L260b - Thu 11 Dec 1997 / Jeu 11 Déc 1997
The House met at 1830.
RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT (MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES AU MINISTÈRE DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU NORD ET DES MINES
Mr Spina, on behalf of Mr Hodgson, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 120, An Act to reduce red tape by amending the Mining Act / Projet de loi 120, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives au ministère du Développement du Nord et des Mines.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I look forward to listening to the comments that my colleague from Brampton North has on this bill, so I don't want to prolong things, but I do want to raise a point of order with you. That has to do with the question of whether it is appropriate, as we proceed to sit here this evening, for government members to have received what I gather they have just received in the last little while, which are copies of the documentation that the Minister of Finance was supposed to release earlier today on the impact of downloading and the adjustments they have made community by community, when I as a member of the opposition have not received that same documentation. I wonder whether you could ascertain perhaps, through the government representative who is in the front of the House, whether that same respect will be accorded to those of us who sit on the opposition benches.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): If you give me a minute, I'll give you an answer.
I want to address that point. Obviously members of the government are here to hear your point and I would think they would take it under advice, but it has nothing to do with the sitting of this Legislature and the powers that I'm entitled to exercise tonight, so we will proceed.
Mr Silipo: Let me raise a point of privilege, if I may, Mr Speaker. I don't want to prolong this because we've had to address similar issues in the past, but I believe this is a question that does impact on my privileges as a member of this House in terms of my abilities to provide good representation for the people of Dovercourt if I am not being given the same kind of information that comes out of a ministry of the government. It's public information as far as I can tell. It's not information that is secret.
Again, I believe that my privileges as a member of this House are being infringed upon if I don't have the same access to that information as members of the government do. If there is information that the Ministry of Finance is releasing on either the impact of the downloading or how that is actually going to pan out community by community, and members of the government side have been given that information, then I think it behooves the government to make that same information available to me as a member of the opposition, as a member of the New Democratic Party, and I'm sure Liberal colleagues would feel the same, because I hope that whatever we may think about what's in those sheets and that information, we all have the same right to have that information so that the constituents I represent have the same right to be represented here in this place as do the constituents of any member represented by the government side. I ask you to deal with that on a point of privilege, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes that may very well be a point of privilege. I will get a ruling on that.
I would address the member for Dovercourt. Indeed, the government is dispensing information all of the time, so that is not a breach of your privilege. We will proceed.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I respect your ruling in that regard, but I think one must bear in mind that today on our parliamentary channel it was reported for at least a four- or a five-hour period that the Minister of Finance would be making a statement with respect to the municipal downloading situation at 3:45. The minister then came in the House, you may recall, and in answer to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt he indicated that the reason he could not give that information was that, according to news reports, he blamed old computers. The Premier actually said that they're old computers that they took over from the past government. I saw this on the 6 o'clock news tonight, and I must admit it was highly extraordinary for a Premier of this province to blame a former government for the fact that his computers broke down. It didn't make any sense to me at all. But in any event, he blamed the fact that the computers broke down at 2 am as why he could not give the municipalities the figures today and as why he could not hold the press conference he said he was going to hold at 3:45.
If that information is now available, then surely - and may I just refer you to rule 21(a), which says, "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."
If there's information that the residents of Ontario and the municipalities of Ontario have been waiting for for the last six months available to certain members, and it's freely handed out to those members and they're reading from those documents right now as we sit here in this House, and it is not being made available to the members of the opposition, then with all due respect it is hard to believe that my privileges as an individual member of this House and as a collective member of this House have not been breached.
I would ask you, taking into account the new information that I've given you about the fact that the Minister of Finance blamed it on computer technology that broke down at 2 am and blamed that on the former government, that they'd taken over old computers, and taking into account the fact that he was going to have a press conference at 3:45 this afternoon, which was widely advertised to all of those here within the Queen's Park precinct, now that you've got that information, I would once again like you to revisit the idea that the privileges of us as individual members, particularly the members in the opposition who don't have that information, haven't been breached. I seek your advice on that matter.
The Acting Speaker: I have revisited it and I think that you have answered your own question, and that is that it's my duty to make sure that your privileges here in the House are not breached. Indeed, you're here and you're expressing them. I think that's proof that your privileges are indeed intact, and it's my responsibility to make sure that they are. I find that is not a point of privilege.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mr Speaker, I would rise on a point of privilege referring to the standing orders, section 21, under "Privilege," which reads, "(a) Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom.
"(b) Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately," you being of course the place where we would place that point of privilege.
First off, I would say to you that if indeed what has been alleged here didn't take place, all we need is for a minister of the crown to stand in his place and assure us that is not the case and this matter is over. But since that's not happening, we have to assume that indeed members of the government have been given information that affects all constituencies, not just government members' ridings. I would point to the traditions and practices of this place. I remember very clearly that when we were in government, even on matters as straightforward as briefings, if briefings were being provided to government members by members of the public service, by the bureaucracy, there was an obligation on the part of the government to provide those same briefings in the same timely fashion to members of the opposition. That's different than briefings or meetings with your own political staff or your own caucus staff, but where the taxpayers were paying for public service work to be done, meaning the bureaucracy, then the traditions and customs and privileges bestowed upon members of this place dictated that all members, not just government members, were provided with that information.
1840
I would join with my colleagues in saying to you, Speaker, since it appears evident that this information that surprisingly couldn't be available a few hours ago when there would be a question period this information had to face, and now suddenly it's available, but if it's the case that they have that information, and it seems to be, make no mistake about it, our members and the people we represent are being denied rights that members of the government have given to themselves by virtue of withholding and keeping secret information which is rightfully in the proper place, that being the public domain, and that is done through members of this place.
Speaker, I would urge you, in light of the fact that the standing rules state that you must deal with this immediately - and it deals with traditions and customs, not just statutes and legislation - that you first ask a minister of the crown if indeed the question of this privilege has been breached, and if it has, then I would ask you to correct this wrong, make right our privileges and direct that the government provide the information that they must to the opposition members in order to be consistent with the standing orders.
The Acting Speaker: On the same point, the Chair recognizes the member for Don Mills.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): As much as I can determine it, we are to deal not with computers here tonight or what computers may have done or may not have done last night, but indeed what we're to deal with here tonight is Bill 120, which is an act to reduce red tape. Those watching on television may not be aware that this has not to do with any financial data that may or may not be available or any municipal data that may or may not be available, or whatever it is that the opposition parties are concerning themselves with; the debate this night has to do with An Act to reduce red tape by amending the Mining Act.
There is no point of privilege, Mr Speaker. If there is a session regarding certain information, in the fullness of time I'm sure everybody will have the information that may or may not be being disseminated at any one point in time. It's not possible to disseminate information to each individual member of the House at any point in time. I'm sure in the fullness of time all members will be fully aware of all of the information.
What we're dealing with here tonight is simply Bill 120, Mr Speaker. You've made your ruling and I would suggest that we carry on.
I'm just quoting here from a ruling that the Speaker, Chris Stockwell, has made. This was a ruling he made in Hansard on October 9, 1997:
"I appreciate that the member would have preferred that all members could have received the information at the same time. However, the Speaker cannot require the government to release such information - or to release it at a certain time. There is nothing in our rules or our practices that would permit a Speaker to control the dissemination of that kind of information. It is clear from any number of previous Speakers' rulings that these types of situations do not amount to a prima facie case of privilege."
We all know that in this House. Each and every member knows that in this House. The members who have risen on this know that, but it's an opportunity of course to have air time and make a beef and make a complaint, but it is clearly, from a previous ruling of the Speaker, not a case of privilege.
Mr Speaker, I believe you made your ruling in that regard and I would suggest we get on the debate of Bill 120 which is legitimately before this House.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The problem that you have before you that you are being asked to deal with can be easily solved if the government has the courtesy to place on the desk of all members of the Legislature immediately the information which is being provided to members of the government, since this is surely an insult to the people in various ridings who have elected people. I think they expect that their government is going to provide this kind of information equally to all members of the House, regardless of what their political affiliation might be and not discriminate on the basis of whether someone sits in an opposition party or not.
I'm just making a suggestion that may help us out of this particular dilemma and eliminate any further points of privilege, and that is just to ask that the government place on all members' desks the same information which is being given to the government members at this time.
The Acting Speaker: I'm addressing the member for Hamilton Centre on his point of privilege, with the help of the other two members. I find that it may be a matter of courtesy, but it's not of privilege, and there is nothing that I as Speaker, under the rules you have given me to work with, can do.
The Chair recognizes the member for Brampton North.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I am pleased to say a few words about Bill 120, which is the Red Tape Reduction Act (Ministry of Northern Development and Mines). Bill 120 proposes amendments to the Mining Act to improve the business climate for Ontario's mining industry by standardizing mining claims, by clarifying definitions and by simplifying the mining fees. The legislation would also protect environmentally sensitive areas during claim staking. In doing so, it reflects our continued commitment to protect the environment.
This bill further reduces red tape, which allows for improved customer service and reduces administration costs for both the taxpayers and the mining industry. This issue came before Mr Sheehan's Red Tape Commission, and we were very pleased that we were able to institute these changes appropriately and incorporate them as part of this bill.
The mining industry in Ontario generates a significant amount in the Ontario economy, between $4 billion and $7 billion of new wealth annually. Frankly, it employs about 72,000 Ontarians.
Let me address some of the elements of that bill. First, this bill amends the definition of "minerals" to include precious metals such as diamonds, and what this does is harmonize Ontario's Mining Act with the growing interest in diamond exploration in the north in general.
Second, we're eliminating the requirement to stake out and record placer mining claims. What that does is remove the expense and the confusion this particular requirement has caused in the past.
Third, we're allowing the director of mine rehabilitation to allow alternatives to prescribed methods of mine rehabilitation if, and I stress only if, the environmental standards are met or exceeded.
Fourth, the Lieutenant Governor is being authorized to prescribe especially environmentally sensitive guidelines for mineral staking. This is for the purpose of addressing specific environmental concerns in certain parts of the province, such as the Temagami area, which was a fairly contentious issue in recent times.
Finally, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is being authorized to set the amount of mining fees to avoid the cost, the time and the effort of developing new regulations each time the fees are changed.
1850
One of the arguments that the opposition brought forward on second reading: The member for Windsor-Sandwich said that this was to be a new cost to business, contrary to what this government is attempting to do. It's simply not the fact. It was clear that the member, by the very fact that she had to be brought back to the issue by yourself, Speaker, in that debate - what we are doing is simplifying the government approval process, as she indicated.
The only difference is that we are changing the words "prescribed fee" to "required fee." It's a small change in the act which allows the costs of actually doing the processing of mining documentation to be recouped. This has been consulted about in the industry and found to be quite acceptable.
Mr Bradley: It's a new tax.
Mr Spina: It is not a new tax. You see, we have the endorsement of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, and I shall read from the letter. This was dated December 4 of this year, to Minister Hodgson, and it says, "In order that clarity and certainty can be created, we ask that Bill 120 now take priority so that it can move forward to royal assent."
Through the consultative process of the minister's Mining Act advisory committee, the Prospectors and Developers Association has been involved with the review of Bill 120.
"The explorationists active in the Temagami area need your support so that special regulations can be finalized which will allow environmentally responsible exploration work to be undertaken in this sensitive area.
"We would also urge the quick passage of Bill 68, which has been stalled at second reading. This bill is less critical since it affects mainly government activities....
"In general, we support actions which will simplify government and, at the same time, improve efficiency for the mining industry."
The second letter that Minister Hodgson received was from Wayne Adair, the reeve of the corporation of the township of Temagami. I paraphrase; we don't need to get to the friendly items such as their sadness at seeing Minister Hodgson go from natural resources to management board; however, they're happy that he has retained the portfolio of Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Mr Adair stated:
"I am very concerned that Bill 120 seems to be stalled. It's a very important piece of legislation that has direct implications not only for Temagami but for most of northern Ontario. I am speaking primarily about the sections of Bill 120 dealing with amendments to the Mining Act that will provide the mechanism to allow for staking in sensitive areas.
"Some of the richest mineralization sites here are currently under a staking prohibition order. Our area only needs the legislative okay to amend the Mining Act. I know you are familiar with our land use dilemma over the years in the Temagami region. It was under your watch that the lifting of the cautions in most of Temagami occurred, thus sparking a significant staking rush. The final steps in the process are the enacting of Bill 120, the creation of special regulations for exploration in sensitive areas, and the formal adoption of the Temagami comprehensive land use plan.
"Bill 120 not only promotes extra protective measures for exploration in the Temagami region, but it also gives the Lands for Life round table the necessary flexibility for making recommendations on staking in sensitive areas throughout Ontario. Without this ability, the round table will be pressured to leave sensitive lands out of the land base altogether" - perhaps even to go to waste.
"If the same percentage of land base is taken out of northern Ontario that has been taken out of the Temagami region it will mean the decimation of the resource industry as we know it....
"For the Lands for Life process, for northern Ontario, for the Temagami region, the timely passage of this legislation is essential.
"Thank you for your consideration...."
Let me address two other final issues with respect to this bill and with respect to comments made by the opposition members. First, there was a concern on the part of the critic from the third party, who is in fact the former minister. She had a concern about an element of the bill regarding the protection of some of the areas. We are pleased that since then the member for Sudbury East has spoken to members of the ministry and appears to be satisfied that this is acceptable. In fact, we understand that this bill will be endorsed by the opposition parties.
There was one other element, and it happened to be the timeliness element that the opposition members brought up. Yes, this bill was introduced in first reading - how long ago?
Mr Gerretsen: A year and a half ago.
Mr Spina: No, it wasn't a year and a half ago. It was last February, which you so clearly pointed out.
Interjection.
Mr Spina: February 1997. Yes, we understand that.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): February 7.
Mr Spina: February 7. Thank you, member for Sudbury East. She gave me the exact date.
The interesting thing is that this is the kind of legislation that Liberals attempted to bring in under former Minister Kerrio. The last party attempted to bring it in. But neither time was it able to be successfully brought through to completion. This government is delivering. Perhaps the delay was undue, but I'm happy that we have finally had the opportunity to get this item on the table and I'm pleased to have the satisfaction or at least the concurrence of the opposition members, in particular the former minister, and I look forward to her comments. I think that gives credit to the context of the bill, the thrust of the bill and the objectives we are all trying to achieve.
The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Bradley: My concerns are not alleviated by the member for Brampton North and his comments, because I have watched many of this crew in action for too long and know that one can only trust when one is observant on an ongoing basis of what the government is doing. The member mentions fees. I've been counting up the number of fees this government has imposed, and since Mike Harris said that a user fee is in fact a tax, I am now up to 197 new tax increases implemented by the Mike Harris government. In this particular case I see them again. I probably have not been able to keep up with all of the tax increases this government has implemented which are somehow disguised as fee increases.
Interjections.
Mr Bradley: I hear interjections from people who appear to be contradicting our Premier, and I'm telling you, our Premier said over and over again, even during his leadership campaign, but subsequent to that - when people said, "What about a user fee, Mike Harris, leader of the Conservative Party?" he said, "A user fee is a tax, make no mistake about it." I see new user fees in this particular piece of legislation, so now I can count more and more taxes.
If I can find, just on a cursory look at the legislation and the program of the government, 194 tax increases, you can imagine how many there are if we wanted to put a legislative intern on the job, for instance, going through all the ministries, counting the tax increases that Mike Harris and his crew have implemented through the back door in this province.
I wish my fears could be alleviated by the comments of the parliamentary assistant, and that's easy to say, because most people are parliamentary assistants on the other side, but by this particular parliamentary assistant -
Mr Spina: Not as many as you had, Jimmy.
1900
Mr Bradley: Well, they have committee chairs and people like that as well. But I really feel that the people of this province should be more vigilant and not simply accept the assurances of the member for Brampton North.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): This is yet another example of a bill the government is presenting that this caucus and the opposition is supporting, contrary to noises we heard earlier today. The government was trying to blame the opposition for its own incompetence in terms of getting legislation through that they want to get through. Here again is another example. I find this bill really interesting. We do support it. It's interesting that, to my knowledge, it's doing something that is actually going to protect the environment, is going to enhance environmental protection within the Temagami region.
Ms Martel: Allegedly.
Ms Churley: Allegedly. We'll see. This, today, on the same day, and may I congratulate the Sierra Legal Defence Fund here, when a court charged MNR with breaking the Ministry of the Environment's own laws. They were charged and convicted and fined for opening a very sensitive environmental access road in the Temagami region. It's interesting that both the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment came hand in hand with a plea bargain saying, "Okay, but please don't punish us."
I'm happy to say the judge denied that plea bargain and they were fined just like anybody else who breaks the law is fined. This must be a wake-up call for the government, that they can't continue to break the law and must start protecting the environment instead of doing everything they can to destroy it.
We're happy to support this bill today. We'll see what happens. My colleague from Sudbury East will be speaking in more detail in a few minutes about our reaction to it, but shame on the government. This is the first time in the history of our government that one ministry is -
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Comments and questions?
Mr Gerretsen: As I indicated last week, one of the concerns this bill doesn't deal with is the number of MNR employees who have in effect been let go by this ministry.
Ministry offices, particularly in the rural parts of this province, that had many MNR employees working for them are decimated. No wonder we have to pass this kind of legislation, because there simply aren't enough officers around any more to deal with the rules and regulations we have within this ministry.
What's very interesting is what the government did this afternoon, and I want to come back to that for just a moment because it deals with red tape bills. This is a red tape bill. The government this afternoon filed a time allocation motion, closure. The people of Ontario should understand that this is closure. They basically don't want the opposition to speak about these bills any more, bills that have been here since June 1996, for a year and a half. We have waited to debate these bills. We've held over 200 sessions, or maybe 300 sessions, since then and we haven't debated them. Now the government feels it has to pass them all in one fell swoop by putting six or seven bills in one time allocation motion.
At one time closure was something the people of Ontario didn't want to have happen in their Parliament. It's starting to creep into our system more and more. This government so far has done it 19 times and they've done it on all the important bills, all the bills about which there was much controversy. Now they're even doing it on bills about which there isn't all that much controversy by lumping them all together. I say shame on them. You are undemocratic and it's -
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms Martel: I want to comment on the comments that were made by the member for Brampton North. As I came in I heard him saying that the last time we had discussed this there had been some concerns or some comments raised about the timing of this bill.
It was me who raised some comments about the timing of the bill because in the debate on second reading the member made much to-do about how many people were writing in and calling and faxing and saying this bill had to be done as soon as possible. I pointed out to him that in fact the government had introduced this legislation on February 3 and the first time the government decided it was important we should deal with it was late at the end of that last week. It all of a sudden became a priority. It all of a sudden became essential that we deal with this. For the last 10 months this hasn't been a priority with this government at all. It hasn't been at the top of the list. It hasn't been something it has been important to do. All of a sudden, about 10 months after the bill had been introduced, it became a priority.
I want to quote a little bit from the letter my colleague the member for Brampton North read into the record. This is from the reeve of Temagami to the minister and there's a paragraph he didn't read which says, "I know that you explained to Mr Smith" - Mr Smith is a councillor as well from the region - "that the legislative agenda is full and that this bill and its accompanying regulations are in the heap, but I am appealing to you: Insist that this legislation be put back on the agenda."
Wow. Excuse me., but what was in the heap was the government's workers' compensation legislation and its rent control, the government's download bill, the government's workfare bill, all kinds of stuff that attacks people in this province was more important than this piece of legislation. So no doubt this was in the heap. It just suddenly, miraculously appeared because there is no doubt the minister has been getting a lot of pressure, but it's his fault that this hasn't been called before.
The Acting Speaker: I recognize the member for Brampton North; he has two minutes to respond.
Mr Spina: I appreciate the comments. The only ones I want to rebut are these: first, the comments made by the Liberal Party talking about tax increases in user fees. In fact we had a mini-debate here with some of the members of the third party whom we in the rump are privileged to sit beside because it allows for witty repartee on occasion.
What I want to say is there's a big difference between a tax increase and a user fee that the Liberals don't understand. A tax increase is something that everybody has to share in paying, which is a socialist concept, as opposed to a user fee, which is that those who use the service pay for the fee. So there's a big difference there, to my members from the official opposition.
The member for Hamilton Centre talked to me about living in a glass house. I refer to the glass house the Liberals are living in. The member indicated we have more PAs than he's ever seen, that everybody's a parliamentary assistant. The reality is they had the largest cabinet in the history of this province.
Interjections.
Mr Spina: Not the NDP, the Liberals. The Liberals had the largest cabinet in the history of this province and the largest number of parliamentary assistants in the history of this province. Talk about a bloated government. They live in the biggest glass house we could ever have asked for.
But to get back to the member for Sudbury East, we finally took it off the heap and put it on the table.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Bradley: The last comments I heard previous to being able to address this bill in detail, because it is a detailed piece of legislation, sound very much like a person we all know - I saw him on television last night - the leader of the Conservative Party, Brian Mulroney. That last comment reminded me of Brian Mulroney because of the exaggeration and hyperbole that was contained within that statement. You know, the longer I see this government in power, the more I see the stamp of Brian Mulroney on this particular government.
Some of the people here in this House have worried about the length of time that my friend Frank Sheehan, the member for Lincoln, has had getting this bill before the House. I can remember House leaders' meeting after House leaders' meeting over the past long period of time. I have implored the government to bring forward the red tape bills so we could debate them. Not that I agreed with every clause in all the bills, but I have said that if these bills are so important as you say they are and as my friend Frank tells me when he sees me in the hallway, and he's eager and he's wanting to move these forward, then why haven't we seen them on the order paper? Why have we not seen them brought forward by the government? It's quite obvious: because the government didn't consider them to be of great importance. Now all of a sudden as we get into the dying days of a session, the government wants to trot out its so-called red tape bills. I think the member for Lincoln should be insulted that his colleagues in the government would not have brought forward bills in which he has invested considerable time earlier on in this session or even the last session.
1910
There was a period of time that could have been allocated for that. But Guy Giorno, who runs the government from the back rooms, decided that he wanted to see rule changes in this House. You see, the House was working too democratically to suit the backroom boys and the government, the people who are impatient with the democratic process, the people who feel the opposition is just some irritant to be shoved out of the way, the people who believe that if there's any opposition out there, they must be misguided or misled people. They wanted to see the rule changes brought through the House instead of dealing with legislation.
In the dying days of the spring session, which started last January, by the way, and ended in June some time, I can well recall those of us in opposition saying, "Bring forward your legislation." But no, the government House leader of the day, Mr Johnson, was instructed by Guy Giorno and those who have the real control in this government to deal with changing the rules of the Legislature to grease the skids for the government to get its legislation through. So we saw what can only be referred to as draconian and drastic changes to the procedural rules of this House, rules which, as the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere says, restrict the debate in the Legislature - I saw her making a signal that said "restrict the debate in this House" - on various pieces of legislation.
Even though by having debate, people who watch the television channel, for instance, are able to appreciate and understand the intricacies and ramifications of the legislation, this government, at least the inner cabinet and the unelected people, want to secretly shove things through or put them in the House in as short a period of time as possible and not have the public be as widely aware of the issues and the legislation that is coming forward. As a result, the government hasn't included this particular bill, but similar red tape bills have now appeared in the time allocation motion which in its particular form is unprecedented in the House.
I mentioned earlier today in the two-minute intervention that is permitted that I hope those editors out there who keep telling their reporters here at Queen's Park that they shouldn't cover rule changes, that they're not important, that they're an inside story rather than outside story, that they don't have implications, will think again about that and start to cover them. I know there are going to be people in certain newspapers in this country, particularly those controlled by Conrad Black, who are going to think that the rule changes are great or that a time allocation motion is justified, because that's their way of doing things. They simply push things through; they don't really care about the democratic process.
So they'll have their YPC phone up one of the columnists or one of the editors and say: "You know what the opposition wants. They simply want to stretch out the amount of time and delay important government legislation." Those people who have come from the ranks of the Reform Party and come from Mike Harris's office, as some of them have, will dutifully write their editorials and say: "John Baird is right. It is absolutely essential. The opposition's irresponsible."
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): That was a good column.
Mr Bradley: I wish they would get more progressive and objective people to write the columns, not people who were once working for the Conservative Party or the Reform Party or the Fraser Institute. But when Conrad Black used his millions upon millions of dollars to purchase, what is it now, 58 out of 104 newspapers in Canada, the constituent of Mr Turnbull - he claims him. I don't know whether he makes donations or not. You should go to him for a donation, because he has lots of money.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): He owes lots too.
Mr Bradley: He owes lots as well, the member for Etobicoke-Humber tells me, but he now controls 58 of 104 newspapers in this country. When I look at those who aspire to compete with national newspapers, those in our national capital who hire the people who are all the 20-something whiz kids and early-30-something whiz kids who are now writing the editorials, and one of them I remember has worked - the member for Nepean will help me on names. Who worked in the Premier's office for the Conservative caucus? Was that Mr Gardner? I think it was Mr Gardner. There was another who worked for the Reform Party. I read their résumés as they came in.
So when I say that this kind of bill is important, it certainly is, but I want the people out there to be informed by watching this legislative channel, not having to rely on Mike Harris's ex-researchers and Preston Manning's ex-researchers to provide the gospel for the people of Ottawa and surrounding area. I think it will be important for those editors out there who care about the democratic system to absolutely ensure that there is adequate debate on all of the red tape bills, including this one, but particularly those that they are trying to package into one time allocation, one closure motion which will choke off any further debate of significance on bills that have some significance.
My colleagues in the opposition have mentioned from time to time that what is disguised as a simple, straightforward, easy-to-support bill which cuts red tape often has implications which are detrimental to the province. The last one we passed this afternoon, Bill 63, I thought was reasonable. I'm told by others who are familiar with the mining scene that this bill, though not totally benign, is not one which presents a great threat to our province. But I do become concerned when I see in the bill the following: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to make regulations that are particular in application and may be limited as to time or place or both and that apply in areas designated by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines."
There's a reason for that. Regulations go only through -
Mr Baird: What is in that glass?
Mr Bradley: I assure the members of the Legislature that is water and ice.
I want to tell them that regulations are dangerous, because members of this House don't get a chance to debate regulations. So when you hear a government say that they are going to leave to the regulatory power of cabinet so many aspects of policy, one has to be concerned. If it's spelled out in the legislation, if it's right here in the bill, whether one agrees or not with it, at least we know what we're debating. Everything's on the table. But when you do it by regulation - and here comes more water. I'm pleased with this. They must know this speech may not be over in the next five minutes.
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We keep sending you water so the speech will be over in five minutes.
Mr Bradley: The Attorney General intervenes over there. One of his members has broken the front part of his desk for some reason; I can't figure out what that is.
But I want to say to him, because I know he would be concerned, having run against tax increases, that within this legislation there are user fees. I don't know whether he supported Dianne Cunningham or Mike Harris in the leadership race. I suspect it must have been Mike Harris because he's sitting in the cabinet as Attorney General. But I want to say to him and to all members of the House and recall to him that Mike Harris said - and the member for Brampton North didn't seem to remember this - that whenever you implement a user fee or increase a user fee, that's a new tax. I believed Mike Harris back in those days. That was the Mike Harris who said he didn't want any money from gambling operations in Ontario. I believed him when he said that. I thought, well, I don't agree with everything that Mike Harris says by any means, but there are one or two things he's said that I agree with. One was that a user fee is a tax.
1920
This is now the 198th. I count 197 tax increases already. This is now the 198th tax increase this government has implemented, and this from the Taxfighter. That's because you have to count -
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): Nice try, Jim.
Mr Bradley: I tell the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, you have to count the user fees. You have to count those as taxes. Listen, I wouldn't have counted them if Mike Harris didn't say, "A user fee is a tax," but he said it. He said that when he was competing for the leadership race with Dianne Cunningham. He said, well, we might have some user fees but, you know, a user fee is a tax; we have to count it as a tax. And now I see in all of this legislation all kinds of new user fees.
Of course the other thing we know about user fees is that they don't take into account a person's ability to pay. A person who has a lot of wealth has a much easier time paying the user fee than a person who doesn't. That's a simple statement of fact.
Mr Ford: Assumption.
Mr Bradley: I think it's fair to say that. I don't think there's anything unfair about that, that a user fee does not take into account a person's ability to pay. For a person who is extremely wealthy as compared to a person of modest means, the person of modest means is going to have a much more difficult time paying the fee. That's why in some cases - not all cases by any means - it is better to obtain the funding for a program from the general population, particularly where the general population indirectly may benefit, than it is from the individual. There are other cases, and I'm certainly fair enough to say that may be the case in some cases.
But I've now counted my 198th tax increase by Mike Harris. I hope that Randall Denly and I hope that Mr Gardner and others of the new crew who are writing the editorials and columns in the Ottawa Citizen, the 20-somethings and 30-somethings who have all the answers because they've worked for the Fraser Institute and for Mike Harris or for the member for the Reform Party - these are people who have to know these things. They have to know what we think.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): He studied in Trudeau's office.
Mr Bradley: I heard Mulroney's name mentioned on the other side. Now the member for Ottawa-Rideau has mentioned - was it Brian Mulroney? I think it was Brian Mulroney that you had mentioned. Anyway, I digress into the federal field, where I know my colleagues over there like to venture. They like to venture there because whenever there is credit to be accumulated, large as life in the front row are Mike Harris and his colleagues. Large as life they come in for the credit. But when there's responsibility or when there's criticism, they hightail it somewhere else and point the finger in a direction slightly northeasterly of here to Ottawa.
I really wonder why some of them didn't run for the federal Parliament, because they spend more time talking about federal issues in this House than provincial, though heaven knows that's understandable. I want to say that's understandable, because if I were facing the wrath of the electorate the way the Conservative members are now, I think I would want to talk about some other level of government as well.
I hope, as I know you do, Mr Speaker, because you and I may be a bit suspicious of some of the computers that we have available to us, there isn't a computer glitch that affects this particular piece of legislation. This afternoon, while there was time to comment in this House, we were scheduled to receive from the Minister of Finance the downloading information; in other words, what would be the additional costs for the new onerous responsibilities being forced on municipalities by the Mike Harris government. "What would be those new costs?" we were asking. The Minister of Finance said they had a glitch in the computer; they couldn't produce these.
As I said this afternoon - the member for St Catharines-Brock will want to know this because he plays hockey sometimes with the member for Oakville South, Gary Carr. I dispelled the myth, particularly for Gary Carr's mother, Joyce Carr, living in Rexdale, that somehow he had introduced a virus into the computers because he was so concerned about the implications for his riding.
I know there's a competition between Mr Young, the member for Halton Centre, and Mr Carr, the member for Oakville South, for the seat eventually. I don't know where this rumour started, but I want to assure my other friends from Halton that in fact Gary Carr was not responsible for infecting the computers with a virus so that they couldn't produce the downloading figures for various parts of the province.
By the way, Mr Speaker, I wanted to commend you. I'm just going to diverge a bit and I know you will let me. I want to commend you because you are contributing to some fund-raising for a hospital in your riding where you get part of the 12 days of Christmas that says, I think, 12 drummers drumming. A reporter told me that today and I told him I was commending you on being part of a fund-raising effort. Apparently this is a fund-raising effort that you're involved in. I think you deserve credit for that. I like to see members involved in that. A round of applause is probably due for our Speaker for being involved, and I'll lead that applause right now.
Applause.
Mr Bradley: I'm not quite sure where that fits in this bill. I'm not quite certain where that fits in this particular piece of legislation, but I think it's worth noting because our Speaker has an onerous task being in that chair for hours at a time and trying to decipher sometimes the debate that goes on. I know there are other members who sometimes diverge from the exact contents of a bill, and we want to ensure that we're all on topic.
We look at the mine closings. This bill, as my friend the parliamentary assistant will tell us, talks about what happens when a mine closes down and how it's looked after. If it is not done properly, the closing of a mine when it is no longer financially viable can have very significant environmental damage. What I worry about when I hear "deregulation," and my colleagues have tried to assure me this isn't a problem - I've been given a signal now by the NDP that I should move on so that Mr Colle can speak.
When I am talking about mine closings, I'm worried, as my colleague from Riverdale would be, that in fact there could be a problem for the environment. The mine tailings themselves, she would know, present a real challenge. Can it be overcome? There are many people who try to say it can't be, and they may or may not be right, but it costs millions upon millions of dollars - hundreds of millions of dollars in this case - for this purpose.
Thank you very much. The chief government whip has now provided for those of us in opposition the facts and figures as to what will happen with the government downloading. But I think what he has to know and what we all have to know is this - this is only in Niagara. What we have to know in these figures that have now been introduced in the Legislature is the following: This is only the first year. You see, when local councils, including those affected by this bill, look at the figures, they should know that the figures are skewed or changed by transition funds; in other words, one- or two-shot deals.
1930
The Tories on council, who have been beside themselves because there have been people criticizing them, have had to embarrassingly say: "Yes, the Harris government is going to hurt our municipality. We're going to have to either cut municipal services further than we already have or we have to raise user fees or we have to raise municipal property taxes." They will get these figures and people will say, "Oh, look, Mike Harris is going to save us from all of this," if I anticipate what I'm going to see when I have a chance to look at this. But what they should know is that this is simply to tide the provincial government over to the provincial election.
What the municipal councillors should do, even those Tories who want to love Mike Harris and want to support Mike Harris, is ensure that they look at the third- and fourth- and fifth-year and beyond implications of the downloading of responsibility to municipalities.
Mr Guzzo: That was the Peterson system.
Mr Bradley: The slush fund is there now. I must tell my friend from Ottawa-Rideau who speaks, because I know he'll be concerned. The member for Rideau cannot be bought off or have his concerns alleviated by a slush fund which is thrown out to carry the government to the election.
Mr Guzzo: Especially when Ottawa-Carleton gets none.
Mr Bradley: He says Ottawa-Carleton will get none. I'm sympathetic. He will want to know then and he will be imploring the members of the cabinet to tell him what the long-term implications are once the slush fund has dried up, once Mike Harris has got himself to the election date. He'll want to know what the long-term implications are.
I know municipal councillors in Niagara, regardless of what these figures say, are going to say, "We're relieved that you didn't kick us in the face this time by giving us great problems, but what is coming when this information is no longer applicable, when the fund has dried up, when the Mulroney-type fund has dried up?"
I shouldn't mention Brian Mulroney's name. I've actually met him on one occasion; a very cordial, friendly person, no doubt. I may not have agreed with everything he did but he was pleasant in the one opportunity I had to meet with him.
This bill deals as well with Temagami and the Temagami area. I have a view which may be different from many people in the House on the preservation of Temagami. I think Temagami is an absolute gem. It reminds me a bit of the Niagara Escarpment and I see the Niagara Escarpment now under assault by people who would like to see development take place on it.
The Niagara Escarpment is a beautiful, natural area that many people enjoy in its present state. There have been over the years some pieces of development there. There was an appointment made to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I guess the person had to resign over something that had nothing directly to do with the responsibilities as a commissioner, but rather a personal remark, an unfortunate remark the person made and terminology that he used. But in the first place, the member for Sudbury East and I warned that here was an individual who was opposed to preserving the escarpment.
I worry and I hope that the parliamentary assistant can persuade me that we're not going to see happen in Temagami what we're seeing in some parts of the Niagara Escarpment as development is allowed to take place. Temagami is a real gem. Ask people from around the world. I'm not an outdoors person the way some people are. I must say that. I still enjoy the outdoors but there are some people who love to travel in the wilderness, love to in a very basic way go through the wilderness and so on. "What a beautiful area," they will tell you. They go canoeing in there, they don't use motorboats or anything of this nature in that specific area, like Lady Evelyn park, for instance. But what a wonderful area Ontario has there.
There are some people, and I know this is why some of the rules are put in, who want to, holus-bolus, get in there and cut the wood and mine the area. We try to do that, in our province, carefully and should try to do it carefully.
I have a view that may be different from even some of my colleagues - I'm sure there are different views in other parties as well - on how Temagami might be treated. I know there are some Conservatives who are very concerned when they hear of further development taking place in such a pristine area, how it will affect it. When you've taken the last ounce of nickel or cut down the last tree, what is left? Sometimes that beautiful wilderness serves us well and can also be financially viable and profitable for us and that's good, because there's nothing wrong with profit, for those people who think there is. There's nothing wrong with profit. I think there can be a profit made from that beautiful land by having eco-tourists, for instance, who use that specific area.
I just hope that we're not going to see the saws come out in great numbers to saw down those lovely forests, particularly the clear-cutting of them. I hope we're not going to see unrestricted mining taking place in areas which are best left in a pristine state. I'm sure - I'm assured, at least - that the bill is going to prevent that from happening. The Minister of the Environment, in this case Mr Sterling, his responsibility economically is to protect the long-term economic interests of the province.
They used to say the Minister of the Environment has to fight with the finance minister or the economic development minister because one has one responsibility, the other has another. Often the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Economic Development, no matter who they are, no matter what government, have a role to play because they want to see the economic development take place as quickly as possible and be as profitable for the province as possible, and that's their job and that's understandable. But the Minister of the Environment has a different role and that is, as I say, to protect the long-term economic interest. There has to be that balance out there. That's why a round table often - getting people together, not confronting, but getting people together to talk about how we can preserve the pristine areas of our province for centuries to come and still have some other kinds of economic development take place that could be of benefit to all of us.
I worry personally - some of my colleagues may not - when I see the cautions being lifted in the Temagami area so that mining and lumbering can take place to a greater extent than is the case today. Others may not share that concern. It's a personal concern that I happen to have.
The bill also has some implications because, as some people have mentioned, I'm concerned about the number of people available in the Ministry of Natural Resources to carry out the responsibilities. More and more in these red tape bills we're seeing - it's probably too extreme to say this but I can't think of another terminology. Too often I'm seeing the fox put in charge of the hen-house. I think people who have a detached viewpoint can regulate, where there has to be regulation, in a fairer fashion than those who have a vested interest.
I think governments should proceed with caution when they turn over to people the responsibility for self-regulation. This isn't to say that it cannot be done, because in some instances I think there has been success enjoyed in that field and I'm pleased when that happens. But so often I believe it's better to have somebody who is detached making that judgement; knowledgeable, yes, but detached from the day-to-day operations. I become concerned when I see that not happening and when I see the number of Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Northern Development employees being reduced very drastically and, as a result, the laws we have not being enforced as they should.
1940
Make no mistake about it, one must examine one by one the so-called red tape bills to see what the implications are. One can't always assume, for instance, that regulations are bad in every case. There are some cases where they're outdated. That's why I'm pleased when any government looks at all of its regulations. That should be routine for any new government. This government, as previous government have done, looked at the regulations. It should be routine to see if they are up to date, to see if they're still applicable, to see if they make sense under present circumstances, and then if not, to modify them or remove them, and if there's a need for further regulation, to implement those further regulations.
But one must look at them bill by bill, because often, for instance in the field of the environment, regulations were put in there to protect the environment, and often, unfortunately in reaction to problems that arose as opposed to in a so-called proactive way implementing those policies.
I want to share with my colleague the member for Oakwood, because he is very concerned about red tape bills and about this specific piece of legislation, the opportunity to comment on this piece of legislation. But as I reach the crescendo or the conclusion of my remarks this evening, let us all remember that not all of the red tape bills are benign. The one this afternoon I thought was. I'm assured by colleagues on all sides of the House, though I still have my worries, that this bill is relatively benign.
I commend the removal of regulations that have no use any longer or that are unnecessarily preventing desirable results in the province and not protecting anything else. I don't, holus-bolus, want to protect the regulatory regime, but I think there is a place for regulation to protect one.
My friend Tom Froese is here. He is a member of the farming community. His family has been involved. He would know that there are regulations that affect the farming community. This isn't a desire of governments to be mean to farmers, but often farmers themselves will come to government and say, "If we are to have a viable future, we must have from the government a level playing field." That may require some regulation. On the other hand, farmers may come forward and say that sometimes the regulatory regime is detrimental.
All I'm saying is that we must do this one by one, which is why I know the government House leader will be wise enough on Monday not to proceed with the time allocation motion that puts six bills into one bill simply to rush them through the House.
Now I'm going to turn over to the distinguished member for Oakwood, who has a very great concern about Bill 120 and its implications and has some interesting comments, the opportunity to continue these remarks.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): As always, I want to try to follow up the member for St Catharines, who certainly speaks from the heart. I know he's extremely concerned about what is happening to our mining sector and also very concerned about what is happening to our heritage trees, our forests in Temagami, and he's also very concerned about the farming community. I think he has the makings of a great parliamentarian and he's proven that over the last 20 years. He's going to continue to represent the voice of people in Ontario who are concerned about this Legislature and the bills it passes, the bills it debates.
Bill 120 is typical of a lot of bills that come before this House in that it seems to have one trademark phrase. The phrase that dominates Bill 120, although it is about mining, is the way this bill changes existing laws, and the powers it hands over to the cabinet and the Premier is most interesting. In the bill itself it says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe the circumstances where a proponent need not comply with a provision in a regulation...." This is typical of a lot of the bills that are being passed daily in this House.
If you look at Bill 160, which the public is probably more familiar with, it is a typical pattern that the governing decisions of this Legislature and the governing decisions which affect the people of Ontario be made behind closed doors. That is the pattern that is most frightening about Bill 120 and about most of the bills that are coming forward. You'll see that regulatory powers are increased and more and more decisions are made by the cabinet, by the Premier. This means they're not up for debate. It means they can't be questioned. So these changes this bill will allow in the mining sector are not only in this very brief bill but they give more regulatory power to the cabinet. They give more decision-making power over mines.
In this bill, as I've said, it talks about giving certain proponents the right not to comply with existing legislation or rules or regulations that deal with mining. The public will never know or will never be able to question the government or the minister on how these changes were made because this bill gives them the power to do so without scrutiny.
The next paragraph says, again, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to make regulations that are particular in application, may be limited as to the time or place or both, and that apply in areas designated by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines." Again, it's done behind closed doors with no public scrutiny.
I know that Her Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, Hilary Weston, was very upset the other day. She couldn't believe the number of faxes and letters and phone calls she received from people across Ontario. She was astounded that she got tens of thousands of requests from citizens in Ontario who are worried about education asking her to intervene. She said: "Oh, I can't intervene. Where did this idea come from?" Well, you can see why many Ontarians are starting to ask for her intervention, because in every bill you see more and more references to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as in this bill. So no doubt people are beginning to think that perhaps the Lieutenant Governor has some real power to overturn a bill or a decision.
As we know, the Lieutenant Governor's role is basically ceremonial and it's the cabinet and the Premier and the backroom bureaucrats who make the decisions. She can't actually do anything to overturn a bill, but you can imagine why so many Ontarians are starting to plead for help, because they don't know whom to turn to. They go to their ordinary MPPs and they say: "Listen, what is in this Bill 120 or in these other bills? Can you stop them? Can I stop them?" Many people are losing hope. They are saying, "The bills are passing so fast and furiously, when do we get a chance to find out what's in them?" That is why as a last resort they are now even faxing, phoning and writing the Lieutenant Governor, asking for her intervention, because people don't know where to turn to slow this government down so they can have a say in their education system, in the Mining Act. The tragedy is, again, that people in this province are having less and less say in the legislation that this government is ramming through day after day.
1950
As you know, along with Bill 120, which is one of these red tape bills, come Monday the government is going to try and put forward -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): A point of order; the leader of the third party.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I understand that some members of the Legislature have been handed information, brochures on how their communities are going to be affected in terms of downloading. Others have not been given that information.
The Speaker: We already went through that, actually. There was a point of order already raised, I believe.
Mr Hampton: This is a point of privilege, Speaker.
The Speaker: Okay, a point of privilege; sorry.
Mr Hampton: I think it is a point of privilege that some members have this information and other members do not have this information. Is this any way for a government to operate?
The Speaker: We went through this earlier, and I think the same rules apply. It was classified as a courtesy but certainly not a point of privilege. But I appreciate the point you have made and I have taken it into consideration. Whether you agree or don't agree that the government should operate in that fashion, it's not a point of privilege that I can force or tell a government whom to give information to and whom not to.
Mr Hampton: On a point of order this time, Speaker: This has incredible impacts upon citizens across this province, upon taxpayers across this province, and it cannot be the case that some members are privileged to receive this information and others are not. What a hell of a way to run a government.
The Speaker: You're entering the realm of debate rather than a point of order.
Member for Oakwood?
Mr Colle: If I can continue - by the way, the member for St Catharines has the secret brown envelope from the minister on the downloading. I don't have the secret brown envelope. I certainly agree with my colleague from Rainy River, that hopefully we would all get the same information.
The member for St Catharines has it, the Tory caucus all have their downloading figures, the member from Kingston. Somehow the member for Oakwood doesn't get the same kind of treatment. I think it's pretty shabby, and they can't blame that on the computer.
This government always likes to pass the blame. You know, the blame stops at the Premier's desk, because as in Bill 120, more and more power and regulation of mining and so forth is going to him. That's what this bill basically does. It supposedly reduces red tape, but it gives more power to the Premier behind closed doors.
As a member of the Legislature, I can't get information to find out what's in these bills. I can't even get information on the downloading figures. Some members have it, some don't, and this is the kind of government we're establishing. It's a government of privilege. It's a government that decides on their own whim who will get what rather than doing it in an even fashion. So here I stand today, no brown envelope with the figures; other members have brown envelopes. I guess it gets back to these bills.
A lot of these red tape bills were introduced back on June 5, 1996, and the government has the audacity to say that it's our fault, that we're slowing the process down. They've been sitting on these bills, Bill 63, 65, 66, 67 - the six-pack. On Monday they are going to bring in the omnibus six-pack closure bill. They're going to close off debate on six bills at a time. As if it's not enough to close on one at a time, now they've got to do it six at a time. Then they wonder why people are getting so upset in this province. They wonder why the member for St Catharines is fit to be tied as the House leader.
They're going to be introducing six bills like Bill 120 into the Legislature on Monday and closing debate on all six and saying the public has no right to know what's in the bills. That's what they do. When they deny us the right to know what's in Bill 120, they deny the public the right to know what's in Bill 120. That's what they're doing. On Monday it's going to be the closure bill of all closure bills, the mother of closure bills, the six-for-one closure on Monday.
If the member for St Catharines blows a gasket, you know full well that he's entitled to blow a gasket because this government is laughing in the face of the people of Ontario. They may not want to know all the details about Bill 120 and what's in the Mining Act, but they want to have the assurance that at least the member for St Catharines, the member for Dovercourt, the member for Riverdale or the member for Kingston and The Islands are able to question what's in the bill. That's all the public asks.
This government is saying: "You don't have to know what's in the bill. We're going to pass them six at a time come Monday." Six bills at a time, that's what we're getting to: no debate, no questions, passing bills six at a time. If that isn't an affront to democracy, I don't know what is, again along with more government by regulation.
In Bill 120, we see the minister is authorized to set the amount of fees required to be paid. The minister is setting up all kinds of user fees without any public scrutiny. How much are these user fees? Are they right? Are they legitimate? This government is saying: "Don't question the minister. Don't question these bills. We're going to pass them - here they are, the six-pack - six at a time. You've got to take them, whether you like it or not, six at a time, six for the price of one."
It's not bad enough that they changed the rules here; now they're going to change even their own rules. Instead of passing one bill at a time within 24 hours, they're going to pass six in a 24-hour period, with no debate, no questions. If you want to know what the Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe, you'll never get a chance to ask. We're the MPPs. Can you imagine the ordinary citizen in St Catharines or Wawa or Kitchener? When will they be able to find out what's in this Bill 120? When will they be able to find out what's in these bills? When will they find out what's in the six-pack? When these get passed in 24 hours, the public is being told: "We will pass six at a time. Like it or lump it." That's what they're saying.
We've got this Bill 120 before us, and as I said, it is part of a pattern which does nothing more than take care of the concerns this government has about making decisions that aren't questioned. That's what this bill does. It essentially authorizes decisions about who has to comply with regulations. That is not authorized in a public open forum. It's authorized under the auspices of the cabinet, behind closed doors.
Bill 120 may seem like an innocuous bill, and the six-pack which is going to be introduced on Monday seems innocuous, but with these six bills you're going to see on Monday, a lot of people are going to be saying, "Does this government really have to pass bills six at a time now?" That's what we've got.
In Bill 120 this government again expresses that concern about passing bills quickly because they've got to clean up red tape. The Liberal whip, the member for Kingston and The Islands, said it very succinctly: If the government thought these bills were so important, why would they sit on them for a year and a half? These red tape bills were introduced back on June 5, 1996. There's a bill on citizenship and culture that we passed today that wasn't a bad bill, but it didn't help too much. There's the Ministry of Economic Development bill to simplify government. There's another bill on the Ministry of the Environment, a Ministry of Health bill, a bill on the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the correctional services bill.
All these bills and Bill 120, which deals with mining, may not affect every Ontarian but they do affect certain Ontarians, and by the time we as members of this Legislature can communicate with interested Ontarians and get the information back to find out whether they have a concern, these six bills will be passed because Ontarians won't know what's in them. That's how this government works.
How can the average citizen who may be affected by what's going to be happening in the Mining Act, the average citizen who is going to be affected by changes in culture, economic development, the environment, changes in the Ministry of Health - as you know, in the Ministry of Health there are major changes, yet nobody will be able to question these.
That's why in Bill 120, as members of the opposition, it is our duty to ensure that the public can ask for copies of these bills, the public can try and ask local experts about the impacts of these bills. That's all the public is asking. The public isn't necessarily going to be opposed to a bill, but the public has the right, as electors, to be educated, a right to have input on a bill, and they do it through this House.
2000
But when you pass so many bills and you have closure on bill after bill after bill, it doesn't serve the public interest. It serves your special agenda, whatever it may be, good, bad or indifferent, but when you do things so rapidly, in such a sledgehammer fashion, it doesn't serve anybody well. The mad rush in democracy is full of unbelievable pitfalls. This government is saying, "We have to rush everything." Whether it be in the Mining Act, in Bill 120, or the six laws they want us to pass without debate on Monday, they say, "We've got to rush and jam this through."
I'm going to just hope and pray that the public of Ontario understands that more and more power is going behind closed doors, more and more power is regulatory power. That means the control of the $6 billion of education taxes is going to be done not by debate or scrutiny, it's going to be done behind closed doors, where no one can question the Minister of Education about a $6-billion tax decision which affects every property taxpayer, every tenant, every small business person and big business person in Ontario. That decision, like in Bill 120, is going to be done by a minister and his backroom bureaucrats, whiz kids, whatever you call them, without questioning or debate or scrutiny. That is wrong.
That is not part of Ontario's parliamentary legislative tradition, because what happens when you rush things and you do things behind closed doors is the public feels left out of the process. The public gets alienated and the public is not served to its best interests, because you may be hurting someone when you make decisions behind closed doors. At least in an open forum, if these regulatory decisions about mining and the authorization to not comply to a mining provision were discussed in public, maybe someone living in a mining community in northern Ontario could stand up and say: "Wait a minute. That's wrong. It may be something that's going to harm my water supply. Perhaps that's wrong. It's going to be something that's going to cause some kind of environmental impact." But Bill 120 gives that kind of power, more and more power to ministers and their backroom bureaucrats behind closed doors. That is a dangerous and an ominous trend of this government.
As I said, we have seen nothing yet. They're not happy with just one or two bills a day. They want six bills at a shot now. How can the public ever find out what's the public interest when they don't get a chance even to debate these bills? They debate these bills through their members of Parliament. Sure, some members of this Legislature don't want any debate. Some people say they shouldn't be standing up. They say that none of us in the opposition should be standing up; we should be quiet. That's what they want. They want us to be quiet. They want us to salute everything. They want us just to vote and get out of this place. That's all they want. They don't want us to debate Bill 120.
What my constituents are saying is they want me to debate, they want me to stand up for them. They want me to question and they give me royal hell if I don't do it. That is what the public wants their MPPs to do. They don't want people who just take orders and are just robots. They want their MPPs to stand up and be heard. They don't want people just warming the seats. That's what this government wants their government members and the opposition to do.
They're saying: "We've got these six bills. Don't ask any questions. Don't raise your voice. Don't dare scrutinize what's in the bill. Don't dare debate it. Pass them. If you don't pass them, you're holding down progress and the financial future of the province and the western world." Every bill they give us the same line: "Oh, the world's going to end if you don't pass Bills 67, 69, 66, all these bills, and 120. If you don't pass these, the western economy is going to collapse."
That's what this government keeps on saying about every bill, big or small. Bill 160 was a perfect example where they said: "We're going to jam it through. Education has to have this bill. Education is going to collapse unless we get 160." The public spoke loud and clear. They said they didn't want 160 when they found out what was in that bill, when they found out what was in Veronica Lacey's contract, when they found a $667-million time bomb in Veronica Lacey's contract, which proved the government was not being forthright when it said that bill wasn't about taking money out of education.
That's why it's important for members of the opposition to debate 120 and to debate all bills, big or small. I know the government keeps on saying: "It's not necessary. Pass it through in a half-hour." They do not like people standing up in this House and questioning them. What bothers them the most is when their motives or their bills are debated and questioned. They don't like that. You know why they don't like that? Because a lot of the material in these bills is not in the public interest. We know they're trying to extract power from the Legislature, from the public and put it in the back rooms.
As you know, Bill 26 started it all off, where they just took so much power into the back rooms that they dramatically turned the province upside down. That Bill 26 scenario continues and Bill 26 lives on in Bill 120, where there's more executive power. I know that people say this is no longer a legislative democracy; this is an executive regime now. It's executive power; executive power is all-powerful and all-knowing.
On Monday we're going to see executive power at its worst, when six bills are going to be jammed through without debate, an omnibus six-pack of closed bills with no debate. Shame on Mike Harris and the closure that he brings on this Parliament.
The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Questions and comments? Further debate?
Mr Gerretsen: No, questions and comments. I was waiting for somebody to get up, Madam Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I see. Okay, member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr Gerretsen: I want to make some comments about the eloquent comments made by the member for Oakwood and the member for St Catharines before.
It is true that on Monday this government will try by way of a closure motion to have six bills that have been around since June 1996, for a year and a half, dealt with at once. It's kind of strange that this comes from a government that wants to deal with red tape. You wonder why they haven't done that in the last year and a half. These bills have been around for almost 300 days that we've been meeting here, 300 different sessions.
Mr Ford: We're rushing it through.
Mr Gerretsen: You could have called it at any time. At any time, you could have called one of these bills and we would have debated it fully. You didn't.
Ms Mushinski: They asked for them.
Mr Gerretsen: And you didn't. As you can see by the actions earlier today, you called one of these bills, we debated Bill 63 and then we passed it. We had some questions. I had some concerns about the Ontario Heritage Act, but I realized that those concerns could be dealt with by way of regulation and otherwise, and we passed the bill. One day of debate on third reading and the bill was passed. If you were interested in getting these bills passed earlier, why didn't you bring them forward one at a time so that we could debate?
2010
Hon Mr Harnick: You say this about every single bill. Why don't you ever say anything about the substance of the bill? Come on, talk about the substance of the bill.
Mr Gerretsen: I'll talk about Bill 120. I'll talk about the Ministry of Natural Resources -
Hon Mr Harnick: Every speech is the same.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order, please. Further questions and comments.
Mr Gerretsen: No, wait a minute now. My time is not up. Thank you. Let's just talk for a moment about the MNR employees that you fired all over the province of Ontario -
The Deputy Speaker: Okay. Questions and comments.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I listened very attentively to the members and I continue to be appalled that this government would not listen to the advice of such eloquent and informed individuals as my colleagues. They have insistently pointed out to this government that you can't just rush things through, as you're doing. You can't have great closures to everything that you have.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Curling: It seems to me I've touched a nerve with this government which has decided to rule with its iron fist. My understanding is that this government, which wants, very much so, to put closure on everything, to make sure that this government operates without even the people themselves -they would rather that the people go away. It's their kind of democracy.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): It would be a great place without people, wouldn't it?
Mr Curling: Exactly. One day you're standing up talking about recognizing human rights and the next day -
Mr Gerretsen: They're denying our right to speak.
Mr Curling: - they're denying rights for people to conduct themselves a democratic way. What type of hypocrisy do we see in a country like this? What type of hypocrisy do we have in the province that we would make sure that people be heard? We even see the contradiction of the bills in the way in which they offer and define bills in the House. I say they should listen attentively to the eloquent things -
The Deputy Speaker: Further questions and comments?
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I've been listening very carefully to everything that's been said and I really have no questions or comments about what the Liberals have said tonight.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I couldn't have picked a more accurate or pithy way to describe what I too have experienced. I appreciate the member encapsulating those comments, and I have no questions or comments either.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Oakwood, you have two minutes to sum up.
Mr Colle: I want to thank the member for Scarborough North for his comments and appreciation for what's important in terms of the rights of this House, and the member for Kingston and The Islands. In terms of Bill 120, I think that's what we're talking about. I know this government doesn't like members of the opposition debating and questioning. Whether it's Bill 120 or other bills, they have this disdain for being questioned. They feel they have the divine right to rule this province. As I said, they felt when they won the election, they bought the business. That's what these members of the government now think.
When we stand up and question these bills for the public, they're doing everything they can to limit the questioning. As we're going to see with these bills on Monday, they're going to try and jam through without debate six bills at time. That is what is wrong with a government that is recklessly trying to essentially make a province their own little playground. That's what they're doing. They feel that anybody who questions or, as I said, debates their bills or opposes their bills has no right to do so. So what they do is always limit the debate. Every time you question a bill, every time it's controversial, limit debate. That's their response. They have done it since Bill 26 and they're going to continue to do it because they feel the public will not find out what they're doing. But the public is finding out that this government is about closing down debate and they don't want people to question them.
We will keep questioning you, we will keep criticizing you, because that's our job.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Further debate?
Ms Martel: Before I begin my remarks with respect to Bill 120, I should just give people some indication of how long I intend to speak. Earlier I had said to the government whip that I intended to go for my whole time, up to and until he could get me a copy of the download numbers for the leader of the third party, which he has now delivered. Now I will only speak for 45 minutes, so I appreciate that. I know it's late and we all want to get out of here. Let me make a couple of comments here this evening, though.
First of all, on second reading we did support the bill and we will be supporting it on third reading. It is true that I raised concerns during the second reading debate with respect to how it was that we were very much going to guarantee that any rules that got set in place for staking were rules that were going to be environmentally sound. I was very concerned that because the bill was silent on this issue and there was a large amount of discretion left to the minister in the bill, the reverse could work and in a particular area rules may well be developed that would be detrimental to or downgrade the environment.
After having spoken to the ADM at Northern Development and Mines, it was clarified for me that if an area is particularly environmentally sensitive, then of course the ministry does withdraw that area from staking. But under the current rules there are no provisions whatsoever to deal in areas that have not been withdrawn but that are still of concern to people from an environmental point of view of how to protect those particular areas. I am convinced, after having dealt with the ADM, that the bill as proposed will do what the ministry says it will do, which is to allow for the development of some very special rules for staking under the Mining Act in areas that have a particular sensitivity but which the government believes should still be areas open for exploration and development.
The provision, as I've been told, is going to deal very directly with the situation in Temagami, namely, how we are going to deal with the skyline reserve. The last time we dealt with this bill, I went through recommendation 22 from the Temagami Comprehensive Planning Council which listed the concern of that particular group with respect to how to deal with staking in the skyline reserve. They themselves as a group had put together a special management plan, a prescription for how very special rules would be applied, and made that recommendation to government.
I am told now that as this bill moves through, and once it is passed, that particular prescribed plan will form the basis for some negotiations with the stakeholders in Temagami to deal with the very particular concerns they have with respect to staking. I'm pleased that there is a plan that has been put together by the comprehensive planning council members in Temagami, which represented a broad cross-section of stakeholders, that the government has adopted that and, once the bill is passed, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines staff will then proceed to have some negotiations with the stakeholders in those communities to deal with putting that plan in place. Of course, the mining community, the Temagami First Nation, the Temagami Lakes Association, the community of Temagami and others will all be involved in that process.
2020
I have to say, though, that as a complete contradiction to that, I just wonder how productive those discussions are going to be. I say that because in another area of Temagami, namely, Cross Lake, this government has let a particularly sensitive environmental area be opened up for motorized access, absolutely contrary to the recommendations made by the comprehensive planning council in their report to this government in April 1996. I just find the contradiction so glaring and so obvious that I can't believe for one moment that productive discussions with respect to this bill and the skyline reserve are actually going to happen and be beneficial, because I don't doubt for a second that the local people in the Temagami area have no confidence whatsoever in this government to protect the environment.
The history of what has happened at Cross Lake under this government would leave anyone who lived in that area feeling that this government couldn't care less about the environment and, frankly, couldn't care less about some of the important recommendations of the comprehensive planning council. In fact, I think any discussion that is now going to take place on the Mining Act is going to be very, very difficult because the local groups are so angry with this government with respect to its actions on Cross Lake.
Very briefly, I just want to outline the history of that situation. The comprehensive planning council made a very difficult decision with respect to Cross Lake, because there has been access into that lake for the last 50 years. But the broad stakeholders came together and made a decision that because they didn't want this very important lake to be overused, they would not allow motorized access into that particular lake. They looked at walk-in access, they made a recommendation about walk-in and they made it very clear that the group believed there should no longer be motorized access into that area, despite the pressure from anglers, particularly out of the North Bay-Nipissing district.
The government and the Minister of Natural Resources totally ignored that recommendation. The Minister of Natural Resources decided there would be motorized access into Cross Lake anyway, despite the recommendation that had been made, and this after a process of six long years to come to some kind of land use plan for that whole area.
Last October 1996 all of a sudden the Ministry of Natural Resources allowed a particular user group, the West Nipissing Access Group, to build a road right down to the shoreline. They did it without undertaking any of the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, particularly the class EA for small-scale MNR projects, completely in contravention of the law. This group was allowed to go in, with no EA undertaken, completely contrary to a recommendation made by the comprehensive planning council, and build a road, motorized access, right down to the shoreline.
Well, the Ministry of Natural Resources got caught and, lo and behold, last fall they had to go in and sign, barricade, try and cut off access. But they also ended up being hauled into court by another ministry in this government, namely, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, because they had failed to follow any of the rules of environmental assessment.
After that had happened and the court proceedings began, this government then indicated its intent to have access into the area and register that on the environmental registry. What they did was to pretend that nothing had happened, that there was not a road already in there, that the ministry had not already been caught, was in court, was going to be charged later on and convicted. They put out a notice in the paper which said, with respect to access to Cross Lake:
"The Ministry of Natural Resources, North Bay District, is considering the development of an access point on Cross Lake located in Temagami township. The purpose of the project is to address the government of Ontario's response to the recommendations of the Temagami Comprehensive Planning Council. The government believes in the principle of access to Cross Lake and indicated that any new development would be planned in accordance with the regulations of the class environmental assessment for small-scale MNR projects."
This project is being planned in accordance with the class environmental assessment for small-scale projects. Well, the fact of the matter was the government had already broken a commitment that should have been made to the comprehensive planning council. It totally ignored their recommendation. The road already went in. Now the government, last December, put in a public notice saying they wanted public input with respect to a new development in the area. The development was already there, contrary to the class EA for small-scale projects, so that was an insult to all the local folks who would have been involved in this. They knew full well that the government had totally messed up on this dossier and was now trying to backtrack.
In April the MOEE laid charges against the Ministry of Natural Resources for failing to comply with the regulations and requirements of the EA Act.
Then finally in September, after repeated court dates that were postponed, the MNR was actually found guilty of allowing the road to be built without undertaking any of the terms or conditions of the class EA.
Here we are with one ministry of this government laying charges against another ministry of this government for breaching a very major act. It was a complete failure on the part of the Ministry of Natural Resources to deal with any of the requirements required by law.
A sad thing about it is that at the time, in September when MNR was found guilty, the prosecutor for the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the MNR lawyer both argued that MNR should not be punished, despite having broken the law. Despite that fact that MNR allowed a group to go in, did not undertake any of the steps necessary to do an EA in that area, got caught and got charged, the MNR and the MOEE still had the audacity in court to argue before a justice of the peace that they should in no way, shape or form be punished.
To the credit of the court and the provincial justice of the peace, today that justice of the peace has totally thrown out the argument by MNR and MOEE and actually delivered the sentence and MNR has been fined $1,200. Also, and I want to make this clear, the justice of the peace indicated that he had a problem with the MOEE not seeking a penalty, and he also disapproved of the MNR's attempts at closing the illegal road and policing its use. Justice of the Peace Kitlar also indicated that MNR should place the appropriate signage on the road to effectively close it.
Both ministries, as far as I'm concerned, were condemned by the court with respect to their attempt to weasel out of any kind of penalty that should well be applied against the MNR for having contravened the Environmental Assessment Act. To his credit, the justice of the peace made it very clear that not only will a fine apply but he very much condemned the actions of the two ministries in trying to avoid having any penalty paid and basically trying to say it's okay to break the law in this province and that there will be no penalty.
In the last number of months since this issue has gotten under way, certainly the Ministry of Natural Resources and frankly the MOEE have not given any confidence to the people who live in the Temagami area that they care one whit about the environment or that they care one whit about the six years of work and the report that was presented to this government in April 1996 with respect to how to develop land use planning in the Temagami area.
I think the government will live with that for a long time and it will make any kind of negotiations with respect to dealing with other environmental issues in Temagami very, very difficult. People in the local community do not have any confidence, as a result of the Cross Lake incident, that this Conservative government cares at all about the environment or is going to take any special measures to protect an area of the province that has been, for a long, long time, the source of much controversy about how to deal with conflicting land uses.
I wish the government well. It's an important discussion with respect to Bill 120 and how to develop special rules, but it sure is starting off on a very poor footing. I don't think it bodes well for the government at all, having already a very poor track record with respect to the environment, particularly Cross Lake, in terms of the negotiations that a different ministry is now going to try and enter into with respect to the skyline reserve.
In conclusion, I want to say that I'm happy to see that Bill 120 has finally become a priority for this government. It only took 10 months after the introduction of the act. I'm glad to see that the bill and its regulations have come out from under the heap, as the minister described it in his comments to some of the officials from Temagami, and will now proceed. I suspect that a lot of that pushing for it to proceed came because most people around here recognize that we will probably start a new session in the new year, and if they were going to keep the bill at all, something had to be done and had to be done very quickly so that it would not be lost completely from the legislative agenda.
I wish the ministry staff well who will have to enter into what I think are going to be some very difficult negotiations now because of what this government has already done. They are important negotiations, however, and I do hope the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines will be able to regain some confidence that I think has deservedly been lost because of the MOEE and MNR in this area and actually come up with a very productive plan that will lead to staking in this important area of the province.
2030
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Let me just say that I am very pleased that the member for Sudbury East is going to support this bill.
Mr Gerretsen: That was a very brief and very forceful endorsement by the member for Kitchener.
I would like to endorse the comments made by the member for Sudbury East. She certainly talked about the merits of this bill and ought to be congratulated, because she undoubtedly knows an awful lot about it. But I was most taken by the last comment she made, that this bill needs to be passed now. As we all know, the session is coming to an end and it needs to be passed now, because otherwise the bill is lost. That of course begs the question: On a bill that all parties basically agree with, why did the government wait 10 months to call this bill to the House? They could have done so at any time whatsoever in the last 150 sessions we've had here.
For them to suggest, as they did earlier this evening, that somehow the opposition is to blame because the government didn't have the nerve or the guts or the fortitude to call these bills forward, particularly this Bill 120 when they knew that it had the support of everyone, is absolutely beyond belief.
The people out there should realize that the government today filed an omnibus closure motion to have six bills that were introduced in June 1996, more than a year and a half ago, dealt with in one session when they could have dealt with them one at a time in a very orderly manner. It's absolutely disgraceful that this government should act in such a barbaric and undemocratic way. There's no question about it. If you don't believe it, read the editorial in my paper yesterday that called you a barbaric government.
Mrs Boyd: I want to congratulate the member for Sudbury East on a very pithy and logical response directed at the bill.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Everybody seems to be worried about us delaying bringing this bill forward, but I have to suggest to you that if you read the agenda we've been through, we were trying to soften you up and get you ready for such a major transitional bill.
The Speaker: Response, the member for Sudbury East? Nothing? Okay. Further debate; the member for Kingston and The Islands.
Ms Churley: You already debated it.
Mr Gerretsen: It may have seemed to you that I've debated this bill, and I did at second reading, but I have not debated it here this evening.
I have pointed out consistently that you should have called this bill a lot earlier and we could have dealt with it, particularly a bill that's agreed to by everyone in this House. You didn't. Earlier today, we passed Bill 63, another bill that -
Now the former minister is shaking her head. She doesn't know who is next in the debate. Madam, I would not come into this House and tell you honestly and openly that I have not debated this bill or had not spoken on it if I had. It may seem to you that I have because I've made a number of responses to some of the other speeches on this particular bill, but I have not -
The Speaker: We'll put it to bed. You haven't debated the bill, so let's debate it.
Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Speaker. It's just that the former minister is getting so excited about this. It is a bill to get excited about, because it will actually cut red tape. We in this party favour the cutting of red tape in all government enterprises, provided that the environmental protections are still there for the general public. That should always be the overriding theory.
I've been convinced by the members of my own caucus and indeed by the debate that has taken place in this House that with this bill, that is so, so I understand that we will be supporting this bill.
What has to be said, though, and it's absolutely crucial that we say this once again -
Interjections.
Mr Gerretsen: Everybody wants me to sit down.
Mr Bradley: Not me.
Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much. We live in a democracy. This is the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario. On June 8, 1995, 130 of us were elected by the people of Ontario who came out and voted that day. At that given moment in time, they said on an individual basis, and as a result collectively, "Eighty-two of you will form the government and that government will be led by Mike Harris." They said that, but on only one day did they say that, on June 8, 1995. Everything that's happened since then has been an attack on different groups in this province.
A package has just been delivered to my House leader with, I assume, all the municipal numbers with respect to each and every municipality as it affects the Liberal caucus. I must say it's somewhat shameful that these numbers are delivered this way. We do appreciate that after it was made clear in this House earlier, in a number of different points of order and points of privilege about the fact that the government members had these figures, which had been awaited so eagerly by the general public and by the municipal tax people etc, that they had the figures and members of the opposition didn't, then the government whip did what he could to make sure we all got the numbers. He even delivered all these packages to all those people who were in the House. I thank you, sir, for doing that.
Interjections.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Blah, blah, blah.
The Speaker: Member for Perth, member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, please come to order.
Mr Hastings: No.
The Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, I don't want to hear that any more. The member for Kingston and The Islands has the floor properly. If you are leaving, could you do so in a quiet manner. Thank you.
Mr Hastings: No.
The Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, I don't want to argue with you any more.
Mr Hastings: I'm not arguing.
Mr Gerretsen: I thank the government whip for delivering the packages of the numbers that the municipalities have been waiting for, on a person-to-person basis. But I tell you, sir, although you may have good intentions, it is a heck of a way to run a government. Packages like this should not be delivered just to those members who happen to be here, after they have made pleas by way of points of order, points of privilege and everything else. That's not the way this should work in this place, surely. Surely government information should be shared equally with everybody.
Hon Mr Harnick: What does that have to do with the bill? Surely as a former mayor you can at least talk about the bill.
Mr Gerretsen: There we have the Attorney General. Attorney General, why are you even here? Why aren't you dealing with the recommendations contained in the Provincial Auditor's report? What about all those outstanding fines? There is $389 million worth of outstanding fines that you should be collecting, sir.
Hon Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We would all like to hear the member's speech pertaining to the bill that's before us. I wonder if you might direct that that happen.
The Speaker: We're debating Bill 120, member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr Gerretsen: I can well understand that Attorney General does not want me to talk about the Provincial Auditor's report, although it would be a great thing to talk about, but he doesn't want me to talk about the backlog of cases and about the outstanding fines.
The Speaker: Member for Kingston and the Islands, Bill 120.
Mr Gerretsen: Yes, I realize, and Bill 120 is a good bill and a bill that ought to be passed. I wish I could say that about more government bills that come forward, because there haven't been that many. As a matter of fact, I can't remember any that have been introduced by the Attorney General, for example. It would be interesting if he would accede one day and say, "Yes, after all the court proceedings are over and done with, we will have an inquiry on Ipperwash."
Hon Mr Harnick: What does that have to do with Bill 120? You have nothing to say.
Mr Gerretsen: I have a lot of things to say, and the people of Ontario want to say a lot of things too. They want to have the truth come out about what really happened at Ipperwash, sir. I think the only way that can happen is if we have a public inquiry. Why we don't have that kind of commitment to have an inquiry once all the court proceedings are over and done with I for the life of me can't understand. I'll let the people draw their own conclusion from that. Many of those I've talked to can come to only one conclusion.
2040
Certainly Bill 120 is something that is needed. We need fewer regulations within the whole mining field, but at the same time we also ought to be cognizant of why we have fewer regulations. Is it because over the last year or two this government has let go of an awful lot of the MNR employees who worked in many of the rural areas of this province? I know that in many small townships the MNR office is a great employer and it's something that is really needed to make sure all of the various activities the Ministry of Natural Resources is involved in are properly attended to.
We all know that as a result of budget cuts in that particular department, the number of people who used to work as conservation officers are no longer there.
Interjection.
Mr Gerretsen: Mr Speaker, I now get an interjection from the Acting Speaker, a man we admire so much when he sits in the chair you're sitting in currently. I'm not sure whether we can say the same thing when he sits in the chair he's currently occupying in this House.
Bill 120 is very important and we need to deal with it.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): We know that. Talk about it.
Mr Gerretsen: The question I have to the member for Peterborough is, why didn't you bring this forward earlier? Why do you try to blame the opposition for the fact that you haven't dealt with this bill earlier? It is hard for the people of Ontario to believe that on the basis of 45% of the popular vote that you got on June 8, 1995 -
Hon Mr Harnick: Who's blaming the opposition? Nobody's blaming the opposition.
Mr Gerretsen: Yes. Oh, you weren't here earlier. We were berated, we were - well, belittled isn't quite the right word - spoken to by the honourable government whip that we were the party, and the third party, that held up Bill 120 and some of the other red tape bills from being passed in this House. I can tell you, having accompanied my friend the Liberal House leader to many of the House leaders' meetings they've had over the last year or so, we have repeatedly said, on almost a weekly basis, to both House leaders, whoever they happened to be, and to the honourable government whip, "Bring forth the red tape bills and we will debate them one at a time." There was always a very polite smile and a nod, but nothing ever happened. He never took us up on what I thought was very good advice to bring the bills forward, and he didn't do so.
I am not going to prolong this because I know there are many other important bills we want to deal with. Maybe if we had a vote on this bill tonight we could call another one of those bills. If we dealt with another bill tonight, it would not be necessary for the government to bring in those two draconian time allocation motions. I'm not even sure whether you've seen them, Speaker, but one of them, for example, expects us to deal with six red tape bills in one closure motion the next time the bill is called. When is that? On Monday?
The other closure motion is even better than that. You may recall that last night a bill, namely Bill 164, was referred by the Minister of Finance to the committee on finance and economic affairs to be discussed and debated the way we normally do at committee. Today we have a time allocation motion that basically says that when they meet on Monday at 7 o'clock, a vote on the bill will be held immediately and it will be reported back to the House. I can only draw one conclusion from that, and I'm sure the people of Ontario can only draw one conclusion: that there was never an intent for the committee to deal with this bill in the first place. Not to allow any debate at the committee level just isn't right. Maybe this is a new tactic or a new way for the government to deal with this kind of material.
In any event, I will wind up fairly soon. Let me just say that I don't like these tactics, and the people of Ontario don't like these tactics, of bringing in closure time after time. Just about every major bill we've dealt with over the last three or four months has been time-allocated. Closure has been invoked on them.
It is time for this government to mend its ways, to not act, as the Whig-Standard said yesterday in its editorial, "in such a barbaric fashion." Those are their words, not my words. That's what they said. That, you may recall, dealt with the closure of two institutions or two organizations that were heavily involved with the mentally ill. They were just closed. Somebody from the ministry came down and changed the locks - closed. That's what happened.
The Speaker: Bill 120.
Mr Gerretsen: Bill 120 is one of those bills we actually agree with. Having said that, I hope the government will change its ways and act in a more democratic fashion. Don't be so barbaric.
I see the Minister of Economic Development. Maybe he's got some good news for us. He's always got a smile on his face. I know there are some people in my area who actually would like to see him back as Minister of Transportation. He would have given the funding for the ferries to Wolfe Island and Howe Island. According to the community reinvestment fund, there sure isn't a lot of money for those ferries. I don't know what the heck's going to happen. We had some hope he would do something. Then, of course, we had hope when the new minister came that he would do something, and these people still don't know what's going to happen on January 1.
We can laugh about it, we can smile about it, we can do all we want about that, but it is a real problem for 2,000 Ontarians who have been cut off by this government; people who have lived there for three or four or five generations, who have their business there, who have their farms there. These people will not know how to get back and forth to the mainland. They are part of Ontario. Why are you cutting them off? It was your Conservative predecessors -
The Speaker: Bill 120.
Mr Gerretsen: I realize that, Speaker, but there is a connection. On these ferries, every now and then, there is an MNR employee who goes from the mainland to one of the islands. I'm not sure whether those people have been let go.
Those people feel cut off and they feel abandoned by their government.
Mr Colle: Peter Trueman will be cut off.
Mr Gerretsen: Peter Trueman is one of the gentlemen who live on Amherst Island. I know he's concerned as well, as are the Burkes - Stanley Burke - and many other people. These people are concerned, and the lifelong residents of those islands as well.
I would implore this government, particularly the cabinet - there are three or four members of cabinet sitting right here, including the honourable government whip who is now a member of cabinet - to take another look at it. Try to treat everyone in Ontario with a sense of dignity and compassion. Don't cut people off at the kneecaps. Let's try to build a province together. Let's not try to pit one group in society against another group. Maybe that works for a little while and you score some points with some people, but in the long run it doesn't work. Show a bit of compassion.
Forget about the tax cut. We'll all give our tax cut back. Put some of this money back into the programs where it is needed, or if you don't want to put it into those programs, pay off some of the public debt. Put it towards this year's deficit. Do whatever you want, but don't take a tax cut because it doesn't make any sense. You're all business people. Why do you want to increase the public debt in this province from $100 billion when you started to $120 billion by the time you're finished? Why do you want to do that? You tell me why you want to do that. Even with the low interest rates we have in this province, we are still paying $9.1 billion per year in interest payments.
Hon Mr Harnick: Why do you think that is?
Mr Gerretsen: I've got to respond to the Attorney General. He's a senior member of cabinet and he's blaming it on our former government.
Hon Mr Harnick: Big spenders and big taxers, you and your cousins there.
Mr Gerretsen: Let's just review the figures. Look at your own budget document. Up until 1985, public debt in this province was $40 billion. During the Liberal regime, $10 billion was added. That makes $50 billion. Then during the severe times of the NDP, another $50 billion was added. But the initial $40 billion is your responsibility.
Interjections.
The Speaker: That's it. Stop the clock.
Member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr Gerretsen: Thank you, Speaker. Actually my colleagues are cautioning me about chuckling at this time, and these are problems we shouldn't be chuckling about and I'll be the first to agree.
In any event, do the right thing. Treat all people in Ontario with respect, whether they're the highest-income group or the lowest-income group, because I can tell you that whether we're dealing with Bill 120 or any other bill a lot of people in this province don't think you are doing that. You are not doing that.
Thank you very much, and I hope the debate will continue further along these lines.
2050
Mrs Boyd: I want to express to the member for Kingston and The Islands how grateful I am that he has completed his participation in this debate.
The Speaker: Questions and comments.
Mr Spina: I disagree mostly with the comments the member made, but at least he said he was supporting the bill, so thank you very much. That was the objective we wanted to achieve.
Mr Bradley: You have seen yet another example of the opposition being so very cooperative when the legislation is of benefit to the province.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I just want to say that I am glad the member for Kingston and The Islands was brief in his comments, because he did leave a few minutes on the clock. I followed his discussion not with 100% attention, I will confess, but I followed it. I didn't find it quite as much on point as, for example, the comments made by our own colleague the member for Sudbury East, but like him, we will support the bill, and I hope we can get on with showing that in the House.
The Speaker: Response.
Mr Gerretsen: I would seek unanimous consent that I will yield my response time -
The Speaker: You can't yield your response time. Just respond or don't respond.
Mr Gerretsen: I saw the government whip getting up, Speaker, and I thought he was going to compliment me and say something nice about me, since I actually said something nice about him, or maybe he was going to set his own caucus members straight as to why -
The Speaker: Respond to the people who made questions and comments. You can't respond to people who didn't make questions and comments.
Mr Gerretsen: I appreciate that, and that's why I would like to thank the member for London Centre for her excellent remarks and her excellent account of my speech. I really appreciate her. They were very thoughtfully made. The member for Brampton North made some excellent remarks as well.
I just want to finish off by saying that -
Hon Mr Harnick: And Tony too, the member for Dovercourt.
Mr Gerretsen: Tony too, the member for Dovercourt, made some excellent responses.
It is indeed unfortunate we couldn't get unanimous consent to allow the government whip to say something, because I'm sure the honourable government whip would have made some very adequate comments as well.
Let me just say that we agree with this bill and we will support it, but I also implore the government to try to show a little bit more compassion, especially to the most vulnerable in our province.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Spina has moved third reading of Bill 120. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.
HOUSE RECALL
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want to advise the House that I have received an order in council causing me to reconvene the House on Monday, December 15, 1997, at 1:30 p.m.
This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock on Monday.
The House adjourned at 2056.