Hansard Transcript 1993-Sept-27 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I rise today to inform the House of the passing of former town of Dryden mayor Tommy S. Jones. Tommy passed away on September 22, 1993, after a short battle with cancer.

Tommy Jones was born in northern Ontario, Fort William, on February 14, 1913. In 1955, Tommy moved to Dryden to work with the Dryden Paper Co, assuming the position of industrial relations manager. In 1960 he was appointed mill manager, and then in 1965 became vice-president, director and resident manager of the company. His promotions took him away from Dryden for a number of years, but in 1978 he retired to return to his beloved community. In 1979 he became mayor. He was re-elected in 1982 and again in 1989.

Tommy Jones was an outstanding individual. I could go on for hours about the many contributions to a great variety of organizations that he made. I hold here a list of over 40 groups and organizations that benefited from his service: honorary aide-de-camp, president, vice-president, chairman, manager, director, commodore, and the list goes on.

All those in the House who had dealings with Mayor Jones will remember his intense determination to do what was best for his community and northwestern Ontario. I will remember him as someone who taught me a great deal about not only getting to first base but scoring that home run in the political arena.

On behalf of the House, allow me to pass on my sincere condolences to his wife Jane and their family. Tommy was an exceptional person who cared so much for the needs of others. His passing is truly a loss for the people of Dryden and northwestern Ontario.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The taxpayers of York Mills and indeed all of Metro Toronto are being treated unfairly by the government's demands of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board under the social contract. Your demands are dubious from two points of view. There's the ethical concern of taking money that you never gave in the first place, and additionally the potential constitutionality of imposing indirect tax. Premier, as you know well, under the divisions of power in our Constitution, provinces do not have the right to impose indirect taxes.

After extensive consultation with my constituents, it is apparent that virtually all taxpayers agree that any savings achieved under the social contract belong to Metro property taxpayers and not the province.

Stop giving us the political doubletalk of negative tax grants. For years, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board has not received any transfer payments from the province. Thus, the board is not being asked to return money it received from the province, but is instead being asked to remit Metro property tax dollars.

It is apparent, by the NDP's treatment of Metro taxpayers, that your view of Metro is as a cash cow. The people of Metro are already paying over 50% of their property tax bill to education, and I know first hand that, like other Ontarians, they have reached the breaking point on taxes.

If it is your intention to create province-wide property tax pooling, I challenge you to do the honest thing and make it an election issue. I can assure you, the voters of York Mills are longing to express their displeasure with your government.

TERRY FOX RUN

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Today I rise to ask the House to join with me in congratulating the people of Tilbury and surrounding area for their outstanding efforts in fund-raising. I'm talking specifically about the Terry Fox Run. I know many members of this House attend various Terry Fox runs in their ridings and I'd like to take the opportunity to praise each and every individual throughout this province who puts time and effort into the annual run.

However, I believe the people of Tilbury deserve a special mention: people like 10-year-old Kelly Garant, who raised $332; people like six-year-old Jimmy McLean, who raised $250; people like 80-year-old Ora Rivard, who raised $20, and people like the McKinlay family, who raised $2,420. Also, local business works hard to raise funds, especially Ducana Windows and Doors, which raised $10,220.

Tilbury not only organizes a Terry Fox Run; it also organizes a day of family fun, with dancing, bands, games and even face-painting and of course food. All the performers donate their time, all food is donated by local merchants and all raffle prizes are donated by local merchants. The whole community contributes to the overall amount raised.

None of this could have taken place without a great deal of organization, and I'd like to mention just two who have put their hearts and souls into this fund-raising venture: Greg O'Brien, who took a lead role this year, and Jack Busa, who unfortunately died in August of this year and was unable to see the fruition of this year's hard work.

Tilbury and the surrounding area raised $32,000, with more pledges being collected daily. A total of $122,000 has been raised in the last six years.

CHILD SAFETY

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to bring to the attention of the House one more example of this government's mismanagement of its responsibilities. We've become aware of what can at best be considered a case of severe irresponsibility and at worst a coverup of a criminal act.

People in eastern Ontario learned last week with a sense of severe shock that a 16-year-old ward of the Brockville Children's Aid Society had been missing for a year and this fact had not been reported to anyone, including the police. This young man was beaten to death in 1992 in Smiths Falls, a crime that has only recently come to light.

I share the shock of the community of Smiths Falls and indeed of all concerned Ontarians that a children's aid ward went missing for a year without anyone being concerned enough to write a report, indeed concerned enough to even notice.

These young people are often stereotyped as hoodlums and thieves by teachers and sometimes even by their care givers, and their concerns and their needs are often not taken seriously.

I urge the Ministry and the Minister of Community and Social Services to assure this House that this situation will not be repeated and that he will now put in place procedures to require that all children, whether they are in the care of the children's aid society or any other agency, receive the protection they deserve.

1340

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): As we begin another session of this Legislature, I ask all of us to focus our attention on the need to do all we can to eliminate violence against women.

To that end, two important events occurred in my community last week, the Take Back The Night march and the launch of the Rose Button campaign.

Last Thursday night, women of all ages in Waterloo region marched to demonstrate for the 10th year in a row that women should be able to walk the streets safely at night.

Also, last week the December 6th Coalition of Waterloo Region officially launched its Rose Button campaign. December 6 is Canada's national day of remembrance and action to end violence against women, and to honour this day, rose buttons are being sold to raise funds for local women's shelters. I'm wearing one of them today.

The coalition began as a result of the tragic massacre in 1989 of 14 young women at the University of Montreal. To honour the memory of these women and to raise awareness of the issue of violence against women, the coalition created the rose button. It is a symbol of remembrance and a symbol of our community's support for zero tolerance of violence against women. The rose button has now become a national symbol, with the YWCA of Canada distributing the buttons from coast to coast.

As legislators, we all have a major responsibility to follow the example of these organizations and make every effort to eradicate violence against women from our society.

GLENORA-ADOLPHUSTOWN FERRY SERVICE

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My constituents are very angry at the government right now. They are angry because of the proposed toll for the use of the Glenora-Adolphustown ferry service. My constituents are deeply concerned about this proposal because this ferry is their lifeline.

There are farmers and other working people in my constituency who may be faced with tolls of more than $1,000 per year because they make this trip every day. My riding is economically depressed and these people cannot afford to pay this toll.

Business owners in the town of Picton are also concerned about the impact on commerce and tourism. Many of their customers live on the other side and take the ferry to shop. These customers may go elsewhere.

Last week I told my constituents that this is part of the expenditure control plan, and I told them that I support that plan fully. They understand the need for restraint. However, my constituents are not convinced that these tolls are necessary. They do not believe that the ministry has explored all the options. They are not pleased with the lack of advance consultation on a matter that affects many people in a very profound way. On this point I concur.

This ferry is part of the very way of life of my constituents. Last Tuesday I attended a meeting in Picton and more than 400 people directed this anger at me. It was a very emotional confrontation.

I wish to convey this deep anger and resentment to the Minister of Transportation. I would like to ask that the minister reconsider the imposition of tolls on the Glenora-Adolphustown ferry or postpone the tolls until a detailed study can be undertaken to assess the impact on the daily lives of the people of Prince Edward and Lennox and Addington. Let us look at all the alternatives very carefully before acting to impose this toll.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ST CATHARINES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The St Catharines-Niagara area now has the highest unemployment rate in the entire country, and of course that means in the province of Ontario. We have had major announcements of layoffs at General Motors and other plants in the Niagara region, and when I requested that the Premier of the province of Ontario travel to the city of Detroit and to the headquarters of General Motors to endeavour to persuade them to maintain their operations in St Catharines, the Premier declined to do so, instead lecturing people in St Catharines about the fact that General Motors was losing money and we had to understand that there were going to be job losses.

I remind the Premier that there are close to 4,000 people who could be affected by these layoffs. Much of the operation has not been closed down to this point. In the foundry and a portion of the engine plant there are indefinite layoffs of 750 people, and now the axle operation in St Catharines could lose 800 people.

I call upon the Premier and his government to create an investment climate in this province that will encourage General Motors to maintain and expand its operations in St Catharines, and I request that the Premier intervene directly with General Motors and American Axle and Manufacturing Inc to ensure that the axle operation in St Catharines continues to operate with the workers and the facilities in our community.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I address this statement to the Minister of Natural Resources, who is currently presiding over one of the greatest fiascos ever experienced by hunters in Ontario. Due to sheer incompetence, many hunters who were unsuccessful in last year's moose tag draw were not even placed in this year's pool. Others were placed in the pool when they shouldn't have been, and many hunters who used temporary Outdoors Cards had their applications erroneously removed from the system. Roughly 1,600 hunters in Ontario have been affected by this debacle.

I find it quite ironic that this government's revenue-grabbing Outdoors Cards system has placed them in their current predicament. The same company which took too long to process Outdoors Cards, Cards-Kestral Technology, is now mishandling this government's new moose draw system.

While the minister did finally come forward on September 17 to admit that these problems existed, his measures to rectify the problems were too little and too late. It has been reported that the minister was aware of these problems back in mid-August but failed to act.

The MNR's processing errors are so bad that many hunters who have been unjustly denied their privileges will not be processed this year, and will miss out due to poor management by this ministry.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I rise today on an issue that is of grave importance to many people in my riding. This issue concerns hundreds of families in my riding and the ridings to the north and the west. These families may soon be out of their homes, homes that they have lived in for decades simply because the federal government is looking for some spare change.

I'm talking about the Pickering airport lands. These are the lands in North Pickering, Uxbridge and Markham that the federal Liberals tore away from the original owners 21 years ago, because they said they wanted to build an airport. There are 18,000 acres in total. It was a bitter battle back in the 1970s when families clung to their homes in the hope that the federal government would realize that it was making a big mistake.

A mistake it was. We all know the airport was never built. The site was not chosen by any logical means. It was chosen because it was politically expedient at the time. Now the lands stand as a monument to pain, suffering and broken families that the entire expropriation has caused. I know this because I was part of the battle to preserve these lands 20 years ago.

Now the federal Tories callously believe that they should dispose of one third of the land, because they say they need the money. They say this sale will net them $60 million. It is a line item in a budget somewhere, and they insist they need to make this target, and it doesn't matter what pain will result.

This land is made up almost entirely of class 1 food land. This is a precious commodity, and any move to sell and leave it in the hands of developers must be stopped. In order to purchase a single Campbell-copter, the feds are moving forward with this misconceived plan. I only hope they come to understand what a huge mistake the sale of this land is. It is important to the tenants and to the future generations.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I guess I should direct this to you as a point of order: Do you know if the Premier was informed that the House has reconvened?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I take it that the honourable member for St Catharines was informed and thus all members were informed.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our House and seated in the Speaker's gallery today, Mr Patrick Evans, the consul general of South Africa in Toronto. He's joined by Mr David Brewis, the counsel to the consul general. Welcome to our assembly.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Also seated in the Speaker's gallery are the legislative interns for 1993-94, and I would appreciate it if you could welcome them to our midst: Philip Bousquet, Sharon Cardash, Vito Ciraco, Rod Cumming, Wendy Martin, Karen Murray, Robert Nicol and Christine Tovee. Please welcome these very exceptional people.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also appreciate all members joining me in welcoming the 14th group of pages to serve in the third session of the 35th Parliament: John Arthur, Eglinton; Shaun Barry, Sudbury East; Karen Baxter, Scarborough East; Ryan Berlin, Mississauga West; Zeyd Bismilla, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Eric Ferguson, Durham-York; Ryan Gannon, Durham Centre; Tamara Hains, St George-St David; Christa Hammond, Elgin; Evan James Hickey, Huron; Moira Klein-Swormink, S-D-G & East Grenville; Norman Lamothe, Parry Sound; Derrick Leduchowski, Rainy River; Bryanne Leuenberger, Lake Nipigon; Gillian Macdonald, Windsor-Riverside; Jeremy Mozzon, Burlington South; George Niculescu, Mississauga North; Elizabeth Paprzycki, St Catherines-Brock; Patricia Patterson, Oshawa; Kimberlee Pheonix, Don Mills; Sarah Sauder, Niagara South; Neil Shah, Cornwall; Catherine Sundeen, Etobicoke-Humber; and Annette Truax, Simcoe East. Please welcome our pages.

1350

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR VICTORIA-HALIBURTON

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Mr Dennis Drainville, member for the electoral district of Victoria-Haliburton. Accordingly, my warrant has been issued to the chief election officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

I also beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the office of the First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House by reason of the resignation of Dennis Drainville, member for the electoral district of Victoria-Haliburton.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE / COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Economic Development and Trade, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: My apologies.

Hon Ms Lankin: Members on all sides of the House will be aware of the efforts that the government and its partners in business, labour and communities are making to renew the economy and to put Ontario back to work. In fact, the Premier will be making an announcement shortly this afternoon in that regard.

However, members will also be aware of the very significant barriers to creating jobs that we face. One impediment to job creation in Ontario comes in the form of interprovincial trade barriers. Simply put, the goods and services that Ontario workers and companies produce here sometimes cannot reach markets in other provinces, and Ontario workers sometimes cannot use their skills freely to secure jobs at work sites in other provinces.

Members should also be aware of the efforts that all provincial governments are making to reduce these barriers. Ontario and other governments have committed themselves to a comprehensive process to address this issue. Negotiations continue towards an agreement that will reduce these obstacles to jobs and growth. I want to stress that we are committed to that process. Ontario will continue to negotiate with all governments towards a comprehensive interprovincial trade agreement.

However, the internal trade ministers recognize that some issues need to be addressed more immediately through bilateral discussions. From Ontario's perspective, we cannot stand idle while construction workers in Ontario suffer double-digit unemployment and are prevented from working in the province of Quebec, not when they see contracts and jobs in Ontario awarded to Quebec companies and workers.

This kind of discrimination is not new. Quebec's policies in this area have been in place since the mid-1970s and have provoked complaints from successive Ontario governments. Over the course of the summer, officials of our Ontario government negotiated with their Quebec counterparts in an effort to get Quebec to remove some of its most visible and discriminatory trade barriers, barriers that have been doing significant harm to Ontario workers and companies for many years.

At issue are four specific areas.

First is the access of Ontario workers to jobs on Quebec construction sites. In the Ottawa-Carleton region, for example, the Cornwall area and the border regions of northern Ontario, Quebec residents regularly get jobs on Ontario building sites. On the Quebec side of the border in those regions, there are few Ontario residents working on construction jobs.

The second issue concerns access of Ontario contractors to private sector construction work in Quebec. Contractors from Ontario cannot get work in Quebec unless they obtain a Quebec licence, for which they need to prove that they have a place of business in Quebec. On the Ontario side of the border, Quebec contractors do not need a licence to work.

The third issue is access of Ontario contractors to public sector construction work in Quebec. The Ontario government's construction procurement system is open to out-of-province contractors, while Quebec is virtually closed to all contractors and manufacturers of construction materials that do not have their principal place of business in Quebec.

The fourth issue concerns municipal bus purchases. The Quebec government has given an exclusive contract to a Quebec firm to supply buses to Quebec municipalities for the next three years. Even after that contract expires, Quebec has a preferential policy subsidy in place which makes it more attractive to buy Quebec-manufactured buses than buses built elsewhere. By contrast, Ontario municipalities may purchase buses from any company they wish, and the Ministry of Transportation provides exactly the same rate of subsidy for a bus manufactured anywhere.

Negotiations over the summer on these issues have, unfortunately, made little progress. Quebec made one offer which fell far short of addressing the concerns of Ontario workers and companies. Last week, Quebec released a paper for its construction industry summit. These papers make it clear that inaction will continue as Quebec enters into a long period of internal debate and delay.

It has become clear to us that Quebec feels little incentive to address our concerns. That is why the Premier announced on September 1 our intention to level the playing field between ourselves and Quebec. We must demonstrate to Quebec why it must put an end to its discrimination against Ontario workers and companies.

Accordingly, I am announcing today a series of measures that mirror the trade barriers Quebec has in place. They duplicate for Quebec workers and firms the same discriminatory barriers currently faced by Ontarians trying to work or do business in Quebec. They level the playing field. The measures we are introducing are as follows:

Firstly, the Ministry of Transportation will be introducing immediately a policy that will discourage Ontario municipalities from buying buses made in Quebec to the same extent that Quebec discourages its municipalities from buying buses made in Ontario.

Secondly, the government will move immediately towards the goal of excluding Quebec-based contractors, subcontractors and Quebec-produced construction materials from future contracts for Ontario government projects. We will also immediately begin discussions with our transfer payment partners on how best to integrate this policy into transfer payment agreements.

Thirdly, the government will make every effort, beginning immediately, to encourage private individuals and firms to favour contractors, subcontractors and construction products from Ontario over those from the province that excludes us.

Fourthly, we are instructing that legislation be drafted and introduced this session to impose the same exclusion on Quebec workers as is now imposed on Ontario residents by Quebec's construction legislation and regulations. This will apply to all construction sites in the province, whether public or private.

In describing these measures, I want to emphasize three points. First, these measures will stay in place only so long as the Quebec measures they mirror remain in effect. As soon as Quebec opens its borders to Ontario firms and workers, Ontario will immediately abandon its reciprocal actions.

Second, none of the measures we are announcing today will have any adverse effect on any other province.

Third, none of the measures is an escalation of trade barriers. They simply level the playing field between Quebec and Ontario.

By taking these measures, we will be making it clear to the Quebec government that it has nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose by continuing to exclude Ontario firms and Ontario workers. We hope we can soon return to this House to announce that the disagreement has been resolved and that the measures announced today can be withdrawn.

Despite this disagreement, we remain closely linked to Quebec through a variety of economic, social, governmental and personal ties. Our two provinces will continue to cooperate in many areas.

I want to underline the fact that these measures are designed to support negotiations. Ontario remains committed to a negotiated settlement of all outstanding issues. We will ensure that no other province is adversely affected by our actions, so that the comprehensive interprovincial negotiations can continue. Bilateral discussions with Quebec can proceed because the two provinces will be on an equal footing and Quebec will have a greater incentive to stop discriminating. We are determined that both sets of negotiations will succeed.

I'm pleased to be joined today in the members' gallery by Mr Joe Duffy, who represents Ontario construction workers and by Mr Peter Clark, chair of the region of Ottawa-Carleton.

We are committed to the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers and we will continue to work alongside all other governments in Canada to achieve that very goal.

1400

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I do not believe that anybody in this House would call this a happy day and a happy announcement. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that this minister has understood just how critical and how serious this issue has become.

I would repeat my belief that this is not the end goal of what all of us wanted to see achieved, and I believe that to be as true for the government as it is for the members of the opposition. That is why I say that while it is not a happy announcement, we welcome the fact that the minister has understood just how serious and indeed how urgent this situation has become, and we are indeed supportive of this government taking immediate and decisive action in the name of bringing some fairness to Ontario and Quebec trade.

I don't believe this in fact can be called an escalation of trade barriers, because clearly on Quebec's part those trade barriers already exist. It is not an equal playing field when only 300 Ontario workers are eligible to work on Quebec construction sites while 4,000 Quebec residents are currently working in Ontario on our construction sites.

We have on a number of occasions called for action on what has become a great concern for Ontario workers. The minister will be well aware of the resolution which was brought before the House last spring by the member for Ottawa East and which received unanimous support of this House, calling on the government to take immediate action. We have since seen Ontario construction companies call for action, we have seen Ontario unions call for action and we have seen the Ottawa-Carleton region feel compelled to bring the pressure of its own resolution to bear in urging this government to act.

Il est temps que le NPD prenne des mesures pour protéger les travailleurs de l'Ontario. Nous avons besoin de mesures précises pour pousser le Québec à négocier l'élimination de ses barrières commerciales. Nous avons déjà proposé des mesures concrètes qui visent à montrer au Québec que l'Ontario est sérieux et qu'il ne peut plus tirer avantage des ces barrières commerciales injustes.

We support and we will continue to support the negotiated resolution of this issue. Our goal, and I believe the goal of all of us, is to see trade barriers removed so that Ontario companies can compete on an equal basis in Quebec as Quebec companies do here. We want Ontario workers to have the same opportunities to work in Quebec as Quebec workers have to work in Ontario.

But we have become more and more concerned that the negotiations have not been proceeding and that, by the government's own admission, there was a need to bring some real pressure to bear on that bargaining table, and we have been extremely concerned with the government's talk of the need for action throughout this summer with no action being taken. That is why I called for the government to take immediate and tough action and that is why we will support the actions that the minister has announced today, which in fact are consistent with the actions we have called for.

Minister, I urge you to follow through on what you have announced in your measures today to the point at which Quebec's trade barriers are in fact removed. But we also encourage you to press Quebec to return to the table to negotiate a removal of the trade barriers that exist. We continue to trust that, with serious negotiations on all sides, the trade barriers will indeed be removed on all sides.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I want to thank the minister for responding to my resolution, which was unanimously accepted in the House. It's about time that this government accomplished something. Finally you're responding to the needs of the opposition. Maybe it's the low polls of the NDP that are making you work a little harder, but I'm very, very pleased that the minister has moved in the right direction.

Je dois ajouter que la Ministre a très bien répondu aux exigences de l'opposition, surtout du Parti libéral, et que finalement le gouvernement de l'Ontario, une fois pour toutes, va trouver une solution au problème des irritants, des barrières interprovinciales qui existent entre nos deux provinces.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I want to say that any day in the Legislature of Ontario when the government has the courage to do something that no governing party has done for the 12 1/2 years that I've been in the Legislature -- that is, to come forward and take the kind of action that construction people, that workers have been calling for during the 12 1/2 years that I've been elected -- is a happy day, is a good day, and I congratulate the minister.

Let me also say in response to the minister that we regret it took this long. Let me thank the minister for ignoring the advice of the Liberals, who said, "Carry on with more talks, more discussions." In the resolution from the member for Ottawa East speaking against the resolution that was brought forward by the member for Carleton -- and by the way, this is a happy day for the member for Carleton -- they said, "Don't take this action, talk."

Bill Davis talked for four years that I was in this Legislature; David Peterson talked; you people talked for three years. Unfortunately, you talked your way through the summer, when the construction season was on. Finally, we have a government prepared to take the action required, as Frank McKenna did, and let's give him credit for being the first elected Premier and government to do so in Canada to say: "Fair is fair. If you won't let us work in Quebec, you can't work in New Brunswick. We want a level playing field."

Let me say I am disappointed that 10 members of the government voted against the resolution of the member for Carleton that called for us to do this last spring, right in the middle of the construction season. The member for Carleton was the first member to put a resolution on the floor that said, "You are going to have to retaliate if you want to get their attention." We've talked, we've been nice, we've cajoled for the 12 years I've been here, and it doesn't work. Why would it?

I also regret that five eastern Ontario members of the Liberal caucus absented themselves from that debate and refused to come into this House and support the resolution so we could have got started in the summertime.

I also regret very much that the leader of the Liberal Party waited until two weeks ago, until after the government said it was going to do just this, before she would lend her support. I guess the polls hadn't finally come in on what the people wanted. I tell you, we need more people in this country, we need more people in this province prepared to stand up and make tough decisions and do the right things without regard to how it's going to be perceived or misinterpreted. We want the elimination, as we all do, of all interprovincial trade barriers. This will help get them between Ontario and Quebec. Well done.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I would just like to thank the minister and her government for taking this action. I'd also like to thank the Ottawa Construction Association, which realizes that there are going to be some hard decisions, hard parts in taking these kinds of actions. There's going to be displacement of workers and there are going to be a lot of unhappy people on both sides of the provincial border.

I also would like to congratulate Peter Clark in terms of undertaking a study which I believe formed a great part of the basis of making this decision, which showed that somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 construction workers come from Quebec to Ontario whereas only 300 or 400 go the other way.

People of Ottawa-Carleton have been waiting a long time to get some kind of fairness in terms of dealing with this issue. I only say to the minister that there are many other areas which have to be explored and remedied. Madam Minister, congratulations on this day.

1410

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): As one who represents an area along the Ontario-Quebec border, I welcome this announcement very much today, but I'll tell you, do you know where the real problem lies? Quebec in the late 1970s brought in labour legislation akin to Bill 40, and the problem is with labour unions. That's where the problem lies. Our colleagues from the province of Quebec are attempting to solve the problem, yet the labour unions will not issue working tickets within those 17 regions they've created in the province of Quebec, and therein lies the problem.

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Speaker, I'd like to make two points of order.

First, the leader of the third party was not in the House when I introduced my resolution. The second point is from the comments of the member from S-D-G; I want to remind him that in the 1970s it was a Conservative government that was ruling this province.

The Speaker: Aside from the history, it is not a point of order. The member I am sure is aware of that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question will be to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance. Minister, it has now been four months since you brought in your spring budget and the province's economy is still in a shambles. Ontario's unemployment currently is running at 10.8%. In the Niagara region, to take one region which has been particularly hard hit by this recession, we are seeing unemployment running at 15.8%, and that is the highest rate of any urban area being tracked in the country today. There are 580,000 people in this province who are out of work, and instead of a recovery we have 10,000 more people out of work than we had last spring. The Ministry of Labour statistics show that we can anticipate another 11,000 layoffs and job losses in the coming months.

Minister, what do these rather cold numbers. but real people who have lost their jobs. say to you about the failure of your budget and your government to deal with this province's economy?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): To answer the leader of the official opposition as directly as possible -- and unlike her, I will not make it a partisan response, because we're dealing with a set of problems that we're facing all across Canada, not just in Ontario -- there is no question whatsoever that everyone's forecasts, both economic growth and revenues, have been off the mark last year and again this year. There's no question about that whatsoever.

What it really means is that the economic recovery -- and I hasten to add that it is an economic recovery in which we find ourselves. However, there is no question that the recovery is slower than we thought it was going to be or than anybody else thought it was going to be. I'm sure the leader of the official opposition has heard speculation about the federal government revenues as well. They've got their own difficulties on the revenue side, and I'm sure subsequently on the expenditure side as well. So the recovery is slower than we had hoped it would be, but I would ask her to express some confidence in the Ontario economy and encourage investment here.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: There's no question that business confidence has increased substantially in the last six months to a year.

Mrs McLeod: It is hardly being partisan to ask this government what it is doing about the issue that matters more to the people of this province than any other single issue. I would suggest that it would be really asking for blind faith to have confidence in our economic renewal when everything this government does is calculated to make that recovery absolutely impossible. I would say to you, Minister, that it is still a fact that 350 jobs are being lost and have been lost in this province every working day since you took office.

We have now seen last spring's budget's impact, and I would suggest to the Finance minister that he is perhaps the only one whose projections are off, as he has suggested. The Conference Board of Canada looked at the impact of your budget, and it has said that its projections for economic growth in this province were being reduced by 1% because of the impact of your budget. That 1% means 50,000 jobs, and, Treasurer, that's exactly how many jobs we said your budget was going to cost this province.

Minister, I find nothing in the leaked legislative agenda which suggests that you are going to take any steps to restore faith in the economy of this province. In fact, the only thing that we see that's an economic initiative in your three-year plan is a proposal for more tax increases, and I would suggest that surely the growth of the underground economy that we have all been so concerned with over recent months is evidence even to you that taxes are making matters worse.

Minister, I ask you: When will you understand that it is your government, your mismanagement, that is making it impossible for this economy to recover and that is seeing more jobs lost across the province? When will you admit that it is in fact your taxes that have cost this province jobs?

Hon Floyd Laughren: I do recall the leader of the official opposition in her criticisms of the budget, and that's fair in this partisan forum, but I think that at some point she has to come to grips with her own contradictions. She's telling us now that it's our taxes that are causing the economic problems. At a previous time she told us it was the size of the deficit. At a previous time it was that we were not doing enough to create jobs.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): All three.

Hon Mr Laughren: All three, yes, exactly. The leader of the official opposition says that our deficit's too high but we're not spending enough money. She says that our taxes are too high but our deficit's too high. I think that at some point the leader of the official opposition is not going to get away with her Kim Campbell stance and refuse to take a position on exactly what her government stands for.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, if you think the most basic questions about people being out of work are some kind of partisan position on my part, let me ask you then what it is that you are hearing from the 580,000 people in this province who are out of work. Let me ask you what you're hearing from people in Niagara region, because I can tell you what I've been hearing, as I've travelled the province this summer, from people in every community and every region. I can tell you that I have heard more frustration, more anxiety about the future, more anger at government mismanagement because it is costing people jobs than I have heard in about 25 years in politics.

I just want the Treasurer to hear a little bit of what we've been hearing from people in this province, because people tell us. Here's somebody from Orillia who says, "We can't stand the level of taxation that's being imposed on us." Somebody who wrote to us from North Toronto who says: "Stop the taxes; enough is enough. Small business can't afford any more." A small contractor from Leamington who says, "The NDP government has put me out of business and that's another 15 jobs lost."

Treasurer, will you at least tell these people that you're not going to make matters worse? Will you at least make a commitment that we will not be seeing you introduce any new taxes or tax increases?

Hon Mr Laughren: This government brought into Ontario some major job creation programs. In very difficult times we have done more to create jobs than any other government in this country, even on a per capita basis. We have all of the Jobs Ontario programs that are out there and they are working. We are spending almost $4 billion on capital projects that are jobs.

Of course, I know, and I don't disagree with the leader of the official opposition, that people are concerned about the level of unemployment and the future for themselves and for their children. Of course they are. We all are. But I would simply say to the leader of the official opposition, if she believes now that we should be reducing taxes, and therefore, I assume, cutting expenditures as well, why does she vote against every measure that we take in here to reduce government expenditures, such as the social contract, for example? Why does she and her party vote against everything we do to reduce expenditures at the same time she's calling for lower taxes and a lower deficit? She simply cannot have it both ways.

But I would want to, in conclusion, assure her that it is not our intention -- and I said this before and the Premier said it as well, that by the tax increases in the budget this year we gave ourselves the kind of revenue base that we think will allow us to sustain a reasonable level of expenditures in the province.

1420

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Solicitor General. My riding of Cornwall has been in the news for many, many months now, and especially lately, because of the smuggling of cigarettes, which costs the federal and provincial governments more than $1 billion annually in lost revenue. However, the residents of my riding know that the issue is not just lost revenue. Smugglers are armed with automatic weapons which they have fired under the cover of night for months now. The Cornwall Civic Complex was fired upon earlier this month. Drive-by-style shootings are occurring in many areas in my riding, and some local politicians have had their warnings.

Now that I feel that the message has finally got through to the Rae government, can the Solicitor General tell me what he has done about this matter since our meeting in Ottawa on Thursday of last week, and what is the time frame for putting a stop to the smuggling before innocent victims are killed?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I thank the member for the question on this extremely important and serious matter facing not just the constituents in his riding but in a number of other areas -- not just across Ontario, in fact, but across Canada. I also want to thank him for the work that he did in leading the delegation from his community to meet with Bud Wildman and myself to talk about the issue at hand.

I can report to him that as a result of the meeting that we had, which I think he will agree was a very positive meeting and which ensured that all parties understood the severity of the issue and put all of the relevant factors in front of us, since that meeting I have obviously spoken with the commissioner of the OPP to debrief him personally on the aspects of the meeting and the concerns that I heard from the honourable member and his delegation.

Also, this morning I met with Doug Lewis in my office, where we discussed the issues that were at the meeting. From that meeting he's assured me that he will be providing the leadership that he needs to, given that smuggling is indeed a national issue, and that he will be very soon announcing a national strategy to deal with this issue as it relates to Canadians from the east coast through to the west coast.

We talked about the task force, the importance of the conclusions of the task force. I see the Speaker asking me to wrap up. I'll be pleased to provide further details upon a supplementary question.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): While we hear about task forces and we hear about meetings, the people in the Cornwall area know that the St Lawrence River at night in the Cornwall area is a war zone. Not since the war of 1812 has there been such activity on that stretch of the river. The Coast Guard -- and it's no laughing matter -- has abandoned night patrols because it feels it is unsafe. The OPP detachment at Lancaster, which is the front-line detachment for the war zone, is closed between 3 and 7 am every night of the week.

Will the Solicitor General for Ontario give the people of the Cornwall area, who are rightly concerned about their safety and about the public safety of anyone travelling through that area, at least the assurance that from this day forward the OPP detachment at Lancaster will be beefed up and opened for business around the clock?

Hon Mr Christopherson: One of the more detailed aspects of the discussion that we had last Thursday in Ottawa involved the Lancaster detachment and what we may be able to do with the fact that the closure is there.

Let me first of all put it in context. It is not unusual across the province, in certain parts, due to geography, to have detachments that are closed during certain hours. It does not lower the level of service that is available to the citizens. There are services that are provided in other fashions. The member knows that and so do other members who indeed have this kind of service.

Let me say to the honourable member that in answering the direct question -- let me reiterate what I said coming out of the meeting on Thursday. We have a task force that is made up of most of the police services that are involved and have a jurisdiction here. The honourable member knows that the complexity of this issue is increased by the number of jurisdictions that are involved. Out of that task force will come an action plan that will be approved and supported by all the police services. They will determine what level of resources are required from each of the forces that are participating.

The issue of the Lancaster detachment was specifically asked and I asked the commissioner to look at that as a part of that plan and I expect to have an answer forthcoming on the opening of the Lancaster detachment during the hours in question.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I listen to the response of the Solicitor General and I try and put myself in the shoes of somebody from Cornwall and I wonder how much reassurance they would feel with that answer. This has been an issue which has been growing as a crisis for months. It's an issue which the member for Cornwall has raised repeatedly. The member for Cornwall has seen the way in which violence in his community is growing. He's seen the fact that the mayor of Cornwall has had to go into hiding. He himself has been visited in his office by people with guns.

I had an opportunity to visit Cornwall earlier in the summer and I sat down with a group of just ordinary citizens from Cornwall and I can't begin to tell you of my alarm at the fear of those citizens when they said it was not even safe for their children to go out and ride their bikes at night. I would say to the minister, as difficult as this situation may be to resolve, it is simply not enough to talk about the task force and to talk about there soon being a national strategy. Minister, we ask you again, what are you doing now? Will you tell the people of Cornwall what you are doing now to assure them of their safety?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me again reiterate that indeed I and this government and all the members on this side share the concerns that the member has raised. I can also say that coming out of our meeting on Thursday, it was indeed Mayor Martelle, it was the mayor of Cornwall himself, who said that he was satisfied with the response that he had received from this government and the federal government. That is not to say that we now rest on our laurels and nothing else happens, but it is to say that in answer to the question the honourable member raises, the mayor, the chief magistrate responsible for that community, has said that to date, as a result of the meetings with the federal Minister of Public Security and myself, he is satisfied that the task force is in place and that we have matters in hand.

That mayor, I want to say, is expecting some results. I can say that I am expecting some results and so is the federal minister, but let's give the police the opportunity to do the job that they can do and that they can best do.

When the member previously talks about a war zone, I'd like to end my comments by saying that there's nothing more serious for us than the public safety of the citizens around the area of the river and all around Cornwall, but let's not talk about a war zone because that's what we're trying to prevent. If we allow the police to do the jobs --

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- that they're there to do, we will be able to do that and we will be able to deal effectively and find a resolution to the issue.

1430

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I want a follow-up to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General, in response to the question, talked about decisions based upon geography. The laughing in the Legislature when the member for Renfrew North talked about a war zone -- it is a war zone on the river. We get reports now of boats travelling 80 miles an hour on the river, firing at the shoreline with automatic rifles so that no one will come out and see who they are, at the same time as the OPP doesn't have the resources to even stay open while this war zone is going on.

This is not a new problem. We had task force hearings in Cornwall two and a half years ago when the issue of the taxation on cigarettes and booze and the smuggling -- at a time when the problem was beginning to escalate -- was raised to us by the residents, the citizens of Cornwall.

We were back 10 days ago with a task force on community safety and on crime in Cornwall. That night, our hearings were being held across the street from the city hall, the civic complex, and that night a bullet was fired into the civic complex.

It is a war zone. It is war going on when the mayor of a community goes into hiding. I hear laughter from members of your party and I hear you talk about decisions based upon geography. This is something that has been escalating over a period of years. I ask you, Mr Solicitor General, where are your priorities for providing safety in the communities in and around Cornwall?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I thank the leader of the third party for this question. Again, I reiterate the importance that I and this government give the issue in Cornwall and in other places across Canada. Let me also make it very clear that the jurisdictional responsibility for cigarette smuggling is federal, and while this government and the OPP are quite prepared to provide the service and the resources that we need to deal with this issue, the lead must come from the federal minister.

Having said that, let me also say that in my meetings with Doug Lewis I believe that he is attempting to ensure that he's approaching this from a national perspective and not just trying to leave it to a local response, which is clearly not the answer to this.

Let me also say to the member that we talk about a war zone; let's not get caught up in semantics and playing games with definitions. I think the honourable member will agree, certainly if he listens to the words of the local mayor and other community leaders, and will realize that as serious as it is right now, and it is, and as important as it is for us to respond, and we are, if we are not careful in this particular situation, given the jurisdictions that are involved, given the complexities, it could indeed be much, much worse, which is why, Mr Speaker, I'm looking for the RCMP, the OPP, the customs agents, the other professionals who can put together the kind of response and action plan that we should follow, and that is what we are doing.

Mr Harris: I want to say by way of supplementary that I never thought I'd see the day when we have a mayor who had to go into hiding, where we have what's happening to the people of Cornwall, where we do have a war zone there at night. I never thought I'd see the day where, when the OPP tells my office this morning, they've got one 20-foot skiff, nothing else -- that's all they have to fight back with; they've been begging for more resources, more help, and that's all they have -- the Premier of the province would be off giving $1 million to one of the wealthiest companies in the world -- they hardly need $1 million to go ahead with plans that were going ahead anyway -- and is not here in the Legislature, after this summer of discontent on jobs and now the safety of the citizens and of the duly elected mayor of Cornwall.

Can you explain to me why you've got $20 million for this and $100 million for that, $100 million for non-profit day care to drive the private sector day care out of business and $1 million for Toyota, the richest company in Canada? The only reason I can see that he gave the $1 million was so he could be there at the ribbon cutting, because I don't think the company even asked for it. Can you explain why you've got money for that and the OPP have one 20-foot skiff to fight back against one of the biggest influxes of organized crime we've ever seen in Ontario?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I agree very much with the seriousness that the honourable member places on this issue, and so do the other responsible levels of government. That is why this task force has been set up by all the police forces that are involved. Let me say very straightforwardly to the member that what we need and what we've asked for and what we will receive from the police is a plan that will allow this issue to be dealt with in a proper manner, in an efficient manner and in an effective manner.

Part of that will clearly be, what kind of resources are required from all of the individual police forces? When that comes, then we will respond to the resource issue. I would suggest that at that point the honourable member will see that we are prepared to ensure that the OPP has the resources it needs to provide its part of this coordinated response to this very serious issue.

Mr Harris: With the greatest deal of respect, the residents of Cornwall are not asking for another task force. We had our task force in there 10 days ago. They told us very clearly there were two directions that should be moved on and should have been moved on years ago: number one, the huge tax differential for cigarettes and booze. That means organized crime is dealing with billions of dollars and it has the money, it has the resources and it has the armament that goes with billion-dollar profits of illegal smuggling. That has to deal with the Treasurer and the taxation that we've seen in this province, over the last eight years in particular, and the differential between the United States and Canada.

Secondly, our task force was told that the resources have to be provided immediately, and should have been long ago, to the law enforcement officials. We are dealing, I'm sure the minister knows, with organized crime at the highest level, dealing with the highest of profits. You know that when we're dealing with billions of dollars to the criminal element, to organized crime, human life to them becomes insignificant. To you and me, to Ontarians, human life must be paramount. That is your job, to provide the safety of the people of this province, and in Cornwall, mothers, the mayor, are all saying they're afraid to go out at night.

The Speaker: Could the leader place a question.

Mr Harris: Nobody is prepared to go out on the river, obviously, after dark. Will you commit the resources today that the OPP are asking for so that they're not sitting there with one 20-foot skiff while you make up your mind with a task force on the measures you're going to take?

Hon Mr Christopherson: With reciprocal respect, I would suggest to the honourable member that as much as he might like one of his task forces to equate to a task force headed up by the RCMP, I don't think the broader community is going to see them as the same.

The fact that this is such a complex issue, that there are so many different jurisdictions, requires that there be a coordinated response. It's the police that have said their first step is a regional task force. It's their recommendation that this happen. It's also their recommendation that they be given the opportunity to analyse the situation, put together a plan and then advise us as to the resources they need to, in effect, implement that plan.

That plan is not completed. The police are working very quickly. This is a high priority. I expect that very soon they will have that plan. When they do, they will identify those resources that are the responsibility of the RCMP, those that are the responsibility of the OPP and the other forces. Our responsibility as the government, mine as the minister here, are to ensure that the OPP have the resources they need to meet their responsibilities within that plan.

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: I sincerely believe that is the way to deal with the safety of this issue: to follow the lead of professionals, allow them to do their job and when the political will and the political --

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat. A very complete reply. New question, the leader of the third party.

1440

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Treasurer, or the Minister of Finance, or may I call him "vibes" Laughren. Last week you said you had an unsettled feeling about provincial revenues and deficit targets. I'm just wondering if you can tell us what your vibes tell you today. On this first day of return to the Legislature, what is this deficit projection du jour for this fiscal year?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): When we brought down the budget in the spring, we indicated that we were projecting a deficit of $9.2 billion. Since that time, there have been a couple of shocks to the revenue system -- perhaps "vibes" is not the appropriate word, but shocks -- largely, I might add, from the 1992 income tax returns that the federal government divvies up, figures out when they're all in and provides to us in September of any given year. I think the leader of the third party understands that. So the biggest hit on the revenue side reflects the recession in 1992 rather than 1993.

Having said that, however, I'm not pretending there are not revenue problems in 1993 as well. What we've said is that we are determined to come as close as we can to the $9.2-billion deficit and to make sure that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Will the minister conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: We do hope that this year, as the economy improves, we'll see the unemployment rate start to drop, in particular as more and more people, with the assistance of our Jobs Ontario programs, are removed from the social assistance rolls and become gainfully employed.

Mr Harris: I want to say to the Treasurer, I've been travelling this province extensively throughout the summer. I've been talking with Ontarians across the province. I got rather an overwhelming unanimity, if you like, with the odd exception, of course -- there's never unanimity on anything in this life -- from business people, from working men and women, from the employed, from the unemployed, from families, from those who are worried about their jobs that they don't believe you have a revenue problem.

They've seen the revenues to this government go up two or three times the rate of inflation over the last 10 years and they don't think you have a revenue problem. They think you have a very, very serious spending problem, and until you figure that out, you're not ever going to get your deficit under control, no matter what the Ouija board might tell you from one day to the next, and you do not tackle a spending problem with tax hikes.

Given that one of the big changes from the fourth quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year to the second quarter, where the revenues have dropped off dramatically, with your $2-billion tax hike, a 6% increase in the rate of taxation, and this is not producing a 6% increase in revenue -- the reason is obvious. At that higher rate, there are fewer jobs being created, there are fewer investments, there are fewer people working.

I wonder if you would acknowledge, Treasurer, once and for all, after this last example, on top of the last eight years of massive tax increases, that if you want to get more tax revenue, you're going to have to have more people working, more investment, more jobs, more companies making money. You cannot get it by increasing the rate yet another time. Would the Treasurer tell us if he has learned that lesson?

Hon Mr Laughren: There are some things people say to me, and I'm sure they say the same thing to the leader of the third party, namely, that our tax levels are high enough and that they don't want to see taxes going up more. I understand that. We said earlier this year that we had a very substantial tax increase this year which would give us the kind of revenue base that is required for the expenditures we have.

At the same time, I would remind him that for the first time in decades, our expenditures this year are lower than they were last year, and we have worked extremely hard through our expenditure control plan of $4 billion in savings and the social contract of $2 billion in savings this year. That's a very substantial effort on the part of the government to keep our expenditures under control, because I agree in one sense with the leader of the third party that whatever expenditures we have, we must keep in mind at all times what our revenues are.

Finally, and this is not an attempt to point fingers, I would remind him that in the last 10 years, the restrictions that have been put on federal transfers to the province have totalled about $20 billion. That is a lot of money and a lot of addition to our deficit which then has to be paid for through taxes. I remind the leader of the third party that simply pointing the finger at tax increases doesn't really address the entire problem.

Mr Harris: I would agree with the Treasurer, and I'm sure he would agree, that there is a very, very serious problem both federally and provincially with the deficit and with spending and that there are not going to be more revenues from increased taxes. He has learned that; I think other governments have learned that. You can, when you're low-taxed, increase it, but when you're the highest, relative to your competitors, in the cumulative effect of all the regulations, you're just into a law of diminishing returns. We're going to have to deal with the spending. The feds will have to deal with their spending -- there's a campaign on now to talk about that -- and we're going to have to deal with ours. Unlike the Liberals, we supported your 5% cut. It didn't go far enough yet, obviously. There is still more we're going to have to look for.

I would ask you this, Treasurer. You have directed all the ministries and all the departments to dream up any new way they can to wring another nickel out of the Ontario public: new fees, new user fees, new this, new that. Will you, if you have learned this lesson, go back to them all and say: "Stop that exercise of trying to get more money and put all our talents into: How we can spend more efficiently? How we can spend smarter? How we can set priorities?" so that we deal with the spending problem you have?

Hon Mr Laughren: We have attempted to bring our spending in line with what we anticipate our revenues are going to be, and all of the ministries have worked extremely hard in that regard. I know the bureaucracy is not given plaudits very often, but I think when we announced our $4-billion expenditure control plan, that really did do something that was unprecedented in this province. There was no institutionalized way of controlling expenditures in this province until we did it. It had never been done before.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I hear the official opposition Liberals nattering about it. Because they had high revenues in the late 1980s, they spent money they didn't even have. In boom times they increased the deficit, the cumulative debt of the province, by 33%. In good times they did that.

I'm saying to the leader of the third party that we do recognize there's a problem. We recognize it's not going to go away this year, and we shall continue to work extremely hard on making sure that our expenditures are in line with our revenues.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is also to the Minister of Finance. Minister, as we speak a little bit about the chaos of your social contract, I can tell you that we were pleased to learn that you had finally decided that Ontario Hydro and the municipal electric utilities would be able to use their social contract savings to reduce hydro costs rather than sending you their money.

Minister, I'm sure you're aware that social contract cuts at the Workers' Compensation Board are expected to total $10 million this year. I would ask you whether or not you will tell us, will you be expecting that $10 million from the Workers' Compensation Board to be written as a cheque to your government?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I assume by that question that the leader of the official opposition does not want the WCB to be making a contribution to the social contract savings. I can tell her that we should have an answer for her later this week.

Mrs McLeod: The Finance minister assumes absolutely right. In fact, it is unbelievable to me that this government could even consider asking the WCB to contribute $10 million to pay off the government's own debts.

Surely the minister is aware that the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board is growing by more than $1 million every day, a shocking figure that the committee heard this summer. Surely you understand that when you've already got an $11-billion unfunded liability and that it's growing by more than $1 million a day, you just don't have any extra money to help the government out with its debts.

Treasurer, I am told that indeed there will be a proposal going to cabinet that will recommend that the WCB, as Ontario Hydro and as the municipal electric utilities, will be able to use its savings in order to deal with its own financial problems. I would ask you today to make a commitment to ensure that cabinet will not take employer premiums paid to WCB to reduce your own deficit.

1450

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sure the leader of the official opposition, having been in cabinet herself, would know better than to expect me to make an assumption on the deliberations of cabinet.

I do understand the problem on both sides. There are arguments on both sides of that, I might add, which --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Give us one, then. It's the employees' money. What's the argument?

Hon Mr Laughren: And it's the employees who will be making the contribution to the social contract savings. There are arguments on both sides of that case, is all I'm saying.

Mrs McLeod: But you are going to fund the liability.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's correct, but you might ask yourself from whence came the unfunded liability, leader of the official opposition, who was there, as a matter of fact, when a great deal of that unfunded liability was run up, so you needn't point your fingers at the employees at the WCB. But I would reiterate that we will be making an announcement later in the week.

POLICE STAFFING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. A female police officer in Orangeville is currently on unpaid leave because she is pregnant. She's been told that a suitable job doesn't exist for her during her pregnancy. Do you think a woman should be sent home without pay because she's pregnant?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Since this issue is covered under the Police Services Act, I believe the Solicitor General is more appropriate to answer the question.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): As the honourable member I think knows, the matter arises from a grievance under the local collective agreement. It's my understanding that such a formal grievance has been filed, and as such I really can't comment on the details of this particular case. I'm very, very reticent to make any comments that may affect the outcome of a quasi-judicial procedure.

Mr Harris: Minister, I say to you and through you to the Attorney General and the minister responsible for women's issues, this is 1993. You are the party that proclaimed and told us all and continue to do so daily that you are going to increase support for women, that this is one of your primary causes. Many of your cabinet ministers have told me it's why you ran. You didn't care about the deficit, you didn't care about jobs, you didn't care about this. I've heard many say this directly too. That's the number one reason why you sought election in the last campaign, and we've not heard one word from the minister responsible for women's issues, not one word from the Solicitor General, that they consider this unacceptable, not one word. You've let our new friends, the labour unions, take this on through a grievance.

We expect a statement from you, Mr Solicitor General, we expect a statement from the minister responsible for women's issues, we expect a statement from the government about whether in 1993 you find this acceptable, and this is not a unique problem. You know, as Solicitor General, that many small police forces face similar problems and many are looking at this as a precedent.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: Many are looking at this as a precedent. Many are looking at your silence as carte blanche to do the same thing.

I would ask you, Mr Solicitor General, if she has enough courage to come forward in the next day or two to the minister responsible, will you make a statement that this is unacceptable in 1993?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think there is ample evidence of the actions that this government has taken on issue after issue after issue to stand very clearly on a record that talks about how we feel about the rights of women in society and their rights as they pertain to the legislation that exists in this province.

With respect to the specific issue, obviously my ministry monitors this situation very closely, because of its seriousness, because of the effect this could have on other situations across the province. I can only say once again that I am very, very concerned, as always, as a minister of the crown about making a statement that may or may not affect the outcome of a quasi-judicial issue.

But let me say very clearly that at the end of the day, on this and every other issue that affects women, it'll be very, very clear to the public who in this House supports and respects women's issues, women's rights, and who advocates on their behalf. If we watch what's happening in terms of employment equity --

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- and other issues we deal with, I think we already start to see what's happening.

VEHICLE LICENSING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As we all know, the province will be issuing special licence plate stickers for personal vehicles of volunteer and full-time firemen. The special front-plate stickers will allow other motorists to easily identify the personal vehicles of firefighters. I have received numerous calls from people asking for more details on this legislation. Can the minister advise this House and my constituency of exactly when these stickers will be made available, whether there'll be a cost involved and the method of distribution?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I wish to thank the member for his interest and question. I would also like to depart from what is customary in this House, for we have arrived at this decision by way of a private member's bill. In other words, the government has listened to what we feel is a commonsense approach, that of the contribution of Joan Fawcett, the member for Northumberland.

We will be working with the association; we are indeed. In fact, we're developing the team to see what the sticker will look like. It will be paid for entirely by the Ministry of Transportation and will be administered by the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. In the short-term future, the beginning of January 1994, it will be available to the members.

Mr Hansen: I've got another one. Can the minister advise this House and my constituency -- and this has been happening in my constituency -- whether firefighters will eventually be issued strobe lights to further identify themselves to other motorists? Some of our volunteers are already using them and the police have told them not to. Can you answer that, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Pouliot: For the past three years, I remember so vividly, at each opportunity the member has stood up like a sentry at his post, and now he believes that we do deliver. We do recognize what the women and the men out there are doing in terms of providing essential services. Yes again, you're getting the stickers, you're getting the strobe lights, and I will welcome the following question next week on yet another endeavour to serve people.

1500

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy and it concerns his government's complete disregard for the health and safety of the residents of Hamilton.

Mr Minister, it was reported last week that as many as 250 school children were exposed to highly toxic mercury, potassium cyanide and other containers of acid from an abandoned metal recycling warehouse in the city of Hamilton. It was later revealed that officials from your ministry knew about the presence of these chemicals at this site, and indeed one official is reported to have said in Saturday's Hamilton Spectator, and I quote in part: "We have been trying to get the site brought into compliance with our requirements since we became aware that the bankruptcy existed."

It is clear that officials within your ministry have known about this toxic chemical site for a long period of time, yet neither the city of Hamilton nor the local fire and police departments of the municipality had been informed by yourself of the serious threat which this posed to the community.

My question is, why did your ministry not inform the city of Hamilton of the highly toxic hazardous materials being stored within this abandoned site, which your ministry had full knowledge of for at least three years?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): This is a very important issue and I appreciate the fact that it's been raised. The member is ill-informed about a couple of the aspects of this issue, however.

It is certainly true that this ministry has been aware of the situation and has been dealing with the legal questions of how to ensure that the receiver would take responsibility. The receiver has taken the legal position and gotten court action to argue that they are not responsible for cleanup.

I reject the position taken by the member that this ministry has somehow disregarded the health and safety of the residents of Hamilton. It is in fact the case that the legal branch and the enforcement branch have been working hard to try and ensure that this company would come into compliance. In fact, the member should be aware that, contrary to his assertion, the ministry informed the Public Works Department of the city of Hamilton in June and July of the need to ensure proper security at the site.

Mr Offer: It is clear that your ministry has known about this site and its status for many months, if not years. It is equally clear that your ministry did not inform the municipal officials, fire officials of the city of Hamilton, and they were not aware.

Later today I believe we are going to be debating, in this Legislature, the Environmental Bill of Rights. In your compendium to this legislation, the first line states, "The bill of rights affirms that the people of Ontario have a right to a healthful environment."

It is clear that your ministry was aware of this problem. It is clear that this is a problem which is not limited to just one industrial plant in just one city, but indeed throughout the province. Municipalities have the right to know of the presence of hazardous chemicals within one's community, and that goes towards the municipalities and the firefighting officials.

Today, when in a few short minutes we will be starting the Environmental Bill of Rights debate, keeping in mind your compendium, will you commit to this Legislature and to the municipalities within the province to make known all abandoned sites which you and your ministry are now aware of which contain hazardous materials, so that action can be taken, so that the situation that appeared in Hamilton last week will not happen in any other part of this province?

Hon Mr Wildman: I again welcome the opportunity to debate the Environmental Bill of Rights, which is an enormous step forward in terms of ensuring the protection of the environment in this province and the rights of individuals and groups to participate in that protection.

The member opposite repeats his assertion that this ministry did not inform the city and the local officials, when in fact I had just stated to him in my previous answer that this was not correct. The member should be aware that there was indeed a fire at the site, not in the lab, in June and July. At that time the Ontario fire marshal's office was involved and was dealing with the local officials, and the ministry did in fact inform the Public Works Department of the city of Hamilton.

It's important, I think, to remember one thing: There is an owner of this company and there is a court-appointed receiver, and the ultimate responsibility for the security and protection of the health and environment in the area is the owner of the site. It is important for us to be able to ensure that we take action to ensure that people who have responsibilities live up to those responsibilities.

FARM INCOME

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Labour: The minister may not know that over the last number of years farm incomes have been decreasing drastically. Can the minister explain how he expects Ontario agriculture to cope with a 5.6% increase in the minimum wage? This will total a 34% increase in minimum wage since 1989. Some farmers, Minister, are even having to use food banks. Minister, do you claim that farm families have had a 34% increase in their net income since 1989? And if you claim that, then you're going against every other statistic that I have seen.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to tell the honourable member that I don't claim that. I do claim that we've made a commitment, and it's a longstanding commitment, to try and increase the minimum wage in the province of Ontario to a level at which people can pay their bills, and there are a lot of single families living on the minimum wage and that's exactly what we're trying to do and we're doing it in a very responsible and measured way.

Mr Villeneuve: Minister, my colleagues and I have had the Mike Harris Task Force on Rural Economic Development travelling into southwestern Ontario and we have heard the concerns of the tomato producers in the Leamington area, in the tobacco area, in Bruce county, and many other areas. They say that the NDP government legislates pay cuts to its own workforce but forces farm families to pay more. These increases, with labour relations and employment equity bills, cause every farmer who can to invest more in equipment to reduce labour.

Did anyone tell you, Minister, that agriculture in Ontario just cannot afford this kind of government interference and increase in minimum wage?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The honourable member should be aware that in an effort to be fair we set a $30,000 limit under which people wouldn't be hit in terms of the social contract. The minimum wage provides a $14,000-a-year income to workers. Now, is he suggesting that they should be paying even a bigger price than the rest of the workers in Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Grey and the member for Durham East, please come to order.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I had many important environmental issues raised to me during this summer. The hydro corridor, for example, which I don't believe is needed, is going to cut through some very valuable farm land. I'm glad to hear about the hearings that are going to happen for the Goodwood soil recycling plant. Of course, the people living in the Cannington area in the township of Brock are concerned about the proposed sewage sludge, and of course the residents of Musselman's Lake still need safe drinking water, and that's a very great concern and I'm going to raise that with you again later on. But the question I've got for you, Minister, is: Up in the northern part of our riding around Lake Simcoe the people in the town of Georgina, of course, have been waiting for this site to be named, and hopefully not them, as the preferred site for the Metro-York landfill. They've been waiting for a decision. They've been waiting since the spring through the summer. We're into the fall now and there doesn't seem to be any decision being made in the near future.

Minister, can you give me some answers as to when they can look forward to an answer?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I want to thank the member for Durham-York for his question and his advocacy on behalf of his constituents. The question that relates to the residents of Georgina as well as residents of the other areas where the IWA is looking at short-listed sites: I'm informed that the Interim Waste Authority hopes to have the announcement of the preferred site in each of the three study areas this fall. Given the environmental importance of ensuring that we have the proper suitable sites, it has taken a little longer than it was originally anticipated, but the announcement will be made this autumn.

1510

Mr O'Connor: Minister, I want you to be aware about some of the unrest in the community. The children and the families have been dealing with this indecision for over two years. No decision has been made. I have been told of psychologists coming into the school and talking to the students that have been aware of this. The people in Georgina quite often feel that they're very disadvantaged. Economically, they're disadvantaged from the rest of York region. There's high unemployment. There are problems, just as in many other communities, of abuse and violence. On top of this, they've got the problem of this dump.

I'd like to know, Minister, is there going to be any undertaking by the IWA to take a look at the social impacts, the impacts that are really going to affect the families of the people who live in this area?

Hon Mr Wildman: I recognize the uncertainty that residents of the various study areas have experienced and the anxiety of the residents of Georgina as well as the other short-listed communities. I sympathize with the concern of the member for his constituents and all others affected by the IWA site search.

The Interim Waste Authority has gone to great lengths to ensure that the search process is open, that we have real government listening, that we have the public involved in an independent way, independent from government, and that the public input that the IWA receives is reflected in the important decisions that are made. During that input, one of the major considerations that has been brought forward is the social impacts, and those will in fact be taken into account by the IWA in making its final choices.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. A point of order, the member for Brampton South.

POLITICAL PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've been watching the television coverage of the House, and I note that the New Democratic Party is now identified by a white trillium, the Liberals by a red trillium and I presume the Progressive Conservative Party by a blue trillium. Might I inquire why we are no longer identified as parties on the television screen so the voters of this province can understand who is speaking and make a determination of what they're saying, whether it makes sense or not?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): First of all, I appreciate the point of order. The member has raised, indeed, a valid point of order. We will discuss it with Broadcast and Recording. My understanding is that the logos had been approved by all three parties before they were utilized and that they accurately represent the colour choice of each of the three parties. But indeed, of course, the member's point is well taken that the name of the party should be included as well, and I will follow up on that as quickly as possible.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(a) the House will not meet to consider private members' public business on Thursday morning, September 30, 1993.

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

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if the government House leader would stand this motion down so that we might have a discussion about it. It had been brought to our attention, although the House leaders have not yet been able to have had a meeting, I have one member who is prepared to go on, and I had thought maybe we might have had a chance to discuss it; I wonder if we might.

Hon Mr Charlton: I don't have any problem with standing the motion down while we have a discussion.

Mr Elston: Quite obviously, should there be another conclusion reached, then not proceeding with this motion we would consent to it being brought on at a later time.

The Speaker: That would be my understanding, then, that we would stand the motion down, there will be some discussions and then an agreement to return to introduction of motions. Further motions?

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition -- actually, it's a number of petition cards signed by well over 1,000 of the Dryden area -- and it relates to an issue that the Minister of Health is well aware of. These petition cards, which include some very sincere comments from the citizens of Dryden, are directed to the Minister of Health, and they read:

"Dear Minister,

"We want an extended care facility in Dryden so our elderly citizens don't have to go elsewhere. Please give the go-ahead to build an extended care facility in Dryden today."

Again, I have well over 1,000 of these cards that have been presented to me.

GLENORA-ADOLPHUSTOWN FERRY SERVICE

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition here today that was collected at the Prince Edward County Fair. You can see it's quite a large one, and there are approximately 2,000 in this petition. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, are strongly opposed to the user-pay fee imposed on patrons who use the Glenora ferries for the following reasons:

"1. This ferry is part of Highway 33 and it poses the question: How can the province charge for part of a highway?

"2. Many taxpayers who live along the Loyalist Parkway rely on tourism for their income. By imposing this fee, fewer tourists will use this route, badly cutting into the income of businesses.

"3. Many people living in Prince Edward country work in Kingston; this fee will produce further eroding of their income.

"4. Farmers sell produce and buy supplies in Picton; this fee will be detrimental to their profession."

That concludes the petition.

HOME CARE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On behalf of my constituents, I have a petition here, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Kent county, ask that the government of Ontario reverse their decision on the issue of the 10% limit in home care business to private sector agencies. Our democratic right to choose is denied. The quality of service provided is not acknowledged. The flexibility and responsiveness of private agencies to meet consumer needs is not considered. On the grounds of these inequities we base our request."

On behalf of my constituents, I wish to forward this to the Legislative Assembly.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's seventh report.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): These appointments list some people who I think will serve very well the people of this province in these particular offices of these appointments.

I don't like to single out one, but I would like to make an exception to what I normally do because I think the new chair of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, Mr David Hobbs, is someone who everyone in this House is very happy to see in that position. He has a very big challenge ahead of him. We've very glad that a former deputy minister of the government is now being appointed to that very responsible and very challenging job, and we look forward to his work in that service.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 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 / Projet de loi 42, Loi prévoyant l'inscription des entreprises agricoles et le financement des organismes agricoles qui offrent des services d'éducation et d'analyse en matière de questions agricoles pour le compte des agriculteurs.

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

Shall Bill 42 be ordered for third reading? So ordered.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

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

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

Shall Bill 51 be ordered for third reading? So ordered.

1520

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Dadamo from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan of the Government of Ontario and for certain other matters related to financial administration / Projet de loi 17, Loi prévoyant le plan d'investissement du gouvernement de l'Ontario et concernant d'autres questions relatives à l'administration financière.

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

Shall Bill 17 be ordered for third reading? So ordered.

Mr Dadamo from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

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 / Projet de loi 40, Loi visant à stimuler le développement économique grâce à la création de sociétés de développement économique communautaire et à certaines modifications apportées à la Loi sur l'éducation, à la Loi sur les municipalités, à la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et à la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement d'une ceinture de promenade.

The Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 40 be ordered for third reading? So ordered.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Environment and Energy had the floor when we last were debating this bill and so he continues with the floor.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted -- I know, Mr Speaker, that you will be familiar with that phrase because I recall you yourself, in another guise, using that phrase when you began to speak for the first time after having had a sojourn outside of this Legislature.

You'll recall that just at the last day, the last evening of the debate before the House adjourned, we began second reading debate on the Environmental Bill of Rights. At that time I had raised a number of aspects of the bill and had advocated the support of the bill by members on all sides of the House. I'm pleased, after being so interrupted, to be able to resume second reading debate now in the Legislature on this very important piece of legislation.

As I indicated at that debate, the Environmental Bill of Rights is built on the principle that everyone must be given the power to make a difference, to help to protect the environment in this province. This bill, the EBR, as it's called, will give people unprecedented rights to act on their commitment to protect the environment in Ontario.

The bill represents the outcome of a very highly successful consultative process. As I indicated before adjournment in August, the bill which is now before us is essentially drafted based on a consensus that was arrived at through the very serious work of a task force that involved members of the business community and representatives of environmental groups as well as government representatives, who worked together to determine how they might work through their differences, keeping in mind that all of them had a commitment to protect the environment.

They may have had different interpretations of the best ways to do that, of the best approaches for ensuring public involvement, and they may indeed have had some conflicting views on how we should approach this matter. As a result of this very difficult work, they arrived at a consensus and we as a government drafted a bill. This is a unique process, a process that I don't know of many precedents for.

As a result of that consensus, we're looking forward to cooperation in the public, cooperation from government ministries, the cooperation of the business community and environmental activists, as well as labour and other groups, in ensuring that this bill is effective and workable.

The Environmental Bill of Rights will fundamentally change the way government does business. The government will be obligated to consider how its policies and programs affect the environment before proceeding with new policy changes and implementing programs.

The government of Ontario sees a healthy environment as one of the foundations for rebuilding our economy and creating jobs, and we believe the Environmental Bill of Rights will contribute to Ontario's economic revitalization by ensuring a healthy future for Ontario's environment and creating an environment for investment. I want to speak a little bit about the environment for investment.

Some people have suggested that the proposals before us in the Environmental Bill of Rights might indeed be alarming to the business community and might, in some way or other, scare off investment. I don't believe that and the government doesn't believe that; neither do the members of the task force who represented the business community.

One thing, though, that the business community was very concerned about and that I understand, was the need for regulatory certainty, to know what the rules are and to know that the rules will be enforced or carried through fairly. This bill provides regulatory certainty for those who want to make decisions regarding investment in this province.

The business community needs to know and will know in very clear terms what it must do to comply with environmental requirements in Ontario. The Environmental Bill of Rights is one way of providing uniformity and consistency. Everyone involved will have a window on what is happening at every stage of the decision-making process under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

During the beginning of second reading debate, I mentioned a number of the key elements of the legislation. Members will recall that 14 Ontario government ministries will be required to prepare statements of environmental values. These ministries then will have to determine how their regulations, their programs, their policies must be developed and carried out in relation to those environmental values that they have included in their statements. The public will be able to make that judgement as well.

Also, the bill creates an electronic registry so that all new regulations, pieces of legislation, programs, approvals and new developments will be readily available for any member of the public, who can have access to this electronic registry. If there's an issue that comes up, a change that is being proposed that any individual or couple of individuals or groups are interested in, they'll be able to see it on the registry, be able to obtain information about it and to look into the matters related to it.

Also, this bill permits residents of Ontario to request investigations and reviews of government policies.

As I indicated in my remarks in August, it's important to recognize that it is the responsibility of the minister to determine whether indeed the investigations requested or the reviews called for should be carried out, and it is the responsibility of the Environmental Commissioner to determine whether or not ministers, in making those decisions, are in fact in compliance and implementing the Environmental Bill of Rights.

1530

Also, this legislation significantly enhances whistle-blower protection for workers who raise concerns about compliance, who think that a regulation may not be being complied with properly, but who, without this kind of protection, might feel inhibited from making a report or calling for an investigation because their employer might take retaliatory action or that they believe their employer might do so.

The legislation also creates new cause for legal action, allowing a citizen to sue to protect the environment, and it removes the barriers to that approach. If a couple of individuals believe that a particular regulation, for instance, is not being adhered to properly and this is harming the environment and that the ministry has not taken proper action or has not investigated properly, the citizens would be able to sue even without having to show that the harm is being done directly to them.

Again, one of the concerns that has been raised is that this might lead to a large number of cases and that there might indeed be frivolous attempts to tie up possible new developments in the courts. I emphasize that we don't believe this will be the case. In fact, we're confident that by involving members of the public from the very beginning of any approvals process or any changes by having the notification on the registry, by enabling people, groups and individuals, to take part at every stage and have input into approvals for developments or changes in which they're interested, that there will be response to their concerns early on in the process so that they will not be dissatisfied and will be assured that the environment is being properly protected and so that we will not see an increase in the number of court cases.

Again, and perhaps most importantly, the bill establishes the office of the Environmental Commissioner to oversee the government compliance and implementation of the Environmental Bill of Rights. The commissioner's responsibility will be to report once a year to the Legislature -- not to the minister, not to a government appointee, but this commissioner will be reporting to the Legislature -- on how successful the government and the ministers are in complying with the principles and implementing the provisions of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

If a minister or ministry or the government generally is not carrying out its responsibilities, the commissioner will make that report to the Legislature. The public will have access to this report and will know whether or not the government is taking seriously environmental protection and ensuring that all of its policies, programs and regulations take into account the need for proper environmental protection and environmental values in the decision-making process.

As I said during the debate in August, I believe this legislation to be the most important piece of environmental protection legislation introduced in this House in 17 or 18 years. It's an enormous step forward. I'm happy that there has been a consensus arrived at by the task force and that we've been able to comply with their proposals in the drafting of this legislation and that we have their support, the members of the business community as well as the environmental groups that were represented on that task force.

Because of that, I look forward to the participation of my colleagues in the House on all sides and to the support of the members of the House for second reading for the Environmental Bill of Rights so we can move forward to the committee stage and then to third reading, keeping in mind our commitment to the task force and to the members of the business community, the environmental protection community and the public that we would pass this legislation into law, pass third reading, before the end of this calendar year. Again, I look forward to that process. I look forward to the debate. I'm confident that opposition parties and all members of the House will provide constructive comments on the legislation and that they will support second reading of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments? The member for Mississauga North.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to take part in the two-minute --

The Deputy Speaker: No.

Mr Offer: I understand that, Mr Speaker. I understand that I will also have the opportunity in a short while to take part in the debate in a fuller fashion.

As the minister has indicated in his opening comments about the Environmental Bill of Rights and his position on the Environmental Bill of Rights, I would like to comment at this point that I hope that in the time we have dealing with this particular piece of legislation, a number of questions that have arisen will have the opportunity of being answered.

I'm going to have the opportunity in my opening comments to deal with some of those questions in a fuller fashion, but there is no question that there have been many questions -- I won't say concerns, but certainly questions -- about the statement of value that the 14 ministries will have to bring forward: What are those statements, and will those statements be publicized prior to this bill going to committee?

I think the Minister of Environment and Energy now recognizes that those 14 prescribed ministries have had the opportunity over the summer session of detailing what their statement of value is going to be, so time is no longer a problem for those ministries. They obviously should have been working on those statements.

Certainly I would hope that, first, the bill will be going to committee, because I think it is very important to hear some of the reaction to some complex areas in the legislation from others, but also that prior to the bill going to committee, the 14 prescribed ministries will have tabled their statements of environmental value for further discussion.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would like to suggest to the minister that it's interesting that we finally do have an Environmental Bill of Rights from his government. Certainly the former minister, when she was in opposition, had an environmental bill of rights as a private bill, so we expected, those of us who are concerned with these things, that there would be fireworks and rockets in the sky when that particular member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore had the opportunity when her party formed the now New Democratic government in this province.

It has been with some surprise that we have languished through three years without any real action in this area by this government. It was particularly disappointing to many of the people in this province who have supported many aspects -- perhaps not all the aspects of this particular bill, but many aspects of having an Environmental Bill of Rights in Ontario. Some tremendous irony has been felt by many thousands of people associated with the environmental movement in Ontario that Ms Ruth Grier did not become the shining light as Minister of the Environment that everybody had expected in making the transition from being the critic for Environment when she was in opposition. I wish my friend well with his bill, although I will have some comments to make on it in the coming days.

1540

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: I thank the members for their comments, although I take some exception to a couple that were made.

In regard to the preparation of the statements of environmental values, the member is quite correct that the 14 ministries responsible are working very hard on the development of those statements and have been over the summer. I'm not certain that I can assure him that the statements will be all ready prior to the bill going to committee. I'll check on that to see what the status of each of them is before we get to committee and I'll report back to him on that.

In regard to the comments of the member about my predecessor, the former Minister of the Environment, it is quite true that this legislation we have before us is a tribute to her work, to the work that she did as a member of the opposition and that she did when she was appointed Minister of the Environment. I think it's interesting that a member of the opposition would be critical and somehow say we've languished for three years when the previous minister established a task force that consulted widely among the business community and the environmental groups, along with government officials, and came up with a consensus of all those groups which then led to the drafting of this particular piece of legislation.

I suspect the members of the opposition, when one remembers Bill 40, might have been highly critical of the minister if she had just proceeded with her bill and not consulted with anybody. Then they would have said: "This is unfair. You should have asked the environmentalists, you should have asked the business community what they think." But now you're critical because she did in fact do what you would have wanted.

I suspect what they're unhappy about is that there is indeed a consensus. I hope that's not the case. I hope they welcome the fact that the business community and environmentalists support this legislation and that it's based on the best consultative process we could have had in this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Any further debate?

Mr Offer: I'm pleased to take part in this debate on the Environmental Bill of Rights. By way of opening comment, I think it's obvious to those who have read the legislation and some of the backgrounders to the legislation that this is a complicated piece, that it will require a great deal of discussion. I believe it does require committee hearings. I believe that the public, that I would hope this bill was designed to serve, will have an opportunity to come to a committee in this Legislature in order to share with us their thoughts on the legislation.

Again, for those who have gone through this piece of legislation, there are certain areas, whether it be the ability to access the courts, whether it be the rules around regulations, which are not the easiest to read, let alone understand, and I would expect that the Minister of Environment and ministry staff would hold themselves open for what I believe to be an important discussion.

I'm going to be commenting on different aspects of the legislation in the time permitted, but let me say at the outset that in principle I will be in support of the legislation. I believe the people of this province deserve a framework of protection, I believe the people of this province deserve a framework of expectation as to what their government can and should do in terms of the environment sphere, and I believe it is absolutely important that there be ensconced in legislation a form of accountability, accountability to those who will require to use different areas of the legislation today and in the future.

Although I speak in principle in support of the legislation, I will say at the outset that I have some concerns over aspects of the legislation, as to whether it will in fact meet that goal. I have concern as to the teeth behind this legislation. I have concern that the legislation, though it carries all the right words, lacks some substance.

My party has discussed this legislation in some detail. As you will know, Mr Speaker, and as members of this Legislature will know, our party has always held the protection, the security, the improvement of the environment as one of its highest priorities. I know that when we had the opportunity to govern not that long ago, there wasn't in many ways a better record than that of the Minister of the Environment, the now member for St Catharines.

I believe this bill in its framework and in its principle is one which is deserving of approval at second reading, but also should not be immune to some discussion as we move through the legislative process. In principle, we support the legislation, but we will be using the time permitted in this legislation debate and as well throughout the hearings process to take a more critical view of different aspects of the legislation, with a view to improving it, with a view to making certain that the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, affirms, and this is in the words of the compendium, that "The people of Ontario have a right to a healthful environment, and a responsibility, shared with government, to ensure that the inherent value of the environment should not be compromised to the disadvantage of present and future generations." That is the opening statement in the compendium to the Environmental Bill of Rights. I thought it was important to read what is one sentence that covers three lines, to indicate what our purpose is going to be as the legislation progresses.

The legislation has a long path. It is the subject matter of various discussions at various points in time. I think those who took part in the task force, and I do not speak to the government at this time, I speak to those people who took part in the task force around the Environmental Bill of Rights: Pollution Probe, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the business council, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the ministry, but most importantly, the individuals who have seen the need to be part of a process and have been ready, willing and able to signify their commitment in time and effort which resulted in the bill as we now have it.

As I speak to that, it is distressing in a way, not on this piece of legislation but on others, that the government has not seen fit to use the consultative process in the way the Environmental Bill of Rights has been used. It is distressing that just last year at this time, we were fully engaged in debate over changes to the labour laws in this province, and it is unfortunate that the government could not adopt a consultative approach, a consultative effort, to that area as has been adopted to this area.

1550

We know and still recognize the severe outcome of that lack of consultation that the government was so willing to embark upon. It has caused this province some real hurt; it has caused this province a real lack of confidence; it has indeed sent out a very negative message about doing business with this government.

It is strange that when we brought forward these matters in another bill at another time on another issue, the government of the day thought that consultation was inappropriate, was not able to be utilized and could not result in a consensual type of result. Now the government says, in this bill, that those individuals who took part in the task force did indeed have a result of a consensual approach.

I can tell you that since the bill has been introduced, many individuals, both from what might be termed the business side and the environmental side, have approached me and said they want this bill to proceed. They have spoken to me about the bill in a positive sense.

Just on that account, I believe and hope that we are moving to an age where we don't have to view people from the business side on one hand and the environmental side on the other. I hope and I believe that more and more people are coming to recognize that it is one, that everybody is on the same side, that there is a common goal, that there is a common purpose, that there are common objectives, that there is the ability and need and wherewithal and commitment to work towards a conclusion which will benefit many, many generations to come.

Having started discussion on this bill, I'd like to deal with some of the aspects of the bill, again in the time permitted. To begin, it is somewhat curious that the government introduces a bill of this kind. The words are all right, the objective is basically without objection and the process is somewhat approved, but some of the actions of the government on matters in the environment move in another direction.

I speak not particularly of the Environmental Bill of Rights but of the actions by the government around the process of selection for garbage dumps in this province, that the actions of the government on those issues seem to be at odds with the words of the government in the Environmental Bill of Rights.

I think of the actions that took place in Hamilton just last week and I have concerns that the ministry was not on its toes and that the protections the ministry puts in words in the Environmental Bill of Rights are different than the actions taken by the ministry in a matter such as securing an abandoned plant which contains toxic substances.

I have concerns about the words of the Environmental Bill of Rights again on the one hand being all right, but on the other hand the Ministry of Environment knowing that its own regulations on refillable containers are not met and doing nothing about that. It seems to me that if the ministry is putting action behind these words, then it would embark on a different process for landfill sites; that it would be more upfront with the people in this Legislature over what went on in Hamilton and what it knew and what it did or didn't do; that the ministry would have recognized and responded in this Legislature to the continued violation of regulations around refillable containers and said, "Either those regulations are going to be enforced or we're going to change the regulations."

The Environmental Bill of Rights in its words dictates that the ministry should've taken different actions than what it is in fact taking in matters of the environment, and so I have a concern not so much about the Environmental Bill of Rights but rather about the actions that the Ministry of Environment is taking on matters of the environment in light of the fact it has introduced this type of bill.

The Environmental Bill of Rights -- and I am going to direct my comments, as I have to date, from the ministry's own compendium. For those who are watching, I think you will recognize that when a government introduces a bill, it also introduces what is called a compendium, which is an explanation of the bill, and so I am going to be using the compendium for my opening comments. I do not want the members of the government to think that I have misinterpreted, misconstrued or misread the bill. I want to use their own words.

It states in the purposes as a compendium, and I'll only read from part of it because it is an 18- or 19-page document: "There will be an open and transparent process of decision-making. It will provide greater certainty and accountability for the public." I want to deal with that one aspect, "the open and transparent process of decision-making."

We have to ask ourselves, what was the open and transparent process of decision-making in the question of the landfill sites in and around the greater Toronto area? We have to ask ourselves, what type of process did the ministry embark on in dealing with those questions? Did the ministry embark on this issue in a manner that was open and transparent to the public? The ministry speaks in favour of that principle, yet its actions seemed to be an alternative, seemed to be in opposition to what their statements are.

I, as you know, represent the area of Mississauga North. Mississauga North is the home to the Britannia landfill site. The Britannia landfill site is the site which takes the refuse from the region of Peel. As you know and as members know, this is an area of growth in this province that each day more and more people live in the region of Peel than the day before. There are not many areas in the province that are undergoing the type of growth that the region of Peel is an example of. In the Britannia landfill site, it had a certain capacity. It's as if you would visualize a landfill as a garbage can, and at some point in time it gets to the top, and the ministry approves how big that can should be. In Britannia and in Peel we were reaching the level.

Now I have to move back. As you can remember, we are now reaching that level where the landfill site is hitting capacity, and of course this is of some concern in the area. The Premier today, Bob Rae, when in opposition stated that there would be no expansion of any existing site without a full hearing. Those were the words of the Premier in the last election, 1990. He made that commitment to the people in Peel, as well as others, that there would be no expansion of an existing site without a full hearing.

1600

In my area, we were coming to capacity in Britannia. Now we move into the year 1990, after the election. Bob Rae is no longer Leader of the Opposition; he is now the Premier of the province. But his statements are there. His statements clearly indicated that there would be no expansion of an existing site. What happened in Britannia? Where are we now putting our garbage? We were reaching capacity. The Premier said, "No expansion without a hearing." We have not had a hearing. So obviously we must be putting our garbage elsewhere.

The fact of the matter is that the Minister of the Environment, at that time Ruth Grier, expanded, by order, the Britannia landfill site and said that this site will be expanded, that in fact more garbage will be going into Britannia. Will there be a hearing? Without a hearing. The question we have to ask ourselves is, how do the actions of the government in this matter live up to the words in its own compendium, "An open and transparent process of decision-making will provide greater certainty and accountability for the public"?

In the region of Peel, in that part of the public, the words of the Premier, Bob Rae, when he said there would be no expansion without a hearing, were met with his actions, which were an expansion without a hearing. Those are the words that are indelibly etched in the minds of the people in the region of Peel. I must say that we will be looking in this bill of rights to make certain this government is held accountable to what it says, that this bill of rights makes it accountable for its actions.

I believe that this government, if this bill of rights had passed earlier on, would have been in breach of its own legislation over the actions it took in the region of Peel. If the government says it would not have been in contravention of its own bill of rights over the actions it took in the region of Peel, then this bill lacks substance, lacks teeth, because if there is a clearer breach of a confidence in a matter over land disposal than exists in the region of Peel over the Britannia landfill site, I am not aware of one. It is clear the Premier said one thing and did another. So I approve in principle of the words of the EBR, but I am concerned about the actions that might be behind the words.

There is another area I want to deal with. Again I will, just in passing, get back to the landfill site process, because I don't want to leave it to the region of Peel. I think there are some things that can be said about York and about Durham as well. But the legislation also talks about an environmental registry. Again from the compendium, "An environmental registry will be created, the physical apparatus which will enable the public to participate in environmental decision-making by government." It goes on to state, "The registry will be an electronic one, operated by the office of the registrar in accordance with the regulation(s) made under the bill."

The question that I have, the concern, is: regulation, regulation, regulation. I have in my mind: how are people going to access this registry? What is planned for the general public in order that it can be made more aware of ongoing decisions within the government? To date, I have not had a response to this type of question. Where can people go to find out information?

We have large environmental groups in this province, good groups, groups of individuals who have committed not just terms but lives to enhancing our environment. But there is a growing awareness by individuals that they too have a right, that they too have a stake in knowing what goes on. I believe that awareness, that growing sense of, "I want to participate; I want to be part," has in large measure been shown by these environmental groups. I don't want to mention any, for fear of excluding one, but we all know the groups we are talking about, the people, the individuals who have forged the way.

Now we have individuals who want and recognize that they too should be part. We have a government saying there's going to be an environmental registry. I want to know how the individuals are going to be able to be part of decision-making, how they are going to access information and what type of information is going to be given to them in order that they can have their fair share, their stake in this matter laid out.

The answer that we always get from the government, in an increasing fashion, is: regulation, regulation and regulation. We in know this Legislature what regulation is. That is a decision by cabinet as to what is going to take place under a piece of legislation. Whatever they decide never hits this floor. It's never the subject matter of debate. It's never the subject matter of public hearings. In fact, I dare say that members in the government party who are not part of cabinet find out about these regulations like everyone else: through a press release. If you on the government side who are not part of cabinet have any concerns, it is too late.

A crucial aspect of the legislation, the environmental registry, is left to the bare minimum of information. How interesting that so much of a piece of legislation is left to regulation when the underlying principle of the legislation is in fact information. It is strange to me that legislation of this kind would leave so much for regulatory work. I believe that we in this Legislature, as we represent our constituents, that indeed the general public, which has occasion to follow the debates in this place, which has occasion to take part in legislative debates, should also have the right to know what the legislation says. I tell you that as more legislation is left to regulation, we in this Legislature and the general public have no idea what that will mean, what the impact will be and what repercussions will arise.

1610

Again -- and unfortunately I'm going to have to hark back to this, because regulation is something I have become very suspicious of -- I believe that governments have the opportunity, after so many years of work, to put some of the more basic aspects of their legislation in the bill as part of law and not to leave to some group of cabinet ministers to decide what is and isn't part of and good for a law in this province.

I move again to the compendium, and I say this: I'm going to continue to focus my comments on the compendium, because I know that as we deal with second reading debate, one of the things that the Speaker is most aware of and concerned about is that members veer off into other areas. So I hope to take that concern from the Speaker as I relate specifically to the compendium, the attachment, the explanation to the bill which we are discussing.

The statement of environmental values: Again from the compendium, the bill requires each prescribed ministry to "develop a statement of environmental values explaining how the purposes of this bill are to be applied when that ministry makes decisions that might significantly affect the environment and how environmental considerations are integrated with other considerations that are part of decision-making in that ministry."

When I spoke about a complex piece of legislation, what I just read is the explanation of the sections. We can only imagine how the sections read.

Basically, what this says is that not every ministry of the government has got an environmental concern. That is firstly a concern, that there are some ministries to which this bill will not apply. I believe there are now 14 ministries of the government that, by regulation, will be bound by this legislation.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Point of order, Mr Speaker: First day back, we should have a quorum, I think.

The Deputy Speaker: I'll check.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: I was speaking about the statement of environmental values. I have a concern about this, and my concern is that, firstly, there are only 14 ministries that will be subject to this legislation; secondly, that their statements of environmental values are ones that are left up to them to decide; that in fact their statements are outside of the legislation and their statements will probably not -- and I'm trying to be as kind as I can -- be available when a committee deals with this legislation. I believe that to be a serious flaw, not in the bill, but in the process.

I believe it to be significant that the Minister of Environment, even though they have only designated 14 ministries, has not demanded from those ministries that those statements be available for public discussion during the committee stage. How are we going to deal with the priorities that other ministries have put on the environment when we have not been given their statement, their founding principles?

It could very well happen that ministries could in fact attach in their statement a priority to the environment which may not be number one, which may not be number two on the list. In fact, it could be that the wording on their statements may be sufficiently wishy-washy, sufficiently obscure, sufficiently imprecise that indeed ministries will be able to move along on their merry way without any concern about the Environmental Bill of Rights because their statement is one which does not do the very best for the environment. The only way that we, as members of the Legislature, and indeed the general public can make that decision is if we are told what those statements are.

Now we'll talk timing. Because this bill was brought forward last spring, I believe it was the intention of the government, if it had been able to order its own affairs, to get this bill passed in the last session on second reading and then over the summer have some committee hearings. The fact of the matter is that the government couldn't order its own business, and this is the bill which suffered. This is the bill that the Minister of Environment and Energy could not even finish his second reading speech on before the government adjourned for the summer session.

That is another issue, but the fact is that that was in July. We are now moving into the month of October and just starting to debate. In that time frame I think those prescribed ministries could very well have had the statements of environmental value ready. Timing, if it were to be used as an excuse by the Ministry of Environment and other ministries, could have been used if the bill had gone through on second reading and had committee hearings in the summer, but the bill did not proceed, so that excuse of timing is no longer able to be used by the ministry and the other prescribed ministries.

I know that the Minister of Environment's staff is here, I can tell you that if those statements by the other ministries are not ready, I for one will be extremely suspicious. All the individuals, the people that made up the task force I believe should be equally suspicious if after a period of three and four and five months those statements cannot be made publicly known.

I am concerned that a well-crafted statement can do more harm to the environment than we at this point appreciate, and I want to have those statements available for the committee, I want to have those statements processed through the task force, I want to hear its comments on the statements, and I want those statements from the ministry available for the general public to comment on and share with their elected officials.

If we cannot do that, then what are we talking about, in large measure, during the committee? If we don't have the rules, the statements, the principles, the values under which the ministries are to proceed, then how can we move to the second step? If those statements, values, are watered down, there is no second step. The environment does not receive the protection that it is assumed it will receive, and the general public will not have that reliance and accountability that the government has said they will receive under the EBR.

1620

I hope the members of the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Environment have taken note of that comment, because I believe it is fundamental for us as members in this Legislature and for the task force, who are in large part responsible for this legislation, to know the principles, the rules and the values under which each ministry will operate in terms of safeguarding the environment.

Again to the compendium. "The bill provides that the minister shall take every reasonable step to ensure that the statement of environmental values is considered whenever decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made in the ministry."

We will have some discussion over that. The minister takes a "reasonable step." What is a reasonable step? What teeth does the minister have to ensure that the statement of values, whatever they may be, are complied with? I think there's an awful lot of people who have an expectation of this bill that just doesn't hold true. The minister is to take a reasonable step, and the reasonable step is to ensure that the values, again whatever they are, are considered. What does that mean? Every action word in this sentence is weaker than the next.

We say, "Okay, the minister must now take a reasonable step," and what's reasonable to the minister might be terribly unreasonable to many people who are concerned with the protection of the environment, then we go on to say, "to ensure that the statement of environmental values is considered." We don't know what the values are. What does it mean to be "considered"? That they have to look at them? What do they have to do about them? We don't know.

Then it says "significantly affect the environment." This is the catchword here, "significantly affect the environment." Who decides what a significant effect to the environment is? Is a deposit something that significantly affects the environment? Is a refillable container something that significantly affects the environment? Is an expansion of a site without a hearing, such as happened in Britannia, something that significantly affects the environment? Do we not realize that we need more teeth, more certainty behind these types of words? Every word is weaker than the next.

I believe the Minister of Environment and Energy, the ministers of the government, can say, "Geez, we can live with that." In fact, this opens the door to making certain that the environment does not have the same priority it used to have. We can justify anything with these words. I have some concerns about that, and that is why this type of wording, these explanatory notes to the legislation, cause me concern, and I am concerned even though I speak in favour of the principle of the public being more aware of environmental decisions. My concern is based not on that principle, but rather on the words that are designed to promote that principle.

I can tell you, you read these words and you can see without any problem how these words can be used, if not abused, by members of the government in terms of making the environment a lower priority, making certain that those decisions do not have to have an environmental consideration, because these are wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed words which I believe must be strengthened in order to put some substance behind the principle of the legislation, which we support.

Much more can be said about the statement of environmental values. However, we are limited by what we say because we don't have the statements of environmental values. We don't know what the ministries will decide as to what priority the environment will take, so we speak about these issues, but very much in a vacuum.

Section 15, and again I hearken back to the compendium, requires a minister to determine whether a pending proposal for a policy or act under consideration in his or her ministry could "have a significant effect on the environment," and whether "the public should have an opportunity to comment on the proposal" prior to implementation. And of course it says, "A minister need not notify the public of policies or acts which are predominantly financial or administrative in nature." These are the explanatory notes.

How do we read this? I don't know how you read this, to be very frank, because of the fact that we've got some ministries but not all ministries that must follow the bill. We have, "Those ministries that must follow the bill have to issue a statement of value," which we haven't received. But even if they have indicated a statement of value and are subject to the bill, they don't have to inform the public of these things if their policy is predominantly financial in nature.

Now let's ask the question, is the levy on cans one that's financial in nature? Is a deposit on a pop bottle financial in nature? If that's the case, then they don't have to give notice. The only reason I say that is because I'm reading the minister's own compendium or explanation to the legislation.

Do we have a gaping hole in this legislation that, as soon as you put a dollar figure to some aspect, even if it affixes itself to the environment, you don't have to give people notice of this? It's incredible that the words of the legislation are so imprecise when one tries to relate them to the principles of the bill.

Of course, I've read one explanation. It has those magic words, that "a minister" -- now, this does not mean the Minister of Environment and Energy, because they would not use the words "a minister." It is any minister who happens to be subject to this bill. If it doesn't have a significant effect on the environment, then we're free.

Who decides that? Who decides what does or does not have a significant effect on the environment? What happens if a minister has decided that there is a policy or proposal which, in his or her opinion, does not have a significant effect on the environment? What happens if somebody disagrees with that? What happens if the Minister of Environment disagrees with that? What happens if one of the representatives of the stakeholders, the task force, disagrees with that? What happens if some resident in the province of Ontario disagrees with that? What process do they have to go through? I can tell you, under the Environmental Bill of Rights, they have none. They have no process in terms of rectifying an erroneous decision and conclusion drawn by a minister who is part of this bill.

There are further proposals under the legislation -- Mr Speaker, I hope you will appreciate the fact that I am confining my thoughts right to the bill -- but again it talks about changes on regulation.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Save us.

1630

Mr Offer: The Minister of Transportation interjects, and it is unfortunate that the Minister of Transportation would interject on a bill that is important to so many people. Many people have some real concerns about whether the words of this bill carry out the principle of the bill.

The Minister of Transportation has, as is his wont, the ability to interject and leave, but notwithstanding that, I hope his ministry is subject to the Environmental Bill of Rights, as I know it is. If only the minister were concerned, we would all be a little better off.

It speaks about the words "significant effect," and I have a concern about how those words are going to be used and the real possibility of there being decisions around the words "effect" and "significant," and that some will argue that indeed the effect may be on the environment but not to a great degree and hence is not significant and, as such, escapes the Environmental Bill of Rights.

There is no mechanism where people can deal with those issues. There is no mechanism under the bill where people who disagree with those types of decisions can argue those decisions. It leads people to the vagaries of ministerial decisions as to what is or is not significant and I think we know in this province that it causes an awful lot of people a great deal of concern.

The next point I want to deal with again deals with the issue of not just process but the Environmental Commissioner. I think this is a ballyhooed portion of the legislation which I think deserves some discussion. Again, I move into the compendium, the explanation to the legislation:

"An Environmental Commissioner," it says, "is an officer of the assembly whose key function is ensuring that ministers are made politically accountable for any failure to meet the requirements of the bill. The commissioner will monitor the implementation of the bill and independently review and report on ministries' compliance with its requirements."

It goes on to say about how the commission is going to be set up and some of the things that it can do. All it can do is firstly, monitor, yes, but what happens if a minister or ministry does not comply? What teeth are there for this new reporting mechanism? The Environmental Commissioner -- you all know each year we will find in our desks the report of the Environmental Commissioner. That's what's going to happen. The Speaker, I imagine, will stand up and say to all members of the Legislature, "I just want you all to know that the Environmental Commissioner has made his or her report and you will find it in your desks." This will probably be accompanied by a press release from the Minister of Environment applauding the work of the Environmental Commissioner and the monitoring of ministries' action, and we will all leaf through it. But is there anything other?

What happens if the Environmental Commissioner finds that a minister or ministry has not complied with some aspect of an inquiry? What is there? Well, I guess we would all expect that under the Environmental Bill of Rights there would be some activity the commissioner can take to make certain that the ministry does comply. Well, don't look too hard under this legislation for it because it isn't there. The commissioner's role is to monitor and report, and we will have our reports, at whatever cost, in our desks. It will be accompanied with an annual press release of the Minister of Environment. There may be an article in the newspapers about it, but other than that, there will be nothing else.

I think that this area deserves some real discussion in committee because if we are forming a commissioner who is supposed to monitor, then are we not saying that maybe we should be looking at giving the commissioner some power, as opposed to saying this minister was not a good person or that minister was not a good person or that ministry did not follow the rules? Should we really be looking at something that could be attached to the Environmental Commissioner? If there is not to be anything, then maybe we should be looking at the role of the commissioner itself.

There are without question some concerns about individuals who monitor others and their usefulness if they are not given any teeth, any power, behind the monitoring. I want to have a full discussion and expect that the Minister of Environment will welcome that discussion as we go through the bill because it underlines again how the words of the bill do not seem to flow with the principles of the bill. People have a new set of rights and they have a person to monitor that right but they don't have in that person any power to ensure that the rights are in fact not only monitored but carried out.

I believe that there is a differing expectation about what an Environmental Bill of Rights is to the government and to the general public. As we go through the committee hearings, I hope that we'll be able to really talk about what the expectation is in the general public as to what the Environmental Bill of Rights should be to them and find out whether the legislation meets those expectations. I will be interested to hear from the general public as to whether they would expect a commission monitoring the actions of any ministry to have some power behind its monitoring or its investigation. It would be interesting to find out what their response is going to be when we tell them that there is no power that the commissioner has save the making of a report and its dissemination. Some may argue that that in itself is some good, that that in itself provides a certain moral suasion, but I want to know whether the Environmental Bill of Rights and the expectations that people have are something different and more than moral suasion. As we go through the legislation, only the general public will be able to inform us of that.

There is the opportunity for the general public to ask a minister to review a policy, to review a matter. I want to know in our general discussions, and I hope that the minister or a parliamentary assistant or members of the government either here or during the committee stage will be able to answer this question: If an individual wants the Minister of Environment to review its policy on, let me say, the transport of waste from Toronto to other places, is that possible?

I've heard some strange responses to that. The government has said it is its policy that Toronto's garbage stays in Toronto, even though that might be Vaughan. That is the position of the government. It is the position of the government that there shall be no incineration.

1640

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): That's right.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations says, "That's right." Everyone knows that those are positions which you have absolutely said are incontrovertible, without change, without discussion; there shall be no public input on that.

Then I say to you, if that be the case, are you not contravening your own Environmental Bill of Rights? The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations shakes her head, says, "Well no, our position against incineration -- and we shall not change it -- our position on the transport of garbage to another place -- and we shall not change it -- is not in violation of the Environmental Bill of Rights."

The strange thing is that when you read the Environmental Bill of Rights, it does permit people to say, or should permit people to say, to the ministry, "Your policy is this and it is wrong and we want you to change it and this is why."

Now there are members on the government side, I am absolutely flabbergasted, who are shaking their heads and it's like, my goodness, they're falling off their seats. They're saying, "We're not going to change that." The problem is that under the Environmental Bill of Rights --

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): You misunderstood.

Mr Offer: -- which you are ostensibly giving to every person in this province, you are saying to every person in this province, "You have the right to come and put forward these positions." You are saying, "Waste of time."

I say that notwithstanding what your position is on incineration or transport of garbage, and we may agree or disagree, the issue in principle is whether in your Environmental Bill of Rights you are going to give to the people of the province the authority and the right to question you on that policy. Are you going to allow the people to say, "You are wrong"?

I don't have to speak about just the environment. If you gave the people of the province the right to say that you as a government are wrong on issues in general, I believe the lineup would be significant. However, on the environment, there are ministers of the crown who were shaking their heads when they heard the word "incineration" and when they heard the word "transporting" garbage.

I'm saying, in principle, no matter what one's position is, does the Environmental Bill of Rights give to individuals the right to question the government on those policies in principle? The members of the government are shaking their heads in disbelief.

I cannot believe that. I believe this underscores a serious flaw, because is the government saying, "We will only listen to people who agree with our positions," on whatever the matter on the environment is, or does the Environmental Bill of Rights extend to individuals who maybe do not agree with the position the government has taken on a matter on the environment, and maybe do not agree, not for political partisan reasons but for environmental reasons? I am hearing that the government is saying, "We are ready, willing and able to listen to people who agree with us, and we are ready, willing and able to give to those people a full list of rights and responsibilities, but to those who do not agree with us, this bill does not extend to their positions."

If the Environmental Bill of Rights carries as its principle, "The people of Ontario have a right to a healthful environment," as the first line of the compendium says, then there will be people in this province who will say that the government, in environmental matters, is doing something that does not contribute to a healthful environment.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: For members of the government to say that this just cannot be the case or to believe that everything they do is wonderful and that no one takes issue with any of their concerns, the question must be, does the Environmental Bill of Rights -- and I speak specifically to the member for Middlesex, I believe, who interjects and says I don't understand that, to which -- I understand that part. But the question is, and I ask the member for Middlesex, does the Environmental Bill of Rights allow for people to question your government over its policy on the transport of waste outside the greater Toronto area? Does the Environmental Bill of Rights, the member for Middlesex, allow an individual to question your government on its policy of incineration? The issue, member, is not incineration or transportation itself; the issue that we are discussing in principle is whether an individual in this province has the right to question you.

The member for Middlesex shrugs her shoulders and says, well, that's not this bill. In fact, if that isn't this bill, then there is an expectation out there that is far different than an expectation over there. That is something we are going to discuss in some detail as we go through this legislation.

I want to talk about the question of process. I have discussed it in pieces here and there. The Environmental Bill of Rights allows individuals who are dissatisfied with the actions of the government to take issue with the government, to sort of let them in on this decision-making. As you read through the bill, though I am concerned about the real teeth behind the bill, I will say in principle that I like that, where people can question government, push government, make certain that government is accountable to them as it should be.

How does the bill of rights stack up against the Interim Waste Authority process? I have said earlier that I believe the actions that the government took and that the Premier took in the area of expanding Britannia landfill site without any hearing contravene their bill of rights. It's clear. There's no question about it. I have said that if the government takes the position that its actions in expanding Britannia would not be a contravention of its own Environmental Bill of Rights, then the Environmental Bill of Rights is quite flawed. We will be discussing that.

But it's not just in Peel that a landfill site is proceeding. As we know, it's going on I think in Vaughan, it's going on in York, it's going on in Durham, and what do we know? I believe there is a very legitimate question that can be asked when the government passes this bill. That question is going to be by the people who have been somewhat upset over the process that the government has used in the site selection for these new landfill sites. The question will be, does the process that the government has implemented dealing with the site selection process for the megadumps contravene the Environmental Bill of Rights? How could that be?

I think it doesn't take too much to find out how that can be, but you know that just north of Toronto they are dealing with an issue of a number of sites: how they have been selected, when they were selected. The process under which they were selected has been extensively criticized. I'm not going to go into that in any real detail, but there has been sort of a side issue to the sites that the IWA has decided should be candidates; that is, the Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel Ltd, which owns land adjacent to the existing site in Vaughan.

1650

The IWA, to the vast legions of people who have criticized the process, has said, "These are the only sites that are candidates for the dump site." People have asked, "Is that the site just beside the existing site?" and the answer is, "No, that's not an identified site; that site is Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel, but that is not one of the identified sites." Of course, the communities have directed considerable time and considerable dollars to the sites that the IWA has identified as potential candidates for a megadump, and Superior-Crawford is not one of them.

Could you imagine the surprise we felt when we were provided with copies of letters which indicated that the lawyers for Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel in July were negotiating with, guess who? The IWA. Can you imagine the surprise in the community groups who had expended so much of their time on sites that had been publicly identified by the IWA, only to find out there was a secret site, the Superior-Crawford site, under discussion?

I have letters. July 13, 1993, I have a letter which has been signed by C.E. McIntyre, the general manager of the IWA, and it is addressed to the solicitor for Superior-Crawford. That letter refers to two earlier letters of June 2 and June 21. It thanks Superior-Crawford for the "...continued interest in the IWA study. I look forward to discussing this matter further with you."

We have publicly identified processes, publicly identified candidate sites and we have private discussions over something of which the general community is unaware.

I have a letter, because I think this to be terribly germane to the issue, of July 21. It is signed by Lorna Jackson, mayor of the city of Vaughan. It is to Mr Walter Pitman, who is the chair of the Interim Waste Authority. It reads:

"The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the city of Vaughan's opposition to the inclusion in the Metro-York site search of the south york quarry lands owned by Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel Ltd."

It goes on to say:

"Given that the Superior-Crawford south quarry lands were initially rejected by the IWA because they were declared not to meet IWA criteria in steps 1 and 2, and that the site has been completely off the table for the duration of the public participation process, an insertion of the site now would be unfair to the people of Vaughan. Neither comparable public input nor screening of all potential sites under amended criteria would be possible without starting the process over from the beginning."

This is from the mayor of the city of Vaughan and it's dated July 21, to the IWA. Would that be enough to stop this? Here is the mayor saying that the people of the city of Vaughan have been dispossessed by this action. I happen to have a letter dated July 30, nine days later. The IWA has already received the mayor's letter. It is again from the IWA representatives to the solicitor for Superior-Crawford. This is after the mayor's concerns.

"Accordingly, the IWA is prepared to give further consideration to the Superior-Crawford proposal." It goes on to say: "We suggest that the Superior-Crawford team conduct data collection work consistent with the IWA approach and in a manner which would, if the technical concerns can be satisfactorily addressed, facilitate comparison of the Superior-Crawford proposal to whichever site is the top-ranked site on the IWA short list."

IWA doesn't listen to the mayor. They get the letter saying the people of the city of Vaughan have been left out, and what do they do? They respond, again secretly, that "IWA is prepared to give further consideration to the Superior-Crawford proposal." This is in July of this year. I could certainly use the statements made by the mayor in my city, Hazel McCallion, about the actions taken by the government over Britannia; the assurances that she had given to the people and how the government undermined that.

Then the question we have is, is this process in violation of your own Environmental Bill of Rights? I would think that probably the government wants the IWA process to proceed a little quicker than the Environmental Bill of Rights, because if the Environmental Bill of Rights ever catches up to the IWA process then someone's going to be able to say that the IWA process, the secret negotiations around Superior-Crawford and the expansion of Britannia landfill site which took place in Peel are in themselves a contravention of the EBR.

The essential issue is, if those are not a violation of the Environmental Bill of Rights, if those people who have been directly and indirectly affected by those decisions of the Ministry of Environment and by Bob Rae as the Premier -- if those are not a contravention of the Environmental Bill of Rights, then maybe the Environmental Bill of Rights has to have some work done upon it, because maybe it just doesn't have the teeth our party hopes it does.

But is that all? No, because again with the process there are the Durham sites. The IWA has identified five sites. I'm told that four of the five are in Pickering. I happen to have a press release from the office of the mayor of Pickering, and I think it's an informative, instructive piece that should be part of this debate. I won't read all of it, but Mayor Wayne Arthurs states, and I hope the members of the government, as they contemplate what the Environmental Bill of Rights means, are cognizant of the position of Mayor Wayne Arthurs, "Of the five short-list sites in Durham, four are in the town of Pickering." Now let's take a look at the four.

"Site EE4 is located in the planned path of Highway 407." He goes on to say in this matter, "Is Queen's Park planning a four-lane tunnel under the garbage dump, a bridge over it, or will it expropriate extra land for a costly detour around the megadump?

"Sites EE10 and EE11 are within the planning area for the proposed Seaton community. The province has touted Seaton as a model community of over 75,000 people. Is Queen's Park actually proposing to build Seaton around one of the largest garbage dumps in Canada?" He asks that question.

"Site T1 is located in the agricultural preserve announced by the Rae government as part of the Rouge park." I'm quoting: "Preserving good farm land by dumping garbage on it is one of the strangest notions I've ever heard come out of Queen's Park."

So we have five sites. Four are in Pickering, and of those four, one is on Highway 407, two are within the planning area of the proposed Seaton community and the other one is on the agricultural preserve.

1700

Let's guess what the IWA is going to choose as its site. Let's see. Is Newcastle worried? Let me tell you, I would be. This grand planning process of the IWA is a garbage dump through Highway 407 or a garbage dump through Seaton or a garbage dump on agricultural land.

The question is, to hearken again back to the EBR, if someone is aggrieved by the process that the IWA has taken, if someone in Newcastle, if someone in Peel, if someone in Vaughan says, "Wait a minute, this is a done deal from the beginning, and we have been left out" -- the people around Britannia are looking at an expanded site without a hearing. The people in Vaughan are looking at secret negotiations with Superior-Crawford. The people in Durham are subtracting four from five and, let me tell you, they're coming up with Newcastle. They're saying, "This really isn't an environmental process; this is a political process which in our opinion contravenes the Environmental Bill of Rights."

The question we have to ask is, is that in fact the case? Because if it is, the government is in trouble; if it isn't, the government is in trouble. They're in trouble because their Environmental Bill of Rights is not an environmental bill of rights. It is a statement without any substance. It is perceived action without any teeth. For people on an issue as large and as important as the megadump in their community, for people who are concerned with the transportation of garbage, for people who have their own opinion on incineration, if they can't call the government of the day accountable on those under this Environmental Bill of Rights, then just maybe we have to really take a hard look as to what the EBR is about.

Mr Speaker, you will know that our party is in favour of the bill of rights because of the principles that underlie its foundation: accountability, an open process, a general public knowledgeable as to what is happening, a bill with teeth. That is the assumption we make in support of that principle.

We will require full public hearings on this bill to make certain that the bill indeed meets in reality with its principle. We will want to make certain, and you know, Mr Speaker, that our party when in government embarked on a variety of environmental initiatives, initiatives that I am very proud of to this day. You know and members know that we and I would hope all members of the Legislature are in favour of the general public having real access, real input, real ability under the Environmental Bill of Rights to call government to order when an issue arises that they feel is important.

It is on that basis that we support the bill in principle. But I have used the short time available to discuss this matter outlining some of our concerns. Those who have been watching have known that I have addressed my concerns in terms of the compendium that the Minister of Environment attached to the bill. Indeed my comments have been in response to their own explanation of the bill, and the concerns that we have that once more much is left to regulation, the concerns that we have that over a significantly long period of time we still do not have a statement of environmental values from the 14 ministries; my concern that it is improper to embark on public hearings without those statements. It is only by seeing how other ministries have incorporated this bill that we as legislators, as representatives in our community, can be assured that the Environmental Bill of Rights will be used as a way to strengthen the environment. Without knowing those values, we operate very much in a vacuum.

I have used this time to talk about some of the concerns that my party has with respect to the power of the commissioner. If we are already setting something like that up at, I would suggest, significant cost, then do we give that person power or is that person merely a reporting mechanism?

I have concerns that the words around the actions are, for want of a better word, mealy-mouthed -- I use the hyphen -- and that there is tremendous opportunity to escape around the Environmental Bill of Rights. In fact, the worst possible scenario would be for ministries to tout their adherence to the Environmental Bill of Rights using their own values which in fact detract from protecting the environment. I do not want this piece of legislation to be used in such a way that it hurts further work done in and around environmental protection.

I have concerns about the process. I want to make certain that people have the right to question government over certain aspects and decisions which it has made, and I will tell you something: There is much more that could have been said dealing with the administration of these dumps.

The very recent appointment of David Crombie -- and I read in a report where its says, "Ontario has dumped the political hot potato of running the three megadumps planned for the Toronto area into the lap of former Toronto mayor David Crombie." This report goes on to say, "Metro Toronto Councillor Joan King, who chairs the council committee that deals with garbage, said that it would be hard to reach a deal with Metro, which still would like to ship its garbage to an old mine near Kirkland Lake, and York region, which is opposed to taking Metro garbage."

I am mindful of the recent and significant criticism in the Toronto Star over the "NDP Tactics on Trash Site." I do not have the time to read this very important editorial of September 26, but I think we should all read this, because I believe that it really does mirror an awful lot of concerns.

The questions we have: Are people going to be able to use the Environmental Bill of Rights to call this government to order in dealing with the way in which it has made megadump selections under the IWA? Can the people of Britannia call this government to order when its site has been expanded without any hearing? Can the people in York call this government to order when it carries along secret negotiations with the Superior-Crawford site? Can the people in Durham call this government to order when we have five sites selected, four of which are clearly without merit, the other of which only time will tell? Can this government be called to order when we have an action which took place in Hamilton last week where school children were playing in an abandoned industrial plant, and only by the action of that mayor was it possible to avert serious, serious tragedy?

If this bill doesn't stand that test and those tests which we have before it, then we will not have the bill with the expectations that the general public have. This bill has tests to meet. This bill has tests to meet. We will require full public hearings in order to ask these questions and others. We will need the input of the general public on what their expectations are of an environmental bill of rights. We will need the input of the task force members, who in many ways created this bill, to talk to us about their expectations of the bill. We will want to hear from them on this and other areas.

We believe that the bill, in principle, should be supported. But it is folly for one to say that it is without any question, that there are no concerns. There are tests that have to be met, there are hurdles that have to be overcome, there are questions that have to be asked and there are responses by the minister that must be given, and public hearings are the way in which that can be accomplished.

1710

Statements of environmental values are crucial. We cannot go to step 2 if we do not know what step 1 is. We cannot move forward if we do not know what the rules and regulations and values and the things that are important to other ministries are, laid on the table for members of the committee and for members of the public to understand and analyse and to comment upon.

As I said earlier on, I think it is important that we recognize the members of the task force who gave so much of their time to making this bill a reality. But it is also important for us to say: We have questions. We have concerns. We do want to make certain that the Environmental Bill of Rights is in fact a bill of rights for individuals in this province who have concerns and questions about environmental actions taking place by any ministry in the government, as well as the government as a whole.

I am looking forward to that debate. I am looking forward to asking the minister, ministry staff and the parliamentary assistant to the minister questions on those issues. They are crucial. Many people have indicated their concerns about actions taken by this government in a wide variety of environmental areas. Is this bill the vehicle through which those areas can be fully addressed? Only the committee will be able to address that, and it is up to that government to ensure that the general public and members of this Legislature have, not with regulation but through legislation and through full public hearings, the right, the ability, if not the responsibility, to inquire beyond the Environmental Bill of Rights principles, into the words, the substance and the teeth behind it.

I look forward to taking that discussion forward into committee hearings.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate the member for Mississauga North for his comments. I detect much more cynicism in his comments with this bill than in other speeches that he has given in this House. Quite frankly, I don't blame him, because certainly the intent of the bill, and we all understand what the intent of the bill is, is to give each Ontario citizen the right to a clean environment. As I think the member for Mississauga North stated, in principle we all agree with that. That's the ultimate aim. But are we building up a false sense of security?

I think many of the remarks that were made by the member for Mississauga North say that we are, that we're setting up expectations that I don't believe are going to be achievable by this government with this piece of legislation. Certainly, the principle behind the bill of rights is worthwhile, but I think that many people in this province will have a false sense of expectation as to where we're going with this bill.

The other issue, of course, that the member dealt with, and with which I wholeheartedly agree, is that it's going to set up a tremendous amount of bureaucracy not only with the new commissioner's office, but with all the various ministries that are going to have to fill out forms that we've never seen before, as well as the private sector and the bureaucracy that they're going to have to go through.

I guess the cost: When we hear the Treasurer of this province saying that we're literally going down the tubes because of his mistake in calculations of revenue and the cutbacks that the government is trying to make through the social contract, it is a rather strange time to be implementing a whole new bureaucracy, not only with the commissioner's office, but with all the other reports that are going to have to come from the 14 ministries that are going to have to take part in this exercise. I thank the member for his comments and I look forward to participating in this debate.

Hon Ms Churley: I want to address specifically, because I only have two minutes, the issue of incineration of solid waste, which the member alluded to several times in his comments. I want to say that the government didn't make this policy in a vacuum, that it goes against the very grain of our policy, and that is committed to the 3Rs, the reduction of solid waste. In that way, it's a resource consumption issue: out of sight, out of mind, and then we can forget all about it. That's one problem with debating this issue: It goes against the grain of the 3Rs.

The other problem is that the pollutants go up the stack and those pollutants, and we're talking about dioxins and furans and mercury, those kinds of things, go into our water, they go into our land and they go into our food chain. Dioxins are some of the deadliest chemicals known to humankind.

Finally, the temperatures in these incineration plants have to be kept very high, and consistently high, because the actual combustion system creates dioxins. You have to have a very consistently high temperature, which means you also have to have paper and other solid waste to keep that temperature going.

It's very clear to this government that even having a debate around incineration when we're trying to reduce waste -- we have to look at our waste, we have to figure out how to reduce it, and burning it up and redistributing the pollutants all over the place and into our food chain is not going to solve the problem. I say to him that this bill is open to a lot of discussion, but there are certain policy decisions that government makes for good reason.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to comment on the words of my friend and colleague from Mississauga North, but I must say to the minister, who has just spoken, whatever one's views may be on incineration, let me tell you, a megadump at no time is any better than any others that are being proposed. In fact, I would argue that what is being proposed by this government through its legislation is far worse than having a full environmental assessment of all the different kinds of procedures that might be followed.

If the government wishes to say something's off the table, it has that right, but then to say that what we are going to have to accept is the kind of travesty that's being put through in terms of Bill 143 and the IWA process is very, very difficult to swallow. I think that's why my colleague from Dufferin-Peel noted a certain tone of cynicism in the comments that the member for Mississauga North made.

I think all of us who are involved in this whole issue around the IWA and the various dump sites in Durham and in York and in Peel, say to ourselves, "All right, if we take this wonderful Environmental Bill of Rights, what impact might that have had, had it been in existence when these various proposals came forward?" I suppose one of the answers is none, because that probably would have been yet another bill or another item that would have been listed saying that Bill 143 can override anything that is in the Environmental Bill of Rights.

One of your own members on the government side today, from Durham-York, talked about how the people in Georgina are feeling a year and a half later as this process goes on in terms of their rights, and I could say the same thing for people in Caledon, and for people in Vaughan, Markham and various parts of Durham. So there is cynicism around this bill and I think that the member for Mississauga North brought out that juxtaposition between what the government says it wants to do and what it is practising.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I think it's unfortunate when people rise in this House and they really do not know what they're talking about.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs Marland: On the subject of incineration, personally, I'm on the record as being opposed to incineration, but I'm not opposed to incineration for the reasons the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is, because her arguments are the arguments, I say with respect, Madam Minister, that were made 10 or 15 years ago about the high temperatures and so forth. You have to be very careful. You've got all kinds of people now who will come back to you and say, "Aha, but I can maintain those temperatures." I won't give their name, but there is a cement company in my riding which is dying to burn municipal solid waste because they can maintain those high temperatures.

1720

What you're saying about what incineration of municipal solid waste creates in terms of the byproducts, being dioxins and furans -- it all depends on what is being burned. That's where the concern comes in. You've got to be very careful when you make those arguments, because people are going to stand up and say to you, "Look, we can sort our garbage so that none of that is in there and there's no concern." I am still opposed to incineration, but not for the same reasons you're giving, because the reasons you're giving, frankly, are out of date.

When we look at what this government has done and the opportunities it has lost, I have to cite the example of the wonderful tire tax put on by the Liberals: Millions of dollars collected, and we still have no solution for the safe disposal of tires. They haven't succeeded, and you haven't succeeded.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The honourable member for Mississauga North has two minutes in response.

Mr Offer: Thank you to those who have taken part in the wrapup. I think the comments we have heard in these final 10 minutes really underline the need to take this bill to committee for public hearings. I think there are some real questions. I think the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has really misunderstood the point I was making.

In the bill itself, part IV provides for individuals in this province to ask for a review in relation to Ontario policies, acts, regulations or instruments. This is allowed for every Ontario resident who believes that the review should be undertaken to protect the environment.

The example I used was whether an Ontario resident, in relation to part IV of your government's bill, has the right to ask for a review in principle on an issue in the environment area. I did use incineration as an example, not as one who proposes or opposes incineration, but rather in principle whether an individual in the province has a right to have that policy reviewed because they don't agree with your government. The distressing response which I received from that minister is that they do not. If they do not in principle, then the Environmental Bill of Rights and the expectations which your government has attempted to spin out is not met in substance and is deserving of some very strong review as we move towards committee hearings.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate, the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to participate in this debate dealing with the act respecting the Environmental Bill of Rights which was introduced by the minister on May 31 of this year. I think the comment I'd like to start off with is a continuation of my response to the member for Mississauga North, that is, that all of us want to create something that will give each Ontario citizen the right to a clean environment. There's no question that's what the present NDP government is trying to do, and I think it can be commended for that.

The difficulty, and I think this will reveal itself as the committee process proceeds, is that those expectations may not be reached. I look forward, as does the member for Mississauga North, to participating in that committee process and listening to many of the interest groups from around this province, whether they be business, environmental, agriculture, educational -- there are many, many groups that will be participating in this process -- and hearing their thoughts as to whether or not it will work.

The introduction of this bill, as has been said by the minister, came after a long and exhaustive process for the New Democratic government and the former Environment minister for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, who I believe started the process. As an opposition member, this member introduced Bill 12, which was An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario. This bill was read for the first time in 1989 and proposed broad powers to sue polluters even if a litigant is not directly affected by the offence.

This bill created much fear in the province of Ontario; it was too extreme. I must say, in talking to many different groups, this is the fear that perhaps resulted in the business community and the environmental communities getting together and coming to some form of consensus, and they did. I will congratulate the government in getting together with some of these groups and forming what has resulted in Bill 26, but I believe, from my discussions with many of the people who participated in that task force, that they were not necessarily coerced but were shown with Bill 12 exactly how far a government could go in creating a bill of rights.

During the election campaign of 1990, we remember that the New Democratic Party promised the immediate, and I emphasize the word "immediate," passage of an environmental bill of rights. As I said, business interests feared that the former Minister of the Environment and her government would force legislation on the province which was similar to her private member's bill, the former Bill 12.

The throne speech in November 1990 also promised the introduction of an environmental bill of rights in the first session. Of course, here we are, three years later, almost four years later, and we are now finally getting around to discussing the subject of the bill of rights which is before this House now.

The government did, to its credit, introduce a consultation process. An environmental advisory committee was formed in that year, in 1990, to develop the principles for future legislation, and in 1991 a task force of business, legal and environmental interests was brought together to work on a draft bill.

Finally, we came to July 1992 and the task force released its report, in which all parties believed that the development of the bill was as it should be, and from my observations, there's general consensus about the workability of this bill. I too, like the member for Mississauga North, think the Progressive Conservative Party certainly agrees in principle with the Environmental Bill of Rights. The name alone, whoever thought it up -- of course anyone is going to agree with an Environmental Bill of Rights; we all want a clean environment. The question remains, are we going to get it with the Environmental Bill of Rights?

Mr Wildman, the current minister, introduced the legislation which essentially mirrors the draft bill that was put forward by the task force in July 1992, I believe it was. The overall intention is to provide the residents of Ontario with the necessary mechanisms to protect the environment when the government fails to do so.

I know the minister has spent some time on outlining the major provisions of the bill. I believe it's important to go through those, because in principle we accept many of them and we oppose many others, which we will reveal in our debate not only in this House but in the committee process.

There's a minimum standard for public notice and participation in environmental decision-making by designated ministries within the province of Ontario.

1730

There will be the creation of an Environmental Commissioner to ensure the public accountability for all environmental decisions, and I too, like the Liberal critic, am most critical of that, particularly at a time when the citizens of this province are crying out again, "Oh, another commission, another task force, more bureaucracy." Particularly the civil servants in this province on the one hand are being told to cut back, jobs are being lost, and yet here's the creation of a new bureaucracy. What effect will that have on the general civil service and the availability of governmental service to this province?

Thirdly, the bill will allow residents to initiate court action to protect public resources. There will be increased access to the courts for individuals suffering direct loss as a result of environmental neglect, and of course I'll be looking forward to hearing representatives from the legal community indicating exactly how much business they're going to be getting as a result of this legislation. I believe there will. Some of the people from the task force who have legal connections say that's not so, but of course those people are supporting the piece of legislation. But with any new piece of legislation which is as complicated as this one, there's no question that there's going to be a period of time when not only the government but members of the public are going to have to spend substantial amounts of money in the courts to determine what in the world this legislation means.

The fundamental principles which provide the foundation for the Environmental Bill of Rights include that, "The people of Ontario recognize the inherent value of the natural environment," very warm and cuddly sort of legislation, and the preamble has been read, and of course we all do. "The people of Ontario have a right to a healthy environment." Well, how can you oppose that? Of course we all do. "The people of Ontario have as a common goal the protection, conservation and restoration of the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations." Of course we support that. How can anyone not support that? Finally, "While the government has the primary responsibility for achieving this goal, the people should have means to ensure that it is achieved in an effective, timely, open and fair manner."

Now, we will be going through, in this House and in the committee process, the details of the bill, and I think that we should spend some time on that just so we know where the bill is going.

The bill contains eight parts. Part II establishes the basic parameters for public participation in environmental decision-making and regulatory enforcement. The key components of part II are the creation of an environmental registry and the requirement of certain ministries to draft a statement of environmental values.

I have no idea, nor does this government, what that is going to cost, what bureaucrats are going to have to be hired. I think the minister has already stated, in this House and in his press conference, that the commissioner's office is only going to have 15 people. We all know there are going to be bureaucrats who are going to be required for each of the 14 ministries to draft their statement of environmental values. Who's going to do this? Someone's going to have to spend time on that.

Finally, there is going to be the environmental registry. That's going to cost the taxpayer of this province a substantial amount of money, and we have had no details as to that. I'm sure it will come forward in the committee stage, and if it doesn't, the questions will certainly be asked. I might as well put the ministry on notice that if the questions aren't asked, I will be asking those questions and hope to have substantial detailed answers as to the amount of staffing that it's going to require to put this whole package together, whether it be each of the 14 ministries or whether it be the commissioner's office or whether it be the environmental registry, because all of that is going to require a substantial number of people to operate.

The environmental registry, as has been indicated, will be an electronic database which will provide the public with information on proposals and government policy which may affect the government, and for some reason 14 ministries -- I don't know why, and the member for Mississauga North raised this point -- within the Ontario government will be required to draft a statement of environmental values. Why those ministries and not other areas, why some areas are excluded, we don't know, but there are going to be 14 and I'll be spending some time on that in my comments.

"Each individual statement will explain how the ministry intends to incorporate the principles of the Environmental Bill of Rights into their policymaking process."

All of those words just ooze with bureaucracy and cost, and I'm very concerned about where the government is going on that on the one hand and, at the same time, out of the other corner of his mouth the Treasurer of this province, or Finance minister of this province, is talking about restraint and cutting back.

"The 14 ministries currently subject to the Environmental Bill of Rights" -- and I suppose that can be expanded -- "are Environment and Energy, Agriculture and Food, Transportation, Municipal Affairs, Housing, Labour, Management Board, Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines, Consumer and Commercial Relations, Finance, Health, Culture, Tourism and Recreation and Economic Development and Trade."

It will be interesting what those people can do to add to the debate and why it's those and not others and what exactly they'll be telling us, but I guess we'll find out when they prepare their statement of environmental values. It'll be interesting to hear what they have to say.

Part III is the part of the bill that gives me the greatest concern, because it's the creation of a new bureaucracy which doesn't really seem to do anything other than to report to this House once a year, and that's the establishment of an Environmental Commissioner. This commissioner, as spelled out in the legislation, will be an officer of the Legislative Assembly and appointed for a five-year term. It'll be interesting to see who the government names to that particular position and how independent that position will be. Robin Sears was mentioned, but it'll be interesting to see who they choose. Will that person be politically independent enough to properly do the job that the government is putting forward to solve with respect to environmental problems in this province?

This person, this Environmental Commissioner, will ensure that the government complies with the requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights, and it will be interesting to see how he or she is going to do that.

Parts IV to VI outline the new mechanisms for review of existing regulations and investigations into alleged infractions. I might add, we're having this employment equity commission -- that gets into another whole subject. Of course, we're having commissions named all over the place. But the Environmental Commissioner -- it will be interesting to see exactly how effective they're going to be when we know that already the ministry is having problems enforcing many of the problems that they have in this province now on environmental problems -- in other words, the delays that it takes and the effectiveness that it takes. Will this commissioner's office be any more effective than the process we now have?

Why are we creating another bureaucracy? Why can't we improve the bureaucracy we have now? We're admitting -- not we, but the government is admitting -- that the bureaucracy it has now is ineffective, so we're going to create another bureaucracy to try to solve these problems. Why can't we use an existing bureaucracy? That question, I might as well put the government on notice, will be asked. I think a figure has been given by the Environment minister of $4.5 million for the first year and I stand to be corrected, but it's a substantial amount of money. Just ask the people who are losing jobs in the civil service what they think of that.

Finally, any two residents in Ontario may file a sworn statement with the commissioner requesting an investigation into an alleged violation of environmental regulations, and the complaint will be forwarded to the appropriate minister who will again determine if an investigation is warranted.

Very strange that it's being left to the minister's discretion as to whether or not that should be processed. In other words, there's an awful lot of political discretion that's being made available in this bill.

Either there's an Environmental Bill of Rights giving the people in this province rights or there isn't, and yet an awful lot of it, when you start reading the wording of the bill -- and I will be perusing some of the sections in the time allowed, asking questions as to why there's so much political discretion as to whether or not the government of Ontario is complying with its own bill of rights.

Part VI outlines the conditions for initiating legal action against an alleged violator of environmental laws. Legal action is considered to be a last resort. That is the spin that has been put on by the government, that legal action will be a last resort. Maybe they're right; maybe they're not. I still say you get new, complicated pieces of legislation, substantial amounts of money being involved. There will be litigation. There will be a boon to the legal profession in getting involved in this area. Again, it's a cost. It's a cost to the taxpayer. It's a cost to the public.

1740

Of course, we all say it and we all come back to the preamble and the importance of having the right to a clean environment, that we must have these things. Is this the best way to go about it? Must we take the most expensive route to solve these problems? I hope that during the committee process we'll be able to canvass whether or not we need this type of experiment to develop a clean environment in the province of Ontario.

Individuals can proceed to court if a response to their request for an investigation was not received in a reasonable time or an unreasonable response was received, whatever in the world "reasonable" means; a lot of words that have yet to be defined. That seems to crop up in a lot of pieces of legislation by this government as to what does "reasonable" mean and who says it's reasonable, but that remains to be seen. No damages can be awarded, as I understand it. The court can order the activity to be terminated.

Part VII deals with the issues of employee reprisals and whistle-blowing. Complaints may be filed with the Ontario Labour Relations Board when an employee feels an employer exhibited harassment or intimidation because of actions taken by the employee to protect the environment. I will say, of course, that the Environmental Bill of Rights will not replace any existing environmental legislation. This bill, according to the government at least, will promote more effective enforcement and application of existing standards.

What about the GTA dumps that are being proposed around this province? What about the subject that's been raised of incineration, if a government decides to get an incinerator? What about if Hydro decides to put a corridor down some farm land out in rural Ontario? What about if this province decides to put dumps on farm lands, as it is intending to do in this province, in the three regions of this province?

The answer is, the bill of rights has no application whatsoever to this process -- none. Why? Because the government says the IWA is reaching out and it's consulting and it's dealing with all of these problems. I'll tell you, the public doesn't buy it and the Environmental Bill of Rights is either giving people in this province rights or it's not.

I say the members who have spoken to date have quite correctly said that when you get into these very difficult issues of whether you're talking incineration or dumps on prime farm lands or dumps in the middle of the Niagara Escarpment -- one of the members has got a private member's bill, the member for Halton North, which I get literature on every other week, but I agree with them. Why would you put a dump in the middle of the Niagara Escarpment, which is trying to preserve our natural beauty of this province? Why would you do that? The Environmental Bill of Rights isn't going to give one iota of protection to those people who are concerned with that issue.

It's been interesting that some of the interest groups have given response. Some of them have been members of the task force. As I say, I will congratulate them because normally business and the environmental groups are at opposite ends of the poles but they did on this bill become closer together, I believe for the reasons I've stated, because the business people were afraid of Bill 12, the original bill that was put forward by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. They knew that if they didn't do that, they would have a dastardly bill in Bill 12.

They've made it quite clear that some of the people will say that this bill has gone too far, and others will say it's not gone far enough, and that I suppose is standard criticism for many bills in this place. However, I guess there are certainly many reservations that we in the Progressive Conservative Party have that we're going to express. We certainly support, and I reiterate, we support, the principles of the Environmental Bill of Rights, but we have many reservations, which members from our caucus will be dealing with as the debate unfolds.

One of the members, Ian Blue, I believe, of the firm of Cassels, Brock and Blackwell, indicated that the bill is an admission by the government that the Ministry of the Environment has not doing its job. That was stated in the media, I think, in July 1992. It really is. What in the world do we have a Minister of Environment for? If you have environmental problems -- the issue that was raised in the House today, the topic of chemicals being found at abandoned plants in Hamilton, and there was one up in Midland earlier in the summer, where all of a sudden these strange chemicals surfaced because companies have gone bankrupt. Yet nothing was done, and we have school children playing with mercury. The people of this province are not exactly confident in this government, particularly the Minister of Environment, when these strange things happen.

Of course, the member for Mississauga South commented on the tire tax of the Liberals and asked, was that going to solve the problems? Yet we have Hagersville and we're still upset and we're still concerned about the disposition of tires. Is the bill of rights going to deal with that? Well, we've ruled out incineration; we've ruled out shipping it to other countries; we've ruled out all kinds of things. What rights do the people in Ontario have? I'm as cynical as some of the other members who have spoken in this House as to what this bill is going to do.

Mr Blue claims that the bill will shift regulatory and enforcement power from the government to individuals and organizations. He stated: "This will only increase costs of legal services, because any time someone applies for an investigation, companies will have to hire lawyers to oppose it. It will increase the cost of doing business in Ontario."

Again, it gets back to the whole issue of doing business in the province of Ontario. What a strange time to do this. People coming into this province want to develop, want to put forward industry, which is going to create jobs, which, if you read all the polls, the people in this province are more concerned with than any other issue, including environmental issues, which is a rather startling, desperate move by the public. They're more concerned with staying alive, and yet we have more regulations coming forward of an Environmental Bill of Rights that is going to discourage industry from moving to the province of Ontario.

We've had it up to here with taxes and regulations and funny labour laws and employment equity laws and all of the strange stuff that is driving people completely bonkers. They're leaving the province, they're going bankrupt, and this is another piece of anti-business legislation.

However, we'll try to work with the government in offering suggestions to improve it. I have already commented that we're fearful of the new bureaucracy that is being put forward by this government, with the commissioner and throughout. It may well be this government will listen to us in the Progressive Conservative Party for once and cut back on legislation at the very start, at the time of creation, and listen to other ways in which we can make the environment in Ontario a better place.

Again, I've questioned the whole ability of the government to deal with existing complaints. I really challenge this government to show to me and the people of Ontario that the commissioner's office or any other bureaucracy that it's going to put forward is going to be able to investigate and adequately deal with the complaints that are going to be coming forward under the Environmental Bill of Rights, when the Ministry of Environment, generally speaking, is clearly having a difficult time meeting present requirements.

So we're going to have an independent Environmental Commissioner, and we'll see exactly how independent this person is. We'll be waiting anxiously to see who they appoint who will oversee the bill. More bureaucracy, which will be most difficult to get rid of once it's in place.

1750

Keep that in mind when you're supporting this bill, members of the government, that you're creating a bureaucracy that you're going to have a difficult time to cut back on. You think you have problems with the social contract? Well, all of these commissions and task forces are certainly eating away at the dollar that the people in this province are trying to earn.

We're going to have the creation of a province-wide environmental registry with information on upcoming environmental decisions and how to participate. Where is the money going to come from to create this new environmental registry? We've got the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, saying to us: "The province is broke. We have no money. The revenue that we're expecting isn't coming in." How are they going to pay for this stuff? It's the same thing we hear in bill after bill this government has. There is no sign of restraint. It's as if there's a black hole of money and there's no end to it. Well, eventually the people of this province are going to say to governments such as this, "Enough is enough."

I congratulate you on attempting to deal with, clearly, the environmental problems we have in this province. I really do congratulate you. It took you three years to get around to doing something, but at least you're starting.

But is it the most economical way? Hopefully, the government bureaucrats will come on the opening day of the committee hearings and tell us all the various alternatives. Will they do that? Well, it remains to be seen. I certainly hope they do, to show us the other ways that are available to us to enforce the rights of the people to make sure we have a clean environment. We look forward to hearing that during the committee process, about the thinking of this government in reaching the solution it did.

It's ironic, of course, that it was the former Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, who brought us Bill 143 and brought us the three superdumps in the greater Toronto area that are going to be coming, although that gets to another area. The Minister of Environment admitted today that it's going to be sometime in the autumn, which could go -- autumn ends December 21. We don't really know when the IWA is going to come up with its final three sites, and again the public doesn't seem to have any control of this; they don't seem to have any control at all.

But I will pat Mrs Grier on the back, because she certainly made a remarkable political achievement when she got together the business community and she got together the environmental interest groups in this province to come up with a report from a task force that has in turn resulted in this bill. There is something positive I'm trying to say. At least she got positive reviews from both business groups and environmental activists.

Much time will be spent during the committee process with the bill. I've read the bill and, as I say, it's much more complicated than the minister says. We'll have to spend some time on that in the committee, and I hope sufficient time will be given by the government to deal with that.

Just comments on section 15 of the bill: I'm not going to read the section, but it has to do with proposals for policies, acts and regulations, and it seems to me that an awful lot of political discretion is being left with the ministers to decide: "If a minister considers that a proposal under consideration in his or her ministry for a policy or act could, if implemented, have a significant effect on the environment."

In other words, if the minister considers, if he or she sees fit, that's what's going to happen. Some Environmental Bill of Rights. It's very, very political when you have a minister deeming what is significant and what isn't significant.

To go on to other sections -- and as I say, the time doesn't permit me to spend too much time on the sections and I hope to get involved when we get into the committee process.

Section 30 has to do with exceptions, other processes, in terms of proposals. The opening sentence says, "Sections 15, 16 and 22 do not apply where, in the minister's opinion, the environmentally significant aspects of a proposal for a policy, act, regulation or instrument," and then it goes on. Is this a bill of rights for the people of Ontario? If individuals want to challenge the minister, they don't have a right. It's not a bill of rights, it's nonsense.

I think they're going to have to spend considerable time in dealing with the issues in this bill, because there's a lot of strange pieces of legislation.

The Environmental Commissioner, part III: You start reading this section and you can see it just oozes of bureaucracy and paperwork that's going to come forward, particularly when you have a commissioner who's going to be reporting to this House once a year. That's really all that's going to happen.

Section 54 on staffing: I think the minister has said 15. That's just for the commissioner, although under subsection 54(1) it says, "The Environmental Commissioner may employ such employees as the commissioner considers necessary." It's going to be interesting to see if he only needs 15 people. I say that by the time he or she is finished, they're going to need a lot more than 15.

We're talking about a brand-new bureaucracy which is in the sole discretion of the Environmental Commissioner, who "may employ such employees as the commissioner considers necessary for the efficient operation of his or her office and may determine their remuneration," another interesting phrase, "which shall be comparable to the remuneration of similar positions or classifications in the public service of Ontario and their terms of employment." Then it gets on to benefits and pensions.

We're just going to have a wonderful time creating a brand-new bureaucracy that is going to accomplish what? Well, section 57 talks about the functions.

It really doesn't seem to me to have many teeth other than reporting to this House, so I look forward to spending more time on the Environmental Commissioner and what he or she is going to be dealing with in solving the problems of this province with respect to environmental issues.

There's one other section I wanted to refer to. In section 86, and this has to do with the process, it talks about the Attorney General. Subsection 86(2) says, "The Attorney General is entitled to present evidence and make submissions to the court in the action." If there are problems going on in this province of Ontario as a result of actions that are being taken by governments in this province or ministries in this province, why in the world is it that the Attorney General is entitled to present evidence? The Attorney General should be required to give evidence, particularly if it's a problem that's being caused by a ministry or a government, whether it's this government or a Liberal government or a Conservative government in this province. It's solely in the discretion of the Attorney General to present evidence and make submissions to the court and to appeal a judgement.

We get into section 90, which is another interesting section, the last of the sections I'd like to refer to. This has to do with a stay or dismissal in the public interest, a nice general phrase. This is when we get to the court stage. "The court may stay or dismiss the action if to do so would be in the public interest." Dare I say that if a court is persuaded by a government that it's going to be too costly, section 90 says, "The court may stay or dismiss the action if to do so would be in the public interest."

I guess it's my fear that this government, prior to becoming elected and during the election campaign, made all kinds of promises for making an Environmental Bill of Rights, but is it realistic? Is it giving the teeth that the people of this province want to create rights that they have to make a clean environment?

I would like to adjourn this debate.

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, September 28, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1759.

September 27, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOMMY JONES

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

TERRY FOX RUN

CHILD SAFETY

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

GLENORA-ADOLPHUSTOWN FERRY SERVICE

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ST CATHARINES

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR VICTORIA-HALIBURTON

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE / COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

ONTARIO ECONOMY

SOCIAL CONTRACT

POLICE STAFFING

VEHICLE LICENSING

HAZARDOUS WASTE

FARM INCOME

LANDFILL

POLITICAL PARTY IDENTIFICATION

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

GLENORA-ADOLPHUSTOWN FERRY SERVICE

HOME CARE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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