Hansard Transcript 1993-Aug-03 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am rising in the House today to make a plea to the government to help save the farm land and the farmers of the Niagara region.

One can recall, having sat in this Legislature for a number of years, the pleas that were made by the then leader of the New Democratic Party, Stephen Lewis, and the many stories that appeared in the Globe and Mail and the many programs on the CBC that talked about the loss of farm land in the Niagara region, farm land which is unique because of the soil and the climatic conditions.

Also, during the last election campaign, we had a visit of then opposition leader Bob Rae to the Niagara Peninsula, where he indicated that one of his top priorities would be to save the farm land for future generations. The opportunity has been there for three years to help save the farm land.

I would like to enlist the support of the Minister of Agriculture and Food and all members of the government in promoting the conservation easements which have been proposed for farmers in the Niagara region, these easements being designed to make a viable living for those who farm the land. They are faced with very difficult competition because of changing trade laws and other reasons; they are faced with increased costs, some of those attributed to the provincial government through its taxation and other policies; and they are faced with the fact that the marketing is not, as it might be in some cases, done with the assistance of the government.

I call upon all members of the Legislature to help save both the farm land and the excellent fruit which is produced in the Niagara Peninsula by taking whatever action is necessary under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government.

RENT INCREASES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Recently, the tenants who reside in two buildings in my riding of Mississauga South received notification of a 22% rent increase, retroactive for three years.

Under the Residential Rent Regulation Act, the law in place when the application was made, landlords could apply for a rent increase to cover the costs of capital expenditures they had made. Unfortunately, it took nearly three years for a decision by the Ministry of Housing's Rent Review Hearings Board. The result of this delay is that the amount of back rent owed by the tenants is unbearable. Not only did the Ministry of Housing fail to deal expeditiously with the application; it also misled tenants. After all, in 1992, then Minister of Housing Dave Cooke wrote a letter in which he said, "No tenant in Ontario will ever again be faced with the fear or uncertainty of getting a rent increase of 15% or more in a year."

In addition, the Ministry of Housing conducted a $1.7-million advertising campaign in 1992 to promote its rent control legislation and again told tenants that they would be protected from large rent increases.

What the advertising campaign and Mr Cooke's letter failed to point out was that applications for rent increases already in the system would be considered based on the law in place at the time of the application. Without this vital piece of information, the tenants assumed that their landlord's application would not be approved.

The incomplete and misleading information given to tenants by the Ministry of Housing, along with the backlog in the rent review system, have combined to produce large debts which will be carried by the tenants regardless of whether or not they move. I believe the Ministry of Housing and the NDP government have been negligent and therefore must accept responsibility for the tenants' debts.

ANTI-RACISM ACTIVITIES

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise today to discuss a very serious issue that's attacking the moral fibre of our communities, that of racism and crimes that arise out of hate, and some of the local efforts in my community to combat these.

Even in the smaller towns and cities of Ontario, we are becoming accustomed to seeing newspaper reports of movements that promote racism and hate-inspired crimes. These groups are not new. Although they change their names, change their leaders and vary their targets with different generations, their messages are the same, and usually the groups meet with some acceptance from the uneducated and disadvantaged.

I am truly concerned about the proliferation of these hate groups and their ability to influence our young people. Although we do not promote obvious racism in our daily lives, the influence of organized racism is evident in children: in school yards, in washroom violence and the gangs that have become a subsociety of our school campuses today.

In Durham region, the most recent spate of activity by racist groups has met with active opposition from two specific groups: the human rights committee of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 222 and the Multicultural Council of Durham. Both groups are working hard to raise the consciousness of people to the existence of hate groups and the threat they pose.

The CAW is circulating a petition calling for the restraint of hate groups in a number of ways. They are dedicated to equality and fairness, particularly in matters of employment. The multicultural council adamantly challenges the groups that would destroy the peaceful harmony and celebration of cultural diversity that we cherish today.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's my pleasure to stand in the House today, back from a brief vacation, to join with all the members of the House in expressing a sense of outrage that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food would appeal a case which has been decided against it, which was to keep the Centralia College of Agricultural Technology open.

As you may know, Mr Speaker, the OMAF people have, without any kind of criteria, basically closed both the New Liskeard and Centralia colleges in their own minds. Having accepted the young men and women for classes in the fall of this year, OMAF advised them that they would no longer participate in the Centralia forum.

Some young people took OMAF to court and in fact won the case. Now OMAF, callously and without concern for either the agricultural community or the continuing education of our young people in agricultural Ontario, has basically decided to throw away the rule book and have it its own way. They have the money. They have the power to beat down the little people in rural communities. They are holding, over the heads of all rural citizens, their blatant power, their desire to close down all of rural Ontario.

I join with all members in condemning this government's actions.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I rise to express my deep concern about the negative effects that amendments to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act will have on local municipalities in that area. Bill 77 proposes to reduce the size of 11 municipal governments, have the regional councillors directly elected and exclude representation on the council by mayors of the region's municipalities.

In the past, regional government has been a successful partnership of local municipal interests and larger regional interests. But now, for the first time, our local government leaders will be prevented from participating at the regional level. This is a huge philosophical shift which appears to be step 1 towards one-tier government in Ottawa-Carleton.

Why is the government creating this new, more powerful level of government? Why is the province reorganizing local government so that the power to make decisions is further away from the people?

The members of this House should be aware that the proposed legislation was not a recommendation of the Kirby report, was not recommended by any deputations to the Kirby commission and was not a recommendation of the earlier Bartlett commission.

During the Kirby commission hearings, concern was often expressed that there was a hidden agenda, that the decisions were already made, that the public consultation process was merely a public relations exercise in order to say they had the exercise. The introduction of Bill 77 is proof that these suspicions were well-founded.

NIAGARA REGION

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): A week ago, on a beautiful Sunday afternoon in Niagara Falls, I attended the 179th anniversary of the Battle of Lundy's Lane. In this bloody battle, fought between the US and Canada on July 25, 1814, many lives were lost. In the past 79 years, our US friends have joined members of the Lundy's Lane Historical Society to honour the fallen of this battle.

The historic and beautiful cemetery and battleground are just steps away from Lundy's Lane and Drummond Hill, at the highest point in the city. I invite you to visit this quiet spot and the Lundy's Lane Historical Museum just down the street to learn more about the early settlement of Upper Canada and also to visit two other famous battle sites nearby from the War of 1812; these are Queenston Heights, with Brock's Monument, and also the Battle of Chippewa.

Holidaying in Niagara is always very special. There is so much to do and see, whether it's the attractions, the Niagara parks, or to stay overnight and see the fireworks over the falls every Friday night. Then Saturday morning I invite you to go to the farmer's market -- it is right behind the Lundy's Lane Historical Museum -- to get the very freshest in Niagara fruit and vegetables, and of course this year you've probably already heard that the peaches are the best.

Make sure you stop at the Lundy's Lane Historical Museum after you've done your shopping and then enjoy a leisurely drive to the picturesque villages of Chippewa and Queenston to explore our heritage and enjoy Niagara fruit land.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Today my comments deal with both the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation and the Minister of Transportation. As one who travels the roads of Ontario, I would like to relate some recent trends appearing in our once-great province. These are first impressions to people who are visiting us from either other parts of Ontario or from other provinces, or from other countries.

Let me say that I am appalled at the present appearance of our main highways and roads. Never have I seen such conditions. In many areas the weeds are so high they hide some of the signs. Broken tires and other refuse litter the roadways. The grassy boulevards are uncut, flags are tattered and torn, and might I say that it is indeed a very sorry mess.

I call on the government to restore a once "Ontario -- Incredible!" province to its previous beauty and splendour. Maybe it is time for some of our programs to hire these people unemployed and on welfare to put our province back in the condition we once knew it.

I might also mention that I have also been appalled at the condition of some of the lawns and the gardens in the government area. I mention the Sir James Whitney Block, and I notice they are cleaning it up today, but we have hedges that are uncut and grass that has been uncut. Let's get back to work and let's have the ministers of Transportation and Tourism do some promoting in this area.

HIGHWAY WIDENING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I rise today to urgently call upon the Minister of Transportation to ensure that planned improvements to Highway 6 through Wellington county are undertaken this year.

I have raised this issue in the Legislature many times, for the first time right in October 1990. We need improvements to Highway 6 for reasons of highway safety, for reasons of economic development and for job creation. My predecessor as the member for Wellington, Jack Johnson, first raised this issue in October 1989.

The municipal council supports it; the local residents support it; Minister, your own officials strongly support it. It's very, very important that the project be initiated this year. In January of this year it came to my attention that the Ministry of Transportation officials were identifying this as a priority project for work this year, and now we're into August and it still has not yet commenced.

The project involves resurfacing Highway 6 from county road 7 north to Fergus, widening the road and putting in passing lanes that are absolutely, essentially needed.

Minister, you must make certain that the project proceeds this year. The people of Wellington need your intervention to ensure that this project, which is so strongly supported by everyone, by your own officials, receives priority so that the needed improvements are initiated this year.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have been called upon at short notice to make a statement. I've got nothing written down, but that will not prevent me from taking to task the third party for spending thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars by making us be here today when we could have concluded the business on Thursday night and we could have been out of here. I just want to let the people know that they're the people who are costing thousands and thousands of dollars while we're here today. No one would shift gears.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mills: They're out of control, Mr Speaker, the whole lot of them.

I want to talk about Sunday. I had the pleasure and the honour of being at Toronto Islands to celebrate with those folks the passing of the legislation that permitted them to stay in those houses.

I must say that they're a different type of people than you meet here. They're a caring sort of people, and they were friendly and they made me feel very welcome. I'm going to tell you, even the dogs were friendly. There were dogs everywhere, and the dogs were all friends. That's more than I can say for some people. It was a wonderful day, and I say to the islanders, thank you for inviting me. I enjoyed it. My wife enjoyed it. We had a wonderful time.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I rise to report to this House the highlights of social contract agreements reached in every sector of the public service by negotiators representing our government and employer and employee groups. This is a significant accomplishment, and we all owe much to the hard work and commitment to public services shared by the participants in these talks.

We embarked on this social contract because the alternative, the loss of 20,000 to 40,000 jobs and the service cuts those jobs represent, was unacceptable. We were determined to avoid this and sought a three-year negotiated agreement with public sector employers and employees to restrain compensation costs in return for increased job security and improved workplace rights. That has been accomplished.

In each case, the agreements contain provisions meeting the $2-billion social contract savings target. To meet that target the agreements contain, generally, wage freezes and unpaid days of leave. Many of the agreements also contain mechanisms to identify and locate cost efficiencies which can be credited towards the target.

I am also very pleased that negotiators dealt with important non-monetary issues and were able to put in place innovative features giving employees a greater voice in the decisions affecting them and the services they deliver. I am confident this will build a new kind of relationship in the workplace. The agreements also feature innovations on government restructuring. These non-monetary provisions I believe will help make government more democratic, more efficient and more responsive.

Let me start with the government's own employees, the 80,000 members of the Ontario public service. There was a target here of $210 million. The measures improving job security and workplace democracy in this agreement are quite typical of all of them. A wide range of provisions enhancing the rights of surplus employees has been negotiated and voluntary exit opportunities, including early retirement, have been improved. Joint union-management committees dealing with waste and inefficiency will be set up, allowing employees to get their good ideas heard and acted upon.

The schools sector has 180,000 teaching and non-teaching employees working for 170 school boards. The savings target was $425 million. In the framework covering teaching and professional staff, the parties found savings by agreeing that the anticipated increase in the number of teachers as a result of enrolment increases will be reduced by 4.7%, or about 6,000 fewer teachers to be hired than before the social contract, a major and permanent cost efficiency. There will be a redeployment plan, including regional redeployment. The non-teaching staff agreement includes a joint task force on restructuring, reskilling and redeployment, and there will be discussions with bargaining agents prior to any contracting out.

In the health sector, with 266,000 workers and a $470-million social contract target, there are three separate agreements. The Minister of Health will be talking to you about that agreement today. In the broader health sector, the framework was signed by all employee groups and by most employer groups, the largest non-signator being the Ontario Hospital Association. However, we are confident that the framework will encourage bargaining at a local level which will involve more, if not all, employers. The agreement features three new joint structures, including, for example, a training and adjustment panel for the entire health sector. There will also be a task force to review expanded roles for registered nurses, expanded reviews of emergency services and laboratories, a review of collective bargaining structures and a system put in place to achieve cost efficiencies.

In the universities sector, with a $90-million target and 50,000 employees, redeployment rights have been enhanced. The Broadhurst report, calling for improved openness and accountability, will be implemented by December. A review of procurement and contracting-out policies will be initiated. Whistle-blowing protection is provided. Separate job security fund language has been negotiated for the support staff.

In the colleges sector, with a $40-million target and 32,000 employees, the employers through the Council of Regents and administrative staff have signed the framework. It is the government's hope that the framework will act as a catalyst to encourage academic and support staff to come to an agreement before August 10. Again, redeployment rights have been enhanced, including improved job offer rights. Contracting-out and procurement policies will be reviewed, and a commitment has been made, with government support, for joint trusteeship.

The government's agencies, boards and commissions, exclusive of Ontario Hydro, have 20,000 employees, 33 employers and a combined target of $35 million. The two separate agreements covering various agencies embrace a wide range of non-monetary measures enhancing workplace democracy, restructuring, reskilling and redeployment, as well as joint committees on productivity savings.

I have already reported to this House details of agreements reached last month with the municipalities, police and utilities; the Ontario Provincial Police, Ontario Hydro and the community services sector.

I am sure the members of this House would want to join me in congratulating the negotiators representing all parties to these talks on their efforts. Thanks to their skill and the commitment of their organizations to quality public services, jobs and services will be protected now and in the future.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I am delighted to tell the House that we have reached an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association, an agreement that will safeguard our precious health care system. The proposal encompasses a broad range of measures to meet the government's fiscal targets under both the Social Contract Act and the expenditure control plan. The proposed agreement is not final until the Ontario Medical Association membership ratifies it by August 10.

The spirit of this agreement is cooperation. Together, we will take on the challenges before us and guarantee to the people of Ontario a health system we can all continue to be proud of.

Our agreement includes innovative solutions that will improve access to medical services, increase physicians in underserviced areas, manage physician supply and distribution and contain health care costs.

To ensure equity of access to medical care to northern and rural communities, we will be offering special contracts and benefits. We will not be reducing the income of Ontario's new physicians, but we have concluded that as an interim measure it is necessary and in the public interest to regulate the growth in the number of physicians entering Ontario to practise medicine, with the objective of a national consensus on the training, supply and distribution of physicians.

We are committed to collaborating on such issues as health card fraud and appropriate utilization of medical services including overmedication.

We will be preparing amendments to Bill 50 to reflect this agreement.

I am confident we can move forward in the spirit of cooperation to implement changes that are necessary to guarantee a strong health care system for the 21st century.

I too want to pay tribute to those on both sides who have negotiated this agreement, particularly to the ministry team which worked long and very late in order to arrive at an agreement by the deadline, and it was led by Donna Segal and Eugene LeBlanc. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.

1400

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond to the Minister of Finance's statement. I start by saying that I don't think many of us were surprised, frankly, at the outcome yesterday. Everybody who was involved, I think, realized either you get a dollar today or you get 80 cents tomorrow. People said, "Either we get a dollar today or the legislation says we get 80 cents tomorrow." So I think all of us expected exactly what happened yesterday.

I would say to the minister, though, firstly, by his own documents, I gather that we now have savings of about $1.84 billion. There's about $160 million of acknowledged slippage. That's the first point I want to make. We have to acknowledge and recognize that.

Secondly, I understand that of the roughly $1.8 billion in savings, about $700 million of that is in reduced pension contributions. That's my understanding. That's about 40% of the savings. They may be real savings, but about 40% of the savings look like they are in reduced contributions to pensions.

The risk of that, I will say to all of us, is that these are defined benefit plans. If the government is wrong, if that $700-million contribution or a portion of it should be made and isn't made, some government in the future will have to make it up. That's the second point that we want to make. We want to be assured that it is reasonable that you can reduce the pension contributions by $700 million, because that is, as I say, 40% of the savings.

I think the third point that the official opposition would like to make is that we have yet to see the sectoral agreements, particularly in the education field; as the Minister of Health and my colleague will comment on later, on the OMA agreement; on the college agreement.

The reason we'd like to see the sectoral agreements is that, as the minister points out here, a major saving in the education field is increased class sizes. I think many of us here in the Legislature were working to see that we reduced class sizes. As I now see from the sectoral agreement, a major saving in the cost will be increased class sizes. As I say, we will want to see those sectoral agreements and have an opportunity to comment on them.

The last thing I'd say is that I think the real proof will come obviously on August 10, when we see the local agreements that are reached. The sectoral agreements are there. Now we want to see the local agreements. In some respects there are many employee groups and employer groups that say the sectoral agreements are going to make it more difficult, not easier, for them to reach agreements. The final proof will come as the finances come in and we see what were the real savings realized through this process. We won't know that, I guess, for several months.

Those would be the comments that we in the official opposition would like to make on the Minister of Finance's statement.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like to comment briefly, on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal opposition, about the statement made by the Minister of Health this afternoon. I'll be pursuing this in question period, so I simply want to make a couple of observations in the few moments that are left in this period of our time this afternoon.

As they say, the devil is in the details, and the Legislature of course will not be seeing the details of this arrangement, I suspect, until after adjournment some time later this month. I am pleased to see that this week the Rae government's policy is, "We will not be reducing the income of Ontario's new physicians." That's the position this week. It has changed at least twice in the past month, so who knows what it will be in a few more weeks' time.

I find interesting as well that, in light of the tentative arrangement, the minister is now talking about preparing amendments to Bill 50. It would seem to me that if there's any kind of agreement, the government, led by the minister, ought to indicate today that she and her colleagues are prepared to withdraw Bill 50, the Rae government's very controversial and intrusive health expenditure control plan. That, I think, would be a very useful addition to today's statement.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Let me first of all agree with something the Liberals have said, and that is that Bill 50 is so controversial, so divisive and unnecessary, from what we're being told by the government and the OMA, that it ought to be withdrawn and scrapped today to restore some peace and order in the health care system in this province.

Let me comment on the statement by the Treasurer. The Treasurer says this is a significant accomplishment. This concept of restraint for this government is three years too late and, for the Liberals, it's eight years too late. For the Liberals and NDP together, it's eight years too late, this concept of recognizing that you can't go on hiking spending at two or three times the rate of inflation and carrying on as if it's business as usual. I suppose for the NDP, particularly after having read An Agenda for People and looking at the record for the two years, a significant accomplishment is recognizing that they couldn't carry on, something the Liberals didn't do.

Today, as I did when the original statement was made last February or March, I give the government the credit for recognizing that its agenda for the last 42 years has been wrong, wrongheaded, disastrous, and was contributing to the ruination of this province, as was the Liberal agenda before it. I give you credit for that, and always have.

But once you recognized you were three years too late, then you spent six months dithering around creating mass confusion and dissension instead of bringing people together. You could have passed legislation immediately, simply -- and just imagine where we'd be at today -- cutting everybody 5%: pass that legislation, then start the negotiations, then start the social contract discussions. Allow union leaders to come to the table improving upon the 5% cut. Allow them to help you find out how to deliver services more efficiently and allow them to keep the money.

You asked union leaders for six months to come to the table willingly, gut their own agreements, and go back to their members and say: "Look what I did. Remember what I negotiated last year? I negotiated it all away." Of course they couldn't do that.

You dithered for six months. We told you to pass the legislation first, make it simple legislation, cut everybody 5%, and then have the social contract talks on how the employers and employees could come together in a true social contract, in a true spirit of cooperation in how they can deliver services more efficiently.

Had you done that instead of your incompetent bumbling and dithering around for six months, you would not have had dissension. If you had said to the employees they could get their 5% back over the three years -- for every two cents they saved, they could get a cent back on their wages -- I'll bet you could have saved $4 billion a year instead of $2 billion at the end of three years. You would have had management and labour working together cooperatively instead of the gross dissension that you have today.

I don't think it was a significant accomplishment. Recognizing the problem and that you had to change direction was significant, and I give you credit for that. But then you carried on in the mismanagement and bungling in how you were going to carry it out and how you were going to do it. I mean, you guys can't even spend money properly and, for some reason or other, after 40 years of encouraging everybody to spend more, I guess you thought you could proceed as to how to cut.

You should have got advice. There was advice. I offered you advice from the Canadian Auto Workers, which had experience in how to downsize, be more productive, build better cars with fewer workers and achieve significant savings, but you didn't listen to me. If there was another tragedy in this, it was that my caucus and my party offered you 42 years of experience in how to manage the affairs of this province efficiently and in a good way. We offered you help, we offered you advice, and you turned it down and went on your own silly way.

It's not a significant accomplishment. While you've dithered around and created this dissension for six months, you've done nothing about something that's equally important, and that's the upsizing, the encouragement of the private sector, the jobs, the prosperity agenda. All that has been missing while you've been in this confrontational mode with the unions.

I suggest to the Treasurer that he recommend to the Premier that you admit defeat, you can't run the province. Resign, and let's get an Ontario Progressive Conservative government back in this province, bring prosperity and hope and --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL AGREEMENTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it concerns the social contract. You have deemed agreements in the health sector. The health sector, of course, is very important because, all things considered, it is to make up something in the order of 23% to 25% of your total savings.

I want to ask you today, since you have deemed or designated agreements in that area, how you would comment on a situation which is as follows: One of the key employer groups in the health sector is, of course, the Ontario Hospital Association. Today, and certainly yesterday in official press releases, the Ontario Hospital Association is advising its membership not to proceed with local agreements under your sectoral agreement for a variety of reasons, and in fact the hospital association has indicated to its individual hospitals that they should now prepare their fail-safe plans, which are undoubtedly to take effect on or after August 10.

Since you have as part of your accomplishment referred to the health agreements, what do you have to say to the people of Ontario with respect to the situation within the hospital sector?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): As with all of the designated sectoral agreements, they provide an opportunity for local agreements to be reached. They do not impose any settlements on anyone; they simply provide a lower savings target in each of those sectors at the local level. That same rule applies in the health care sector and for the hospitals of the province.

I do understand the fact that the OHA has refused to sign the sectoral agreement. My own sense was that they should not be allowed, by themselves, to hold up the designation of that whole area for sectoral agreement purposes, which allows a lower savings target at the local level. For that reason, I went ahead and designated a sectoral agreement.

Mr Conway: The Ontario Hospital Association in a statement said that it would not endorse or participate in the sectoral deal for the health field because, to quote the OHA, it was "a bad deal for health care, a bad deal for hospitals, a bad deal for hospital workers and bad for all of those who use hospital services in this province." That's what the hospital association, a key part of the health field, said about the sectoral arrangement and why it wouldn't participate in it.

Treasurer, my question to you is: Assuming that they maintain that position, and that is their position as of today, seven days from August 10, what do you suppose will happen in the hospital sector on August 10 if none of the individual hospitals make any kind of local deal under this sectoral arrangement?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, if there are no local agreements at the local level, then they simply fall under the terms of the fail-safe or the Social Contract Act. That is not the end of the world. The bill was put there in the recognition that this might very well happen. But I don't think the member for Renfrew North would suggest for a minute that the health care sector, and the hospital sector included, should be exempt from the entire exercise of reducing compensation in the public sector.

I appreciate the fact that his party voted against the social contract bill, but I'd like to make a distinction. I think -- and I stand to be corrected; I know the member wouldn't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong -- that they do believe that there needs to be a reduction in public sector compensation in order to help us achieve a reduction in the deficit and to make sure that we put this province back on a solid footing and, finally, that the sectoral agreements are much more than just dollar savings, that they involve a whole new approach to having employers and employees share responsibility and to have more democracy in the workplace. I think that's a very important component of the social contract.

Mr Conway: Mr Minister, I'm just trying to understand your accomplishment. My sense, rather like my colleague from Scarborough, is that there is both more and less to this accomplishment than meets the eye, but only time will tell.

My final question to the Minister of Finance has again to do with the social contract in the health sector. Given what the Minister of Health has announced today on behalf of your government, and given the enormous sensitivity and controversy around Bill 50, your government's health expenditure control bill, which is currently before the Legislature, the government has said in its statement today it is prepared to consider some amendments. Would the Minister of Finance not agree that the best amendment would be a withdrawal of Bill 50 on this day to show good faith to your partners in that particular part of the health field?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I wouldn't agree. First of all, withdrawal of the bill wouldn't be an amendment, and the member opposite knows that. I would simply say that Bill 50, even with amendments, is necessary in order to implement certain aspects of the arrangement with the various players in the health care sector, so I think it would be inappropriate to withdraw the bill.

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a second question to the Minister of Finance, and it concerns revenues, since clearly a big part of the social contract is to get our financial house in better order. My colleague the member for Cornwall, on a number of occasions in this session, has been reporting on a concern around cigarette smuggling. In fact, there has been commissioned and produced in the province a report on the incredible growth of illegal cigarettes Ontario.

I have a great deal of time for my friend from Cornwall, but I was wondering the other day just how serious the problem was, so I asked the Liberal research staff today to go out for a quick visit to areas very close to the Legislative Building to see what they could find, and they found quite a lot. They find illegal Canadian cigarettes very available, best deal in town; American cigarettes, equally available. It's a very common practice, apparently, within a shadow of this building, and I can tell you that in my part of eastern Ontario the epidemic is equally serious.

Given his concern about the budgetary situation with which he is faced, my question in this connection to the Minister of Finance is, is he aware that there has been an exponential growth in the amount of cigarette smuggling and that according to latest estimates the Ontario treasury in this fiscal year, 1993-94, will lose at least $150 million worth of revenue because these cigarettes are flooding the province from end to end?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'm sure that everything the member for Renfrew North has said doesn't surprise anyone. I agree with him completely in his comments that smuggled cigarettes are too readily available and that there has been a growth in the underground economy, especially with products such as cigarettes and alcohol. I agree with that.

The total dollars involved are difficult to get a handle on because obviously if we knew precisely, it would be much easier to do something about it. But I would say to the member opposite that we have instituted, as part of a government initiative, something called Project Fair Share, in which we increased the number of government auditors by 30%, which we think is going to bring in about an extra $70 million a year.

Having said that, I don't for one minute dismiss the seriousness of the underground economy and in particular of the smuggling of cigarettes. We are working as best we can with the other provinces and with the federal government to see what ways we can enforce the existing laws, because when smuggling occurs, we all lose.

1420

Mr Conway: According to a study just released by the firm of Lindquist Avey Macdonald and Baskerville, forensic and investigative accountants, some 2.3 billion cigarettes were smuggled into Ontario last year, meaning that one in six cigarettes now consumed in this province is smuggled. They estimate that has cost the province at least $150 million annually in lost revenue, and this part of the underground economy has just skyrocketed in the last couple of years.

Is the Treasurer aware that in fiscal 1992-93 his government laid a grand total of 15 charges provincewide in this connection and that so far in this fiscal year, which admittedly now is only three or four months old, the latest information indicates that only seven charges have been laid?

Hon Mr Laughren: That's one of the reasons we have beefed up our auditing: to make sure, I would hope anyway, that more charges would be laid.

This really is a problem that bedevils this province, and the other provinces as well. In meetings I've had with people in Quebec, they are feeling it just as we are, only I think even more. Now, that gives me small comfort. I'm not suggesting that's a good thing or a bad thing. It is a problem that I think as a country we simply have to address. The simplistic answers that we should eliminate taxes on these products I think just doesn't wash. The taxes on these particular products are one of the ways in which we fund a higher level of public services in this province than exist in other jurisdictions, such as in the United States.

I think the answer is not as simplistic as removing taxes on these products; it really has to do more with enforcement. In that regard, we really are not casting blame here, but we really do need the assistance and the cooperation of the federal government as well.

Mr Conway: I appreciate that more has to be done. That's why I cite the data. In the last fiscal year, a grand total of 15 charges were laid, and this year we're on about the same path, perhaps a few more, and according to the study the problem is skyrocketing. As I say, my friend from Cornwall and I know that in my part of the Ottawa Valley it is just everywhere, and these four packages of cigarettes were not very hard to come by.

My friend the Liberal member for ScarboroughAgincourt, as is his wont, made a very good and sensible suggestion a few weeks ago in a letter to you and I was just wondering whether or not you would be prepared to agree with Mr Phillips -- or the member for Scarborough-Agincourt; I am sorry, Mr Speaker.

The Liberal member has suggested that the matter be referred as well to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of this Legislature so that some action plan can be devised to help the government with a revenue loss that is going to be at least $150 million this year. That probably will represent all the revenue you are going to get from taxing the auto insurance premiums of young people across the province. Are you prepared to accept the advice of the Liberal Finance critic to have this tobacco smuggling issue referred to the finance committee forthwith?

Hon Mr Laughren: I did appreciate Gerry's letter -- I mean the letter from the member for ScarboroughAgincourt -- because it was a helpful suggestion. I personally have no problems whatsoever if the finance committee decides it wants to look at that issue. I certainly wouldn't intervene, even if I had the authority to do so, to intervene in the deliberations of the finance committee. I have no problems with that suggestion. But I would simply add that it really is up to the finance committee to determine its own agenda. I wouldn't want to interfere in that, but certainly they wouldn't get any interference from me.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, in January, the Windsor police released to your ministry a report on the impact of casino gambling upon policing in the city of Windsor. At that time, your ministry asked the police not to release the report. Your reason, or excuse, was that the report might prejudice the bidding that was going on for the permanent casino process.

We have now seen the report, and page after page in that report is testimony from police in jurisdictions where gambling exists. Statistical analysis confirms that casino gambling will lead to increased crime and a very significant increase in police resources. Is not this the real reason your ministry tried to cover up that police report?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, this ministry or any officials never tried to cover up the report. In fact, it's my understanding that the officials never directly asked the police not to release the report. What they did say was that if they did release it, we would at the same time release a report with some conflicting information to their report. They have at all times had the opportunity to release the report and chose not to for their own reasons. But I'm happy and glad to say that the report has now been released.

I'm sure that you've had a chance to review it. You will have also noticed that the report was done, I think, last January. Since that time, some new decisions have been made about how the casino will be run. For instance, the police report says they will be responsible for internal security and background checks. That's not so; the OPP will be responsible for that.

Our report is out and we'll be sitting down again soon with the police chief to talk about where we go from here.

Mr Eves: In March, the ministry commissioned a report to refute the conclusions of the Windsor Police Service. That was an Ottawa-based crime consultant. Obviously, that conclusion didn't satisfy the minister, so you commissioned yet another report to discredit the Windsor Police Service report, this being an American professor to write a rebuttal, which is basically what it amounts to, to the Windsor police report. That was delivered to you in July and it was so flawed that you wouldn't even share it with the Windsor police and you wouldn't share it with the public until the opposition parties in this House fought for the release of all casino-related reports in the Legislature last week.

Those are the facts. You kept the Windsor Police Service report under wraps because you were trying to find a consultant who would discredit that report. Is that not true?

Hon Ms Churley: No, not at all. It is not true that this government, myself and the project team tried to keep that report from being released. It is now released. You have seen the results. Our report that I mentioned earlier has been released. I think the thing to bear in mind here is that I made a commitment and the police chief made a commitment to the people of Windsor that we would make sure the necessary police would be given to the force when the casino is open. We have now allotted 10 new police to the interim casino and they are now in training.

The project team will be sitting down and talking again to the police, and we will be negotiating and talking about the number that will be needed for the permanent casino.

Mr Eves: The Windsor police completed their report some four months ago, long before you introduced your casino gambling bill. Your ministry knew the conclusions of that report long before you drafted and submitted and introduced your casino gambling bill, yet you charged ahead knowing full well what that report said. You charged full-steam ahead because Floyd wanted some money. I guess that's the only premise we can come to.

You went out and hired an Ottawa consultant to try to discredit the report, but when the Ottawa consultant didn't discredit that report -- and I note you haven't taken it upon yourself to release that report to the public -- you decided then to hire an American professor to discredit the report, which he does.

But one thing I don't think you've told the people is that the American professor's report is predicated on the fact that most casino patrons will get off a bus, go into the casino, gamble, get back on the bus and go home. You've been standing in this House for months now telling us that isn't the premise for the Windsor casino, that the premise is to revitalize downtown Windsor so you won't have people who just arrive on the bus and get back on the bus and go home. That's been the premise for your wanting a casino in Windsor. This whole report that you're relying on now is predicated against exactly the opposite happening. How can you have it both ways?

Hon Ms Churley: We have commissioned quite a few studies on many issues. I think it's important that we get it right. We will be sitting down with the police and we will be discussing with them how many extra police are necessary for Windsor.

1430

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Finance, who, as the member for Parry Sound has said, is the minister who is really responsible for the party policy flip-flop and for casino gambling coming to Windsor; it is his appetite and his cabinet's and his Premier's appetite for spending that caused the flip-flop.

To the Minister of Finance, now that finally and only because we came back today were we able to blow the cover on the Windsor police report, I want to ask you about its findings. In the conclusion, the Windsor police found that, "The impacts that will be experienced with respect to crime will be trifaceted: (1) increase in street crime activity; (2) crimes committed by casino patrons; and (3) organized crime activity." It talks about those three facets of increased activity.

Have you seen this report, Treasurer? Are you aware of the conclusions of the Windsor police report, and if you are, were you part of the cabinet decision to try to get other reports at any cost to refute them, and were you part of the coverup of this report?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'll refer that question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon Ms Churley: There's a myth being spread here that we should dispose of immediately. There was no coverup of this police report. The report belonged to the Windsor police and it was within their purview to release it or not release it. As you know, they wanted to bring it before their board, and they did so on July 29 and they released that report.

There's some interesting information in that report. We felt it was necessary to have a second look at that, particularly because the report was written well before some of the decisions on the casino were made -- some of those decisions, as I said earlier, around who would be doing internal security, who would be doing the background checks and that sort of thing. They will not be done directly by the Windsor police; they will be done by the OPP.

I think it's important to get as much information as we can as we proceed with this project. That's exactly what we're doing, and I'll be happy to release as much information to you and to the public as I can.

Mr Harris: In trying to discredit the Windsor police report -- because you knew eventually it would become public; you couldn't cover it up for ever -- you went on to commission more and more reports that would contradict the findings of the Windsor police. Particularly one that concerns me is a report done by a United States professor, and I would ask you this: Were you aware of or did you approve of giving that professor the criteria that most of the patrons going to the Windsor casino would be day patrons on and off the bus, not staying in Windsor, not having dinner in Windsor, not overnighting, not part of downtown revitalization? Were you aware and did you approve of those criteria being given to that US professor in your haste to contradict the Windsor police report?

Hon Ms Churley: There was never any intention to discredit the police report from Windsor. The intention was to gather as much information as we could on this policing question, and that is exactly what we have done. We have made it clear to the police chief of Windsor that we didn't agree. The project team made it clear from the beginning that it didn't agree with all the findings in his report, partly because there were some assumptions that were wrong in that report.

I think the project team felt it was important to look at all aspects and all possibilities of what can happen in Windsor once the casino is opened. We have to make some very serious and long-term decisions about policing and other matters in Windsor, and we're looking at all angles and all possibilities there so that when we do hire more police, we know, working with the police in Windsor, that we have the right amount. As we said, we want to keep crime to a minimum in Windsor once the casino is open.

Mr Harris: The question I asked you was, were you aware of the criteria to try and get a report that said crime won't be as extensive? The criteria you gave were that it would be day use; they'd be coming in and out of buses; they wouldn't be staying in Windsor. That was the simple question you refused to answer.

Let's get to the bottom of this question. Are you prepared to let the police make the policing decisions -- not some professor in New York, not the politicians, but the professionals, the Windsor police? Will you commit today to accept their advice on the policing costs, the estimates today and the actual when it happens? And will you commit that out of your profits, the provincial profits, you will pay 100% of the increased policing costs to keep the Windsor streets safe?

Hon Ms Churley: I find it interesting that the leader of the opposition stands up and makes all kinds of wild accusations and then chides me for not directly answering his question right away. I'm sorry, but that's not the way it works around here.

In terms of his last question, which is whether I will commit to funding 100% of the extra police force that's needed in Windsor, I don't know if he's been listening or not, but I've repeatedly said in this House, and I'll say it again, that working directly with the police and looking at all aspects and all angles of what is needed in Windsor, we will be 100% funding any extra police.

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Mr Minister, you'll remember that last Thursday I brought to your attention a letter which was written by the general manager of the IWA, Erv McIntyre, and addressed to the solicitor for Superior-Crawford, Michael Jeffery, which clearly indicates that these two parties are in discussion.

Today I have another letter. This one was written last Friday, July 30, from the solicitor representing the IWA, Mr Bruce Campbell, to Mr Jeffery. It states, "The IWA is prepared to give further consideration to the Superior-Crawford proposal."

Minister, last week in your reply to my question, you stated, and I quote from Hansard, "The member also knows that there's no need for anyone to give direction to stop secret negotiations, because secret negotiations are not taking place."

The IWA has never identified the Superior-Crawford lands as a potential site for York region and Metro's waste. In light of these letters, do you stand by your statements of last Thursday and claim that no discussions are taking place between the IWA and Superior-Crawford concerning this still-undisclosed proposal?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I fully stand by the statement I made. There are no secret negotiations.

Mr Offer: It's interesting that discussions between two groups, one in the ministry and one a private interest, of which the general public is unaware are not secret to that minister.

The province has invested two years in this process. Some $30 million of taxpayers' money has been spent. Community groups have voluntarily spent many hours and their own dollars in dealing with publicly identified sites. Now we have evidence that the IWA is secretly trying to usurp the public process it has designed for itself in York region to the benefit of one particular private interest.

As the minister responsible for the IWA, do you not believe it is wrong that the IWA is secretly discussing a landfill site with a private interest on a site that is not yet known publicly and of which the community is unaware? If you believe it is wrong, as I think you will, then is it not your responsibility as the minister to instruct the IWA to stop these secret negotiations today?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member insists on repeating what I've already indicated to him is incorrect. The fact is that the proponents did contact the IWA. The IWA, as indicated right from the beginning of the process, said that if new information became available concerning any site, it would reconsider the inclusion or the elimination of that site. The IWA commitment to proper consideration of all areas continues.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You're negotiating. You're negotiating. Marco Muzzo --

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

Hon Mr Wildman: I'd be happy to give the answer, if the gentleman across the way would like to hear it.

Superior-Crawford has come forward with some new technical information. They argue that the site might have sufficient capacity to be included in the IWA site search process. The IWA has some serious technical concerns regarding the feasibility of the Superior-Crawford proposal. They have advised Superior-Crawford to carry out further technical studies at its own expense.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The tragic death of a Metro teenager, Sarah Devereux, last Friday in a boating accident on Lake Rosseau underscores once again the need for safety in boats on our waterways. In 1991 there were 45 accidents leading to deaths, in 1992 there were 43 deaths, and in 1993 so far there have been 25 deaths. The carnage is unacceptable. Minister, will you commit to legislation to regulate the operation of recreational water vehicles?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): As always, we are saddened by yet another boating tragedy. We have a matter of jurisdiction and we at Transportation have endeavoured to write our counterpart in Ottawa, the Honourable Jean Corbeil. Licensing of boats in the waterways of Ontario, in the lakes of Ontario, is a federal responsibility. We have written again and again.

If there's anything we can do in terms of education to bring the focus home, we will, because there are far too many. We're caught in a matter of jurisdiction. We're very saddened, but it's up to the federal government, your friends, your counterparts in Ottawa, to start doing licensing and to come up with a plan of attack that will alleviate the number of fatalities.

Incidentally, fatalities are down, but each and every one brings back the subject matter, highlights it and says, "Look, we must as legislators do everything we can." We're hoping that an answer from Ottawa will give us the latitude to enter into any sort of agreement that will lessen the fatalities on our lakes and waterways.

Mr Turnbull: The minister's response would rather suggest that there's nothing they can do without Ottawa's help. This is a government which constantly is prepared to intrude on the affairs of other levels of government. I only have to cite, for example, the fact that they set up a committee, staffed entirely by NDP members, nobody from the opposition, to go around this province and look at the impact of NAFTA, and said in advance that it didn't matter what they heard, they were still against NAFTA. That's number one. That's clearly federal legislation.

Secondly, with respect to the so-called negative grants that they're going to charge against the Metro public schools, that is potentially unconstitutional, because they're not giving those grants. This is indirect taxation.

That shows they can do this.

When my colleague the member for Simcoe West introduced private member's legislation --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Turnbull: Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. The member for Simcoe West brought in a private member's bill, and Mr Mills, in responding for the Ministry of Transportation, said: "We too want improved safety for everyone using Ontario's lakes, rivers and waterways. We are looking into what we can do."

Quite clearly, in the Toronto harbour and the Hamilton harbour they control licensing of water vehicles. You too can do that, Minister. Why don't you do it?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I'd like to remind the member opposite, with respect, that under section 91 of the Constitution, the licensing of boats is clearly and only a federal responsibility. But it doesn't mean that we're not taking our responsibilities, our obligation, very seriously. Transportation is part of a multiministerial committee; the Ministry of Natural Resources is one of them. We can register them, and we have a plan of attack, but we cannot license. It's a federal responsibility.

I've told you once, and I'm informing you again, with respect, that we're looking forward to where an agreement between --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): If it's a federal responsibility, why have you got boats involved?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member for Mississauga is shouting, Mr Speaker. It doesn't become her.

Mrs Marland: I'm shouting because I was near --

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: Back to boating --

Mrs Marland: The OPP boats enforce the law. Why are you saying it's a federal responsibility?

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Pouliot: In a perfect world, we would have a devolution, ie, where the federal jurisdiction would say, "Okay, it is now a provincial responsibility," but those subject matters have to be negotiated, they have to be arrived at. We're doing the best we can. We can do more and we shall do more, but within our jurisdiction.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Given that East York is known as a model community in its delivery of services to seniors, long-term care reform is an issue of great importance to me. Since the district health councils have been given the responsibility of implementing the reforms, I am concerned that the community of East York is able to participate in developing the framework for reform.

I want to emphasize the necessity of the district health councils to address the needs and suggestions of care givers, service providers and especially the consumers. To this end, will you ensure that Metro's district health council's long-term care committee includes the participation of the community of East York so that its particular needs are met?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The member is quite correct. The framework document with respect to long-term care that I released in April does provide for the district health councils to be the lead in planning for their particular areas. The Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council commenced its planning and set up its committee shortly after the release of the framework document, and that committee has representation from a broad base of stakeholders, including representatives from service providers and consumers across Metro.

In response to the member's particular interest, the executive director of Community Care East York, one of the very excellent non-profit agencies involved in providing long-term care services, happens to be a member of the district health council long-term care committee. It's my understanding that it is the intent of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council to involve a broad range of stakeholders from across Metro, and they have already issued at least one newsletter communication that went to about 1,500 people and agencies as recently as last month.

Mr Malkowski: Can the minister ensure that East York will be actively involved in the implementation of the long-term care reforms, including the formation of the multiservice agencies?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think we all know that East York has a very proud record of providing community support services and has an integrated homemaker program. I think their experience will be very helpful to all of us in Metropolitan Toronto as we move forward with this very exciting and fundamental reform.

I can indeed assure the member that the skill, the knowledge and the experience of all the existing agencies is going to be vital as we plan for the multiservice agencies and in fact improve the actual delivery of services so that all of Metropolitan Toronto can benefit from some of the services that East Yorkers have had for a very long time.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and has to do with the economy. Increasingly, as we look at your economic forecast for this fiscal year, the numbers that you have in the budget seem to be substantially higher now than most forecasters are predicting.

I think housing starts were around 57,000; the numbers that I've seen for the first six months indicate it may be 45,000 or so. Your gross domestic product number I think was around 3.4%, and I think most forecasters are now substantially below that. The unemployment rate you had in the budget I personally think now will be very difficult to achieve. So as we look at your forecast for the economy, the numbers you've got in there seem substantially higher.

My question is an important one for the people of Ontario. Looking now at what you see for the economy, have you concluded that you've been too optimistic in your economic outlook, and what will the impact of that be on our budget plan for this fiscal year?

1450

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Good question.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yes, it is a good question.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt of course would have received by now the first-quarter Ontario Finances, which was put out last week, I would assume. In that report, which is a regular report that comes out quarterly, he would know that so far in the year, on an annualized basis, generally speaking, we are on target with our revenues and expenditures. There are certain assumptions built into that, of course, that is, that the economic recovery has taken hold: somewhat fragile, a bit bumpy and slow, but nevertheless, recovery has taken hold.

At this point in time, and we did discuss this before we released the first-quarter finances, we do not feel that it is necessary or even would make sense to revise our economic projections for this fiscal year.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comments by the minister, but I think virtually every forecaster that I've seen is well below your forecast right now on gross domestic product. I don't think there is anyone who is still predicting that Ontario will see 3.4% real growth. I think everyone is lower on housing estimates. On the unemployment numbers you've got in, I think everyone is higher than you.

My question is similar to the one I had in my first question. If you are wrong on your economic forecast, if everybody else is right and you happen to be wrong, what is your plan for the finances? Is it your plan to continue to hold to the $9.2-billion deficit? Is that the target we should assume you will hold to, even if the economic forecast is wrong? Secondly, if you are wrong, what plans do you have to assist the private sector in getting the economy going again?

Those two things: What will you do in terms of your fiscal plans if your economic forecasts are wrong and the rest of the forecasters are right -- are you going to hold to the $9.2 billion? -- and what plans do you have to assist in ensuring that the private sector is able to once again get the economy rolling?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I'd remind the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that we were very conservative in our projections when we brought down our budget. What we said was we want to be extremely cautious, particularly on the revenue side, because we have met our expenditure targets.

Where we've been off in the last couple of years is on the revenue side, and that was because of the deterioration of the economy. So this year we were very cautious on our projected revenues. At this point in time I do not believe there's any need to revise downward.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt lays out a number of pretty miserable hypothetical scenarios that are not very pleasant to contemplate. I would simply say to him that we don't function that way, making assumptions that the economy is going to deteriorate, therefore we've got to have in place all of these equally miserable action plans to cope with it.

Finally, I don't think the private sector out there believes that if the economy stagnates even more than it has in the last couple of years, the Ontario government can bail it out in that regard. The problem is much more profound than that and to a large extent will depend on what happens south of the border, with the growth in the economy there.

In conclusion, I would simply say that we don't believe there will be the deterioration in the economy that's hinted at by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I will ask the Deputy Premier this question since the Minister of Economic Development and Trade is not here.

This morning the regional chairman and other politicians in the regional municipality in the Outaouais area released a report talking about construction workers in the Ottawa-Carleton area and in the Outaouais area. There are some amazing facts that come out of this report: Take away the federal civil servants in the Ottawa-Carleton-Outaouais area, and we find that there are 24,000 people coming across the bridge in Ontario to work every day and only 3,500 going the other way. That's quite amazing with regard to the fact that in the Outaouais area, you only have one third of the population. There are about 5,000 construction workers going across to Ontario and about 400 or 500 going back the other way into Quebec.

If things were equal and the balance was struck between the two provinces, it would mean that there would be 4,000 or 5,000 or 6,000 more jobs for Ontario construction workers coming from Ottawa-Carleton. That would lower the unemployment rate from about 24%, as it now stands, to somewhere around 15%, which would be equivalent to what the unemployment rate is across in the Outaouais area. They're enjoying a lower unemployment rate at the expense of construction workers in Ontario.

Madam Minister, what are you going to do about this, or Mr Minister, if you want to refer it?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I refer that question to the very competent Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm pleased to report to the member, since we've last had the opportunity to speak on this, that we have, as I indicated we would be, pursued discussions at the officials level between officials of my ministry and appropriate officials of other ministries here in Ontario with their counterparts in Quebec. There have been a series of discussions and a full meeting. There is another meeting taking place this week.

There are a number of positions Ontario has put to Quebec that we want to see resolved that deal with the issue of labour mobility, the ability for Ontario workers, for example, to be registered under the Quebec system. It deals with the ability of Ontario contractors to bid for contracts and it deals with other issues with respect to government procurement.

We hope this week to have some response from Quebec. We'll be pursuing those responses, as is appropriate, once we hear what the responses are.

Mr Sterling: In 1987 the unemployment rate in Quebec, in terms of construction workers, was 20% in the Outaouais area, and Ontario was 9.7%. Since then, Ontario's unemployment rate has gone from 9.7% to 23.9% in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton; meanwhile, in Quebec it has actually dropped during the recession. That's because more construction workers have come across from the province of Quebec into Ontario, and it has cost us jobs. It has cost 5,000 to 6,000 jobs in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Will you today give me a date on which you will guarantee that this will be resolved or you will take some retaliatory measures?

Hon Ms Lankin: To pick a date, any date, out of the air wouldn't be very meaningful in this process. We are engaged directly in negotiations with Quebec right now. We have had the first round of meetings. We are meeting again this week to pursue those discussions.

I think the member knows well that the complicated legislative structure of the regional system of hiring in Quebec that's set in legislation around construction trade hiring is something that can't be turned around overnight. We are looking for other solutions to try to ensure equal access for Ontario workers under those same circumstances.

I would think that the member would feel very strongly that if there is a way of pursuing a resolution to this problem without erecting any further trade barriers, that is the ideal situation, and that is what we are attempting to do.

But I have been very clear with people in the Legislature and with others who have asked me and with the government of Quebec that we are in fact prepared to take action if we do not get any response from Quebec which moves to meet our concerns.

1500

ST MARYS PAPER

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Our government set out on an agenda to put Ontario back to work, and one piece of that agenda is an effort to make sure we retain all those industries that are now present in our province so that when the recovery comes they will be there to take advantage.

My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, as you are no doubt aware, St Marys Paper of Sault Ste Marie went into bankruptcy at the end of April of this year. Since that time, there have been many meetings and attempts to see the company remain an ongoing enterprise. I can't stress enough the importance of this company to my area and to the province. What I would like to know from you is, what kind of role has your ministry played to date in helping to keep St Marys open?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I appreciate the member's vital interest in this. This government is very concerned about St Marys Paper and the jobs that are at risk there.

Since the company went into receivership, we have been concerned and monitoring the situation and have been involved in letting parties know about the prospective purchasing of the company and the opportunity to purchase. We've certainly monitored that process.

Once a prospective buyer became clear and was involved in discussions, we had discussions with the banks to encourage them to give enough time for the prospective buyer to work out a business deal. That prospective buyer had been involved in discussions with the union in order to put together a deal so that they could go to the banks.

When that became, I guess, in difficult waters, we participated by sending in Vic Pathe, one of the deputy ministers from Labour, to be of assistance in mediating the situation there. I'm pleased to let the member know that the bank has at this point in time reviewed a tentative plan from the union and the company and has given them an extension of time in order for them to put together a business case, and we will be monitoring it over the next month.

Mr Martin: I'm aware that we as a government have contributed to this enterprise over the last few years and are holding a note there. What ultimately, as the representative of the ministry of this government in this exercise, do you see as a positive result to that activity?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the positive result we would all want is to see the company be maintained as an ongoing concern and a provider of employment in the Sault Ste Marie area. At this point in time, I think it bodes well for the future that the banks involved have remained flexible and have given an extension in time. I think the fact that the union and the prospective buyer have reached an understanding about what the operation could look like and are working together to present a business plan to the banks also speaks well to the future.

I think the government role has been constructive in seeking extensions from the bank and sending in a mediator at the appropriate time, and in giving assurances around environmental considerations and other sorts of things. We would hope that in the end analysis this deal will come together, that the banks will support it and that the company will be able to maintain itself as an ongoing concern and operation in the Sault Ste Marie area.

VICTIM OF CRIME

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Health. I would like to ask about the situation of Miss Sigal Peretz, 23, an Israeli national who was visiting Canada and had a valid visitor's permit issued by Immigration Canada.

On May 9, 1993, Miss Peretz was seriously injured in a random shooting while attending a Mother's Day party at a restaurant in Concord, Ontario. Miss Peretz had a bullet lodged in her neck next to her spinal cord. This bullet was fired at random by a disgruntled patron who was disputing his bar bill.

Miss Peretz held insurance to cover her doctor and hospital services but did not have coverage to provide physiotherapy rehabilitation. Federal immigration officers have granted her an eight-month extension so that she could appear as the key witness at the upcoming trial of her assailant and so that she could get the critical physiotherapy and rehabilitation treatment that she needed.

Sigal Peretz could not afford the costs of this treatment and reluctantly had to return to Israel, partially paralysed, permanently disfigured and totally traumatized as a result of her unfortunate experience.

Minister, you had the discretion to provide OHIP coverage to Sigal Peretz so that this innocent victim could at least get full treatment to help her cope with this devastating, life-altering tragedy. Could you tell this House why this act of mercy and compassion was not forthcoming?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I will take the question as notice and provide the member with the details. I am familiar with the case, and it was certainly my understanding the last time I was briefed with respect to this very tragic situation that the Attorney General's ministry had determined that the person in question was no longer required to be a witness in the case and therefore would be returning to her home country.

Mr Kwinter: The minister totally misses the point. Regardless of whether she was needed as a witness or not, this was an act of compassion. We have a situation I'd like the minister to contemplate. Her alleged assailant was here illegally. He had an unregistered firearm. While he is here as an illegal immigrant, he is entitled to OHIP coverage. While he is here and when he goes to court and is being defended, he is entitled to legal aid which will be paid for by the public purse.

We have a situation where a young, 23-year-old girl, a beautiful girl who was contemplating a life as a model, has had her life destroyed, has had her life put in a situation where she will never do the things she had every right to expect.

She was an innocent victim and you had the discretion to allow her to get the necessary treatment that would never bring her back to her full life but at least would help her to cope, and that wasn't forthcoming. It had nothing to do with whether the Attorney General felt she was necessary as a witness; it had to do with treating a human being who was here as a visitor who because of no fault of her own had suffered this tragedy. We could've held out a hand of compassion, and I ask you again why this wasn't done.

Hon Mrs Grier: I will certainly look into it and see if in fact all that could be done was not done, but let me say to the member that when it was brought to my attention by one of his colleagues a week or so ago, it was my understanding that the person was in hospital and was receiving the services that were required.

I share the member's concern if through a failure of one of the systems, whether it be the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or whatever, all that could be done for this kind of an innocent victim was not done, and I will undertake to look into it.

LANDFILL

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): This interesting development with respect to Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel Ltd as part of the Keele Valley --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom is your question directed?

Mr Stockwell: The Minister of Environment and Energy.

This new development taking place at Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel Ltd and the IWA and the Keele Valley landfill site is rather interesting. I just want to put this question to the Minister of the Environment: Considering we all know that Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel Ltd is owned by one Marco Muzzo --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Didn't Bob Rae say he wouldn't do business with him?

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I think this is rather interesting because I went back through Hansard and dug out some interesting quotes from the Premier when it came to previous governments dealing with the likes of some people like, as they put it, Marco Muzzo.

On May 3, 1989, in a question in the House to the Premier, Mr Rae, then Leader of the Opposition, talked about Judge Waisberg's accounts of the events involving the building industry taking place through the 1970s. He quoted some of those results that said Mr Muzzo in fact was part of a group that was looking at price-fixing, was part of a group that was involved in discussions directly about combinations which would have the effect of fixing prices in the industry. In fact, the Premier himself, during these specific questions, has practically called the guy a crook.

I'm speaking from Hansard. These come directly from Hansard. I say to the Minister of Environment that now your government's in office and the Keele Valley landfill site is wrapping up, you're now negotiating with that one Mr Marco Muzzo who your Premier described as being part of a price-fixing endeavour.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: You're suggesting not. I ask you, (a) do you as a government know who owns Superior-Crawford, (b) do you know that in fact Mr Muzzo is part of that group and (c) do you feel comfortable negotiating with a gentleman, as far as a landfill site is concerned, who the Premier, previously the Leader of the Opposition, so eloquently described as being part of price-fixing during the 1970s in the drywall industry?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm sure the member would not want to give the impression that the Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, accused anyone of being a crook. He raised concerns related to a judge's report that related to matters in the construction industry which were of concern to everyone in this assembly.

In answer specifically to the questions put by the member, yes, we know who owns Superior-Crawford. Yes, we are aware of their involvement. No, there are not secret negotiations. We are not involved in secret negotiations. The Interim Waste Authority is involved in some discussions with the company.

Mr Stockwell: How do you feel about negotiating with them then?

Hon Mr Wildman: Do I feel comfortable? Yes, indeed.

1510

PETITIONS

SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND LEARNING-DISABLED

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have been asked to present a petition signed by many members of the Ontario School for the Deaf, the Sir James Whitney Alumni Association.

There will be other petitions, I understand, presented this afternoon. These are from alumni who are located in the Trenton-Belleville area and other areas in eastern Ontario. It reads:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education proposes to substantially modify the provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled by either downsizing, closing parts of or restructuring the schools, resulting in significant hardship for students, families, employees and the local community for the purpose of saving money; and

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents' Association believes that quality education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled provides the lowest total-cost option available, while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible;

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

"(1) Maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model from all interested parties has been developed; and

"(2) Empower local boards of trustees, as set out in model 5, to manage their own budgets within ministry guidelines and funding."

I have added my signature to this petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition with 43 names from the tenants at 755 10th Street West in Marlan Towers in Owen Sound. It's a very short one. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"We strongly oppose Premier Bob Rae's new health system. It affects seniors."

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I sign my signature.

SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND LEARNING-DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents' Association believes that the quality education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled provides the lowest total-cost option available, while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible;

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

"(1) Maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model from all interested parties has been developed; and

"(2) Empower local boards of trustees, as set out in model 5, to manage their own budgets within ministry guidelines and funding."

HEALTH CARE

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition signed by primarily residents of my riding, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

Well over 100 people have signed these petitions and I add my name thereto.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board, at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting, decided to loosen the guidelines for films and videos, for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening will result in permitting some very gross and indecent acts in films and videos; and

"Whereas these acts include bondage, ejaculation on the face and insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of true human sexual activity but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviance; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature to cancel the new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board and dismiss the chairperson, Dorothy Christian, from her position for her lack of sensitivity towards Ontarians and for being more dedicated to represent special interest groups than the taxpayers of Ontario."

There are a large numbers of signatures, and I'm happy to give my support to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by approximately 150 people from Windsor and parts of Essex county, and it reads:

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

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

I'm just reading the "therefore" so other members can get up and present their petitions.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a substantive petition here, signed by 2,882 people from Thunder Bay, and it reads:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Thunder Bay, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario government to maintain and improve our public services. Public services are vital to our communities and our way of life, and we can't afford to lose them."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

HEALTH CARE

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

1520

CASINO GAMBLING

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I also will be very brief in order to give others opportunity. I have a covering letter from the United Church of Canada.

"Enclosed is a petition with 42 signatures from our membership protesting the legalizing of casinos in Ontario. The United Church of Canada is very clearly against this policy. We strongly urge you and your government to reconsider this proposal....

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

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

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has decided to close Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinarian services laboratory at the college as of May 1, 1994;

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

"To reverse the decision to close CCAT and the VLS diagnostic lab located on Centralia's campus."

This is signed by several people from across the province, including Evelyn Scott from Elmwood, Garry Bowen from Lambeth, Ross McCall from Brussels and several others. It's particularly appropriate that this be filed the week following a win by the students at Centralia to have that decision overturned by the courts.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have another petition on letterhead from the Oxford County Medical Association. This petition was sent in by Dr Miettinen, who is a member of the medical association, and once again it is asking the government to "reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations in the 1991 OMA/government framework and economic agreement."

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

I have attached my signature to this petition, along with Pat McGee from Dobbinton, Vicky Furey from Port Elgin, Mary Bennett from RR1, Mar, and many, many more.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I've got a petition and a covering letter from the Christian Reformed Church of Georgetown, Ontario, regarding the opening of gaming casinos in Ontario. There are the usual whereases and:

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

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

HEALTH CARE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that basically condemns the government for taking away the access of seniors in Ontario to quality health care and sets out the objections to the government's new plan in regard to the Ontario drug benefit plan and several other issues which are affecting health care negatively.

I have signed the top of this petition, along with Cliff Boray and Bert and Isabel Garniss from Wingham, Marjorie Wall, and other members of the senior citizens' group in the town of Wingham who, like me, have seen the folly of the New Democratic Party trying to do what it's doing in taking apart the health care system.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

I affix my signature.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario.

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

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

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

"Therefore, that the provincial government request of the federal government of Canada to initiate a public review by panel of the federal Minister of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources and the community of residents there," which of course includes people around the area of Altona and Glasgow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE COMTÉ DE SIMCOE

Mr Philip moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe / Loi concernant la restructuration du comté de Simcoe.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the minister have some opening remarks?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, Mr Speaker. I'd just urge all members to support this.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Mr Philip has moved second reading of Bill 51. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): No; social development.

The Acting Speaker: The bill will go to the standing committee on social development.

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 8, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos / Loi prévoyant la réglementation des casinos par la création de la Société des casinos de l'Ontario et traitant de certaines autres questions relatives aux casinos.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): When we last participated in this debate, the honourable member for St Catharines had completed and we were partway through questions and/or comments. The honourable member for St Catharines not being here, we shall now move to further debate.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm happy to have the opportunity this afternoon just to speak briefly on Bill 8, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos. If I ever saw a misnomer, it's the title of this act.

You know, I really am amazed. I wasn't so surprised originally that the government would think of trying casinos in this province, but what I'm really amazed about is the fact that it is pursuing it in the face of such strong opposition. I even went to the trouble in my own riding, in my householder of April this year, which I circulated to every home in my riding, including a questionnaire on very serious matters before this House, to include the following question: "Should the provincial government legalize casino gambling?" The no vote in response -- and I had over 1,200 responses, which is a very high response in a questionnaire -- was 59% opposed to legalized casino gambling in this province in my riding of Mississauga South. I think -- I know -- that speaks volumes in my riding and I'm quite sure that my riding isn't any different than the majority of the other 129 ridings in this province today.

1530

We've talked a lot in the past about how lottery tickets, by the very numbers of lotteries and the different types of lottery purchase options that the public has in this province, have evolved to being a tax on the poor. That's because the majority of people who buy lottery tickets are not in the upper-income brackets; they're in the lower-income brackets. Those aren't figures from an opposition member. Those are figures from studies that the lottery corporation itself in Ontario has done.

Knowing that is the situation with the purchase of lottery tickets, we can certainly anticipate now that the extension of yet another gambling opportunity in this province just because the Treasurer and his socialist colleagues in cabinet wish to have some other form of tax-grab income -- we can certainly be sure that the people who will be affected by these lotteries will be the people who least need to be drawn into that kind of activity.

I think it was interesting that one of the areas in which our Tory leader, Mike Harris, had challenged the Premier was to allow the introduction of a casino to be determined in a referendum. In so doing, our leader, Mike Harris, cited a number of examples of US jurisdictions that have done so.

Premier Rae apparently responded at that time by saying that a municipality was free to do as it pleased but there would be no province-wide referendum. That's about as good an answer as saying, "Well, you know, a municipality is free to do as it wishes about Sunday shopping, but we're not going to ask the people in the province as a whole what their wishes are."

I think what is really significant and what is a major concern is not only the fact that we now have some very serious concerns confirmed by a police report from the Windsor Police Services Board about the added cost of policing. What really concerns me is the fact that we know the added cost of policing is because there is a very real added risk to the involvement of criminal activities associated with a casino as proposed initially in Windsor.

I have received in the last six months, since the bill was introduced -- actually, I'm incorrect. The bill was first tabled in May 1993 but we've certainly talked about casinos coming to this province for more than six months. But since the time that the subject has been up for debate, I have received in my office a very large number of petitions from all kinds of groups, including some church groups and religious organizations but many other organizations as well. Obviously this level of concern is stemming from real fact and real history about what has happened in other municipalities and jurisdictions where they thought a casino was the answer to everything.

I think people only have to visit Atlantic City and look at the poverty and the conditions of that city that surround the boardwalk frontage where the casinos exist. It was supposed to bring success and financial stability to Atlantic City. They hoped that the streets would be paved with gold as a result of having casinos there. It has been anything but that. It's a perfect example of a place where people travel in to work and travel out to live at home when they're through their working obligations.

I think it's really interesting and very significant that this government didn't want to accept that report. They had to go out and get two other consultants' reports, including one from the United States.

I guess the irony is even greater when you look at the parameters of the information that was given to the consultant from the United States. He was told in fact that the people would be bused in to Windsor and they would get off the buses and they would take part in their activities in the casino and they would get on the buses and be bused back out again. That's a bit like saying when you're trying to sell a used car that it was only driven by a little old lady once a week on Sundays to church. I mean, it is so unrealistic.

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: As the member for Elgin has just said, the little old lady perhaps even lives in Vancouver and goes to church in Toronto and uses the car only when she's in Vancouver. Correct?

Anyway, the point is that we have a tremendous concern. All the reports and the studies that we've been able to obtain support our concern for the future of this province introducing gambling casinos.

I want very quickly just to read the content of this one petition, because it involves Detroit, and I think that's very significant. This petition was one of, as I said, many that I've heard presented in this House and it says:

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

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

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

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

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

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

I think that says it all. Isn't it ironic that the citizens of Detroit three times have had a referendum and turned down a casino, and yet now this government in its wisdom thinks that Windsor, the city at the other end of the bridge, needs a casino?

It's a sad day for this province that this is a direction this government is willing to take us. We will of course, I hope, learn when this bill goes out to committee that there are very valid arguments against introducing casino gambling in Ontario, and I guess I can only hope perhaps that this government will listen to those people who come before the committee to review Bill 8, that the government members on that committee will not be sitting there with their blinkers on and their ear plugs in and for once will listen very intently to those people who come before the committee and express their concerns about what casino gambling would mean in Ontario in terms of an impact on the public.

There have to be other ways, I'm quite sure, that this government can generate its cash grab without a further tax on the poor, and I certainly hope this government will reconsider the passage of Bill 8 after the public has had its input through the committee stage.

1540

The Acting Speaker: Comments and/or questions?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to comment very briefly on the speech by my colleague the member for Mississauga South, who spoke very eloquently, as she always does, on Bill 8, this act to provide for casino gambling in Ontario, the establishment of the Windsor casino.

Representing the people of Wellington here today, I know that the majority of the people in Wellington do not support this bill either. The member talked about some of the specific concerns that she has with respect to this bill, and I share them all.

As our party's Tourism and Recreation critic, I've scrutinized this bill as well as I can. The government has said that part of the initiative, part of the reason for bringing forward this bill, part of the reason for establishing casinos in Ontario, and in Windsor specifically, would be to generate tourism benefits.

We've seen today in members' questions from the opposition the member for Parry Sound asking the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations questions on this issue. We've seen questions raised as to the validity of this project in terms of bringing people into Windsor as tourists, getting them to spend additional money to revitalize the downtown, and I think we've seen that the government's intent is not necessarily to promote tourism in Windsor. It's to derive as much money for their coffers so that they can spend it. I think that's very, very clearly the reason why the government has brought forward the bill, and the initial attraction to the bill by the government was to attempt to derive as much dollars in a way different than taxing.

I know the people of Wellington are very, very concerned about this government's policy on casinos. They're opposed to it. I hope that over the course of the summer hearings on Bill 8 the government will re-evaluate its position and in fact Bill 8 will not come forward in its present form.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Mississauga South has up to two minutes in response.

Mrs Marland: I think if this government will just once and for all listen to the police chiefs in this province and to the municipalities, then we might stand a chance of Bill 8 being withdrawn by this government. I refer to a resolution passed by the city of Mississauga at its meeting on May 25, 1992, which is now almost 15 months ago. This resolution says:

"Whereas the provincial government has indicated a strong interest in legalizing casino gambling in Ontario; and

"Whereas the introduction of casino gambling could result in increased costs to local agencies, which would be responsible for the monitoring and policing of such establishments; and

"Whereas casino gambling could result in an increase in criminal activity,

"Now therefore be it resolved that, prior to any decision to legalize casino gambling in Ontario, the provincial government enter into full consultation with police agencies and local governments to ensure that such a decision does not result in a potential increase in criminal activity or a substantial increase in costs to local agencies which would be responsible for monitoring or policing such gambling activities."

I believe that resolution says it all. This government in fact is not consulting to the degree -- and as far as even listening to police organizations, police services boards and the chiefs of police association in this province, they have has gone even further. They hire consultants to come up with a report that does not agree with existing reports.

I guess they will keep asking for more and more opinions and more and more consultants' reports until they get one that agrees with them, which in fact is blatantly ignoring the people of this province and the people who speak for the people in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on second reading of Bill 8? If not, we will be moving to the parliamentary assistant to sum up. The honourable parliamentary assistant and member for Halton North in summarizing debate, second reading of Bill 8.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I think it's fair to say there has been some opposition to the government's casino initiative. However, I also think it's fair to say that much of the opposition derives from sort of the Hollywood-style view of casino gambling. As is so often the case, Hollywood's version of events doesn't match reality.

As previous speakers pointed out, gambling has been an acceptable form of entertainment in Ontario for a very long time, be it at the racetracks -- and there are some 22-odd here in this province -- or at a charitable night or bingo, the handle on which is somewhat over a billion dollars a year. Ontarians have always enjoyed and appreciated the entertainment value of taking a chance.

In spite of this, some casino opponents like to conjure up the stereotype of a casino: people in trench coats, smoky back rooms, dimly lit alleys and people named Bugsy. In many cases, this is not the casino in Windsor that is being proposed. It is, in some part, a memory of a casino left over from the movies of the 1930s and 1940s. The casino that the government of Ontario is planning has nothing to do with the casinos that are found in the old movies. It is indeed very different and there's good reason for this. The government has pledged a made-in-Ontario casino that will be sensitive to the values and concerns of the people of this province. The care and diligence that have gone into the government's casino initiative are to be commended.

The government has carefully studied and analysed the way in which casinos were introduced in other jurisdictions to ensure that the mistakes that have been made in other jurisdictions, such as Nevada, are not made here. A great deal of attention has been paid to the issue of safety and security. I believe that's how it should be.

Indeed, as parliamentary assistant, I'm looking forward to the public hearings that are going to take place on this particular bill. We want to listen to the people of Ontario, whether it be in Windsor, Niagara Falls, the Sault, Ottawa or here in Toronto. I'm looking forward to that debate, I'm looking forward to suggestions from the public and I'm indeed looking forward to participating in the public hearings across this province.

The Acting Speaker: Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 8. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr Duignan: No, Mr Speaker, to the finance and economics committee.

The Acting Speaker: The bill will therefore go to the finance and economics committee.

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

Mr Wildman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 26, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario / Loi concernant les droits environnementaux en Ontario.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): It's a pleasure for me finally to rise and participate in this debate considering the commitments that this government has made to the business community and environmental groups with regard to enhancing the rights of individuals and the general public with regard to protection of the environment in this province.

Bill 26 is the most significant piece of environmental protection legislation introduced in this Legislature in 17 years, since the introduction of the Environmental Assessment Act.

All of us in this House are aware of the tremendous commitment of my predecessor, the former Minister of Environment and now Minister of Health in this government, who even prior to the government coming into power was a strong advocate of the enhancement of environmental protection, and particularly for the rights of individuals to participate in the protection of their environment.

Ms Grier introduced a bill in opposition which gained the support of many people across the province, many groups, and was a significant commitment of the New Democratic Party in the election campaign in 1990. When we came into government, we made a commitment that we would consult widely in the further development of the legislation to ensure that we received input from as many groups as possible, from as diverse a spectrum of opinion as possible. This took some time because we were involved in a unique process of consultation.

For the first time that I'm aware of in almost 18 years of serving in this Legislature, we had a situation where a piece of legislation, which has now come before us as Bill 26, was essentially drafted by the participants from the various groups across the province: environmental groups, industry, business, as well as government.

They began of course with the legislation advocated by my colleague and they consulted widely across the province in a task force that involved a large number of representatives of the business community, as well as the environmental protection groups. As I said, this legislation, Bill 26, was drafted on the basis of the report of that task force.

1550

This is a unique process, as I indicated. I don't know of many other situations where a task force has been set up representing a diversity of opinion and that the legislation was drafted specifically based on its recommendations, and then subsequent to the drafting of the legislation the task force had the opportunity to comment and to indicate that it accepted the legislation and thought it was appropriate and said it would support the legislation.

As you know, this government is committed to rebuilding the economy of this province, which we've seen suffer severe blows due to the global recession, the effects of the free trade agreement, the taxing policies of the federal government, and others, where we've seen significant eroding of the industrial base, particularly in southern Ontario, that has adversely affected communities right across the province, in the primary sector as well as in the industrial sector. So we are committed to creating jobs and we've moved significantly to produce jobs through capital construction, to training people for new opportunities, industrial opportunities and business opportunities in the future.

But we believe as a government that if we're going to have a sustainable economy, if we're going to have sustainability of jobs, if we're going to come out of this recession in a way that we will ensure that there will be continued economic development that will benefit the communities and the people of this province, then we recognize that we must also ensure the sustainability of the environment. Without a healthy, sustainable environment we cannot have a healthy, sustainable economy.

This government does not accept what we believe is a false dichotomy that is described by many people, particulary in the media, between the environment and the economy. The economy, in our view, is indeed part of the environment. Without proper management of our resources, without the protection of our lands, waters and air, we cannot have a healthy and sustainable economic situation in the province.

If we're going to have a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment, we believe all individuals in Ontario must play a role in protecting the environment and developing a sustainable economy.

In moving second reading, I'd like to turn to some of the features of the bill and how they fulfil the principles from which it was conceived, the work done by the task force and the position put forward by my colleague Ms Grier both in opposition and then as Minister of Environment and Energy.

This bill provides the public with an opportunity to participate in environmental decision-making in instances where opportunities previously did not exist. The benefit of this process is that the public involvement will be there before decisions are made.

Oftentimes governments consult by making decisions, making recommendations and then putting them out for public comment. In this legislation, Bill 26, we're making it possible for the public to become involved at the very early stages so that it can have input prior to decisions being made. Frankly -- I want to emphasize this -- we believe this will mean that we will not have a situation where people will feel that they haven't been properly consulted, that they haven't been able to have input, that they haven't had their concerns dealt with, and thus will take advantage of some of the other parts of the bill which will be open to them if indeed that is the case. In fact, in most cases they will be involved early on.

This will be achieved through the establishment of an electronic registry whereby acts, policies, regulations and various approvals will be placed on a registry for public comment. It will be easily accessible to the general public as well as to business, environmental groups and any other group -- labour -- or other members of the public who are interested.

This registry will give people proper notification and allow them to get involved at the early stages of the decision-making process. Citizens will be able to keep track of appeals on decisions through the registry as well. The registry will also give the public an opportunity to review and comment on draft statements of environmental values.

These statements of environmental values must be developed by 14 affected ministries of the government to act as guiding principles for taking the environment into account in making their decisions. Thus, most of the ministries that could in any way be considered to have an effect on the environment in making decisions will have to develop a statement of environmental values that they will take into account in making decisions and that the public will understand must be taken into account when decisions are made by the ministry staff.

The statement of environmental values is one way the bill increases government public access and government accountability. Another way is through the rights to request reviews of acts, policies, regulations or instruments. Individuals will have expanded rights to request reviews. This doesn't mean that they will always be carried out. It will be the responsibility of the minister responsible to decide whether or not the review requested is justified and, if it is, to proceed.

Individuals will also have expanded rights to initiate investigations when they suspect that environmental laws are being broken. Again, it will be the responsibility of the minister to determine if the infraction is indeed an infraction or if it is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): How do you do that?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member asks, "How do you do that?" As the member knows, even today, without this legislation, there are countless requests by the public to the ministry to initiate investigations and the ministry responds. The ministry looks into the problem and determines whether or not an investigation is warranted, based on the information that it gathers, that is given by the individual or group that is asking for the investigation and the ministry's own data collection. That process will be formalized through this legislation.

In cases where individuals believe that the government response is inadequate and where a public resource may be harmed -- let's say the individual, group or a couple of individuals have asked for an investigation and the minister has said no, he doesn't think an investigation is warranted -- if the individuals involved believe that there is indeed a problem with a resource or the environment being harmed, then the bill provides members of the public with new rights to take suspected offenders to court themselves.

This is a significant change, but I want to emphasize that the courts will remain the last resort under the Environmental Bill of Rights. The bill creates no new offences and it does not replace government enforcement with citizen policing. But it does remove the impediments that are currently existent in the law for those individuals who are concerned about the environment and think something that is being done, a law that is being broken or a regulation that is not being properly adhered to, is harming the environment and suspect there is a law being broken or a regulation not being adhered to, but cannot demonstrate that they themselves are harmed, so they can still take the matter to court.

Because of the involvement early on in the process, though, because of the opportunities through the registry for the public to be involved, because of the knowledge that business will have of this process, we believe that business and government will involve the public in such a way early on to get their input so that their concerns can be responded to, that we don't really expect there to be a significant increase in the number of court cases.

1600

As members will know, our investigations and enforcement branch has an excellent track record and plays an essential role in our ministry in determining how investigations should be proceeded with, and it will continue to carry out its responsibilities. We believe that the rights and the processes provided for in this legislation will enhance the ability of the investigations and enforcement branch to carry out its responsibilities.

In that regard, recently I released a report entitled Defences Against the Environment, showing that environmental prosecutions and convictions remain a high priority with the Ministry of Environment and Energy. In 1992, we had a record number of total dollars fined, levied: $3.6 million. That's one third more than in 1991. Other 1992 highlights include the longest jail term ever handed out, eight months, and the largest fine ever assessed, $364,000, for environmental offences.

Our message is simple. As one judge recently put it, we have to take the profit out of pollution. It's a basic principle that the public supports and that I think all members of the Legislature certainly support.

We will continue to build on our excellent track record by charging and prosecuting any and all polluters that we identify.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I hope you're as successful as the Minister of Revenue on tobacco.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member opposite indicates that he hopes we're as successful as the Minister of Revenue on tobacco. The member will know that the matter to which he refers deals with international smuggling and it is not simply a matter of provincial jurisdiction, although it is certainly of great concern to us, particularly myself in my other capacity, as minister responsible for native affairs.

In this particular case, we are dealing with provincial jurisdiction, with provincial laws and provincial regulations, and we will in fact continue to carry out the successful approach we've had.

As I've indicated in the statistics I quoted recently, 1992 over 1991, we are indeed making significant progress, not only in terms of the enforcement and investigations carried out by the ministry but, it appears to me, as an independent observer of our independent judicial system, that the judges and the courts are taking environmental infractions more seriously than they may have in the past and are using more creative ways of sentencing to ensure that culprits who are convicted do indeed lose the profit they might have gained through polluting the environment, and that they have to move to mitigate and rehabilitate any harm they've done to the environment.

Our investigations and enforcement branch will continue its work. Obviously, there are many options open to residents of the province who are concerned about the possibility of environmental harm before they themselves take advantage of the legislation we have before us, once it's passed, and initiate legal action on their own.

We believe that public involvement before decisions are made will eliminate the need for most suits, because it will mean better planning, more open planning, both by government and the private sector, and better environmental decisions by both the government and the private sector.

We don't think there will be frivolous actions, because it's significant in the legislation that we are not proposing that those who bring actions will be able to get damages awarded to them, so there will not be certainly any overt or direct economic incentive for individuals to take anyone to court, other than the protection of the sustainability of our environment and our economy for all of us and as a society.

There are some areas that have been particularly concerned about the legislation before us, particularly the farm community. They are especially concerned about potential law suits arising from opposition to their normal farming practices.

Many of us in this House who represent rural ridings are fully aware of the difficulties that farmers face when urban people move into what were previously largely rural farming areas. Often, people from the city move to rural areas because they want to enjoy pristine nature, and they aren't aware that the farm community, in producing our food, must carry out activities which are not always pleasant. For instance, there are sometimes odours that are not pleasant to the people who move in from the city; sometimes there's noise because of operations that take place. As my colleague from the united counties said the other day, "You've got to make hay while the sun shines," and that sometimes means working even when the sun isn't shining, late into the night when you have good weather, and this may disturb neighbours who are not involved in the agricultural industry.

I can assure the farming people and the farm groups of the province, though, that this legislation protects normal farming practices that might involve those odours, those noises, those activities, the dust and so on, as long as they are already protected under the Farm Practices Protection Act. No action may be initiated against the farmer until after a hearing is held under the Farm Practices Protection Act before the board, and that is specifically indicated in the legislation.

I think the fact that we included this provision in the legislation indicates how receptive the government was and the groups involved in the drafting of the legislation were to the concerns that were brought before us in the consultation period. The farm community, for instance, brought forward their concerns, and we specifically included in the draft legislation the reference to the Farm Practices Protection Act.

Provisions such as this emphasize that the Environmental Bill of Rights will be complementary to existing processes and does not create additional levels of procedure or bureaucracy. Some people have suggested that this might require a large staff to carry out the responsibilities under this legislation once it's passed third reading. We don't believe that is the case, and I think we can demonstrate that when we debate this later in committee.

Another important piece of the legislation deals with an important advance, which has been a significant commitment of this government in other areas as well; that is, the Environmental Bill of Rights extends existing whistle-blower protections against employer reprisal under the Environmental Protection Act to other legislation, and it contains time restrictions within which employers who are found guilty of reprisals must carry out orders of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

At first reading, I introduced the first draft regulation under the EBR, which identified the 14 ministries and the specific acts subject to the Environment Bill of Rights. The regulation outlines the implementation schedule of the bill for the ministries.

1610

One of the areas where people have raised concern about the possibility of additional bureaucracy has been the office of the environmental commissioner. The key to the success of the Environmental Bill of Rights will be the office of that commissioner. The commissioner will oversee the implementation of the bill and will ensure ministerial compliance for all 14 ministries that have to develop the statements of environmental values and then have to ensure, over the period of time that it's phased in, that their various bills, regulations, approvals and so on have to be put on the registry, will be subject to the review of the environmental commissioner.

The commissioner will serve as a watchdog for the government's environmental decision-making. For example, the bill provides opportunities for the Minister of Environment and Energy to use his or her discretion. The use of that discretion will be reviewed and reported on by the environmental commissioner. The commissioner will be responsible to report to the assembly and will table annually a report to the assembly on the compliance with the legislation. We don't believe that the commissioner will require a significantly large staff and we are confident that the commissioner will be able to carry out its very important responsibilities without developing a large bureaucracy.

I referred a moment ago to the reviews and investigations that individuals will be able to initiate. Those requests for reviews and investigations will have to go through the environmental commissioner's office to ensure that the time frames and the responsibilities of the ministries are upheld. In other words, if a couple of individuals request a review, it will go through the environmental commissioner's office, be referred to the minister, and the environmental commissioner will have the responsibility of ensuring that the appropriate minister responds in an appropriate period of time.

This office will be an independent body. It reports, as I said, to the Ontario Legislature, not to a minister of the government. It is responsible to the people of Ontario. In effect, this office will act as a voice of the public in Ontario in regard to environmental protection and environmental decision-making.

I want to emphasize one other thing in opening the debate on second reading. The provisions of the bill that I have outlined are based on a consensus which was reached by the task force. The task force represented environmental groups such as Pollution Probe, business groups such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and others with very different views. I think everyone would argue that they are interested, all of them, in environmental protection, but they may have different ways of achieving that protection. They may have different views about economic development, sometimes very, very conflicting views.

What is significant for me is that this task force reached a consensus. When we announced the draft bill at the press conference, I indicated that there was a consensus and that we had the representatives of the task force with us at the press conference: environmental activists, representatives of the business community. The press wanted to ask about conflict: Did I believe that the business community could support this legislation? Wouldn't they be concerned about it? I agreed that there might be some business representatives, there might be some companies, that would have specific concerns. But I pointed out that this was a consensus and that if the reporters were concerned about what business might think about the legislation, they could ask the representatives of business who were present with me at the press conference. Those representatives of business said this was a consensus, that they supported the legislation, wanted the legislation passed, and wanted a commitment that it would be passed this session.

As the press saw that, they thought, "Boy, this is not very good news." It's a tragedy, in my view, that there is in fact abroad a view by the media that it isn't news unless there's conflict. What is news, though, for me is that we could have so many people from government, business and the environmental community represented on the one task force and they could work through all of their differences and conflicts and come to an agreement. That is news. But unfortunately it's not seen that way by the media and some members of the business community who are responsible for disseminating the news to the public of this province.

That consensus from the task force resulted in the draft EBR, a bill that is true to the principles and recommendations of the task force and, I might say and emphasize, true to the principles and recommendations and provisions of the legislation that was drafted by my colleague Ruth Grier throughout this whole process.

I'll just wind up the beginning of my remarks by saying, all of us in this Legislature understand, I think, how this assembly works. Many in the general public don't recognize that what happens in this House is often based on negotiation, discussion and arriving at accommodations among the three political parties represented on these benches.

I must say I regret very much the machinations that have gone on in this place over the last few days that have resulted in us not being able to meet the commitment we made that we would have second reading completed and passed by the end of this session.

I regret that, because of disputes over procedure, we have not been able to meet that commitment, a commitment which I understood was a commitment of all three political parties in this House.

I recognize we do have a commitment to ensure that we can complete second reading debate when we come back in the fall session, that we can in fact complete the committee stage and third reading prior to the end of this year.

I trust the commitments that all of us have made to ensure that this legislation will pass before the end of 1993 will in fact be borne out and that we will not see a repetition of the difficulties we encountered at the last minute last week which led us to the introduction of second reading without the completion of second reading.

I look forward to completing my remarks when we come back and sit again in this Legislature in the autumn to complete second reading debate and then move forward to the full passage of the legislation at third reading before the end of the year.

With that, I would move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Wildman's motion carry? Carried.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I have several motions which I need the consent of the House to deal with.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the government House leader proceed with several motions? Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Firstly, I move that the subject matter of graduated licensing be referred to the standing committee on resources development for its consideration.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Charlton's motion carry? Agreed.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Secondly, this is the motion dealing with the committee sittings during the intersession.

I move that the following committees by authorized to meet during the summer adjournment in accordance with the meeting dates specified to examine and inquire into the following matters:

Standing committee on administration of justice for four weeks commencing August 16, 1993, to consider Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women;

Standing committee on general government for one week commencing August 16, 1993, to consider Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan for the Government of Ontario and for certain other matters relating to financial administration, and for two weeks commencing August 23 to consider Bill 40, An Act to stimulate Economic Development through the Creation of Community Economic Development Corporations and through certain amendments to the Education Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act;

Standing committee on government agencies for one week commencing September 13, 1993, to consider matters relating to its permanent order of reference as set out in standing order 106(g);

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs for four weeks commencing August 16, 1993, to consider Bill 8, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos;

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for one week commencing September 13, 1993, to consider matters relating to its permanent order of reference as set out in standing order 106(i);

Standing committee on public accounts for two weeks commencing September 7, 1993, to consider matters relating to its permanent order of reference as set out in standing order 106(j);

Standing committee on resources development for two weeks commencing August 23, 1993, to consider Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farming Issues on behalf of Farmers, and for two weeks commencing September 7, 1993, to consider graduated licensing;

Standing committee on social development for one week commencing August 23, 1993, to consider Bill 51, An Act respecting the Restructuring of the County of Simcoe, and, in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party House leaders and tabled with the Clerk of the Assembly, to consider Bill 50, An Act to implement the Government's expenditure control plan and, in that connection, to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act;

And that committees be authorized to release their reports during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the Assembly, and upon the resumption of the meetings of the House, the chairs of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

FALL MEETING

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 27, 1993.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move the adjournment of the House.

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

May I wish all members of the Legislature a good summer, what's left of it. This House stands adjourned until September 27 at 1:30 pm.

The House adjourned at 1625.

August 3, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURAL LAND

RENT INCREASES

ANTI-RACISM ACTIVITIES

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

NIAGARA REGION

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

HIGHWAY WIDENING

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL AGREEMENTS

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

CASINO GAMBLING

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

BOATING SAFETY

LONG-TERM CARE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

ST MARYS PAPER

VICTIM OF CRIME

LANDFILL

PETITIONS

SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND LEARNING-DISABLED

HEALTH CARE

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND LEARNING-DISABLED

HEALTH CARE

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

HEALTH CARE

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

GAMBLING

PUBLIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

CASINO GAMBLING

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

HEALTH CARE

CASINO GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE COMTÉ DE SIMCOE

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

FALL MEETING