Hansard Transcript 1993-Sept-30 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This NDP government does not seem to understand the importance and the role of the private sector in Ontario's economy.

Only with the private sector and public sector working together can the province of Ontario be assured of the best delivery of health and social services.

At this time, the NDP government is trying to shut the private sector out of laboratory services. The NDP believe that the public sector is the only sector that should be providing lab services in the province of Ontario. What they fail to recognize is the importance of the private laboratories.

Private sector laboratories complement the work of the public sector. By servicing different patient populations, all patients' needs are thus met. Private sector laboratories are highly efficient in the services that they provide.

The industry is vital for economic development of the province. They employ over 7,000 highly skilled workers providing a large contribution to the tax base in Ontario. The profits they generate are reinvested into this province.

Private labs in Ontario spend a great deal of money on research and development, and this research has created technology that is being exported internationally.

By eliminating private laboratories the government of Ontario will be crippling the development of lab services in Ontario.

This NDP government and Bob Rae should realize the importance of private sector companies fulfilling their role in our economy. Every effort should be made to create an environment where public and private sectors are able to operate in the same industry to provide the people of Ontario with the best services available.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The United Nations General Assembly has designated October 1 as International Day for the Elderly, which will be observed tomorrow throughout the world.

Today we join in paying tribute to the many contributions of the elderly to our society. We may also reflect on how the needs of Ontario seniors are being met by the NDP. Without warning the NDP recently delisted 134 slow-release drugs, many of which are required by seniors who suffer from a variety of ailments including angina and high blood pressure. The NDP imposed a limit on the air some seniors breathe by capping their monthly oxygen bills at $475 while limiting their mobility by altering the way in which they now receive oxygen.

A new user fee for long-term care in residential facilities came into abrupt effect in July and can be as high as up to 372 additional dollars per month imposed on seniors whose budgets are already overburdened.

The NDP has also switched to multiple-year drivers' licences which require seniors to pay up to six years' fees at once, even though they may not be able to drive for six more years; this, on top of last year's NDP reduction of the seniors' tax grant, probate fee increases and restriction of OHIP coverages for seniors who travel.

On International Day for the Elderly, the minister responsible for seniors' issues did not even stand in the House to make a formal ministerial statement. Why? Because Elaine Ziemba has nothing to tell seniors and nothing to offer them. This NDP no-hope message will not be lost on seniors in this election federally or the next provincial election.

TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS / TRADUCTEURS ET INTERPRÈTES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm pleased to rise today to recognize St Jerome's Day. Named after the patron saint of translators, September 30 has been declared National and International Translation Day by the Canadian Translators and Interpreters Council and the International Federation of Translators.

Here in our province, the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario, or ATIO, has been undertaking the valuable work of translation and interpreting since 1921. This organization, which presently has about 1,000 members, is the oldest translators' association in Canada and the first in the world to obtain legal status for its members, in 1989. The ATIO is able to provide translation and interpreting services in 46 languages.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of the members of the ATIO, some of whom are here today with us in the members' as well as the public galleries. The work these men and women undertake in the public and private sectors is invaluable.

Specifically, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Ms Edna Hussman, vice-president of the ATIO, Ms Magda Match, the director of ATIO's professional standards committee, and Mr Gérard Fortier, member of the ATIO's public relations committee.

Puisqu'un nombre croissant d'immigrants et d'immigrantes venus des quatre coins du monde s'établissent en Ontario et que tout comme les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, ils établissent leurs propres institutions sociales et culturelles, la capacité de communiquer dans de nombreuses langues, tout en respectant le bagage culturel spécifique de chaque personne, représente un facteur essentiel dans les efforts pour atteindre l'harmonie et le développement sociaux dans notre province.

What would our lives be without the benefit of translation and interpreting? This is something we should reflect on as we celebrate St Jerome's Day.

EARTHQUAKE IN INDIA

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I woke up this morning to the jarring news of the devastation caused by the earthquake in India. The first reports, as we all heard, were sketchy, but painted a picture of widespread destruction, injury and loss of life. It now appears that over 6,000 people are dead and several times that number are injured.

For us, it would be like the entire town of Hawkesbury or Leamington or St Marys or Hanover being completely wiped out. I, I'm sure along with many members of the House, have many close friends who have come to Canada from India. I think there's a close relationship between Canada and India and somehow that makes this event all the more tragic for us.

I know I speak on behalf of all the members of the Legislature in expressing to the government of India, the people of India, and particularly the people in that area that has been devastated by this earthquake that I hope the rescue operations proceed well, with good world support. I hope that the rebuilding activity proceeds well, again with the support of the world community. I hope particularly that the people of Ontario will again demonstrate their generosity in assisting in that rebuilding.

CORMORANT POPULATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The fish stocks of Georgian Bay are being depleted due to a significant increase in the population of cormorants, or birds referred to locally as crow-ducks.

According to anglers from Sans Souci on Georgian Bay, the population explosion of cormorants over the past two years has led to a substantial decrease in the number of perch, bass and bait fish in Georgian Bay.

Henry LePage, a commercial fisherman and restaurateur, has told me that these birds have become a menace that is killing his business. In 1991, Mr LePage caught hundreds of pounds of perch per day to provide the most popular dish in his restaurant. In the summer of 1993, his harvest was down to less than 100 pounds a day. By mid-August of this year, Mr LePage was no longer able to serve perch at his restaurant because the cormorant had wiped them out.

1340

Local anglers and cottagers also report that the cormorant are destroying bass stocks and devastating the fishing industry. Furthermore, the cormorant is said to be feeding heavily on bait fish, which are needed to maintain the pike and muskie populations.

Given the reports we have heard from both commercial and sport anglers in Georgian Bay, it appears as though this bird is causing a major imbalance in the ecosystem. So I ask the Minister of Natural Resources to take immediate action by investigating this matter and restoring the ecological balance of Georgian Bay.

CELSO BARICHELLO

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'd like to cite bravery and humanity shown by a friend and constituent and highlight his tenacity and a sheer love of life. I introduce to this Legislature Celso Barichello, husband, father, former truck driver and church usher, who heeded a call on a Windsor city street that many would have avoided.

Amidst the wailing sirens of Windsor fire trucks, heavy vehicle traffic and many people, a caring citizen was getting involved. Celso was ready and willing to provide leadership and sound judgement and set his sights on helping direct traffic as well as pedestrians. In a split second, he was struck by a vehicle and was sent hurling through the air.

Celso spent the next 18 months in Hotel Dieu Hospital with a prognosis that was not promising. During his stay, he captured the hearts of doctors and nurses. They became affectionately attached to a man they would not soon forget.

This past weekend, his family celebrated his birthday, his coming home and his lust for life. My wife, Maria, and I spent time with him this weekend recalling former names of his coworkers with his spelling board.

Celso is paralysed from the neck down and requires round-the-clock supervision. He cannot speak, his heart is strong and he's able to listen and smile, which has become his trademark. I know that he's watching now.

Celso Barichello's life continues. On behalf of his co-workers, from the church parishioners at St Angela Merici Church on Erie Street whom he served so well for so many years, I say, from my family to yours: Good luck, best wishes and keep smiling.

MINOR HOCKEY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I draw once again to the attention of the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation the problem that exists in minor hockey today. We received a letter, as members of the Legislature, informing us of the actions of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association against the players of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association:

"...This action of depriving the OMHA players access to federally funded material for development shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the CAHA...."

The letter goes on to say:

"I would like, today, to bring your attention to another very serious situation imposed on the OMHA players. The CAHA has notified other hockey bodies in Ontario, Canada, USA and Europe that we are no longer affiliated with them (they ejected us from the CAHA), thereby stopping any games they would have played with OMHA teams. By doing this they are denying the youth of the OMHA the right to participate in tournaments and international play. The OMHA has taken part in these activities for nearly 60 years. I feel the OMHA players are being discriminated against by the CAHA.

"The most serious ramification of this action will be felt in the province of Ontario. Blacklisting the OMHA centres and players will cause a serious economic impact in Ontario. It stops all outside teams from participating in tournaments held by the OMHA....We need your assistance to convince the CAHA to lift the ban on all OMHA players and allow them to continue playing as they have in the past."

I call upon the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to take the appropriate action to bring the two sides together to solve this problem for young people in our province.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I rise today to join residents of eastern Ontario and members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in condemning the NDP government's latest tax grab proposal for the Wolfe Island and Glenora ferries.

It is clear by now that a tax grab is more important to this government than the economies and the residents of Prince Edward county and of Wolfe Island.

It is also clear that a tax grab is more important to this government than an agreement from the Department of Highways back in 1964 to provide ferry service to Wolfe Island free of charge.

It's clear that a tax grab even takes precedence over an economic impact study for the areas affected.

The NDP has failed to consider the impact on tourism. The NDP has failed to consider the impact on agriculture. What will happen to the dairy operations on Wolfe Island, pick-your-own farms in Prince Edward? Has the Minister of Finance even tried to find out?

The NDP has failed to consider the impact on working residents and retirees. The NDP fees work out to a tax of over $800 a year on residents for the sin of having a job in Bob Rae's Ontario. The NDP gives Prince Edward county residents the option of a 70-kilometre detour to get to work in the Kingston area, no doubt providing great joy to the NDP over the extra gas tax revenues.

The NDP expects to extract from Wolfe Island ferry fees almost an equal amount to the entire tax base of Wolfe Island, an absolutely disgusting tax grab.

BALLS FALLS THANKSGIVING EVENTS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to tell the House about an event that will draw more than 25,000 people to my riding next weekend, the 19th Annual Balls Falls Thanksgiving Festival Craft Show and Sale. Sponsored by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, the Balls Falls craft festival has become one of the Niagara region's most popular fall attractions. In fact, it expanded over the years from a two-day to a four-day event.

The festival features high-quality crafts set amidst the beautiful autumn scenery of Balls Falls Historical Park and Conservation Area in the town of Lincoln. More than 100 artisans have been selected from Ontario and outside the province to sell their wares. Also featured will be historical displays and demonstrations, live entertainment, festive foods and refreshments and children's wood-carving workshops. I'm sure this year's festival will bring together the entire community of Lincoln and it will attract visitors from other parts of the Niagara Peninsula, Metropolitan Toronto and the United States.

I would like to congratulate the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, especially festival convener Christine Hayward, for organizing an event that is ranked among the top five craft shows in Ontario. I urge members of this House and their constituents to come down to Lincoln next weekend and join the wonderful outdoor craft festival.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to take this opportunity to update the members of the House on the beer trade issues.

You may have read last month that Canada and the United States resolved their long-standing beer war. On August 5, Canada and the US reached a fair commercial agreement which benefits our domestic brewing industry, its labour force and Ontario consumers. It preserved the government's key principles in beer pricing and distribution. It also maintained employment and investment in the province as well as our right to determine social policies.

As an integral part of this agreement, Ontario maintained its minimum pricing policy in support of the government's commitment to responsible use of alcohol. Based on alcohol content, we established three levels of minimum price so that higher alcohol content beers have a correspondingly higher retail price.

Moreover, our position from the outset was that the environmental levy was not negotiable. It has been maintained. The levy is an important environmental measure and was never imposed as a trade barrier. It is an incentive to manufacturers and consumers to favour refillable containers over recyclable ones and supports our commitment to the 3R hierarchy.

When we put all this together, the bottom line is lower prices and wider product choice for consumers in Ontario. Foreign beer has complete access to our beer retail networks and is now available in beer stores.

As soon as the bilateral agreement was reached, the United States removed the $3-per-case duty imposed, without GATT sanction, on beer brewed or bottled in Ontario. Likewise, Canada removed the equivalent tariff imposed against Stroh and Heileman beer imported into Ontario.

This agreement does not only apply to the United States. Effective today, Ontario is extending the provisions of the bilateral agreement to our other international trading partners, including the European Community. I'm therefore pleased to announce that Ontario has now fulfilled all of our international trade obligations on beer. These stem from the 1991 GATT panel report on provincial beer marketing practices initiated by the United States.

1350

Just as we are fulfilling our obligations under GATT by giving American brewers equal and fair access to our market, we expect the US to fulfil its own GATT obligations and remove the federal and state practices that discriminate against our brewers.

I'd also like to update you on another important aspect of our beer trade, namely, trade with other provinces. Last year, Ontario removed its interprovincial trade barriers on beer by allowing out-of-province beer to be sold in our beer stores. This was done in the context of the intergovernmental agreement signed with other provinces.

As of today, we are improving out-of-province brewers' access to our market. Brewers from other provinces will be given exactly the same treatment as foreign brewers. Thus, all Canadian brewers will benefit from the Canada-US agreement. We have established a level playing field for all brewers wishing to sell in Ontario. We are providing them with fair and open treatment.

Finally, on behalf of the government, I would like to thank all of those who have contributed to Ontario's fulfilment of these obligations. We worked in partnership with the Ontario brewing industry, brewery and LCBO unions, our federal counterparts, my colleagues and their staff in the ministries of Economic Development and Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Environment and Energy, and Finance. Last but not least, I'd like to thank the environmental groups which aided us as well. In particular, I would like to extend my special thanks to the LCBO and my staff in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Ontario committed to meeting a September 30 deadline for the removal of beer trade barriers. We have now achieved those goals.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I want to start off by saying that I would like to stand in my place and congratulate the minister wholeheartedly for her work on this deal. But the problem is that the problems that have been solved or resolved were created in the first place by the lack of action on the part of the minister and this government. We would never be in this predicament had the government not taken us into this hole. Quite frankly, my congratulatory remarks have to deal with the fact that she got out of her own mess; it was self-imposed.

This minister has a lot of other important business to take care of. When I read in the press that she's getting involved in the bidding process for the casino selection, and there are now four possible bidders on this, it seems to me that she should spend her time more valuably doing other things, like looking after consumer protection legislation, which is somewhere there in the bowels of the government.

There seems to be no interest on the part of the government to deal with the private bill that I brought forward. This certainly would help consumers across the province, and yet there's no indication from this minister or from this government that they intend to do anything about consumer protection.

I have to remind the minister that one of the most important roles she fulfils is consumer protection. The piece of legislation that I proposed, that our government had been drafting when we were in government, in those days, is a workable document which I understand this government has no intention of bringing forward, because you want to propose your own legislation.

That's fine, but why haven't we seen any indication of consumer protection measures, some initiative on the part of this government and this minister to indicate to the public that it is a priority of this government? Obviously, it's not. What they're more interested in is casino gambling and imposing an unofficial tax, in the form of casino gambling, on those who can least afford to pay.

I would say to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): So paternalistic.

Mr Cordiano: Well, yes, it is; it's a grab by the Treasurer. He's lusting after those dollars in those casinos. He can't wait to get his hands on them. I've got to say to the Treasurer, you're going to have to wait a little while, but I would say as well, don't get your nose out of joint getting involved in the bidding process, because that is leading to unintended consequences. You're going to hear more about that this afternoon, as I'm sure you're aware.

Quite frankly, it is unacceptable that this government interferes with the bidding process that is now under way. I think that is unacceptable to both us and the public at large. I would say to the minister, you're not pursuing an aboveboard kind of approach to the bidding process. There are problems with it. People are hinting at it. You have to clear the decks with respect to the bidding process.

I would say to the minister, get on with it and not only give the appearance that there's no interference, but have no interference in this process, because quite frankly there are questions circling around in the bowels of the ministry and elsewhere. Rumours are floating madly around this place, and around other places as well, Windsor and other communities, that this government process is one that is unfair and is biased.

Getting back to the other measures, the minister also has another job to do with the registrar general. Get your act going on that one because, and I think all other members would speak to this and confirm what I'm saying, there are still a lot of problems associated with the registrar general. You're not doing what has to be done there properly. The time lines are still quite long for registration of births and registration of deaths. The process there is still at question. The public accounts committee commented on this. There are still problems associated with getting a birth certificate on time. The time it takes is far too long.

I think this minister has to own up to those things. She has to realize that those are priorities in her ministry. The beer dispute settlement is one thing, but it doesn't speak to other responsibilities she has.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'd just like to respond very briefly to the minister and make two very brief points. The first one is that when she goes on at length congratulating herself and patting her government on the back about an environmental levy that was not negotiable, let's be abundantly clear that this is no more an environmental levy than I am. This is a tax and it was meant as a trade barrier. It wasn't put on soft drink cans; it was only put on beer cans, 90% of which are returned anyway. That is a bunch of gobbledegook and the minister knows it. A tax is a tax is a tax.

The other point I'd like to make is that it's a sad day when another province in this country can only get equal treatment because the government is embarrassed into giving them it treatment because it made a deal with the US. Hence, you have to extend the same courtesies to your sister provinces, as you should have been doing all along anyway. It would be very embarrassing if US beer companies got better treatment than other provincial beer companies. Wouldn't that be terrible.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for the provincial revenues. The Finance minister will recall the discussion he and I had on the last day of the summer session -- I think it was August 3 -- when I was raising with him concerns around the impact of illegal cigarettes coming into the province and that impact on provincial revenues.

Minister of Finance, I have in my hand, as it happens, a smuggled carton of cigarettes, and I want, in a very serious way, to ask the Minister of Finance --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Conway: My colleague the member for Cornwall has been drawing to the attention of this House what's been going on at smugglers' alley in the Cornwall area.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Yes, we watched W5.

Mr Conway: The member says that we have been watching national news programs on the same subject.

Is the Minister of Finance for Ontario aware of the fact that police indicate that 50,000 cartons of these cigarettes are coming through smugglers' alley at Cornwall on a daily basis? I repeat: Police reports indicate and police evidence suggests that 50,000 cartons of these illegal cigarettes are coming through smugglers' alley in the Cornwall area on a daily basis, and the cost to the provincial treasury in Ontario of that one daily run is $650,000. Is the Minister of Finance for Ontario aware of those data?

1400

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Now he is.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yes, I am now. Actually there's been a lot of work and a lot of studies done on the degree of smuggling, and they certainly bother me as much as they bother the member for Renfrew North, perhaps even more.

I was checking the amount of smuggling that people speculate is going on, not just in Ontario but all across the rest of the country, and it really has grown dramatically in the last few years. We could get into a debate as to why it's grown so much, but I think the fact remains that it is a very substantial amount of money that the Ontario treasury is losing on an annual basis from the smuggling.

That's one reason why the Solicitor General has taken the lead on the enforcement side to work with the federal government, which I gather has acknowledged the fact that it has the lead responsibility. I'm not passing the buck here, because we have a lot at stake in making sure that we do what we can to stop this smuggling. The violent side of it is, of course, terribly serious, but also the revenue lost to the province and the institutionalization of smuggling, which bothers me a great deal as well.

Mr Conway: My friend from Cornwall has pointed out repeatedly and very seriously the concerns around public safety and law enforcement, and I support him, as I know all members do, in those first-order concerns. But there are as well revenue issues, and that's why I ask the Minister of Finance today. In his budget tabled in this House on May 19, he specifically indicated that a number of measures, additional to what had been in place, were going to be undertaken by his government.

I ask him in supplementary terms, in light of the fact that at Cornwall, in that one smuggler's alley alone, we are losing as a province $650,000 a day in lost tobacco tax revenue, what measures has the minister of revenue and finance taken since the budget was introduced in May and since we last discussed this matter on August 3 to make sure that the very considerable revenue loss is being addressed?

Hon Mr Laughren: This is a matter on which I don't think the member for Renfrew North and I would have any disagreement whatsoever, but he asked the specific question of what the government's done. We have put in place the hiring of -- the exact number escapes me but I think about 70 extra auditors to help us in this regard.

Now, the auditing part deals with the end result of the smuggling; it doesn't get at the root cause of the smuggling which is occurring, for example, in the Cornwall area, and that's where the Solicitor General comes in. We're doing the best we can in increasing the number of audits that are done at the retail level and making sure that there are charges laid. As the member knows, I think, we are increasing the penalties for smuggling and the sale of illegal cigarettes. That's the one side, the auditing, the prosecution, investigation and so forth, and the other side is the enforcement, which is in the hands of the Solicitor General.

In the end, the solution has to come from the federal government and the provinces working together, because we have Quebec on our border; we have the federal jurisdiction over trade and over borders and over a great deal of the rules that apply to native reserves, for example. In the end, it's got to be a collaborative approach between the provinces and the federal government, because this is not a problem unique to Ontario.

That doesn't minimize the significance to Ontario or devalue the amount of dollars that the member for Renfrew North refers to in smuggling, and I couldn't agree with him more.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: We are doing what we can on both the auditing, enforcement and laying of charges side and the law enforcement side as well.

Mr Conway: As we talk in this Legislature, the taxpayers of this province lose thousands of dollars. By my calculation, at smuggler's alley in Cornwall, now probably the most notorious smugglers' alley in the country, the province of Ontario is losing about $650,000 a day, or about $220 million a year.

My question to the Minister of Finance is, what can he tell us today about how successful his additional enforcement measures were? When I last looked at the data, for example, the charges laid this year as compared to last year had hardly moved at all, and they were minimal.

People in that part of southeastern Ontario find it incredible, absolutely incredible, that after dark, as activity goes into overdrive on smugglers' alley, the Ontario Provincial Police detachment at Lancaster shuts down. That is a farce.

Will the Minister of Finance indicate what specific additional enforcement measures he is prepared to take to ensure that this laughable, farcical, dangerous and very costly activity around smugglers' alley in Cornwall is stopped?

Hon Mr Laughren: I could have made the same speech that the member for Renfrew North just did, because the enormity of the problem --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Not nearly as well.

Hon Mr Laughren: Not nearly as eloquently; yes, that's right. The enormity of the problem is not difficult to list and to identify. What is much more difficult is to come to a solution, and the solution isn't simply to open up an OPP detachment. It's much more profound than that.

At this point in time, neither the federal government nor any other province has been able to resolve this problem. I am hopeful that as the problem has become so serious and as the various levels of government are working in concert, we will come up with a strategy very shortly that would help us deal with this problem, because I agree with the member for Renfrew North that it's a serious problem and we've simply got to deal with it. It's not just on the revenue side, as he indicates, but also on the law enforcement and public safety side. We are determined, but we can't do it alone. I think the member for Renfrew North would appreciate that. We cannot resolve it alone, and that's why we're working with the other levels of government.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr Conway: New question, same subject. I understand you can't do it alone, but surely you understand the farcical nature of a situation where you, as a provincial government charged with the responsibility of provincial policing, allow a situation at Lancaster where between 3 am and 7 am, in peak smuggling hours, on a daily basis you send the cops home and shut the detachment down. That's the stuff of a Monty Python movie, and it's costing the province millions and millions and millions of dollars.

Surely, Mr Minister of Finance, we can do that much: We, as the provincial government in charge of the provincial police, can provide enough resources to the minister responsible for the police to ensure that OPP detachments in those kinds of areas, like Cornwall, Ancaster, Charlottenburgh, are not going to be put in the ridiculous situation of having to shut down at night while on a daily basis you lose $650,000 worth of revenue on the tobacco tax side alone. Would you not agree?

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, in view of the rather specific reference to law enforcement, I'll refer that question to the Solicitor General.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I'm pleased to answer the question from the honourable member. Indeed, as I mentioned in earlier responses on this same subject, I have been in discussion with the OPP commissioner and expressed to him that, coming out of my meeting with the community, they specifically would like to see action on the Lancaster detachment hours of operation. I'm pleased today to advise the honourable member that indeed the OPP commissioner has taken the decision that the detachment will be open on a 24-hour-a-day basis.

1410

Mr Conway: I appreciate that. I'm going to pursue supplementary questions that properly belong to the Minister of Finance in the same area, but I do appreciate the last response from the minister responsible for the police, because it is helpful.

I want to, on this smuggling question, turn the attention to another area, because while millions of dollars go up in smoke because of illegal activity on the tobacco side, we are now seeing millions of tax dollars going down the drain and the gullet because the smuggling is quickly moving into the liquor trade. I want to say that the illegal tobacco smugglers opened the highway, and now the traffic is increasing and we're getting more and more indication that the liquor business is increasingly involved.

To the Minister of Finance, is the Minister of Finance aware that according to the latest data from the Association of Canadian Distillers, over two million cases of spirits are now illegally coming into the province of Ontario and that this is costing the provincial treasury a loss of about $240 million annually?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, I believe the member understands that the person who answers the original question must continue to answer the supplementary questions, so although he would prefer that it be responded to by the Minister of Finance, I will answer the question and advise that in my meeting with the federal minister --

Mr Stockwell: Unanimous consent to pass it back.

The Speaker: Just to clarify, yes indeed, when an original question is referred to another minister, the minister can respond. The minister is not prevented, on the supplementary question, of referring it back to the original person to whom it was directed. If that's of any assistance to both sides of the House, the minister may in fact wish to refer the question back to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm seeing from the honourable member who asked the question that he would prefer that it be returned back to the Minister of Finance, and I'm sure that as it's his area of expertise he'll be pleased to take the supplementary.

Hon Mr Laughren: If it requires unanimous consent, you won't get it, Mr Speaker.

The member for Renfrew North is adding on to his tobacco smuggling question the whole issue of alcohol. I assume he's making a link between the tobacco smuggling and alcohol smuggling. That was what I was referring to in my earlier response to him when I said that I was worried about the institutionalization of smuggling, which is, I believe, one reason it has increased so substantially, so I have nothing more to add to what I've said to the member already, other than the fact that we're aware of the problem and in the end I really believe that a couple of things will help us resolve it -- well, several things. One is more auditing; second, stricter enforcement and tougher laws that deal with smuggling; third, and I appreciate the fact that this is completely out of our hands, the possibility that the United States may very well increase substantially its taxes, particularly on cigarettes, which I believe would act at least partially as a disincentive to smuggling.

Having said that, I don't want to leave the impression with anyone that we are therefore waiting for that to happen. That's simply not the case. We are moving as vigorously as we can to put a lid on and stamp out the smuggling.

Mr Conway: I think it is well-known to all honourable members that the public finances of the province are haemorrhaging. The government is facing more serious budgetary circumstances with every passing day. We heard just a few days ago that revenues are expected to be down over projections by anywhere between $600 million and $900 million. My guess is that before the fiscal year is out, it'll be probably at or above $1 billion.

When I look at these two accounts, our provincial tobacco tax revenues are going to be down in the Cornwall area, apparently, by over $200 million, if we are to credit police statistics; and if we take the data from the Association of Canadian Distillers, the treasury of Ontario this year will lose at least a quarter of a billion dollars in lost revenues because of smuggled booze. This is quickly becoming a challenge to the legitimacy of the government, and as we in my part of the province tax farmers and individuals and businesses on Wolfe Island, do you know that those smugglers are going to rob you of more revenue in Cornwall in one night than you will raise in a whole year with the taxes on the Wolfe Island ferry?

I ask the Treasurer, as the Minister of Finance, will he not undertake a more rigorous and serious reaction to this crisis in confidence and this frontal attack on his revenues, which are having a very real and negative impact on the public finances of the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: Of course we will, but I would just remind members and the rest of Ontario that the member's rhetoric exceeds by a great amount his solutions, because this is not an easy problem to resolve. If it was, we would resolve it, as would the federal government, as would the province of Quebec. The point is that this is a very complex set of issues and the federal government and the province of Ontario and in particular the province of Quebec are working together to try to resolve this very difficult issue, but simply yelling about it won't solve the problem. We've got to work together with other jurisdictions to see what we can do to resolve it.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, when you were asked about the style of casino that the province wanted to establish in Windsor by the member for Welland-Thorold on June 29, 1992, you said, "We know we don't want the Las Vegas style here." That's your quote. The city of Windsor has also made it very clear from the outset that it didn't want the Las Vegas style here. Why are the final four proponents for the casino all large Las Vegas-style casino operators?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The first thing I'd like to put in perspective on this question and any other questions related to that kind of issue is that I was absolutely determined and this government was absolutely determined from the beginning to put in place a fair and impartial and non-political process for the selection of the casino. That has been put in place and there has been absolutely no political interference.

All I can tell you is that the selection committee put in place a very rigorous and very tight set of criteria and the final selection for the short list was based on a whole series of steps that they went through. They met with the proponents; they studied the proposals from the proponents; they talked to a variety of experts; and they used the criteria which were set up by this government and by themselves to select the final short list, and that was their prerogative to do.

Mr Eves: Minister, I think the reason that there are only four Las Vegas operators on the list is quite obvious. If you read the article in the Windsor Star today, and if you read from a memo that was provided to me:

"I am a career public servant who's been involved in the review process for bids received under the RFP. I am upset with the bias shown in the selection process towards the big, US, Las Vegas and Atlantic City operators.

"The decision was made to exclude all but the big operators from the 'final' short list because the government was (a) afraid they wouldn't bid again, thereby making future bidding for the Ontario casinos 'less competitive,' and (b) (as you will see in the attached) that it would undermine the credibility of the selection process."

In fact, when you look through the minutes of your selection committee dated July 20 this year, that is exactly what it says. "If well-known companies are eliminated in stage 1, this could damage the committee's reputation."

Isn't it true that that was the basis upon which your selection committee made its decision, not on the basis of what was the best bid? Why did you encourage all these other proponents to submit bids when you had made up your mind, or your committee had made up its mind, from the start that all you wanted was large US Las Vegas-style casino operators? Those are the only ones you ever had any intention of entertaining from day 1, and why weren't you just upfront and honest about that?

1420

Hon Ms Churley: I certainly hope the honourable member is not questioning the integrity of the deputy ministers who were picked to sit on the selection committee. I certainly hope he isn't doing that. Having said that, I want to tell the honourable member that the minutes to which he is referring, which were leaked to the press, had nothing whatsoever to do with the selection process. Early on in the process, before the members of the selection committee ever got together to begin that process, they sat down and literally talked with dozens of experts from the casino industry. It was their duty to do so. They heard good information; they heard bad information; they heard all kinds of information. These minutes are from a meeting which took place with the selection committee and the review panel as well and had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual selection process.

Mr Eves: Let me read further from the memo:

"At least one of the 'smaller' bidders' bid was evaluated by the officials as being better than" -- underlined -- "all other bids, but that company was not included in the 'final' short list for the reasons stated above.

"Although the politicians say they are not involved in this bidding process and 'independent' review, they are in total control (Churley, Cooke, Laughren) behind the scenes. This 'manipulation' has caused frequent clashes with officials, including with members of the selection committee."

Who was that smaller bidder? Why were they not included in the final four if your committee thought they were head and shoulders above everybody else?

Hon Ms Churley: As I said in my first answer, categorically, this minister and no other minister had absolutely any role to play in the selection of the short list. I want to make that perfectly clear. I don't know who this unnamed person is. I suggest that perhaps he or she should come forward. But I want to make it very clear that this is not the case.

You're reading, I believe, from minutes that were leaked of an informal meeting which took place in a restaurant long before the selection committee sat down and started to talk to any of the proponents. As you know, they interviewed all of the proponents who had responded to the RFP, but there is nothing in these minutes whatsoever to indicate that there was any unfairness. In fact, I would say just the opposite. The committee sat down with each of the nine proponents and interviewed them one by one. They went through a process that ensures that the interests of the province and the interests of Windsor are best met. That was the process which was put in place and that was the process which was followed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Eves: To the same minister on the same issue, the Windsor Star today leaked minutes of the same meeting that we're talking about, of July 20, with your Las Vegas consultant, Dr Eadington of the University of Nevada. Surely, you would admit here that Dr Eadington is the chief adviser to your selection review panel. He was the expert you brought in in the meeting I'm talking about. He's the one who was asked the questions. He's the one who provided the answers. I'm sure you have a copy of the minutes of the meeting, as I do.

It is very clear from those minutes that Dr Eadington's advice and direction to the selection team left the team with no choice except for the Las Vegas-style operators. He told them that if they didn't choose one of the big operators, the committee would lose face with the Las Vegas-style community. He outlined each of the bid proponents, and while each of the large Las Vegas-style and eventually successful four proponents received extensive summaries, the smaller proponents are barely even acknowledged -- some by two bullet points. ITT and Sheraton are acknowledged by two bullet points whereas, for example, Harrah's gets half a page.

Do you not consider it to be somewhat difficult that the expert you're relying upon, that your committee's relying upon, Dr Eadington, is from the University of Nevada, which receives extensive funding from these same Las Vegas casinos?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, I would say that the Windsor casino will eventually be known as the Ontario-style model, because the government will own and set the rules and the regulations for our casino.

In regard to the quote from the minutes from an informal meeting which took place some time before the selection committee sat down and dealt directly with the proponents, let me say again, and I hope the member will hear me clearly this time, that the committee met with, I am told, dozens of advisers from the casino industry. I believe that it would have been irresponsible for that committee to not have met with independent advisers from the industry to glean information. It was then up to that committee to take all the bits and pieces of the information which they received from many dozens of advisers, go through it and then sit down and figure out how it fits with the criteria which we developed in choosing the best proponents that would come up with the best Ontario-style model for Ontario. That's exactly what they did.

Mr Eves: In the same minutes and documentation that we're both referring to, there is reference made to the fact that the Windsor casino will resemble New Jersey or Atlantic City more than it will Winnipeg. It also says that you intend to make money by targeting the lower social-economic groups than is done in US casinos, and it also totally trashes the idea of a small casino in Windsor because we're talking in these proposals about huge, entirely self-contained complexes, exactly what you stood in this House and told us time after time after time was not going to happen in the city of Windsor, "We're not going to have a self-contained casino complex; we want people to stay in Windsor, we want people to shop in Windsor, we want people to go to the restaurants in Windsor, we want them to use the hotel rooms," and this is exactly the opposite. Every one of these bids in the final four is exactly the opposite. How can that be?

Hon Ms Churley: Let me be clear once again. The honourable member is quoting from a document taken from the advice of one casino adviser/expert. He has the minutes from that meeting. There was all kinds of advice from all kinds of experts given to the selection committee before they started the selection process. This is just one piece of advice. I'm sure on the other side there were other pieces of advice. I don't know what it was. As I said, I was not involved in the process and will continue to stay arm's length from that process. But I can assure the member that what I stood up and said in this House still stands, and in fact we have very strict criteria which I am sure the selection committee is adhering to.

We want a made-in-Ontario-style casino. That doesn't mean it has to be just like the one in Manitoba. We know we don't want it to be like the ones in Las Vegas. However, please don't use the minutes from this document as something written in stone from one meeting which happened with one adviser before the selection process started.

Mr Eves: Minister, it's been speculated in the media since January of this year that right from the initial outset the government had decided that Harrah's indeed would be the successful proponent. I think if you look through the outline provided to the selection committee and enunciated upon by Dr Eadington in the meeting that we talk about on July 20, it is quite obvious, when you look at Caesar's, Circus Circus and Hilton, they take up about five sixths of a page. ITT -- you do know who they are, don't you? -- and Sheraton are not exactly small players themselves. They get two little dinky bullet points at the bottom of the page. That's all there is to be said about ITT. When you look at Harrah's, they have at least half a page. When you look at Argosy, a Canadian proposal, they have two little dinky bullet points.

Would you not agree that this is a more than slightly biased presentation to your selection committee by Dr Eadington, who just happens to operate out of Las Vegas, who just happens to belong to the University of Nevada, which just happens to receive its funding from the casinos that just happen to be on your short list?

Why won't you do the honourable thing and make all bids public here today so that everybody can decide for themselves whether or not you and your committee have been fair in the final-four selection process?

1430

Hon Ms Churley: Let me say again that I was in no way involved, in any way whatsoever, in the selection process. The press of course has the right to speculate any way they want on any subject, but I want to make it clear that, again, this was one adviser's --

Mr Eves: Why don't you make the bids public?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Parry Sound.

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, there's absolutely no need, to answer his question directly, to release the bids. We have a process in place that is arm's length, fair and impartial, and that process will continue. The information he is referring to has nothing whatsoever to do with the selection process.

TAX REVENUES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I want to return to the issue of the underground economy. Our caucus is very concerned about what we believe is a dramatic growth in the underground economy. We also feel that the Rae government has not come clean with the size of the problem nor have you begun to develop a comprehensive solution to it. We're hearing that the underground economy perhaps has as much as doubled in the last three years.

Perhaps the best indication of that is that you have raised taxes in the last three years by $4 billion, that's a fact, but the tax revenue in those three years has actually dropped. So you've raised taxes by $4 billion, the people who are paying taxes are paying $4 billion more in taxes, but the amount of tax revenue coming into the province has actually dropped in the last three years.

Something dramatic is happening out there, and in our opinion, the government isn't coming clean with the people. We think there may be as much as $6 billion of revenue that the government is not seeing as a result of the underground economy, but we can only guess. You've done studies on it, Minister of Finance. Will you tell the Legislature today the size of the problem that the government sees in the underground economy? How big is it and do you agree with us that there is the need to develop a comprehensive plan to deal with it?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt gives me a lecture on tax increases. Coming from the Liberals, it's like Colonel Sanders giving me a lecture on animal rights.

I can tell the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that if he's talking about some of the specifics such as cigarettes, for example, which is the big one, we have not raised taxes in the last two years on cigarettes. We have the second-lowest taxes on cigarettes in all of Canada, second only to the Yukon. We have not raised taxes on alcohol this year either. So I think to pinpoint the problem as our tax policies is simply to engage in a little rhetorical finger-pointing, which really doesn't get at the problem.

There is a problem with the underground economy. There's a problem with the underground economy in every jurisdiction I know about. In some jurisdictions, it's much more serious than in this one. That doesn't mean we don't have a problem with the underground economy. It doesn't mean that the underground economy is not growing; I believe it is, but if it was easy to pinpoint the exact amount, it would be a lot easier to do something about it as well.

I would simply say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that I agree with him that the underground economy is growing, as it is everywhere. We are doing what we can, both on the auditing side and on the enforcement side, but I'm sure the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, in his remaining supplementary, will indicate just what he thinks the solution is himself.

Mr Phillips: I tried not to make this a partisan thing. I simply said you have raised taxes by $4 billion. The tax revenue has actually dropped. I'm not making a political statement. Those are the facts. What I'm trying to get from you is a commitment to support what we've proposed.

I sent you a letter two months ago saying: "We, the Liberal caucus, want to help to solve the problem. We want an all-party legislative committee to look at this." We're trying to be helpful. I sent a letter to you asking for your support for that. You refused to support it. You say to us, "Be helpful," I send a letter to you asking for your support, and all I get back from you is your saying you cannot comment on it because it's a question for the legislative committee.

One of your senior policy people said, and this is what worries me, "We are worried to talk about this problem, because if we talk about the problem, it will get worse." We in this caucus think it is time to deal with it in a comprehensive way, not by hiring more police and auditors. That will not solve it. We need to do it in a comprehensive way.

Again, I'll ask you: Will you, firstly, confirm to the Legislature the size of the problem so I can get your backbench members on that committee to support an all-party legislative committee, and will you personally support the merit of an all-party legislative committee airing this publicly and looking for some reasonable, practical, long-term solutions rather than playing partisan politics with us?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt understands that it's not possible to be precise on the size of the underground economy. How would it be possible to identify the precise size of the underground economy? There are all sorts of estimates out there as to what it is, but those estimates vary widely as well.

As far as one of the committees of the Legislature dealing with the issue is concerned, and I suppose he was referring to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, I have no objections. It's entirely up to that committee. I chaired a standing committee for a long time, and I remember how I resented it when the government of the day directed us as to what we were to do or not to do. Whether or not the standing committee looks at the issue of smuggling is entirely up to the standing committee. I'm not going to tell them what to do.

INMATES' ALLOWANCES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. Mr Minister, your ministry intends, according to press reports, in any event, to implement a $10 canteen allowance for remand inmates, those inmates denied bail or awaiting trial. Currently, only sentenced inmates serving a minimum 21-day term get the $10 allowance.

Minister, at a time when your deficit wizards are once again at least $500 million short of their mark, this policy will cost taxpayers another $1.1 million a year. The guards in these facilities are still reeling from the social contract cuts that you've taken, and what you're sending out to them in terms of a message is that you're going to squander those savings you stripped from their wages and put them into the pockets of the people they're guarding. Minister, how can you justify this kind of expenditure?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue, given that it's had a fair bit of attention. Given the current government constraint programs, the social contract initiatives and other cost-saving measures, we have decided that the implementation of this particular measure will be indefinitely postponed until such time as we feel the resources are there to allow us to make this move.

Let me say that we're still committed to the concept. However, given the issues that you've raised and those that I have mentioned, I do think it's appropriate that the action we've taken to indefinitely postpone the implementation is the right one.

Mr Runciman: I'm not going to be critical of the minister in the sense that he's doing what he's doing, but I want to say that he's responding to this matter, and to the Lancaster detachment that was raised earlier, when he should have been acting not just on the basis of pressure from the media and politicians within this forum, but certainly with the utilization of some common sense, which seems to be sorely lacking in that government.

I want to suggest that the minister consider extending that even further, extending it to suspending the allowance that you pay out to the more than 7,000 inmates inside institutions, which is costing the ministry close to $4 million a year, close to $12 million over the life of the social contract. We talked about policing problems and we mentioned the Lancaster detachment in the Cornwall area, but right across this province, Minister, you know that the OPP is suffering. Detachments are looking at closures right now, amalgamations, those kinds of things where people, essentially in rural Ontario, are very much concerned about police protection.

1440

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please?

Mr Runciman: Currently, inmates in provincial institutions are getting free cable television, shampoo, soap, toothbrushes and toothpaste, all postal mailings, books and paperbacks and video rentals three times a week. Those are the kinds of expenditures that are already being directed towards inmates in provincial facilities. You've cut out the fee for crown witnesses who appear in trials. You've cut out the fee for victims.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Runciman: You've cut out the fee for victims, yet you're providing this fee and planning to continue this fee for inmates in provincial institutions. Minister, I ask you, will you consider cutting out that kind of fee considering the difficult economic circumstances we're now in?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm pleased that the merger of the two ministries has taken hold, because clearly the honourable member moves all over on the issues and talks about at least six different things. Let me try and answer at least a couple.

One of the most important things I think the member alleged is that decisions are being made under pressure and in a reactionary mode, and I take exception to that. The decision around the detachment was as a result of the meeting I had with the community leaders where they said to me: "This is a particularly important issue. As much as possible, we'd like to see that moved on as quickly as possible." From there, I had discussions with the OPP commissioner and conveyed upon him the importance of it. That decision was taken because of the importance of the issue and responding to the needs of the community.

The issue of the canteen allowance was also made prior to the question being asked, prior to this House being opened. It was in reaction to, indeed, the decisions we've taken around expenditure control, around the debt problem. On that point, let me say that this third party is very good about talking about debt reduction, talking about bringing expenditures under control, but when they sees a government responding to things in an appropriate fashion, they still continue to believe that they're the only ones that can do it, when in reality this is the party and this is the government that's doing it. I'm convinced that we're doing it in an appropriate, responsive fashion and we'll continue to do so.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. You and I are well aware of the current strike that is under way in Sarnia-Lambton involving the Lambton County Board of Education and its secondary school teachers.

Minister, you will know that this strike has approximately 6,700 students and nearly 500 teachers out of school. You are aware that this is the third strike in this county in the past 10 years. I'm sure that you realize the level of frustration that is being felt by everyone affected in Lambton county.

My community is frustrated not only by the stress caused by this strike, but by the history of bitter relations that the county has witnessed over many, many years. Many of my constituents are looking to the government to help end this dispute. They want the students back in school, and they want to see legislation from this government to get them there.

My question, minister, is simply this: What can you do to assist in getting the secondary school teachers in Lambton county back to work and students back in schools where they belong?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question from the member, and I certainly know how difficult this whole issue has been on the member for Sarnia as well as the member for Lambton, and I appreciate the constant advice and information the member has shared with me on a daily basis.

But whenever there is a teachers' strike in this province, there are difficulties. Parents and students and taxpayers become very frustrated and concerned, and I want the member to know that I share that frustration and concern.

The solution to this situation is just as it has been in other instances where there have been teachers' strikes in this province, and that is at the bargaining table. The board and the teachers can solve this strike tonight if they want to, if they get back to the bargaining table. The issues in dispute are very clear, and this government encourages the teachers and the board to get back to the bargaining table so that the students can get back into the classroom and the education we all pay for can be provided to those students.

Mr Huget: I appreciate your comments. I know and I'm sure you're well aware that the Education Relations Commission has a role in resolving these kinds of disputes in Ontario. It's that role I want to focus on.

As you may be aware, the Sarnia-Lambton system is a semestered system. What that means, in essence, is that one week is equivalent to two weeks' work, so as we are entering week three in this dispute, we are actually looking at six weeks of lost time.

My question is simply this: Does part of the process that the commission follows in terms of determining when a school year is in jeopardy include taking into account the factor of a semestered system?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member is quite right to raise the Education Relations Commission. The commission has been involved in this dispute, has mediated it, and is available if the parties are willing to get back to serious discussions.

Since Bill 100 came in and the Education Relations Committee has been set up, there have been 72 teachers' strikes, and only six of them have been ended with legislation in this Legislature. That's because most of the strikes are settled at the bargaining table with the assistance of the Education Relations Commission.

I can assure the member that the ERC is monitoring the situation. I am being advised and updated by the ERC. I can also assure the member that when a school system is semestered, that is factored into the ERC's considerations.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Finance. You'll recall that in June, I asked you a question expressing my concern about the impact your new tax on brew-on-premises beer and wine would have on this all-too-rare new business success story. I reminded you that those small businesses had, amazingly, been able to grow and even thrive during a recession. In four short years, investors had sunk over $50 million into 235 stores across the province. The average investment sunk into a store has been $180,000. Over 2,000 people are employed in that business.

Your new tax of 26 cents a litre kicked in on August 1. In real terms, it means it costs $12 more to buy a batch of beer. When I asked you about this before, you said, "I don't believe it's an onerous tax burden." Let me tell you, the numbers are in, and they're pretty grim. The Brew-on-Premises Association of Eastern Ontario reports that the average number of daily batches prepared in Ontario stores used to be 16. In August, after the tax kicked in, in eastern Ontario's 23 stores, it was four. That's a staggering 75% decline in business.

They're only brewing four batches a day; they used to brew 16. But they need 12 to break even. Your new tax is killing them, just as they predicted it would. Stores are on the brink of disaster, and every single operation in eastern Ontario has laid off employees.

Are you now prepared, in light of this new information, to rescind this tax which is squeezing the very lifeblood out of what used to be a thriving industry?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): No. The member raises an interesting point, however, about the increase in tax and the relationship between the increase and the price of a batch prior to the introduction of the tax.

I would remind him that the price of beer in brew-your-own establishments is still only, as I recall, about 60% of the price of beer that you buy in the regular beer stores in the province, so I don't believe it was an onerous tax at all. If you look at the comparison of the price of a case of 12 or 24 as opposed to a batch, I believe a batch, and I stand to be corrected in this regard, is something like seven or eight dozen, so when he's talking about an increased price of $12 for a batch, he's talking about a very large quantity of beer. I wouldn't want anybody to think he was talking about an increase in the price of a case of 12 or 24, because that's simply not the case.

I would like to go a little bit more into this, but I'll wait for the supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Your Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations proudly stood up earlier today and told us how she was going to ensure that all of our international trade obligations were met in so far as beer was concerned, that our obligations vis-à-vis other provinces were going to be now delivered in a fair and open way. The brew-on-premises people are asking for the same kind of treatment.

1450

I've told you about how the tax is hurting business. Now let's see what it's doing for your revenues.

Prior to the tax, monthly revenues from existing provincial sales tax from the brew-on-premises stores were over $1 million a month; in August, they were less than $600,000. So I want to be perfectly clear here: Your new tax, which is designed to raise more money, is actually revenue-negative, actually decreasing the revenue you were already getting. Without the new tax you were getting over $1 million, and with the new tax you're getting less than $600,000.

You projected that an additional $10 million would be raised annually by this tax. If things keep going the way they are, the brew-on-premises people tell me that not only will you not raise an additional cent, you're going to raise $5 million less than you would have without the tax.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member place a question, please.

Mr McGuinty: What you've created here is a unique lose-lose-lose situation. You're killing a small business industry, you're putting people out of work and you're reducing your revenue, all with one fell swoop. That's quite an accomplishment.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr McGuinty: My question, Minister: You say you're in favour of small business, and we know you need more money. Here's your chance to prove it. Will you immediately kill this tax before it kills these small businesses?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't want to be unkind to the member, because I think he is expressing the concerns of the industry, the small businesses that do brew their own. I don't think he's being unfair in that regard.

But simply to put all the blame, at least partially, on the restructuring that's going on in that sector is unfair. Secondly, there are not very many examples I can think of where you reduce a tax and you increase your revenues. Thirdly, there are all sorts of revenues that are down.

We announced a week or so ago that revenues were off almost $1 billion, largely from 1992 income tax revenues. I don't believe you can isolate one tax and say, because there's a decline in some of the premises in the sale of beer, that the entire reason for that is a tax, which I think is not an onerous tax. I believe that a batch, to which he refers, is about six cases of 24, and if the increase is $12, that's still taking the price up to only about 60% of the price of regular beer. I don't think that's unfair at all.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): In the absence of the minister responsible for women's issues and in the absence of the Attorney General, I expect the Minister of Community and Social Services could best respond to this question.

Minister, you will recall, as you were in the House, that I and my party, in June 1991, called for a public inquiry into the Grandview Training School For Girls incident and the residents who had been sexually assaulted and abused.

In spite of the fact that five girls died in that school, that their deaths remain unexplained to this day, that the coroner has been able to get reports, and in spite of the fact that crown wards, when they die while they're in provincial institutions, are entitled to an automatic coroner's inquest, victims have subsequently been denied access to their medical records and other files to assist them with their own pursuit of justice.

Minister, today those survivors are here at Queen's Park. They're here because they believe that your government continues to place roadblocks and that you're dragging your feet on the issues of not only a public inquiry but, for some of them more important, matters dealing with training, with counselling and with compensation. On behalf of those women who are here at Queen's Park today, could you explain to this House why your government is continuing to drag its feet in pursuit of justice for those victims who were crown wards in this province?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, as the member indicated, I think there are other ministers who would be able to give a more precise answer to some of the points the member has asked about, given the responsibilities that they have and that I don't.

But I can say to the member that we, as a government, have taken the issues around Grandview quite seriously and certainly from the very beginning have proceeded on that basis. We have answered in this House before on the issue of the inquiry, and we have been quite categorical in saying that it's important to allow the process of the police investigation to proceed and for that to ensue, that that needs to be done.

We have continued to work with the Grandview Survivors' Support Group with respect to the issue of counselling. I know there is some support that is being provided, some dollars that are being spent by the government to assist that group. That is being coordinated through the Attorney General's office. We've had some involvement on that issue from my ministry and we'll continue to provide that support to those individuals.

Mr Jackson: The minister says he and his government have taken these matters quite seriously. In fact, that is not the truth of what's been going on in this province. The Grandview survivors are here today because they're aware of your government's lack of commitment to women who've been sexually assaulted when in any form of care in a provincial institution.

You yourself, minister, are aware of a series of questions I raised to you in this House in June and July of this year about the coverup of sexual assault and harassment charges at the York Detention Centre. This, I believe, is a question you will be able to answer. The fact is that you dispatched auditors to examine the allegations, along with a series of other allegations, and they've come back in the form of your report.

The Grandview survivors are aware that only one scant reference is made by those male auditors who did the report. They're asking one simple question about the findings of your report, and that is this: Why is it that these auditors undertook an investigation and yet did not interview one woman sexual assault or harassment victim who was brought to your attention and to your ministry staff's attention, and yet they can sanitize this report? Staff in your ministry have been protected and in fact promoted, and we have a report that says there are no examples of a coverup occurring within your ministry. No wonder the Grandview survivors are so angry --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member complete his question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- and why they're here today, when you're doing it within your own ministry with respect to the employees in this province who are employed at the Thistletown Regional Centre and also at York Detention Centre. Minister, why is it that not a single woman victim was interviewed by your government to determine if a coverup existed, or in fact if the sexual assaults and harassment ever even occurred?

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Would the member take his seat.

Hon Mr Silipo: I find this line of questioning a little bizarre, because the member has gone from a question around Grandview to a question around York Detention Centre and tried to make a connection where there is none.

If he's now asking specifically about the operations review at York Detention Centre, let me tell him in direct response to his question that yes, as he himself has said, the conclusions of the report were quite clear that in fact there were no inappropriate actions taken by the management staff. In the interviewing process the review team undertook, my understanding is that they interviewed over 70 different people in about 125 different interviews, so they spoke to individuals more than once. During the course of those interviews, they spoke to any individual whose name was suggested to them as somebody who should be spoken to, and that issue is being pursued.

If the member opposite says not one victim was interviewed, I don't have the information of who exactly was interviewed or not interviewed; that was a point of leaving that to the review team to determine. If the member has any indication of people he feels should have been interviewed who were not interviewed, I think he has the responsibility to pass that information on to me, and we'll deal with it appropriately.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that Mrs Fawcett exchange places with Mr Daigeler in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): A petition 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 government 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

1500

"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." I affix my signature to this.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition related to an issue raised in question period today.

"We, the undersigned, believe that the new tax on brew-on-premise home brew is unfair, unwanted and unreasonable.

"We are concerned that it will eliminate jobs without increasing government revenues.

"This new tax is inspired by big, multinational brewing corporations whose only desire is to keep us from enjoying home brew. Scrap the tax before it begins."

I'm signing this in support of this petition.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): In an ongoing attempt to bring some sanity to the federal government's attitude towards North Pickering land, citizens from all over Ontario are sending petitions to this Legislature so that their voices can be heard even though the Tory party is ignoring them.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Durham West should know that what he is supposed to do is simply read the petition.

Mr Wiseman: "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 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 hope they're listening.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed 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."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I am in agreement with it.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

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

"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:

I'm appalled that they would close their public information offices in the middle of this process. I affix my signature to it.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): "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 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."

I'll affix my signature to this petition.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition here that's been signed by many people from across the province of Ontario who've had the opportunity to use the Glenora ferry. This petition was one that was placed in the Wagon Wheel restaurant on the Glenora side of the ferry crossing.

"We, the undersigned, are strongly opposed to the user-pay fee imposed on patrons who use the Glenora ferries for the following reasons.

"(1) This ferry is part of Highway 33. The question is posed, how can the province charge for part of a highway?

"(2) Many taxpayers who live along the Loyalist Parkway rely on tourism for their income. By imposing this fee, fewer tourists will use this route, badly cutting into the income of businesses.

"(3) Many people living in Prince Edward county work in Kingston; this fee will produce further eroding of their income.

"(4) Farmers sell produce and buy supplies in Picton; this fee will be detrimental to their profession."

I read this petition into Hansard today on behalf of all the people who are concerned about fees in Glenora and I will file this.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition address 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 government 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 to raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

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

This is signed by a number of constituents and I'm affixing my signature thereto as well.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it read as follows:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board, at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting, decided to loosen the guidelines for films/videos for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening will result in committing some very gross and indecent acts in films/videos; and

"Whereas these acts include: bondage, ejaculation on the face and insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of true human sexual activity, but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviants; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature to cancel the new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board and dismiss the chairperson, Dorothy Christian, from her position for her lack of sensitivity towards Ontarians and for being more dedicated to represent special interest groups than the taxpayers of Ontario."

I'm happy to support this petition and I will sign it.

1510

CORRECTIONS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to correct my record for Tuesday, September 28, at which time I was speaking to the bill pertaining to environmental rights, Bill 26. During my speech I referred to the Environmental Appeal Board and the Environmental Assessment Board. It was an error for me at two parts of my speech to interchange those terms, and all the way throughout the speech I was meaning to refer to the Environmental Appeal Board. So I'm correcting the two occasions where I, in error, slipped in "Environmental Assessment Board" instead of "Environmental Appeal Board." I appreciate the consideration of the House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member indeed has a point of order, and I appreciate the fact that she rose to correct her own record, not someone else's.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): On a similar point of order, I rise to correct my record. On Monday, September 27, in answer to questions from the Liberal critic for Environment, I inadvertently gave incorrect information to the House in that I indicated that the city of Hamilton officials had been informed by the Ministry of Environment and Energy officials in June and July regarding the storage of potentially hazardous chemicals at the abandoned site in Hamilton.

In fact, there were discussions around security at the site, where a fire or fires had taken place, between officials of the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the city of Hamilton officials, or the fire department, but they did not deal with the question of the chemical lab and the storage of chemicals in that facility.

The Speaker: Again, the member does indeed have a point of order, and I appreciate the fact that he has risen in his place to correct his own record.

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.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): When we left off, I believe the honourable member for Wellington had the floor. He may so resume his remarks.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Yes, I did have the floor, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for recognizing me. I think I have about three minutes to conclude my remarks, and I'll try and be brief and get to the points that I had intended to raise.

I think what we've just heard now is interesting. The difference between the Environmental Assessment Board and the Environmental Appeal Board is a confusing matter. They're two different levels of appeal and it creates some degree of confusion. Now with this Environmental Bill of Rights, we've got another mechanism of appeal or review, and one wonders perhaps how necessary it is when we have a number of existing, confusing levels of review and appeal with respect to the environment.

I also wanted to raise the issue of agriculture and how this Environmental Bill of Rights may in fact impact on people in Wellington county.

As you know very well, Mr Speaker, Wellington county is one of the most important agricultural regions in the province of Ontario. A group of agricultural groups known as AgCare over a period of time developed an environmental agenda with which it put forward excellent ideas. Actually, the leader of that group is a gentleman by the name of Jeff Wilson, whom I know very well, who resides in Wellington. They put forward a proactive agenda that I think in many cases far exceeds what the government is expecting of them. They deserve a lot of credit for what they've done and the approach they've taken to the environment.

But I know also that if this bill of rights would in fact make normal farming practices impossible or would create problems in that respect, I wouldn't be able to support it.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Oh, no, there's reference to the Farm Practices Protection Act.

Mr Arnott: The minister indicates that there is reference to the Farm Practices Protection Act. The farm groups indicate apparently that they would like to see some further clarification on that issue. That's my understanding and I hope that might be forthcoming.

When we look at the cost of this new initiative -- the minister has indicated $4.5 million of new bureaucracy that will be created in order to administer this new bill -- and I look at some of the projects that require direct funding to ameliorate existing environmental problems in my riding, in Nichol township, and I hope the minister is listening very closely, there is a serious environmental problem.

Many of the wells have been dug by hand, and as a result have polluted some of the -- the septic tanks close to the dug wells have polluted the wells and we need some support and some assistance. The ministry has received applications from the township for assistance there. The ministry has given a commitment for, I think, 85% of the engineering costs that have to be done and the ministry has approved the project, but the final application, I believe, is with the minister now and hopefully we will see some early response that indicates the support of the ministry to make sure this problem is indeed ameliorated.

I think that when you look at the cost of creating a new bureaucracy, if that in fact means $4.5 million of projects cannot be undertaken that would have a direct impact on improving the environmental situation, then we perhaps have some reason to be concerned.

I leave the House with those thoughts and I'm looking forward to the rest of the debate over the course of this afternoon.

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

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I want to, on one hand, compliment the member for Wellington for the earlier part of the debate, which maybe some of the viewers never caught yesterday, when he did stick very much to the bill. He spoke about the commission, the commissioner, and the fact that it will report to the Legislature which is, I think, a very important thing that has to happen. He didn't mention too much about the public process the ministry has been involved with, but I don't suppose he realizes all of that.

There was a lot of consultation with groups like Pollution Probe, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the business council, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the chamber of commerce. Maybe he didn't realize that all that consultation had taken place, and there's a great deal of support by all of those people. Those are some of the things I guess I'd like to point out.

There has been concern raised around the fact that only two people from the public can raise a concern about this, an environmental concern, and bring it to the commissioner. Something I'd like to point out then is, take a look at my riding in the Goodwood area where there's a soil recycling plant that was going through a process, and there was a call from the community to make this process public.

I think it's really important that the public have a chance to have some input into the process. Go out there, set up public information offices when it's necessary, if that's the appropriate channel, so there is a chance for people to respond. It's not always that everybody catches a little something that happens to go on during a busy council meeting, or whatever point it might be. It's something that we really have to be aware of.

For example, there are a lot of good, positive things that have happened and sometimes we even forget about them. But the point is public information and allowing the public a chance to go to somebody, for example the commissioner, and say, "I've got a concern." I think it's very fundamental and important.

1520

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Wellington. Obviously, this particular member has a very full knowledge of what this bill involves and in speaking on behalf of his constituents I think he has done a commendable job.

I'm happy that this afternoon the Minister of Environment and Energy is able to be in the House, and I respect his schedule when he hasn't been able to be here this week and his parliamentary assistant has been here in his place. But I would like the minister to know that the concerns I have been speaking about this week pertaining to the St Lawrence Cement company --

Hon Mr Wildman: St Lawrence.

Mrs Marland: -- which the minister has just acknowledged he is aware of, are concerns that are not superfluous in any way at all. The minister, since he has taken over his responsibility in this particular ministry, has been corresponding with me.

There is a problem, however, about the content of some of those letters and I think it's very important that I have this opportunity to tell the minister that when his staff talk about emissions regarding St Lawrence Cement, they are talking about a different type of emission than we're concerned about. They're talking about gaseous emissions which go into the ambient air; our concerns are about particulate emissions. It's the particulate matter to which heavy metals adhere themselves and it's the heavy metals that may or may not be a health risk to the community.

That's why we're saying to the minister, please do not allow St Lawrence Cement to continue burning chlorinated waste solvents until we have the test results.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I too would like to congratulate the member for Wellington on his excellent summary of the bill and his comments with respect to the bill.

One of the topics that he mentioned in his presentation had to do with the statement of environmental values that will be presented by 14 ministries, as are listed, which will hopefully assist the Ministry of Environment and Energy in its policymaking.

The first comment I have with respect to that is that my reading of the bill is that this statement of environmental values, I predict, will be very general because, really, it will have no legal effect whatsoever with respect to the policymaking of the Minister of Environment or indeed of any environmental issues. It will be very general. I don't believe it will assist that much with respect to environmental protection, which of course adds to the next question, the cost to these various 14 ministries to make these presentations. It may be a lot, it may not be very much, but my guess is it'll be very general. The minister I think has indicated in the past that it won't, which will fortify my submission that it will be of a very general nature.

I would like to hear from other agencies such as Hydro. I would like to hear of such groups as Hydro making its statement of environmental values. It is interesting, for example, that there are other ministries that could comment. For example, there's no comment, unless there are plans in the future, to make the Ministry of Education and Training, the Chair of Management Board, it could be any slew of other ministries -- not a slew but --

Hon Mr Wildman: Are you advocating that?

Mr Tilson: I'm simply asking the rationale for doing all this when it's probably going to be a very meaningless type of purpose to put this statement of environment values when it's not going to have any legal effect. It's going to mean nothing. So it's more waste to the government and more waste to the taxpayer.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Let's hear from the minister. Let's hear a question or comment from the minister.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington has two minutes in response.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the member for Durham-York for his observation and his question. Perhaps he didn't hear the initial part of my speech yesterday, but I did indeed give the government some credit for the fact that you extensively consulted over approximately a three-year period since the election, in spite of the fact that there was a commitment made in the Agenda for People for an immediate introduction of an environmental bill of rights.

In fact, in the first throne speech that the government presented, there was a commitment for an immediate introduction of a bill of rights. But I felt that you did the right thing by consulting extensively and I would applaud you for that. The question is, perhaps, who did you listen to? But we could get into that at another date.

The member also talked about the issue of opportunities for public input and clearly he's correct in that this is an opportunity for public input if this bill is indeed passed. My observation on that would be that there are significant other opportunities and avenues for public input that already exist. People write to me daily and weekly. They call me on issues of concern with respect to the environment. I bring those forward in the Legislature. That's one example of an opportunity for public input. There are, I would submit to you, dozens of other ways to present public input on the environment.

The member for Mississauga South, thank you very much for your kind comments. You talked about the need to fix existing programs. I find that with this bill one of the things I hear consistently from my constituents is: "We don't need new government programs. Fix the ones you've got."

I think the government is missing an important point there. They're bringing in this new bureaucracy. If the government has the political will to protect the environment, which it claims to do, which it purports to do at all times, it would find that it could protect the environment using its existing legislative mechanisms and the existing regulatory regime.

I want to thank the member for Dufferin-Peel, our critic, who has provided our caucus with great leadership on this issue. His indication concerning the statement of environmental values that all ministries will have to undertake I agree with and concur with entirely.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 26?

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): It's certainly an honour and a pleasure for me today to be able to speak to Bill 26, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, and I say that very sincerely, because in my previous life, that is, the life I had before I was elected to this Legislature, I was an active environmentalist, as active I guess as one could be where I come from.

I was the co-chair of the Quinte Environmental Resources Alliance. The other co-chair was Shirley Langer, who is now the mayor of Belleville, and I think she too will be very happy with this Environmental Bill of Rights. It's something that all of us in the environmental community have asked for and advocated on behalf of for many, many years. Indeed, when Jim Bradley was the Minister of the Environment, we had great hopes that he would bring in an environmental bill of rights. Maybe I should refer to him as the member for St Catharines more appropriately, according to our rules. However, I really had great expectations from the previous minister in the previous administration, because I felt that within that administration he was one of their shining stars.

However, it's great to know that this Bill 26 has gained wide support by most of the members of this Legislature. We know there was wide consultation. We've heard some comments that we don't know how wide it was or if we consulted widely enough, but I think there was pretty comprehensive consultation, something we should always do when we make decisions like this.

I want to say too, Mr Speaker, to any of my constituents who might be watching right now and wonder what the heck I'm doing talking about the Environmental Bill of Rights when at this time their concern is about fees on the ferry, that I just want to remind them that I can't raise that during this debate, because you would most certainly call me out of order and I would have to return to Bill 26. I say that so that any of my constituents who might be watching understand that we have business to deal with in the Legislature, and today and at this time we're dealing with Bill 26.

When you deal with the environment, you tend to become concerned about environmental issues that take place in your locale, in your area. Certainly, when I talk about the environment I think about things that will affect the people in my constituency. I think it's fair to tell them and to tell the members of this Legislature that prior to my election in 1990, one of the compelling issues in my area was the closing of the beaches.

The beaches were closing because the coliform bacterial count had gone above 100. I think at that point in time, if they had reached 100 then they had to be closed down; if they were lower than that, they were still considered safe. It became an election issue. At that time, I certainly vowed to my constituents -- my potential constituents at that time -- that I would fight to ensure that the environment was cleaned up and that we could look forward to seeing cleaner water in the area.

I know that since I was elected in 1990, yes, the beaches have closed down again. That doesn't mean we are not fighting to improve the quality of the water, but it's something that has deteriorated over a long period of time, and I think it will take some time before we can deal with all the courses and water systems that contribute to the pollution, but we're certainly working towards that.

When we talk about the environment, we often talk about the waste produced within our society. I'd like to say that during this time of economic recession, because of the recession we aren't producing as much waste. As bad as the recession is, environmentalists might say that's good. Because we have less waste going to landfill sites, there seems to be less urgency, although it's a small "less," I might say, to resolve the waste issue.

1530

However, there are those people who are proponents of incineration. Those people would say we should be looking at alternatives to putting waste in holes in the ground.

I remember that during the election the Take No Trash group from Marmora, often referred to as the TNT group, was very concerned because there was an idea at the time that maybe we would fill up the Marmoraton mine site with garbage. There was a great hue and cry from the people in Marmora and the people downstream from the Marmoraton mine who would be affected by the influences of garbage being put into the Marmoraton mine. The people in Marmora were certainly not happy with that, and many other people weren't. This great hue and cry from these people stopped the notion or idea that maybe we could fill up the Marmoraton mine with garbage.

Even though the bill of rights wasn't in place at that time, when there are outstanding issues, as that was, there are ways and means to bring them to the powers that be, to the government, and to create a public interest so we can stop things like the Marmoraton mine from happening. I think that now we have Bill 26, the bill of rights --

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I waited till my colleague had just described a very interesting story. I think there should be more stories like that told, but I don't believe there's a quorum to hear these stories.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check whether we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Paul Johnson: As I was saying, when there is a great hue and cry from the public about a large violation of the environment, then the powers that be come forward and manage the difficulty and resolve it in some way. Bill 26 will allow individuals who have concerns over smaller infractions, maybe some almost insignificant infractions or violations of the environment, to bring them to the attention of the powers that be so that they can be examined more closely.

I've heard it mentioned that the complaints might be deemed or seen to be frivolous. However, let me say that I think it's very important that people have an opportunity to bring forward their complaints and concerns about some of the smaller violations. The bill of rights will allow that to happen. The cumulative effect of many small violations of the environment, of small opportunities to create pollution, can be very disastrous. When we take a singular issue like the Marmoraton mine, for example, and the consequences of putting garbage in that abandoned mine, it is something we can see very readily, but when we talk about smaller infractions, it doesn't become evident immediately what the consequences of those infractions might be. I think this bill allows that opportunity to happen.

Down in my area, because I can speak to issues that have affected the area, many people are concerned about the environment. Concerns about the environment tend to become more important or less important depending on other circumstances, the economy, for example. I know that in my area there certainly are many environmental issues that maybe aren't seen to be so important today as they were three or four years ago, but that doesn't mean they still aren't important to the people who would be affected by them. With this bill of rights, whenever there is a change or whenever there is something coming forward that may have a negative impact on the environment, then we have an opportunity for people to make sure their voices are heard.

I really want to applaud the ministry for bringing this forward at this time. It's one of the most significant environmental pieces of legislation introduced in this province in many years. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it was certainly something that most of the members of this Legislature indeed thought was a very good thing.

When I knew I was going to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, I wanted to go back to that time prior to my election so I could examine what it was that I had promised the people in my riding I would do. I actually have a little brochure that I passed around at that time, and foremost in my literature was the fact that I was going to work to improve the environment. Some of my constituents today might tell me I haven't done as good a job as I might have, and I may argue with them that I disagree. However, as I said earlier, the degradation of the environment is something that has taken place over many years, and to turn it around and to improve it markedly overnight is something we can't ensure or maybe necessarily expect to happen.

But I do think that because we now have Bill 26, the Environmental Bill of Rights, there will be more of an opportunity and occasion to examine things happening in our respective communities, to examine more closely the impact of any changes or any things that might occur in a negative way in terms of the environment. That's certainly very important. The fact that the citizens of the province of Ontario are going to have a greater opportunity for information is also very important.

Another issue that took place many years ago down in the north end of Prince Edward county was the burial of a number of 40-gallon drums -- I'm not sure what it is in metric, but I know they were 40-gallon drums -- and the water in the wells around this burial site was polluted. To have the aquifer polluted when people draw water from underground water sources is terrible and certainly was a disaster for the people affected. If we had had a bill of rights at that time, people who were concerned would have had an opportunity very early to recognize that something wrong was taking place and bring it to the attention of the powers that be, would have been able to bring it to the attention of the government, to the Ministry of the Environment, so that it could have examined more closely what was happening.

As it turns out, we didn't have a bill of rights many numbers of years ago when these 40-gallon drums of toxic waste were being buried, and as a result of that we found out that the aquifer was polluted. Many people suffered ill health, I might add, as a result of drinking contaminated water. It was very costly for the government to clean up; well, in fact it hasn't cleaned up the actual underground water supply, but what it has done is to supply the people living in the community of Rossmore with water from Belleville, which guarantees the safety of their drinking water.

I think Bill 26, the bill of rights, will allow us many opportunities to ensure the future of the environment in the province of Ontario, that the environment is maintained in as good a quality as we could expect so that future generations will not have to put up with contaminated water supplies, for one, will not have to put up with the inability to deal with circumstances that may be detrimental to their health, and certainly will allow them opportunities to very quickly turn around situations which, until this point in time, haven't been able to be remedied as quickly as they might have liked.

1540

I spoke earlier about the member for St Catharines, previously the Minister of the Environment in the Liberal administration. As environmentalists, we were waiting with a lot of anxiety, I guess you could say, and hope that he would deal with and bring in an Environmental Bill of Rights. It didn't happen. Personally, I don't hold that against him. At the time, there were probably other issues that commanded more of his time than he could afford at that time. His administration ran out of time, I might add. Maybe, had he had those extra couple of years, he would have brought in the bill of rights. He didn't, and as I said, personally I don't hold that against him.

It's good that we have this opportunity now. The people of Ontario want access to the courts, and certainly that's addressed in Bill 26; they want to be able to take issues to the courts. They want to have access to information. Many of these circumstances or problems that they have to deal with right now in terms of environmental issues are addressed in Bill 26. That's certainly something we all want to commend the present minister for. We laud and applaud him for bringing Bill 26 before the Legislature.

The previous Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier -- I guess I'm not supposed to call her Ruth Grier; she's the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore -- was an individual who understood the need for an Environmental Bill of Rights and understood the need for the government to manage better the environment in the province of Ontario.

She was certainly an opponent of incineration. She can probably best explain why incineration should not take place. I've listened to her speeches and her explanations many times, and I certainly couldn't disagree with her. I think incineration would not reduce the amount of waste in the province of Ontario. It may get burned up and we end up with a big pile of ash we have to put some place else, toxic waste, I might add. Certainly the 3Rs cannot be practised as completely as they might be if we use incineration in the province of Ontario.

When we look at our waste problems, we should certainly be reducing the amount of waste we have, and we can do that through the 3Rs by reducing, recycling and reusing; reusing being the best way, recycling being very important and, ultimately, if we just reduce the amount of garbage we create, we're going to have less to put in landfill sites.

That will make a lot of people happy around the province, let me tell you, because the cost to municipalities right now to remove waste and take it to landfill sites that are approved by the province is becoming greater and greater as the years go by. Certainly the taxpayers are concerned about the additional cost for removing this waste. The fact that we practise recycling in the province of Ontario is something we should all give ourselves a pat on the back for. I would be surprised if there were many communities now in the province of Ontario that didn't practise recycling and the 3Rs. We want to reduce the amount of waste we create, because if we reduce the amount of waste we create, then that reduces the amount we have to put into landfills, it reduces the cost to the municipalities, as they have to truck it off to landfill sites, and certainly it will reduce the notion by those who would support the idea of incineration that we need incineration.

We have basically three things to concern ourselves with when we look at the environment, and these are well-defined in the bill. We speak about air -- air is not air in an enclosed environment but the air that circulates freely outside -- we talk about the earth and the land, and we talk about the water.

When we talk about the air, we don't want to pollute that, and when we talk about incineration, that is another avenue where we would make a large contribution to the amount of pollution we put into our atmosphere. The results of that are widely known and understood by many people to be not the sort of thing we want to endorse.

When we look at our land, there are many ways in which we pollute our land, and we certainly want to reduce that. When we used to put lead in our gasoline, they used to do tests along the major highways in the province of Ontario and we recognized that lead was certainly a pollutant that was increasing in levels that were contributing to poor health of people in some areas. Certainly, if we were to look at the human race, I guess, speaking rather broadly, we didn't want to create a group of people who were toxic lead carriers in future generations. We've dealt with that and we've removed lead from gasoline. I think everyone applauds that idea and thinks that's a very worthwhile thing.

I also think, when we look at how --

Mr Sorbara: Are you taking credit for that? The federal government did that. Are you taking credit for that too?

Mr Paul Johnson: I'm saying that --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has the floor. The member for York Centre can have the floor immediately after if he wishes, but right now the honourable member has it.

Mr Paul Johnson: To respond to the member for York Centre, I'm not taking credit for anything; all I'm saying is that many people and many governments in the past have done things very conscientiously, very deliberately, in order to reduce the amount of pollution that we're putting into the atmosphere. Certainly, that is something we've done.

I want to say that this government was the government that introduced and is dealing with an Environmental Bill of Rights. Bill 26 is certainly something that I think everyone in the province of Ontario will commend. I guess now that I'm a politician -- sometimes I wonder about that. Who wants to be labelled a politician these days? I don't think anyone in this Legislature would.

However, I want to say that, having been an environmentalist in my previous life, as I said when I first started speaking today, I certainly commend and applaud Bill 26. It's something that we in the environmental community have advocated for many, many years and I want to say it's about time, from an environmentalist perspective; it's about time we had an Environmental Bill of Rights in the province of Ontario so that people have more access to information, people have more access to the courts, so that people can actually do something when they see a violation taking place with regard to the environment.

As I said before, not to rehash an old debate that was very recent in my comments, if it's a large issue, certainly the government and public opinion will come forward and it will be something the government will deal with. But in some of the smaller issues in some of the smaller communities where it doesn't get the media, it doesn't get maybe the government's immediate attention, then certainly when people become aware of some violation of the environment then they will have an opportunity, under the bill of rights, under Bill 26, to bring their concerns forward and have them addressed. I think that is something we should have had a long, long time ago.

I said earlier that the degradation of the environment, to the extent that it has occurred -- and some people would argue how much that is and to what extent that is -- certainly in Ontario over the --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Hearing from an environmentalist first hand, I think we should have a quorum here.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Mr Sorbara: For your own member. Surely you would be here for your own member's speech. This is an important speech.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum now is present. The honourable member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings may resume his participation.

Mr Paul Johnson: I was very glad to hear the member for York Centre tell my colleagues that this was a very important speech. I agree with him.

As I was saying, the environmentalists I know would certainly commend this bill and I hope they're happy with it in its entirety. I know that environmentalists, because I was one, can be very particular when we want to see our concerns addressed in legislation.

1550

I've had an opportunity to read the bill, and as I've listened over the last few days to many speakers from all parties speak to this bill, there have been some concerns raised, but the general feeling that I got, the general sense that I got, about Bill 26 was that most people here are quite happy with it.

As I said, as an environmentalist -- I wouldn't want to say that I represent them all, but in my former life, being one who was concerned about the environment, as many people were -- many people were concerned about the environment and maybe didn't label themselves environmentalists. I'm sure some of my colleagues in this Legislature would claim that.

However, I was one who certainly put my name on the line and went out and did a lot of sometimes outlandish things to bring attention to the concerns of the environment, and I think that, having had an opportunity to read through the bill, most people I know who were fighting and advocating on behalf of the environment would find that this bill represents their concerns quite well.

I think one of the concerns that was raised was the fact there would be some concerns that there may be undue delays as a result of Bill 26 when there were certain developments taking place. I've had an opportunity to look at it and, from my own perspective, I think there's a good balance here. I think there's a good balance in so far as it offers an opportunity for people who are concerned to bring their concerns forward, to have them addressed and not unduly delay the process for any kind of development. I think that compromise, that balance, was something that was very important for all the people who were concerned.

There are people who would suggest, I know, that we don't need a bill of rights. People do not want to see their opportunities for development unduly delayed or delayed at all. Again, as I refer to Bill 26, it becomes clear to me as I read it that we have made a compromise that I think everyone certainly will have an opportunity to live with.

I think this Environmental Bill of Rights certainly does empower the citizens of the province of Ontario, and gives them rights they didn't previously have in order to protect the environment. People aren't necessarily always environmentalists. I claim to be one. I came from that part of society in my previous life. Based on any particular issue or any particular concern, people may or may not be environmentalists. Generally, they roll along happily with their lives and aren't necessarily labelled environmentalists or concerned about the environment particularly but, by God, when an issue happens in their own backyard, whether it be a landfill site, the notion that there might be an incinerator going in down the street or the fact that someone has brought to their attention that there has been some waste dumped in a watercourse near where they live, suddenly there's a great hue and cry from those people, and although, as I said, they're not labelled environmentalists, they will certainly take a stand, and they will certainly be seen to be environmentalists until they resolve the particular issue they have to deal with.

Certainly I know that in my constituency, we have had to deal with polluted waters, polluted aquifers. We have discussed the incinerator issue within my constituency. We've talked about landfill sites and we've talked about assessments for landfill sites, and certainly from time to time people, as I said, who aren't necessarily environmentalists, come forward with great concern about the environment. I applaud these people. I think it's important that they certainly make their concerns known.

Where they would maybe have had to use the media or there would be a great hue and cry from a larger group of citizens in order to bring it to the attention of the Ministry of Environment, now we have a document, Bill 26, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, the bill of rights, which will allow them to do that much more easily. They will have the exact ways and means by which they can deal with any violation that has been brought to their attention. Indeed, it only takes two people to do that.

I think that's important, the fact that fewer people have an opportunity to bring their concerns forward and have them heard and again, as I said earlier, without any unnecessary delay in the process.

I just want, in conclusion, to say that again I want to applaud the minister on behalf of myself and, I think, my constituents, who would agree that this is a piece of legislation that's long overdue. I think it's important that very few years after having taken over in the province of Ontario, we have an opportunity now to actually represent the environment to the extent that we have with this bill.

Again, the minister should be applauded. I think that it's timely. It's important to all those people who are concerned about the environment. The fact that it's been spoken about so positively by members from the Liberal Party, members from the Progressive Conservative Party and certainly by members of the NDP I think in itself is certainly a stamp of approval that any minister would be proud of upon presenting a piece of legislation in this Legislature. We know that not all legislation gets that kind of endorsement. I think the fact that this Bill 26 has received the outstanding endorsement that it has certainly lends a lot of credence to the bill.

Certainly I think that will go a long way to ensuring that the future of the environment in the province of Ontario is maintained at the highest quality. I think present generations and future generations will be thankful that we introduced Bill 26. They too will applaud this government, this minister, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, for having introduced this piece of legislation and made it available to the people of the province of Ontario so that they have an opportunity to bring their concerns forward in a very timely, efficient and effective manner.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I listened to many of the remarks that were made from the honourable member. I appreciate some of the things that he was saying. Part of the gist of his presentation was that the people of this province aren't being listened to with respect to environmental problems. The individual is not being listened to. Indeed, there's no question that part of the role of this bill is to increase the involvement of the public in dealing with the Ministry of Environment on environmental issues.

The question that I ask to you is, if you're an individual and you have an environmental question, why can't you call the Ministry of Environment? As an individual, why won't the Ministry of Environment provide the very information that you're asking for? There may be other things, whether it's a sewer line or whether it's putting garbage in a mine shaft or any of these other concerns that you've raised in your presentation. Some of the concerns are quite valid, and you've made it quite clear that the Minister of Environment is not dealing with a lot of these issues.

But is the way to solve this problem to create another bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that's going to pay some Environmental Commissioner the salary of a deputy minister? He or she is going to be hiring at least 15 people, from what the Minister of Environment says, but if you read the section, it can be an unlimited bureaucracy; as many bureaucrats as he sees fit. Meanwhile, keep in mind what the Ministry of Environment is doing. The Ministry of Environment is cutting back on its bureaucrats. The Ministry of Environment can't even keep up with the complaints and enforcing the environmental issues of this province today, so how in the world is an Environmental Commissioner going to be doing the very things that the Minister of Environment is supposed to be doing?

So I appreciate the member's comments. They're all very valid comments. I'm simply saying that the answer is not to throw more money to another bureaucracy that's not going to solve the problems.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Having heard from a staunch environmentalist, you'd be extremely pleased, I would note, to think that in Hamilton, the Swaru incinerator is closed. You would be thankful that we have such a staunch environmental government here today, that has the bill of rights before us and strong environmental laws, that it's closed that incinerator. I think they've closed it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I think you'd better drive by it.

Mr Tilson: Is it smouldering?

Mr Stockwell: Maybe it is still operating. You hear from environmentalists such as the one who just spoke, who's a government member. You'd think a 15-year-old, outdated, antiquated incinerator operating in the city of Hamilton would be closed, and you wonder, how can that continue operating with such staunch environmentalists sitting in caucus over there? It's strange, isn't it, the paradox that faces this government on occasion?

The other strange thing about this pieces of legislation is, you'd think that if they were truly looking for environmental rights for the people in the province of Ontario, they wouldn't exclude anybody under the Environmental Bill of Rights, but son of a gun, they do exclude some people. Do you know who they exclude?

1600

Mr Bradley: Who?

Mr Stockwell: Themselves. This Environmental Bill of Rights doesn't apply to dump sites, for heaven's sake. Can you imagine that? What's the biggest issue facing constituents in Ontario today from an environmental point of view? You'd think it would be dumps, wouldn't you? But this doesn't apply to that.

The questions asked stand, the paradox lives: How come the bill of rights doesn't apply to dump sites that this government is foisting on communities unfairly, without a full environmental assessment hearing? Those questions are strange questions that just can't seem to be answered.

When I hear an environmentalist such as this stand up, the red-faced logic that he uses, I ask you, why do these paradoxes exist? Maybe you can give me an answer. Why does this bill not apply to you and everybody else? There's fear out there and that question should be answered.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has two minutes in response.

Mr Paul Johnson: I would tell my colleagues opposite that life is a paradox. I can't respond to some of the questions that were posed because I certainly am not the Minister of Environment, nor do I represent the Ministry of Environment.

But as comprehensive as Bill 26 is, I think it's clear that there's certainly a segment of the environment and there are certainly things within the environment in the province of Ontario that have not been managed well in the past many years, tens of years, and I think it's clear that if the government doesn't do a good enough job of looking after some of these problems, then certainly the bill of rights will allow an opportunity for people in the broader public to come forward and raise these concerns.

I think that clearly the Environmental Bill of Rights addresses many of those problems that have not been addressed in the past and for that, yes, the environmentalists are thankful. I think that when we look at all the problems we have to deal with in the province of Ontario, the Environmental Bill of Rights addresses a certain and specific number, and for that many people will be very happy.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Considering the fact that was a really bad answer, I would give unanimous consent to give him another try. That's two out of three.

The Acting Speaker: It's not a point of order. Further debate?

Mr Sorbara: This Bill 26 that is before this House, this NDP Environmental Bill of Rights, I would suggest is a bill that is hardly worthy of presentation in this Legislature. But I think, before I delve into that, I'd like to put this bill and what we're debating and what we're doing here in this Legislature in some context.

Let's remember where we are. We're sitting in the Ontario Legislature. We are the 130 people who are elected to debate the business of the province and the public issues of the province and to consider solutions to the issues that confront us.

We've been off all summer. We had an extended sitting into July, I guess it was, but after that this Legislature rose and we went to our constituencies and we went to our families. We left this place for one and a half or two months or whatever. Now we've come back to this Legislature, all 130 of us, to debate the business and the issues that confront Ontario, and it seems very strange to me that what we're debating here is this watered-down, ineffectual, quasi bill of rights as presented by the Minister of Environment and Energy.

I say that because when we went home to our home communities and we walked down the main street of every town in Ontario and talked to the people who elected us, my experience -- and I believe it to be the experience of every single member in this Legislature -- was that no one came to me and said, "Would you please get on with the NDP bill of rights?" After a whole summer of considering what we as legislators should be doing in Ontario, what we as the elected representatives of the people should be doing in Ontario, I think the last thing the people want us to do is to be considering this piece of legislation as we return from our summer recess.

Look at what's happening out there. Consider what's going on in Ontario. For three years now, we have been in the worst economic recession or depression in the past 50 years. In our communities, every single one of them, the situation is the same. Stores are empty. Factories are being closed down. The people who have been looking for jobs are still looking for jobs. Our real rate of unemployment in Ontario is some 14% or 15%. In my own community, Friday after Friday in my constituency office, people come to me and say: "Please, sir, is there anything you can do to help me find a job? I'm losing my home. The stress on my family is unbearable. My own self-worth and dignity are in tatters."

That's the story in every community in Ontario. Yet we take the summer off, we go back to our communities and we come back here and the government presents us with an Environmental Bill of Rights.

We heard from the Minister of Finance about a week ago that once again the revenues coming in in this province are some billion dollars short of what was predicted, what was proposed, what was provided for in the budget of just a few months ago: a billion-dollar shortfall. Once again in this province we're going to have a deficit of over $10 billion. The revenues aren't coming in.

Then you talk to the people who work inside the government and they say: "Inside here it's absolute chaos. The social contract ain't working." The morale of the public service is at an all-time low. The famous expenditure control program that was going to save $4 billion in government expenditures is not working. That's the message we get, and we come back here and we're asked to debate some two-bit, watered-down Environmental Bill of Rights.

People aren't working. They're losing their homes. My God, if you go to any main street, any street in Ontario, you see For Rent signs; you see bankruptcy sales. I wonder if anyone in the government has ever run a business and seen it go down the tubes. I wonder if one of you has had five or six or 10 or 20 people work for you and has had to call them all in to the office one day and say: "Friends, ladies and gentlemen, it's all over. The bank's called the loan. I've got a second mortgage on my house and this business has to close." I wonder if one of you has experienced that, because that is the experience of the people in Ontario in 1993, in September, as we come back to work from our summer vacation to debate the government's Environmental Bill of Rights.

Well, I want to talk about rights, because this is apparently a bill about rights. I want to tell the government that in this little piece of hypocrisy, this little piece of duplicity, this environmental smokescreen -- the government, if it really wanted to do something about rights, if it really wanted to concern itself about rights, then it might look to the chaos that is the Human Rights Commission today.

It might devote a little time and attention and energy to the fact that those people who look to the Human Rights Commission for redress, having been turned away from employment because of the colour of their skin, or having been refused an apartment, or having been insulted in some other way, come to my constituency office, and do you know what they say? They say, "I went to the Human Rights Commission, and the Human Rights Commission said, 'We will give you an appointment 30 months from now to begin to consider your complaint.'"

1610

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The waiting time is a lot less than when you were the government.

Mr Sorbara: How's that for rights? How's that for fairness? How's that for justice and equity in Ontario? Yet the government asks us to consider and vote on an Environmental Bill of Rights.

Hon Mr Philip: What did you do about that? The waiting list was longer.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Sorbara: Now, Mr Speaker, we're getting a little babble over there from the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. Whenever they start to babble, you know you've hit a nerve. That member there, for Etobicoke-Rexdale, knows full well what chaos exists in the Human Rights Commission. As they present this bill for yet another commissioner, yet another grand saviour of the environment, he should at least would stand up and acknowledge that the embarrassment that is the Human Rights Commission today should shame this government, particularly given that in its days in opposition it had been the champion of rights for everyone.

But let's talk about rights. Let's talk about some other rights. Let's talk about the rights that workers in this province once had to bargain collectively the content of their collective agreement. Let's talk about what the great New Democratic Party of Ontario did to collective bargaining in the public sector and the broader public sector under the social contract. Let's talk about that reality. Let's talk about in one bill in this Legislature completely striking from the law books of Ontario the basic human workplace right to negotiate your collective agreement freely and openly with the people who represent you at the bargaining table.

Interjections.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): You took away most workers' rights in this province.

Mr Stockwell: That's a bed sore.

Mr Sorbara: That's a little bit sensitive, isn't it? The legacy of this government in Ontario is that it struck down the rights of public sector and broader public sector working men and women to freely bargain collectively to reach an agreement on what terms and conditions would regulate their workplaces.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member that we're dealing with Bill 26.

Mr Sorbara: I tell you, Mr Speaker, we are dealing with legislation dealing with rights. I'm trying to compare the hypocrisy of this government in presenting an Environmental Bill of Rights almost immediately after this Legislature passed one of the most draconian, one of the most obnoxious pieces of legislation that has ever been considered here.

I want to tell my friends that my message when I go back to the people of York Centre and go back to the people of Ontario is that the first order of business for the Ontario Legislature after the next election should be to re-establish free collective bargaining in the public sector.

We're in the middle of a federal election in Ontario. You won't be surprised if I tell you that I've knocked on quite a few doors during the course of the past two or three weeks. I've met people in Burlington, I've met people in Scarborough and I've met people in Windsor who say to me, "Whoever else we vote for, and we're not sure yet, we're not voting for the NDP."

Just the other day I encountered a nurse at a small house in Burlington. I'll remember this for a long time. She was standing in the door, it was supper time, she had her young 18-month-old baby in her hands and her husband was with one of the other children just down the hallway somewhat. She said to me: "I'm a nurse, and what the NDP did to us in our workplace I will never forgive them for. Worst of all, for three years now our right to negotiate has been taken away from us. I will never, ever vote for them again."

They talk about rights, they talk about environmental rights, this petty piece of legislation, this watered-down, insignificant image of what they had promised their friends before they were elected. During this campaign, I see voter after voter saying, "We have been so disappointed in what's happened to us."

I met another voter who said: "I am so embarrassed to have been a member of that party. I'm a public sector worker, and we never expected that our right to negotiate our collective agreements would be taken away from us. We expected that they wouldn't do everything that they had promised," they said. "You're a politician, and no politician can ever deliver on all the promises they make, but we never expected to lose our right to bargain."

If the Liberals are re-elected or if the Tories are re-elected in Ontario, because it certainly won't be them, I hope that whoever is elected as a first order of business simply re-establishes the basic right to bargain. That's a right that working people fought long and hard for, years and years; and the violence and the illegal strikes and all of that stuff. I thought we had settled all that, and I thought we had settled all that 40 or 50 years ago.

Mr Hope: We did 40 or 50 years ago. It's just when the Liberals were in power that we saw --

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Chatham-Kent. If you want to participate in the debate, you'll have the opportunity. The member for York Centre does now have the floor. Please continue.

Mr Sorbara: So when an NDP government, which has lost the confidence of the people, particularly on that issue of rights, the right to bargain, the basic right to go to the table and speak to your employer about your wages and your working conditions -- when you've lost that right at the hands of an NDP government, I wouldn't trust it with the most insignificant right. And this bill is full of a bunch of insignificant rights that won't improve the environment one iota but will create a little bit of bureaucracy and give an opportunity for the government to say in an ad during the election campaign, "Well, at least we passed Bill 26, the Environmental Bill of Rights."

Now let's look at whether this bill will have any real impact and let's look at whether the government really believes in the rights of people to make submissions, to oppose, to raise concerns about issues relating to the environment. Let's look at that.

I invite the members of the government caucus, come and take your bill to the city of Vaughan, come and take your bill to York region, come and present your Environmental Bill of Rights to the people who have been fighting for the past two and a half years to keep Metro's garbage out of the city of Vaughan and out of York region. Let's look at how that decision came about, and let's look at whether the rights of citizens have been acknowledged by this government and its Environment minister and its environment policies.

However was the decision to put a new megadump in York region made? Was it made after consultation? Was it made after study? Was it made after an examination of all the alternatives? Ask the now Minister of Environment or ask the former Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Ask Ruth Grier, ask Bud Wildman how that decision was made.

The decision was made in the back room of some cabinet committee or some cabinet without one iota of consultation. One dark day about two and a half years ago, Ruth Grier, as Minister of the Environment, stood up in her place and announced that her government had decided that the proper site for Metropolitan Toronto's garbage was in some back field in York region. With all the opportunity and all the technology necessary and available to deal with waste disposal, Ruth Grier, on her own, without one bit of consultation, said that she had decided that the best place to put a new megadump was in York region. She has thus far spent over $50 million on the Interim Waste Authority trying to justify and rationalize and substantiate that faulty decision.

1620

And what about the rights of the people, the people of Vaughan? They have marched, they have protested, they have come down to the lawn of Queen's Park. They have had demonstrations in their home community. They have made submissions before the IWA. They have received the support of virtually every single editorialist throughout southern Ontario and every editorialist who has written on the merits of the infamous Bill 143. Virtually every editorialist has said that the government and its decision to dump Metro's garbage in York region is wrongheaded, will never survive scrutiny.

And yet -- talk about rights -- will this bill let the people of Maple and the people of Vaughan sue for their rights? Well, no sir; they can't use this bill. This Environmental Bill of Rights is not going to stop the Minister of Environment from having his way, creating a new megadump in the city of Vaughan.

But thank God there is another right in Ontario which will stop the madness and the insanity of Bill 143 and its chief purpose, which is to unload Metro's garbage into the city of Vaughan. That is the right to vote. Now, this government has played fast and loose with rights, from human rights to employment rights to environmental rights to just about any right you could think of, but I don't think it's going to mess up the right of the people to vote.

As I said, I've spent a great deal of time knocking on doors during the first couple of weeks of the campaign, and I have heard on more than one occasion a voter saying to me: "My God, I wish this were an Ontario election, because I'm ready to change the government of Ontario. I'm ready to tell Bob Rae what we think of his social contract. I am ready to tell Bob Rae what we think of his new taxes. I am ready to tell Bob Rae what we think of his view of economic development. I'm ready to tell Bob Rae what we think of his government."

I saw this happen almost 20 years ago when I lived in British Columbia and Dave Barrett was the Premier of British Columbia. He was elected in 1972. By 1975, the voters in British Columbia were so angry at Dave Barrett and his NDP government that three political parties joined forces to eliminate that government from BC.

I don't think it's going to take that sort of action, but I'll tell you quite frankly that from what I've heard from voters in many corners of this province thus far, this government does not have much more than about 18 months of life to go.

When you get right down to it, it's not necessarily casinos and it's not necessarily the flip-flop on automobile insurance, but when it got down to the social contract and when people saw that Bob Rae, with the assistance of his Minister of Finance, Floyd Laughren, put the knife into public sector workers, that was it. You could just feel it wherever you went.

These people are not saying that there shouldn't be restraint. Heaven knows, we all agree on restraint. But taking away someone's right to participate in the collective bargaining process was so obnoxious, was so antithetical to what you believed in, to what Bob Rae said he believed in, that there was just a quantum loss of faith in the political process generally and certainly in the honour and the integrity and the trustworthiness of some 70 members of a governing party that had said, over years and years of opposition, that it alone was the chief defender of the rights of people in Ontario.

My major concern during that whole debate under the social contract and the right to bargain collectively was that if this is the new standard, if a Rae government, if an NDP government, could simply turn its back on well-established and well-entrenched rights in the way in which we govern ourselves, what would happen in Ontario when some right-wing, mean, angry political party accidentally was elected in Ontario?

What would happen is that they would use the Bob Rae precedent against the public sector, teachers and nurses and lawyers working in governments and working in legal aid clinics, the whole one million broader public sector workers; they would use that example of Bob Rae's turnabout on the rights of public sector workers to snip and cut and annihilate rights left and right, all in the name of deficit reduction, better government or whatever excuse a government uses to justify its actions.

This bill will probably pass, as all of the government's bills do because of the way our system works: The government has the majority and it will finally have its legislation passed. I simply want to point out to the government members and those who are considering the context of this debate and the content of this debate that this Environmental Bill of Rights, notwithstanding its title, has very little to do with what Bob Rae or Ruth Grier promised while they were in opposition. It is watered down, it is inconsequential, it will be ineffective to improve our environment in any way. Those who are fighting environmental challenges today, whether it's the people in Vaughan or York region or Peel or Durham who are fighting this mad desire of the government to put megadumps in the greater Toronto area, this bill will not help them.

This bill does not apply to the single most-renowned polluter in Ontario, the government of Ontario. The government has insulated itself from the terms of this bill. This bill will create work only for an Environmental Commissioner, who has no power, and the civil servants who will support him or her in his or her office. This bill will not allow citizens to bring forward and finance and foster and develop new and more creative solutions to the delicate and difficult issues of environmental regulation.

This bill simply represents the need of a government that is desperate to do something or other. This bill is evidence of a government who has refused to acknowledge that our people are out of work, that our main streets are vacant, that our businesses are under more severe pressure than they have ever been. This bill is simply a vacuous document meant to take up the time of the Legislature because the government has nothing to present to deal with the crises that are confronting every community in Ontario: the crises of unemployment, the crises of economic chaos, and the crises of the chaos in public administration in a government that has lost its way.

This bill is here before us because the government has nothing else to present to us; no plan to put people back to work; no plan to reduce some of the burden of taxation that is killing our citizens and strangling our businesses. This bill has nothing to do with, and nothing to commend itself to, the real problems that the people of Ontario are confronting.

It will pass; of that there is no doubt. Groups will come before a legislative committee to make their submissions. Small, insignificant amendments will be presented and adopted. The bill will come back for third reading and it will become law.

I just simply put it to the government that, having gone through all of this, we have simply wasted not only our time but affronted the people of Ontario who are so desperately looking to us to debate the real issues of the day and start to tackle the real problems that so urgently demand our attention.

1630

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I must confess, when I first started to hear the member's remarks, I thought his comments were rather irrelevant, talking about social contract, but he really has hit the nail right on the head when we start talking about rights, which is what this bill is all about. What are the rights of the people of Ontario? Well, he's told us what rights the social contract gives the people who have worked hard in entering into union negotiations. I won't get into that.

I will say that I represent the people of Caledon, who have been fortunate enough to have two of the remaining 15 dump sites in their area. They are continually asking questions of me as to what their rights are. They're concerned about their farms because there are dumps right in the middle of their farms, there are large estate areas of homes in these areas of dumps, and they don't have any rights under this bill to fight these issues. They're worried about the rats, they're worried about the smell, they're worried about dumps being built on top of aquifers, but they have no rights with respect to Bill 26. This bill gives none of the people in Caledon who are concerned about seagulls or, as I indicated, smells or rats or anything else with respect to dumps -- if the Environmental Commissioner existed today he would simply say, "Sorry, I can't deal with it," because it is absolutely irrelevant.

So much for rights. It's a very strange bill when it says it's going to give people rights and, if anything, it's just words. There's no question when you read the preamble. We all agree with some of the thoughts in the preamble, but the member is right on the button when he simply says, "So much for rights." You, of all people, who have absolutely destroyed union negotiation in this province as a result of taking away the whole concept of collective bargaining in this province, now to come forward with this piece of legislation is a bit of a sham.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I very much take exception to the member opposite's comments. I believe he's all wrong in what he's saying. First of all, the bill of rights is needed to empower people in this province. I'd first of all like to mention a few people from my area who have for many years put their hearts, their souls, their lives, their families into working on environmental issues and trying to speak out, trying to be heard and trying to get action.

First of all, I'm sure everyone has heard of Margarita Howe from Niagara-on-the-Lake and what's she's been trying to do with the water source down there, and that was almost 12 years ago. Then of course, there are Al and Penny Oleksuik for Citizens for a Clean Environment and their group, who have been speaking out on all kinds of local concerns; people like Professor Mike Dickman, who have been looking at the fish habitat in the Welland River. They need this kind of right, and every single citizen needs this kind of right.

I want to also mention to the member opposite that this government was elected on a social justice agenda and that is the clear path that this government is on. What has happened to going down that path is a load of bricks has been dumped on that path and that is the economic situation we face. I'd like to just tell you that that situation of this economic problem that we are facing was addressed by Hal Jackman to the students of the University of Toronto in July. What he says is that the private, corporate debt that has arisen over the 1980s has led to some of this problem and that there is nothing fruitful coming out of all of that debt that was incurred during the 1980s.

I'd just like to say that we are facing this difficult situation of dealing with the economic problem but we will not lose our direction going down that road of social justice, we will not lose those principles, while at the same time, in an honest and a caring way, we are managing this economy.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I want to applaud my colleague the member for York Centre for his comments on this. I did pick up on one thing that I think is very essential: The only thing the people of Ontario seem to understand about parliamentary democracy is that a government must maintain the confidence of the people. As the member for York Centre said, in my constituency people are losing their jobs, they're losing their homes, they're losing everything. What's happening over there is that if you tag the word "rights" to something, it suddenly becomes very sexy and popular.

As the member for York Centre said as well, our system is bad, because when you get a majority government it's in there for five years. They can stay till the magic bell of midnight and leave the slipper on the stairs, like Cinderella. They can create all sorts of unfavourable, unpopular legislation in this province. That's exactly what they're doing.

The member for Niagara Falls says, "We are following our cares about the concerns of those people we represent." Well, I tell you, you have gone 360 degrees. You've brought in legislation in this province that has devastated people, that has left people without jobs. People are moving to the west because they can't stand this province. They can't stand what's going on in the government of this province. You have to change the system. The system has to be changed if a government like yours is going to create the devastation and the wild and woolly ideas. You can put "rights" in front of it, but it doesn't help.

What you're doing is you're not addressing the major problems. The major problems are the question of jobs, the question of people losing their homes, the question of children, because they're leaving their homes, because there are marriage breakups. The NDP has not done that. You're not even addressing that. I hope to God we change this system so that when we get a government like yours in power -- be it yours, be it the Conservatives, be it the Liberals -- it can be turfed if it doesn't have the confidence of the people of Ontario. You do not have the confidence of the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I think the analogy the member was trying to draw is a fair analogy.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): No, he's a hypocrite.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Durham West suggests that he's a hypocrite. I think that's both unparliamentary and unfair, particularly --

Mr David Winninger (London South): He used the word himself.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Members do know that the words that are being bandied around are unparliamentary. Please. The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I think the analogy is a fair analogy. When you deal with a bill of rights there's a certain value attached, that this is not negotiable, it's beyond reproach, it's there, it stands on its own and it can't be changed without both parties' agreement, much like a collective agreement, particularly from a labour government.

The problem you have with the analogy that seems reasonable is that of credibility. I believe the member for Niagara Falls believes in her mind that she's still going down that same road she thought she got elected to. The problem is that you may believe it, but nobody else does. You see, you've got a credibility gap, and the gap is that if you're prepared as a government to attack the very fabric of that which you believe in -- negotiated settlements, collective agreements -- why would you bring forward an Environmental Bill of Rights? You don't have credibility any more. The analogy is fair. It's not uncalled for; you brought it on yourselves.

The member for Niagara Falls, if you really believe that anyone out there buys into that speech you gave, you are more shortsighted and naïve than even I believe, because nobody buys that stuff. You sold out on the social contract and now for ever more you shall be lectured. You should just simply go on reading and stop heckling, because you have no right.

1640

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The honourable member for York Centre has two minutes in response.

Mr Sorbara: I appreciated the comments from all five members. My speech was really a simple one. I just wanted to make two points. The first one was that a government that violates the fundamental rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively -- not that those bargaining sessions should have resulted in more; sometimes they result in less; that's the reality of the workplace -- a government that cuts the rights to bargain collectively has no authority whatsoever to ever again use the expression "bill of rights." If they want to do something, they should go back and restore the rights of working people to bargain collectively at the table, start there and then go to the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The second point is this: The worst possible environment in Ontario is the environment of poverty, is the environment of joblessness, is the environment of hopelessness, is the environment that confronts so many of our people. That is really the worst of all environments, the environment of no hope, the environment where people are out of work, where their businesses have failed.

If you want to start to deal with the environment, that's the place to start. Rewrite your budget, pull out all the stops, keep us here till midnight, but let's figure out a way to get working people back to work so that they can have the dignity of a job and be able to feed their families and live respectable lives. If you're concerned about the environment, that's where the environmental degradation is going on and that's where you should be starting.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 26?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Mr Speaker, I'm going to try to focus a little bit more on the bill itself perhaps and some of my concerns pertaining to the Environmental Bill of Rights, Bill 26.

In Ontario, we need an environmental process that identifies substances that are harmful to our environment, to our air, to our water, to our land, and we need a process that places strict limitations on these substances. This process must be firm, but it must be fair. It must be logical; it must be workable. Finally, I would say that we need a commitment in this province to enforce the standards that are in place. Of course, beyond that again, the whole process must be done in an efficient and an effective way so that we obtain the maximum benefit for the tax dollar.

How does this particular bill stack up if we look at those kinds of criteria? Does this bill identify any further substances that are harmful to our environment? Does this bill place any stricter limitations on substances that could be polluting our air, our water, our land? Does this bill, for example, identify any further metals that are getting into our water stream? Does it place further restrictions on the coliform content that may be getting into our rivers, our lakes, materials that may be polluting our drinking water? No, it doesn't. It doesn't speak to that.

Does this bill identify any further pollutants that may be getting into our air? Does it place further restrictions on carbon monoxide or does it identify any further noxious gases from our factories or from our automobiles, from the emissions of our trucks or buses? Does it place any further limitations? No, it doesn't speak to that. It's completely silent. Does it identify any further chemicals or place any restrictions on chemicals that may be polluting our land? No, again, it's completely silent.

Does this bill demonstrate a commitment by the government, a commitment by the Ministry of Environment? Does it demonstrate any further commitment by this government to enforce the laws that are in place, to enforce the environmental standards to ensure that our environment is safe for us and for future generations? Does it give any more money to the Ministry of Environment to do the job that it's supposed to be doing? Does it give any more resources to that ministry to ensure that the ministry does a better job than I must say many people would give credit to the ministry at the present time? Again, it's silent. No, it gives no further support to the Ministry of Environment.

However well intentioned, what the bill really does is it shifts the onus of the responsibility from the Ministry of Environment, from this government, on to the citizen. It gives citizens some right -- as we've heard; we've had a great discussion about rights -- some apparent right, although that right may be very transparent in the final analysis, but it purportedly gives the citizens some right, through complaint and through court action to address environmental concerns they perceive.

This is a fundamental change. At the present time, the environmental concerns are supposedly enforced by the Minister of Environment, and we have every right as citizens to expect that the Ministry of Environment will be investigating, will be pursuing environmental concerns right across this province in an even and uniform and fair manner, will be identifying pollution, will be identifying hazards to our environment and will be taking the appropriate action. This is what the taxpayers have the right to expect.

But that's not what this bill supports, and as a matter of fact, having discussed this with people who are involved in the environmental area, who have information in terms of the environmental process, there is a strong suspicion that this bill is indeed a slap in the face for the Ministry of Environment.

This bill says the Ministry of Environment is not doing its job at the present time, that the Ministry of Environment is not able to do its job, and consequently what we're doing is shifting the onus of that responsibility on to the citizens. We're saying that the Ministry of Environment either doesn't have the staff to do the job, doesn't have the willingness to do the job, or doesn't have the commitment to do the job, but the bottom line is that the ministry is not performing the kind of job that the people of Ontario expect, the kind of job that we're paying the ministry for.

Consequently, this particular bill is saying: "Well, then, shift that responsibility to the individual. Allow the individual to register a complaint to an Environmental Commissioner and have that commissioner inspect. Allow the individual to take action through the courts, to sue, to bring in litigation, and through that sort of process to have the environmental matter pursued."

I guess the question here is, is this the most effective way, the most efficient way for us to go in the province of Ontario? Will this ensure that we have a uniform and a fair process, a uniform and a fair enforcement of our environmental standards across the province of Ontario? I can only say that there is a great doubt among the people of the province of Ontario that this will be an effective way and that this will be a fair and a uniform fashion for environmental laws to be respected.

I might also say that there's a great doubt that the average citizen will have good access to this process. Indeed, and there's a great deal of concern about this, this process could tend to be dominated by environmental activists, people who are well aware of the levers to pull or the strings to pull. In actual fact, it could be dominated by environmental activists who could target certain industries, certain businesses, target certain municipalities. Then I guess we have to say, is this setting in place a discriminatory process, a process that may unfairly affect a certain segment of our community, our business community or municipal community, and not treat matters fairly?

The final point that I raised in my introduction was, is it cost-effective? We've already heard today discussion about the Environmental Commissioner. There's an environmental registry that's to be set up. There is a great deal of concern that this environmental registry could cost millions of dollars to set up, to maintain, to ensure that it's up to date, an environmental registry that could well prove to be a source of great material for environmental extremists, let's say, who might tend to manipulate this against certain sectors.

But beyond that, there is an Environmental Commissioner, of course, that's being recommended, an Environmental Commissioner and a bureaucracy associated with the Environmental Commissioner.

1650

Other members have expressed this. I will simply echo the comments that it's very ironic in this day and age, when we as a provincial government and when municipal governments, school boards, hydro utilities are being requested to cut back. Taxes are too high and expenditures are too high, and we must cut back; we must deliver a service at a more reasonable cost to the people of the province of Ontario. That is a view I subscribe to 100%, that is the kind of approach we must take, but I find it very ironic that at the same time as we're preaching cutbacks through the social contract, for example, at the same time we're doing that, we are today discussing setting up a new bureaucracy and a new commissioner to be paid at the level of a deputy minister, with a salary range, as I understand it, of up to about $150,000 a year, perhaps a bit more; with staff that it's left to the Environmental Commissioner to employ, to employ such number of employees as the commissioner deems necessary to deal with the complaints that may come in, complaints that are very valid. There may be in addition, though, complaints that are not valid and that will occupy a tremendous amount of time. We talk about the pension of the commissioner in this bill, and on and on it goes about the cost of the Environmental Commissioner.

In a time of restraint, do we need more bureaucracy? In a time when our municipalities are being asked to cut back, when our school boards are being asked to cut back, why does it make sense to set up a new bureaucracy? Why does it not make sense to look at the existing Ministry of Environment and Energy and say: This is where the onus lies; in this ministry is where this responsibility should rest. Why is this ministry not doing the job today? That's a question that, frankly, doesn't come out of this bill, but it's a question that I think should be addressed. I believe that's the direction in which we should proceed.

We have all been accused of raising environmental issues within our own ridings, which are important. There certainly is a great need to be aware of environmental concerns here in Metropolitan Toronto. I could cite examples of environmental concerns, perhaps environmental tragedies, if you wish. I know two or three years ago in Metropolitan Toronto, we dealt with two or three plating companies that were discharging materials into the system that violated our environmental standards, and action needed to be taken. This bill would not help out in a case like that. The Metropolitan Toronto council took the appropriate action, did the monitoring of the discharge, found there were violations and brought the violations to the immediate attention of the companies involved.

We've talked today about economic development. I must say, at that particular time there was concern, not only for the environment but because there were a number of employees of these plating firms who depended on this particular firm's existence for their livelihood and that of their families. That was a concern, but the bottom line was that the problem had to be corrected.

The Metropolitan Toronto corporation worked with the plating companies, gave them time, continued the monitoring, laid out the fact that these metallic hazards -- nickel, lead, aluminum, various substances that were getting into the stream -- had to be brought down to the proper limits so they could be treated. Through a series of notifications and plans, and some legal action, I might add, the whole process was rectified.

Does this bill give any assistance in that regard? No, it doesn't. There is a government, the Metropolitan Toronto government, that was determined and committed to coming to grips with the environmental hazard that was at hand, and it did so. That's what we need from the Ministry of Environment, not another commissioner, not another bureaucracy, not tens of millions of dollars setting up another bureaucracy. We simply need a commitment to provide the enforcement, a commitment to protect the people right across this province.

I could mention the Don Valley, the river. There is great concern in the borough of East York in Metropolitan Toronto about the Don Valley river system, about the pollutants that are in the Don Valley, about the faecal coliform content, about chlorine, about metals and fertilizers that are entering the Don Valley river system not only in Metropolitan Toronto but from the north, from the region of York, into that particular system.

I wish I could stand here today and say that that system, through the concerted effort of local governments, has been rectified. I can't do that, but I can say there has been a great deal of effort and there is a commitment. The governments are certainly identifying the problems and they are working on them; there are plans in place. I expect that the Don Valley river system will be a much better system in the years ahead and will live up to our expectations in terms of the cleanliness of the water.

Will this bill, Bill 26, assist in that regard? Does this bill provide any more resources to municipalities that may be looking at ways to treat the water, the storm water that's going into the system? No, it doesn't. It doesn't provide an extra nickel for any municipality that may need some support in terms of cleaning up the storm water, for example.

I might also say that what it might do, and there is concern, is provide a forum for those individuals to sue municipalities, or at least to complain to the Environmental Commissioner about municipalities that are attempting to clean up the storm water system that enters into the Don system, and it may hold up that process where municipalities are proposing to make investments to clean up the storm sewer system. It might actually hold that process up, to the detriment of the Don system.

I'd like to switch to another area, because my main area of concern, of course, is with municipalities. I have discussed this with some of the planning staff in this province, various planning people in the province of Ontario, and there is another level of concern that's coming out. This concern is, how does this particular bill pertain to the planning system in the province of Ontario?

For example, to take it down to the basic level, how does this bill impact on the issuance of a building permit? We all know that many people are concerned, for example, if there's a second storey that's proposed for a house next door. There's the privacy factor, there's the loss of sunlight, there may be other factors pertaining to a tree that might have to be taken down to put on an addition to serve a family that's growing. Could this bill be used to block a building permit? Could this bill institute another round of red tape in the building permit system within the municipalities of the province of Ontario? We don't have that answer.

There is concern out there in the municipalities that this could be another roadblock not only for the municipalities but of course for the individual who is seeking a permit, taking it on to the decisions of the committee of adjustment, for example, who may consider minor variances, who may consider a variance, for example, where a setback is three inches short of meeting the regulations.

1700

Could this bill be used by those in a community, whether it be two people or however many people, to block or lengthen a process for a home owner to seek the approval of the committee of adjustment to expand their home? Perhaps there's a new baby in the house, perhaps a new bedroom is needed, but the addition is such that it doesn't quite meet the standards. A person may have to go through a lengthy committee of adjustment process, may have to go through an Ontario Municipal Board process, may get the approval of the local council, may get the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. Could they then, as a further step, a further level of red tape at the municipal level, be required to go through an environmental review? What will that mean to the planning process in the province of Ontario?

This government has asked John Sewell to bring forward a report to speed up planning in the province of Ontario on the one hand -- I'm not sure that he's done that; we'll see when the report is debated -- but here, on the other hand, are we injecting another hindrance in the planning process of Ontario?

Let me just walk you through a rezoning application. I would say that it's quite likely that this bill would afford further hindrance in terms of a rezoning application within municipalities today.

Let me just walk you through the kind of timing that we're involved in in the province of Ontario. In many municipalities, a serious proposal for development -- and we're talking jobs here, and the member for York Centre, I think it was, was talking about economic development, creating jobs, getting people back to work. In my own riding, there's a proposal for an Aikenhead's hardware store. We could be talking about that kind of proposal which would be good for the construction trades. We could be talking about a proposal in the final analysis that will create a number of jobs and get people back to work. We could be talking about housing. We could be talking about any number of rezoning applications. But it certainly, in all likelihood, will be good in terms of getting people back to work.

But what do you have to go through to have such a proposal considered? You may have to go through a review of some six months with the local ratepayers, with the local councillors. You certainly have to do studies. You have to do transportation studies. You have to do environmental studies. Environmental study is in the planning process already, and here we're recommending another system, another environmental watchdog, a duplication. You have to do planning studies, financial studies, marketing studies. You have to submit your application. You have to have your application circulated to various agencies, certainly to the Ministry of Environment and Energy. You have to have it circulated to Hydro, to the school board, to transportation agencies. On many applications, whether this be for housing, whether this be for business, there could be 20 to two dozen agencies that have to be circulated today to comment, and one of those agencies is the Ministry of Environment.

If you talk to the planning people in the province of Ontario, they will tell you, without a doubt, the slowest response in the planning process today comes from the Ministry of Environment. To get a response from the Ministry of Environment today to comment on development in this province can take six months, and then the response is more apt to be that further study is required. It is extremely difficult in the planning process to get a definitive answer from the Ministry of Environment.

This bill should be addressing that kind of situation. It should be saying, "What extra resources does the Ministry of Environment need?" so that they can comment in a suitable period of time on development processes in the province of Ontario. That's the problem we have in planning today. We can't get a straight answer.

I've worked my way down through part of the process. That part of the process can take a good year. So far, you haven't even got a public hearing. Up to that point, you've just been generating reports, you've been getting comments back from agencies, but you haven't had a public hearing. It can be another five months before you can get a public hearing to let the general public, the people who live in the area, know about the planning proposal.

Then, of course, the minister, if it's an official plan amendment, has to comment on the proposal. That can take another three months. There can be an Ontario Municipal Board hearing -- an Ontario Municipal Board hearing, I might add, that considers environmental matters, transportation matters, as well as all other planning matters. That whole process can take two to three years today.

The concern out there today in the planning community with the municipalities is, will this process that is being debated here today -- the Environmental Bill of Rights, Bill 26 -- impose another step? After that whole process is completed, will we have another step, another complaint to an Environmental Commissioner or some sort of legal action to add again more and more time on to a process that can already take up to three years in duration? How, if that's so, is it not a duplication? Already today, through that whole process, the local council considers all environmental matters. The Ministry of Environment is involved. It takes twice as long as it should, but it's involved. The Ontario Municipal Board considers all those environmental matters. How can we impose another structure on top of something that's there already?

Perhaps it's already been pointed out that the major issue, certainly in the greater Toronto area today, of environmental concern involves the disposal of waste. Various other speakers have referred to that, but I would be remiss if I didn't echo the comments that this is the number one issue and it has been for a number of years: the disposal of waste in Metropolitan Toronto, in the region of York, the region of Durham, the region of Peel and, indeed, across the province of Ontario. But there has been a tremendous focus certainly here in Metropolitan Toronto.

This bill does not pertain to that number one major issue that is pertinent to the people of the greater Toronto area. That particular issue is exempted from the provisions of this bill. Would this bill not be better directed if it said that in terms of waste disposal, in terms of landfill sites, all options should be considered, all options should go through an environmental process? If there's a problem with the existing environmental process, if it doesn't consider all the factors, if the government is unsatisfied with the environmental process that exists today for landfill sites, for example, would it not be better if the government were to identify what it's dissatisfied with and make those kinds of changes to the existing process today?

For example, the Kirkland Lake site, which has been mentioned -- the Adams mine site -- is a possible site for the disposal of waste, not only for the greater Toronto area but for much of Ontario. Would it not be better if that particular site was considered, along with other suggestions, through a thorough environmental process? If the government says, "No, the environmental assessment process," for example, "can't properly deal with that issue," then let's change that environmental process where it can't deal with it so that we're happy with it, and then let's consider all the options.

1710

Instead, what we have here today is a new process that allows individual people to randomly complain about issues, and an Environmental Commissioner to be set up, perhaps in the same vein as the Human Rights Commissioner. I've heard reference to the Human Rights Commissioner here today, an office that has budgeted about $13 million or $14 million this year.

Is that the kind of process the people of Ontario deserve, or do they deserve fair standards, identified standards, so that business knows what those standards are, so that the people know what those standards are and so that those standards are uniformly enforced right across the province of Ontario, not left to the random deliberations of various activists who may target certain industries?

The Acting Speaker (Margaret H. Harrington): Questions and/or comments?

Mr Stockwell: The point that I think the member for Don Mills made that has not been addressed, in my opinion, by the government members is the cost and what it would take from an updating and implementation point of view of dealing with simply the environmental bill as it sits on the table today and the Environmental Assessment Act.

Those points are well taken. We know full well that the cost is going to be rather excessive. We don't have a fix on how many staff it's going to be. We know there's going to be a commissioner, and it seems to me that if they endorsed, supported and implemented the existing act, it could in fact accommodate what they're trying to do with the Environmental Bill of Rights. It seems that it's not being implemented, and I don't think it was particularly well implemented under the Liberal government either.

My problem with the present act the way it sits now is that two people can close down all kinds of very important works that are being taken up in the province of Ontario, and not necessarily for reasonable and environmentally sensitive concerns, just because they have a chip on their shoulder. The fact is that can happen.

You may laugh and debate it, but who would have thought, when they introduced the environmental act that we live under today, that a dump site could take 17 years to get through an environmental assessment process? That's what the dump site took in Halton, 17 years.

The people I talk to aren't talking about expanding environmental rights. They're talking about proceeding in a reasonable fashion through an environmental assessment hearing that allows development, job creation projects, to take place within a reasonable length of time. The environmental bill as it sits today is being used by all kinds of people for different reasons than it was ever intended to be put in place for.

Those kinds of questions I think are brought forth and should be answered by the government, and today I've not heard any of these answers.

Of course the big answer is, if this is such a great bill, why does it not apply to you?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I appreciate when you have the experienced voice of the politicians coming into the House bringing forward the concerns of Metro Toronto and the successes they had and how it would apply to Ontario. I'd like to apply one of the big stories that affects the people of York region and Peel and Durham. It has to do with the placement of megadumps in each of those three regions. That process is somehow exempt from any kind of analysis or reaction by the public using this Environmental Bill of Rights.

This is snake oil. It's nothing other than just some kind of thing you'd pick up at the circus. It's got a lot of words around it that says it's going to be an Environmental Bill of Rights. It is not a bill of rights. It has no power like a bill of rights, and yet the government has won the public relations battle by saying, "Here we are." When they come out to the public and say, "We have brought in an Environmental Bill of Rights," it doesn't begin to give people the right and the authority to really have a say and a voice in environmental matters.

Bill 143 is an example of what this government's done. It took away the rights of municipalities and regional governments; it took away the rights of property owners as far as what this government can do and will do in the selection of garbage dumps is concerned.

You come along now and pontificate about having a bill of rights. It is meaningless garbage when you start talking about what it really means to the people of Ontario as to what this government has already done. When I hear about the government saying, "Yes, we're bringing in a bill of rights," this is nothing more than a set of rules to help people find out what's going on. It sets up another bureaucracy. But as far as really having fundamental change and giving people real power on the environment is concerned, it doesn't do that. So I commend the member for Don Mills.

Mr Tilson: Madam Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you on your new appointment to the position where you now sit. I wish you well. I'd also like to thank and congratulate the member for Don Mills on his presentation today, and from his own perspective. We appreciate the experience he brings to this House and hopefully the members of this House will listen to his words.

The issue of process really hasn't been emphasized in any of the speeches I have heard and I have sat through all the speeches that have been given on second reading. This is the first time any emphasis has been given on the subject of process. There's no question that's something we need to look at.

I think all members are now realizing the vagueness of this bill, the vagueness of the definitions, the vagueness of the discretion, that the ministers can refuse to do something, or do something; as I indicated, the lack of definition, the fear that two individuals over the age of 18 years can raise a concern and cause procedural delays.

The municipalities are fearful as to the definition of "instrument," and yes, hopefully that may be improved in the committee process, but the municipalities are certainly concerned that two individuals over the age of 18 years can come and delay, whether it be sewer lines, zoning applications or any other of the, whatever "instruments" mean under this bill.

Finally, there's section 90. Various members of the government side have boasted as to what the courts can do. Section 90 says, "The court may stay or dismiss the action if to do so would be in the public interest." So they go through this whole process only to find that on presentation perhaps it's too costly; in fact, they raised some of the issues as to the grounds why a court can stay or dismiss an action. Even if they go through all this, the whole process can end simply because the courts find it too costly.

The Acting Speaker: We have room for one more speaker for questions and/or comments. If not, we have two minutes for the member for Don Mills to respond.

Mr David Johnson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Although I referred to you in your new position, I didn't add my congratulations as well and I certainly do that. We look forward to your career here in the Legislature.

I thank the members from Etobicoke, Markham and Dufferin-Peel for their comments. I have great concerns and I think they referred to them in their comments. Sitting at the municipal level for over 20 years, I'm aware that --

Interjection: That is a long time.

Mr David Johnson: It's a long time, that's right, and I'm aware the people of this province, particularly at this time in our history, are just sick and tired of more government. They are fed up with the costs of government. They are expecting efficiencies within our government. They're expecting a reduction in the cost of government and they're desperately seeking this. We need that, because the level of taxation is so high, not only for the individual but for our businesses, that it's costing jobs. That's so crucial. When you talk to people today, it's a great tragedy that people today are unemployed or underemployed. They're having trouble meeting their mortgage. They're having trouble putting food on the table. There's a great tragedy in our society today.

This is just not a time to consider another bureaucracy, another agency or department that's going to take more and more of the taxpayers' money. This is a time to work with the government structure we have, to reduce it, and if it's not doing the job it's supposed to do, then study that and put in place measures that will allow it to do it -- but not a time to add more government. That's a major concern.

1720

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Bradley: I would like to begin my address to the assembly this afternoon by doing something I have done on a number of occasions, that is, lamenting the lack of emphasis on environmental issues out there in general at this particular point in time. I well recall in my early days in the Ontario Legislature in the late 1970s and then throughout the 1980s that environmental issues were often the matter of very detailed discussion in this House and most assuredly were in the public domain through the news media.

I can recall during my privileged time as Minister of the Environment that seldom a day would go by without the lead item on television or radio on a newscast being an environmental issue being justifiably discussed by the news media. Very seldom would there be a day where, in the major metropolitan dailies of this country, in particular of this province, there weren't many issues discussed related to the environment at that time.

Yet largely because we're in a recession at this time and there are difficult economic times, the emphasis has shifted for the news media. As a result, there has been little pressure on governments across the country, and most assuredly in the province of Ontario, where we're in the midst of a deep recession -- we hope we're going to come out of it -- to move on environmental issues. This has been reflected in the agenda that the government has brought forward in the field of the environment.

I lament this, as I think many members of the government do. I listened to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings talking about the fact that one of the issues he was concerned about when he ran for the provincial parliament was the issue of the environment. He must be frustrated by the fact that circumstances or whatever -- the circumstances, let us say -- have dictated that the government has not moved on a variety of environmental fronts, because the expectation in the field of the environment would have been very great that an NDP government, of all the political parties -- because it was in the Agenda for People, because of the excellent work done in opposition by various critics, one who is sitting across from me at this time.

The member for Hamilton Mountain at one time was Environment critic. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, who was in the House, and others who were Environment critics did an excellent job, I thought, in bringing forward to the Legislature these issues and discussing them in a very public way. Yet I look at two different Environment ministers who have been unable to obtain widespread support within the cabinet to move forward on a lot of environmental fronts where I think they would be in very good territory for the NDP.

I also look at the people's network, the CBC, and I've talked many times about Metro Morning, Radio Noon, 4 to 6 and As It Happens. I well recall receiving many calls from the producers and from the hosts of these programs asking that we discuss environmental issues. Well, yesterday I turned on Radio Noon. The call-in show was about gardening: How's Your Garden? Today I turned it on, and they were talking about which birds are going south. So day after day, when the producer used to have the person from South Carolina who was living beside a plant that was going to come to Ontario, and wouldn't all the children die who lived around that plant, and that interview would take place, we don't hear that now.

When we discussed the ratio of non-refillable to refillable pop bottles, soft drink containers, they used to phone me often, both Metro Morning and Radio Noon, to talk about that. That was back when the ratio was about 30% to 70% in terms of refillables and non-refillables. Well, it's down to 6% and 7% today. Do we hear that on Radio Noon? Is it on Metro Morning? Is it an issue in the Globe and Mail? The answer is no, because there are other issues that have taken over as significant issues. I lament that, because I think it's important, never mind politically but for the environment, that there be that kind of coverage, that there be that kind of attention paid to this important subject.

I ask the question as well, I suppose a bit rhetorically, where have the activist environmental groups been for the past three years? They were on my doorstep many a time, and justifiably so, presenting excellent cases for action by the government, and in more cases than not they were very influential in obtaining some significant action out of the government.

I commended them on many public occasions for the advice they provided to the government and for the help they were in bringing these issues forward in a public way. Could it be that some of them have placed their NDP affiliation ahead of their concern for the environment? I would hope not. I would hope that it would not be the case, because the environmental issues have continued. Yes, they have been pushed into the background because of economic circumstances, but if I as minister had put together a panel to advise on this bill and it had come forward with this bill, I can assure you that the environmentalists would have walked out of that situation; they would have walked. Yet they can sit in the gallery from time to time and defend a clearly -- I don't know if this is politically correct to say today -- emasculated Environmental Bill of Rights, certainly one that does not resemble the original one that was put forward by the critics for the NDP.

I ask whether people are prepared to accept less in the field of the environment from an NDP government. I am certainly not prepared to accept less, because in many ways I admired many of the policies that were developed at the policy conventions of the New Democratic Party. And many of my friends from the New Democratic Party, not only in the House -- I think of Stephen Lewis wanting to save the farm land that's being gobbled up almost daily at the present time, but I think of people inside and outside of this Legislature who play this significant role and I wonder if they're prepared to accept less than they would from a Conservative or a Liberal government.

I know that members of the trade union movement are not prepared to accept less from this government than they're prepared to accept from a Liberal or a Tory government, and I admire members of the trade union movement who have taken to task any government that happens to be in power that passes legislation they do not agree with or fails to deal with issues that they consider to be of public importance. I think others could take a lesson from members of the trade union movement -- who have done this in difficult times, because many of their friends are in the House at the present time; many of the people they admired over the years are sitting in the cabinet and are key advisors to the Premier. I would hope that others would follow their example and be critical of the government and helpful to the government regardless of what its political stripe happens to be.

I guess I ask rhetorically as well, can you imagine the reaction of the New Democratic Party members or of some of the strong activists if a Liberal government or a Conservative government had brought forward a bill containing the provisions of this bill? I would suggest that they would be extremely critical and in a very public way, and yet there has not been the kind of criticism that we might have expected: constructive criticism, helpful criticism for the environmental process.

Some may smugly say, "Well, we've got them in our pocket so therefore we don't have to worry about that." What we all have to be concerned about is not the political aspect of this but the environmental aspect. It doesn't help the environment. Again I tell them to look to the trade union movement, which is not prepared to accept what it does not consider to be appropriate in the field of labour, and I think others could follow that good example.

I also wonder, if this were a top priority of the Bob Rae government -- and I heard that it was throughout the election campaign and previous to that -- why after three years this bill has still not been enacted. It has gone through a long consultation process. One says it is helpful to be consultative, and I would agree that there is always a need for consultation, but this has taken an inordinately long period of time to make it into the House, for a bill that was a priority of the previous government and of the previous minister and the present minister and colleagues.

I've heard it said, and this is a rather interesting provision, that this act does not apply to the crown or the government. I can well recall, back I think it was in 1986, bringing forward some rather radical changes to the penalties provision under the Environmental Protection Act, where the penalties would mean that you could send corporation presidents or cabinet ministers to jail if they failed to carry out their responsibilities, and the fines were increased 10-fold into the millions of dollars as opposed to the slap on the wrist that used to be there.

1730

I remember the reaction of my cabinet colleagues when they picked up the Globe and Mail the next day and read that under sweeping new provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, corporation presidents and cabinet ministers could go to jail for the following offences.

One of the key provisions of that act was the removal of a statement that said, "This act does not apply to the crown." That doesn't sound like it's very significant to the public out there, but I'm going to tell you, that's a very, very significant provision. Governments always should be prepared to subject themselves to the same rules that they apply to the private sector. It certainly buys a lot of goodwill with the private sector, but more important, it compels the government to have a good environmental record, to be careful about the role that it plays within the environment.

There are great expectations, clearly, for this government in many areas, and I have seen some of them and I've been hoping to see some action in that. I would like to read to you an environmental report that came out. If you want to know how important a bill is to the business community -- and I know this government, particularly the Premier, is often afraid of the business community because, naturally, the business community tends to be antagonistic towards the NDP.

I always contended, by the way, that it was easier for Liberal or Conservative governments to deal harshly with business in some of those cases than it was for President Nixon to go to China or to end the Vietnam War. It was not expected. The people who were the toughest on the Communists were always the people who you would expect would not be able to do that, but they were the only people who would do that. Democrats were considered to be soft on Communism, for some reason or other. There's an analogy here that one would expect, and perhaps not be surprised, that a Liberal government or a Tory government would be tougher on business in many cases than an NDP government, which would have to curry some favour with business. It's not always the case, but certainly with Premier Rae I would say that has been the case.

But let me read to you -- this is a group that puts out a report to business on various pieces of legislation. Let me read what they say. It says, "The Environmental Bill of Rights: Don't Worry, Be Happy." I'll quote extensively from it.

"The Rae government's Environmental Bill of Rights...is scheduled to be proclaimed by December 31, 1993. While some in the business community and the media have raised the spectre of battalions of citizens and environment groups suing every factory with a smokestack, the reality is very different. In fact, there are elements of the EBR which business can use as 'government relations tools.'

"While the NDP government has brought the EBR forth, its origins in Canada may be found almost two decades ago in Estrin and Swaigen's Environment on Trial, published in 1974. In the 1970s, opposition parties and environment groups wanted an EBR because the environment was not a priority for the Progressive Conservative government of the day. On November 20, 1979, Dr Stuart Smith, then Liberal leader, introduced Bill 185, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario. Smith later introduced a slightly revised version in June 1981. Liberal Environment critic Murray Elston reintroduced Smith's second version in the Ontario Legislature on April 29, 1982.

"The main elements of these proposed bills included: access to information; public interest funding; protection of employees' rights; public consultation for regulations and instruments; and the concept of a public trust in the environment. All of the items except the last were dealt with in one form or another during the Peterson administration (June 26, 1985 to October 1, 1990).

"During that period, in an effort to politically embarrass the Liberals, who seemed committed to an EBR while in opposition, NDP Environment critic Ruth Grier introduced a gender-neutral version of the Liberal EBR on four occasions. However, when she became Environment minister, she soon realized that the main elements of her bill were obsolete due to intervening legislation, policy or administrative practices.

"The draft bill released by Mrs Grier in July 1992 and introduced by Environment minister Bud Wildman for first reading on May 31, 1993, is radically different from the original document brought forward in the 1970s. As one knowledgeable observer stated recently about the NDP's An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, 'The only thing that survived was the title.'

"Many business commentators are concerned with part IV of the EBR, which allows an Ontario resident to take a polluter to court for environmental harm to a public resource where there has been a contravention of environmental laws. There are two key reasons why Ontario's corporate community should not be overly concerned by the right-to-sue provision.

"First, a prerequisite to bringing this action is a request for investigation to the EBR's Environmental Commissioner. The EC will submit the request to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for investigation. Those investigating the matter will be the minister's regional abatement officers whose job is to ensure companies are following the law."

The communication goes on to say: "Most of the investigations will prove that the concerns are unwarranted for one key reason -- to do otherwise would show that the same abatement officers were not doing their job. As a result, there will be valuable time wasted by such individuals who will then write 'self-preserving' memos rather than do their jobs, protecting the environment."

"Second, the ministry is renowned for its investigation and enforcement branch. Their presence, along with stiff maximum fines and the provision for jailing officers and directors of companies, has led to a more enlightened environmental attitude within Ontario's corporate community. Only those companies that flagrantly flaunt the law will be hit by the EBR's right-to-sue provision or, more likely, investigation by the investigation and enforcement branch and the MOE&E prosecution. And most environmentally responsible corporate citizens will applaud.

"Part IV of the EBR permits any two Ontario residents to request reviews (seeking amendments, repeals or revocations) of existing (environmentally significant) government policies, acts, regulations and instruments, or to suggest the need for new ones. This section should provide Ontario's corporate community with a perfect opportunity to request reviews of a range of matters. In fact, this section alone makes the EBR a significant government relations tool.

"For example, two Ontario residents (such as a CEO and COO of a company) could request a review of Ontario's recent municipal solid waste anti-incineration policy and regulation. Similarly, two other Ontario residents (such as a paper worker union member and the CEO of a pulp and paper company) could ask for a review of the zero-AOX goal in Ontario's MISA pulp and paper sector regulation.

"The request-for-review section of the EBR is important for corporate Ontario to be aware of, to be supportive of, and to utilize in efforts to make pragmatic environmental policy which truly protects the environment rather than just protecting environmental ideology."

They go on to say on many occasions in this document that in fact the corporate community has nothing to fear with this Environmental Bill of Rights. In fact, I believe that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has been among the groups to endorse this particular legislation.

The conclusions reached in this document, in this advice to industry, are the following:

"Mrs Grier's task force on the EBR recommended that the EBR 'recognize government's primary responsibility for protection of our environment but also provide the public with the means to hold governments accountable for that responsibility.' To that end, $4.5 million has been set aside over two years by a cash-starved government to establish the Environmental Commissioner and a staff of 12, bring an electronic registry on board for public consultation purposes, and to implement and operationalize the EBR in 14 ministries.

"The $4.5 million will be insufficient to achieve the desired ends, and thus concerns of the business community about the bill may be moot -- no money means no implementation means no results.

"Even so, more fundamental questions must be asked of the Rae government. Why do we need an EBR? Why do we need one now? There are two answers to these questions.

"First, the EBR is a political imperative for the NDP. Mrs Grier was determined to see such a bill passed in her opposition days. Further, the NDP likes to be perceived as the only political party that cares about, and knows how to protect, the environment.

"Second, the Rae government inherently thinks with an opposition mentality, as do many environmental groups. In this mode of thinking, bureaucrats who worked with the Liberals and the PCs before them cannot be trusted and must be held accountable for the responsibility of protecting the environment. In this regard, one government watcher remarked, 'With the EBR, the NDP will set up a bureaucracy to replace a bureaucracy they don't trust.'

"Is this good environmental public policy, or is this just something else to be reviewed?" That remains to be seen.

To continue, one of the problems with implementing an Environmental Bill of Rights is that you must have the resources to back it up. At the present time, the Ministry of Environment and Energy is having its budget cut, as are all ministry budgets throughout the government of Ontario.

1740

Hon Mr Wildman: Are you opposed to that?

Mr Bradley: Yes, I am opposed to it because I happen to believe that you judge a government's priorities by how much money it spends, by how much power you give to that ministry, by the resources and staff that are there. When you begin to cut out areas that are a priority to that government, when you begin to treat them as you treat all the other ministries, you run into great difficulty. The argument that I would make is that in fact the minister should be given more resources and more staff and more money to deal with environmental issues, and the government can spend less on those things which are not as big a priority to this government.

What is going to happen is that the people who are making the representations through the provisions of this bill will be taking the ministry staff in directions that are important to those people, but not necessarily important to the Minister of Environment. I know that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the member for Algoma, both have environmental priorities in their minds, issues that they would like to see dealt with expeditiously and very extensively.

But they're going to have their staff now following the advice and the intervention of individuals, and so, with a limited, restricted staff, with a lower budget, this government will not be able to carry out its own mandate to protect the environment while at the same time dealing with the provisions of this bill. If the government were at the same time prepared to allocate significantly greater resources when implementing this bill, then there would be an allaying of that particular concern.

In the budget of the ministry, I see that the air resources division, for instance, in the 1990-91 budget was close to $15 million being spent. That is now down in the estimates to $9.8 million. In water resources, $24.5 million in 1990-91; down to about, in the estimates, if they pass, $19.2 million. I express sympathy for and concern for the Minister of Environment and Energy when these fewer resources are devoted to his ministry and he cannot carry out his responsibilities as I'm sure he would like to have them carried out.

I know there is money for a consultant to advise the minister on how to answer his mail. I know they've had money for that consultant. I can tell you how you do that: You simply get the mail off your assistants' desks, because that's what I had to do, get it off the assistants' desks, and move it along quickly. I know there are far more assistants available over there these days. The second is, I drove by 135 St Clair Avenue and they seemed to be tearing up the trees in the garden there to plant a new group of trees in the garden, a desert garden. I don't know where they have the money for that, but they happen to have it.

I would be much more interested in seeing the minister present to the House an evaluation of and a progress report on remedial action plans around this province, because there appears to be virtually nothing being done in terms of funding and implementing the remedial action groups that are around the various hot spots in Ontario.

I well recall the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in many years gone by standing in this House and justifiably urging immediate action in the implementation of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. Well, it's way, way behind in its implementation today, and yet I would venture to say that the annual reporting of the Ministry of Environment, the effluent reporting, will be better because we have so many industries closed down, so little economic activity taking place. It'll be similar to Ontario Hydro now not needing the capacity it has. By the way, I notice that Ontario Hydro is now exporting electrical power, something I never thought in my lifetime I would ever see an NDP government allow -- the exporting of electrical power from this province -- but I understand the circumstances.

I've been looking forward to the minister standing in the House and announcing the full implementation of the clean air program, a MISA, if you will, for the air emissions in this province. Yet in three years we have seen absolutely no action, except I have seen some action. The acid rain office has been closed down or cut way back in the Ministry of Environment; it must be solved, there must be no more acid rain in this province.

I express concern, and justifiably so, about the appropriate funding of the investigation and enforcement branch of the Ministry of Environment. There are people in the ministry who have always wanted to see that come under an authority that is not an independent authority. I raised this with the minister. I hope by raising it in the House he pushed aside any who were suggesting a reorganization within the ministry that would allow interference with the investigation and enforcement branch by putting it together with certain other branches whose job is significantly different from the investigation and enforcement branch.

I hope it's not regionalized. I hope there isn't a movement around to reduce the power and influence of the investigation and enforcement branch. I know that branch is not popular with the vice-president, pollution control, of any particular corporation or of any polluters in this province, but I can tell you it's extremely important that this branch be expanded, that it be given the appropriate resources and that it be provided with absolute independence from political interference and from interference by those whose mandate is not to prosecute and to bring people to justice.

In addition to that, I notice that there is not much progress in the implementation of the low smog gas program. It will be coming, but for three years there has been no progress in that regard. You haven't had the Globe and Mail on your back, you haven't had the CBC on your back, you haven't had anybody on your back, and that's unfortunate because that means that it's hard to secure support from cabinet colleagues and from the Premier's office, who are concerned with other things.

I know how hard it's been for you the last few years to get anything through cabinet and through that mess that sits down there that blocks things. Otherwise, you would have reduced the Reid vapour pressure. The low smog gas would be genuinely lower smog gas, such as they have in the New England states at the present time. And don't let the corporations tell you they can't do it, because they can, but you've obviously let them do that.

I notice as well that the Toronto Star wrote an article about the inspection of vehicles and said, "You must set up a program, as the previous government was going to do, to inspect, as they have in British Columbia, the vehicles on an annual basis or biannual basis." Now we hear some noises that might happen. It's already been done for the lower mainland in British Columbia. There was a time when Ontario led in all those initiatives, and now it has taken a different government to do so. We can do it in Ontario if we want to place the emphasis there.

I know you're very concerned because you're behind in the implementation of your CFC regulations. That must be very disconcerting to the Premier's office. They must be beside themselves, because they would like to present, before this session's out, some knowledge of environmental progress.

I notice that the report that was commissioned by your government on the Niagara Escarpment Commission in fact is going to do in the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and I know the former minister must share my view because she and I have many views we share. Out comes the report, and the report starts to recommend that you reduce the powers of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Everyone here remembers Project X, right across the front page of the Globe and Mail, CBC call-in shows: Project X. What has happened is that the last government, after a large confrontation between the Minister of the Environment and another ministry, decided not to proceed with that and this government has said: "Well, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has won out. We're going to streamline the process and everything will be fine." I'm disappointed because I thought this government would hold firm on that.

I notice that the farm land Stephen Lewis talked about with great affection, the farm land which was being lost acres by the day, in fact is still being lost under an NDP government. I was hopeful, because I'd read the Agenda for People, because I remember the questions asked in this House, that there'd be some very strong rules and regulations which would ensure that farm land was protected, because I know members on all sides of this House feel that's extremely important.

1750

So we have a bill which essentially is a political document. It is a bill in which, as I quoted from another article, the only thing that is similar to the original bill introduced in opposition is the title. It is in fact a well-watered-down bill brought in after three years and after ignoring many of the problems that confront the environment. I only hope that the government will turn its attention to environmental issues which are near and dear to so many of us in this House, including, I'm sure, the previous Environment minister of this government and the present Environment minister.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, I think unanimous consent has been agreed among the three parties to dispense with questions and answers on this and the remaining speeches to be made, and that the member for Etobicoke West have 10 minutes to speak and five minutes be given after his speech to the Minister of Environment and Energy to wrap up. We actually will be sitting just briefly after 6 o'clock so we can fulfil a commitment to pass this bill this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Stockwell: I appreciate the opportunity to take 10 minutes of the House's time to speak to this issue. As I've suggested in opportunities for two-minute responses to some of the comments made by the government members and others, there is some paradox, some concerns I have about this bill and the fact that it doesn't fit with what the government said its policy on the Environmental Bill of Rights was in opposition.

I have a very difficult time, because I was a member of Metro Toronto council when the bill was introduced with respect to environmental rights and concerns in terms of corporations, and I remember vividly, as the member who was the mayor of East York would recall vividly, about our prosecuting a polluter in Metropolitan Toronto. We prosecuted that polluter on a number of occasions for polluting the water system in Metropolitan Toronto. It got to the point where the owner of that business, under the legislation that was given us by the then Liberal government, in fact had to serve time in jail because he was convicted of chronically polluting the waters in the region of Metropolitan Toronto.

That was a very interesting time. The environmentalists and people outside this august chamber were saying, "This is the kind of tough environmental law that's needed in a place like the province of Ontario to ensure that we treat our citizens in the same way that we would expect the private sector, the government and everyone else to be treated."

So I find it very strange that a government like the NDP, which in opposition pushed for this kind of tough, hard-hitting legislation, should now be before this Legislature offering up an Environmental Bill of Rights for the people of this province and not have that Environmental Bill of Rights apply to them. To me, that is so unbelievable.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): To who?

Mr Stockwell: To you. To you on landfill site issues; to you in Durham, to you in York and to you in Peel. You believe that people who own private businesses, if they don't live up to the letter of the law, should go to jail, yet you don't believe that your laws that you write should even apply to you and your government and your agencies and your people like the IWA. That to me is unbelievable, and that to me really cuts to the heart of this issue and why I don't believe this can be taken as a serious attempt by any government to deal with the Environmental Bill of Rights.

If they were truly serious, the people in the region of Peel, Vaughan, Durham and Metropolitan Toronto would truly have an opportunity to do something they've never been able to do under this government, which is to have a full environmental assessment hearing on the megasuperdump sites that are going into their region against their objections.

To me, it is fundamental in any quest for any credibility on this issue that if a government is to pass a piece of legislation, that legislation must apply not only to the private sector, not only to the people of the province, but it must surely apply to them. If it does not apply to them, I ask why. Since this bill has been introduced, I've asked why on a number of occasions and have not heard a reasonable response. All I hear is, "Because we are exempt, because we set up a different policy, a different stream, a different process." I say bunk.

If this is good legislation, if this is fair legislation, it should apply across the board to all citizens in the province of Ontario. Where are the environmental groups that used to be out there during previous administrations, standing up and renouncing governments for doing just this kind of thing? It is very disappointing, but I'm beginning to understand where these environmental groups have gone. They've gone to the public payroll on the Environment ministry's payroll. That's where our private citizens have gone who used to stand up and rail against this kind of legislation. They can't rail any more because they've been co-opted by a paycheque.

These are the kinds of things the citizens are saying to me. And I see them, I see them across the province. You ask the minister. We know they are. We don't hear from them any more, and that is concerning; not to me, but it should concern the minister as well.

Hon Mr Philip: Tell us who has invited you in, Chris. Where have you been?

Mr Stockwell: Where have I been? I've been here for the last few hours. If you'd like an itinerary, I can certainly supply you with it, but I don't know if right now is the time.

Let me move on. We talk about funding. Where's the money? Nobody's come forward and said $4.5 million is enough. You know that's not enough, Mr Minister, you know full well it's not enough. You're going to need enough money to implement this kind of broad, wide-ranging legislation, in which two people, two citizens of the province over the age of 18, can practically shut down anything. If two people of reasonable intent can shut down any kind of development, any kind of initiative, then you're going to need more than $4.5 million. Any decent environmental assessment on any small project alone would cost more than $4.5 million. On any development that took place in Metropolitan Toronto in the past 10 years, it alone would cost $4.5 million. You know, Mr Speaker, as I know, as the Liberals know and as the NDP know, that $4.5 million is not nearly enough to staff this kind of comprehensive bill of rights, an act respecting the environment of Ontario.

Finally, in the short time I have to speak, we know why this bill is before us. We know why this bill is underfunded. We know why this was brought forward at this time, three years after you promised it.

Mr White: Why?

Mr Stockwell: To enlighten the member from Durham, which I'm very happy to do and which I do on a number of occasions: Why? Because it's a veiled attempt by this government to try and fulfil a campaign promise with something that doesn't even begin to address the issue.

I ask the minister to go back to those heady days in opposition when any promise was easily made, any demand was easily met. From those heady days in opposition, read your legislation the minister from Etobicoke-Lakeshore brought forward. Read her environmental bill of rights then and compare it to this today. The comparison is laughable. The arguments aren't even worth making. What we see before us today is a painful imitation of what you offered up in opposition.

This will allow them to go back to the people in 1995, hopefully double their poll results from say 8% to 16%, and say: "We dealt with the issues in Ontario. We brought in a watered-down, milquetoast Environmental Bill of Rights that applied to everybody but us, and we put superdumps around Metro, and we did all kinds of things we said we were going to do." But in reality, it didn't qualify.

1800

Now the minister's moved over here. He wanted my itinerary earlier. There's big head Philip.

We move on. We go to the final conclusion, the final analysis of this report. The final analysis is that the people of Ontario will decide whether this is truly an Environmental Bill of Rights. The environmental groups will decide whether this is truly an Environmental Bill of Rights. I would suggest to you, once they understand that the $4.5 million will not go very far, once they understand that this does not apply to the government and any of the megaprojects you could put within the province of Ontario, and once they understand that it doesn't carry the same weight that you promised to carry in the campaign of 1990, this will be seen for what it is: a cheap, partisan, political trick to try to score points at the expense of the taxpayers.

The Acting Speaker: By unanimous consent previously, the honourable Minister of Environment and Energy is to wrap up.

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the accommodation the members have made. I want to thank all members of the House who have participated in this debate for their presentations. While I was not here for all of them, I was kept apprised of it by my parliamentary assistant, who was here for the debate. I want to also say that I'm pleased that all parties are prepared to support this legislation in principle at second reading, and I'm looking forward to the passage at second reading.

I've tried to listen very carefully to some of the concerns that have been raised, and I've listened particularly carefully to the member for St Catharines and the member for Etobicoke West, although it was difficult. A lot of people, even including the member for St Catharines, talked about the possibility of increased bureaucracy and concern that this was a new bureaucracy, a new layer of approvals process, appeals process that would delay and make development more and more difficult. A lot of members talked about costs, the projected costs, and expressed concern that this was going to take resources away from other possible projects and so on, even from environmental protection, in the words of the member for St Catharines.

I want to make clear that at the same time members of this House got up, including even the last speaker, who must be a born-again environmental crusader, and said that this legislation isn't tough enough, that it doesn't go far enough to protect the environment, doesn't go far enough to require corporations and government to comply with environmental protection. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand, "We don't want a lot of bureaucracy, we don't want a lot of spending, we won't want additional layers of approvals and appeals," and on the other hand say: "Look, you aren't going far enough. This isn't effective enough. You need more power. You need more investigators. You need more avenues for appeal." You can't have it both ways.

The point of this legislation is that it is based on the work of my colleague the former minister when she was in opposition and when she was Minister of the Environment, but it isn't based only on the work she did, which was so important. A number of members in this debate have raised concerns about the fact that there has been delay, that we didn't introduce this legislation immediately on election, that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore did not properly move immediately after being appointed and bring in this legislation. The fact is, what she did is that she went out there and consulted widely with members of the environmental community, with members of the business community, and she set up a task force that involved government people, environmental representatives and representatives of the business community.

I know that the members, including the member for Etobicoke West, who is railing about the fact that we didn't introduce it immediately, if we had, would have been in this House railing about the fact that we hadn't consulted with the business community. You can't have it both ways. The member has a very interesting approach. He says, "We don't agree with what you said you were going to do, but if you don't do exactly what you said you were going to do, we'll criticize you." That's a strange approach: "We'll criticize you because of what you said you're going to do, but if you do it we'll criticize you as well, and if you don't do it we'll also criticize you."

You understand over there that opposition must criticize, but in 15 years in serving in this Legislature the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore proved that she would criticize constructively, and she put forward ideas. She brought forward this legislation. She brought the public to a consensus, a consensus of the labour people, the environmental people and the business people who would support the Environmental Bill of Rights, an achievement that not one of those people over there could ever achieve because all they ever do is criticize. They don't bring forward constructive views.

The fact is that we are going to move very carefully to institute this. The Ministry of Environment and Energy will comply within the first year, and the experience of that ministry will assist other ministries in cutting costs and ensuring that we can indeed have statements of environmental values that can be judged by the Environmental Commissioner and that will show the way.

The fact is that people support this. We will make it work. I support this. My colleagues support this. I appreciate the fact that despite their overcriticisms, in their hearts the members of the opposition also support this.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The time has run out.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wasn't in the House earlier when I might have had the opportunity to welcome the member for Niagara Falls as another female Speaker of this House. I feel that the appointment of, by name, Margaret Harrington, the member for Niagara Falls, is a wonderful decision and selection to that very important position as a Speaker in the chair. I would like to congratulate her on behalf of all of us in the House and look forward to her being in that very responsible role for all of us.

Ms Harrington: I would like to thank all members of the House. I certainly will strive to live up to everyone's expectations.

The Acting Speaker: Second reading is now complete. The Minister of Environment and Energy has moved second reading of Bill 26. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Mr Wildman: The general government committee.

The Acting Speaker: The general government committee is where the bill shall go.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the week of October 4.

On Monday, October 4, and Tuesday, October 5, we will give second reading consideration to Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, with respect to construction trade unions.

On Wednesday, we will give third reading to Bill 42, stable funding, followed by third reading of Bill 7, municipal waste management.

On Thursday, October 7, during private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 25, second reading of Bill 92, standing in the name of Mrs Mathyssen; and ballot item number 26, second reading of Bill 44, standing in the name of Mr Morin.

On Thursday afternoon, if needed, we will continue second reading consideration of Bill 80 and third reading consideration of Bill 7.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, October 4, at 1:30 pm.

The House adjourned at 1810.

September 30, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABORATORY SERVICES

SENIOR CITIZENS

TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS / TRADUCTEURS ET INTERPRÈTES

EARTHQUAKE IN INDIA

CORMORANT POPULATION

CELSO BARICHELLO

MINOR HOCKEY

FERRY SERVICE FEES

BALLS FALLS THANKSGIVING EVENTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ORAL QUESTIONS

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

CASINO GAMBLING

TAX REVENUES

INMATES' ALLOWANCES

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

RETAIL SALES TAX

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

RETAIL SALES TAX

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

CASINO GAMBLING

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

CASINO GAMBLING

FERRY SERVICE FEES

CASINO GAMBLING

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

CORRECTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE