Journal des débats 1994-nov-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I stand in my place today to offer an invitation to the newly sworn-in Minister of Northern Development and Mines for Ontario, Gilles Pouliot, to come to the riding of Timiskaming and specifically Kirkland Lake. I proffer this invitation today because he has refused a similar invitation by the mayor of Kirkland Lake, Joe Mavrinac, and Mr Mavrinac asked me the other day to make sure that I asked Mr Pouliot himself that he would come.

The matters of concern in the Kirkland Lake area are especially Highway 672, locally known as the Harker Holloway road, which is an access road to one mine up in our area, the Holt-McDermott mine, but also that another mine has been announced and many people commute up that way.

It has become a very dangerous road, with logging trucks and people in passenger cars and pickup trucks trying to get to work. We anticipate a great increase of road transportation and we want to make sure these upgrades are accelerated. They are planned and we'd like the minister to see those. Also, Kirkland Lake has embarked upon an industrial development road that will link some of the industrial park areas of Kirkland Lake.

We would like to see him up there. We think he's a pretty good fellow and we think he should be up in Kirkland Lake. Mr Mavrinac and the new council would like to see him, and so today I stand in my place and make that invitation.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): On December 6, 1993, the anniversary of the Montreal massacre, the Redwood Shelter for Victims of Family Violence opened its doors to women in the west end of Toronto who have been the victims of family violence.

While this 30-bed emergency shelter has helped some 300 women and children during the past year, unfortunately hundreds more have been turned away because there was simply no room for them. Despite the obvious need and the strong community support for this shelter, the Minister of Community and Social Services has not only denied the shelter funding; he has denied them the opportunity to discuss possible solutions to their financial problems.

This is a matter of setting priorities, which this government is not able to do. They spend a great deal of money on advertising and encouraging women to leave abusive situations and then they fail to financially support the shelters when women do seek help.

This morning, representatives from the Redwood Shelter were forced to hold a news conference to try to get the minister's attention because he refuses to meet with them. It is imperative that the minister communicate with them and make every attempt to help keep the doors of the Redwood Shelter open. It is time for this government to eliminate the rhetoric and get down to action now.

DURHAM COMMUNITY CANCER CENTRE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise today to speak about the Durham Community Cancer Centre that will be located in Oshawa at the Oshawa General Hospital in my riding. The community centre is a welcome and important addition to the health services provided at the Oshawa General Hospital, a hospital known for its excellence and devotion to the community.

The cancer centre will serve a catchment area that extends from the Metro border east to Port Hope and north to the Haliburton area. This includes a population of some 600,000 people, and some 1,200 people will be treated at the radiation therapy unit every year. These 1,200 people will be receiving the highest standard of health care in or close to their own community while battling this potentially devastating disease. There will be 1,200 families empowered to care for their loved ones with less stress on the bonds of their family life.

Since 1990, our government has devoted more than $370 million in capital to expand cancer services, and through the investment of $25 million in the community centre in Durham we are bringing this essential service to an area of the province that has been recognized as having one of the highest population growths. The residents of Durham have patiently waited through several governments for the kind of essential services that our Premier and Minister of Health have brought to them. I am pleased to join with them in saying: "At last. Thank you."

ANTI-RACISM ACTIVITIES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I am glad that the Premier is here today. I rise today to draw attention to the lack of leadership and the lack of action by the Minister of Education and Training and particularly the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat in responding to the terrible racist incident that happened at Humberside Collegiate in Toronto last week.

According to the reports, Mr Mahendra Gupta, a teacher at the school, was pushed down the stairs. Prior to that, he and other visible minority teachers had received threatening letters. Also, hate propaganda materials were distributed and swastikas painted on the school walls.

I am very disappointed to report that as of this morning, neither the Education nor the Citizenship ministry has undertaken any direct response to these disturbing incidents. This is not only a Humberside issue, but a broader one. It is not up to an individual school to deal with hatred in our schools. Surely the Ministry of Education and the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat have important roles to play.

Hate crimes should not be tolerated in Ontario schools. The individuals and groups responsible for this type of racial violence need to get the message loud and clear that their violent actions and words against racial minorities and others will not go unchallenged. For the sake of our children and the sake of our students, I urge the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Citizenship and the Anti-Racism Secretariat to end their silence and start their work.

Finally, I want to commend the work of the police who have been investigating this incident. They are doing an excellent job.

1340

MANAC INC

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to share a good news story from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. This fall, a new manufacturing business opened its doors in Orangeville. Manac Inc will create 200 highly skilled new manufacturing jobs in Orangeville.

Manac is recognized as the number one Canadian company for quality custom-built semitrailers. The new Orangeville location of 143,000 feet will serve markets in Ontario, western Canada and the United States. Founded in Quebec in 1966, the Canam Manac Group Inc has experienced consistent record growth. This is an achievement that cannot be overlooked, considering the many changes that have taken place in this industry and industry in general.

Key company policies such as a positive work environment, including open communication with employees and continuous improvement, are key to Manac's success in the marketplace. Customer satisfaction is the focal point of Manac's success.

I have had the opportunity to work with some of the members of the Manac staff on issues of mutual concern, and was very impressed with the professionalism and thoroughness of their staff and administrative officials.

The Orangeville plant that Manac has purchased will be used to manufacture the company's target of 24,000 semitrailers annually.

I would like to extend my congratulations to President Gaston Bureau and vice-president and general manager of the Orangeville plant, Charles Dutil. I am sure that your success will continue in Dufferin-Peel and that the quality and commitment of our workforce will serve you well in the coming years.

CLOSURE OF CANADIAN FORCES BASE DOWNSVIEW

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): February last, the federal Liberal government announced the closing of Canadian Forces Base Downsview. No other issue will directly impact on the future of our community as will the closing of the base.

Our community will lose hundreds of jobs directly. We will lose roughly $59 million in annual salaries from the local economy for housing, groceries, clothing etc. This will mean many homes in the area will be left vacant. Many local businesses, quite frankly, feel they will be devastated. Many more jobs will be lost in the greater Metro area because the base purchases many more millions of dollars from the local economy, the impact of which nobody, quite frankly, knows.

The downsizing activity is expected to take place in 1996. It's been 10 months since the federal Liberals announced the closure of the base, and as we inch towards this deadline, there has been no word on what the real impact of this will be on our military activity, on what the impact of this will be on our local community, and on what they plan to do with the base in the future.

We are a community that is confused and nervous about what all of this means. We in Downsview have a right to know the answers to these questions. I call on the federal Liberal government to give us the answers so that we have a clear understanding of what the future holds in store for us.

MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I would like to address an issue which the Leader of the Opposition, Lyn McLeod, raised in this House yesterday. The leader asked the government for an explanation of its decision to request the Quebec government to bar Ontario's young people from medical schools in Quebec.

My leader said, "I stress the fact that this is a constituent, a young woman, a resident of Ontario, who cannot even apply to the McGill medical school because the Ontario government, her government, has told Quebec that they should not accept Ontario students."

My leader quoted from a letter this young woman had received from McGill which said, "We regret to inform you that the Quebec government, in response to a request from the government of Ontario, has recently prohibited Quebec universities from accepting applicants who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents whose place of residence is outside of Quebec."

Later, outside of this House, Ministry of Health officials indicated that this was the first they had heard of such actions. Whether by design or by accident, they have created the misleading impression that Quebec acted alone in this matter. The fact is that Quebec was simply responding to a request from the government of Ontario.

My leader raised this issue because the young people of Ontario have a right to know why their government, the government of Ontario, would close an avenue of opportunity for them. They deserve an explanation from this government, a government whose actions have resulted in reducing the opportunities open to young people in this province.

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health and it concerns proposals coming from her multiservice agency planning committees.

Joanne Wagg, area coordinator for the Barrie-Orillia district office of the Canadian Hearing Society, indicates that communication issues arising from hearing loss or audiological assessment and services are included in MSA services. As well, available funding may not be adequate to purchase the required communication and hearing health support services in local communities.

Between 50% and 80% of seniors have a hearing loss. If this hearing loss interferes with the ability to communicate, an individual could be misdiagnosed and institutionalized prematurely. Recommendations and instructions relating to health regimen and therapy may not be heard or understood. This situation has the potential for a significant waste of long-term-care dollars that are already stretched to the limit.

Ms Wagg recognizes it may not be financially possible to build hearing assessments and services, hearing rehabilitation, communication and hearing strategies and related training into every MSA.

The PC caucus attempted to address these issues during the public hearings on Bill 173, but the minister chose to ignore us and brought in closure to end constructive debate on this controversial legislation; about 18 closures in this regime.

FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I want to invite everyone across Ontario to the annual Festival of Lights in Niagara Falls. The festival opened November 19 with 20,000 people there in the park, and Mickey and Minnie Mouse threw the switch. There were spectacular fireworks and three live Mickey Mouse shows that evening.

The festival continues every night until the middle of January. I invite you to walk through Queen Victoria Park for a very enchanted evening, then drive down the parkway towards Chippawa and visit Dufferin Islands for the new displays there, and also visit the greenhouses by the falls for the beautiful Christmas display of poinsettias. And it's all free.

Every Saturday night until the new year there is special live entertainment on the outdoor stage by the falls. Saturday, December 3, is country music night.

I'd like to ask you to ask your nearest Ontario travel centre for their brochure about all the events.

I would also like to thank Ron Buffett, who is the chair of the festival board, and also all the volunteers who have done so much work.

New Year's Eve will be the most spectacular of all. There will be childrens' entertainers earlier in the evening followed by headliner Blue Rodeo, and at midnight, fireworks over the falls. The evening will be televised live coast to coast by Baton Broadcasting Inc.

This is alcohol-free, family-oriented entertainment. Please come and visit us and stay over in the Falls.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Four weeks ago, in responding to your statement on Wife Abuse Prevention Month, I brought the plight of Redwood Shelter to your attention and to the attention of this Legislature.

Redwood Shelter is the only battered women's shelter in west-end Toronto. It has been full since the day it opened a year ago, the day in fact of the anniversary of the Montreal massacre. They have had to turn away hundreds of women who came in crisis seeking their help because they were full, but the provincial government has refused to give Redwood core funding so that their doors can remain open.

After two months, Community and Social Services minister Tony Silipo finally answered the letters I sent him pleading Redwood's cause with a resounding no.

1350

Minister, with all the years that you spent helping abused women and their children, I know that you realize the importance of women and children having a safe haven to escape to when they are in dangerous, abusive situations. As the minister responsible for advocating for women in this province, have you voiced your support in cabinet for giving Redwood the funding it so desperately needs, and if not, will you commit to us today that you will do so?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): It's more appropriate for me to refer this question to the Minister of Community and Social Services since it is his area of responsibility and there are two more supplementary questions to come.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): Let me say, before I get directly to answering the question, that my colleague the Attorney General and minister responsible for women's issues has been continuing to be very supportive of these issues and I think it would be very few people who could question her commitment to this issue.

This is a very sensitive issue and one that we've taken quite seriously and we do take quite seriously. I know the member who asked the question also believes very strongly in this issue and the importance we place collectively, I think, as members of this House, on the whole array of anti-violence initiatives, particularly as they relate to women and children, who tend to bear the brunt of that violence.

The reality as it applies to Redwood is simply this: We have a situation in which we have an amount of money that we are spending through the Ministry of Community and Social Services and others. Through our ministry alone we spent about $42 million to fund shelters. Among these there are 13 shelters in Metropolitan Toronto that we fund.

We simply do not have the money to be able to add core funding to additional shelters, and that is the reality. We are providing per diem funding to Redwood Shelter and we will continue to do that, but we just simply do not have the dollars to be able to allocate additional core funding to the centre.

Ms Poole: First of all, let me express my deep disappointment that the minister responsible for women's issues is refusing to advocate for the women in this province. What is her job if not to advocate for women at the cabinet table? What is her job if not to press the government on important issues like this?

The Minister of Community and Social Services mentioned the fact that they had 13 shelters in Toronto so there was simply no room at the inn for another shelter. Well, let me tell the minister that this government could find money to fund the failed Jobs Ontario scheme, over $1 billion, and look at how much was spent on advertising, how much was spent on public relations. They found money, $50 million, to fund the Interim Waste Authority and what a joke that's turned out to be. Money is there if you make it a priority. This is the only shelter in west-end Toronto that serves battered women.

I find two things very disturbing concerning your government's refusal to fund Redwood. The first is that a government which purports to defend the interests of women and children could turn its back while this shelter closes, forcing women and children into dangerous, abusive situations.

The second disturbing aspect is that, according to your office, the NDP government has decided to divert direct funding for women's shelter to counselling services. Minister, we all believe in counselling and that it's necessary, but there is no substitution for the direct funding to shelters for counselling. I'm sorry, it just doesn't wash.

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

Ms Poole: The question I have for this minister is, will he once again review the situation at Redwood Shelter, will he agree today to provide relief to the many women and children in Parkdale who require Redwood's services and will he fund this shelter?

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me reiterate that the member is just quite wrong when she continues to attack the minister responsible for women's issues in terms of her advocacy position. If she had not been advocating at the cabinet table and if other ministers had not been advocating at the table, we would not have had the 40% increase in funding in this area of expenditure that we've had since we became the government, which I think speaks volumes to the kind of support this government has continued to place. We would not have had the situation this year and last year in which we maintained the level of funding in this area of expenditures whereas in other areas we've made cuts. That is just the sheer reality. We are very supportive of this area.

I really find it a bit disappointing, quite frankly, that the honourable member chooses to take this issue and turn it into one of partisanship by tying it to other issues around Jobs Ontario expenditures. I just think that does a whole disservice to the importance of this issue.

We will continue to provide funding for the shelters that are there now. We have, yes, increased funding to counselling service, but we have also increased funding to the shelters, and I think both of those facts need to be on the table --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister complete his reply, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- and need to be understood by the member opposite and by all members in this House.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On January 12 of this year, I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services and asked him to review this issue. In May, which is four months later, he finally replied, and he says in his letter that shelters such as the Redwood Shelter clearly provide a service to women who've been abused and their children. Then he says, "I sincerely appreciate the contribution of shelter workers to making our society a safer place for women and children."

I don't think this minister has understood the question. Does he not realize that there were, this last year, a thousand women turned away from this shelter? This shelter now is serving 340 women and children. The question has not even been answered, and I wish the minister would take it seriously and answer this question, because it has real community support in Parkdale.

Is he going to review this decision, hopefully favourably, and come back to this House and to the board of directors of Redwood Shelter and tell us, yes, there will be a favourable review so that these women and children will have an adequate place at the table and in Ontario for all women and children who are abused?

Hon Mr Silipo: I want to be very clear. I appreciate as much as any other member in this House the work that the Redwood Shelter does. We show that through the fact that we do provide them some funding, and I think that also needs to be on the record. We provide, through the per diems that are paid through the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, to this shelter and to all other shelters in Metro 80% of the per diems, which we estimate in this centre would be about $300,000 a year. We need to be really clear that we are already providing a fairly high level of funding.

I understand what Redwood Shelter is asking for, which is to have additional funding beyond that, what is commonly known as core funding. That is an area that I cannot say that we have the money to provide. We are going to continue to look at how we spend money in this area. If it's possible to find some funding from within the envelope, because there is no other money, then obviously we will continue to do our best. But that's not something that I can give an answer to today.

I also know that the shelter has some immediate, pressing funding shortfalls. Again, we will continue to look at that and we will continue to work with them and see if there can be some answers found. But the reality still remains we have increased funding in this whole area. There are 13 other shelters in Metropolitan Toronto that we fund. I understand, having said all of that, the very valuable service that this shelter provides, and we all want to see if we can find ways to continue to support what they do.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Solicitor General and it concerns one of my favourite subjects, namely, photo-radar. As the minister is responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police --

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Conflict, conflict.

Mr Conway: Well, the Premier says "conflict." A few months from now when he's driving himself again, we'll see who has a conflict. But my question is to the minister responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police and it concerns photo-radar.

Minister, could you tell the House what specific safety criteria the Ontario Provincial Police are using to assess the effectiveness or the lack of same of your photo-radar pilot project, and just how well or how poorly is that pilot project meeting those safety criteria as of today?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I suspect that the supplementary question will be quite interesting, given the initial question. Let me say then, with that in mind, that the whole purpose of the pilot project is to determine how best we can use this technology to make our roads indeed the safest in North America and as safe as we possibly can.

I know that those who are in charge of this particular initiative are very confident that by testing the various ways that it can be used and the various climatic situations and in terms of where they place it, they can determine how best it can be applied. I would think from that they will then develop the kind of criteria, as well as looking at where it has been used in other places, and measuring our effectiveness against those particular measures that they've developed for themselves and beyond that, would indeed anxiously await the supplementary.

1400

Mr Conway: I can imagine how the minister might anxiously await the supplementary, because he's probably been briefed about this very subject. The government, as the minister has indicated, has said for months that the principal justification of photo-radar is that it will improve, without doubt, safety on our highways, particularly our major highways like 401, 400 and 403.

Is the minister responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police aware of the fact that last week, specifically in the Midland Free Press of November 23, 1994, his colleague the NDP member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay was bragging in that part of central Ontario about how he had done his homework on this subject?

Notwithstanding the fact that he stood in his place as a loyal government member on December 13, 1993, and voted for photo-radar, Mr Waters was bragging in last week's Midland Free Press that he'd done his homework and that he had successfully lobbied the government and the OPP to secure an exclusion of all parts of his constituency from any application of photo-radar.

I remind my honourable friend that Highway 400 cuts through a portion of that electoral district. Is the minister responsible for this project and for public safety in the province aware of Mr Waters's very proud boast in the Midland Free Press of last week?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me say very clearly and very directly that I have not sanctioned, I am not aware of, nor would I ever support such an initiative from any member, anywhere, based on what are clearly implied to be parochial issues around the application of photo-radar or, for that matter, and let's be very clear, the application of the law and law enforcement as it is done by the OPP or any other police service in this province.

Mr Conway: I have a report in an Ontario paper that quotes directly the government member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay as saying that he successfully lobbied his government and the OPP to secure an exemption from photo-radar for his entire riding, including an exemption for that portion of Highway 400 that traverses part of that area.

Minister, you've got photo-radar signs plastered through remote sections of north Hastings and Haliburton. I want to say, how many other government members are playing Boss Hogg in their constituencies? How many other government members are playing Boss Hogg, having voted for the legislation here, and going home and bragging about the fact that they contacted the police, they contacted the minister and, yes, they succeeded in keeping photo-radar out of their ridings, including keeping it off heavily trafficked four-lane highways like 400 through Muskoka-Georgian Bay?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Once again the Liberal Party chooses to listen to words that didn't happen and they ask their question away. It really should be pretty clear for anybody watching that there really is no intent to ask questions and get information and further the public agenda. It's all meant to play some partisan game.

I answered the question very clearly, very succinctly. It's in Hansard, it's on the record. I stand by every word I said. It's the opposite of everything that's implied in the question the honourable member asked in his last supplementary.

GOVERNMENT MAILINGS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Recently, Minister, the Ministry of Health mailed very expensive glossy packages to over a quarter of a million addresses in Ontario to promote its new Tobacco Control Act.

Staff in your ministry and in Health have told us, in response to inquiries from many phone calls we've been getting from this glossy propaganda mailing, that the mailing list for this propaganda was provided by your ministry. This list of mailing addresses exists solely for the purposes of tax collection. Minister, were you aware that these confidential addresses, supplied solely for tax purposes, were used by the Ministry of Health, and if so, did you approve it?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Yes. The answer to the last part of your question first is, I am aware that that indeed is what happened and that before it happened the legislation was checked. There is in the legislation of privacy -- it is appropriate, when the public interest is taken into consideration, to allow that to occur. I make no apologies on behalf of this government for informing retailers -- I think to do less would be inappropriate -- of the new tobacco control legislation in the public interest of this province.

Mr Harris: First of all, this mailing didn't go to those retailers of cigarettes. This went to all of those who were registered collecting sales taxes. Secondly, it didn't go from your ministry to notify them of the act. In fact it went out from the Ministry of Health, as you will see right here, as I'm going to lay out all these million-dollar glossies for everybody before I conclude today.

The officials indicated that this is the first time some little-known overriding technicality has ever been used to violate the freedom and privacy act in the history of the government. Second, this official told us that you have absolutely no control over the content of the mailing once the confidential list is turned over to another ministry.

Minister, taxpayers in Ontario submit tax information in good faith. They don't expect to have it wind up on another government mailing list. Do you not realize that, at a time of increasing sensitivity over privacy of information and information that government has, you have destroyed the integrity of your office and of your list by turning it over, for whatever purpose, to the Ministry of Health? Do you not realize that?

Hon Mr Laughren: I could not agree with the leader of the third party more. I believe that since the legislation was changing, if anything, there was an obligation on the part of the government to write to retailers and inform them of this. I make no apology for that. I believe that this was indeed in the public interest to do so.

Mr Harris: Clearly, if you felt those who are filing tax information with you needed to know about new legislation, you could have inserted those changes at no cost when the monthly assessment goes out and the notification goes out. However, if the purpose was a million-dollar, glossy propaganda campaign, which is the propaganda campaign here, then we could see why the Ministry of Health -- totally unrelated to tax information, totally unrelated to those on that list for the purposes of filing taxes -- wanted to engage in that.

You've now started the ball rolling. You've violated this principle once and you're justifying it now on some worthwhile cause. No matter how worthwhile the cause, it does not justify using a list that you have in your ministry for tax collection purposes for NDP or another ministry propaganda. It does not justify it at all. We can only then assume that now your tax lists are available to the Minister of Education and Training to boost the Bob's Ontario program, or the Minister of Transportation for photo-radar, or any other government program.

1410

Clearly the privacy commissioner almost every week is public with grave, grave concerns, in this new computer and information age, about the lists that government has, concerns about the violation of privacy. Surely you would agree that this was a mistake. Surely you will apologize and assure this House it will never, ever, ever happen again.

Hon Mr Laughren: I did check the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to make sure that what we were doing was appropriate. The freedom of information act permits the release of information where the competing public interest clearly outweighs the purpose of protecting the information from disclosure.

I ask the leader of the third party what he could possibly object to about informing retailers about an act that affects the way in which they do business. I can tell the leader of the third party that if we didn't inform them, in as clear a way as possible, and retailers were charged for violating the act --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- the leader of the third party would be on his feet demanding why we had not informed the retailers of the change in the legislation in order to protect them from that very change, so the leader of the third party is trying to have it both ways.

I can tell you that changes in the legislation dealing with the Tobacco Control Act legislation are something of which we are very proud in this government and we will continue to inform as many people as possible about those changes.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: Clearly you have a different definition of protecting the privacy of Ontarians than I do.

TVONTARIO PROGRAMMING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. TVOntario is funded to the tune of $60 million by Ontario taxpayers. Could you tell us, and the taxpayers who pick up this $60-million tab, what specifically is TVOntario's mandate?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): TVOntario's mandate is to contribute to the education of the people of Ontario and to contribute to our communications as Ontario's people.

Mr Harris: TVOntario recently launched a public affairs daily news show called Studio 2, in competition with CITY-TV, Global TV, CBC, BBS, CHCH, CKVR, CKCO and CFMT, as far as television news goes. Rumours are widespread, some of them confirmed today, for example, that original production of Polka Dot Door has now been reduced from 30 minutes to 10 minutes. Clearly the emphasis and the thrust on children's programming and educational TV are in the legislation, are in the mandate. Programming that is more in keeping with TVO's original mandate has in fact been reduced or scrapped in order to pay for a new public affairs offering.

I would ask you this: Do you personally believe that the new Studio 2 show conforms to TVO's mandate as outlined in the legislation?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: TVOntario, I believe, is tremendously unique in its approach to helping us as Ontarians develop our identity as Ontarians. I think that as a public broadcast institution it helps to shed light and shed opportunities for us to communicate and get to know each other in a way that's different from what private, profit-making broadcast institutions do.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: In terms of children's programming -- if the members are interested in listening -- TVOntario continues its tremendously strong mandate of children's programming. It is right now working on new programming to help make sure that it meets the growing new needs of children as they face the late 1990s and as we go into the 21st century. I'm tremendously proud of the work that TVOntario offers and gives to the people of Ontario.

Mr Harris: The legislation says the objects of the authority are "to initiate, acquire, produce, distribute, exhibit or otherwise deal in programs and materials in the educational broadcasting and communications fields." There has been a strong emphasis on children's programming.

Is Studio 2 the new programming for children? Is this why you've scrapped original children's shows, educational TV, access on the educational airwaves all across the province, for Studio 2?

Your government has a $10-billion deficit. When you leave office a new Premier, cabinet, government and party will take over with a $90-billion accumulated debt, and yet TVOntario not only has been a priority of spending for you, it has been in areas in direct competition with other broadcasters and away from the mandate of TVOntario of providing children's programming and educational programming to Ontarians.

What I want to ask you is, who's in charge over there? Who made these decisions to abandon the mandate of TVO for children and education and get into public affairs and news programming in competition with other networks? Was it the president, the chairman, the board? Was it with your knowledge, and would you not agree with me it is time to have a full public debate, because the public wasn't consulted, the Legislature wasn't consulted when the legislation was violated, on the mandate of TVOntario, ie, is anybody in charge over there of this $60-million boondoggle?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: On the issue of who's in charge, is the third party suggesting that this government should take control over programming TVOntario for our political ends? I don't think so.

I think what's important is that TVOntario continues, independently, its ability to offer the people of Ontario what they increasingly want, and in fact TVOntario's ratings are continuing to grow in its growing sensitivity to meeting the needs of the people of Ontario.

In terms of children's programming, as I mentioned, there is now --

Mr Harris: Is that the mandate, to increase ratings, or is the mandate for educational TV and children's programming?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: If the member who's asked the question would like the answer, perhaps he'd like to be quiet a moment.

Actually, the critic for Culture in the third party recently attended, I know, the TVOntario phone-in campaign fund-raising evening and I'm sure had the opportunity there to learn that Polka Dot Door is in fact now being revitalized with 32 new Polka Dot Shorts programs. Next year TVOntario will be producing 32 more. There is new children's programming being invested in and delivered by TVOntario.

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I do believe, in closing, because I know nobody wants a government to dictate or censor what TVOntario produces, that in fact public debate, public interest, public feedback is very much what TVOntario sincerely wants and I'm sure it would be interested in listening to the input of the third party too.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, my question is, in principle, are you in favour of the removal of sexual predators from the street in order to protect the public?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can't imagine any answer to that which wouldn't be in the affirmative. Obviously, yes.

Mr Offer: Then in the affirmative, as you've answered, you will know that currently the law does not protect the general public from sexual predators, that there is a loophole, that there is the need to change the Mental Health Act so that individuals who are deemed sexual predators will be removed from the streets prior to the commission of a crime.

Premier, I have introduced a bill which indeed will amend the Mental Health Act and accomplish that purpose. My question, since you have answered the first question in the affirmative: Will you make certain that that bill passes and becomes the law of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: Since I take the question seriously, I would say to the honourable member that my understanding of the discussions that have been under way for some substantial time is that I think there's a strong consensus across the country that the federal government, which has the responsibility with respect to the criminal law power --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You can fix it in Ontario.

Hon Mr Rae: If members will just hear me out without shouting back, if you'll just hear me out, because there is an issue here, to make sure you do something which is actually going to work, is actually going to be effective and is actually going to withstand constitutional challenges as well as other challenges, that's an issue --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: You speak with great confidence in these matters. We have to take lots of advice from people within the various ministries who also have experience in these matters, and their views are not to be dismissed or treated with cavalier contempt. Their views are to be taken seriously and treated with some respect. The evidence that I've seen is that the consensus across the country is that this would be the best way to proceed.

1420

With respect to the existing powers under the Mental Health Act, there are powers under the existing Mental Health Act which deal with questions of people who are seen as being a threat to the public, seen as representing a direct threat to themselves or to the public. There are powers under the Mental Health Act which provide for some powers to admit people into hospital and provide for their temporary incarceration. This is not a perfect solution; it does not provide us with all the answers.

I will say to the honourable member that I will certainly be glad to ask the law officers of the crown and others to look at the particular proposal which is coming from the honourable member, but I think the way he dismissed my earlier answer -- I was not trying the least bit to say this isn't an issue. It's an issue for all of us. It's an issue for all of us who have families. It's an issue for every citizen to be concerned about this. This is not something which one dismisses easily.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm just saying that the consensus that I have seen is that the clear question of the application of the criminal law power -- if you're dealing with something involving the civil liberties of the individual and involving a potential infraction of the Criminal Code, the issue is one that is best handled at the federal level. It doesn't mean we do not have responsibilities.

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Rae: It does not mean that the Mental Health Act does not apply. It does mean it has to be something that's treated with some care and balance as we try to solve this thing through.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Health. Since your government took office, nearly 8,000 hospital beds have been closed in Ontario, there continue to be long lineups for important medical services and treatments, a record number of services have been delisted, out-of-country health coverage has been slashed, and user fees and copayments are so common they now account for nearly 20% of hospital revenues. You have seriously undermined what was once a first-class health care system.

On behalf of all Ontarians, on behalf of our employers, for whom a first-class health care system was indeed one of those things that helped attract industry and investment here, why has health care not been a priority for your government?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I really find that question offensive, as do all of my colleagues on this side of the House. We had just last week a debate in this House on health care, when the member opposite moved that in fact we restore all out-of-country coverage to the people in this province at a cost of $200 million, because that's been the savings we've made over the past several years with respect to out-of-country coverage. At that time and in that debate, members on this side, for whom the member opposite didn't even have the courtesy to stay, explained very clearly the advances that there have been in the health care system of this province over the last four years.

We spend one third of our provincial expenditures on health care, a more expensive system than any in the industrialized world. We have a system here that is first-class. We have, over the past four years, expanded cancer treatment, eliminated waiting lists for cardiac care and expanded the bone marrow transplant program. We have put in place an aboriginal health policy which was never there before. We have established midwives, the first province to do so. We have expanded long-term care by $600 million. The people of this province have a better health care system than anywhere else in this country, and certainly better than Alberta.

Mr Harris: I asked the minister why it hasn't been a priority for her government and the minister opened up her answer with all the cuts and slashes, and benefits and programs that you've taken away from Ontarians. You seem to be proud of the fact that you've slashed benefits for travellers and our senior citizens.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Harris: This Friday, we are sponsoring a public policy forum on health care in Ottawa. We have released --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the leader take his seat. I would ask the government members to please come to order so I can at least hear the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member for Cambridge please come to order.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This Friday we're sponsoring a public policy forum on health care in Ottawa, and we've released a discussion paper for that forum which I'd like to send over to you right now, to the minister of non-health.

Minister, one of the commitments that we clearly make by slashing pensions, by slashing the number of politicians, by cutting back on bureaucracy, duplication and waste, is that not a cent will be cut from health care. This document explains how we will do that. One of the second commitments that we make, Minister, is for a health care bill of rights for every Ontarian so that no future government can get in as you did and five years, 10 years, 15 years from now come back in and slash health care.

I'm asking you, Minister, given the serious deterioration of the health care system in Ontario, will you support our call for a health care bill of rights for all Ontarians?

Hon Mrs Grier: I thank the member for sending me a copy of the material that he is going to provide to the forum he is holding. I have looked through it very quickly and perhaps I've missed it, but I don't see in here the health care levy that is going to raise $400 million and that is part of the Common Sense Revolution. I would say to the member opposite, if you're going to have a health care forum, at least be open and honest with people and tell them that you're going to impose on the people of this province a levy for their health care.

What this government has done is maintain spending on health care. We now spend per capita in this province more than in any other province across the country, and we have in this province access to a greater number of services and a larger number of services than we have anywhere else, and certainly than we had before this government took office.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I have recently met with a group of injured workers from our riding and they have reminded me how they fought for years to get the right to receive the full cost-of-living adjustments for their compensation benefits. Finally they won this right in 1985, with all-party support from this Legislature. They showed me the speeches from Hansard where all three political parties welcomed this measure as a symbol of dignity and justice for Ontario's injured workers.

These constituents wonder why the government has proposed to do away with the full cost-of-living adjustments with Bill 165, and request that this government and this Legislature reconsider these changes in light of their historic agreement in 1985 to fully protect injured workers from inflation. Since a royal commission has recently been announced to study benefit structures and funding issues, will the minister maintain this protection until the royal commission has evaluated it?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): Bill 165 is a balanced package that addresses the urgent needs of the Workers' Compensation Board. Our government's position is that we needed to act now; we couldn't wait any longer.

The unfunded liability was growing as we speak, daily.

In passing the bill we will give nearly 50,000 injured workers, people I have met, people who are seniors over the age of 70 years old, an additional $200 a month. All of us in this House will agree that this money has been needed and they need it right now. But the WCB's financial woes, problems it has had, also need to be addressed, and adopting the Friedland formula for most benefits is the best thing to do at the present time.

Also, as the member had asked, the royal commission will address these problems that we're having at the Workers' Compensation Board, but the most important thing is to get on with Bill 165, pass it now, and be able to help injured workers.

1430

Mr Malkowski: The proposal to increase some permanent disability benefits by $200 a month has been estimated to cost less than $100 million a year. This cost can be borne by the WCB without increasing employer premiums or reducing injured workers' benefits.

Will the Minister of Labour direct the WCB to recover some of the estimated $260 million a year that it loses in bad debts by employers and employers evading registration, and some of the more than $200 million a year in assessments collected to pay injured workers' benefits that the WCB pays to employers in refunds under experience rating? Will the Minister of Labour act now to use the money which is available to increase permanent disability benefits without changing benefit structures or current employer assessment rates?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Wrap it up.

Hon Mrs Coppen: I have a comment to make to you and to the opposition. I do not appreciate being told to wrap up. This is an important issue in this province. The heckling I think is --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mrs Coppen: The opposition knows how the unfunded liability has been a major worry for all three governments, and we were the only ones to act upon it.

I think it's totally unfair to say that all employers are evading making their assessment payments. It really is unfair of the member to say that. We have people who are investigating and are collecting those assessment rates at the present moment, but again, it is unfair to say that all employers are evading it. The board is moving vigorously to collect these assessments.

On the larger issue, as I said in the first question, we need to move on with Bill 165 to help injured workers in this province, but most importantly, or secondly, to get the unfunded liability under control, something we have taken control of, a mess we were left, and something very positive that we're going to do for the people in this province.

MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Health. She was here a moment ago. I see her books are still on her desk. She's back.

I want to raise the issue of medical school admissions which my leader raised here yesterday. We're very concerned to learn that Ontario has asked Quebec to cease admitting Ontario residents to its medical schools. Yesterday, Madam Minister, your officials indicated that they had not heard of this policy before.

Today, I've got a letter dated October 4, 1994, more than a month and a half ago, written by Jodey Porter, your assistant deputy minister. I want to quote from the letter. In it she says, "In July of last year" -- that would be 1993 -- "the minister wrote to her counterpart in Quebec, M. Marc-Yvan Côté, informing him of our plans to reduce undergraduate medical school enrolment in September 1993." The letter goes on to read, "The minister asked that Quebec consider limiting the intake of Ontario residents not covered by interprovincial agreements into undergraduate medical schools."

Madam Minister, would you please confirm that you were very much aware of the actions of the Quebec government and that in fact they took this action in direct response to your request?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm sorry I wasn't here yesterday when the question was raised and I think responded to by my colleague, but I'm very glad of an opportunity to remind the member and the members opposite that it was, I think, in the late 1980s that ministers of health from every province and territory began to discuss together how to deal with better planning in a human resource policy for physicians across this country.

In 1992, all provinces agreed to a national action plan in order to plan for the future needs of physicians and to limit the number of undergraduates receiving medical training so that we would match the number of physicians we train to the needs of the country, and as a result of that, here in Ontario there was a reduction of 75, 10% of the undergraduates entering medical schools.

As part of those discussions, which have been national, and as recently as last fall, all of the ministers and the federal government reaffirmed that physicians be regarded as a national resource and that potential physicians should be able to receive their training wherever they so desired in this country. But all of the provinces have been moving to limit undergraduate enrolment in order to plan for the future. So as Ontario had taken action, yes indeed, I wrote to my Quebec counterpart and asked them to work with us to limit the number of undergraduates who were being trained in Quebec, not to eliminate the possibility of Ontario residents being trained in Quebec.

Mr McGuinty: I can see how it serves the minister's purpose to attempt to complicate this, but really the facts here are very straightforward: Firstly, we have the McGill medical school accepting Ontario students; secondly, we have our Minister of Health writing to the Quebec government, asking it to limit the intake of Ontario students into its Quebec schools; thirdly, we have Quebec acting on this request by turning away Ontario students. These are the incontrovertible facts.

It is simply unprecedented for a province in this country to tell its students where they can and cannot study. We, in every part of this country, have always seen the merits in having students enriched by studying outside their province, whether that be by having Quebec students study here or Ontario students study there.

How can the minister possibly justify taking this unprecedented step in limiting the rights of Ontario students to study elsewhere, and will she now withdraw her request made to Quebec and acknowledge that she made a terrible mistake?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member I think missed the point of my first answer, which was that all of the provinces, as part of a national action plan, have agreed to limit the number of undergraduates entering medical training. Each province is working towards completion of a national plan.

We have, here in Ontario, limited the number of undergraduates who can attend Ontario universities and we need to work with other provinces, particularly with the province of Quebec, to make sure that if we are reducing the number of places for new doctors in Ontario as a result of requiring training in Ontario, we do not at the same time train Ontario students in other provinces in the absence of knowing what the overall needs of physicians are.

Quebec, last year, moved to require that any doctor trained in Quebec work return of service for a certain period of time in the province of Quebec. In view of that, it was important to sit down and discuss with my counterpart how we could plan together. We did not ask the province of Quebec to not accept Ontario students. I agree with you completely that students in this country need to be able to study wherever they wish and wherever they believe they will get the best education, but all of the provinces need to work together so that we truly have a national action plan to determine that the number of physicians who are trained meets the needs of the people of this country from one end to the other.

1440

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services and it concerns the November 7 report of the public institutions inspection panel of the county of Simcoe that I gave him last week. In its report, the panel said the recent closure of Camp Hillsdale has only added to the burden at the Barrie Jail, a facility which can only be described as obsolete.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Spend, spend, spend. You Tories are amazing. First is health care; now it is corrections.

Mr McLean: The panel really questions the reasoning behind the Camp Hillsdale decision, not only because of the extra burden passed on to the jail, but because of the function which Camp Hillsdale provided. Minister, will you do the right thing and accept the panel's recommendation to re-examine this extremely important issue?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I certainly agree with the honourable member that this issue and all those related to it are indeed very important. As the honourable member well knows, and as I mentioned to him when this issue was raised the other day in this place, we have a clear direction from the Provincial Auditor in last year's report, which I've heard his party stand up and be forcefully behind many times, wherein the auditor said to us that there are ways and means of running a more efficient system than we now have without in any way lowering the high level of safety and the priority of safety that we have in this province.

With regard to this particular closure, we are of course reviewing the report, as we would do in any event. But let me say again to the member that I do not agree that the closure of this particular facility will in the long term affect our ability to safely and efficiently manage the jail system in this province. Indeed, the $1.2 million in net savings will go a long way towards ensuring that we don't have to look at other parts of this important ministry to find the kind of savings we need, that we're able to do it in a way that maintains the safety at a greater level of efficiency. That's the way you re-engineer government, not the chainsaw approach that the member and his leader have adopted.

Interjections.

Mr McLean: I want to say to the interjections from the Treasurer that his mentality of trying to run this province budgetary-wise is all wrong, because this institution of 51 was the lowest-cost institution in the province of Ontario. They close the ones that are the most economic to run and they leave the most expensive ones open. That's the way this government has been run.

The Simcoe county inspection panel said: "As the closure of Camp Hillsdale is recent, any review must be carried out expeditiously before the bureaucrats mothball the facility forever. Reopening of the facility would both alleviate some of the overcrowding at the Barrie Jail" -- which is very expensive -- "and provide rehabilitation resources which are now non-existent. The economic aspects have been proven in the past through the supply of produce, poultry," cattle and eggs. The low-risk offenders are more hardened and dangerous. They are in with dangerous criminals.

I say to you, the people want this facility to be reopened because of the low cost it provided. I don't understand why the minister will not accept the recommendation from the panels that are making these very serious recommendations to him.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Again, as I said the other day, I have a great deal of understanding -- indeed, respect -- for the fact that the honourable member has a need to represent the people in his riding. However, as I said before, this government has an obligation to worry about the overall economics of this province today and into the future.

I would say to him that again we see an example of a member of the Tory party out there with the public talking about cutting the deficit, and about cost savings and always wanting to cut, cut, cut -- until it affects your riding. As soon as it's your riding, "Well, no, we've got to back away because this is unpopular." We can defend this decision in terms of having adequate space in other parts of the system for facilities like this -- very minimum security. When we talk about other parts of the system, we have other needs, but the honourable member I believe well knows that this decision is consistent with the auditor's report and can be very much defended in terms of providing the safest, most efficient jail system we can in Ontario.

WINDSOR CASINO

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and also the minister responsible for the Ontario Casino Corp. It has to do with the Windsor casino. In Windsor, we've seen the positive benefits of the casino project: over 2,000 direct jobs created in the casino itself, thousands more indirect jobs, increased economic activity and tourism. But I know there are some people in my community and across the province of Ontario who are concerned about crime as well. Madam Minister, I would like to know what steps have been taken in Windsor to control criminal activity.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I thank my colleague for the question. I think it's a very good question. It is an issue of utmost importance, I think, to the people in Windsor and to people in other communities who are viewing the possibility of casino expansion in the future.

From the beginning, we built in very serious initiatives to deal with the issue of crime control and to build a capacity within the system to deal with this. For example, in the casino project team we brought in a number of OPP officers who, in consultation, I would say, with other jurisdictions, the US, internationally, have learned a lot and have had their concerns addressed on things such as the building design, the money-handling systems, the auditing systems, the security systems.

As you know as well, in dealing with the city of Windsor, we were able to secure funding for it to increase the number of police on the streets. The outgoing chief of police has even indicated that from his point of view there's been a decrease in crime as a result of those coordinated initiatives.

So I would say there were substantial steps taken, they were important steps that were taken and it really was built into the system from day one. The government was concerned about this issue and shared that concern with the people, and I think together we have effectively dealt with it.

Mr Lessard: There were some fears that there would be an increase in criminal activity associated with the opening of the casino, notably a possible increase in illegal gaming activity. Minister, is there any evidence of such an increase of illegal gambling activity?

Hon Ms Lankin: In my first answer, I did indicate that the stats actually are showing a decrease in the amount of crime in Windsor at this point in time, and I think in part that's due to the increased police presence on the streets. I think it's in part due to the economic benefits of this kind of investment in the casino and a number of other industrial projects where we've seen people get back to work, and really good, solid planning.

The member, in his supplementary, specifically raises the issue of illegal gambling, and just recently, again the reports of the police are that there has been a decrease in activity. I guess one of the problems that had been experienced in the Windsor community was illegal card games and gambling --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- houses that had been operating, and in fact, the security provisions that have been put in place have actually --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: Sorry. I shouldn't pay attention to the members across.

The actual investments that have been made there, according to the Windsor police, have brought about a decrease in the amount of illegal gambling that was going on. I think people prefer to be in the legal opportunity of the casino that they have.

I think we have addressed these issues. We will continue to monitor them. There seems to be --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her reply.

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes. I think we've been successful in ensuring the safety and security of visitors to the casino and the city, and of the residents of Windsor. Windsor colleagues call Windsor "the city on the move" and it certainly is. It also continues to be a safe city and we're committed to continuing to work with them on that.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): An interesting petition about wine and beer in grocery stores.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas large grocery stores and shopping centres are now allowed to open on Sundays;

"Whereas convenience stores have suffered a major economic loss due to the generalized practice of Sunday openings by the larger stores;

"Whereas small business is responsible for the creation of a majority of jobs in Ontario;

"Whereas there is a dire need for job creation in Ontario with the current high unemployment and welfare cases;

"Whereas convenience stores could profit economically and thus maintain and create jobs by offering the sale of beer and wine;

"Whereas Ontario consumers' attitudes now support, in the 1990s, the sale of beer and wine in convenience stores;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, humbly beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support legislation authorizing convenience stores to sell beer and wine to their clients."

I have 165 names from my riding and I'm very proud to put my name on this petition that I fully support.

1450

VENTE DE BIÈRE ET VIN

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition exactly identical to the one by my colleague from Prescott-Russell. It involves beer and wine in corner stores, particularly in those areas that are close to the Ontario-Quebec border. The petition reads as follows:

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que les grands magasins d'alimentation et les centres commerciaux peuvent maintenant ouvrir le dimanche ;

«Attendu que les dépanneurs ont subi une perte économique majeure dû à l'ouverture des grands magasins le dimanche ;

«Attendu que les petites entreprises sont responsables de la création de la majorité des emplois ici en Ontario ;

«Attendu qu'il y a un besoin urgent pour la création d'emplois en Ontario à cause du nombre accru de bénéficiaires d'assurance-chômage et d'assistance sociale ;

«Attendu que les dépanneurs pourraient bénéficier économiquement et ainsi maintenir et créer des emplois en offrant la vente de bière et de vin ;

«Attendu que les consommateurs de l'Ontario acceptent maintenant la vente de bière et de vin dans les dépanneurs ;

«Pour ces raisons et maintes autres, nous, soussignés, sollicitons humblement l'autorisation de pétitionner l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario d'appuyer tout projet de loi autorisant les dépanneurs d'offrir la vente de bière et de vin à leur clientèle.»

J'appuie cette pétition.

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here:

"We, the undersigned Canadian taxpayers, are pleading for the assent of a proposed bill to reform politicians' pension plans. MPPs must act responsibly and align their pensions more realistically with the private sector. Double-dipping, severance pay and voluntary resignation and collecting of pensions before age 55 must cease.

"We will not support candidates who are more concerned with furthering their own financial interests than protecting the interests of the average taxpayer and the security and the wellbeing of the nation."

It has been signed by many people, and I have affixed my name to it.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition here signed by a good number of my constituents from Dryden, Sioux Lookout, Sioux Narrows, and it's even signed by people from Milton and Moncton, New Brunswick. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario has long represented a serious inequity between the two regions; and

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario is often between 10 and 20 cents a litre; and

"Whereas residents of most northern Ontario communities have no access to public transportation options and therefore are dependent on private automobiles; and

"Whereas 1990 NDP election promises to equalize the prices of gas across the province have not been kept; and

"Whereas" I, as the MPP for the Kenora riding, have "called upon the NDP government to keep their 1990 election promises; and

"Whereas the elimination of the motor vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario residents does not compensate for the excessively high gas prices in northern Ontario;

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

"That the NDP government of Ontario fulfil its election promises to the people of northern Ontario by equalizing the price of gas across the province."

I too have attached my name to that petition.

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by approximately 30 residents of the village of Athens, petitioning the Ontario government to reconsider the decision to close the licence-issuing office in the village of Athens. I am affixing my signature in support.

ADOPTION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition and it states:

"Whereas the right of adopted persons in Ontario to know their natural identity is denied; and

"Whereas the present disclosure system under the Child and Family Services Act is discriminatory, inefficient and expensive and government has demonstrated an inability to provide service in a timely fashion since 1979; and

"Whereas provincial government studies since 1976 have repeatedly recommended that adopted adults be granted unrestricted access to their original birth registrations; and

"Whereas there is widespread public and political support for these rights to be recognized and codified; and

"Whereas Bill 158, Mr Martin, NDP, Sault Ste Marie, has passed second reading in the House by a wide margin of 49 to 3 on May 12, 1994, and is now before the standing committee on social development; and

"Whereas this bill addresses the right of adopted persons to obtain their birth certificates and provides a mechanism for birth parents to register a veto prohibiting contact from the person they surrendered parental rights to; and

"Whereas 1994 has been designated the Year of the Family;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the 35th Parliament of Ontario to act without further delay and respectfully request that Bill 158 be put on the committee's agenda."

That's signed by hundreds of people from across Waterloo region.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Reports by committees. Introduction of bills.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA LOCATION IMMOBILIÈRE

Mr Murphy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 202, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act / Projet de loi 202, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location immobilière.

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

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): This bill is intended to speed up the process of evicting drug dealers from public housing projects like Regent Park and Moss Park and St James Town in my riding, and also to make sure the judges who deal with these evictions take into account that safety in apartment buildings is the most important factor, as well as that drug dealing is a crucial element to violent crime in our urban cities. I'm hoping the government and other members will support it. Eight months for an eviction, as it currently takes, is too long. We need to crack down on crack houses.

CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE MUSEUM INC. ACT, 1994

Mr White moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr142, An Act respecting the Canadian Automotive Museum Inc.

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

PARKWAY DELICATESSEN LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Phillips moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr145, An Act to revive Parkway Delicatessen Limited.

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

PAYS D'EN HAUT WILDERNESS EXPEDITIONS LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Ramsay moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr155, An Act to revive Pays D'en Haut Wilderness Expeditions Limited.

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

I beg the indulgence of the House. We earlier called for reports by committees. As remarkable as it may seem, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot did stand and I missed him. I would ask that we have unanimous consent to return to committee reports. Agreed? Agreed.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Cooper from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail et la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 22, 1994, this bill is ordered for third reading.

1500

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Just before I call the order of the day, the order I'll be calling is government notice of motion number 39. The government and opposition House leaders have had some discussions about the debate this afternoon, and I think we've reached agreement that the government will take 15 minutes, 10 at the beginning and reserve five for the end of the debate, and the two opposition parties will split the intervening time. If we have the consent of the House, that's how we would proceed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I'll be moving the motion and the Minister of Natural Resources will be taking the 10 minutes at the beginning for the government side.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 39:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 171, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario, the standing committee on general government shall complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on the first regularly scheduled meeting of the committee following passage of this motion. All proposed amendments must be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon on the above-noted day. At 4 pm on that same day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further amendment or debate, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The Chair may allow only one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 128(a);

That the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment if necessary until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That one hour be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(g) shall be permitted.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 39. I understand that the Minister of Natural Resources has up to 10 minutes for his opening remarks.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I would like to speak in support of the government's motion that asks this House to set time allocation for third reading of Bill 171, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. I want to briefly review some of the things that have gotten us here.

No one can deny the importance of our forests to the people of Ontario. Our forests employ over 200,000 people in the province and contribute about $12 billion to the economy of the province every year.

Our forests are important for other reasons. Because of that, soon after we became the government, we put in place an independent forest audit committee to conduct an audit of forest regeneration of the boreal forests, the area of Ontario forests where most of the activities of our forest industries take place. The audit was important because it was the first independent audit that looked at how well we are regenerating our forests in Ontario. It gives us some guidelines and some indicia as to where we ought to go to promote better conservation and better management of our forests.

Also, soon after we became the government, we established the Ontario Forest Policy Panel. That panel received submissions from over 3,000 people, everyone from forest products companies to environmentalists. They produced a report called the Diversity report, which outlines a new direction centred on ensuring the long-term health of our forest ecosystems. Based upon that report, the government adopted the policy framework for sustainable forests.

The government also established an organization called the Forest Industry Action Group. The Forest Industry Action Group was a tripartite body made up of the two major forest industry associations, the Ontario Forest Industries Association and the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, the international woodworkers' union of Canada and, finally, representatives of the government. That body produced a consensus report which is also part of the blueprint for the legislation we are debating here today.

Finally, we put together a conservation strategy for the old-growth red and white pine forest ecosystems for Ontario which also is part of the blueprint of the legislation which we are dealing with today.

After many years, the Environmental Assessment Board, regarding the class environmental assessment for timber management, reported in the spring and set down many terms and conditions and in addition a number of recommendations. The province agrees with the goals that the EA decision set for improving the management of our forests.

All of these processes involve days, weeks, months of consultation over many years. I think it's fair to say that the public of Ontario has never been consulted as much in the past about the state of our forests, about the value of our forests, about what we need to do to further conserve, protect and manage our forests so that we will have long-term forest sustainability.

Out of all of this consultation and out of all of these recommendations the government produced the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The act was introduced in the spring at first reading, had second reading and went out for weeks of public hearings across the province. In fact, it probably had a more extensive travel schedule across the province than most other bills that have been introduced in the past few years. As well, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act has been before the general government committee since the House resumed sitting on October 31.

The bill attempts to respond to a number of challenges, and let me simply say what those challenges are. First is an economic challenge. Today a wide variety of competing uses are increasing the demands on areas which are sources of traditional timber supplies. That means there are greater demands on us for protecting our natural heritage.

To meet these goals we must address the needs of other groups for areas of land that people have considered productive forest land for harvesting. These competing uses put pressure on the sources of traditional timber supply. New technologies have also created whole new industries, to use forest products in different ways. These new methods have often been developed in response to the multiple demands on the forests. They include more efficient ways of using wood and ways of using tree species that were not considered for industrial use in the past.

New products have come into their own in the last 10 to 15 years. Markets for them are expanding around the world and Ontario is well situated to take advantage of those markets since we have an abundance of poplar and white birch. But if we are to have a system that enables us to utilize those resources we need some new tools in new legislation that will allow us to provide for flexible licensing and will allow us to ensure that we get best end use of the forest resource.

There is an environmental challenge and it's an important one. More than ever before the public is focused on what we are doing in our forests. In Ontario, like many other parts of the world, public opinion demands that natural resources, and forests above all, be protected and biological diversity be maintained. We have to address these public concerns about the long-term health and conservation of our natural resources.

1510

Environmental concerns about forests have become so important that it is clear we will not be able to sell our products on the international market without demonstrating that we are managing our forests sustainably. One need only consider the challenges that the province of British Columbia has faced over the last two years and the measures they have had to take in order to ensure that it maintains market access not only in Europe but in certain parts of the United States.

If we are to meet these environmental challenges, we will need new tools. The existing tools that we find in the 1952 Crown Timber Act are quite out of date. I think there is a consensus that the existing act has been stretched as far as it can be stretched in terms of dealing with environmental challenges and dealing with the economic challenge.

But there is a third challenge; it comes from aboriginal people who are demanding that we acknowledge their traditional ties to forested land. They demand that we respect the cultural and spiritual importance of forests to them, the importance of wildlife to them. They say that some of our crown forests must take into account aboriginal habitation, use and traditional practices. We acknowledge these concerns, and we acknowledge that we must work to achieve some of them; otherwise, if we do not, we will find an even greater problem on the economic and environmental fronts. The existing Crown Timber Act does not allow us to meet those challenges either.

We are in a position where we can actually increase employment in our forest products industries. We have received, over the last two years, over 30 proposals from companies that are resident in Alberta, British Columbia, the United States and Finland, all of whom want to come to Ontario to invest, to create new mills that will take advantage of species that have not been utilized in the past; all of whom are saying to us, however, that they will require a more flexible licensing arrangement if they are going to be able to produce the products that are so much in demand and if they are going to be able to meet some of the other challenges that we are facing.

We are receiving important signals from the marketplace. If you look at forest industry investment in Ontario as compared to other provinces, in terms of productive forest land, we have led all other Canadian jurisdictions in terms of investment this past year. The projections for next year, 1995, are that our investment levels in terms of the forest products industry will be even higher, that they will surpass $1 billion.

I think the markets are signalling to us that we are proceeding in the right direction and people like what we are doing. People from all over the world are prepared to come and invest in Ontario if we are able to proceed with the act which we have, if we are able to proceed in terms of responding to the economic challenge, the environmental challenge and some of the challenges which are coming from aboriginal people.

The act addresses all of these things. It puts in place a new forest renewal trust fund, the first in North America, which will guarantee that we will have funds set aside to renew our forests. It provides for more involvement at the community level in the planning of our forests. It provides a definition of what we mean by forest sustainability, and more than that, through the regulations and through the manuals, it provides mechanisms whereby we can achieve forest sustainability.

This matter has been before the committee for some time and before the House for some time. It is time to move forward.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the motion as well today. Closure: When we talk to the folks back home, we talk about closure. A lot of people won't understand that we're back here in the Legislature some five weeks late. When we normally come back in September, we did not get back until October 31 this year. We have some very, very important legislation before us. We have four bills that are being brought before the House, this being of particular concern to me as a northern member.

We noticed even the minister flipping through his many pages, not really saying exactly what he wanted to say. He only had 10 minutes for an opening statement. We have only one hour and 20 minutes over on this side of the House. So again we're rushing something through the Legislature which really needs some good study and some good thought.

I must say that as we travelled across the province --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. Order. The member for Kenora has the floor.

Mr Miclash: I must say that I was a part of that committee that travelled the province, and it was some extensive travel, but we did hear over and over again that the people out in the forestry industry, the people who made their presentations to us, really felt that this legislation was being rammed through, that they really did not have the time they would like to have had to speak to the legislation.

As I indicated, we did travel extensively. We spent some time in the north, of course. We listened to the minister in his home town, Fort Frances, talk about the bill. We were in Thunder Bay and of course we were in North Bay and many other communities. You will know that I represent the second-largest riding in the province, one which truly depends a lot on the forestry industry, and it was interesting for me to hear the views at both ends of the province.

As I indicated, we started in the north and heard from the people who were directly involved in the industry, those of northern Ontario. As well, we returned here to Toronto and had hearings here in Toronto, here in the building, and we listened to the views here.

I was quite surprised to find out that the views did not differ across the province. We found that people in the north were not in favour of this legislation. They had a lot of problems with it, had a lot of questions about it, as we did when we got back here to Toronto as well. That is one thing that really surprised me. I thought there would be completely differing views in terms of the legislation, but we mainly found that everybody really felt that this legislation needed a lot of change.

I go back to my original point, that being under time allocation and being that it did not complete clause-by-clause in the hearings, we have to take a look at this legislation and really feel, as we heard, that it is being rammed through. We can only hope that we have been able to move forward, as the minister has tried to indicate that this is a forward movement. But I must say that we on this side of the House can only hope for that, as did a lot of people who made presentations.

You will know as well that my riding depends a lot on the forestry industry, whether it be the pulp and paper industry, whether it be the sawmill industry. I come from a family that goes back to the original roots of Boise Cascade, which is now Rainy River Forest Products, and the original roots that go back to the actual building of the plant in Kenora. I've been involved around forestry my entire life and it was very interesting, as I say, to get a little bit more involved and, as a former educator, to be educated myself in terms of the forestry industry.

What I'd like to do at this point is to go to some of the actual statements made by the people, particularly people from northern Ontario and, more important, from the riding of Kenora. I start off with some statements that were made by a group that was mainly from the Red Lake area. They're known as the Northern Forest Coalition, and we had a couple of people presenting to the committee, Mr Axford and Ms Goule.

They indicated that they had actually taken the position that "people who work in the forest traditionally, for a number of reasons, get very little say and very little involvement" in what they called "the timber management process." They felt that "as a result, there was a tendency to formulate extraction policies based on input primarily from consumption officials, both private and public." They felt also that the policy was written by "default," and that has had "some dire consequences to frontier employment and investment." They were quite worried about what Bill 171, which was before the committee, would do in terms of their coalition and in terms of the people, as I say, on the front lines in the forestry industry.

They went on to say that they viewed the new legislation as necessary but that Bill 171 was "premature and lacking a philosophical and cooperative approach. It seems to be an exercise in control...." They went on to say that it does not really seem to be an exercise in compliance.

They talked about the compliance penalties and the potential of these penalties and the implementation of the compliance penalties. They went on to say that it just may be the straw that stimulates another round of shutdowns for a few more hardworking northerners. Again, they were saying that this legislation could be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of those people who are on the front line. The minister himself, who is in the House, will know that we have a lot of people out there who work very hard in the forestry industry and work very hard to make a living in northern Ontario.

1520

In terms of the trust funds, we heard a lot about the trust funds as we travelled the province, and I'd just like to read into the record as well what this group had to say. They indicated that, yes, they were in favour of some type of trust fund, and we know we heard a good number of views regarding the trust funds, but what they were really concerned about was where the funds would end up and how they would be distributed back across the province.

They really wanted some backup documentation on the trust funds and how they would be redistributed. They indicated that they were feeling the trust funds may be treated as were the fishing licence revenues and used for enforcement rather than enhancement. They were really interested as to whether the minister of the day could decide something in downtown Toronto and actually come out with the distribution of a trust fund that in essence would not benefit their operations in the far north, so really a concern there.

They went on to talk about the class EA process and they suggested that the proposed bill and its attached backup are most seriously and probably fatally flawed in the EA area. They suggested that the minister or the ministry had better go back to the drawing board and find out exactly how this had an effect on the EA process.

Something which was of great interest to myself, as it was to a good number of groups again, was the establishment of citizen committees. This was a group from Red Lake, as I indicated earlier, from a coalition that actually applauded the bill's efforts to drive problem-solving from a local area. They felt that was a good move in terms of the bill, but they felt that the dispute resolutions were still weak and they would want more of a definition as to what would come about using these resolutions.

They went on to talk, as again many other groups did, about a concern as to how the committees would be formulated and where people would come from to formulate the committees and what groups they would represent and how that would be decided. Again, a very important group to our area summarized by saying, "This legislation, Bill 171, should be tabled or withdrawn until the rest of the pieces are attached or until either the MNR or some other ministry is prepared to deal with socioeconomics, exactly the way the EA rulings specified." That was their conclusion in looking at Bill 171.

As well, we heard from a forester, as we did a good number of foresters from various regions of the province. This forester was actually from Rainy River Forest Products, of course formerly known as Boise Cascade, in the Kenora-Fort Frances area. I must say this was one of the major employers in my riding, as it is in the minister's riding, a major employer for him as well. They employ some 1,500 people directly in both Kenora and Fort Frances, and pay nearly $100 million in wages, salaries and benefits on an annual basis and more than $6 million per year in municipal taxes, so just an idea of the very important contribution this company makes to our area.

They went on to say that in their view the proposed bill could be improved for the citizens of Ontario, the stakeholders, the government and the forest industry by simply allowing more time and dialogue to occur between and within the various parties. The minister indicated that there was extensive consultation taking place, but I must say that this was not the only time we heard that. The parliamentary assistant to the minister will remember that as we travelled across the province we had a good number of groups indicate to us that there was just not enough time.

Again, here we are today in time allocation, ramming this through with less than an hour and 10 minutes left to myself and my colleagues to get some very important issues on the table, and some very important concerns that we would certainly like to see addressed.

He went on to talk about the trust funds as well. He indicated that yes, this was something that was needed and had been needed for a long time. He had some concerns about the trust funds that he would have liked to have had some attention directed to, but in the very short period of time that this bill has moved around the province there was very little time actually to consider what these trust funds would do for the industry.

He went on to talk about the advisory committees too and how he felt that it was a way that Boise Cascade, or Rainy River Forest Products, had actually reached out to the people in both the Fort Frances and Kenora areas. He had indicated that these committees had already been formulated by their company and that they were very interested in some of the feedback. But he had some very positive stuff that he had to say and wanted to get across to the minister and hoped that his views would be taken into consideration. So there, from a forester.

The minister indicated that we had some presentations from first nation groups as well. He will remember, because he was there, the presentation by Chief George Kakeway from a first nation in my community, the first nation of Rat Portage. He was accompanied by their tribal chief, Willie Wilson, who is the tribal chief of some 10 communities in the area. It was very interesting to hear what they too had to say and put on the record. Let me just quote some of their statements before the committee.

Chief Willie Wilson indicated: "In Bill 171, first nations are defined as bands within the Indian Act. This outdated piece of legislation in no way reflects our territories and our continuing jurisdiction of the lands and resources within the 55,000 square miles of Treaty 3." You can see a concern that he put on the record.

Hon Mr Hampton: Where do you stand, Frank? Tell us where you stand. Do you stand with Willie?

Mr Miclash: I'm indicating some of the things that were brought before the minister and some of the things that these people wanted him to take a close look at, and comments made by people such as Chief Willie Wilson, who happens to be a very respected chief in the minister's own riding, a very respected person in the minister's own riding. I would hate to say this, but to have the chief disagree with some of this government's policies could get him into hot water, but I know they won't admit to that.

Then he goes on to say in his comments, "If our treaty and aboriginal rights as outlined in section 35 of the Constitution of Canada were respected, we could work together and agree on how to manage the forest." What he is asking for here is some cooperation to work together.

He indicated, for the record, that they too -- I indicated a number of other groups that we heard from across the province were opposed to Bill 171, as written -- felt that they had not been consulted. This is what we heard from a good number of groups, that they wished for more dialogue, for more dialogue with the minister, who represents them in his riding. I have indicated a number of things that we as the committee heard specifically from my riding and from the minister's own riding in northwestern Ontario.

Going back to the fact that we have been allocated a certain amount of time to speak to this bill, I will give the floor to the next speaker.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Just a few brief comments in respect to the motion we're dealing with, time allocation of the forestry bill: I think, Mr Speaker -- you can correct me if I'm wrong -- this is the fourth time allocation motion that we've been forced to deal with in four weeks of sittings this fall. It's a sad occasion, really, when you look at what's happened over the life of this government in respect to its efforts to curtail debate on very serious and important issues facing the people of Ontario. This is simply another example of it. I don't have the precise number, but I think this is the 20th time allocation motion brought in by this government during its life in office, four and a half years.

1530

If you just simply look at what happened with Bill 163, I think it was, earlier this week, yesterday as a matter of fact, a very important piece of legislation having a very significant impact on communities right across this province, we had time allocation of one hour on third reading -- one hour.

Next week we're dealing with time allocation on two other pieces of legislation. We're getting a grand total of two and a half hours per bill, two and a half hours to deal with extremely important pieces of legislation. When we talk about the long-term-care legislation, one that we've heard from thousands and thousands of Ontarians on in terms of expressions of concern, volunteer groups like the Red Cross and VON, as you know, Mr Speaker -- I'm sure you're receiving those kinds of entreaties from constituents in your area as well as the rest of us in this assembly.

But the government has seen fit to only sit for a very limited time this fall. We had certainly the longest break from the summer to the fall sitting that I've experienced in my 13 1/2 years as a member of this Legislature. Then we come back and sit for a grand total of I think it's 20 days, then we're breaking for an indefinite period, perhaps until an election some time next year, and we're being forced to accept very limited opportunities to debate extremely meaningful pieces of legislation.

What's the government's strategy in respect to this? It would appear that they don't want to face the heat or the critical scrutiny that they'd be forced to face if the House is sitting. They have no real agenda. It was indicated some months ago when a leaked document came out of the cabinet secretary's office, Mr Agnew, indicating that the government, the NDP, was going to have a very limited agenda, focus on a limited number of pieces of business and try to do damage control in respect to getting out in the public and trying to convince them that there's some merit in once again casting a ballot for the NDP.

I think that's a futile effort, but one that's going to cost us all millions and millions of dollars, as we see the government out handing out the cheques, government members. When we're not sitting on Fridays, you can always count, if you have a fax in your constituency office, 5:30, 6 o'clock on a Friday evening, we get these faxes pouring in from Jobs Ontario, NDP members in their ridings handing out cheques and making grand announcements.

Clearly this is a planned strategy, but one, as I said, that's going to be very futile indeed. The voters of Ontario made up their minds some time ago in respect to where the current government is going to go, and you're going out. I don't think there's any doubt about that, and if you really look closely at it, you'll accept that fate.

But it's surprising: The member for Etobicoke West and I were just having a discussion related to some of the members from the government side who come over and talk about their fortunes as they see them, and they clearly believe, in many instances, that they are going to be re-elected. I think that's a reflection of their naïveté, and perhaps it's a reflection of how voters generally are kind to less fortunate souls. In fact there's no question that the vast majority of members opposite are not going to be returning to this place, perhaps once we adjourn, if indeed we adjourn next week.

I'm not saying that trying to gloat over that fact or be arrogant about it in any way, shape or form. I don't know what my fortune is going to be at the polls come the next election. I have no real idea whether I'm going to be successful or not. But I think there's a clear message out there that this government and a vast majority of its members are not going to be re-elected. But that doesn't seem to have any impact in terms of backbenchers taking stands on issues like this attempt, another additional attempt, to cut off meaningful debate on very important issues.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since they're moving closure on practically every bill we're dealing with, maybe this government could see fit to have a quorum in this place.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Tannis Manikel): Mr Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: Speaker, a quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Runciman: I was talking about the futility of the government's efforts in its exercise and what it's doing in not having this House sit, not having members of Her Majesty's opposition afforded an opportunity to question this government on issues of the day through question period and through committees of the Legislature and through various other avenues that are available to us.

The government is cutting that off as well, cutting off those opportunities, cutting off debate in the limited time the House is sitting by motions such as this, but also cutting off opportunities on a daily basis, a weekly basis, for all of us on this side to raise those issues and concerns of Ontarians that are not being addressed by the government of the day, the NDP government.

Instead, they're out spending taxpayers' money, in effect borrowed money; as we know, this government is borrowing in the neighbourhood of $10 billion a year to finance its programs. When they leave office, the government that succeeds them, whichever party it is, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, is going to be faced with something in the neighbourhood of a $90-billion debt, with debt-servicing costs in the neighbourhood of $8 billion per year -- a scary thought indeed.

When the Conservative Party left office in 1985, we had a budget of $26 billion. Through the spend-and-tax years of the Liberals and the NDP, we now have a budget in excess of $55 billion a year. We get catcalls when we make propositions, proposals, like those that are contained in the Common Sense Revolution, which calls for cuts reducing the government budget to $49 billion a year. The NDP and the Liberals say that's scary: $49 billion, from $26 billion that we were spending in 1985. We think the government can certainly be run very effectively and very efficiently on $49 billion a year and we can get our books back in order and balance this situation for the province of Ontario and lower taxes as well at the same time.

We're going to reduce the government by $6 billion. We're quite clear on that if you want to read the book. But this government is doing things like -- my leader, Mike Harris, today raised the question of spending by the government on its promotion of the tobacco bill. Who knows how many millions of dollars are being spent on that?

In January the Minister of Health is going to launch another initiative promoting the government in a new health card, which is going to cost the taxpayers another $7 million. That's the kind of money this government is throwing out the window instead of coming to grips with the real problems and the real issues of this province including, in a very significant fashion, the spending patterns of this government. This is a shameful day, a continuing series of shameful days, in this Legislature.

1540

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who is our Natural Resources critic, for sharing some of his time and for all the work he's done on this bill. I had the privilege of being with him this summer for some of the committee hearings in northeastern and northwestern Ontario. We thought it was time well spent.

Unfortunately, we just thought there should have been more time listening to the public, but I know my colleague the member from Algoma-Manitoulin has been working diligently in that resources committee since the summer, in the Legislature here, and going over clause-by-clause of this Bill 171, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

It's very interesting to note, and I'd like to show the viewers at home, that basically the bill only makes up a few pages, but the regulations and the manuals that support this bill are this much material. Again I must salute our Natural Resources critic, Mike Brown, for going through this and sticking with this process. It's kind of sad that this process has been cut short.

It has been mentioned by previous speakers that this isn't the first time this process has been cut short through the invocation of closure. It's interesting to note that in our parliamentary history, invoking of closure was rather a rare and extraordinary device that governments used in order to precipitate the passing of bills. It was usually done in an emergency situation or after months and months of protracted debate that governments, being frustrated after that, felt that they'd have to go to that extreme.

I'm quite surprised that this is being done by this government, as it is known as being very good opposition when in opposition in this Legislature and would be very, very upset with closure motions or any type of time allocation. But this seems to be now the order of the day and that's what we're debating here, and in fact this particular government has used closure more than all governments in total up to this period of time. It's rather sad that we're at this at this point.

I want to use this time, though, rather constructively to talk specifically about the bill that this closure motion is about, because as a northerner from the riding of Timiskaming I feel that this forest sustainability bill is a very important piece of legislation in the province of Ontario, one I'm afraid, though, that I don't see any support for from either environmental communities or forest communities out there.

That gives Mr Brown and I and Mr Miclash, the member for Kenora, great, great concern as northerners, because we depend upon the forest industry for the livelihood of many, many of our constituents. It's very important, and we believe it will continue to be a very important industry in northern Ontario.

To get to the start of this, this bill is called the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. One of the main problems we have identified in the bill is that the word "sustainability" is not defined in the bill and that's what's causing great concern to all sides in this particular argument.

Both people in the environmental community and the forest industry are greatly concerned as to why "sustainability" is not defined and what that means. Until we get that, we're not prepared to give passage to this bill. In fact we will be voting against this particular legislation when it does come before us for third reading.

The question is, what is forest sustainability? How will ecosystems be defined, and what is an ecosystem-based management? These broad concepts are being put into this legislation but they're not being defined, and like other new concepts in the public sector vocabulary, we do not have very definitive definitions as to what these things mean, so there's a lot of argument and a lot of concern.

I guess one of the points that the forest industry has been making to Mike Brown and to others in the committee is that in a very challenging international trade in forestry products, where countries, especially in Europe, are very concerned as to the sustainability practices of forestry in this country and other countries, they want to have some certainty as to what is the sustainable basis for forestry here if they will be welcome recipients of Ontario and Canadian forest products.

It is very important that we have very clear definitions as to what our forestry industry is and how it is to act in the forests of northern Ontario and all of this province. That's a great concern, as we have environmental groups in Europe lobbying against governments to boycott forestry products from provinces of this country, and we in Ontario certainly don't want to get into that particular situation such as British Columbia found itself in last year. That's one of our major concerns.

Despite all the purposes and definitions in there, the act does not define the concept of "forest sustainability," nor does the act indicate what type of forest ecosystem should be maintained within the management planning process. For example, the independent boreal forest audit revealed in its 1992 report that the composition of Ontario's forests is changing from stands dominated by softwood species to stands dominated by hardwood species. So what type of forest ecosystem should we maintain, the one that's growing up now or the one that was originally here?

Given the evolving nature of the forest, therefore, it's unclear how the concepts of sustainability and ecosystem-based management will be applied. We're very concerned about that because right now we're looking at quite a change in the products that our forest industry in northern Ontario produces.

I see the minister is here today, and of course he has been encouraging forestry plants to move on to oriented strandboard and other waferboard-type products that use what we used to call weed species such as poplar and aspen, so-called deciduous hardwood species, though they tend to be kind of a softwood, but where a lot of the market is evolving right now. This is kind of the concept we would want to understand. Are we talking about sustainability of new poplar forests that are growing up without the regeneration of the conifer forests? These things we'd like to have spelled out for us.

Another very important aspect of this bill is the forest renewal trust fund and the forest futures trust fund. This is with the new stumpage fee that's going to be set up to basically fund the reforestation of Ontario's forests.

Today my colleagues Mr Brown and Mr Miclash and I met with one of the former ministers of Northern Development and Mines, René Fontaine, the previous member from Cochrane North. One of the concerns the forest companies have in the Hearst area is that $6 a cunit that right now would be contributed to the forest renewal trust fund in their opinion is not enough to sustain the forest at the rate of the cutting today. That's a very big concern, and over the years we've seen unfortunately with this government the reduction in the amount of money that is spent on forest renewal.

Part of that I believe is the government has a belief that more and more natural regeneration can take place, and of course most of us in this House would like to see that. In an ideal world we would believe there could be more and more natural regeneration of our forests, but until we know we've proven that out and we have basically tailored and reformed our cutting techniques and our harvesting techniques so that we can have more effective natural reforestation, we're very concerned about the budgetary cuts of, if you will, artificial or tree-planting reforestation as we basically rely upon it today.

The idea of the forest renewal fund is to make sure the industry and government are contributors, and I think that's correct. We want to make sure the private sector that obviously gains a living and a livelihood and a profit hopefully from activities in the northern forest is also a stakeholder in the future of our forest, not only for their companies' livelihoods but for the livelihoods of the people in northern Ontario such as my constituents in Timiskaming, who really depend upon the forest industry for their livelihood.

We have some great concerns about how much money is going to be going into this renewal fund. Will there be enough money from the annual crown dues assessed to the companies in order to make sure this fund is fully financed so that we'll have proper funding in order to provide replanting that's necessary for Ontario's forests?

As I said before, the government's record on reforestation is very poor in the last four years and we're really having grave doubts that this particular forest renewal trust fund is going to supply sufficient funds to do the job that we think is there, because we need to have a little bit of catch-up involved in the cutting that we have done.

The forest industry has come before us, and also many of the environmental groups, and made presentations to an all-party committee this summer and through this fall session. Our great concern is, as I said before, that we don't seem to have any sort of consensus from any part of the industry or any of the stakeholders involved in the forest industry that they are supportive at all.

Our opinion from the Liberal caucus is that the government should be reviewing this act and should be taking into account some of the very constructive criticisms that were brought forward and the ideas that were brought forward in committee.

1550

Unfortunately, and I've confirmed this with our Natural Resources critic, I have not seen any amendments that came from any of the public consultation process that had occurred in August and September of this year, and that's really a shame, because we spent a lot of good taxpayers' money trying to consult with people about this bill. I would've hoped that the government had an open mind about this bill, and I guess the government had such an open mind it had some of its own amendments put forward, but I didn't see any that were generated from any of the public discussions that we had. It was kind of sad that they really weren't listening to what was going on.

We have seen, in the last five years, basically many processes that have tried to examine what has been happening in our crown forests, and I know this is a concern not just for northern members who really directly depend on the livelihood of the forest industry for our constituents, but I find with great interest as I travel through southern Ontario that people right across this province are very, very interested and very concerned about what's happening in our forests throughout Ontario.

It's looked upon as being a resource not for just us northerners but for the province of Ontario, and I suppose that even though we don't have rain forests, the great boreal forests of northern Ontario are in some small way looked upon as being a smaller set of lungs for the planet, just as the great rain forests of the Amazon are. So everybody's very concerned, not just as a source of wood fibre to feed industry, but also on the environmental side, that the boreal forest of northern Ontario also is a great resource to supply oxygen to the planet.

We have received comments from people from all over the map of Ontario and from all sides of the issue, and as I said before, there doesn't seem to be any type of coming together, any sort of consensus from the forest industry or environmental groups or any of the agencies that represent the different aspects of forest industry, both the pulp and the woodcutters. So we are very unhappy about this bill. We will be voting against it. We wish that we could spend more time in committee rather than having a closure motion invoked here in this House that basically puts an end to the democratic process.

Today we see the end of debate. We have this today and then after that there'll be an hour of third reading, and that will end this. This bill then will become law. It basically is going to be up to the forest industry to work in the future with the Ministry of Natural Resources to try to understand together and interpret what this bill will mean to the industry, as it's not clear. All we have to do is to hope that there will be an understanding in the future.

I wish I were not part of a Legislature that would pass a law that is going to leave such uncertainty for the future, but that's the way this government wants it. We have to hope that there will be tremendous cooperation between the ministry and the industry in working out some of these concerns that are not there today, not spelled out, so that we can have a sustainable forest industry in the future; for the livelihoods of not just my constituents and the constituents of all the northern ridings, but for the people of Ontario, who understand that this is a very vital and important part of the economy of this province, that it is a sustainable industry, that it will provide jobs today and in the future for the people of Ontario.

We're going to have to just act in a bit of good faith here to make sure that we can come together and make this happen in the future. I hope that can happen, but our stand right now is that we don't believe it is there to make it happen with this particular bill. We will be voting against it.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to thank you for the opportunity to say a few words this afternoon on this closure motion. I believe it's the fourth closure motion in the first 15 days of this sitting of the Legislature. I think the government said it would probably bring two in, maximum, during the course of the life of the NDP government. We have now seen probably about 19; I'm not sure whether it's the 19th or 20th closure motion. But it's something that's very unacceptable to us and I'm sure to the people of this province. Cutting off debate on major pieces of legislation is not something that the public likes to see happen.

Not only that, but we have had bills that have been deemed to have amendments passed, some 100 in Bill 163, that the people never had the chance to debate. Not only that, but Bill 163 travelled the province for about five weeks and had public hearings and had input from many municipal people, and then the government brings in well over 100 amendments and nobody had any input into those amendments.

To bring closure on a bill such as that, and this is the fourth bill this session, certainly shows us how desperate this government is to bring legislation forward and to try to tell the people of this province that it's acting in a manner which is appropriate for any Legislature.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Ask him about the three 20-minute recesses --

Mr McLean: I'm not so sure that the member for Cochrane North, Mr Wood, who's chirping away over there really knows what goes on in this Legislature. He's quite happy to sit there and debate closure motions, but I don't know why he's not standing up and debating this piece of legislation that the closure motion is on, because I will want to read something into the minutes a little later about what he had to say in Thunder Bay.

The government claims that this bill that we're dealing with is a step towards sustainability. But sustainability is just really in its title. In many ways, the bill, Bill 171, that we're debating does not encourage sustainability, and it will take much more than simply saying it to make it happen. Much needs to be done if we're to make Ontario's forest resources truly sustainable, and paying lip-service to a vaguely defined concept only trivializes the work that must be accomplished.

The government does deserve credit for creating dedicated trust funds for the regeneration of our forests, something that we in our caucus have been suggesting for many years, and we're pleased to witness the creation of that. But we became sceptical when government representatives failed to present consistent calculations of the size of the funds. Estimates range from half to the same to slightly more than current levels. The trust funds are a crucial component to the regeneration of our forests for the enjoyment and utilization of future generations and, as such, must be more reliable and predictable.

Another main criticism of the bill is the fact that it is riddled with "minister may" clauses. The discretionary power that is left in the hands of the minister has raised considerable alarm with environmentalists, communities and the forest industry. Perhaps a common thread with these groups is that neither knows where the other stands, and once the picture does become clear, uncertainty still remains because the terms of forest management agreements may be changed with very little notice.

While in some areas Bill 171 is an improvement over the old Crown Timber Act, it is flawed in so many others that it is not worth implementing.

I had a call the other day from Mr Murray Lockhart, who is the enforcement officer in the county of Simcoe dealing with the bylaws with regard to tree management in the county, and his major concern was with subsections 58(1) and (2). I'm not so sure whether the committee even got to that section in the bill, and if it did what changes were made. Section 58 is entry on private land. It says:

"(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee or agent of the ministry and any person accompanying him or her and acting under his or her instructions may, at all reasonable times and on producing proper identification, enter and inspect private land for the purposes of this act.

"(2) An employee or agent of the ministry or a person" -- any person -- "accompanying him or her shall not enter a room or place actually used as a dwelling without the consent of the occupier except under the authority of a search warrant issued under section 158 of the Provincial Offences Act."

Crown timber means timber on lands vested in Her Majesty in right of Ontario and under the management of the minister or timber that is the property of the crown under the management of the minister on other lands.

Those are some of the articles that are in dispute, and section 58 is one of them.

The Northwestern Ontario Trucking and Logging Association has sent a letter with regard to their concerns with Bill 171. It says:

"Bill 171 has been misleading, portrayed to the public as legislation dealing only with crown forests on crown lands as defined under subsection 2(1), 'on land vested in Her Majesty in right of Ontario.' Private property owners, farm associations nor any other groups representing private land interests have been informed of the true contents of this bill as it applies to regulation of private property, so the leader of the official opposition should be requested to demand that Minister Hampton withdraw all sections of the act and accompanying regulations pertaining to private land immediately or delay passage this legislation until Ontario property owners have been informed of the true contents of this bill and allowed a reasonable time frame to comment on the same." This is the Northwestern Ontario Trucking and Logging Association.

1600

They're also concerned with regard to subsections 58(1) and (2) of Bill 171 which allow ministry employees at all levels, it says: "to snoop on any private land at any time for any purpose of this act. This is an unprecedented piece of legislation for invasion of private property. The ministry officials do not have to show cause or prove grounds for suspicion of any infraction or to produce any search warrant. They can merely say they thought there might be stolen timber on the property or they want to examine the two pine trees that were growing on your lot that the crown may own from a reserve in the original patent from the crown.

"So my understanding is that only the surveyor, under the Surveyors Act, has anything close to resembling that type of authority for entry, and the present Crown Timber Act does not contain anything resembling section 58 of Bill 171, contrary to the remarks of MPP Len Wood at the hearings held to examine this legislation in Thunder Bay on August 25, 1994."

The Acting Speaker: Order for a moment. I'm advised that we have some very distinguished visitors in the members' gallery to the east. We have here with us today Dr Carlo Fiorini, the mayor of Veroli, Italy, accompanied by Mrs Fiorini and the vice-mayor, Mayor Novelli and guests. Benvenuto.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Remarks in Italian.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Simcoe East may resume his participation.

Mr McLean: There's some more to that letter from the Northwestern Ontario Trucking and Logging Association, but I think that I really said it all with what they had indicated was contrary to the remarks of their MPP, Len Wood, at the hearings held to examine this legislation in Thunder Bay on August 25, 1994. So obviously there are a lot of other people who don't agree with the government on this legislation.

The Ontario Forest Industries Association's presentation to the standing committee on Bill 171, just briefly, agrees that: "New legislation is necessary to replace the outdated Crown Timber Act, legislation that will ensure that Ontario can sustain a healthy forest industry for the benefit of all. A healthy forest industry is contingent upon some basic requirements, and they are healthy, sustainable forests, secure tenure, a healthy investment climate and healthy partnerships with government and other users of the forest." It says, "Unfortunately, Bill 171, as written, does not provide for any of these requirements."

So there's another very strong association, the Ontario Forest Industries Association, from northern Ontario, which totally disagrees with this piece of legislation.

The Conservation Council of Ontario had made a presentation at the committee and talked about the views that they have. They said, "Therefore, the Conservation Council of Ontario is unable to endorse the Crown Forest Sustainability Act."

I wish some of the government members would get up and tell us what organizations did support this piece of legislation. Obviously, there couldn't have been many. The public hearings were broadly held, and my understanding is that some of the government members perhaps are not overly enthused about this piece of legislation either. We see the government bringing in another closure motion. With all of these people opposing what it's doing, the government says it is listening. They say, "We are consulting." If you are consulting and listening, why then are we getting letters such as we are receiving here today?

When I talk to Murray Lockhart on the phone and he gives me the reasons that he is opposed to this piece of legislation, I have to bring that to the floor of this House and put that on the record. Really we're dealing with a closure motion today, but the closure motion has to do with one of the major pieces of legislation, and that's Bill 171, that is going to be on the books of this province forever unless somebody in future comes along and amends it. I know the Conservation Council of Ontario and the Ontario Forest Industries Association are going to want to see some changes happen.

But the minister said that the key elements of the new legislation include -- for the people who are listening, it says they want to establish a strong compliance mechanism and stiffer penalties for non-compliance, including fines of up to $1 million for causing serious environmental harm; making sure forests are regenerated to meet improved standards for forest renewal and that renewal is planned before harvest; planning for the whole forest, not just timber as a crop; and managing for water, wildlife, fisheries, vegetation and heritage values of forest ecosystems; and ensuring that money is set aside as a forest renewal trust fund for planned regeneration when any harvesting is taking place.

They want to establish a local citizens' committee to give people living in communities who depend on forests for their economic stability a greater say in how forests are managed and provide independent audits of government and forest industries so people know how their forests are being managed. That's the aim of what the government wants to do, but it does not appear to be what these organizations are saying.

I wanted to read some of the fines. For failing to comply with an order to stop work causing environmental damage, it's up to $1 million. Fines for other offences will range from $10,000 to $100,000. There will also be administrative penalties ranging from $2,000 for a minor offence, such as failing to provide information, to $15,000 for harvesting without a licence. If the penalty's $15,000 for harvesting without a licence, you can certainly take a lot of timber valued at far greater than that $15,000.

Anyhow, I wanted to say a few words on this closure motion brought through by Mr Charlton, which is going to limit debate. I am sure that in committee they deemed the balance of the amendments passed. People now will not have any say in the clause-by-clause that has been done in this province. This will be another bill that will receive third reading sometime next week. We totally object to these four closure motions.

1610

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): As we debate this motion, it's a very sad day in this Legislature. I would tell you that this particular time allocation motion is one of the most arrogant acts by an arrogant government over a very arrogant bill. I would suggest to you that this government, without a mandate, has run out of ideas and is here today in this place ramming through a piece of legislation that is badly flawed, is bad legislation, and that the government itself knows it.

But the government of Bob Rae doesn't believe in democracy in this place. I want to take members through the process that we've been through on this bill because this bill, to any independent, fair observer, has not received the attention that it deserves and the attention it needs.

This is an important, significant piece of legislation. This affects the livelihood of literally thousands of Ontarians, most of those in northern Ontario, but the livelihoods of Ontarians even in southern Ontario.

You know, Mr Speaker, the forest products industry employs more than 60,000 people in this province. The crown forests cover somewhere between 80% and 90% of this land mass. Under this piece of legislation, which is one of the most permissive pieces of legislation we will ever see in this province, we might as well call the Minister of Natural Resources milord, because the imperial authority of the Minister of Natural Resources has been heightened, increased beyond belief.

This act, Bill 171, is but 86 sections. You would wonder why it may take a long time to review 86 sections. Well, I'll tell you, this is a permissive act. It is an act that permits the Minister of Natural Resources the widest discretion without limitation than any act this Parliament has ever seen. To inform members, this is what we're dealing with. This is what we've been considering. It is not just the 86 sections here, it is the over 1,000 pages of regulations and manuals which, by the way, are changing almost daily.

The minister, in this particular bill, has the authority to change many of the sections and the enforcement provisions of this act almost unilaterally -- well, not almost. Unilaterally, he can change it and at the very worst what the minister must do is receive cabinet approval through an order in council. As members know here, orders in council just churn out of the cabinet room. Members of the Legislature do not have an opportunity to debate them. Members of the Legislature cannot have input, cannot say, "No, we don't think that's a good idea."

The minister and cabinet can decide to change a regulation and virtually none of us ever knows. It may be a sad state, but it's a state of reality. The minister doesn't come and make an announcement in this House that he's changing a regulation -- not at all. It happens almost under the cover of darkness. This Legislature has no opportunity to review that.

So milord, the Minister of Natural Resources, the imperial authority of the north, will decide what he believes is sustainability. He will decide what is good for the forests of Ontario.

As we go through the act, I want to tell you that the opposition has been most accommodating to this government. This bill, Mr Speaker, as you would know, was introduced on June 1, five months ago. The opposition supported this bill on second reading going to committee. We did that with a little less than an hour's debate in this Legislature. In other words, the opposition wanted to get on with this because it's important, it's significant and we have to understand as legislators what we're doing with this bill.

The first thing that happened was that the committee was assigned four weeks to do its work over the summer. The government phones up and says, "Gee whiz, it would be better if we started a week later." The opposition agreed, "Fine, if that's what you want." Then, two weeks later, the government decides, "No, we'll go back to the original schedule." Again the opposition agreed.

The opposition agreed with the government on the places that the committee would sit. We went across northern Ontario, in the northwest and in the northeast, for two weeks. We spent a week here in Toronto hearing what the public had to say about this bill and then we started the clause-by-clause on this bill for merely a week. When you consider that the committee had to deal with a thousand pages of manuals and regulations, and we're now informed by the ministry that there are further guidelines coming down the pike, that isn't a lot of time.

This government chose not to come back according to the parliamentary calendar. This government chose to give up five weeks of the fall session of the Legislature so that it could do whatever it's doing. I'm not sure why they would want to do that, but they did not come back here. That meant this bill was not in committee, it was not debated, it was not reviewed for five weeks, which would normally happen under the normal legislative process.

Here we are. I think we've had three meetings. We spent maybe 12 or 13 hours in committee dealing with this bill this fall, and the government has the almighty arrogance to come in and tell us that the opposition is being obstructionist, that we've got to have this done and we've got to have it done now. That is unacceptable to the opposition and should be terribly unacceptable to this government. If this government had really wished democracy to occur, we would have sat those five weeks. We would be done.

We have to date at committee gone through 75% of the bill. I believe when we adjourned the other day, last Thursday at 6 o'clock, we had dealt with 63 or 64 sections. The total bill has 86. Given the thousand pages of manuals, given the complexity and the importance of this bill, I think government members should be totally ashamed of ramming this bill through the Legislature today.

There have been some minor improvements made through the committee process. I don't think you should get real excited over there on the government side about them being very major, but there have been some minor, minor improvements to the wording of the legislation and in some places to the intent. That's how the committee system works.

As a matter of fact, and I know you'll be very surprised to know this, Mr Speaker, last Thursday, after the government had hoped this bill would be long gone out of committee, it presented three more amendments to the bill. Three more. If we weren't still there in committee, they couldn't have passed. They couldn't be dealt with.

Even stranger, the closure motion does not permit committee-of-the-whole review of this bill. This House, as is our custom, will not have the opportunity to review this bill clause by clause. So what's going to happen is it's going to be ordered for third reading, and on third reading, the government House leader, by this motion, has allocated all of one hour to the debate; one whole hour to the debate.

That's 20 minutes per party to affect 80% to 90% of the land in the province of Ontario, to deal with 60,000 jobs, 60,000 people and their families who directly get their livelihood from the forests of Ontario. Twenty minutes per party. I would ask the government members to think about that. This is an important bill, it is a significant bill, and the minister has said so.

I want to talk for a second about the environmental groups and the environmental part of forest sustainability. You would think that when you're talking about sustainability and you want to talk about it as more than a buzzword, as more than part of the 1990s lexicon, if you wanted to talk about it in a meaningful way, you would do what the environmental groups that came before us and, as a matter of fact, what industry groups when they came before us, said, and that's, "Define 'sustainability.'" A rather radical concept, I guess, but they thought the bill's title should be defined in the purpose clause of the bill.

1620

Do you know what? That didn't happen, wouldn't happen. The government had decided some two years ago, commissioned what it called the Diversity report, which provided a definition. It provided a definition, maybe not the best one, but it provided a good definition. It was approved by cabinet. The cabinet of Ontario had approved it. Would the government put its own definition in the bill? People would be surprised to find out that the government could not even live with or agree to its own definition that it had spent two years, much time, developing.

So I guess you wouldn't be surprised to learn that the following environmental groups support the government's legislation: There aren't any. There are none. This is from the government of Bob Rae. He has the support of no environmental group that I know of, certainly nobody who has communicated with me either directly or through the hearings process. They're all opposed. This is supposed to be about sustainability, and you have every environmental group that I'm aware of opposed to this legislation.

I could name just a few: The Federation of Ontario Naturalists is opposed; the Wildlands League is opposed; the Conservation Council of Ontario is opposed; the World Wildlife Fund is opposed; the Canadian Environmental Law Association is opposed; Northwatch is opposed; Earthroots is opposed; the Animal Alliance of Canada is also opposed; and there are many others. I can list the ones who are opposed. I cannot list any of the ones who are in favour.

I have here a copy of a joint release by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Wildlands League and it asks some questions. It says:

"Did you know that Ontario is about to become the first jurisdiction in North America to pass a forest sustainability act? Did you know that this act does not require forests to be harvest-sustainable?

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If this government continues to move closure, I think it should be obligated to hold quorum to hear the concerns that the members have expressed.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I know the member from Woodstock would be in agreement with that because she's a believer in the democratic process.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: The democratic process says 20 members, and I know the cackler over there would agree.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please check to see if indeed a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant: Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Brown: As I was waiting for an audience, just before we broke for that, I was reading from a document that was produced by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Wildlands League. It asks some questions. "Did you know that this act does not require forests to be harvest-sustainable?"

On that point, I think one of the most interesting comments, and it came from both industry, environmental groups, virtually anybody who read that, was that the old Crown Timber Act of the early 1950s was superior in terms of sustainability because that act at least said that you had to have a sustainable yield. This particular act that we're debating today doesn't even suggest that you need to have a sustainable yield.

Reading on, it says:

"Did you know this act is presented as enabling legislation that allows for a huge degree of ministerial discretionary power, thus affecting enforcement and accountability? Did you know that the manuals that accompany this act still treat the forests only as a source of timber? Did you know that this act may prevent the completion of Ontario's protected areas system?"

This is what the environmental groups are saying. This is the party of Bob Rae. This is the leader of a party who, when in opposition, got himself arrested in Temagami. I know you remember that, Mr Speaker. I remember the pictures of Bob Rae protecting the forests of Ontario, getting unceremoniously taken into the paddy wagon and trucked off by the Ontario Provincial Police.

He was a committed environmentalist in those days. He was committed to the cause of all the groups that now are a little bit disappointed in Mr Rae's performance. In fact, Earthroots, the group which springs from the Temagami experience, referred to this act as a fraud, as a greenwash. That's what Earthroots said. This is Temagami, folks: Bob Rae's act a fraud, a greenwash.

I suppose that if all those environmental groups don't like this act, industry must. I mean, that's conventional wisdom. Guess what? That's not the case. As we crossed northern Ontario, as we went from community to community, we found out from those folks, the people involved, the people who have to work in the forests of Ontario, that they shared the same views as the environmental organizations.

They wanted to know what sustainability was. They wanted to know that their community would be able to continue, that the jobs in their community would continue. They wanted to know that the forests would be available as a renewable resource for their children, their grandchildren, their great-grandchildren, and that the economy of their area would be stronger and better for this act.

They came to the conclusion, after looking at it, the large corporations, the small companies, the independent logger, that this in fact did nothing to help their communities. In many cases they decided that this act was a detriment to their jobs and to their livelihood. To testify to that, we only have to speak about the comments of the municipality of Kapuskasing, the comments of Hearst, maybe even one of my home communities of Espanola. All shared the very strong concern that this did not in any way create sustainability. The government to date still refuses to define sustainability in the purpose clause of this bill so that we can know what that fancy word really means. The key word of the title, "sustainability," is nowhere to be found.

As a matter of fact, one of the major concerns of the forest industries association is that they think that if outside international bodies look at this act, read this act carefully, they would conclude the exact opposite of what the minister has suggested. They would conclude that Ontario's forests are not being managed in a sustainable way and that therefore our products on international markets would be in big trouble.

1630

There are a number of processes going on all at the same time, and that's what makes us wonder what the absolute hurry is to get on with this act. Firstly, we know that the timber environmental assessment was recently -- well, in the spring -- completed and that it had, as part of it, a huge number of terms and conditions. Those terms and conditions were an assessment process that took years and years and years and cost millions and millions of dollars that determined what the proper ways to manage Ontario's forests were.

In this bill there is a good argument, and it is made by the Canadian Environmental Law Association and it is made by the Ontario Forest Industries Association, that this bill may trigger a forest environmental assessment; if it does, it will cost Ontarians millions and millions and millions of dollars and years and years in order to accomplish not very much, I would suggest.

So that's been happening. At the same time, the forest industries themselves have been working very hard at producing a green plan, producing operating plans for the way they do business, because they too are concerned not only with the environment but with meeting international standards and being able to prove to the international community that Ontario's forests are indeed managed in a sustainable fashion, and that process is ongoing. They have made remarkable improvements in the last five to 10 years in their practices and continue to do so.

At the same time, the federal government, in cooperation with the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, of which this minister presumably is a member, is working with the CSA, the Canadian Standards Association, to come up with guidelines and specification documents to assure international purchasers that Ontario forest products are indeed produced in an environmentally acceptable fashion, that our resource is renewed.

So there we have it. We have the environmental groups saying: "The minister won't define 'sustainability.' We don't think this act does what the minister says it does. We think the very title of this bill is a fraud, a greenwash." We have industry sharing their concern. It is not often that we have two groups which often the public sees as at opposite ends and having opposite goals agreeing almost line by line with what should be done, and yet this is the case in this particular piece of legislation.

I want to suggest to members that the crown, the government, is also not telling the whole story when they talk about forests in Ontario. This is a Crown Forest Sustainability Act. In the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, you would be surprised to know that it applies not to all crown forests; some are exempt. It also applies to private lands in some instances, where there is crown timber on those lands. It also applies to private sector mills that are using privately produced wood.

I would suggest that on all counts this act does not live up to its billing. The only reason that a government would be ramming this particular piece of legislation through the Legislature in this very undemocratic manner is for election purposes. It's to say, "Hey, we're in favour of sustainable forests." Well, who isn't? But there is no real reason for the haste with which the government is acting today.

If you look at the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and look at the Crown Timber Act, and in that particular comparison you factor in the terms and conditions from the timber EA and you factor in that the famous trust accounts which we hear so much about are already in existence --

Interjection.

Mr Brown: They exist. The Legislature dealt with the part of this act that deals with trust funds last spring in an omnibus bill. They're there. What that means to the people of Ontario is that we do not need to pass this act in haste because the trust funds that everybody is so fond of talking about were agreed to by all parties and the legislation was actually passed this spring. That's done.

The timber EA puts down virtually all the conditions that the minister might think of as environmental in this act. Therefore we have a situation where, what's left? I'll tell you what's left. What's left is a debate over tenure which certainly hasn't gone on long enough. There is no consensus. I have the lumbermen come to me and they suggest that there are improvements that need to be made to the tenure provisions in this act. I have the pulp and paper people come; they believe there are significant improvements to the tenure sections of this act.

The government does not appear to be listening to either one, and yet we believe there's consensus out there that could be reached, because the failure of reaching the consensus will mean, could mean, that the people involved in using Ontario's forests to their maximum capacity will be prohibited because of the way the tenure sections of this act read.

I know in my own constituency I have people on a regular basis, mostly small jobbers, coming to me and saying: "How do we get into this? We have the equipment. We're running out of wood. How do we get into this particular business or at least maintain our business at the level that it should be?" I don't have any easy answers, and certainly this act doesn't help me come up with some answers for how that's to happen.

I know that mills throughout the province are having problems with wood supply at this very minute and they are having problems with the tenure provisions in this act because it doesn't provide the kind of flexibility that needs to happen, and the kind of open process. One of the things I think about tenure that is extraordinarily important is for people in communities and in business to understand how an allocation is made, why one company gets it and the other company doesn't. There is nothing in this act that provides for an open process where people can understand how it is that one company or one individual is chosen over another.

Another contentious area is the licensing. We look at the licensing and we find that many people would like the portable sawmills all to be licensed. Others want exceptions. Some people believe that every mobile chipper needs to be licensed, and others believe there is no reason to license any of them.

We need to have the debate about best end use, which the government on many occasions has said, "This is not a debate we want to enter into," when we have raised that issue at committee. It does not seem to make a great deal of sense to send a 23-inch-diameter tree to the pulp mill instead of to the sawmill, where the chips would then be used but we would certainly supply Ontario with a lot of lumber.

1640

The industry is changing rapidly in terms of mechanization. There are great improvements going on out there and there's new challenges for government in this entire debate, but this bill does not resolve any of those.

I'm certain that if the government were to take some time to hold back from this railroad process to have this bill completed in this fall session -- this shortened fall session, as you would know, Madam Speaker -- and take the time, go out and chat some more with the stakeholders, it could resolve these commercial issues to the betterment of communities and workers in all parts of northern Ontario and, indeed, in all parts of this great province.

The minister and the parliamentary assistant are fond of talking about sustainability in terms of being defined by these massive regulations and manuals, and if we follow the manuals and we follow the regulations, we are to know what the minister really means by "sustainability." Well, we do know now -- because we've asked questions, and that's the wonderful thing about the committee process -- what that means.

We know that sustainability, to this government, means there will be less regeneration in the forest. The numbers are smaller than they were; there is no question. The ministry itself tells us there will be less money spent on regeneration, on tending, on all those things that make for a good forest. There's going to be less money spent on those, in spite of the fact that the timber environmental assessment called for more. But the minister's definition is "less is more." We're going to do less and we're going to achieve more. That is highly unlikely, but that is the minister's way of defining "sustainability."

It will also, remarkably, mean -- according to the assistant deputy minister -- that the forest will be more regulated; that we are going to have a larger bureaucracy; that we are going to have more people spending more time regulating what happens in the forest. I would like to believe that, in some ways, but in the fiscal constraints we happen to see ourselves in today, I don't think we can believe that. I don't think the minister is going to have the ability to put more people in the forest enforcing the laws. As a member in the mid-1990s, I wonder if anybody believes more regulation is actually going to work.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I would ask members who are having private conversations to keep their conversations low.

Mr Brown: I would suggest to you that an act that provides for less reforestation, less actual work -- the Treasurer shakes his head, no. But he should know, if he had been at the hearings, that your own ministry officials indicated you're going to spend less money on reforestation. There's going to be less done. There's going to be less artificial regeneration. That's what your ministry officials have told us and they have told us that there's going to be more regulation and we're going to spend money on bureaucrats. That is a remarkable statement for a government to make.

It isn't going to work. There isn't going to be enough money. Milord Hampton is not going to be able to extract from the fine Treasurer -- or Minister of Finance -- more money to actually do more regulation in the forest. These are the questions we have been asking over and over, trying to get some answers, trying to understand what these manuals that the minister has produced actually mean. What it means is: less reforestation, more bureaucracy and probably an international community that says, "If I look at those kinds of standards, I'm not going to certify Ontario timber or pulp and paper products." That's what those regulations actually mean. That's what this forest sustainability act actually says.

It doesn't deal with crown forests, because the ministry doesn't even really know what a crown forest is. I asked in that committee how many crown forests we have. You know what? They don't know. I asked them how many forest ecosystems we have in this province. You know what? They don't know.

This act is fluff, puff, greenwash, bad business. It is something that Ontarians cannot be happy with. It is something that could be worked on. The problem is an act that has been thrown together in haste. They had to work over the weekend in order to get the manuals out so the members could see them in time. They are being revised, revisited, on almost a daily basis. Members here are being asked to approve a pig in a poke. That's what it is.

Milord over there shakes his head. He's very happy with the ways things are going, but he knows, as the imperial authority of northern Ontario --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Explain to the voters. Are you in favour of the trust fund or are you opposed to the trust fund?

Hon Mr Hampton: Are you in favour of the trust fund or are you opposed to the trust fund, Mike?

Mr Brown: We have the minister again -- actually, two ministers, the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources -- talking about a trust fund that this Legislature approved in the spring of this year. We're in favour of trust funds. We don't need this act at this time. The terms and conditions of the EA spell out quite clearly what needs to be done.

The improvements to this act, if there are any -- and I guess we should give credit where credit is due. There is improvement to the scaling. Now, most Ontarians would say, "What are you talking about?" But we as northerners know it is the way you measure wood so that the crown can get its fair share of its dues and buyers will know what they get and sellers will be convinced that they got the proper measurement and the proper amount of money for the lumber or the wood products they've brought to whatever it happens to be, whether it's the pulp mill or the sawmill. That's what that's about. We think there are improvements in that area.

There you go, Minister, I have found something that's an improvement.

I am going to conclude my comments at this point. I'm going to say to the government, do not go forward with this closure motion. Don't do it. I believe the committee has worked well. If the government had come to this House when it should have come to this House, the bill would have been finished. It has been debated carefully at committee. The opposition has tried very hard to have the government make improvements. We haven't got many, but we have tried very hard to make improvements at the committee because industry does not like this bill, because environmental groups don't like this. Even your friends in the unions have not indicated very strong support, if any support, for this bill.

I want to tell you, we will be voting against this draconian closure motion. We will be voting against it because it is not in the interests of the province of Ontario, it is not in the interests of my constituents in Espanola and along the North Shore, it is not in the interests of anyone to proceed in this fashion. This bill could be done well if we had another six months to a year to work out the tenure areas, the areas regarding licensing, and provide an environmentally acceptable definition of sustainability in the purpose clause, where it should be, so that the goals would be established, so people would know when they meet those goals.

It seems to me that what the government should have done here was define what the goals are and permitted more latitude for the people of Ontario to meet those goals. The forest industry, the people working in northern Ontario, want to meet those challenges. They want to meet them in the most cost-effective way. They don't want to be regulated to death. They don't want their forest to suffer because of lack of proper regeneration, and that's what this act does.

We will continue to oppose this act. We believe it isn't in the interests of Ontarians. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for permitting me this time to speak.

1650

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): It's a pleasure to be able to address the House today on the closure motion that's before us. I just want to state from the outset that this party is very disappointed that the government felt it necessary to bring in closure. As has been mentioned before by previous speakers, the government decided to stay away from the regular parliamentary calendar and kept us away from the Legislature for up to four extra weeks, the reason being that there were only four major pieces of legislation and that was plenty of time to deal with it. It's very unfortunate that this is the 20th time since 1991 that this government has chosen to bring in time allocation, or closure, to public debate.

Interjection.

Mr Hodgson: I'm rather new at this, as people know, but as the Treasurer points out, they brought in closure this spring on Bill 91, which impacted upon rural Ontario, on the attempt to unionize the family farm. Now this fall we've seen four major pieces of legislation which will have a dramatic impact on the lives of people in Ontario.

Bill 163 deals with planning. That's a fundamental change to how this province will function in the future. It changes it from a market-driven process to a planning-driven process. Bill 173, on how we deliver health care, has major impacts on the lives of Ontario residents, and it changes with an ideological perspective that they need to own the means of production, that they have to own all the care delivery services in this province and change their incorporation and change their structure, instead of the government setting the standards and allowing for the delivery of services to be carried out by individual organizations that have historically proven their success at doing that. Bill 165 also saw closure, and now today we're forced with a motion that calls closure on a very important piece of legislation, Bill 171, which deals with crown forest sustainability.

When the government brought out the Crown Forest Sustainability Act back in June, we had a very short debate -- I believe it was only an hour to two hours -- on this bill at second reading. In our party we agreed to cooperate. It was an open process. We were briefed by ministry officials and we were very pleased at that.

This summer we started on public hearings, and it was well done. We had an extensive public hearing. We travelled throughout Ontario. The first two weeks were devoted to the north, both the northeast and the northwest, and I want to say that we had a number of delegations come before us that took time from their busy schedules to inform us on how this bill is going to impact on their particular field or in their communities.

We came back to Toronto and again had public hearings for another week, and then we had a week of clause-by-clause. Since the House resumed, we've carried on the committee work and we're at section 63. We're about three quarters of the way through, and there have been some improvements to this bill because of the clause-by-clause and because of the public consultation. Even as of last Thursday, I believe the government introduced three additional amendments which hopefully will improve this bill.

So what I can't understand is, why the rush? Why does this government wish to bring in closure -- three hours of debate, two hours on the closure and another hour at third reading -- for a piece of legislation which will literally affect the way communities operate and families in this province? There are over 60,000 people employed directly off the forest industries. I feel it's a disservice to the people of Ontario that they wouldn't allow for more public debate.

I can remember before I was involved in politics, Peter Kormos spoke for 17 hours himself on auto insurance. Surely the forestry industry deserves a public debate.

Hon Mr Wildman: That's why we changed the rules.

Mr Hodgson: The Minister of Environment mentions that they changed the rules. It sort of reminds me --

Hon Mr Hampton: If you'd been here, you would know why we changed the rules.

Mr Hodgson: It's kind of ironic that you would change the rules to limit public debate. The public send us to Queen's Park to represent their views and to have both sides of the issue discussed so that they can become more informed. If the government feels it is necessary to limit debate, what's the point of having this place?

I just want to remind the members, the committee work that we were on worked very effectively. There were time breaks because information had to be gathered. I can remember one instance in our committee hearings where we were talking about portable sawmills and exemption and we took a time out so the government could get its facts straight and it worked very well.

It was done in a non-partisan fashion, our committees, and I feel that they went ahead and we were making some improvement to the bill, because when this bill was introduced -- and I followed the minister's statements on this very closely. There is a need to change our Crown Timber Act, back from 1952, and it's not very often that the Minister of Natural Resources gets on the legislative agenda to make a major change affecting how we harvest resources or how that ministry works. We looked forward to these changes as an improvement.

I come from an area where tourism and logging are very important; forest cover is very important to the tourist industry; and the multi-use aspect of forests in Ontario are very important to the people I represent and to a lot of the communities in Ontario. He talked about the economic challenge that faced this province in terms of the forest industry. We've chosen to go ahead with a forest model based on the whole environment, an ecological approach of a forest ecosystem, and we welcomed that along with industry representatives, along with environmentalists, along with consumers. Everyone was looking forward to a positive change to help our industry. Our industry suffered a tough recession and hopefully we wanted to make it better.

The minister talked about the economic challenge of the multi-use and we've got anglers and hunters, environmentalists, logging companies and jobbers that all need to share this resource of the crown forests. What I'm disappointed in is that the government would go halfway and have a good title, call it sustainability, but then not put any of the teeth in it that both the environmental groups and industry were calling for. They've struggled hard throughout the timber EA process. They've gone further, I think, than the government's gone in trying to get a consensus on a land use plan for this province.

There are some improvements in this legislation that we're in favour of. Trust funds were brought in under Bill 160, an omnibus bill. Our party's been calling for that for a number of years, and I think the people of Ontario will appreciate that the funds that come off the forest and stumpage and area charges will be dedicated to make sure that there are forests there for future generations and that there are jobs available for future generations.

We totally support that and it's unfortunate -- I assume by now the government's already appointed a trustee. That was set up back in the spring and the number of funds will be dedicated and reported to the Legislature.

Hon Mr Wildman: We don't know whether the Liberals support it or not. They may well be supporting it.

Mr Hodgson: It's unfortunate that I'm not allowed to continue without the constant heckling from the front bench of the government side, but we supported that. The timber EA, those 120 recommendations, they had to be implemented; we supported that. The citizens' committees, getting more local involvement in the use of our forests; we supported that.

What's distressing is that we have a real opportunity here to make this bill better to work for future generations. The government itself is bringing out amendments in the last week to try to improve on this legislation, and I don't believe they have it right yet.

We've listened to a number of groups that have concerns about tenure, about the changing from agreements to licensing, and if we want to truly help and make what the government's claiming is an act that's going to be sustainable in terms of an ecosystem approach but also sustainable in terms of jobs associated with our crown forests, then it's important that we recognize that there are some factors that'll make our industry competitive with the international community, and that equals job security for these communities and the workers.

I believe the challenge is that we have to take our time and still work where the industry and the environmental groups and the local communities are involved, and try to make it so that there are standards and objectives that will be achieved by the word "sustainability", so that we have a benchmark which we can take around the world and say to the European market or to the American market: "Here's what a sustainable forest means. Here's the benchmark." We need better information in terms of GIS systems and inventories, and then show them this is how we're going to achieve sustainability in the future.

That's what the industry's working for. That's what the environmentalists want. I don't understand why the government didn't set those standards in this bill. It would have taken a little more time but surely that's necessary. There's the concern --

Hon Mr Hampton: Read the manuals.

Mr Hodgson: He says to read the manuals. The manuals, as you know, are over a thousand pages long.

Hon Mr Hampton: Take a speed-reading course.

1700

Mr Hodgson: We have read them and you can ask the government members in the ministry. I have taken the time and read those on behalf of my constituents and the people of Ontario. What's distressing about the manuals, and I can use just one quick example, and that's section 42, we're talking about the fees that come off the crown that we're due. The people of Ontario own the crown land and they want to be paid for the resources taken off that in terms of stumpage fee. The way you do that is by the Scaling Manual.

We set out in the Scaling Manual a separate section talking about the ministry standards that will be subjected to. Then, at the end of that we insert a clause that says the minister may override that and do something else. The act is filled with "the minister may" statements. It's fine if you're the minister, but if you want this act to be truly sustainable for future generations, then you want to ensure that it's sustainable. Why would you exempt all of the manuals with "the minister may" statements? That's been brought up time and time again by numerous people who have appeared before us throughout the province.

When we discuss the bill in third reading, even though it's an hour's debate, I'll go into more detail on the exact bill, but I would like to go back to the reason why we'd have closure. Why would a government want to avoid public scrutiny of a major piece of legislation that it's constantly going to try to spin to the public as its campaign pledge to help northern Ontario? This government's Agenda for People promised a four-lane highway throughout the north -- "$100 million is going to be set aside to four-lane the north of our province." Four and a half years later I don't imagine they'll be running on that fulfilled promise.

I read last week in the paper: "Rae Woos Workers: Predicts $1B Investment in Forestry." Now, the government is trying to spin that this new act is somehow related to the billion dollars in new investment. I'd submit that it probably has more to do with the market than it has to do with any particular workings of this government or this Legislature.

One could, equally plausibly, spin from a Conservative point of view that the reason why there's a projected $1-billion investment in forestry is because we're going to have an election and the Conservative Party is going to form the next government. If we wanted to engage a bunch of high school students into spin-doctoring every little movement in the economy, we could do that. However, I believe that our time is better spent if we would have a public debate where the public could watch and understand for itself how this bill is going to affect its communities.

I have people who earn their living in forestry, the small jobbers, and they want to know: "How will this bill impact on our crown units? What resources will be available to bring auditing plans up to scratch to produce these five-year plans?" This would have been brought out in the public debate in the Legislature. There are a few of us who spent the time in the committee that heard it, but that has to be explained to the public in a detailed way and maybe improved upon with its input.

The government feels that somehow it doesn't need to have the scrutiny of this House on legislation. It's sort of like the movie Apocalypse Now. Their minds were clear, they knew what had to done and yet they didn't want to bear looking at what the results of their policies were on the people of Ontario, so they put themselves in the dark to limit public debate.

The social engineers can see clearly that they want to change the Planning Act, they want to change how long-term care and our health system delivered service in this province and they want to change the WCB, but they don't want to bear the public scrutiny of that, to see the consequences that's going to have on the families it affects.

I would have thought the government, with all its hype about this forestry act, would want to brag about it, would want to have extended hearings on it, have public debate to try to improve it so they could truly go out to the international world and say, "Yes, we have all products from Ontario coming from sustainable forests." At first in committee, and I've mentioned this in the House many times, that boast has to be backed up by substance.

We might be able to spin out for a little 30-second clip in an election campaign that we're for sustainable forests, but to meet the international market requirements that all wood products coming from Ontario are from sustainable forests. There has to be some proof, there has to be some substance, and that's all I think the industry was asking for, that's all the environmental groups were asking for, that's all the PC caucus was asking for.

The manuals are enabling legislation. We're not opposed to that. That will allow for it not to be a cookbook, as the minister likes to refer to it, but there should've been some goals set. For instance, back in 1929 we had the concept of sustainable yield. There's no place in this legislation where it refers specifically and says that there should be a sustainable yield. They've taken that out of the old Crown Timber Act.

Hon Mr Hampton: We've moved beyond that.

Mr Hodgson: They've moved beyond it, the minister says. They've moved beyond any reality. We're dealing in the land of spin.

Overall, I believe that this bill as it's presently written does not meet the economic challenge that has been set forward by the international community, it does not meet the economic challenge that I believe workers need to have job security in this industry and it does not meet the ecological challenge of having an ecosystem approach to crown forestry.

It does have a good title. It'll make a nice 30-second clip or a page in a brochure in an election campaign, but I don't believe it's going to meet the test of time unless we make some improvements to it, and those improvements, quite frankly, will take some time. The timber environmental assessment took a number of years, but they were getting close to a consensus in this province on how we want to use our crown resources.

The minister mentioned that the other challenge was the aboriginal question. This bill doesn't address that. This bill says in section 5 that it will not abrogate from any of the claims. In section 20 it talks about their ability to enter into a joint exercise of authority under this part. That just says they may; "the minister may" consult.

He talks about the environmental challenge. We've heard from numerous speakers today that the environmental groups, the people of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, feel that this legislation might lead to another environmental assessment hearing because the first one just dealt with timber and this new act is to deal with more than timber.

Hon Mr Hampton: Do you agree with CELA?

Mr Hodgson: I would really hope that the minister's lawyers are correct when they assured us that there would not be an environmental assessment hearing after that. I don't know what they're backing that up with. I hope it's got some substance to it and it's not just more spin that, "Don't worry, be happy, this'll all work out."

Hon Mr Hampton: That was the Kim Campbell line.

Mr Hodgson: I see another party that's trying that line out itself that is probably headed for the same fate. I'm surprised that they would take their political lessons from Kim Campbell, but so be it.

Hon Mr Hampton: Be careful.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): You can become an endangered species too.

Mr Hodgson: The member for Durham East talks about endangered species. I was wondering if he was applying to the minister for a licence to hunt Tories, as he was talking about last week in this House. They're going to have a quota on that.

Back to this bill. There's no need for closure. This bill should be debated in its entirety. There's time. They could've called us back five weeks earlier. I'm concerned now that maybe the government doesn't believe that there is any substance to this bill, as the groups that have appeared before us said, and that that's why they don't want it held up for the public's scrutiny.

We on this side of the House have tried to cooperate with the government, have tried to make improvements to it. It's a very important piece of legislation that should proceed in a timely fashion, but it doesn't need to have closure invoked upon it.

I'm surprised that a government in the last year of its mandate would invoke closure on four major pieces of legislation before the break. This House might not reconvene before the next election, and they're going to go to the people of Ontario and say, "This is what we've done," but not allowing any public debate on this particular important piece of legislation.

This affects over 60,000 workers, tourist outfitters, the public of Ontario; it's their crown land. We allowed over 17 hours of debate by one member on auto insurance but only one hour on this important piece of legislation that affects a large portion of the province and is of particular concern to rural Ontario.

1710

Connected to this bill, I'd just like to talk about another subject, and that has to do with the private forest lands. Twenty per cent of our wood that comes out of Ontario and goes to foreign markets or is used internally comes from private lands. In the hardwood species of veneer and higher-quality woods, it's about 40%.

What the minister has done -- and I want to thank him for this; he's addressed the problem in a way -- is come out with a private land sustainability act. He's put in $2 million of resources to try to ensure that wood that comes off of private lands is sustainable.

Unfortunately, they've missed the underlying problem. The underlying problem is not for people who have the land and can afford to keep it. The problem is with the assessment. You can't afford to keep the land with trees on it because of the assessment. He's redeployed 50 MNR workers who go out and supervise this program. They're going to set up local citizens' committees.

Interjection.

Mr Hodgson: What we're talking about, Mr Minister, is that you're going to dedicate 50 MNR staff to administer a $2-million program. If the average salary with costs is $50,000, that's $2.5 million to administer a $2-million program. When the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs was asked at a recent Ontario Federation of Agriculture convention about the managed forest tax rebate on woodlots, his response was, "My ministry saves programs that help people in rural Ontario." I'm paraphrasing. "The Minister of Natural Resources chose a different route."

To meet their expenditure control reduction targets, they chose to cancel a program instead of reducing the size of their bureaucracy. At the time, we were told that it was because of tight fiscal times. They had to make ends meet and so they cancelled the managed forest tax rebate program which helped small woodlot owners and people in rural Ontario. They recognized the inequality in the assessment system, similar to farm lands, and had a way to make it so it was viable to grow trees to make sure that there was sustainable forest on the private lands.

This ministry missed the point on that and has brought out another bureaucratic forum to educate people who can already afford to own their land and have trees on how to make it better. They've missed the point that affording the land with trees on it is the underlying problem, not that they need to be told how to grow trees or replant them.

I'm surprised that you'd have 50 people in the MNR who could be redeployed. Quite frankly, if you had 50 employees whom you could redeploy, why wasn't that put towards the expenditure reduction targets set forth in 1992-93, as the Minister of Agriculture did?

Our party is on the record as supporting the managed forest tax rebate as a bandage until we change the assessment. I've heard a lot of howling recently about what the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution would do in terms of rural Ontario. I want to just set the record straight. We're talking about $6 billion in cuts over three years. They're clearly laid out. They're mentioned and itemized. If they're not there, they're not included, and there is no place where it mentions the Ministry of Natural Resources. It doesn't mean that we won't make it more efficient and make it work better for the people of Ontario, but we're not talking about cutting programs that help rural communities.

The underlying thing is that we've an opportunity at this point in our history with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act to make it better, to make it work for both industry and the people. Unfortunately, this government's choosing not to do that. They want to ram through closure when they have an opportunity, if they could take a little more time, to get a consensus on a land use plan for this province that would be sustainable and would have targets that are met, so that we can show the international community that yes, all products coming from Ontario are from sustainable forests.

That's why I'll be voting against this closure motion. I would hope that before third reading -- at the rate we're going, there are about three amendments a day every time we brought this motion before the committee -- maybe there'll be three or four more amendments from the government side that might make it a little bit better. But we'll have to decline our support for the passing of this bill when it comes unless there are substantial changes in the next few days.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Chris, are you a Red Tory?

Mr Hodgson: In response to the Treasurer's comment, I would like to say that the best favour this government could give in terms of helping our forest industry in those communities is to try to improve the competitiveness, and that could be done by a tax reduction that we talk about, real WCB reform, not just sugar-coating, cutting the red tape and the regulations and allowing our industry to get on with it and meet the standards that they're setting for themselves in multiple use.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Is there any further debate on this motion before the House? Seeing none -- there is further debate? I gather there is someone who would like to speak. Mr Wood.

Mr Wood: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was going to just --

The Acting Speaker: I will allow the parliamentary assistant to wrap up shortly, but I will recognize the member for Renfrew North first.

Mr Wood: Okay. Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Listen, I appreciate the forbearance.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: My point is simply this, and I just want it noted for the record: There have been times in this place where, when you've gone around that way, we've missed our turn, right? And I guess it should be noted in the record that there is a special provision that you're applying today in going back to the Liberal member and allowing him to speak, if you choose to do that.

The Acting Speaker: I want to clarify that we have to use our judgement. I did believe that there were further speakers on this motion and I did want to allow that little bit of leeway. I appreciate the member's concern. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: Thank you very much. I apologize for being at another place when this bill was winding down. The member from Victoria, whose remarks I was watching briefly, touched on some of the ground that I want to touch on. I'm glad to hear the Minister of Finance recognizing that forestry and the Crown Timber Act as we're revising it here are a very important part of the economic life in the upper Ottawa Valley.

I have been concerned, quite frankly, as I know other members have, about where this bill has come to rest relative to where we all began. I have been struck by the hearings that took place over the course of August and September. The government began, and I know it was the expectation of the minister, that there might be a fair degree of consensus around certain of these issues. I was perhaps a little less sanguine than the member from Rainy River in that respect, but I think the government's enthusiasm was to be commended.

In listening to and in reading the transcripts of the summer hearings, I note that by the end of that process it seemed to be the case that near unanimity had been reached by the various intervenors as to the difficulties posed by the new bill. I think it is fair to say that a goodly number of the licensees, environmentalists and others who submitted briefs to the parliamentary committee looking at this bill were of a view that it was not supportable for, I gather, I say to my friend the esteemed member for Algoma-Manitoulin, a variety of reasons.

It is no small achievement for this minister, with this policy, to have brought the environmentalists and the Ontario Forest Industries Association together in opposition to the bill. I can tell you that in my area of eastern Ontario, in communities like Pembroke and Stonecliffe and Eganville and Palmer Rapids and Barry's Bay, this Crown Timber Act is about as important a public policy as one can find in terms of touching upon the daily economic life of thousands of Ontario residents.

They are concerned, in my part of Ontario, about the fact that the minister's policy is about as permissive a policy as it is possible to imagine. I think we have an obligation as legislators to be somewhat specific in terms of our intentions. It is true that a number of governments and a number of ministers over the years have offered up what might be considered bromides, but I have to say that this policy and this bill are about as open to interpretation as one could imagine.

1720

If I'm a small licensee in northern Ontario or in the Ottawa Valley, I might look at this and say: "What can I expect? What does this policy intend by way of new direction?" I just don't mean bromides. What does it mean in terms of specific new directions; what is the framework and what are the constraints it is going to impose upon me?

Well, I know this much: The Howard Hampton policy is going to increase a number of my costs. It is certainly going to increase stumpage; it is certainly going to increase regulation. That I know, but a whole host of other issues that I need to know, that will give me some comfort and some certainty as I consider investing in new plant and equipment or in considering new silvicultural or reforestation policies, I don't know.

I am told that I should read the manuals of administration. I look at the manuals and I see what I might only describe as the Delphic oracle. It can mean everything or it can mean nothing. That really worries me, particularly if I've had any experience with bureaucrats, whether they were serving a Tory, Liberal or NDP administration.

I say to my friends on the treasury bench that it is not good public policy to leave so much open to bureaucratic or administrative fiat and interpretation. That is not going to give the good people of Dubreuilville or Alban or Espanola the kind of comfort and certainty they are going to want and need if they're going to continue to do what those of us who represent the natural resource regions of the province expect, namely, to continue to invest in economic growth and development.

I want to be very clear that there is, I think, a recognition on all sides that the old act needed a change, that the rules -- I can tell you that forest operators in my part of eastern Ontario complain about some of the differential policy that allows certain practices, say in Algoma, and very different and sometimes much more restrictive practices in the Ottawa Valley. They say to me --

Hon Mr Wildman: That's changing, though, Sean.

Mr Conway: Well, my friend the Minister of Environment and Energy says that's changing, and I think it is, but what I want to be able to say to my people is, "This is more specifically how that change is going to affect you."

The difficulty I have and the concern I have as I stand here tonight is, if I were to go tomorrow to a meeting of the Renfrew county sawmillers in Palmer Rapids and face the question, "How is this going to specifically affect me? How is this going to change the way I do business in this part of Ontario?" I'd have to say this: "Your stumpage is going up. The regulatory framework is going to become more complex and undoubtedly more expensive and you are going to be expected to carry more of that cost."

I would also know, with some certainty, although the government hasn't advertised it, that there will be an ongoing devolution from the commissioner of crown lands, the sainted member for Rainy River, to the private sector. There is no doubt that this policy intends a serious and significant and costly devolution. That much I could predict with some certainty.

But beyond that, I would not be able to give very much guidance to somebody like a Gord Mills who, we all know, runs a very fine operation, let us say, in west Renfrew county or in the Rolphton-Stonecliffe area, and he's the only game in town. He employs 35 people, and if Gord Mills and company is not working, these people are going to be over to see Silipo to get some kind of social assistance. We don't want that, do we? We want those people working.

But it has to be said, and I don't know whether anybody in the pantheon of social democracy understands this, that if you're going to make an investment in new plant and equipment or an investment to shore up old plant and equipment, certainty around key questions must be provided to the greatest extent possible.

You know, when we see some of the things that the sainted Minister of Natural Resources has done, at least in my area, when we look at some of the intrusiveness, some of the theological rigour with which he has pursued his mandate, and we marry that to the wide-open permissiveness of this policy as set out in the manuals of administration, boy, it is not the stuff of confidence that will, I think, stimulate people to make those investments that we are going to need.

Hon Mr Hampton: They are.

Mr Conway: Ah, my friend says they are. Well, to some extent he's right. I could argue perhaps in a partisan way that it is the expectation of a new day about to dawn in the spring of 1995 that encourages those people to make some of those investments.

But I just simply want to say in conclusion that the bill, I think, is seriously flawed because it is too vague, it is too open-ended, it is clearly going to add to uncertainty I think in ways that are not going to be helpful, and I think it sets up some conflict and some confrontation that is unnecessary. It will also impose costs on people who are being told that in fact this bill was about to deliver something much more positive and much more warm in terms of its impact.

Hon Mr Hampton: More Liberal doom and gloom.

Mr Conway: Well, I leave my comments at that.

The Speaker: The member's time, unhappily, has expired.

Mr Conway: I want to congratulate my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, the young John Robarts, for leading our party in a very important matter of public policy.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm going to be very brief tonight. Last week, when I was about to stand and debate the bill which was supposedly called Clearing the Path, which spoke to, supposedly, the needs of small businesses in this province, about a minute before I rose to debate that, we found out that the government was going to lay down its third time allocation motion since we've been back in this session, which started on October 31. Today I'm rising on the fourth time allocation motion.

We have had 20 time allocation motions in the lifespan of this government, in four and a half years.

Interjection: That's a record.

Mr Turnbull: It is a complete record. One cannot help but cast one's mind back. I wasn't in this House, but I remember watching the Legislature and seeing Bob Rae when he was the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed the leader of the third party. He would always assure us that in fact they would respect democracy and that a new day would dawn for Ontario because they understood democracy and somehow they had a corner on truth and light and wisdom. They believed in substantive debate of all issues.

As I mentioned last week, at the time the closure motion on the workers' compensation bill was dropped on the table some one minute before I rose to debate Clearing the Path, I pointed out the fact that, in opposition, the member for Welland-Thorold had debated for some 17 hours. After the 17-hour marathon the now Premier, Bob Rae, went and embraced that member for his marathon effort in defending a position that an opposition party had which didn't agree with the government of the day.

I believe it is vital that opposition parties retain the ability to be able to oppose legislation that their constituents don't believe in and that indeed the vast majority of Ontarians don't believe in. That's the whole reason that we have the democratic process, that we have the checks and balances. But this government has had a corrosive effect on the democratic process, because it has introduced in this Legislature a system which has allowed it to virtually stifle all debate by the opposition.

1730

This is the 20th time allocation motion since this government took power and it is the fourth time allocation motion since we came back on October 31. At the time that the House rules were changed under this government, the government of the day, which restricted debate, the government House leader explained in very sanctimonious terms that this government would maybe use it once or twice during the lifetime of the government, yet this is the 20th time allocation motion.

When I rise today to speak on this time allocation motion, I'm not going to speak in any depth about the aspects of this bill, because this indeed is a bill which affects rural members and rural residents more than obviously it affects urban members. I'm speaking about the corrosive effect of this government on democracy.

We're some five weeks late in coming back to the Legislature and we're rising one week early. Surely if the government believed it was essential to get legislation before the House and passed before we rise for the Christmas break, it would have been appropriate to come back at the properly appointed time. If my memory serves me correctly, it was the New Democrats who always were most in favour of having a fixed legislative agenda, yet it is this government in fact that is showing the least respect for the concept of a fixed legislative timetable. We know it matters not a jot what the timetable suggests; they will move forward and they will do whatever they want in order to get their legislation through.

Let me just read some of the NDP time allocation motions.

Hon Mr Laughren: Chris, he's not a red Tory.

Mr Turnbull: I hear the Minister of Finance shouting that I'm not a red Tory. Indeed, sir, you're right. Indeed you are.

Prior to this time allocation motion, the last one was on November 22, which was the WCB bill, Bill 165, in which there was an enormous number of amendments introduced, not only by the opposition but by the governing party. There was a stack of paper about an inch thick of amendments brought by the three parties to this piece of legislation, which was truly flawed. In fact, the people who had come before us in committee had told us how flawed it was. Yet having brought in all of these amendments, the government said: "We're not interested in your debating in detail in committee the various amendments. We're going to deem them all to have been read, for the committee meeting to finish, and we're going to bring it back to the House for one day of hearings," which in fact was two hours and 30 minutes. Two hours and 30 minutes in third reading, with well over 100 amendments, and the majority of those amendments had not in fact been dealt with by the committee which was charged with the duty of viewing it.

On November 17 we had the time allocation motion on the long-term-care bill, Bill 173. Once again there were two hours and 30 minutes allowed for the House to analyse in third reading and debate in third reading all of the amendments that had been made, notwithstanding the fact that 95% of the people who came forward to the committee to make depositions didn't agree with the government's legislation. It didn't matter a jot. They simply brought in time allocation. The fact is, people of Ontario didn't agree with the government, so they were closing them down.

On November 2 there was a time allocation motion on Bill 163, the so-called Sewell bill. They were most generous this time. They allowed us three hours of debate on third reading, and there were innumerable amendments at that time.

The list goes on. June 8 we had the agricultural labour relations bill. They brought in a time allocation motion.

Mr Stockwell: Unionizing the family farms, you mean.

Mr Turnbull: Indeed, my colleague from Etobicoke West correctly rechristens it "unionizing the family farms."

The list goes on and on, and that raises a very interesting aspect about the whole of the carriage of legislation by this government. They have incredible people who name the bills that we have in this House. We should in fact have a minister of good titles of bills, because it's brilliant. There are not many things I will say of this government are brilliant, but they are brilliant at naming bills, because they talk about this bill in terms of sustainable forestry. How could you possibly disagree with a government that is bringing in a bill to ensure sustainability in forestry?

But does it do that? No. No, it doesn't do that. We have a bill which has, in addition to the bill, some 1,000 pages of regulations and various manuals attached to it, and yet they're ramming this bill through. We have no way of being able to analyse this in depth.

The government is losing out at almost every turn, in terms of its agenda, in terms of public perception. So what does it do? It closes down debate.

This bill clearly places too much power in the hands of the minister. It gives wide discretion to the minister and the various apparatchiks who work for the minister to be able to rule, as my colleague the member for Renfrew North calls it, by fiat.

There's a great danger. We know from history that all governments that have ruled by fiat eventually crumble and decay. Well, the decay has already set in to a very extensive degree with this government and they're desperately trying to get legislation through before they're swept away forever. It's going to be one small blip in the history of this province, but it will be a black blip. It will be one that people will look back at and say, "This is where we stepped back to very, very dark days, before there was very much democracy in the world."

So we have a bill which utterly refuses to define what "sustainability" is in a purpose clause, which should truly be what we have in a purpose clause so that when somebody looks at the title of a bill, they can indeed understand what is meant. But we don't have that. We don't have anything satisfactory. So the government goes back to its old habit of closing down debate, the 20th time that they've moved time allocation in this Parliament, as compared with four times that the Liberals did in five years they were in office and three times that the Conservatives ever did it.

Gentlemen across, and there are a couple of ladies across the way, think about that. The Conservatives used time allocation on three occasions ever, ever, ever. But you indeed have used it 20 times.

Mr Stockwell: In this week they've used it more than the Tories ever did.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, that's true.

1740

Mr Stockwell: Last week, they used it as many times as the Tories did in 42 years in office.

Mr Turnbull: That's an interesting comparison. My colleague says that last week the NDP used time allocation as many times as the Tories did in all of their 42 years. With that, I will end. Think about it, folks.

Mr Stockwell: I appreciate the opportunity that I've been given to speak, specifically I think, in my estimation, to the time allocation motion. We must understand what is being time allocated before we can have what I think is a healthy and vigorous debate about the time allocation motion, and to understand what you're being time allocated, you have to understand how much time this Legislature -- I'm sorry the minister is not here because I think he should hear this -- has spent debating this piece of legislation, because when a government is going to go ahead and move time allocation, they're doing so because they're suggesting to the public out there and to the viewers watching that they haven't got cooperation from the opposition and they're stalling, filibustering, using all kinds of devious and underhanded methods to ensure a government doesn't get its legislation passed in this august chamber.

If that is the basis and understanding for why time allocation is a necessary evil in the democratic process, we then should look at how much time we as a Legislature have spent -- and I say this to the members opposite so you have a good understanding about exactly what you're voting on here. We should have a good understanding about how much time we have spent debating this most broad and wide-ranging piece of legislation that will affect not just millions of people but millions and millions of acres of property in this province.

So you'd think that this kind of bill has probably been before this Legislature for maybe years. I know in some cases the Liberal Party and previous Conservative Party in government in fact had legislation before this place for years. In fact, years were spent in the process from first reading to when it was third reading, adopted; years, not weeks, not months, years. A lot of the reason was that this party in opposition insisted on full and frank and open debate when it came to broad, wide-ranging changes in legislation.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Why are you yelling?

Mr Stockwell: I'm yelling because I'm mad, I say to the member from Woodstock. I'm very angry.

That was good, because that was the democratic process. During those periods of time some pieces of legislation were changed, and things that weren't good about them were removed. Changes were made in those debates that sometimes lasted two and three years. Now we talk about this piece of legislation.

The member for Lambton's upset. I apologize. I think I've woken her.

How long have we been debating this piece of legislation? This government introduced this in June; June of this year, in the last session. That's when they introduced this piece of legislation; first time anybody saw this, June of this year.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Blah, blah, blah.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Yorkview, I know he's got some friends out there. He wasn't -- well, I won't say it.

I know in June of this year it was introduced. So what happened in June? Everybody wanted to get cracking on this thing. You know how much time we spent debating this on second reading? I look across the floor. The member for Oxford, the wide-ranging, broad, understanding member for Oxford, who one day, if this party sits for 15 years, will be in cabinet, I ask him: How much time did we spend debating this bill for second reading? Do you remember?

No, he doesn't remember. One hour. That's how much time was spent debating this broad policy change and supplying wide, broad powers to the minister that have never been had before, one hour of debate at second reading, because we in opposition said: "This is an important bill. We have to get some input. We have to hear from the public. We want to be sure that this thing does do the things that you think it should do and we think it should do. Let's get out and hear from the public." One hour in June, second reading.

In the intersession, they had a committee. You know how long they met?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Yes.

Mr Stockwell: Now, the member for Oxford, he remembers this. That's why it's going to be 15 years for him, but he remembers this. In that intersession, we had three weeks of hearings around this province. This broad, wide-ranging policy decision changes --

Mr Turnbull: That's 12 days, isn't it?

Mr Stockwell: We had 12 sessional days to hear from the public and all those affected parties.

Then what did we have for this 83-section piece of legislation? We had four days to do clause-by-clause -- four days. Then the House leader said, "Holy smokes," in caucus or cabinet, "look at how long we've spent on this. It's been, oh, a few hours. We have to have this bill. We can't let people just go on talking forever," although cumulatively in total they had a member stand in this House for 17 hours on one bill.

We were allowed to debate this thing on second reading for one hour, and on third reading they doubled it. They gave us another hour. Two hours. Two hours of debate on this legislation, and you sit there and you tell me you must move closure because it's not moving along fast enough. Shame on every one of you and all the people that are affected by this.

They then have the nerve, when we go about this province travelling for three weeks to hear from the public, they allow one week for clause-by-clause.

Mr Mammoliti: Do we have to put up with this, Mr Speaker?

Mr Sutherland: How many hours in committee?

Mr Stockwell: Holy smokes. The member for Oxford's chiming in, "How many hours of committee?" Three weeks, Mr Member. Three weeks in committee, one week in clause-by-clause. There were pieces of legislation before you and I got here -- I looked -- that took two and three years to be processed through this place, because your government, your party, I'm saying to the member for Oxford, who I'm sure is next on the hit list to get into cabinet, I say to the member for Oxford, because your party insisted that it couldn't pass these pieces of legislation without it being on the table before the Legislature for two and three years.

Don't shake your head. Go look it up. As Don Cherry says, you don't need to be a rocket surgeon to figure that one out. I'm sure he could even do it.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Do you think Don Cherry knows what he's talking about?

Mr Stockwell: The member for Lambton says, "Do you think Don Cherry knows what he's talking about?" Nothing goes above her head, I'll say that for her.

The point that needs to be made is, this government, for the fourth time since we got back, because they couldn't get out of bed and come to work for four weeks, have moved closure of a bill, moved closure on another piece of legislation, and it's shameful that you, as Speaker, have to sit there and allow this abuse to the democratic process to continue. It's absolutely shameful.

I myself am absolutely ashamed of this government and our capitulation to change the rules, because I remember very clearly the House leader, Mr Cooke, said to us, "Only in extravagant, outrageous situations would we even think about moving closure," whereas on 20 separate occasions it became extravagant and outrageous enough that they had to move closure.

The most damning bit of evidence was offered up from the member for York Mills at the end of his speech. This party was in power in this province for 42 years. In 42 years we moved closure three times -- three times in 42 years. In one week alone, they moved closure four times, and 20 times altogether. Now, they wonder --

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm afraid the member for Etobicoke West is going to burst a vein or something. Could you get him a glass of water?

The Speaker: Water is on its way.

Mr Stockwell: They time allocate these motions. Then they have the nerve to stand up, like the member for Yorkview does, and interrupt you with a kind of silly, offhanded comment that he alone is allowed to give in this place because his party won't even give him time to answer questions or speak in the Legislature. That's shameful. If you're going to have the nerve to move closure, then stop interrupting when those salient points such as these --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: And the member from Woodstock, the ex -- Woodstock. Is it Woodstock? I forget. I know the slipper fell out of her mouth and the prince picked it up. That's what I remember about her. The member across the floor keeps yacking at me during a closure motion when her government has allowed one hour of debate on second reading and one hour of debate on third reading. Have they no shame, I mean, absolutely no shame, to sit in this place and heckle a member opposite for the limited amount of time we're given to debate a closure motion before this Legislature? They have the nerve to stand up and move silly points of order and cackle like the member for Perth does.

1750

It's extremely frustrating to see these closure motions continue. They think that usurping the democratic process somehow shows how mighty a government they have. You know, there's only one thing that protects the people of this province from majority governments, and that's opposition. The opposition parties are supposed to be given fair and even treatment by the Speaker and the government.

We are put in this place representing constituents across this province who elected us. Whether you like it or not, they elected us and we are representing individuals and positions that may be different from the government's. The protection is that those in opposition be given the due process and the right to speak out against government decision-making. When a government like this goes about moving closure on 20 separate occasions, and four times in the last week, it does nothing but usurp and downgrade the democratic process which we were elected to protect.

I'm offended by this closure motion. I know the people who want to debate this are offended by the closure motion. I'm offended specifically because there is not good reason to move this. There was never good reason to move this.

Mr Perruzza: Chris, all I say is, shame on Derwyn Shea.

Mr Stockwell: I look at the member for Downsview. Mr Member, I remember you on local council. I think I remember you very clearly talking about members being quieted down and not being given an opportunity to speak. You were always defending the right to speak, as I recall.

I recall this government in opposition, defending people's rights to speak to bills and defending their opportunities and even having one of their own members stand in this place for 17 hours. That member stood here for 17 hours on one piece of legislation. In total on this bill, this government is allowing all opposition members two hours of debate: one hour on second reading and one hour on third reading. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that statement, if you don't see the hypocrisy in 20 closure motions and if you don't see the hypocrisy in that kind of attitude, then I think you're not looking very hard and I say to the members opposite that I find it offensive.

The other fact that needs to be remembered here is that this is a government that represents 37.8% of the population; 62.2% is represented on this side of the House. That operation on that side of the house, which wanted to protect the democratic process in opposition, which had the nerve to get their House leader to stand up in this place and say things like, "We'll only move closure once or twice. We can't imagine it possibly being any more than that," then had 20 separate occasions where they moved it, and in fact moved it in this instance with two hours' debate in this place. That's unbelievable.

I look to the Treasurer. Two hours of public debate on a policy initiative like this and you think that's fair comment, you think that's good opposition, you think that's democracy? There are banana republics out there that give you more time to oppose them than two hours. That's the kind of thing you're giving us -- two hours.

Hon Mr Laughren: How about the committee? What about the committee?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Twenty-five hours of committee.

Mr Stockwell: They talk about committee. What was done at committee, I say to the ex-Minister of Transportation? What was done at committee? We spent the time at committee hearing from the constituents across this province and hearing and addressing their concerns. You're supposed to hear from these people. Then you're supposed to spend time in clause-by-clause dealing with amendments offered up by all parties.

Mr Sutherland: They did.

Mr Stockwell: No, four days in clause-by-clause and a closure motion comes down from this government saying, "You spent way too much time talking about this," which was one hour on second reading and four days in clause-by-clause. How can you defend that, Mr Oxford? How can you defend that action? It's absurd.

The other insulting part about this whole debate is, this is the same government that won't come back to work for five weeks. They won't come back to work into this place for five weeks. This is the place where the people want us to be. This is the place where governments are accountable. You're accountable here, Mr Treasurer. Don't pretend you're not. This is where governments come; this is where governments are supposed to be to be accountable to the people, because you're accountable to us and you're accountable to the people who elected us.

This is the same government that's got the nerve not to come back to work for five weeks, not showing up to deal with the issues that need to be dealt with, which then says, when it finally shows up for work: "We don't have enough time to deal with everything. We've got to move closure on four of the most important bills we're dealing with in this session." Then, as of yesterday, apparently of the 69 members they have, 42 weren't even here -- 42 members across the floor.

This government is not even a lame-duck government any more; it's a dead-duck government. It's not even a lame duck. They've got no new ideas. They have no new initiatives. Any piece of legislation they happen to have on the legislative calendar they simply move closure on. It's time to come back to work and they get lost for five weeks. They can't find their way back here, then they get mad at us for coming in, with two hours of debate, and say, "You're filibustering." We used 120 minutes to debate this bill and apparently, according to the House leader, we're taking too long, on 120 minutes. It's absolutely shameful.

Mr Sutherland: Don't forget the 100 hours.

Mr Stockwell: Then we've got Oxford back here telling us, "Oh, don't forget you went out on committee." Committee was to hear the people, Oxford, then we're supposed to debate it. No wonder you're not in the cabinet, for heaven's sake.

It's just so frustrating. They tell us we're having a committee hearing to travel the province and he wants to count that as time of legislative debate. We had one week for clause-by-clause to deal with all the amendments they bring, like on Bill 163, the Sewell commission report, that they moved closure on last week.

They told us, "Okay, here are 118 amendments to a bill, 118 amendments, and we're going to move closure on it," because the guy who wrote the original bill couldn't get it right, so they had to change the whole thing. Then they got mad at us because we wanted a few minutes to read them. Then they moved closure in this place because they say we're debating it too long. These people are complete and absolute incompetents, and the nerve of them.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I hear the member for Perth cackling away over there.

Finally, we hear from this group on the reforestation issue at the end of the day and we hear from this government after no debate on first reading, one hour of debate on second and one hour on third that the House leader has the nerve to cackle across the floor that we took up too much time when it came to debate.

You know what, folks? You're in for a rude awakening, because as little time as you think you have for us, I'm going to give you a little tip: The electorate has less time for you people now. You're going to be thanking your lucky stars because you only had this opportunity to move closure. I'll tell you something: This is it. There's no more closure. Why don't you just call the bloody election and get this mess over with?

Mr Wood: I'd like to speak in support of the government's motion for time allocation on Bill 171, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. I strongly support the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. With this act, for the first time Ontario will have a forestry act, legislation that looks at the whole forest, and we will be more able to develop an ecosystem approach to forest management.

I believe the future of the forest industries is tied to this legislation. We in Ontario want to continue to enjoy access to world markets with our forest products, we want to expand our markets and we will have to be able to prove to the world we manage our forests sustainably. The Crown Forest Sustainability Act is the tool we need to demonstrate our commitment to managing forest sustainability.

I might point out that during committee, we went to places like Sault Ste Marie, Kapuskasing, North Bay, Thunder Bay, Fort Frances, Espanola and Toronto. During the last day of clause-by-clause hearings, I might point out that there were three 20-minute delays in an effort that the bill would not be coming in for third reading. These are delays that forced the government to bring in a time allocation motion, which we're dealing with here today.

As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, I've been taking the lead for the government in moving this bill through the legislative process since it was introduced for second reading in June. This is a valuable process. We heard a number of different views and suggestions for improvements to the bill and we responded to suggestions we've heard by introducing amendments to improve the legislation and to clarify the intent of some sections.

One of the areas that generated the most discussion was around the area of sustainability. Environmentalists and representatives from forest industries indicated that we need sustainability to be defined in the act itself. When we developed the legislation, we felt that the way to determine sustainability was at the management level, the first level itself, if you will, through the Forest Management Planning Manual. The public said that wasn't enough, so we brought in an amendment to put a definition of sustainability right up front in the legislation.

The act will now say that "sustainability" means the long-term health of crown forests. The act also defines "crown forest health" as the condition of a forest ecosystem that sustains the ecosystem's complexity while providing for the long-term needs of people of Ontario.

We went further. We said, "The Forest Management Planning Manual shall provide for the determinations of the sustainability of a crown forest."

We also outlined principles for determining sustainability and those principles say:

"1. Large, healthy, diverse and productive crown forests and their associated ecological processes and biological diversity should be conserved.

"2. The long-term health and vigour of crown forests should be provided for by using forest practices that, within the limits of silvicultural requirements, emulate natural disturbances and landscape patterns while minimizing adverse affects on plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values and heritage values."

We developed the amendment after discussions with the environmentalists. As a result of these discussions, we in fact want to go further and make changes regarding sustainability by amending section 66 of the bill. Section 66 is a section that commits us to producing manuals to guide forest management among other things. We want to amend the part of this section dealing with the Forest Management Planning Manual so that we will complement the changes we made to the beginning of the act regarding a definition of sustainability.

Unfortunately, the delays, as I said earlier, we've been seeing in clause-by-clause discussion of the bill have prevented us from proceeding with the important changes that we propose. That, for me, is a good example of why we need to move on with getting this bill through committee.

During the public hearings, representatives from forest industries indicated that the act may raise some uncertainty about tenure. We have discussed this issue with the industry representatives to assure them that this government fully recognizes that Ontario's forest products industries are vital to the economic health of the province.

As a member from northern Ontario and as someone who has worked in the forest industry for over 30 years, I certainly know the importance of the forest industries to the economic health of my community and the communities across the north. I might point out that as we've had this out in the public hands since June, there are hundreds and thousands of former workers throughout the province in northeastern and northwestern Ontario who have indicated to us that we should move as quickly as possible with this legislation so that it will become the law of the province.

The Speaker: Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 39, a resolution which stands in his name. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1805 to 1820.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 39. All those in favour of Mr Charlton's motion should please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

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

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Harnick, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson (Don Mills), Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Murphy, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 60, the nays are 34.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

The House adjourned at 1824.

29 novembre 1994