investment strategy calls for greater cooperation and coordination of activities by the provincial and federal governments, local municipalities and organizations. The German mission was part of the strategy, for example, to use telecommunications and travel to maintain Ontario's position in key world markets.

Similar visits have been made in recent months to North Carolina, Texas and Louisiana by my colleague Richard Allen. He is currently in China for meetings with government representatives, business people and academics on a number of topics including TVOntario, science and technology, health, education, electrical power, environmental protection, communications, culture, agriculture and forestry. He is also holding discussions regarding future activities of the Jiangsu-Ontario Science and Technology Centre.

Considerable work has been done to implement our new trade and investment strategy. Discussions between my officials and their federal counterparts on ways of integrating programs and services, particularly on the trade side, are making good progress. Agreement has been reached to align information and databases to facilitate the exchange of information, and Ontario intends to make full use of federal posts abroad.

On the trip to Germany, for example, I had extensive meetings with Canadian embassy officials and the consul general in Munich. Both were extremely helpful in providing background information and assisting in the arrangement of meetings.

At the same time, the Ontario International Corp continues its excellent work to market Ontario services for major capital projects around the world.

Additionally, a team headed by IBM Canada is about to complete the design of a new Ontario Investment Service, which will be launched by April, promoting Ontario as a prime North American investment locale and providing potential and current investors with the comprehensive information and data on which to base decisions.

The Ontario Investment Service is a significant effort to improve the quality of service we offer to potential investors and day-to-day clients. The ministry is also introducing a client account management system which will ensure prompt response to inquiries and concerns raised by companies. It will also provide a one-stop shopping system to help people through the sometimes confusing process and procedures of government.

Training programs have been launched to increase the skills and the effectiveness of our staff.

Len Crispino, formerly our senior agent in Italy, has been appointed assistant deputy minister for trade and investment marketing to refocus our international trade and investment activities. His mandate includes improving our networks and cooperation with the private sector.

For example, a partnership has just very recently been signed, by my ministry and the Canadian Exporters' Association, which will establish a Canadian Exporters' Association Ontario chapter office within the ministry offices at Queen's Park. We will be coordinating our efforts and sharing our resources to help Ontario companies compete more effectively in global markets.

This is a partnership which I think accurately reflects the new sense of teamwork we are seeking to achieve at home and abroad.

Much has been done, but much remains to be done. I will keep the members informed of our progress.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I am pleased to respond to the minister's statement. It's interesting, it's informative, but there really isn't anything new. It's really what every minister of trade has done in this government for the last 35 or 40 years. I would suggest to the minister that her time could have been better spent responding to some of the concerns that have been raised by what her statement talks about.

She talks about the closing of the 17 offices. She makes no mention of the fact that the Tokyo office had an overrun of $1 million in its last year, administered by Robin Sears. She doesn't talk about what effect those closings have had and the concern that has been expressed by people in the export business about their lack of representation in these markets.

She talks about her visit to Germany. It's interesting to note that there are two issues that were not discussed. One, you talk about your conversations with people who might be interested in investing in Ontario, but make no mention of the fact that Magna, the largest auto parts company almost in the world, has announced that it is going to be investing in Germany, and no mention of the fact that for nearly a year now your government, under the Premier, Mr Rae, and his chief automobile adviser, has been working on trying to get Audi into Ontario with no result. There is no mention of what has happened there.

You talk about your successes and you use as an example Toyota. Toyota is going to create 50 jobs. It is not an indication of the growing appeal of North America; it is an add-on to a major investment that is here. It was made for strategic purposes because of the high cost of the yen and the need for Toyota to have the high content required to qualify under the North American free trade agreement.

I should also talk to you about your mention of the Four Motors of Europe. All this has given you is bragging rights, the right to say, "We have this relationship with Rhône-Alpes and Lombardy and Catalonia," but you haven't given us any indication of, what does that mean? You've had three years. This was an initiative that was started by our government; we had missions that were here. No notice, no report; what has happened with that other than that you're talking to them? As I say, all it gives you is bragging rights and nothing more.

You have your colleague now in Jiangsu. What is happening with the Ontario-Jiangsu Science and Technology Centre? What are they doing? What has been happening for the last three years? We had a situation that there was a hiatus because of the diplomatic concerns with what was happening in China; no report of that.

All you have is a general overview of what has been happening in the ministry, not whether it is effective, but that you've been out talking to people and it's great and you're getting a chance to visit Germany and your colleague is going to China, which I have no problem with. I think that's fine; I think you should be out there seeing what's happening in the real world. But on the other hand, I think it's important to understand that when these things are being done, they're being done in isolation, in that these meetings are taking place, you're coming back and you give us a report that really doesn't have any substance. I would be a lot happier if I knew exactly the results of what these things were doing.

I am quite happy that you've entered into this relationship with the Canadian Exporters' Association. They are a first-class organization, and I think that will give you a benefit.

But I also feel that, given the importance of export to this country and to this province, your ministry has taken a direction that has downplayed its importance. You're trying to run the whole thing out of the offices here in Queen's Park, which would be comparable to every one of our members trying to run their constituencies out of their offices in Queen's Park without any constituency offices, and you know how effective that would be. You'd get to the people who were really so irate that they called you here, but on the ground, the grass-roots, in the trading areas where it is important for Ontario businessmen, you would really not have any good, solid sounding board.

I would just make a recommendation to the minister that if she would take a look at her statement, in her next report to this Legislature she could give us something of substance as opposed to the sort of PR puff we got today, which just lets us know that you're busy doing something but no results as a result of it.

1400

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm glad the minister is making good contacts, but I want to tell you that if she was a salesperson, she would be fired for coming back with results like this. There was no investment. On page 1, she talks about how earlier this month she went to Germany. How much investment has come back? How many jobs have been created? You close down the offices. You go all over the world. Your predecessor, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, was in Pakistan, Iran, and all we've done with these situations is we have great dinners, no investments, no new jobs. Quite frankly, you should spend more time here in Ontario worrying about the WCB, the unfunded liability, and Ontario Hydro, which has a debt which is going out at leaps and bounds.

The problem, very simply, in the province of Ontario is we're overtaxing, we're overgoverning, we're overregulating, we're overlegislating, and the rest of the world is saying, "Thank you, but we're not going to come to the province of Ontario." Where's the new investment coming in this province, internationally right now?

I will give you some statistics. When you came to power, the unemployment rate was 6%; it's now going to about 11%. The four western provinces had a worse unemployment rate than we did; it's now a better unemployment rate. Of the jobs lost, 80% have been in the province of Ontario because of your policies.

We hear from the Premier that this session is going to be about jobs. The first piece of legislation coming through, employment equity, has more regulations which are going to tell businesses who they can hire. The second piece of legislation, the Environmental Bill of Rights, there are going to be no jobs created.

Quite frankly, as I look at this government and as we go out, the only thing these trips are doing for these ministers going around the world to all these exotic places is building up the aeropoints. There will be no satisfaction to the unemployed when you come back, no new jobs, no new investment coming to the province of Ontario. Quite frankly, this is a nothing statement. What you need to do is worry about getting the economy going. If we do that, and if we do the right things in the province of Ontario, people will be lined up to come no matter what happens.

The same thing with the Premier when he made his whirlwind trip to the Far East, no new investment came back to the province of Ontario. Quite frankly, I think these junkets are a waste of time and money. What we need to do is clean up our own act here. If we did that, we'd have people wanting to invest. I say to this minister and to this Premier, the best thing we could do is change governments; that's when the investments will start in the province of Ontario.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Having seen this report on the public table, it's cold comfort for anyone in the province of Ontario who is looking for work. What the Minister of Economic Development and Trade did on her summer vacation: basically, that's what we have before us today. She had lunch around the world. In Germany, she went ahead and "to maintain Ontario's key position in world markets," she as a strategy used telecommunications and travel. Her colleague Richard Allen was in North Carolina, Texas, Louisiana; China he's going to for meetings.

We've had "new trade and investment strategy." We've got "officials and their federal counterparts on ways of integrating programs and services." To "align information and databases to facilitate the exchange of information," Ontario intends to make full use of the federal posts abroad. We have embassy officials, meetings with consul generals in Munich, background information, assisting in arrangement of meetings, Ontario International Corp to market Ontario services for major capital projects. We have no jobs; we've just got a bunch of meetings. We've got a bunch of committees struck.

It goes on. We will "provide potential and current investors with comprehensive information and data on which to base decisions." Ontario Investment Service to "improve the quality of service we offer to potential investors and day-to-day clients."

The bottom line is: We've got a book report on what the minister did this summer, and that is have lunch around the world and not sign a comprehensive, concrete deal that will produce one job. What we have is a book report that isn't producing anything other than, as my colleague said, building up air flight points for some of the cabinet ministers.

We had the old minister who spent time in India and Iran and came back empty-handed. This has to be the third or fourth trip that one of the ministers in this government took, came back empty-handed, produced a report for this House, for the people of the province of Ontario, for those who are unemployed, with absolutely no hope. If all we can expect is a few committees struck, a few lunches, a few negotiations, a few contacts, don't waste your time any more. The money would be better spent here reorganizing this mess that you spent three years creating.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. The economy of this province continues to suffer. Your budget revenues have now slipped to the point where our province is on credit watch, your only solution seems to be more new taxes and more new fees and neither you nor your Finance minister seem to understand that new taxes and new fees are costing jobs in this province.

Premier, I'm sure you're aware that last week, more than 400 people crowded into a community centre in Picton -- 400 people are a lot of concerned citizens in the Picton area -- and they were concerned about the impact of one new fee on jobs in their area.

You will know that in eastern Ontario, residents of Wolfe Island and Prince Edward county have been told that they are going to have to pay new fees for local ferry service that the province has provided in the past. These ferries are heavily used by local residents, they're used by businesses and they're an important part of tourism. People are tremendously concerned about what this new fee is going to mean for their businesses, for tourism and for their jobs.

Premier, why is your government bringing in this new fee when you have absolutely no idea what the impact is going to be on business and on jobs in those areas?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): In the ordinary course of events, I would refer this to the Minister of Transportation, but since he had the wisdom not to be here today, I will endeavour to answer this question.

I can assure the honourable member that, first of all, I'm very aware of the meeting that was held. My colleague from Prince Edward county brought this very directly to my attention last week as soon as the meeting was held. He has also raised concerns with us with respect to the studies with respect to any impact.

I would only say to the honourable member that any fees that would be charged would pay, if my memory is correct with respect to the numbers, between 20% and 30% of the total cost of the government of the service that's being provided. So we're not looking at anything that would even come close to paying for the cost of the service.

I would say to the honourable member that obviously the Ministry of Transportation is having to look at some issues with respect to services which have, up until now, been totally subsidized by the taxpayer, and the question really is, can we provide some relief to all the taxpayers of Ontario by asking those who use the service to pay a small share of the cost?

She herself is saying she's opposed to tax increases. I would like to ask, do you not think it's reasonable, in these circumstances, for some people to pay something of the share of the cost of a service -- not all of it, by any means. People who use public transportation pay a share of the cost --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- people who use various kinds of transportation pay the cost. I would have thought that's something one might want to reflect on when we look at the overall impact of tax subsidies on the business affairs of the whole province.

Mrs McLeod: The fact is that this is exactly what happens when you are so desperate for revenue that you say to the people in your ministries, "Find new ways to raise money, and we don't care what it costs." I say to you again that I don't believe your government has even looked at the impact that this fee is going to have on businesses and on jobs in that area. I can tell you that the people in Prince Edward county and the people on Wolfe Island simply don't understand how you can justify these fees.

If you look at a resident or a business person living now on Wolfe Island or doing business or farming on Wolfe Island, these new fees could cost each of those residents over $2,000 per year. That is a huge revenue grab from these local residents. I find myself thinking back to when your government found that it was quite acceptable to actually forgo millions of dollars in revenue by allowing Toronto Island residents to pay only $30 per month in rent for their properties.

So, Premier, I point out to you that Wolfe Island residents are now going to be paying more per month in new ferry fees than Toronto Islands residents will have to pay per month to rent their property, and I ask, how do you justify this very different tale of two islands? Where is the fairness, and why is your government so willing to make living on the Toronto Islands cheaper while you jeopardize the homes and the farms and the businesses on Wolfe Island?

1410

Hon Mr Rae: In fact, you've misstated the comparison, because if you want to compare ferries, which is what we should be comparing, then compare the fact that under the Liberals if you lived on Simcoe you paid a fee, on Howe Island you paid a fee, on Howe Island township you paid a fee, Toronto Islands you paid a fee, Pelee Island you paid a fee, Manitoulin Island you paid a fee, and there are a couple of situations where for historical reasons -- one would imagine, probably, perhaps politics, partisan or otherwise, played a role -- there were some who were exempted from paying anything at all towards the upkeep of a service which is provided to them and not to others.

I would ask the member to be logical. Is she suggesting that we should cancel the fees on all these other ferries? Is that what she's suggesting? If she's not suggesting that, how can she justify some people who are going to Pelee Island paying a ferry or some people going to Howe Island paying a ferry, but if you're going to Wolfe Island you shouldn't pay a ferry? Make up your mind. At least we're consistent. It's the Leader of the Opposition who doesn't have a bone of consistency in the question she's put to us.

The Speaker: Final supplementary. The member for Quinte.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Quinte has the floor.

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Premier, all the people in Prince Edward county and Wolfe Island want is some common sense. Your government announced it was going to charge -- and if you want the numbers -- over $800,000 in new fees on the Wolfe Island ferry and over $500,000 new fees on the Glenora ferry without any consultation with local residents and without any study of the impact on local businesses and jobs.

Thousands of tourists travel, as you know, through this area of the province every year, and local residents are afraid that fewer of them will show up with the new ferry fees, forcing local businesses to close and jobs to be lost.

Premier, on your direction, will the government make a commitment today to implement a study of the impact of the new ferry fees before it proceeds with a shortsighted policy which may just cost more jobs?

Hon Mr Rae: I can assure you that your colleague from Prince Edward county was ahead of you in the sense that he made it clear to me last week that he thought that it would be a good idea, and I agreed with him. I think there should be a study of the impact, but in doing that I think the question that has to be put to you and has to be put to your party is, show me the fairness in charging a fee for a ferry in Pelee Island or Manitoulin Island or even nearby in Howe Island and having nothing for Wolfe Island or for Glenora. Show me the fairness in that and show me the logic in that. We have to do something to establish a degree of fairness in these things which have taken place over many years, and that's exactly what we're trying to do.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, show me the fairness in talking about a five-minute trip to Wolfe Island in the same breath as you talk about an hour-and-three-quarters ferry trip to Manitoulin Island. Where's the fairness in that?

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Premier.

Premier, on quite another issue, we face a pending crisis in the delivery of ambulance services in this province and it is a very direct result of your government's mismanagement and the kind of chaos that is being created.

In July, ambulance operators received notices telling them that their grants were going to be reduced as a result of the application of the social contract, and in August the cuts indeed began.

Right now, the only way that ambulance operators are allowed to cut costs under your social contract is to have their employees take unpaid leave days. That clearly would mean fewer ambulances on the road. The government has told the operators that it will not approve any service reductions. We have a lose-lose situation. This has led, in the last days, to confusion, to warnings of illegal strikes, to layoff notices being given and to a real threat of reduced services.

Your government promised, Premier, that the quality of health care would not suffer as a result of the social contract. I ask you, what now is going on and what is your government going to do to ensure that necessary ambulance services are available, and available in a timely way?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I refer this to the Minister of Health.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to this question, because I, like the Leader of the Opposition, am very concerned that there are people in this province who are frightened that there may not be emergency service available to them when they need it. We have a very excellent emergency service in this province, one of the best in the world, and it is certainly our intention to maintain it.

The social contract is about preserving jobs and about preserving services, and our ministry, in discussion with emergency services as to how the social contract could be implemented, had indicated to them that under the regulations, as part of the social contract, we intended to consider designating ambulance services as a critical function, which would allow the owners to implement the social contract in a different way and in a way that would not have an impact on jobs and on the service itself.

That is going to happen very shortly, and I greatly regret that some of the ambulance owners have not waited until we could conclude our discussions with them but have begun to issue layoff notices. I hope those layoff notices will not in fact have to be implemented.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, ambulance operators warned that there would be a reduction in services after September 30 unless the government took action. It was a month ago that they gave you that warning, and September 30 is two days away. Intentions and decisions to be made shortly are hardly going to serve as a response if we have an accident victim who is waiting for an ambulance to arrive. There is a sense of urgency.

We raised this issue a month ago, and at the time that we raised it you said: "Don't worry. We're going to look into it. We'll look after it." We are still waiting, a month later, for some clear direction on how the ambulance operators are going to be able to cut their costs without reducing service.

You are surely well aware that in the meantime ambulance operators have been literally going to the bank and taking out personal loans in order to maintain the level of service until you can come up with some decision. I ask you, why have you allowed this situation to develop into a crisis? Why does it take literally two months of confusion and controversy just to figure out how your social contract is working? Is it really that difficult to decide whether ambulance services are critical?

Hon Mrs Grier: No, of course it isn't, which is why we indicated to the industry that it was our intention to designate it as a critical function. We asked them not to take action in advance of having submitted, to the ministry, their operating plans, having had those reviews and having had an opportunity to discuss the question of how, as critical functions, they could in fact implement the social contract.

I think it was my colleague the Treasurer or somebody in this House yesterday who said that the social contract was being blamed for every ill including the temperature and the weather. I regret that in some cases there have been owners of ambulance operations who I think have used the opportunity to make some moves that they have hitherto been delayed from doing.

Mrs McLeod: I say, again, intention is not a sufficient response. You need to tell them what they can do. I tell you that this is just typical of the kind of mass confusion this government is creating. I don't believe you had any idea when you brought in this sweeping legislation how it was going to work, and you have no idea of how you are going to be able to cut costs while you still maintain services. You are dealing with it on an ad hoc crisis basis, day by day, and that is not tolerable.

Minister, you're saying now that you will designate ambulance services as critical. That's what I hear you saying today. I would suggest to you that if you solve this immediate crisis by declaring services to be critical, which I'm sure you must, you then have to answer to the long-term financial problem, because as you know somebody is going to owe those unpaid leave days leave as paid leave days about three years down the road.

I ask you just simply, who is it who is going to pay for the 36 special leave days that will be owed to each of these employees when you designate them as critical, and exactly how is that saving anybody any money?

Hon Mrs Grier: The social contract is going to achieve savings in a broad number of areas throughout this government and within the Ministry of Health, but not at the expense of critical services.

The member says, "When will they know"? The owners and operators of ambulances have been in discussion with the ministry since the social contract was signed and since the legislation was passed about how to implement it, and they have had clear direction from this ministry that we do not want them to take action such as laying off operators until we have reviewed their plans and passed a regulation that indicates how they are to implement. I regret that some of them have taken advantage of the situation to issue layoff notices. I regret that and I hope those notices will be rescinded.

1420

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier, and welcome back. Earlier today, in the legislative press room, a survey was released by Central Toronto Youth Services that found eight out of 10 senior public school students reported being exposed to acts of violence in schools. As a father of two young boys, I found those results that were released today rather shocking. Other Ontario parents I believe will share my concern when they hear the alarming news from today as well.

I would suggest to you that we have enough challenges before us to educate our children and to ensure our children's safety without having to fear for their safety in Ontario schools. If this report is accurate, the situation in our schools quite frankly is critical. I would like to ask you, Premier, if you believe the statistics and the results of this survey that were released today, if this is an accurate reflection of our schools in Ontario today.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Again the honourable member has the advantage of having a piece of paper in his hand that I haven't seen. I don't know what the report refers to, I don't know what the survey was of; I don't know of whom it was done; I don't know exactly to what you are referring. If you're asking a general question with respect to the subject of our schools and with respect to the safety of children in our schools, obviously this is something we all take very seriously.

You have two young children and I have three young children in public schools in Ontario. All of us have children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews in our public and separate schools in the province, and we all feel very strongly about the need to provide for them and to provide a good learning environment for them.

We have a royal commission on education which is now conducting hearings across the province, talking to parents and teachers about their concerns. I'm sure if there are concerns with respect to this issue, it will be something that will be addressed and talked about, and I'd be very interested in seeing the material which the honourable member is referring to.

Mr Harris: About the only advantage I have over you, Premier, is that my staff attended the press conference, along with a considerable number of people, which was held right here at Queen's Park. It was a survey study that was being released by Central Toronto Youth Services; well publicized that it would be released today, so having a care and having a concern, obviously we attended. But let me give you other facts. If that's an advantage, of monitoring what's happened, so be it: I've got an advantage on you.

There have been three reported stabbings in Metro schools since the school year began less than a month ago. Organizations tell me they have absolutely no sense that your government has a handle on the problem or that you have any kind of an action plan. Two years ago the former Minister of Education, Marion Boyd, in case you forget who it was back then, said, and I quote: "I'm deeply concerned about violence in our schools. The Ontario Teachers' Federation can count on my ministry to eliminate the threat of violence." Two years ago it was the threat of violence; today it is violence.

How much longer are we going to have to wait for your government, for your Minister of Education, whoever it is at any given point in time, to act upon a growing problem in our schools today?

Hon Mr Rae: I've heard the rhetoric of the honourable member before, and I know he tries to ride the back of every press conference on to whatever part of the daily newspapers he can get on to. If he's serious about this issue, he would appreciate, as anyone would appreciate, that it's complex, that it's difficult, that it relates to what's happening to families, that it relates to what's happening to our economy, that it relates to what's happening to all of our society. It relates to the relationship of teachers and students, of parents, teachers and students; to many, many concerns. It is not a facile or rhetorical issue that's going to be solved by somebody standing up and saying, "What are you going to do about it?" That's not what it's about.

It's about an issue that matters to people. It's an issue that takes concern. It's an issue that takes steady action, and I would say to the honourable member, if he's serious about this, he'll understand that you don't ride these issues on the back of a press conference. You take them seriously and deal with them every day, as our teachers are doing, as our parents are doing, as our school boards are doing and as our ministries are doing, and that's how this government intends to deal with it, not in the rhetorical, facile way that's been put in play by the leader of the third party today.

Mr Harris: First of all, Premier, you will find out that I didn't pay $1 million for this press conference. I simply attended the press conference. Two years ago, OTF released the result. Your Minister of Education two years ago promised action. A year ago, I released a document entitled New Directions, Volume Two on education that begged and cried out and pointed a way for action for your government to take, and you have done nothing. Today is just another one of a long list of surveys that have been released.

Let me give you another one that is out there and available for you, a survey by Queen's University of 17,000 elementary and secondary school teachers in Canada that found that 20% of teachers in Ontario felt physically threatened while on the job. That compared, by the way, with 10% for British Columbia. The Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario says that teacher assaults continue to rise.

This isn't something that occurred with one press conference today. This is escalating throughout your mandate as Premier and throughout your mandate as government.

One of the problems they face is that so many incidents go unreported. The federation of women teachers has asked you before to have mandatory reporting of the incidents so we can get a handle on what is happening. After this last survey has been released today, will you now accede to the request of several years ago of the Ontario Teachers' Federation to have mandatory reporting of incidents of violence in our schools?

Hon Mr Rae: I've heard the results of many of the press conferences which the leader of the third party has attended from time to time, even some that he's organized, and we all know the consequences of those. So I would say to the honourable member that before I would take his advice with respect to the press conference held today, I would want to think very carefully and reflect very carefully on the advice that's received and reflect very seriously on the problem that's there.

If there's an issue of reporting, I would want to check my facts before I spoke and before I reacted. I would want to check all those things before suddenly reacting, because that's the difference between being in government and being in the third party, a lesson we've all had to learn with regard to this issue.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): In the absence of the Minister of Environment and Energy, I would like to ask a question to the Premier. Last week Ontario Hydro announced, through its president and new CEO who you personally appointed, Premier, that Ontario Hydro will lose more than the original $1.6 billion that it had projected to lose for this year. That is more than the combined surplus of funds that they plan to use to pay off the deficit this year. Ontario chair Maurice Strong admitted that the utility does not have enough in its reserves to cover the magnitude of the loss.

1430

I would ask you this, Premier. This will be the first time in Hydro's history that the utility will see back-to-back losses. Obviously, Hydro is facing a very different future than we were all told just a year ago and which was in its original forecast. Could you tell us today what plans Ontario Hydro has to make up this shortfall?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think that the chairman of Hydro -- it wasn't the president of Hydro, by the way; it was the chairman -- has made it clear that the utility intends to live with its commitment to keeping the rates down for this year and in future years. He's already indicated that Hydro will be reducing its capital spending and making its adjustments in that area and reducing its spending overall, and that Hydro fully intends to live up to the commitments it's made to the ratepayers of the province, again an issue that requires a degree of thoughtfulness and that requires also some real analysis as to what's taken place in the economy.

If anybody would say that the future looks very different, I would say that's true. The future does look different. It certainly looks different from the baloney we were fed by Tory administrations for 42 years on what the benefits would be of overbuilding the nuclear power capacity of this province to the extent which it has. Hydro is wrestling with a capital debt, the vast majority of which is due to the unbelievably wrongheaded decisions that were made by the administration of which the honourable member was a member, going back to the mid-1970s, and that's a fact.

Mr Harris: Thank you, Premier. Nobody has questioned that you're the best in pointing the finger at anybody else over the last 100 years; you've been the best and still are. But what I am pointing out to you is the difference between what Maurice Strong and your Minister of Energy told us last year in this House and what Maurice Strong is saying today.

There are only two options to make up this shortfall. Given that there are not going to be increased sales, as Maurice Strong has indicated -- they are still in fact hoping to have another decrease in sales with the energy conservation program -- there are only two options to make up the shortfall: (1) hike Hydro rates; (2) accumulate on top of the capital debt new operating deficits that will accumulate for a couple of years. I would ask you, Premier, which of those two choices is it going to be: higher rates, or are you going to add now to the capital deficit by piling an operating deficit on top of it? Which of those two?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that if he goes through life saying there are only two options, then he's going through much of life with blinkers on. In fact, Hydro faces a number of very tough options and difficult decisions, as does the government. The one we've made it clear that we don't want to do is that we don't want to raise rates, because the rate structure established under the Tories and the Liberals is in danger of making Ontario industry uncompetitive when it comes to hydro rates. That's why we're determined to keep those rates down. We don't want Tory hydro rates and we don't want the Liberal hydro rates. We want to keep the rates down so they'll be competitive for the future of this province. That's the first thing we're saying.

I would say to the honourable member that Hydro has itself made very clear that it is going to do everything it can to reduce capital and operating expenditure in order to keep the utility as close to being on budget as it possibly can.

Mr Harris: Let me say that every business I have talked to says that eight years ago hydro rates were an advantage, and eight years later, after Liberal and NDP governments, it's a disadvantage to doing business. It's totally uncompetitive. As terrible as the Tories were for 42 years, hydro rates were a competitive advantage, and today they're not. Admittedly, it wasn't perfect; they made mistakes. We all acknowledge that, and you're the master at pointing it out.

Let me tell you, Premier, that all the things you've said Maurice Strong now says will not be enough to cover the shortfall for this year, including using all the reserves, and he also said publicly it won't be enough next year.

If you're committed to a rate freeze through to the next election, doesn't that mean double-digit rate increases to pay for the increases, to pay for the piling up of debt over the next two years, right after the next election? Isn't that the real strategy you're putting forward?

Hon Mr Rae: No, because we have learned the lesson of the danger of the kind of credit card existence you built up in the 1970s and 1980s.

The Leader of the Opposition is laughing. When she was the Minister of Energy, she didn't have to pay for Darlington. Darlington came due when Darlington came on stream. It was a facility built on credit by your administration and that administration, and it now has to be paid for. You may think that's a laughing matter, but I don't think the consumers do, and I think the consumers of this province are entitled to know who built up the debt. It was Liberals and Tories who built up Hydro debt, and we're now having to pay for it. That's a fact.

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Solicitor General. Yesterday, members demanded action from the Solicitor General to curb the smuggling in the Cornwall area. The Solicitor General responded that the government had things in hand, namely, the formation of a task force, and that the mayor of Cornwall was satisfied.

However, the majority of activity is not occurring within the city of Cornwall but in fact is east of the city, in the townships of Charlottenburgh and Lancaster, along the St Lawrence River and crossing the international bridge at Cornwall, and not everyone is satisfied that the government has things in hand.

This morning, Reeve Dave MacDonald of Charlottenburgh township said that his municipality heard nothing new last Thursday that he hadn't heard 20 or 30 times over the last year. The reeve told me it was a waste of a trip to go to Ottawa. As long as there's no serious violence, he doesn't feel the government will act very quickly.

Reeve Charles Sangster echoed the sentiments and took issue with your comments that it was not up to you to see that the Lancaster detachment of the OPP remains open all night. Mr Sangster had a message for you: You're in cabinet, and you are in a position to fight for the funds from the government that would allow the OPP to operate more effectively.

I would like to ask the Solicitor General to tell the people of eastern Ontario exactly how and when his government will put smugglers out of business.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I again thank the member for raising this most important issue. He raised a whole host of issues in his question. I'll attempt to answer a couple, and if he'd like to be more specific in the supplementary, I'll be pleased to focus more directly on those specific issues.

With regard to the Lancaster detachment, let me say very directly that I have spoken to the OPP commissioner twice personally since our meeting on that issue and advised him of its importance. I believe that the decision as to whether or not to deploy, redeploy, where to position people, staff and resources should remain an operational matter. However, I accept fully my responsibility to answer ultimately for those decisions here in the Legislature and to the public, but I do think, at this point, that operational decision needs to be with the OPP commissioner. He has assured me that is a top priority and we can expect a resolution to that very quickly.

Mr Speaker, I see you indicating to hurry up. I'll ask the member if he could be a little more focused in his supplementary and I'll be pleased to answer his questions.

Mr Cleary: The Solicitor General is responsible for policing in the province and the protection of all citizens. Local police officers told me today that one of the problems in catching smugglers is the physical location of the customs office on Cornwall Island. Cigarettes are moved in by boat from the US to Cornwall Island and then transported by land to Ontario for distribution here and in other provinces, bypassing the customs office within metres with their smuggled cigarettes.

Last Thursday, our delegation tried to get the message across to the federal customs officials from Ottawa, who didn't seem to know what we were talking about. For anyone who doesn't understand, I brought a map and I'd be glad to explain it to them. Our province has lost millions of dollars in lost revenue, so I hope the minister will not say it's a federal problem.

1440

My question therefore is, what can the Solicitor General tell the people of my riding who fear for their safety and the lost revenue, and what will he do about the placement of the customs office on Cornwall Island?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think one of the most important aspects of what is happening with regard to the response to the issue in Cornwall and the surrounding areas has been the formation of the police task force. This again does bring the different jurisdictional responsibilities together in one place. I know the opposition doesn't particularly like to hear that, but they also know that's the reality, and certainly that was confirmed at the meeting we had where everyone understood that there were a lot of different jurisdictions and if we didn't have all the players together, there really wasn't going to be a resolution.

The customs office is a federal responsibility. Our responsibility in all of this is very clear. The largest part of that is the OPP. I stand here quite willing to respond to the concerns of the OPP role in the task force, the OPP responsibilities in the province of Ontario. I go so far as to ensure that there are meetings being held where issues that cross outside the provincial responsibility are aired and we're all aware of them, but I cannot assume responsibility for those decisions. They're the responsibility of the federal minister, and the honourable member indeed knows that.

I still remain very confident that we're following the right process and that the police are the people to put together the action plan. Give them a chance to do their job and then we can do ours.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Attorney General. Last Wednesday, police discovered the body of a 16-year-old aboriginal boy in a shallow grave near Smiths Falls. He had been murdered 13 months ago and no one reported his disappearance: not the children's aid society, of whom he was a ward, nor his relatives -- nobody. Even more surprising, his death was not reported by the six, possibly seven, people who stood around and watched while one man bludgeoned the boy to death.

One person has since been charged with murder; two others are charged for helping dispose of the body. But, outrageously, no charges have been laid against the six or seven people who police say stood back and watched as the beating dragged on for hours, and who then kept quiet about the murder for more than a year.

Minister, will you indicate whether you intend to review the decision of the local crown not to pursue charges against the people who engaged in this sick spectator sport, and if not, why not?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I certainly have no intention of responding directly to the question as asked, because as I understand it from my notes, this matter is still under consideration. It would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time.

Mr Runciman: That kind of response makes me and most Ontarians nauseous, because that's the sort of thing we get from important justice officials in this province in respect to matters like this. The crown has said clearly, the police have said clearly, that no charges are being laid. Now the minister gets up and says, "I'm going to look at this," that it's being considered. Apparently it isn't, in terms of the local officials.

This is a tragedy that the Attorney General is perpetuating. The 16-year-old aboriginal boy received no protection, absolutely none. He was missing for over a year and no one reported it, yet the crown is now providing special protection for the silent participants in this horrific murder. Their identities are kept secret, they're free to go about their business without shame or adversity, and they're not being charged, according to the local crown.

This is not a case of an innocent passerby witnessing a murder on the street. It's a group of people who casually watched one man beat a 16-year-old aboriginal boy lifeless. There was nothing innocent about it. The beating went on for hours. The Attorney General, through her non-answer, is telling the people that the people in that room had no criminal guilt.

Minister, I'd like to hear your answer in respect to how your local crown can justify these people escaping criminal responsibility for a murder they participated in through their silence, both at the time of the beating and for the last 13 months.

Hon Marion Boyd: In answer to the member's first question -- he asked if this issue would be reviewed. I repeat that this matter is being reviewed and is being investigated, and I have no further comment to make on a matter that is under investigation.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Health. Currently, your ministry is redefining the underserviced area regarding the supply of doctors. Several of my communities, and I must specify rural communities, including Wallaceburg, are experiencing a severe shortage of physicians.

Ontario doctors aren't being encouraged to move to smaller communities, and those who come from out of province who are interested in underserviced areas are often being denied access. As well, communities feel that everything is up in the air, because no one knows what the new rules are going to be in the redefined underserviced areas. They don't know if any of the barriers to employment in these smaller communities will be removed.

Minister, when can we expect the new rules to come into effect, and what will your ministry do to reduce the disincentives for physicians practising in smaller communities?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The problem of getting doctors to small, underserviced communities and keeping them there is not a new one and is certainly one that this ministry has taken very seriously. I'm delighted that, through the agreement we signed this summer with the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Medical Association now joins us in a commitment to deal with this problem and assume some responsibility for trying to encourage and support its members who work in rural areas.

I'm glad to be able to tell the member that one of the ways that this will be done is through contracts whereby a doctor enters into a contract that he or she will practise and have some security of remuneration in a smaller area. We are currently working out the specifics of those contracts, and I hope to have that in place by the end of October this year.

Mr Hope: My supplementary to the minister will be -- and as you can tell, I've got a cold. That means I have a hard time getting to the doctors who are in rural communities, which we don't have. But, minister, I understand --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): You go to the doctor with a cold? You are the cause of our health problems.

Mr Hope: It's amazing how many big mouths are in here.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Do you have a mirror?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Hope: One of the things I would like to bring to the minister's attention is that those are future initiatives. A lot of my communities need doctors now. How can we put new rules in place to help implement that strategy right now on the shortage of doctors?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said in my response to the member's first question, we are working with the Ontario Medical Association as to what the specifics of the contract would be for enabling us to offer positions to doctors in underserviced areas.

We are also working, for example, with the academic health science centres and the district health councils to define more precisely what in fact an underserviced area, be it geographic or be it population, is and how we can clarify that. We also want to work with communities to help them to provide support and encouragement and an atmosphere in which doctors wish to remain, because doctors and their families, if they go to a new community, sometimes settle and sometimes stay a very brief period and then go.

So there are a number of aspects to this. We are making a concerted effort to deal with it, and in the transition I can't give the member as precise an answer as he would want as to when we will be able to resolve the problem, other than to assure him that, yes, we now have ways of solving the problem and, yes, we now have the Ontario Medical Association helping us to solve the problem.

May I also say to the member and to all members of this House that if you have a cold, going to a doctor is not the best way to cure it.

1450

POLICE COMPLAINTS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I'm rather confused about this government, because the Attorney General, at one stage, can't interfere in the case and yet I understand that she had called the commissioner of police in regard to that case and asked that there be no undue delay in the case. I can't understand. Now she can't interfere.

My question is to the Attorney General. Recent media reports on two high-profile cases have heightened the concerns about the public complaints commission. At a press conference today, a large number of community organizations expressed their lack of confidence in the police complaint system.

One case, as you may recall, involved a visitor from Jamaica to Toronto who was allegedly strip-searched on a street corner in full view of passersby. A most disturbing aspect of this case is the reported attempt on the part of the police to undermine the credibility of the individual through a police leak.

My question is, surely the minister cannot be satisfied with the police complaint process. What are you doing, what specific steps are you taking, to make the police complaints system function in a manner that will restore public confidence?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I think the question is a very fair question and I think a good number of people have been expressing deep concern, not only about the case that the member has mentioned, but over a period of time.

There are a number of issues that are involved in this issue, and one is the length of time it apparently takes to investigate these kinds of complaints, the inconvenience and the stress that causes for people who are alleged victims of improper behaviour and so on. That is a major issue in the particular case that the member talks about, because the visitor is wanting to go home when her visa expires.

I have spoken to the Ontario police complaints commissioner and urged that the timeliness be a primary issue. Obviously it is not my job to interfere with the investigation in any way, but it is our job to ensure that there is an efficient and effective use of process. I did indeed urge the commissioner to use his good offices to expedite this investigation.

Mr Curling: The people do not believe that the system is working for them and I'm glad that you raised the question that there are other cases in view. Take a case that you must be familiar with, of Mrs F, a battered wife who was offered police protection in exchange for sexual favours. Her allegations ended up being thrown out due to a delay in informing the police of the inquiry. Furthermore, there were reported efforts to undermine the woman's credibility by conducting an investigation into her past. I would like to ask the minister if she feels that this is justice.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is well aware that this matter is the matter of a civil suit between the individuals involved and it would not be appropriate for us to discuss that case while it is pending before the court.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. As you know, many people in the construction trades are deeply concerned about Bill 80. They believe that there is no demonstrated need for this legislation and they also believe that it will only contribute to chaos in the already unstable construction industry. They are very concerned that the bill is an attempt by the government to override their duly formulated constitutions and they are very concerned that you have not had any consultation with the people who are going to be impacted.

Minister, why is the legislation so necessary when there is no demonstrated need for such a bill? Why are you proceeding with this divisive bill without allowing for adequate consultation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I don't know who all the member across the way has been talking to. It's an issue that is difficult, but there are people on both sides of this issue who have been consulting with us and with whom we have been consulting over the last almost a year now. There is a lot of support for the bill, as well as some who have questions about the bill. We are in the process of finalizing that legislation now. I would dispute the comment that there's no desire for this bill among construction workers in the province of Ontario.

Mrs Witmer: You know that you had no prior consultation with the provincial or the national building trades or many of the other groups with respect to this law. However, given that you feel you are on the right track, if this bill is such a good piece of legislation, why does it only apply to the construction unions in this province and not all the unions?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The answer to that is very simple. The construction unions have a different setup, in terms of the control of the locals or their members or their pension and benefit plans, than almost all of the industrial unions in the province of Ontario and do not have quite the same mechanisms that exist in the industrial unions.

FARM MORTGAGES

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, I don't have to remind you of the financial difficulties many Ontario farmers are facing, and I know that your ministry has taken great strides to assist them, especially the $35 million that you provided to farmers back in 1991, when the federal Conservatives refused to help.

I've recently been advised by farmers from my riding of Wentworth North that one of their biggest concerns is the mortgages on their farms. During these fragile economic times, mortgages are very difficult to obtain.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Please, anybody, ask me this question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Burlington South.

Mr Abel: Without mortgages, some will be unable to expand or improve their operations and others may lose their farms. Mr Minister, farmers with mortgage concerns need your help. Can you and your ministry assist them?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The member raises a good question. One of the frequent questions that I receive as I travel across the province is on intergenerational transfers of farms, between generations, and what the government can do to assist people to pass the farm on to the next generation.

We did introduce a program back on April 8, I believe it was, 1993, which is called the private mortgage guarantee program and allows people to take mortgages up to $500,000 privately for the transferring of farms or taking out a new mortgage on a farm. It's a fairly popular program, but people in many cases are not aware that it's out there. It means that the government is actively involved in guaranteeing the investors their money. It means that people who want to get into farming can get money at a reasonable rate, because we have regulated the rate of that mortgage at the guaranteed investment certificate rate less 1%.

It's a program that was designed for farmers by farmers and it's something that people should be aware of if they're looking at getting into agriculture. It provides another alternative for mortgage money to assist agriculture.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. You too have responsibility regarding the horrific happening that took the life of one of our most vulnerable youth in Smiths Falls. How could this have happened? Are there not mechanisms in place, when a crime is committed, when a young person is missing for over a year, that guarantee that a situation is reported immediately, that an investigation is begun immediately by care givers, by police, and indeed, considering the seriousness of this happening, the loss of a young life, that you yourself, Mr Minister, get a report of such incidents? Where are the management practices? Where is the responsibility of this government in this incident?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the member asking the question. I have to say that I find the question that she's placed to be more responsible than the statement she made in the House yesterday.

I want to start by saying that I too share the very strong concern that she's expressed with respect to the loss of this young life. I can assure her that from the minute the issue came to our attention, officials in my ministry have been reviewing the matter with respect to the activities that took place. As far as the responsibilities of the children's aid society, we have some information to date. We don't have the complete range of information, in part because the same files have needed to be used by the police for their investigation. So that's just taking a little longer.

But I can assure her that we are continuing our work on this and I think, from the preliminary information that I have, I can tell the member that I have some concerns about some of the processes that were followed. As I'm in a position to have more detailed information, I'll be in a position to be able to make more detailed responses and statements about what steps we need to take, but it's already clear to me that there are some steps that we need to take around the systems that are in place to ensure they are better followed in future situations.

1500

Mrs O'Neill: Well, Mr Minister, we have a whole new tendency today to have all our questions and statements, even yesterday, judged whether they're appropriate. I have difficulty with that.

We have here a devastating oversight, if not a coverup. We have to have immediate reaction. It's true you will have to review this certain circumstance, but surely you can send a message out to every care giver in this province, and indeed to every police detachment, that there are going to be from now on, from this minute, checks and balances and that there are going to be measures you are going to take.

Mr Minister, you have heard me speak many times about the Grandview girls. The same thing happens there: dragging our feet, not really getting involved in the issue. What immediate actions are you taking?

Hon Mr Silipo: I have to take some exception to the comments the member makes. I want to again emphasize with her how important I personally believe this issue is and with what importance the ministry has been dealing with this. We have been on top of the issue from the beginning. I personally have continued on a daily basis to be updated on the progress of the review we are undertaking. I take the matter very seriously. The ministry takes the matter very seriously. What I've been doing is I think the responsible thing, which is to get all the information in before making judgements about what steps we need to take.

I'm indicating to the member two very clear things: First, we will take some very serious steps, if those steps are warranted, as soon as we have all the information. Secondly, we are doing everything necessary to get all those details and to ensure that then, beyond dealing with the specific situation, we also look at what system changes we need to put in place to ensure that this kind of situation does not happen in the future.

MINISTRY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. it concerns his office move -- which serves all of Simcoe county -- which is moving the office of Municipal Affairs from Orillia to Willowdale. Your ministry is also closing the North Bay office. It's going to be served out of Sudbury.

With the restructuring that's taking place in Simcoe county, the need for that office to continue in Orillia is most important. The clerks and treasurers of Simcoe county have very strongly sent a letter to you, sir, indicating the importance of that office staying open to serve that whole community of Simcoe county, plus it has served Owen Sound and a larger area down to Newmarket. Minister, will you change the decision of your ministry and make sure that office will stay there?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I haven't yet seen the letter the honourable member talks about. I do appreciate that my parliamentary assistant, Pat Hayes, the member for Essex-Kent, has been in regular contact with a number of those municipal leaders, and indeed with the honourable member himself on the very meaningful hearings which we've had on restructuring Simcoe and what was, for many of the local people, a difficult decision of reducing the number of municipalities from 28 to 16, but showed some real leadership. The moment I have a chance to review the letter, I'll certainly be back to him and to other members of the House.

Mr McLean: I observe that the minister is not knowledgeable about the offices that are closing across this province. Those are just some that I have mentioned.

Minister, what I'm talking about is the Treasurer's indicating that he wants to have more taxes, that he's going to have more expenditures, and what we're saying is that we want you to cut spending by leaving those offices there, because in that way you don't have air flights, you don't have all the mileages attached to it. I think, Mr Minister, you had better check with your ministry staff and find out why these offices are closing.

Hon Mr Philip: If the honourable member would read the record and see exactly what I responded to him, I didn't say that I was not familiar with the offices and the restructuring we are doing. Indeed, all ministries are looking for ways of economizing and delivering services more efficiently.

What I said was that I was not familiar with the specific letter that he says was addressed to me. The moment I have an opportunity to study the letter, I will of course respond to that letter. It's the letter I have not seen. Certainly, I'm familiar with the restructuring that my ministry and indeed every ministry has undergone. We have been able, in difficult times, to take some 15% off the operating costs of our ministry and 10% out of salaries and benefits as part of reducing the deficit. It's been a difficult task, and we're doing it in a way that will cause the least amount of disruption to our clients.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

Motions?

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition that is signed by 30 people from the ridings of Chatham-Kent and Essex-Kent. It's a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's got a number of whereases, and it says:

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish casino gambling in the province."

It's signed by the Crows from rural route 2, Tilbury, the Buchanans from rural route 2, Tilbury, the Turners from rural route 2, Tilbury, and also Kim Mitchell from the city of Chatham.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have the following petition to present to the Legislature:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

Since I agree with this petition, I will affix my signature to it.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition from a number of residents of Scarborough, Pickering and Toronto.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"Therefore, that the provincial government of Ontario request of the federal government of Canada to initiate a public review by panel of the federal Minister of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources and the community of residents there."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I've been asked to present this petition on behalf of my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction of the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/Government Framework and Economic Agreement."

It's signed by six people from the minister's riding.

1510

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition from 27 parishioners of St Matthew's-Donwood pastoral charge which draws both from my riding and that of the member for Hastings-Peterborough.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government's sale plan;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Therefore, that the provincial government of Ontario request the federal government of Canada to initiate a public review by a panel of the federal Minister of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources and the community residents there."

I sign my name to it to support all the good people in rural Uxbridge and Whitchurch-Stouffville who are going to be affected by this.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I also have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government's sale plan;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

This is signed by residents of Scarborough, Pickering, Markham, Stouffville, and all the area around indicating again the wide breadth of support that the people of North Pickering have again, as this revisits their lives over and over again for the last 20 years. I affix my signature and hope that something can be done to help these people.

SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND LEARNING DISABLED

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Education proposes to substantially modify the provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled by either downsizing, closing parts of or restructuring the schools, resulting in significant hardship for students, families, employees and the local community for the purpose of saving money; and

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents' Association believes that the quality education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled provides the lowest total-cost option available, while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"(1) Maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model from all interested parties has been developed; and

"(2) Empower local boards of trustees, as set out in model 5, to manage their own budgets within ministry guidelines and funding."

These petitions include the signatures of literally hundreds of people in the area affected by the concerns raised here.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I seek consent to return to motions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent that we return to motions? Agreed.

MOTIONS

FIRST DEPUTY CHAIR

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I have two motions that I wish to move this afternoon, and I should tell some members opposite that one of them is not the motion that comes out of the rumour they've been all talking about for the last couple of weeks.

It's a very great pleasure for me to move that Ms Harrington, member for the electoral district of Niagara Falls, be appointed First Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The second motion is that I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(a) the House will not meet to consider private members' public business on Thursday morning, September 30, 1993.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND CONSERVANCY CORPORATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PROTECTION DES TERRES

On motion by Mrs Mathyssen, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 92, An Act respecting Land Conservancy Corporations / Projet de loi 92, Loi concernant les sociétés de protection des terres.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you like to say a few words?

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Just briefly, the purpose of this bill is to promote the conservation and protection of significant lands in Ontario by providing new rights and exemptions in favour of land conservancy corporations.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS, 1993 / CHARTE DES DROITS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX DE 1993

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 26, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario / Projet de loi 26, Loi concernant les droits environnementaux en Ontario.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I left off yesterday outlining some of the concerns that our party has and that will be reiterated by other members of our caucus as this debate unfolds. I believe other members of this House will have some concerns.

The difficulty, of course, in continuing on a second day is the break of one's train of thought in a presentation, but very briefly, as we know, the key provision of this legislation is that there will be a new electronic registry to provide public notice of significant environmental decisions. That will incur considerable cost to the taxpayer.

There will be new rights of public participation that vary depending on the instrument involved, and I believe we will be spending some time on what the word "instrument" means as defined by the legislation and indeed how far this public participation will go.

There will be a public right to sue polluters who have caused damage to the environment.

There is a public right to request reviews of government environmental policies.

Finally, there is an office of the Environmental Commissioner, who is a watchdog to monitor government performance.

As I indicated yesterday, my basic fear of this legislation is that we're creating a false sense of security, a false set of expectations in the people of this province about what this bill will be creating. In other words, the purpose of the bill is to give Ontario a right to a clean environment and our individual rights. That is the intent of the bill, and I really question whether that will be found under this bill.

The second concern I had, which I expressed yesterday, was the bureaucracy that's going to be created, a whole new bureaucracy that's going to be incurred, as well as costs to the government and costs to the individual with respect to the courts; finally, as I indicated, the whole subject of a new bureaucracy, being the commissioner.

1520

The commissioner, it was indicated by the government, will be a watchdog of the government. Can the commissioner order an injunction on the government? The minister indicated that the answer to that question was no, he or she can't.

Can this bill be implemented with the current staff, or is it going to be necessary to enlarge the bureaucracy? The answer by the minister was that it can be done with the current staff. With due respect, I question that, when all of the 14 ministries are going to have to be preparing reports and expanding, as well as the unlimited number of bureaucrats the commissioner can retain. I read that section into the record yesterday, that the commissioner has absolute discretion to appoint as many bureaucrats as he or she wishes.

In terms of what the pricetag is, the minister has indicated that for the first two years it will cost $4 million. My question of course is that when we're cutting back with the social contract this government is undertaking, when people are losing their jobs in this province, is this the appropriate time to get into this type of venture? If we are, can we not do it another way? Is this the only way to do it, by creating another bureaucracy? Those questions will be asked as time goes on and certainly will be asked at the committee level.

I did offer my congratulations to the minister and I repeat those congratulations that he was able to get -- and it may have been going back to the previous minister as well -- two groups that normally fight each other on environmental issues; that is, the environmentalists, that I suppose we all are, as well as the business community. They did get together and, generally speaking, those two groups that formed the task force did generally agree on the draft bill which ultimately came forward as the bill that's before this House.

However, there were several groups that expressed their concern and their lack of participation.

Many of us represent rural communities, and this sector has expressed a high level of concern with the proposed legislation. This of course is the agricultural industry, and the agricultural industry has expressed concern.

The initial concern of the agricultural industry was focused on the fact that the task force that drafted the bill did not include any direct representation from the agricultural industry. The farmers, no question, will be greatly impacted by this legislation, and there's a general feeling that they should be at the negotiating table. For some reason, the government chose to ignore the farmers and leave them off this task force.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which is Ontario's largest general farm organization, views the new bill as somewhat more farmer-friendly than the private member's bill that was introduced by the first Environment minister, Mrs Grier, when she was in opposition. However, the farmers still express some lingering concerns which need to be addressed.

One of the concerns the agricultural community has put forward is the definition of public land, which is a concern of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Farmers are asking whether the "natural environment" of "public land" would mean that farmers would have to restore agricultural land that has been developed for farming.

Michael Cochrane, who is chair of the Environmental Bill of Rights task force, is quoted in the July 20 edition of Farm and Country newspaper as stating: "If you operate in an ordinary course on your own land, nobody is going to hassle you. If the farmer did something that would cause harm to public land, air or water, you have to fix the mess." This comment by Mr Cochrane leads to more questions, most notable of which is, what would constitute an "ordinary course" by a farmer in his operations?

That Farm and Country publication, which came out July 20, 1993, made a number of comments which I'd like to refer to. It's an article by Bernard Tobin of Farm and Country. The major changes include that the Drainage Act does not fall under the umbrella of Bill 26, that the Drainage Act already maintains an appeal process to the drainage tribunal; and the definition of wetland has been dropped.

The subject of wetlands has always been a topic that seems to cover a whole wide range of ministries. In fact, ministries don't seem to get along on the whole topic of wetlands, and we could spend an hour and a half on that subject alone. But for some reason that definition has been dropped.

"The Farm Practices Protection Act has not been strengthened but it has been clarified so that the complaints resulting from noise, dust and odour must first proceed through the Farm Practices Protection Board before the Environmental Bill of Rights can be used to rule on a decision."

Mr David Armitage, who is an Ontario Federation of Agriculture policy analyst, said that the definition of public land has been a thorn in the side of farm leaders. He says that many farmers have been asked whether the "natural environment" of "public land" would mean that farmers would have to restore agricultural land that has been developed for farming.

I recommend that this article be read by members of the House and other interested parties who are going to be proceeding. Certainly the subject of the farmer wasn't involved in these proceedings, and the farmer does have concerns. We have been assured by the Minister of Environment and Energy that the farmer will be protected, but the farmer still remains uncertain.

As I indicated, Mr Armitage has noted that the Environmental Bill of Rights may not be the appropriate mechanism to protect the environment.

Another agricultural organization, the Ontario Corn Producers' Association, has also expressed concerns with the legislation, and it too was not part of the process. They have a newsletter that comes out. Specifically, in the July 1993 newsletter they talked about the Environmental Bill of Rights. In this letter, the Ontario Corn Producers' Association noted that its major concern "is the legalistic approach to environmental responsibility." Quoting from the newsletter, "We believe a more effective approach to environmental stewardship involves the encouragement of a public ethic through education and voluntary action, principles embodied in the development of the agricultural community's farm environmental agenda initiative."

I don't know whether the task force got into that, but I'm certain that the corn producers will be coming to the committee and giving their thoughts on this subject. I would like to hear more about it, as I'm sure other members of the House would before we give final vote on this bill.

It's being stressed that the farm sector is demonstrating an impressive track record on voluntary environmental initiatives. That's what the farming community has said. Most notably, a coalition of representatives from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Christian Farmers Federation, AgCare and the Ontario Farm Animal Council drafted a plan called Our Environmental Agenda. I understand that this program encourages farmers to formulate environmental farm plans to identify potential risks on their operation and set goals for the minimizations of these risks. Examples of areas under scrutiny include pesticide storage, handling of livestock manure and well-water conditions.

I think it's incumbent upon us to listen to these people. I'm not blaming the task force, but for some reason all of these people were left out of the task force. We've heard a position from the business people of this province and the environmental community, but we've certainly heard nothing from the agricultural community. I know they will be letting their views be known at the committee stage.

1530

Roger George, who has spoken to many committees in this House and is the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, notes that their environmental program is way ahead of the Environmental Bill of Rights. He says: "We are doing something that is stronger than what Mrs Grier has planned. We are setting standards above the legislation."

In other words, the agricultural community is saying, "What we're doing voluntarily is even further than what the bill of rights is setting forth." When we get a certain segment of our society saying that, I think that before we go ahead and start building an expensive bureaucracy, an expensive registry system and all kinds of other things that are going to affect the farmer, we should at least listen to them and see whether they can offer any alternatives.

Another concern in the agricultural industry, as I've indicated, is the effect that the Environmental Bill of Rights will have on the existing Farm Practices Protection Act. This legislation was passed in 1988 and was strongly supported by the farm community. It protects farmers from nuisance lawsuits such as odour, noise or dust complaints.

Now, the minister and ministry officials have told members of this House individually on a number of occasions that farmers will continue to be protected against nuisance suits by the Farm Practices Protection Act. The concern of the farmers is that they have argued that the existing legislation is very limited in its ability to protect them. Mr Armitage, whom I've referred to, of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, states: ""If the Environmental Bill of Rights is to go ahead and the Farm Practices Protection Act is to protect farmers, then we have to strengthen it. We have to look at pesticide use that doesn't fall under the category of dust, noise or odour."

I'm reiterating a concern that's been put forward by the agricultural community that they generally fear the Environmental Bill of Rights legislation, that they're not going to be given the protection that the minister has indicated they will have, and hopefully that this will come forward in the committee stage, perhaps a strengthening of the Farm Practices Protection Act.

The other two areas which I would like to refer to are the concerns of our municipal partners, the concerns of the municipalities on what effect the Environmental Bill of Rights is going to have on them, and finally the legal community. The legal community, of course, was represented on the task force and many lawyers who were on the task force have spoken very positively as to the Environmental Bill of Rights. They may be right, they may be wrong, and it remains to be seen, because there certainly has been some position.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): What is your position on the lawyers?

Mr Tilson: I'm sorry? Well, don't say anything. Just be quiet and listen.

The Canadian Bar Association did put in a submission back in November commenting on the draft bill, which has subsequently become the draft bill that's before us, that's received first reading. I think many of us have just received this and I would recommend that all members of the House look at this. The sections have changed, but basically their criticisms are valid and, I think, should be looked at. I'm going to refer to some of them, although acknowledging that the sections that are referred to don't match the sections in the bill. But the general concepts are valid and should be considered by all members of the House.

Referring to this document, which is dated November 12, 1992, and presented by the Canadian Bar Association -- it's entitled Submission to the Minister of the Environment on the Proposed Environmental Bill of Rights, 1992. There are about 40-odd pages and it's essentially a clause-by-clause review of the then draft bill. Some of them are interesting. Specifically, there's a section that deals with definitions and purposes. Just briefly, paraphrasing what it said, the subsection, which is section 1, defines the terms found in the Environmental Bill of Rights. The Canadian Bar Association subcommittee has concerns regarding the consistency of the definitions in the Environmental Bill of Rights with the definitions in the Environmental Protection Act. I think that is a genuine concern. We already have a piece of legislation. Is there going to be a conflict with the definition in the new legislation and the existing legislation that we already have?

"Unless there is a reason not to use the EPA definitions, the definitions in the EBR should be the same. If a change is required in the EBR definitions then that change should be incorporated in the EPA as well." That's a legitimate concern, that if we're going to have two conflicting pieces of legislation with two definitions, those items should be tidied up.

For example, they speak about the definition of the environment and ecological systems. "The EBR defines 'environment' as meaning 'air, water, land, plant life, animal life, and ecological systems of Ontario.' The addition of 'ecological systems' to the definition of 'environment' may pose interpretation problems. The phrase 'ecological systems' should be defined in the act."

The solicitors are quite right. We've heard members of the task force, legal representatives of the task force, trying to reassure us that there isn't going to be the tremendous influx of legal proceedings before the courts, but matters even such as this are grounds for application to the court. So this paper, although it was made in advance of the current bill, should be looked at.

Continuing on with the report, "Moreover, 'plant life' and 'animal life' are also mentioned in the definition of environment. They may also require further definition if these are to be included in the definition of 'environment' and add something distinct to the meaning of environment apart from ecological systems which would otherwise appear to encompass plants and animals."

Then the paper went on through a number of other definitions, which you can all read. Some of you may already have read it, but I will recommend that you do read this paper.

The bar association then goes on to the topic of public participation in government decision-making. It mentions how the Environmental Bill of Rights sets out the process by which the public is invited to comment on proposals for policies and acts, regulations or instruments. That's a subject, I might add, the issue of instruments, that the municipal people seem to be concerned about as to what an instrument is and the effect on municipalities and the challenges by members of the public to that process. I will, if time permits, be dealing with that because the concern of the municipalities is that this is going to result in more downloading of taxation on to the municipality.

The paper continues, "While the CBAO subcommittee supports the government policy initiative respecting public participation in government decision-making, it has some concerns with respect to the process as presently provided in the proposed EBR." This is the part that I think we should all consider: "On the one hand, there is a concern that public comments will be too easily ignored or even dispensed with at the minister's discretion." You may recall that yesterday I expressed that concern of the political discretion that's available to the minister to decide whether some matter is applicable or not applicable, and that is a concern of the bar association.

"On the other hand, to require that each comment is entitled to an explanation as to why it was or was not considered is an enormous commitment of resources, depending on the number of comments received, and may delay already long and expensive procedures." So it can go the other way. The individuals, simply by demanding comments from specific ministries, can delay the process so that ministries will be required to put forward more funds, more resources, to deal with perhaps an influx of questions from the public. That in turn will result in substantial expense to the taxpayer of this province.

1540

The subcommittee of the Canadian Bar Association therefore recommends "that if a notice and comment system is to be implemented, there must be a meaningful as well as efficient way to deal with such comments. If comments are too easily ignored or too burdensome to respond to, the EBR, in practice, will not be an improvement over the present informal system."

I think that's the real question we should all be looking at if we're trying to improve this bill of rights that is before us. How is it improving the existing system? Is it improving the existing system? Is it making it more complicated? Is it going to result in more unnecessary bureaucracy? Are questions that are going to be asked by members of the public to be left unanswered because of this vague discretion that the minister may have? I think that's a concern that we need to look at in the committee stage and spend some time on. If we're going to have an Environmental Bill of Rights, let's have one that's going to have some teeth to it.

The Canadian Bar Association also refers to the topic of ministry statements and talks about the contents and form of the statements of environmental values to be developed by each ministry. They submit that these are quite open-ended. These are the statements by the various ministries that are going to be prepared. The report says:

"While as these statements are developed an accepted form may emerge, standards or criteria for the content/form of such statements may be appropriate. Under the Environmental Assessment Act and regulations a summary statement of environmental assessment contents is required to be produced in a consistent form. Such an approach may be appropriate here.

"It is questionable whether such statements, which will inevitably be very general, will assist in environmental protection as they do not have any legal effect."

That's a reasonable criticism. Here we're going to be asking all of these various ministries to be preparing these statements, yet they're not going to have a legal effect. So why are we going through all that exercise? Why are we putting the ministries to that expense and the resources of preparing all this? Is it simply for our perusal? We may or may not agree with it. They certainly won't have any legal effect. That's an area that we need to spend some time on as well.

The bar association also commented on the environmental registry, which I had referred to yesterday as being a very potentially expensive process. The bar association as well is concerned with the costs of implementing a registry system. The report says:

"It is suggested user fees be considered, as discussed in the task force's report. Ad hoc users should not be required to pay since this would be costly to administer; however, users on a mailing list for each subject area should be required to pay an administrative fee. User fees, however, should not become a barrier to access to the information contained in the registry."

I think everyone's going to acknowledge, when you implement this type of process, the environmental registry, it's going to be very costly. If we do get into a user system, we want to make sure that it's accessible to all and that this shouldn't be a barrier. That's reasonable.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we should have a quorum. This is a very important debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please verify if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is present, Speaker.

Mr Tilson: There is also in this report considerable criticism, as I had indicated in my remarks yesterday, of the position of the Environmental Commissioner, stating that the powers of the Environmental Commissioner are few and the role of the Environmental Commissioner is weak. It's a very sound criticism and I think we need to look at that.

The subcommittee indicated it was "concerned that the five-year appointment of the EC may be too long. The appointment potentially succeeds the life of the government appointing him/her, which may create the problem of accountability. The EC's five-year term is long considering the general practice of a maximum of two- to three-year terms for ministerial appointees."

I don't know whether that's a valid criticism or not, but I'd like to hear more from the bar association. I assume they will be appearing before the committee to reiterate many of their concerns.

I would like to spend considerable time going through this, but I know the bar association will be appearing and updating this report. This report of course was presented prior to the introduction of this bill, but has basically the same comments to the draft bill that came out with the task force, which is essentially a mirror of the existing bill.

The municipalities are another area that I think we should look at. There was a letter that was sent to the coordinator of the implementation, Environmental Bill Of Rights, this July by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I don't believe that AMO has actually prepared a report, but some of the concerns it has expressed in this letter, and no doubt will follow in its report, are another area of concern, because one of the major concerns I have and that I will be submitting at the committee level is the cost that's going to be potentially passed down to the municipalities.

This letter which, as I said, was dated July 29, comments on the whole issue of instruments, instruments being licences, permits, that sort of thing. What does the word "instrument" mean? The word "instrument" is defined in the bill as, "Except as otherwise provided under clause 122(1)(c), means any document of legal effect issued under an act and includes a permit, licence, approval, authorization, direction or order issued under an act, but does not include a regulation."

That's all great legalese, and I think that's the concern of many of the municipalities I have spoken to, as to what does that include and what effect is that going to have, particularly on the bill of rights, affecting potential zoning, severance applications or other matters that municipalities become involved with.

The letter states:

"Many provincial statutes and decisions directly affect the work of municipalities and their operations. The province currently passes policy statements, usually environmentally related, under the authority of section 3 of the Planning Act, 1983. This is the key provincial 'instrument' passed under the Planning Act. The status" -- and this is the concern of the municipalities -- "of this instrument must be addressed whether or not the Environmental Bill of Rights principal components are applied to the Planning Act."

Again we're getting into the potential conflict between this bill and other pieces of legislation. I think the drafters of the bill haven't looked at that. We've talked about the potential conflict with the Environmental Assessment Act, and here's another concern with the conflict with respect to the Planning Act. I'm referring to this letter that was written to Mr Shaw by AMO.

"Currently, the province, under various statutes, issues instruments," as indicated in the bill, "(ie, permits, approvals, and licences) which govern the work of municipalities in the construction of sewers and roads, and the construction and operation of sewage treatment plants."

That's a genuine fear. If someone wants to put a sewer line up the middle of a street, if a municipality wants to do that, can individuals stop that? Under the Environmental Bill of Rights, "any two residents of Ontario who are over 18 years" of age "may request a review of an instrument issued to a municipality. The bill provides the minister with broad discretion to take actions or no action."

Again we're getting into the discretion of the minister, the vague political discretion. Do we have a bill of rights or don't we? What rights do these individuals have and what effect is this going to have on such groups as municipalities?

Because of this broad discretion, "this has the potential of creating uncertainty about municipal instruments, and subsequently uncertainty about municipal operations." AMO gives examples of provincial instruments which affect municipalities: "provincial grants to municipalities; certificates of approval required for extending sewer lines; and subdivision approvals under the Planning Act. Given that there is a relationship between the certificate of approvals and provincial grants, the delays could cause uncertainty and possibly loss of provincial grants."

Two people over the age of 18 years: I understand what the government's trying to do, but these people could potentially create great havoc to the work that a municipality is doing, all at the discretion or non-discretion of the minister.

1550

The letter states: "This will have an impact on municipal infrastructure projects which also rely on provincial funding programs and which also will be subject to the components of the Environmental Bill of Rights. The classification of instruments is therefore very critical in determining notice, comment, potential hearing requirements and rights of appeal. A fair assessment will require technical expertise in waste management, water resources and air emissions."

All of these matters, therefore, will have to be clarified by the government at some stage, or the whole operation of municipalities and whatever they're going to be doing can be completely full of havoc, because they won't know what the results of these things are going to be or where they're going to go.

Therefore, "The proposed general definition of 'instruments' is," as AMO has described, "potentially all-encompassing. The huge scope," and I'm quoting, "of 'any document of legal effect issued under an act' appears to be narrowed only by the requirement of a significant effect on the environment or the limited application of section 32. The...committee believes that clarification is needed on whether or not items such as approvals for onsite waste disposal system issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, clearance letters issued by provincial agencies to allow subdivision plans to proceed, permit-by-rule application for recycling facilities, and decisions of tribunals such as the Ontario Municipal Board are considered 'instruments.'"

So the municipalities are quite right in raising these issues. They don't know what they mean and what the effect is going to be on their general operation, whether it be for subdivision applications or whether it be for the construction of sewer lines or whatever municipalities may do, with the potential holdup by two or more individuals, or at least two individuals, who are 18 years of age or older.

Essentially AMO in this letter recommends that "the ministry consult municipalities in order to develop the regulations which will establish the classification scheme for instruments before the bill is passed. Municipalities should have an input in clarifying the definition of instruments and the implications for municipalities." I doubt very much whether that consultation has taken place and look forward to hearing more of it.

This letter, of course, has been probably sent to other members of the House and, if not, it could be made available because it does set forth on an interim basis what the concerns of AMO are to date, although AMO has made it quite clear it has yet to clarify its position on the Environmental Bill of Rights. They have indicated, as have both opposition parties, their general support in principle to an Environmental Bill of Rights, but they, like the two opposition parties, have considerable concerns that should be addressed before we proceed to this bill.

To date, AMO is concerned with the appeals process, the coverage, the environmental registry and public participation. I'm going to read one brief section from their concerns with respect to the environmental registry system that's being proposed under this legislation because it does concern the whole issue of costs.

"Under some provincial legislation, the minister may delegate certain authorities to municipalities. The bill does not indicate whether the requirements that apply to the affected ministries in relation to the cost of operation of the environmental registry would apply to municipalities that have delegated authority from ministries. Municipalities do not have the resources to meet the requirements of the environmental registry."

That's a genuine concern. They're putting the government on notice that if this is going to be passed down to those municipalities, the municipalities because of cutbacks of social contract, because of cutbacks of transfer payments, simply do not have the resources if this is the plan of the government.

"AMO does not support the downloading of the costs and the operation of the environmental registry to municipalities. AMO recommends that the bill explicitly state that all responsibilities for the cost and operation of the environmental registry rest with the provincial government and not the delegated bodies."

That's been one of the issues that this government has done. They bring forward these things, such as this bill, and then they pass on the administration and the costs to the municipalities. It's another example. I suppose we all want to look good and say we're concerned with environmental issues. The question is, who's going to pay for these things? Who's going to pay for the environmental registry? There are concerns in the municipalities that they are, and they're saying to this government that they don't want that. They don't like that because they simply don't have the money, nor does the property taxpayer of this province.

That issue is going to have to be clarified as this debate goes on, and it may well be that the minister and other members of the government can clarify that, that regulations or something is going to come forward that's going to say that the cost and the operation of the environmental registry, if it does go, will rest with the provincial government. I hope the person who tells us that will also say what that is going to cost. What's the total cost for the database, the total cost for the computers, the total cost for the staffing of it? What is the total cost? That has yet to be revealed.

AMO says, "We are not in favour of a costing structure that would limit access only to those who can afford to pay," so that's a similar concern to the legal community. They're concerned that access to this may only be to those who can afford to pay.

That is another report that I'm sure will be made. AMO and some of the municipalities may be making presentations to the committee as the debate unfolds. I think we should listen to that because, generally speaking, the principle of an Environmental Bill of Rights is a good thing, but I hark back to my original concern in this debate: Are we doing it in the most economical fashion? Are we taking the Cadillac approach to solving a problem? Are there other ways of doing it?

I hope the ministry officials or the representatives, the parliamentary assistant or the minister will be able to tell us exactly what the other alternatives are -- because there may be other alternatives; I'm sure there are other alternatives -- and whether the government has properly looked at those instead of building up yet another bureaucracy. It is ironic: We're trying to cut back on the Ministry of Environment and Energy on the one hand, and here we are creating more bureaucrats, at least 15 for the commissioner, so the minister says, although it's unlimited by the bill as to who the commission says he or she can appoint.

In summary, the major concerns of the municipalities are the language and the wording. There are two many grey areas that need to be defined. The one I've spent some time on is that we're uncertain as to what the term "instrument," as defined in the bill, encompasses. The way it is now, it could really have a damaging effect on the operation of the municipalities of this province.

Finally, the provincial Planning Act already has structures for public participation, so a concern exists among the municipalities over a possible duplication of other existing legislation, and that's a valid concern. If we've already got a structure that is trying to deal with these problems, and the example is the Planning Act, why are we creating another bureaucracy? There has been concern over the relationship between the Sewell report and the potential Environmental Bill of Rights. Again, AMO has expressed some concern, as have the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and some of the farmers' groups. They are concerned that they were not directly represented on the task force.

Some of the legal issues that have come forward in terms of the bureaucracy have been reported in the media. Some of you may have looked at the Law Times, which goes out to the legal community. This particular edition is July 19, which is actually full of other interesting environmental issues, but there is one particular article I would recommend you all look at, prepared by Howard Solomon for the Law Times, and it comments on what the government is trying to do with the Environmental Bill of Rights, the various initiatives it's putting forward.

1600

It expresses some compliments on the bill and expresses some downsides of the bill, many of which I've already iterated, the good and the bad points of the bill.

One of the interesting comments was made by an individual by the name of Michael Jeffery, a partner at Fraser and Beatty, the head of the firm's environmental law group. He's one of the counsels who has concerns about the bill. He is quoted in the Law Times as saying:

"'I really have concerns about what such a bill will do to the overall efficiency of government. Most of the practitioners in the field now seeking government approvals are running into significant and expensive delays because the province doesn't appear to have sufficient resources in terms of staff to deal with what they've got to regulate now.'"

That's been a concern with people in the commercial industry, whether it's trying to develop subdivisions or trying to develop any form of industrial development in this province: all the hoops they have to go through in this province. This is yet another hoop those people are going to have to go through. I'm sure the business community, notwithstanding it was well represented on the task force, will have similar concerns about this bill.

Mr Jeffery then goes on in the quotation from the Law Times to say: "'You then impose a bill of rights, which will allow parties to write in to the commissioner and cause investigations to be commenced and answers to be given at set times. And the bill affects a whole number of ministries.... There's a fear out there that many of the problems we see with inefficiency and delay are going to be exacerbated, with staff having to be pulled off various things to comply with these investigations.'"

Mr Jeffery's concern is there's only so much staff allowed to do things, whether it be in the Ministry of Environment and Energy or any other ministry. They're working on various projects, yet because of these inquiries by members of the public they are going to be taken off those projects and moved to other areas.

I understand what the government's trying to do. Obviously, if there is pollution and concerns about pollution raised by individuals, the difficulty is, do we have the staff and the resources to proceed with those things? Mr Jeffery questions that, and so do I.

Another environmental law specialist, Dianne Saxe, who this article says used to work for the Ministry of Environment, agrees with his comments. She says, "'At a time when the ministry's staff is being cut...a new commissioner is being created to watch them.'" A rather sarcastic comment, but the truth. There is no question that the Ministry of Environment staff is being cut, and here we're having a new commissioner with at least 15 staff, according to the minister, and I expect considerably more, and they're going to watch another group that's being cut by the government -- a very strange process. They're going to perhaps be suggesting that the Ministry of Environment, or any other ministry, isn't operating correctly because of the lack of staff they have to operate efficiently. The whole issue is the efficiency of the government.

Ms Saxe continues: "'The message they're getting is that there isn't enough money for them to do the job that needs to be done, but there is money to punish them if they don't do it right.'"

Very interesting and accurate thoughts that I think the committee will have to look at. Are we trying to solve one problem and in effect creating another?

"Saxe predicts that it will be harder to get development approvals and the risk of prosecution for potential polluters will be greater if the legislation passes. Anyone will be able to go to court and ask for judicial intervention for what might be trivial matters, she fears."

She says she's sceptical about the legislation. She says, "'I was involved at the beginning of the Ombudsman's office,'" so this is someone who's seen the creation of one bureaucracy and the hopes and aspirations that the new Office of the Ombudsman would put forward. She says: "'We were all terribly optimistic we could make the world a better place. Can you find anyone who still thinks that?'"

That gets back to my very first comment. I congratulate the government for coming forward with the principle of the bill of rights, but are we building up a false sense of security, a false sense of expectation? Ms Saxe is one, and I am another, who says we are, and she has given the example of the Ombudsman and the expectations that were expected in that office.

Another solicitor commented in this article, a Hamilton solicitor, Herman Turkstra, who "says he admires the environmental bill of rights adopted a decade ago by the state of Michigan, a one-page document he describes as 'reasonably clear' that has the advantages of brevity and a track record." I've tried to find that, and I don't know whether the government officials can help me. I was given a document from the executive library that was indeed one page that came from Michigan and it is very brief and very concise.

He's saying the whole process is too complicated, that we're creating a complicated bureaucracy, a complicated bill with vague definitions. In other words, he's essentially repeating what the legal community has said, what AMO has said and what the agricultural community has said. If Michigan has a process that is indeed effective, perhaps someone who has studied this longer than I can provide this to me, but at this stage those are Mr Turkstra's comments, and he may well be correct.

I've only got a few minutes left, and I guess I get back to my initial criticisms. We're going to have an expensive computer system with the environmental registry system. We're going to have a new bureaucracy of the commissioner's office. We're going to require more bureaucrats to work in the various ministries to answer many questions that are going to be raised by members of the public. We have no idea what this is going to cost. We have no idea what it's going to cost the deficit of this government. The only figure we have received is an estimate that over the first four years it's going to cost $4 million. I suspect it's going to cost substantially more than that when you look at all of the things that are required by this bill.

But that will be revealed. Either the government knows what it's doing or it doesn't know what it's doing, and we'll find that out as the committee stage goes on. They either know what it's going to cost or they don't know what it's going to cost. If they don't know, I would submit that they're irresponsible in proceeding with a brand-new bureaucracy having no idea what it's going to cost and the effect not only on the provincial taxpayer but the property taxpayer, because some of these costs I fear will be passed down to the municipalities.

The government will need to clarify some of its positions as to why this bill doesn't apply to other things. The former Minister of the Environment is in the House today. I must confess, on the subject of dumps in this province, whether it be the GTA or otherwise, it appears that this bill of rights will not apply to the farmer who is concerned about dumps in his or her riding and the effect on the water, the effect perhaps on the Niagara Escarpment or other ecological effects, or with respect to heritage farms. It's not going to apply to that. Now, the former minister of course will stand up and say, "The Interim Waste Authority is going to solve all that." That will get into a whole new debate, because I submit it is not.

There are a lot of unsatisfied people in this province. Either we're going to have a bill of rights that's going to protect our environment or we're not. Why would we have exceptions to the rule? It appears that hydro corridors and dumps in GTA areas are exceptions to the rule, and there may be others that I haven't mentioned. That is a very strange philosophy, that the government will allow certain things to be done in its discretion and that it cannot be challenged by individuals, yet the government is now saying, "Here's a bill of rights that will satisfy them."

For example, the issue was raised by one of the other speakers, the whole topic of the Britannia lifts. There are two women who visited my office several weeks ago who live in that area and were told that the Britannia site would close. In fact, there was a clause put on their title that said that while this whole process was taking place they wouldn't complain, and they haven't complained. The time frame expired, and the former Minister of the Environment in her wisdom decided to expand the Britannia site for a considerable period, but they do not seem to have the right to complain under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

1610

For some things individuals can complain, but for other things they cannot complain. All of these issues, it may well be, the government will explain. They seem to want public input, to give people individual rights to complain about government actions or actions that are taken by large corporations, but for certain things with respect to the government, they can't complain. Quite respectfully, I say to the minister, you can't simply come and say that their rights are already protected. If you're going to say that, we already have an Environmental Protection Act, we already have legislation in this place that supposedly protects the individual, so therefore we're going to put forward an Environmental Bill of Rights that's going to give more rights.

It's all very confusing, and I look forward to members of the government clarifying their position on what the actual rights are of individuals in this province and certainly clarifying what it's going to cost the taxpayer of this province.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): My friend the member for Dufferin-Peel made several comments in his remarks about the Environmental Bill of Rights and referred to an article that was in the Law Times.

One of the other comments that was received in that article was from a lawyer named Michael Cochrane, who was the chair of the task force that drafted the legislation. In that article he states that he doubts the legislation is going to lead to increased litigation and says that there are lots of existing causes of action for damage to private property and also mentions that he doesn't think there's going to be a high volume of litigation around protection of public resources or the use of public nuisance rights. He refers as well to the provincial class action rights that our government also introduced that haven't led to an increased amount of litigation.

I just wanted to point out that the article does go further, in its comments from persons who were involved, than my friend indicated.

He also referred to the bill of rights that was passed in the state of Michigan about a decade ago. I wish we could do something as simple as a one-page act here in Ontario. However, I think that life itself has become a bit more complicated. I should point out that being a neighbour of the state of Michigan, within that decade we've also seen the construction in downtown Detroit of an incinerator that's caused a great deal of problems and led to the province of Ontario commencing legal action against the city of Detroit to try and clean up that incinerator. We've had incidents of major environmental impact taking place notwithstanding the state of Michigan having that environmental bill of rights.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I would like to compliment the member for Dufferin-Peel for a very thoughtful analysis of the Environmental Bill of Rights. I think he's raised a number of excellent issues. The one I would like to comment on in particular, and perhaps fortify or strengthen his remarks, concerns the cost of this program and concerns the ability, particularly in the Ministry of Environment and Energy, to staff the extra duties that would be placed as a result of this Environmental Bill of Rights.

I give one example, and that concerns the planning process in the province of Ontario. There is a real problem there in that if you talk to planners across the province of Ontario, one of the main problems they face is the length of time that the process consumes: the process of receiving a development application, an application that could create jobs, that could create wealth in the province of Ontario. There's a process to go through, and it's a healthy process, that involves getting the concerns and comments from a number of agencies.

Some proposals would involve perhaps two dozen agencies that would comment. One of those agencies, of course, is the Ministry of Environment. There's a common perception among the planners in the province of Ontario that this duty is a very low priority within the Ministry of Environment, and consequently it takes a good six months to get comments on any significant planning issue in the province of Ontario with the staff that's in place already and with the duties that the Ministry of Environment has on its plate. By adding any extra duties on top, surely that process will be lengthened. I think this is the kind of issue that the member for Dufferin-Peel is raising, that it's just adding more to an already full plate. Is this the best way to do it?

Mr Klopp: I listened with interest to the member for Dufferin-Peel and I can only assume that maybe he's getting a lot of his information based on articles in the paper rather than doing some real digging, and that's understandable. Today I was reading an article about the farm-type bill and about EBR, and here it had a quote from the minister and it was Ruth Grier. Ruth Grier hasn't been the minister since February, so it makes you wonder just what is going on out there in the community.

The fact is that the OFA and many farm organizations under an umbrella group have worked hard and long on these negotiations and they're quite pleased. Dona Stewardson, who has been their lead in this and who has talked to me and talked to the Minister of Environment, has been quite happy that this government, as a government, has listened to what the farm community has wanted.

In fact, I find the Tories amazing. I remember them in this House for the last three or four years lambasting us that we haven't moved fast enough on an environmental bill, and yet at the same time the people in the real world have said: "No, we do want an environmental bill, but it has to be done right and it takes time." I'm glad that we have walked through this.

So I find it amazing that the third party goes from one side to other on this issue, but it's typical; it's opposition tactics. They're a party which has friends that go with the old system: "We can pollute because we'll take the money and run, and now, goldarnit, there's a government that actually wants to have us all in this boat together to pay for the environmental costs and to not pollute more." So that's what we're doing.

In the farm community they understand very clearly that this is a fair bill. Dona Stewardson is on record on that. There are a couple of points I heard that I'd like to clarify: "Land owned by a farmer is not public land. Public land that is leased to a farmer is excluded from the right to supervision." Indeed, it's quite clear that farmers will be given the protection under the Farm Practices Protection Act, and that has been quite clearly pointed out.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It seems to me that our colleague, in his remarks this afternoon and starting yesterday, raised a number of very valid questions which do need to be raised around the cost of implementing this bill and how it is going to be organized, questions that speak very fundamentally to how this will work in the real world.

One of the problems in modern government today, whether it's this province, in Ottawa or indeed in other jurisdictions, is that we create a number of bodies that are intended to provide individuals with rights.

Here in Ontario, for example, there was a time when we had the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and that was the one body that dealt with the whole range of rights. Today, we have a series of organizations, and I think there's a legitimate question to ask: Do those various bodies always protect the kinds of rights that at the beginning we intended they protect? What we have to be very clear on with this bill, I think, is not to raise expectations to a point where they can't be met.

Very legitimately, what is the bureaucracy that is going to be required in order to run this? How is it going to interact with the minister of the day? What are the powers of the minister? What real rights will this give to individuals, and will they able to move on a whole range of issue areas? All of those I think are very legitimate questions that need to be discussed here, that were raised by our colleague from Dufferin-Peel and that are going to need to be followed up in committee, because without those answers, we can't be sure that this bill, with all of the fine words, is in fact going to do what it says it's going to do.

1620

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Tilson: I thank all members for commenting on my remarks to this House. The member for Windsor-Walkerville, you're quite right that there are solicitors, particularly Mr Cochrane who chaired the task force -- he's not going to criticize his own task force. I guess it's quite clear, however, that the legal community is concerned, as is AMO, as are the municipalities, with many of the vague expressions that are being put forward in this bill, and common sense tells me that's going to lead to litigation. I hope Mr Cochrane is correct. All I know is that when you have definitions that not just one organization -- the municipalities, the agricultural community or the legal community -- doesn't understand, it may take a judge to answer them, and that's really the issue that I'm simply saying.

There is no simple solution to these problems. You seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. If you listen to me, I'm supporting an Environmental Bill of Rights. All I'm concerned with is that you're creating a whole new expensive bureaucracy, and is this the proper way to go about it?

The member for Don Mills raised a legitimate question which I put forward in my remarks and emphasized -- at least, a comment that was made in my remarks -- that the complication of development that developers have to go through in this province, who create jobs, which we're all concerned about, is bad enough. This is going to be one more element, one more bureaucracy, that developers are going to have to go through in this province. So I thank the member for Don Mills.

The member for Huron -- other than to say I'm on your side. I want an Environmental Bill of Rights as well and all I can tell you, my staff has personally spoken to some of the agricultural groups I've mentioned and they've expressed a concern that they weren't part of the process and they're concerned with the effects this legislation is going to have on the agricultural community.

The member for York North, I think, summed it up: Are we in fact creating an expensive bureaucracy that may not solve the problems?

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? Minister?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm delighted to have an opportunity to participate in this second reading debate and to congratulate the Minister of Environment and Energy on bringing forward this bill. I'm delighted to hear that there is support for the legislation on all sides of the House, because I think that's as it should be and will certainly lead to a more meaningful debate about whether the objectives of the bill are met by the bill, if there is not any great debate or dissension about the principles enshrined in the bill.

I join in this debate with a great deal of pride: pride not only because of my own long involvement with this particular piece of legislation, but pride on behalf of all of those others who have also been involved in struggling to have an Environmental Bill of Rights in the province of Ontario, people on both sides of this House, going back to colleagues who are no longer with us, colleagues such as the member for Huron, who introduced an environmental bill of rights into this House the first session that I was here in 1985.

I'm very proud that the current Minister of Environment has completed the work that was begun by his predecessors and has brought forward this piece of legislation in the form that it is. I'm proud because the bill represents the end of a long debate among the public, particularly among environmental groups, who for years have believed that the public ought to have a greater role in the decisions that affect them, that the public should have enshrined in legislation environmental rights.

There are many members of the public who, in struggling to increase our awareness around this province about the effect of our decisions on the environment; who, in struggling to find a role for themselves in the decision-making processes at all levels, have taken risks. There are people who have risked their jobs by blowing the whistle on their employer and who have suffered in some cases as a result and who now see in this legislation a justification, a vindication, of their actions, and I take some pride in that.

I take pride in the work the public service has done in working to produce a very complicated piece of legislation. When I first entered the Ministry of the Environment almost three years ago to the day, the deputy of the day, Gary Posen, said in my very first meeting, "And you will of course want to bring forward an environmental bill of rights." The employees in that ministry have worked very hard ever since to complete the work that was required to produce an environmental bill of rights and I take pride in that service by the public service in doing that.

Particularly I take pride in the work of the task force, a task force of very different people of very different backgrounds who came together, some with enthusiasm and a history of knowing what was in place in other jurisdictions, of having worked with me in opposition in drafting an environmental bill of rights, and some with an enormous degree of scepticism, because -- and I speak of some of the industry representatives on that task force -- they didn't think a bill of rights was required. They thought, as some members of the opposition have described today, that it would be just another layer of bureaucracy. They didn't really believe that it would be possible to arrive at a consensus about what an environmental bill of rights should contain. Their creativity, their hard work and their incredible dedication and commitment to the documents and to the work that they did is something in which all of us, I think, should take pride, because it shows that if you approach things with an open mind and if you bring people together and assign them the responsibility of creating something that is in the best interests of the public at large when you have clearly defined what those best interests are, then marvels are produced. I think this bill will be seen in time and in the future to be a marvel of creativity and innovation and I take pride in that.

I take enormous pride that this government, in the toughest economic times of the last 40 years, is living up to its commitment to protect the environment and to do it in a way that gives the people of this province a meaningful role in helping us not only manage the present in a better way than it has been managed in the past but to plan for the future, because if ever there was an area where we need to plan for the future as well as deal with the issues of the past, it is in the environment. So our government, as it struggles to create jobs, is looking to the future. As I wrestle with the reform and the sustainability of our health care system, we do it to have a better system for the present but to ensure that we have one for the future, and particularly in the case of the environment we are looking to future generations.

I take pride that this government not only is prepared to give this bill the priority that it has but is also prepared to take the risks involved in putting forward and in passing a piece of legislation of this magnitude. We take the risk that past decisions will be reviewed, impartially and publicly. Some of the decisions that we have taken people don't like. I don't believe there will ever be a government all of whose decisions are popular, regardless of what legislation or mechanisms we put in place. We take the risk of subjecting our actions and those of future governments to a scrutiny that no other government has ever been prepared to submit itself to, the scrutiny of the public in a way that is unheard of in any other jurisdiction in this country and the scrutiny of an independent commissioner responsible to this Legislature who can review and independently audit, comment upon, criticize the government of the day.

Why are we doing that? We're doing it because we believe that protection of the environment is critical, that we will not have a healthy economy, let alone a healthy population, if we don't have a healthy environment, and that is why we have taken the ground-breaking actions that we have in dealing with environmental issues: ground-breaking with respect to garbage -- and I heard a lot of debate yesterday about garbage. Our government has put the 3Rs first and has done it not only in words but by putting into place the structures and the mechanisms that make the 3Rs a reality from one end of this province to another, and we have done it by putting money into waste reduction, which no other government has been prepared to do. We have banned incineration, something that both contributes to the 3Rs and contributes to the reduction of toxins in our environment.

When it comes to land use, the work of the Sewell commission, the work of the office of the GTA in trying to plan for the future in this area, the work in Natural Resources in protecting the Oak Ridges moraine, the Rouge Valley, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, in factoring into land use decisions an ecosystem approach, such as the Crombie commission and the waterfront trust have done: a ground-breaking protection of the environment.

1630

We have done it with respect to reducing the load of toxics with which our bodies are bombarded daily. Through clean water regulations, through pollution prevention programs, through the reduction in our use of energy, we are moving this province towards sustainable development and a sustainable future. This piece of legislation is a critical component of doing that.

Because as well as the population of this province wanting a clean environment and wanting it despite tough economic times, because their interest in the environment has not diminished, the people of this province want finally to be truly involved in the decisions that involve them, to be involved in more than open houses where information is shared with them, to be involved in a way that is more than commenting on decisions that are already made, but in a way where they can make a meaningful contribution.

If they are to make a meaningful contribution, that means having access to information. One of the key components of the Environmental Bill of Rights is in giving people information in a way that is simple to access, simple to understand and early enough in the decision-making process that they can use it to influence that process.

It's a different way of decision-making. Not only is it informed decision-making, but it is an attempt to move away from the kind of confrontational, partisan decision-making that has not protected the environment. Despite the very excellent legislation in this province passed by previous governments in advance of other provinces and jurisdictions, we still have environmental problems.

One of the things that emerged to me most clearly when I chaired the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy was the need to think about a different way of making decisions, a consensual way of decision-making, something that is foreign to this particular forum because it is neither designed, nor created nor functions in a way that leads to development of a consensus. I think that's something that, quite frankly, legislatures in the future are going to have to look at. I don't at this point know what the result will be, but I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that we are old-fashioned and outmoded, and perhaps after we have the bill of rights in place we have to look at how we change our entire way of decision-making.

The Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy, as one of the criteria for sustainable development, pointed out the need for both informed decision-making and a greater use of alternative dispute resolution consensus-building if we are to make decisions that truly protect the environment. I think the manner in which the Environmental Bill of Rights was developed points to the success of doing things differently, and that was the work of the task force that I referred to earlier.

The Environmental Bill of Rights is unique not only in the way in which it was developed, but also of course in what it attempts to do, because it is unique and because it is different, something that grows out of our tradition and our experience here in the province of Ontario and is not borrowed from some other jurisdiction, despite the fact that the work and the experience in Michigan was certainly something that was looked at both by the ministry and by myself.

It is unique because it requires us to engage in a new way of thinking. It goes beyond environmental protection, as it does currently under the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act, to take us towards truly finding ways to anticipate and prevent problems before they occur.

No other jurisdiction has asked every ministry to develop a statement of environmental values. We have, through the work of the Premier's Council, statements of the mission and values of the Ministry of Health that involve recognition of the fact that you're not going to have a healthy population without a healthy environment.

Goal 3 of the Premier's Council's work was to create a healthy environment. That in itself is a first. This legislation goes beyond that and requires a variety of ministries which have not historically seen protection of the environment or environmental values as part of either their mission or their mandate to develop that statement of environmental values. It will be interesting to review those statements when they are done, and the fact that they are going to be done will I think produce a significant shift in thinking and approach throughout the government.

I have always said, as have other members of our government, that one of our objectives was to make sure that it was not only the Ministry of Environment and Energy that had a responsibility for the environment, that it had to be Municipal Affairs, Labour, Health, Culture, all of the other ministries, and I think by our actions we have shown how that can be true.

This debate at second reading is a debate on the principles of the legislation. I think the member for York North, as he so often does, hit the nail on the head when he said we have to look at the instruments enshrined in the bill of rights and see whether they in fact do the job we expect them to do in order to achieve the principles we all want to achieve, the principles that the people of this province have the right to a healthy environment and the right to protect that environment, that they have the right to information, that they have the right to be heard, that they have the right to take action and the right to make a difference.

I was disappointed yesterday that in some of his comments the member for Mississauga North contributed merely a litany of grievances about past actions with which he disagreed. I would point out to him that I know he and the people in the constituencies of some of the members present here today will never agree with the decisions this government took with respect to the disposal of waste for the GTA. Nor will members in your constituency, I suspect, Mr Speaker, agree when a decision is or will be made about where a waste management site should be sited in your particular community. That is too much to expect. But I do ask the members opposite to reflect on the way in which those kinds of decisions were made by their government and to compare the processes and see if in fact what they've been saying here today stands up.

The member for Dufferin-Peel read a number of comments from those who had participated or not participated in the work of the task force. I would ask him to look objectively at the actual wording in the bill, because I hope he will find that many of the comments that were made in response to the initial draft of the legislation were in fact taken very seriously by the task force, and so some changes have been incorporated into the legislation that is Bill 26.

That was precisely how the work developing this bill proceeded, which was debate, consultation, response. I hope that as we go through this process and get to committee, that will be the process that is followed, because this is not the end of it by any means and there may well be better mechanisms or improved mechanisms that can come into place.

What we're here to discuss at second reading is whether we agree with the principles, the principles of participation and information, of accountability, of holding government with the primary responsibility for protecting the environment and for giving people better tools to hold government accountable. Has the bill got it right? Are there better tools? Are there better ways of using the tools that are spelled out in the legislation? We want to give the right to whistle-blowers. Is the protection that is built into the legislation sufficient or is there perhaps more protection that needs to be done? That is the kind of debate I hope we will have, both here and in committee.

The objective is not only to enshrine in legislation the principles I've referred to; the objective is to engage the people of this province not as people whom we confront and with whom we have long hearings that go on for ever and create more bureaucracy, but to engage them as our allies in a struggle, not only to clean up the mistakes we've made in the past but to make sure we don't make mistakes in the future, to engage them as meaningful participants in the decisions that affect them, and to engage them in a way that makes them feel that it is not them against the government, but that the government and they share a common objective, that objective of protecting our environment and passing it on to future generations.

This is the most significant piece of environmental legislation introduced into this Legislature over the past 17 years. It is a piece of legislation about which we can all, because I believe it will ultimately have the support on all sides of this House, stand very tall and very proud when we talk about it to the future generations that we're sent here to preserve and to protect.

1640

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Tilson: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for her initiative, albeit three years late, in initiating this legislation. I know it was introduced by Mr Wildman, but certainly she had a major role in it. I am relieved, of course, that her initial Bill 12, which I'm sure she's proud of but which I am not exactly a great fan of, wasn't the bill, and I will congratulate you on bringing together the business community and the environmentalists in coming to some consensus with respect to the task force.

I had hoped that in your capacity as a former minister you would have been able to advise this House, and maybe you will in your response here at some later date tell us, what the cost of all this is going to be and the real issue: the number of bureaucrats that are going to effect this all over. Why doesn't the bill of rights apply to everything: Hydro, IWA, other such areas? Why is it only for some things? Why is the discretion of the minister so broad, to not allow some things and allow others?

I'll be interested in hearing your assurances that the commissioner who will be appointed, he or she, will be independent and not the political hack many of us fear it will be with respect to this legislation.

Again, you've referred to your issues that you've raised in the GTA. Why haven't you looked at all of the other alternatives, the long rail haul? Why haven't you allowed the subject of incineration to be debated? These are questions that individuals in this province have asked. Why, for example, does someone who works in the GTA and lives outside and creates garbage -- it's a problem of all of us. Why were you so restrictive as the minister? I congratulate you on the one hand, but I think that as the former minister you have many answers to give to the questions that are being asked by the people of this province.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'd like to commend and thank the Minister of Health for continuing through with her long-term commitment to environmental issues and for this really signatory piece that she certainly introduced the process for; a process we can all be proud of, a process that involved people from throughout our province in a collaborative act and a collaborative work.

This is legislation which will protect our fragile environment here in the greater Toronto area, in Durham where I come from, and certainly throughout this large and beautiful area. It is a good counterpart with the municipal waste management bill and with Bill 143, that deals with garbage in the GTA. It informs the public about how to manage the environment, how to manage our environment for our children's future. It is legislation which empowers people, which gives them rights, rights to protect and to work through the husbandry, the stewardship that is so important to our area and our feeling of involvement.

The minister has for many years been involved with the environmental movement and I think has tremendous support throughout this province. It was stirring to be able to listen to her and see this fulfilment of her long-term dedication and action and to see that in work throughout this area.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I listened carefully to the minister's remarks, and like the member from Durham I too was stirred, but perhaps for different reasons. I'm very pleased to know that by virtue of this executive and legislative fiat, the Roman Curia and the Southern Baptist Convention will now come together for ever and for all time in a theological oneness in these matters of environmental policy and process.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? One final participant.

Mr Stockwell: Clearly I'm left out, because I wasn't stirred at all.

I would like to review the past legislation that was introduced when this government was the opposition party and the Minister of Health was the critic for Environment. In a document which is not often referred to in this House, not that surprisingly, really, the Agenda for People, they spoke about the rights to a clean environment and the passage of an Environmental Bill of Rights immediately -- three years being immediate to this government. I suppose time is relative.

"The NDP's environmental bill of rights has been before the Legislature since 1986. Three times the Liberals have approved it in principle and three times they have refused to let the bill become law in Ontario."

I don't think even the Minister of Health herself would suggest for a moment that the relationship between the piece of legislation you introduced in opposition and this piece of legislation are that closely tied. Clearly, they are very, very different. I will add that it doesn't surprise me. The legislation offered up in opposition I think was unworkable, unmanageable and simply a political tool, much like this Agenda for People was, as we've seen in the three short years this government has been in power.

I don't necessarily believe hat we need an Environmental Bill of Rights. I think we can tighten up the environmental bills and legislation and programs we have in place today. I think those things need to be streamlined. It could be cost-effective if they did do that. I think the environment is protected with those pieces of legislation that are in place today. The problem is that they've become so onerous, they've become so time-consuming, they've become such a political football in practically every issue that comes before this Legislature and every council around this province that they now will be usurped in some instances by this Environmental Bill of Rights when it would be much simpler to simply apply what that original environmental bill was intended to do, which is to maintain a safe and clean environment, which I don't think a number of governments did in the past number of years.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable Minister of Health has two minutes in response.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me thank my colleagues for their comments. I'd like to respond specifically to those of the member for Dufferin-Peel and say to him that the costs of implementing this legislation will to a large extent depend on precisely the extent of the coverage that is part of the legislation.

When he says, "Why doesn't it cover beyond?" I am sure the minister will welcome amendments that would expand the coverage. I would say to him that if you embark upon a process of consensus, then you come up with a product that is in fact a consensus. I suspect that around the table developing the bill of rights there may have been those who started saying, "Cover everything," to those who said, "Why are we doing this in the first place?" What we have is a consensus that everyone can live with.

He says he wants answers from me on actions I took as Minister of the Environment. Let me say to him, I have provided those answers time and time and time again. He doesn't like the answers and neither do his constituents and neither do the constituents of some other members of this House, but there is one thing I have never lacked, and that is the ability to answer the questions about my own actions when they are put to me. Having said that, just providing an answer doesn't mean that anybody is going to agree that it is in fact the correct answer.

The member for Renfrew North, with his theological analogy and cynical dismissal of something that I believe is very important to the people of this province and that I believe ultimately will be supported by people on all sides of this House, will get no response from me. Thank you very much.

Mr Beer: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak in this debate. As has been mentioned by a number of members including the former minister, this has been a long process. I can recall, for example, working on an Environmental Bill of Rights something in the order of 15 years ago when Stuart Smith was the Liberal leader, the Leader of the Opposition. There were a number of people, and it's interesting to see where some of the ones who worked with us on that went. I want to mention three of them: Adele Hurley, who subsequently became one of the leaders of the anti-acid-rain movement and was fundamental in bringing a great deal of change in the way North America dealt with that issue; and Mark Rudolph and Gary Gallon, both of whom worked with Jim Bradley, the Minister of the Environment under the Liberals, and who were very involved in trying to define the kinds of principles that we would want to have in that bill.

1650

I say that in recognizing that members from the Conservative Party, members from the New Democratic Party and members from the Liberal Party have been at work at trying to define an environmental bill of rights that would be meaningful, that would be practical, that would be doable but that would move us forward. I think in that we can join in saying that what we're about is worthy and is something that we want to make as good as we possibly can.

I want to say, therefore, that in terms of the principles I don't think there's any fundamental disagreement, or indeed any disagreement, in this House.

I want to raise two issues around this particular bill. The first I alluded to earlier in commenting on the remarks of our colleague from Dufferin-Peel, and that is that if you look back over the last 10 or 15 years, this legislative body, as well as many others, has sought to define a variety of rights to create some form of administrative tribunal or body or organization that will then implement those rights and provide a means for redress to various people.

We see the Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman, pay equity, employment equity, a variety of groups that exist in departments such as Health, all where I don't think there would be any disagreement around the principles involved, but when we look at how well we have ensured that those rights or entitlements have been met, we can't always be comforted by what has happened.

We only have to look at the problems that both the Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman have had to see that some of the problems with implementing bills of this nature are very much how we go about implementing, what the structure is that we put in place, and trying to remember that the people for whom this is being done, in our view -- the people of the province -- can then look at not only the principles but the way in which we go about implementing those rights as something that is credible, that is something that makes sense, that meets the consensus. The former minister talked about consensual decision-making, and holding that out is something important that we should try to strive for. I think we would all recognize that.

But let's be very clear that part of the tremendous frustration that is out there in the body politic today -- we saw it in 1990; perhaps we in the Liberal Party saw it more than others did, but none the less, we saw that frustration there, it is still there, and any of us who have been going out and knocking on doors or talking to people in the present federal campaign, I think, see that as well -- that fundamental distrust of government -- and perhaps, in part because over the decade we've now had Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats as the government in this province, a certain sense of "We don't know if we trust any of you."

Part of that, then, I think, we have to take that message and go back and look at, in the case of this bill -- we agree on the principles, we look at the way in which the bill came forward. The minister has commented on the task force, as have the two opposition critics, as having been a very useful exercise and one that sought to bring all the components of our society together. All of that is good, but we will lose all of the support for that if we don't set up something that is going to be transparent, that is going to work well.

If there's a sense, whether among environmental activists or developers or just common, ordinary citizens of this province, that all we have done is just add another layer of something -- bureaucracy; whatever you want to call it -- that is only going to serve to underline that feeling out there among so many people that somehow government, at the turn of the century, at the end of this century, is no longer really capable or able to respond to the needs of people but seems to build upon itself and create evermore mechanisms, bodies, organizations, whatever, that are supposed to be there to help individual citizens but in the end become more of a hindrance than a help.

As we go through the bill in committee and as we listen to what undoubtedly are concerns and questions that are brought by a number of representatives who have come before the committee and indeed comments that have been made by members in this debate, let's keep telling ourselves and reminding ourselves that we need to put something together here that will work and will not only be but be seen to be something that will defend the environment and be effective and doable.

Having said that, I think the other thing we have to do in looking at this bill is to recognize that there really are some counterpoints that we're involved with right now that raise questions about the role of this bill, and whether in fact talking about environmental rights really means anything.

The former minister said that in her view, and I understand why she said it, this is the most significant environmental bill probably in the last 18, 20 years, something of that nature. One could make a case that Bill 143 is the most significant, and for very different reasons. I think we have to raise that in the context of what it is that we're trying to do, because as somebody who comes from an area of this province where Bill 143 is not seen as something that has provided us with a fair and just process, there is a real conflict between the words of the Environmental Bill of Rights of Bill 26 and some of the things that are being done under the direction of Bill 143.

You can't just answer that by saying, "You Liberals" or "you Tories when you were in government, you had a worse process." That may be a legitimate point of discussion, and indeed perhaps at some point we need to look very effectively at that, and perhaps one can make the point in terms of just what kind of process, if any. All of that I accept as a legitimate part of the discussion, but I think that's not relevant then to the process that Bill 143 put in place, to what it did to individual rights that are being discussed here in the Environmental Bill of Rights, and what this bill will mean for those people who are being most directly affected by what in fact Bill 143 is bringing about.

Let's just remember that if the Environmental Bill of Rights seeks, among other things, to ensure that individuals in this province can really go after a variety of things that have been done or things that they want to see done in order to protect the environment, Bill 143 in many respects moves in another direction.

One of the things that I've been interested in, in looking at the bill, is, if that bill had been in place, what would that have meant in terms of the way the whole issue around Bill 143, the megadumps that are being created in York region for York and Metropolitan Toronto, and the megadumps in Peel and in Durham? How would that have been affected?

In Bill 26, there are two sections that I think are important here and that we want to note. Those are sections 67 and 68. I want to just read briefly from those sections.

In subsection 67(1) it states, "The minister shall consider each application for review," in other words, environmental review, "in a preliminary way to determine whether the public interest warrants a review in his or her ministry of matters raised in the application."

That section goes on to set out a series of considerations that the minister must make.

Then in section 68 it says: "For the purposes of subsection 67(1), a minister shall not determine that the public interest warrants a review of a decision made during the five years preceding the date of the application for review."

This gives to the minister of the day a considerable power and considerable room to really do whatever he or she wants to do. In the case of Bill 143, in the case of where these megadumps are going to go, anything that would happen at this point, the minister could dismiss simply by saying: "We've not finished the five-year period, so that doesn't need to be examined, that doesn't need to be reviewed."

1700

I think there's a real problem with that when people, whether they're from the Maple area or whether they're from Georgina or from Markham, or indeed any of the other areas that were under consideration for a megadump, say: "What then does this bill provide me with when I believe that arbitrarily Bill 143 has simply said there will be a large dump, a megadump, placed in my community, and on that issue there is no discussion? I have no way of saying whether that should or should not happen."

The only issue that the government is allowing to have discussed right now is which site will be selected. The citizen has no input other than to say: "Not my site. If you're going to put it somewhere, put it elsewhere." I don't think that when you begin the process with no choice, you can really argue that there are any rights at play here. There really are none.

If we look at what we would do in using the bill of rights to try to develop a process that would recognize those rights and in effect ensure that individuals had a real say in whether there ought to be megadumps or any other kind of process to get rid of waste, I think we have to really break out of, quite frankly, the process that we were following before and the one that the present government is following, because I think that the word would be -- I hope that when it's over the government will talk with a lot of the people who've been involved with the IWA process.

This isn't to say that all the individuals on the government side or in the IWA are inherently bad; it's not that at all. It is the process that has been set up where individual citizens from the different parts of York and Durham and Peel are being asked, if you like, to deal with the selection of a megadump site which they say should never be happening in the first place and they have no way of affecting that fundamental decision. I think that to speak of an Environmental Bill of Rights and how it affects them is really to be talking in words that have no meaning.

As far as I can see, and during the hearings I may be shown to be wrong, the Environmental Bill of Rights proposed by the minister would not make any difference to what has happened with Bill 143. In fact, I would assume that had this Environmental Bill of Rights been in place and then Bill 143 had been brought forward, there would have been an article in Bill 143 that said it took precedence over the Environmental Bill of Rights, because the two cannot live together. When you read the two of them, they come from two quite distinct polar opposites, and I think we have to recognize that when we look at it.

That's not to say that the words and music, if you like, in the Environmental Bill of Rights don't have a lot of things that a lot of us can agree with, but what we have to say is, when we apply that to the real world, what kind of differences will it make? What does that really mean? Certainly, to the people living in the communities I'm familiar with, in Georgina and in King township and in Vaughan, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Frankly, it's very disturbing to understand in terms of the anger and the frustration that people feel in those communities, where they're actually talking about civil disobedience and what they're going to do if their particular area is selected. I don't think that can make anybody feel very comfortable, but what it really says, and in the context of this debate what it says, is that the process the government developed under Bill 143 was not one that was fair, because it was dictating a solution and only giving people a part in the decision in terms of where that site would be selected. We've got to find another approach.

Two or three weeks ago in King City there was a meeting held where a number of the groups that were opposed to the megadumps in York region were saying, "Look, we want to start talking about another process, because it seems to me that given the time frame we're in, the government is not going to reach the point before the next election where it's going to have a dump in place." I think all of us have to then say: "All right. What is it we're going to do? What kind of process are we going to replace it with?"

Now's the time to start doing that, and what you'll find, Mr Speaker, and what the government members would find if they went out and talked with these groups is that they want to sit down now, talking about a much more open process that will allow a municipality to say, "We're prepared to talk about having a dump site in our community, but we want to be part of defining the terms of that, and if at any point in the discussion we feel we're being dealt with in a dictatorial way, we're going to pull out."

The speaker at this particular meeting was someone who's worked on a number of major environmental conflicts around the world and he said that on the basis of his experience, any time a government was dictating the solution, even if it was allowing discussion around certain aspects of the site, that wouldn't work. People feel that their rights are being infringed and that we just simply have to find other solutions. There were a number of examples that were given, and I understand that this gentleman's comments are being made available to the government. I hope they'll have a look at them.

I think that if you walk, as the saying goes, in the shoes of people around the various proposed dump sites in Durham and in York and in Peel, what they're saying right now is that they don't believe they have any rights in terms of the final decision that is going to be made around the dump site, and that the Environmental Bill of Rights proposed in this Legislature, while it may provide redress for a number of grievances and may over time turn out to be an effective tool, does not provide any protection to the people in those communities, neither now, or once it's passed and proclaimed, nor in the future, that the kind of issue we're grappling with in terms of waste disposal is not really dealt with in an appropriate way by the Environmental Bill of Rights.

As I said at the outset, there is a lot that is good in terms of the way this bill has come forward. The principles are sound. There is much there that I think all of us can join in supporting. But I would repeat that I think we have to look very carefully at the structure we put in place in order to implement it, the costs of that structure, and I think it raises a great number of questions when it's placed in juxtaposition with Bill 143, which to my mind goes in a very different direction than does this bill in trying to both define and protect rights and to involve the citizens of this province in a meaningful way in a discussion about environmental issues, and in particular on waste disposal.

I hope we'll have an opportunity to explore those themes more directly and deeply when we get into second reading, and I would close simply by saying that I think the best thing the government could do to show how supportive it is of its own Environmental Bill of Rights and the principles in it would be to abolish the Interim Waste Authority and tell us that the present process has cost far too much money, has achieved nothing and that we've got to start from scratch again.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'd like to take a couple of minutes to comment on the remarks made by my colleague.

In this Environmental Bill of Rights, Bill 26, "The purposes of the bill are stated in part I, which also contains interpretive provisions." It "provides for the appointment of the Environmental Commissioner, who will review compliance with the requirements of the bill and recourse to the rights provided by the bill."

I've read this bill fairly thoroughly, and I find there are a lot of sections in here that have to deal with the minister:

"The minister may amend the ministry statement of environmental values from time to time."

"The minister shall take every reasonable step to ensure that the ministry statement of environmental values is considered whenever decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made in the ministry."

This bill gives the minister the right to do almost as he pleases.

The member who has just spoken talked about the problems we have in this province with regard to disposal sites, garbage dumps and this bill. He indicates that this bill has no effect whatsoever with regard to those sites. What is the bill all about if it doesn't have some in-depth input into those very issues?

1710

Under sections 15, 16 and 22 of this bill, proposals for policies, acts and regulations: "If a minister considers that a proposal under consideration in his or her ministry for a regulation under a prescribed act could, if implemented, have a significant effect on the environment, the minister shall do everything in his or her power to give notice of the proposal to the public." There's outlined in here all those different steps you take.

This Environmental Bill of Rights, to me, needs a really in-depth study.

Mr Stockwell: The curious thing about this piece of legislation is that it is designed as an act representing the Environmental Bill of Rights for the people of Ontario. What two things come to mind as the most environmentally sensitive issues that come before the electorate in the province of Ontario? Most people would suggest that the two most sensitive issues that people deal with on an environmental basis would be (1) garbage dumps, and (2) potential development of hydro-electric generating capacity.

The strange thing about this is that this bill, this piece of legislation that this government has drafted and put before the people and classified as an Environmental Bill of Rights, has no power nor jurisdiction over probably the two most important environmental issues that face people: Ontario Hydro and dump sites. Yet they stand before this Legislature and the people of the province and proclaim the salvation of the environment of the province of Ontario because they've introduced this piece of legislation that can't do a damn thing about a garbage dump going next to you, in a bunch of regions around Metropolitan Toronto, or the building of a nuclear reactor station in a part of the province that you happen to live in.

What it can do is it can stop somebody from building a lean-to; it can maybe stop a barn from being built; it potentially could stop a house from being developed down the street. But if you've got a dump going in next door, you can't do a damn thing about it with the Environmental Bill of Rights.

That kind of is a contradiction, isn't it? It makes you wonder what they're doing this for, and you come to the conclusion that it's to fulfil a campaign promise that they would introduce this. What they didn't tell the people when they were campaigning was, "Gee, we're going to introduce an Environmental Bill of Rights, but it's not going to have any teeth, it's not going to have any bite, it's not going to have any capacity to stop the things that you people want us to stop, like dump sites that are improperly sited and things along those lines." I'd like the Liberal member's comments on those kinds of things.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to compliment the member for York North on his remarks this afternoon. He's made three remarks that stand out in my mind. One, if I could paraphrase it, is are we really creating a monster that's going to be out of control? Are we creating something we won't be able to deal with in the future? Is this bureaucracy going to be something that we simply will have no control over and be high-priced? Will we have a high-priced commissioner and will we have high-priced bureaucrats who will require high-priced legal counsel to interpret a law that we don't understand?

The other major issue that I think he raised is with respect to Bill 143. Bill 143 is a major contradiction of this bill. Bill 143 says we can't debate the long rail haul proposal; we can't debate incineration; we can't debate a whole slew of things. "We will do this, and that's that." In other words, the individuals who live in the three regions -- and the member for York North has some constituents who have a lot to say on this subject. They're not allowed to, Bill 143 says you can't do that, yet we come along with Bill 26 and, as the member from Etobicoke whatever says, that too is a major contradiction.

It is a strange, contradictory process that this government is coming forward to say on the one hand that it's giving individuals the rights through the Environmental Bill of Rights, and then on the other hand through Bill 143 they don't have the rights to participate and obtain information from groups such as the IWA. They can't find a whole slew of information.

I congratulate the member on his thoughts this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. Seeing none, the honourable member for York North has two minutes in response.

Mr Beer: I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. In answer to my friend the member from Etobicoke, I think he has in his own inimitable way joined the issue. Indeed, the member for Dufferin-Peel said in his earlier remarks that what we are dealing with here is on the one hand an Environmental Bill of Rights that says a lot of things that are important and with which we agree, but we're trying to look at that in the context of Bill 143, which does run counter to all of those things that are in the Environmental Bill of Rights.

If those issues, dumps, hydro sites, whatever, can't be dealt with, it goes back to the other concern I have that people then look at this as something which isn't what it purports to be, isn't what it says to be, and therefore we have yet another decline in the respect in which people hold legislative bodies such as our own.

In concluding on the remarks that have been made, I think we need to look at this bill and try to make sure, as sure as we can be, that it will be effective. I think we've got to find ways it's going to have an impact on these other pieces of legislation, other government actions that have a profound impact on people's lives. Certainly garbage dumps, nuclear sites, a whole series of other major issues like that, are ones where people need to have the right to impact on those decisions, and that's what we're looking for, so I look forward to the continuing debate and to the hearings we'll have after second reading.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): When we take note of the particular change that will be enacted by this bill, I would like to give some examples of where these changes are needed. First of all, let's describe the responsibility, according to the bill, of the Environmental Commissioner. This person is supposed to ensure public accountability of all environmental decisions; will review any new or existing policy, act or regulation if any two residents of Ontario believe the environment is not being adequately protected; will investigate alleged violations of environmental regulations if any two residents of Ontario request an investigation. The Commissioner liaises with the appropriate minister, and there are time limits for the responses to complaints.

In my riding, we have a cement company by the name of St Lawrence Cement Inc. The St Lawrence Cement case demonstrates the need for a body separate from the Ministry of Environment and Energy to ensure that this ministry is doing its utmost to protect the environment and to uphold our environmental laws and regulations. The commissioner will give residents recourse when the Ministry of Environment and Energy and certain other ministries appear not to take appropriate action.

The first example I would like to place on the record is this: St Lawrence Cement operates an unauthorized landfill site, which raises questions of possible groundwater contamination from leachate. Nine years ago, in April 1984, a ministry official determined that there was groundwater contamination in bedrock wells 2 and 3 under the St Lawrence Cement property. The official recommended that ongoing groundwater monitoring be done at this site. However, this monitoring has not taken place, even though it was a Ministry of the Environment official who recommended that this monitoring be done.

1720

St Lawrence Cement submitted an application in 1984 for the landfilling operation, and according to my staff who have spoken to Alex Giffen, the acting regional director: "The approval of this application was delayed as the ministry tried to develop procedures for processing these types of applications. As the landfilling of kiln dust at cement plants is common to all cement manufacturers in Ontario and pre-dates the ministry's legislation, it should be noted that St Lawrence Cement is in the process of updating their applications, which should be submitted for approval in the near future."

What possible justification can there be for a nine-year delay in processing an application? The data from a detailed sampling program of waste kiln dust is needed to process this application. Frustrated by St Lawrence Cement's lack of testing, the Ministry of Environment and Energy has drafted a director's order with respect to this unauthorized landfill. Yet now, apparently, the ministry is willing to sit on that order until next spring to give St Lawrence Cement a chance for voluntary compliance.

Voluntary compliance? That's about as realistic as saying that the Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, isn't going to raise taxes next year. Voluntary compliance? Let's talk about the kind of company that we're waiting for for voluntary compliance.

The ministry's leniency cannot be justified for a company like St Lawrence Cement, which has a lengthy record of promising to do tests, then failing to follow through on its promises. Even this year, St Lawrence Cement has failed to do the bulk of the tests ordered by the Environmental Appeal Board last December.

Can you believe that, Mr Speaker? The taxpayers of this province fund a system of environmental hearings. We have an Environmental Appeal Board that gave direction to St Lawrence Cement, and they still have not complied with that direction in total, hardly in part. St Lawrence Cement has had 10 years to do its testing. Would somebody please explain why they need another six months?

The second example is this: During the recent Environmental Appeal Board hearings, counsel for the Ministry of Environment and Energy was given the opportunity to reopen evidence and to recall witnesses, but he declined to do so.

Now, you would have to have been at this hearing, as I was, to understand the significance of this. This was the chairman of the Environmental Appeal Board inviting the lawyer for the Ministry of Environment and Energy to reopen their case. It's the case of a control order being issued against the cement company and St Lawrence Cement not agreeing with the order and appealing it. Here we have somebody representing the ministry that issued the order against the company, that lawyer for the ministry not wishing to reopen the case and recall witnesses and therefore obtain more evidence, witnesses who had given evidence since that representative of the legal services branch had cross-examined other witnesses at the hearing.

As a result, a community group called Residents Against Cement Company Pollution, RACCP, had felt the need to subpoena witnesses, including two ministry officials from the air resources branch.

So here you have a picture of an Environmental Appeal Board hearing where the ministry staff are sitting on their hands and who is doing the work but a citizens' group represented by one woman; a woman, I may add -- her name is Julie Bart -- who is not a lawyer. She does not work for any company that might be in competition with St Lawrence Cement. As a matter of fact, at this time and for the past year, this woman has been unemployed because she has chosen to be at home with her family.

Throughout this Environmental Appeal Board hearing, Julie Bart has had a baby. She now is the mother of her third daughter, Miriam, who -- and if anybody is going to be an environmental lawyer, I guess it's going to be her daughter Miriam, because Julie Bart has spent the last 12 months of her life preparing for the days when this hearing was taking place. Quite frankly, if Julie Bart had not been given standing by the board at the beginning of the hearing, which is just about a year ago at this time, this hearing would have long since been over, based on the inaction by the Ministry of Environment legal services branch.

It was very interesting to be there the day the Environmental Assessment Board invited Ms Julie Bart to request standing, to give evidence and to call evidence and argument before the board as a citizen. It's been a very revealing 12 months, not encouraging from the standpoint of the legal services branch of our ministry because, frankly, on the one hand we've got an enforcement branch in the district office that has issued a control order and then we have a legal services branch that put in an appearance at the Environmental Assessment Board, which is almost an automatic thing for them but not something that obviously they're prepared to do any work on.

The third example I would like to give you is this: St Lawrence Cement burns chlorinated solvents -- in other words, hazardous waste -- for 40% of its production. There is something wrong with our environmental standards when St Lawrence Cement has been able to burn chlorinated solvents since the late 1970s without being required to test for the toxicity of its emissions.

At its recent annual meeting, this group of residents, the Residents Against Cement Company Pollution, heard from a Dr David Pengelly, a professor of medicine and engineering physics at McMaster University. Dr Pengelly is co-chair for the environmental health committee of the Canadian Lung Association. The residents learned that literature and tests done at other cement kilns show that three things happen when chlorinated waste solvents are burned: (1) quantity of emissions increases; (2) particles emitted tend to be the smallest, which are the most hazardous types; and (3) particles emitted tend to be more toxic -- for example, more heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, aluminum, mercury etc and more dioxins and furans.

St Lawrence Cement has never done any testing of its emissions when burning chlorinated waste solvents. Under order of the Environmental Appeal Board in January 1993, St Lawrence Cement did its first-ever test of quantity and size of particles being emitted. The results were as follows:

(1) The amount of emissions were astronomical. From just one source it was 95% of the allowance maximum. If one were to factor in the other sources of emissions, SLC could well be contravening regulation 346.

(2) Ninety-five per cent of the particles emitted were of the type PM10, which Dr Pengelly discussed as being hazardous to respiratory health.

Despite a letter which I received from the Minister of the Environment and Energy on June 28 of this year which said, "I understand and share your concern for the potential problems associated with incineration of chlorinated solvents," guess what? No tests are currently scheduled to determine the toxicity of emissions.

1730

The St Lawrence Cement plant does not have one continuous monitor that it uses to see how much and what is coming out of its stack. This is a facility that has such day-to-day operational problems that despite its objective to run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it had unplanned kiln stoppages 30% of the time in 1992.

Why won't the Ministry of Environment and Energy suspend St Lawrence Cement's licence to burn until the company can demonstrate, through appropriate testing, that the resulting emissions are safe? That is a very important question. It has not been answered by this ministry, and in my humble opinion it is not too much to ask. Do we have to entrust environmental scrutiny and enforcement to the watchdogs like our community group Residents Against Cement Company Pollution instead of the ministry?

Under public participation, the Environmental Bill of Rights will establish minimum standards for public notice of and participation in environmental decision-making by designated ministries within the province of Ontario. This too is relevant to St Lawrence Cement.

Herman Turkstra, who is the counsel for St Lawrence Cement, in his opening remarks before an ongoing Environmental Appeal Board hearing, welcomed a full and open process. To quote Mr Turkstra:

"St Lawrence Cement in many respects is delighted to be here today in this hearing, and that so many of its neighbours are here; because the issue of what in fact is happening at the company's cement plant in Mississauga and what the nature of the problem is, and what the range of solutions are, will finally be dealt with in an open proceeding with the evidence being given under oath....

"So that instead of this issue being communicated between St Lawrence Cement and its neighbours by way of media reports, newsletters and speeches, the community will hear the facts."

That was at the opening of the Environmental Appeal Board hearing and there were approximately 200 local residents in attendance.

Guess what? After this wonderful statement by Herman Turkstra that he was happy to be there, that the company was glad everything was going to be in the open and everything would be on the record, guess what? Now St Lawrence Cement wants to keep its test results secret from the public, these test results that it's never done since it's been burning chlorinated waste since the late 1970s.

The only reason these tests are being done is because they are under order of the Environmental Appeal Board. St Lawrence Cement says the disclosure of information about its opacity project work program could represent a competitive advantage to others in the cement-making or related industries.

This company, which thinks it is such a wonderful corporate citizen should start thinking less about its competitive advantage and more about the thousands and thousands of people who live within the plume fallout from its stack, and that includes a far greater area than Oakville and Mississauga when the wind carries that plume.

Other aspects of the hearing have posed a problem for the community group RACCP, which has been a party to the Environmental Appeal Board hearing. For instance, the group has had its problems obtaining transcripts of the proceedings. So far, RACCP has been unable to obtain a draft of a new directives order regarding St Lawrence Cement's landfill operation, even though the ministry shared the draft with SLC. Isn't this just great?

Under section 3 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, we deal with legal action by residents. The Environmental Bill of Rights will let residents of Ontario initiate legal action against alleged violators of environmental laws. Legal action is considered to be a last resort when either a response to a request for investigation was not received in reasonable time or an unreasonable response was received. Action can be taken only if the protection of a "public resource" is threatened. Public resources are defined as public lands, the air, water, plant life, animal life or the ecological system. No damages can be awarded. The court can order that an activity be terminated or a plan for restoration and cleanup be developed.

This too has relevance to St Lawrence Cement. Considering the unreasonable delays that the residents have encountered with the ministry and St Lawrence Cement in terms of conducting tests to determine the safety of the plant, a legal remedy may be necessary as a last resort.

It's really interesting when we talk about what we are protecting as a public resource, because in the case of St Lawrence Cement, it is built right on the shores of Lake Ontario. I have no figures about the number of people Lake Ontario provides with drinking water, but since the population of Ontario is now in excess of 10 million and since I do have an approximate figure of five million people living in the Golden Horseshoe area, it probably would not be an exaggeration to talk about the north shore of Lake Ontario, and the south shore of Lake Ontario impacting on the residents of New York state, although I recognize New York state doesn't exactly have a good environmental record either.

When we look at the numbers of people, even in a very lenient estimate, I would say we could be looking at the water supply for three to four million people.

It does not make sense to allow a company to continue its operation in violation of environmental laws which exist today. That's the sad story about St Lawrence Cement. Here we are today debating Bill 26, and on the surface Bill 26, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, sounds great, for those people who support the content of this bill. But my concern is that we have environmental laws that exist today in this province and those laws are not being enforced.

We have people in district offices of the Ministry of Environment and Energy in this province who work very hard, and I want to commend the staff of the Oakville district office and the people who work there. In my humble opinion, they are understaffed, and they work very hard. We can talk about the manager of that office, John Budz, and his staff and the fact that they must reach a very high level of frustration, because they go out and do their investigation and they gather their evidence and they issue an order, as they have issued a control order against St Lawrence Cement, and then, when St Lawrence Cement decides it does not wish to comply with that order, also legally it has an option to appeal it.

In this case, we have an ongoing hearing where their appeal is taking place, but in the meantime we have uncovered some other concerns to do with the operation of St Lawrence Cement. We have to question how much good another bill respecting an environmental issue in this province will do if we can't have stronger enforcement when it comes to the legal services branch.

1740

We have certainly got a very important example in this particular hearing. When the hearing is complete, I think there will be an interesting review of exactly what has taken place. Fortunately, there is going to be a transcript of the whole hearing, and it will very quickly become evident that without the participation of the residents the hearing would have been over probably at least six or eight months ago because the legal services branch did not wish to reopen the evidence or hear from more witnesses.

In this case, when we talk about environmental rights in this province, I think we must remember that it doesn't matter how many laws we have and how many opportunities we have to protect the environment; if it doesn't happen, it's meaningless. I could probably cite other examples, but I'm using St Lawrence Cement as an example because it's in my riding. In the case of St Lawrence Cement, we have had an illegal landfill operation for nine years; for nine years, we've had this unauthorized landfill site. We may have had it for longer than nine years, but it was nine years ago that the ministry decided there was groundwater contamination. It's a pretty scary thought, if there's been groundwater contamination for nine years. The runoff of that groundwater goes into Lake Ontario and, as I've just explained, that's where our drinking water comes from.

That's the groundwater contamination. When we look at what possibly could be contamination of the air, we're looking at possible emissions that come out of a stack and fall into the lake, so if it doesn't get into the lake through the leachate through the groundwater, perhaps it comes out of the air. Perhaps it doesn't, but since the late 1970s this company has been allowed to burn chlorinated wastes. The point is that it may be that their burning has been safe, it may be; I'm not saying that it necessarily has caused any problems.

I'm simply saying, how is it, when there is enough evidence, not just around this province, enough evidence of the risk of burning chlorinated waste solvents, which are a hazardous waste, that there isn't a monitoring? That's all I'm asking. If it's safe and it's a safe way of disposing of those hazardous wastes, fine, but at least have some monitoring done.

In this case, when the company is ordered by the Environmental Appeal Board to do a whole set of tests and has failed to do the bulk of those tests, I think it's mandatory for Mr Wildman, the Minister of Environment and Energy, to put a halt to the burning of those wastes which are used for 40% of the operation of this company. Until the tests are done, I think the burning of those chlorinated solvents must be stopped. It must be prohibited until the tests which the Environmental Appeal Board has ordered have been done. When those tests are done and everyone sees the full facts, then we will know whether or not it's a safe procedure, then we will know whether or not St Lawrence Cement can continue to do that, to burn those chlorinated wastes for 40% of their operation and therefore 40% of their fuel needs.

It's not a bad deal. You probably get paid for disposal of hazardous wastes and then you can turn around and use it as a fuel in your operation. All of that's fine as long as it's safe, but how do you get to do it for 15 years and never have to do one single test to prove what your emissions contain? It's not a very good situation. It's not a situation I'm satisfied with, and I won't be satisfied until we have a full report from the ministry. The passage of Bill 26 may just be superfluous if we don't have action.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member's time has expired. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I enjoyed listening to the member for Mississauga South. She's very concerned about this issue in her riding, and I'm glad to see that we know she won't be supporting incineration of any kind by cement plants, whether that be garbage, whether that be tires. I just hope that what she's saying is the same thing that her leader will be saying, considering that he continues to go around this province and say that this government isn't doing anything good for business, is only putting roadblocks in the way.

I'm sure she'll make sure that Mr Harris will be a leading advocate out there for environmental causes, to ensure that this province continues to be a very safe and clean place for everyone to live, because we know that the leader of the third party is spending so much time talking about environmental issues. It was a very refreshing change to hear this from the member for Mississauga South. I look forward to hearing more comments of a similar nature coming from her leader when he is travelling around the province.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions or comments?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a sneaking suspicion that the member who has just given us this 30-minute attack, really, on a local business in Mississauga rather than an analysis of the good points or bad points of Bill 26 -- I would be quite surprised if the leader of the third party, as the member for Oxford has suggested, would concur with much of what was said. I also think that all of us in this place should be prepared at all times to say what we say in here out there, and I would suggest that I would be surprised if that were the case.

I'm not surprised -- I am a little disappointed -- but as time passes around here I hear Tories making NDP speeches and NDPers making Tory speeches. It's getting really interesting. We don't know what to do here. You guys are all melting together in one pot, which is really quite fascinating.

1750

Mr Speaker, let me tell you that several millions of dollars were spent by both St Marys Cement and St Lawrence Cement in putting together documentation based on testing on the very burning issue that we're all -- some of us -- concerned about, not the ideological issues that obviously the member for Mississauga South shares with the government members of simply saying: "We will not burn anything under any conditions. It will all stop. We don't want to see the results of the testing that has been done by the cement companies and by other people."

We have an incinerator in Peel operating daily, taking in 1,000 tonnes a day of municipal garbage and burning it. Those tests are ongoing. It's operating. It's there. It's real. St Lawrence, St Marys, all of these people wanted and still want an environmental assessment to find out if what they're finding out in their tests is accurate.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to congratulate the member for Mississauga South for raising a couple of issues with respect to a local matter in her riding. I think it's a prime example of the issue of public participation in government decision-making, and I think this Bill 26 is attempting to deal with that. I guess she's asked the real question. She's looked at what exists now and she's looked at what Bill 26 is trying to solve and if Bill 26 has improved over the existing system.

In other words, you could look at the government delaying at its discretion any complaint that is being made by an individual or individuals against a corporation or any other organization as opposed to frivolous claims by individuals or corporations. The situation, as I understand the member for Mississauga South, is not going to be improved one iota with respect to Bill 26. I think she's quite right that what the government is trying to do with this Environmental Bill of Rights is not going to change as a result of Bill 26.

The other issue that she's raised is her topic with respect to incineration, and whether you agree with incineration or whether you disagree with incineration, the fact of the matter is, Bill 143 and Bill 26 prohibit this House essentially from dealing with the subject of incineration. Bill 143 says: "Thou shalt do it this way," and that's all. We won't look at the long rail haul system; we won't look at Kirkland Lake or any other area outside the GTA; we won't look at incineration; we won't look at any other alternative. We're only going to look at what this government says and that's that.

I think the raising of this whole issue shows that we need to discuss all of the issues. The very fact that we can't discuss the disposal of waste under Bill 26 is simply unbelievable. Bill 26 does not allow us to do that, because they say the IWA is looking after that very nicely, and I say it's not.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I'd like to compliment the member for Mississauga South on her stand on incineration, because of all the members in that party, she was the one who showed the most credibility when it came to voting on that issue. She stood up and she said no to incineration. The rest of the party got up and said yes to incineration. I think that's a courageous stand for her to take. I don't necessarily agree with the reason she did that, but I think it's important that that voice be heard in terms of the waste from incineration.

I agree with her in terms of what testing is available and what remediation can be done, what should be burned in these cement kilns and what shouldn't be burned in cement kilns, the process in terms of what we know about what happens during the burning process, the contaminants that are created and the fact that if you burn some of this stuff, the PCBs and other chemicals get locked into the cement and become part of the blocks, part of the process and will be leached out during rain or whatever other process, or will wind up, when it is taken out of the system, as rubble poured into the lake or some other area, and we find out this is now part of the ecosystem and we have to be concerned about it.

It's important that at least somebody in the Tory party understands the dynamics of that. Clearly, when they all stood up and voted in favour of incineration just a little while back, there was at least one ray of hope in terms of the party coming into the 21st century and understanding the negative dynamics of what happens when you burn things and you don't have the control over it and you don't know what will be the result.

I've run out of time, Mr Speaker. I will elucidate more later.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Mississauga South has two minutes in response.

Mrs Marland: I'm delighted that Mr Mahoney, the member for Mississauga West, has just put on record that he has no idea what his own city council is doing, of which his own wife is a member, because the city of Mississauga council has passed a resolution almost word for word stating the same concerns that I have placed on the record this afternoon. Instead of Mr Mahoney saying that I'm simply attacking a local business in Mississauga, I would suggest to him that he listen to --

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have been twice referred to by name on a personal basis. I believe under the rules that's out of order.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I want to remind the honourable member for Mississauga South that we refer to colleagues by the name of their riding.

Mrs Marland: Everybody knows the name of the person for Mississauga West, and I would like to say that when he suggests that I am making a partisan speech and he challenges me to say what I say in the House elsewhere, I simply say to Mr Mahoney, I am very proud to stand in this House tonight and speak on behalf of my constituents, which is what I am elected to do. I am not doing what perhaps the member for Mississauga West might like to do, which is stand in this House and speak on behalf of a business interest. I stand here and know what my council is saying and doing, and the mayor of Mississauga and Councillor Katie Mahoney and Councillor Pat Mullen and the balance of the rest of council all support my position because, as I say, they have already passed a motion to that effect. They share my concern about the operation without testing of St Lawrence Cement in my riding.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for her participation. Further debate? The honourable member for Durham West.

Mr Wiseman: Mr Speaker, I would request that you give me some direction here. We are about two minutes before 6 of the clock.

The Acting Speaker: The House normally proceeds until 6 of the clock, and you do have some time, unless you want to attempt to get unanimous consent.

Mr Wiseman: I could begin and then I would adjourn debate as I move in.

To begin, what we should be debating here in second reading is the principle of the bill; that is, whether we agree or disagree with the principle of the bill. I think that is a significant place to begin in terms of discussion around the Environmental Bill of Rights. I think that's important because everyone who has gotten up and spoken in this Legislative Assembly has said that it's an Environmental Bill of Rights. They have, either intentionally or unintentionally, misspoken the name of what we're talking about.

It says it's "An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario." But by saying that it's an Environmental Bill of Rights, we have actually elevated the discussion from being just another bill to saying that the environment should have the same kind of rights that we have throughout history aspired to as human beings, whether it be the Declaration of Independence or the Declaration of the Rights of Man or the Charter or Rights or John Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights. We have elevated the discussion here, by talking about an Environmental Bill of Rights, to say that the environment is a significant and an important part of who we are and what we are in this world.

We have said, by changing the name of this bill from a bill that says "An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario," by this calling it an Environmental Bill of Rights, to say that the environment is part of what we should be and who we are and that when we start to talk about issues now, whether they be economic issues, whether they be human issues and whether they be issues pertaining to other rights and education, we now have elevated the discussion in all of those places to include the environment.

On that, I will adjourn the debate.

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 29, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1801.

September 28, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YORK COUNTY HOSPITAL

MINING INDUSTRY

JOBS ONTARIO

BRIDGE RESTRICTION

MEALS ON WHEELS

KIDS CAN PLAY

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

HAZARDOUS WASTE

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF UKRAINE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ORAL QUESTIONS

FERRY SERVICE FEES

AMBULANCE SERVICES

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

ONTARIO HYDRO

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

JUSTICE SYSTEM

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

POLICE COMPLAINTS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

FARM MORTGAGES

JUSTICE SYSTEM

MINISTRY RESTRUCTURING

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

GAMBLING

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

HEALTH CARE

CASINO GAMBLING

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND LEARNING DISABLED

MOTIONS

FIRST DEPUTY CHAIR

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND CONSERVANCY CORPORATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PROTECTION DES TERRES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS, 1993 / CHARTE DES DROITS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX DE 1993