Journal des débats 1993-sept-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a statement directed to the Minister of Natural Resources, and it concerns the ongoing saga of stumpage fees. In July, after a continued assault by the Leader of the Opposition, Lyn McLeod, the member for Kenora, Frank Miclash, the member for Timiskaming, David Ramsay and myself, we convinced the minister to delay the planned increase for the base rate of the non-integrated sector of stumpage fees till October 1.

October 1 is Friday, and the people in the forest industry do not know what the planned increases are. That is just not acceptable. There has been confusion about the date that the fees will begin and what the actual fees will be.

The Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association is concerned about the impact that this increase in production costs will have on its competitive position in the North American market. Of equal importance is the impact that this increase will have on independent truckers and loggers in northern Ontario. This base rate increase will no doubt have a greater impact on this group than on other players within this sector, as profit margins will be shaved considerably.

The lumber manufacturers' association has not been informed officially of when this announcement will be made and there is confusion about the silence of the minister.

It's time for the ministry to sit down with all the stakeholders to re-evaluate the entire stumpage system and to arrive at a consensual competitive rate for the use of our forest resources.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I rise on behalf of St Gregory Separate School in Etobicoke. The minister is well aware that St Gregory's is in desperate need of renovations and expansion. The PTA has worked closely with its trustees and its school board in the 10-year struggle for funding.

Finally, their patience and hard work has put St Gregory's where? In first position for funding. They are aware of the ministry's new loan-based systems of financing capital projects, and the school board is prepared to debenture these funds.

I saw at first hand the condition of this school. It is seriously overcrowded, washroom facilities are inadequate, the playground is full of portables, storage rooms are being used for staff offices, and the list goes on and on and on.

If the minister won't take my word for it, perhaps you will listen to the children themselves.

Michael, a grade 7 student, writes: "The school is very old and in need of megarepairs. I am sure that you would not like it if your house looked like that and you had to work in it all day."

Another Michael writes, "The French teachers needs an office, not a broom closet." I would ask a page to deliver these notices over to the Minister of Education, who's not here.

We are expecting the Minister of Education's capital funding announcement very shortly.

On behalf of St Gregory's, I urge the minister to provide the necessary funding for these much-needed renovations. They have waited over 10 years.

In closing, I will quote from a grade 7 student, David, who wrote, Mr Minister, "I and the rest of my class are counting on you to do something about our problems here at St Gregory's school."

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): During this fall session our government will be introducing legislation to reform social assistance in Ontario. There is a general consensus among my constituents acknowledging the need for reform in this area.

The meaning of welfare has changed from being a temporary emergency financial assistance to a permanent source of income that traps the very people it is supposed to help in an endless cycle of poverty and dependency.

We must work together to create a system that will protect and assist those who are truly in need. At the same time, social assistance must become an investment in helping people enter the workplace. A social assistance policy that discourages people from being productive cannot be successful; it is doomed to fail.

Those who abuse and rip off the system must face stiff penalties. Otherwise, the actions of these very unscrupulous individuals will jeopardize everyone's faith in the system.

This country and this province are highly regarded abroad because of the value that we citizens place on our social programs. As representatives of the people of Ontario, it is our obligation to come together to rebuild a welfare system that ensures fairness and encourages people to work.

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): During hearings in the legislative committee looking into the Workers' Compensation Board, I raised an issue about the Workers' Compensation Board purchasing an American-made floor system for its new $180-million headquarters in downtown Toronto instead of buying made-in-Ontario, indeed, made-in-Oakville flooring that was half a million dollars cheaper than the American product and met the specifications.

I also tabled with the committee an internal memo from the American company that manufactures this flooring in Michigan wherein they admitted to their salespeople that the floor is crumbling around the edges and indeed does not meet the specifications called for in the bidding that was put out by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Members can shake their heads if they want, but it's a fact. It was tabled and Mr King has told me he would look into it. I've yet to hear from him.

The bottom line of this is that the Workers' Compensation board is cross-border shopping to buy a flooring system that is $500,000 more expensive than the same product made right here in Oakville that is currently being installed in the Ontario Provincial Police building and currently exists in the building in Sault Ste Marie with the Ontario Lottery Corp and several other government buildings. It even has the Minister of Housing's stamp of approval for use, but it's not good enough for the Workers' Compensation Board.

1340

MARKHAM FAIR

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, today I would like to invite you and all members of the Legislature to attend the Markham Fair this weekend. It starts tomorrow and continues through to Sunday, October 3.

It's a magnificent fair and offers something for everyone. There'll be 70,000 visitors coming. They'll be coming to see the fair queen, the horse show, the fiddling contest -- that's something you guys are good at, the fiddling contest -- the livestock exhibitions, the demolition derbies, the truck and tractor pull, fresh apple cider, the 4-H Club rabbit exhibit, the goat show -- that's a place for all the NDP -- the mouth-watering food, lively entertainment, exhibits and games; something for everyone.

The Markham Fair is open to everybody. There's loads of parking. Come and enjoy a wonderful weekend. It's right on McCowan Road north of Major Mackenzie off Highway 404.

This fair's been going for over 140 years. Trevor Hurley, the president, is working with thousands of volunteers to make this year's fair even better, and it would appear that Mother Nature's going to provide a super weekend, so, ladies and gentlemen, come to Markham. Markham Fair is this weekend. It's the best fair in the province of Ontario. If you haven't been, this is the year to make a visit to the Markham Fair. We'll look forward to seeing you there. There is room for everybody. Bring your family, bring the young, bring all, because the Markham Fair is the place to go this weekend. If you haven't been, this is your chance.

PALLIATIVE AT-HOME CARE TEAM

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Caring for the dying has always been a part of medical care, and it presents a challenge and responsibility for physicians. The development of palliative care, relieving symptoms in the home or in hospice, owes much to the work of the British physician Dame Cicely Saunders.

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity of sitting in on the weekly clinical case conference of PACT, the palliative at-home care team, in Scarborough. This is a group of family physicians that has been providing care to terminally ill patients in our community, predominantly people who have cancer. The team is directed by Dr Jackie Gardner-Nix. When I was there, they discussed the progress of the patients, the control of pain and other symptoms and the provision of care so that wherever possible clients can remain at home with the loving support of their families.

I know I can speak for many Scarborough families in expressing gratitude for the skill and devotion of the doctors and nurses participating in PACT. It's too easy for medical practice to become isolated, and the satisfaction of working together as a team was quite evident here.

It should also be noted that community palliative care is also cheaper to the system than institutional care, and we all very much hope that the Ministry of Health will continue to fund and expand services in Scarborough and across the province.

Mr Speaker, this coming Sunday, PACT will be participating in a fund-raising sale at Scarborough General Hospital and would welcome your presence, along with its many friends and supporters.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There's a strong indication today that negotiations between the Canadian Auto Workers union and General Motors have produced, as part of their tentative agreement, a commitment on the part of the company to continue production of axles for GM at the St Catharines location for the duration of the contract. While there is no assurance that this production will continue beyond the three-year period, GM employees in St Catharines and in the community as a whole will be relieved that the CAW has established the retention of the axle operation as a priority in negotiations and that General Motors has responded positively to this initiative on the part of the CAW.

We must now turn our attention to the GM foundry operation in St Catharines, the 750 indefinite layoffs and the portion of the engine plant which was closed as a result of GM announcements.

This is an indication that negotiations between the Canadian Auto Workers union, or any union, and the company revolve not only around the dollars and cents issues, around pensions, around benefits and around wages, but also around the operations that take place and the security of employment in any community.

The Canadian Auto Workers, and Local 199 in St Catharines particularly, must be congratulated for taking this initiative. Everyone in our community will benefit as a result, at least for that three-year period. Now all of us have to work together to ensure that the remainder of the operation continues for many years to come.

MINOR HOCKEY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I believe that all members of this Legislature have received letters from the Ontario Minor Hockey Association regarding the serious problems the association is having with the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, which may jeopardize minor hockey programs for 125,000 children in approximately 300 communities in Ontario.

Minor hockey is one of the most popular recreational activities enjoyed by Ontario's youth and forms an important part of our Canadian culture and heritage. If nothing else unites us as Canadians, our passion for this glorious sport always will. It will be devastating if the disagreement between adults at the senior levels of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association prevents boys and girls from taking part in this wonderful sport.

It's my understanding that some of the benefits which the Ontario Minor Hockey Association enjoys in its affiliation with the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association are reasonable group insurance rates. The loss of these reasonable rates may jeopardize the Ontario Minor Hockey Association's ability to compete internationally in the US and Europe. As well, the potential loss of tourism revenues associated with travelling teams cannot be ignored, should the current dispute remain unresolved.

I understand that the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation met yesterday with members of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, and I am pleased that she has taken this first step. I would urge her to continue to use all her influence as minister to bring all of the parties together to the table in an effort to resolve this problem. I am sure that the children and parents involved in minor hockey in Ontario would appreciate her assistance and interest in trying to reach a settlement to this dispute.

SENIORS' HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): In a few weeks' time, thousands of senior citizens would normally head off to Florida for the winter months. This year, 40% of the seniors who go south will be forced to stay at home. They're forced to stay at home because they can no longer afford upwards of $3,000 for their winter health insurance.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Who's the cause of that?

Mr Mills: These seniors are not wealthy. They are the ordinary folks who have saved up to buy a winter place in the sun to enjoy respite from the cold.

Mr Tilson: Talk to your Minister of Health.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, they keep yapping, and I want more time on the clock.

In some cases, these people sold their homes to purchase two mobile homes: one here, one in Florida --

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Talk to your Minister of Health.

Mr Mills: Listen to me --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, they're out of control over there. For the people whom I represent, this is a serious matter, and I don't want to keep being interrupted by those people.

These seniors have made a significant contribution to the fabric of Ontario. They've paid their way and now they expect some return considerations by way of creation of some reasonable health insurance for their stay in Florida.

I appeal to the Premier and to the cabinet: Set up your war room now and work out a solution to help those who have done so much for Ontario in the prime of their lives. They don't want to be let down. I'm looking forward to the help.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Come on over, Gord.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, it's unfortunate that I've got off track with my statement because of all the rhetoric. This is a serious, serious matter.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

WCB PREMIUMS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. The Workers' Compensation Board has recently increased the premium rate for nursing homes and homes for the aged by 181%. That means that for every $100 of payroll, their rate will move from $2.15 to $6.04. For local senior facilities such as the John Noble Home in Brantford, this means an increase in WCB premium costs from $236,000 to $660,000.

Premier, you will surely be aware that the nursing homes and homes for the aged across this province are already struggling to cope with the cutbacks in funding your government gives them, and you will know that seniors are going to have to pay 30% more themselves for the services they receive.

The nursing homes are telling us that with this tripling of WCB premiums, their only alternative is going to be to reduce services to seniors in nursing homes and homes for the aged. I ask quite simply, have you even looked at what this increase in WCB premiums is going to mean in service to seniors?

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

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, I think it's important for members of the House to know that the WCB has made no decision as to the increase in its premiums. They are, as we are aware, looking at reclassifying employer rate groups to more closely reflect the nature of the business and the past accident experiences. The homes for the aged and nursing homes have expressed a concern that this would be a very major rate increase and are in discussions with the WCB at this point, but no final decision has been made.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I am really addressing this question to the issue of the impact that an increase in premiums is going to have on levels of service in nursing homes and homes for the aged, recognizing that government is a very direct funder and therefore has a direct responsibility for the level of service that is going to be provided.

The kind of rate increase that the WCB is talking about would cost nursing homes an additional $23 million over the next year. The nursing home association tells us that that kind of an increase would mean they would have to lay off 4% of their staff and they would have to reduce services to the 57,000 people who are in facilities across this province. When they raised their concerns about the reductions in service that they would have to face if they had these kinds of increases from WCB, the answer they got from the Workers' Compensation Board was, "That's not our problem; that's the government's problem."

That's why I bring the question back to you in the House today, Minister. How do you believe that seniors' facilities could cope with that kind of an increase, and do you really feel that nursing homes and homes for the aged should have to reduce their services to pay for this kind of increase?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that no rate increase has been decided upon at this point. We are, of course, as concerned as she is that whatever the WCB decides should not impact on services in nursing homes and homes for the aged. Let me remind her that under our changes in the payments to facilities, there is over $200 million more investment in facilities and care this year than there was last year. But, of course, as we deal with these issues, we will be expressing our views to the WCB, and the WCB, I know, is hearing from the operators and is taking their concerns into account as it attempts to strike a balance before it sets its rates.

Mrs McLeod: I think I've heard something like this before, where this same minister in this same government said, "Oh, no, the social contract is not going to hurt health care in this province." Now we get the minister expressing some concerns about whether a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board to raise premiums is going to affect services to seniors in facilities across this province. I believe this minister has to do more than simply express concerns.

Let me ask you very directly about how you believe the Workers' Compensation Board could justify an increase anything like 181%. Obviously, we're all aware of the $11 billion in unfunded liability that the Workers' Compensation Board is facing, but I think we would all still agree that any change in premiums for the Workers' Compensation Board should reflect the accident rate and the liabilities of that particular workplace. The nursing home association was told that 10% of the increase that was being proposed in their premium rates was simply to cover the administrative costs of the Workers' Compensation Board. The homes for the aged operators were told that their increase was indeed based on being reclassified to a new structure, a schedule which would include workers who are in manufacturing, in construction, in industrial occupations, and they don't understand where they fit in that kind of new schedule.

So I ask you, Minister, how do you feel this kind of rate increase can be justified, and do you believe that the seniors of this province should now be asked to pay for the mismanagement of the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Mrs Grier: First of all, let me say again that at this point nobody knows what in fact the rate increase will be. The WCB has been in consultations with the industry. The WCB is, yes, looking at reclassifying. But let's put the facts on the table. The reason they're looking at reclassifying is that these institutions have been lumped with hospitals. In fact, hospitals have had a better accident record than either nursing homes or homes for the aged. So in the determination of rates, hospitals have, if you will, been subsidizing the nursing homes and the homes for the aged. The WCB, I think quite properly, is taking a look at that. We don't yet know the results of that reclassification or what the rates will be, and I can assure you that both the nursing homes and ourselves have made and will make our views clear to the WCB.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: My second question is for the Solicitor General. I understand he is to be present today. So I'll stand down my question, assuming that he is to arrive.

The Speaker: Agreed. Third party.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. There is a national debate going on right now on our health care system; part of the federal campaign, no doubt, has accelerated that. Every time somebody in Ontario takes an ambulance, they pay a $45 fee. That fee for the use of the ambulance is exactly the same fee whether you have an income of $20,000 or $120,000.

I know that the NDP, your government, you as Premier, your minister, your party, provincially, nationally and around the world are against user fees in health care. So I am wondering if you can tell me: Just what do you call this $45 fee that Ontarians are charged for using an ambulance?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm interested to hear the leader of the third party raise this issue. I would say to him that we're not dealing here with a philosophical subject; we're dealing here with a very practical one. We have tried to make the fee structures in the province as fair as possible. We have been consistently strong advocates on behalf of health care for seniors and access to health care for all of our citizens, and we're very proud of it.

In a fashion which I feel is appropriate at this point, I'd like to answer the leader's question with another question. That is to say, what do you call a federal government that has deprived the taxpayers of this province of $5 billion in terms of its cut on the cap on the Canada assistance plan? What do you call a federal government that has consistently denied to this province the means with which to finance the crucial social programs? What do you call a federal government which instead of paying 50% for health care is now paying 30% and less for health care in the province of Ontario compared to what it's doing in other jurisdictions? I call it a Tory government, and that's the one which you want to see re-elected and I don't think the people of Canada do.

Mr Harris: I'm interested in the Premier's question, because I don't name-call any other level of government; I deal with the problems right here that I was elected to deal with. Premier, let me ask you this, since the NDP is opposed to user fees and the Liberals apparently were opposed to user fees as well. Last spring, following a routine medical that I had with my doctor in North Bay, among the tests that my doctor ordered for me was a screening test for prostate cancer. I had that test. I paid $10 to have that test because I was told that there was a fee for me to have that test that my doctor prescribed.

While the $10 that I paid may not seem like a lot of money to me, and perhaps for some wealthier than I $10 would not have been a problem, there are many people in this province for whom that $10 fee would have caused a considerable amount of concern. So, given, Premier, that you are against user fees -- you, the NDP, your party, your minister, you are opposed to them -- I just wonder if you could tell me what you call the $10 fee that I paid to have a test for prostate cancer.

1400

Hon Mr Rae: The questions of what tests are medically necessary or not are questions that are being discussed with the OMA and with others and that are widely debated. I think it's fair to say that when it comes to the issue of insured services, medically necessary services, our party and our government have been very consistent in their support for the Canada Health Act. I think it's fair to say that there wouldn't have been a Canada Health Act if it hadn't been for the efforts of the New Democratic Party right here in Ontario as well as across the country.

If the leader of the third party is now saying that he is opposed to any form of copayment for whatever service patients choose to have, if that's what he's saying, if he's saying that he's opposed to that, let him stand up in his place and say it. I'd like to know whether you're opposed to it.

Mr Harris: The Premier's now on record, I suppose, saying that an ambulance to a hospital somehow or other is an optional luxury, not one that would be medically designated for that $45 fee.

Let me ask you this: During the standing committee on public accounts earlier this month, the Deputy Minister of Health hinted that your government intends to charge between $5 and $10 for a new health card in Ontario. That would be $5 or $10 for everyone, rich or poor, to pay for the mismanagement of the red-and-white card brought in by the Liberals.

Since I know that you and the NDP and your minister are opposed to user fees, that you would never want to ever have a user fee, I just wonder if you could tell me what this proposed $5 or $10 fee that you're going to charge everybody is to be called?

Hon Mr Rae: There's been absolutely no decision taken by the government with respect to the issue of any fees with regard to a health card. In fact, I think we've made it very clear that we are eager to hear from the public accounts committee and from others with respect to the health card issue.

We believe that there's a problem with the Liberal health card. We think it's there. I think it has to be dealt with. There was also a problem with the Tory OHIP numbers where we had millions more Tory OHIP numbers than we had patients in the province. So don't turn around and try to invent some sense that this is a problem that started yesterday or even last week.

The question today is, what are you going to call the fee? I can only tell you there's been absolutely no decision whatsoever with respect to whether or not to charge a fee for any card. I think you should know that, instead of going around making allegations that have no substance in fact other than in the imagination of the Tory party.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much. I'm sorry if the Premier thinks that the testimony his deputy minister gave to the committee is some allegation of mine. I didn't make it up. This is what the Deputy Minister of Health, your friend Mr Decter, said.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a second question?

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question, Mr Speaker, if you have control now of all members of the House, is to the Premier as well.

This is a picture I would like you to have a look at. I'd be happy to send it over, if you like. This is a picture of a renovated house on Waverley Road in Toronto. It was a house that was purchased and it was renovated into four apartment units.

This house was purchased and owned and is run by the Riverdale Housing Action Group with the encouragement of, I might add, and 100% funding by your government. The total cost of the purchase and renovation of this house was close to $1.3 million, or $318,000 per apartment unit.

These apartments house women and their children who have been in a shelter situation, in most cases women who have been battered. Given that thousands of women and their children are desperately waiting for shelter assistance in Ontario today because of a lack of funds, do you think it makes sense to spend $1.3 million for four apartment units on Waverley Road?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd like to ask the Minister of Housing to answer that.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The project the leader of the third party is referring to is one that received an allocation from the Ministry of Housing as a non-profit project --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Yorkview.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- back in 1989. The property was purchased for $221,610. Following a long series of discussions, if I can put it that way, with the neighbourhood and planning changes, renovations and so on, which reduced the number of units in the project from eight to four, the project was given approval in 1991. It was over the maximum unit price. It was decided to go ahead with it because of the nature of the project. It is a small project and it does provide services for people who are difficult to find housing for in the city of Toronto. It is over the maximum unit price.

Mr Harris: Absolutely nothing for sale under $300,000 in Toronto, nothing for rent under $3,000 a month: Is that what you're telling this house? A real estate agent told us you can buy three-bedroom fully detached homes far cheaper than the cost of one of those units. Individual apartments, because of the high capital cost, have an operating subsidy of $2,952 per month per apartment unit. Minister, that is more than twice, in many cases three times, the value of market rents in the same area. In other words, you could house two or three times the number of families for the same amount of money.

I would ask you how you defend this waste to the thousands of women and their children who are sitting on waiting lists because you don't have the money for shelter subsidies.

Hon Ms Gigantes: You're not going to hear me try and say that these are not expensive units. They were expensive units. I want to point out to the leader of the third party, if he didn't hear the first time, that the land and the building were purchased for over $221,000. In fact, the reason for the delay and the increased costs was unexpected costs of renovation, which can happen in an acquisition.

The renovations were very extensive, but a major cost of the increase in this project was neighbourhood opposition. There is a high price to be paid for neighbourhood opposition. This was neighbourhood opposition, as the leader of the third party points out, to the proposal to have eight units to serve women and children in a neighbourhood where it would be very suitable to provide that service.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Why didn't you get the tenant before you bought it? It's called an option.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It forced a reduction to four units, which naturally increased the cost on a per-unit basis. I'd like to know what kind of attitude the leader of the third party would have towards people who objected to an eight-unit renovation and caused that kind of cost increase. Do we in fact give positive reinforcement to that behaviour by backing out?

1410

Mr Harris: A hundred thousand dollars in architectural fees because of neighbourhood opposition? It's because of incompetence. It's because you've got the wrong people involved in housing. You've got people who know nothing about buying or building or construction; ie, you and your government cronies.

Let me ask you this: My office spoke with a transition home in North Bay this morning. They have a waiting list for helping battered women and their children. This is not unique; it is all across the province. They are crying out for additional funding, yet your government continues to waste scarce resources on examples such as this one. It's not an isolated example.

Isn't it time you put an end to the incompetence of government building more and more, buying, renovating more and more at these outrageous prices, and came forward with a shelter subsidy program that could help two and three and four times the numbers of battered women and their children who are sitting now on waiting lists?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The leader of the third party has raised this kind of question before. He has a particular example that he wants to raise today of an eight-unit development that was slowed down by neighbourhood opposition which, I'll put to you, Mr Speaker, was unjustified.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: He is proposing in his question that there is only one way to do things in Ontario to provide housing for people who need assisted housing, and that is to provide what he calls rent subsidies.

In this province, by far the largest amount of money that we spend in providing assistance for people in housing is through the shelter subsidy component, the shelter allowance component, of our social assistance system, where we spend $2.5 billion a year and where we provide subsidies to 40% of the landlords, 40% of the units in this province's private rental market.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: Some $2,952 per month per unit.

The Speaker: Order, the leader of the third party.

Hon Ms Gigantes: He needs to understand a little bit about what happens in housing in this province, and if I keep telling him, maybe he'll understand. And I'll keep telling him.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with her second lead-off question.

POLICE COMPLAINTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Solicitor General. Over the past few days we have been hearing alarming allegations about inappropriate strip searches. The allegations are indeed very disturbing and they raise serious concerns in the minds of the public about what rules are in place for the use of this very intrusive procedure.

Minister, can you tell us what responsibility you feel you have for ensuring that the rules for use of strip searches are clear and that they are indeed being followed?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): It's a very broad question. Let me answer by saying that my ministry is responsible for the overall administration of policing in the province of Ontario. Much of the authority for directing chiefs is with police services boards. The authority for the day-to-day operations is of course vested with the chiefs and the senior officers. Our ministry provides the standards and the directives and the guidelines for the various procedures that we expect the police services boards to adopt and to ensure that the police chiefs are indeed following.

This matter is obviously as disturbing for us, as it is for the opposition. The allegations are very serious. The Attorney General has responded in terms of her concerns about timeliness and fairness, and I would look to the supplementary questions for a further comment.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your recognition that you do indeed have a clear responsibility, as the chief enforcement officer in the province, to ensure that these kinds of guidelines are in place, and I believe the public has a right to know that there are clear guidelines and policies in place. I also would think that the police want to be assured that their policies are adequate and that they are appropriate.

You have acknowledged the role that local boards will play. I would ask very specifically if you can assure us that you are aware of the procedures and the policies that are in place in local jurisdictions across the province, that you are aware of the protocols that are in place for carrying out strip searches, and can you tell us whether you believe, as the chief enforcement officer of the province, that these policies and guidelines are adequate?

Hon Mr Christopherson: The officials in my ministry are obviously there to review the detailed standards. There are well over 100 police services boards, as well as the OPP, and each of them has different procedures to meet the standards. We have a division within the ministry, as the honourable member knows, that is responsible for developing the standards and working with the police services boards to ensure that the standards are being met. These are constantly being reviewed in the context of the Police Services Act. New standards are constantly being developed and, I might add, in some areas we're world leaders in the standards we're developing and implementing.

By and large, I would say I am very, very proud of the work that the police services boards and our police do in dealing with the day-to-day issues that happen on the streets of Ontario, but there's always room for improvement and we're constantly working with the police services boards and the chiefs to improve the standard of service that we have in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I thought I had heard you acknowledge in your answer to my first question that you did indeed feel that you had a responsibility as chief enforcement officer to ensure that there were adequate policies and procedures in place in every jurisdiction across the province. I take you back to my belief that the allegations of recent days have raised some very real concerns in the public mind about just how adequate the procedures are governing this particular procedure. You do have an opportunity to provide that reassurance. You have an opportunity to take leadership on the issue. In fact, you not only have the power to ensure that adequate policies exist and that they're being enforced, you have the power to issue directives to police forces if you feel that the policies are not adequate as they currently exist.

I'm calling on you today to review the local policies that exist, to accept that personal responsibility for assuring the public of Ontario that there are adequate policies in place and that they're being followed. I ask whether you will commit to carrying out this review today and at the conclusion of the review to determine whether there is a further role for provincial policy and guidelines to be put in place on this matter.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me say very clearly to the honourable member that I and this government take all such matters extremely seriously. I believe we need to look to the role of the civilian oversight body and the extraordinary powers it has in this regard. The public complaints commissioner has the authority to make directions or recommendations to me as they might apply province-wide, which indeed, if it's necessary in the current cases, will be part of the final deliberations as appropriate.

Let me say that I take this matter very, very seriously and we will be closely monitoring the situation. We need to allow the public oversight body the opportunity to do the job it's in place to do, but you have my assurance that we constantly review these kinds of matters, we take recommendations from the commissioner very, very seriously, and anywhere we can improve the service to the people of Ontario, we will take appropriate action.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): In the absence of the minister, I'll direct my question to the Premier. As you know, there are about 50 Pizza Pizza franchisees who were outside the Legislature this morning protesting the lack of laws protecting them from what appears to be rather one-sided, arbitrary treatment by their head office.

The franchisees have stated that the head office is treating them unfairly, misspending their money and throwing them out of their stores. These small business people have invested their life savings and in fact have mortgaged their homes to the hilt to buy these businesses. Pizza Pizza has even hired a convicted con man to oversee the company's operations, and the franchisees were not told that this man was coming directly out of jail to run the company.

1420

There are no rules governing franchises. It has been referred to as the wild, wild west of the business world. Your minister has repeatedly refused to bring in any legislation to try to help these people or to even deal with them on an individual basis to try to help them.

There is clearly a problem within the franchise industry, identified as long ago as 1971, when a legislative committee said in a report, "We believe that the evils cry out for some control."

What do you say to the 50 Pizza Pizza franchisees who are losing their homes and in some cases their families over this terrible treatment by a ruthless head office?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The minister isn't here, as the member has indicated. I was aware of the fact that the people were here today, and obviously I've been following the allegations that you have repeated today with respect to the situation at Pizza Pizza and have been following them with a great deal of interest and concern.

There are a couple of points I would make. The first is that I don't want to say anything that would reflect on whatever legal action is now being taken, and I'm not entirely certain what that is. I don't have any music with me that would indicate that, so I want to be sure I don't say anything that's going to prejudice that in any way, shape or form. I know the honourable member would understand my caution in that regard.

Also, I would have to exercise some caution with respect to some of the descriptions, as colourful as they are, that the honourable member has used in the House, and would be interested to see whether he makes similar kinds of statements elsewhere.

I would say to the honourable member that the one thing he has said that is of concern to me is that the ministry or the government has absolutely refused to look at legislation. That is an untrue statement. We are obviously reviewing all of the consumer and commercial legislation and that review is ongoing.

I would simply say to the honourable member that he's right; there have been concerns raised for many years. He was an active member of a government for five years that did zip on this subject.

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

Hon Mr Rae: We are obviously looking at what can be done realistically to deal not only with this particular problem, which is a particularly difficult and emotional one, but also with some longer-term concerns that are there because of the changes in business practices and business organization and the way in which the economy is organized.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you know better than I what you can say in this place and repeat outside this place. You have a great deal more experience in that particular matter than I do. Let me tell you, Premier, you can also respond with certain humorous anecdotes about this, but it's not very funny to those people and their families. I notice the somewhat sly look on your face about some of these issues. It's not very funny.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: Well, go ahead. These people are losing their homes, their businesses, their families, their life savings and you people go ahead and act that way.

My supplementary to the Premier is that there are reports that some $8.5 million of the franchisees' money has been squandered over the last five years. There's also a human cost involved, which I've referred to, and this week several franchisees were threatened with imminent seizure of their stores.

I want to share with the Premier a letter to one of our members from one of these franchisees, a letter dated September 22 in which he says, "I have owned a Pizza Pizza franchise for five years in North York and I was told today, September 22, that I must vacate my store premises by 10 am, Tuesday, September 28." That's six days' notice to vacate a store that he has owned for some five years. He goes on to say, "Time is running out for me, and unless something is done within the next six days, I will lose my store."

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

Mr Mahoney: He refers to the 50 people who are being affected by this very arbitrary, very callous treatment by the Pizza Pizza head office.

Premier, I will admit to you that since 1971 --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: -- successive governments have not tackled this issue. You are supposed to be the champion of the little guy. These are small businesses. They're losing their life savings. Will you instruct your minister to meet with these 50 franchisees immediately to draft regulations to ensure that this kind of treatment is not allowed to take place in the small business community in this province and to find ways to help these people not to lose their homes --

The Speaker: The member has placed his question. Would the member please take his seat. Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer, I guess the shortest I could make it, is that first of all I don't accept for a moment the member's statement that somehow there was anything sly in my response; quite the opposite. I was trying to be careful, because I feel that's part of my responsibility with respect to whatever legal action is now under way, and I have to be careful about that.

I would say to the honourable member that this is an issue that has been discussed in the House on a number of occasions. There are a number of views even among franchisees themselves with respect to the desirability of across-the-board regulation, and this is a very live issue with respect to the matter in the province. The minister, as well as the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and those ministries have been involved in discussions, not only obviously arising from the series of articles that is in one of the daily newspapers but also in terms of the immediate issues that are there. I can assure the honourable member that we will want to continue that very active review, and I know the minister will also want to be meeting with the particular people you've mentioned.

I can't accept the allegation that in responding in this way, the government -- we don't have a magic wand instantly to wave, but the member has raised an important issue. The issues are out there and, obviously, if there are significant abuses in the marketplace and they appear to be systemic and reflective of a broader problem --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- we will have to deal with a broader solution, even though there are many in the House who would decry the introduction of legislation.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the minister responsible for automobile insurance, who I believe is still the member for Hamilton Mountain. Since your government came to power, you have continually promised us that there would be lower rates in auto insurance, notwithstanding the fact that in the last provincial budget your Treasurer established a 5% tax on auto insurance premiums, and currently the Ontario Insurance Commission is allowing insurers to increase rates under the existing OMPP from 5% to 6%. That to date is a total of 11%.

I've been informed that you've finally finished the regulations on your new legislation, which of course you rammed through both committee and this House without full debate. I understand that you've promised insurers that they can increase their rates by a further 5% over the 11% that's being currently charged if they fast-track approval to your regulations. What you are saying to the insurance companies is that if they close their eyes, hold their nose and accept your regulations, you will give them money. I think there's a word for that.

My question: Is it true that you're enticing the insurance companies to rush through approval of the regulations by offering them a further 5% rate increase after promising this entire House and the people of this province that there would be no auto insurance premium increases in this province?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The member poses an interesting question, although I must say that I think his memory is very short, with a number of clips out of it in the middle. I say to the member two things.

First, one of the clips he left out was that this minister delivered a reduction in auto insurance premiums in this province in the fall of 1991 to the tune of 5% across the board. They don't like to talk about the fact that that reduction happened; they like to forget it exists.

Second, the member refers to increases that are happening this year under OMPP, under a plan which was introduced by the Liberals, which, for the purposes of their re-election, they wanted to make the people believe would solve the cost-crunch problems in this province, which hasn't, but which both of the opposition parties said clearly during the debate on Bill 164 they wanted to continue. The actuarial studies on OMPP show that if we didn't proceed to do something, costs over the next several years would be escalating at an average of about 10% per year.

Lastly, in response to the last part of the member's question, I have been saying for some two years now that the actuaries who costed our plan for us suggested average cost increases by that plan of about 4.4%.

1430

Mr Tilson: I think if you add up what I've just said with the figures that you simply are not disputing, you're already up to 15%, and your answer gives no justification as to why you're proceeding with Bill 164.

Minister, your plan of rate increases, allowing for 5% for these people who purchase full insurance packages -- many people do not purchase full insurance packages, and that includes particularly the seniors in this province who don't buy collision, those people who rarely drive or those people who have older cars. They do not buy the collision packages, so they don't buy the full packages. Those people will be charged a rate of 8% to 9% increase in auto insurance rates. This means that senior citizens will have rate increases of 20% as the result of your package that you're putting forward in Bill 164. Don't you think that you've already done enough harm to seniors?

We had a statement in the House earlier about insurance being charged to the seniors out of this province. We've seen how their drug-purchasing ability is going down the tubes because of the policies of your Health minister, one more attack on the seniors of this province. Why are you doing this?

Hon Mr Charlton: I simply repeat some things that I've said a number of times here in this House. Firstly, I repeat that the increases that are happening this year are a result of current legislation that was passed in 1990, legislation which both of the opposition parties have suggested we should leave in place, legislation which all of the actuarial studies done by the industry show will increase at an average rate of 10% a year for the next several years. There is no year, under the direction we've taken, in which the increase will even reach 10%, let alone 20% in one year. There is no year in which that will happen.

The reality of the question the member raises is that the increases that are happening this year gain nothing for anybody. They are for the coverage that they already have. The increases that are associated with Bill 164 are increases that deliver extra coverage and extra protection to the very vulnerable people the member refers to.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I'm sure the minister shares my gratitude to the Leader of the Opposition for raising a question yesterday about the Wolfe Island ferry. I do want to point out to the leader, though, that if she plans to go to Wolfe Island, it will take considerably longer than the five minutes that she mentioned in her remarks yesterday; it's more like 25 minutes. But you're certainly welcome to come over to Wolfe Island. I know you'll enjoy the trip.

Some of my constituents who live on Wolfe Island are angry that they will have to pay a fare for the ferry service to the mainland for the first time in 30 years. They say that introducing the fare is the same as imposing a toll on a provincial highway because the ferry route is a continuation of a highway.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Kingston and The Islands please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gary Wilson: I know the members of the House would like to find out some answers to this question, judging by the level of interest, so I hope they'll let me continue.

My constituents say that the cost will be onerous on families because there are so few services on Wolfe Island. Islanders must go to the mainland for all their health and dental care, their shopping, to go to high school, to play sports and some even to go to church. In other words, they are almost completely dependent on the mainland and completely dependent on the ferry service to get them there, and the cost is very high.

My constituents say that it's unfair because they will have additional costs while their property values go down. Some say they will no longer be able to afford to live on Wolfe Island and the few businesses that operate on the island will close or relocate.

Will the minister say why he is imposing this additional burden on a fragile community when most people are already struggling through a tough economy, and will the minister respond to my constituents' concerns about fairness and community survival?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member for his ongoing concern vis-à-vis what is a serious situation.

Charging a fare on a ferry boat is not without precedent in the province of Ontario. It's been going on for decades. What we strive for is equity and fairness. We operate 14 services across the province, 23 ferries. There are three of them at present, for some political reasons, that have yet to charge a fee. The province pays 100% of capital. The province is trying to recoup anywhere between 20% and 30% of operation. It's called user-pay. It's unfortunate. We have a responsibility to the people of Wolfe Island; we also have a responsibility to all users and all Ontarians. With respect, they're subsidizing the ferry system in the province of Ontario.

Mr Gary Wilson: In talking to my constituents on Wolfe Island about the fare, I am convinced that many islanders face a hardship because of the daily expense. Some estimate that paying $3.50 a day return could cost some families $3,000 a year or more. Adjusting tight family budgets at this time is too difficult for many islanders. How does the minister propose to help those facing hardship because of the proposed fare? Will he agree to phase in the fare, for example, so that families have time to adjust their budgets?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Words of wisdom indeed. We at Transportation have a responsibility to conduct an impact study. You don't want to pick the people's pockets; equity, fairness and a step-by-step approach so people will not be the victims of an undue financial burden. We're looking at it. But I want to remind the member, with the highest of respect, that in his riding, right beside the ferry going back and forth to Wolfe Island, there are shorter distances, and people pay. What we're trying to say is, let's ease the burden; let's treat everybody the same. Fairness and equity is our motto.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. While he returns to his seat, perhaps we could welcome him back to the House from his meetings with the council of ministers.

Last night, at its regular board meeting, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board passed the following motion:

"Whereas the public school boards in Metro Toronto have been asked to send the savings realized from the social contract process to the provincial government; and

"Whereas the province does not provide funding for the public boards in Metro to operate their education systems; and

"Whereas the ratepayers in Metro Toronto have clearly and definitively expressed the view that property taxes raised for education in Metro should not be sent to the provincial government,

"Therefore, be it resolved that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board supports the view that savings realized through the social contract remain in Metro."

Minister, I understand the amount involved is about $41 million and that also last night the board requested an urgent meeting with you. Can you tell the House today that you will meet with them as soon as possible?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): A meeting had already been set up with the chair of the Metropolitan school board. I've already met with Ann Vanstone on this issue a couple of times and another meeting had already been set up, so of course there will be a meeting.

I think it's important for the member to understand that through this whole process of the social contract and the expenditure control plan, when every other school board in this province had to cut back on spending because we cut back on our expenditures through the expenditure control program, the Metropolitan Toronto public school board had absolutely no impact, because there were no cutbacks. Then there was the social contract and Metropolitan Toronto is saying, "We shouldn't be impacted with the social contract either."

The fact of the matter is, even during these difficult times, Metropolitan Toronto has more resources than any other school board in this province, and it's a matter of justice and a matter of equity for education for all of the kids in this province. If you're advocating that other areas of the province should pay more so that Metropolitan Toronto doesn't have to pay at all, then this government fundamentally disagrees with you.

1440

Mr Beer: The hypocrisy that lies in that answer, from a minister whose government has shown no consideration --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York North. That's very surprising coming from the member for York North. I know that he would like to rephrase what he's just said.

Mr Beer: I withdraw whatever it was I said that caused concern.

What I want to be very clear on to the minister is that what is of real concern to Metro Toronto, and indeed to Ottawa, is that the large cities in this country -- and here we're dealing with the two big ones in Ontario -- are facing real and unique problems, problems that go way beyond what many others are facing, and where they need dollars to deal with those problems.

The province pays no money to Metro Toronto. They have capital programs; they get no money. What Metro is saying is: "We have to deal with expanded programs for immigrant adaptation and ESL programs. We have to deal with violence in the schools and develop meaningful programs. We have to build new schools and add to the schools that we have. We have to take in kids from other parts of the province because of the special programs that we have." In addition, Metro itself is looking at cutting some $150 million out of its own budget and may have to stop its capital program, which is going to provide 10,000 needed jobs in Metro Toronto.

What they are asking is not for you to give back money that is yours, but that the money raised from Metro property taxpayers be used here in Metropolitan Toronto so that they can face and deal with their own problems. That's what they're asking.

Minister, will you make a commitment to meet with them and ensure that their needs are met?

Hon Mr Cooke: The fact of the matter is that through the social contract process there is not one dollar that's being taken out of the classroom, and he knows it. Through the controls in the social contract legislation, the $41 million that would come back to the province would have a neutral impact on the school board, because they're saving money as a result of the wage legislation and the freezing of the grid and so forth.

The fact is that of course this government understands that there are additional resources required in a community that has as many challenges as they do in the classroom. They spend over $8,000 per student in this community, compared with other communities that spend just over $4,000. Maybe one of the things that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board needs to take a look at is how much money is going into administrative resources and school boards that don't even run schools. Maybe that's what should be looked at in this community to save money and provide more resources to the kids in the classroom.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a question, again to the Minister of Education, on the same topic.

I can attest to the fact that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board deals with a number of very unique types of issues: single-parent families, children from many different countries who do not speak English. But the main point here, and I'm not sure if the minister understands this, is that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board is saying it is aware that the costs of education have to be cut. They are cutting the cost of education. They have made those cuts. They will recognize the savings in the social contract. But the most important point is that they feel that money should be returned to the taxpayers who paid in the first instance.

The question that I would ask you to address is, do you agree? Will you let the Metropolitan Toronto School Board give the money back to the taxpayers who paid the money in the first place? Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers paid that money. Will you allow the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to give that money back to those taxpayers?

Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, the member should understand that it's not as if the Metropolitan school board does not get any money from the provincial government. The fact of the matter is that $93 million is paid by the provincial government for the pension plan for all the teachers who work in Metropolitan Toronto. So it's not as if there is no contribution.

Secondly, if we were to follow the honourable member's suggestion, I would ask him to go and talk to the chair of the Catholic school board in Metropolitan Toronto and ask her what her position is and what impact his suggestion would have on the Catholic ratepayers in this community, who would then have to lower their taxes to maintain equal property taxes for the Catholic and public school ratepayers, which would be very destructive to the Catholic school board.

You can take the position you're taking, but you also have kids and ratepayers in your community who go to the Catholic school system. There's a letter that's on record, that has been sent out to the public from the Catholic school board, and I quote: "If the Metropolitan Toronto School Board does not turn over moneys collected and negotiated through the province's social contract, it will be another example of one wealthy board deliberately failing to recognize the education funding equalization." Go talk to your trustees on the other school board.

Mr David Johnson: There has already been a precedent set in this regard. This government has permitted the utilities across the province of Ontario -- and rightfully so, I must say; I support the government in this -- to apply the social contract savings against their own hydro rates next year to keep those rates down. The Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the Ottawa school board are simply asking for the same consideration.

If you ask the taxpayers what they think about this, first of all, Metropolitan Toronto, about eight to one, supports that the money should go back to those who will pay for it. Secondly, the taxpayers are certainly telling us that there's not a revenue problem; there is a spending problem with this government. They're concerned that what we have here is simply another way for the government to raise taxes, in this way, an indirect way, through the municipal property assessment base.

My question to you, Mr Minister: Is this a signal that this government intends to introduce pooling for education taxes? Is this a signal that this government intends to infringe in the future on the municipal property assessment base?

Hon Mr Cooke: Again, I ask the member to go speak to the other school board in his community and understand that there is a very real issue in terms of making sure that the mill rates are comparable, and the impact that your suggestion would have on the Catholic school system in Metropolitan Toronto, which also has a fair number of your constituents attending that system as well. You might want to go hear the other side of the story.

In terms of province-wide pooling, we are looking at the question of education finance reform. You ask me what our position is. We haven't got a policy at this point. The issue is being reviewed. Maybe at some point you can tell us whether you still support Bette Stephenson's position when she was Minister of Education, where she did talk of proposed province-wide pooling many years ago. That used to be the position of the Tory party; I don't know what it is today.

HOUSING PROGRAMS

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is directed to the Minister of Housing. In my riding of London South there are a number of housing access programs such as the Partners in Housing program and the access to permanent housing program. These programs received funding from the Ministry of Housing in the past, but have been told they will no longer receive permanent funding. There is a concern about what can be seen as cuts to our home-sharing agencies.

Minister, could you explain what has happened to the grants program for community-based housing activities and what steps have been taken to ensure people receive the housing services they need?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'd be pleased to do that. Last year, we had about 11 small community-based programs that included everything from education for landlords to training for municipal officials and so on, and there was funding for community partners-type programming of the kind you mentioned. Home-sharing programs were part of that.

We have now consolidated all these programs, and with reduced funding, about $4 million less -- the funding is now just over $7 million -- we have asked the service groups that are providing education and direct assistance to people to find access to affordable housing in their communities, and that provide advocacy services on behalf of such people, to consolidate their efforts within communities.

We've managed through this and with the cooperation of the organizations at the community level to be able to provide a more consistent level of service at the community base across the province. Areas which hadn't had funding before now have services. In some cases, home-sharing programs have not received funding. In other cases, in eight out of 17 cases, in fact they have become the core of an expanded housing service at the community level.

1450

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 25.

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

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the following standing committees: on the standing committee on estimates, Mr Hayes for Mr Jamison; on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mrs Haslam for Mr North; on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, Mr Dadamo for Mr Farnan and Mr Sutherland for Mr Owens; on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, Mr Cooper for Mr Drainville and Mrs Haslam for Mr Morrow; on the standing committee on public accounts, Mr Bisson for Mr Farnan and Mr Owens for Mr Hayes.

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

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I find this a bit of a strange motion, which is why I want to speak to the motion. I understand fully why, for instance, on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mrs Haslam is replacing Mr North. Mr North has decided to leave the New Democratic Party because he no longer agrees with it and is now sitting as an independent, so that's certainly understandable. I understand why Mr Cooper is replacing Mr Drainville on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, because Mr Drainville has left the New Democratic Party to come to this side of the House and is now running as an independent in the federal election.

But I really cannot understand why Mrs Haslam is replacing Mr Morrow on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, because Mr Morrow, I believe, if my memory is correct, is the Chair of this committee, and the report I have from people who sit on the committee -- certainly the members of both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have indicated that he has been a fairminded Chairman, in their estimation, that he has conducted his responsibilities in an appropriate fashion, and it makes me wonder why the government would want to replace him as the Chair of that committee.

I was reading this book the other day -- my colleague the member for Renfrew North has the book and may be able to quote from it -- and I noted in this book I was reading by Mr Roberts and Mr Ehring that in fact dissent is not brooked within the New Democratic Party.

It seems to me that just as Mr Kormos was replaced because he happened to make statements which were not entirely with keeping with the New Democratic Party --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No, no, with Bob Rae.

Mr Bradley: -- and because he annoyed the Premier, and I recall my good colleague the member for Lincoln, wonderful gentleman that he is, voted against the government on the tobacco tax because he felt that it would be damaging to some of the rural people in Ontario, and he was turfed from that committee -- what do they make, $10,000 extra? He lost his $10,000 extra. He was in the penalty box for a little while and then he was allowed to come back in when he did his penance and he's now back in the good books of the government.

But here we are. The Premier obviously has dictated this, because this is how it works. The Premier has said that the member for Wentworth East is not prepared to simply be a puppy dog. He's prepared to buy his own lunch when they go to palatial places to meet. He buys his own lunch, pays for his own hotel room and doesn't always agree when the government breaks its commitments that it has made to the voters during an election campaign, because he's a long-time New Democrat who obviously believes very strongly in the policies of the New Democratic Party.

I know, on automobile insurance, he went from one end of Wentworth East to the other speaking in favour of the NDP position on government automobile insurance. There are a number of other issues. He voted against the social contract, I believe.

Despite the fact that members of the government, and particularly the Premier, talk about giving more power to the individual members of the Legislature, about making the elected people supreme to those who are simply the unelected advisers to the Premier and the unelected civil service, we now find that when a person is going to show some degree of dissent from the government, the guillotine is applied.

It seems to me that we are going back a few centuries, a couple of centuries at least, to France. I saw Les Miz here in the city and this reminds of it. The guillotine was eventually going, and we have the guillotine being applied once again to the member for Wentworth East.

Now the member for Wentworth --

Mr Elston: North.

Mr Bradley: North -- I've been reading the Hamilton Spectator and other publications, and the member for Wentworth North and the member for Hamilton East I think were disagreeing on something --

Mr Elston: Wentworth East.

Mr Bradley: -- Wentworth East and Wentworth North were disagreeing on something.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): No, no. The member for Wentworth North simply said that the member for Wentworth East wasn't pulling his weight.

Mr Bradley: The member for Wentworth North accused, it said in the Spectator --

Mr Conway: Highly accusatory.

Mr Bradley: -- accused the member for Wentworth East of not doing his job appropriately. I wish I had the paper here today; I had it at one time.

Mr Conway: You have another Spectator.

Mr Bradley: The only Spectator I have now is a Spectator that says: "NDP Collapse Shock: Poll Pegs Local Support for Party at 4%." I think the member for Wentworth East is trying to get that up from 4% and he's trying to bring the New Democratic Party back to its roots.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: I must say that though some of my colleagues are smiling and making me smile, I lament the fact that democracy appears to be again under assault, that openness of debate appears to be under assault in this House. I lament the fact that the Premier will tolerate no dissent and that he's now going to fire the member for Wentworth East simply because he's standing up for what he ran for and for NDP policy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Further debate?

Mr Conway: I just want to join my friend from St Catharines in an observation about this particular motion. I think the member is right in pointing out that a number of the substitutions are quite understandable.

It's hard to contemplate that Mr Drainville, actively campaigning as he is up in Victoria these days, could continue in his duties here, and Mr North, of course, has chosen to do other things as well within the context of this assembly.

But we are struck by the motion that the government House leader has put, essentially removing --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Pardon me?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm not talking to you.

Mr Conway: -- Mr Morrow from the standing --

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Must be the glasses.

Mr Conway: It is the glasses, actually. But there is an air of incredulity, I say very seriously to the member from Scarborough. I've stood here for 18 years and I've been lectured to by Stephen Lewis and Donald Macdonald and the most sainted of all, Bob Rae.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): How about Michael Cassidy?

Mr Conway: Bob Rae and Michael Cassidy -- well, Michael Cassidy was -- we've been lectured to repeatedly about the old-line parties and their altogether too rigid view of party discipline. Now we've got Mr Owens, one of the enforcers, looking angelic and incredulous at today's happenings.

As the member for St Catharines observes, this is not the first time we've seen this. I will congratulate the government House leader. He's got it right this time. He's wrong, but at least he's doing the wrong thing the proper way. Last time, do you remember the pathetic effort to dump Kormos from the standing committee on resources development? My constituents figure that a government that can't run a moose lottery, can't figure out that the Wolfe Island ferry is part of the integral transport system of eastern Ontario, can't figure out how to even properly dump its own, is not a gang that is likely going to effectively kick-start and manage the Ontario economy.

1500

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): You guys sat on that committee.

Mr Conway: Now we have the member for Huron speaking. I simply want to make the point that you did this last time to Kormos and you got caught because you didn't even know how to go about it properly. So I guess you deserve some credit in your third effort, at least your third effort, to discipline members of this caucus who have dared to dissent from the Bob Rae-Ross McClellan order of the day.

Mr Owens: Don't forget Steve Owens.

Mr Conway: Well, no, you're not in their category. Don't you put yourself so high in the pantheon of NDP power.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I don't know why anybody would want to climb that high.

Mr Conway: Well, it's not a question of climbing high. My friend from St Catharines pointed out that --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I know how to what?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Conway: Listen. I'll tell you, I've got my sins --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent is asked to come to order.

Mr Conway: You can say all you want. I am simply here to hold the NDP accountable for what it's doing relative to what it said it was about. You have, for the third time in as many years, with this motion --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): How would you know?

Mr Conway: How would I know? I have not only got --

Mr Huget: Don't give us lectures about our policy.

Mr Conway: At the end of the day I want to say to my friend from Sarnia that I am not now just making a comment based on the evidence that your government is providing, and at 6% of the vote I can understand how in Chatham and Sarnia my friends are feeling the heat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Sarnia. Would the member for Renfrew North --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Sarnia to come to order, the member for Chatham-Kent as well, and it might be helpful if the member for Renfrew North directed his comments to the Chair.

Mr Conway: I have in my hand, and I am therefore debating, a motion from the NDP government House leader, which motion dumps one of the NDP members from the membership of and the chairmanship of the standing committee on the Ombudsman. My colleagues in the Liberal Party tell me that the member for Wentworth East has apparently done a good job in that responsibility.

What the member for Wentworth East has done, clearly, is that he has publicly repudiated some of the more outrageous policies of his government, and for that independent posture the member for Wentworth East is today being dumped from his position on the committee on the Ombudsman.

If this were the first time this was happening from a party which said it believed in a greater and more independent role for the Legislature, I would, I say to my friends from Chatham and Sarnia, be quite prepared to grant a greater latitude and understanding. But we have this spectacle for the third time now. The member for Lincoln was dumped, and dumped summarily, for taking an independent position a few years ago around a budget initiative, the Tobacco Tax Act. A year ago, the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member from Welland, was improperly and unceremoniously dumped from the standing committee on resources. Today we have another example.

And this was the New Democratic Party. This is the party that was going to be different. By their own protest that I've heard for years, they were better and they were different. They seem to think it's just a bunch of Liberals castigating them on partisan grounds. Well, the member --

Interjections.

Mr Klopp: I don't have to think that; I know that.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Huron.

Mr Conway: The member for St Catharines is right. I did spend some time recently reading some books, one of which was the Ehring and Roberts book, Giving Away a Miracle. In this book by two prominent Ontario New Democrats, not Liberals, there is a chapter in part I about the 10 deadly sins of the New Democratic Party. One of the deadly sins, something to which the member for St Catharines referred, is dealt with in a subchapter entitled "The No Dissent Party: 'Democratic' Isn't the NDP's Middle Name."

Mr Huget: Read the Patti Starr book.

Mr Conway: That's not Conway speaking; that's not even Bradley speaking. That is the opinion of two long-time NDP members who have given the province and the country their insight into the inner workings of the New Democratic Party.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): That's stretching it a bit.

Mr Conway: Well, George Ehring; I know George. He worked here for a number of years serving Mr Richard Johnston, someone who, we all know, is a pillar in the New Democracy.

Mr Mammoliti: What does Patti say? I want to know what Patti says. What does Patti say?

The Speaker: The member for Yorkview, please come to order. Would the member for Renfrew North take his seat. I ask the member for Yorkview to come to order.

Mr Conway: I am not going to read chapter and verse of this particular book, but it's something this motion and the previous situations involving the members for Lincoln and Welland-Thorold would now be able to add to. We have another example of how this Rae government is not prepared to tolerate any dissent within the government, and it is shameless and public about the way in which it intends to go about disciplining anyone who dares take a contrary view.

I simply want to say that I think it is a bad day for this Legislature when governments seek to do this to members of the assembly who, by all accounts, are doing a reasonably good job in the assignments to which they were sent. I can understand any government or any group of elected officials petitioning to rid themselves of an unsuccessful or a truculent or a very difficult Chair, perhaps even a Speaker. I can understand a Premier deciding at a certain point that he's had enough of a given minister. But what we've got here is a situation today where once again the government is moving unilaterally to remove a Chair of one of the legislative committees where there is apparently no evidence that the member has done anything but a good job.

I just want to say to the assembly and to the public beyond that this is not an acceptable conduct today. It might have been years ago; it might have been some time ago. But we are in the midst now of a national election campaign where I think it is clear to all of us that a good bit of the old order is under a great deal of attack, and some, if not much, of the old order is washing away before our eyes.

I can't believe my friend the member for Oxford, who is a good fellow, a very hardworking member of the assembly, supports this. I can't believe he supports this. I'm simply here as a member of this Legislature, looking at the motion I have in front of me, and I want to hold the assembly accountable for what we are doing here today. I want to ask my friends in the NDP to very carefully consider what their government is doing to one of their own, one of our own, today.

1510

This place has run for too long on the notion that the executive decides all. I have to be fair in saying that it's not just this government that has operated with this attitude, but I must say, I can't remember either the Davis or the Peterson governments moving as often to remove committee Chairs as this government has done in but three years, and that is a surprise and a disappointment, I think, to those of us who've been here a long time and who expected that the NDP would be at least as good as the Tories and Liberals, and probably better, if they were to be judged by their own rhetoric.

What has surprised me is the measure of intolerance in the current government of its own members who stand apart from certain government initiatives. Ron Hansen was dumped from his position within minutes of the vote.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I'm properly reprimanded: the member for Lincoln. As I remember, the member for Lincoln was dumped within minutes of that vote here a few years ago. I think he got to the door and was told he was no longer Chair of the economic and finance committee. I mean, it was bang.

What Bill Davis used to do in the old days was, when people did things like that, he put them into the cabinet. He did. You might laugh. Is there anybody here -- I guess I am the only one left who remembers how Larry Grossman got into the cabinet. Larry Grossman got into the cabinet by doing the sorts of things that the member for Lincoln and to some extent the members from Welland and Wentworth have done. There were a lot of very dutiful Tory backbenchers who in those years thought it was not a particularly good way to build a collegial team, but that's the way it used to happen.

My friend the member for Etobicoke-Humber's not here, but he's been a very interesting and I think fairly independent member of this Legislature. I remember the days when the member from Humber took a rather independent view of certain government initiatives that I know my friend from Bruce remembers better than I. It was not easy, I can say for the member for Bruce and the former Premier, to always deal with the independent posture of the member for Etobicoke-Humber, but I don't remember the government of David Peterson moving so punitively -- or punitively at all -- against the member from Humber as the Rae government has moved on three successive occasions against three members of its own caucus.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Now we've got the member for Sarnia bursting at the seams to get into this debate, and he should, because a year ago when his government --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor.

Mr Conway: A year ago, when his government moved to improperly and unceremoniously dump the effective member from Welland from his job as Chair of the resources committee, the next step in that move was for the government to make the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy at the same time Chair of the standing committee on resources development; in my view, a laughable conflict of interest, one not yet to have dawned on most people over there, least of all the good member for Sarnia, who, despite my difference of opinion with him on this subject, is a person for whom I have the highest regard and a guy I can't still imagine is not yet in this cabinet.

I do not know why the member for Sarnia, differ with him as I might, is not in a cabinet that has had people in it like the honourable member from Peterborough and the honourable members from a variety of other places. But I say to him that a year ago, the member for Sarnia saw nothing wrong with, at one at the same time, the government moving to dump --

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm just wondering whether it's all right for the member to stand there and insult other members of this House.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The Chair did not see that as an insult.

Mr Conway: I apologize profusely if any insult was read into those remarks. I thought I was saying positive things about the member for Sarnia, who is a very capable fellow.

What I want to say, though, when this last happened a year ago or less, when the government of Bob Rae sought -- they'd had enough of Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, and they were going to get him out of their way. So without a motion of this House, they sent some of their friends into the committee to do a laughable piece of business, and the result of that was that we got the parliamentary assistant for Environment and Energy nominated and elected as Chair of the standing committee on resources development, where half of the time is spent dealing with issues of the environment and energy. But that was no conflict; there was nothing improper in that.

I just simply make the point again that we all talk about the need for a more involved Legislature, the need to enhance the role of members, of all parties, who are not of the executive council and those who are not members of the front bench, for whatever that means, over here. I think that is an understandable and legitimate ambition for all honourable members to pursue, and quite frankly, it is what the public out there expects, that if the member for Oxford comes down here and is elected as Chair of a committee and does a good job, he's going to be able to keep that job even though he might differ with some of --

Mr Sutherland: Do you want to sit down and debate real issues like the Environmental Bill of Rights?

Mr Conway: Well, this, I want to say --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: I want to say, Mr Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind all members that you will all have the opportunity of participating. The member for Renfrew North is on a time allotment. He has some 11 minutes and 50 seconds left. Please allow him the opportunity.

Mr Conway: I know there are some people around who think this is not an issue at all. This is a very fundamental issue. It's a very important issue, and since most of this assembly won't be here in three years' time, most people now listening to these remarks won't be here in three years' time, I think five and 10 years from now some of us will want to reflect on the time and the stewardship we had here.

Interjection: That are here.

Mr Conway: Well, listen, I've got to tell you, and I'm not pointing my finger in any one direction, but the fact of the matter is, the average length of stay in this assembly now is 4.3 years.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Since you were in government.

Mr Conway: The member from High Park makes comments about since I was in government. Well, I've been here for 18 years, a long time, and I'll tell you, I don't think I've got enough fingers on my hands to count the members I have known from High Park-Swansea. I don't think there's another electoral district that makes my case. I'm trying to be direct, and I just simply want to make the point that this is a very important issue. I simply say to the government and to members of the opposition that the role of members of this assembly is important.

You know, that famous quip that Pierre Trudeau made, that MPs were nobodies 50 feet from Parliament, is in fact inaccurate in today's context. MPs are increasingly nobodies within the precinct of Parliament. That's the real irony of our situation today.

When the member for Wentworth East goes home, he's a somebody. People have elected him. They know something of the work he's doing on their behalf. They may not have voted for him, they may not intend to support him in another election, but he's a somebody at home and they expect him to be somebody here. And part of being a somebody here, from the point of view of the honourable members, is an understanding on the part of first ministers and party leaders, whether they're Bob Rae, David Peterson, Frank Miller, Bill Davis, Jean Chrétien, Kim Campbell, you name them, that those first ministers and party leaders are going to be a little more understanding and a little more tolerant of an independent posture taken by those honourable members within the precincts of Parliament if, as and when those people decide, in their interest and in their consideration, as the member for Lincoln did when he voted against I think it was the tobacco act, that that in his judgement was not an initiative he wanted to support. Why should he then be told 10 seconds later that he's going to be removed as a Chair of one of the standing committees where he's done a good job?

1520

If all of us in this place and in the parties to which we belong do not understand that that is the kind of rigidity and top-down dictation that is really infuriating people and giving real steam to the Preston Mannings of the world, if we don't understand that we'd better quickly turn our ear to the wind because some very interesting things are happening out there and we ought to be careful about these kinds of motions because, I've got to tell you, if I were a Reform candidate out there in this election and, I don't care who it was, whether it was Premier Rae, Premier Peterson or Premier Davis, if they did these kinds of things in the absence of any other evidence other than an independent posture taken by the honourable member on occasion, then I would tell you as a candidate campaigning for a new way of doing business, I would feel that I had some very good ammunition.

I want to conclude my remarks by saying that this is important business for this Legislature. It is important that we all understand what's happening here. I hope that we all think carefully about the signal this sends, not just to honourable members in the chamber but to the community beyond. You either toe the line in this executive, first-minister-driven world or you will be penalized in a way that will affect your standing within the caucus and, in this case, in a way that will affect your pocketbook. I don't think that's a signal that we should be sending with the degree of frequency that this government has been sending it over the last number of years.

I just want to say to people here, irrespective of their political stripe, that I hope the day returns when as individual members, either in the government or in the opposition, we can feel comfortable about the hope and the reality of being a somebody again within the precincts of the legislative place.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Charlton's motion.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, I don't want to take a tremendous amount of time up on the motion before us. Particularly the members on the government side will see this as a housekeeping matter and a bit of work that should not take up any, if a very limited, amount of time.

Certainly you can understand the changes that many have gone through, and I understand the changes for Mr Farnan and so on, and of course Mr Drainville leaving necessitates the other changes.

Much has been made about the fact that any opposition that is verbal and public to this government by members of the government has been dealt with in a rather swift fashion. Much has been made of the fact that they've, in fact, handled those situations very badly. So badly, in fact, that there was the debacle, as was mentioned earlier, regarding Mr Kormos at the committee where they wanted to kick him off and they couldn't figure out exactly how. Then, of course, Mr Hansen's dumping as Chair after the tobacco bout, and today we see Mr Morrow being moved off as Chair of a committee that I can only assume he doesn't want to be moved off of.

So the laughter about the moose tag jokes and so on is probably a reasonable assessment because, as has been said, they can't even dump their own people properly. Maybe the comparison is that they can't even stab their own members in the back the right way; they keep hitting them in the chest.

We have now another example of a member before us --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Here they go, the gaggle -- as I understand it, away on their retreat a weepy and teary group got together and they got whipsawed and they got told what a wonderful life it is and they've got a job for two more years, which they should be thankful for. With that, I'm certain at that time the decision was made that if they were going to keep this crew in order and keep their ducks in a row, they were going to have to make examples of those who, God forbid, thought on their own, actually did their own thinking, voted against the social contract, which I can't believe to this date any of them voted for in the first place. Why --

Mr Klopp: You said you were going to vote for it.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry? The member for Huron had a pronouncement?

Mr Klopp: You got whipsawed. Don't tell me about whipsawing.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order, please. The member for Etobicoke West, please address the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: I'm doing my best, Mr Speaker. The member for Huron occasionally pipes up and I would like to respond. It would be even better if he could make a speech or a statement in this House and then we could really put it down on record and read it. But I have to deal with him as his party allows him to be dealt with, in appearance to be the same way that it's dealing with Mr Morrow, as the lot of you are being dealt with.

Why this runs deeper than just a simple announcement by the House leader is, previous to this government being formed, it was clear in the minds of New Democrats across this province and indeed this country that they were the fairest, most democratic, most reasonable, open-minded group around --

Mr David Winninger (London South): You're right so far.

Mr Stockwell: -- when it came to party policy -- and the member for London South tells us that I'm right so far. And you know what? Nobody could debate that, no one could make a debate about that, because in this House they had not sat as a government. But in the past three years, they're proving without a doubt, categorically, person by person -- Mr Hansen, Mr Kormos, Mr Morrow, Mr Drainville, Mr North, gone; and the crumbling continues -- that maybe they're not quite as fair and democratic and aboveboard and upfront as in fact they've suggested they were in the past 20, 30, 40 and 50 years.

Why this is important is this just isn't going to wash any more. This kind of treatment to a member of this Parliament who's been duly elected isn't going to wash with the constituents any more. I know a passing reference was made to Mr Manning of the Reform Party, but one of the major planks that he puts out there that the vast majority of people accept, the vast majority of people endorse, is the fact that a local member has the right to stand up to the government, of which they're one, and say, "No, I don't agree with you" --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): What's his platform?

Mr Stockwell: -- and not have any reprisal taken by the executive group that in fact runs that particular government. Excuse me?

Mr White: The non-platform platform.

Mr Stockwell: Again we have the cackling. I'd like you to enter into this debate. I think it's important that these backbenchers be allowed to enter into this debate because I'd like to see you go on the record saying: "Mr Morrow and Mr Kormos and Mr Drainville are all wrong. They're all wrong. This is the way you've got to treat these people. Any time someone votes against the government, you've got to get them right under your thumb and you grind them into the ground." Because that's what we're seeing here today.

Mr Morrow voted against some very important legislation that this government has, for what I believe to be fundamental principles and beliefs. What does he believe in? We know he doesn't believe in the social contract. You may directly link this motion today to the fact that Mr Morrow voted against the social contract; case closed. That's why this is happening and that's what the people in this province and indeed in this country will not accept.

What really is somewhat frustrating, I believe, is to see the backbenchers of this government party sit here and try to convince me and the people of this province that that's not the case. Who do you think you're kidding? Who do you think's going to believe you when you say, "Oh, no, this isn't the case. It's because" -- as the member for Wentworth North would say, he was leaving early.

We all know why this is taking place and we all know that this shouldn't take place and we all know that this won't take place for ever more, because the people will not allow this to continue to take place. The people from Wentworth won't allow it; the people from Welland won't allow it; the people from Etobicoke and Renfrew and Mississauga, right across this province, will not allow it. This chair that was filled by the member from Hamilton -- and I would like to note it's a member from Hamilton who may not politically do too badly by this because the polls, as my friend from St Catharines noted, in Hamilton do not favour the government very well, simply being at 4%; that was shown earlier. He may well do well because of this.

In fact, if I were a government member, I may be looking for a reason, I may be looking for some rationale, to get turfed by my counterparts, my partners and my single-digit-popularity friends. So he may not do badly because of this particular endeavour that this government's taken, but I don't think that's what we should be debating today, whether or not he survives politically. I think what we should be debating today is whether any government, because someone in its back benches chooses to think and chooses to disagree with the executive council, should then have to be punished in a very public and real sense because he has chosen to adopt the principles and beliefs he was supposedly elected here to represent, and also to adopt the principles and beliefs of those people who voted for him in his constituency.

1530

Although it's a quick sentence from the House leader, and adopted by the backbenchers and agreed to by the cabinet, you know and I know and the people of this province know there's more to this than, "Mrs Haslam for Mr Morrow." There's more to this than just that. There's a very important message here for all the backbenchers in this government of two more years, and that important message is: "Step out of line and you're through. Step out of line and you're finished. Step out of line and not only will you be through with us; we will in fact cut your pay, cut your responsibilities and cut your action."

If the backbenchers can't see it, the people can, and the people in this province will not stand for this kind of government any more. They want action and they want input and if, every time a member they elect down here has input that's different than the government, he'll be punished, they will not accept that.

So much has been said in the last few years about this government suggesting other parties are dinosaurs. One thing is very interesting. I think the tables have turned. I think the pendulum has swung. In some cases in the 1970s and maybe the 1980s there were some prehistoric thoughts in other parties that these people thought they led the opinion polls on. No longer, my friends. If there are any dinosaurs in this House, if there are any old-line thinkers who aren't in tune with the people today, it's you and your single-digit popularity. It's you and your attitudes towards people who choose to think on their own and vote against what I consider to be flawed government legislation.

No longer will you be saying, "Where are the dinosaurs?" You're the dinosaurs, you're out of touch and you're not treating your people the way you said you'd treat them when you were on this side of the House.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): It's a great opportunity for me to stand in the House and speak today. It could possibly be one of the few times that I get an opportunity to speak in this House.

I wanted to address an issue that I think is important certainly to me, but that could be important to other members of this House as well, and that's the issue that my name personally has been deleted, but more so than this, that there are, to my knowledge, no names for independents on committees.

As I look at a plaque on my wall in my office, it says, "The same rights, privileges and responsibilities of the position," and I suggest to you that it's of great concern to me, and I know I spoke to another gentleman who is an independent in this House and it's I think of great importance to him as well, that we be viewed as equal members of the Legislature. It's certainly our impression that we were elected as equal members. It's certainly our impression that somehow we're not less members than other members because we're not sitting affiliated to a certain party.

I know that in representing my particular constituents I don't necessarily decide, because they're affiliated to a certain party, that I represent them more or I represent them less. In my view, as humble as it may be, I try to represent them as best I can all the same.

If I'm not able, I think, to sit on a committee or represent the people of Elgin county on a committee, I somehow feel that those particular constituents who are in my constituency will not be properly represented in this Legislature, and for that matter outside this Legislature, on the various committees that happen across the province. It's a very fundamental thing, I think, to have a discussion about participation by all members of the House.

I know that the member from Renfrew talked earlier about the direction parliaments are taking. I think he tried in his discussion to red-flag somewhat or signal concern perhaps that comes from the very people who live in our particular constituencies across this province, that either they're not being heard by their particular member or they're not able to get their points across either in the Legislature or in the various committees they're representing them on.

It's ironic, I think, that you could be a sitting member in this House perhaps for 20 years, and a member could come in in a by-election and be a member of a sitting party, and there is a perception that the member who has come in on that very day perhaps would have more power than the member who has sat here for 20 years. I think it's wrong to have that perception and I think it's wrong to give that perception.

I suggest to all members of the House today that there should be some consideration, perhaps not for myself personally, but for members of the Legislature who would choose to sit as an independent and perhaps in the future would be elected as an independent, because I think they have a valuable role to play. I don't see anywhere in my particular county that it says I have to belong to a party to represent the people of Elgin county, and I think that would be true for any particular constituency across this province.

I'm asking as clearly as I can that independent members be considered for committee, that independent members be considered for the opportunity to speak in the House, to ask questions in the House, to enjoy debate in the House, to have all of the rights and privileges that it says on that plaque I have on my wall in my office. That is what I believe I was elected for, that is what my constituents believe I was elected for, and I hope I'm afforded the opportunity to represent them to the best of my abilities, because that is what I intend to do. With that, I thank you very much for the time.

Mr Elston: I won't be long in speaking, but just in reply to the previous speaker, the member for Elgin will want to know that the Legislative Assembly committee is already deliberating even now, or at least over the course of the summer, on the very issues about which he spoke. I might just refer him to at least one of the presentations that I've read so far, that by M. Morin of our caucus, who was making presentations in relation to questions raised earlier by the former member for Victoria-Haliburton about the rights and privileges of independent or non-aligned members in this House.

It's an interesting concept, Mr Speaker, calling people who are not associated with caucuses "independent members." For some time, and in fact during the course of your first term here, having been elected I guess in 1982, you probably were able to witness some of the most independent voting patterns that were ever noted in this Legislative Assembly on the part of the then opposition Liberal Party.

We were often looked at and yelled at by Michael Cassidy and the group of people off to our left in those days, because sometimes some of our members voted one way on a bill and sometimes, during the same vote, others opposed the position supported by some of their caucus colleagues.

The derisive laughter that originated from the government benches was often a little bit hard to accept, because people would say: "Look at those Liberals over there. They're really not able to make up their minds." Basically, what was being contemplated by the members who were voting in our caucus on different sides of the issue was the fact that they were representing what their constituents wanted them to stand for in this Legislative Assembly. There was a degree of independence in that caucus.

The members of the Liberal caucus over the years have been noted as some of the most independent ever. The memory of Eddie Sargent in this House, for instance, would bring to new highs the meaning of the word "independent." Elmer Sopha, James Bullbrook, predecessor to the member for Sarnia -- a huge number of individuals have swept through this Legislative Assembly in a manner which is to be described, I think almost meekly, as independent when you look at some of the things they said and some of the things they did in the face of some of the positions taken by their leaders of the day.

It didn't just happen with respect to the Liberal caucus. I've noted, from very limited experience, some 12 1/2 years, that there was the odd New Democrat who caused problems for their leader of the day. Morty Shulman in some ways caused great consternation for the leadership in opposition days. The member for Hamilton Mountain knowingly nods his head in agreement, because he was in that caucus when the days of independent New Democrats was almost the way of the world.

1540

Hon Mr Charlton: They're still here.

Mr Elston: The day of the independent New Democrat was just confirmed to be still here, according to the member for Hamilton Mountain, but he jokes, because of course what is happening today is that there is a removal of the independent voting habits of the New Democratic Party members of this Legislative Assembly.

I watch on occasion, when I'm home at a decent hour, a program on the Arts and Entertainment channel of the cable I have, and it's a program which I think probably should be best suited to describe the activity we here now contemplate. The name of the program is Brute Force. Brute Force is an examination in some degree of a thorough nature of the items used to conduct warfare: psychological, physical and otherwise. That type of program would be best used to analyse the activities that have been undertaken here today, and on at least two other occasions, by the New Democratic Party's Premier.

Now, some people, and I note the member for Renfrew North was one of them, have suggested that this particular piece of brute force has been initiated and has been done almost unilaterally by the Premier and by the executive council.

I know, from having read the article in the Hamilton Spectator, which quoted extensively the member for Wentworth North, and from speaking to others and having heard from other people in the hallways after votes by independent-minded New Democrats, ie, those people voting against a government position, that this is not just an isolated Premier's motion, passed through his executive council and lowered on the unsuspecting backbencher. This is a piece of brute force which is highly moved and seconded by the general membership of the New Democratic Party caucus, because those people who have toed the line of the Premier and the executive council cannot bear the thought that there were those people who stood strongly and stridently for the things about which they spoke during an election campaign.

On a number of occasions, I have publicly declared my position contrary to a number of the things that the NDP campaigned about during the course of the last election. I don't agree with a number of their positions, and in a number of situations I have applauded some of the reversals. But I really do admire somebody who, having made the pitch, having made the promise or commitment to those people to whom they campaigned that certain things would happen if they had their way -- I applaud them and I admire them. I support them.

But the real problem I see in this House is that there is a definite lack of courage on the part of the rest of the New Democratic Party caucus to allow somebody else to contradict their collective spirit.

In fact, it seems to me that there are people who stand for what the New Democratic Party campaigned on in 1990, and according to himself, the member for Welland-Thorold is one. I think the member from Wentworth East is also another, although he is much more quiet and much more modest about his position on items of policy deliberation than the member for Welland-Thorold.

But let it not be seen by anybody who is an observer of this place that this is just a capricious act by a single Premier acting on his own will. This is a collective scrubbing out of any sense of squeamishness about the position of all of those other people who have voted against the items which they campaigned so hard on.

I was just taking a look at the book. I haven't read Giving Away a Miracle. I think it has some interesting stuff in it. I know Wayne Roberts a little bit; I've been interviewed by him on a couple of occasions. I was just looking at the chapter entitled "The No Dissent Party: 'Democratic' Isn't the NDP's Middle Name." They start off with a quote from George Orwell, the Road to Wigan Pier, "The whole socialist movement is no more than an exciting heresy hunt."

In a way, what is so ironic about the situation in this House today is the heretical position now being espoused as that of the majority of the New Democratic Party caucus according to the things that they campaigned upon. If there should be anybody who is hunting down the heresy to take it out of that party, it should be the member for Welland-Thorold; the member for Wentworth East; perhaps, although I don't speak for the member for Elgin, he is here in person and could speak in that regard himself; and other members of the New Democratic Party who would not stand for some of the things this government has done -- the reversal of auto insurance, for example, something I'm happy they did, but there are New Democrats who are not happy about that and have never seen that as part of the New Democratic Party's essence.

There was on Monday of this week in the gallery a small demonstration where people described a number of the New Democratic Party members, those 66 individuals who voted in favour of the social contract legislation, Bill 48, as it was then known, as traitors. In some ways, the member for Wentworth East escaped that label. He escaped being called a traitor by those people because he was one of the few New Democrats who stood in his place and said, "I will have none of this betrayal of our past and of our commitments."

The member for Perth was another, and we all know what that has done for her career, perhaps just temporarily. I don't know how long the penalty box time is to be served, but we do know that from time to time people do escape the penalty boxes. The member for Lincoln has escaped, although maybe not fully without being on probation or some other form of serious scrutiny by perhaps the whip or the deputy whip, the member for Wentworth North.

Somehow, what is so infuriating about all this stuff is that in the name of discipline, members of the New Democratic caucus, in their large numbers, are trying to salve the wounds which they have inflicted upon their own sense of decency, for as long as the member for Wentworth East was to stay as Chair of the standing committee on the Ombudsman, as long as the member for Perth was allowed to stay in the cabinet, as long as the member for Welland-Thorold was able to stay as caucus Chair in the resources committee, they would be a stark contrast to those people of weaker conscience who would not stand and vote where their party came from.

So what do you do to make sure that your conscience is not twigged at every turn, a reminder every day that they are seen? You remove them from visibility, and you exact a price for their conscience having governed their day. The price that the member for Wentworth East pays today is the loss of the chairmanship of the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

For those people shaking their head over there, in numbers of 66 and even more on some other issues, who have been described as traitors by people just this past Monday, they are the ones who have sold out the traditions of the New Democratic Party so they could progress into the higher elements of government and perhaps sit at the table with their esteemed Premier. That is exactly why we are coming to the point today where the brute force of motions delivered by the government House leader are being laid before this democratic chamber.

1550

Lest anybody be concerned about what is happening here, there will be a vote. This is not a unilateral move. They have to bring it here, but it is only so that the huge numbers of the New Democratic Party caucus can have their way and have it somehow legitimized.

We're going to be voting against this resolution, not because we don't want the change for Mr North, which is a necessary one; not because we don't want the change for Mr Drainville, because Mr Drainville no longer sits here in this House; but because they have tried to obscure the vote on the removal of Mr Morrow, the member for Wentworth East, from his position as Chair of the Ombudsman committee from the view of the public, so that they could gloss over that movement and hide it, swallow it up in what they would call mere house cleaning.

Well, this is a House cleaning. This is getting rid of the conscience of their caucus by making sure that anybody who would tread against the big numbers of the New Democratic Party will be shown the door. Mark Morrow voted, and he's gone. Peter Kormos voted, and he's gone. The member for Perth, Karen Haslam, voted, and she's gone.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): She quit.

Mr Elston: The member for Wentworth North is correct. The member for Perth did resign her position in cabinet; she did it honourably and she did it in the highest traditions of this House. Were it that you knew about the traditions of this House to allow some independence of movement in your own caucus. I challenge you, member for Wentworth North, to vote against this resolution, and I challenge all of those others over there who sit and laugh to vote against this motion to remove Mr Morrow.

Mr Abel: I follow my conscience. I vote the way I think is right.

Mr Elston: In fact, I would, if I had the authority, like to sever this particular portion of the motion, the portion that says "that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the following standing committees...on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, Mr Cooper for Mr Drainville and Mrs Haslam for Mr Morrow." I should like to sever the portion that deals with Mrs Haslam being subbed for Mr Morrow, because I would like each person over there -- and the member for Wentworth North says he votes his conscience on this. There is no conscience on this except to vote away the conscience you need so badly to heal after you bruised it by voting on Bill 48.

You're getting rid of Mr Morrow so you won't feel guilty. You are undoing the things he has stood for so you won't be reminded every day that somebody can stand in his place and vote his conscience on pieces of public policy. That is the issue.

Mr Speaker, through you, to the member for Wentworth North I apologize for pointing, but there is no obvious explanation except that they are removing Mr Morrow because of his position on those votes. It's clear. It's been talked about in these halls; not in this chamber so much, but in the halls. Everybody has been awaiting this. We've known about it.

And you know something, Mr Speaker? Had Mr Drainville not retired from this assembly to run federally, there were going to be movements made, I am sure, to take him out of his position as Chair in the committee of the whole. He would have been done. He was not going to leave his place. He was going to remain independent. But there were movements afoot to take him out, and out he is, but he resigned to go to a place where he feels that his conscience and courage can be much better and much more fully exercised in safety. Heaven knows, going to Ottawa is a tremendous step to take to try to encourage that event to occur.

Mr Sutherland: If he gets there.

Mr Elston: The member for Oxford said, "If he gets there," but you know something? The desperation of the situation is such that he was much more willing to run as an independent in a federal election, to become elected as an MP, to try again to be an independent person in a new House, than he was to put up with having to deal with all of the shenanigans that have gone on behind the scenes and that have been actively thrown in the direction of people who call themselves independent members.

It tells a whole lot that a member is willing to sacrifice probably two years of active service here, and he was a diligent man on the issue of casinos and other things; that he was willing to throw away those two years to run in the uncertainty of a federal election. In fact, I believe very fully that Mr Drainville understands that he is fighting an extremely uphill battle to win a seat in the Victoria-Haliburton federal riding. But he went anyway, because he can't stand what has occurred and taken place with respect to the types of enforcements that are going on in this House.

There was one other little quote I wanted to read out of this book, and it's not from the writers themselves. It actually comes from another writer whom they have quoted. It's from Robert Service, The Cremation of Sam McGee, and I quote, "A promise made is a debt unpaid."

Might I say today that when it was discovered that the member for Wentworth East was to vote against the social contract and when it was discovered that he, along with the member for Welland-Thorold, were to vote against Bill 164, the auto insurance regime brought in by the government House leader, a promise was made that they would not do that and escape the heavy hand of the brute force that resides in the hearts and the minds and souls of the New Democratic Party caucus.

With this motion today, the debt is paid, the promise has been delivered: The member for Wentworth East is gone. And that speaks volumes about which the New Democratic Party of this province ought to be ashamed. I'm against.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's rather ironic that this debate takes place today, because tonight I'll be holding a cable show for the people of Brampton South where they can call in and ask questions about the matter of reform.

We're going to be talking about how this place should be reformed. The very fact that the power exists in the hands of the Premier and the executive council, by the use of taxpayers' money, to take away from members the opportunity to chair committees or be parliamentary assistants or to remove them from cabinet for no reason other than the fact that they exercised some degree of independence, the fact that the Premier can do that at the expense of the taxpayers to me is outrageous.

It provides the type of power that makes you people totally without power. It makes you somewhat like political eunuchs. There's no way you can represent your ridings. There's no way you can represent the people who gave you the sacred trust to represent them in this Legislature. You're denuded of that right. You're required to rise almost as though you're joined at the hip for every measure that takes place in this House. I suggest to you that it's a sad day for democracy. It certainly is, and it cries out in volumes the fact that this Legislature as well as the Parliament of Canada require a great deal of reform.

When people vote for us and give us their trust to come down here and speak on their behalf, they want us to speak on their behalf, not on behalf of the Premier, not on behalf of the executive council. They expect us to put forward their views, and if we don't, then we damn well deserve to be defeated in the next election.

I've watched this place. It's ripe for reform. The powers of the sledgehammer that the Premier has to be able to threaten somebody with taking the extra $10,000 or $8,000 or $9,000 away from them for sitting on a committee or chairing a committee or being a parliamentary assistant, those days are numbered. If you wonder why the people of this province and this country are dissatisfied and disgusted with politicians, that's precisely it. It's time for this club to change the rules, and I suggest that we've seen three, if not four, absolutely outrageous acts on the part of the Premier of this province and the cabinet and all of you people who voted in favour of it removing people who are colleagues of your own.

I'm sure that Mel Swart has probably not only ripped up his card; he's probably never going to enter politics or have any political thoughts again. He's probably totally alienated in terms of what's happening with the New Democratic Party. You people should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.

1600

I'm sure the taxpayers of this province who are watching this telecast would want to have a say in whether or not the member who was removed as Chairman of that committee should be removed. I'm sure that if you gave them the possibility of coming down here and speaking, they would chastise you as well for what you're doing. I would suggest that every member from the community of Hamilton is at serious risk if they vote in favour of removing this man. He's done a good job. I was talking with my colleague the member for Kenora. He was on the committee. He did an absolutely fine job in it.

So what are the motives? I tell the people viewing this telecast that the motives are the fact that he tried to stand up and represent the people of his community. If that's the type of conduct by a Premier of this province, that he in fact can use his power and his office -- and the taxpayers' money, I might add, which is not his -- to remove somebody from a job that he's doing well, doing it faithfully to the oath that he took when he was sworn in as a member of this Legislature, then I say it's a sad day for this province. I'm going to enjoy doing this telecast tonight because I think the time has come to take those clubs, those powers, those taxpayer dollars that are used to influence people to make decisions that are not good for the people of their communities but are good for the Premier and for the executive council and with a view to perhaps getting themselves re-elected. Let me tell you, you're on the road to destruction, because I think the people have caught on to this whole act. You people are not going to get re-elected. There will be some of you who will come back. The people who've had enough conscience and guts to at least represent the people of their communities deserve to be re-elected. Those who have just sat there and done nothing but allow their colleagues to be axed don't deserve to be elected to anything.

I suggest that this motion, which they tried to slide by, I think, without any debate whatsoever, had to be debated. It's an important issue to the people of this province. It's an important issue to the people of this province who pay the taxes and pay your salaries. If in fact the Premier has the power to chastise or demote or not promote good people, then in fact what he is doing, I suggest, is using the taxpayers' money unwisely. He's not using it in their best interests. In these days, when we can ill afford to misuse money or not use it properly, that's a shame.

Why do we need 130 members of this Legislature if that's the type of power the Premier has? Why should the whole place be run by the Premier, about four cabinet ministers and six spin doctors down the hall? They don't make a decision based on what's good for the people of this province; they make it based on the polling that they take to see whether or not that's a sexy political issue that'll get them re-elected.

I'll tell you something: I think this federal election is bringing to the fore the fact of what happens when you have a system like that. I think people have caught on. The Reform Party has gotten its start and perhaps will do far better than any of us believe because it's at least talked about it. I suggest to you people over there, if you're saying that you're voting with your conscience, I have grave concerns about that. If you're prepared to axe a colleague who was doing a fine job as Chairman of the Ombudsman committee and you're doing it simply because he had the guts to vote against something that I thought the New Democratic Party cared about, the workers of this province, if that's what happened, and I'm sure it is and I'm sure the people who are watching this telecast will know that's what you're doing, then in fact you've not only committed the sin once; you've committed it twice.

The 66 traitors voted for the bill; the 66 traitors are going to support the axing of their colleague again. You've done it twice in spades and I can assure you that the people and the taxpayers of this province who are watching or hear about this will understand that you've betrayed the principles of the New Democratic Party once again.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, Mr Charlton has moved a motion for substitution. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

PETITIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds if not thousands of my constituents in the Ottawa Valley, a petition which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is important that the people of Ontario maintain a strong public health care system; and

"Whereas it is important that in these times of restraint, our public health care facilities receive appropriate and adequate funding;

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

"(1) That all diagnostic imaging and laboratory services including specimen collection be covered by a licence; and

"(2) That licences for all diagnostic imaging and laboratory services be issued only to not-for-profit operators."

I'm pleased to support and to present this petition on behalf of all of the signatories.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it's signed by hundreds of my constituents in Wellington county and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): This petition is signed by many people from what now amounts to a large area in southern Ontario, all protesting the insensitivity of the federal government with respect to the dispersion of land in North Pickering.

"To the Legislature of Ontario and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

This is signed by residents from Ashburn, Uxbridge, Pefferlaw, Willowdale, Greenwood, Guelph, Toronto, Mississauga, Oshawa and Scarborough. It shows that the anger about the displacement and the inhumanity of the federal government towards these people is growing.

I affixed my signature.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): A petition:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board has placed St Gregory School as one of the highest priorities on the capital expenditure forecast list" -- and I might correct that; it is now number one on the priorities on the capital expenditure forecast list;

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

I will affix my signature to this because it's a real issue in my riding, much like a dump site that will be going in with the big issue that it is now.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

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

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

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

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

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

1610

I've received many phone calls and many more petitions from the communities of Glasgow and Altona. These people have no plan for this disposal, and that's why they're bringing these petitions forward. The Conservatives want to ram this sale through of 5,000 acres, and of course it was a Liberal ill-fated plan, and I've signed my name to this petition.

GO TRANSIT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 71 signatures and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"To object to the recent cuts to GO Transit bus service to Woodbridge, Kleinburg, Nobleton, Bolton, Palgrave and Highway 9;

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers; and

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy; and

"Whereas the lack of transit service will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and encourage public transport systems; and

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto during peak hours; and

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers, at one of the worst economic times in Ontario history, to incur extra expense finding another form of transportation,

"That the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and restore GO Transit service to Woodbridge, Kleinburg, Nobleton, Bolton, Palgrave and Highway 9."

I have affixed my signature.

GAMBLING

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly 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."

PHYSICIANS' FEES

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition signed by residents of the city of Windsor in support of area physicians and demanding the government of Ontario remove the cap imposed on their wages.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CAMBROCO VENTURES INC. ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr47, An Act to revive Cambroco Ventures Inc.

CANNETTO SOCIETY INC. ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr53, An Act to revive The Canneto Society Inc.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Durham West last had the floor when this particular bill was debated.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): As the debate had ceased yesterday, I was in the middle of explaining and trying to outline why it is that this is such a significant bill. I had brought it to the attention of the House that what the members have been calling this bill, in error, according to the title, since the title is An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario -- but what members have been calling this bill is the Environmental Bill of Rights.

An Environmental Bill of Rights, by using the phrase, increases, I think, in terms of the stature of this bill, its importance, because if we all see in this body that this is an Environmental Bill of Rights and that, logically extending, there should be in fact an Environmental Bill of Rights, then future debates in this Legislature and future decisions about what we're going to do and how we're going to do it will have to have an environmental component. The environment will have to be considered as an integral part of the decisions that are being made here.

I can tell you that this is a significant move in the direction of recognizing that the decision-making in this province has to change and has changed, because no longer will it be good enough to just say, "We'll pass a piece a legislation and let the environmental blocks tumble and fall where they may," because all future pieces of legislation will have to be considered in the context that we live in an environment that is of increasing importance; of increasing importance to our health, our wellbeing and the future of the economy. They are not isolated factors, as once was thought.

If this bill, according to some, does not reach the lofty goals in its content that its title, its given title by the members of this Legislature, has implied, I can only say that history will show that other bills with lofty titles, such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Declaration of Independence and other bills of freedoms for humans did not start granting freedoms to everybody, but that they were acquired.

But the start of that trek towards greater human freedoms began by articulating that they were important in the laws of the land. By saying that this is an Environmental Bill of Rights, that is what we are saying. To that, I applaud, because it is absolutely crucial for us as legislators at this time in this place to be making those decisions in this place in an environmental way. I will try to articulate over the next little while why it is I feel that, and why it is that this bill is important.

1620

To refer to the bill, the purposes of this act are, and this is in section 2, "(a) to protect, conserve and, where reasonable, restore the integrity of the environment by the means provided in this act." I just want to dwell for a moment on a couple of words.

"To protect." It's no longer sufficient to take for granted that which we use up in our environment. We must now husband those resources, we must protect them and we must recognize that as one species disappears per hour on this planet, this is no longer tolerable. This bill, in a way that the legislators of this place have debated it, is recognizing the need to protect species, to protect flora and fauna and to protect them not just in the province of Ontario, but to set the example for the world that it must also move in this direction.

To "conserve." This word is very significant in the context of this bill, because to conserve means you recognize that there are limits to what we can use up, that it's no longer sufficient to dig all the resources out of the ground and to just throw them away when we no longer have use for them, that it is no longer sufficient to say that we can burn the coal, that we can burn the wood, that we can use up all of those resources without recognizing that the very existence of humanity on this planet recognizes that they need to be conserved.

As the population of this world moves towards a doubling to 10 billion people over the next 20 years or so, we have to recognize that the resources we are using now have got to be, and I will now use the word, sustainable. To conserve means that we must recognize that the demands we are placing on this world, this finite globe upon which we live, cannot continue in the reckless way that we have in the past.

To "restore the integrity" in this bill says that we've already done damage. There are people who still do not recognize that we have done damage to the environment. I don't know where they've been. Perhaps they could watch a weather forecast and find out that the ozone and the ultraviolet rays are doing damage to people and causing skin cancer, but it's essential that we recognize that we have to restore the integrity of the planet.

To give you an idea, we are experimenting with this world in a way that has not been experimented with in anything of this scale before. As we burn sulphuric coal, we put SO₂ in the atmosphere. Methane gas, nitric oxide and a whole host of other chemicals that we put into the atmosphere are changing the chemical makeup of this planet, and it says here that we must "restore the integrity."

I agree with that wholeheartedly because to continue this experiment could and will cause serious damage as the greenhouse effect takes place, as the amount of ozone in the atmosphere increases, as the amount of carbon dioxide increases, and as the ice in the polar regions melts, whole countries will disappear as the level of water increases. We have said here with this bill, and calling it the Environment Bill of Rights, that we will accept some responsibility for what we are doing.

Clause (b) says, "To provide sustainability of the environment by the means provided in this act." What does "sustainability" mean? For a long time now we've heard this bandied around, sustainable development. It's been argued among environmentalists that the development industry got the word "development," and that the environmentalists have been stuck with "sustainability" and haven't gotten anywhere. I don't think that is the case when it comes to this bill, nor do the other actions that this government has taken. What it means is that we have to recognize that we can no longer just take out of the environment what we want, use it up or use it and throw it away without any significant harm being done.

It means that we have to, in our industries, create an industry that will reuse, recycle and recognize that the waste that is coming from that industry must now be viewed as a resource to be reused in the future.

It's not sufficient, and it's unfortunate that the other members who have landfill sites being selected for their ridings, and it's all over Ontario, are not here. But the point is that landfill sites are monuments to our inefficiency, are monuments to the mistakes of the past and are monuments to the fact that we have not yet recognized that the resources that are being buried in them should be reused, not just for now but for all future generations, that the energy we are losing from them and is being dissipated means that we are all becoming diminished in terms of who we are and what we are in the environment.

Clause (c) says, "To protect the right to a healthful environment by the means provided in this act." The right to a healthy environment: More and more we're becoming aware of our connection to the environment around us and the fact that the environment plays an important role in our wellbeing, that carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid in the atmosphere are causing huge health problems.

If people are concerned about taxes and are concerned about costs, I think we have to start to recognize that with the ever-spiralling increases in taxes and costs to pay for health care, the only way we can bring these costs into control is through a healthy environment where we as individuals are healthy in our own right and therefore are not a burden on our fellow man for taxes to pay for our health care system.

It means that we need to recognize that the food we eat, that nurtures the bodies of everyone, if contaminated, will contribute to an unhealthy environment and an unhealthy being. If that is the case and if we recognize that, then we go back to clause (a), where it says we have to protect and restore the integrity of the environment.

But it goes beyond that if we're going to talk about that in terms of agricultural land, in terms of food production. As the population of the world doubles over the next 20 years or so, we have to recognize that part of the problem we're creating is in urban sprawl, the fact that in this area we're using up some of our best agricultural land for subdivisions and for buildings and that we're not protecting that heritage in terms of protecting our agricultural lands.

This government instituted the Sewell report. Its recommendations on this are very clear: the protection of class 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land. Some of the best agricultural land in the world you can see from the CN Tower, and we are rapidly using it up. I ask you, what will that do to the cost of food in the future and what will it do to our standard of living should we not protect our agricultural land and should we allow the developers to continue to sprawl into the agricultural areas around our towns and around the city of Toronto?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Build them up instead.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "Intensification" is the word.

Mr Mahoney: That's right, build them up.

Mr Wiseman: Intensification. Well, in fact, if you want to talk about that for a second, one of my towns has some of the best densities outside of Metropolitan Toronto. They need to be applauded for that, and it's a very livable town. It's a very livable place.

"The purposes set out in subsection (1) include the following:

"1. The prevention, reduction and elimination of the use, generation and release of pollutants that are an unreasonable threat to the integrity of the environment."

It's interesting that just last weekend the eight -- what shall we call them -- biosphere bionauts came out of the Biosphere 2. For those of you who don't know what this is, it was a huge enclosed area in the southern United States that tried -- the operative word here is "tried" -- to mimic the biosphere of the earth. Biosphere 1 is the earth. Biosphere 2 was the artificial creation of the earth within this context.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): In the desert.

Mr Wiseman: In the desert, that's right. It didn't quite work. Carbon dioxide increased. The amount of food that was produced was not sufficient. Oxygen had to be pumped in on a number of occasions.

Mr Stockwell: Garbage.

Mr Wiseman: Actually, the garbage was not a big problem because they were reusing everything, Mr Stockwell. If you want to talk about garbage, I don't, because the very use of the word "garbage" clearly indicates that you haven't been listening to what I've been saying, that we should be reusing our waste stream in a way that is productive and not counterproductive.

As we look at the Biosphere 2, we know that the ability of the earth to take care of the effluents that we're pumping into it is not sufficient, that at some point the earth's ability to remove the contaminants will be overloaded.

By saying that there should be an Environmental Bill of Rights, we're saying that we need to be cognizant of that and we need to move forward to eliminate that. In fact, some of the legislation that has come out of this government on chlorofluorocarbons and the use of refrigerants is moving in that direction. We need to do even more, because we know that what could happen is that the triggering effect of the destruction of our forests and our oceans could be very instrumental in reducing the amount of oxygen available to us in the future.

I see with some great fear that we continue to chop down the rain forests in Brazil, for example, so that McDonald's can have beef for their burgers. I worry about the fact that in North Pickering, for example, there are 40,000 acres of prime agricultural land which, at one time, produced a million pounds of beef a year, produced four million gallons of milk, produced somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200,000 chickens, 45,000 bushels of wheat and 600,000 pounds of pork, and it does not produce this any more.

I see the potential of that area in North Pickering and I see, to be a little partisan, what the federal government is intending to do with 5,000 acres of that land, and I think they haven't got the point. They talk a good line, but in terms of the environment and protecting the environment, they haven't got the point. They're prepared to sacrifice that land and that potential on the altar of the almighty dollar.

"The protection and conservation of biological, ecological and genetic diversity." It's interesting that Dr David Suzuki, for the last three nights on public television in the United States, has been talking about this issue, talking about the fact that human beings are connected to the world around them, by more than just the need to have fresh air and fresh water and food, but also genetically, and that genetic damage can happen when we start to play around with the environment in ways that are unnatural and ways that we do not know; that birth defects can arise out of a whole host of chemicals and products that we put into the environment.

It was interesting that yesterday the member from Mississauga talked about her opposition to incineration. While we know in the world that if you incinerate, you can create furans and dioxins, that these are going to escape into the atmosphere and will be spread over a very wide area and that these are carcinogenic and can cause cancers in people, we do not know what the experiment is that we are dealing with as we put ever more effluents into the atmosphere. We don't know what it's going to do, yet we continue to play around.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): What about the water?

Mr Wiseman: The member for Dufferin-Peel says, "What about the water?" Absolutely, what about the water?

We continue to be strapped to the old idea that diffusion is the solution to pollution, by building sewage treatment plants that lace the effluent with chemicals and then dumping it straight into the lake. I have one in my riding. It takes all of the sewage from Pickering and a lot of the sewage from York, up where the Keele landfill site is -- in fact, the Keele landfill site is tied in to that sewer system -- yet it comes down to Lake Ontario and winds up to be partially treated and then dumped into the lake.

This is not acceptable. There are solutions to that problem: solar aquatics, tertiary ponds. We can clean it. We don't even have to use as much water in the system as we are now; in fact, we should be using hardly any water. There are composting toilets. There are systems we can put into place that will eliminate and actually be part of the solution by reusing the products. By throwing them away, we throw away the potential. By constantly throwing things away and not reusing them, we lose the potential for their use.

We have to be cognizant of that when we start to talk about issues in here. I repeat, the fact that we've renamed this bill the Environmental Bill of Rights I think is a clear indication of the desire of this legislative body to make those decisions that we make in here in recognition that we are part of the environment in which we live.

"The protection and conservation of natural resources, including plant life, animal life and ecological systems": As ecological systems break down, so does the very fabric of society. As people's needs and wants at the very basic level of food, clothing and shelter break down and are not being met, we see greater tensions in those societies and greater afflictions that are caused by the breakdown of the environmental support systems they rely on.

I think we have to recognize that and we have to start dealing with those issues and recognize that environmental conflict, environmental dissipation, is part of the problem of increased crime rate. Where there are too few resources to be shared, you get conflict. As the world's population doubles, and that's the third time I've mentioned that, within the next 25 years, these issues are going to become even more pressing. Where will the jobs come from? Where will the sustainability come from? How are we going to meet the needs of the energy for these people as the population grows? The Environmental Bill of Rights begins the process of that discussion, it begins the process of trying to solve those problems.

"The encouragement of the wise management of our natural resources, including plant life, animal life and ecological systems." I think we're beginning to move in that direction. In April 1991 I introduced in this House a resolution that said that we should protect the wetlands. It was a resolution that had been presented by previous members. It was passed unanimously by this legislative body, for which I thank the members. What's interesting, though -- all the other resolutions were passed as well, but in June 1992 it was put into section 3 of the Municipal Act, so we now have wetlands policy protection in Ontario, the beginning of the protection of a very important ecosystem.

"The identification, protection and conservation of ecologically sensitive areas and processes." In my particular area, my riding of Durham West, this government needs to be applauded for the sensitivity that it has shown in this area. Already we are moving in the direction of protecting ecosystems. With the establishment of the Rouge park, with the establishment of the agricultural preserve, the fact that the Rouge park is as big as it is -- I think all members should take pride in the fact that it's as big as it is.

But just recently this government has moved beyond that and said that the connection between the Rouge Valley and Duffins Creek in Ajax should be connected with a corridor so that species of animals and flora and fauna can drift between these natural habitats so that their genetic pools do not become isolated and they do not become extinct as species for want of a place to live. In order to facilitate the growth of this corridor, I am proud to say that this government purchased the Altona forest in Pickering, one of the last remaining plateau or tableland forests in southern Ontario, and has protected it and its wildlife in a size that is large enough that the genetic species that are in there will be able to be connected to the corridor between the Rouge and Duffins and that they will also be able to migrate back and forth. This is an important recognition of the need for us to build these kinds of habitats, and so I thank the Minister of Environment but especially I thank the Minister of Natural Resources for the efforts that they've put into that and the recognition of the need to protect the environment in this way.

1640

"In order to fulfil the purposes set out in subsections (1) and (2), this act provides,

"(a) means by which residents of Ontario may participate in the making of environmentally significant decisions by the government of Ontario;

"(b) increased accountability of the government of Ontario for its environmental decision-making;

"(c) increased access to the courts by residents of Ontario for the protection of the environment; and

"(d) enhanced protection for employees who take action in respect of environmental harm."

This is a significant move because, as I've said earlier, we are all part of the environment and the world in which we live. That confers upon all of us the responsibility to act environmentally. It confers upon us the responsibility that we must, as individuals, recognize when pollution is taking place and take actions to remedy it.

But it also confers upon the owners to recognize that you really don't own this world; you're merely an inhabitant going through the process of life to some ultimate goal. But in that process, as the natives of North America would say, "You are borrowing the world from your children," and if we are not going to return the world to them or if we're not going to turn it over to them in better shape than we have got it, then we fail the future generations by not being progressive in our thinking. We fail them by saddling them with a debt far more onerous than the monetary debt that currently occupies everybody's thinking.

The environmental debt and the failure to deal with it will set burdens upon future generations that mere monetary debt will never, ever come close to being. The need to retrofit, to regain from the environment the losses that we have inflicted on it over the last 35 or 40 years, the need to clean up the atmosphere, the need to take the chemicals out of the atmosphere, these are costs that, if we do not deal with them now, will escalate at a far more rapid rate than the mere accumulation of the dollars and cents that has preoccupied all of the federal leaders in this campaign. I submit to you that the issue of debt is how we're going to establish green industries, a green economy, sustainable development and restore the balance of nature so that future generations can experience the bounties of the seas and the fruits of the trees from the Niagara Peninsula and the bounties from the forests. If we use them all up without recognizing that we have to move towards sustainable development, then that is a debt that I think we should not inflict on future generations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I've listened extensively to the member for Durham West, and he made an eloquent plea. Of course, his presentation is quite extensive and he's describing, I think, our civilization quite rightly when he says we're into a mode of burning, slashing and subjugating the environment. There's no doubt about that.

Obviously, this bill talks about protecting, conserving, sustaining and restoring the integrity of the environment -- no doubt great goals -- and we all know, I think, the litany of what needs to be done. We know, for instance, that every second we're losing one acre of farm land and of forest land in the Amazon. We're changing the chemical makeup of our world. Then he's talking about the greenhouse effect -- of course, we know that; the ozone layer is being destroyed -- more carbon dioxide; and we're losing species after species, no doubt about that.

My question is, when he then gets into the political arena and he congratulates the Minister of Natural Resources and he congratulates the Minister of Environment and he says, "This government has done a great deal about the environment," I'm standing here and asking him --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): He's right.

Mr Ruprecht: Well, he should do more and he says he will do more. My question is, what will he do? Is he prepared to talk to the Minister of Environment and say, "Okay, let's reduce our landfill sites"? Are they going to do that? We want to know which ones. I'd be happy to support that, obviously, and we would be on this side to support that, but they're not. They will not do that. They're not in the mode to do that.

Is he willing to talk to the Minister of Agriculture to in fact enhance and maintain the policy that we do not wish to lose any more farm land? Is he going to stand up and talk to him? Has he got a specific policy?

Is he going to talk to the Minister of Education and say, "Minister, there should be a program in each school"? Each child should be subjected to some kind of environmental bill of rights, and students in schools should obviously be taught about these things.

Is he ready to talk to the Minister of Health and talk about pollutants and how pollutants affect the health?

Is he ready to talk to the Minister of Natural Resources in terms of protecting our wetlands? Is he willing to do that? That's what we want him to do.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: The member for Durham West has made some excellent points on the problems of environment in this province and this country. The difficulty I have with what he's saying in relationship to Bill 26 is that many of the things he wants to talk about, whether it be incineration, really can't be talked about by people in this province, specifically if you're looking at the problems in Durham, the superdump that's going to be put in Durham.

I have a resident from Cheltenham who has been trying to communicate with not only Mr McIntyre but the Minister of Environment since last June to talk about the very thing that you're talking about in this House, and that's the subject of incineration. Of course, the minister will say: "No, Bill 143, we're not going to talk about incineration. We're ruling that out. We're not even going to debate it in this House." There's not going to be an opportunity to debate it, notwithstanding the fact that the member for Durham East stood up and made some comments against incineration. That's his right, but there are also other sides to a debate. I have, in the time I've been in this place, which isn't as long as he has, yet to hear that.

Here's a member, Mr John Tysoe from Cheltenham, who has written me, and I in turn have written Mr McIntyre and the minister. I want them to respond to very good questions on the topic of incineration. I mean, you may be right, but at least let's have an opportunity to discuss it. Bill 26 says, "No, we're not going to deal with that because that's the superdumps. We have an Interim Waste Authority. No, you can't talk about the hydro lines that are going to go through our farming communities; we've got Hydro and other people who are going to look after that." You can't deal with it, so what teeth has the bill of rights? What teeth does the bill of rights have? Is the bill of rights going to give Mr Tysoe the right to go and complain about the superdump in his riding, or individuals in your riding? The answer is no.

Mr White: I'd like to commend my colleague from Durham West on his speech and his excellent points on the Environmental Bill of Rights. Mr Wiseman, the member for Durham West, has been known in our area as an avid defender of environmental issues. When he talks about the Environmental Bill of Rights and how it would empower people in his riding, I think it's important to note that it's an ecosystems approach that he's talking of. It's not just the Environmental Bill of Rights; it's also Bill 143, which reduces waste through reducing, reusing and recycling.

My colleague across talked about a superdump in Durham. This government has protected the people of Durham from a superdump that the Liberals would have thrust upon us. In Durham, despite the Liberals who are presently in power at the municipal level saying it's going to be a superdump, it is going to be a dump for Durham garbage and Durham garbage alone, and it's going to be selected through a careful process, a process that will be monitored by my friend from Durham West, a process that my friend will scrupulously ensure is done as well as possible.

The issues that he brings up about the protection of agricultural land, the issues about protection of our children's future, that issue about an environmental preserve and the privilege that we presently have that we have abused, those are issues of a moral and ecological consciousness that I think we do well to listen to. I commend my friend for having brought up these issues to our attention so frequently and for so assiduously pursuing these issues.

1650

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Durham West, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to refer to a couple of things. In terms of agricultural land and the preservation of agricultural land, yes, there is work being done. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is working on it. The Sewell commission has outlined it. But just a minute. Let's stop and take a look. Is it just the responsibility of the government to do this, or is it everybody's responsibility to preserve agricultural land? Is it not also the responsibility of the developers who are out there buying up this land for urban sprawl to recognize that they are part of this community and that they have to exercise their moral obligations as well? Just because they're developers, it doesn't remove their obligations to be part of the society.

Education, yes; environmental studies are being taught all over the place. The Durham Board of Education has one of the best environmental studies programs anywhere in Ontario. If anybody wants to know what they should be doing, I suggest they get in touch with Louise Farr, who is the chair of the board of the Durham Board of Education, or Pauline Laing, who is the director. I think they would be more than willing to participate.

In terms of incineration, the member missed the point. If you burn up the product, it is gone. The second law of thermodynamics, called entropy, says that if you burn it, you cannot reuse it. It becomes diffused and therefore useless. But if you take the products from the waste stream and you say, "We can do this with them: We can make products out of tires, we can recycle the plastics, we can recycle the wood, we can compost the kitchen scraps and we can reuse that to restore our agricultural fields," then we're starting to move in the direction of understanding what sustainability is all about.

Mr Stockwell: He's being way too assiduous.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Any further debate?

Mr Mahoney: Do you think he could spell "assiduous"? I'm not sure. I was impressed that he actually pronounced it.

I'm pleased to talk about some of the concerns I have around this bill and around the whole issue of -- rather than an Environmental Bill of Rights, I think of it, when I look at who's putting it forward, as the politics of the environment. I listened to the speeches about stopping -- what was it? -- urban sprawl, stopping development. You know, I go back municipally into the mid-1970s. In 1969, there were three secondary plans released in the city of Mississauga for development purposes and today I don't think they'd appreciate being called urban sprawl. Some of us have middle-aged sprawl, but they're communities. They have got --

Mr Elston: Name names.

Mr Mahoney: I will name names: the communities of Meadowvale, the communities in Mississauga Valley, the communities in Erin Mills. They're communities with real people. They create employment. There are jobs in that community, right in the community. In fact, Mississsauga is, you might be surprised to know, a net importer of jobs. More people actually come to work in Mississauga every day than leave to work somewhere else.

That's because we've worked with those nasty developers over the years to find a way to build communities that are compatible for jobs, that are compatible for families, that have schools, that have churches, that have community centres, that have -- let me tell you, Mr Speaker, talking about the environment, that in the community of Erin Mills, you can walk from the southern part of Erin Mills around Dundas and Mississauga Road, right up to the north, almost to Eglinton, through valley systems. In fact, you would go through some of them and you would believe you were in the middle of Muskoka.

These are what these terrible developers did, in conjunction with the city planners, in conjunction with the ratepayers, in conjunction with the municipal politicians, at a mixed density.

Mr Wiseman: At what density?

Mr Mahoney: The member says, "At what density?" These communities do not want all high-rises. They live there, they have to raise their families there and we need a mix. We understand, in urban planning, that you take a balance of the needs of the community and the needs of the environment and you make it work.

You have to involve business and industry at the same time, and not just all little empty industrial plazas. We need real businesses in our communities that create jobs, not vacant office space all over the place because people are worried about various things that might affect the environment. It's our job and the Ministry of Environment and Energy's job to ensure that things are put in place, that proper abatement procedures are put in place, to allow industry to coincide and live harmoniously with residential and other business and industrial communities.

This idea that we should just stop development: Mississauga not long ago was considered purely an agricultural community. In fact, if you go into, I would say, the mid-1960s, which for many of us is not that long ago, it was very substantially agricultural working farms in that community.

When you take a look at the growth in the GTA, does it make sense to continue to farm land as close to Toronto as that, as close to the major infrastructure that exists, with the roads, the highways, the airport, the rail services, the shipping? Does it make sense to leave that as barren or leave it as purely agricultural farm land when in fact in the southwest, in communities in Bruce and down in London, there's terrific agricultural land that is under a preservation policy by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food? And so it should be, but you've got to balance these things.

In those days of development and growth in Mississauga, we dealt with the community groups that came forward and said: "There should be no more development. I'm in the boat. Pull up the ladder and let's stop all of this." I ask people just to reflect. That may be sexy politics to the people of the day who are dealing with it, but think about the great things that we get. I ask you, would we get the community centres, the swimming pools, the arenas, the parks for our children? Would we get the facilities that we have in our community and in all communities around the province if we didn't have some kind of growth?

The buzzword today is "sustainable development." It used to be that it was "sequential development by criteria." That was the buzzword back in the 1970s and I guess that meant phasing it and you set out the criteria.

There are bad developers, there are bad industries, there are bad business people, there's no doubt about that, but the vast majority of them understand, and through an educational process of working and urban planning and urban development, they come to realize that what is good for the community will be good for them. If they transfer some densities that are too high because the community doesn't want a bunch of 30-storey apartment buildings staring down on their backyards, and they lower those apartment buildings to make them work with the community and make them work with the environment, then I ask, what in the world is wrong with that?

You have people who believe that we should just crowd everybody. That is the mentality of the current government. Their policies on intensification are creating havoc in the communities that are trying to plan some kind of sensible growth in their communities. If we allowed this government to simply implement the ideological policies of the New Democratic Party, we would indeed stop development and growth. I maintain, and I'm one not afraid to say, that would be catastrophic for our future and for our children's future. We need the planning controls, there's no doubt, but they're there.

That raises another issue. This government sets up a commission headed by our friend John Sewell and gives him three million bucks to spend to travel around the province figuring out how he can amend the Planning Act. I understand we're still waiting for the final hammer to fall on that particular report, but we've got all kinds of recommendations about how people should be interfering in that process, when any kind of reasonably sophisticated municipality understands what the problems are.

You have to have a policy of give and take. This kind of rigidity that I see coming out of what is really motherhood, an Environmental Bill of Rights -- who in the world would be against that? How could you not support a position that would put in place rights for everybody to have a wonderful environment?

It reminds me a little bit of the ads for the National Party, I think it's called, in the current federal election, where Doug Henning, the magician, says he's made elephants disappear, so he can make all our problems disappear.

1700

Mr Elston: The Natural Law Party.

Mr Mahoney: The Natural Law Party, the ones who sit and play yoga in padded cells. Wonderful stuff: "We can solve all your problems; just trust us."

I think that's what this government is trying to do, as they all hug a tree, wrapping themselves in some kind of environmental flag to say to the people out there, "We're going to create an Environmental Bill of Rights that will give you protection," when what is really needed is for the current ministry and the current minister to enforce the ministry's regulations where they need to be enforced and to say to the municipalities, which are living with these problems every day, that we expect the environment to be taken into account in the planning process. That would come as a great shock, let me tell you, to the people in the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga: "Oh, you really expect us to consider the environment." What a bunch of nonsense. They've been doing it for years.

This government comes along and pretends, because the former minister, Ruth Grier, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, promised when she was standing over here, and indeed introduced private member's bills, to introduce some Environmental Bill of Rights for people -- Mr Speaker, the scary thing is, take a look at what they're creating. Take a look at what they're already facing.

They bring in a social contract to reduce the size of government, yet they won't look at my private member's bill which would abolish the Office of the Ombudsman. Let's talk about $10 million a year. How much do you think an Environmental Commissioner is going to cost?

This bill says that any two residents of Ontario who are 18 years of age or older could request a formal review of a policy, act or regulation by submitting a standardized form to the Office of the Environmental Commissioner, and they're going to have a hearing. Any two people over 18 years of age can simply say: "I want a hearing. I don't have to justify my reasons. I don't have to be accountable for any of this. If it turns out that my complaints are frivolous, it's too bad that it cost the taxpayers a bunch of money. It's too bad that it cost the company in question a bunch of money. We've got our Environmental Bill of Rights and we're going to demand a hearing."

That's the same thing you do with the Ontario Municipal Board. According to Mr Sewell, we're going to have OMB hearings on Sunday shopping coming out our ears because you people are giving the right to anybody to appeal a decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. The regulations, the red tape, the bureaucracy that this government is setting up will not only negate what you think you might have accomplished in the social contract, it will increase the cost of doing business for everybody; ultimately, that's going to cost jobs and that's going to impact every taxpayer in this province.

Let's not be fooled by this attempt of the government to wrap itself in some form of environmental protection flag. The systems are already in place.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Where are they?

Mr Mahoney: They're already in place in the ministry. If they're not, I say to the member, go talk to your minister. Why don't you talk to your minister if you don't believe he's enforcing the --

Mr Hope: What about the blob in 1975? What about the St Clair River? Talk to Jim Bradley about the St Clair River.

Mr Mahoney: There are no new laws. Let's not mislead the public here. There are no new environmental regulations in this bill. You're creating some office -- maybe they'll pull Odoardo Di Santo out of the Workers' Compensation Board and put him in as the commissioner; I'm sure he's an environmentalist.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Robin Sears will be available soon.

Mr Mahoney: Robin Sears? No, he's still in Tokyo working, I understand.

You're going to create a nice, new office for some NDP hack who's going to be a commissioner of the environment, and he's going to hire 10 or 12 NDP followers, maybe even some of you when you're out of work in about 18 months, although we'll put a stop to that. He's going to come in and he's going to all of a sudden conduct hearings all over the province. He's going to travel around -- I can just see it now -- and to what end?

Why could we not have just some serious policy statements about what this government believes is important, and have them in here? Why not just set out some rules and live by those rules? Instead, you want to set up some fancy commission. Look at this, this will be part of it: a requirement that formal statements of environmental values be prepared by each of 14 ministries which make decisions with environmental consequences. It almost sounds like the Environment minister is passing the buck here.

Ministries that would be subject to this bill of rights would be, of course, Environment and Energy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Food, Transportation, Municipal Affairs, Housing, Labour, Management Board, Northern Development and Mines, Consumer and Commercial Relations, Finance, Health, Culture, Tourism and Recreation and Economic Development and Trade.

What you're doing is taking every ministry and saying: "You have another process to go through, and bear in mind that everything you do can be challenged by two residents in the province 18 years of age or older. We want you to follow these guidelines and these restrictions and come in with all of this new red tape."

It wouldn't frighten me nearly as much if it was anybody other than the NDP promoting this. I'm telling you, it frightens me. You people are dogmatic, you're ideological, you're not prepared to look at things in a pragmatic way that would create a sense of balance in the community, and that frightens me.

The Environmental Commissioner: You're setting up an office without authority but an ability to slow everything down and create more red tape.

An electronic registry; this is fascinating. I wonder if it's a mailing list for fund-raising. What do you think? A new fund-raising mailing list for the NDP on an electronic registry, and there are people who have estimated that the cost of implementing this electronic registry could be in the tens of millions of dollars. We know for a fact that this agency, once it's set up, will go from zero to $10 million in about 60 seconds. We know that's going to happen because it has happened everywhere else. Your health and safety agency's minimum operating costs -- I'll be fair to the co-chairs. They claim it's $6.5 million; documentation I have shows it's closer to $10 million.

We know that's what's going to happen here. We do not need another agency in this province. We do not need another level of red tape and another level of regulatory powers being given to some potentate appointed and anointed by Bob Rae because he or she happens to be out of work and doesn't have an NDP seat available for them to run for.

The most fascinating thing about this is the exemption that's being granted. Here they are. If you believe their statements that they really believe in this Environmental Bill of Rights, if you believe that, then you would have to ask yourself, why would they exempt Ontario Hydro?

Mr Arnott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there a quorum in the chamber?

The Deputy Speaker: Is there a quorum?

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present.

Mr Mahoney: I guess I'm going to have to start over again. I wish I could. Would you put the clock back to 30 minutes so I could start over again?

As I was saying, if you believe the government's comments, its sincerity about believing in the Environmental Bill of Rights, you would have to ask yourself, why would it exempt government agencies like Ontario Hydro? I find that incredible.

I go back to the days when the Conservatives were in power and we were building some bridges in Mississauga. They came along and said, "We don't need to abide by the environmental rules; we'll just put the bridge right across here." We said: "Just a minute now. You can't give yourself an exemption to the rules that you expect everybody else in the community to live by." It was a group of citizens who stood up and said, "Stop," and we got the position of the particular bridge moved, but not without, as you can well imagine, an awful lot of heartache and work on the part of the ratepayers.

1710

But where does government get off thinking that it can exempt itself or that it can exempt an agency such as Ontario Hydro? Think about it. There are parts of this province where hydro's not yet available. Imagine the environmental impact if they are to put hydro in. It's going to go in. It's got to go in. That's progress. You can't leave those people sitting out there without lights very much longer. You're going to tell me that there's an Environmental Bill of Rights for everybody in Toronto, but when you get up into the far northwest, where we're going to run hydro lines, people don't have a right to challenge it because it's Hydro? I don't know how you can justify that. If you really believe in this kind of stuff, you've got to go all the way. You're creating a double standard on this.

I think the most important thing about the whole issue, however, goes back to some speeches that have taken place in this House on this issue in recent days. I have a lot of concerns, as does anyone. Anyone who says that anybody in this place doesn't care about the environment or the future for their kids I think is nuts. I believe you care about that, just as I'm sure we all care about that on this side. It's government red tape and government regulation. It's attitude. It's a lack of balance. It's a lack of recognition that what we need to do is create good, quality development in our communities. As I said before, we have to have industry coexisting with our residential communities.

Many people in this place often get a kick out of the member for Mississauga South and me, who from time to time have disagreements. We had one yesterday; I'm sure we're about to have one today. But the speech that I heard yesterday is a clear example of the thing I'm talking about, and it's not coming from a member of the New Democratic Party; it's coming from a member of the Conservative Party, suggesting in fact, if I read from Hansard in reference to St Lawrence Cement, "Why won't the Ministry of Environment and Energy suspend St Lawrence Cement's licence to burn until the company can demonstrate, through appropriate testing, that the resulting emissions are safe?"

There's an ongoing debate. In fact, an order was issued to St Lawrence Cement and it has appealed that order. Is the member for Mississauga South or anyone else in here suggesting that the right of appeal for the corporate sector should be withdrawn, or simply that when you get an order from any level of the government and any ministry you must lie down and comply? The order that they were given would cost the company $10 million. They have a right to question that order. They have a right to say, "We don't think that's right." Even the residents' group that's working on this issue very hard, which I have also talked to, says: "We don't want to shut down St Lawrence Cement. We want to have the tests done." The people at St Lawrence Cement agree with that.

Indeed, even the minister has agreed with that. A letter that I know the member for Mississauga South and other members of her caucus have seen, addressed to Gary Carr, the MPP in Oakville South, talks about St Lawrence Cement "under a section 9, formerly section 8, certificate of approval which permits the company to burn a complex mixture of chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons. The certificate was originally issued in 1975." Of course that should be updated. That's part of the process that's going on now. Do we tell them to shut down? If you prohibit a cement company from burning, from using its kilns, you close its doors. I don't think that the people who work at St Lawrence Cement and who work in the cement industry want to have their jobs put on hold while the ministry dawdles. The real argument here and the real criticism here should be at the ministry.

I understand that the test that was done in 1989 is not satisfactory to the residents. I understand that. But this is signed by Bud Wildman, the minister, in which he says, "MOE staff from the ministry's Oakville district office have routinely monitored the operations and in 1989 the ministry's air resources branch completed a mobile air quality survey in the community adjacent to St Lawrence Cement." This is the minister. "While the company was burning solvents, the ambient air was screened for 132 different volatile organic compounds, several common contaminants, PCBs and dioxins/furans. For all pollutants, the concentrations recorded were very low, and none approached or exceeded the ministry's guidelines." He goes on to say, the minister, that this plant does not pose a health risk to people living in the community around it.

The people don't believe that. The people are worried. And the minister, I'm sure, understands how people are concerned about that.

But do we put them out of business? That is my concern. Even the resolution that the member enjoyed pointing out was passed by Mississauga council and that I have a copy of does not call for them to shut down their operations. That resolution simply calls on the ministry, and that's where the onus belongs. The onus belongs on the ministry, and it calls on them.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I want to know what Hazel thinks.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you'll never know, actually. It could change from time to time.

It calls on them that "the minister be requested to take all steps," including appropriate compliance audits, the issuance of an appropriate stop order and/or an additional director's order, to ensure that St Lawrence conforms to the ministry director's order/Environmental Appeal Board's decisions.

There is an appeal going on. Is the city of Mississauga council suggesting that they should go in and ignore that appeal process and strip St Lawrence Cement of its rights to appeal the decision? I think not. In fact, I've talked to Councillor Mullin and I've talked to the president of the ratepayers' group, and they are not looking to do that. They want answers and they deserve answers, and I support their getting it.

I just take strong exception to a member of this Legislature calling for a ministry to shut down a very viable business in this community when what really needs to be done is the Ministry of Environment needs to go out -- in fact, they did some tests in 1989. I understand they were mobile, I understand they were in some cases 10 kilometres away, and they're not acceptable. Why don't they do them properly? St Lawrence Cement will cooperate with the ministry. They are the Ministry of Environment and Energy. It is their responsibility, and all members in this House should be calling upon them to go out and conduct the appropriate tests, not only in this example but in many countless examples throughout the province.

The politics of the environment is such that if you speak against an environmental bill of rights, you're against the environment, and I reject that. The politics of the environment is such that if a group of people suspect there is a problem, in some cases they can call for a particular operation to be shut down, and I reject that. We have to have some common sense in this. We have to have some balance. Whether it's St Mary's Cement or St Lawrence Cement, whoever it is, this government has just arbitrarily decided, with no justification, no backup, no reasoning, that there will not be any burning of tires or waste or anything of that nature in a cement kiln. Asked and pressed for a reason, they can simply say: "Because. It's NDP policy." Why won't they allow for an environmental assessment hearing to take place on such an important issue? Why will they not let all of the issues come forward to the table so that everybody involved in the issue can express their concerns?

I understand people would be concerned, not only about environmental issues from the burning, but they'd be concerned about trucking, they'd be concerned about the problems of waste, be it in the form of tires or be it in the form of domestic waste coming into their community, the potential for rodents and other infections, other problems that occur. No one is going to support, in my party, placing a dump in the middle of a residential community, although it appears that the IWA is well on the way to doing that.

But I don't understand how you can close your eyes to these things. It is beyond me how this government can just allow ideology to dominate the environmental issues that are so important to the growth and the future of our communities.

The environment can work hand in hand with growth, with development, with the political process. What we must avoid doing if it's at all possible is using it as a tool to promote our own political position.

1720

We have the accessibility of experts who can give you all kinds of differing opinions and it's our job to sit down calmly and rationally. I believe that the citizens will do that and that they don't need some commissioner to go to. This will turn out that they won't be able to get hold of him anyway. It'll be like every other agency that's ever been set up, when you think of them, whether it's health and safety or whether it's the pay equity police. Our party has to accept some responsibility for some of this. I admit that.

It's time we reinvented government. It's time we said that we are no longer going to put in place all of these layers that are going to force people to go through hoops to get answers. Why do you think we can't get answers on the St Lawrence issue or on many other issues? It's because of the ineffectiveness of the Ministry of Environment and Energy to do the proper studies and the proper work that need to be done. I suggest that this particular bill, this Environmental Bill of Rights, is going to exacerbate that, that it's going to add to that in a major way and just simply create additional problems.

One final example: I use the example of logging. This government's well familiar with it. When activist groups -- wasn't it Bob Rae himself who was almost arrested? They let him off. They put Drainville in the slammer because he chained himself to a tree. The whole idea was that you can't take down trees, when in fact if you do it with proper planning, you replace those trees. It's harvesting, for goodness' sake.

How do we build in this country if we don't harvest our forests and do it under some kind of management program that makes sense to ensure that this is a renewable resource we are able to use and leave for many generations to come, for ever, however long that is? There's no reason not to. But you get caught up in the environmental issues and they're not even really environmental issues; they're special interest groups. This government more than any government in history can be dominated because most of them come from special interest groups. We know who pulls their chain.

You've got to take a look at these issues with some sense of balance to make sure that a community can grow, be it in northern Ontario in logging, be it in southern Ontario in the cement business, be it in southwestern Ontario with the fisheries in Lake Erie, be it wherever you go in this province, be it in the areas of this province where they've yet to get hydro. You've got to create a balance. What we need here is a balanced bill, and I suggest we don't have that. We don't have it from this side of the House and we sure don't have it from the Conservative Party. I suggest this bill should be withdrawn and revamped with a thought towards balance and future sustainable development in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It's really interesting to hear the member for Mississauga West stand up and speak in favour of industry when he should really be speaking on behalf of his constituents and their health. We're well aware of his position on this issue. He had Mr Charles Coles, the general manager of St Lawrence Cement, on his program and fortunately we have that cable program taped, so we know what has been said.

When he misleads this House by suggesting that the alternative for St Lawrence Cement is to close its doors, it's unfortunate at best. We've already talked about the fact that their operations, while burning chlorinated waste solvents, is 40% of their operations. No, we're not saying close their doors; we're simply saying that until we have these tests, can we please know what is happening from these tests, and in the meantime can we please desist from burning chlorinated waste? They can easily use another fuel.

It's unfortunate, because I really thought that this member was smarter than speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He says, "I'm for industry," and he says, "I'm for the residents." He doesn't even do his homework. If he did his homework, he would know that the Environmental Appeal Board hearing at the moment is about a control order that was issued only after four years, after the Ministry of Environment asked St Lawrence Cement to clean up its act. They were given four years and they didn't comply.

Secondly, the 1989 tests that were done at St Lawrence Cement were only done by the TAGA, which is the trace ambient gas analysis; they were not done on the particulate emissions. In order to know what emissions are, you have to understand what is in those emissions. The particulate emissions are the ones that carry the heavy metals, and those are the ones that we're concerned about. It's too bad the member for Mississauga West is not as concerned.

Mr Hope: It was interesting to notice the soapbox approach, but I found it very interesting. I have a little red book with a checkmark approach on the back where you can govern what goes on. I just want to read. It says, "Our second task will be to appoint an Environmental Auditor General, reporting directly to Parliament, with powers of investigation similar to the powers of the Auditor General." Boy, I thought you were opposed to that.

It also says here, "Individuals could petition the Environmental Auditor General to conduct special investigations when they see environmental policies or laws being ignored or violated." Gee, that's funny; that was in a little red book.

There is also one comment here that says, "Under a" -- and I'll leave it blank -- "government, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will be amended to shift decision-making powers to an independent Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency." Shocking.

I'm going to read something here that says the environmental agency and an appointed "Environmental Auditor General reporting directly to Parliament on the environmental impact of government policies and on the enforcement of environmental laws," and it says it'll give some teeth.

I found it very interesting when the member opposite, who usually has something constructive to say, had nothing constructive to say this time but pure rhetoric and a soapbox approach. The document that I'm reading from is so-called Creating Opportunity; I think it's called Career Opportunities for the federal government that is out there conducting this propaganda.

The member opposite says it's totally uncalled for. I know, within the time left for me, the member for St Catharines, who always speaks out so eloquently on issues, would agree that it is important to have an Environmental Bill of Rights to deal with the issues that are faced by those people who live downstream of the St Clair River, because he knows as well as anyone knows the impacts that have happened to those communities.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I know that the member for Mississauga West is very concerned about many of these environmental issues. One of them he would be very concerned about, and I thought I detected this in some of his remarks this afternoon, was the fact that there have been considerable cutbacks in the budget and the resources of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. It is one thing to bring forward a piece of legislation or to enact new regulations in this Legislature in the cabinet room or committees of cabinet; it is yet another to be able to deliver on those.

Whether one likes it or not, and there are many people who are critical of this, particularly from the right-wing place within the political spectrum, if you want to measure a government's concern about a particular issue or a particular area, you look, first of all, at the economic resources it is prepared to put there and then the physical resources it is prepared to put there and third, the political will to enact tough legislation and tough regulations.

My great concern when you bring in the Environmental Bill of Rights is that you do not in fact have the resources to back it up. If you look carefully at the budget of the Ministry of Environment, a budget which under the previous administration increased by well over 100% -- and there would be those out there who would be critical of budgetary increases, but in that ministry, well over 100% -- we see that in fact it is being cut back as other ministries are.

The way that a government demonstrates its priority in a specific area is when it continues to allocate those resources in difficult economic times, the financial resources so that you have sufficient staff to carry out the mandate of the ministry and the physical resources so that you have the equipment, the buildings and everything that goes with the enforcement of the regulations and the enforcement of policy. Unfortunately, though this bill will look good on paper and though they will extol it as a virtue across the province, and there will be certain people who will echo that, I simply point out that the resources must be there to enact its provisions.

Mr Tilson: The members for Mississauga West and Mississauga South obviously have an interesting debate going back and forth, and I won't participate in that debate. But I would like to comment on the one area he spent some time on, and that was with respect to the Environmental Commissioner. It's interesting: We ask the question, is the Minister of Environment doing his job currently? Have the policies of this government been doing this job in all of these different areas we've been going on? I assume the answer to that is no, because we have now got an Environmental Bill of Rights that is going to have an Environmental Commissioner who's going to be able to criticize different ministries or different policies of the government.

1730

It is odd, of course, that now we've got a social contract that's saying we must cut back on the number of bureaucrats who work in the Ministry of Environment, and there's no question that their roles are going to be more and more difficult, to operate what they're doing, because of these cutbacks, and the cutbacks philosophically, I suppose, of the Ministry of Environment; yet here, as the member from Mississauga said, we're now creating a whole new bureaucracy to tell us something we probably already know, at who knows what expense. They're going to take paperwork and shuffle it off to the ministries, saying, "Improve your act."

It is rather ironic, as the member has suggested, the whole issue of cost with respect to an Environmental Commissioner on the one hand and on the other hand cutting back drastically with respect to the Minister of Environment and all the cutbacks and the problems that the Ministry of Environment is having. The Ministry of Environment certainly is having considerable difficulty in its operations now in solving many of the environmental problems.

It is a strange world this government is trying to create. It's going to create a bureaucracy that I believe is not going to solve the environmental problems in the preamble that's being set out in this act, which is all very admirable but will not be solved by the Environmental Commissioner.

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

Mr Mahoney: I would simply say very briefly to the member for Mississauga South that I guess when you are unsure of an answer, you simply throw personal insults. I find that unfortunate, but that's her choice.

To the member from Chatham, I found your comments rather interesting. I don't even know what you're reading from. I assume it's some federal election propaganda that's put out by the federal Liberal Party. I'm not privy to that. But I think one of the big differences between the New Democratic Party and our party is the fact that to you people, what you do is a movement, and you can't separate the fact that perhaps your federal party has a little different agenda from yours. Theirs is called survival, because you have managed to ensure that the lady from the Yukon had better spend a lot of time in the Yukon trying to save her seat.

Mr Hope: You're ignoring the issue.

Mr Mahoney: No, I'm not ignoring the issue. I put my concerns about the provincial legislation forward very clearly in Hansard. What do you do to criticize? You stand up and read some federal document. I don't even think you understand the issue.

I want to thank the member for Dufferin-Peel, though, because I think his comments were constructive. From time to time we may agree or disagree, but the reality is that he hit the nail on the head. What is the Minister of Environment doing? The Minister of Environment should be the Environmental Commissioner.

My point is that there's not anything wrong with having the concept of an Environmental Bill of Rights, but why do we need another agency when you're already taking funds away from everybody, even demanding money back from people you don't give money to, like the Metro school board and -- I guess you've exempted Hydro -- the Workers' Compensation Board?

You're setting up an impossible situation. You've got a commissioner of the environment. His name is Wildman. He's the current minister, and he should be enforcing the regulations.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Arnott: I'm very pleased to be able to provide some additional debate on this controversial bill, Bill 26, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, which was introduced by the Honourable Bud Wildman, Minister of Environment, for first reading on May 31, 1993. We're now in the midst of second reading debate, which is debate in principle on this bill, which, in spite of the government members' protest, has generated some degree of opposition and controversy.

This is an interesting bill. It's got a considerable history to it. The Environmental Bill of Rights concept has been put forward by a number of different members in this Legislature over the last 10 or 11 years. Most notably I think the present Minister of Health, the former Minister of the Environment for the New Democrats, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, is given a great deal of credit for championing the concept of the Environmental Bill of Rights over the last number of years when she was in opposition, where she passionately put forward the case for the need for an Environmental Bill of Rights.

Certainly the government was committed to this concept during its election campaign in 1990, and there's reference made to it in the Agenda for People, that an Environmental Bill of Rights would be one of the top priorities of the government. Also, I believe in the first throne speech in this chamber when the House resumed after the election in 1990, we heard there would be an Environmental Bill of Rights coming forward.

Of course, it took longer to make this idea realized into a bill than the government had planned, which is fine as far as I'm concerned, because I think it is important that it consult and gather a wide range of opinion so that it doesn't make a mistake. I wouldn't castigate you for going back on your commitment to immediately present an Environmental Bill of Rights that would have been flawed, and I'm glad the government did go ahead and consult actively and widely to try and find a bill that in some way would represent the views of a diverse range of interests.

But certainly if you compare the private member's bill that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore presented in opposition to this bill, they're very, very different. In many cases I'm sure the government is finding that some of the people who supported it and supported the Environmental Bill of Rights concept would be very disappointed. We've heard that view expressed, that the bill doesn't go far enough. We've heard that the bill goes too far. We'll see over the course of the debate -- when we go to public hearings, I suppose we'll learn more about where that's at exactly.

The task force that was assigned to consult and to study this issue and come back and report to the minister reported back to the minister with draft legislation. It was reported in the Legislature, I believe, in July 1992, about a year ago. We heard at that time that all parties in the development of the bill were very content and that most indicated that there weren't any serious problems with the bill. We saw an example of the government trying to broker a number of specific interest groups and try to come to a consensus, assuming that the brokering of these specific interest groups would lead to a bill that would be satisfactory to all across Ontario.

I think that most of the groups that did have initial concerns about the concept, when they saw the final bill, felt and expressed at the time that the bill would not present any serious problems for businesses that obey all the pertinent environmental legislation and regulations.

The minister, when he introduced the bill, talked about the need for the bill. He talked about the necessity for an Environmental Bill of Rights and he indicated that the overall intention of the bill is to provide residents of Ontario with the necessary mechanisms to protect the environment when the government fails to do so. I find that to be a very interesting underlying premise for the whole need for an Environmental Bill of Rights. It says to me a number of things which I'll probably get to a little bit later.

We see that this bill will create a minimum standard for public notice and participation in environmental decision-making by designated ministries within the province of Ontario. We see that the bill will allow for the creation of an Environmental Commissioner to ensure public accountability for all environmental decisions. We see that residents, I suppose adjacent to a given project, will be given the power to initiate court action to protect public resources. We also see that this bill will allow increased access to the courts for individuals who claim that they are suffering a direct loss as a result of environmental neglect.

The fundamental principles surrounding this bill I think are fairly straightforward. The government would indicate to us that the fundamental principle of the bill is that "the people of Ontario recognize the inherent value of the natural environment," that "the people of Ontario have a right to a healthful environment," that "the people of Ontario have a common goal" in "the protection, conservation and restoration of the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations."

Those first three principles, that I think the government would agree are a fairly accurate representation of what the principles behind the bill are, I think every member of this House supports without qualification. We all support the need for the preservation of the environment for future generations and we support the government taking an active role in terms of making sure that is the case.

I think where we run into a bit of a controversy is perhaps the fourth general principle of the bill, which says, "While the government has the primary responsibility for achieving this goal, the people should have means to ensure that it is achieved in an effective, timely, open and fair manner."

Where we come into some degree of dispute on this is that I think we find that the people have elected the government, and the government has the responsibility, the government has the authority, the government is obliged to govern. Therein lies some of the controversy: whether or not the government follows through on the expectations it's created for itself; whether or not the government protects the environment to the degree that it promised during the election campaign; whether or not the government has the political will and to what degree it has the political will to protect the environment.

1740

That's where I think we run into a bit of a controversy, and of course this bill indicates that the people should have a direct link and a direct say in further efforts to protect the environment aside from their opportunity, every number of years, to elect a government and to give that government the opportunity to govern the province including, as part of its responsibilities, the protection of the environment.

One of the key provisions of what this bill will do, as we've heard during the course of this debate, is that it will create an environmental registry which has a responsibility to keep an electronic database, providing the public with information on proposals and government policy which may have an effect on the environment. So we've got a computer system and an office and we've got some sort of registry which maintains environmental information that the public can access.

We also see that this bill will force all ministries to have a statement of environmental values articulated, but I dare say, after three years of the New Democrats being in power and the view they've always put forward that they care the most about the environment, I doubt very much that there's a single decision that's made by any ministry in this government today that does not take into account the environmental impact of anything that it does. I wonder about that specific provision and if it's in fact probably not redundant.

The bill will, as I said earlier, create the office of the Environmental Commissioner. The commissioner shall be an officer of the Legislative Assembly and shall be reporting to the Legislative Assembly from time to time, I'm sure. That person will be appointed for a five-year term, and the primary responsibility of this Environmental Commissioner is to ensure that the government complies with the requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Environmental Commissioner also has, I would say, an intermediary responsibility, or perhaps you could call it a paper-shuffling responsibility, and I'm not sure what he or she will do that'll be different than what many of the members of the Legislature do. When I receive a complaint concerning the environment -- I can't speak for all members -- from a constituent that the environment is at risk, I raise it with the minister as soon as I possibly can because I want to make sure that the ministry is aware and that the ministry is capable of taking remedial action. It's very important that I do that.

Now we've got this Environmental Commissioner, I suppose, who's doing exactly the same thing that all other members of the Legislature will be doing. So again I wonder if it's perhaps not to some degree a duplication of effort.

The Environmental Commissioner will have a number of additional powers, though. When two residents of Ontario, only two, object to something that's being done that they feel may in fact adversely impact on the environment, they can apply to the Environmental Commissioner for a review of any new or existing policy of the government in any act or regulation of the government that's on the books right now. If those residents feel that the environment is not being adequately protected, they have that means of complaining to the Environmental Commissioner and then the Environmental Commissioner will raise it, in theory, with the appropriate minister who, again in theory, will move forward and do something about it. I'm not sure, from my understanding of the bill, what onus there is upon the minister to respond. I gather that the minister then has the opportunity to determine whether or not there's merit.

There's also a mechanism for frivolous complaints, supposedly. If the Environmental Commissioner believes that there are two individual people who are making a frivolous complaint, I understand that can be rejected, although I doubt very much in practice if that's going to happen. I expect that once it's set up, it'll be bogged down very quickly.

The Minister of Environment's initial estimate is that the bureaucracy that was being created in the form of the Environmental Commissioner's office would cost $4.5 million over two years. I doubt very much that this will remain stagnant once the thing is up and running, because I assume a lot of people are going to start complaining, a lot of frivolous complaints are going to not be rejected, they're going to be given a fair hearing according to what the Environmental Commissioner feels is fair and they'll go ahead on that basis. It'll become bogged down, new staff will be required, a new bureaucracy will grow and the cost will increase significantly, I believe.

I think another point that has been put forward in this debate, and I think it's worth repeating, has been some of the comments that have come forward from various individuals who are knowledgeable about this issue. Ian Blue of the law firm Cassels, Brock and Blackwell has commented on this issue, and I believe that's a firm of environmental lawyers. He said, "This bill is an admission by the government that the Ministry of the Environment has not been doing its job." He said that in July 1992.

I suppose the New Democrats in their partisan way would say: "Well, we're doing our job. For the last two years we've protected the environment better than any other government. It's the former governments you can blame."

But we're looking at a situation now where I think the government realizes that its days are numbered, that there'll be an election in -- the Premier continues to talk about the spring of 1995. I think in their hearts, most of the government members realize that their term in office will be five years and then there'll be a new government. So I suppose what they're doing is trying to put into place a basic tenet of their philosophy that they hope will be in legislation in Ontario, that'll be there for ever, that for all times will protect the environment. I assume that's their motivation.

I think, as I said earlier, the underlying philosophy of this bill is the need to protect the environment when the government fails to do so. We see, as I say, commitment from the government, that they feel that the government from time to time, whether it's their government or other governments, previous governments, future governments, may not successfully act to protect the environment, so we have to add this new mechanism to do so.

I notice the member from Durham in his comments indicated something about -- when he started speaking this afternoon he talked about a number of other historical examples where legislative rights were accorded. He talked about the Bill of Rights, he talked about Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights, the Charter of Rights, and he talked about how those rights grew over time, that there was a seed that was planted and over time new rights were extended to people. I think that's how the government looks at this bill. They look at the bill in terms of the fact that it's not identical to what they had initially hoped to achieve when they were in opposition, but they see it as the best possible compromise in today's circumstances, which is fine. But we also understand that the New Democrats do have a habit of having a creeping agenda. They get the door open a little bit and then they, over a couple of years' time -- and I daresay when they're in opposition again, there'll be private members' bills from the government which will be put forward to amend the statute on the Environmental Bill of Rights to expand its application. I expect that'll happen over the next five years. I'd be very surprised if it doesn't.

Perhaps future New Democrat opposition members will in fact ask for amendments to this bill, to this act at this point, assuming it passes, which will add the dump issue, such that people can object to the Environment Commissioner if they don't like a dump decision. If they're next door to a dump and a dump's being sited and they don't want it there, they'll have the opportunity to complain to the Environmental Commissioner and that will be an additional step taken to provide delay, to provide an additional level of review. Perhaps Ontario Hydro someday, with the New Democrats perhaps again in opposition, will put forward the amendment that Ontario Hydro will be included. I don't know.

It does seem to me very curious and very unusual that two of the most controversial environmental decisions that any government faces in most cases involve dump sites and in other cases involve Ontario Hydro. It is very curious that those two specific ones, which generate the most controversy, generally speaking, are specifically excluded from this bill. It says something about the degree to which the New Democrats have in fact watered down this bill from what it was initially intended to do.

But another point I want to bring forward in the context of this debate is the whole, I would call it, ideological bias of the government on environmental decisions. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the New Democrats have consistently over the past three years refused to impartially look at scientific evidence, refused to look at alternatives which could have been considered on environmental grounds, on technical grounds, on engineering grounds. They simply take an ideological approach to many of these. It's almost a prejudice, and I think that's a fair word. They have already made their minds up. They don't want to look at alternatives that might not fit into their overall philosophy of how the world should work.

A good example is with the Interim Waste Authority and its insistence that each municipality in the GTA have its own landfill site, its absolute refusal to look at, to even contemplate, assisting in the funding of an environmental assessment to rail-haul the garbage north to Kirkland Lake, if indeed there is a willing host in the north. You only have to see that if the environmental assessment process were brought to bear on that, you might in fact find that the option is an environmentally acceptable one, but they refuse, in any way, to even consider that possibility because it doesn't fit into their basic ideology. They're rejecting facts because they don't fit into their ideology, and we've seen that on numerous occasions.

1750

I see the Minister of Agriculture and Food in the House today and I'm glad he's here. I know he has a great interest in protecting farm land and I know it concerns him greatly when he contemplates the prospect of farm land being used for garbage dumps. I know that when he loses that battle from time to time and garbage dumps are going to be sited on good farm land, he's very concerned about that because he wants to preserve farm land for the future, and he is right in that.

But we also find that the need for landfill sites is increased because the government, again because of ideological bias, refuses to consider the option of incineration, which has been talked about for the last three years and which it consistently refuses to look at in any way because of ideological bias, not because of facts. The facts are irrelevant. They don't want to hear the facts. They just want to continue to go on on the basis of their particular agenda, their particular ideological bias.

The government congratulates itself with this bill. We've heard that during the course of this debate, the government members saying it's such a wonderful bill. I think they feel quite satisfied with themselves on it, but as I said earlier, this bill is significantly different from the bill that was presented by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore when she was in opposition.

I wonder where this bill will go, assuming it is passed -- and I assume it will be passed; the government will use its majority to ensure that is the case -- and who it will help in the next couple of years. I suppose, as a representative here of the people of Wellington, that's my job. I want to make sure that I know what the impact of legislation is before I make a determination whether or not I'm going to support it. That's something I try to do most of the time; all the time in fact. I look at how this bill will impact on people in Wellington county in the short term, in the medium term and in the long term.

I know there are a number of people in Wellington county, just as there are across the province, who have a very sincere interest in the environment and in the protection of the environment. They view it, in many cases, as one of the most important influences in their lives. They want to preserve the environment, they want to actively participate in that and I commend them for it.

I have a constituent by the name of Stuart Godwin, who is a retired high school teacher in Elora. I've gotten to know Stuart in the last couple of years. Stuart has a beef with the government because the government won't consider incineration. I think he's made a lot of good points. He's written many letters. He takes a very constructive approach to this. He writes the Minister of Environment. He's written to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment, the member for Sarnia, who was here earlier and who happened to be in Elora one day last summer and met him.

Mr Stockwell: Does he get a response?

Mr Arnott: He occasionally gets a response, but the response doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. It indicates that the government is not interested in listening. They don't want to talk about the new technology that exists in terms of incineration. Incinerators don't fit into their overall view of the world. They're thinking in terms of the incinerators from 1950 that I admit were serious pollution problems. They don't want to look at today.

Mr Godwin I think has put forward a number of very specific arguments that have not been refuted by the government in the responses he's received. I know he'll continue to put forward this agenda, this view of things, because I know he's concerned about the volume of waste that is generated and that if incineration were allowed, the volume of garbage would diminish and therefore your need for landfill sites would diminish; the existing landfill sites would be able to last longer; you wouldn't have to site as many landfill sites; the life of the new landfill sites that may still be necessary in spite of incineration would be significantly longer.

I think he's putting forward a good perspective and I wonder if the Environmental Bill of Rights will help Stuart Godwin. Will Stuart Godwin be able to complain to the government? He feels in many cases that the government's bias against incineration is anti-environment, that in fact the environment is damaged as a result of that. I surmise that Stuart Godwin will not be able to complain to the Environmental Commissioner, once that office is created, because it's involving a garbage situation and unfortunately we will see a situation continue where positive environmental suggestions will not be given any consideration.

I wonder how this bill will affect a company that has interests in my specific riding, in Wellington county, St Marys Cement. We all know the company has operations across North America. St Marys Cement has for many years put forward, in my view, an environmentally sound and sensible idea -- I suppose if I'm incorrect perhaps we could have an environmental assessment on it and we could see where I'm wrong, but we don't have that -- that tires should be burned in the construction of cement.

Right now, when you want to manufacture cement, the existing technology that is in use throughout the world is to burn coal. In this case, St Marys Cement is required to import coal from the United States at a significant cost. What they're saying is that they would like to have the opportunity to have a test burn with tires in the development of cement. They think it would be a good idea and they think it would be an environmental solution to the excess waste tire problem. I think it's a sensible idea. I can't understand why a test burn isn't allowed.

The former Minister of the Environment of the Liberal government, the member for St Catharines, I recall was totally opposed to this idea, so in this case we see a continuing of the Liberal policy that no test burns would be allowed. We even saw a situation, I think, some time ago that the government gave consideration to allowing a test burn and I believe I have a letter to that effect, but then it changed its mind.

Where does this bill of rights put St Marys Cement? They have what they view to be --

Mr White: Where does it put them?

Mr Arnott: I'm trying to figure that out. I can't understand where it does put them, because I think they do have a sensible, environmentally safe alternative that they would like to put forward, and the government policy indicates that they can't do it. So I wonder with the Environmental Bill of Rights, does that apply to them? Will they be able to put their view forward in their way to protect the environment that the government of the day refuses to allow? I hope they will.

I wonder if this bill of rights will help Joe Dowling. Joe Dowling is a constituent of mine who I know very well. He's the president of Harriston Beverages Ltd, which is a small manufacturer of pop, of soft drinks, in Harriston, Ontario. Mr Dowling has for some time put forward a concern to the government, to the former Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and now presently the new minister. His contention is, and it's factual, that there's a regulation on the books right now in the province of Ontario that requires pop bottlers to refill 30% of their volume in terms of containers. That regulation is not being enforced.

Over time, we've seen the former Minister of the Environment talking -- she even wrote a letter to Mr Dowling some time ago and indicated that, if indeed there wasn't concrete action by the pop bottle industry to reach the quota or the goal of the ministry, the 30% regulation, action would be taken and charges would be laid. Of course, the government has changed its mind on that.

Mr Dowling submits that the 30% quota is an environmentally sound quota. The regulation is on the books. Why is the government not enforcing it? Good question. Mr Dowling, I suppose and I surmise, will have the opportunity to complain to the Environmental Commissioner, assuming this bill passes, to say that the government, this New Democratic government, mind you, is in fact not administering the regulation such that it can protect the environment to the degree that it would have you believe. I assume Mr Dowling will be using his opportunity once his rights are enshrined after this legislation passes to complain to this Environmental Commissioner that the government's going to set up.

I think over the course of the last three years, we've also seen a general trend with respect to the environment and this New Democratic Party government, that its rhetoric does not match its action. I think this bill is indeed part of it. When you look at how many of the members have patted themselves on the back for this bill, it's not what many people think it is; it's not what they supported while they were in opposition.

We've also heard, during the course of this debate, that there will be a new and costly bureaucracy set up as a result of this bill. I agree with that; I believe that. The environmental registry will be a significant cost to maintain over time. The Environmental Commissioner: I can see that being a new bureaucracy that will just grow and expand far beyond what we think will be in existence today. That $4.5-million expenditure the minister talks about will in fact considerably increase.

The social contract that we've gone through as a Legislature, that the government has tortured itself over for the last -- we're still going through it, I suppose, because in many cases complaints are being brought forward and the government's responding to some of them. We've seen four to six months of torture that the government's gone through to try and find a solution to the problem it's recognized, that the provincial government is too big, that the compensation that goes out from the provincial taxpayer to the public service is too much, that it's unaffordable, that something has to be done. This problem could have been dealt with in one month. It could have been dealt with very, very simply. People understood the need for it.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1800.

29 septembre 1993