Hansard Transcript 1998-Dec-15 vol. A | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is yet another example of this government's ability to create red tape in deals with the full-time Management Board Chair and part-time Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Chris Hodgson. It's with regard to funding of community groups and charities through the minister's advance funding program.

We have in Sudbury 94 local groups, 24 of which are playground associations, that are waiting for their funding to appear from the ministry. After the city's cultural grants committee has done all the work, we're simply waiting for the money to flow from the government, yet the government is intent on creating a bureaucracy that can only be deemed as unusual when you consider that it wants these 24 playground associations to provide them with copies of incorporation letters, a copy of notification of charitable registration, initial review pending, a copy of their constitution and bylaws, a copy of financial statements of previous years, a copy of current operating budget, and a copy of the most recent registered charity information return and public information return.

We're talking about the people who get up at 12 o'clock midnight to flood the rink, the ones who get up early in the morning to clean the snow off the rink so their kids will have some place in the community to play. I say to the minister, use your head and your brain and make sure that money flows to the people in Sudbury and across Ontario now.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): We have some very disturbing news coming out of our northern Ontario hospitals as a direct result of gross mismanagement of our health care system by the Harris government.

Without any consultation whatsoever, the Minister of Health has directed the ministry to stop paying for the clerical and nursing support that visiting specialists rely on to treat their patients properly in northern Ontario. This cut in funding will cost Notre Dame Hospital in Hearst $37,000 a year. It's going to cost St Joseph's hospital in Elliot Lake between $60,000 and $70,000 a year. It's going to cost Dryden District General Hospital $38,000 a year.

If the Minister of Health had done her homework, she would have found out that 10,000 patients received care from visiting specialists at St Joseph's hospital in Elliot Lake last year. Another 9,000 received care in Hearst, 3,800 more got care in Kapuskasing, and that's just to name a few. These patients will now have to travel up to six hours each way to get the same services. It is going to actually end up costing us, the taxpayers, a lot more.

It's going to cost us $525,000 more a year to send 10,000 patients from Elliot Lake, Blind River and Little Current to Sudbury. These patients used to be cared for in their hometown by visiting specialists for about $60,000 a year. In my riding, it's going to cost $713,000 a year to send 3,800 patients from Kapuskasing to Timmins.

In one fell swoop, the Conservative government has managed to spend more money and get less service, all the while downloading more of the costs to patients who can't afford it. It doesn't make -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

TRILLIUM TRAIL

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise today on a matter that will affect every member of this House. I recently attended a tourism meeting in my riding of Lanark-Renfrew. Our guest speaker, landscape architect Ken Buck, discussed plans for the 3,500-kilometre Trillium Trail, which will not only link all of Ontario, but will also connect to the TransCanada Trail, joining this country from coast to coast. This millennium project will create a 15,000-kilometre, multi-use shared trail from St John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia, and north from Calgary, Alberta, to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

The trail will be used by hikers and bikers, cross-country skiers and snowmobilers. People are already signing up for a three-month cross-country cycling tour which will officially open the trail in the year 2000. We can all assist by helping to negotiate the necessary right of passage for land use in each of our ridings.

We are a nation of trail builders, and I'm proud to say that the residents in my riding have already begun planning our portion of the Trillium Trail. One of the plans hopefully would be to use the Smiths Fall VIA Rail station as a rest stop and picnic area, with showers and places to change.

I invite all members to join the people of Lanark-Renfrew as we work to unite our province and indeed our entire country in this millennium celebration.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): As we approach Christmas, I'm making a direct appeal to the Minister of Health to recognize the urgent needs of a disabled little boy by the name of Ethan Adams. Ethan has many serious problems that include autism, coordination disorder and epilepsy. Ethan's doctors say he is the most severely disabled little boy they have ever encountered who is able to remain at home. But in spite of this, Ethan has something that many children do not: the loving support of his family.

Against great odds, Janice Adams has kept Ethan at home and saved the taxpayers about $170,000 per year that it would cost to keep him in an institution. Instead of helping Janice so her son can live in dignity in his own loving home, your government makes sure that every spare minute of her time is spent fighting for services for Ethan. She says your slogan "Services working for people" is hogwash; instead, it's people working endlessly to try and get services.

Minister, I have a letter from you telling Janice that a nerve stimulator Ethan needs is a fully insured service, covered through a hospital's global budget. But her specialist says there is no funding. He says people must express their anger to the government. Mike Harris has spent $42 million on propaganda, yet you refuse to pay for a device that would make life better for a sick little boy. You must make good on this letter, Minister. Call Janice Adams and give her the good news for Christmas.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Exactly one year ago today, the Harris government promised to pay $140 million to cover one-time, retroactive pay equity costs. The government was ordered to do this after Judge O'Leary found the Harris government in breach of the Charter of Rights when it tried to cancel proxy pay equity.

One full year later, 100,000 Ontario women have not received a single cent of this money. These are women who provide care to the elderly in nursing homes and homes for the aged, who look after our children in child care centres, who provide important public services to other Ontarians. They are owed this money, and this Harris government has done whatever it can to avoid paying these women what they have been due since this government was elected.

The irony is that while the Harris government has stalled any payments throughout 1998, the government's most recent financial accounting tells a whole different story. In the 1998 economic outlook, the government shows this $140 million as having already been paid out. This is a slap in the face to women who have waited so long for this government to do the right thing.

Worse still, the Harris government has made no commitment for money it owes to these women for 1998 or 1999. This government's treatment of these women is appalling.

On behalf of Anne Callaghan, Anita Giroux, Hugette Laurin, Mary Wilson, Nancy Leduc and other workers at Extendicare York in Sudbury, I urge this government to do the right thing.

1340

OSHAWA ECONOMY

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): More than 461,000 new jobs have been created in Ontario since 1995. I am pleased to rise today to inform this Legislature of the new business investments and job opportunities that have been occurring in my riding of Oshawa.

Recently, Mackie Automotive Systems announced that it will be constructing a new 300,000-square-foot facility to enhance it's just-in-time services to the automotive industry. This $13-million investment in the local economy will house 550 employees at the new facility.

Another local company, General Printers, held an open house to showcase the $5.8 million in recent upgrades to its technology and facilities in south Oshawa. Volumes are up 10% over last year and the company is in the process of hiring more people.

This investment shows commitment to Oshawa's economy and its community. These private sector investments in Oshawa and the development in the north and centre-west of the city demonstrate the growing confidence in Oshawa and Ontario as being excellent locations for growth and expansion.

These two businesses investing locally are just a few of the small and medium businesses in Oshawa that have benefited from the economic policies of this government.

Ontario leads the Great Lakes states in growth in manufacturing and capital investments, like those recently announced in Oshawa, and employment growth in Ontario between October 1997 and October 1998 outstripped that of the United States.

By cutting taxes, eliminating red tape and putting Ontario's economy back on track, business in Oshawa has been able to grow and invest in Oshawa and Ontario's economy.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Every night Ontarians are faced with a barrage of government advertising. The latest we have seen is with regard to the Drive Clean program. We see the cute little cartoon characters on TV, we see the billboards, we see the radio ads, we see the newspaper ads, once again courtesy of the taxpayers of Ontario.

This propaganda is going to cost taxpayers almost $2 million before the program gets off the ground. Let's remember that this is the program you promised two years ago. This is the program that was supposed to start in the spring of 1997. This is the program that got delayed to the spring of 1998. This is the program that was supposed to start in the summer of 1998. Now we're to believe the $2-million ad campaign by Mike Harris and Norm Sterling that this program is going to start in early 1999.

You can't even get your own house in order. By April of next year, of the 7,000 government vehicles, only 2,000 will have been tested. You can't even do your whole fleet before you supposedly kick this off across Ontario.

I think this is another disgraceful example of a waste of tax dollars. Hospitals can't get enough money, schools can't get enough money, you've gutted the environment, but you have up to $50 million to spend on advertising and $2 million that you spent on this Drive Clean program. It is a shame.

Nobody trusts you. Nobody believes you. Again you're going to fail to deliver this program, as you have on other occasions, and you continue to fail taxpayers by spending needlessly on advertising and self-serving propaganda intended to get Mike Harris re-elected.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): We have in the gallery about 30 students who are here from West End Alternative Secondary School, and from Contact School in my riding. They're here to protest the effects of Bill 160 on themselves as students and on their lives in particular.

They have sent a letter to the Minister of Education and I will read part of their very compelling argument against cuts to education.

"Dear Mr Minister:

"Although you believe that Bill 160 and your new funding formula improves the organization and quality of Ontario's education system, you have not listened to or consulted the people who are really being affected by your decisions. Everybody likes changes, but the changes have to be for the better, not just what you think is better for us.

"If you think about the future and all the kids who are going to drop out, please consider our experience as alternative school students. What a lot of people don't understand is that there are many different types of students, not as in good or bad, just different. Many students learn a lot slower than others do. Some students live on their own and have financial problems. A lot of them work and a lot are on welfare. Some students are also parents.

"If you take away all their means of getting financial and other help, support and resources like street workers and schools that meet students' needs, like West End Alternative, many students may end up quitting school and risking their future."

These students need the assurance of the minister that their education is not in jeopardy. They're here today because they're very unsure of their future under Bill 160 and anxiously await -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I rise today to tell you that health care reforms are helping the people in my riding of Simcoe Centre.

Since our government came to power, we have seen tremendous improvements to provision of front-line health care in my riding. Our new Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie is a state-of-the-art facility second to none anywhere. We now have an MRI and a breast screening clinic courtesy of the government's health care reforms. That's putting patients first. This means that thousands of women in my riding now have front-door access to life-saving diagnostics for breast cancer. This will save lives.

We just announced that there will be a full cardiac care centre at Newmarket's York County Hospital. This means that patients in my riding will soon not have to travel to Toronto for this life-saving service.

We are investing $1.2 billion in long-term-care services in Ontario. Barrie will receive 82 new beds in the first wave. That's putting patients first.

The federal Liberals' slash-and-trash approach has cost this province more than $2 billion in health and social transfers. Those are the only cuts there have been in health care in this province: federal cuts. We'll invest $19 billion in health care this year, up from $17.4 billion when we came to power.

I'm proud to say that our government is walking the walk on health care in my riding. We're putting the patient first in Simcoe Centre, and that is good news.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 (No. 2) / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES (n^o 2)

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 101, An Act to reduce red tape, to promote good government through better management of Ministries and agencies and to improve customer service by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting three new Acts / Projet de loi 101, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives, à promouvoir un bon gouvernement par une meilleure gestion des ministères et organismes et à améliorer le service à la clientèle en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant trois nouvelles lois.

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

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): These amendments will reduce requirements that are an unnecessary burden on business, simplify government processes, improve efficiency, and harmonize and modernize some acts.

There was a lot of consultation among ministries and the Red Tape Commission led by Mr Sheehan and the business stakeholders. There are some existing commitments which are being addressed, such as the harmonizing of the cost of credit disclosure rules and rules for direct marketing across federal and provincial jurisdictions, which will provide a consistent protection for consumers across Canada. There are other provisions dealing with the improvement of customer service, many of which were identified by our hard-working civil service, such as Rudi Wycliffe, to address things such as the Registry Act, which would allow people to do some very reasonable things such as register notarial copies of death certificates now, as opposed to actually registering the originals.

This will allow businesses in Ontario to do what they do best and to grow and prosper.

The Speaker: I just remind members that in introducing bills, the only germane comments are comments that reflect what is in the bill.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to the standing committee on social development.

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

Hon Mr Hodgson: I move that the standing committee on social development be authorized to meet today beyond its regular hour of adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill 76, An Act to Establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

DEFERRED VOTES

TAX CREDITS AND REVENUE PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET LA PROTECTION DES RECETTES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 81, An Act to implement tax credits and revenue protection measures contained in the 1998 Budget, to make amendments to other statutes and to enact a new statute / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre des crédits d'impôt et des mesures de protection des recettes contenues dans le budget de 1998, à modifier d'autres lois et à en édicter une nouvelle loi.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It will be a five-minute bell; call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 58; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be titled as in the motion.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the Honourable Bruce Atkinson, member of Parliament for Koonung, Melbourne, Victoria. Please join me in welcoming our guest. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. On November 25 at 8 o'clock pm, Lisa Bouffard, a 26-year-old woman who was 25 weeks pregnant and who was experiencing a high-risk pregnancy, left Women's College Hospital at the request of the staff and they put her into an ambulance. She was accompanied by five medical personnel and she was driven to Kingston. Two hours after arriving in Kingston, she gave birth to triplets. It is acknowledged that if those babies had been born en route, they would have died and she would have been in a very critical condition herself. The reason they had to put her into an ambulance and drive her to Kingston was because there was no room at the inn in Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr McGuinty: In the largest health care centre in the country there was no intensive care bed available. Do you accept responsibility? This is as a result of your cuts and your mismanagement of health care in Ontario.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Our government has not made any cuts to health in Ontario. As the member well knows, the only people who have made cuts are the federal government. In fact, they have made somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2.5 billion that we have lost in social and health transfer payments from the federal government, and I would hope that in the new year the federal government would see fit to listen to people across Canada and put more money into health.

Mr McGuinty: This woman and her three tiny, fragile babies were put at risk because there was no room in any intensive care unit here in Toronto. Furthermore, there were none available in Hamilton. They put her in an ambulance and they drove 300 kilometres. It took four hours. Two hours after she got to Kingston, she delivered the babies.

That mother and those babies were placed at risk because there was no staff available in Toronto as a result of cuts you've made to health care in Ontario to accommodate her needs. Quality health care wasn't there for her where she needed it and when she needed it. Are you now going to assume responsibility for the damage you're causing to health care and for the risk you are putting patients at in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Obviously the Leader of the Opposition didn't hear the fact that the only government that has cut health spending is the federal government. Let me stress that our government has increased health spending from $17.4 billion to $18.9 billion, and that does not include the fact that we have absorbed the $2.5 billion that we have lost in transfer payments for health and social services. In fact, when we were elected, not only did we inherit a budget deficit, but we inherited a health system that no one had had the courage to restructure.

So our government is restructuring the health system in this province in order that we can provide -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - the specific level of services, we can provide more services, more dialysis, more MRIs, more cardiac centres, more cancer centres, more programs for healthy babies, more -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: I wonder if I might impose upon the Minister of Health in Ontario for a moment to think about this patient. This is a 26-year-old mother. It is her first pregnancy. She arrives at the hospital here in Toronto, they admit her, they tell her she's at high risk, that there's a danger connected with this pregnancy. They say: "By the way, there are no beds available here in Toronto and there are none available in Hamilton. We're going to have to put you into an ambulance. We're going to have to spend four hours on the road. You're going to have to deliver your triplets in a city that's 300 kilometres away, and you're going to have to spend the next 12 to 14 weeks there after those babies are born. And you're going to have to pay for your own hotel accommodation in Kingston."

Do you think that's right, Minister? That's all I'm asking you. Do you think it's right that in Ontario today, if you can't find room at the inn they can ship you 300 kilometres away so you've got to deliver your babies in a strange city, away from your husband and away from your family and away from your friends? That's what I want to know.

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the Leader of the Opposition, when we stand up in the House it's extremely important that we always keep in mind that what we speak about indeed is a reflection of the true facts of each and every situation.

What I would remind you of is that the reason we have undertaken to strengthen the health system in Ontario in order that we can better serve the needs of patients is because these are the types of situations that had been brought to our attention. I'd just like to refer you to a situation at Ottawa General. This was when your government was in charge. "Doctor Garth Dickinson said there's a risk someone may die because" -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again I would remind the Leader of the Opposition it's because of the lack of action on the part of both parties that our government has indicated our desire -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - to strengthen our health system in this province, to increase the level of spending, to bring services closer to home, to respond to the specific need of the -

The Speaker: New question; official opposition.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier. This morning on radio, the Premier made a stunning admission. He was asked by the host of a radio show, "How is it that taxpayers are going to be stuck with the costs of defending Al McLean?" and the Premier answered, "I don't think the taxpayers should."

After the government lawyers said the deal was bad, after your own backbenchers said the deal was bad, after we in the opposition said the deal was bad, after virtually every Ontarian said the deal was bad, finally the Premier decides that the deal is bad, he admits that the deal is bad.

My question to the Deputy Premier is, what arrangements are you now making to reimburse taxpayers $600,000 of their money that your government used to pay off the Al McLean matter?

1410

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, the government is not making any arrangements. The Board of Internal Economy may well make an arrangement.

Mr McGuinty: Let's understand what happened here. The taxpayers of Ontario paid $130,000 for the legal fees of your colleague Al McLean. Al McLean was sued for sexual harassment. This in fact was the third complaint, we learned today, of sexual harassment levelled against Mr McLean, a man who you consider to still be most worthy of sitting as a member of your caucus. Al McLean agreed that damages should be paid to Ms Thompson. I think that, in and of itself, speaks volumes.

Yesterday you said in your balanced budget legislation that if the taxpayers are ever ripped off, it's the responsibility of cabinet to pay up. I say taxpayers have been ripped off to the tune of $600,000 in connection with this matter. Will the members of your cabinet, yourself included, Deputy Premier, now agree to make restitution and restore that money to the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: Are you suggesting, for example, that the Board of Internal Economy should not have paid Ms Thompson the settlement that was agreed to by both herself and the solicitors for Mr McLean? Is that what you're suggesting?

With respect to the point about the taxpayer protection and balanced budget legislation, you had an opportunity to vote yesterday on first reading of the bill. Undoubtedly you'll have an opportunity to vote and let the people of Ontario know exactly where you stand on balanced budget legislation and taxpayer protection legislation, which of course, as a member of the David Peterson government, you didn't have the intestinal fortitude to introduce then.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier has finally today acknowledged that he has ripped off taxpayers when he said that $600,000 -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr McGuinty: Mike Harris said this morning on open-line radio that he didn't think the taxpayers should have to pay in this matter. He said this was a bad deal for taxpayers. He said it was wrong for taxpayers to have to come up with this money, especially when the government's own lawyers said that the taxpayers wouldn't be found to be responsible if the matter ever proceeded to court. In fact, yesterday afternoon Ms Thompson herself said she didn't think it was right for taxpayers to pay for Mr McLean's legal fees.

Your own balanced budget legislation provides that if taxpayers are ripped off, it's up to the cabinet to make restitution. Well, you know what? Today the Premier said that he was wrong. He's been caught. He's been found out. I'm now asking you, Deputy Premier, if you and your cabinet are prepared to make restitution to reimburse taxpayers to the tune of $600,000.

Hon Mr Eves: I don't believe the Premier said any such thing. I'm asking the leader of the official opposition, are you suggesting that Ms Thompson should not be paid the settlement money which is part of the $600,000 that you refer to? Is that what you're suggesting? That proposition is absolutely ludicrous.

To address the issue of balanced budget legislation, very simply, once the budget is balanced, which we can't thank you for, or you, from then on members of the executive council will suffer a penalty if they do not behave responsibly in spending taxpayers' money and balancing the budget from one year to the next. If you believe so strongly in it, why didn't you introduce that when you were in government from 1985 to 1990?

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, in her news conference about the Al McLean sexual harassment scandal, Sandi Thompson recounted how she had to endure hounding by private investigators and also had to endure the aggressive campaign to portray her as untruthful. Your members on the Board of Internal Economy, in this package to hush up the Al McLean scandal, voted to pay Mr McLean's legal costs. What did you include under the category "legal costs?" Are the taxpayers of Ontario in fact paying for Al McLean's private investigators to go around and spy on Sandi Thompson?

Hon Mr Eves: I have no idea. He can ask any member of the Board of Internal Economy, including his own member.

Mr Hampton: Deputy Premier, you're supposed to be in charge of the books. You're supposed to be in charge of your government members. Maybe you should ask your colleagues on the Board of Internal Economy, one who sits behind you and two seats over, one who sits over here, one who's the government House leader, maybe you should ask them what was included under the category "legal costs."

I know it's wrong to ask taxpayers to pay this money. It is especially wrong to ask taxpayers to pay for private investigators who go around spying on Sandi Thompson and trying to discredit her. What's your opinion, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: I don't know what the members of the Board of Internal Economy voted on. I'm not a member of the board. He can turn around and ask one behind him if he wants to know what they voted on and what's included and what isn't included. But to suggest that any member of the government is responsible for the budget of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which is about $100 million a year, is totally ridiculous and ludicrous. He's been in this place long enough to know better.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, I'm very happy to tell you, as a member of the Board of Internal Economy -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I need some order, please. I can't hear the question.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): There's got to be a lot more to this story.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Renfrew North and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, both of you come to order.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, I'm happy to tell you. I was at the Board of Internal Economy. We were never given a breakdown of Mr McLean's legal fees at all. We were never given any opportunity to know what the disbursements were for. At no time were we told that the costs incurred by Mr McLean included the payment for a private eye to spy on Ms Thompson. I don't know whether it would have made any difference to your government members in how they voted had they known that, but I think the people of Ontario are shocked to think that they are now paying for an undercover operation to try and attack the credibility of a private person in a private lawsuit. They ought to be incensed by that.

Minister, our question of you is, will you get to the bottom of this? Will you be sure that your government launches an investigation to determine whether or not the taxpayers of Ontario have paid for a private eye to spy on a private citizen?

1420

Hon Ernie L. Eves: I say very directly that I too would be very surprised if indeed people decided to pay for a private investigator. But I do have a question. I would like to know why the voting members of the Board of Internal Economy didn't ask that very question before they voted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mrs Boyd: Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, the question is, why was it not taxed? The answer is, your members on the Board of Internal Economy wouldn't even countenance that. They were in such an all-fired rush to make sure that Al McLean got his hush money that they would not even allow a taxing of the bill. I asked for that, as the members will tell you, and it was refused.

So the question is, and I ask you again, will you get to the bottom of this? It was your members, the members appointed to the Board of Internal Economy by your Premier, the members appointed to the cabinet and as a parliamentary assistant, who did this on the Board of Internal Economy against the very vigorous objections of myself, the member for Kingston and The Islands, and the Speaker. Again I ask you, will you get to the bottom of this? Will you launch an investigation to see whether taxpayers have paid for a private investigator to hound a private citizen in this province?

Hon Mr Eves: I would be pleased to say very directly to the member that I don't think anything other than reasonable legal expenses should be paid in any circumstance for any particular case of a lawsuit against the province of Ontario or a member, or an employee of the province of Ontario.

Mrs Boyd: As the Minister of Finance responsible for the expenditures of the taxpayers in this province, will you undertake to instruct that these expenditures be docketed fully and that there be a public report about what those fees included?

Hon Mr Eves: We've gone through this discussion about the Board of Internal Economy. It isn't the first time the Board of Internal Economy has paid legal costs in an inquiry or a case that came before it with respect to a wrongful dismissal claim with respect to an employee -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Cochrane North, member for Hamilton Centre.

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member, I believe what I've just said, that the reasonable legal costs should be paid if that was the decision of the Board of Internal Economy, and that's all that should be included: reasonable legal costs. Anybody who has ever been involved in any type of lawsuit knows that either party is entitled to look at the other party's proposed legal expenses, have them taxed before a master, have them determined.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: With respect, Deputy Premier, that's not the question you were asked. We want to know, did your decision by your members on the Board of Internal Economy result in the taxpayers of Ontario having to pay for a private investigator to go around spying on Sandi Thompson, trying to discredit her in Al McLean's private sexual harassment case? That is the question.

The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay any of this, but it is particularly odious if your decisions by your members are putting taxpayers in the position where they are paying for a private investigator to spy on the complainant, Sandi Thompson, in this case. Will you now begin an accounting of Mr McLean's legal costs and make that accounting public so the people of Ontario know what you forced them to pay for?

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the third party, it was not my decision.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You sign the cheques.

Hon Mr Eves: I do not sign the cheques. It was not my decision. I'd have writer's cramp if I signed the cheques, I say to the honourable member opposite. It is not my decision. But I would think it would be entirely appropriate for the members of the Board of Internal Economy to look into exactly what is purported to be covered and what isn't purported to be covered with respect to the expenses the honourable member refers to.

Going one step further, when he talks about $600,000 in hush money, as he puts it, is the leader of the third party saying that Sandi Thompson and her legal fees should not have been paid? That's part of the $600,000 you're talking about. Are you saying that the Legislative Assembly lawyers shouldn't have been paid? That's part of the $600,000 you're talking about.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr McGuinty: I have a question to the Deputy Premier. Minister, this morning at 8:26 am on CFNY, on the Humble and Fred morning show, a question was put to the Premier: "How is it the taxpayers are going to be stuck with the cost of defending Al McLean?"

Here's the answer: "I don't think the taxpayers should. I think the whole thing has been very badly handled and mismanaged." That's what your Premier said this morning on radio.

I'm asking you now, Deputy Premier, do you agree with the Premier that the taxpayers should not have been stuck with this bill and, furthermore, that the whole thing has been very badly handled?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Hold it. Order.

Mr McGuinty: Do you agree with your Premier, who said this morning, "I don't think the taxpayers should" pay for this bill, and, "I think the whole thing has been very badly handled and mismanaged"? Do you agree with your Premier?

1430

Hon Mr Eves: If the leader of the official opposition would continue on with what the Premier said this morning and said on Focus Ontario on Saturday evening, I believe he will find that what the Premier said was that there was no policy to deal with this by the Legislative Assembly, that we don't have a policy to deal with such an issue, nor did the Board of Internal Economy have a policy set out to deal with this type of an issue, but there should be a way of dealing with it, that there's a more appropriate way perhaps of dealing with it in the future than the way it was dealt with by the Board of Internal Economy in this instance. Why didn't you couch your question in those terms?

Mr McGuinty: The government does have a very specific policy on matters of this nature; in fact yesterday in this House the Premier stood up and articulated his policy. He said we must always remember that taxpayers' money "is not our money. It's theirs. It's Ontarians'.... And indeed we have a sacred trust to handle it wisely and to handle it well." I'm asking you now, Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance, do you think that you lived up to your sacred trust to handle the taxpayers' money wisely and to handle it well when you directed that $600,000 be delivered in connection with the Al McLean matter?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I did not direct anybody to pay $600,000. If the member has proof of that, he should bring it forward. Otherwise, he should do the class thing and withdraw that comment.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: Yes, he did. He said in very specific terms, "You directed your members to pay the $600,000." If he has proof of that, he should demonstrate it in the House, or he should do the class thing, which will be rare for you, and withdraw that ridiculous remark.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I have a question for the Attorney General. We know from your answers last day that you knew a great deal about this. After all, as Attorney General, you were one of the co-defendants. Did you allow a settlement to go through without asking that Al McLean's so-called legal costs be taxed and accounted for? Did you allow Mr McLean in effect to charge the taxpayers of Ontario for the cost of a private eye to go around snooping into the private life of Sandi Thompson, a private citizen in Ontario? Did you do your job? Can you tell us what you saw? Can you tell us what you OK'd?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The Attorney General and the province were made parties to this action, and they were made parties to the action because the counsel for the plaintiff did not know how to name the Legislative Assembly as a party. The statement of defence that was put in by the Ministry of the Attorney General responded only to that aspect of the case. No legal advice was ever sought or given and no involvement by the Ministry of the Attorney General took place in this lawsuit whatsoever.

Mr Hampton: But there has been a settlement, and the settlement causes not only the suit between Mr McLean and Ms Thompson to be settled but all of the other collateral suits, meaning the suit against you as Attorney General. Did you allow a settlement to go through which has the effect that the taxpayers of Ontario are now paying for a private eye, a private snoop to go around spying on Sandi Thompson and trying to discredit a private citizen in Ontario who had the courage to come forward and raise a complaint of sexual harassment? Are you saying you allowed that go through and you didn't question it and, if you did, what are you going to do about it now?

Hon Mr Harnick: I can tell you in an unqualified way that the counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General and the province of Ontario took no part in any settlement discussions whatsoever.

Mr Hampton: You closed your eyes.

Hon Mr Harnick: We played no role in this. I invite the leader of the third party to read the statement of defence, but there was absolutely no involvement. It was a matter that was dealt with exclusively by the Board of Internal Economy.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My question is for the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services, and it addresses the issue of police resources in Ontario. Earlier this month, the federal Liberal government's Firearms Act took effect across Canada. I have spoken with individuals in my constituency and across the province who are concerned that this federal law directs precious police time and effort away from protecting our communities from criminals. The people in Huron have told me that they want police officers in the communities and not at their desks filling out paperwork.

Minister, can you clarify for this House what role Ontario's police officers will have in administering this computer scheme?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to thank the member for Huron for asking about this important issue. I can assure the member that Ontario's police services will not be diverted from ensuring effective public safety. Like a number of other jurisdictions in Canada, Ontario is participating in the Supreme Court challenge to C-68. We recognize that it could focus police resources away from criminal activity and towards ineffective paperwork. Our law enforcement officials have no operational role in the administration of the federal gun registry. The upkeep of this expensive, and I believe ultimately futile, registry process is the sole responsibility of the federal registrar.

Mrs Johns: Thank you, Minister, for assuring the House that public safety in Ontario will not be compromised by this misguided computer registry that's going on. I noticed media reports recently that said the federal registry process is in such disarray that people are waiting for hours on the phone to register their guns and that even public inquiries are going unanswered. Since the federal government's costly computer registry won't cut down on criminal activity one iota and doesn't seem to be working anyway, what is Ontario doing to positively protect the public safety?

Hon Mr Runciman: In their rush to look like they're doing something to combat crime in this country, it seems the federal Liberals are not only inconveniencing law-abiding Ontarians, but also punishing small business people whose customers can't wait by the phone for hours on end. I can assure you that criminals are not waiting on the phone to register their guns.

In contrast to this costly fiasco, our government recently announced a $150-million investment into front-line policing. Through the community policing partnership program we're helping to hire 1,000 new front-line police officers. We're putting police officers on the streets, not behind desks. This is how we intend to protect our communities.

If the Liberal government in Ottawa was serious about fighting crime, they'd quit stalling and get on with substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act, if they'd follow through on criminal deportation orders and they'd stop rubber-stamping pardons for sex offenders.

1440

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Given the Premier's statement this morning, given Ms Thompson's statement yesterday afternoon when she said she felt it was wrong for taxpayers to have to pick up the tab on the Al McLean matter, do you not think that the right thing to do in the circumstances, the honourable thing to do in these circumstances is for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario to reimburse Ontario taxpayers for the $600,000 they've been required to pay as the result of a decision made by your government in the Al McLean matter? Is the right thing here not for the PC Party of Ontario to pick up this tab?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Quite frankly, I think the only thing that should be at issue here, in my opinion, is the legal fees of Mr McLean. For you to suggest that the amount to be paid to Ms Thompson and her legal fees should not be paid, I think is ridiculous. For you to suggest that the counsel for Legislative Assembly should not be paid, I think is also ridiculous.

Mr McGuinty: I can appreciate that the minister is trying to twist this and distort it. Nobody is arguing against payment being made. The issue is who should be making the payment.

Let's play the minister's game just a little bit. Let's consider the $130,000 bill for Al McLean's lawyers. Given all of the circumstances, given the universal condemnation of this deal, do you not think that at a minimum the appropriate thing to do, the right thing to do is for the PC Party of Ontario to reimburse taxpayers for the bill paid, for the $130,000 paid to Mr McLean's lawyers in defence of Mr McLean?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I would like to read into the record the Premier's entire quote from this morning's interview, which the leader of the official opposition did not read in.

"I don't think taxpayers should. I think it's one of the worst handled situations that has come across. But you do understand that this is a Legislative Assembly. It is not the government. It is at arm's length from government and the whole thing has been very badly handled and mismanaged."

Why didn't the leader of the official opposition -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): Are you accepting the word "distort," Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Member for Mississauga South, could you rise and make your point.

Hon Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, the leader of the official opposition just made the accusation and used the word "distort."

The Speaker: The member for the official opposition, I don't recall. It was very noisy and possibly I didn't hear it. If you'd like to withdraw, you can.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I didn't hear it so I can't really make him withdraw.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe it is appropriate to start blaming staff for anything that happens with respect to the Legislative Assembly. There were three government members who clearly voted in favour on this issue within the Board of Internal Economy -

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. We'll go to the leader of the official opposition -

Interjection.

The Speaker: OK. New question, leader of the third party.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. We've seen the devastating effects of your centralization of the public school system, trying to take all of the power into Queen's Park and stripping local school boards. We've seen the chaos you've created with your so-called apprenticeship bill. I want to ask you, do you have any plans to centralize control over Ontario's community colleges, those very community colleges that are active in individual communities, that respond to the education and training needs of individual communities? Do you have any plans to centralize control over them the way you've centralized control over our public school system?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): No, I have no such plans. I suspect the leader of the third party is referring to some pieces of paper from an unknown source which have been brought to my attention this morning. The ministry staff have investigated this matter and assured me these papers have not emanated from within the Ministry of Education. Although I have not had the opportunity to review these papers, apparently they do allude to some centralization or some rearrangement of the college system, but I have no such plans, nor to the best of my ability have I been able to ascertain the source of these particular pieces of paper, as I guess I would describe them.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this is from the Ministry of Education and Training systems and it's called "Our Vision." What it is is a dramatic strategy to centralize control over the community colleges, just as you've done to the public schools in Ontario, in effect to have one board of directors centrally controlled by you, and to take all of the capacity of community colleges to respond to local communities away from them. It also talks in terms of voucher funding for individual students; in other words, changing our community colleges into a voucher-driven system, in effect, privatizing them.

I'm going to send you a copy of this, Minister, and I'm going to ask you say that this has nothing to do with anyone in the Ministry of Education and Training, nothing to do with anyone you've contracted with. I'm going to ask you to deny that anything in this document has anything to do with your vision for community colleges in Ontario.

Hon David Johnson: I've already indicated that we have no plans to go in such direction with the college system. I've already indicated that the ministry staff this morning have assured me that they have no knowledge of this particular document, have no idea where it came from -

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Somebody just made it up.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, it does happen. People do make up things like this.

In addition, in terms of how this topic was introduced, I would say to the leader of the third party that this government has for the first time in over a decade taken steps to improve the elementary and secondary education system in Ontario, to ensure that there is fair funding for each and every student across Ontario, to ensure higher and better standards for elementary and secondary students through province-wide testing, through the improved curriculum -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon David Johnson: - through the report cards. I take umbrage with the way this was introduced. The education system in Ontario will be better for the reforms this government has introduced.

1450

ROUND GOBY

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Lake St Clair and the St Clair River have been exposed to a new intruder that threatens to disrupt the Great Lakes system just like the zebra mussel a number of years ago.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): What's the name? Beaubien?

Mr Beaubien: No, not quite. I'm sure you're going to enjoy that question because as a former minister you might appreciate the question.

That intruder is named the goby, which emigrated from Europe and has taken over the territory and driven out the native fish. Minister, could you reaffirm to the people of Lambton that we are committed to stopping the proliferation of the goby in the Great Lakes system?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Stop the goby.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for Lambton for his question. The member is quite correct in that the round goby is now present in each of the Great Lakes and is continuing to extend its range.

Like any of the many invading species currently in the Great Lakes, the goby has the potential to do considerable damage to the fragile freshwater ecosystem. The Ministry of Natural Resources has spent considerable effort monitoring and attempting to slow the spread of the goby and other exotic species from the Great Lakes to other inland waters.

The ministry, in conjunction with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, runs an invading species hotline at 1-800-563-7711. I would encourage members of the public to call this hotline to give us information about the presence of these exotic species, these invader species, and to request information. Thousands of brochures and fact sheets and other materials are distributed through the hotline every year. Finally, additional funds have been provided from the $10-million fish and wildlife enhancement fund to further educate the public.

This government is committed to doing what it can to protect our Great Lakes from these -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Beaubien: The opposition may find it hilarious, but I'm sure if you were to talk to some of my constituents on the St Clair River, you would find that this is a major problem. Hopefully, you're not going to get it in Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Actually, it was Murdoch who found it funny, not us.

Mr Beaubien: Minister, this problem is disrupting not only the livelihood of some of the commercial fishermen but also some of the sports fishermen. It also needs an awful lot of taxpayers' money to track, to control and to educate the public about this problem. How are we going to deal with this problem in the future and what are we going to do to prevent this from recurring?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I thank the member for Lambton for the question. It's clear that the presence of more than 30 of these species in the Great Lakes, such as the goby, the zebra mussel, the ruffle and the spiny water flea, is due to the dumping of ballast water from ocean-going vessels. Vessels fill their ballast tanks in foreign ports with water that contains these species and then dump those species and the water in the Great Lakes.

The total cost incurred in dealing with exotic species is estimated at over $100 million. This pales in comparison to the cost to the threatened resources in Ontario which contribute $850 million in recreational angling fees to the province of Ontario.

The federal government is responsible for the regulation of shipping and ballast water. Only by their action and commitment can we guarantee the future of our lakes and rivers. I would strongly urge that all members of this House and all members of the public contact a federal Liberal member of Parliament and urge them to take this problem seriously. Their inaction could prove deadly to the Great Lakes.

PAY EQUITY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Two years ago you acted to deny pay equity funding for thousands of Ontario women. A year and a half ago, the court told you that you couldn't do that. You accepted the court decision. You did not appeal it. You committed $140 million in your budget last spring to make the payments that were owed. Eight months later women have still not received the money you promised to pay.

This is money that is owed to community agencies like the Victorian Order of Nurses, Amethyst Women's Addiction Centre, the Association for Community Living, child care centres and non-profit homes for seniors, all of them waiting for desperately needed money.

You apparently are now saying that the cheques will be in the mail some time in the new year. Minister, no one trusts you when you say the cheques will be there soon. Why can't you hand out those cheques today?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The answer is very simple. The latest information the government had was a survey that the previous government had done in 1994. We felt the information had to be updated, to be brought up to date. As she well knows, the years that we're talking about in terms of retroactive pay are 1995, 1996 and 1997.

As a matter of fact, the surveys now disclose that $140 million wouldn't have been the right amount; the right amount would be $150 million. Those surveys are now almost all in the hands of the government, and complete, and the appropriate amounts will be paid to the appropriate agencies and individuals early in the new year.

Mrs McLeod: It's going to be almost a year from the time you committed that money until it actually reaches the women you promised it to. Your government has a rather sorry record when it comes to delivering dollars that go with your promises, whether it's emergency room funding or long-term-care funding or special education funding or indeed pay equity funding. You're able to find the money for a tax cut for the most well-to-do very quickly but you just can't get organized to get payments out to low-income women.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Ernie reminds us you voted against it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre.

Mrs McLeod: The minister is right in that the back payments are owed for 1995, 1996 and 1997, because under the previous government no payments were made until 1995. As a matter of fact, women now are owed an average of $2,300 in back pay. You're right. They are not only owed that in back pay, but because you are a year late in making the payments, they will also be entitled to some $90 million in funding for this past year, and by the time you get the cheques in the mail, they'll be entitled to $90 million for 1999. The $150 million will no longer do it; there's a total of $320 million owing. Are you prepared to pay the whole debt?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, there was no way to pay these individuals because they had to be identified and the agencies had to be identified. We couldn't operate on 1994 data, so we now have up-to-date data.

The member for Hamilton Centre is quite correct. He points out that the honourable member, a member of her party, voted against proxy voting in the first place, and now they want to know where the cheques are for proxy voting that they don't believe in. However, I have told you where they are. They will be forthcoming in the new year.

I say to the honourable member, her party introduced legislation in 1987 that would put off pay equity funding until 1995. The NDP introduced legislation in 1992 that would extend that payment date from 1995 to 1998. We are actually going to pay the money that you two couldn't scrape up to pay.

The Speaker: New question, member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the finance minister. I should say to the finance minister that if we had followed the Liberal position on proxy pay equity, these women wouldn't be getting one red cent today.

Having said that, these women were promised pay equity. These are 100,000 of the lowest -

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Yes, another Liberal flip-flop here; happy to see it today, another one.

Minister, let me say to you today that I'm glad they're onside and I'm glad you are promising these 100,000 of the lowest-paid women in our society, the women who look after our kids and our elderly people, that you are going to pay out this money.

But it's not good enough. We've heard minister after minister in this government say, "The cheque is in the mail." We'd like to see the Premier deliver the cheques personally. We want a guarantee from you today that the money owed not just for back pay but in the coming years will be fully paid out before the new year. There's no excuse not to act any more. Pay it out today.

1500

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I think I explained in the previous question why the money could not be paid out: because we had 1994 data and they weren't up to date. It had to be brought up to date so the appropriate individuals and the appropriate agencies would get the appropriate amount. That process will be complete by the end of this calendar year and early next year they will get the money that is owed to them.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Deputy Premier, there are some strange contrasts here. It was very easy, very quick for you to find the money for Al McLean, $600,000, with no accounting required, and still you don't want to have an accounting. It was very easy for you to find for Andersen Consulting millions of dollars without them even having to put in receipts. It's very easy for you to find $50 million for a partisan propaganda campaign, again with very little accounting as to what's going on here except that it's supposed to help your partisan political positioning.

It's been a year. You could have paid the $140 million and then done the surveys. What has taken so long? What has taken so long for you to put the money -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: The simple answer is, you couldn't pay it to people because you had to identify who it was you were going to pay it to.

The leader of the third party was a member of a government that in 1992 and 1993 passed a law saying, "We're not going to bring in proxy pay equity in 1995, as the previous government promised to do eight years before that." He voted for delaying it until 1998. How could he stand here and say, "Why didn't you pay it?" Why didn't you pay it in 1993, 1994 and 1995?

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is addressed to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Last Friday you visited Port Hope to assist with the dedication of Walton Street as a heritage conservation district, indeed a very historic event. It was great for you to see Port Hope, what it has to offer, its charming main street, the busy shops and businesses and also the restored Capitol Theatre. Could you tell the House what the government is doing to ensure that Ontario towns such as Port Hope have the opportunity to showcase their heritage?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I thank the member for Northumberland for his question. Certainly heritage plays a very important role in community development right across this province. It helps attract tourists, it creates jobs and it also develops volunteerism in a very big way. That certainly was the case that I saw at Port Hope when I visited the member for Northumberland for the opening and the dedication ceremony of the Walton heritage area, which was very impressive.

There are more than 50 heritage conservation districts in Ontario, including the Walton heritage area. I want to say that this government supports hundreds and hundreds of community museums, provincial heritage organizations and local historical societies. We also administer the cultural strategic development fund -

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It is not enough.

Hon Ms Bassett: - as the member for Kingston obviously knows as he's shouting across. He wants me to point out how helpful that program is to all the communities right across the province.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition signed by over 1,500 people and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by forcing boards of education to close hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children, put others on longer bus routes and close child care facilities; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut $1 billion from our schools and has instituted a funding model that does not work for the Toronto District School Board, resulting in the need to close schools; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents in Romney, Toronto, Ottawa, Stratford, Hamilton-Wentworth and many other communities are calling on the government to prevent the closing so many of their schools; and

"Whereas the closure of a school should be based on local decision-making and student population, with enough time to consider all options, not complicated formulas imposed by the province and aimed at quickly reducing education funding; and

"Whereas all of these actions by the provincial government will undermine the quality of public education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature to call on Mike Harris to stop his headlong rush to close local schools."

I agree wholeheartedly with this petition and I will affix my signature to it.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I've got a petition here signed by 300 or 400 people, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas we, the parents and community of St Francis of Assisi school in Toronto, are convinced that our local community schools are essential to the health of our community;

"We, the parents and community of St Francis of Assisi school, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario act as quickly as possible to keep St Francis of Assisi school open and to act now to amend the funding formula in Bill 160 to allow our school to remain open."

I affix my name to this petition.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario and it reads:

"Whereas it is important to honour the courageous memory and sacrifices of Canada's war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our national rights and freedoms;

"Whereas there is a need for succeeding generations of young, school-age Canadians to learn more about the true meaning of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas Ontario veterans' associations have created excellent educational materials for use in Ontario schools on the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas a special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in Ontario's education system, developed on the basis of the programs by the Ontario veterans' associations and involving their direct participation, would increase awareness of and appreciation for Canada's wartime sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all Ontario citizens;

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

"That the provincial Ministry of Education and Training ensure that a suitable Remembrance Day learning unit be included in the curriculum of all grades of Ontario's education system."

I have hundreds of signatures and I affix my signature in support thereof.

ELECTION CALL

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the current provincial government under Mike Harris has destroyed labour relations, gutted the WCB, caused rampant dependence on gambling, has contributed to mass homelessness and poverty while eroding our health care, educational and municipal institutions,

"We, the people of Chatham-Kent, are demanding that an election be called now, before the province is destroyed morally, ethically and financially."

This is signed by a number of residents from Tilbury, Blenheim and Chatham, and I affix my name to it.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Asian and Russian economic crises have contributed to a flood of steel imports into Canada at record-low prices; and

"Whereas the value of steel imported from Russia increased by 50% in the first half of 1998 over the first half of 1997; imports from Japan increased by 57%; and imports from Korea increased by over 500% in the first eight months of 1998 alone; and

"Whereas prices for almost every primary steel product have dropped by as much as 25% since the beginning of 1998; and

"Whereas the low-price imported steel threatens the viability of every steel producer in Canada," particularly in Hamilton and Sault Ste Marie; "and

"Whereas the potential impact on our community and its families of the growing steel imports crisis is devastating, threatening thousands of jobs directly and indirectly;

"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Canadian government to apply Canadian trade law quickly and effectively against this blatantly unfair competition, and further, to consider and explore any other extraordinary measure possibly available to Canada under its various trade agreements to deal with this unacceptable threat to our community's future."

I add my name to the Hamiltonians' who have signed it.

FAMILIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas we the undersigned, as citizens and members of the Canadian family, hold the following statements to be true:

"The family is an institution ordained by God and rooted in human nature that exists to satisfy the longings of the human heart to give and receive love and to provide a safe and secure environment in which to nurture, teach and love the children; and

"Whereas the family is society's fundamental social unit, sharing a home that serves as the centre for social, education, economic and spiritual life;

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

"That parents bear the ultimate responsibility for all aspects of their children's well-being. Any efforts which would undermine the responsibility are detrimental to the health of the family and therefore to society, and the family is the cradle of life and therefore responsible for the defence of life in all its dimensions."

This has been signed by many people from all over Ontario, by former MPP Bob McKessock, and I submit it to the assembly.

1510

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario in 1996; and

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males; and

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, which is prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Ministry of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

I have signed this petition, and I'm handing it to Maggie Pearson, one of our pages, from Peterborough.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): "Whereas nurses in Ontario are often influenced to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical beliefs;

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense or to sell chemicals or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs;

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences;

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments or other procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas providing daycare spaces is critical for the families in Toronto that need access to them; and

"Whereas the well-being of children should not be sacrificed to tax cuts; and

"Whereas the provincial government has significantly cut the budgets for the Toronto school boards; and

"Whereas under the provincial government's ill-conceived Bill 160 there is no flexibility for boards to make up for the cuts; and

"Whereas daycare spaces in schools are now threatened by these cuts with the prospect of full-cost recovery arrangements with daycares and the threat of school closures;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 160 immediately, and further be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to restore meaningful and flexible funding to the Toronto school boards to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate our community daycares;

"Further be it resolved that the Honourable Dave Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, takes responsibility for his government's funding cuts rather than passing the buck to "local" school boards who have no control over provincial government spending cuts."

I am pleased to sign this petition and hand it to Matt - it sounds like it's page day - from Oakville.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Durham region is one of the most rapidly growing areas in the province of Ontario with increasing commercial and private transportation needs and is connected to the greater Toronto area with a single major transportation link; and

"Whereas the transportation and economic needs of the region of Durham are underserviced by the current transportation links to central Ontario; and

"Whereas Highway 407 east has been completed up to McCowan Road; and

"Whereas the extension of Highway 407 east through the Durham region would alleviate traffic congestion in the region and promote economic growth;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to have Highway 407 extended east through the region of Durham."

I affix my signature in agreement.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have about 1,200 names affixed to this petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas, according to the Ministry of Education, four schools of the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school board (St Andrew's, St Joseph's, St Pat's and Queen of the Angels), which provide day and evening non-credit English-as-a-second-language programs for over 2,000 adult learners, have been identified as empty or surplus;

"Whereas current policy of the Ministry of Education requires that the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school board divest itself of surplus space in order to receive capital funding for new schools;

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

"We ask that Parliament require the Ministry of Education and Training to grant the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school board an exemption which recognizes that the adult day schools of the OCCSB, which offer non-credit ESL for adult learners, are indeed occupied and indeed are used;

"We ask that, in accordance with this recognition, Parliament require the Ministry of Education to permit the board to remove the pupil places represented by the four above-named adult schools from its inventory of surplus space. The intent is to ensure that the school board is able to continue operating the adult schools without losing possible funding for new elementary or secondary schools."

I affix my signature to this as well.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I have a petition from Mildmay and the area thereabouts in the riding of Bruce addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas children are exposed to pornography in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to pornography;

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

"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography; and restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."

I affix my name to the top.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology;

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services;

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres;

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more medical services;

"We, the undersigned, request the government of Ontario to keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a petition from patients and doctors for a physiotherapy clinic in Fort Erie, Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

"We, the citizens of Fort Erie, require the Fort Erie Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre to be able to provide physiotherapy under OHIP billings as we have no other means of getting proper care in a well-equipped facility;

"Our hospital has three hours a day for outpatient physiotherapy, whereas Fort Erie Physiotherapy has 12 hours a day for outpatient treatment. Our community is already underserviced with physicians. We do not wish to be underserviced with physiotherapy as well.

"We, as taxpayers, wish for you, the government, to listen to our pleas and provide OHIP coverage for us as a facility."

I sign my signature in support of the petition.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I presented a petition to the clerks in the last round of petitions and they said they couldn't accept it. I was wondering if you could rule on this. I'll send it forward to you, and you could make a ruling later on as to whether or not they should accept it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): OK. Yes, thank you. If you send it via a page to me, I'll take a look at it and rule later.

1520

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 82, An Act to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement, when Bill 82 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That the order for third reading may then immediately be called;

That one hour shall be allocated to the third reading stage of the bill after which time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That no deferral of the second and third reading votes pursuant to standing order 28(h) shall be permitted; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Northumberland and the member for Simcoe Centre, and so at this time I will pass the floor to the member for Northumberland.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I certainly welcome this opportunity to add to the discussion that has already taken place with respect to the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. Certainly many good points have been made from all sides of this Legislature, and I think we're having a good, constructive discussion.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I know he wants to get into his debate on this, but would you check to see if we have a quorum in this place, please.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: I think we're having a good, constructive discussion that will yield a strong piece of legislation that will ensure a better protected environment in Ontario.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You are shutting it down.

Mr Galt: I think it's interesting that the member for Hamilton Centre is commenting about shutting it down when in fact, through the debate so far on this particular bill, there has not been one single good objection to the content of the bill. There has been support from all three parties in this House. I think it's wise to get on and have this bill approved prior to the Christmas break.

Mr Christopherson: You just can't help yourself, right? You hate democracy so much.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order, please.

Mr Galt: No doubt we are dealing with an issue that is close to the hearts of everyone in this Legislature and of all Ontarians. The need for a clean environment and for a clean and healthy community is almost universally recognized today. I say "almost" because that's the reason why we have to debate a bill such as the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act.

Despite all the reasons for meeting environmental responsibilities, including meeting the requirements for provincial legislation, we haven't been able to provide enough reasons not to break environmental laws. We have strong laws protecting the environment, but the provisions aren't there to deter all polluters. The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is intended to give us those provisions to ensure the maximum compliance with and enforcement of the laws protecting our environment.

I want to say to my colleagues today that I believe it is highly desirable that this piece of legislation move to third reading during this session. I'm sure the members on the opposite side of the House would agree with that. From all sides of this Legislature, we're hearing general agreement on the provisions we are proposing through the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. As I said a moment ago, good progress has been made, and I think we must build on this progress and push ahead with this act. The sooner we can have this act in place and its provisions in effect, the sooner the Minister of the Environment will have the powers necessary to ensure compliance with and the enforcement of our environmental laws.

As has been stated time and time again during this debate, we're not increasing the powers of the ministry and the courts for the sake of power alone. We're simply trying to create greater fairness for those who meet environmental laws while being tougher on those who break those environmental laws. With our proposals contained in the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act in place, breaking environmental law will be a less attractive option. We will have a greater ability to prevent pollution offences from taking place. If they do, we'll be in a better position to catch those offenders. If convicted, environmental offenders will be subject to tougher punishment.

During the 10 years from 1985 to 1995, some $10 million worth of fines were levied. How many of those charges have been collected? We have that $10 million sitting on the books, unable to collect it. This bill will ensure that in the future bills and charges such as those will be collected.

I want to deal with each of three areas in more detail: preventing offences, catching offenders, and stronger penalties.

Prevention is a very important concept for the Ministry of the Environment. Pollution prevention informs everything we do. When it comes to, for example, the regulations that protect Ontario waterways, the emphasis is squarely on preventing the creation of pollutants rather than dealing with them after they have been released.

With waste management, the three Rs hierarchy puts reduction first. We reduce the amount of waste we generate, and then we deal with it through reuse and recycling. Each of these, of course, is a pollution prevention measure. They prevent materials from being sent to landfill by putting them to productive use.

Strong enforcement also has a strong prevention element. A greater chance of getting caught, as well as stronger penalties and more jail terms for those who are caught and convicted, is aimed at deterring future offences. This is a good form of prevention, when it is working. I'll discuss the deterrent effects of greater fines and a longer list of jailable offences in just a few moments.

First, I'll deal with the provisions that would enable ministry staff to stop offences from occurring, to stop ongoing offences. These provisions generally relate to the concept of taking the tools of the trade away from those involved in offences against the environment.

How do we take away these tools of the trade? One good way is through the ability to seize the plates and permits of vehicles suspected of being involved in illegal waste activities. If we seize the plate of an illegal waste hauler, we've stopped the activity. In the case of such hauling, we would require that the load of waste be transferred to a licensed hauler before returning the plates and/or permits to the original vehicle.

1530

Presently, we do have some powers in this regard, but they're just too restricting. Seizure can only be done in cases involving liquid hazardous waste or cases where continued operations could lead to adverse environmental effects. As has been commented upon earlier in the debates, environmental effects are difficult to predict and it is difficult to say which illegal acts will harm the environment and which won't.

The seizure authority is potentially a very powerful tool in dealing with dangerous and repetitive environmental offenders. A primary objective of the authority to seize, along with other proposed amendments contained in the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, is the ability to seize the tools of the trade of dangerous or habitual offenders.

The ability to seize vehicles engaged in the commission of an offence would also be of great help in certain circumstances. If you're dealing with a habitual environmental offender, you're talking about someone with a high possibility of reoffending. If such an offender is forced to pay all penalties before getting a vehicle back, that means a tool of the trade, in this case the environmental offences trade, is out of action and not available for more illegal activity.

As an example of the complementarity of the approaches we're suggesting, the tougher penalties following from the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act would act as a deterrent to the offender, who would be less likely to reoffend upon getting the vehicle back. The forfeiture provisions of the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act would also increase the likelihood of collecting upon the fines. Again, it's a case of closing in on offenders from every direction.

In general, and this point has been commented on at length, there is another strong prevention aspect of all of this: prevention of illegal operators from staying in the business. As my colleagues commented upon earlier, those who don't meet the province's environmental laws are less likely to stay in the game when they realize that life won't be as easy as it has been in the past.

The bad players are the ones who are least able to compete on an even playing field. They're like a pitcher who has relied on spitballs and hasn't honed his other pitches. If he keeps getting caught with spitters, he's at a big disadvantage, because the rest of his arsenal won't be up to the level of the other pitchers.

Of course, we're all aware that in baseball many pitchers have been getting away with these things for years. With the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, we'll be increasing the likelihood of catching environmental offenders. Much of the focus and impetus for the introduction of the private member's bill and the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act have been illegal waste operations, so I will use them for examples.

One powerful tool under the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is a provision for the use of modern investigative aids. Right now, the ministry does not have the authority to use such techniques to help in the surveillance of suspected environmental offences.

By investigative aids, the act refers to electronic tracking devices and to tracking substances. An electronic tracking device can be planted on a vehicle suspected of being engaged in illegal waste activities. It will enable ministry staff to track where loads of waste are going and what facilities are involved.

The use of tracking substances involves the planting of a substance in a waste load to identify the load, to give it a distinctive fingerprint. It would enable ministry investigators to determine whether a load of material that leaves point A is the same as the load that arrives at point B. Tracking substances can also tell if waste has been used for an illegal purpose. Another example that I believe was used before was the fingerprinting of CFCs with dyes.

With these investigative aids, ministry staff will be in a better position to catch environmental offenders. They will have a better idea of what illegal activities have gone on and what equipment and facilities have been involved.

Surveillance is a very labour-intensive activity. The ministry must devote several officers as well as substantial resources to each and every case where we suspect that illegal waste activities are happening. I understand that it can take as many as five vehicles, and the inspectors to staff them, to conduct surveillance on just one operation.

Staff obviously can't be in more than one place at a time, with the result being a limitation on the number of surveillance operations that can be carried out at any one time. With the use of modern aids, ministry staff will be able to conduct more surveillances simultaneously. They'll be able to stay on top of more situations and catch more people involved in illegal activities.

Under the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, ministry staff would have to meet very high standards with regard to safeguarding personal rights before obtaining a court order to use tracking aids. They'll need to show a good reason why they believe an offence is being, or is about to be, committed. It bears repeating here that each new or strengthened power proposed under the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act has been developed in the strictest accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Rights.

I think the lawful operators will welcome the use of modern investigative aids because they will have the confidence of knowing that they are operating within the law and will not be concerned that they will be the target of an investigation.

Another way of ensuring that more polluters get caught is through the provisions of the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act which expand upon existing provisions for prohibiting illegal waste deposits. These provisions would include the ability to charge individuals who facilitate, arrange for or broker illegal dumping, and not just the person physically doing the deed.

This is a very important point. Right now, many of the behind-the-scenes types are carrying on with the planning and coordinating of illegal activities, comfortable in the knowledge that there is not much chance they are going to be caught. These are the masterminds, the brokers, the people who come up with the plans but don't actually dirty their hands doing the dirty deed. They're the most insidious types. They become increasingly arrogant and full of their own power because they've been able to, by and large, escape arrest. The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act will send these people a message that their days of easy operating are coming to a close.

With the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act we would also have a much greater chance of prosecuting the owners of companies involved in illegal transportation of waste. The situation we face now is that we can only charge the driver and not the principals of the company. Again, it's this idea that we can only charge the person actually committing the crime that must change. This is an unfortunate situation because the people actually committing the crimes are often much lower in the criminal food chain, so to speak. They're following orders of people who in reality are the most culpable for these offences. All too often they're just the chumps who can be replaced.

Again, the point needs to be made that the rights of all are provided for under the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. Anyone charged with illegal deposition of waste or illegal transportation of waste or any other environmental offence has recourse to all the normal procedural safeguards with which the judicial process protects and ensures the right to a fair trial.

1540

I just want to touch upon the deterrent effects of stronger penalties before turning over the floor.

By now it has become apparent that some polluters see fines as just another cost of doing business. Their profits are high enough that they can take this view. In some cases, even when you add in whatever cleanup offences we actually pin on the polluter, they still come out ahead. I think everyone here agrees that it would be desirable to see higher fines for those who aren't deterred by the current fine structure.

The more callous environmental offenders have also realized that jail wasn't a realistic possibility in the vast majority of cases. The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is proposing to create a much longer list of jailable offences. If there's one thing that will really deter polluters, it's a real possibility of prison time.

I'm going to end my remarks now to give some time to other members to talk about this bill. I want to close by urging all my colleagues to support the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act and to do everything they can to see that it gets third reading during this session.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate with respect to Bill 82, the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. I'd like to point out that what we're talking about here is making sure that the fundamentals with respect to environmental protection are in place. I think we have very good environmental protection laws, but what was lacking were the compliance and enforcement mechanisms, to make sure the teeth necessary to make polluters comply are in fact there.

For a very simple reason, as many have already said, the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is an excellent piece of legislation that will help a strong environmental protection system become stronger. That's the goal, and I believe it's shared by all three parties, in terms of the passage of this environmental statute law. It's a very large step forward, when you analyze the piece of legislation we're dealing with in terms of the measures that can be taken to ensure compliance. It's a very large step forward in the evolution of environmental protection in Ontario.

This government has taken a priority with respect to the environment. I give an example: The ongoing Lands for Life process is the most inclusive discussion on the future of crown lands in the history of the province. The work of the three Lands for Life round tables included 95 public meetings and involved over 15,000 people. Thousands more took part by sending letters, visiting the ministry's Web site and discussing the issue with the MNR officials at ministry offices. After more than 16 months of consultation, we've now entered the next stage of the process: consideration of the feedback received. At the same time, all interested parties are still welcome to continue to forward their thoughts to us.

No other government has done anything with respect to this Lands for Life process. We're the first government that has taken a position with respect to Lands for Life. There has been extensive consultation and there will continue to be. I'm very proud that at least this government, aside from other governments in this province, has taken a step with respect to the protection of our environment.

Another significant priority of this government has been health care. It's very interesting to note that Prime Minister Chrétien is quoted in the papers today as saying he will only comply with Premier Mike Harris's request for full restoration of the $6 billion in federal cuts to the health and social transfers when we restore all of our so-called cuts to health and social services. The fact of the matter is we haven't cut one cent from health care in this province. We have actually increased health care spending from $17.4 billion to $19 billion. The only cuts to health care and social services in this province have been from the federal government, which continues to not want to support our health care and social transfer services.

I'd say to the Prime Minister that his request has been fulfilled. Over the last three years, not only have we boosted health spending in the province by over $1.5 billion, but we've also fully offset the over $2 billion in federal Liberal cuts to transfer payments. That's what I would call a tremendous initiative that has been taken by this province with respect to the very serious cuts that have been put forth by the federal Liberal government in health and social transfer payments. For the federal government to say, "When you restore your cuts," we haven't cut anything, so I would say to the Prime Minister, you put forth the money right now because you owe it to the citizens of this province.

In terms of dealing with the Environmental Protection Act amendments, this province has long enjoyed a very high standard of environmental protection. We've had, and continue to have, strong laws protecting our air, water and land. Unfortunately, as has been realized by all the parties, various weaknesses have entered into this strong environmental protection. These weaknesses have compromised the province's ability to ensure compliance with its environmental laws and to enforce those laws. That's what we're dealing with here: compliance and enforcement.

The problem has also been compounded by the fact that since 1985, convicted polluters have gotten away with $10 million in unpaid fines. It's all well and good for members of the previous governments to talk about the fines levied while they were in office, but the simple fact is they often weren't collected. The $10 million in uncollected fines is an offence both against the environment and our justice system. Obviously more effective mechanisms are needed. It's the government's intention, through this piece of legislation, to deliver those by ensuring our environment is protected through the most effective and efficient means possible. This legislation will enable staff to administer a fairer, more consistent and efficient system on behalf of all Ontarians. That's what I'm going to talk about in terms of the compliance and enforcement.

As a government we've done much of the work that needs to be done to address the problems with the environmental protection system. We've clarified, in some cases, and are still clarifying, the rules and regulations protecting the environment. In terms of fundamentals, our statutes are sound. There are places where work needs to be done, and that is being done.

I'd like to focus on some of the areas where we're taking steps. Dr Galt has already spoken about how the act will give us greater ability to prevent offences, to catch offenders and to punish those convicted of contravening our environmental laws through investigative processes, but I want to continue on this with some thoughts about the new powers and authorities provided under the act.

They're needed because in the past the courts and the ministry haven't always been able to make life as tough on polluters as they would have liked. When it came time for prosecution, courts applied appropriate penalties, but it seemed that these penalties often weren't enough to deter the polluters. Then there's the problem of collectability. It's true that some environmental offenders have received stiff fines, but these fines haven't always been paid, as I mentioned. Since 1985 there's $10 million in unpaid fines.

The courts have continued to work within the framework of the penalties they have the authority to impose. The ministry and the Ontario government believe these penalties haven't been strong enough and that too many people have gotten away without paying a fine. Even when the fines are paid, there are many cases where the monetary effect has very little impact on the polluter's ability to operate and in terms of deterrence.

In putting this in the past tense, the situation continues and will continue until this Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is passed. If the act is passed, the ministry and the courts would have the tools they need to ensure compliance and justice for convicted environmental offenders. These tools include some existing powers made more workable and comprehensive.

In the former category, it's the ability to seize plates and permits of vehicles involved in environmental offences. Currently staff have the ability to do such seizures, but it's limited to offences involving hazardous waste and where the operation will cause an adverse effect. There are certainly many other offences that could be stopped by plate and permit seizures. For example, if we have reason to believe a vehicle is involved in carrying used tires to an illegal site, it would be desirable to be able to seize the plates and/or permit for that vehicle. This isn't allowed under the current power stipulated in the legislation, but would be a powerful tool in our efforts to stop polluting activities.

Another powerful seizure tool would be the ability for ministry officers to seek court orders to seize and forfeit vehicles and equipment used in environmental offences.

The environmental amendment act also contains provision for the forfeiture of seized equipment to the crown. As has been remarked on before on numerous occasions during the debate on this act, taking away the tools of the trade is a very important power. It makes it that much more difficult for polluters to operate, but it makes it easier for environmental officers to basically enforce the act and ensure compliance.

1550

Restitution orders are an important new authority for the courts that we're proposing through the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. Currently there are no such provisions and the only course of action for innocent parties to get repaid for cleanup costs is through suing the offender. This is convoluted, costly and frankly unfair to innocent parties.

Fairness is a big part of the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. We want to be fair to those who abide by the rules and tough on those who don't think it's worthwhile to meet their responsibilities to the environment and to society. We're not proposing carte blanche to get tough on polluters. We're proposing new and often stronger authority for the courts and the ministry, but here too we will be fair. We have taken the precaution to ensure that, by strengthening our abilities to ensure compliance with the law and to enforce it, we are not trampling on anybody's rights, including suspected polluters. They have the rights of fairness too, and we will respect those rights.

For example, if we suspect someone is taking waste and putting it where they shouldn't be, we will be able to use modern investigative aids, but only after we have satisfied the courts that we have reasonable grounds for suspicion. The onus is on us to show why we believe something is happening or is about to happen. But if we do get a court order, using the investigative aids that would be allowed under this act, and do find evidence of wrongdoing, we will be very tough indeed. In fact we will have the evidence to move forward.

The same follows for all provisions of the act. We will apply them fairly, but we will have the authority to get tough when we have reason to do so and the courts will also have greater authority to hand out tougher fines as well as prison sentences for a bigger list of offences.

I see that I still have some time so I'd like to spend a few moments discussing the provision of the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act giving the ministry the authority to make use of administrative monetary penalties. Currently only the courts can impose financial penalties on polluters. With this act, we are proposing to give directors of the Ministry of the Environment the ability to impose financial penalties to enforce compliance with provincial regulations and the requirements set out in ministry instruments such as permits, approvals and orders.

It must be emphasized here that these administrative monetary penalties are not fines and they are not a replacement for prosecution in the courts. Prosecution is still the most valuable tool in environmental cases, but we must realize that it takes time to prosecute and there have to be other measures put in place. It's an even more valuable tool if the act involving higher fines and a longer list of jailable offences is acted upon.

Another thing I want to be very clear about here is that we are not creating any new offences. The same things that are illegal today with respect to Ontario's environment will still be illegal with respect to implementation of the provisions of this act. We'll simply be in a better position to deal with the illegal activities through ensuring compliance and being able to take enforcement mechanisms. Administrative monetary penalties are one of the tools we'll be able to use to better ensure compliance with existing rules, and that's only fair.

In closing -

Mr Len Wood: On a point of order, Speaker: It's an interesting debate we are having, but I don't believe we have a quorum in this place. Would you check to see if we have a quorum, please?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Marion Boyd): Clerk, would you check to see if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Simcoe Centre, please continue.

Mr Tascona: The vast majority of Ontarians who do obey the environmental law will welcome the passage of this act. They'll see it as a reward for being responsible and for caring about the health of their environment and about the health of their fellow citizens. This is why I believe that everyone should support this act. We should reward those who meet the requirements of environmental legislation with better ways to ensure compliance and with tougher enforcement provisions for ministry staff.

I want to conclude by restating what I said at the outset. The fundamentals of the statutes protecting Ontario's environment are strong. It's time to back them up with the ability to ensure compliance and to enforce them more effectively. I call on all members of the Legislature to support this act and see that the act receives third reading during this sitting of the Legislature.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order, Speaker: I've listened to the debate and it seems that members are debating Bill 82. Is it not the case that we are actually debating a time allocation motion this afternoon? I would ask that you ask members to speak to the motion.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Algoma is correct. We are debating a time allocation motion on this bill rather than the bill itself, if members would please keep to the topic of the allocation motion.

Further debate?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I'm pleased to stand today to speak to this resolution. I will be sharing my time with the member for St Catharines and the member for Sudbury, if that's all right with the Chair.

Interjection.

Mr Crozier: And Port Arthur, I'm told.

Mr Wildman: It's OK with us too.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Crozier: Well, the Christmas rush has begun. We're two days away from what at this point in time is our adjournment and, according to my count, we still have 27 or 28 bills to deal with. Under those circumstances I can understand why this government would want to shut down the debate on this particular bill, Bill 82.

The member for Northumberland said he thought it was time that we shut down debate, yet he took almost 20 minutes of the time, which is rather interesting. As well, I might point out that we are going to support this bill, but the member for Northumberland would criticize us for wanting to speak in support of it. So I can't quite understand where he's coming from.

As I've said before when I have spoken to closure motions - and this is the 33rd time, again according to my count, that this government has brought in a closure motion - I've tried to point out that when I was elected to sit in this Legislature I thought part of that responsibility was to bring the comments from Essex South to the Ontario Legislature, yet we get less and less time to do this, notwithstanding the fact that we're in support of the bill to which this resolution applies.

When the bill is next called of course, according to this closure resolution, "the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading."

1600

That means, of course, as we all know, that there will be no public hearings on it. I've heard the government say in committee, just as recently as last week in the justice committee on Bill 53, that no bill is perfect. That is the reason that we have debate in the Legislature. Not every bill is perfect, by the government's own admission, which then means that perhaps some members have comments to make that apply to either their specific riding or their overall concern, and in this case, with an environmental bill.

Speaker, I beg your indulgence. I am speaking to the closure motion, because I'm not happy that we're having debate shut down the way we are. By way of explanation of why I am not happy this government is shutting down debate on this bill, I have a couple of comments to that point.

The Premier said in the Toronto Star on June 5, back in 1995, just prior to the election of this government, and I suppose he was referring to the Common Sense Revolution: "I don't think you'll find a cent there cut out of the environment. We were able to find $6 billion in cuts," to government spending, that is, "without cutting the environment." Well, we all know what happened. That was then, this is now. This is why I feel we should include in our comments on this closure motion the reasons we don't like closure on this particular aspect.

Total MNR staff in 1994-95 was 5,000 people; total staff cuts to the MNR have been 2,170. While the Premier said you won't "find a cent there cut out of the environment," the Ministry of Natural Resources operating budget in 1994-95 was $478 million and the current operating budget in 1997-98 is $331 million. Total operating budget cut: $147 million, or 31%. If that isn't an awful lot of cents, I don't know what is, and I don't know what the Premier now, the leader of the third party at that time, was telling the people of Ontario. I hesitate to say what his intentions were. They can draw their own conclusions from his comments.

In 1996, in the annual report to the Legislature, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario said: "If we continue along this path, our right to a healthy environment will be jeopardized. We cannot afford to focus on short-term savings at the expense of long-term environmental health."

We all know - we've been told in this Legislature and we've been told by people outside the Legislature - that 1,800 Ontarians die prematurely each year as a result of air pollution. I have seen that myself in the area of Essex South. My hobby as a private pilot is of course recreational flying. When you take off from the airport in the city of Windsor and fly east, because to the north, west and south we have the great United States of America, you do your recreational flying out in Essex and what used to be Kent county and beyond.

But when you return, it's an amazing sight. You can be flying on a beautiful clear day and what do you see up ahead over the Detroit River? A great yellow cloud. That's disturbing. It's no wonder that 1,800 people die in Ontario each year because of air pollution. It's disturbing to see that on a beautiful clear day, this yellow-orange, almost sulphurous cloud that hangs over the western part of Essex county and I suppose much of the city of Detroit and the Wyandot area.

There's a lot more this government could do that would be a lot better than cutting $147 million out of the budget, if we're going to do anything about clean air. The Provincial Auditor, in his 1996 report, said, "In order to properly safeguard the ecosystem and human health, we recommend that the ministry," that being the Ministry of Environment and Energy, "update its standards for air pollutants, improve its monitoring efforts in the area of air, water and hazardous waste materials and develop a more proactive and systematic approach to protecting and managing groundwater."

On April 31, 1996, the World Wildlife Fund gave Ontario a failing F on its efforts to protect ecologically significant areas of the province. Even Alberta, the great oil province of the west, had a better record than we.

We've heard from the members across how this bill will improve the environment and will help with the environment and will make our environment better. The reason we're supporting the bill is that for all the gutting they've done of the Ministry of the Environment, for all the damage they've done to our effort to clean up our environment, this at least takes some steps forward. We don't know how many steps we've taken backwards. Only time will tell. Only the devastating results of mistreating our environment will tell in the future.

But we're supporting this bill today because it at least takes one step forward. It raises fines and imposes jail terms for polluters, but that's after the fact.

Mr Wildman: If everyone is agreeing with this, why are they moving time allocation?

Mr Crozier: Exactly, and I'll get to that.

The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Algoma.

Mr Crozier: The member for Algoma says if everybody approves of this, why are they moving time allocation? I agree. We all want to have our comments and to show our support for this meagre step forward that's being taken.

"It provides the ministry with more powers to force individuals and companies that organize illegal waste dumping to pay for the cleanup." The problem is that I suspect that of those 2,170 jobs that have been removed from the ministry, a lot were inspectors. So the law really is only going to have the teeth of the piece of paper it's written on unless proper enforcement will follow.

"Seize licence plates and permits from vehicles used to commit environmental offences": That's great, but if these individuals have chosen to break the law, they'll simply go out and do it again in another way.

The Acting Speaker: There are some members of the Legislature who are having private conversations that are interrupting the debate that's going on. I would ask them to have those conversations outside.

Please continue, member for Essex South.

Mr Crozier: Thank you, Speaker. I'll just have to speak more loudly. I wish I had the vocal cords of a Sean Conway. Then there wouldn't be any doubt that they'd hear me. In fact, I wish I had some of Sean's recollection of history and his ability to speak to any matter.

But I go on to say that the key elements of this bill are "to secure areas and facilities to ensure evidence is protected." Again, that takes enforcement officers. That takes individuals with the authority of the legislation to go out and actually do the job.

"Use more modern investigative techniques such as tracking equipment": That's good too. I think we should use every bit of technology we can to track down, to apprehend, to charge and eventually get rid of environmental polluters. But you have to have more than just paper. You have to have the people who can enforce those laws. The bill will be useless unless these new powers are used by an adequate number of Ministry of the Environment inspectors and enforcement staff to enforce any kind of environmental regulation.

Since taking office, the Mike Harris government has cut Ministry of the Environment staff by 36% and the budget by over 42%. Particularly hard hit has been the compliance and enforcement branch, which has been cut from 97 staff to 70. That's really what this bill is all about. It's useless, it isn't worth the paper it's written on, unless there are the inspectors, the staff, the support to enforce the bill.

1610

I want to take the remaining time that I have to come back to the actual resolution itself and what this resolution does to democracy in this Legislature. Some who are less willing to spend their time and effort and money away from home might say, "If we're going to have to deal with a government like this that doesn't want to hear from the people of Ontario and therefore brings in closure motions" - and I can recall, Speaker, in the first 18 months that I was here, and you will recall this because you were part of the government, on occasion, certainly not to my recollection 33 times but on occasion, it was felt by the government of the day that it was necessary to limit debate because all that had been said had been said. But at the same time, I don't recall that it had been used in a manner which I'm coming to the conclusion is simply making the Legislature of the province of Ontario rather irrelevant.

I don't accept that, but it would be easy just to throw up our arms and go home and say: "OK, you guys have the majority. In the end you're going to do whatever you want anyway. We just won't waste our time down here." But that's what democracy, the democratic process of this place, is all about. It's not about shutting down debate; it's not about using closure motions 33 times; it's not about coming to the end of a session when we have some 28 bills left on the agenda and wanting, I suppose, to get all of them through. I'm only assuming that if the government had felt they weren't important they wouldn't have brought them forth in the first place.

This bill, for example, was brought to us on November 23, less than a month ago, significant legislation. We agree with the government in this instance that we must do more to protect our environment. We have to deal with some pretty heady issues in here, like health care and education and social legislation, but environmental legislation is no less important. One would wonder then why it is that this late in the session, over three years into the mandate, after gutting the Ministry of the Environment, they now want to come back and say, "Oh, but we have a concern for it and we're going to make things tougher for those polluters," notwithstanding the fact that they're in all likelihood not going to be able to monitor it as well as it should be.

We have two questions before us today. One is the bill itself, that according to this resolution, after our debate is finished here, one hour will be allocated to the third reading stage and then it will be law. But you would think that a government that spends $50 million on self-serving advertising would have done one of two things: used some of that money to make us more aware of the environmental problems we face and to better educate the public, all of us, about our concern for the environment, or used some of that $50 million that appears on the television advertising each day and each evening of the week to put back into the environment, to put back into health care, to put back into education.

Instead there was $180 million for a contract to an American company, $180 million in what appears to be an open contract. Can you imagine what $180 million would do towards making our environment a better and safer place in which to live? Can you imagine what $180 million would do in the health care area for those 1,800 people a year that are dying in Ontario because of the bad environment?

Then more recently we have $600,000 of taxpayers' money being squandered on a private matter between two people in order that someone in this Legislature can be protected, a matter in which we were told that the Board of Internal Economy had been told by lawyers that we shouldn't be paying, a matter in which the government members on the Board of Internal Economy voted to get rid of it, to put it under the rug.

I think I have pointed out some areas where this government could have used the money to a much greater benefit to the people of the province. I think we've pointed out in the short time that we have in this closure debate where the money could have gone towards health care and the environment, which would be better for all of us. But no, we've got a government that says they are the great managers. Well, the great managers have spent a whole bunch of money recently that we think hasn't been spent the way it should be, and we didn't get our bang for our buck.

The great managers, and they are in control of the agenda, still have 28 items left on it. That's part of the reason why we don't have the opportunity to speak out when we should. Although we support the intent and the direction of this legislation, it's another sad day when we don't have the opportunity to speak on behalf of our constituents because this government, in their wisdom and their bully way, have simply decided to shut down debate.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm pleased to join the debate this afternoon. I'd like to start off by suggesting to the members of the House and to the people of Ontario that when the Mike Harris government took office, they took office saying that public involvement would be very, very important to them and to the new direction in Ontario.

I think any time allocation motion for frivolous reasons is a very poor indicator that the government of the day, in this instance the Mike Harris Tory government, wants to involve the people of Ontario. When you know for a fact that by the end of debate today and this evening there will be in excess of 33 closure motions that have come before the members in the House, I suggest to all the members in the House and certainly to the people of Ontario that if you voted for a Mike Harris government because they were going to include you in the public process, you have been sorely fooled by the Mike Harris Tories.

Having said that, it is important for the people to understand that what a time allocation motion does is to effectively end the public input into the decision-making that they should be a part of. They elected their representatives to bring forth to the House the opinion of the people they represent in their particular constituency or in their riding, so to have a government that in excess of 33 times has said, "I'm sorry, but the people of Ontario's opinion, their direction, their input, their suggestions, their opportunity to affect democracy are no longer important, and because you, the people of Ontario, are no longer important, we, the Mike Harris government, are going to time-allocate the motion and effectively cut off your involvement in democracy," is nothing to be proud of. It will certainly be a point that the people of Ontario will remind you of on a continuing basis as we move towards the next provincial election.

I'm looking forward to the next provincial election, first to be able to try to put forth a Liberal platform that is going to be appealing to the people of Ontario, but also to defend our record in opposition, in what we suggested was important for the people of Ontario and how we had to argue those with the Mike Harris government. That's part of a time allocation motion. We don't get the opportunity to do that any longer.

If I had more time than I'm going to have this afternoon, I might want to spend a little bit of time talking about the history of Sudbury and talking about what happened when a government that was in power cared little about the environment and allowed the prevalent industry in Sudbury to in fact destroy the environment through sulphur dioxide emissions.

1620

Our environment was bleak. It was barren. The greenery had died. There was massive black rock. But over and after a period of time, and because of a very progressive regional council, because of a very good partnership with university professors, we decided that we could re-green Sudbury. So over a period of approximately 10 years we planted in excess of two million trees. The barren landscape that was once Nickel Centre, that was once a part of Copper Cliff, that was once a part of Gatchell, the area I grew up in, now is once again beautiful.

We did that because the community came together and decided that the re-greening of Sudbury was important to the survival of Sudbury, but it was also important to the survival of the people in Sudbury. At that point in time we became very conscious of the importance of the environment and the importance of being environmentally friendly not only in our thoughts but in our actions.

If the time allocation motion wasn't in place, I could probably speak for a good hour, hour and a half, on how beautiful our region became once again. The reality is, though, this motion doesn't allow me to do that. If I'm going to stay in order, I must, I have to, speak to the motion.

Mr Len Wood: Get your Liberal buddies to give you more time.

Mr Bartolucci: The member, Len Wood, who will be running against David Ramsay in the next election, says to let my buddies give me the time. Well, that's the problem with the time allocation. Mr Wood, you should know, as a member of the third party, that my other colleagues will have opportunities that they will want to say a time allocation motion doesn't give them the time to debate.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Sudbury, I remind you to speak through the Chair, please.

Mr Bartolucci: I apologize, Madam Speaker, and I will do that in the future.

The problem with the time allocation motion is that there is clearly less time for debate and there is clearly less time for any substantive changes to government policy.

It's interesting that people are trying to affect government policy as we speak today. I'm going to spend the next few minutes talking about the clean air committee of Sudbury, which is co-chaired by Primo Steffan and Marie-France Dhaouadi. These are two residents in the west end of Sudbury who got tired of breathing bad air and decided it was time they tried to affect not only the industry in Sudbury and not only the municipal level of government in Sudbury, but it was time they tried to affect the provincial government. Cleary, they have.

We have over the course of the last two weeks presented in excess of 2,000 names on petitions at various times talking about the importance of establishing some type of monitoring system for the people of the regional municipality of Sudbury. This is, to use the government's term, a citizen initiative. It's a good initiative, and if we had more time today we would be able to spend time explaining to the people in the House and to the people of Ontario how a few people can make a very big difference. So I congratulate Primo Steffan and Marie-France Dhaouadi on the excellent work they have done in the past in bringing awareness of the importance of clean air in the regional municipality of Sudbury. This petition is continuing and it will continue in the future.

Just recently there was a letter to the editor in the paper, and I guess it's pretty telling on the government. They are very familiar with this bill, but they say:

"Despite the fact that the mining industry has been in compliance with their annual emission `limits' and that you have assured us that `the two companies are working on negotiated, voluntary abatement programs,' more positive steps need to be taken by your ministry." This is a letter to the Minister of the Environment.

"Your government has failed thus far to impose a time frame or implementation deadline on the mining industry to achieve compliance with the provincial standard.

"Consequently, our mining industry neighbours continue to enjoy the liberal control limit of 0.50 parts per million concentration of sulphur dioxide, which is double the Ontario standard of 0.25 parts per million.

"Shame!

"The citizens of this region deserve better and we would truly like to believe that your ministry's objective is to reduce emission levels to acceptable standards.

"However, a credible plan of action must prioritize the health and welfare of the people in this region and include a realistic time frame.

"Minister Sterling, serious governmental attention to these matters is long overdue."

The reality is that with the passing of this bill - and I'll certainly be supporting the legislation, because there are some very positive steps in it. Too bad there won't be the power behind it to enforce it, but certainly the concept is long overdue.

I can't support a time allocation motion that cuts off debate so that Primo Steffan and Marie-France Dhaouadi feel their work may now be in vain. It won't be, because we will continue to present the petition, we will continue to write letters to the minister, and we will continue to ensure that the Clean Air Committee of Sudbury's work will only be done when Sudbury and Sudburians once again have and breathe clean air. It is not a pipe dream; it is a reality that we will work hard at achieving.

I should also, in the very limited time that I have left, remind you that whenever a time allocation motion is put in place, the reality is that we in this House are not allowed to bring forward the opinions and the points that our constituents bring to us on an ongoing basis. I would suggest to you that the minister would be well advised to talk to various municipal governments about this particular bill, talk to various groups that are a part of industry with regard to this bill. Had they done that before this time allocation motion, I think what we would have had here is a much stronger bill, a much better attuned bill to meet the varying needs of the various areas of Ontario.

There are limitations, and the limitations by the government are self-imposed. This bill did not get public hearings, it did not get committee hearings, and I suggest to you that we would be much better listening to those people who walk the walk as opposed to listening to those of us in the House who try to talk the talk but have never walked the walk.

Maybe that will lead me to my last point. Again, it's the time allocation motion that I would like to comment on. It doesn't allow me to spend the time that I believe should be spent on the establishing of a committee to study workplace carcinoma. I suggest to those people who are in the House and to the people of Ontario who don't live in an area like Sudbury or Windsor or Hamilton or Sault Ste Marie, you will not understand the importance of establishing a committee to study workplace carcinoma like the people in those areas do. The reality is, people, that 9% of the people who go to work - Cancer Care Ontario's numbers, now - will contract cancer and ultimately die. That means approximately 2,100 people a year will die because they choose to go to work and try to provide a livelihood for their families.

I suggest to you that Cancer Care's direction and pleading with the government that a workplace carcinoma committee be set up, that my pleas with the government and that industry workers' pleas with the government are important. I ask as part of the passing of this bill that the government commit to establishing a workplace carcinoma committee so that people can feel free and can feel secure in knowing that when they go to work to provide a living for their families, for their children, for their loved ones, they're not going to contract cancer and die.

I don't agree with time allocation motions. I do agree that this bill is good, but this bill could have been a lot better had you allowed the people who walk the walk to have some input into it.

1630

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Again I'm forced to speak on a time allocation motion, which of course is a motion which limits debate, which restricts debate, which slams the door shut on further debate in this Legislative Assembly. It's a motion which has become commonplace with the Harris government.

What I think everybody is surprised at is that knowing the problem that existed, the government did not in its very first few months move on legislative initiatives of this kind, instead of moving to set up a commission to close down hospitals such as the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines and the Maplehurst hospital in Thorold and others that could close in the Niagara Peninsula.

In fact the first initiatives from this government turned out to be initiatives to weaken environmental regulation and environmental procedures in the province. The government characterizes them as clearing up red tape or making it easier to deal with the laws of the province. What they really did was weaken the environmental efforts of the province, and this is kind of a death bed repentance, the conversion on the road to Damascus, for this government, when it's now bringing in a bill at the very last minute which is going to make some marginal improvements in circumstances involving prosecutions in Ontario.

I remind members of the assembly that under the Conservative government of Mike Harris, fines collected in environmental prosecutions are down by some 50%. In effect what's happening is that under the Conservative government, the government is now making deals with polluters not to prosecute them. That's essentially what's happening now, if you wonder why we're not seeing those prosecutions.

When I had the opportunity to be the Minister of the Environment, I remember being lectured by the Tories because they said my approach was too prosecutorial; in other words, we wanted to constantly investigate and bring to court those who were violating the laws of Ontario. They said: "No, no, you've got to make it voluntary. We've got to have these voluntary codes brought in." Well, voluntary doesn't work, of course. It works for those who are good corporate citizens, but it leaves them vulnerable to competition from those who don't want to adhere to the good environmental practices that we think all corporations and others should adhere to.

The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy put out a list which I think is a condemnation of the government's policies on the environment outside of this bill; they have not included this bill on their list. It reads as follows: "Reductions to the budget to the Ministry of Environment and Energy of over $200 million, a 37% reduction of the 1994-95 budget: over this period, this ministry will lose 752 staff, 31% of current employees." It's got worse since then, of course. More employees have been turfed out the door and the budget has been more restricted in terms of the ministry being able to spend its money.

I can tell you that in the Ministry of the Environment if you don't have the resources and you don't have the staff, you cannot enforce the laws we're passing this afternoon or any other laws in the province. It's just a wink and a nod and the polluters are very happy.

Remember, this government got elected with the support of some people who did not like the Ministry of the Environment. In fact, they detested the Ministry of the Environment because it got in their way of making a profit, the kind of profit they wanted. There were good corporate citizens out there, good corporate entities that could make a profit and still be environmentally sound in their practices and their policies, but the ones who didn't like it went to the right-wingers and said: "You gotta put those people from the Ministry of the Environment in their place. That ministry has to become business-friendly." Well, it's become business-friendly, to the chagrin of the general population of this province and to the chagrin of good corporate business people who don't want to see that kind of change taking place.

"Reductions to the budget of the Ministry of Natural Resources of $137 million by 1997-98, a 26% reduction of the 1994-95 budget: Over this period, this ministry will lose 2,170 staff, representing 40% of current employees."

If you think you can carry out the responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the policing and the watchdog responsibilities of that ministry or of the Ministry of the Environment, by slashing the staff, by throwing them all out the door, I'm going to tell you that you can't do it. In fact, you're getting the exact opposite happening in this province. It's a wink and a nod and away goes the pollution or the violations of environmental laws and policies.

"The elimination of programs related to energy efficiency, waste diversion, environmental and natural resources science, research and education, community environmental action, sustainable forestry" - gone.

"The implementation of major cuts to the budgets of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and initiation of a review of the commission's mandate and functions."

I saw a bill today, another one of those red tape bills. The compendium is about that thick because there are three different documents that go with it. You have to look through it carefully, and what do I see? A reference to the Niagara Escarpment Commission and a way to make it easier to get development permits through the minister.

Nobody's going to see that easily. It's the dying days of the session. They're talking about the payment to Al McLean or they're talking about advertising or they're talking about something else, but they're not talking about this, so the government thinks, "We can slide this through now, bring it in at the last time." Many of the provisions of the bills that were brought in by the member for Lincoln, those so-called red tape bills, were designed to make it easier for polluters. That simply is not in the interests of the environment in his province.

The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy goes on to say: "The weakening of protection for environmentally significant areas, such as wetlands, woodlots and ravines, and prime agricultural land through Bill 20 amendments to the Planning Act and new provincial planning policy statement."

They just threw the Planning Act out the window. There had been three years of consultation. They went to everybody in the province. They tried to make it so you can have some reasonable planning policies in this province, but the developers won out. They just sharpened their elbows, headed forward to the fundraiser and said, "Let's get rid of these laws." As a result, we're going to see environmental mistakes made and a degradation environmentally in this province, just because you want to cater to one group of people who just don't give a darn about the environment as long as they can make their big dollars.

"The weakening of controls on activities on public lands and on activities which may affect the province's waterways through Bill 26 amendments to the Public Lands Act and the Lakes and Rivers Improvements Act."

Remember Bill 26, the huge, mammoth, what we call a budget bill? We call it the bully bill because it amended or changed or abolished or altered some 46, 47 or 48 statutes of the province of Ontario to elbow aside everybody else and concentrate that power in the Premier's office and in the office of a few powerful ministers of this government.

"Near elimination of...funding to conservation authorities, and the facilitation of the dissolution of authorities and the sale of their lands through Bill 26 amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act."

All those lands which were accumulated in the public interest, good lands that conservation authorities accumulated: Some of them are being sold off now so they can meet their requirements financially, and you're underfunding those authorities which carried out some good environmental and conservation works in the province just because you had to have that tax cut for the rich in the province.

You have the "repeal of the ban on new municipal solid waste incinerators." Not much has come out of that, but you took that action immediately.

1640

"The weakening of the mine closure and remediation provisions of the Mining Act through Bill 26." Again, one of the things people didn't see in Bill 26 was that weakening of the Mining Act. You should see some of the messes that are left after the mines are finished, the mine tailings areas that are left as a result of mining. Mining is a necessary occupation in Ontario, it's a necessary business, we all understand that, but we have to ensure that while the mining operation is taking place, it's as environmentally sound as it possibly can be and that what is left over is environmentally acceptable. You've weakened that in Bill 26.

You're "exempting prospectors from environmental liability under the Environmental Protection Act."

You have "the virtual elimination of provincial oversight and management of Ontario's public forests as a result of a $45-million/year cut to MNR budget for forest management." So the sky's the limit, I guess - I don't know if that's the proper word to use - when it comes to cutting trees in this province. It's just out of control out there. I heard one of the members extolling the virtues of the new Lands for Life project. That's really turning over many of the forests in this province to the lumber barons; not to the public good but to the lumber barons in this province.

You're "implementing a $9.1-million/year reduction in provincial parks funding. Twenty-seven provincial parks are to be `no longer operated by the Ministry of Natural Resources' or `partnered' with outside agencies. There is to be a new emphasis on revenue generation and cost recovery in other parks," as opposed to having them for the public good. Once again, if you've got the money, you can afford it; if you don't, tough luck.

"The implementation of major cuts to provincial support for public transit." Public transit is designed to ease the burden on the environment. The fewer cars that have to come in and out of Toronto every day is a good example. That means the air quality should improve. But all over Ontario, you've cut funding to the provincial support that used to be there for public transit. The St Catharines Transit Commission is faced with the dilemma of having to cut back its operations for its services or to steal money from somewhere else; get money from some other area of municipal endeavour in order to operate a public transit system.

Even in some of the states, and we often think of them as being not particularly wedded to public transit, there are some excellent public transit systems. That's something we should emulate in this province.

You're "permitting the Intervenor Funding Project Act to expire." Now when a big proponent goes in, has lots of money, it's tough luck if the people want to oppose it. They've got to have the bake sale and the garage sale and so on to raise a few dollars to hire a lawyer or an expert of a scientific or planning type to go against a phalanx of lawyers, the battery of lawyers and scientists and engineers and so on who appear for the proponent. So much for a level playing field there.

You have amended "the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act through Bill 26 making it easier for provincial and municipal agencies to reject freedom of information requests." There is nothing like having information available to be able to make good decisions. You want to do one of two things: either just not make it available to the public, prohibit the public from having this information, keeping it secret in the vaults, behind closed doors, or you make it so expensive to obtain the information that nobody can really afford it, realistically speaking; a big backward step by the Mike Harris government, contained again, I remind you, in Bill 26, when we warned against the ramifications of the bully bill.

You're "exempting banks from environmental liability under the Environmental Protection Act." Banks used to be liable in that case. You've taken them off the hook, so they will be pleased with you. I don't know how many other people will be.

You're "initiating a one-year review of all environmental regulations, with the intent of eliminating those which cannot be justified against criteria established by a `Red Tape Commission"; ensuring protection of the environment and a sustainable management of natural resources conspicuously absent from the commission's terms of reference." That commission was really set up to get the government out of the hair of those who wanted to pollute in the province, who wanted to carry on the way they used to in the good old days, way back when.

I've listened to those people. They never liked the Ministry of the Environment. They referred to the investigations and enforcement branch in such a degrading way that I wouldn't repeat it in this House. Of course, we have a significant weakening of that investigations and enforcement branch, which was out there to go in, to look where there were problems, to lay charges, to prosecute, to bring people to account.

I can remember the chagrin with which our legislation in 1986 was greeted by the Conservative caucus when we drastically increased the penalties for polluters, including potential jail sentences. We were criticized for that at the time. Yet that's why we saw so many prosecutions, so many people in court, so many people brought to account and so much improvement in the environment. That's going to be gone.

Fortunately, with this bill we get a bit of an improvement. As I always say, it's better than a kick in the shins, but not much better than a kick in the shins.

"Proposed environmental deregulation of the aggregates (pits and quarries) and petroleum industries through Bill 52 amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act, Petroleum Resources Act, Mining Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act," weakening them again. They finally got strengthened, and we just boot those out the door and say: "Go right ahead. Forget about it. We're going to weaken those. You've got your way, polluters. Go ahead."

You laid off "900 Ministry of Natural Resources management and conservation staff," right out the door. That was their job, that was their responsibility. They're gone. Nobody is watching. The fox is in charge of the henhouse when it comes to that situation.

You permit the "burning of grass and leaves in areas up to one hectare without a permit through the implementation of Bill 26 amendments to the Forest Fires Prevention Act."

There's "a projected 50% reduction in enforcement actions by the Ministry of Environment and Energy," and an "introduction of Bill 57, the Environmental Approvals Improvement Act." They always have such a crazy name, too. It's usually exactly the opposite. It says "the Environmental Approvals Improvement Act, Bill 57." Well, it's an improvement. It's an improvement for those who want to avoid the act.

When you wanted to get approvals you had to go through several steps and you had to be very careful and various ministries of the government had to comment. You wanted to make sure it was in good shape before you allowed it to go through. Now it's a whistle, like that. Snap the fingers, away you go, because they changed the act. And the polluters are happy. They'll all be at the fundraisers, large as life. Next election they'll be right behind you, no doubt about it, but much to the detriment of the general population of this province.

That's what an independent group, the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, had to say. By the way, I see as well, in the new act affecting legal aid, that you put the boots to CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association through that act now.

Everything you've done has been there to weaken the efforts - you have a couple of public relations efforts out there. You have the so-called Drive Clean program, which has been talked about and promised and repromised and reannounced three or four times, and all you've done so far is advertise. You're spending money on advertising, I would surmise hundreds of thousands of dollars, to go with the $50 million you're already squandering on self-serving government advertising.

Every time somebody turns a TV set on now, every time they see an ad, they should reach into their pockets; they're paying for it. I haven't heard the taxpayers' coalition on that one. I'm waiting for them.

My good friend the member for Lincoln, who was president of the taxpayers' coalition, was infuriated by the paying of the legal expenses of the former Speaker, the member for Simcoe East. He said in the newspaper he was infuriated. He put out a press release. He said, "I remember when I was head of the taxpayers' coalition hating this kind of thing happening by governments." I hope his friends on the taxpayers' coalition are equally infuriated by the government just throwing tens of millions of dollars at self-serving government advertising. Turn on the television set. There's another government ad, self-serving, promoting the government.

I don't mind if you put an ad on that said: "Here are the dangers of German measles for women who may be carrying a child. Here's why you want to be cautious." That makes sense. That would be a very reasonable one.

You put out tenders. I expect that's going to happen; that's a legitimate one. You advertised in Louisiana for the tourists to come north to Ontario and spend their dollars here. Good stuff; I have no objection to that.

1650

But this self-serving advertising - not the ministers or anybody in this House, not you people, but the advertising is misleading, in my view. I just wanted to clarify that so I don't have to do that -

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): What about the Hotel Dieu Hospital?

Mr Bradley: I mentioned the Hotel Dieu Hospital earlier in the speech as well. They've got plenty of money to spend on advertising but they've got to slam the doors shut on the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

I also want to indicate the kinds of things we're seeing. There are all kinds of dollars put to the cuts that have taken place in that ministry.

I want to say as well that these land use planning rules have been watered way down. I feel bad for farmers in this province, who are going to have to put up with development heading out into the farmland. You know who it'll be; it'll be the city folk. They're going to come out and want their mansion out there: "I want the peace and quiet of the country and the nice country setting." Then when they get out there they hear noises from the farm, they get the dust from the farm and they get the odours from the farm. "The obnoxious uses," they'll say and they'll start phoning everybody. "Look at the problem we've got." I'm sorry, farmers have a right to farm and you moved out there.

I don't blame them for trying to move out there; I blame the provincial government in this case, and in some cases municipal politicians, for allowing development out in the farmland, for allowing that intrusion into the farmers' territory. The farmers didn't invite them out there. Farmers police one another. If there's a legitimate complaint about farming practices, let me tell you, one farmer will let the other farmer know immediately. That's quite legitimate.

When I saw this environmental retreat, I knew that we would face the big issue that's in the US now, which is urban sprawl. It became an issue in the last election. People started to talk about that urban sprawl that's taking place, gobbling up the land, Oak Ridges moraine and other areas that should be protected in this province, with huge development.

I see the member from Muskoka here. A lot of people may think all that development taking place in that part of the country is great stuff. In some cases it might be, but we've lost an awful lot of what I consider to be a wonderful area of our province as I've seen, in some cases, unwise galloping development taking place. What a beautiful part of the province that is. I hope we don't see it just overwhelmed with development, because it should be retained.

The Niagara Escarpment, recognized by the United Nations as a world biosphere reserve, is being reduced. The commission has got new people on it, some of the good old boys. My good friend Bill from up north, in Grey-Owen Sound, is a guy who's never liked the Niagara Escarpment Commission. He's always admitted that. He got one good old boy on, who misspoke himself once rather embarrassingly and had to resign. But he's got another good old boy on there. You can see by the makeup of the commission that many of the members aren't as committed to the preservation of those lands as they used to be. I consider that to be unfortunate.

I saw an application in my own area where now apparently the commission has approved - I don't know if the cabinet finally has - condominiums and a culinary school. A cooking school has been approved on one piece of land. Now everybody's going to want it. What's there now is a beautiful restaurant, a lovely restaurant, a great winery that goes with the restaurant, tours. You look out over the land and all you see is vineyards.

You say, "Is that good agritourism?" You'd say, "Sure is, makes sense." That's why people from the big smoke here, Toronto, want to go down there. That's why Americans come up. They enjoy those large tracts of agricultural land; they enjoy that setting. Now there's an application approved for condominiums and a culinary school which could better go in the downtown area of some community. That's the door opening. Do you know who opposed it? Many of the agricultural people, other people in the winery business who said, "If you're going to do it, we're going to demand the same thing." You lose what's so nice about the Niagara region when you do that. It's an environmental mistake.

The Provincial Auditor has been critical of you people as well. The World Wildlife Fund gave the Ontario government an F on wilderness land protection policy. You've allowed it to slide. I don't know why you get up and make any speeches bragging about the environment. If you were to concede that you have stepped back several steps in environmental protection and say, "That's our policy," at least I'd say that you're up front about it. But to try to dress up some of this stuff as though you're really doing something about the environment is absolutely appalling, it really is.

People on the government side will say, "We have fewer problems now." I'll tell you why. You're not looking for them. The Ministry of the Environment is back to being the ministry of defence - "Find a problem? Let's build a wall around it. Let's find out what the problem is going to be and we'll bury it somewhere" - instead of dealing with the problem on an upfront basis.

I can tell you that we will support this bill. This bill is better than a tomato in the back of the head - I'll use that one - but it represents only a conversion on the road to Damascus, only a last-minute, deathbed repentance on the part of this government.

I want to see the bill go through. It didn't need the time allocation motion to get through. I would have been delighted to see this bill go through, only because it is a baby step, but nevertheless a step in the direction we would want to see.

Upon that, I will yield the floor to my good friend from Algoma.

Mr Christopherson: The real author.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Author, author.

Mr Wildman: Thank you. I really must say that I'm rather nonplussed about this time allocation motion. Here we are spending an afternoon near the end of the session, before the Christmas break, debating a time allocation motion on Bill 82, a bill which, as my colleagues have indicated, is very similar to a private member's bill that I introduced two years ago and which was passed unanimously by this House, a bill which all members of this House, or at least all parties, have indicated they will support.

This is also a bill that we've only had two days' second reading debate on. You'd think that the government would want to have a third day of second reading debate on this bill so we could get through second reading and move on and pass it. But no, they spend an afternoon, one sessional day, on a time allocation motion on a bill that everyone supports.

I hope I'm not betraying anything I shouldn't, but I asked the parliamentary assistant, "Why are we doing this?" He said, "I understood that you guys in the opposition were opposed to this." Would someone explain to me why I would be opposed to a bill that copies my own bill?

Mr Cullen: They're addicted to these time allocation motions.

Mr Wildman: My friend says they're addicted to time allocation motions.

I really want to talk about this. As a member of the assembly who has watched the Legislature over a number of years, I'd like to deal with this matter which I think is very bad for our parliamentary democracy, and that is simply that time allocation has become routine. The government just uses it all the time, even on bills like Bill 82 that have general support from all members and all parties.

It used to be that in the old days governments would use closure and time allocation sparingly and that they would use it on controversial pieces of legislation that the government believed had to get through but were facing serious opposition. Governments did not time-allocate or close off debate on bills that had the support of the opposition. It's ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense.

1700

Mr Galt: Is that why you sat for only five weeks?

Mr Wildman: The member talks about what we did. Let me put a few facts on the table. The former NDP government did use time allocation. We actually used it a total of 21 times.

Mr Cullen: Over five years.

Mr Wildman: That was over five years. During that time, the government passed a total of 163 bills. So we had 163 bills passed into law over five years, and 21 of those bills were time-allocated.

This government, which is still not through its mandate, four years on, has used time allocation, including this time allocation, 37 times, and this bill is the 100th bill. So they have had 100 bills, and they've used time allocation 37 times.

Mr Cullen: That's 37%, over a third.

Mr Wildman: Yes, 37% of the time is time-allocated.

When we were in government, we had 163 bills and we used time allocation, I admit, 21 times.

This is a government that claims -

Mr Galt: But you were only here five weeks in a year. How could you use it?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bernard Grandmaître): Order.

Mr Wildman: They don't like to hear facts. They don't like to hear the truth. This is a government that claims, absurdly, that they actually consult more than we did when we were in government, which is ridiculous. This is a government that, by definition, considers consultation a waste of time. But the facts will indicate that this is a government that is prepared to run roughshod over the opposition by using time allocation 37% of the time. Ironically, as I said, it's not even over the opposition. They use time allocation even when the opposition agrees with the government. I can't understand it.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Nobody cares. Does it make any difference?

Mr Wildman: The government member opposite says: "Nobody cares. Does anybody know? Does anybody care?"

Mr Pouliot: We care.

Mr Wildman: That's the point. That's exactly the point. This government seems to operate on the basis of, "What the public doesn't know won't hurt them." They don't operate on the basis that it is the responsibility of a democratically elected government to protect the rights of its citizens, to protect the rights of Parliament, to protect the rights of the minority in Parliament. They don't do that. This government doesn't understand parliamentary democracy; all they understand is getting the bill through, no matter what.

As the member says, "Does anybody care?" I'll tell you who cares. A citizen who cares about democracy, cares about this assembly operating in a democratic fashion rather than simply getting bills through no matter what and using closure 37% of the time. There has never been any explanation by the government why they are time-allocating Bill 82, none whatsoever.

Mr Spina: Heil Bud.

Mr Wildman: I think the member just used a term, Speaker, which I think you would agree is unparliamentary and, if it were properly applied, would more likely apply to a government that closes off debate than to someone who is arguing for free debate.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the comment.

Mr Wildman: I think the member said, "Heil Bud."

The Acting Speaker: As the member knows, this is unacceptable. Would he like to retract his comment?

Mr Spina: I'm not sure what the comment was, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I'm not asking for a debate. I'm asking you to retract.

Hon Mrs Marland: Just withdraw, Joe, for crying out loud.

Mr Spina: I withdraw.

Mr Wildman: Now let's look at the record of this Parliament. In the first session of Parliament, which ended in December 1997, with the government elected in 1995, time allocation motions were used on October 25 and December 12 of 1995, then November 28, subsequently amended on December 3, of 1996. So they started off slowly. Then there was January 29, February 6, April 22, May 29, June 2, 3 and 26, September 4, 8, 16 and 17, October 2 and 6, December 2, 8, 15, 16 - and now today. That was in 1997, in the first session.

Let's look at the second session: time allocation motions on October 14, 1998, June 18, 1998, June 22, 1998, June 24, 1998, November 2, 1998, October 5, 1998, October 26, 1998, June 4, 1998, June 23, 1998, June 1, 1998, June 8, 1998, June 2, 1998.

I suppose each time they do it, it gets easier, and I suppose they can justify it to themselves by saying: "Nobody cares about free debate. Nobody cares about the way the assembly works." This is a Legislative Assembly. It's also a Parliament. "Parliament," as we all know, comes from the word "parler," to speak. It's about talking; it's about debate. It's also a Legislature, which comes from the Latin word "legis," for "law," which is to pass laws. It's to debate about laws. That's what this is about. It's not just about passing laws, it's about debating them. It's about finding out what's good about legislation that is proposed, what the shortcomings might be and how we might improve the legislation. That's what it's about.

Once I said this government was a government that doesn't believe in government. I think the Premier confirmed that by saying that he wasn't the leader of a government; he said they weren't the government. They don't believe in government. They want to make it smaller, get it out of the way, turn over as much as possible to the private sector. That's fine; that's their ideological position. But what is really disturbing to me as a parliamentarian who has served in this place for 23 years is that this is also apparently a government that doesn't believe in the Legislature, doesn't believe in Parliament, doesn't believe in the process in this place.

Frankly, I think they believe it gets in the way, it's a nuisance, it holds things up -

Mr Pouliot: Slows things down.

Mr Wildman: - slows things down. Sometimes it does, that's right. And sometimes, we've seen with legislation related to taxation in this province, I think even this government would admit that it would have been better if they had been slowed down rather than introducing one bill after another and finding it was wrong and didn't work, and they had to bring in a new bill. They've got seven bills on property tax.

Mr Pouliot: Most incompetent.

Mr Wildman: It's just showing incompetence. It's not so much incompetence as it is doing things in too much of a rush, without proper consultation and analysis, without proper debate, because some of those bills were time-allocated and we didn't have the opportunity to debate, so some of the mistakes that might have been discovered during debate were not, and it wasn't until afterwards that the government and the bureaucrats came up with the problems. "Oh, wait a minute. Here's something we didn't get. We have to improve it."

Bill 82, as I said, is supportable, yet it's being time-allocated. Let's look at some of the bills that this government has time-allocated. They time-allocated Bill 7, called - get this - An Act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and to promote economic prosperity and to make consequential changes to statutes concerning labour relations. That was the long title. The short title was A bill to allow scabs and roll back the protection of workers in this province.

Then they time-allocated Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda. That was the long title. The short title was a bill to download most costs to municipalities and to the property taxpayers.

1710

Next was Bill 57, An Act to improve the Efficiency of the Environmental Approvals Process and Certain Other Matters; again the long title. The short title was a bill to eliminate environmental regulation and protection in the province as much as possible.

Then there was Bill 64, An Act to simplify government processes and to improve efficiency in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This again was a bill to eliminate regulation.

I find it strange that in a world where the neo-conservatives throughout the West have been advocating elimination of government regulation, and of what this government refers to as government red tape, we now have facing us the possibility of a major economic crisis around the world. We've already seen the collapse in Asia. There's the possibility of a similar meltdown in Brazil and Latin America that will affect and is already affecting parts of Canada, North America and Europe.

Isn't it strange that some of those same proponents of deregulation are now saying: "Maybe we went too far. Maybe if we had had some regulations in place that would have regulated the banking system and the investment system better, the problems in Asia might not have occurred as extreme as they are and they might not have affected North America and Europe as quickly as they now do"? But this government hasn't even caught up to those neo-cons yet.

Then they time-allocated Bill 82, An Act to establish the Family Responsibility Office. If there ever was a bill that required full debate and analysis, it was that piece of legislation. What did that bill do? That bill cut more than 280 staff from the Family Responsibility Office, closed all of their regional offices and centralized the operation here in Toronto. There had been problems, we all know, with the Family Responsibility Office and child support in this province, and this government claimed that this bill was going to improve the situation. We all know now that in fact it exacerbated the problem and made it more difficult for single parents to get the child support they require, and it even in many cases made it more difficult for responsible parents, in most cases fathers, to make the payments they wanted to make to their former wives and children.

If there ever was an indication that time allocation is wrong, a stupid, silly way to approach serious legislative matters, it was that bill. Perhaps if we'd had more time to debate, if we'd had more committee hearings, if we'd had more presentations from people in the field, from legal people, from social workers, from parents, we might have seen that what the government was doing was going to cause all the problems we now see in that office.

Then they time-allocated Bill 96, An Act to Consolidate and Revise the Law with respect to Residential Tenancies. This was of course a bill that gutted rent control and meant that tenants are essentially prisoners in their apartments. What it means now is that as long as you're in your apartment and you stay there, you're probably not going to see a major rent increase, but as soon as you move, the landlord can increase the rent on that unit. What does that mean? In an area where there's a very low vacancy rate it means that people aren't going to be able to move, they're not going to be able to afford the rent. We have senior citizens who have essentially now become prisoners in their apartments. We have low-income people who are the same.

Perhaps real debate on that legislation would have convinced this government that what they were doing was wrong-headed. But, no, they didn't want to hear opposing opinions; they wanted to get the bill through as quickly as possible so they brought in time allocation.

Then they time-allocated Bill 99, An Act to secure the financial stability of the compensation system for injured workers, to promote the prevention of injury and disease in Ontario workplaces and to revise the Workers' Compensation Act and make related amendments to other Acts. We all know what that was about. That bill was about cutting benefits to injured workers, making it more difficult for injured workers to get the kind of support they require. It meant bringing an end to the industrial disease panel. It meant gutting the workers' compensation system.

Again, why did we have time allocation on that piece of legislation? It's obvious: because the government did not want to have discussion of the bill. They didn't want to hear from injured workers and their advocates. They didn't want to hear from the labour movement. They didn't even want to hear from those in industry, in management and business who had concerns about the legislation. They were prepared to consult behind the scenes only with those in business who wanted to gut the system.

Next, they time-allocated Bill 103, An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments in Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto. Well, we know about that piece of legislation. It was infamous. Many of the municipalities across Metro Toronto held referenda. Some 76% percent of the people voting in those referenda voted against the amalgamation of the municipalities into a megacity. What did this government do? Instead of listening to the people, the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto and all of the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, they time allocated a bill and forced it through. They didn't want extended debate. We had forced extensive debate through a strategy in the House. They didn't like that; it got in the way. So they time allocated and cut off debate.

Then Bill 104, An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of the Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing the Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters relating to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

Again, what does that tell us? Frankly, they must have gotten somebody Dickensian to make up the titles of their bills. They're as long as a paragraph in some cases.

I could go on and on about the bills that this government has time-allocated. It's obvious that anything that is controversial, anything that has division of opinions, anything that the government wishes to do that may cause controversy and disturbance, this government time allocates.

What is perplexing about this particular time allocation motion is that all three parties support Bill 82; all three parties are prepared to move forward with improvements to penalties, making it easier to prevent illegal dumping in the province, to tighten up the regulations, to stop the fast-buck artists who are prepared to pollute the environment by illegal dumping. Everyone supports it, and yet we're wasting an afternoon on a time allocation motion once again in this House.

I have pages and pages of bills that have been time allocated that I could talk about. I don't have the time because I want to share the time with my colleagues the member for Hamilton Centre and the member for Ottawa West. I will yield the floor to them.

But why is it? We need an explanation. Why is it that the Minister of the Environment has asked the government House leader to time allocate this motion? Perhaps the government House leader is unaware that the Minister of the Environment knows that everyone supports this legislation. The thing that's confusing is, the Minister of the Environment and the government House leader are the same person.

Mr Cullen: I'm pleased to join in the debate here. I hope that members opposite listened very carefully to the remarks by the member for Algoma. I think there's something to be learned here about due process. If we simply listened to the government side we would find ourselves talking about the merits of Bill 82, An Act to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement. Indeed, there is a lot in this bill that has merit, seeing that it's been taken directly from the private member's bill that was tabled and passed second reading unanimously, a bill that was tabled by the member for Algoma.

1720

But that's not what we're talking about here today. As the member for Algoma has so eloquently said, we're dealing with a time allocation motion, and it is more than passing strange that here it is Tuesday and we have an evening sitting tonight, we have tomorrow's session and tomorrow night's session, Thursday's session and possibly Thursday night's session, so there are five sitting days to deal with these bills. We're told that as of Thursday the House will be adjourned until - the calendar gives us to March 22 or thereabouts; we simply don't know. There's certainly a lot of talk that we're walking into an election. As the member has said, we're dealing with a bill that has all-party support, so why are we wasting this time going through a time allocation motion that rams this bill through? What has happened to the rest of the government's agenda?

We hear the Minister of Community and Social Services calling for us to facilitate the bill dealing with the Child and Family Services Act, which we think is an important bill, which we think should go to committee, which we think should go through the proper process, but the government in its wisdom decides to use time allocation to put through a bill that has the support of all parties and indeed has already gone through the flames of the legislative process in an earlier iteration.

Quite frankly, it's beyond me. This bill was tabled November 23. It has had two days of debate, and then all of a sudden, bingo, it has to be rammed through right now. As the member for Algoma said, this is a government that just lives and breathes and dies on time allocation motions. If there is some little thing in the way, put a time allocation motion on it.

I just have to go back to the property tax amendment that this government brought in 23 months ago to show you the sorry and sad tale of how this government deals with important public matters and doesn't allow for proper consideration, ends up making mistakes and then compounding mistake after mistake to the point where it introduces a bill late in the 12th month of a 12-month property tax year and says it's going to have amendments, and then time-allocates that so we cannot have proper consideration of the impact of this legislation on the taxpayers of Ontario. Who suffers? It's the taxpayer who suffers. Of course, the government suffers because it loses credibility. It makes mistake after mistake, but quite frankly, I don't have much sympathy for this government. But it's the taxpayers who suffer.

Here was a property tax reform process begun 23 months ago with Bill 106, the Fair Municipal Finance Act. They introduce that bill in January, they pass it in May, and in June they have to gut the bill because they come in with Bill 149 and begin the process all over again. They introduce that bill in June 1997, pass it in November 1997, but all of a sudden compound things by bringing in Bill 160, which again changes property tax. That bill gets through and they bring in Bill 179, which deals with the Assessment Review Board, and then they decide, because they've gone through market value reassessment, that they have to provide tool kits to municipalities, so they come in with Bill 15, the so-called Tax Cuts for People and for Small Business Act, followed on the heels by Bill 16, the Small Business and Charities Protection Act, because they didn't think through the implications.

This is the role of the opposition. We have an election, a proper democratic process. A government is elected, and our job on this side is to provide constructive criticism to government initiatives so that through the legislative process - first reading, second reading, committee, holding public hearings, hearing from people who are expert in the field, offering amendments, going through third reading - we can perfect legislation, because we're all here to serve the taxpayers of Ontario. The government proposes, the Legislature disposes, and we are here to offer amendments and, through constructive criticism, come up with better legislation.

When the government goes to time allocation, as it has done 37 times, a record - that's 13%, or almost one out of eight times that it goes to time allocation to force through a piece of legislation - then sooner or later it's going to lose in the process.

With this particular bill, Bill 82, quite frankly there was all-party consent. Mr Speaker, you know as well as I do we have some 30-odd bills that the government has left outstanding on its agenda, 10 of which it wants to get through. There are about 10 or so that have all-party consent - there's no controversy - and about a dozen or so that are simply there for show. The bill that was tabled earlier this week to deal with balanced budget legislation is simply there for show. They have no intention of passing it before the next election, and indeed that bill would not come into play before the year 2000-01.

We find ourselves dealing with a time allocation motion, and it is beyond us why we must spend a sessional day when there's so much other important government business to get through.

Again I think of the Child and Family Services Act. We have the Minister of Community and Social Services actually prompting one of her backbenchers to ask a question about it so that she can cite how important it is and how she wants all-party consent to get it through. Well, of course we want to have the appropriate legislation go through. We want it to go to committee. We want to make sure that this bill is properly considered so that we can have a good piece of legislation, unlike what we saw on property tax.

I've talked about Bill 106 that began the process in January 1997, followed by Bill 149, followed by Bill 160, followed by Bill 179, followed by Bill 15, then Bill 16, and then of course Bill 61. They couldn't deliver the property tax rolls to municipalities on time because of all these changes, even though the municipalities and their bureaucrats, the municipal clerks and treasurers, told them there were all kinds of problems with this and they couldn't get the system in place and done in time. The rolls came to the municipalities late, because of course they're trying to figure out what they have to raise from property tax, given the impact of the downloading provisions, the additional responsibilities that this government has offloaded to municipalities, services that should never be on property tax and that their own Crombie commission, the Who Does What commission, said should never be on property tax.

We find them coming in with Bill 61 to extend the appeal deadline for property tax appeals - time allocated - and then Bill 79, which they introduced in November, which not only dealt with extending that deadline but began to fix up the problems they created with Bill 16 and Bill 61, and they time-allocate that. They compound error after error after error.

Again, when the minister stands up in the House to table the bill in November, the 11th month of a 12-month year - by the way, if indeed there are some outstanding problems as a result, the municipalities are to consider these things in their next budget year, in 1999, a wonderful gift from the Harris government on an exercise that was supposed to be revenue-neutral and which has joined Orwellian Newspeak as saying one thing and meaning the opposite. You remember George Orwell, Mr Speaker, and 1984. He talked about the Ministry of Love, which of course put out propaganda that was filled with hate; the Ministry of Peace, which waged war; the Ministry of Truth, which disseminated everything but. We have the same kind of Orwellian Newspeak here and we have the government again using time allocation.

We're here to stand in this House and tell the other side, "You're wasting the public's time on this particular time allocation motion." This is unnecessary. You had introduced the bill. It had gone through two days of debate. There was the willingness to make an agreement on it because it is, in essence, a good bill. The reason we know it's a good bill is because it's a carbon copy of the one that was tabled in the House by the member for Algoma back in 1995 and again in 1996, a bill that was passed unanimously by the House in 1996.

Interjection.

Mr Cullen: I hasten to tell the member for Kingston and The Islands - I know his memory is going - I wasn't in this House in 1996. But if I had been here, I would have supported it.

We find ourselves in this unique situation with only so many hours of life in this particular sitting of this House, with so many more important bills to get through, and it's the government that says we have to go and deal with this.

The whole purpose of the legislative process it to ensure that the public have the best legislation possible. The members on the other side, quite frankly, don't understand that. As the member for Algoma said, they have basically jettisoned the whole notion of responsible government and due process to the point that they have set a world record - at least a record for the province of Ontario - in terms of throttling debate.

1730

Over one bill in three gets time-allocated. This is bad government. It leads to the errors we saw with respect to the property tax process. It even led to errors with respect to the government's education process. We're seeing errors as well with a number of other bills that are coming forward, not yet moved in this House, and then all of a sudden they have to catch up with an amending formula and another amending bill because they haven't thought it through. That's the fact of the matter. They don't think these things through.

We're all elected here. We're all elected to bring forward the concerns of our constituents. That is the democratic process. This government might take a page from the old master himself. Bill Davis, who was the Premier of Ontario for over 15 years, was Mr Smoothie, but he got through or survived his political life by listening to the opposition, and even from time to time stealing ideas from the opposition. That's the mark of a good government: that it can understand there is more than one way of looking at something, and if it wants to provide good government to the residents of Ontario, from time to time it has to accept constructive criticism and make changes to its legislation so it can come in with something that more appropriately meets their needs.

This government does not. This government is ideological. This government is tied to the Common Sense Revolution, and so tied to it that it doesn't understand that at the same time it comes in with balanced budget legislation, it's still running up a deficit in Ontario that has contributed $22 billion to the debt of Ontario, running it up from $88 billion to $110 billion, and because it insists on closing hospitals - a promise it never made in the Common Sense Revolution - and closing schools and cutting important services in our community.

I can recall being on the children's aid society halfway through our budget year and getting the economic statement tabled by Ernie Eves that forced us to take a 20% cut midyear in our budget, so we had to have Harris days, we had to lay off staff, we had to reduce service, and we weren't the only community service that had to do this. We found all these initiatives being taken to finance an income tax cut, one quarter of the benefit of which goes to the top 6% of our population.

In my by-election, which was just a year ago last September, people said to me that the Harris income tax scheme was not worth the price of closed hospitals, closed schools and loss of community services that support maintaining the kind of community we want in this province. We are still a caring community. We simply have a government that doesn't care: doesn't care about the legislative process, doesn't care about listening, doesn't care about people who are in need.

This particular bill that this government suddenly is ramming through is the equivalent of St Paul. I know we're talking about a time allocation motion, but it's a time allocation motion that is ramming through a bill that really has all-party consent. But the epiphany here of the Conservative government to suddenly adopt the member for Algoma's very excellent bill is not because they have a greater commitment towards the environment, not at all; it's because, "Oh, my Lord, the clock is ticking and we're walking into an election and what have we done in terms of the environment in our three and a half years?"

I can tell you what they've done for the environment in three and a half years: They've gutted all the enforcement provisions of the previous legislation. They have taken away any ability to enforce the kind of legislation that's been built up over the years to protect our environment that people in Ontario think is very important.

They suddenly have this epiphany, after laying off thousands upon thousands of people at the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment, to ensure that we have clean air, clean water, and development that does not adversely affect our living environment. Now, at the 11th hour, as they walk into an election, they get religion. I at least have to give them some kudos for the kind of religion they've chosen, because they've taken the member for Algoma's bill, an NDP bill, and claimed it as one of their own. Better late than never, say I. But why they have to insist on wasting our time today on this 37th motion on time allocation is beyond me, especially when we have so many other important bills, particularly the Child and Family Services Act, among others. There is a list I could go through.

I stand here participating in a debate that I don't understand why we're having, about a bill there was already all-party agreement on, yet we're dealing with this situation. I'm going to vote against the time allocation motion. I think it's wrong, I think it's an abuse of the process, and I'm confounded on why it's here in the first instance.

Mr Christopherson: I want to pick up on some of the comments of the member for Algoma, who is our House leader in addition to being our critic for education and training. As we have pointed out, he is the real author of Bill 82. Although the government mentions it in passing, I ask anyone to take a look at the difference between the amount of credit we were willing to give last evening to the member for Wellington, Ted Arnott, for the work he did in correcting the damage this government did to volunteer firefighters when they rammed through Bill 99 without adequate public hearings, and the sparse amount of credit the government is prepared to give to Bud Wildman.

They like to talk about fairness, but they aren't prepared to be fair when it comes to their turn. I ask anyone to take a look and compare the differences. It's in Hansard; it can be looked at. Only grudgingly and when necessary will this government acknowledge that this isn't their bill, that they put their name on it, but the idea and the intent come from the member for Algoma, almost word for word in most places. We will support the bill, but in the interests of fairness, acknowledge in a fair manner that this really is the bill of the member for Algoma and that you have adopted it as a government bill to move it through during government time - which is fine, but give him the credit he's due on this, since quite frankly it's one of the few, if not the only positive piece of environmental legislation you've introduced in your entire history.

When we talk about the motion that's before us, which is the time allocation, we all on this side of the House ask ourselves, why is it being time-allocated? We're in support of it. Why the need to use the heavy sledgehammer of time allocation, which basically muzzles democracy? It says that at 6 o'clock tonight debate on this bill ends, it's over, that's it. Why, you ask yourself, aside from the fact that they just are not democrats at heart? I say that with a small "d." They are not democratic by nature. As much as they like to talk about it, they aren't.

1740

By way of proving that, take a look at their history. My colleague from Algoma, our House leader, pointed out a number of bills where they've rammed legislation through using time allocation. I point out that he mentioned that Bill 7 was time-allocated, and the damage it did to working people and their rights in this province. I'd like to expand on that and further point out that not only did they time-allocate it, but they denied the people of Ontario any public hearings, not just a decent amount of public hearings, but none. This wasn't an amendment only to the Ontario legislation, Bill 7, not the Employment Standards Act, the Ontario Labour Relations Act - the Employment Standards Act is a different complaint I have, which I think was also, at the end of the day, time-allocated but I'm going from memory on that. Certainly, Bill 7, that gave us a brand new Ontario Labour Relations Act in total, from front to back.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): You couldn't find enough people to speak about that. You went home early.

Mr Christopherson: The former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, the member for Nepean, is heckling. When I'm talking about Bill 7, I would think you'd be the last person in this House to heckle. While he won't say it in this House, I've got to believe that being a reasonable and fair-minded parliamentarian, he's very embarrassed by the fact that he had to carry the can and try to justify why the people of Ontario got no say - none. So it wasn't just time-allocated. It's not just that we were muzzled in here, but a brand new Ontario Labour Relations Act was rammed through this Legislature using time allocation but denying the people of Ontario -

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean, order, please.

Mr Christopherson: - not allowing them even one minute of public hearings. That bill was rammed through in less than a month, and in addition to bringing us the ugly display of scabs being legalized again, you also caused the OPSEU strike as a result of that bill, because in there, as much as we could never get it past the media that this wasn't just the issue of our Bill 40 that they were repealing, that it took away rights from workers that they didn't campaign on - it's not in the Common Sense Revolution; they didn't talk about it in the campaign. But once they got power, within a few months of assuming power, yes, they repealed Bill 40 and gave us back the ugliness of scabs, but they also took away the right of OPSEU workers - people who work for the public sector, workers no different from anyone in the private sector in terms of a worker is a worker is a worker, someone who offers their labours and abilities for wages and benefits - to have seniority, to have their benefits and wage levels maintained, to have their collective agreement maintained when you privatized those parts of the public service that you have. That's the kind of history you've got.

We can spend an evening talking about what happened to Bill 26. This is the third anniversary. It was almost three years to the day when we literally had to hijack this House in order to force you to give the people of Ontario at least some opportunity to have a say on Bill 26.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): The Liberals did, Alvin Curling.

Mr Christopherson: Yes, Alvin Curling, the member from Scarborough -

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Who couldn't have managed without our idea.

Mr Christopherson: I was going to get to that point. What's his riding?

Mr Gerretsen: Scarborough North.

Mr Christopherson: Scarborough North. Absolutely, he was the member, but let's also put on the record that it was an NDP plan and that we coordinated it in the back lobby and it couldn't have been done - quite frankly, it wouldn't have had the public support it did - had it not been a unified opposition. But my point is -

Mr Gerretsen: You're revising history.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Christopherson: My point is, that was all about standing for democracy in the face of this government's anti-democratic measures. The biggest omnibus bill in the history of Ontario and you introduced it a couple of weeks before Christmas, just about exactly the time we stand here now, and you said it was going to be law by the end of that session. Disgraceful, given the fact that Bill 26, among other things, created the Health Services Restructuring Commission, which either is in or has moved into all our communities and is shutting down hospitals.

That's your legacy of democracy, and you wonder why we make such a bill deal of it? Because democracy is a big deal. You may think that because you consulted with people during the course of an election over three and a half years ago you now have the divine right to rule as you deem for the whole time of your majority government. That's not the way parliamentary systems work and it's certainly not the democratic tradition of Ontario. You've turned the democracy that we have all known and were raised with on its head and are attempting to kick it into oblivion.

Yesterday you introduced your balanced budget legislation. I have no doubt at the end of the day that there will be a time allocation motion on that, as there has been on every single bill since you changed the rules, virtually every bill, other than the ones where we've given unanimous consent because of some kind of urgency, and that was only because we agreed with the legislation and that it had to move quickly. Other than that, it's time allocation, and this balanced budget legislation is going to be no different. I suspect the Liberals will vote against the time allocation motion and they'll speak against it, but at the end of the day of course they will support that balanced budget legislation, as they've already indicated yesterday with both their vote and their voice outside the Legislature.

People need to realize in watching that happen, as we head into the next election, that on the stuff that really matters, on the economic matters which quite frankly are the only things that matter when you start talking about health care and the environment and education and social services - those economic issues are the top priority - there's no difference between them.

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: I knew I would touch a nerve with that, and away they go, but that is the reality. When it comes to the 30% tax scam that has lost community services in health, education, social services, environmental services, all those things that matter - the 30% tax scam is driving that - the Liberals, as much as they criticize it, are going to leave the whole thing in place, and then they're going to support the balanced budget legislation.

What does that tell you at the end of the day? It means they haven't learned the lesson of 1995. In 1995, they tried to be pretend Tories, only with a little gentler face. Remember the red book and how similar it was to the Common Sense Revolution and all the things that they talked about that were so similar to the Tories?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Christopherson: It's true, I say to the opposition members. It's absolutely true. You speak now about being opposed to things like workfare. You say you're opposed to workfare and how awful it is, how terrible, and such a blight shouldn't be seen in the province of Ontario, and what did you run on? Mandatory opportunity. Typical Liberal fence-sitting. They want it both ways.

The fact is that there can be no doubt now, watching them vote for this balanced budget legislation, that the economics of the province aren't going to change if you vote Liberal as opposed to Tory, and if the economics don't change, the other things can't change either. The Liberals can talk about how much they're going to invest in health care and social services and education, but if they don't do something about that 30% tax scam, that $5 billion to $6 billion a year that we're losing, they won't have any more money to invest in those areas than the Tories have already cut out - no difference.

It's important for us to understand that the Tories and, I would argue, the Liberals say that this economic miracle that you supposedly brought forward - because, boy, you sure act like it's a miracle when you stand up and brag about it, I say to government backbenchers.

What is the reality? The reality is that for most working people, most middle-class families, they hardly even notice the tax cut. They don't even notice it in their paycheques week to week. They don't. When we start talking about who really sees it, start talking to those who have really high incomes: $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 a year or more. They are getting the lion's share of that tax cut.

You know, they're not worried about health care cuts and education cuts and social services, and why not? Why aren't they worried about that? Quite frankly, at that level of income you don't need social services. You aren't going to be making an application immediately for social assistance to pay a bill that's sitting in front of you because you've got no money. That's not going to happen. You're not going to be standing in line at a food bank this Christmas. That's not going to happen.

Are you really all that worried about the public school in your neighbourhood closing? Not all that much, because you've got enough money - thanks to Mike Harris even more money - to send your kids to private school. That's fine. If you've got the money to be able to afford that and that's your decision, it's your money. But in order to pay for that, the money that comes out of the spending of the Ontario government budget means that public schools are going to close, and those who can't afford to send their kids to private school see their neighbourhood schools close.

Why isn't there the same outcry about health care from those who are fortunate enough to be among the wealthy in our province? For the simple reason that they can afford to either pay for whatever privatized services now exist - growing, by the way, in terms of the way Harris is changing all the rules. But also they can afford to send their family members off to wherever in the world is necessary to get the kind of services they want because they've got the bucks. So the immediate concern about hospitals closing down or emergency wards being overloaded or nurses being laid off doesn't affect them the same.

That's the reality, and the Liberals are buying into that. They're buying into it because they're trying to appeal to that same right-wing base that is supporting you. Let me say, who can really fault those people who are so well off that the 30% tax scam does mean thousands and thousands of dollars to them? Why wouldn't they vote for you?

1750

I'm concerned about those people who think it's going to be different under the Liberals, because the reality is, it won't be because the economics are the same. If the economics are the same, then that means the same kind of education system that Mike Harris gives us is what the Liberals will give us. It means the health care system that Mike Harris gives us will be the same under the Liberals, and the same with social services and environment and anything that costs money.

I opened these comments talking about this economic miracle you like to talk about, and you say how much better things are. Look, let's deal with a couple of realities. One of the realities is - and this shocks people when they hear it, and it should - they talk about how well they run things and the tax cut has been such a big benefit and it has made all our communities these booming successes they talk about.

Then people in Ontario need to ask themselves, why is the credit rating for the Harris government, according to Standard and Poor, AA-? That is the rating that the Mike Harris government has, having been in power for three and a half years, and you know what? That's exactly the same credit rating that was in Ontario when they took over from our NDP government under Bob Rae, exactly the same credit rating.

What about Moody's, another internationally renowned credit agency? Moody's puts the Harris government at AA3. Again, I don't expect most Ontarians to know the difference between an AA3 and any other measurement. But what matters is, the AA3 by Moody's is exactly the same credit rating that we had under the NDP with Bob Rae.

Now ask yourselves: If you brought such a great economic miracle, how come the cost of us borrowing money and our credit rating isn't so much higher? In fact, it's not any higher that it was under the previous government. Why? I'll tell you why. If you take a look at any of these analyses that comes with these ratings, what they tell you is that the tax cut makes no economic sense. It makes political sense because it takes care of your friends, but it makes no economic sense.

In fact - now I'll really rile them up; watch this - because we wouldn't have taken $5 billion to $6 billion of Ontario revenue and given the largest percentage of that to the most wealthy in our province, under the NDP fiscal plan we'd have had a balanced budget. We'd have had one now. But we don't have one because you took $5 billion to $6 billion and gave the majority of it to the most wealthy in our province.

That's the reality, and I don't know why the Liberals are heckling. You're going to continue the same thing. You're not going to change a darn thing. You're going to vote for that balanced budget and you're going to leave that tax scam in place that hurts the middle class and the poorest and the most vulnerable and you're not going to do a damned thing, except try to appeal to their more moderate supporters because you're playing this right-wing Liberal agenda. That's the reality. That's what's going on here.

People need to understand that in the last two provincial elections the Libs were right where they are now. They were at around 50%, give or take, and they were supposed to win the 1990 election, they were supposed to win the 1995 election. What happened? Oh, there were significantly huge majority governments after both those elections when the ballots were counted, but they weren't Liberal governments. One was an NDP government and one was a Tory government. The Liberals never moved. They started here in 1990, and they're still here.

My point in raising all this is that people, I believe, need to understand that in terms of the economics, which is what really determines how much room you've got on your health care policy, on your education policy, on your social services policy, all the services the working middle class need to have the standard of living and quality of life that has four times had Canada voted the best place in the world to live, nothing changes with the Liberals. The same economic policy stays in place.

I think the jig is up, and it was up yesterday, when you were forced to show your cards on the balanced budget legislation. The reality is that if you want an alternative, the NDP is saying that those people who earn $80,000 or more per year can bloody well afford to go back to the 1995 level of taxation. They can afford it. They've done very well under you. We're talking about only 6% of the population. Of all the people watching, is that you? Are you making more than $80,000 a year individually? If not, you're not who we're talking about. We're talking about that 6% who make $80,000 a year or more.

You know what? That move on taxation alone will give us $1.5 billion. Is that going to do everything? No. But it will allow us to take major significant steps forward in reinvesting in education, reinvesting in health care, reinvesting in social services, unlike the Liberals, who are just going to give you a carbon copy of what Mike Harris has done already.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Marland has moved government notice of motion number 46. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour?

All those against?

The ayes have it.

There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1758 to 1803.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will rise one at a time.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

DeFaria, Carl

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand one at a time.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Gerretsen, John

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lessard, Wayne

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 23.

The Acting Speaker: The motion is carried. It being after 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1806.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

December 15, 1998

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ADVANCED FUNDING PROGRAM

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

TRILLIUM TRAIL

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

PAY EQUITY

OSHAWA ECONOMY

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

EDUCATION FUNDING

HEALTH CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 (No. 2) / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES (no 2)

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

DEFERRED VOTES

TAX CREDITS AND REVENUE PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET LA PROTECTION DES RECETTES

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

FIREARMS CONTROL

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

ROUND GOBY

PAY EQUITY

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ELECTION CALL

STEEL INDUSTRY

FAMILIES

PROSTATE CANCER

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

HIGHWAY 407

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PORNOGRAPHY

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 (No. 2) / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES (n^o 2)