Hansard Transcript 1993-Oct-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise to bring to the attention of the House that once again the Daily Bread Food Bank has had to extend its Thanksgiving food drive in order to meet its target.

I remind the members of the Legislature, especially those on the government benches, of the position of their caucus in 1990 when they presented a dissenting opinion on the report on food banks prepared by the standing committee on social development of this Legislature. At that time, the position of the NDP caucus was very clear, and I quote, "The government's continued reliance on food banks is an abdication of provincial responsibility and an improper exploitation of community goodwill and voluntary resources."

This NDP government must now examine its very own record in addressing the real root causes of poverty. I urge the NDP government, on behalf of the food banks right across this province, to finally come to terms with its responsibilities.

I ask, as does my leader Lyn McLeod: When will you admit that your policies are killing jobs? When will you admit that the result is that more and more Ontarians, often in deep humility and often in despair, depend on food banks for their daily bread?

OLDER WORKERS

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): In the summer of 1991, I undertook to assist my constituent Mr Stanley Saleta in his quest to access benefits under the program for older workers. More than three years later and after numerous telephone calls, and letters from the minister on this matter, the matter has still not been resolved.

In September 1992, the minister assured me that the matter was under review and that a decision would be made by the end of October. Mr Saleta, laid off in March 1991, has exhausted all his unemployment insurance benefits, has no prospect for re-employment and has found it necessary to apply for subsidized housing because of his strained financial circumstances.

This delay is totally unacceptable, and Mr Saleta is but one of my many constituents who has contacted my office after attempting to access funding through the program for older workers. Typical of this government, this program has been a failure and I call on the minister to act now to help these people in their time of need.

WILSON HEAD

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I rise today to pay tribute to and to remember a community leader, a pioneer in the struggle for racial justice. Dr Wilson Head was born in Georgia and educated in the United States, where he became active in the NAACP to further and improve the conditions of black people in America. He emigrated to Canada because he wanted to live in a more tolerant society, yet he recognized that there was racial discrimination in many places.

The struggle to reduce prejudice and discrimination, to the benefit of all Canadians, has been contributed to and sometimes led by this most remarkable man. Dr Head has devoted most of his life to the promotion of human rights and better race relations in Canada and indeed the world.

From his early involvement in the NAACP in the United States, Dr Head has continued to demonstrate his commitment to human and civil rights across Canada as an active member of the Organization for World Peace through Religion, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the social planning council and many other organizations.

As the founding president of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and as a dedicated member of its board of directors for the last 16 years, Dr Head has been involved in many of the activities of the urban alliance. He has made a major contribution to the field of race relations in such diverse areas as education, policing, media, employment, law and public policy. His research has added enormously to our knowledge and understanding of the patterns of discrimination and inequality in Canada.

Dr Wilson Head died on October 7. Canadians have lost a great advocate, but more than that, Canadians have lost a man who believed in, who saw more possible in Canada, and so was willing to continue the fight for the ultimate promise of what is Canadian: social justice and equality for all.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Today is day 20 of the Lambton County Secondary School strike. While any school strike poses its own set of difficulties, there are some extraordinary circumstances involved in the Lambton dispute.

First, all of the schools in Lambton county are run on the semester system. The School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, Bill 100, became legislation in 1975, long before the semester system became commonplace in Ontario secondary schools. Clearly, Bill 100 should be revised to meet the needs of the 1990s. Indeed, representatives from all political parties as well as school boards and teachers' federations have called for such an update. But that does not resolve the immediate issue of getting the kids in Lambton county back to school.

To date, students have already lost almost a quarter of the class time for subjects they are currently enrolled in. This kind of time lost is simply not acceptable in a province which is struggling to fight its way out of a recession and into a global economy which demands that our students be able to compete with the very best in the world.

It is time for the Minister of Education and Training to bring the board and teachers' representatives together and hammer out a solution with no further delay. The kids of Lambton county deserve no less.

1340

ORILLIA WATERFOWL FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The vibrancy of a modern lifestyle coupled with the heritage of the past make the city of Orillia and the surrounding townships of Mara, Oro, Orillia, Medonte and Rama a perfect backdrop to showcase Canada's finest waterfowl and wildlife artists. They have carvers, photographers, authors, sculptors and artisans during the first annual Orillia Waterfowl Festival from October 15 to 17.

Six exhibit locations will feature carving competitions, duck- and goose-calling demonstrations and competitions, as well as auctions, sales, photography competitions, waterfowl identification and duck banding. Exhibits are open 4 pm to 9 pm on Friday, 10 am to 9 pm on Saturday and 10 am to 5 pm on Sunday.

Proceeds from the Orillia Waterfowl Festival are dedicated to the conservation of waterfowl and their habitat through already established groups acting in the cause of conservation.

I sincerely believe events like the Orillia Waterfowl Festival will go a long way towards educating the public that our wetlands are a crucial component of the natural environment.

I congratulate Ducks Unlimited, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Orillia Fish and Game Conservation Club, Twin Lakes Conservation Club and other established groups, sponsors and volunteers who have supported this festival because they recognize that no one person has all the answers on how to save our environment. We all have an important role to play.

Come to Orillia this weekend.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS WEEK; ELECTION OF PAPANDREOU

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): This week, between October 11 and 17, Good Neighbours Week is being celebrated across Ontario for the first time. I'm pleased to announce among the 45 regions, cities, towns and villages across Ontario that the borough of East York will launch its Good Neighbours campaign this coming Thursday with special events.

Three years ago Good Neighbours was launched as an initiative of the Office for Seniors' Issues of the Ministry of Citizenship and was designed as a public awareness program to encourage individuals and whole communities to respond on a personal basis to the needs of others. In particular, it was designed to create informal networks of support for those who are frail, isolated and vulnerable and to complement the professional services that were already available. In short, the aim was to create more caring and friendly neighbourhoods.

I would also like to congratulate all the communities, especially those in my riding of York East, that have worked to make this program such a success, and the Office for Seniors' Issues for having launched this invaluable initiative.

I would also like to address a second issue today. I would like to ask all members to join me in congratulating the Greek community on the election of PASOK's leader, Andreas Papandreou, to power in Greece. I spent last Sunday evening with the members of PASOK at their headquarters on the Danforth as we excitedly awaited the result of the election. October 10, 1993, marks a victorious day for social democrats, and I wish to say, "Zito Greece and Zito PASOK."

THIRD PARTY MEMBERS

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): During the current trade dispute between Quebec and Ontario, the member for Don Mills wrote Ontario municipalities urging them to follow the lead of Ottawa-Carleton and implement tough measures against Quebec construction firms.

Well, it turns out that Ottawa-Carleton does not yet have such a policy in place, and Peter Clarke, the regional chair, told the member to call him before talking about what is and is not the region's position on Quebec. These days, such mistakes have become standard in the Conservatives' approach to politics: Talk first and find out the facts after.

On the social contract, the Conservative leader said, "Bravo, Bob Rae." Then days later he reversed himself and began talking about the flaws of the government's social contract legislation.

Then there is Helle Hulgaard. Here, the Tories called a press conference to show off this unfortunate woman who decided to quit her job to go on welfare. But after a lot of bad press, the Conservative leader is not mentioning her any more.

Now we have the member for Don Mills talking about Ottawa-Carleton's position in the Quebec-Ontario trade dispute, and it turns out he is wrong.

Being responsible in opposition means digging for correct facts and, in the light of these facts, calling the government to account. Too often the Conservatives have been opposing according to what is in the newspaper that day, and too often they are wrong.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The NDP has been conducting secret discussions without public consultation to introduce user fees for services for vulnerable children in the province of Ontario beginning on November 1.

As part of the NDP expenditure control plan, the NDP plans to grab $4.3 million from parental contributions and user fees this fiscal year, and $6.7 million in each of the next two years. This also includes a provincial grab of income from federal transfer payments. The NDP have even discussed with child support agencies the charging of fees prior to investigating complaints of possible child sexual assaults.

These moneys won't be channelled back into children's programs as in the past, but rather will be treated as non-retainable income to be given to the Treasurer instead as a form of taxation.

The federal government pays child tax credits, or baby bonuses, for each child, and pays these funds as a trust directly to the children's aid society and other child support agencies for the sole benefit, support and protection of these children. This year these Ontario agencies will receive $662,000 directly from Ottawa for this purpose. But vulnerable children are not a priority for this government. It's an offensive set of priorities shown when it wastes taxpayers' money building an in-ground swimming pool and additional recreational upgrades for juvenile delinquents in the Syl Apps detention centre for young offenders in Oakville for about the exact same $4.3 million.

The NDP plan to charge user fees for services for orphans and sexually abused children is an outrage.

KINGSTON EXHIBIT

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): A bit of Kingston heritage has moved to Queen's Park. "Kingston in the l890s" is the title of an exhibit in a display case in the east wing of the Legislature. It is one of many displays designed to mark the centennial of the Ontario Legislative Building by giving a glimpse of life throughout the province 100 years ago.

The Kingston exhibit describes, with the help of photos, three activities that occurred in and around Kingston city hall during the l890s. One display shows how city hall served as a setting for part of the funeral of Sir John A. Macdonald in June 1891. A second is a description of the first Canadian institution for women's professional education, the Kingston Medical College, which was founded in 1883. Because of the hostility of male students on the campus at Queen's, it was housed in the upper reaches of Kingston city hall near the dome. The third display describes the Kingston city market. By the number of people, horses and sleighs shown in one fascinating colour picture, the market was as popular then as it is today.

The Kingston exhibit underlines the fact that city hall played as central a role in the life of 1890s Kingston as it does now and reminds us that our heritage, in the words of exhibit designer Richard Gold, determines who we are and what matters to us.

I'm sure all members join me in commending the people in the interparliamentary and public relations branch and from the various museums, archives and cultural societies across Ontario in mounting the centennial community exhibit program. Their hard work has provided us an imaginative way to appreciate the vital role the Legislature has played in the history and democratic tradition of Ontario.

As members view the displays in our building, I urge them to reflect on the opportunity we have as legislators to pass new heritage legislation that will strengthen the ability of Ontarians to ensure that our past plays a vital role in our future.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): In August, Metropolitan Toronto amended a bylaw to make it illegal for cabs for the handicapped based outside Toronto to pick up passengers within Metro's boundaries. Prior to this amendment, these specially designed taxis were exempted from the rule which gave Metro cabs a monopoly on fares within their municipality.

This is a classic case of ignoring the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Had Metro council done its homework, a favourite expression of Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion, it would have noticed the years of cooperation between Peel's Transhelp and Metro's Wheel-Trans service. This was based on the premise of better service and greater efficiency for the clientele, the handicapped, rather than business rivalry between Transhelp and Wheel-Trans.

Before this cooperation is jeopardized, it would be advisable for Metro council to repeal the amendment. Luckily, cooler heads have prevailed and the two service agencies have carried on business as usual, and the authorities have assisted by laying no charges to date. Metro council has shown some goodwill and some good sense by agreeing not to apply the amendment to existing contracts. However, these expire on December 1, 1994.

Before years of cooperation and goodwill are destroyed in the battle over political turf, it would be advisable for Metro council to fix what they broke: Repeal the amendment and save our transportation services for the disabled.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JOSEPH MACDONALD

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Many people throughout Ontario were shocked and disheartened by news last Thursday concerning the shooting death of Constable Joseph MacDonald of the Sudbury Regional Police.

Constable MacDonald was a kind, compassionate officer with a keen sense of duty and commitment to his community. The Premier, the Treasurer, local members and I attended Constable MacDonald's funeral in Sudbury on Saturday, and I can tell you that we were all deeply moved by the outpouring of respect for the officer and sorrow for his family. In addition to his many friends and relations, hundreds of fellow officers from police services across the province and across the continent came to pay tribute to a man who was affectionately known by his colleagues as the Gentle Giant.

On behalf of the government and all members, I would like to extend deepest sympathies to Constable MacDonald's family. Constable MacDonald and the thousands of other men and women who serve and protect the people of Ontario are not and will not be forgotten by this government. I would ask all members to join me in a moment of silence to pay tribute to Constable MacDonald.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members and indeed our visitors in the gallery to stand and observe a moment of silence, please.

The House observed a moment's silence.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I am pleased to announce to the Legislature today the potential to create more than 1,000 new jobs in northwestern Ontario and improve our sustainable forestry practices.

As a result of new technologies which enable the forest industry to use what were previously considered hardwood species of little value, the Ministry of Natural Resources is able to identify an environmentally sustainable hardwood timber supply for the production of value added forest products. The Ministry of Natural Resources is inviting forest product companies to submit proposals for the development of up to three new wood product mills in northwestern Ontario. MNR is prepared to make available a long-term sustainable supply of hardwood timber.

This is a significant economic opportunity. In northwestern Ontario we have one of the last large unused hardwood supplies in all of North America that can be managed on a sustainable basis. Poplar and white birch are particularly favourable due to their relatively short regeneration periods. In many areas of northwestern Ontario, harvestable poplar can be grown in 50 years or less. A report released by the Forest Industry Action Group refers to our potential now to use new technologies so that we can utilize these hardwood species that were previously considered to have little value.

There is a large poplar and white birch supply found in an area which spans from Lake Nipigon to the Manitoba border. Some 820,000 cords per year of this hardwood timber can be made available for up to three new-technology wood product mills developed to produce value added forest products.

Most of this wood supply is located on crown land that is already licensed. Access for new ventures will be negotiated with licence holders using guidelines developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The ministry will consider a range of proposals, from oriented strand board -- and, Mr Speaker, this is oriented strand board that I'm holding now. Mills which produce oriented strand board are in effect producing a plywood substitute that is used primarily in the housing industry. Another product is medium density fibreboard, which is used in the furniture industry.

Such mills cost up to $100 million to develop and can create more than 1,000 new jobs. There is great potential for Ontario's northern communities and forest industry both in domestic and foreign markets. Through this invitation for proposals, we want to encourage the forest industry to take advantage of an available resource and the potential of these markets for value added products. In fact, the Ministry of Natural Resources has already been approached by a number of major international companies interested in exploring these new markets.

Our evaluation of these proposals will be guided by the government's sustainable forest policies and principles contained in the recently released comprehensive forest policy framework. In keeping with our policy of sustainable forestry, areas of natural and scientific importance will be protected. Old-growth red and white pine forests will not be affected by this initiative.

Never has public interest in the sustainability of our forests, or the multitude of other forest values, been greater. The sustainability of forests, the sustainability of northern communities and the sustainability of industries are key to our direction in forest management.

The Ministry of Natural Resources will be providing a prospectus to all forest companies operating in the province, with details on how to submit proposals. We will also provide the document to the major international companies that have already expressed an interest in developing new ventures. The Ministry of Natural Resources will accept proposals until December 3 of this year and will report back to me with recommendations early in the new year.

JOSEPH MACDONALD

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'd like to take a moment on behalf of my leader, Lyn McLeod, and our caucus to share the expression of the Solicitor General regarding the tragic shooting of Constable MacDonald in Sudbury. We share in the anger, frustration and sense of loss shown by the police officers and people all across Ontario at this tragic event.

Mike Brown, the MPP for Algoma-Manitoulin, attended the funeral on behalf of our caucus. He shared in the community's sense of loss and also in the respect the community showed for the commitment Constable MacDonald showed as a police officer and as a member of the community very active in a number of community groups.

On a personal note, I'd like to extend to Constable MacDonald's family our expression, although it may be small solace, that Constable MacDonald was a hero. To them, I would like to extend our condolences and pay tribute to the family's courage as well.

Police officers can often face danger every day of their professional lives. That can often take a daily toll on their families as well and sometimes can lead to tragic results, as it did in this case. I want to assure the family that Constable MacDonald's heroism will not be forgotten.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'd like to respond to the announcement made by the Minister of Natural Resources today. I would just like to indicate that throughout the announcement he indicates "potential," the potential of opening new mills in northwestern Ontario. I can't emphasize that word enough.

As we know, the ministry is now inviting companies to submit proposals, and I honestly do hope that he receives these proposals.

I'm also happy to hear that he has actually listened to the Forest Industry Action Group, because in the not-too-distance past we know that the minister had not listened to groups such as the Independent Loggers and the Independent Foresters throughout the northwest.

While the minister is making this announcement today, I must suggest that there are still a lot of matters out there that pertain to the forestry industry that need his immediate action.

Just recently, we've talked a lot about the stumpage fees and crown dues. I must indicate to the minister that there still is a lot of uncertainty out there regarding these two issues.

Reforestation -- silviculture -- is another thing the minister must agree to look at in terms of being able to welcome new industry into the area, to encourage it to come into the area.

One issue that has been brought to my attention on more than one occasion is regarding the building of roads and the maintenance of these roads. We know the ministry was involved in helping out the local private contractor in getting to the product, but lately it has fallen back on that commitment.

Yet the industry is still paying what we call a bonus rate of 33 cents per cubic metre on crown dues. These are crown dues that are to go towards this road building and maintenance, but actually do not find their way back.

So, Minister, I would just like to wish you all the very best. What you've given is a potential announcement. I do hope that we do have a good number of companies that will come forward and take advantage of what you have offered them today. I know that jobs in northwestern Ontario are not only important to your constituents but are very important to mine as well.

We know that the forestry industry is one of the base industries in the north and one that has to be explored. Again, I must say that you must make movement on some of the issues that have been plaguing this industry in the past and that continue to plague the industry before we will attract that new investment that you are looking for.

So again, Minister, I wish you all the very best and I look forward to the proposals that will come forward with what you have offered today.

1400

JOSEPH MACDONALD

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I too rise in the House today to pay tribute to the late Sudbury police constable, Joseph MacDonald. By all accounts, Joe MacDonald was the kind of officer any chief of police would be pleased to have on his force and any citizen proud to have protecting their community.

Joe MacDonald was not just a top-notch cop; he was also a first-rate person who cared a great deal about other people. From captaining the football team at Carleton University to working with young people in public housing, Joe MacDonald got involved.

Over the past six or seven years I've risen in this House on a number of occasions to comment on the shooting deaths or woundings of police officers in this province. Although no one doubts the sincerity of the remarks expressed in this chamber today, I have to wonder, as do many of you, I'm sure, about deaths in vain.

I co-chair our party's task force on crime, justice and community safety. Right across this province, we've heard the frustration of police officers and the public over what is viewed as a lax justice system and the failure of politicians to provide our police officers with adequate and appropriate resources and equipment. Those widespread concerns ring loud and clear around the circumstances of this good cop's senseless, brutal and apparently avoidable killing.

We all convey our condolences to Joe's widow, Nancy, a former resident of my home town, Brockville; their two young children; Constable MacDonald's parents; his fellow officers and the people of Sudbury.

But perhaps an even greater tragedy is the reality that Joe MacDonald's death was almost certainly an avoidable one. There is clear evidence of a failure of the parole system and a failure to catch those who breach the system. If anything good is to come out of this tragedy, we must fix the system now. We must find effective ways to get violent criminals off the streets until they prove they're no longer a threat to society. The people want action now; no more delays or excuses. In Joe MacDonald's memory, let us resolve to act now.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): While we're pleased to hear of the initiative which has the potential -- and I emphasize the word "potential" -- to create 1,000 jobs in northern Ontario, I must remind the minister and the government that this is only a first step in a very important process in the economic revitalization of northern Ontario.

I must remind the minister that in order to attract and maintain business in Ontario, he must look at a wide range of issues. For example, does the province have competitive labour laws? Is our level of taxation excessive? Can these new businesses be assured of an affordable supply of electricity in the north? These are important issues which have to be addressed over the next few years.

We welcome the announcement by the Minister of Natural Resources and we can hope he has the support of all of his cabinet colleagues in pursing this very important initiative. My colleague the critic for Natural Resources has a sore throat today; I'm making this on behalf of him because he wanted me to speak with regard to the statement that was made by the minister.

One of the concerns that's out there is, it will be interesting to see how many new mills will be established in northern Ontario. He's talking about millions of dollars going into mills. Is that where the 1,000 jobs are coming from? It'll also be interesting to see how many foreign industries are going to come here.

It would be interesting to know the study that's being done to provide for an in-depth study with regard to new mills. Has there not been a study done already? How can you make the announcement when you don't know what the study is?

They're supposed to be reporting back to the minister, I understand, some time in the new year. Well, another task force costs dollars, and I would like to know when the first job is going to be created, other than the ones on the task force and by consultants. While northern Ontario, I hope, welcomes this announcement, we think it's a step in the right direction.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I also would like to add the fact of potential. I don't think too many people are looking at potential job opportunities. They're looking at real job opportunities. There don't appear to be any opportunities in this announcement today that there will be any real job opportunities for a very long period of time. We would be hopeful that it could be a little more positive for the people of the north in Ontario -- in fact, in general.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing, I invite all members to welcome to our chamber, seated in the members' gallery east, Mr Ivan Dzyuba, MP and Minister of Culture from Ukraine. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, we continue to hear concerns about the availability and access to bone marrow transplants at the Princess Margaret Hospital. We all appreciated the commitment that was made in this House last week by the Premier and his assurance that nobody in the province would be denied access to this very critical treatment procedure.

Minister, the hospitals really do need more than a verbal assurance and they need more than just a direction that they must provide the service. The hospitals need some clear understanding of where the funding is going to come from if they're to continue to provide the care and the treatment that's needed.

It seems to be clear that at this point the Princess Margaret Hospital doesn't know where the money is going to come from to be able to cover the increasing cost of bone marrow transplants. So again today we ask you, Minister, what are you doing to ensure that there will be access to bone marrow transplants in the province of Ontario? How are you going to keep the commitment that was made here in this place last week?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me repeat the commitment that the Premier made on behalf of this government that nobody in this province who needs a bone marrow transplant will be denied it because of the cost. But let me also assure the Leader of the Opposition that in the conversations with the Princess Margaret Hospital which we have had over the last few days, their operating plan was that there would be in the range of 60 bone marrow transplants provided in this fiscal year, 1993-94, and we are informed that they have every expectation that they will perform that many bone marrow transplants. So I think the concern and the worries that have been raised at this point are not based on the actual facts of the operation of that hospital.

Mrs McLeod: I'm concerned that the minister, in her response, fails to acknowledge the very real concerns that hospitals have about finding the funding over the course of this budget year and in fact in subsequent years for procedures like bone marrow transplants and for other critical procedures. I believe that we're going to see more and more examples of the kinds of problems the Princess Margaret is facing in providing access to this particular procedure.

We've had a concern expressed recently about access to kidney dialysis. The minister may be aware of the article written by Dr David Mendelssohn, medical director of the pre-dialysis clinic at the Toronto Hospital, who has expressed his concern "that all adult hospitals in Toronto that provide dialysis therapy are operating at beyond capacity and are facing further reductions in dialysis budgets this year." Toronto is already below the national average in its capacity to provide dialysis treatment.

Minister, in light of the fact that hospitals are facing even further reductions in their budgets, how will you ensure that there will be access to yet another critical medical treatment, and that is the access to kidney dialysis?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad to address that issue, because I too saw the article that was in the papers over the weekend. It was based on one authored about a year ago. Again, I'm happy to provide the Leader of the Opposition with the current facts, which are that the Ministry of Health has implemented a three-year, $23-million expansion project for dialysis services. The final phase of this project will be completed early in 1994. In the central region, that served by the Toronto Hospital and others, new dialysis services have been established in Oshawa and Orillia and the existing programs expanded in Toronto and Mississauga. Another new service for 40 haemodialysis patients will open in Mississauga early in 1994.

1410

Let me say in conclusion there are indeed problems. Procedures are becoming more commonly required and much more expensive. But part of our management of the system in these tough times is to meet those needs, and in this case they're being met, and well in advance.

Mrs McLeod: Again, the minister in her response fails to acknowledge the reality of the situation that the hospitals of this province are facing. The hospitals' problem is with their operating budgets, and with every further reduction this government has made over the course of the past year in hospitals' global operating budgets, their problems become more acute.

Dr Mendelssohn recognizes what the hospitals recognize, and that's that the most recent reductions under the government's social contract are putting every hospital in this province under tremendous pressure to provide access to critical services. The minister is surely aware that while her government and her ministry are reducing the funds available to hospitals for their operating costs by virtue of the social contract directions, that social contract legislation is not providing the hospitals with the tools to actually reduce their costs. You are reducing their budgets; you're giving them no basis on which to reduce their actual costs. The hospitals are in exactly the same position as ambulance operators. Once this minister and once this government wash their hands of any responsibility under the social contract to provide for critical services, they're left with either cutting services or running a deficit.

Minister, any way you look at it, the ability to provide critical health care services has been thrown into jeopardy, most recently by the social contract. I ask you again, what are you prepared to do to protect essential health care services and when will you stop just passing the buck?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Boy, do you ever change your tune. You really are a Liberal, aren't you? My goodness.

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes. As the Premier is saying, I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who was saying, "Just cut, just do it, pass it on."

Hon Mr Rae: That's right. "Just cut. Just walk away. Let them solve the problem. Just cut."

Hon Mrs Grier: In her question, the Leader of the Opposition does a disservice to the hospitals of this province. The hospitals of this province have over the last three years worked exceptionally well and creatively together to contain their costs. They have done that at the same time as they have provided better service, more service, more procedures and seen more patients. They are doing it in a way that contains the costs but improves the quality of care. It is not easy, and I don't want to portray it as being easy, and I know it is not easy for all of the staff in hospitals who wrestle with the current situation. But I think, rather than constantly carping or finding the things that are not being done well, some credit is due to the professionals in our system, who have managed to contain their costs and at the same time keep our health care system operating as one of the best in the world.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: Again the minister conveniently forgets that the only thing the social contract legislation left the hospitals with was a debt for providing their critical services some time after 1996. They're saying they cannot afford to run that kind of debt, and this government refuses to deal with it.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will place my second question to the Premier. Premier, last week in the House we raised our concern with the fact that the Ministry of Community and Social Services is planning to generate $4.3 million in the 1993-94 budget year through the levying of user fees on services that are provided under the Child and Family Services Act. That's $4.3 million, Premier, in the current budget year, and you will recognize that half of that budget year is already over.

The minister, in response to questions in the House, said that basic services that agencies provide to children and their families would not be subject to user fees, but on the other hand he said that in fact everything was open to consideration and they hadn't determined precisely what services were going to be affected.

We have a further piece of background information that went with the memorandum to the agencies which clearly indicates that the definition of "user fees" is a cash contribution made by parents towards non-residential services that their child receives. So clearly this is not just residential services that are being considered for user fees by this ministry.

Premier, I think it is your responsibility to ask this minister and to tell this House how you can possibly calculate that you will generate $4.3 million through user fees when there has been no determination of what services user fees will be imposed on.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will refer this to the minister responsible, the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the opportunity once again to comment on this matter. As I tried to indicate last week to the Leader of the Opposition, the discussion process that's going on now with representatives of the children's agencies will get us exactly the kinds of answers she's asking for today. What we have done is, yes, to set the target of the $4.3 million for this year, but we've clearly entered into a process of discussions with the agencies so we can have a better understanding of what the impact would be; what services it is reasonable to apply some form of parental contributions to and what services it is not appropriate to apply that fee to. That information is being gathered. There is a survey, the results of which we expect to get later this week. All of that information will go into helping us determine collectively with the agencies exactly how this measure will be implemented.

Mrs McLeod: It seems reasonable to re-place the first question, which is, how did you come up with a figure of $4.3 million, which is a very specific figure if you are in fact, as we know you are, still gathering data about where user fees are currently imposed in your ministry and how much revenue that generates?

The agencies that are affected by this are in a state of complete confusion over what you plan to do. They do not know which of their services are going to be subject to user fees. The families that are accessing those services don't know what they're going to have to pay user fees for. Minister, while you give us your assurances that essential services will not be affected, you cannot tell us or will not tell us what services you are planning to impose these fees on. You have said that everything is on the table, the agencies have been told that everything is still on the table, and we wonder how you can give us those assurances.

There is a statement in the memorandum that your ministry has circulated which clearly recognizes that there are some services that you are required by law to provide, and those include child protection. There is also a statement in that memorandum that says the ministry has not yet determined how it will ensure that even its capacity to provide services under the law will be protected. How can you give us an assurance that critical services to children and families will be protected if your own ministry does not know how to keep even its legal mandate?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think it's important to try to put this issue into a little broader perspective. The amount of money we are talking about is significant; I don't want to deny that in any way. But it is also $4.3 million, or $6.7 million, the annualized amount, out of a total expenditure of over $1 billion in this area, so I think we have to also look at it in that context.

I have said in this House, in responding to the leader's question last week, and can say again and have said publicly that we are not talking about affecting basic services. We are looking, through that process, at how to apply this measure in the most sensible of ways. Quite frankly, if as a result of those discussions we learn that in fact there are going to be problems in implementing this in the way in which we had anticipated, then we'll be more than ready to look at other ways in which this measure can be applied, in which the dollars can be found.

The member talks about the agencies being in a state of panic. I can tell her I had a discussion last Friday with some agencies and I don't think that would be the way I would categorize the issue. Certainly they don't necessarily agree with this measure, but they've also said to us, "Minister, if you tell us we have to find the money and if indeed we have to find the money, there are ways in which we can find these savings." I think it's important that we allow those discussions to continue. There is a meeting of the group next week and I am fully confident that we'll come up with a solution that everyone can live with.

Mrs McLeod: It still bemuses me how you can come up with a figure of $4.3 million when you're still looking for some answers as to how you're actually going to achieve it. The minister doesn't seem to want to address the fact that yes, there are going to be problems with implementation, that yes, they're going to have to look at concerns about the impact of these user fees on the services that children and families receive. Surely they would have looked at that before they came up with a figure of $4.3 million. And yes, Minister, that is a lot of money if it is coming from cash contributions made by parents.

1420

I realize you don't have your data in, but the agencies are telling us that it will be impossible to collect $4.3 million in user fees, whatever decisions you make about what services those are going to affect. Quite clearly, if you proceed with the $4.3 million, you are going to leave agencies with critical funding shortfalls. We have already seen that essential health care services are being jeopardized by your government's refusal to accept responsibility for how it is going to protect those services.

I ask you today, what will happen if mandated children's services are not going to be able to generate the revenue that you're counting on from user fees? How will you protect those mandated user services? Will you continue to cut their funding by the $4.3 million? Will they then have to cut the services, or will you guarantee today to make up any shortfall in the $4.3 million that you expected to collect in user fees if it proves that your user fees will not generate that kind of revenue without jeopardizing services to children and to families?

Hon Mr Silipo: I don't want to sound repetitive on this, but I continue to say to the member that this is exactly the kind of information and the kind of discussion we are finding to be quite useful with the agencies in terms of helping us to identify what can be done. We know already from the information we've gathered that in fact there are some agencies applying a parental contribution already for some services in some areas, so there's also a question of trying to bring some greater consistency to that approach on that issue.

But to deal very specifically with the question, if we determine as a result of the discussions we are now having that to collect the full $4.3 million out of user fees or parental contributions would cause undue burden on the service, we're more than prepared to take a look at that and then work with the agencies to see how we could identify those savings in other areas.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): You Liberals and New Democrats bringing in all these user fees over the last eight years is embarrassing.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: The only question to be determined is who brought in more.

POLICE SAFETY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is for the Solicitor General. In March of this year, my caucus initiated a task force on crime, justice and community safety. One of the primary issues which the people of this province are concerned about is the seeming inability of our justice system to protect us. Time and time again our task force is hearing this type of concern.

We have just observed in this chamber a moment's silence in memory of Constable MacDonald. His death is a tragic example of the failure of our justice system. One of the two men charged with the murder of Constable MacDonald was a violent offender out on parole after the Sault Ste Marie police had specifically recommended that parole not be granted. This man was on parole from a federal institution.

Minister, it is your responsibility as Solicitor General to represent Ontario's interests to the federal government. It is your responsibility to ensure that the views of Ontario police, the views of Ontarians, are being heard and that those views are being advanced. What have you done to ensure that those views are being heard and to ensure that public safety is the guiding principle in all parole and temporary absence decisions?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Let me just say first of all that I think the honourable member understands that I, like he, am limited as to how much I can speak about. In fact, we can't talk about any of the details of any instant case that is ongoing, and I think all members of the House know that.

However, I have taken two steps as a result of actions that have happened in this province in the last few days. The first was that I met with the chair of the board of parole this morning to indeed discuss the issue the honourable member raises. Secondly, I've directed the deputy minister to immediately initiate a review of the decision to grant parole in this particular case.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'm pleased to see that the minister's moving in this area. I want to ask a supplementary in respect to something that certainly falls within provincial jurisdiction, a matter I raised with the Premier, I think about a year ago, and with one of his predecessors. That has to do with the request over a considerable period of time by police officers in this province to be equipped with semiautomatic handguns.

Minister, we know this falls within your area of responsibility. I think it's either an amendment to the Police Act or a regulatory change. This issue has been raised on a number of occasions; it's being raised again because of what occurred in Sudbury last week. Can you tell the House and the people of this province, police officers especially across this province today, where the issue of this request stands?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Yes. I can say to the honourable member that since assuming this position in February of this year, I've spent a great deal of time and effort researching this particular issue, reviewing past initiatives that have been taken in other jurisdictions. I've met with the policing community. It's been on just about every agenda I've had when I've met with the policing community. We continue to consider this to be a major issue and I have committed to the police community in this province that a decision, a position by this government, will be taken by the end of this year.

Mr Runciman: This government has been in office for over three and a half years. We've seen at least three deaths of police officers and I don't know how many incidents involving shootings with police officers. Certainly the Sudbury incident points to the fact that equipping officers with the semiautomatic handgun might have made a difference in this particular situation. We can all speculate on that.

But I want to also remind members that the Premier's own bodyguards are equipped with semiautomatic 9mm handguns. I raised that issue over a year ago and the Premier said, "Well, that's not my decision."

The fact is, Minister, it's a decision of your cabinet, yourself and your cabinet colleagues to make a decision like this. We've had at least one death where the proper equipment is a serious question related to the death of this individual, and I'm saying to you that you have waited too long. You'll certainly have the support of this caucus, and I would hope the Liberal caucus, to bring in this kind of change tomorrow. Let's act today and not let another officer die in the line of duty because of the lack of proper equipment when trying to do a job on behalf of every citizen in this province.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I don't believe for one moment that this government has to take a back seat to any individual or any party in this House when it comes to speaking out for the police community and ensuring that we're taking the steps that are necessary. I would point to not-too-distant history, that in 1980 it was a Tory Solicitor General who also reviewed this particular issue as to the adequacy of the .38 or moving to the semiautomatic, and at that time the Tory SG determined that it should remain with the .38.

Thirteen years have gone by. Things change. There are more experiences, there is new technology, and that is why this matter is under active review and active consideration.

This is an issue that is being grappled with in jurisdictions across North America. It is not as clear-cut as the honourable member would like to make it. However, I don't want to move away from or lose the focus on the fact that this is an important issue. All of my meetings with the police community will verify that this government considers this to be an important police officer health and safety issue, and no later than the end of this year we will be very clear on where we are with regard to the policy on moving from the .38s to any other weapon.

OPP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Premier. I wonder if the Premier could tell us when he plans to bring in whistle-blowing legislation.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Legislation with respect to the protection of public servants who feel, after much consideration, that they have no choice but to reveal certain information -- that kind of protection is important to this government, is something we've been actively discussing, and I can assure the honourable member that it's something that very much remains a part of our agenda.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): You'll bring it in before you call an election, about one week before you call an election.

Mr Harris: That's right. You're three and a half years into the mandate. We know it's not on your agenda for the rest of this year. This is the party that championed whistle-blowing legislation, or rights of civil servants.

1430

Last Friday, certainly not for the first time, in fact after many times we've seen this happen, your Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and your minister confirmed that the OPP were called in to investigate an alleged leak of minutes of a meeting held for the selection of a Windsor casino. It is certainly not the first time that you or your cabinet or your cabinet colleagues have called in the OPP over concerns that information had been released, in this case information where the minister has said, "Informal meeting; certainly the leak doesn't compromise the security of the selection process." I think your minister said, "No way does this jeopardize the integrity of the process."

Can you explain to me, Premier, why the OPP are continually called in to investigate leaks of embarrassing documents of your ministers, nothing serious about public policy, when they're so short-staffed, they're so short of resources out there to protect the public? Why are they able to be called in at the whim of a minister for this kind of investigation?

Hon Mr Rae: Sometimes one answers a question with another question: Why did Frank Miller call in the OPP after parts of his budget were found in a green garbage bag?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Do you think this is a good idea?

Hon Mr Rae: No, I would say to the honourable member I find it interesting that the honourable member would move from a discussion about whistle-blowing to a question about an attempt to provide for some security of process with respect to certain government decisions. I'm quite happy to have this debate and this discussion, but if the honourable member is saying that there should be no confidentiality of any processes, then I would suggest that will affect the business of his caucus as much as anyone else's. There's a dramatic difference between the purpose of whistle-blowing legislation and the principle of whistle-blowing and this issue with respect to the integrity of certain decision-making processes and what would appear to be the leak of certain information.

Mr Harris: Premier, if you took a look at the information, the apparent minutes of a meeting, and the minister has confirmed that in no way did these minutes jeopardize the process, what they did do in fact is to directly contradict statements that were made by the minister in this Legislature, directly contradict statements that she gave to me in response to my questions. So it was only embarrassing to the minister's credibility in answers she was giving in the Legislature, and for that the OPP were called in.

Do you think that's a good use of the OPP dollars, to call in and investigate when the only embarrassment the leak caused and the only contradiction and the only problem was that it contradicted the minister's own statement in the House? Do you think that's a good use of those dollars?

Hon Mr Rae: I would only say that it seems to me that if the deputy minister feels in this case that she --

Mr Harris: Now it's the deputy minister.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm referring to the person who authorized the investigation. If the deputy minister feels there's a concern about the integrity of the process, that it's important to her to continue to maintain that integrity, I would support the decision of the deputy minister.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): To the Premier: You are no doubt aware of the high-profile manslaughter trial of a Nepean police constable, who through an unfortunate mistake during a drug raid shot one Vincent Gardner. This tragic incident attracted a great deal of attention in Ottawa-Carleton. Consequently, it was extremely important that the trial of the police officer who fired the shot give every appearance of doing justice in this case.

My question today is in no way intended to diminish the great danger experienced by our police or their dedication to duty and protecting society, nor intended to deprive them of their right to have legal costs covered under their collective agreements. But in this case, a senior police officer was assigned to work as the investigator for the lawyer defending the constable acquitted of shooting Vincent Gardner. The accused police officer had the services of a detective who was on full police pay for six months, carried a police badge and gun, had the use of a police cruiser and had access to police files across North America.

Premier, your own crown attorney called this unprecedented, a conflict of interest, a breach of police oath and creation of a two-tiered justice system. Do you condone this type of secondment for police officers standing accused in our courts?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I'm going to refer that question to the Solicitor General.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Let me say to the honourable member that I'm certainly aware of the situation that he raises. He knows as well as I do that the court case was just completed, but I understand the time periods for appeals and other matters are still open. Therefore, both he and I are very limited as to what can be said in this place. I'm also advised that the Police Complaints Board will be holding a board of inquiry, so we need to be very careful.

Let me say to him that as a result of the many questions that have been raised, I have directed the ministry to review the matter and to advise me as to the circumstances as they now sit in that community.

Mr Chiarelli: Perhaps the minister is not aware of the fact that a spokesperson for his ministry is on record as saying, "There does not appear to be anything improper in the arrangement." Firstly, I would like the minister to either associate or disassociate himself from that comment. Secondly, this is also a generic question which affects police departments across the province: whether or not, in the guise of assisting in the costs of defending police officers, active members of police forces will be assigned to defence counsel in cases.

Would the minister please comment on those questions?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'll be pleased to comment on the two issues the honourable member raised.

The first is with regard to the quote that is in the paper from a member of my ministry. I have seen that quote. I would say to the member that was a premature statement, and until such time as I am apprised of exactly what the facts are in this particular case, it should be characterized as a premature statement.

With regard to any kind of provincial action that we might take, again I think it's important that we allow the review to take place. I need to know what steps were taken and what role the police services board played and other questions. When I have those facts in front of me, I'll be in a better position to comment to the honourable member as to whether or not we indeed need to have provincial standards specifically dealing with this type of issue.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Most of us in the province know that we're at day 22 of the Lambton county strike. There are some 6,730 students and some 500 teachers involved. In these tough times, when parents want their young people to be in school and when members of this Legislative Assembly believe that the rights of young people are to a good education, I would ask you this question: Since the issue is the pupil-teacher ratio, since writing it into the agreement will take away the flexibility of the school board and since there are no more dollars due to your social contract cuts, are you suggesting now that the board cave in, put it in the collective agreement and go back to the local taxpayers for more education dollars? Is that your suggestion?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'm not suggesting anything. There's a process under Bill 100 to settle disputes like this. It's worked rather well since it was brought in by the Conservative government in the 1970s and I think the process should work in this case. My position is that the board and the teachers should get back to the bargaining table and solve the problem at the bargaining table. I don't know; maybe the member's saying we should take the right to strike away from teachers. I don't agree with that position. It's worked well in the province.

1440

Mrs Cunningham: In response to the minister, the legislation isn't working well. For the past 10 years, it's been pointed out in different committees of this Legislature, and certainly by the Macdonald commission, that the legislation should be reviewed, which we talked about in this assembly last week.

What you should know is that there is precedence for legislating teachers back to work. The precedent you would be interested in may be Windsor. After 26 days, we now have a school board 22 days into a semestered system, which many would argue is equal to 44 days in a non-semestered system. You've got the precedents in your own backyard.

You want to take a look at Sault Ste Marie? We're talking legislation after some 14 days. That could be argued 28 days.

We now have 22 days in a semestered system. The education of these young people is in jeopardy. I would ask you, as the Minister of Education and Training, will you show the leadership and legislate the teachers back to work, because the education of almost 7,000 students in this semestered school system is in jeopardy?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the member should really read the legislation. There is no precedent in this province where a Minister of Education has legislated teachers back to work without a recommendation by the Education Relations Commission, whether they be Tory ministers, Liberal ministers or New Democrats. We have a process in place and everybody's rights have to be respected. It's about time the member stop playing politics and respect teachers' and everybody else's rights.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Madam Minister, well over a year ago I stood up in the Legislature and debated a resolution. That resolution called for a change in policy within your ministry on public housing. That resolution was passed unanimously in this place, and it asked for you to change the policy on public housing and convert your present system into a co-op or a non-profit type of system. Madam Minister, what's happened to that resolution?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The intent of the resolution has been taken to heart and work is being done at the Ontario Housing Corp to examine the potential, certainly not for a wholescale conversion to co-op ownership or co-op operation of Ontario Housing Corp units, but to see where, in those areas in which there needs to be some redevelopment -- some of the housing is quite old now, up to 40 years old, and the land on which it sits is quite valuable. There may be opportunities for redevelopment, which Ontario Housing Corp is examining and which may fit in quite well with the whole co-op concept.

In addition, Ontario Housing Corp is looking at those elements of the portfolio where on an experimental basis it might be an idea which is worth considering.

Mr Mammoliti: That's actually pretty good to hear, in view of what I've heard recently, more in particular in my riding, where the stock is quite old and where the staff is currently even complaining about the bureaucracy and the levels of bureaucracy in and around the public housing area.

I'd like to know how quickly this might happen. This, to us in Yorkview, is very important, and it's very important to the tenants as well who are looking forward to actually taking over their particular sites. In speaking to many of those tenants and staffers, they certainly are anxious and looking forward to the change. I'm hoping it'll happen soon. How quickly do you think this might happen?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm afraid I can't give the member an explicit date, but I can assure him that Ontario Housing Corp is interested in the notion and is looking at the potential for undertaking such a change within some communities. I can't assure him either that it will be in the community he refers to.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, with respect to the infamous casino project under your leadership, it has had more than its fair share of controversy and certainly a shadow of doubt has been cast over the past number of months.

You will be aware, Minister, that during the course of receiving requests for proposals, you entertained what is commonly referred to in government practice as bid repair. I find it curious and I'd appreciate your comment in response to the fact that of the bid repair offered, bid repair was only offered to four of the nine proponents. Interestingly enough, perhaps coincidentally, only the four bidders that remain on the list were offered the opportunity for bid repair.

In your concept of fairness and equality, does it seem unusual to you that the five proponents who were excluded were not offered the same opportunity? And would you care to explain how this is not further cast out in terms of the integrity of this process and, quite frankly, the rumour that's running all through the industry that the fix is in?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The member talks about rumours going all through the industry. I believe the opposition is helping spur that rumour along. I want to remind the House once again that the selection process has been planned and undertaken with the utmost integrity. As the member knows, four of our most senior and respected deputy ministers are in charge of that selection process. As well as that, this committee receives assistance from a citizens' review panel that has been put there to assure that the selection criteria and the process are fair and complete.

For the member's benefit, I will raise the names of these people: Helen Sinclair, president of the Canadian Bankers Association; Charles Clark, a Windsor businessman and retired lawyer; and Gordon Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. These people have been following the process closely and would, I'm sure, assure you that the process of integrity which has been developed has been followed.

Mr McClelland: Minister, I find it noteworthy that in your response you failed to comment at all, no comment whatsoever, with respect to the bid repair and the fact, I remind you, that it was offered to only four of the nine proponents. Four of them are remaining, and one of them is what is commonly considered to be the front runner and -- let's tell it as it is -- the proponent there's some serious question about.

Minister, I'm going to ask you very directly: You have launched an OPP investigation into the released minutes of the selection subcommittee meeting. I want to remind you again that the only people I am aware of to date who have been interviewed are the proponents who were not included on the short list. Two things come to mind here: They were not given an opportunity to repair their bid, and they have been interviewed. One of them says as follows: "I guess what they" -- the ministry and presumably you, Minister -- "are really interested in knowing is whether anybody got any other information."

Minister, what's wrong with this process that you've got the OPP out investigating with respect to the unsuccessful bidders, the ones who were excluded by your process? Notwithstanding your pre-recorded answer that we hear over and over again, when are you going to come clean and tell us that you're prepared to reveal precisely what the OPP are looking for and allow them to investigate the nuances, the weird things, quite frankly the absurd things, that have happened with respect to this process? Tell us about the bid repair, tell us what the OPP are up to, and tell us why they are talking to the people who were not included on the final list.

Hon Ms Churley: I believe the member is asking me to interfere in an OPP investigation. I certainly can assure the member right now that I will not do that. The OPP were called in by the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is the chair of the selections process. It is her job, her duty, to assure the security of the information of a very sensitive process. As you and members of the Tory party point out almost every day, the integrity of this process is very important. In such a sensitive process as this, the deputy felt that it was important in terms of the security of that information being kept -- to ensure the integrity, she wanted a review of security measures at this point, and I think it was most appropriate.

1450

CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Finance, I'll direct this question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

The corporate minimum tax has business quite concerned. In fact, since we've started our own special task force on cutting red tape and growing small business, this has surfaced as one of the major issues to large and small businesses alike. Red tape and taxes are already a huge burden to business in Ontario. They have special concerns about this new tax that was announced in the budget of your government.

In defence of business, which is your job as Minister of Economic Development, and to create a better climate for business, how can you justify imposing this tax?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I think the Minister of Finance has spoken on this issue many times in terms of an issue of tax fairness. At this point in time in this province, in fact in this country, there are many situations where corporations, those that are still earning profits at this point in time, are not paying any taxes. With the revenue situations that governments face right across this country, it is an issue of tax fairness.

I will point out to the member that in support of where the majority of the jobs are created, that area of small business, it was also the Minister of Finance's announcement that small business will be exempt from this.

Mr Cousens: The minister comes and suggests there are some businesses that aren't paying their taxes. Name one. The fact of the matter that we're hearing through our discussions with small business and large business is that they're being sucked dry by taxes and caused tremendous hardship through the time and effort it takes them to fulfil the regulations. They're burdened with taxes, they're burdened with paper, they're burdened with regulations, so we as people in the province of Ontario have to face up to the fact that this is becoming unacceptable to business. They have reached the tax wall.

What can you do -- and you can do something as the minister, one of the lead ministers of this government -- to protect business from this tremendous erosion of confidence in doing business in the province of Ontario?

Rather than just say there are some that aren't paying it, I have an example here of one large, billion-dollar corporation in the province of Ontario, and because of this new tax, it's going to end up having numerous audited statements being made of its small businesses. It's costly, it's time-consuming and it's eroding confidence in Ontario.

Tell us, can you not revisit this tax and do something to help business in Ontario?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member will know that the design of the tax is being done by the Ministry of Finance, in consultation with people in the business community, to try to ensure that paperwork, paper burden requirements, for example, are eased. I have said on a number of occasions in this House that there is a series of initiatives we have undertaken with respect to trying to clear the red tape and the paper burden.

The announcement of the Tory caucus last week of a committee to travel the province to talk to business about streamlining business is just study. What we're doing is action. I've told you about the initiative to achieve a master licensing system. I've told you that we have situations now where we're able to have small businesses come forward and they will be able to register for the employer health tax, workers' compensation, business names registration all in one place instead of having to go to various ministries. We are working towards a unified tax reporting system. We have moved already from more than once a year filing of the employer health tax to annual filing of the employer health tax. We have reduced the tax rate for small business from 10% to 9.5%. We have a series of initiatives which I think are very important for small business and which will help small business with respect to investment and creation of jobs.

Contrary to what the member says, in fact, business confidence --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- is increasing in this province and we are pleased to see the increased investment that's coming into Ontario.

EGLINTON WEST SUBWAY

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. In February of this year, you, along with the Premier, announced a commitment to the funding of the Eglinton West subway line using Jobs Ontario funds. We were informed that the government would fast-track plans for its construction and that the design work for this project was to start immediately.

In light of a predicted revenue shortfall and continued attacks by the opposition on the Jobs Ontario program, can you tell the House whether this much-needed investment and the jobs it will create are still on track?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I welcome the sincere interest in what actually is the first shovel-in-the-ground work to be done on subway construction since 1980.

No work is possible without environmental assessment. The review is right on schedule. The contract will be awarded in the spring of 1994. We're looking at $525 million to meet public necessity, public convenience. It will put 9,000 people to work; 12,000 additional people will be impacted indirectly. It will be accessible for the disabled. It's a win-win-win situation.

By way of conclusion, the official opening will take place in the year 2000, seven years from now, during our second term.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education, and it also relates to the issue of the Lambton county secondary school strike.

Minister, as you know, one of the questions we've had around school strikes in this province has been the whole issue of when the education of the students is in jeopardy. When is that finding made, and how do we define when the education of the students is in jeopardy? Most of the phone calls that all of us are receiving from Lambton County, from Sarnia, are parents saying: "What does that mean? When is the education of my son or daughter in jeopardy?"

Minister, can you tell this House what your position is in terms of when the education of the pupils in Lambton County is in jeopardy? Is it now, after some 20 or 22 days of strike? Is it 30 days? Remember again that we are in a semestered school. What is your view around when jeopardy comes into action?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The member will know that's exactly the role of the Education Relations Commission, one which they've had experience with in other circumstances in the province. They make that determination as to when they believe the school year is in jeopardy.

When they believe the school year is in jeopardy, they make a recommendation to the Minister of Education, and at that point the minister decides whether he or she is going to act. That is the process that's been followed by your government when you were in power, and by other governments. To do it any other way would have serious and dramatic consequences for free collective bargaining in the education sector. You know that, you understand that, so I hope you'll respect that process.

Mr Beer: It is precisely because we are trying to respect that principle that we have to come to grips with this whole question of jeopardy, particularly with semestered schools, because when the bill was originally set out, we didn't have such a beast as semestered schools.

What parents are saying is, "Why do you politicians down at Queen's Park always hide behind, 'Well, we can't do this because we've got this process here and we've got another process over there'? There is a fundamental problem with determining jeopardy."

If, as you say, you want to protect the collective bargaining process -- and I think that is an important principle -- but recognize as well that there are not only the rights of teachers and the rights of school trustees, but there are the rights of the kids to have an education, will you then today, when you leave this House, take it upon yourself to place a phone call to the chair of the school board and to the head of the negotiating committee for the teachers and invite them down to Toronto to sit with you tomorrow and hammer out a solution so the kids in Lambton and Sarnia can get back to school and their rights to have an education can be truly realized? Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member will know that is exactly, again, the role that the Education Relations Commission fills, and that to have the Minister of Education of the day intervene in disputes would not be particularly helpful. You know that, and I hope you understand that.

I can indicate to the member that we are in contact with the ERC on a daily basis. I personally have talked to them on a number of occasions, and the ERC also updates us every morning by phone calls with regard to the Lambton situation.

After the matter was raised by the member from Sarnia, Mr Huget, I specifically talked to the ERC to make sure that the fact that this school system was a semestered system would be taken into consideration as the process went through, and I reported to the Legislature when the member raised that matter a couple of weeks ago that this was the case. A semestered system is one of the factors that goes into consideration when determining jeopardy.

1500

PHOTO RADAR

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, when you initially had your staff briefing me on the question of photo radar, there was an indication that the photo radar units would be unattended. Indeed, we were told there would be significant efficiencies in the system and help to the police in this respect.

Last week, you said that the police would monitor the equipment. Now, in conversation with the Solicitor General's office, they have indicated to us that in fact these pieces of equipment will be mounted in police cars. Therefore, there will be no savings in manpower.

So, will you tell me, Minister, which is the case? Are they going to be mounted in cars operated by police officers, or are they going to be remote, unmanned locations?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): We have the concept, the ideology of this safety initiative that was raised yet one more time last week. There seems to be an ongoing -- people are getting on the bandwagon. Collectively, they're concerned about excessive speed. That kind of reaction is certainly most welcome. The member opposite goes beyond. He's talking about gizmos and gadgetries.

The Ontario Provincial Police, those women and those men in blue, will have the jurisdictional capacity under their auspices, under their tutelage, under their experience. They will set, they will administer, the photo radar system. It's not all that complex. I welcome the question and I hope that the member gets it. It's no big deal. Everything's going to be okay, David.

The thing is, we're going through with photo radar. It is a safety initiative and it will be done in accordance with the high standards set for it by the OPP.

Applause.

Mr Turnbull: I find it rather surprising that the members of the government can applaud a non-answer. My question was very simply, are these going to be attended units mounted in police cars or not? Now, my supplementary revolves around the question of the constitutionality of these types of checks, if indeed they are sent and the owner of the car, as opposed to the driver of the car, is charged.

Minister, I know that even you wake up from time to time in briefings in the ministry and they tell you that there is the potential that there will be a constitutional challenge. I have asked you whether these are going to be attended. If they are attended by police, my question is, why are you going to the expense of buying this expensive equipment when the police could be using the present equipment and avoiding any constitutional challenge?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I welcome the question. In fact, we're so awake, to quote the distinguished and honourable member opposite, that with this administration we do realize that things do change. We are at the crossroads. It is the Ontario Provincial Police that welcome these initiatives. Times change and you must keep up with the change. It is so simple that each and every Progressive Conservative in this province, what's left of them, understands that.

We're not talking about redefining the atom here. It's a simple, straightforward safety initiative. It is designed to save lives and goes a long way to making the roads of Ontario the safest indeed in North America.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): They're out of control and I haven't said anything.

The Speaker: To whom do you wish to address your question?

Mr Mills: I've got a sore throat. My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. My riding has quite a lot of environmentalists. This is a question that they tell me.

Mr Minister, the Tory minister, Pierre Vincent, is quoted, in response to you, as saying that he doesn't want to spend a lot of money on sewage treatment within the Great Lakes because he wouldn't have any money left for the environment. So, Mr Minister, that's a bit of a nutty statement. I'm not an expert on the environment or an expert on the Great Lakes, but I would have thought that sewage treatment plays an important part in the environmental health of the Great Lakes.

My question, Mr Minister, is this: Who's right and who's wrong? Is sewage treatment a component of the environmental protection of the Great Lakes, or is he wrong and are you right? Who's right?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I appreciate the interest of the member. I know that he is referring to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: He is referring to press reports in which the federal minister, Pierre Vincent, was responding to questions about the International Joint Commission's recommendations for the cleanup of the Great Lakes. In response to that, I had indicated that it would cost probably in the neighbourhood of $2 billion over the next seven years to carry out all of the rehabilitation works required to improve water quality. I had indicated that we would consider spending, over that seven-year period, half of that amount if the federal government would also participate in spending the other 50%. We are already spending considerable amounts each year on this matter.

It's unfortunate that the federal Minister of the Environment doesn't understand that improving and upgrading water and sewer facilities improves the environment. He seems to think they are separate. Of course he must have been misquoted. I'm sure the federal Minister of the Environment understands the environment.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

It's signed by several residents of my riding and I affix my signature.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I again come forward with a petition from the parents and students of St Gregory Catholic school in my riding. I will note that some of these names of the thousands of people who have signed live right by me. It goes:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the voters and taxpayers of St Gregory's school community have been requesting funds for a much-needed renovation and expansion of the present facility for 11 years; and

"Whereas the Metro separate school board has placed St Gregory school as one of the highest priorities" -- again, I think it's the highest now -- "on the capital expenditure forecast list;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to allocate capital funds to the St Gregory school expansion capital program."

I will again sign my name to this and hope it gets someplace.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition here from people all over southern Ontario -- Ashburn, Uxbridge, Pefferlaw, Willowdale, Greenwood, Guelph, Greensides Avenue in Toronto, Mississauga, Oshawa -- to the Legislative Assembly and Lieutenant Governor 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 Ministry of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources and the community of residents therein."

I think this is absolutely essential, given that the federal government doesn't know what it's doing in north Pickering.

1510

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas, we the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"We are opposed to a megadump in York region as required by the Waste Management Act, 1992. We want the Ontario government to include alternative solutions to landfill and waste management issues and to find a more equitable plan for waste handling in Toronto and its surrounding areas."

This is signed by over 100 residents of Aurora. I think it's interesting to note that they're not immediately adjacent to any of the sites but are expressing their strong views that the government's policy is misguided. I have signed my name to this petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Constituents from my riding of Oakville South have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government's proposed legislation to slash health care services will further damage Ontario's health care system,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement a more rational and cooperative approach."

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here that I'm bringing forward on behalf of my constituents who are concerned about the preservation of law and order in their community. The residents are concerned about an article which appeared in the September 14 issue of the local Brock newspaper which threatens that Brock residents might lose their OPP station. A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the OPP station in Beaverton has been a long-standing, integral part of the Beaverton area; and

"Whereas many officers have established permanent homes in the Beaverton area and have become strong voices in the community, volunteer and non-profit groups; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides an economic benefit for the Beaverton community; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides a much-needed policing presence,

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario maintain the OPP station in Beaverton as a closure would be detrimental to the interest of security, safety and the wellbeing of all Brock residents."

I support this fully and here affix my signature.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single local point of access for long-term care and support services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating use of commercial providers,

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

I concur with this petition and I've affixed my name to it.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a further petition here to the Legislative Assembly and to the Lieutenant Governor 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 Legislative Assembly as follows:

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

This petition has been signed by a lot of people from the rural parts of Uxbridge and Stouffville and a lot of them are long-time tenants on this property, and I affix my signature.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition addressed as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has proposed in their spring budget of 1993 to impose a tax on beer produced by the general public for their own consumption at brew-on-premise facilities in the province of Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, will not accept an attempt to tax our own labour and efforts to make our beer and wine at brew-on-premise facilities for our own consumption. Further, we feel this attempt is shortsighted and extremely counterproductive. The brew-on-premise facilities we support contribute to our local and provincial economies and represent the true entrepreneurial spirit which will drive our economic growth in the future."

I agree with this and I'll affix my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)

On motion by Mr Mammoliti, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 95, An Act to provide for the passing of vital services bylaws by the City of North York / Projet de loi 95, Loi prévoyant l'adoption par la cité de North York de règlements municipaux relatifs aux services essentiels.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): The purpose of the bill is to allow the city of North York to pass vital services bylaws so that vital services such as electricity, gas and hot water can be provided to the occupants of rented premises when the landlord fails to provide them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): There is a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1517 to 1522.

The Speaker: Mr Mackenzie moved second reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. All those in favour of Mr Mackenzie's motion will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, Malkowski, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Mackenzie's motion will please rise one by one.

Nays

Beer, Callahan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Eddy, Eves, Ferguson, Grandmaître, Harris, Johnson (Don Mills), Mahoney, McGuinty, Miclash, Morin, Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Offer, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Villeneuve.

The Speaker: The ayes being 56 and the nays 31, I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? The standing committee on resources development, agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe the next order is the first opposition motion from the Conservative Party.

OPPOSITION DAY

CORNWALL ECONOMIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS

Mr Harris moved opposition day motion number 1:

Whereas the people in the Cornwall area are becoming increasingly concerned with the inability of law enforcement officials to combat the serious and growing problem of smuggling in the region between Ontario, Quebec, New York and native jurisdictions; and

Whereas the provincial NDP government continues to pursue tax policies which encourage the growth of the underground economy, resulting in the loss of business to legitimate operators and reduced provincial revenues; and

Whereas the level of lawlessness is such that police believe they can no longer protect local residents and visitors on area waterways, thus depriving both residents and tourists of the peaceful enjoyment and use of valuable provincial tourist and recreational resources;

Therefore, this House calls on the NDP government to re-examine its spending priorities and recognize public demand and need for increased investment in community safety initiatives in the region; and

To re-examine its taxation policies in so far as they encourage the development of an underground economy and thus contribute to the development of criminal activities in the area; and

To take immediate steps to support the police in order that they have adequate resources to protect the residents of the area.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): My apologies to the leader of the third party, I understand there's been unanimous consent to divide the time equally between the three parties for this debate.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement to divide the time? We do that anyway, so agreed. The leader of the third party may begin his leadoff.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I know there are a number in the Legislature, I'm sure on all sides of the House, who wish to comment today on this motion and on this situation. My caucus felt it was important that we have this debate. We thought it was important that we focus attention on what's happening in the Cornwall area and Cornwall region. Quite frankly, we are astounded that there isn't more discussion going on about potentially billions of dollars, for sure hundreds of millions of dollars, of lost revenue in cigarettes and booze, and we fear, once those highways are set up, illicit drugs and other contraband as well, so there is a dollar concern here. There is an organized crime concern: Because of the huge profits involved, we now have organized crime involved in this smuggling in and around the area. There is a very, very serious tourism and image problem that is allowed to occur as these stories spread their way around the world.

I ask everyone in the Legislature, as I am asking Ontarians, just to stop and think. If in your home town, if in Callander, Ontario, where I grew up, if in North Bay where I live now -- think about the outcry in Toronto if the word was out that your mayor was in hiding and afraid to come public. Can you imagine in Toronto if the word was out that June Rowlands, the mayor of Toronto, was afraid to come out; that she isn't chairing the meeting, she isn't attending the committee function, she's not doing her job because she's afraid for her life, she's afraid for her family's life? Can you imagine the outcry? Can you imagine the response there would be? If it was your town, would you not feel outraged that this lawlessness was being allowed to escalate?

1530

This has been going on for a period now of a couple of years and building, and the only response has been, "We've got a task force," and "Let's blame the federal government for some of it because some is within its jurisdiction." If you want to point the finger, fine. It bothers me when governments use that as a defence: "Others are just as bad as we are, and the others aren't doing anything, so why should we?" That's no defence, no defence at all. In fact, to me that is just an admission of guilt, that by doing nothing and not responding we're allowing this situation to escalate.

I note that the revised estimates for this year for tobacco taxes in the province of Ontario is $900 million, I'm told. It was $910 million, I think, in the budget. The Minister of Finance has revised that to $900 million as the estimate. The industry tells us that about 20% now of cigarettes sold in Ontario are contraband or smuggled cigarettes, that it is $150 million to $200 million that we're not collecting in Ontario that we would be if all the cigarettes smoked in Ontario were legal, were not smuggled.

This level, we are told, is about where Quebec was about a year and a half ago, 20%. Quebec now is close to 50%; the industry estimates put it at 50%. At the rate of escalation of these smuggling highways, as they've become known, the rate of escalation that we've experienced here and the example in Quebec says that within a year, a year and a half, 50% of the cigarettes in Ontario that are smoked here will be smuggled. That translates into over half a billion dollars in lost provincial revenue, not counting the federal revenue. I haven't got the actual figures in front of me; the Treasurer can tell me how much the feds tax. But the feds have never, in my experience, been ones to lag behind, no matter who was in government there, so I assume there's half a billion there as well. We're dealing with about $1 billion just in the cigarette tax revenue that's lost. You would think for a dollars-and-cents reason alone that we'd be wanting to have more than a 20-foot skiff, which is what the OPP has, to fight the whole problem in the whole region.

The government may point out, "The RCMP has a role here," and I agree they do. I think the RCMP has its -- what do you call those rubber boats you put outboard motors on? Zodiacs. I don't want to run down Zodiac. Actually, I've been in one of those and they're kind of a neat boat, but they're no match for these $200,000 and $300,000, 80-mile-an-hour speedboats armed with machine-guns that the smugglers are using. Are you going to go out in a rubber dinghy Zodiac, the OPP in a 20-foot skiff? We found out today they can't even have an automatic pistol. We're outgunned, we're outstaffed, we're outmanned. The criminals are taking over and we're sitting back and saying, "Well, we've got a task force that's going to report in a couple of months."

That's not good enough. I suspect, and I don't mind standing here and saying it, it's because it's a small town in eastern Ontario, the Cornwall area, that you think you can sit here in Toronto in the Legislature and virtually ignore it, and that's not acceptable. That is not acceptable. I ask all of you in this Legislature to think of Cornwall as your town, as your riding. How would you feel? I ask you to translate that feeling into a vote today in favour of this motion. I think we can unanimously support this resolution, which really calls upon the government to get to it, to take immediate steps to support the police, to give them the adequate resources they need to protect the residents of the area; to take a look at the taxation policies.

We're into the law of diminishing returns. If the taxation policies stay the same, if the differential on tax on cigarettes is the same, then the fact is that we're going to lose another $300 million within the next 12 months. That's what the situation in Quebec has told us. That's not even counting the booze. That's not talking about the drug problem. That's not talking about the lost tourism. The taxes we're losing on alcohol are going to amount to more than that.

I know there are lots of things that have not happened. I realize that the natives I have talked to are afraid now to speak. They fear for their lives, their children's lives, their families' lives. The law-abiding natives also tell us that organized crime is now in there. When we held the meeting in Cornwall of the task force we launched on crime and community safety, bullets were fired from the river at the town building across the street from where our meeting was being held.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): They just missed their mark.

Mr Harris: Some say they just missed their mark. I appreciate those who want to trivialize legislators sitting in a meeting in Cornwall while bullets are being fired at them, with apparent immunity, from the river.

Mr Sorbara: Immunity from the river?

Mr Harris: Shot from the river.

In August, a Quebec man was shot in the stomach in his boat, downriver from Cornwall. Cornwall's mayor, Ron Martelle, as I indicated to you, was forced to go into hiding after receiving threats against his life. What did he do? He spoke up on behalf of his community. He called for police action to stop the lawlessness, and he was forced into hiding. In Cornwall, the local coast guard no longer patrols the area at night because of the danger. The Mohawk police on the Akwesasne reserve said they won't even try to enforce customs laws within their own jurisdiction. They're afraid for their lives. They're out-gunned; they're out-manned.

The response from the coast guard and the OPP has been to inform us to stay off the river. This is our river. The response is, "Stay off it." We give up. We give it to organized crime. We give it to the criminals.

We've got money to call in the OPP to investigate a leak when some leaked document comes out from the ministry that points out that the minister misled the House. There we've got resources to call in the OPP. The minister gave information to the Legislature that was wrong, and that document was leaked. We've got money to call in the OPP to investigate that. We've got money to call in the OPP to do the bidding of the NDP for clearly partisan purposes, and we don't have resources to stop crime, organized crime, and the smuggling that's taking place in Cornwall.

I would hope that every member of the Legislature would think about this resolution. I've made some comments which some may think are partisan, but the resolution speaks for itself. The resolution is straightforward. It calls on the government to no longer ignore this situation that is taking place. I ask for all-party support because I think it will make a difference. I think it will force the government into moving faster, quicker, with more resources and more resolve. That's not only in the interests of the people of Cornwall and the region; I think that is in the interests of all Ontarians. For that reason, I call on everyone to consider supporting this resolution today.

1540

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's a pleasure for me to rise today and speak to this resolution put forward by the leader of the third party. The leader of the third party has indicated that the government is not doing anything, that it has not responded to the issue. I want to take him to task on that issue and indicate throughout my remarks, as I think my colleagues will indicate throughout their remarks, that the government is taking action.

However, the first point that needs to be mentioned and repeated over and over again is that the main responsibility for the smuggling issue is not the provincial government's.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You buck passer.

Mr Sutherland: It's not a question of passing the buck; it is the reality. We're talking about international borders, goods coming across international borders. The federal government has the responsibility for enforcing those borders to ensure that illegal goods aren't coming across those borders.

Needless to say, once we've pointed out that the federal government has the lead responsibility, there are still things that the provincial government can do and has done. I think it's important to point out that we have seen leadership. The Solicitor General met with the mayor of Cornwall and local community representatives. My colleague the member for Yorkview was at that meeting as well. The Solicitor General has also met with the federal minister, Doug Lewis, to talk about those issues and has initiated contact with the other jurisdictions.

You must remember that we are talking about international borders and international waters, two levels of federal government, one other province and one state jurisdiction, and all in the context of also respecting, when we're talking about this area, the natives' right to self-government in the Akwesasne area.

We've heard a lot about taxation issues, and it's important to understand a few things about the taxation issue. The resolution says "whereas the provincial...government continues to pursue tax policies which encourage the growth of the underground economy." We know what things encourage more growth in the underground economy. This government has not increased the provincial sales tax; remember, the Liberal government did do that during its time in office. For the last two years we have not touched cigarette taxes; we have not increased those taxes whatsoever. I also go back to the very beginning of this government and something else we did to keep money in hands and pockets: We didn't add the PST on to the GST, as you recall our very first piece of legislation we passed. This government has done things, has understood the issue of taxation and has not increased the sales tax and cigarette taxes.

We also know too that in this Cornwall area different forms of smuggling have gone on for many years. My understanding is that during Prohibition time there were smuggling routes through there, and throughout different periods there have been times when border communities in eastern Ontario have had smuggling ongoing. Obviously, it's a serious issue at this time. The most recent levels of increase, though, have come about, from my understanding, starting in 1987-88 and picking up from 1989 on. Of course, that does correspond with the time we had the implementation of the goods and services tax.

When we're talking about taxation polices and the Tories are trying to say that this is solely the provincial government's responsibility in the time we've been in here, they need to think about their federal cousins who brought us in the goods and services tax, a large increase in the sales tax that people had to pay, and what that's done to encourage an underground economy and smuggling.

As I said, though, there are some responsibilities that we do have, and we do take them seriously. We have put additional focus on enforcement. If you recall, back in the spring budget the Minister of Finance talked about increasing the number of enforcement officials on tax issues. Those officials will be working with the other enforcement officials, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who also have responsibility on this issue. The focus, though, isn't just to deal with the issue, as the leader of the third party has put forward, in just one way; it's to get right at the heart of the issue and try to target the beginning of the smuggling pipeline and also to get at the distributors of this problem.

I think it's important to understand that many people who purchase smuggled products, cigarettes, and I think most of us recognize and acknowledge the fact that it goes on in most of our communities, feel that no one gets hurt by that, that the only ones who are impacted are governments and that's because they're overtaxing us. I think all of us need to understand that people do get hurt. As the leader of the third party has pointed out, and rightly so, there is an impact at play. There's an impact at play for the people of Cornwall in terms of how they feel about their safety. There's also a whole question of how local retailers and wholesalers feel. I had a local wholesaler call me on Friday who does wholesale cigarettes. Their business is down because people are purchasing smuggled cigarettes.

When people think that it has no impact on them and they're not hurting anyone, they are hurting many people, first of all in terms of the impact it does have on the provincial revenue. They may say, "That's only the government," but they have to remember that it's the government that funds a great deal of the important services -- health care, education -- that have come to make us and define us as who we are as Ontarians, who we are as Canadians. I mentioned my local wholesaler and the decrease in the jobs for that person.

So in terms of not having any impact, it's impacting their neighbour who may be employed by that wholesaler. It's impacting their local convenience retailer, the convenience store owner in their neighbourhood whose sales are down or who also knows there's a market for smuggled cigarettes and unfortunately has had to take more action in terms of installing stronger security systems. That has an impact on their costs and it has an impact on entire communities. We also know of those who have been transporting cigarettes to different stores and the security measures they've had to take and the number of thefts of cigarettes.

It does have a real impact. I think everyone who's out there purchasing smuggled goods -- and it's not just cigarettes; whether it be alcohol or any other types of goods, smuggled or stolen -- needs to realize that that has had an impact on somebody and probably has had an impact on somebody in their very own community. I think those points are important to remember.

I want to come back to the issue of what this government has done, or in fact I would say hasn't done, because it hasn't raised tobacco taxes for two years in a row. That, as a result of many reasons, obviously impacts on different communities from my part of the province in terms of tobacco-growing communities and also in terms of what impact, obviously, increased taxes have on that. So the provincial government has taken action to not increase tax levels that would encourage underground economy smuggling. As I said, tobacco taxes, for two years, have not increased the provincial sales tax.

Also, coming back and talking again and reminding people about what impact that does have has been indicated. There is some impact on provincial revenues. Everyone recognizes that. But I think also it's very hard for people to make the connection between the impact on government revenues and how that plays back into their communities in terms of the many public services that are funded through those revenues. That puts a lot of pressure on the local communities, the local services, to be able to maintain those services, and of course on all levels of government.

1550

I just want to go over some of the things that the government is doing in looking at our approach to deal with the smuggling issue. I did mention earlier about the 1993 budget and significantly higher penalties. The budget provides for an increase in the tax to 10 times the tax payable for persons in possession of 50 or more cartons of unmarked cigarettes -- that's one case -- and also increases the jail terms. They can be up to two years for dealers found in possession of smuggled cigarettes.

So we're increasing the penalties. We're trying to find a more integrated approach in terms of ministry enforcement officials working with the OPP, working with other enforcement officials. I mentioned about the initiatives for federal-provincial cooperation and the Solicitor General, who I'm sure will make more reference to those efforts in the establishment of a task force to deal with the issue. We know that more has to be done. There has been more aggressive enforcement over the past 10 months and more will be done through different types of measures to deal with the issue.

I think it's important to understand that it's not just a very simplistic issue. It's easy to say, "Just reduce taxes and you'll solve the problem." One of the studies that has been done on that issue showed that this didn't solve a problem in the United States. They did a study about tax evasion and they found, even in those areas where taxes were reduced, that it didn't solve the problem of tax evasion.

We need to understand that there's a much more complex issue involved when we're talking about the smuggling issue than simply reducing taxes. That in itself won't solve the problem.

Of course, the other thing we need to do is send out a message there. I think many people feel that they can't get caught, or there's no penalty now. I think the government realizes that it needs to do a much better job of publicizing successful prosecutions. People do need to understand that there are penalties, that the law is taking action and that they may suffer the consequences. The public needs to know that.

I want to say that there are those many different initiatives, whether it be the Solicitor General, whether it be through the Ministry of Finance, whether it be through some of the other government agencies that are available. We take the issue very seriously. We are doing what we can, but we also need to understand that they need a lot of the public's cooperation and understanding that at the bottom end, whether it's at their local workplace or someplace else where someone is offering them cheap, illegal cigarettes, their purchasing those cigarettes does have an impact on their community, has an impact on their neighbours and may have an impact on many of the public services they've come to trust and rely upon.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we should have a quorum here. This is a very important issue.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Cornwall has asked for a quorum call. Could the table check, please.

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. Do we have further participants in the debate? The honourable member for Cornwall.

Mr Cleary: It's my pleasure to participate in this debate. Since early 1992, I have contacted the Solicitor General's office to demand action on the smuggling and the safety of our area residents. Many times the answer was that it was a federal problem.

It is interesting that the Tory caucus is now championing the public safety of our residents, especially since the Hansard officers and many members of the Legislature heard a member of their caucus make an offensive remark about citizens' safety last week due to gunfire and high-speed boats. I was surprised that the leader would bring forward this motion highlighting the economic and safety plights of our area and ask the NDP government to take a real and immediate action within its jurisdiction to end smuggling activities. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the Tories have finally come on side and realized that the situation needs action.

The government must make an effort with the federal government and law enforcement agencies, which have recently formed a task force to consider ways of maximizing their resources. And no wonder. I recently noted a report that revealed the average family in Canada pays $23,000, or 40% of its income, in various taxes at all levels of government. Quite simply, this erodes consumer spending. And while this figure seems startlingly high, it also revealed that an additional $5 billion in taxable sources were unpaid in 1993. This includes working under the table.

Obviously this activity is a direct response to the relentless increase in taxation, whether it be the GST, corporate tax, retail sales tax and of course the NDP's latest round, including personal income tax, surtax, automobile insurance, even aggregate materials. However, true to form, it's a vicious circle and is clearly impacting on government revenues. I know our small corner businesses are really suffering, because they tell me they are unable to sell any cigarettes in our area.

Before I offer my suggestions, I would like to share with members some of the incidents that have taken place in our area and caused residents a great deal of concern.

A provincial police officer chasing a well-known smuggler on to the frozen waters of the river, after being surrounded by others in that business, had to retreat after losing a finger.

In June of last year, Lancaster OPP started a marine watch program to curb the rising rate of crime along the river, which has jumped 260% over the past two years. Theft of boats and motors has led to increased education about securing properties and installing motion detectors in the marinas in the area.

Also in June, a student boasted to local media that he made more money in six months than his teacher made in one year, causing many area residents to call for military intervention into the area.

In July, an unidentified gunman fired gunshots from a boat on the river in the middle of the day, narrowly missing two boys fishing near the bike path in Cornwall.

An area resident confronted by five thieves attempting to steal property from a waterfront home fired a small-calibre gun, giving one of them a surface wound. The owner has subsequently been charged with a firearm offence but received a good deal of public support for standing up to the smugglers and the violence that comes with it.

In August, a 36-year-old Quebec man was shot with a high-speed-powered rifle in a smuggling-related incident. He was apparently involved in the exchange of gunfire and was dumped on a nearby dock in Charlottenburgh township.

1600

Also in August, the coast guard volunteer search and rescue team announced that night patrols on the St Lawrence River would be cancelled until safety is restored in the area, leaving fishermen and hunters without any emergency rescue team in the event that they run into trouble. These sportsmen all contribute to the provincial coffers through their licensing system and through the provincial gas tax.

Media from all over North America have branded the Cornwall area "smugglers' alley."

Smugglers ran out of gas on the St Lawrence River near Lancaster, stopping at an island cottage and demanding gas from the cottage owners. Two gallons of gas was given to the smugglers; in return they gave them $50 and the owner of the cottage said they had enough money to choke a horse, and a boatload of cigarettes.

On August 26, gunfire became so constant that the cottagers left at 5 am. When they returned next day they found a bullet-riddled boat and a big dog standing on their wharf. I spoke to this particular family on the weekend. They still remain afraid and will not return to their cottage, and may never return until this situation is in hand.

In early September, police estimate that 10 to 20 rounds of ammunition were fired at an east-end Cornwall home in drive-by shootings, which also took place in the Eamers Corners area. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

Many residents do not live at their cottages. Many of them tell me that they take a weapon to bed with them for their protection. Stories of police seizures of cigarettes on land are not uncommon. One such chase took place in the city at very high speeds, eventually turning up $200,000 worth of illegal cigarettes. However, Sergeant Jean Bourassa of the RCMP recently said that the police are only catching 5% of what passes through.

Cornwall civic complex was sprayed with bullets after midnight last month, frightening restaurant staff in the centre at the time. Rumours are circulating from Domtar employees that bullets have hit the Domtar property at the same time. Gunfire is also reported at 2nd Street West east of the Robert Saunders generating station. Residents of Akwesasne have complained that they hear gunshots 24 hours a day. Shots were fired into a woman's house at 4:30 am, piercing windows and pictures on the wall.

I've also been told that the picnic tables in Charlottenburgh park are being used by smugglers as launching pads for their boats. This is one of the parks that was closed by the St Lawrence Parks Commission. The township of Charlottenburgh and Reeve Dave MacDonald have been trying to get an agreement with this government and the parks commission for years -- some kind of lease agreement. They have been to Toronto many times, meeting with then-minister Peter North and others. They tried to meet with Premier Bob Rae in Kingston last week, but no luck.

Unless an agreement is worked out shortly, the parks will be closed another year. How can we get this message through?

Efforts: Since early 1992 the Liberal caucus has tried to raise the government's awareness. I've written dozens of letters and have stood here in my place 10 times, hoping that the government would recognize the fact that this is not just a local problem.

The federal and provincial governments lost $1.6 billion in revenue last year due to smuggling of cigarettes and will probably lose $2 billion this year.

That is not even alcohol-related. However, more important in the short term is the safety of our residents. The safety must be addressed by all jurisdictions, just as enforcement must be shared, joint and united.

This should not be a partisan issue. All members of the assembly must agree that the key issue is safety and we must all work to restore that in eastern Ontario.

I have repeatedly called on the Solicitor General to meet with me and local enforcement officers in the Cornwall area so that he could get a firsthand view of the seriousness of the smuggling, but he refused.

The united counties council of SD&G, 20 local municipalities in eastern Ontario, passed a resolution calling for immediate action. I was very pleased that the minister finally was able to meet with us, although not in Cornwall, and the key players to hammer out some kind of mutual agreement on how best to confront the issue. A joint task force worked out the details on an action plan, and that could not come too soon for the residents of my area.

As a result of the September 23 meeting in Ottawa a number of suggestions were made for both levels of government. Some of the suggestions that come from our elected officials:

Reeve Dave MacDonald of the township of Charlottenburgh said that taxation is the root cause of contraband cigarettes. Reeve MacDonald knows that a large amount of the smuggling takes place in his municipality. He has said that since taxes make up approximately 50% of the actual cost of a package of cigarettes, this illegal trade is promoting a market for illegal cigarettes.

The underground economy is flourishing and the NDP government's latest hit on people's pocketbooks is not helping. For example, the Minister of Finance's last budget tax increases on personal income tax, surtax, auto insurance and aggregate materials are all causing customers to seek better deals on everything, especially cigarettes.

Reeve Charlie Sangster has said that the Lancaster detachment of the OPP being closed in the early hours was part of the problem. Reeve Sangster also said that he is not very hopeful that swift action would be taken by either the federal or the provincial government. The Solicitor General and the OPP have now opened that detachment 24 hours a day, which I believe is a step in the right direction, but no extra police officers or funding have been allocated.

Reeve Ron MacDonell of Lochiel township, former warden of the united counties and former OPP officer, has questioned the ability of the Lancaster detachment to function with inadequate resources.

Both federal and provincial jurisdictions must take appropriate action. Residents of my area, police and municipal politicians have suggested a number of ways to respond to the smuggling at the federal level:

-- Reduce federal taxes on cigarettes, which would remove incentive for smugglers.

-- Increase Revenue Canada's anti-smuggling units.

-- Beef up GST and income tax reviews.

-- Allow the RCMP greater resources and weaponry to be able to respond to smugglers. Two RCMP boats are not enough. They are very concerned about the possibility that many drugs are slipping through daily when they're concentrating on cigarettes.

-- Move the physical location of the Canada Customs office inland. This would stop smugglers' goods bypassing the customs office.

-- That the courts review the Charter of Rights section pertaining to reasonable and probable grounds for police to search vehicles. As it stands now, an officer has to actually see contraband cigarettes in the vehicle before he or she can search it.

-- Consider incarceration for anyone leading high-speed and dangerous pursuits, which threaten the lives of police and innocent bystanders.

1610

On the provincial scene, residents, police and municipal politicians have also made recommendations for the province to consider:

-- That the Ontario government increase the number of tobacco inspectors by allowing OPP officers to temporarily perform this duty, since the current mandate does not specifically target smugglers.

-- Reeve Dave MacDonald has called for a reduction in provincial taxes so that smuggling is no longer profitable and so that the retailers can sell what they are there to sell. Reeve MacDonald has also called for an all-out effort to enforce the Customs Act and catch smugglers in their tracks. He knows because many of this smuggling is happening in his municipality.

There are great concerns about the number of smuggled cigarettes that are being sold and distributed in our schools.

The Liberal Party is pushing for an all-party committee of the Legislature to examine the size of the problem and the root causes and to offer real solutions to this problem. The Tories like to say that their task force late this summer was the way to hear people. Well, I have to say that we don't need another partisan task force for the people to come forward.

For over two years my office has been getting letters and telephone calls from constituents wishing to remain anonymous -- I feel that's what my office is there for -- not to mention the fact that a lot of people don't want to identify themselves before a committee. They have preferred to use the telephone or to tell me about their concerns, and I hope they continue to do so.

I am glad that the Tories are now on board this anti-smuggling ship and I look forward to hearing some positive recommendations to address smuggling in eastern Ontario.

Action must be taken by all jurisdictions in the area. I would like to tell the Solicitor General that he has my full cooperation, and I look forward to meeting with him again in my riding. I hope that we would be supporting the motion before us.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): At the outset, I want to say that I was somewhat disappointed in the comments from the member for Cornwall. He attacked the Progressive Conservative Party, apparently for sponsoring this special opposition day debate on this important question. Then, later on in his remarks, he said this is clearly a non-partisan issue, quite a contradiction in respect to us raising this issue and giving all members in this Legislature an opportunity to have input on the matter, rather than simply -- I assume he wanted it confined to himself as the representative from that area. I think that's unfortunate. It is indeed a non-partisan issue and all of us should have an opportunity to participate and not only express concern but hopefully provide some suggestions, some alternatives to what is occurring now.

Since the member got a little partisan in respect to this whole issue about dealing with policing, I want to say that I don't feel the Liberals have a very strong case to make in respect to support for police officers, men and women, in this province. We simply have to go back to their days in government. Their attitude was not much different from the current NDP government in respect to those kinds of issues.

I recall two Metro Toronto officers being very critical of a slap-on-the-hand penalty awarded to two drug dealers by a provincial judge in this jurisdiction. The Metro officers expressed concern about the revolving-door approach of the justice system. What did the Attorney General of the day, one Ian Scott, do but very severely take those Metro police officers to task for having the unmitigated gall to be critical of this system whereby drug dealers were arrested after intensive investigation by Metro officers and then turned out on to the streets the very next day by the judicial system in the province.

They were simply expressing the frustration of themselves and certainly a broad section of the public in this province, and the Liberal Attorney General of the day drew and quartered those police officers who were doing their best on behalf of Ontario residents. So when they try to get on their soapbox about these kinds of issues, they have a tough time justifying their views.

I want to say that this is certainly a difficult situation. One element, of course, we want to talk about is policing and the enforcement questions. We want to talk about taxation. But an element that I want to talk about briefly that is a factor in this difficult matter is the state of the economy in that part of eastern Ontario. Reference has been made earlier, certainly by our leader, Mike Harris, in question period, about this government's approach to eastern Ontario. I think that's most strongly indicated in what has happened in the Cornwall area.

Cornwall has been undergoing significant difficulties. I guess it's fair to say that they've been battered by the economy in the past number of years. Unemployment is over 20% in the Cornwall area. I think the figure is something like 13 plants closed down in the last year. I could be wrong, but it's a significant number of industries, some of them long-term industries like Courtaulds, which has been there it seems like for ever, providing what many Cornwall residents felt generation after generation were good, safe, well-paying jobs in the Cornwall area. Those plants have been closing. The economy is battered: as I said, 22% unemployment and almost 40% of the residents receiving some kind of government assistance. That's a difficult situation.

As a result, I think that has helped to create the situation that currently exists in respect to the significant increases we've seen in smuggling of not only cigarettes but alcoholic beverages, and prior to the change in the dollar, significant other cross-border shopping problems that were certainly a significant concern to Cornwall merchants and merchants throughout eastern Ontario.

Smuggling has always been a bit of a problem, I guess. I am a guy who grew up on the St Lawrence River, coming from the city of Brockville and spending a lot of time on the river. It's been probably a normal thing for most river rats, if you will, to buy the occasional case of beer or what have you and bring them across the border. But now of course we're seeing significant volumes, and the bulk of it coming through the Akwesasne area.

Again, this touches on another problem, and that's the attitude of the inhabitants of the reservation, a couple of reservations. We've seen public statements by certainly the Mohawks that they very much rely on this kind of revenue. They are very clearly concerned about the focus of attention not only by politicians but by media and others in respect to what has occurred in the last couple of months. From what I've read, there's an effort to try and --

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for a quorum call.

The Acting Speaker: Could the Clerk check if we do have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: 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 Leeds-Grenville may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Runciman: I was talking about the attitude and approach of the Mohawks in respect to this issue. They are obviously concerned about the negative press and what's happening in respect to some of the concerns about rifles being fired on the river and some of the incidents that have been mentioned by other members in this House. I think we're clearly seeing a significant change in that, and there's cooperation perhaps occurring in respect to the various parties involved in the smuggling operations to try to eliminate these kinds of incidents that draw public and police and political attention to what's occurring in the Cornwall area. That makes it not simply an issue respecting violence, but then it gets the violence out of the equation and it becomes primarily an issue of tax policy, in essence.

1620

I want to get back to the Cornwall situation and the severe economic concerns of residents in that area and, I'm sure, the mayor, the members of council and a host of others. There has to be more emphasis by this government, by this Legislature, on trying to revitalize the economy in eastern Ontario, specifically a hard-hit economy like that of the city of Cornwall.

We've seen a task force established to deal with the smuggling problem. Well, smuggling is a symptom of a host of problems: taxation, of course, but also the dire state of the economy in the city of Cornwall and in many parts of eastern Ontario. I'm not being critical of the establishment of this task force involving federal, municipal and provincial officials, but I think it's an even greater priority that a task force, a special commission, whatever you want to term it, take a look at what is indeed a crisis situation, in my view, in the city of Cornwall in terms of unemployment and the number of people receiving social assistance, in terms of turning around that economy and attracting new jobs to that part of the province. That's what we have to do. If we can't do that, we're going to have extreme difficulty addressing this problem of people getting involved in this kind of activity.

Despite the NDP member for Oxford chastising people who purchase these cigarettes, when you're talking about the difference between $25 a carton versus $50 a carton, you're talking about tax increases that have put a burden on virtually every taxpayer in this province, killing an awful lot of businesses, large and small. People feel they have some justification. This is a way of getting at this tax-grabbing government -- or governments, both federal and provincial.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The federal government too.

Mr Runciman: I agree: the federal government as well. There is that feeling out there, and it's very widespread. A lot of honest, law-abiding people feel very comfortable purchasing these kinds of products. When you take a look at the taxes that have increased on cigarettes and alcohol products over the past number of years, there's very little justification for doing so other than a desperate need of governments at senior levels for increased revenues based on the continuing level of expenditures that they are very reluctant to deal with.

I want to make the primary thrust of my comments today an appeal to the government, to members of this Legislature, to address the very serious economic problems facing not only the city of Cornwall but -- and I'm sure, Mr Speaker, you will confirm this -- significant areas in eastern Ontario.

I had a federal study done a number of years ago looking at poverty levels. In terms of people living under the poverty level, the highest percentages were in eastern Ontario, rural areas outside of Cornwall, some of the areas that you represent, Mr Speaker, some of the areas the member for Renfrew North represents, surrounding Cornwall and even in Cornwall. These are the people living under the poverty line, and we have to start dealing with those kinds of situations; otherwise, we're not going to be able to address this very significant problem.

What can we do from a policing perspective? We can make additional efforts at the provincial level, but I'm not sure they're going to have a great deal of impact. We certainly can't start, I don't believe, confronting residents of the reservation on the river. I don't think that's a role of the provincial government or the provincial police, and I'm not sure that anyone at this stage of the game wants to deal with that sort of confrontation and the implications.

We just simply have to reflect back on Oka. We have to reflect simply on the attitude of the Mohawks, for example, who believe this is quite appropriate. They rely very heavily on this revenue. They're putting some of these dollars towards secondary education. You simply have to go over to the reservation and they can point to all sorts of initiatives which they can attribute to some degree to revenues flowing from this kind of, as they see it, legitimate business. In some respects, they believe they have a legal right, under historic agreements, to transport tax-free cigarettes between the two countries. They will make that argument. So there's a considerable reluctance.

What can we do? I think that we can certainly increase police patrols. We can do more in terms of roadblocks of trucking coming off the Cornwall bridge. We can do roadblocks in terms of all kinds of trucking going along Highway 2, along that whole corridor of the St Lawrence River. Those kinds of things can be done: increased OPP patrols, increased use of roadblocks and inspections of truck vehicles. We've seen some significant catches, but they're just a drop in the bucket, primarily along Highway 401. There have been a couple in my area. Some of them have been accidental in terms of stopping trucks for other matters and finding they're carrying a significant load of contraband. So those kinds of things we can be doing, we should be doing.

The whole question of the Lancaster detachment operating 24 hours a day is certainly one that was justified being raised in this House. It draws attention to the whole concern about the adequacy of policing right throughout this province in terms of the OPP.

I raised a contradiction that's occurring currently, and I suspect it's occurring right across the province, where detachments are carrying out studies, at the direction of OPP headquarters, in terms of looking at what kinds of regional detachments, area detachments and village detachments can be closed or amalgamated in an effort to reduce OPP policing costs. That is a major concern of mine. That study is being conducted right now, when we know, especially in rural areas of Ontario, that there's increasing concern among residents about the lack of adequate coverage of police forces in a broad range of areas.

What are we doing at this point? What is this government doing through the OPP? Looking at further reductions. I think that is wrongheaded. At the same time, and we found this out through a memo related to the social contract, the government is looking at bringing in assessments on municipalities that currently do not pay for OPP policing. We had originally heard rumours that they're looking at doing this in municipalities that exceeded populations of 5,000, but they're looking at everybody who receives this so-called free policing.

What might happen as a result of that study, if indeed they do come in with these kinds of assessments, is that we're going to see, and I've already experienced this, small municipalities, for example, looking to municipalities that have established police forces as an option, as an alternative to the OPP. It may be cost-effective for them to, for example, purchase their policing from a municipality rather than purchasing it from the province. This is a real possibility.

So while the province is in the midst of doing this kind of study, which could result in a significant reduction in their coverage needs, at the same time they are looking at the reduction and closure of detachments throughout the province. It just doesn't make any sense. One hand's doing something and the other hand doesn't know what's going on. These two studies are in conflict, and I've urged the Solicitor General to get his act together. Let's take a look at what they're going to do in respect to these kinds of additional levies against municipalities before they make any reductions in police coverage across this province.

I want to tell you right now that this party, the Progressive Conservative Party, is going to fight tooth and nail against any closure of OPP detachments in this province, any reduction of police coverage. You just have to look at what's happening in this province, and a tough economy is part of it: increasing crime, increasing violent crime. We look at what happened in Barrie the other day, with three people murdered in their own home. We look at what happened in Peterborough. In my own community, in Brockville, we had a 79-year-old woman bound and gagged and her throat slit, we understand. In any event, she was murdered.

Those kinds of things are occurring in small-town, small-city Ontario now. Everyone used to say, "That only happens in the United States," or, "It only happens in the big cities." It's starting to happen in rural Ontario, small-town Ontario, and for us to look at reducing police coverage, reducing the number of police officers out there on a 24-hour basis, covering communities in an adequate fashion like they've done for many, many years in this province -- it's one of the things we felt confident about -- to consider doing that is simply, in my view -- now, this is not a pun -- criminal, and we're going to fight it in the Progressive Conservative caucus tooth and nail.

1630

In summation, I want to say that there are some things we can do at the provincial level and we urge the government to get involved and we'll press it to do that. There are some things the federal government can do, like reinstituting the federal levy on exported cigarettes. We think that should be looked at again. But again, I implore all members to take a look at the state of the economy in eastern Ontario. Let's get a task force working on restoring the economy and the vitality of the economy in eastern Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate, the honourable Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Mr Wildman: And the minister responsible for native affairs, Mr Speaker.

I rise in this debate because I have for many, many months, and years, for that matter, taken this matter very seriously and have raised it on a number of occasions with chiefs of first nations, with aboriginal leaders, and with municipal leaders and federal government officials as well.

Smuggling of cigarettes in particular, but also contraband liquor, is increasing. My friend from Cornwall is fully aware of this and I was happy to participate with him, along with his federal colleagues and my colleague the Solicitor General, recently at the meeting he arranged in Ottawa to deal with this, along with municipal officials and policing officials and customs representatives.

This is not just a problem in Cornwall or in eastern Ontario, however; this is a problem right across Canada. It's a problem in British Columbia, it's a problem in New Brunswick, it's a problem wherever we are on the border and where there is easy access to the purchase of Canadian-manufactured cigarettes that are supposedly for sale in the United States market but which are really being purchased for transportation back into the Canadian market. There is no question that Akwesasne is a major source, but it is a problem elsewhere. It's a problem in Six Nations in Ontario, it's a problem in New Brunswick and it is a problem in British Columbia, as I mentioned, as well, and certainly a problem in some parts of Quebec. But Akwesasne is a major source.

I rise to discuss this because I am particularly concerned about the potential for a demoralizing effect on the community, both native and non-native. It was suggested by my friend from Leeds-Grenville that this is not a situation where we should be talking about the purchasers of the cigarettes specifically because, after all, cigarette taxes are such that this is really a tax revolt, a way of getting back at federal and provincial governments for the taxes they levy on cigarettes.

I think that's true, but I disagree with his view that somehow we should accept that, because I'm particularly concerned about the young people, some of the young people in Cornwall, for instance, who might be getting involved in the purchase and sale of such cigarettes, because if an individual finds that he or she can make an enormous amount of money in a very short period of time through selling contraband cigarettes because of the market that is created by high taxation, it may not be too great a step to then move on to other types of contraband and to become involved in the purchase and resale of contraband liquor or other types of abuse substances, such as illicit drugs.

Mr Stockwell: Hash leads to heroin.

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't believe in the domino theory, but I'm just saying that if an individual makes a great deal of money in a very short period of time selling contraband, I suspect that, for many of them, one type of contraband is not too much different from another.

My particular concern is the way some people have characterized this issue. This is not a native issue and it is certainly not an Akwesasne issue alone. It's been suggested in this debate that the Mohawks view the purchase of cigarettes in the United States and the transportation across the Canadian border in a way different than many non-natives. Well, we all understand that the history of the community of Akwesasne or the Iroquois Confederacy is quite different from the history of the non-native community of Cornwall and eastern Ontario, along the border to Buffalo and St Catharines and so on into southwestern Ontario. But in my discussions with Grand Chief Mike Mitchell of the Mohawk council he has made it very clear that in view of the agreements that his forefathers made with my forefathers, they indeed have the right to purchase cigarettes in the United States and to bring them to the Canadian side of the Akwesasne reserve. That is not illegal, in my view or in his.

What is illegal is when those cigarettes then leave the reserve and go to Cornwall for sale in the community of Cornwall or into Ottawa or to Montreal. That then is, in the view of Grand Chief Mike Mitchell, illegal.

I want to point out that he has been raising this, along with my friend from Cornwall, for many years with the federal government, with very little effect. The federal government viewed this, I think unfortunately, for many years as simply a small loss in tax revenue rather than a criminal activity that should be dealt with as a criminal activity.

The fact is that 90%, it's estimated, of the cigarettes that are manufactured legally in Canada for export into the United States are purchased in the US and smuggled back into Canada, and everybody knows it. The cigarette manufacturers know it, and I'm sure that legitimate manufacturers of cigarettes, a legal product, would not want to be even indirectly involved in an illicit trade. But if everybody understands that's what most of the cigarettes that are exported into the United States are destined to become, illicit sales in Canada, then surely the manufacturers, as well as both levels of government, must come together to determine how we prevent that.

It was suggested some months ago that there should be an export tax levied on Canadian cigarettes destined for the American market. The federal government suggested it would do that. But as soon as they did, it's my understanding that the Canadian cigarette manufacturers lobbied vociferously in Ottawa against this measure. If these legitimate manufacturers, leaders of the Canadian business establishment, believe that they are carrying on a legitimate business, then why would they oppose a measure that is designed to prevent or to make more difficult the illicit trade in cigarettes back into Canada? Why would they do that?

The fact is, if the profit margin could be cut substantially, there would be very little reason to get involved in this trade. But when the profit margin is going to be cut, then the manufacturer says: "Hey, wait a minute. That's going to cut our business, perhaps. That's going to cut our market for cigarettes that we're manufacturing for export into the United States." If they believe that an export tax is going to harm them, then I wonder whether they're really serious about wanting to stop this illicit trade.

The fact is, this is not, as I said, an aboriginal issue. There is evidence that there are elements of organized crime involved in this trade, that indeed they are not only operating with illicit cigarettes but other products of contraband as well. Once we get organized crime involved in a community like Akwesasne or Cornwall, then the enormous profits they can make from this trade will be rechannelled into other businesses, legitimate business and so on, and we will get an influence in the community that none of us wants.

1640

Mr Stockwell: Like casinos.

Hon Mr Wildman: Well, one can look at the history of the gambling situation on the US side of the Akwesasne reserve and understand that this is a serious, difficult problem. Moving from casinos perhaps into cigarettes is not one way of dealing with the problems in these communities.

As my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville said, this problem feeds on the economic problems of Cornwall and eastern Ontario. There's no question about that. If one looks at the serious economic problems of non-native communities in that part of our province, just multiply them about 10 times to determine what the problems are in aboriginal communities, where we have on average 80% unemployment. Isn't it interesting that the federal government's Statistics Canada does not include aboriginal people in our unemployment figures? Isn't that interesting? If they did, our unemployment figures would be even higher in this country today. But they have never been included. Why? Perhaps because they don't matter as much in the view of those who collect statistics at Statistics Canada.

In my view, all levels of government must cooperate in dealing with this very serious problem, and there isn't only one way of dealing with it. Just dealing with the taxation issue is not going to resolve it. Just approaching it as a policing issue is not going to resolve it. There must be the political will at all levels of government to deal with smuggling for what it is: not a tax revolt, but an illegal activity that is illegal for the person who sells but also illegal for the person who purchases.

I call on the federal government to consider seriously reinstituting what it proposed before, and that was an export tax on Canadian-manufactured cigarettes destined for the US market. We must not allow this situation to deteriorate even further, where people will be afraid of coming out at night along the St Lawrence River, where people can flout the law or where other people might be tempted to take the law into their own hands. To the extent that governments have allowed this situation to deteriorate to the point it has so far leaves all governments with the ethical responsibility to take an active role in finding solutions.

This is not a case of non-native governments knowing what's best for a community like Akwesasne and imposing some kind of new order on a community which is very difficult to govern, considering that its geography covers two different provinces and one state.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No, it's all one for natives; it's all one.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, it is one Mohawk territory that crosses a number of our borders. That makes it very, very difficult for any law enforcement official, including the Mohawk police, to deal with this issue.

Rather, this is a case of governments taking responsibility for a situation they have helped to bring about. I believe that non-native governments must place a high priority on resolving this issue and taking the responsible means in terms of legislation and policing, administrative and tax measures that will help to resolve this and take the enormous profits out of this illicit trade.

Again, I thank the members for their attention and I want to congratulate those who brought this matter before the House.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate, first to congratulate my colleague from Cornwall. I think an objective analysis of Hansard will demonstrate that he's been raising this issue for a long while, and I thought in a statesmanlike way, if I might compliment him, certainly for our caucus and I think for the Legislature; doing it in a responsible way and crying out for assistance from the government for his community. Again, I compliment him for that.

I want to put this in a slightly broader context, because I happen to think this is almost a metaphor, a specific, major example of a broader issue. That doesn't mean we don't have to deal specifically with the situation in Cornwall and come to the assistance of that community to help deal with the issue, but if you look at what's now being called the underground economy, we all need to recognize that it is substantial, it's growing and it's a major issue for the people of Ontario.

The solutions to dealing with it, I accept, will not be easy, but I have taken a fair bit of interest in the issue of the underground economy and trying to get the Legislature to deal with it in a fairly comprehensive way. If I might put in a plug for a proposal the Liberal caucus has for the Legislature, the Conservative Party has already agreed and I would hope that the members from the NDP would agree to have an all-party legislative committee, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, look at the whole issue of the underground economy in a broad way to determine how large the problem is -- and I think all of us are finding that it is bigger than we would have thought a year ago, bigger perhaps than most people estimate -- what the root causes of it are, and what some of the solutions are that we can look at.

The solutions, in my opinion, are not going to be simple bromides. They're not going to be simply hiring more tax auditors, hiring more police and going after those who are participating in the underground economy. If we think that is the solution, we never will get at the root cause.

I'll give you a few examples. I've raised this before in the Legislature with the Minister of Finance and he was a little touchy about it, but I make the point only to illustrate.

The NDP government has taken taxes up $4 billion in the last three years. If you look at the last three budgets, taxes have gone up, in total, $4 billion. But what's happened to actual tax revenue? In other words, it was the expectation that the tax increases would yield an increase of about $4 billion in tax revenue, but if you look at the actual numbers, tax revenue has declined by almost $3 billion over the last four years. The point I'm making here is that you often hear people say that maybe there is some point at which increasing taxes actually becomes counterproductive, that by increasing taxes you actually reduce your revenue coming in.

I'm not saying that's what's happened, but I think we in the Legislature need to examine the facts. The tax increases were supposed to yield an incremental $4 billion in the last three years. If anyone looks at the revenue that's come in from taxes, revenues actually dropped by, as I say, almost $3 billion. Something's happening out there that is representing an impact on our tax revenue.

We've seen several studies now. One was from the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association. They estimate that almost half of all the home renovation activity that goes on now is done on what they would call the black market, by individuals who are not collecting the taxes on it. That's up dramatically from 1990. It was about a quarter of the renovations that they would estimate would have been done; it's now almost half.

1650

The study by a reputable accounting firm that deals in audits of what's going on in the tobacco market suggests that now one in six cigarettes actually sold in Canada -- and I suspect it could be at least that high in Ontario -- is sold illegally. They're cigarettes that have come to the province from outside Canada for contraband sales.

Mr Stockwell: One in six?

Mr Phillips: One in six. The recent story in Maclean's indicated that tax evasion may now be costing all levels of government almost $30 billion a year. So I don't think there's any doubt that we're dealing with a major issue here that is growing.

I would urge the members of the NDP caucus to support the proposal we have that will come up this Thursday to a legislative committee to allow us to take a good look at it. The reason I raise this is because there are some who seem reluctant to talk about the problem. There are some who seem reluctant to raise the issue because there's a belief by some out there that if you talk about the underground economy, more people will participate in it. As a matter of fact, one of the senior people from the Ministry of Finance did, I thought, a good study on the underground economy and published it. It's worthwhile reading it.

But when Maclean's interviewed that individual, he indicated, in response to the Maclean's interview, "I hesitate to talk about this subject because the data show that the more people become aware that other people cheat, the more they cheat." That's precisely the issue. I gather from his comments that there must be some study out there that demonstrates that to be the case.

I think we would make a mistake to not get it out, talk about it, have people who understand the problem come before us and try to identify what are the root causes. I know that of many of the people who have corresponded with me, because I've asked for support from the public to help us to get on with this study, many of the groups and individuals who have corresponded with me on the issue have indicated that they see it as a significant and growing problem and they're worried. They're worried.

I think we've had some discussion this afternoon about how many people now are buying contraband cigarettes. It's become today's equivalent almost of buying wholesale. We can say: "That's wrong. You're buying illegal cigarettes." We can say: "You shouldn't do that. You're breaking the law." All of us understand that, but people are suffering out there. People are struggling, and they find that they can buy it substantially cheaper, and they do it. I just say to us, I don't think having more police and more auditors will solve that problem.

As I say, in trying to come to grips with the broader issue of the underground economy and trying to get at some of the root causes, I would hope all of us, all three parties, would agree this Thursday to have the finance and economics committee look at it. I might say I'm not naïve enough to think that one committee, operating on a fairly short time frame and obviously with fairly limited resources, is going to solve it all. But it will be the beginning, I believe, of us understanding how big the problem is and what we have to do to deal with it.

I might also say that many of the people who corresponded with me said that the solution is to reduce taxes. I think we're going to have to look at the types of taxes we have on things and what they are doing to the economy. One of the members opposite hollered out, "It's the GST." As a matter of fact, there is some evidence by some of the people who have studied this that after the GST came in, the underground economy did seem to grow, that that was for some perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back. Perhaps another 7% -- public, there on all things -- was the thing that drove them underground. As I said, there is some evidence from those people who study this that it might have been one of the significant things that pushed the underground economy substantially ahead.

But just to go back to the point I made earlier, there is no doubt that the revenues for government are suffering. I happen to think it's the result of three things. The economy is weaker than had been predicted. I think most people felt that in 1993 the economy was going to turn around; we'd see real growth well above 3%. It's now clear in Ontario that we're going to see real growth well below 3%, so that's contributing to revenue softness. I think there's not much doubt in my mind that a long period of low inflation is impacting on revenue. But there's no doubt that the underground economy and the growth of it is significantly impacting on the revenue of all governments, and as I say, we don't begin to tackle in its broadest sense.

The problem is that those people out there who are going about paying their taxes and dealing fairly in every case begin to feel that they are not only paying for the increased taxes but that they are subsidizing those who aren't paying their fair share. As I say, I'd like us to deal specifically with the Cornwall issue and to be looking at solutions, but I'd also like us as a Legislature to begin to tackle the broader issue.

Turning to the Cornwall situation, it is unacceptable, I think, for all of us who live in Ontario to see a situation where people literally are afraid for their life, afraid for their safety. That simply can't be allowed to go on. We can't allow the residents of Cornwall to feel that they are not being legitimately protected. So while we try and deal with the macro issue of taxation and smuggling of cigarettes and all of those things, surely we can all agree here that there is a need to ensure the safety of the people in that area.

If I might say, at the risk of perhaps getting the NDP barracking here a bit, something I've spoken on here in the Legislature several times before is the Rae government using the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate leaks of information that come to the opposition and having scarce provincial police resources going after those leaks. My colleague from Bruce, as we say here, Mr Speaker, I recall vividly accidentally got a very harmless document in an envelope one day. It was a Ministry of Finance briefing note to the NDP caucus, a harmless document that arrived on his desk. What happened? The Rae government called in the police to investigate why that happened. That, to me, is a dangerous step, and I can't understand why the NDP back bench doesn't rise up and say: "We cannot use the police to try and silence our political opposition. It's wrong." I raise that because I would hope that there would be a few members of the NDP back bench who would recognize what a dangerous step that is.

Down to working with the community in the Cornwall area, as a minimum I would hope that the government would take the necessary steps to fulfil my colleague the member for Cornwall's demand that they be given the necessary support to ensure their safety while the government moves to try and deal with this issue in the much broader context of how we reduce taxes on it, how we deal with those issues. But as a minimum, surely they deserve the necessary police support for their safety and their health.

I'm pleased to be speaking on this issue and pleased to look forward to the government's response in dealing with what is a very serious issue for the residents of the Cornwall area.

1700

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too feel it's a privilege to rise today in my place and address a problem that's been ongoing for quite some time. I want, at the outset, to pay some homage to my colleague the member for Cornwall, who has been attempting to get a lot of the people's attention. He did get a little bit political in his particular presentation, and I guess maybe that's part of being here. However, he has been working hard, as I have been, in attempting to solve a problem that's been growing since about 1987 when all of a sudden governments at Queen's Park and in Ottawa started to increase quite considerably the taxes on cigarettes.

Here in this Legislature it was only two or three cents a cigarette, a pretty foxy way of increasing taxes. But I tell you, the smugglers who worked in smugglers' alley between Cornwall and Lancaster were wringing their hands in glee and they could hear the cash registers clanging as the governments at both the federal and the provincial levels increased taxes on cigarettes. It was their way to the bank with lots of very substantial deposits.

I'll read you a couple of excerpts from a study that was done for the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, and it's a forensic investigative accountant, Lindquist Avey Macdonald Baskerville, that did it. Here on page 21 it states in part: "For instance, in 1984, fine-cut tobacco for export and duty-free sales accounted for only 0.2% of the total fine-cut tobacco market. By 1989, its share of the market had risen to 2.2%, before soaring to 27.5% in 1991." That is for export. So, quite obviously, when we know what the population is in Akwesasne and we get the records of the amounts of cartons of cigarettes that go to that particular spot, we are faced with the very unreal situation that these people, on a per-capita basis, are smoking between five and eight cartons of cigarettes every day, and it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Smuggling began in earnest in 1990. Intimidation on the water began in earnest in 1990, somewhat casually, but then progressed to the point where it is now very dangerous to use the waterways, whether for pleasure craft, for fishing or anything. Remember that it's pretty well solidly built from Cornwall through Glenwater, through Summerstown on through to Lancaster, along the north shore of Lake St Francis, some of the finest waterfront facilities that you'll find anywhere in Ontario or even in Canada.

Indeed, we have gunfire every night. For the last two years we've had gunfire. As a matter of fact, the night that the Mike Harris task force was in Cornwall, ironically enough, the Cornwall civic complex is kitty-corner across from the courthouse where the task force was holding hearings and was shot up quite extensively by high-powered rifles. That very same night, at the Mike Harris task force, we heard a number of people make presentations to the effect that after dark, at dusk, many people have seen very high-powered boats with machine guns mounted on the front, belted ammunition, and this has become a regular occurrence; people are being intimidated, buildings are being shot at. My colleague from Cornwall and I won't go back over the many incidents that he alluded to, but these are major problems that we would never expect to be happening, of all places, in the province of Ontario, and this is what we have.

But the root of the problem is this: Without taxes, and Akwesasne is a native reservation without taxes, a carton of cigarettes costs about $14.40, the cost to the people who then move into the smuggling area. I've heard people tell me that they've purchased a carton of cigarettes for between $20 and $24. At your corner store, or wherever cigarettes are being retailed legally, the cost per carton is between $45 and $48. There is room enough there for profit for a very lucrative business.

Stated again in the report is that the Akwesasne-St Regis reservation is the principal point of entry in Ontario for smuggled tobacco products. According to the police, there are as many as 12 highly organized rings operating from the reservation. It is also suggested that Mohawk warriors were supplying Asian-Canadians from Toronto with both Canadian and American brand offerings.

The most troubling aspect of tobacco smuggling is the enormous profits which are being made and in part being invested into automatic weapons, such as AK-47 assault rifles etc. This is what we're faced with, and it's a very scary situation.

Inspector Henry Kennedy of the RCMP, who was at the Mike Harris task force hearings in Cornwall, has strongly suggested to everyone who intends to or who buys smuggled cigarettes on a regular basis that they are contributing in a very major way to supporting organized crime, and I don't think there is any doubt about that, and not only organized crime, but making sure that the pipeline is in place for items such as cigarettes, liquor, drugs, jewellery etc, all of your high-taxed commodities that would be moving in this pipeline, which is now well entrenched and well in place.

We've had people who came to the Mike Harris task force in Cornwall suggest that we should bring in the navy and the army and show them who has the most fire-power. That certainly is not a recommendation from the Mike Harris task force. We are recommending, however, presence on Lake St Francis, a very high- profile presence, not with a small 20-foot pleasure boat but with boats that have sufficient size, capacity and power to keep up with or even overtake some of the very intimidating smugglers, who are very, very bold. They now feel that they own Lake St Francis, which is an absolutely terrible situation.

I ask the Solicitor General, the police cruisers that they have patrolling the highways and byways of the province of Ontario are not four-cylinder compact cars at all. They are regular-size vehicles with good, powerful engines. Well, that's what we need, both by the OPP and the RCMP, to patrol Lake St Francis in what's known as smugglers' alley.

I'm not asking to go and have confrontations. I think the only way we will avoid and reduce the kind of smuggling that has occurred is by very much reducing the taxes on cigarettes. As was mentioned by a previous speaker, the point of diminishing return, and I have statistics to prove it, was reached in 1988-89 when the taxes went up with a Liberal administration by 35.3% and the revenue went up by 17.4%. The message became very clear then: We have gone to the well once too many times.

1710

In 1988-89, the actual increase of revenue was 2.7% under no tax increase. In 1990-91, we had a 26.6% increase in tobacco taxes and a 13.6% increase in return, again a very much diminishing situation: Increase the taxes by 26%, get an increase in income of some 13%. In 1991-92, this government increased taxes by 34%; revenue came up by 17%. Total dollars were up a little bit, but in 1992-93 the total dollars were down under no increase in taxes.

The point of diminishing return on taxation on tobacco product was reached in 1988. The government, at both levels, federally and provincially, must address this rather insane taxation.

If they want to get rid of cigarettes, make them illegal. But if they're going to be legal, for goodness sake, let the people who want to use them have them affordable. I hear sometimes from people who say that the increase in taxes reduces the use. I'm sorry. It reduces the legal use; it does not reduce the use. As was mentioned earlier, we have more illegal cigarettes being sold in high schools now than we have over the last 10 years. They're cheap, they're there, and the suppliers have a good supply.

I go back to policing on Lake St Francis. There are many, many stories, very scary stories from residents along the shores. As my colleague from Cornwall mentioned, some people who use cottages throughout the summer saw fit to not go into their cottages and enjoy what was a tremendously warm and good summer, simply because of the intimidation that has been occurring on an ongoing basis.

There is a strong recommendation that the RCMP, the OPP and all jurisdictions be present on the lake at least now and for the end of the navigational season; present on the lake with equipment that is adequate to at least show the intimidators, the smugglers, that the police force has not given up, because to this point the OPP has made the statement that it will not patrol the lake after dark. I don't blame them.

My colleague mentioned the fact that one Long Sault-based OPP officer last February was savagely attacked by a group of balaclava-wearing smugglers. He had a tire wrench aimed at his head. This gentleman is about six foot four, not a small man by any means; a very muscular man. He'd been in the police force a number of years. Had he not protected himself with his hands, the tire wrench would have got him on the head. He did lose a finger, a permanent injury. He's back at work now. This is what's happening out on Lake St Francis, a very terrible situation.

One of the government members was talking about jurisdiction. Well, I remember well that during 1985, 1986 and 1987, when I represented Charlottenburgh township, a great controversy occurred that there were illegal boathouses along Lake St Francis. The government, with all its wisdom, and the Ministry of Natural Resources said, "We have the authority." They went in, took down the boathouses and said, "This is our jurisdiction." It must have been their jurisdiction, because they were able to remove the so-called illegal boathouses.

That tells me that indeed the province of Ontario has jurisdiction on Lake St Francis, certainly in that area that is not considered navigable water. Yes, it is an international body of water; yes, the RCMP and the federal government do have jurisdiction there, and they should all work together under this task force to make sure that everyone carries their weight and indeed makes Lake St Francis and the area surrounding it safe once again as it was some seven or eight years ago.

Smugglers, as I mentioned before, are not a new phenomenon to the area. As a matter of fact, it's legal; however, the taxes on gasoline bring many of our residents over to Akwesasne. It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Environment and Energy and minister responsible for native affairs. I've had occasion at another time to work with the people from Akwesasne. They do not consider themselves Americans or Canadians. They are North Americans and therefore consider themselves as not subject to any of the laws in either the United States or Canada. This is a phenomenon that must be addressed. We must impose a tax, at the manufacturer's level, on export product to curb this very lucrative smuggling business that is occurring in part of the area that I very proudly represent.

I have one of my colleagues who wants a few moments of time at the end of this debate. I strongly suggest that when the Mike Harris task force recommendations come out, both the federal and provincial governments look at them, because they will be positive and non-political.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I'm certainly pleased to be participating in today's opposition day debate. I'd like to focus upon that part of the motion by the leader of the third party that deals with taxes.

It's rather interesting if you examine closely the rhetoric of this motion. It's an important issue -- the safety of the citizens of Cornwall is at stake here -- yet Mr Harris chose to turn this into a partisan exercise in regard to our government's tax policies, as if the collection of taxes in this province only began in September 1990. He seems oblivious to 42 years of Tory tax tyranny.

I'd like to remind the leader of the third party about Conservative tax measures, both provincial and federal.

Does he recall that in 1981 the provincial Conservatives increased personal income taxes by four points, and every three months, from 1979 until 1985, provincial Tories raised taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and diesel fuel with their value added tax? Surely he should be reminded of the federal Tory GST. According to Catherine Swift, the chief economist for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as she said on CBC Radio, "We've seen the underground economy grow like wildfire since the imposition of the GST, and for people in government to deny that is just outright dishonesty, because there's no question it's happening."

I'd like to review for the members of this assembly the approach taken by the current Minister of Finance in his most recent budget. The tax increases implemented by this government were designed in a way that shares the tax burden fairly. Our tax measures are based on ability to pay.

For example, the Minister of Finance introduced a corporate minimum tax to ensure that large, profitable corporations pay their fair share. Over a full tax year, that amounts to $100 million. It's a fair tax when you consider all the benefits that corporations receive from Ontario, like a healthy, educated workforce, a strong resource base, a comparatively clean, safe environment and a well-maintained infrastructure. The taxpayers of Ontario have financed these benefits and the corporate sector has prospered as a result. It's time that large, profitable businesses paid their way in this province, and it's fair. I'm surprised that former Liberal and Tory governments didn't think of this kind of fair taxation policy. Well, perhaps I'm not really surprised. To Liberals and Tories "fair" is just another nasty, four-letter word. So the Minister of Finance has taxed huge, profitable corporations. How on earth has this contributed to crime? Well, it hasn't.

1720

I'd also like to remind members that in this particular business tax, small businesses are exempted in recognition of the current fiscal realities, because it's the small businesses in this province that create jobs and because this government is committed to an Ontario corporate tax system that supports economic renewal.

I'd also like to point out that in the 1993 budget, the Minister of Finance reduced taxes to small businesses. I'm surprised that there was no mention of that in the resolution we're debating here today and no mention of the elimination of the commercial concentration tax introduced by the Liberals. I believe that's why we call them Liberals: They're Liberals when it comes to creating and raising taxes and liberal in their profligate spending. Do you know that in five years of Liberal government there were over 30 tax increases or new taxes? This revenue grab came at a time when Ontario government revenues were at an all-time high. What do you suppose happened to all that money? Even after you discount the lucrative SkyDome contracts for Liberal friends and the $15-billion Darlington disaster, there must have been something left. And remember the Liberal tire tax? This NDP government eliminated that tax too.

We've seen the end of the commercial concentration tax because it was unfairly applied and created difficulties for downtown businesses, and the end of the tire tax because, in addition to being a nuisance tax, it removed the responsibility for product stewardship from the tire industry and dumped it on retailers and consumers. It's essential that we reduce our waste and recycle our resources. To that end, this Ontario government is committed to $11 million in support for tire recycling and the Minister of Environment and Energy is taking steps to ensure that the tire industry takes on a larger role and contributes its fair share.

Another place where taxes were raised in 1993 was on the corporate tax deduction for meals and entertainment. This deduction was reduced from 80% to 50%; 50% was considered a reasonable split between income spent for business purposes and personal consumption. The full-year revenue from this tax change will be $15 million.

Others who are required to pay additional tax are those Ontarians in the top 10% of income earners. They will pay more in personal income tax and surtax this year because they have the most to contribute. This is called progressive taxation, because while taxing the top 10% of Ontario income earners, the Minister of Finance has eliminated Ontario income tax for 200,000 Ontarians in the lowest income brackets and reduced income tax for an additional 70,000. Ontario's marginal tax rate remained the third-lowest for 90% of Ontario taxpayers who are below the surtax range. Imagine that. What a concept: requiring those who can best afford it to pay the higher taxes.

I'd like to return to the motion before us. The leader of the third party indicates that Ontario taxes have led to an increase in smuggling in the region between Ontario, Quebec, New York and native jurisdictions, yet if you look at the 1992 and 1993 budgets you will see that this government did not increase tobacco tax and alcohol levies. We carefully weighed the fiscal needs of government against the impact on industry, cross-border shopping, increased crime and smuggling and decided not to increase these charges. What's more, the government of Ontario is also taking steps to better enforce existing taxes and non-tax revenues. Those who evade payment of sales tax or take part in tobacco smuggling will be subject to a maximum two years of imprisonment. Compare that to the action of federal Tories, who introduced a federal excise tax on cigarettes and then promptly dropped it.

Last week we heard from the grand chief of Akwesasne that such a federal tax would help to manage the smuggling problems in the area. In fact, the chief pleaded with the Tory Revenue minister in 1989 to introduce and enforce such a tax. Unfortunately, when the federal Tories finally did introduce the tax, they caved in at the first hint of industry pressure.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I'd like to remind you and all members that in NDP Ontario, the approach to fiscal management is a balanced one. The 1993 Ontario budget identified a three-part approach to managing the fiscal challenge and controlling the deficit. The largest component of that plan was a reduction of government spending. We initiated a $4-billion saving by expenditure control. For every $1 of new taxes, we saved almost $4 in reduced costs by reforming the way government does business to ensure that we have better, more efficient government. For the first time since 1942, the operating spending actually declined, with the biggest single area of savings being $720 million that came from the government's own spending.

What do Ontarians get for their tax dollars? In addition to the most accessible health care system in the world and a high level of education and training, Ontarians have the benefits of roads, public transit, sewers, clean water, police, firefighters, public libraries, community economic development programs and a quality of life second to none in the world. Do you know that Ontarians have more after-tax disposable income than do residents of any other province or territory in Canada? You can be sure that this government is dedicated to maintaining that we have prudent management and fair and equitable taxation policies.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I am pleased to join in the debate this afternoon. This issue that has been raised today by the leader of the third party is certainly one that has been raised on a number of occasions by my colleague the member for Cornwall, as he is the member who finds himself in the firing line, as it were, for this particular part of --

Mr Villeneuve: Up to your old tricks, smoking cigarettes.

Mr Conway: The member asks me about my little package. I brought it along today to simply tell the viewing audience out there what it probably already knows. I'm not a smoker. I always find it amazing that people are willing to pay as much as they are for these materials. I raise it because in the 18 years now that I've been a member of the Legislature, and therefore have lived in Toronto for three or four or five days of most weeks over that period of years, I've been struck in the last 6 to 12 months by a remarkable development that is all about us here in this part of Ontario and, quite frankly, in much of the rest of the province. You can now go to a restaurant, a bar, within a very, very short walk of this legislative precinct and have someone walk up to you and just offer you a range of contraband cigarettes.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Are you advertising, Sean?

Mr Conway: Well, I am advertising this, I say to the member for Durham Centre: the remarkable availability now of contraband materials, particularly cigarettes.

In my part of eastern Ontario, I live about two and a half hours north of the Canadian-American border at Massena, and most people I represent now tell me that it is becoming commonplace for people to offer for sale contraband materials, particularly cigarettes, though I hear that illegal liquor is becoming more prevalent as well.

We're faced as a Legislature with what to do. I am not one who argues that we ought to lower taxes on tobacco, and I say that as one who has accepted the argument that has been advanced by all governments in this province in the last 10 or 15 years; namely, that since tobacco kills and costs the health care system vast amounts of money, we ought to apply a tax policy that recognizes that awful reality. I want to say very clearly that I do not endorse a position which would see a reduction in the levels of taxation which attach to tobacco.

1730

In a question to the Treasurer back in August, I raised this issue. He responded by suggesting that perhaps I was arguing for a reduction in the levels of taxation, something I was not advocating in the question but which seemed to attract a lot of interest from the anti-smoking lobby around the province. I want to take this opportunity this afternoon just to indicate that it's not my view or the view of my party that we should lower the levels of taxation.

However, I do say, as a practical matter, that we have to look at the behaviour of people in 1993 with respect to tobacco. It is now becoming a very, very accepted practice, from Scarborough to Schreiber and from Timmins to Thorold, to buy and to smoke illegal cigarettes. My colleagues from Cornwall and Scarborough-Agincourt and others in other caucuses have this afternoon placed before you, Mr Speaker, the cost to the public treasury of this remarkable increase in contraband. In fact, federal police authorities suggest that in the Cornwall area, 50,000 of these cartons are entering the country illegally on a daily basis; 50,000 cartons a day at Cornwall alone.

As has been mentioned quite effectively by previous speakers, this has raised a number of issues, not the least of which is the revenue issue, but even more important, I think, is the question of public security and public safety. I have a number of friends who live in the Cornwall-Charlottenburgh area, and they, like the member for Cornwall, have reported to me the most extraordinary behaviour on particularly Lake St Francis after sunset on almost a nightly basis for the last number of months.

The 5th Estate program that aired about two weeks ago made plain just how open is the illegal behaviour now. I think, as someone who is duly elected to this place and who does believe in the rule of law, that we have a problem -- not just the government, but all of us -- when we get to a point, as was made very plain from that television program of 10 days ago, when the law is so flagrantly and so continually ignored. That gets to the core, it seems to me, of the way in which we operate as a civilized society.

Where I would take issue, I suppose, with the previous speaker from Middlesex is that she makes the point about the government's attitude around taxation, and I think we all have to accept our share of responsibility; I certainly am quite prepared to accept mine, and I say again that I'm not here arguing that the tobacco taxes should be lowered. But I think we have reached a point in this society, Neil Brooks notwithstanding, that taxes are seen now in a different light than they were just three or four years ago. I suppose that's not a surprise, simply because so many people are either out of work or underemployed. We all know, and I agree with every other speaker who said, "But surely you understand all of the good things those tax dollars bring," and I do, I do. I understand the importance of health care spending and education and training, but something has happened.

I noticed in today's Toronto Star a lead story by Shawn McCarthy, "Leaders Feel Heat as Voters Rage at Taxes." Now, we all know that, particularly in any national election campaign, the Toronto Star can be counted on to be unfailingly neutral and very, very even-handed. It is not at all given to polemical partisanship.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): Where have you been?

Mr Conway: I've been reading some of the papers in Rainy River, to be frank, and I have never seen a cabinet minister write a letter to his home press like the Minister of Natural Resources wrote two weeks ago to that editor, wherever he/she was. Wow, was Howard having a bad day. If you haven't read it, it is something. It's like something I would do on a bad, bad, bad day.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): But you wouldn't mail it.

Mr Conway: I probably would mail it. But I'll tell you, if you don't think Howard Hampton has a fuse, you read that letter and you'll understand what Dartmouth hockey players learned a long time ago.

My point in raising the question of taxes is simply to say that we're all finding, for whatever reason, a growing resistance around all levels of taxation. People really don't care any more. There's just a sense that the burden is too great and the suffocation that attaches to it just almost unbearable. I'm not saying that it's necessarily borne out by the data, because the Star article today is interesting. It talks about where we stand relative to the Americans and the French and the Germans, and that's undoubtedly all true, but my sense as a politician is that something has happened in recent times.

I can remember -- I don't know who on the other side was with me; I know my friend Sterling was there -- that we had a reference about two years ago where the finance committee was down in southeastern Ontario doing hearings around some aspect of the budget. We had some submissions around cross-border shopping. It was very interesting who some of the most active American shoppers were; which Canadians, by group and by category, were leaving places like Cornwall and Brockville and Kingston and going to the United States. Wow, was that a very interesting bit of testimony.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): MPPs from the area.

Mr Conway: Well, some would argue that those of us with non-taxed expense allowances have already got a leg up on this business.

Hon Mr Pilkey: That should be cut.

Mr Conway: Maybe it should. But the point I'm trying to make on a slow Tuesday afternoon is simply that there has to be a recognition that there is a resistance now around tax burdens.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Get rid of the GST.

Mr Conway: My friend says, "Get rid of the GST." A certain party that I know is committed to doing just that. We will all wait with great interest to see what happens. I don't particularly like taxation, but I understand, as someone once said, that taxes are the price you pay for living in a civilized society.

The difficulty we face now is that we are operating in a slow-growth, no-growth economy, so as we increase the tax levels, the yields are not producing what they've always produced. My friend Phillips from Scarborough-Agincourt was telling me the other day that we've raised taxes, just in the last couple of years, by something in the neighbourhood of $3 billion or $4 billion but that the overall yield is down. I think that tells us that we're dealing in an economy that is anaemic. I heard this morning, while I was at another appointment, that department store revenues were down this year over last by 6%. That's a very telling indicator of what's going on in the retail sector. We all know that one of our principal sources of revenue as a province is the retail sales tax.

I want to make the point that as politicians we have to take stock of what is going on around us, what is going on around us in places like Cornwall and Lancaster, and here in Metro and up in northwestern Ontario. I know, from talking to people in the Sault Ste Marie area, for example, that there is a certain level of activity there that's caused some concern. There is a problem. It is getting worse, not better.

1740

I think we are going to have to look at a number of features. One of them clearly has to be better enforcement. I mean, if you watch W5, it was almost an encouragement to come and break the law, because you could do it with apparent impunity. So I think we're going to have to deal, both as a province and as a federal government, with improved enforcement.

I don't know whether my friend from Cornwall has managed to tell the story today about the customs house. Did you get into that, John? That again is the stuff of a comic opera, and I expect that the Solicitor General for Ontario, together with the Solicitor General of Canada, will start to take steps to solve some of the more blatant violations and some of the most flagrant opportunities for law-breaking.

I'm not a police officer, but if you were, almost in a RIDE-check kind of way, to move in enforcement along smugglers' alley and start running checks on a very intensive basis, I suspect you would change behaviour, because there would be a very real expectation that enforcement was much more real and much more meaningful.

I don't for a moment suggest that it is entirely an enforcement problem, though I think in terms of the here and now there is no question that we have got to allocate additional resources to our police forces, both provincial and national, and to pay for those, I presume, out of the lost revenues that we are seeing going down the drain every day. If the police are right and 50,000 of these cartons are crossing at Cornwall on a daily basis, that is a loss at that one place on a daily basis of about $650,000 worth of tobacco tax revenue to the province of Ontario alone. That, it seems to me, would help pay for some substantial increases in enforcement around those locations. But I think as well all of us are going to have to take a very hard look at the way in which we tax people right across the board, including income taxes and other such items.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I'm pleased to join in this discussion. Although I was not in the House for much of the debate, I did manage to catch some of the discussion from my office, and I've had my staff, who have been listening very attentively, advise me of the points that have been raised. I must say that with the exception of a few partisan shots here and there, by and large I think the discussion has been very constructive and has dealt with a number of the issues that face not only the community of Cornwall but indeed the entire nation on the issue of smuggling and the underground economy.

In particular I would like to thank, on the government side of the discussion, the honourable member for Oxford, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, Kimble Sutherland, who talked about taxation and the importance of public safety around this issue and the role of my ministry in that regard; also, the honourable minister responsible for native affairs, Bud Wildman, the member for Algoma, who talked about the fact that this is not a native issue per se, that this is an issue that affects many Canadians as well as many Americans and is much broader than any one focused, particular aspect that one might like to place on this.

I might add that in my discussions -- and I'll comment on them further in my remarks -- the federal minister, my counterpart, the Minister of Public Security, has reiterated both publicly and privately that it's important Canadians understand that this is indeed not just an issue in Cornwall, that this is not a native issue, that in fact it's not even an Ontario issue alone; this is indeed a national issue.

Also, of course, I want to thank the honourable member for Middlesex, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, Irene Mathyssen, who also spoke about the taxation issues and about government priority-setting and what revenue impacts and lack thereof can have on certain initiatives and priorities that a government sets.

All of that, I think, contributes to a relatively healthy debate on an important issue of our time. We need to be very, very clear as we approach this that at no time do we allow ourselves as Ontarians to believe that this is our problem and that we have to solve it alone. This is very much a national problem.

In my discussions with the federal Minister of Public Security on this issue he advised me that it was his intention, on reflecting on this point, to announce a national strategy. One of the purposes in taking that initiative was to speak clearly to the citizens of Ontario and the citizens of Canada on the fact that this is indeed a federal issue, that smuggling is their responsibility and that it is indeed an issue coast to coast -- perhaps coast to coast to coast, but certainly coast to coast -- and is not an Ontario issue alone. Indeed, it straddles the international border. As well as the US government, we have of course the New York state government. So there are many different jurisdictions.

That takes me to my next point, which is the initial response that this government had, as well as the local government and the federal government, when the issue started to become as serious as it has, requiring the kind of reaction and leadership that we're now seeing. With so many jurisdictions involved, there are so many questions on how we handle the overlapping jurisdictions and how we as governments ensure that we're providing the adequate leadership that's necessary at the same time that we're not preventing the police from doing the job they're so professionally capable of doing.

It was the police who said: "Give us the opportunity to form a regional task force so that we can coordinate the kind of action plan and operational plan that we believe will do the job. Then we'll come back to you, each of the partners in this, and ask you for your contribution to the task force as a whole."

That is where we are today. We're at the point where the police are finalizing. I'm advised that they're at the very final stages of putting this plan together, and very shortly, hopefully we'll have a public discussion or a public announcement, a public commitment on exactly what is happening, to the extent of course that the police can talk about operational matters, which many times is not very detailed, but to at least give the assurance that indeed they have reached an agreement on the plan that's necessary, the resource question and whether or not those resource requests have been met by the different governments.

I want to also mention that given the importance of this issue, and locally, having met with the local delegation headed up by the member for Cornwall -- I've been very quick to give him the credit that he is due in ensuring that his community had the opportunity to meet with me; I understand that the mayor met previously with the federal minister to discuss the same issues -- at that meeting, one of the key issues that came back time and time again from a local concern and a need to have local action was the whole issue of the Lancaster detachment and the fact that it was not open 24 hours a day, and that the community leaders would see very much this government's commitment in action if they could see the hours of the Lancaster detachment open to 24.

I was pleased last week to advise the House that indeed the OPP commissioner, Commissioner O'Grady, had seen fit that this was an important move, that it was important that he respond to this concern that I conveyed to him from the meeting, and indeed the detachment announcement was made.

1750

I want to take a minute to point out that during the back and forth in question period on this issue there were some who tried to make political hay out of the fact that the operation was not open 24 hours a day. I use this opportunity to make very clear the fact that it is not and has not been unusual historically for decades for this type of operation to be opened and closed in that fashion, depending on the geography, depending on local needs, depending on the issue of deployment questions. I might point out that it was the previous government, as I best can determine, that was in office at the time the hours were cut back from 24 hours.

Now, I'm not saying that was a wrong decision, not for one moment, because this is done all the time. I merely point it out to show that there was nothing extraordinary about the fact that it was not open 24 hours a day. What was done during the previous government is done currently and was done with Tory governments. It's the way the OPP operates in this province, always has, and to some degree always will.

I think what's important, and most important, in all of this is that at the time of need in that community, the OPP were responsive and responded in a way that said to the community, "We care very much about you, about this issue, about public safety, and if the opening of that detachment is critically important to you, and it will be to us on an operational basis, then indeed we'll move on that." I think that's an important illustration of the commitment this government and the OPP are prepared to make to do their part in dealing with this important issue.

Also, along the way with this issue, having met of course with the delegation, with the community leaders, having met with OPP Commissioner O'Grady and spoken with him on a number of occasions about the important issues that were conveyed to me at the community leaders' meeting, I also, as I've indicated to you, had a chance to talk to Doug Lewis, the federal Minister of Public Security. Out of that meeting came not only his commitment that he would be announcing a national strategy to provide the federal leadership necessary, but also that he was committing to me that, like this government, he was going to do everything he could to ensure that the RCMP were given the resources they needed to do their part in the task force plan development. Of course, it being an RCMP-led task force, it was important for me to hear that, to convey the message back to my cabinet colleagues.

I want to say directly to the member for Cornwall, and there is a letter from my office coming his way, that the federal minister has agreed that he will be the one to convene the next meeting and that it will be with the Cornwall leadership. I have also committed to him, and I commit now to the member for Cornwall, that when that meeting is convened, I will be there to ensure that the provincial government and the responsibility we have vis-à-vis the OPP and other interests will be there. You have that commitment from me, Mr Cleary.

I can also say that I've talked to the mayor of Cornwall on a number of occasions, the latest of which was this morning. I have left an open invitation with him to call me at any time should he feel the need. We have spoken on a number of occasions. We've agreed that we will touch base on a regular basis even if it's just to ensure the lines of communication are open. Again, I say that he's pleased with the work to date. He's satisfied that the federal government and the provincial government have taken the initiatives and the steps they should. The job is not done, but he is satisfied that we are committing ourselves in the way that we need to.

We now look to the federal government, quite frankly, to provide the RCMP leadership in the task force to bring that plan development to a conclusion, to announce and provide the steps necessary to see a national strategy and also to be the lead politician that calls the next meeting with the community to talk to it about what action has been taken and to ensure that the proper people are hearing the message that needs to be heard.

In closing, let me say to the members of this House and to the public that the apparent violence associated with the smuggling activities in the Cornwall area on the St Lawrence River are of appropriate concern for the OPP and for this government, as we have some direct responsibilities there. And although the smuggling issue is very much a federal responsibility, I believe this government has taken important steps, appropriate steps, in dealing with public safety in not dealing with just the issue of the violence that ensues from the smuggling, but rather we've been willing to play a role in the development of a task force and the development of an operational plan that will see all the police forces dealing with the broader smuggling question. I think, quite frankly, that goes above and beyond the call of duty that we could technically say is the responsibility of this government and the OPP, but it's important to the public safety of the people of Ontario and therefore it's important to this government.

Mr Cousens: I just can't accept too much of what the minister said or the government has had to say. The issue that we have presented to the House in this resolution is that the underground economy is now aboveground. It's no longer hidden from the public view. It is a major issue in this province. You have smuggling going on in eastern Ontario, but it's all over the place, and what we're seeing now is a legitimization of the illegitimate in Ontario. This government is failing to respond to the needs of those communities. This government doesn't even understand or accept the fact that the problem is as severe as it is.

Smuggling is rampant in eastern Ontario. It's no man's land in Lake St Francis. What we have to realize is that this economy, this illegal economy that we say is underground, pays no taxes. It's breaking the law flagrantly. It's hurting legitimate business. It's showing disrespect to law and order.

Our party has brought forward this resolution today in the sincere and earnest hope that this government would face up to this serious challenge we have, to start to do something to address the needs of all the people of the province of Ontario.

I have a response to a question I gave to the Minister of Finance, a question that says, "How large do you think the underground economy really is?" I got the answer back. He says, well, it's been growing by 1% of the GDP since 1991, and around then it was about 5% to 8%. So maybe the underground economy to him represents 10%. The Fraser Institute says it represents something like 22% of the economy in the province of Ontario.

Come on. We have a problem in the province of Ontario, and you can't as a government continue to close your eyes to it. The reason for the resolution today is to wake you up to the fact. We cannot allow Ontario to be destroyed. We're saying to you as a government, give a respect to law and order. Give a respect to the needs of all the people of the province. We cannot sit by idly and watch this happen.

Our leader, Mr Harris, in his speech today, said every member of this Legislature should look upon this as a problem that was happening in his or her own riding. Don't think it's away down in Cornwall. It's something that is pervasive in our society today, and we're calling upon the government to wake up to the fact that there is a very serious challenge. Do something about it, and allow the police to get in on the job. Arm them accordingly. Give them the resources. Give them the strength. Give them the encouragement so that we can have a strong, healthy Ontario again.

The Speaker: Mr Harris moved opposition day motion number 1, which stands in his name. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1759 to 1804.

The Speaker: Mr Harris moved notice of opposition day motion number 1 standing in his name. All those in favour of Mr Harris's motion will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Morin, Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Offer, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Harris's motion will please rise one by one.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: The ayes being 35 and the nays 63, I declare the motion lost.

It being beyond 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1810.

October 12, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOOD BANKS

OLDER WORKERS

WILSON HEAD

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

ORILLIA WATERFOWL FESTIVAL

GOOD NEIGHBOURS WEEK; ELECTION OF PAPANDREOU

THIRD PARTY MEMBERS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

KINGSTON EXHIBIT

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JOSEPH MACDONALD

FOREST INDUSTRY

JOSEPH MACDONALD

FOREST INDUSTRY

JOSEPH MACDONALD

FOREST INDUSTRY

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

POLICE SAFETY

OPP INVESTIGATIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

ASSISTED HOUSING

CASINO GAMBLING

CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX

EGLINTON WEST SUBWAY

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

PHOTO RADAR

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

LANDFILL

HEALTH CARE

POLICE SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

RETAIL SALES TAX

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

OPPOSITION DAY

CORNWALL ECONOMIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS