Journal des débats 1993-mai-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, since the government of Ontario has not adequately addressed the effects of the recession on employment opportunities in eastern Ontario; and

Since over 3,000 jobs have been lost in the Cornwall area during the past two and a half years; and

Since the Ontario Ministry of Labour cited the local employment rate to be between 30% and 40%; and

Since an estimated 40% of Cornwall's population is dependent upon some form of social assistance; and

Since the NDP government reneged on a 1990 commitment to relocate a government agency, branch or ministry to the Cornwall area; and

Since the NDP government of Ontario reneged on a 1990 commitment to construct a substance abuse treatment centre in the city of Cornwall; and

Since Cornwall was completely overlooked in the Ontario Development Corp's most recent announcement of job creation loans worth more than $5 million; and

Since the government of Ontario announced in 1990 that the city of Cornwall would benefit from the relocation of an Ontario ministry office; and

Since construction of a new government of Ontario building will begin in the city of Cornwall shortly; and

Since the government of Ontario building has the potential to accommodate a ministry;

The government of Ontario should therefore act immediately to create new and permanent jobs for the Cornwall area by locating one of the three recently announced crown corporations in the government of Ontario building in Cornwall.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Cleary moves ballot item number 5. Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Time and time again I have stood in the Legislature attempting to impress upon the Premier and the NDP government the economic situation in my riding.

It is no secret that the Cornwall and area economy is in a serious predicament. Every day the effects of the recession are felt on the retail community: people without jobs, even our school children and now our students looking for work. In fact it was so bad in the area that a special committee has been formed from the school boards, the children's aid society and local individuals and community leaders. They call themselves the Vision Committee. They want to make sure that there's no duplication of services and they get the best value for every dollar they spend.

Of course I appreciate that our area is not alone in feeling the effects of the recession. I might point out the Premier's recent decision to cancel ministry locations for other areas of the province, namely, Windsor, Brantford, Chatham and Kingston.

The consolation prize for cancelling these decentralization projects and wiping out the opportunities is a $100-million special economic fund to be shared by these affected communities. Being well aware of the impact of job losses, I feel for each of the communities, but the truth of the matter is that if any region in Ontario should have a special economic development fund, it is the Cornwall area.

The statistics quickly prove that over 20 manufacturing plants have closed in the past 36 months while 3,000 jobs were lost, unemployment has soared to 30% and 40% of the population relies on some kind of social assistance. Many of these are older workers, members who went into a plant when they came out of school. Many of them are over 55 years of age.

The bad part of the whole thing is that under the present regulations for the program for older worker adjustment, POWA, on account of the small numbers in the plants, they do not even qualify to take advantage of that. Then we had another plant, BCL, that closed. Now it's in its fourth year and these employees do not even have their severance packages yet.

We have the other environmental issues, a political agenda that affected our pulp and paper industry. I know it's not the only pulp and paper industry that's affected -- there are others in Ontario too -- but at least our local people have been trying to get a meeting with the Premier and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and to date they have not been successful. It is mandatory that this situation be acted on now to restore growth and renewal in the community.

Over the past two and a half years I've made several requests to this government to respond to the unique and desperate situation in the Cornwall area. I have made a motion to combat cross-border shopping through the reduction of provincial taxes. Two of the key cross-border attractions are gasoline and cigarettes. Just five minutes away, you can purchase gasoline at 95 cents a gallon and cigarettes at a small percentage of what you would pay in Ontario.

Our local service station operators and our local corner stores have been devastated by this. I know in the upcoming budget the Premier's eyeing to increase taxes on both these goods and will make the problem even worse. Not only that; it will hit the agricultural community and our tobacco growers.

I have sought the reintroduction of the Ontario Development Corp interest-free loan program as an incentive for business to locate in eastern Ontario. Every week I am told by businesses of all the advantages they could take advantage of if they were to locate just a few minutes away in the United States and also am told about some of the advantages they could have if they located in Quebec.

I have also attempted to ensure a healthy investor working climate by supporting amendments to the NDP's new labour legislation. We are just in the midst of losing another plant to the province of Quebec. This plant came to Cornwall over five years ago. They had a well-trained workforce, had won awards and were making plans for the future. Just by coincidence, after Bill 40 became law, they suddenly announced that they were going back to Quebec.

I also pressed for the eastern Ontario economic development program funding to be unfrozen, to name only a few of the measures I have pursued.

Mr Speaker, at this point I'd like to move that the provincial government create new and permanent jobs for the area by locating one of the three new crown corporation offices in Cornwall.

1010

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I am very pleased to fully support my colleague the member for Cornwall's private member's motion to stimulate the economy of eastern Ontario, and particularly that of Cornwall and surrounding area.

I will list you some of the businesses and the opportunities that have shut down in the last three years, and it's astonishing. We have jobs created, 154; jobs lost, 2,210; layoffs, 440. So we have total jobs lost in the last three years of 2,650 or almost 12% of the entire workforce of Cornwall and area -- an absolute travesty. These were not jobs in the $20- and $25-an-hour range; these were a lot of manufacturing jobs in the salary range of $10 to $15, $16 per hour.

These are the jobs that are lost and they're lost for good, and I'll list some of them: December 1992, Courtaulds, 360 jobs gone; Dominion Textiles, June 1992, 350 jobs gone; Domtar, laid off 150 people, December 1991; Combustion Engineering, October 1990, 200 jobs gone; Amoco Fabrics, 200 jobs gone, July 1990; BASF, Cornwall, 150 jobs gone, May 1990; Courtaulds Films, 240 jobs gone, October 1989. The list goes on, a full page of jobs that no longer are available. Something must be done.

I will cite you, the main employer in Cornwall is Domtar, a pulp and paper manufacturing company that has just announced that it will be spending some $60 million to retool and revamp its paper-making process to recycle cardboard boxes into fine paper. Congratulated by the government of Ontario -- this is great -- "The Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Howard Hampton, congratulates Domtar Inc on the development of a new process that recycles old cardboard boxes into high-quality fine papers."

Sounds real good. The bad news is on the very next day the government of Ontario announced an absolute and total removal of chlorines in the paper-making process, something that has got the attention of city council and of Domtar Fine Papers.

I will cite you a letter and it's addressed to the Honourable Bud Wildman, Minister of Environment, and it comes from not only management but from union people within the Domtar conglomerate:

"As part of the new union-management working relationship at the Cornwall mill of Domtar Specialty Fine Papers, we are very concerned with the economic impact of the draft MISA regulations. The Cornwall mill has already agreed to install secondary treatment at a cost of $55 million by the year 1995, which will bring the mill into compliance with federal and provincial regulations on BOD and toxicity. However, we believe that some of the additional provincial requirements under MISA are unnecessary for environmental protection, unjustifiably restrictive and likely to threaten the continued existence of the mill due to the additional capital requirement of $75 million."

This was announced by the Ministry of Environment. These requirements were announced within a day or two after Domtar had announced an almost $60-million investment to recycle used cardboard. Domtar and its union-management team believe that this is absolutely unnecessary. They are quite prepared to meet the requirements as set out by the federal government. They feel, and I'll cite again: "We see no scientific justification for imposing a goal of zero AOX by the year 2002. Compliance will require over $40 million." It goes on with some technical information.

Well, there are 1,000 jobs at Domtar, and this government in its overzealous requirement above and beyond what the industry says is not required, what the federal government says is unreasonable, indeed, what is being required by the Ministry of Environment and Energy in Ontario, could create absolute havoc. Can you imagine another 1,000 people in the Cornwall area to be laid off permanently?

It will cost absolutely nothing to this government to simply adopt the same rules on the environment as are presently being enforced by the federal government, and that's all that the Domtar union-management team is asking: to maintain the capital that will be invested and to maintain those very important jobs in the area where I reside and where many of my constituents go to work, whatever jobs are available.

Smuggling was touched on by my colleague from Cornwall, a major problem. The cost of cigarettes and gas has made it very, very easy for residents of the area to travel across the bridge -- it takes about two minutes if there's no lineup -- and obtain gas at about half the price on Akwesasne, which is a native reserve between the state of New York and the province of Ontario; cigarettes the same thing and booze. There is a big, big business. Organized crime is involved and it's very much hurting the economy of the area.

I attended a meeting last Friday, very concerned people, again, in the Cornwall area but this time it's a little bit west of Cornwall in the riding I represent, Highway 16, a major artery from the international bridge at Johnstown leading from New York state to the capital of our country, Ottawa.

Highway 16 some 15 years ago was prepared for being a four-lane limited access road, and in so doing, the government of the day -- and it happened to be the Tories -- expropriated all the land required and built the one lane of a potential and intended four-lane highway, a very dangerous situation in that the engineering and the layout of this one lane of a potential four-lane highway is now taking two-way traffic.

We have had over 40 deaths on that highway in the last number of years, and you, Mr Speaker, coming from the Ottawa area, avoid Highway 16 on the weekend. Friday, Saturday and Sunday it's an absolutely intolerable road. We need improvements. We need them now. If it has to be a toll road, so be it. People are prepared to cover the cost. However, lives must be saved.

The area, particularly south of the Rideau River to Highway 401, is absolutely terrible and it must be addressed and must be addressed now. Most of the work regarding engineering has been completed. Well over 95% of expropriation had been completed quite some time ago. We need action. We need pavement. We need another lane, most definitely.

Fuel ethanol will be an industry of the future. It's a green industry. I have been promoting it since I have been elected to this chamber. It is finally now coming to fruition but not coming very rapidly. My colleague from Cornwall is also very supportive of the project.

We have a group of farmers, known as the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Co-operative, working very well together. They will have state-of-the-art processing of this product. It will be good for the environment. Eastern Ontario is a natural in that we have a very concentrated livestock industry and a very heavy grain production industry, two of the basic requirements of a fuel-ethanol-type production facility.

1020

St Lawrence Parks Commission operates out of my riding, primarily headquartered at Morrisburg. They have been cut back by over $1 million in their budget for the coming year. For every available seasonal job at the St Lawrence Parks Commission, we have 15 or more applicants. That means that 14 people go without a job for every job that is assigned or given to seasonal employees, seasonal workers at St Lawrence Parks Commission. That, I think, gives you an idea of the type of economic despair that we have in southeastern Ontario.

Again, I think the Ministry of Environment and Energy must look again at its requirement of eliminating chlorine in the paper production facility by the year 2002; I believe the minister must, and must do it now, because this may well completely eliminate the $60 million to recycle used cardboard and would also shut down the plant. Again, we're talking of 1,000 jobs. I believe my colleague from Cornwall probably knows more about that plant, because I think at one time he was an employee there, and he may want to touch on that as he summarizes.

I don't think I need to emphasize a great deal more. Eastern Ontario has been forgotten. Somehow or other, agriculture has always been the mainstay, but those offshoots of agriculture are having some very, very difficult times. I'll cite you another example where a small cheese processing plant under the auspices of the department of health attempted to close down the sale of warm, fresh cheese curd. It doesn't make any sense, but this is the kind of --

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): That has been looked after.

Mr Villeneuve: It's been looked after, but thank you for bringing it to our attention, because the bureaucrats are running wild; they're running uncontrolled. If this government has more of its say -- and Bill 40 is part of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, and that is what's occurring.

Again, my colleague spoke of a company that came to the Cornwall area from Quebec to get away from the type of very, very difficult labour legislation in the province of Quebec. Well, what do we have here now? We have even more restrictive and more negative labour laws in Ontario; the same company going back from whence it came, back to the province of Quebec, to get away from the likes of Bill 40. We will see more and more of this. We must take governments out of creating the artificial hoops and barriers that they are so good at, to interfere with the normal progress of business.

The implementation of this type of legislation you can attempt to camouflage by using every trick in the book -- NAFTA, free trade, the GST; I'll tell you, the worst offender is the labour laws that have recently come into this province. If we continue with that kind of government interference, we will have no choice but to take a back seat with an economy that will not restart. We keep saying we're on the verge of coming back to normal in Ontario. Well, we're not ever going to come back to normal as what we knew five or more years ago from business with this type of government and this type of legislation.

In summarizing, and I've probably taken a little more time than I wanted to, but the problem is so absolutely major in the area that I and my colleague from Cornwall come from. We have had some difficulty in getting to meet the Premier and cabinet officials. I have had the opportunity of meeting on several occasions, as my colleague from Cornwall has, and they have been sympathetic and they have provided some funding through the special group that was recently formed. My colleague Mr Cleary and I attended, and I think they will be addressing corrective measures.

But basically it's a Band-Aid remedy. We are not addressing the major problem, which is jobs. When parents go to work, their children feel much more confident, and we would not have a situation that is presently occurring, where almost 40% of the families in Cornwall and area are on some form of social assistance. Almost 25% of the households have been told that the hydro would be cut off unless they paid the hydro bill -- almost 25%. If that's not alarming, I don't know what is.

If bringing one of the new crown corporations to Cornwall will help, so be it, but again, it's Band-Aid. Every little bit counts; it will help. I compliment my colleague for bringing this private member's motion to the Legislature.

Mr Paul Johnson: It's with pleasure that I speak to this resolution today. I've got to say that on the surface, I don't support it, and I want to tell you why I don't support it. That's because if every member of this Legislature was to stand and introduce a resolution during private members' business supporting something in their particular region or constituency, then indeed we would have great difficulty, because I think to have a particular resolution supporting any indication of our own support for our own constituency would mean that all the other members wouldn't support it.

Being a member from eastern Ontario, I want to say that yes, indeed, eastern Ontario has been hit hard during this very difficult economic time and during this recession, but I don't know that it's been hit considerably harder than any other part of the province, quite frankly. Indeed, I'd like to ask the member for Cornwall if he talked to his colleague from Quinte, because I know that Trenton has been devastated by the closures of many manufacturing plants, and certainly that too is in eastern Ontario. Maybe the member for Quinte would like to stand up and introduce a resolution that would bring some kind of government jobs and government buildings to his constituency.

Indeed, I want to say that in my own riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, I think it would be great if we could have a government building located there and ministry employees and government employees working there, because indeed in my constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings I too have felt the effects, and so have my constituents, of this very difficult recession that we have to deal with and contend with at this time.

I just want to bring some information to the members of the Legislature today with regard to just what has been done in eastern Ontario. I know that the member for Cornwall mentioned that not a lot was done with regard to the cross-border shopping issue, and I want to say that just under 50% of all the dollars spent by this government in eastern Ontario were exactly spent in Cornwall to help with the cross-border shopping issue. I want to say too that the cross-border shopping isn't just unique to Cornwall; it's unique to other parts of the province and indeed it's unique to Kingston. I guess it's not unique at all then in that respect. I guess it's more commonplace where we have border communities.

Indeed my colleague the additional parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Norm Jamison, has been to eastern Ontario on many occasions, and he's well aware of the very difficult times that eastern Ontario has had to deal with. I believe he's been to Cornwall; I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. Indeed, he's telling me right now that he's met with the mayor and he's met with the people at Domtar, both union and management, and they're trying to resolve some of these very difficult problems that they're facing right at this time.

I have some other statistics here from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade that suggest that eastern Ontario has received, in my opinion, substantial funding, maybe not enough, but you have to look at the few dollars that we have to appropriate around the province. I guess we could always, in the interests of our own particular constituency, argue we could use a little more, and I suspect that's what the member for Cornwall is doing.

1030

However, with the very limited funds that we have, I think we have to make it clear that eastern Ontario has received some substantial funding. The eastern Ontario community economic development program has funded eastern Ontario to the tune of $7,630,661, of which Cornwall received $591,197. Now, proportionally, I guess you could say that's a little less than 10%, but eastern Ontario's a very big place and we have to make sure that when we allocate these funds, they are shared equitably throughout the province, and indeed, when they're allocated in eastern Ontario, that they're shared equitably throughout eastern Ontario.

For the member to stand up and ask, through a resolution, that the government locate a ministry and a ministry building and create employment through that opportunity -- I want to say that's good and well, except that I'd like to have it happen in my riding and many members of this Legislature would like to have that happen in their riding. Indeed, the member for Chatham-Kent had great expectations of the government locating in his constituency and he knows now that's not going to happen. He's not happy with that, but he recognizes that he has to live with the very difficult circumstances we're dealing with at this time; indeed, he's come to accept it. He's not happy, but he's come to accept that, and we have to deal with these things.

I could go on at length about all the reasons why I think there's certainly merit in the member for Cornwall's resolution. However, there are also a lot of reasons why I can't support it. There are other members on the government side who would like to speak to this resolution, and I want to allow them that opportunity.

Mr Cleary: I made this motion not only as a clear and a necessary path to address the exceptionally damaging effect that the recession has had on eastern Ontario, but I also did it because of integrity and keeping promises.

Indeed, Cornwall shares sentiments across Ontario that the 1990 politics of change really translate into politics of disappointment and devastation. Since the NDP government assumed power, it has repeatedly pulled out of confirmed commitments, leaving area residents high and dry, time and time again. For example, the NDP failed to honour a 1990 commitment to relocate a government agency branch or ministry to the Cornwall area. There was also a commitment from the previous government to establish a substance abuse treatment centre in the Cornwall area.

The government members should be reminded of what a commitment is: a guarantee, a pledge, an obligation and a responsibility to fulfil for the people of the Cornwall area. For whatever ill-governing reasons, however, the NDP has not fulfilled these promises.

Even right now, as I speak, uncertainty continues over the construction plans for a new Ontario government building in Cornwall. From 1987 to 1990, there were numerous meetings here between former municipal representatives and ministers, and they had decided at that time that Cornwall would have provincial government identity, which it doesn't have at the present time.

When the announcement was made in the winter of 1990, it was noted that the sod-turning would take place in 1992, with occupancy in 1994. However, due to the NDP lagging, construction has not yet started, yet we've had all kinds of parliamentary assistants and ministers in the Cornwall area trying to tell the municipal people that everything is on schedule.

The city council, the municipality of Cornwall, was advised to purchase the land and has put out over $1 million of taxpayers' money to clear the title on that property, and now they're sitting with the bill. And all we get from this government is just deadlines.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): That is wrong.

Mr Cleary: That is not wrong. The deadline has gone by again as of April 30.

Mr Jamison: That's wrong.

Mr Cleary: The member says it's wrong, but I've been just as close to that project as any of them, and I'm not wrong. The fact is that the NDP members have confirmed in the local press that construction will start this year; they should be more careful when they go to the press. Yet the province continues to put the city off. The last deadline the province gave the city was, as I said, April 30, 1993. However, unless they intend some short or miraculous construction process, the NDP have made this commitment almost impossible.

Premier Bob Rae has told me that the province is looking at ways to assist the process of economic renewal in Cornwall. Former Government Services minister Fred Wilson told me that creating stable employment in Cornwall is a priority for everyone concerned. The Economic Development and Trade minister told me that the staff has been working to support local Cornwall initiatives. I have even heard that the minister of municipal affairs intends to compensate the city for lost revenue due to lost assessment.

The time of empty promises and talk is over. Clearly it's time for the government to live up to its words and finally respond to the needs. The government building must start soon. When the building is completed, we'll have the potential to accommodate a government ministry, as has been promised. Obviously, then the building will likewise be able to meet the requirements for a crown corporation.

I would like to talk about the Domtar situation. My colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville spoke about that. Again, the Domtar mill faces some serious long-term plans. It has the support of the community and the three union organizations at the plant, and at least the government of Ontario could have the courtesy to meet with the Domtar people whom I have requested to meet with them.

Mr Jamison: We met with them two weeks ago, right there in Cornwall.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cleary: As to the information the member from across is yelling over and back, I talked with the Domtar people and they have different opinions.

Anyway, this is something that's going to be very difficult for the Domtar mill to meet. I just had a call last Friday in my constituency office, and they want to make long-term plans. As the member for S-D-G & East Grenville has said, it's going to be very difficult, and I think everyone's got to understand each other. I know that Domtar in Cornwall is not alone in this, but it has to be dealt with.

The other thing I would like to mention too about economic development in eastern Ontario is trying to develop an ethanol industry: Things seem to be moving along on that project and that should be one of the bright spots.

I want to talk about the St Lawrence Parks Commission. I guess anyone in eastern Ontario has had discussions with St Lawrence Parks Commission employees, some of whom have been laid off. I understand there are some job vacancies there. I would hope, as all members of this House should, that these people who were laid off should have the opportunity to be trained on these jobs.

1040

Getting back to the cross-border shopping, the member across the way mentioned about the money that had gone, that most of it had gone to Cornwall. Well, if he reads the newspapers, Cornwall is the area that's making the headlines on cross-border shopping. No matter what station you turn on in this province, there are always people getting caught who seem to smuggle at the Cornwall crossing. Maybe that's the reason they should have got the money.

The other thing I would have to say here is that the first allotment of money didn't come from this government; it was started by a previous government.

I know that everyone needs taxes at budget time, but I hope this government, when it's setting its budget, would surely look at not taxing cigarettes and gasoline more, because that will make the situation much, much worse. As I said earlier, our local businesses are having a terrible time to survive right now. They're not happy campers.

Again, it was mentioned about all the job losses in the area, and many of those will never come back. We have a few good companies left and we want to keep them.

I would like to get back to this $100-million special economic development fund. The facts that we have presented here today are true, the unemployment is true, and we feel that part of that money should go to eastern Ontario. When I talk about eastern Ontario, I don't mean right in Cornwall itself. I was a municipal councillor for many years before I came here and I sat with a lot of my colleagues' constituents in S-D-G, and I know there are parts of that area that are devastated too, especially the eastern parts. I would like to support them, and anything going anywhere would assist everyone in eastern Ontario a lot.

Getting back to the interest-free loans that used to be available under former governments, that was a little bit of a competitive edge that we had over industries that had in their minds to locate probably in the United States. Right now, they come into all of our offices, they discuss their problems. They ask us, "What does the province have to offer?" We don't have much. Then they tell me what they can be offered in northern New York state. I'm sorry to say that we lose some of them to New York state. I think that's something we've got to take into consideration. I'm not in favour of gifts, but I am in favour of interest-free loans. Sometimes it's just enough to make a company make a decision, to help it with its interest for a few years.

I would like to mention there that I regret what happened to our Simmons mattress company, which was a good employer and paid good wages in our area. It's unfortunate that we have lost them back to Quebec.

The other thing I would like to mention here, that I'm sure affects us all a lot in many of our ridings, is that Ontario's construction workers, I feel, should have the same benefits the Quebec construction workers enjoy when they come to Ontario. I know we have lots of Quebec workers. Many of them are tradesmen working in our area right now on construction jobs. I have no difficulty with that as long as our own workers have those same opportunities working in another province. I think that's something that should get the attention of the government right now.

The other very serious situation -- and we have hundreds, maybe thousands of them -- is that our youth are coming out of university and out of high school and there doesn't seem to be much of a future this summer for them. Tomorrow I'm opening a youth employment centre and I know the staff there are working very hard to try to make sure that the youth have jobs this summer, but it's very difficult.

Another thing I mentioned yesterday in a private member's statement is that we talk about Jobs Ontario and all the opportunities there are under Jobs Ontario. We have a centennial arena that the Ministry of Labour is closing due to structural problems. It was put here by the St Lawrence Seaway. Now it's almost going to be condemned. Unless the ministry comes through with Jobs Ontario or money under Tourism, as of September that arena will be closed. I think that's something this government should look very carefully at under its Jobs Ontario program.

Mr Jamison: Once again, I rise to inform the House, as the rhetoric continues from the other side about inaction and not paying any attention to Cornwall, that I made a trip on April 30 to Cornwall to meet with the mayor, to meet with Domtar and to meet with the various stakeholders in the community to talk about the types of projects, the types of concerns Cornwall has. We haven't heard anything about the city itself and the initiatives it's taken on its own accord, and it is of course looking in some cases for federal help and in other cases for provincial help in furthering these projects and initiatives.

I commend the mayor of Cornwall and I commend the councillors, because when I arrived on the scene there was none of this rhetoric that's going on here in the House. I was told very clearly: "We want to work with you. We have no particular axe to grind. There are projects out there that we would like your various ministries to understand and to consider in the face of the difficult times Cornwall is going through" -- and I might add, difficult times that it's going through because it's a midsize manufacturing community and because a number of companies have relocated for factors that we've gone over here in this House time and time again. We hear a little about that from the Conservative member who gets up and expounds the rhetoric.

We talked about the waterfront development project, a long-range program. As I said, I met the mayor and the development people and we're working to see which steps will trigger the following steps, because that's a long-range project and will simply enhance Cornwall as a community. The need for infrastructure is there, and we have consistently been in support of that type of infrastructure-building.

When community economic development is talked about, Cornwall may well fit well into that situation. We talked down there about the St Lawrence environmental institute and how this, in conjunction with the city and the University of Ottawa and the various levels of government, could be a very positive situation to study the ecosystem in the St Lawrence and how that would add, again, to the community itself.

1050

We talk about the land acquisition proposed for the Cornwall courthouse and I apprised the Attorney General on my return about the importance of that issue. The statement that was made down there was, "We're hopeful we can have a shovel in the ground some time this year," because there are issues where, whether you're government or not, you have to pass the hurdles.

I apprised the Attorney General personally of that situation, and I'd like to remind you that it was only a few days ago that I was there. Again, I was treated much better there than I am here, I can tell you that. Just last Friday, a delegation from Cornwall came from Cornwall and visited me at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and went away saying, "You know, we really do now get the sense that we're being heard."

The Premier, this Friday, will be in Hawkesbury and will be meeting with various delegations there, I can tell you that, and that's something the local mayor and council think is a very positive step and feel very good about. I can tell you that this issue, the courthouse issue, the land acquisition issue, is of great importance to the community of Cornwall, and we recognize that.

The province, as I say, has to get over hurdles, just as any government has to, to acquire, to build and so on. Apparently, both former premiers, Frank Miller and David Peterson, visited Cornwall with no resultant economic benefit to the city whatsoever. So here we have again in this House the line of rhetoric coming from the other side, and it's horrendous as far as I'm concerned. Treasury Board approval of the land acquisition would be, in my opinion, a major win for the community, and we're working to see if that can be achieved in the most efficient, fastest manner possible.

I can tell you that when we talk about the issues that affect Cornwall -- and they do affect Cornwall. They affect Cornwall very significantly, and we have taken measures, taken steps, to assess what role we can play there.

In normal terms, without a resolution in the House, the proactivity has been ongoing. I have been there and met with delegations from Cornwall twice in the last week and a half. The rhetoric that comes from this House, from the other side, on this resolution is mind-boggling.

With that, I just thought that the facts might be well put on the record here, and I'll sit in my place at this point.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased, since I'm from eastern Ontario and have intense interest in it, to say a few words about it. I also, with my colleagues, am concerned about the negativism that has arisen here. I would like to think that what we're doing here is trying to look at areas, remembering that we are part of a province and that all areas are suffering and that it's what we do together that counts.

I wanted to say too that it goes beyond geography; I have a personal connection. One of my early vivid memories was travelling with my uncle, Ken Rothwell in a milk wagon drawn by a horse. He was working for River Mead Dairy at the time. My aunt tells me there were a couple of other dairies there, Eastside and West Front. All three of them have disappeared.

My uncle went to work then for Entwistle Lumber for a couple years, and finally on to Dominion Tape. Certainly, Dominion Tape has changed. So in his own working lifetime, he went through a lot of change, and I think that's what we're looking at now. We have to recognize that there's change and that we've got to meet it.

One of the ways we're meeting it is through the Royal Commission on Learning, and I'm pleased to see that Manisha Bharti from Cornwall is one of the commissioners, a student commissioner, which I think shows our confidence in the future by naming a student -- and a student from Cornwall. I'm proud to say that somebody from eastern Ontario is taking this role that will help the province come up with the kind of education we need.

Again I say, let's emphasize the positive. My colleague Mr Jamison mentioned community economic development. Let's see what we can do together, not only in Cornwall, not only in eastern Ontario, but across the province.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): In the very brief moment that I have left, I'd like to speak to this as well. There's no question that delivering on anti-recession jobs to communities that have been devastated by the recession is a good and positive thing, and I think every member of this Legislature would agree that's a good thing. But I have to tell you, in my own community of Downsview, there are a number of jobs that are being planned to be moved out -- it was announced by the Liberal government in the last election -- and some of those jobs are going.

Do I like that? My community of Downsview has been devastated by the recession. The majority of people work in construction, and we all know what's happened in the construction industry, in the construction sector. Have I fought that move? Absolutely. I think that in my own community it's a devastating thing; there's no question about it. Will I accept the move when it happens? Of course I'll accept the move when it happens. Will I continue to fight that move? Absolutely, Mr Speaker. To do anything less would be a disservice to the community and to the kind of people I represent.

You can't correct 40 years of Conservative inequities, five years of Liberal aggrandizements, in just one term of office, but we're going to govern for all the people of Ontario. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cornwall, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Cleary: I'm awful sorry that the parliamentary assistant has left, because he talks about newspaper clippings here, about all the good things. There is a picture of the mayor of Cornwall here. "And it ended in silence. Not even a whisper has been heard from," Premier Bob Rae's staff, "Martelle admitted." Martelle said he hasn't heard anything. He will again contact Rae's staff. This is after the parliamentary assistant's visit to Cornwall. No NDP money but lots of promises.

Then another headline in the paper, "Visit No Coup; Parliamentary Assistant One Step Above Backbencher." So that's the kind of press we've been getting.

To get back to it, the city of Cornwall has taken initiatives and we are working on the environmental institute. I was involved in that project since day one, the first meeting, and we have our meetings. We've had meetings up here with this government, looking for some type of assistance.

One other thing I should say is that there hasn't been anything flowed through from the province of Ontario, but I do have to say that the federal government, at our last meeting last Friday, announced that it was getting involved in the project.

Mr Paul Johnson: It's election time.

Mr Cleary: Maybe so. Anyway, there are a few things I would hope would attention: the St Lawrence Parks Commission. I would hope they would work with the municipality to get St Lawrence Parks open.

For the residents of eastern Ontario, I look forward to each of you backing this sorely-needed new and permanent employment opportunity, along with the economic spinoff that will result, for the establishment of a crown corporation.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

1100

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE / COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

Mr Sterling moved resolution number 7:

That in the opinion of this House, since all interprovincial trade barriers should be removed as soon as possible; and

Since the province of Ontario has been negotiating with the province of Quebec for over 15 years to allow equal access to construction jobs and construction contracts in both provinces; and

Since Quebec workers and Quebec contractors have free access to the Ontario construction market; and

Since Ontario workers and Ontario contractors are not allowed free access to the Quebec construction market; and

Since negotiation has proved fruitless and the patience of the people of eastern Ontario is exhausted;

Therefore, Ontario should declare a Quebec-Ontario construction employment equity policy which would include the following statement as a condition of tendering for Quebec bidders:

That until the preferential restrictions in Quebec currently applying to non-Quebec businesses and labour are repealed, only those having their principal place of business in Ontario be allowed to bid unless specifically invited.

That the term "principal place of business" will be interpreted to mean the principal establishment from which the business of a firm, as it relates to the tender, is directed and where the supervisory staff and equipment are ordinarily located.

That the coverage of the policy will include for construction prime contracts, subcontracts, goods supplied and installed, services within these contracts.

That there be a term inserted in all construction contracts that a construction contractor or subcontractor must give hiring preference to an Ontario resident over a Quebec resident.

That the Ontario government insist these conditions be included in any construction contract for which it is providing partial or full funding.

That this policy be immediately terminated when Ontario construction workers and contractors have equal access to the province of Quebec.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Sterling moves private member's resolution number 7. Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to emphasize the first and the last statement in the resolution, and that is that we in this House in all political parties have professed in the past that all interprovincial trade barriers should be removed in Canada, and the last line of this particular resolution says it should be terminated as soon as we in Ontario, our construction workers, our construction contractors, have equal access to the Quebec provincial market.

It pains me in some ways to bring this resolution to this House, because I don't believe in interprovincial trade barriers. I want to also indicate that every contractor who has talked to me, every construction worker who has talked to me, has said: "We don't want preferential treatment over Quebec workers, Quebec contractors. All we want is equal access to their market, as they have to ours."

Mr Speaker, the question may be asked by those who do not live in eastern Ontario and who are not touched by this problem as deeply as we are, "What are the barriers in each province, the barriers in Quebec and in Ontario?" I want to read to you, sir, from a federal government document on preferential policies.

It outlines for the province of Quebec: "Provincial construction contracts will be awarded only to those contractors having their principal place of business in the province," and "Bidders must engage subcontractors who have permanent establishments in Quebec." For contracts exceeding $10,000, a preference of up to 10% is applied to the correct content of the bids. Then it goes down to Ontario. This is a federal document. "Ontario does not appear to have any preferential buying policies in respect of construction services specifically."

I also want to read from a document which I received from the Ottawa Construction Association, which is very much touched by this problem:

"Employees wishing to work in Quebec are required to have a competency card and pass a mandatory safety course. The competency card is a prime source of distress and is somewhat a misnomer, because in a slow economic period they don't give any of these cards out."

In other words, it has nothing to do with the ability of a worker to pass a test as to his knowledge about safety matters; it has to do with allowing a worker to even apply for work in the province of Quebec.

The worst result of this requirement is permanent job loss for Ontarians. For example, a contractor who has obtained permission to bid on contracts in Quebec in the eastern Ontario area on the first Quebec project he successfully tendered attempted to get competency cards for his employees to no avail. He eventually laid off some of his regular employees and hired a number of Quebec employees with cards.

He has just advised me that he will be going through a regular layoff because of a lack of work in the next week or so. His only logical business choice is to lay off his regular, long-term employees from Ontario, who have been with him for up to 10 years, and keep the Quebec employees because they have cards and can work on both sides of the Ottawa River.

Ontario has no such restriction on employees. Some trades require licensing and apprenticeships; however, there are no restrictions on the numbers at any time. For employers to compete in Quebec, they must be licensed, belong to an employer's association, have office space in the province of Quebec and have a Quebec telephone number. A contractor's ability to obtain a licence varies. There have been reports of harassment and the inability to obtain that licence. To work in Ontario as a contractor, a Quebec person coming this way, regardless of origin, must simply register with the WCB if he has employees.

That is the sum total of the problem that we have here. I am running short of time, but I want to tell you of a number of individual cases where there have been restrictions on Ontario contractors. I refer to the James Bay project where, as anybody who wanted to bid on a James Bay project, the contractor or subcontractor, had to have been doing business in the province of Quebec for a period of 10 years and had to have offices in the province of Quebec in order to bid on that huge hydro-electric project.

This week, in the Commercial News I read about a very small project in the city of Hull to do some landscaping at the Hull tourist train station. It reads, "Tenderers having their main place of business in the province of Quebec are invited to submit a tender." In other words, all of those landscapers, those people involved in the paving industry in the province of Ontario, do not even have the opportunity to bid on this particular contract.

On the other hand, I have a letter from Gaston Lavoie, who owns a cabinet shop in your riding, Mr Speaker, and he writes to me that just recently he has lost a $200,000 job to a millwork shop in Gatineau. He does not complain that they came in and competed with him; he only complains that he cannot go back across into the province of Quebec and bid on construction jobs in that province. He estimates that he has lost $300,000 worth of work over the last few years in terms of being able to do business there.

Mr Speaker, I want you also to know, and other members should know, that this just doesn't affect eastern Ontario. I received a letter from Ken Lilley, president of Modern Railings and Metalcraft, who has been attempting to supply jobs to many of his long-term and loyal employees here in the province of Ontario.

He informs me that subcontracts on the Princess Margaret Hospital, not 1,000 feet from this building, the Solicitor General's building in Ottawa, Queen's University in Kingston, the Attorney General's building in Ottawa, the Kitchener city hall in Kitchener, of course, and the Sick Children's Hospital, again just down the street, all have significant amounts of Quebec workers working on those buildings, Quebec subcontractors who are allowed to come in and bid competitively on those buildings. Mr Lilley doesn't complain about the fact that he has to bid against these people, but he would like the opportunity to go to Montreal and Quebec City and bid on contracts in those areas.

We're not talking about closing borders because we want to exclude competition. We're talking about opening another border to allow our people to have equal access to another market. This started back in 1977. It's been going on for some 15 years. Various governments, including the government of which I was a part, mouthed that they wanted to do away with interprovincial trade barriers. They have tried to negotiate with the province of Quebec to drop these trade barriers and give equal access to the market.

1110

Three things recently have sharpened the focus on this debate. Number one, we have a recession. Number two, the ministers of the various provincial governments and the federal government have decided to meet this summer to try to start to discuss how they're going to get rid of these interprovincial barriers. But thirdly, and more important, a sharp focus was given to this debate, and I must quite frankly admit that a lot of this resolution is copied from the same policy proposal put forward by the Premier of New Brunswick.

Frank McKenna has shown a great deal of leadership in this matter. He has decided to take the bull by the horns. I think it is only fair that construction workers, construction contractors, in the province of Ontario receive the same kind of support as Frank McKenna has given to the contractors and contracting workers in his province.

We live in a federation; we must live with each other. We have shown respect for Quebec contracting workers and Quebec contractors. In my view, Quebec has not shown the same mutual respect. It is unfortunate the way we have to take this step, but we must get them to the bargaining table. We must get to them the message that we mean business.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The proposed resolution would permit only those tenders having their principal place of business in Ontario to bid on contracts unless specifically invited. As well, it recommends that construction contractors or subcontractors give hiring preference to Ontario residents over Quebec residents.

Mr Sterling: That's not right. Read it again.

Mr Marchese: Clearly, Mr Sterling's motion is in response to current restrictions in Quebec which inhibit access to the Quebec market by the province's construction workers and firms bidding on government business. In contradistinction our government, the Ontario public sector market, is open to other provinces' businesses and workers and, in addition, Ontario's purchasing policies include a buy-Canadian pricing preference and not a provincial preference. That, obviously, is a better way to go.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Your own city isn't even open. They exclude other municipalities, for heaven's sake.

Mr Marchese: Ontario businesses and workers in the construction sector, particularly in the Ottawa-Hull area, have consistently raised the issue of lack of access to the Quebec market. I understand that.

Mr Stockwell: Workers in your own city.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, the member for Fort York has the floor.

Mr Marchese: I think all members on all sides understand that. There is no question that the inability of Ontario construction workers to work on projects in Quebec is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.

Mr Sterling says, however, as a strategic move: "Let's deal with that. Let's do what New Brunswick has done." And what has New Brunswick done? It says they will ban Quebec contractors, workers and manufacturers from doing business in their province.

So Mr Sterling says: "Let's take leadership again. Let's do what New Brunswick has done. Do similarly." What does that do? It has done two things, in my view. It has done, first of all --

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville: It gets their attention.

Mr Marchese: Yes, it has attracted our attention, but first of all it has violated the moratorium that was agreed to by all of the provinces to bring down, not to raise new barriers, so that is a problem, and in doing so has breached an agreement that has been agreed to by the ministers on intergovernmental trade affairs. In my view, that's a problem.

Mr Sterling is proposing that Ontario take leadership and violate that agreement as well, in effect breaching the agreement and raising more trade barriers. Is that the answer? Clearly, from Mr Sterling, that is the strategic way to go.

I say that is not the way to go. As you meet with ministers and as premiers meet from all over Canada to talk about how to deal with this issue as a way of getting rid of intergovernmental trade barriers, that we not erect the same barriers to deal with the issue, that, in my view, is contradictory.

Mr Sterling says, "I want to eliminate intergovernmental blocks to trade," and at the same time he proposes to erect more trade barriers as a solution to the other. I think it contradicts his position and his leader's position that we eliminate intergovernmental trade barriers, and I propose several things: that we allow the committee of ministers on internal trade to continue to work on this and not to continue to breach the agreements that they have already reached, upon which progress has been made, and allow for the kind of cooperative, consultative discussions we've been having. Otherwise, what that motion would do, if it's supported by this government, by all three sides, is make it more difficult for the different governments to get rid of intergovernmental trade barriers.

I think it's important to look at the different strategies that are needed to reach a consensus as opposed to the protectionist approach that is proposed that will lead to further divisions and further attacks from one province to the other.

I hope that Mr Sterling will reconsider his motion, allow the negotiations to continue, let us see what is proposed, let us see what they do, and after they've done that then we can come back to this issue and discuss that again.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I was glad to hear the member for Carleton say that he was actually pained to introduce this legislation and having to speak to this legislation because, without question, this is a very difficult and unpleasant undertaking for us to seemingly try to advocate trade barriers. I certainly agree with the member for Carleton, and the members opposite as well, that the last thing we really want to do is have more internal barriers in this country. We want to bring them down. I think we're all agreed on this one.

However, I'm also pained because, frankly, I have a bit of a partisan suspicion on this particular motion. It just so happens that a member of my own party, the member for Ottawa East, has a resolution which addresses the same issue on the order paper to be discussed next week. I must say, I was wondering whether an attempt was being made here to upstage the member for Ottawa East with a resolution which I think is going to produce some results. This particular motion that we have before us, I think, is getting us and getting the member for Carleton some press attention, and perhaps that's what he was after, but I think the motion that we're going to debate next week has a chance to move this whole dossier forward.

I must support the member for Carleton, however, when he says that this issue is a major irritant in our area. Being from Nepean, which is just next to the member's riding, I have had numerous calls and letters over the years on this particular issue. Frankly, I have taken, again, action on these questions, and I generally like to work with the ministry and with the individuals concerned to see whether something can be done rather than go out into the public and raise some ruckus, as it were.

I wrote, in fact, just at the beginning of this year -- and I've done that before -- on January 13 to the acting regional director of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in Ottawa asking what they were doing. I said, and I'm quoting here from my letter: "Every so often I receive calls from irate constituents who complain about discriminatory hiring practices in the province of Quebec. What is your experience?"

Frankly, I got a letter back from the official that I considered rather wishy-washy, I must say. I thought the answer that I did receive was not satisfactory, so I went a step higher.

1120

I then wrote -- and all of this was, in fact, long before the member for Carleton put forward his motion -- to the Honourable Frances Lankin, who's now in charge of this issue, the new Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and here's what I said to the minister on March 26 in my letter -- I haven't received an answer yet, which is now almost two months ago. I don't want to be too critical of that because the minister when she was the Minister of Health had been pretty good in answering her letters and I do expect to get a response from her pretty soon. Anyway, here's what I said:

"You probably know, Minister, that the difference in rules for Quebec and Ontario workers to find employment in their neighbouring province has been a major irritant for many years, especially in this area. From the enclosed Citizen article, it appears that New Brunswick has recently taken steps which many people here in Nepean would like to see taken by their own province. May I ask whether your ministry has analysed the New Brunswick initiative and whether similar actions are being considered by the Ontario government?"

I go on a little bit and I say, "I look forward with interest to your response." As I say, I have not received a response yet from the minister and I am very, very keen to hear what she has to say in response to my letter.

I should say that while I really agree with the member for Carleton that this is a major issue in our area, it is an issue that perhaps has more to do with symbolism than with the actual reality. As the member said, it's been almost 15 years that there have been restrictions -- "restrictions" is really the wrong word, but there has been labour legislation in the province of Quebec since 1977 that really makes it very difficult for Ontario workers to work in the province of Quebec.

Now, over these almost 15 years, frankly, I don't think that either the Ottawa-Carleton economy or the Ontario economy generally has significantly suffered from this particular labour legislation in Quebec. In fact, I think during the boom years we were glad that we had Quebec workers who were able to do the construction jobs that were available in our province. Now, of course, with the recession the situation is different.

I should say also that when we're talking about discriminatory practices, it isn't really on behalf of the province of Quebec a discriminatory practice towards Ontario workers; it's also discriminatory, if you want to use that term, towards the workers in Quebec, because what the labour legislation there does is it allocates a certain number of jobs to certain regions of the province of Quebec. Frankly, it was an attempt by the unions under the PQ government to protect their jobs. So even if you're a Quebecker and you want to work in a certain area of the province, if you don't have that little card, you can't work. There have been, in fact, numerous articles in the press in Ottawa-Carleton describing the dissatisfaction of Quebeckers themselves with this particular legislation.

So it isn't a rule that is specifically set up to discriminate, as it were, against Ontario workers. It is, however, a symbolic irritant, much like the sign language legislation, which, as we all know, has had a very major impact on English-French relations in Quebec and the rest of Canada and relations in this province. So, really, I think this is a matter that needs addressing, and that's why I think what the member is trying to do is put forward renewed urgency in sending a message to the minister to please pay some attention to this, that this is a very important issue.

J'aimerais aussi m'adresser à ces personnes qui parlent français, ou même peut-être s'il y a des personnes de la province de Québec qui nous suivent maintenant, et indiquer que cette question des restrictions des travailleurs dans la province de Québec est pour nous, les Ontariens et les Ontariennes, une question qui est très, très importante et qui nous fait problème.

Alors, croyez-nous que ce n'est pas un geste anti-Québec ou anti-francophone, mais nous, nous regardons ça comme une question de justice, de «fairness», comme on dit en anglais. Nous aimerions vraiment qu'on s'assoie ensemble pour régler ces problèmes et pour éliminer toutes les barrières pour le commerce dans notre beau pays du Canada.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I am pleased to share in this debate for a few moments and to get some thoughts on the record about the absolute disgrace of the interprovincial trade barriers, what it means to consumers in this country, and the job-killing aspect of the interprovincial trade barriers.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association gives us an estimate that's actually a little lower, I think, than the Consumers' Association of Canada. It says that the interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadians $6.5 billion a year. The average family of four spends $1,000 more a year because of the interprovincial trade barriers. Those are after-tax dollars, which you know are pretty scarce around this province these days. We cannot allow this travesty to continue.

Not only is it unfair for consumers all across Canada, but the second reason we can't allow it to continue is that our manufacturers cannot compete. We put these barriers up so they have to have a plant in Quebec to sell in Quebec and a plant in Ontario to sell in Ontario. They cannot compete, so the foreign competition, those companies outside Canada, are killing us; they're stealing our jobs. You know what? It's their right to do so, because for them it's not stealing; it's competing.

So we have to look inward. We have to look at ourselves. We're depriving ourselves of these jobs. We're taking jobs away from Canadians. This inward-looking, "Oh, let's hang on; you know, we need this plant in North Bay," which is in my riding, and "We must buy everything from them." Quebec says, "Oh, that's fine, we'll buy everything from our plant." Manitoba says, "That's fine, we'll buy everything from our plant." We've got three inefficient plants, none of them can compete, all three shut down and we lose jobs. We cost consumers, a family of four over $1,000 a year, and we're losing jobs.

For the last 13 years just about, when I was first elected and came here, 12 years I guess, into the 13th year, I have raised the issue, particularly for those of us close to the Quebec border, because our little businesses in North Bay all the way up to Timmins, anywhere where you're within 40 miles of the Ottawa River, which is all of northeastern Ontario, all Highway 11, all the way down to Ottawa, our little businesses get hammered, and they can't compete, and we lose jobs in Ontario because Quebec has interprovincial trade barriers that say you can't go over there and build homes, you can't fix roofs, you can't pave, you can't work in Quebec.

Ontario has said to Quebec companies, "Oh, but you can come over here and do it and work in Ontario." So our little companies get hammered. The Quebec companies, the small ones particularly, get the efficiencies of operation of being able to serve two markets, Quebec and Ontario, and our companies don't, and we lose jobs.

The answer I got from Progressive Conservative premiers, from Progressive Conservative ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs, from Liberal premiers, from Liberal ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and now from NDP premiers was: "Oh, you've got to be nice to Quebec. We all agree with you, Mike. We want to eliminate these interprovincial trade barriers, but you've got to do it in the right way. You've got to be nice to Quebec. You can't have equal rules here. That won't work. You know, we've got these constitutional discussions coming up." Okay.

This is what always happened. Now, finally, we've got a premier in this country with the courage to come up and say enough is enough, because New Brunswick was getting hammered. New Brunswick was getting hammered too, losing jobs, unfair trade practices, unfair interprovincial trade barriers in Quebec. So there's only one way to bring them to the table, and that's to say, "If we can't do business in Quebec, you can't do business in Ontario." That is how you're going to solve it. The only way Quebec is going to come to the table, the only way they're going to come to the table --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing has the floor.

Mr Harris: It is a war right now; it is a war we're losing. Ontarians are losing jobs. The closer you are to the Quebec border, the more your children are going hungry because you're losing jobs unfairly. We want no trade barriers, and there's only one way to get that, because for 13 years Quebec has not budged one iota; not one iota.

1130

I tell you this: Premier Davis's approach was wrong, Premier Peterson's approach was wrong, Premier Rae's approach is wrong. It's not being solved. They said, "We've got constitutional discussion." I said, "Fine, let's make sure that interprovincial trade barriers are on the table, for Ontario's sake, in the constitutional discussions." Peterson said, "No; more important issues here." Rae said, "No; more important issues here." Nobody spoke for Ontario at any of these discussions, and we're losing jobs.

Now Quebec is interested in talking to New Brunswick, because Frank McKenna said, "Same rules." I hear NDP members now crying and screaming, the same ones who cry and scream when American companies say, "We want fair rules," the same ones who cry and scream when we say, "As Canadians, we want fair trading rules with the United States, with other countries." But you're prepared to sit here, criticize me and allow Ontarians to lose their jobs because we can't get a level playing field with the other provinces.

I'm supporting this resolution. I think it's a chance for us to send a strong message. As none of our premiers, Progressive Conservative, Liberal or NDP, has had the guts or courage to stand up and fight for Ontario workers, it's a chance for us members to come together to send a message to this leadership at the top, these élites that think they can go off to all these discussions and say, "Oh, we'll be nice to you." Meanwhile, we're losing jobs and consumers pay $1,000 a year more for a family of four.

We can stop it. We can start this process happening by unanimously supporting the resolution put forward by the member for Carleton to say, "Let's have a level playing field today as a means to eliminate completely all of the interprovincial trade barriers." This motion says tit for tat: Every time Quebec says, "We'll drop this one," we'll drop that, and we will get down. But for 13 years I've been here and I've seen what's happened: Not one speck of progress while we lose jobs, while consumers pay more money.

These newly elected NDP members, who have the experience in governing that has led their party to 8% in the polls, think they have better ideas. I ask you to think about this in a non-partisan way, as we are to do here in private members' bills. I ask you to really think about whether we can't come together, not the élites, not the bosses, but just the members, speaking on behalf of our constituents in Ontario, on behalf of consumers, on behalf of those who are losing jobs, particularly close to the borders.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): It's a pleasure to address this issue, although I have to say that I stand here and scratch my head, because, I'll tell you, hearing that type of line from a party that externally, outside this country, expounds the virtues -- and we've seen those virtues -- of free trade, we have to look at a resolution coming forward here today that talks about putting trade barriers up internally here in Canada.

There have been various Conservative federal ministers who have said clearly that one of the problems is that we have to lower these trade barriers. To that effect, they've said, "We have to get in line with the free trade atmosphere." We don't agree with them about the way fairer trade was negotiated. If they took the same position on softwood lumber, steel, red meat and so on and so on, they'd certainly be proposing today that we would be putting barriers higher and higher externally.

But here we're talking about internally. Within Canada, within this great country of ours, we're talking about forming the battle lines: "Let's dig the trenches."

Meanwhile, in March 1992, first ministers directed internal trade ministers to work towards the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers by 1995. Again, I stand here and I scratch my head. Where is the third party, the Conservative Party, coming from? I don't understand how they can speak out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. But they're doing a good job of that.

The leader of the third party just indicated, "Other people say we've got to be nice to Quebec." On that issue, I just want to reinforce a thought here, one that's been brought forward in this House many times. Quebec transfer payments from the Conservative federal government: 50%, 50 cents on every dollar in certain areas. Our share: dropping to about 30 cents, 29 cents. The leader of the third party, speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, says simply, "You guys were just being too nice to Quebec."

We have made an agreement with all first ministers to work towards bringing down barriers. In this House we have a member of the Conservative Party who wants to build those barriers up. It's mind-boggling, just mind-boggling.

We talk about trade. If the members there were so proactive about fair trade, not just internally but externally, they'd be looking at the steel industry, which is in trouble, which simply, from the federal Conservatives -- and Conservatives are Conservatives. Don't let anyone be fooled. They take a position on external trade and take an opposite position here internally with Canadians. I don't know how they can reconcile those points. I don't know how they can draw the conclusion that they're being consistent; they are not. They're being disruptive -- I'll agree with that -- but they're not being consistent, nor have they been.

Depending on the issue and the day and whatever, it seems that the third party can just sort of put its finger in the air these days and find out which way the wind's blowing and go that route. I'll tell you, what a flip-flop. They like to talk to us about flip-flops. What a flip-flop on trade. I've used the term "mind-boggling." It just makes me wonder what party put forward this resolution. I find it incredible, just incredible. Ontario is open to goods and services from anywhere in Canada and has consistently supported the creation of a fair and open trading environment in Canada. Ontario's procurement policies are designed to ensure value for money, preference for Canadian suppliers and support for such initiatives as green industry, green procurement.

When we find ourselves dealing with a resolution from the third party of this nature, a destructive resolution rather than a constructive one, I can tell you -- I've said it a number of times today -- we're watching the third party speak out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. Of course, they'll accuse us later on today of doing the same, but you're doing that, speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

1140

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It gives me great pleasure to rise in favour of the private member's resolution as presented by Mr Sterling, the member for Carleton.

I must say that I have a similar problem in the riding of Kenora. As you know, the riding of Kenora borders the province of Manitoba. At the outset, I must make the point very clear that eventually I feel that all interprovincial trade barriers should be removed. But more importantly -- and I think some of the members have alluded to it already -- the playing field must be made level. I speak of the playing field whether it be in Quebec, I speak of the playing field whether it be in Ontario or Manitoba. We have to get around to where that playing field is made level.

This is very important to us in northwestern Ontario. I hear it on a regular basis, where even though we have the interprovincial trade barriers and we know they have to be removed, we have to talk about that playing field, more importantly.

Let me give you some examples where the Ontario contractor is at a disadvantage, at a disadvantage in terms of firms, whether they're firms coming from Quebec or firms coming from Manitoba. One of the prime things the Ontario contractor faces is an extra 2% which is going into the employer health tax. Of course, we know a firm out of Manitoba can get around paying that 2%, so on major contracts that are given -- these are major contracts of millions of dollars -- that percentage does make a difference. When we talk about millions of dollars in terms of the payroll, again, we see a good amount where the playing field is not exactly level.

Another area in terms of my riding, again the riding closest to Manitoba, where the Manitoba contractor does have that advantage is in the provincial sales tax. Some people in the House will know that there's not a level playing field there: The Manitoba provincial sales tax is 7% and the Ontario provincial sales tax of course is 8%. It does bring forth other problems than just that 1% difference. What we find in our area is that quite often, by a common carrier, materials can be shipped from Manitoba into Ontario. It's up to the contractor or the person making the purchase to remit the provincial sales tax to Ontario, and, Mr Speaker, let me let you in on a little secret: Sometimes that is not remitted. Quite often, there is really no follow-through. To a Treasurer looking for revenue, this is a big problem in my riding, a riding so close to Manitoba. As has been said by the president of the local association of contractors -- that's the Kenora association of contractors -- it's only by luck that the province collects the sales tax. Quite often, we see that it is just by luck, because there is no enforcement. Again I say that this has actually made the playing field unlevel.

When we look at qualified journeymen, we know that many jobs require these qualified journeymen to come in from other provinces and, if they do come in from other provinces, to have qualifications that meet the standards here in Ontario. This is sometimes not the case when we have contractors coming over from Manitoba, firms from Manitoba: They are just not meeting those specifications.

Let me give you one example of where we've had a real tremendous problem here, this being a contractor from Manitoba and doing a job in Ontario. Problems arose in the job. Complaints were made. The Ministry of Labour came out to inspect. Of course, they did not arrive in Kenora till eight weeks later. By then, the contractor had packed up, gone home. As I say, it was eight weeks later before they found out where Kenora was on the map.

I look at a portion of the resolution that says that there be a term inserted in all construction contracts that the construction contractor's subcontractor must give hiring preference to an Ontario resident. Throughout the area, we know who is and who isn't qualified to do these jobs; that when other contractors come into the area, we lose this, and somehow it's lost. I get back to the real, common concern we have in the riding, and that's in terms of the level playing field.

Take a look at Ontario tax dollars flowing into my riding, whether it be anti-recession funding or through Jobs Ontario; take a look at where that money goes. Quite often, Jobs Ontario in northwestern Ontario has become Jobs Manitoba, because when bidding on the contracts, our contractors just don't have the same advantage as those in Manitoba.

I brought this to the attention of the government many times in letters to the various ministers, and we always go back to, "Yes, we have to drop the barriers." But if we're going to drop barriers, we have to get back to that aspect of making sure that everything is equal for contractors from all provinces.

We take a look at the workers' compensation rates: $3.16 per $100 on the payroll in Manitoba compared to $5.78 per $100 in Ontario: a big difference and one we are faced with competing with. I think Ontario contractors are looking for the opportunity to do the jobs and I think they're ably qualified.

Just recently, on May 6, an announcement was made in my riding in terms of a contract for sections of highway close to Sioux Lookout. It was a $2.4-million contract, and guess where that went? Of course, it ended up in the hands of a Manitoba contractor. I have the news release in front of me from the Ministry of Transportation, and nowhere in that news release does it tell us that this contract has gone to that Manitoba firm, but for many of the reasons I have reiterated, it has certainly gone to Manitoba.

In wrapping up, I must say that I want to send a clear message to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, that when she gets to that table, the table the member speaks about, later on this summer, she should go there with the idea of eliminating these trade barriers, but as well she should go with the idea that we're going to come about with areas that will ensure effective ways that our contractors will be on the same level playing field I have indicated. I hope she takes that message as well.

Mr Villeneuve: C'est avec un certain degré de peine ce matin que je m'élève pour adresser un problème d'inégalité qui dure depuis longtemps dans la province de l'Ontario, dans la province de Québec, du côté des employés syndiqués dans les domaines tels que la construction.

Il y a déjà plusieurs années que je siège au sein d'un comité interprovincial qui essaie d'adresser, de corriger ces problèmes. Puis, je vais vous expliquer la raison pour laquelle j'appuie le projet de loi de mon collègue le député de Carleton ce matin.

There are a number of reasons. I am to a great degree somewhat unhappy about addressing this problem this morning, but it must be addressed.

I can't imagine the member for Norfolk now being in favour of protection against workers from Ontario. I'm surprised he is now coming fully on side with the Quebec unions, those that literally ran the country when the Parti québécois was in power, those that created laws similar to Bill 40, now creating a situation where 20% of journeymen, construction people, are unemployed, and that's coming to this province.

This government is willing to let the Quebec union people come into Ontario and take our jobs, yet because we're in favour of free trade and we're in favour of having Ontario people go to Quebec, they tell us we're inconsistent. I don't understand your logic and I hope someone explains that logic, because as far as I'm concerned there is no logic.

I have addressed this -- and I won't read the entire letter but I'll read parts of it -- to the interprovincial working group back last January:

"Journeymen workers from Quebec are fully able to participate in working within the province of Ontario. However, the reciprocal agreement is not at all the same for an Ontario journeyman labourer attempting to work in the province of Quebec."

I go on and describe problems not only with construction people, but with interprovincial marketing boards, where the poultry produced in Ontario must be processed in Quebec -- a whole bunch of irritants that are there.

Worst of all, we come from the region of Cornwall, economically deprived. In construction right now, many Quebec workers are working in Ontario. I don't even know if they're working legally, but they're working in Ontario, and there is no problem.

1150

The straw that broke the camel's back: The province of Quebec last fall inaugurated a process whereby anyone who is not driving a pickup truck with a Quebec licence plate is subject to a $750 fine if they do not have the Quebec sticker when they are caught on Quebec roads. That decided me that, look, they continue, in spite of everything we've brought forth, to irritate out-of-province people.

The prime example, a pickup truck: A constituent of mine went to the town of Valleyfield to purchase some furniture that was built and retailed in the province of Quebec. The gas police stopped him. He didn't have a sticker. "This is the only vehicle I have, and I purchased some furniture in Valleyfield. I'm taking it home." "Therefore you have a commercial vehicle. You're hauling furniture." The man was charged $750 plus court costs for having gone to Quebec to purchase furniture that was built and retailed in Quebec. That had to be the worst of the worst. Quite obviously, the members of this government support this kind of action.

I have been trying to get legislation, or at least common sense, in place, but no, the government of Quebec saw fit to hire over 200 enforcers to nail people from Ontario. I represent people right up to the edge of the province of Quebec, and they quite often take their pickup truck and go to a ball game in Montreal, or a hockey game. I'm a Montreal Canadiens fan, and if I take my pickup and go into Quebec to go to a hockey game, I could wind up with a $750 fine, plus costs, and the members of this government are encouraging more and more of this? This occurred last fall.

The journeymen workers on construction have been going through this. Every year in the almost 10 years that I've been elected, people come and say, "Look, when are you going to do something?" "Well, I'm on this committee. We're addressing it. We're going to fix it." Did we fix it? It's worse than ever, and because of draconian labour laws the likes of what we now have in Ontario, the Ontario workers are going to suffer the invasion of Quebec workers coming to Ontario. That is the truth. Members in the government are shaking their heads.

Now we have the enforcing of the gas sticker tax. That is adding insult to injury, and therefore I have no recourse but to fully support the member for Carleton's resolution. I want to emphasize, the very final words say, "That this policy be immediately terminated when Ontario construction workers and contractors have equal access to the province of Quebec."

We have to get their attention. They continue insulting the residents of Ontario. If we don't get their attention, we won't be able to solve it. I say to you that we have to get them to look at what our residents are subject to whenever they're dealing with Quebec. I say, amen.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I would think there's nobody in this House who doesn't agree with this resolution brought forward, but I would like to state that right now there are negotiations that were set up by the committee of ministers on internal trade, an agreement to begin comprehensive negotiations to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers in Canada. As well, ministers confirmed a moratorium on the creation of new trade barriers.

I believe a small amendment should be made to this resolution, and it should state that if the negotiations fail, then we would follow through on this resolution, but what we should do is remain committed to the process and participate fully in negotiations to eliminate barriers and increase worker mobility.

The unemployment rate in some trades, for instance the IBEW, the electrical workers' union, is presently over 50%, and when they see tradespeople from Quebec coming in to do work for which they are denied access in Quebec, there is certainly cause for hard feeling. I know that to work in Quebec in the construction industry the regulations give priority to workers who live in the region where work is to be performed. This system appears to make it impossible for out-of-province workers to gain entry to the Quebec construction industry unless there is a labour shortage. In addition to affecting out-of-province workers, this system also has serious implications for labour mobility within the province of Quebec.

I know this issue has been raised several times, on barriers, and it's one that's been resurrected on and off for the past 15 years, especially during tough economic times. During difficult times, the construction industry is one of the hardest hit, but there are more beneficial, effective and long-term ways of assisting these groups. Through other government initiatives, such as Jobs Ontario Capital, we are encouraging infrastructure development and improvement programs such as these for the long-term benefit of workers in Ontario and for the province.

Retaliatory actions such as taken in New Brunswick were a reaction to the higher unemployment rates in New Brunswick than in Quebec, and they only succeed in creating further problems.

Ontario needs to remain competitive within Canada and on the global market. We have supported a fair and open trading environment and will continue to do so. This is for the benefit of the workers and the companies in Ontario.

Currently, we have a pilot project in eastern Ontario regarding the apprenticeship Trades Qualification Act. This requires the licensing in mandatory trades such as crane operators, plumbers and electricians. The pilot project was set up to enable the Ministry of Labour construction health and safety officers to check for proper licences on construction sites. This project will not materially change the present situation in Ontario; however, it does produce more of an awareness of interprovincial crossover.

Through the first ministers' negotiations, we will continue to encourage and enhance the growth and development of our labour force and of our province. Effective negotiations produce a more harmonious atmosphere between provinces.

Therefore, I suggest we vote against the resolution put forward by the member for Carleton until after negotiations have ceased, and instead work harder towards reaching a solution that will assist workers, encouraging mobility and access.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I just want to tell you today that I don't think the Conservatives know what negotiations mean or how to negotiate.

Presently, before us, we have an opportunity to negotiate with all the first ministers and all the provinces of Canada to resolve these interprovincial trade barrier problems that we have. Yet they still raise in this Legislature a resolution -- Mr Sterling does -- that may jeopardize, indeed may scuttle the negotiations. Obviously, they don't understand negotiations.

I want to applaud the member for Kitchener-Wilmot because I think his suggestion to have an amendment to the resolution that says failing the successful negotiations we adopt the resolution Mr Sterling has presented is a good idea.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton, you have two minutes.

Mr Sterling: I appreciate the vigour and the enthusiasm in this debate.

This is a serious problem in eastern Ontario. I want to read to you the February statistics with regard to the construction trade. Electricians: vacancies, 5; people on UI, 271, and there are another 500 out of work. Carpenters: vacancies, 3; UI claims, 429. Roofers: 3 vacancies; 73 people on UI. Plumbers: 7 vacancies; 148 on UI. Construction labourers: 5 jobs in February in eastern Ontario; 1,611 on UI. That doesn't count the people who were off UI.

My resolution, as I said in my opening remarks, if you read the first line and you read the last line, says we don't want to have to do this, but the fact of the matter is that all of this pap and talk I've heard from the government benches that, "Let's go back and talk about this some more" -- in 1976, the Minister of Labour, Bette Stephenson, went to Quebec and talked to them and was negotiating.

In 1976, 14 years ago, they were talking and negotiating about it. We've negotiated for 14 years. We now have somebody in this country, Frank McKenna, who's shown some leadership and said, "Quebec, you're going to come to the table and you're going to negotiate in good faith to get rid of these restrictions, these unfair, discriminatory practices."

My resolution simply would arm your minister with a card that she might be able to play this summer during those discussions. She could say to the other ministers: "Ontario is fed up. We want a fair deal for our workers. We want a fair deal for our contractors." I urge you to support this resolution.

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item 5 standing in the name of Mr Cleary. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the "nays" have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cleary has moved private member's resolution 4. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Cleary, Cunningham, Daigeler, Drainville, Harris, Kormos, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Nays

Abel, Carter, Cooper, Dadamo, Farnan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson (Don Mills), Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), Owens, Perruzza, Rizzo, Stockwell, Sutherland, Tilson, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 15; the nays are 34. I declare the motion lost.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item 6, standing in the name of Mr Sterling. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1209 to 1212.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved private member's resolution number 7. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Cleary, Cunningham, Daigeler, Drainville, Farnan, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Harris, Hayes, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kormos, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martin, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Perruzza, Rizzo, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Sutherland, Tilson, Villeneuve, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger, Wiseman.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Abel, Carter, Cooper, Haeck, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Marchese, Mills, Owens.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 38; the nays are 10. I declare the motion carried.

All matters related to private members' public business have been completed. I do now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1217.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEWBRIDGE NETWORKS CORP

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Liberals are interested to get the economy going again. We want to help business people create jobs so Ontarians can get back to work. That's why I am particularly proud to salute a businessman from the Ottawa-Carleton area who has created, for the second time in his life, a huge success story.

I'm quoting here from an article on April 18 in the Ottawa Citizen:

"Newbridge Networks was the leading growth stock on major US exchanges last year. How did a small Ottawa-area high-technology firm become the darling of North American markets? And can the company, which makes the electronic brains behind large telecommunications networks, keep up the momentum? Many industry watchers say yes. 'It's not just a Canadian success story -- it's a global success story,' said the analyst with the Baltimore-based brokerage firm Alex Brown."

This is indeed a huge, worldwide success story. I am proud that four years ago in 1989 I visited Newbridge, together with the former Minister of Revenue, Remo Mancini. Why were we there? Because Newbridge, in its early beginnings, took advantage of the Ontario small business development corporation program to raise capital. So let's be proud of Terry Matthews and all his workers at Newbridge, and let's also be proud that the Ontario government five years ago helped this company start on the road to worldwide success.

Interjection.

Mr Daigeler: Five years -- who was the Premier?

TVONTARIO

M. Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & Grenville-Est) : Comme mes collègues vont le faire et l'ont déjà fait, j'aimerais moi aussi rendre hommage à la contribution des conseillers consultatifs de TVOntario.

Je peux vous dire que dans ma région, le conseil de la région de l'Est et le conseil francophone représentent admirablement bien les besoins de leurs collectivités auprès du conseil de direction de TVOntario. En effet, ils ont joué un rôle capital à faire accroître l'accessibilité aux deux réseaux de TVO et La Chaîne. Ils ont réussi à bien faire connaître l'importance du télédiffuseur éducatif au sein de leurs conseils scolaires.

La présence de TVOntario sera encore plus évidente le mois prochain alors que La Chaîne de TVO jouera un rôle de premier plan dans la Semaine franco-ontarienne et diffusera l'émission Panorama à partir d'ici, Queen's Park.

Par contre, il est absolument primordial pour TVOntario et La Chaîne de reconsidérer l'heure de la rediffusion de la période de questions à l'Assemblée législative. Cette rediffusion est regardée par beaucoup plus de gens que nous le croyons, et je crois sincèrement que nous inciterons beaucoup plus de téléspectateurs si l'heure de diffusion pouvait se faire entre 9 heures et 11 heures au lieu de minuit et demi.

Chapeau ! à ces bénévoles qui donnent généreusement de leur temps et de leurs efforts pour assurer que TVO et La Chaîne reflètent fidèlement les besoins de nos citoyens.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I also rise today to pay tribute to TVOntario, an outstanding educational broadcaster. All citizens of Ontario, including members of this House, enjoy and benefit from the exceptional educational programming TVOntario serves up each day through its English- and French-language channels, TVO and La Chaîne.

TVOntario's commitment to high-quality educational programming is particularly noteworthy in this Education and Training Week.

Today, though, I will focus on the outstanding work done by TVOntario's 90 advisory councillors. This dedicated group of volunteers is drawn from every corner of the province, all walks of life and many social and ethnic backgrounds. These people do everything in their power to ensure TVOntario is successful in its quest to bring top-quality programming to their communities. The councillors raise funds, speak to service clubs, contribute to community events, assist local teachers and advise TVOntario's board of directors.

They will gather this weekend in the northern community of Sioux Lookout to discuss ways of ensuring TVOntario's programs and services reflect the needs of Ontario's diverse population. In particular, they will be exploring how TVOntario can help people living in isolated, remote northern communities, many of which are aboriginal.

I urge other members of the House to encourage constituents with an interest in education programming to keep in touch with their local TVOntario advisory councillor. All viewers will benefit if this important line of communication is kept open.

I would like to add that I am a proud member of the Friends of TVOntario steering committee. Stay tuned in the near future for more statements on TVOntario by the other members of the House.

MANITOULIN FERRY SERVICE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Good afternoon, Mr Speaker. Spring is in full bloom on Manitoulin Island and the north shore of Lake Huron. Last week, the Chi-Cheemaun commenced sailing its normal route from Tobermory to South Baymouth.

On behalf of the people and businesses of Manitoulin and the north shore, I invite members of this House and all Ontarians to come and visit our area for its renowned scenery, great hospitality and just friendly folks. The people of Manitoulin and the north shore are ready, eager and thrilled to welcome you.

Unfortunately, this summer the ferry service has been reduced. The Chi-Cheemaun's little sister, the Nindawayma, has been mothballed by Bob Rae. Bob Rae doesn't believe that the improved service of two ferries helps the area's tourist economy. Bob Rae believes that travellers waiting four hours between ferries is better than waiting two hours.

The Manitoulin Tourist Association, the Manitoulin Municipal Association, numerous chambers of commerce in the north, including the Elliot Lake chamber of commerce, don't share Bob Rae's view.

Put the Nindawayma back in service, Bob, or the Nindawayma tied up in Owen Sound will be a symbol that this government is like the Nindawayma: dead in the water.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): Less than two weeks ago the Finance minister announced to municipalities cuts in the unconditional grants. Municipalities have been in a state of shock since that time as they try to reassess their budgets.

Many municipalities have worked exceedingly hard over the past number of years to bring in lean budgets. Many succeeded. Many got to a 0% property tax increase this year through efficiencies, through reducing services and through downsizing. It takes planning, sound judgement and an awareness of the economic climate to make this happen. Municipalities have been practising restraint for some time.

But considering the timing of this announcement, one must ask, where was the planning on the part of this government? Where is the partnership? Municipalities are understandably concerned when faced with cuts after their budgets have been set, and set for some time, and tax bills prepared.

Was it not possible to be upfront with municipalities and to respect their budget time frame? If municipalities are required to bring provincial budgets under control, then so be it, but consultation, and even more importantly consultation on a timely basis, would make the process more harmonious for all concerned.

Is this the type of timing, the type of planning, the type of partnership that municipalities can expect in the future?

FAMILY OF THE YEAR AWARD

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I rise in the Legislature today to honour two people who reside in the town of La Salle, an area which grows in popularity and is fast becoming the home of many Windsorites, by the way.

Many awards are given for many different reasons, and awards are bestowed for obvious reasons. In the town of La Salle comes an award which is the beginning of something I think is entirely new. The award is called the Family of the Year. It has landed on the front porch this year of Albert and Lucy Moore, who I know are viewing the proceedings this afternoon. I spoke with Mrs Moore yesterday.

Lucy and Albert Moore and their five sons were recently named Family of the Year by the Knights of Columbus of Sacred Heart Council 9500.

I'd like to furnish you with a bit of background on the Moores. Albert has been the president of the St Vincent de Paul Society of La Salle and for 36 years has been a Knights of Columbus member involved in the La Salle youth centre. Albert Moore will not join a club or organization unless he can do something for others. A jovial man, Albert is not motivated by awards. He certainly doesn't perform kindness for any applause or any accolades.

On the other side of this award is Lucy Moore, who began the La Salle friendship centre more than 20 years ago and has seen the membership rise to 325. Her family acknowledges that volunteer centres have a way of finding her.

I'd like to wish many thanks to the Moores and gratitude from the town of La Salle, Mayor Vince Marcotte and myself for being chosen the Family of the Year in La Salle.

1340

CANADA 125 AWARDS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): This evening I have the honour of presenting the Canada 125 Award to 25 wonderful people who have devoted countless volunteer hours in my riding of Eglinton. North Toronto is truly fortunate to have so many people who have committed so much of their time and energy to benefit our community. These individuals have helped seniors and adolescents, churches and schools, tenants and home owners, the physically challenged and the economically depressed.

Each one of these 25 people is talented and committed to improving his community for the good of all. They have been instrumental in the development of the Health Station, the North Toronto Memorial Community Centre, community associations, youth groups, sports organizations and advocacy groups.

The individuals receiving awards tonight are Phil Aber, Tim Arnaud, Howard Birnie, Robert Blakely, Fran Brown, Howard Brown, Jane Bunting, Barbara Coupal, Les Davis, Freda Finley, Mackenzie Hall, Anne Johnston, Susan Kee, Marg Ann Lougheed, Cynthia Luks, Charlotte Maher, Jannie Mills, Diana Morgulis, Nan Percival, Clarke Pulford, Don Ritchie, Agnes Roy, Julia Wallis, Audrey Wilson and John Withrow.

On behalf of the people of Eglinton riding, I would like to express our enormous gratitude to these individuals for their invaluable contributions to north Toronto.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): It's no wonder Ontario's seniors feel they are being asked to carry the weight of NDP government mismanagement. Seniors waited three years for the government's long-term care reforms only to find out that, under Bill 101, their extended care health services will be delisted as an insured benefit under OHIP, to be replaced with a two-tier system determined and controlled by civil servants. Access for seniors will be further reduced through the NDP eligibility criteria to determine which seniors might obtain future health services. All this while the NDP is considering opening Ontario hospitals to wealthy Americans.

The NDP Treasurer's mini-budget will arbitrarily cut, without consultation, seniors' benefits under the Ontario drug benefit plan, forcing them to pay increased user fees while welfare abusers will still be getting their drugs free.

The NDP mini-budget cuts to municipalities create a $500-million shortfall that will have to be made up by huge property tax increases, which are harmful to seniors on fixed incomes, since their ability to pay isn't acknowledged. Seniors remember recent NDP cuts to the Ontario property tax grant, which offset rising school board taxes.

Rather than making seniors its favourite target, the NDP should target inappropriate government spending: reduce welfare fraud, halt the misuse of the Ontario drug benefit plan and stop OHIP cheaters with bogus cards.

As elected representatives, we have an obligation to respect the contributions of our seniors. They certainly deserve better from this government.

BOWMANVILLE ROTARY CLUB

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I rise today to apprise members of the Legislature of the Rotary International worldwide project Save the Planet Earth. The project covers tree planting, environmental education, clean water and clean air. This international project was implemented by over 1.161 million Rotarians in 26,000 clubs in 187 countries.

I want to speak directly to the efforts of the Rotary Club of Bowmanville in my riding of Durham East. In 1991 the Bowmanville Rotary Club planted 23,000 trees, in 1992 they planted 25,000 trees, and in 1993 they planted 20,500.

To carry out this task, the Rotary Club enlisted the support of local schools and organized the children into teams. The positive and enthusiastic attitude displayed by the children is something that everyone could use as an example, in particular members of the opposition parties who appear to be preoccupied with doomsday philosophy. They should take an example from the children in my riding.

The Rotary International and the Rotary Clubs in my riding of Durham East deserve our congratulations for the valuable lesson being taught to our children through this program. Everybody over there should take an example from the children in my riding. They're enthusiastic, positive and upbeat, which you are not.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DRIVERS' LICENCES PERMIS DE CONDUIRE

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I'm pleased to inform the House of an important safety initiative this government has taken to protect the lives of Ontarians and help make our roads the very safest in North America. Today I'm announcing that the government will implement a graduated licensing system for all new drivers beginning next fall, the fall of 1994.

We're doing this after much consultation and discussion with and support from citizens and groups concerned with safety. I would especially like to thank the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Ontario's chief coroner, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and, of course, the Ministry of Transportation and its staff.

I know that all members of this House take very seriously the fact that driving is not a right but a privilege. It's a privilege that must be earned by demonstrating both driving skills and knowledge of the rules of the road. Members may be aware that the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario issues more than 350,000 new drivers' licences each year and that no other province sets tougher standards for testing and licensing than Ontario does.

But there is overwhelming statistical evidence that inexperienced drivers pose a very serious safety threat, a threat not just to themselves but to other people on the roads. Traffic collisions are the leading killer of people between the ages of 16 and 24 in Ontario. But the statistics show that all new drivers, regardless of their age, have a much higher collision rate than experienced drivers.

Safety experts in Ontario and around the world agree that for new drivers, the likelihood of becoming involved in a collision is greatly reduced if the new driver gains experience gradually, in conditions where the risks are low, of course. Many studies have concluded that it takes between two and five years of driving to develop all the skills and judgement needed to avoid collisions.

Je sais que tous mes collègues sont aussi inquiets que moi quand ils lisent dans les journaux -- ceux du lundi matin, par exemple -- et qu'ils prennent connaissance du nombre de décès sur nos routes au cours de la fin de semaine, un nombre, hélas ! trop grand.

Un trop grand nombre comprend les nouveaux conducteurs, surtout les jeunes entre 16 et 24 ans, qui sont surreprésentés, qui représente à peu près le double de la moyenne ontarienne. Le système que nous proposons vise à réduire de façon significative ces chiffres.

The two-level licensing system will allow new drivers to gain valuable "hands-on" driving experience. This will be accomplished by gradually granting driving privileges during the first two years on the road.

For example, level 1 drivers will have to maintain a zero blood alcohol level. They must not drive between midnight and 5 am and will be restricted from driving on the 400 series of highways and other designated urban expressways. Furthermore, level 1 drivers may not carry more passengers than seat belts available and must display a sign indicating the vehicle is being driven by a novice driver. At all times in the first level, the driver must be accompanied by a class G driver with at least four years' driving experience and who has less than 0.05 blood alcohol level. This means one drink only, no more than that, and for the new driver, none at all.

Level 1 will last 12 months, but drivers will have the opportunity to have that reduced to eight months if they successfully complete an approved driver education course. You take the course, you save four months.

1350

To enter the second level of the program, all new drivers will be required to pass a basic test on driving skills with a government driving examiner. Level 2 will last a minimum of 12 months. At this level there are more driving privileges, but blood alcohol and passenger limitations will remain.

At the end of level 2, drivers will have to pass an advanced test, focusing on their ability to recognize and take appropriate actions when presented with hazardous conditions, before receiving their full licence privileges.

A licensing system with similar conditions and limits will also be implemented for all first-time motorcycle drivers in the province.

Because graduated licensing is a subject of great interest to many Ontarians and because this government is committed to establishing the fairest and most effective of graduated licensing, I'm tabling a draft bill in the House today. The bill will then go to a standing committee of the House for review during the summer months. Everyone of course will be invited to participate.

Making our roads safer is a responsibility we all share. We welcome further comments to improve our graduated licensing program proposal. We are seeking input into our program to ensure the final legislation for the program reflects the best possible system for all Ontarians.

Mes collègues le savent : Modifier le système actuel de délivrance des permis afin de mettre de l'avant un système de délivrance graduelle de permis est une importante tâche administrative pour mon ministère. Notre but est de présenter la loi à l'automne et de mettre en oeuvre le programme de délivrance graduelle des permis de conduire pas plus tard qu'au printemps 1994.

We do not propose these restrictions on new drivers lightly. In 1991 more than 1,100 people were killed on the roads of Ontario and more than 90,000 people were injured. In the past decade alone, the past 10 years, more than 13,000 Ontarians lost their lives. Graduated licensing is not about government interference; it's about lives.

My honourable colleague the Chair of Management Board will also be addressing the issue of road safety today and the impact collisions have on Ontario residents. The timing of his statement is not coincidence. Rather, it recognizes the government's commitment to road safety and it builds on our commitment to ensure the quality of life for all Ontario residents.

L'amélioration de la sécurité routière épargnera des vies, mais elle épargnera aussi des coûts d'assurance, des coûts de santé, et du temps perdu à l'école et au travail. Ces coûts sont évalués à non moins que 4 milliards de dollars pour toute la population ontarienne.

A strategy for improving safety has been designed to improve the quality of life in Ontario without increasing the public debt or imposing costs on future generations. This safety vision will be realized through education, awareness, enforcement and legislation. Implementation of our strategy focuses on three key areas that directly influence safety. These key areas are drivers, vehicles and the road.

I know that the vast majority of Ontarian residents support graduated licensing and I know that this goes beyond partisan politics. Members of the Legislature from all parties, including my honourable colleagues the member for York Mills and the member for Nepean, have demonstrated their support for graduated licensing. I look forward to the continuing support and cooperation of all members as we move forward to implementing graduated licensing.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): It's with great pleasure that I rise today to inform the House of important progress in the government's program to reform and improve Ontario's automobile insurance system. I have two announcements. Both involve measures we are taking to protect the rights of accident victims.

The first deals specifically with initiatives to ensure fairer treatment of people injured in automobile accidents. I'm releasing today the report of the Task Force on Rehabilitation and Long-Term Care Benefits, which I commissioned earlier this year to address a range of issues concerning adequate care for accident victims and the need for a system of cost control.

This report represents a remarkable achievement in that it contains nearly 100 recommendations which have been unanimously forwarded by a diverse group of people. The task force comprised individuals with a broad range of interests, from organizations representing the insurance industry, consumer groups, accident victims and rehabilitation specialists.

Among the many issues addressed by the task force there are recommendations to increase the current monthly cap on attendant care from $3,000 to $10,000 for catastrophic injuries and to move the current lifetime limit on supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits from $500,000 to $1 million.

The task force proposes a comprehensive framework for rehabilitation and identifies a number of areas where regulation is required to clarify obligations and responsibilities on the part of insurers, injured persons and professionals. Taken together, the report's proposals are designed to ensure a systematic approach to the provision of benefits by establishing mechanisms for both cost control and standards of care.

I consider it a significant accomplishment that this group of individuals came together and worked in a commonsense, practical fashion to build a consensus around a series of difficult issues which have been at the centre of concerns expressed by both the insurance industry and by accident victims.

It is precisely these concerns which in the past have generated a great deal of debate. The industry saw uncontrolled pressures and expressed alarm at the potential impact on premiums if there was no action taken to contain costs. Accident victims have insisted on their right to adequate rehabilitation and long-term care.

The government has always shared these concerns and is determined to take appropriate action. The convening of this task force represented an essential step forward in bringing together and reconciling interests which do not have to be in conflict. I am now pleased to see that its report points the way towards a constructive regulatory reform and, in doing so, clears a path for everyone involved.

I will be reviewing the recommendations to determine those which require adoption as regulations under the Insurance Act. But I want to emphasize that, as with all aspects of the government reform strategy, we will continue with an open process and will be seeking further input and feedback on these recommendations.

My second announcement concerns our commitment to improved claimant advocacy within the auto insurance system. I am pleased to report that Professor Harry Arthurs of Osgoode Hall Law School has accepted my invitation to review advocacy services available to auto accident victims who claim benefits under the Insurance Act. Professor Arthurs, former president of York University, will be consulting insurers, the legal profession and accident victims' groups in the course of his review.

I would like to add one final point, Mr Speaker. As you know, improved rehabilitation and care for accident victims are key goals of Bill 164, our auto insurance reform legislation. Once Bill 164 passes third reading, it will provide the legislative framework for fairer treatment of those injured in traffic accidents, especially those suffering severe and long-term injuries.

We heard earlier from my colleague the Minister of Transportation. His statement concerning graduated drivers' licences is important in its own right, of course. But in addition, it affirms the commitment of this government to a comprehensive approach to the related issues of road safety and the protection of accident victims. In this context, the government's reform process is thorough, forward-looking and sets a course that will benefit all Ontario drivers on the road ahead.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yesterday I received a report from the Deputy Minister of Health, Michael Decter, on the progress of our negotiations of a new social contract. As members of this House will know, Mr Decter is the province's chief negotiator at these talks. Mr Decter advises me that there are grounds for optimism and that a number of parties to these negotiations are making progress.

These are historic negotiations. Our goal, announced on April 5 by Premier Rae, is to meet the fiscal challenge which faces us in a fair and constructive way. On April 23 our proposals for a social contract were shared with all of the public sector employers and employee groups. As one element of our plan, we are asking workers and employers to help us come up with ways of trimming our total compensation bill for the public service and the broader public service by $2 billion in 1993-94.

However, we cannot expect people to make this sacrifice without addressing issues of significant importance to their own security. Consequently, our government wants to negotiate provisions which speak to assuring full participation in decisions about government restructuring, about designing and implementing plans for the retraining and reskilling of employees and about redeployment of affected employees.

I am confident that with the help and cooperation of everyone involved in this, the process will work. But this is a very large and complex undertaking, and therefore it is understandable that Michael Decter and his team have asked for more time to conclude this task. We have agreed to this request and have approved a mandate and set a deadline of June 4 for the achievement of a framework social contract agreement.

1400

This decision will not interfere with the tabling of our 1993 budget. I would like to advise the House that I will present the 1993 Ontario budget to this Legislature on Wednesday, May 19, at 4 pm.

Without divulging any of the details, I can tell the members that the document which I will table on May 19 will reflect three very important commitments. We remain committed to investing in jobs and people, including capital investment in such economically important infrastructure as roads, transit and telecommunications. We are committed to preserving our most important services, such as health care, education and social programs. And we are also aware that in order to do these things, we must manage our finances and restrain the growth of debt.

Our budget will keep the deficit to under $10 billion. We will achieve that through a three-pronged strategy. First, our spending plans will reflect the $4 billion in expenditure control measures for 1993-94 which we outlined in detail on April 23. Second, the budget will also incorporate $2 billion in savings to be achieved through the social contract in 1993-94. Third, on the revenue side, it will include a fair and balanced package of tax increases to help put us on a sound financial footing. That is how we will continue to invest in jobs and maintain vital public services.

In March, I announced that unless we took action on both the revenue and spending side, our deficit for 1993-94 could reach almost $17 billion. I also said that we could not let that happen, because if we did, interest costs would very quickly eat into our budget to the point where all our programs would be at risk.

The people of Ontario realize that the burden of deficit reduction has to be shared. It's not a problem that belongs to just one group -- not just to teachers or doctors or to social assistance recipients or to businesses. It belongs to all of us, and we must all contribute to its solution. That's why our budget will contain measures on both the expenditure and revenue side.

Our expenditure control plan touches every ministry and agency, every region of the province. We're changing the way government does business in this province through the most comprehensive review any government in Ontario has ever carried out. Because we've changed the very nature of what we do and how we do it, the savings will continue into the future.

Sharing the burden also means sitting down and talking with our public sector workers and employers to draw up a new social contract that will shape the way the public sector works in Ontario.

It also means asking the people of Ontario to contribute through tax measures, but only after we have shown that we're serious about making better use of the money we spend, making every dollar go farther. That's why the first step in our budget process was to identify $4 billion in savings, the biggest chunk of that from our own operations in government.

In sum, the budget will allow us to invest in jobs, protect our most vital services and preserve the financial strength of this province, and it will do it in a way that is fair and equitable to all.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Honestly, I would have liked to be really positive about the Transportation minister's announcement on graduated licences. This is a very important issue, one that will save many lives, especially among our young people. So I would have liked to be very positive and support the minister.

However, where's the legislation? Really, what the minister is doing is putting forward a consultation paper. He has said himself that this initiative at best will be in place a year from now, fall 1994.

Let me remind the minister of a London Free Press article dated November 10, 1989. "'The province is considering a new system of licensing new drivers that would restrict when and where they may drive until they gain experience,' Transportation minister William Wrye said Thursday." He said that in response to a question from myself, because at that point, in the fall of 1989, I was concerned about the carnage on our roads among young people.

So the minister has had almost three years -- in fact over three years -- to bring in legislation, to table it today for first reading, so we could have consultations over the summer and pass it in the fall. Minister, where's the legislation so we can end the carnage on our roads among our young people?

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I welcome the release today of the report of the long-term care and rehab task force with respect to the operation of auto insurance in the province. I think it would have been interesting to have had a much more balanced report issued under the terms of the previous legislation, to take in a whole series of ramifications about the operation of the Ontario motorist protection plan.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): And whose legislation was that?

Mr Elston: While the member for Windsor-Riverside, the former government House leader, chirps about, "Whose legislation was that?" I tell him that I am responsible for the OMPP legislation, and it would have been well had we been able to have a reasonable and logical review of some of the problem areas. There is no question that this will add to the program as it is now, and I welcome that, because in any forum where there is a scheme set forth that is designed to protect people, it must be able to be evolved and moved so that it meets the changing needs of our client group, the people of this province.

I look forward to addressing the continuation of the clause-by-clause on Bill 164 as it begins next week in committee, but it would be nice if we knew by then exactly what were considered to be important steps forward under the recommendations put before us here on this task force, and we hope that the minister will come forward so that we can see the full operation of his plan as he perceives it under Bill 164.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond to the Minister of Finance's announcement on the budget to say that I think we now have a clearer picture of what that budget will contain. I will say to the Minister of Finance, as we've said before, we think that the deficit now, with no new taxes, is around $9 billion. I know that you may choose to disagree, but when we now see you have confirmed the social contract, you've confirmed the expenditure reduction program, we think you've grossly overstated the interest costs, we think you will have the fiscal stabilization money in there and we think there will be $1 billion worth of assets.

I would also say that I think the most contentious part will be taxes. Already in your budget, already in the numbers you released, are revenue increases due to taxes of about $1.7 billion. Without any new taxes, the provincial government is taking about $1.7 billion worth of increased taxes out of the people of Ontario. So tax revenue is going up about 5%, $1.7 billion, before any of Premier Rae's new taxes. I think the people of Ontario have to realize that, that the Premier and the Treasurer are planning to add more taxes, and already, $1.7 billion of increased taxes are coming out of the taxpayers of Ontario.

I understand the financial difficulties of the government, but I will just say to the Premier and to the Minister of Finance that we are facing a very delicate economic situation. In our judgement, taking more than $1.7 billion in more tax revenue out of the economy of Ontario runs the very real risk, Premier, of stalling the economic recovery right in its tracks.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to comment on the statement by the Treasurer today. First of all, in response to the Liberal Party talking about its estimate of the deficit, well, it's no wonder they thought they had a balanced budget before they called the election in 1990 and were sitting there with a $3-billion or $5-billion deficit.

Mr Speaker, here are the things that concern me. Can you imagine a $10-billion target being acceptable? This is how low we have sunk in this province of Ontario.

Secondly, tax hikes: the Treasurer indicating that tax hikes, he thinks, are acceptable. The Liberals think this "may" slow recovery. This will devastate job creation in the province of Ontario -- not may: This will be a disaster in the province of Ontario.

1410

Third, I want to comment about the fact that you plan to introduce the budget the day before the House recesses for 10 days. Presumably, I suppose you don't want to give the opposition very much time to respond. There's no need why this budget couldn't be presented tomorrow. You've been delaying. They've been delaying for these social contract talks, and I want to comment on the social contract talks, because finally we have the deadline. I've been calling for you to toughen up and, quite frankly, I think you have toughened up and I thank you for that. You set a deadline: not one day more.

Number two, I read the Premier's comments last night. Maybe I'm the only one left that's going to be fighting for the brothers and the sisters, but I heard what the Premier told them: "Not negotiable," he said.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Harris: All I would say to you today is that we have not had one day of meaningful negotiations until we get tough and say, "There's a deadline, and we're going to proceed with or without you." Let me say to the Treasurer we support you stating clearly that in this budget you are proceeding with or without the unions. Now, possibly, if Mr Ryan thinks you really are tough enough and you will legislate, now maybe we can have some meaningful negotiations.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm responding to the Minister of Transportation's statement on graduated licences. Of course the Conservative Party is delighted to have graduated licences announced. However, I will say to the minister that he is very well aware that on many occasions I have urged him to bring in graduated licences. I brought in a request for an opposition day, 123 designation study in committee of this issue, and you have consistently blocked the way by suggesting you were just about to introduce it.

Minister, you have been the minister of this ministry for almost two years now. You have constantly said that you were consulting. By this time, you should have been ready to bring forward legislation. Surely we should have this legislation before the House rises for the summer. By your own numbers, more than 1,000 people per year are killed as a result of auto accidents.

Minister, you will get no problem from our party, but to suggest that you're bringing forward meaningful legislation when you're talking about limiting the number of passengers to those who have seat belts -- in case you don't know, Minister, that is the law. I would much sooner see the fact that we would limit it to one passenger in the front seat, which would be a much safer driving practice.

Too little, too late, Minister.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): A brief statement to the minister's comments with respect to auto insurance. He's announced a series of reports and task forces and he's going to change the regulations. I find this simply amazing, that we spent hundreds of hours reviewing Bill 164 and the regulations that have gone on before it, and thousands of dollars have been spent by people who have come to the committee to prepare for all of this, and now you're going to announce a commission or a task force and you're releasing a report, and then you're going to consult with people with respect to the regulations.

I would have hoped the minister would be announcing either the delaying or the cancelling of Bill 164, the withdrawal of 164. This is absolutely no excuse, to simply say you're going to start talking about a whole new bureaucracy of advocates to replace the lawyers in this province. How are you going to train them? Where are you going to get the money to do it?

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Mr Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege concerning the behaviour of the Premier. It involves two separate occasions on which he has violated my privileges as a member of this House, and one occasion in which the privileges of the House were violated by the Premier and the Attorney General and senior officials within the Ministry of the Attorney General.

I'll try to be as brief as possible, but given the seriousness of the second breach of privilege, I would ask you to take time to consider it in more detail and report back to the House.

The first breach of my personal privileges relates to a question that I asked on Tuesday, April 27, of the Premier. At that time I asked the Premier and members of his personal staff to sign freedom of information waivers which would permit the Ontario Provincial Police to release portions of the John Piper report that discussed the activities of those senior members of the Premier's office and of the Premier himself.

At that time, the Premier indicated that he would "take a look at what the member is suggesting and have a look at the precedents...and will take his question as notice." In his answer to a supplementary question he restated this position, saying again that he would not make "any other further comment except to say, as I said, that I take his question as notice."

Since that question was asked, the Premier has had five sitting days to respond to my question. There is a disturbing pattern here, where cabinet ministers indicate that they will take questions on notice but never do so.

I draw your attention to another question I asked of the Minister of Health on April 29 about the release of a sexual offender from the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital without the police being informed. Again, the minister said she would take the question on notice and respond "at the earliest possible time." Neither the Premier nor his minister has done so.

Mr Speaker, on this first point, I feel my privileges as a member have been breached. While the standing orders clearly indicate that ministers may refuse to answer questions, taking questions on notice is a long-standing practice in this Legislature, and when ministers renege on these agreements, it violates the privileges of the member who asked the question and reduces the ability of members of the House to perform their duties.

My second point of privilege is even more serious and concerns the activities of the Premier in a briefing that he received on the John Piper report from Mr Murray Segal, the director of the crown law office, criminal division, in the Ministry of the Attorney General. Normally, Mr Speaker, judgements about the appropriateness of such a briefing would not fall within your jurisdiction as Speaker because your rulings on parliamentary privilege are limited to activities that occur within the Legislative Assembly itself.

However, I believe that there is evidence to suggest that you do have responsibility to act on this matter. You will be aware that section 5 of the 1969 Attorney General's act is a broad section that discusses various functions of the Attorney General. However, in order to add interpretive weight to that section, the Attorney General of the day, who introduced the bill, the Honourable Arthur Wishart, said that the Legislative Assembly itself has a role to ensure that the Attorney General has conformed with the act. I quote Mr Wishart from Hansard on March 17, 1969, page 2328:

"One can only set forth in the best and clearest possible language guidelines to the Attorney General's duties and responsibilities and then trust that he will carry them out. And then this House, which perhaps is not the government, in the sense that Parliament is not the government, would see that he did his duties."

This view that the Legislative Assembly has a responsibility to monitor the activities of the Attorney General's office was reinforced in the Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights, known as the McRuer Commission. It stated on page 934:

"The members of the public must be dependent on the vigilance of the Attorney General for their protection against legislative invasion of their civil rights. Departments of government must realize in advising on legislation and advising departments, the Attorney General has a duty that transcends government policy, in the performance of which he is responsible only to the Legislature."

The briefing of the Premier by Mr Segal is unprecedented in the sense that the report involved the activities of the Premier and his communications with Mr Ferguson and Mr Piper. The Premier cannot enjoy his normal crown privileges as Premier when he himself was a subject in a police investigation. We know that a police report can only be released to private citizens or their solicitors through the freedom of information office. We also know that normally only executive summaries of such reports can be provided to the Premier in regular cases.

I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that both the Premier and Mr Segal violated the privileges of members of the Legislature, and would ask that you rule on this unprecedented breach of those privileges. If, Mr Speaker, you find that Mr Segal did violate the privileges of members of the assembly through his inappropriate briefing of the Premier, who was one of several subjects in a police investigation, I intend to introduce a motion asking this assembly to call Mr Segal before the bar of this House.

Mr Speaker, while you may be aware that this practice of calling someone before the bar has not occurred for over 80 years in Ontario, it was used in the federal Parliament less than two years ago. It is essential that the justice system in this province be fair and be seen to be fair for all. The serious breach of our privileges committed by the Premier is something he will have to answer for to you and to members of this assembly. However, it is also essential that Mr Segal, who has directly violated the privileges, not only of members, but may have also indirectly affected others in the entire Grandview controversy, be called to account for his misconduct.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville, first may I say that I appreciate the way in which he has brought his concern to the floor of the House and to my attention. I will be pleased indeed to take a look at the matters which he raised and to report back to him at the earliest possible time.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, we have learned in a very recent newscast that the unions have said they will not sit down at your social contract talks with your negotiator until they have met with you. I want to ask you, Premier, what does this latest step in the dance do to your social contract negotiations? Are you prepared to sit down immediately with the unions and how are the unions' proposals likely to affect the budget to be brought in in two weeks' time?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): First of all, I appreciate the honourable member bringing us up to date with respect to a recent newscast. I would say to her very directly --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I would say to her and to others that I've always made it a practice of not carrying on discussions or negotiations through the means of a newscast, or indeed, in a situation like this, on the floor of the Legislature.

All I can say to her very directly is that if the negotiator, Mr Decter, feels that my participating, being present at a session in order to clear up any procedural points or any difficulties in terms of where we're at, if that were seen to be helpful to the process, of course I would take that advice.

But I would say to the honourable member that Mr Decter has the mandate to carry out full negotiations and will continue to do so. I don't intend to get involved in the nitty-gritty of every aspect of the negotiation, but certainly my office door is open, I'm accessible and I'm quite happy to do whatever can be done to facilitate a full and open negotiation.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, we're really trying to understand, and a whole lot of people in this province are trying to understand exactly what it is that you are planning to do, that your government is trying to do as the clock keeps ticking.

We have understood from the Treasurer today that you are going to be bringing a budget in, in two weeks' time. It has been clear, from what Michael Decter said yesterday and what the Treasurer reaffirmed today, that if the social contract talks do get going, the earliest that they can reach an agreement under your deadline is now June 4, which is two weeks after the budget is to be presented.

The Treasurer has made it clear again today that the $2 billion in cuts to be achieved through the social contract discussions are firm and that we will see those $2 billion reflected in the budget. Those three things are the only things which seem to be clear.

Given that, Premier, can you help us to understand what is the purpose of continuing the social contract discussions that won't reach an agreement, if any agreement can be reached, until two weeks after the budget's presented?

Hon Mr Rae: The purpose of the social contract discussions is to make sure that jobs and services are protected. That's the essential purpose of the social contract discussion. The whole thrust of the social contract discussion is to ensure that there is a process through which we, all of us working in the public sector, can work through the problems and the realities that are created by the fiscal and financial and economic circumstance in which we find ourselves. That's the clear purpose of the social contract discussion.

The fact that those discussions need to take place with respect to a framework, and that indeed, in the Treasurer's announcement today, he indicates that even beyond the framework there will continue to be a need for dialogue and a way for us to work through ongoing issues and problems, I think should be made very clear.

I say with respect to the honourable member that I think the direction and the road down which we are walking is very clear. We are determined to treat our employees fairly, we are determined to enter into a serious dialogue and discussion with them about the very real choices this government has to make and we are determined to be very clear to everyone about our determination to get our expenditure numbers firmly under control.

I think those directions were set out very clearly by the government. I think they were set out in the text of the social contract proposal which was released, I would remind the honourable member, on 23 April. So what we are doing is entirely consistent with what was set out in the April 23 document.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, the words sound fine, the goals sound fine, but what you don't seem to understand is that out there there are hospitals and school boards and colleges and universities and municipalities that have already set their budgets. Many of those agencies are so far into their budget year already that they are only going to have four months left in which they can bring about the cost reductions that your cuts are going to require. Every single delay in reaching an agreement on the social contract is giving them less flexibility. It's making it harder and harder for them to find ways to cope with the cuts. The end of this delay is going to be that it is more and more likely that the only choice people are going to have out in municipalities and school boards and hospitals is to start to lay people off.

Premier, we keep having to say: How long are you going to let what is becoming a charade just keep going on? We ask you if you will not sit down with your own public sector employees, those people whom you can bargain with, negotiate with them and give other public sector employees and their bargaining units the chance to do the same thing.

Hon Mr Rae: That's exactly what we're doing. That's exactly the framework that we've set out. I say to the honourable member with great respect, as they say, and say to her very directly, that's precisely what we're doing.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that it's easy to do or that the message is greeted with joy by a great many people who are hearing this message, but I'm telling her, as clearly as we can, that we understand the problems that are being faced by hospitals, that are being faced by school boards and that are being faced by municipalities. That's precisely why we've tried to create a process which allows them to bring forward their difficulties and problems in managing with the fiscal realities which we're all working through and allows the representatives of the workers to do the same thing.

I think that's a fair approach, I think that's a reasonable approach and I think it's the right approach. I think it's a better approach than confrontation. I think it's a better approach than simply laying down a decree or whatever. I think it's a much wiser approach to try to bring people together and say to people --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- let's try to work this thing through. That's what we're doing. We're happy to create the process which will allow that to happen and, as I've said to you in my first answer, if I can play a constructive role in that, I'm happy to do so, but I want everyone to understand that Mr Decter has a full mandate to take direction of the negotiations and I think that's the best way to proceed.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: I think the Premier continually confuses discussion and building understanding and the kind of practical, effective negotiations that will allow the tough decisions to be made so that people out there can get on in coping with the kinds of cuts that they are going to be facing.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will direct my second question to the Chairman of Management Board. Minister, earlier this week I asked a question concerning the problem of youth unemployment in this province, and I can tell you that this is an important issue, it's an issue that we are deeply concerned about and it is an issue which we are going to continue to raise in this Legislature.

I asked a question about the issue of summer employment earlier in the House to a colleague of yours, on Monday, to the Minister of Education and Training, and in response to my question the minister indicated, and I quote from Hansard, "...the moneys that have been spent traditionally within ministries plus the Jobs Ontario Youth program have not been put on hold," and he went on to say, "...there's no decision that has been made by treasury board or cabinet that would put any of these moneys on hold."

Minister, it is our information that indeed the money that is targeted for programs such as the summer Experience program or the environmental youth program -- which, as you will know, are two of the largest summer employment programs that you are providing, have received no funding approvals to date.

1430

Minister, this is a question to you, as Chair of Management Board responsible for the flow of funding to the ministries. The first week of May is behind us, university and college students are already a full week into their summer term. Can you tell us why these programs, why the moneys for these programs and, therefore, the jobs for these students are being held up?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Firstly, let me say that my colleague the Minister of Education and Training's response the other day has the same understanding that I have, that there are no impediments that have been put in place by the cabinet to hinder the flow of money on any of those programs.

Having said that, the member has raised some indication she appears to have, and I'll undertake to look into that, but I'm not aware of anything that is presently hindering the flow of dollars under those programs.

Mrs McLeod: I'm confused, because if there are no impediments deliberately put in place by cabinet, I can only assume that we're faced either with complete indecision or complete mismanagement and I'm not sure which conclusion to come to.

I would like to give the minister two very specific examples of what is actually happening out there so that this issue becomes a very real one for him, just as it is for the young people who are looking for jobs now, even as we raise this question in the House.

Last year the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, Minister, hired 17 summer students through government programs. This year they have been unofficially told that they can hire 13 students, but having been told repeatedly that the funding is not yet confirmed, they have chosen not to hire any students until the word comes directly to them along with the funds confirmed. Their phones are ringing off the wall with students who want to know whether they are going to have a job this summer.

The Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, Minister, has received unofficial information that it can hire four students this year. Now, that's less than half the number of students they were able to hire last year, but they haven't filled even those positions because the money is not there.

So, Minister, I ask you to confirm, firstly, that there will be reductions in the numbers of students hired in the summer employment programs and, secondly, that many government agencies that traditionally hire summer students by this time of year have not hired for 1993 because the funding has simply not been confirmed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader place a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: That was my question.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mr Charlton: First of all, I can't confirm that there will be a reduction in the number of students because there is no intention to reduce the number of students.

Secondly, I probably would have referred this question to the Minister of Finance, except that the Leader of the Opposition made a very pointed comment that the question was for me. The Leader of the Opposition might remember that some time ago this government set up a treasury board process and that Management Board has for two years now not been responsible for the flows of funding under this government. We are responsible for personnel matters in terms of the operation of the public service in this province. But I've undertaken, because the Leader of the Opposition insisted on directing the question to me, to look into the whole matter for her.

Mrs McLeod: Let me make it very clear. I directed the question towards the Chair of Management Board because there are programs in a number of ministries that are being affected. This is universal across this government. The commitments are made, the money doesn't flow and nothing out there is happening. There are students without jobs and they need to know if they're going to have a job.

The information that we have, to the best of our knowledge, was accurate as of this morning and, Minister, the information that we have directly contradicts the answer your colleague the Minister of Education and Training provided to my question earlier this week. Again, I quote from Hansard when the minister stated,

"In fact I remember when we specifically talked about job creation programs for young people in treasury board and we looked at the expenditure review process, those programs were specifically exempt from any reductions because" of "the same concern that you have."

After the minister makes that statement, we learn that not only is the summer Experience program being held up but the number of positions that are to be allocated is to be substantially reduced. Minister, we received this information directly from ministry officials, and ministry officials inform us that the cutbacks were indeed a consequence of your Treasurer's rather hastily announced expenditure control plan.

So, Minister, I just give you the two contrasting pieces of information. Your colleague has said that your youth employment programs have been exempt from cuts.

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

Mrs McLeod: Your ministry officials say that there have been cuts. Which is the accurate information? Will you acknowledge that programs have been cut, the funding hasn't flowed? Will you restore the funding and make sure that those jobs can be filled right now?

Hon Mr Charlton: Specifically, there have been no cuts in terms of the number of students who will be employed under these programs this summer. That was said by my colleague the other day, I've already repeated it once today and I'll repeat it again. There have been no cuts in the number of students who will be funded under these programs.

Specifically, I have undertaken to pursue the question about whether or not there are some problems in terms of the flow of funds. We have already said we don't believe there are, but we're prepared to look into the reports that the member has referred to, and I will, as I undertook, do so.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, you will know that for the last few weeks, with regard to the social contract talks, I have called for you to toughen up, to be firm, to set a deadline so that Mr Ryan will know that you are serious, so that the union leaders will know they can't keep dragging out the talks or they can't put things on the table that are irrelevant.

Let me say this, Premier, that in my opinion, until today there has been no point in meeting. It's been a total waste of time because the unions had no clear sense, number one, that there was a deadline, when it was or that you were firm in your commitment that $2 billion would come out of their payroll in 1993-94.

Now, Premier, as of today's announcement, finally the Treasurer is clear: $2 billion will come out of the payroll costs in 1993-94. That's a good starting point to tell the unions you're serious. You've set a deadline of June 4. That also is a clear signal.

My question to you is, Premier, if through the negotiations you do not agree on the one item that you said is on the table, that is how will the $2 billion come out, and that is indeed what should be negotiated, what happens if there is no agreement by June 4? Do you do it unilaterally, do you legislate or does the budget go out the window?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): First of all, let me just tell you that the one thing that doesn't happen is that the budget goes out the window. The budget is a statement to the people of the province of the financial direction of the government. It's not only a statement to the province, it's a statement to the general public and indeed to all who would listen and look at it in terms of making their own decisions.

So the government's decision to proceed with the budget on the date which has been set out by the Minister of Finance, which I can tell him -- I don't think I'm giving any terrible secrets away -- has been a discussion that we've had for a period of time in terms of knowing it was coming in May and of wanting to determine that date. No great surprise here, and I don't want to take away from the Minister of Finance's announcement today or from his quest for a brief moment in the sun, or any other newspaper for that matter, but I would say that we are going to proceed on the basis of the budget plan as set out by the government.

Having said that, I guess there is a contrast between not only the direction of the government but also frankly the way in which we do business. I value the advice, the abilities, the professionalism, the dedication and the service of the nearly one million people who work for the taxpayers of this province, and I don't intend for one second to suggest that we would want to embark on a course that would not involve a dialogue with them on how we can achieve the objectives set out in the budget.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I think that dialogue is essential, I think that negotiation is crucial, and we very much want that negotiation to succeed.

Mr Harris: I appreciate what the Premier is saying. I appreciate he is saying exactly what I have been saying for the last three years, what I said for two years, what I said in January, exactly what I said yesterday, Tuesday, Monday, since it started: that you must be firm.

Last night the Premier speaking to the CAW was very firm. He said: "Let's get serious here, brothers and sisters. We're firm: $2 billion is coming out." I said if they would understand that, you could have meaningful negotiations. I agree. I agree that you want to negotiate with the 950,000 hardworking men and women, very talented public servants we have in the province. The only thing they're lacking is leadership. The only thing they're lacking is the vision from the top and the leadership and the direction from the top to unleash their skills.

1440

So let me ask you this, Premier. You've set the deadline. I think you're firm. You just said to me: "The budget won't be violated. It will be out of the budget." Now, that means one of two things if the talks are not successful. That means legislation to cut out the $2 billion or you'll move unilaterally. Can you tell us what you plan to do and how you plan to do it?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I would say there's an old story of the little kid who goes to the hockey game and sings the national anthem and thinks he's unilaterally caused the hockey game to start. Somehow, when I hear the honourable member taking credit for all that's happened in the last while, I'm somewhat reminded of that story. His colleague the member for Parry Sound was there as well, and I'm sure he would not suffer from that kind of delusion. I would just say to the honourable member that if he has some deep need to take credit for whatever it is that's going on, I must confess I don't share that need.

Nor do I share the view that the most productive way to start negotiations is to say to people, "Look, if you don't do this, I'm going to do that." I don't think that's a very effective way to negotiate. I think the most effective way to negotiate is for us to proceed along the lines that we are, and that is to say we're being completely candid with what needs to be done.

I think in fact, if I may say so, judging from the number of comments I've had from people in a range of communities and a range of interests in the province, I've been struck by the number of people who've said to me, "Premier, your government has got the guts and the courage and the direction to do things which no other government in the history of this province has had in the last 25 to 30 years in terms of dealing with the financial problems."

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: So I would say to the honourable member that if he wants to give speeches on whatever he wants, that's fine, but his suggestion that at this point the government should be saying to people, "You do this or else," I don't think that's wise.

I think it's set out very clearly in terms of the reality that we face --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- the financial targets are very clear and I think that everyone can see very clearly the need for us to move together, and the fact that the government has set out on a course, it intends to pursue that course and wants very much to talk to its employees about how we can --

The Speaker: Please take your seat. Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the Premier doesn't want to spend any time patting himself on the back. I think that's what I heard.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: Well, that's what you said and then proceeded to do that.

Clearly, I think any objective observer would agree negotiations have been meaningless up until today. The union said: "He doesn't have enough courage to legislate. There is no deadline. We can talk tax hikes." That's what it's all been about. There hasn't been any negotiation. I say, as of today, because you've got a firm resolve, you say you're tough, that negotiations can continue -- can start, actually.

Premier, every day that's gone by, because we're into the fiscal year, $5.5 million is being paid out in excess of the Treasurer's targets -- every day that goes by. This will mean that by June 4 more than $300 million in potential savings -- because it was not agreed to at the start of the fiscal year -- $300 million has gone by, has been paid out in excess of the guidelines for 1993-94.

Premier, the longer the negotiations were delayed, the more money that was paid out, the more cost to taxpayers, the deeper the cuts would have to be afterward. Now that there's a firm deadline, now that there is apparently resolve that the $2 billion will come out -- that's the only thing I told you to do, send that signal -- now, as long as Mr Ryan believes you, the faster the unions can settle, the more it's in their interests. The cuts don't have to be deeper.

Would you agree with me on that, Premier, that we can now proceed with meaningful negotiations --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- and if you will simply tell them that if they break down on the 4th, you're going to move unilaterally, they'll be even faster and want to get them --

The Speaker: Would the member please place his question.

Mr Harris: -- over with even faster. Will you tell us that?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm delighted that the honourable member has apparently changed his position, because last week he was arguing for bang, bang, bang. Now he's saying, "Let's have the negotiations," and he accepts the fact that the 30-day period is reasonable. If he has now changed his position, another flip-flop from the Tories with respect to their position, I can live with that as long as the honourable member can live with that.

But I would say to him very directly, I think everyone in the province understands the nature of the financial situation that we face and the fact that obviously it would be in everyone's interests for there to be a full and complete set of negotiations and discussions based on the financial realities that we all share. That's the basis upon which we're entering into these discussions.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: Quite right, Premier. The first bang was: Be firm, be tough; the $2 billion will come out. The second one: Set a deadline. The third is: Tell them what you'll do if you fail.

The Speaker: Is this the second question?

Mr Harris: Give us the three; you could have meaningful negotiations.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a second question?

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CROWN EMPLOYEES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your reminding me that a second question is afforded me under the rules of the House, and I do, and it's to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

As I'm sure you are --

[Interruption]

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Stop the clock, please. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. For the information of members, the clock had been stopped. We now resume and I recognize the leader of the third party with his second question.

Mr Harris: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When you guys were organizing, those demonstrations were a lot better, but anyway.

To the Minister of Agriculture: I'm sure you are aware, Mr Minister, that Dr Doug Galt, an employee of your ministry, was forced by your government to resign on Tuesday as warden of Northumberland county. When Dr Galt ran for municipal office, he sought direction from both you and your deputy so as to avoid any conflict of interest, and he was given the okay to run. Yet now, nearly 18 months later, he has been ordered to resign as warden for forwarding a copy of a resolution which was passed by his council to your attention.

Minister, did you direct your deputy to write this letter which forced Dr Galt to resign?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): No, I did not direct the deputy to write such a letter.

Mr Harris: I want the minister to listen to what Dr Galt sent to the minister. It was to the federal minister, cc to him:

"At the December 9, 1992, Northumberland county council meeting, Mr Ben Currelly, chairman of Northumberland council rural development committee, presented the following motion and resolution:

"That we support Mr Currelly's presentation regarding the difficulties cash croppers of corn and soybeans are facing in Northumberland."

I don't want to read it all, but I think the minister probably has it. You get the sense that it's this kind of routine resolution that is passed by municipal councils and by regions and counties, probably 10, 15, 20, 25 of them at every meeting.

Is it not more accurate to say that Dr Galt, in forwarding this resolution under his signature -- that if you are now interpreting that as putting him into a conflict with a job within your ministry, clearly it is your interpretation that has changed, that clearly Dr Galt, if your interpretation has changed, made, at the most serious possible interpretation, an honest mistake -- that he shouldn't put his signature to those routine resolutions?

The Cobourg Daily Star in fact reported that you said on Tuesday Mr Galt's actions would be permitted under your own government's proposed political activity rights legislation, legislation which you haven't bothered to deal with. Would you not agree with me that Dr Galt was forced to resign unfairly? Will you correct this matter and allow him to continue in his responsibilities as warden?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm sure that the leader of the third party knows that the administration of the Public Service Act relating to the employees at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is dealt with by the deputy minister.

1450

I'm sure the member also knows that there were conversations between the employee he's mentioned and the deputy on a couple of occasions, trying to explain the terms of conflict of interest, what it meant, what was permissible and what wasn't. I'm informed that such conversations took place and it was outlined very clearly what they were.

The deputy made a determination that there had been a problem with the breach of conflict here and took actions as she saw fit to enforce the current provisions of the act. She had to deal with the act as it currently exists, not as any proposal that's coming in, and she went about and did her duty properly.

Mr Harris: All of the mayors and reeves who deal in that county that Dr Galt is warden of believe the timing of this letter is very suspicious. Dr Galt is leading criticism of your government for social contract talks. Dr Galt and this county are very critical of this government, and they are all calling our offices, expressing suspicion that it couldn't have been the fact that Dr Galt signed this routine letter forwarding a resolution; that you gave him permission to run, that if he has violated anything it surely is only somebody's different interpretation and that forcing him to resign is totally inappropriate and they're all saying that they suspect you've done it to shut him up. The first time somebody criticizes the government, you lie and slander him. You go out, you do whatever you can. Now you are forcing him to resign.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the leader to take his seat. The leader will know that it is not helpful to stray over the line and to accuse a minister of lying. I'd ask the member to withdraw the remark.

Mr Harris: Can I withdraw the comments with respect to the Minister of Northern Development and stick to the Minister of Agriculture?

The Speaker: To the honourable leader, what would be very helpful is if simply the unparliamentary language --

Mr Harris: I withdrew the lying and slandering. They dealt with the Minister of Northern Development and I withdrew them. I'll withdraw them again, if you would like, Mr Speaker.

Could I stick now to the Minister of Agriculture, who forced Dr Galt to resign because he criticized your government? Will you apologize and will you make sure that he is given the opportunity to be reinstated and be warden of Northumberland county?

Hon Mr Buchanan: My friends over on this side of the House say that the member in question is running for the federal Tories. I am not aware of that. This is not a political issue. In my mind, it was a matter of the deputy minister dealing with conflict of interest rules that are in the Public Service Act. That's all there is.

I was not aware that this employee was talking about the social contract. I suspect the member for Northumberland, who would be the more proper one to ask such a question here in the House, would be better informed on that, but I certainly am not aware of what employees at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food are saying all across this province. So the member is bringing information to me. It has nothing to do with any of that. This was not an action that was taken by myself. This has nothing to do with politics. It's simply following the Public Service Act.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance, just to follow up on some of the questions we've had around the budget. The minister will recall that I asked a question a week ago on some of the numbers that he promised to get back to me on. Our feeling, as we try to look at the budget, is that you have substantially overstated the interest payments, that there's probably $550 million of fiscal stabilization money and that there's probably $1 billion of asset sales.

The reason I raise all of these is because the Premier talks often about open and accessible government. We are trying to be helpful in the budget process. I wonder if you've had a chance to look at those things that you promised and if you can now inform the House where those three things stand.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yes, indeed. As a matter of fact, I have some material I was going to walk across and give to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt in a minute.

The other thing that we did had to do with the deferrals that you'd asked about in the House. I have more specific information on that.

But beyond that, we sat down over in Finance and tried to get where the member was coming from on his numbers. I think we've got some idea of how he arrived at some of his conclusions, but we're not sure how we got to some of his numbers.

I believe he was taking issue with some of the numbers that we had issued in our 5 April statement on Ontario finances, and he has added in a lot more numbers on the asset sales than we had in our statement. He's also, I think, very substantially underestimating the cost of interest on the public debt, and that is one on which I would take particular issue with the member.

We had a debt -- I see the Speaker is looking at me. I'd be happy to respond specifically to the interest on the public debt with your supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mr Phillips: Well, Mr Speaker, I've been asking the Minister of Finance and his officials to give me the rationale for the numbers. They make publicly no sense and I can't get the numbers privately, so that's why I've been pursuing it.

The supplementary follows up on the comment I made to the Treasurer around tax revenues. Our estimates, looking at your numbers, are that the tax revenue this year, 1993-94, will go up $1.7 billion with no tax changes -- $1.7 billion increased tax revenue. Now it happens that you are repaying the federal government $800 million and it happens that you have changed the tax credit.

Hon Mr Laughren: It doesn't just happen.

Mr Phillips: Yes, it just happens. But the point is this, that you normally, Mr Minister, estimate job impact and what it's going to do to the economy. The fact is that the government is taking $1.7 billion in increased taxes out of the Ontario economy. That's 5% more taxes coming out of the Ontario economy.

My question is this. What impact is that going to have on the economy? I gather you're talking about adding taxes on top of that. How much more taxes can the economy stand without pushing us back into a recession or at least stalling the economy?

Hon Mr Laughren: Actually, I think the Liberal opposition is more qualified to answer that than I am, given its history.

But let me deal with the member directly. As a critic he spent more time in the Ministry of Finance, I think, than I have in some weeks, and that's fair. We are always pleased to provide a briefing to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. We are getting perplexed, however, because every time he leaves he shakes his head and didn't appreciate the information that's been given to him, because we are trying very hard to take the member seriously in his criticism. I'll give you an example.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): He appreciates it. Your numbers don't make sense.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member for Oriole would just calm down, I'll try and respond to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

On the interest on the public debt specifically, let me deal with that directly. We have now a total debt in the province of a little over $68 billion. The average cost of servicing that debt is a little over 10%. That comes out to roughly $7 billion, plus there's going to be borrowing in this fiscal year, which will also have some cost to it, which takes it up to our number of about $7.6 billion for servicing the public debt.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt says that interest on the public debt this year is only going to cost us $6.4 billion. I really don't know how you can come up with that number and say that we're overestimating the cost of servicing the debt, because if you look at the average cost of the debt that's there now, that must be paid, and it comes to about $7 billion. So you can't possibly have a number of $6.4 billion, which doesn't take into consideration any new borrowing, none at all.

The Speaker: Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

1500

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, Premier, a senior official with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force released some shocking statistics. The first-quarter figures on the number of bank robberies in Metro indicate that this has all the makings of a record year. In the first three months alone, there were 110 bank robberies in Metro Toronto, up from a total of 80 for the same period a year ago.

As if that news isn't bad enough, the figures show that in almost every case where an arrest has been made, the person charged is a repeat offender of one kind or another. In 49 cases, 42 of the people charged were either out on bail, on parole or on probation at the time of the robbery. Clearly, Premier, the system is not working. The police say the kinds of jail terms these people are getting are not serving as a deterrent.

My question is this: Are you prepared today to speak out on behalf of Metropolitan Toronto, on behalf of the people of Ontario, send a clear signal to all politicians, federal and provincial, to all judges, to all attorneys general, that this is unacceptable, that we must have sufficient deterrents that criminals don't feel it's easier just to go out and commit more crimes? Are you prepared to do that?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think the Solicitor General would be eager to answer this question.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm pleased to respond to the question the member has asked. Let me say first of all that the member will know that the corrections system here in Ontario deals with all individuals who are sentenced to sentences of two years less a day; and that currently, we've seen a lot of activity at the federal level where, traditionally, many of the more dangerous offenders are being dealt with in terms of the kinds of sentences, the kinds of issues that come from that.

In fact, I would signal to the honourable member that recently, I met with the federal Solicitor General and we reviewed a number of the actions that he is contemplating. We talked about the matters that we'll be talking about at an upcoming federal-provincial justice ministers' conference that will be happening in a few weeks.

Let me say to the member very, very clearly that we are working closely with the police community to ensure that the system is working as best we can expect, given the issues that we have and the fact that we are limited to some degree by recognizing that recidivism rates around the world are affected by many treatments. We do what we can to implement those treatments and deal with the issues as best we can, and I'll be pleased to answer further details in a supplementary question.

Mr Harris: Quite frankly, most of that is nonsense; that is absolute nonsense. The Premier has a responsibility to speak out and send a clear direction to all those involved in the judicial system. The Attorney General has an obligation to speak out to the crown attorneys, who should be seeking stiffer sentences. That is clearly the responsibility of the provincial government. If they get stiffer sentences, they will then go to federal institutions, not provincial ones.

We understand that. Every time I raise this, you come back and say, "You don't want us to interfere in the justice system." I'm not asking you to interfere, as the Attorney General did in the Bernardo case. I'm not asking you to interfere, as the Attorney General did in briefing the Premier on the Piper affair. This is not an individual intervention. This is a statement on behalf of the police, on behalf of those involved with law enforcement, on behalf of Ontarians, that you concur with what they're telling us: that there is not enough deterrent to deter criminals from taking the route of going back out and committing these armed robberies, bank robberies and offences once again.

Will you, since the Premier won't, since the Attorney General won't, will you, on behalf of the government, speak up for the police, speak up for Ontarians and say: "Enough is enough. We've got to toughen up here"?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me say first of all that I reject categorically the suggestion that what I responded with earlier was nonsense. I would direct the honourable member to look very carefully at a recent all-party report that his party, his federal colleagues, who are the parliamentary majority in Ottawa, were in agreement with, when they talked about: What are the root causes of crime, and what ought we be doing in our criminal justice system to respond to these needs?

I would say to the honourable member with a great deal of sincerity that myself, the Attorney General, our federal counterparts, do speak up very clearly. We're working in concert trying to ensure that this system that people want and deserve is in place.

But rather than go down this track, I would strongly suggest that he take the time to read that report and see what our federal colleagues are saying when they talk about the causes of crime, when they talk about the causes of recidivism and when they talk about what the deterrents are that will really work, rather than the kind of rhetoric that the member is engaging in today.

ST CLAIR PARKWAY COMMISSION

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Minister, my question is regarding the St Clair Parkway Commission. Minister, you will know that the commission was created in 1966 to operate a system of parks along the St Clair River and Lake St Clair and that it currently operates a total of 22 facilities including Sarnia Bay marina and facilities in Moore Town, Mitchell's Bay and the historical site Uncle Tom's Cabin, near Dresden.

Minister, you will also know that the expenditure control plan in your ministry resulted in a $473,000 cutback in provincial funding to the St Clair Parkway Commission.

I think we can all agree that the province is in a serious financial situation and we can agree that we must tighten our belts, but your ministry must have some obligation to work with its transfer partners during these tough times. It's not good enough to simply advise the commission that its funding has been cut. I believe we have an obligation to assist our transfer partners through what will be a very difficult transition period.

My question is this: What plans does your ministry have to help the St Clair Parkway Commission get through the difficulty it's facing? Minister, the St Clair parkway is one of the jewels of southwestern Ontario. What will you and your ministry do to help preserve the parkway?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'm pleased to have this opportunity in the House to express my appreciation for the economic and the recreational benefits that the St Clair Parkway Commission provides to its local communities.

In phoning to speak to the chairperson of the commission, Yoshio Shimizu, and relaying the information about the cuts to him, I did offer to him the assistance of my staff in helping the commission to come up with the ideas as to how it could help meet the gap that is created by the loss of provincial funds.

As a result of conversations that the member for Sarnia and also the member for Lambton have had with me and in fact some different concerns that have been raised with me by the member for Chatham-Kent, I've decided to arrange for my parliamentary assistant, Dan Waters, to work with the ministry staff person responsible, to go down to meet with the general manager and the chair of the commission as well as with the local MPPs in the area and the municipalities to try to work through the transitional plan which would help that commission to be able to attain financial independence.

Mr Huget: I appreciate your comments, Minister, but by way of supplementary, you will know that the funding cut is to the commission's operating budget and not the capital budget. In other words, they can buy lawnmowers, but can't hire anyone to operate them.

Minister, will you undertake today to approach treasury board and request its approval to allow the St Clair Parkway Commission some flexibility between the 1993-94 capital and operating budgets so that the commission can use the remaining provincial funds to the best advantage of the parkway in 1993-94?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: As the member has referred to, our ministry has allocated capital funds in the amount of $316,000 to the St Clair Parkway Commission this year in addition to $1.2 million this year and then the next three-year period after this, that latter part being to help develop, restore and expand Uncle's Tom Cabin, as he referred to earlier. It's our position that that capital money is designed to try to help the commission in its number-one-stated request as to its capital needs this year and also to be able to help it move towards the kind of financial independence I spoke of earlier.

In terms of any application to treasury board to change that capital into operating funds, to be honest, I can't in all good faith support that, because the capital funds we're talking about are a one-year-only amount of money. Operating funds, of course, create that continuing dependency on a year-to-year basis.

I'm thrilled that the commission has been expressing very positively its interest in working with the ministry and my parliamentary assistant to try and help work through this transitionary time, and we pledge our support in helping it through that.

1510

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Attorney General. On April 29, 1993, you announced the establishment of an African Canadian specialty legal services clinic. Can the minister tell me what the precise mandate of this clinic is? What exactly is it going to do? When is it going to start? Is it going to be a permanent fixture with assured funding to the tune of $400,000 annually? Is the clinic going to be a central resource for other clinics in the area of community advocacy and legal issues of race? Will the Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian legal clinic, the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto and the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, ARCH, report to them? Or is it just another patronizing and expensive half-measure program?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): It is intended to be exactly the kind of advocacy clinic that those other clinics are that the member mentioned. In fact, the specialty clinics all have been designed to meet the specific needs of communities as those communities identify them and are designed to undertake test cases in areas of human rights. They are certainly meant to act as resource centres for their community in terms of the legal rights of those communities, in terms of community advocacy, in terms of all legal issues which might relate to the particular community involved.

Given the deep concern that's been expressed by the African Canadian community about many, many parts of our legal system, we felt this was an important area of support for that community. It is certainly not window dressing. The community itself will be involved as the clinic is developed, as has been the case with the other specialty clinics, because there needs to be a sense of ownership within the community in order for those specialty clinics to be really effective community resources.

Mr Curling: I asked the Attorney General if the other advocacy groups would be answering to this group because that's what your press release stated. There is a black lawyers' organization, and I know it was never consulted. The Ontario legal aid plan apparently was not fully consulted either. I know that the four-level African Canadian community working group recommended that the government ask African Canadian organizations working in the area of criminal justice to conduct a needs assessment.

Can the minister tell me specifically which groups and individuals from the many linguistically and culturally diverse black communities were consulted? Is this your answer, Madam Minister, to combat systemic racism?

Hon Mrs Boyd: No, it certainly isn't the whole answer, but it is certainly one of the ways in which we hope to meet the needs. What we announced was our willingness to fund this. We have had many, many requests during the work that's been done on the look at the criminal justice system for a similar kind of clinic. Over the years, since the specialty clinics began to be formed, there have been requests from many communities that we look at similar kinds of things.

The point now -- now that we've agreed that we're prepared to fund this clinic, that we think it's important -- is to do exactly the kind of consultation that you are suggesting needs to be done. Unless we are willing to fund, there's not much point in raising the hopes of communities. So what we're saying is that we are willing to fund, and now it is time for us to create together the kind of clinic that is going to meet the needs addressed by the community.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Dufferin-Peel has the floor.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. The minister announced recently that he has taken over or will be overseeing the Interim Waste Authority.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I haven't taken it over. I always had responsibility for it.

Mr Tilson: Well, that's what you said a couple of weeks ago. Of course, I'm waiting for a response as to how much you think it's going to cost to fund the dump sites in the three regions for the rest of the term. I'm waiting anxiously for that information.

My question has to do with Bill 143. Bill 143 says that when you create a dump in the three regions, that dump must last 20 years, and that's based on a certain set of criteria. As you know, the IWA discovered about a year ago that many of those dumps -- I'm thinking of two specifically -- will not last 20 years, that in one case it will last 16 1/2 years and in another case it will last only 18 years. What the Interim Waste Authority did, of course, was to change the criteria, and that had to do with increasing the maximum allowable for height restrictions.

My question to the Minister of Environment and Energy is, how can you allow the IWA, the Interim Waste Authority, to break the law as set forth in Bill 143 and then to arbitrarily change the criteria, simply to suit its own purposes?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member surely doesn't expect me to accept the premises of his question. The fact is that the government has full confidence in the IWA, in the work it is doing, and that it will comply with the law and that the sites it finally identifies will be adequate to meet the requirements of Bill 143 and will also be subject to full environmental assessments to determine whether they are appropriate sites. I'm confident that the sites they put before the Environmental Assessment Board will indeed comply with the law and ensure that the environment is protected.

Mr Tilson: The fact of the matter is that you pass Bill 143 that sets out how long a landfill site is to last, and then partway through the process your puppet, the IWA, changes the rules. Well, you created it; your government created the IWA, and the fact of the matter is people don't know what's going on over there. They're unaccountable to you; they're unaccountable to anyone. They're just mid-term changing the rules with respect to legislation that you passed, namely, Bill 143.

My supplementary question is, if this process is to be non-partisan and unbiased, how can the Interim Waste Authority change the criteria, which is what it's done with these sites, without consultation with you or with anyone else, simply to suit its own purposes? How can the residents affected by these decisions believe you when you reiterate the same tired statements over and over again about a fair process? Finally, why don't you just admit that the process of finding three simple superdumps outside the greater Toronto area is patently unfair and is the worst form of bias and governmental interference?

Hon Mr Wildman: I know, according to the rules of the House, Mr Speaker, that a member is never to be provocative in presenting a question, so I would not suggest that the member was attempting to be provocative.

I would say that we have full confidence, as I indicated, in the IWA process. It is indeed a non-partisan process. Of course, they are subject to the Legislature. They must report to the Legislature through me as Minister of Environment. I'm happy to take into account any of the concerns the member has to present, and I'm sure that he knows the whole process has been one of the most comprehensive consultations that has ever taken place by any agency set up by any government in this province. It is the widest consultation around the setting up of a landfill site or landfill sites that has ever been contemplated by any government in this province.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Mr Minister, recently there was an incident with one of my local school boards which resulted in the board having to comply with regulation 309 of the Education Act. As you know, Mr Minister, that is the regulation regarding the suspension or dismissal of supervisory officers. At the time, an individual under the jurisdiction of the board was being disciplined, and I heard numerous complaints from the community regarding the obstructionist nature of the regulation in terms of allowing the school board, once it had made a personnel decision, to carry it out swiftly and firmly.

I spoke to the former Minister of Education about the issue, and at the time I was aware that a change to the regulation was in the works. Mr Minister, I now understand, and this is of importance to many of my constituents, that the regulation has received approval. Could you tell me and the House what these changes mean in terms of removing obstacles for school boards across the province to act in an appropriate manner?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question from the member. Supervisory officers, as you know, Mr Speaker, perform important functions within our school system as senior educators and administrators and, because of that, because of their special role, that's reflected in the Education Act, which outlines their duties and says they cannot be suspended or dismissed unless they are guilty of neglect or misconduct. In other words, there must be valid reasons for suspending or dismissing them.

However, under regulation 309, it provided for a very long and complex process for the suspension or dismissal of supervisory officers. The regulation also provided that a supervisory officer who was dismissed was entitled to a minimum of six months' salary. The government did not believe that was appropriate and the amendments that we announced provide that a supervisory officer may not be suspended or dismissed without being first told that the board is considering this action and being given an opportunity to respond to the board orally or in writing.

This ensures a standard of fairness. If the board dismisses a supervisory officer without proper cause, he may take legal action. The system has been made more streamlined and, I think, more fair to the taxpayers of the province.

1520

Mr Jamison: There seems to be, at this point in time, some disagreement as to whether these regulations and changes will be retroactive to incidents that have already occurred. Indeed, I have heard a couple of individuals in the legal profession suggest that personnel matters from the past would probably be affected by these changes. It is my understanding that the regulation changes will not be retroactive and will take effect from the date of May 1 when the changes are published in the Ontario Gazette. Could you clarify this particular situation regarding the regulation?

Hon Mr Cooke: I'd like to confirm what the member has said, that the regulation is going to be published in the Ontario Gazette May 1, and therefore that's when it will take effect and it will not be retroactive.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 185 residents of eastern Ontario and the petition is to members of the provincial Parliament:

"The amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38 which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship of many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter, 51 per year, from the definition of legal holiday and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the above-mentioned implementations;

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating of wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature as well.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm glad to add to the thousands of signatures I've presented in this House against casino gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm very glad today to sign my signature along with the people from Dunsford, Bobcaygeon, Lindsay and Toronto.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly from motorcycle enthusiasts from across the province. It states:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario agreed to the text and spirit of resolution 29 which states, 'That in the opinion of this House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles,'

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proclaim the month of May 1993 as Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month in the province of Ontario."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

This petition is signed by over 100 constituents and by me.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I wonder if I could have the page hold this up for me. When I visited the Macville Public School in Caledon earlier this week, the students presented me with this petition in the hopes that I would present it to the Legislative --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. It really would be more appropriate if the member would simply state the purpose of the petition and the number of signatures, if he wishes, and then present it.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I am trying to do that. What they asked me to do was to present this petition to the Legislature with respect to the problem they have in the town of Caledon.

In this petition the students state, and I quote, "The students of Macville Public School know that a landfill site will be harmful to Bolton."

This petition has been signed by approximately 200 students of Macville school and I too have signed my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): This is the same issue of casino gambling with a little twist, because people really realize what the government's trying to do here.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm very glad to affix my signature to this.

1530

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario agreed to the text and spirit of resolution 29 which states, 'That In the opinion of this House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles,'

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proclaim the month of May 1993 as Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month in the province of Ontario."

People like Gord Campbell from St Thomas, Anne Dwyre from Aylmer, Ron Sale and Dot Sale from Belmont, Ontario, and Al Blanchard from St Thomas, a number of people from my particular area, and I'm pleased to affix my name to it.

COURT RULING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition from well over 100 people from Guelph, Grasslands and Toronto which is addressed as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, believe that there has been a tremendous miscarriage of justice in the murder trial of Mr Guy Ellul, 1990. The sexist nature of this case's progress through the Canadian legal system was further compounded by Attorney General Howard Hampton's decision, the day before the legal deadline, to abandon acquittal appeal. His decision freed a murderer and demonstrated the justice system's disinterest in protecting the constitutional rights and freedoms of Canadian women. Our signatures demand the retrial of Guy Ellul and urge an increased consciousness of women's rights in the Canadian legal system."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario agreed to the text and spirit of resolution 29, which Mike Cooper presented, which states, 'That in the opinion of this House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles,'

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proclaim the month of May as Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month in the province of Ontario."

I affix my name to this petition also.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the rights of Catholic students to a Catholic education and, in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than their public school counterparts,

"We, the undersigned, petition the assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully, but with equity and equality."

I am more than proud to affix my signature this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by several hundred people from the Fletcher United Church in my riding, and it says:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business. I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days...."

It is signed by several people in my riding and Mr Hope's riding, from Merlin, Chatham, Tilbury, Blenheim, a wide range of people in our ridings.

GAMBLING

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is signed by about 100 constituents.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition, from the Smokers' Freedom Society. The petition was gathered at the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association trade show, Hostex '93, over a three-day appearance from April 25 to 27. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the present high levels of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas these punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low- and modest-income citizens;

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

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1993 and, further, that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

I agree with this and I've signed it. We have 490 signatures on this petition.

FINANCEMENT DES CONSEILS D'ÉDUCATION

M. Rosario Marchese (Fort York) : J'ai ici une pétition qui a été signée par 30 personnes au sujet du financement de l'éducation et qui se lit comme suit :

«Nous, soussignés, présentons une pétition à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario concernant la répartition des recettes fiscales municipales et provinciales pour que les deux principaux systèmes d'éducation de l'Ontario soient financés de façon intégrale, égale et équitable.»

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I have another petition, sent to me by constituents of Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic School. It reads as follows:

"As parents with children in the Metropolitan Separate School Board and as Catholic ratepayers, we are greatly disturbed by the inequity inherent in the current system of education funding.

"Whereas the rights of Catholic schools were guaranteed under the British North America Act of 1867, the Metropolitan Separate School Board was never given equal funding.

"Today this board educates 30% of the students in Metro yet has access to just 20.3% of residential and 9.5% of pooled corporate assessments.

"Whereas this year the public school board was able to spend $1,678 more per elementary pupil than the Metropolitan Separate School Board was able to spend on our children;

"At the same time, our property taxes were as high or higher than that of public school supporters. This is not equitable and it does a great injustice to our Catholic students and ratepayers.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to support equity for all students, regardless of which school they choose to attend, and to vote in favour of extending not just full but equal and equitable funding to Catholic schools."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Huget from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board / Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 96 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered to committee of the whole.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Hansen from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee's report on standing order 108(b) and moved its adoption.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Hansen presents the committee's report and moves its adoption. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Yes, Mr Speaker. Pursuant to standing order 108(b), your committee met yesterday to review the ministries and offices assigned to the standing committees for the purpose of standing order 108, resulting in this report.

The Speaker: Did you move adjournment of the debate?

Mr Hansen: I move adjournment of the debate, Mr Speaker.

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

1540

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OMBUDSMAN REPEAL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 ABROGEANT LA LOI SUR L'OMBUDSMAN

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

Bill 10, An Act to repeal the Ombudsman Act / Loi abrogeant la Loi sur l'ombudsman.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Just by way of explanation, the government is looking for ways to save money, and it has indeed asked municipalities and school boards and other people that it refers to as partners to accept cuts. I'm suggesting in this bill that the government look in the mirror and that it look at $10 million a year in cuts. This in fact would close the Ombudsman office and would see that the 130 members who sit in this place do their jobs as ombudsmen as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management / Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités en ce qui concerne la gestion des déchets.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to comment on Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management, which was introduced in this Legislature by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on April 21, 1993.

This bill is aimed at amending various municipal statutes to expand the waste management powers available to municipalities.

The powers of local municipalities are set out in new sections 208.1 to 208.11 in the Municipal Act, and they include the power to establish, maintain and operate a waste management system, including services and facilities, for the reduction, recycling and reuse of waste.

Also it's to establish fees for the use of any part of a waste management system. It requires persons generating waste to separate any class of waste at the point of collection. It prohibits or regulates the dumping, treatment and disposal of waste at a waste management facility.

It also wants to appoint inspectors and allows them to enter on land to obtain information necessary to meet the requirements of or to obtain an approval under any act relating to a waste disposal site or a waste management facility. The powers of the inspectors are set out in sections 208.8 to 208.11 of the act, section 1.

The powers of a county in respect of waste management, as set out in section 209 of the Municipal Act, are amended to reflect the changes to the powers of the local municipality, which the county, under certain circumstances, may assume. That's in section 2.

The Regional Municipalities Act is amended to allow regional municipalities to assume, under certain circumstances, any or all of the waste management powers that area municipalities have under the Municipal Act. Details as to the transfer of agreements, assets and liabilities from the area municipality to the regional corporation are set out in the new sections 151 to 159.

The regional corporations shall be deemed to have passed a bylaw on the 1st day of January 1997 to assume the waste reduction powers of their area municipalities if they have not already done so by that date.

In the County of Oxford Act, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act and the District Municipality of Muskoka Act and each of the regional acts, amendments are made to incorporate the changes to the Municipal Act and the Regional Municipalities Act, which is sections 6 to 19.

The Municipal Affairs Act is amended to include waste management sites in the definition of "public utility," which is section 20.

While I have serious difficulties with the reservations about Bill 7, I do not support the principle of waste reduction in the province of Ontario, because quite frankly I believe the NDP government's controversial search for landfill sites to dump Metropolitan Toronto garbage is ludicrous. It is my personal opinion that we do not require any new landfill sites. In fact, I believe landfill sites have gone the way of the dinosaur.

It is now incumbent upon all levels of government, industry and the public to devise new and environmentally sound methods for handling waste management in the province of Ontario. Having said this, perhaps a little background would be appropriate. It would be in order to highlight the former Liberal government and the current NDP government's lack of any credible waste management strategy.

Approximately four years ago the government encouraged municipalities to band together and establish local organizations to review waste management in their jurisdictions and then urged them to come up with creative solutions to waste management problems. In 1989 the Liberal government passed An Act to amend the Municipal Act, which gave municipalities power over waste management and directed them to establish waste management plans. The premise behind this legislation was sound in theory, because municipalities are best equipped to know their own waste management requirements and their problems and the solutions to them.

Two years later the NDP government brought in An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act. The bill was precedent-setting, because it gave the Ministry of the Environment power to unilaterally dictate waste management procedures, which were traditionally and legally overseen by municipal governments. It also expropriated the rights of municipalities to make their own waste management decisions and steamrolled years of legislation outlined in the Municipal Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act as they pertain to waste disposal systems. It limited waste disposal options and made null and void all waste management agreements a municipality may have.

With this piece of legislation the former NDP Environment minister virtually turned her back on a waste management proposal that had the overwhelming support of the elected representatives for both the town of Kirkland Lake and Metropolitan Toronto, as well as the majority of the residents of that northern community. Of course, I'm referring to the Rail Cycle North plan, which would see Metropolitan Toronto's residue after the 3Rs -- garbage -- shipped to the abandoned Adams mine site in the town of Kirkland Lake. It is my understanding that the elected representatives of both Metro Toronto and the town of Kirkland Lake completed a $362-million deal in 1990 to establish the Adams mine site as a landfill for Metro Toronto's garbage. An agreement had been negotiated that was acceptable to both parties.

On the basis of the evidence that is currently available, the Rail Cycle North plan looks to be environmentally sustainable and has the supplementary and significant benefit of providing a much-needed financial boost to an economically hard-pressed region of Ontario. As well, it is my understanding that a referendum held in the town of Kirkland Lake showed that more than 60% of the residents of that community agreed to an environmental assessment on the Rail Cycle North proposal.

I believe the Interim Waste Authority should commission or conduct a complete environmental assessment of the Kirkland Lake rail haul proposal and apply the same eight criteria it will employ in its comparative evaluation of the greater Toronto area candidate landfill sites currently under review. If the Rail Cycle North proposal passes, if it proves to be environmentally safe, it should then be implemented.

1550

Just two years after the NDP government gave the Environment minister power to unilaterally dictate waste management procedures that had traditionally and legally been overseen by municipal governments, that same government directs its Municipal Affairs minister to toss a bone back to the municipalities in the form of Bill 7. This bill will give them the appearance of having legislative authority to implement programs and strategies geared towards waste reduction. Unfortunately, Bill 7 is just one more example of this government's practice of downloading new programs without providing any necessary funding, like the money needed to cover startup costs. There is no reference in Bill 7 to startup funding.

The NDP government's unacceptable practice of increasing the number of mandatory programs while reducing financial contributions is backing municipalities into a tight corner where they will have to cut existing services and raise taxes.

Another example of this government's downloading policy occurred only last week when on April 29 the Minister of Environment and Energy stood in this Legislature and announced the next challenge facing the provincial waste reduction action plan: reaching the target of 50% reduction or more by the year 2000. The minister's 3Rs regulatory measures include blue box recycling, leaf and yard waste composting, and home composting programs for municipalities of more than 5,000 in population. It also included annual waste audits, reduction work plans and recycling for large industrial, commercial and institutional waste generators, and also packaging audits updated every two years and packaging reduction work plans.

There's no doubt that I support any initiative that will assist us in changing from a wasteful, throwaway society to one that conserves resources for future generations. But the minister's announcement is suspect in that it fails to address the startup costs for smaller rural municipalities he is now including in the provincial waste action plan.

Like his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Environment and Energy minister has provided us with another unacceptable example of increasing the number of mandatory programs while reducing financial contributions. Once again, our municipalities will bear the brunt of the NDP policy and will be forced to cut existing services and raise taxes.

While I support the general thrust of Bill 7 in principle, I do have some reservations about this legislation. Therefore, I would urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs to send the bill to public hearings, where the concerns that I have raised and those of many others who have an interest in the issue can be properly addressed.

I spoke yesterday to the clerk of the county of Simcoe with regard to Bill 7. The clerk informs me that there are some problems with the bill. He informs me that there's a 40% grant, up to a maximum of $100,000. He informs me that each municipality can apply for that grant but that the county of Simcoe as a whole is still only allowed up to $100,000 also. So as I had indicated to the clerk, in that instance, instead of the county applying for the grant, as this county has assumed the overall waste management in the county of Simcoe, each municipality should be applying for it in order to receive more help in that line of funding. But that's not the answer to it.

The other problem they have in the county -- and whether it pertains to this legislation specifically or not, I want to raise the issue -- is the fact that now, once a county has taken over waste management, it cannot direct garbage from one municipality to the other. A minister can do that, order that to be done, but the county cannot do that.

In the county of Simcoe presently there are about 16 active sites. Some of them are coming to the end of the life of that site. They predict and tell me that by about 1997 the sites will be down to approximately four or five. They're in the process now of looking at new sites. I, for a long time, have had some reservations with regard to any new sites being established. I'm concerned that, with the modern technology we have, why is there not a better way than using landfill sites to bury garbage?

The county is looking for a site, they tell me, in the Collingwood-Stayner area. In south Simcoe they're looking for one. Just this week in Midland, site 41, which has been looked at for many years in the township of Tiny, is now going back through another process of hearings. There has been over $1 million spent in the county of Simcoe on the north Simcoe landfill. Now they're starting the process and they inform me that the first day of the hearings it was debated about when the legal people were going to have their holidays this summer. That was the main thrust of the startup of hearings. It certainly boggles the mind to think of what the priorities are for the people who are involved in that waste management.

Another area of concern is the amount of waste that is being transported from Ontario to the States. When we look at some of the statistics, some 223,000 tonnes of hazardous wastes were exported from Canada to the US. That's an awful lot of waste. They tell me that Metropolitan Toronto has reduced the cost of its tippage fees now because its revenues are down because of the amount of waste that's been going to the States. There's a great concern that needs addressing: the amount of waste that's going out of Ontario. Not only that; it's going to the States and being burned in incinerators. We wonder why that whole aspect of waste management is not being looked at.

Another issue I wanted to raise with regard to Bill 7 comes under the Planning Act, and that has to do with the Sewell commission, the Sewell report, and some of the recommendations it has. I listen to some of the people who speak about that very report. "Sewell's recommendations, as they now stand, would be a disaster for this province," says Hazel McCallion. The majority of presenters have expressed a great deal of trepidation over the transition period from the old Planning Act to the new one. There have been many issues raised with regard to the Sewell commission and the Planning Act.

Municipal Affairs, as well as other provincial cabinet ministries in the provincial role, is planning to allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and other cabinet ministers to appeal any municipal planning decision within the same time frame and subject to the same rules as other objectors at the OMB stage.

These are some of the recommendations and some of the comments I'm hearing back with regard to the Sewell report. What they're saying is that priorities should be county plans, planning boards in northern Ontario and watershed planning. They tell me those are some of the priorities the Sewell commission should be looking at.

While I look at Bill 7 and look at the purpose and the powers of the inspectors, as set out in sections 208.8 to 208.11, the powers of the county in respect to waste management, as set out in section 209 of the Municipal Act, and the amendments they're bringing in. I hope there is a great thrust from the people in this province who want to have part in the public hearings on this bill.

1600

I can say that the concern that the county of Simcoe has raised with me, from county clerk Al Pelletier -- I'm sure it has already discussed this and is now bringing feedback to me. So when the minister says ROMA, AMO and all the municipal associations agree with this, that is not rightly so.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It's not true.

Mr McLean: It's not true. So I hope they will have the chance to come before the committee and have a good, open debate on this whole Bill 7.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I thank the honourable member for his participation. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Tilson: I'd like to thank the honourable member for his comments on this very important bill.

I think we all agree that the planning of waste management is most important. The ironic part with respect to this bill, as the member has indicated, is the passing off to the municipalities, the passing the whole issue off to the municipalities. It's ironic that this bill does do that, specifically when the government of Ontario, under the leadership of the New Democratic Party, has said, "We will not even consider the subject of incineration." Now, we could spend quite a bit of time on that: whether incineration is good or whether it's bad. But the fact of the matter is that we won't even consider it.

The second thing, as the member has referred to, is that there will be no long rail haul, notwithstanding the fact that Metro had entered into a contract to proceed with the long rail haul to Kirkland Lake. There had been a referendum, which was supported by the majority of the people in Kirkland Lake, to determine whether or not an environmental assessment should be made or a study should be made on the possibility of conducting a landfill site in the Adams mine site. When a group of people decides to ask the government, "Let's study it; let's look at it," it won't even look at the subject.

Finally, there's the whole issue of recycling. I think we're all in favour of recycling. The difficulty is, where is the money going to come from? Is it going to come from the property taxpayer? This legislation is not clear as to where the funds are going to come from. There's a financial paper that was promised by this government prior to the passing of Bill 143. I understand, through the rumour mill, that it may be available in August. Meanwhile, here we are with Bill 7, making all kinds of plans for the municipalities but not making it clear as to who's going to pay for it. The emphasis on this government seems to be on the whole subject of landfill, yet when you start mentioning recycling, it simply won't tell us how to pay for it.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I just want to make a couple of comments about the rail haul, the Rail Cycle North proposal that has been suggested by the member.

The reality of that is that there in fact have been two economic proposals put forward: one during the committee hearings on Bill 143, when it was asked for by the member from Brampton, the Liberal critic, and that was supplied. That economic analysis clearly indicated, in no uncertain terms, that there is no advantage, no economic advantage whatsoever, in hauling waste to Kirkland Lake.

The second point I would like to make for the people of Metro, who would be interested in this as they would have to fund and pay for the bills, is that the Ernst and Young study that was commissioned to look at this analysed the cost of shipping waste from Toronto to Kirkland Lake. Of course, all of it would've been sent through the township of Vaughan and then rail hauled to Kirkland Lake. The reality is that what the Ernst and Young study clearly indicated was that in just two areas, it would cost the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto, over 20 years, $1.5 billion: $750 million for the operation of the transfer station and $750 million for the Rail Cycle option. That's $1.5 billion.

The honourable member asked, where are they going to get the money from? If you embark on a proposal like this and you tie up all that money in the transportation, then what you've got is fewer dollars to embark on the recycling aspect of the programs. What also would happen is that you would lose the recycling jobs that are being created in the green industry by wasting $1.5 billion on a proposal that doesn't make any economic sense.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I listened closely to the speech by the member for Simcoe East. I think we all will recognize that the member comes with a great deal of experience in this matter and has spoken about the bill in the way he feels is best able to represent his thoughts and concerns over the legislation as proposed.

I know the member for Durham West has also spoken about the economic realities as he sees them in terms of waste haulage. I think that is interesting in that it brings to mind and to light the issue on many, many people's minds: that in an area and an issue like this, the environment must be of first order, must be paramount; that municipalities are quite capable of determining what is and is not economically reasonable and feasible for their purposes.

It is strange indeed that the member for Durham West stands in his place today and indicates to the municipalities, who have a great deal of experience in terms of financial implications, in terms of recognizing what the economic realities in their areas will be, "No, you shouldn't do it; you cannot do it," because he, the member for Durham West, understands all and recognizes what are the true financial implications. I would think that really, the municipalities, after deciding, should be able to decide what is in their best interests, always keeping in mind that what is of paramount importance is the maintenance of the environment.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would like to start off by complimenting the member for Simcoe East on his fine presentation with respect to Bill 7 this afternoon. Certainly, his many, many years of experience in the municipal level of government bring a great deal of wealth of experience to this debate. We appreciate his contribution.

The member for Simcoe East talked about the importance of examining all waste management alternatives, and he brought into the equation once again the sensible proposal, the commonsense proposal, to at least examine the possibility of sending the excess of Metro's garbage north by rail to the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake.

In response, we heard from the member for Durham West, who alluded to a study by Ernst and Young which indicates that it would be a very expensive proposal. Certainly our party is very concerned about the expense of government and would want to see that study and take it into consideration, but I find it quite ironic that this member for Durham West would allude to an Ernst and Young study when he sits with a government -- and the Minister of Labour is there grinning -- that was in no way interested in the Ernst and Young study of the economic impact of Bill 40 and the number of jobs that would be lost as a result of those damaging changes to the labour laws in Ontario.

We still fundamentally have to ask, why will the government refuse to have an environmental assessment done of that particular option when the majority of the people in that community, Kirkland Lake, in 1991 during the course of the municipal election, requested that the study be done because they want to look at the potential economic benefits that might be generated in the area of Kirkland Lake? I think it's only sensible and only prudent, and the government should set aside its complete ideological bias on this issue and go ahead and do the environmental assessment study, as the member for Simcoe East has suggested so sensibly.

The Acting Speaker: This completes participation in questions or comments. The member for Simcoe East has two minutes in response.

Mr McLean: I want to thank the member for Dufferin-Peel, Mr Tilson. He raised the issue of incineration as part of the overall waste management. Perhaps that's something the government should take into serious consideration.

The member for Durham West, Mr Wiseman, is totally against rail haul. He looked at the Ernst and Young study and he says it's right and we should be looking at that. I think that's the same group of people who studied Bill 40, and they never took any advice from them at that time. You can't have it both ways.

The member for Mississauga North, Mr Offer, raised a very important issue when he talked about environment as the number one priority. That's what I think we all should be thinking about here: The environment is the number one priority and it is the most important.

1610

I thank the member for Wellington for his comments. There's something he spoke on the other day, and I did too, which I didn't speak on today, and that had to do with the votes with regard to the two thirds that had been in previous legislation. That is now changed to 50%.

When the Minister of the Environment was here the other day, I asked him with regard to the vote. Counties have a weighted vote: Some members will have five votes, some will have two, some will have one and some will have three. How is this weighted vote going to work within the county system? Is it going to be each municipality gets one vote?

Mr Wiseman: You mentioned that the other day.

Mr McLean: That's right, and I want to put it on the record again today to make sure that when the minister and the staff take time to refer to this, they will recognize that that issue has been raised more than once, because it is important.

When we went through, just a week ago, a county vote on county restructuring, the majority of the municipalities in the north end of the county voted against county restructuring, yet the ones in the south end had the weighted vote and passed it. Is that fair to those small municipalities that that should happen? That's in here. That's part of this bill. I would like to see it spelled out.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Wiseman: I would like to begin where the honourable member has alluded to in his speech where he said that in fact there is technology, there are available resources in order that landfill sites are not, in the future, the option or the way we should go. In fact, I would agree with that, and I'm going to try and outline some of the options that are available.

About six years ago, when I first got involved with this whole issue, I made a presentation to the Metro council where I started off by saying that there is no "away." People like to think that when they put the trash out on the curbside that they've thrown it away, while in fact there is no "away," and the more we learn about ecosystem approaches and the more we learn about how the ecosystem works, the more we're aware that what we may throw into a hole, say, in the north end of some community, the more likely it is that that is going to leach and come into the south end through either the water system or through the groundwater.

So in the beginning, I'd like to take the positive note and say that I agree with the member that there is no "away" and that we are faced with some serious problems. In fact, there is no "away" for any of the negative things that we create in our society. In fact, they all wind up in Pickering.

What is happening is that when we look at the downriver flow of contaminants and pollutants, it doesn't matter whether your site is Keele Valley, which is the Metro site in Vaughan, its leachate comes to the Durham York sewer which winds up in the Durham York sewage treatment plant, which is less than 1.5 kilometres from my front door, and I happen to live in south Ajax.

That tells us then that there is no "away," that we're all connectants in this whole scheme of things. So what we really have to do is to move in the direction of finding alternative uses for the product for what we now call waste, and I would like to go through some of them. The possibilities of recycling are growing astronomically. They grow every day. The possibilities of creating green jobs are growing every day, and I'd just like to take us through a little walk.

When I first started sitting on the committee that listened to Bill 143, I began to hear from a lot of groups in the private sector who had alternatives to the waste issue. One of the very first presentations we heard was from a material recovering facility that is a private sector company that's going to invest in Caledon and in Peel. Hopefully, their plans are still on track and they will continue to proceed with their plans. That was a 100,000-tonnes-a-year facility.

What the material recovery facility does -- this one in particular showed me a videotape, which I lent to Bob Hunter and haven't seen since -- but what this material facility would do is take the waste, the waste that has not been sorted at the curbside, and bring it into the facility and then sort it into its pure systems. The goal and objective of that company was to sell what they could and give away the rest.

The economics of recycling have to be found in the realization that any product that is going to be recycled and reused has to be put into the marketplace at a price that is lower than the company that is going to use it would have to pay for raw materials coming in. So price is a very important point. It has to be lower than the price they would pay for raw materials.

It was felt that the best way of creating this system would be if the consumer paid for the collection and then the company or the material recovery facility was able to sort it and not be obligated to sell it, but could find a market by simply giving it away. In Europe this has been done, industrial parks have been created and the use of this material has added to the number of jobs and the number of green industries that are growing in Europe.

There are other groups of people. For example, those plastic pop bottles that we all see -- not that I recommend their use -- can now be recycled into carpets and can be used for other products and can be reused. In fact, another company in my riding of Ajax is developing technology with the assistance of a grant from this government, from the government of Ontario, to do research into microwave technology, to microwave plastics and other waste streams into their carbon component parts so that they can be reused.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: This is a very important matter, and as the government well knows, we're quite opposed to many of the aspects of this bill. We don't appear to have a quorum and I think they should be here to listen to this.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum? Could the clerk at the table check?

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

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is not present. Call in the members.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum now is present. The member for Durham West can resume debate.

Mr Wiseman: The interesting point I was at before the member for York Mills wanted everybody to hear my speech was that I was outlining that a company in my riding is in the process of developing microwave technology to microwave waste. I have read that plastics in their clear, pure form are worth about $3,000 a tonne; in their mixed form they aren't worth anything. This technology will be very helpful in separating the plastics so that they can continue to be reused.

I'd also like to mention that on the news in the last little while we've been hearing an awful lot about tires and how tires are a problem. Well, there's a company in Mississauga that has developed a technology to take tires and turn them into sewer covers and sewer replacement sleeves, and this company will use upwards of 36 tires.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): For how many?

Mr Wiseman: Now a quick calculation. There are eight million sewer hole covers in Ontario. You had to ask, right? There are approximately eight million sewer hole covers. Every grate, every sewer cover on every street, has a sewer access cover.

What happens in the winter is that the frost will break the cement blocks down and they have to be dug up. All you need to do to see how much that costs municipalities is to look at the square around the access cover to find out how many in your municipality have to be replaced. What happens, and the beauty of this tire sleeve as it goes in, is that they figure it'll last about 20 years and you won't have to constantly do this.

This is money saved by the municipalities. It's jobs, jobs created in Mississauga; notice I didn't use three "jobs." Then the other part is that it's environmentally intelligent, because it creates green jobs and reduces a waste stream that is not currently being used.

Also, we're now experimenting in other areas, to use tires in the use of asphalt, in the use of underlay for carpet and for many other products. Just last week I read about gardening gowns and tool holders that they are now able to make out of tires.

1620

Mr David Winninger (London South): Not to mention doormats.

Mr Wiseman: And doormats.

Mr Tilson: Who are the doormats?

Mr Wiseman: The Tories, the Liberals.

One of the other areas that is quite exciting is in the area of recycling of asphalt. I remember reading about a year and a half ago about this machine that was created in Scarborough that takes up the asphalt, remixes it and puts it back down on the road, saving upwards of $1 million per application, depending on the length.

Glass bottles: There's a company in Ottawa that now takes the glass bottles and crushes them. It doesn't matter if it's mixed or whatever. They crush them, they can turn it into caulk, and they make fibreglass insulation out of it. For all of those people who are watching who are in the construction industry, I would encourage that you can help this whole process of waste reduction by using fibreglass that's created out of recycled glass.

Also, as we look at what's available in the marketplace, a lot of products are now being created that could be used in the building industry. In fact, the government of Ontario, under what's called "Build Green Street" had a display at the Toronto home builders' show. In conjunction with Ortech International and the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association and the province of Ontario, the Government Services secretariat, this display was put up, and it was a display of products that are now being created out of used materials from the ICI sector, from the building sector.

The goal was to turn the mountain into a molehill, turn the waste from the construction of homes and the construction industry into a small amount by recycling. In fact, as we look through the availability of materials that are now being recycled, we can now find that there are uses for almost all materials.

I'd just like to quote from a Maclean's article from March 23, 1992:

"As well, some aggressive recyclers maintain that with some strong salesmanship and a little imagination, it is possible to market almost any material pulled from household trash. In fact, officials at the Edmonton Recycling Society, which started in 1988 and now serves 67,000 homes, found markets around the world for their products and claim that all but 6% of what they gather is recycled, including milk cartons that are shipped to Italy, where they are turned into high-quality toilet paper. Stock piles are a myth in recycling."

I think that with some very constructive work, we can reduce the waste that is in the waste stream and create constructive jobs.

I'd just like to make a comment about another company in my riding called Plastiglas. The reason I didn't use the names of the other companies is because I didn't have their permission and they haven't been in the paper. But this company takes fibreglass and recycles fibreglass and turns it into reinforced plastics. The thin panels are easy to install, they last nearly as long as stone, and few can tell the difference.

Stratum is an innovative recycled product that utilizes 80% to 90% waste fibreglass reinforced composites, including auto parts, glass from blue boxes, iron ore slags, ceramics and waste building materials. This is an incredible application, because the building itself that this company is housed in has used their own cover material for the outside of the building, and that's a very positive sales tool for them. Since they're only about a kilometre and a half from my house, I can see it, and I'm very pleased to see that they are able to use recycled fibreglass.

As I indicated, there are uses for just about everything. I think there's an optimism that we can achieve the 50% set out in Bill 7 and that we can really do some progressive changes in the way that we use material.

But there are other areas to be gained by diversion. Not all the costs of the waste stream can be found either in the dollars and cents it costs to collect them and therefore use them, or in the costs of the diversion. Some of those costs are environmental costs. Coming from Pickering where we have Brock North, which leaches every day, where Metropolitan Toronto has to send a tanker to take the leachate out of the ground, out of a storage facility, and take it down to be treated in a sewage treatment plant, there's those costs. If they leak into the groundwater, to clean it up, that's another cost.

We have the Brock West landfill site that leaches methane, and about two years ago we had an explosion at the weigh station. An individual was hurt, not seriously, thank goodness, but there is that cost. We have the Beare Road landfill site just across the border, which leaches methane and leachate into the groundwater and into the streams, and all of that is downstream. So there is an environmental cost to not recycling.

We were told at the Bill 143 hearings, by Alcan, that we dump $20 million of aluminum every year into landfill sites. That represents a lost advantage in the marketplace against our competitors, because to recycle aluminum is 75% less costly than to create it new. So that is a potential area where if we were to recapture this aluminum, we could create jobs and have a competitive advantage by creating and promoting your green industry.

In concluding, because I know other members of my party would like to speak, I would like to say that I think we need to take a positive approach to waste management, that we need to look at what can be done and what is being done from the point of view of creating jobs and creating a green future for our children.

Mr Elston: It was a very interesting presentation and I'm glad the member for York Mills called in the rest of the members to hear the presentation. I was interested that the member was helpful enough to raise the issue of cost to municipalities, because that will allow me to raise the issue of the social contract in negotiations, which would of course affect the ability of a number of municipalities and school boards and conservation authorities to afford any of the new products which are being made possible through recycling and other efforts. You know, we talked about manhole covers and sleeves --

Mr Wiseman: I did not. I called them sewer access covers.

Mr Elston: Okay.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You had the floor.

Mr Elston: There's another restructuring of the wording here, but anyway, let's call them products from used tires, and we were saying that the cost to municipalities was being reduced.

But I'll tell you, Mr Speaker, if you look at what this government is doing to municipalities and school boards and conservation authorities with the recently released statement by the Treasurer that their transfers were being chopped, by some 2% in the case of municipalities, conservation authorities being chopped by a nominal 10% but we now understand by over 40%, and school boards losing transfers as well, we know that no matter what the cost of these recycled goods which will be made possible by some of these regulations, these local organizations will be penalized. The municipalities in fact will be penalized when they come to try to implement some of these new programs, because this government has decided this late in the budget years of those organizations that it is going to change the name of the game and the way the game is played.

For my purposes, I think it would have been much better had this government been upfront with the people in those local organizations and told them last November and December that there wasn't going to be money. I thank the member for raising it. Perhaps he could give us the answer to these problems for municipalities and others.

1630

Mr Tilson: I would like to congratulate the member for Durham West on his thoughts on how you get rid of waste. It's a concern of all of us in this House, and I don't think that any of us will find fault with the examples that you've given as to how it can be done.

One of the major problems, however, that this bill is going to create -- unless you come out with some other bill, which I hope you will -- is the issue of funding. You talk about how jobs are going to be created, and they may well be. One of the difficulties that you have to overcome, however, is that if the municipalities are going to have to fund all of these rigorous requirements that your government is going to be putting on the municipalities -- and they are going to be very rigorous requirements -- the question is, who's going to pay for them?

If the municipalities have to pay for them, naturally they either have to cut back in services or they're going to raise taxes. What a terrible position to put the municipalities in, all for the creation of jobs. Again we'll agree that the creation of jobs is most important for this province. However, if the municipalities are going to be put in the terrible position of pitting their commitment to the environment against raising taxes or going further into debt as a result of this bill, then we're being put in a very difficult position. I hope that this bill will go to committee. In fact, I think it must go to committee.

I would encourage all of the remarks that have been made by the member for Durham West on the groups that are putting forward different ideas on recycling -- I think we need to know more about that, but we also need to know more about how we're going to pay for it. Hopefully, in his response he will give us some sort of indication as to the financial paper that the government has been promising since prior to Bill 143, perhaps a different piece of legislation that's going to clarify how all of this recycling and reuse and composting and everything else that we all want is going to be paid for.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I'd like to certainly compliment the member for Durham West, especially for pointing out some of the innovative ideas that some of the municipalities and corporations especially in his riding have come up with in reducing waste.

I'd just like to add a couple. Bell Canada, for example, in its offices in Thunder Bay has voluntarily diverted 80% of its waste from garbage, to the benefit of its bottom line. The IGA store in Sundridge, which is up near North Bay, makes 90 fewer trips to the landfill. Food waste is sold to local pig farmers and cardboard sold in Toronto, with revenue from cardboard sales covering the cost of shipping.

So in fact, just to add to what the member for Simcoe West was saying, there are savings and I think that in the long run this particular bill --

Mr Elston: You mean Durham West.

Mr Hayes: -- Durham West, thank you -- is certainly an investment in the future.

I must also reiterate what the Minister of Environment and Energy yesterday had spoken about, about keeping the funding that we are committed to by this government and to help municipalities to reach those goals.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? The member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: Dealing with the member's comments and in particular with Bill 7, I think it goes without saying that all within this Legislature and all outside this Legislature want to, as best as we can, reduce waste and certainly reduce the amount of waste that is going to landfill sites. I think there are a great many examples of companies that are meeting and attempting to meet the challenge in the area of recyclable materials and in the area of reducing waste. I believe that the consumer, the home owner, is in fact taking a lead role.

The bill before us -- and I know in a short while I'll have an opportunity to more fully discuss the bill -- talks about the issue of user-pay, it talks about the issue of upper-tier municipalities taking over responsibility, but the issue of who pays for these initiatives is one which is quite silent and I believe it's a valid comment.

I believe that because this issue is raised, opponents should not read into that concern as being the concern of someone who is not in favour of reducing waste or, in fact, reducing refuse going to the landfill site. It is, in fact, an extremely valid point that must be addressed by the government of the day. The government of the day must clearly be able to indicate to all those who share a common concern of promoting recycling as to who is going to pay for these initiatives.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham West, you have two minutes.

Mr Wiseman: As you know, the issue of waste management in my riding is a hot topic and the local newspaper, the Pickering's Bay News, in its editorial said --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Quorum call, please.

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

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present and the member for Durham West, you can take your two minutes again.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The local newspaper, the Bay News, clearly indicates, "The New Democrats deserve their praise for their efforts here," referring to Bill 7. "They've zeroed in on the essential key to solving the current waste crisis, placing the onus of the problem squarely on the shoulders of those responsible. The more waste you produce, the more it should cost you out of pocket to get rid of it. The new provincial law at least allows for the opportunity to recognize that fact."

The question about who's going to pay has to do with how much can be diverted and how much is currently going into the landfill sites and not being diverted, and how much they're paying to tip it.

For example, the Durham Board of Education, up until very recently, was paying $152 a tonne to tip into the Brock West landfill site. The Metropolitan Toronto school boards were paying nothing. So it's going to cost them to get into the game, whereas the Durham Board of Education, for every tonne that it diverted, it saved $152; now it's $90.

A response to their question is, clearly some of the costs are already being paid, but what needs to be done is to divert so that you can save those costs. A composting facility in a town that is paying $30, $40, $150 a tonne to tip into a landfill site, if all they have to do is pay for the cost, if it's less than that, then their current tax revenues are already being allocated for that; but if they're not paying for their waste management, as is the case in Metropolitan Toronto, then, yes, sometimes their costs are going to go up.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Mississauga North.

1640

Mr Offer: I'm pleased to join in debate on this bill, Bill 7, and in terms of some opening comments on the bill, I've had occasion to read the bill and I know that there are a number of people who are watching over the parliamentary channel, and I think that we should be aware that the bill is really a bill of amendments to other pieces of legislation in the main.

When you read proposed pieces of legislation, most often you get the story as to what the legislation is designed to do and how it's designed to accomplish its purpose. Bill 7 doesn't fall in that category because it is really a compilation of amendments to other pieces of legislation, such as the Municipal Act, the Regional Municipalities Act, the County of Oxford Act, the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, the Municipality of Metropolitan Act, and it goes on and on.

I say that not to be critical of the legislation but rather to express that this is how this bill is designed. I bring this point out because as we speak in second reading on the bill many municipalities which will be affected by the bill have really not had the opportunity to look at the bill, to put together the amendments and what the amendments will mean to them and to fall upon a position. I understand that. The municipalities at this point in time are very much concerned with the recent announcements by the government dealing with the cutback in services and how it will affect them. They have been preoccupied with the government cutting back on the services they provide to their residents, together with this whole social contract issue.

So, as I've heard from municipalities that they believe that Bill 7 may meet some of their concerns, I do issue a word of caution that the municipalities have really not had the opportunity to deal and look at the bill in the way in which they will. My comments are muted in that respect because I am currently awaiting the responses from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and as well the member municipalities in order to obtain from them a real appreciation as to how this bill will affect them and of course all the people who live in this province by virtue of residing in municipalities.

Going through the bill, I have a number of questions which are not answered. I think this type of bill requires public hearings to take place. I am hopeful that the parliamentary assistant will take note of this comment of mine, the comment again being the need for public hearings, so that members of this assembly who are in the committee can hear the comments and the position of the municipalities, as well as many other participants involved in the waste issue, before we give final approval to the bill.

The parliamentary assistant is present in this Legislature and I know that when I am finished speaking the parliamentary assistant, in the two minutes that are accorded members, will have the opportunity to stand in his place and clearly indicate to the municipal representatives, to interested parties in waste disposal in this province, that it is and will be the position of the government that this bill will, after second reading, move to full public hearings.

I will, as will many others, be looking forward to the parliamentary assistant's response to that request. It is my belief that this is a bill which demands this. It demands this because it talks to issues of significance in every community and, as well, it is a bill that the municipalities have not had the opportunity to fully digest. I believe that as legislators we have to afford those who are involved in this crucial sector the opportunity of coming before a committee to share with us their reaction to the bill.

Dealing with the bill itself, and I've already alluded to the issue of amendments, and that's how the bill is somewhat styled, there are two areas that I certainly would like to deal with. The first area is that Bill 7 does give to municipalities the right to establish user fees. I want to deal with that issue in some depth, because I believe that this issue of user fees in waste disposal and waste management is something which the general public will want to fully appreciate and understand what it means.

The second area that I want to discuss, and I think that I'll be briefer in that area, is that this bill will allow an upper-tier municipality, for example a regional municipality, to take the waste disposal services from a lower-tier municipality. Let me put some meaning to that, and I'll deal with that issue firstly.

I am the member for Mississauga North. Obviously the city of Mississauga is part of a regional municipality, the regional municipality of Peel. The city of Mississauga currently looks after its own waste disposal. Our waste, in front of our residences, is picked up by individuals who are contracted with and through the city of Mississauga. The regional municipality of Peel does not have any responsibility in that area.

My reading of the bill is that if the regional municipality of Peel wishes to take over that responsibility from the city of Mississauga, even though the city of Mississauga does not want it to, then the mechanism has been put in place that the region could take over that responsibility, and that is a mechanism that would apply in each lower- and upper-tier municipality throughout the province.

There is the need for a requisite number of votes, and reading this legislation clearly indicates to me that even if all of the councillors and the mayor of the city of Mississauga did not wish the regional municipality of Peel to take over waste disposal, it would still be taken over if the region so desired.

I would invite the parliamentary assistant, if he wishes, in the time permitted, to show me where that can't happen, because I have been advised by ministry officials that in fact that is exactly the process that has been put in place. I believe that this might be the cause of some concern. I believe we have to take a look at whether this bill will now be creating -- and I hope not -- a confrontation between lower- and upper-tier municipalities over this issue of waste management. We know that the issue of waste management is one to which there are great emotions attached. I am concerned that in a piece of legislation we are setting the framework in place to advance, in some instances, that area of confrontation. I would be very concerned, and it is an issue and a question which I bring forward to the government, to the parliamentary assistant. I know that the bill does in fact permit that to happen, and I have verified that with municipal officials. So what I would hope to hear from the parliamentary assistant today is that the government is ready to entertain amendments so that needless confrontation can be avoided.

1650

Another area of the bill which I believe demands amendment is a confusion that has arisen over the scope of the bill. Let me be clear. As we know, in the area of waste management there are many private companies which operate according to rules and regulations and licences within municipalities. It is my belief that Bill 7 will not encroach in any way, shape or form on the continuing right of the private sector to be involved in waste management.

The bill is very fuzzy, very unclear in this area. It speaks, even in its definition of "waste," of dealing with "industrial solid waste," "municipal refuse." In the area and definition of "waste management system," it does not seem to be confined to systems that are and have been within municipal control. We will be looking for a clear statement and clear amendments by the government in order to meet the very genuine concerns of individuals and companies in this area that this bill will not encroach on their ability to do what they have been doing quite well for many, many years.

That, as an aside, is another reason why a bill of this kind should be going out to committee. It should be going out to committee so that we can hear from, really, the professionals in this area as to how they view the bill, as to how they view the current provisions and the definitions of the current provisions -- it may impact upon them -- and how this bill could be amended in order to address those concerns.

The area I want to deal with at this point is the area of user fees. What does that mean? In this respect, I see that Bill 7 was introduced April 21, but I cannot forget that just after this bill was introduced, the Minister of Environment indicated that blue box and composting would be mandatory for all municipalities with a population greater than 5,000 people. We have Bill 7, which allows user-pay, and we'll talk about that for a little while. A week later, the Minister of Environment says mandatory blue box, mandatory composting for every municipality in this province with a population of greater than 5,000.

In the area of blue box recycling and composting, we all recognize and are supportive of initiatives in this area and certainly of reducing waste going to landfill. But the Minister of Environment said something else. He said that all municipalities must have this in place. There are a number of municipalities with a population greater than 5,000 people that do not have blue boxes. There are more municipalities with a population of greater than 5,000 people that do not have composting.

I've been speaking to my constituents about this. We know that a blue box is not just a box you put in front of your residence. There is something more to it. Composting is not just something that's in your side- or backyard. A blue box and composting program requires specialized trucks. They require source separation facilities. There will be an employment issue. Staffing is required.

As you stand in favour of initiatives like that, I think it is absolutely essential and valid to ask, who pays for this? Who is going to pay for the mandate and directive of the Minister of Environment? Will it be found throughout Bill 7? That, to me, I will say at the outset, is a concern.

If Bill 7 is set up to allow for the financing of blue boxing and composting, we have some questions we want to ask. This is not to be read as being opposed, but I will tell you, as I speak to people in my riding, they believe that there is a different role of government in this day and age, that it is no longer right and proper for a government to say, "Municipalities, you do this, and you also find the money to do what we have directed you to do."

Members from the government side chuckle at this. You know, it's absolutely incredible to me that it was just a couple of weeks ago that the government announced clearly that it was going to give less money to municipalities, that it was going to cut the amount of money it had agreed to give to municipalities by not less than 2%, and I believe some municipalities are going to get a greater cut.

So we have the provincial government saying it doesn't have any money; in fact, it has to reduce costs. We have municipalities saying: "We are doing the best we can. We are cutting and budgeting to the bone. We don't have any more flexibility." Then the provincial government says to the municipality: "You were expecting X amount of dollars from us and you budgeted on that basis. Well, you're not going to be receiving all of that money. You'll have to find it somewhere else." And then they say, "Not only that, but if you haven't got a blue box program, you better have one, and if you don't have a composting program, you better have one."

I think people are saying: "Okay, how do we buy, where do we get, a composter? Who's going to provide that to us?" I know there are some capital projects in place, but municipalities are saying that, even with the existing programs in place, it's not enough. "We are being cut and we need even more help." The government is not only not giving more help, it's giving less help, but also mandating more on the municipalities.

So who is going to pay? This brings me back to Bill 7. I question the government as to whether some of those funds may come from the user-pay provisions of the bill. I have an article that explains how these things are happening in many other parts of the United States, and I'm wondering if the government, without specifically saying this, is in fact going to be following this.

1700

In Seattle there is a unit-charge system. Customers choose from four sizes of receptacles. They range in price from $11 per month to $32 per month. There are examples in other jurisdictions where you have to purchase your garbage bags, and if you don't, and if you don't use the proper bag, then it won't be picked up.

I'm saying that these are types of issues which demand public hearings. Is that what this is all about? If it is, let's be up front and let's say that's how we are going to fund the Minister of Environment's announcements about mandatory blue box and composting across the province. I think people might have something to say about that, because it has nothing to do with whether people do or do not support recycling and reducing waste to landfill -- I certainly do support that -- but it does have everything to do with the issue of who pays. I hope, and we will certainly be demanding, that this bill go to public hearings and to committee stage.

One of the things I find somewhat concerning is that we hear of some successes in the area of recycling, but I haven't heard from the government as to the efforts it is going to be making in terms of expanding the products collected in the blue box. This is the issue most municipalities are facing. Everyone is supportive of the blue box campaign but what I am hearing is that we are separating, we are collecting, but there are no markets for that which we are doing and there are no initiatives by the government for moving out and expanding those markets so that which is collected in front of our homes can be, in a way, recycled and reused.

If we can't sell the material, if we can't reuse the material, then the blue box, as supportive as we are of it, has a major problem. There are companies which are taking the initiative, but we have to recognize that something more is required, and that is for government to recognize that this is an extremely important issue. In fact, it is an issue which will, and may very well, determine the success and future of the blue box campaign.

I believe that with proper government support and initiatives, we can make the blue box initiative and campaign the success it should be. The government has been quite silent in this matter. I believe there is an obligation and a responsibility on the government to do this. I believe there's an obligation and responsibility on the government to indicate in Bill 7 what it means to the residents in this province.

What does "user-pay" truly and really mean? The government has not been up front. I believe what they are going to be saying is: "Well, we don't really know what it means. All we're doing is giving the municipality the right to implement a user-pay system." I believe that is sort of taking a curious -- not an upfront approach, because the government must be aware of the purpose for which it is giving this power. They must be aware in what circumstances they expect it to be used. They must be aware in terms of the needs of municipalities.

I have concerns with the bill. I recognize, as I said at the outset, that any information I've received from municipalities is that though they haven't had opportunity to particularly read the bill in all of its implications and ramifications, they do recognize some areas which are areas that they wanted to be involved in.

I believe that public hearings are absolutely mandatory, and I've now said that issue about three or four times, because I want the parliamentary assistant to say to members on this side of the Legislature and to those who are watching this debate, that the government is committed to full public hearings, that it will abide by our request to have this bill moved to the committee for public hearings.

I want to hear from the parliamentary assistant that amendments will be brought in which clearly address the concerns from the private sector involved in waste management, that this bill in no way, shape or form will encroach in their areas of waste management.

I want the parliamentary assistant to stand in his place to indicate that they want to deal with the issue of potential confrontation of upper- and lower-tier municipalities in dealing with the concerns as to how an upper-tier municipality may take over waste management from a lower-tier municipality, even if the lower-tier municipality does not wish this to happen.

I believe that all members recognize the emotion around waste management disposal. I've not spoken, Mr Speaker, as you will know, about landfill sites. I think that it is an issue which is debated daily. Bill 7, I do not believe, focuses in on that matter.

In passing, I come, as the member for Mississauga North, from the area that has the Britannia landfill site. The Britannia landfill site was extended by that government without any hearing. The Britannia landfill site was extended without the people in my riding or in the city of Mississauga or in the regional municipality of Peel having the opportunity to say their position, their concerns about what that means to their community.

I can tell you that this government, in having a Minister of Environment who does not have that portfolio full time, and having the history that this government has had in terms of waste, long-term sites, is one which is concerning to certainly the people in my riding, because they have felt the sharp punching of the government on their rights in terms of a landfill site in their area. There is a great deal of concern as to the commitment of this government, the commitment to true environmental protection, the commitment to people truly being able to listen.

Send this bill out to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Questions and/or comments? Further debate?

Mr Stockwell: No, questions and comments.

Mr Tilson: Questions and comments. I have a question.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: For my neighbour from Mississauga North, one of the major issues that I think he raised in this is the concern of our -- "municipal partners" is the terminology that's developed, the concern they have is that they want some input in this bill. The impression that's been given by the minister is that AMO and all the other larger groups, ROMA, have approved this legislation. That's not true, and I'm going to be referring in my comments a little later as to what AMO feels about this.

1710

My friend the member for Mississauga North certainly has emphasized the need to go to committee to discuss all of the issues that are being raised in this House. The smaller municipalities -- and I guess he represents the southern part of Peel and I represent the northern part of Peel, the town of Caledon, but I also represent a number of municipalities in the county of Dufferin -- they are quite concerned over comprehending this whole issue, and I've taken, whether it be as the member for Mississauga North commented, the issue of composting, the issue of recycling, the blue box, the trucks, the staffing, all of the things that the member for Mississauga North quite rightfully referred to.

It all boils down to, do the smaller municipalities have the capacity to pay for all this, whether it be the county of Dufferin as the upper tier -- but the fact of the matter is, this is a small municipality. It doesn't have the wealth and the power of the larger urban municipalities. They're going to need a lot of financial assistance.

This government has no business bringing forward this legislation unless it knows how it's going to be paid for, because property taxes are going to go up, jobs are going to be lost not gained, as has been suggested by members of the government, because people are going to go broke. The property taxes will go through the roof if the municipalities are going to have to pay for these plans that are being put forward by this government.

I congratulate the member and hope and agree with him that this matter be put off to committee.

Mr Wiseman: I'd like to address one of my comments to the member's comment about markets and his claim that this government hasn't done anything to acquire markets. This is incorrect. In fact there's a large amount of money that has been placed into companies to do research and development. I went through a whole host of products that are being created. I'd like to reiterate a couple now from the "Build Green Street" project that the Management Board of Cabinet has been working with, Ortech International and the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association.

I'd like to say that in addition to the other items I talked about, they're making shingles from tires that look like slate and that can be applied to buildings and are a wonderful application. They have taken scrap wood and have chipboarded it into products and are using it for countertops and for other cheap moulding, railings and so on that can be painted. They are taking a whole host of products, such as metals to make soffits and fascia out of. These are all purchasable now through the manufacturers that are producing these. These are jobs in the area.

But he is right in one area where he is saying that there are difficulties. The difficulty is that you can get funding in this province from the banks if you've got real estate, if you've got a building, but you can't get funding if you've got an idea. So one of the biggest inhibitors to the growth of recycled industries, from recycled products and the production of patents and the expansion of these, is the fact that companies cannot get money to expand. They can't get credit; they can't get a credit line from the banks. I think this is a major problem that needs to be dealt with, and we as a province are working on it through the Ontario Development Corp.

Mr Stockwell: First off, I'd like to say this is a very important piece of legislation. It's a piece of legislation that will affect all municipalities in the province of Ontario. It's a legislation that is requiring through legislation, through law, expenditures by local municipalities and they find it to be very important.

What is very disturbing and distressing, I will say, is this. This is one of the ministries that this government went to great lengths to explain was somewhat complex and detailed enough to require not only a minister but also a junior minister. It seems to me that it would be incumbent on this government, considering the complexity and the concern for this particular issue, to have at least one of them here today. Yet when we look across the floor, not the minister, not the junior minister deem it worthy to show up to hear about the concerns that we bring from our constituents and municipalities with respect to this legislation.

Not only is the concern about the blue box program and the fact it's crumbling before our very eyes -- and if this piece of legislation goes through, from a financial viewpoint, it will be unsavable in two years -- they're talking about this program in terms of the financial implications of the social contract at $500 million; the financial implications of disentanglement at who knows how much money; the foisting off of responsibilities that should be shouldered at the provincial level on to municipalities for untold hundreds of millions of dollars.

Not a minister, not the junior minister consider it worth their while to come to this House and hear the concerns of the constituents right across this province that we represent. That, to me, is totally unacceptable.

Mr Hayes: I'd like to thank the member for Etobicoke West for his contribution towards this bill and addressing the comments of the member for Mississauga North.

I know I don't have very long, just a short two minutes to deal with this, but the member had some concerns. I'll just touch on a couple of them right now. He spoke about the public having input into this.

Yes, this will go to committee and we will allow the public to have input on this. I'd just like to say one thing also, when we talk about AMO -- I know the member from the Conservatives says he's going to address this -- there's a news release that was put out that AMO supports the new waste management powers for municipalities. "We support the province's legislation which represents a close fit with the recommendations AMO has made in the past for additional municipal legislation authority for waste management activities."

I would be remiss if I did not mention that one of their concerns, and rightfully so, is the funding part of it. We'll certainly address this and we have committed that we will not cut back on the spending for the blue box programs.

The other thing, talking about the composting and the blue box, first of all, the residents do not have to compost, but the municipalities have to make that program available to them.

Interjection.

Mr Hayes: There is a difference. I know in Essex county we have the system. I have a composter in my backyard. I don't have to have it, but the program is there for you if you want to use it. I think that's very important.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Mississauga North has two minutes to make response.

Mr Offer: Just in response to the comments made by the member for Essex-Kent, in the area of composting, I believe it was the Minister of Environment and Energy just last week who indicated that it will be mandatory for all municipalities with a population of greater than 5,000 people to have both blue box and composting.

I believe in your response it looked a little optional to me, but I think in the response by the Minister of Environment, with which you're not affiliated, that in fact the news releases and the press conference that the Minister of Environment had was that it was mandatory. And the question, rightly said, is who is going to pay? Who is going to help the municipalities to comply with the directives of the Minister of Environment?

The member for Durham West, in the area of marketability of recycled material, it's just incredible. You stand here and you speak for 30 minutes or so and you say that there are examples of companies that are using materials. It's as if no one on that side is listening. Why then is there such a problem with blue box programs in the province if it isn't on the basis of there isn't the market for the materials they are collecting, notwithstanding the incredible work being done by the private sector in dealing with this issue?

I bring forward the matter as an issue which the government must get involved in. They must get involved in expanding markets for the materials that are collected through the blue box campaign. There are problems that are being felt through municipalities and by municipalities, and I hope that the government will start listening to some of the people who have concerns in this area and start acting upon those concerns so that once more the environment can be of paramount importance to a government. That to date has just not been the case.

1720

Mr Tilson: I'd like to participate in this debate on Bill 7, which is the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act. This bill, Mr Speaker, as you know and all members of this House know, was introduced on April 21 last, and I guess the question that certainly many of us on the opposition side have is: What is the rush? Has there been adequate consultation with respect to this bill? There are a lot of questions that are starting to be asked more and more, particularly as the smaller municipalities and the private firms that dispose of our waste realize what this bill is doing.

Now, I know there were some discussion papers that were put out and there was some consultation -- not a lot. Certainly, the municipalities didn't know a great deal about it. Yes, I'm aware that AMO did do a paper and I will be referring to that shortly, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of municipalities are very concerned and are very afraid of the philosophy, the general intent of this bill. Most of them, in fact all of them, are in favour of the whole subject of waste management, and the general intent of the bill is to think of other ways of reducing our waste, because there is no way that is certainly popular and they're all very difficult, whether it's incineration, long rail haul, filling in dump sites. All of these are very serious problems.

But I will say, and I've tried to raise it in some of the responses to some of the speeches that have been made this afternoon and elsewhere, that we need to know the whole picture. It's like what happened when we got into Bill 143. We got into Bill 143 and we didn't know where the sites were, the regions. Mainly, Bill 143 deals with the sites in the three regions of the greater Toronto area. We didn't know where those sites were. We didn't know anything about the cost. We still don't know a great deal about the cost.

The government, it's become more and more clear, is saying of the IWA, "Oh, well, they're independent from us," notwithstanding the fact that the IWA was created by Bill 143. It was created by an act of this Legislature. In fact, I believe the deputy minister or certainly assistant deputy ministers sit on the board, and the people who were appointed to the IWA were appointed by this government. So they have a great deal to do with this government, notwithstanding the former Minister of the Environment and the present Minister of Environment saying, "Well, you know, they're doing a great job, they're on their own and we really don't have anything to do with it."

The problem that has surfaced is a similar problem that is developing with this particular piece of legislation. No one, whether it's this government, Mr McIntyre of the IWA, the representatives in the regions, the municipal politicians, the other interest groups, the citizens, the ratepayer groups, no one knows what this is going to cost. As of the end of April, as I understand, the cost to the IWA, the dollars that have been spent by the IWA, is in excess of $30 million. That's before we get into environmental assessments, that's before we pick out the final sites, that's before we get into expropriation. It seems to me that if you're going to put forward a plan, whether it's recycling, whether it's incineration, whether it's landfill sites, whether it's perhaps other things, composting, all of these other things, we need to know all of the picture.

I must say the member for Durham West -- whom we often criticize because of his philosophy of life, but he did come forward today with a number of ideas that are being put forward by people in this province to dispose of our waste. I think any government would be remiss if it didn't pursue those areas, at least look at them. That's been the problem with this government, its determination to simply look at the landfill site, specifically in the greater Toronto area. You know, "We've got to create three superdumps."

Now, of course, the Minister of Environment has come forward in a statement saying with respect to how much the reduction as a result of recycling's going to be, and that's very admirable. I hope it will increase. I think we all hope it will increase.

The problem is, and I emphasize this, what are all these wonderful plans going to cost, and more importantly, who's going to pay for them? It may well be we simply will have to prioritize what we're going to spend, because we have to get rid of our waste somehow. We either have to reduce it, recycle it or put it in the landfill sites or put in incineration. It may be all those things. The difficulty is, as I emphasize over and over and over, we don't know what it's going to cost and we don't know who's going to pay for it.

The municipalities, your municipal partners that are referred to -- this wonderful word "partnership" that's referred to -- they are concerned. They are concerned about their taxes. Continual governments, and yes, including the Conservative governments, including the Liberal governments, including the NDP governments, have passed down costs to municipal taxpayers, and I fear about this legislation.

I'm told that this financial paper that's been promised by this government, which was promised prior to Bill 143, is on its way. It's on its way and may be out this summer some time. Who knows what the real rumour is, but that's what I'm being told. And it may well be that this paper will explain what the government's intent is as to who's going to pay for it, because if there isn't substantial financial assistance from the government to pay for the studies that are going to be needed to be done -- and the member for Mississauga North raised all of those issues of being obliged, being by law obliged to get into the subject of composting, to get into the blue box program, and all of the things that are related to those programs: the staffing, the trucks, the transfer stations and all of those costs. They all cost a great deal of money, and if the property taxpayer is going to have that burden -- because it's not the property taxpayer alone who creates all of the waste. We all create waste. I've often been very confused, particularly with the former Minister of the Environment, who says each individual area must get rid of its own waste. The difficulty is that many of us live out in the country and we travel to Toronto and we work in Toronto and we create garbage in Toronto, whether it be in Toronto or the larger regional areas. We're a very mobile society, and it's a provincial problem.

I mean, who's to say, for example, that garbage that may be in Mississauga and has to be disposed of by Mississauga -- and of course you can't have a dump site in the middle of Mississauga; that's impossible. But to follow the rationale, who's to say that perhaps the northern rail haul may not be an answer? Why can't we at least consider it? Why can't we at least look at it?

On the subject of incineration, for example -- and I have spoken about this in the past -- I honestly haven't formulated an opinion as to whether incineration is good or whether it's bad. I do look at other countries around the world, the Americans, the Japanese, the Europeans, who are into incineration, and they're disposing of their energy from waste. They're doing wonderful things with incineration. They've said that in the last 20 years, certainly since the former minister -- I know the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, when she was on municipal council, said, "We can't have incinerators in my riding," and it may well have been that incinerators at that time were a bad thing. I don't want to start saying how old she is, but certainly that was a long time ago, and I'm told that the scrubbers have developed substantially, improved substantially since that time.

Incineration may not be the only answer. Obviously we have to look at the 3Rs, or the 5Rs. Remember when it used to be 5Rs? Somehow it's been reduced to 3Rs. And yes, we've got to look at the landfill sites. But we've got to look at all of these things, and this bill is now saying, "Well, maybe we should look at all of these things."

But the question is, who's going to pay for it? You people are broke. I mean, the banter that's been going on from both sides of this House during question period as to social contracts and budgets and outrageous tax increases and people losing their jobs -- we're in serious financial difficulties, and you put forward these plans. Money doesn't come from the air. It has to be raised somehow.

1730

I simply say that there have now been comments made that this bill will be going to committee. I hope at that time that we will have the financial position paper on how we're going to solve the economics of it and that you're not going to leave it like you did with the IWA, that you're not going to create this monster that's literally out of control, doing as it pleases, spending money as it pleases, is accountable to no one, and not have any idea how it's going to be paid for or how much it's going to cost.

I asked a question of the government several weeks ago as to what exactly it was going to cost: Was there a budget figure as to what it was going to cost to reach the final stage of having three dump sites in the three regions? Now maybe it'll come forward, but somehow I doubt it, because I don't think they have any idea, no idea what the environmental assessments are going to cost, what the expropriations are going to cost. Look at these wonderful areas in southern Ontario: farm lands. Forget about the Sewell report, forget about the food lands policy of the Ministry of Agriculture as created by one of the former governments. Forget about the agricultural policy. They're putting dumps on farm lands, 100-year-old farms. It's bizarre; that policy is bizarre.

We need to look at all of these things and I do hope that sufficient time, substantial time, will be allowed in the committee process to enable the people in the municipalities, the ratepayers, to come and talk on all of these subjects, and that at that time we will be able to hear the government's plan as to how this whole process, which is a good process -- I'm not going to be critical of some of the ideas that are coming forward as to what we need to do; I think we need to do a lot more. But I need to know how you're going to pay for it.

Bill 7 contains amendments to the Municipal Act, the Regional Municipalities Act, 13 regional acts and the Municipal Affairs Act. That in itself certainly raises the subject of a complication that needs to be looked at from all over. I don't know whether the press release came from AMO or not. AMO did approve the philosophy of it, the general intent of what you're trying to do -- we all approve of the general intent of what you're trying to do -- but it's concerned about a number of things.

They're concerned about this weighted vote factor. I get worried about the restructuring of the county process that we've had in the past. The counties are very troubled about that. It's almost as if this whole subject is coming through the back door. I don't think you've thought that process out. I think you need to talk to the counties, I think you need to talk to the regional municipalities on the whole process of voting. All of that, I'm sure, will be revealed at the committee stage, when we'll have an opportunity to listen to the municipalities and others who are involved in this whole process.

This legislation, as has been emphasized, will provide municipalities with the legislative authority to implement programs and strategies geared towards waste reduction, and as the Minister of Environment indicated -- I believe it was last week or within the last couple of weeks -- waste diversion targets of 25% by 1992 and 50% by the year 2000 on the base year of 1987 were put forward. Those are very admirable positions, notwithstanding the fact that the city of Seattle has a similar program, has a long rail haul -- they haul their garbage for 350 miles, I think -- and is up to 60%. It may well be that the committee will want to look at Seattle, it may well be that we'll want to look into its processes.

Again, if we're going to make vague statements about how we're going to improve the process, we need to look at everything: all of the potential plans, all of the costs, and how we're going to do it. That, to date, hasn't been done.

Just to reiterate what has been said, I think we should clarify what Bill 7 is doing. It gives to the municipalities the -- and I might comment that it's almost a turnaround when you start thinking about the IWA process. The province of Ontario has come into the three regions and said: "We're going to have a dump in each region, and we're going to tell you where we're going to have it and you're not going to have any say in that. You know we're going to have some creature called the IWA that's going to come in and have hearings, none of which is accountable, and it's going to tell you." The province is now saying, "We're now going to let you municipalities look at all this stuff." It's almost as if you've had second thoughts, but I'll tell you, the monster you've created isn't going to be solved by Bill 7.

In any event, the new sections give the municipalities these explicit powers:

-- To establish, maintain and operate a waste management system. A waste management system is defined as "facilities and services for the management of waste, including the collection, removal, transfer, processing, storage, reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal of waste." It really is great stuff, and I applaud the minister for those things.

-- Second, to establish fees for the use of any part of a waste management system.

-- Third, to require individuals generating waste to separate at the point of collection.

Again, there are going to be costs related with all of these things. When municipalities get into these things, they're going to have to have studies done, they're going to have to hire staff, they're going to have to hire consultants. The cost is just going to be unbelievable. We know that, because the Environmental Assessment Act and other pieces of legislation say that you must meet certain standards. So we know it's going to cost big bucks, and the question is, who's going to pay for it?

-- Fourth, prohibiting and regulating dumping and disposal at facilities. Again, very admirable. Who's going to pay for it?

-- Fifth, to appoint inspectors to obtain information relating to sites or facilities. This is going to mean a greater bureaucracy for the municipalities. I would hope that the province is going to provide some sort of major financial assistance to enable all of these things.

-- Sixth, market products from waste material. That's been a problem, of course; there have been criticisms. I'd like to hear from people like Mayor Lastman, who simply says that the blue box program is failing. I'm not so sure it is, but I'd like to hear from him, because certainly now it's going to be the municipalities' problem, it's going to be Metro's problem. Mr Lastman won't like that, he won't like that one iota.

That's the problem you're creating. You're going to create a war between individual municipalities. It's a very difficult position you're going to be putting municipalities in, not only the whole downloading process but the political process, this voting business on which we've seen much discussion during the restructuring process that's gone on, particularly in the county sections. I will tell you, the wars that are going to develop over this subject, the political wars that you're causing, are unbelievable.

The weighted vote issue is certainly something I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on, but there's no question that in the committee process -- or perhaps the minister will rise in his place and explain it a little bit better. I don't think it's been thought out because it's almost a backhanded way of bringing restructuring into the province of Ontario without adequate debate from our municipal partners.

The bill revises the conditions under which a county may assume waste management responsibility from the local municipalities. An amendment to subsection 209(4) of the Municipal Affairs Act allows a county to assume any or all waste management functions if a majority vote on county council representing a majority of local municipalities vote in favour, and current legislation requires two thirds of votes on a county council to take over responsibility from the local municipality.

In my own riding -- and it's pitting small against large and large against small municipalities -- one councillor simply says, and told me, and this is on a cursory review after seeing the press releases and a cursory review of the bill, that he doesn't like the idea of a waste management voting procedure whereby at least one representative from each municipality votes on the bylaw. This, he says, doesn't represent the majority of the population, and he says he'd rather have a bylaw passed on the basis of the majority of the municipalities that represent the majority of the population.

1740

I need to consult more as well, as I think all of us do, because all of us are in the predicament of representing small municipalities and larger municipalities in our specific ridings, unless of course you represent a riding which is part of a larger region, and that yet creates another situation.

Mr Wiseman: You're darned right it does.

Mr Tilson: Well, sure it does, and we need to look at this, because I'll tell you, the municipal politicians are not going to like this. Some will and some won't, but it starts up that whole process that creates a lot of difficulty.

I would hope that the government officials and perhaps the staff that advise you will relook at that section. It may be something that we can solve in the committee stage. It may be that the appropriate amendments can be prepared in which this issue can be resolved. But we're going to have to spend some time on it. We certainly can't go the way we have been, just sort of ramming it through. We need to spend a substantial amount of time on that subject.

Sections 6 to 9 of the bill amend the 13 regional municipalities acts to grant the regional council the authority to designate one or more facilities for the receiving, dumping and disposing of waste.

I made a few inquiries to some of the municipalities in my riding and one of them asked the question to me that if county council took the responsibility for one of these matters that are being proposed by Bill 7, for example, recycling, and after two or three years decided that it no longer wanted to provide the recycling service, notwithstanding the fact that I believe it's mandatory -- I don't think they can --

Mr Wiseman: Regulations say they can't do that.

Mr Tilson: That's right, but they may be put in the position where they're saying, "We don't want it." Would the municipalities then be responsible to provide the recycling service? There are questions like that that we need to clarify.

One of the other areas, of course, that was raised in my riding, specifically the county of Dufferin, and I'm sure this occurs in similar rural municipalities, is that there are some of the towns and the villages, specifically the towns in some of the rural areas, where they have garbage pickup twice a week, and in others they don't have it at all. You have to take the garbage, your waste, to a landfill site and dump it yourself.

Mr Stockwell: Like at the cottage.

Mr Tilson: Like at a cottage; exactly. There are others that have roadside pickup and there are others that don't have roadside pickup. There's a whole mess of different alternatives.

Some of the townships have expressed a concern like that, because certainly if the county was to control this area and every municipality said, "Well, county, you're looking after that; we want door-to-door pickup," the problem, as I see it, is that could result in the larger municipalities which are within the county system, in the funding of it, being obliged to pay for that. I don't know whether that's a legitimate concern, but it's a concern that was raised by certainly one of the municipalities in my riding. I'd like to hear more on that. There may be other issues.

I look forward to the committee process and hearing comments such as that. It may well be that the government officials will be able to say, "No, that's not the case," and explain why, but certainly municipalities in my riding that have read this are very nervous about the funding of it, the costing of it, where they are going to get the staff for this, the expertise for this, how they are going to pay for the unbelievable amount of consultants that'll be required, the reports that are going to be needed to be prepared and these little technical arguments -- not little technical arguments, large technical positions that they've expressed a concern with.

Another question was raised by another municipality in my municipality, the town of Orangeville. Contrary to the philosophy of the former Minister of the Environment and of the current Minister of Environment and Energy, they send their garbage to Michigan. So much for getting rid of your waste in your own backyard. They truck it off to Michigan because there's no other place for it.

On the other hand, there's an adjoining municipality, the township of Mono, which has a landfill site. I guess the question that was raised was, notwithstanding any wishes of the township of Mono, if the county council assumes the responsibility of the landfill sites in the county, can the county government then send Orangeville waste, which is now going to Michigan, to the township of Mono? The Ministry of Municipal Affairs says yes. Now there are problems with that. There are problems of costing and planning by one municipality. Here's one municipality that has been planning for a landfill site to last so many years and all of a sudden they're taken back. So I look forward to hearing more in the committee process.

Of interest, the municipal waste group that put forward a press release just recently was concerned about private enterprise and its influence in getting rid of waste. They made comments in a press release as of May 3, this was the OWMA, and they said:

"Our study provides powerful confirmation that the provision of waste management services by the public sector is much more expensive than having those services provided by the private sector. In the case of residential solid waste, our findings indicate that collection by a municipal force can cost at least 75% more than collection by a private contractor."

That is the opinion of Dr Don Dewees, a professor of law and economics at the University of Toronto. I think we need to hear more about that philosophy.

Again, it's rather uncertain about municipalities having to do that, but there need to be some presentations about that. I'd like to hear more about that, as I'm sure all of us would. We should be trying to get rid of our waste in the most economical fashion. On this issue, like a number of other issues, the issues that are raised by the member for Durham West, all of which are good thoughts, we need to hear more of those things. So I look forward to the committee process and to hearing some of those thoughts.

The president of the Ontario Waste Management Association made a comment in the press release that said: "The timing of this study is remarkable. Two weeks ago, Finance Minister Laughren announced reductions in the amount of money by which Ontario would subsidize the cost of running its municipalities in the future. Then just last Thursday, Environment Minister Wildman introduced regulations that will force most municipalities to provide extensive waste management and recycling programs even if they don't have the financial resources to do so."

I look forward to hearing some response from the government members on that, but that's a fear that's out there. You're saying: "You're not going to get any more money. You're not going to get any more grants. You're not going to get anything, and yet we're going to give you all these responsibilities, and it's your responsibility to do it." So there's a lot of fear out there as to how this is going to be pulled off.

I see I have about two minutes left to comment on AMO's position. AMO, quite rightfully -- the member for Essex-Kent referred to a press release, and he didn't say where that was -- yes, AMO supports the philosophy of -- I'm sorry?

Mr Hayes: April 21.

Mr Tilson: Well, you know, AMO certainly supports the process of waste management that you're suggesting, as do I, as does everyone. The question is, and I'm going to keep hammering away every time someone stands up in this House, how are we going to pay for it? Where's the money going to come from? These are very ambitious programs that you're mandating upon the municipalities to do. Well, yes, grabbing for air, money coming from the sky, who knows? But it's a major problem.

Time is fast fleeting, and I would recommend that members of this House, if you haven't already, get a copy of AMO's response to the papers that were put out. There are very serious concerns that they have on the topic of financial reform and legislative reform. They spent a great deal of time. They list off a great number of recommendations to this government, none of which have been followed in this bill; absolutely none have been followed.

Before you continue to say that AMO supports it -- AMO supports the philosophy, but they've raised a number of conditions in these booklets, in these reports, all of which are very extensive.

1750

Then there's the other issue of the larger municipalities and the smaller municipalities. Most of the regional areas, they've got the funds to pull this off. But if you look at your own small municipalities that some of you may represent, particularly in the rural areas, they haven't got the funds for this, whether it's county or whether it's the individual municipalities. They simply don't have the money to pull off what you want.

So I close. On the one hand, I congratulate the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for at least raising the issue, but they've only brought half of it forward. These issues we need to canvass more, we need to discuss more. More importantly, we need to know the other half, particularly when the Treasurer and the Premier are telling us what a terrible financial state this province is in.

The municipalities are just groaning. The school boards and the hospitals, all of our partners, as we say, are groaning. We're putting these added responsibilities on them that are going to be very onerous indeed. If you don't tell them how to pay for it and if you don't provide financial assistance for it, the program's going to fail.

Mr Wiseman: I want to get back to the costs of this again. There are costs if we don't do it, and some of those costs have to do with the cleanup costs of the environment and the perpetual care costs of the landfill site. I think we need to put those on the table as well when we're talking about costs.

Other costs the municipalities are already experiencing -- for example, the cost to ship a tonne of garbage from that town to Michigan must be very high. It may very well be that when the whole region develops a waste management strategy, the costs they are currently experiencing may be less through the development of this waste management strategy.

Just to give you an example to hearken back again, the Durham Board of Education in Durham spends $90 a tonne now and used to spend $152 a tonne to dump waste into the Brock West landfill site in Durham. The Toronto school boards didn't have to pay that, so essentially their costs were very low.

What it's going to cost each area could very well be different, depending on what their current costs are, but we also have to remember the economies of scale. If a region can do it, maybe it can do it more efficiently for everybody and people's costs will go down.

But on the other side of the coin, if we don't do it, I think we still have to remember the cost of cleaning up leachate that slides into a river or, for example, the sliding garbage dump that slid into the Brimley Road area back two years ago. It was well over $1.25 million, I think, to clean that up.

We've got other costs that we have to consider in terms of perpetual care, understanding that not all the costs we're going to pay are in dollars and cents. We have methane gas leaching into the atmosphere that's going to create harm for people.

I think I just ran out of time, but I would like to pursue this.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I just wanted to comment on the remarks made by my colleague the critic for the third party. I want to reiterate an interesting point he made with respect to the contradictory nature of this bill, as opposed to what the government has initiated with the Interim Waste Authority process under its authority to come up with landfill sites and the entire process that has been undertaken. It is on the surface of it difficult to understand in what direction this government is going.

It's of course no major surprise, because this government is wont to do that on a number of issues, going in both directions at the same time and not really understanding ultimately where it wants to go. It certainly takes advice from all directions and then never really uses the kind of wise advice that would seemingly put the government in the right direction.

I think the comments that have been made with respect to costing and funding are very much appropriate because this is an industry -- if you will, an infant industry -- which needs to be supported, which should be of primary importance for this administration. This administration should have as a priority this entire area and it does not seem to be dealing with it as one would have assumed. Going into the last election, there were glowing comments from that side of the House or that party about this entire area.

I'm running out of time, but I would say that, quite frankly, they don't live up to the expectations that many people had of them.

Mr Stockwell: The economies of scale were discussed a moment ago, and the ramifications involved in not pursuing this particular piece of legislation. Let's be very clear. This government has been nothing but hypocritical with respect to the dumping of waste in Ontario. They won't deal with Kirkland Lake and they want to talk about economies of scale.

Let me tell you about where this stuff is being shipped from. Economies of scale? It's from Metro it's being shipped. It doesn't get any bigger than Metro. So economy of scale: Metropolitan Toronto has got to be the largest scale that you're going to have this economy on.

You're going to New York -- I'll give you just the states, because the list of the towns and cities is too long. Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Washington, New York: This is where predominantly this stuff is being shipped.

The bottom line that we have here is, the costs involved are going to be so prohibitive it won't matter what the downsides and the upsides are, because the cost is going to be so prohibitive on the local municipalities that the whole program is going to erode. I think the member for Dufferin-Peel was clear about that. It's going to collapse under its own weight.

Now think about it. You're passing on half a billion dollars in costs to municipalities for a social contract. You're going to pass on hundreds of millions of dollars in disentanglement. Under this program, you're going to cost them millions and millions of dollars again. Eventually, something has to give. So unless you're prepared to put your money where your mouth is when it comes to waste management, for you to make this legislation come true and force all the cost to the municipalities just means it's lipservice.

You're not prepared to fund what you consider to be a priority. So I don't want to hear any more comments on cost per tonne and the benefits and the downsides. The bottom line is, it will cost more, and unless you're prepared to share the pain of that cost, don't tell me about how important it is.

Mr Hayes: I'd like to thank the member for Dufferin-Peel. I think he made some very good points. There were a couple of issues that he did raise in regard to upper tier versus lower tier and the responsibilities and who was going to pay. I have indicated just two days ago that we'll certainly be willing to look at amending that particular section about what type of vote would be taken and things of that nature.

But I think one question that was asked was, why the rush? Municipalities, environmental groups, corporations and all levels of government have come to the conclusion that we cannot continue the old way of just looking for more landfill sites, places to dump garbage or places to transport garbage, and just dump it on to someone else. We have to get away from that old way.

The bottom line in this piece of legislation, the real key, is in reducing waste. I think that's very, very important. It will take away the need for all these landfills that we're talking about and all the landfills that we're having problems with.

As far as the cost, rightfully so -- I think that is a very good question -- we say, can we afford it? I must say to the member for Dufferin-Peel and all the other members in this House, can we afford not to do this? I think it's very, very important.

There was another area here also, talking about the concern of the private sector. This bill does not take away anything from the private sector, and it still allows municipalities, if they so choose, to contract out.

I'd just like to thank all those who did speak on this bill, and I hope we do have your support in committee. I'm sure it will be a very worthwhile bill to support.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to respond.

Mr Tilson: Members from Durham West, Eglinton, Etobicoke West and Essex-Kent all have raised excellent points, and I think as we watch this debate unfold, it's almost a non-partisan problem that we need to look at. Certainly I know our party will be trying to cooperate as much as we can with the government in trying to assist it and perhaps offer advice on changes that they are recommending. I do look forward to the committee process.

I think we're all tempted to raise little problems that we have in our own ridings when we stand to speak, and I'm at fault in that. One of the concerns I have that has developed in our riding -- the member for Durham West keeps talking about the problem with tires -- notwithstanding that fact, we had the tire tax that was instituted by this government, and the NDP government continues to allow that $5 per tire simply to be pulled into the consolidated revenue fund. I don't know where you're putting it. You should be dealing with that whole issue of tires.

We've got a major problem in our riding, specifically in the town of Orangeville. There's litigation going on and it would be inappropriate to deal with that now. The fact of the matter is that there is a whole slew of tires that are stored there as a result of a recycling company that had major problems.

The government of course has said, "We're going to have to have security about that, you know," notwithstanding the fact that it would be cheaper to move them. Now they've taken the security away, and we in Orangeville are very afraid that the horrible incident that occurred with the Liberal government in Hagersville, that that doesn't occur again.

We've got all of these problems that developed, whether they be in tires or other areas, and again it gets back to the issue, who pays? The municipalities can't.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable minister wishes to make a statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, May 10, we will continue second reading consideration of municipal waste management, Bill 7, and, if time permits, we will begin second reading consideration of Bill 32, the Retail Sales Tax Act amendments, and Bill 34, the Highway Traffic Act amendments which, by agreement with the opposition parties, will be considered concurrently.

On Tuesday, May 11, we will continue second reading consideration of the vehicle transfer package, Bills 32 and 34.

On Wednesday, May 12, we will give third reading consideration to Bill 102, the Pay Equity Act.

In the morning of Thursday, May 13, during the time reserved for private members' public business, we will consider ballot item 7, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Huget, and ballot item 8, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Grandmaître.

On Thursday afternoon, we will debate an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mrs McLeod.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1803.

6 mai 1993