Hansard Transcript 1993-Oct-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mrs Mathyssen has moved a private member's resolution, and pursuant to standing order 96(c) the honourable member has 10 minutes to make her presentation. Following the completion of Mrs Mathyssen's presentation, every recognized party within the Legislature will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): The planning, consultation and preparation of the bill standing in my name, the Land Conservancy Corporations Act, 1993, is one of which I am very proud. I would like to thank Ian McKay of West Nissouri township and Greg Johnston of London for the idea for this legislation.

In the late fall of 1990, Mr McKay and Mr Johnston came to my office to discuss the possibility of a private member's bill providing for land conservancies. Since that time, they have been most encouraging and supportive. Mr Johnston has given generously of his time and provided much valuable information.

I would also like to thank legislative counsel and my legislative assistant, Nancy Armstrong. Without their long hours of work, diligence to the task and valued advice, I would not have been able to bring this most important bill before the House.

I'd like to begin at the beginning, with the reasons for the need for the Land Conservancy Corporations Act.

Many years ago, the American humorist Will Rogers responded to a question about investment with the advice: "Invest in land, because they aren't making it any more." I believe Mr Rogers was talking about monetary investment for financial gain, but his remarks regarding the finite nature of land were directly to the point. Our precious wildlife habitats, natural areas, wetland, woodlands and farm lands are limited. Often, because of the pressure of urban growth and poor planning practices, they are in danger.

For several decades, land use issues have been a significant part of the environmental concerns voiced in every part of North America. Whether it be an old-growth forest in British Columbia, a wildlife habitat in the state of Washington, a wetland preserve in Ontario or the agricultural land that sustains us all, there have been pressures for development and economic activity that threaten the continued existence of these essential areas.

From the moment that the Europeans began to settle on this continent, the land was seen as something to be conquered, parcelled out, sold and exploited. In my own riding, the richness of the agricultural land has been its strength and its downfall. Because the soil is fertile, it was farmed quite successfully and produced an abundance of food. This abundance contributed to the establishment and growth of a large urban centre. The continued growth of that urban centre and smaller towns and villages across the riding has resulted in urban sprawl. Development after development have claimed the very agricultural land that is needed to ensure the food security upon which every urban centre depends. The dilemma is a very real one for the people of Middlesex, and it exists in every part of southern Ontario.

Protecting agricultural land from competing and incompatible land use has been the focus of much concern. In 1978, Ontario released the Food Land Guidelines; in 1986, discussions were held to review the food land preservation policy statement. At that time, a number of serious difficulties were found to exist, and they still exist; namely, the agricultural community faces a constant and often heroic battle to make a living in the face of low commodity prices and high input costs.

In the urban shadow, the competition for residential, commercial, industrial and institutional land is enormous. Of course, Mr Speaker, as you well know, Ontario's best agricultural lands are primarily located in the areas of heaviest population. This is a dilemma we can only resolve through wiser land use and preservation.

In response to this issue of land use and protection of land, a number of land conversancy groups, or land trusts, if you will, have organized over the past several years with the object of placing significant lands under the protection of these voluntary citizens groups. It is my intention to provide, through this act, the instruments whereby charitable land conservancy groups can, once they are designated by the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation as land conservancy corporations, receive and enforce a registered easement or covenant against real property in perpetuity. I believe it will be a significant and positive step forward for the environmental community in Ontario in its efforts to preserve fragile natural places and precious agricultural lands in this province.

Currently, only the Ontario Heritage Foundation and municipalities can enter into legal agreements with private land owners to preserve property. But the reality is that governments simply cannot do it all. Provincial and municipal resources are limited. Unfortunately, at the present time any community group wishing to conserve land resources is compelled to purchase the land in question.

An example of such a conservancy group comes from my own riding. Several trusts have joined to protect a parcel called Jeremiah's field. However, because of the prohibitive cost of assembling parcels of land, such an investment is well beyond the financial resources of most conservancy groups.

I'd like to briefly go through my bill to explain its parts and illustrate how this conservancy will work.

1010

Section 1 of the bill provides the necessary definitions for the purposes of this act.

Section 2 establishes the process whereby a corporation may apply in writing to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to incorporate as a land conservancy corporation without share capital under part III of the Corporations Act or part II of the Canada Corporations Act. As a charitable corporation, the conservancy may preserve, protect, conserve, maintain, restore and improve all or any part of the significant lands under its care. "Significant lands" include natural, scenic, agricultural land, and lands valued for silviculture, woodlands, wetlands, wildlife habitats or other types of lands as designated by regulation under this act by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The land conservancy corporation would then be able to receive easements and covenants from land owners. Easements and covenants pertain, as you know, to rights to do or not to do certain things on a piece of land. They can be positive and entail stewardship functions, or negative and carry restrictions on development rights. Easements and covenants are flexible arrangements designed to accommodate the unique needs of the various lands involved. Easements are written with a full analysis of the land in question and consist of stewardship plans involving a detailed application of the easement or covenant which is regularly reviewed by the land conservancy corporation.

All or part of the land is held in trust for the benefit of the community, the greater public good, and future generations. The land owner continues to own the land and will be entitled to pass it to heirs or sell it. However, the protection of the unique features of the property or its use as farm land remains unchanged in perpetuity. The conservancy has the obligation to enforce this protection, and the registration on the title of the property obligates the present and future owners to uphold the preservation, maintenance and improvement requirements of the easements and covenants.

Section 6 of the bill provides for the possible revocation of land conservancy designations. If, for whatever reason, this should occur, the minister would receive the easements and covenants on behalf of the crown and could convey them to another land conservancy corporation. This will prevent any attempt to use conservation easements in any improper or unintended way. Each land conservancy is required to keep public records of its dealings and to make these records available for inspection by the minister or minister's agent.

Section 12 of Bill 92 sets out the regulations to be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council in regard to significant lands, prescribing applications, reports, fees and forms, and the establishment and maintenance of a register of land conservancy corporations.

Finally, it is necessary to amend six Ontario statutes to facilitate this bill. Consequential amendments are required in the case of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, the Land Titles Act, the Municipal Tax Sales Act, and the Registry Act. Changes to the Land Transfer Tax Act will exempt the property conveyed to the conservancy from land transfer tax, and amendments to the Planning Act will exempt the land from the subdivisions control and part-lot provisions of the Planning Act.

In closing, I would like to impress upon all honourable members of this House the importance of this legislation. Land conservancies face significant statutory barriers in Ontario. Because they are not recognized by law, they are unable to do the vital work of preservation. This then could be our gift to future generations, if we here today can find the will to provide land conservancies with the ability to incorporate as private, non-profit corporations with charitable objects so they can enter into legal agreements with land owners to protect our heritage lands. We can provide a vehicle that will encourage community partnerships, foster long-term planning and enhance social and economic security.

At the outset, I said I would begin my remarks at the beginning. With the support of the members of this Legislative Assembly, the beginning for the kind of land stewardship that will have unquestioned meaning and value for future children is here and now in our hands.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for Middlesex and remind her that she will have two minutes in response once all parties in the Legislature have had the opportunity to participate. The honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to be able to participate in the debate today also, and I would like to commend the member for Middlesex for bringing forward this bill, Bill 92. I think it permits another tool to be used in land management in the province of Ontario to aid in protecting areas that need to be protected, and that is an important goal.

However, I will say at the outset that we support this bill, but we support it with the proviso that it go to committee and we have the ability to hear public deputations concerning this bill, because much of this bill, as the member who presented it would know, is reasonably complicated and also has a large regulatory component, but we don't see the regulations. We, on this side of the House, would like to see a more comprehensive package and the ability for other people to comment, because some of the side-effects might well not be known.

We look at what it might do to tax bases. If this bill does what this government has a history of doing, that is, downloading costs to the municipalities, which could occur here if the land in question actually has its assessment value diminished, the municipal taxpayer will at least to some degree pay for the cost of having this conservancy. Maybe that's legitimate. I just want to hear about that, and I'm sure that many people across the province would also like to do that.

Preserving out wetlands, our woodlands and other important features, our agricultural land, is important to all Ontarians, and I repeat that we think the member has done a great service in bringing this forward. I have some concerns that it is subject to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation rather than to the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Environment and Energy, and perhaps when the member replies she can indicate to us why that choice was made.

I would, however, wonder if the member has spoken to the various ministers of this government, to the people in the executive council, because the attack on wetlands, on conservation lands and preservation lands by this government over the last few years has been incredible.

I would like to bring to her attention the situation, for example, in the conservation authorities. Ontarians would know that because of the cancellation of the conservation land tax rebate program, conservation authorities are being forced to sell important land, some of which was donated by conservancy groups, in order to pay their municipal taxes. That program was introduced in 1986 by the former Liberal government which provided to conservation authorities and other Ontarians interested in preserving land in the use it is in today. It seems to me that a government like that would have no part in cancelling this rebate program, but that is exactly what this government is doing: It is attacking the local taxpayer; it is attacking the conservation lands. In my view, it is unconscionable.

The member talks about woodlands. This government has also cancelled the managed forest tax rebate. I don't know if people understand what kind of problem that has caused to the woodlands of the province of Ontario. Unlike agriculture, woodlands are being treated totally differently. It is no longer an incentive program of the province of Ontario to deal with the proper management of woodlots. No longer do you get some share of your property tax rebated by the province of Ontario for preserving your woodlot, for managing it in a proper way.

When you take those two tax rebates that have been taken away by this government over a very brief period, we find it a little incomprehensible that the member is putting forward a bill that will help a little bit, but the damage that has been created by the government which she supports on a daily basis has been huge in these very same areas.

1020

The member may not appreciate that, and I will go back to the point and say we do like this as one of the tools, but people should understand that what's happening here is that a charitable organization or non-for-profit organization is buying an easement from people. We're not sure on this side that the purchase of an easement will occur in a large number of cases. We think it's a valuable tool, but we're not sure how widespread that tool and application will be.

I have chatted with a number of the groups interested in land conservancy and they support the principle of this bill, and as Liberals we believe this should be a good bill over time to provide some protection for the lands of Ontario, but again I have to reiterate my own problem. My problem is that the government as a whole is doing exactly the opposite. I would urge the member and the people over there in the NDP government to have a chat with the Minister of Natural Resources and a chat with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and ask them why public policy appears to be moving in two completely different directions simultaneously.

With those reservations, I will reiterate our support and hope that this bill is referred to committee for full public hearings so that we can understand all the ramifications and so that the members of the Legislature, as they will in committee, can fine-tune this bill to make sure that what comes out of it is what the member intends.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to provide some comments on Bill 92, An Act respecting Land Conservancy Corporations. The member for Middlesex indicates that the purpose of her bill is to promote the conservation and protection of significant lands in Ontario by providing new rights and exemptions in favour of land conservancy corporations.

This bill amends the Land Transfer Tax Act, the Planning Act, the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, the Land Titles Act, the Municipal Sales Tax Act and the Registry Act, quite a major accomplishment in one minor bill.

Bill 92 defines "land conservancy corporation" and "significant lands" and deals with the designation of a corporation as a land conservancy corporation and the relocation of the designation.

It authorizes the grant of easements to land conservancy corporations for the preservation, protection, conservation, maintenance, restoration or improvement of significant lands in Ontario even if the land conservancy corporations do not own land capable of being accommodated by the easements.

That is the essence of what this bill is all about. It authorizes owners of significant lands to enter into conveyance with land conservancy corporations for any of the above purposes, and this bill deals with the registration assignment duration, modification and discharge of the easements and conveyance.

It's rather ironic that this bill, which is supposed to be aimed at promoting the conservation and protection of significant lands in Ontario, comes from a member of a government that has gone out of its way to weaken the long-standing partnership between the provincial government and one of the key players in the natural resources preservation and environmental management, that is, the Ontario conservation authorities.

I trust you will agree that I am in a unique position to comment on this matter, having spent 16 years with the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and serving two years as its chairman. I am well aware of the importance of conservation authorities and the key role they play in the conservation, preservation, protection, maintenance, restoration and improvement of some very significant lands in the province of Ontario.

Since their formation in 1946, our conservation authorities have witnessed at first hand many of the serious problems that exist as a result of the way the responsibilities for natural resources and the environmental management are currently structured.

Today those conservation authorities are swimming against the current as they struggle to work through the maze of resource management agencies in order to find a logical method to ensure that the resources of our watersheds can be effectively managed and enhanced. The conservation authorities of Ontario have warned that the fiscal constraint of recent years has left all resource management agencies struggling to fulfil their mandates and obligations in resource management and environmental protection.

Provincial funding announced earlier this year will make it impossible for resource management agencies to continue to provide even the current level of resource management. I would suggest that the fundamental problem that exists in resource management today is not financial constraint; it is the current body of legislation, agency structures and mandates that do not recognize the concept of ecosystem-based management.

I suspect the chaos created by the overlapping mandate of the ministries of Natural Resources, Environment and Energy, Agriculture and Food, and Municipal Affairs and municipalities is evident to everyone. In fact, the conservation authorities of Ontario are on record as saying this situation has evolved over time as the provincial government reacted to specific problems with specific solutions. This issue-by-issue approach results in a situation that, when viewed from an ecosystem perspective, borders on the ludicrous.

The member for Middlesex appears to overlook or ignore the role of the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the role it played in purchasing thousands of acres of land in the Minesing Swamp, elsewhere in Ontario. Who does she think pays the taxes on the land like that? It's the conservation authorities that do -- the very authorities that have to pay the taxes, the very ones the government wanted to cut off.

What about Ducks Unlimited, and the major landholdings it has; preservation of our watersheds? What about the anglers and conservation clubs such as the Orillia club, that has what we call the Langman reserve, where they have the wetlands preserved? What about the conservation club that has its Christmas tree program, growing trees on it? These clubs are volunteer clubs. It doesn't cost the government one red cent.

Perhaps the member might consider withdrawing her bill and convince her NDP colleagues to instead take a serious look at A Blueprint for Success: Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario. That document was released in May 1993. The conservation authorities of Ontario indicate that society can no longer afford to maintain the current institutional arrangements that promote inefficient resource management. That's the conservation authorities' program. That's the book called A Blueprint for Success. Resource management must be planned and implemented on a watershed basis.

I remember a government not long ago that wanted to amalgamate a lot of the conservation authorities. It was called the Ballinger report. They were going to have larger areas under one jurisdiction. I was pleased to see that that report was not followed through, because many of the conservation authorities I have dealt with wanted it left the same as it was. However, they're in a bind now because of the problem of funding.

The member for Middlesex knows that she can count on support for her bill from her colleagues, and it will pass because there are more members on the government benches than there are on this side. If that should occur, then I would urge her to send the bill to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings. It's the very least she could do to ensure that it receives the proper scrutiny of municipalities, individual members of the public, conservation authorities, land trust corporations, farmers and environmental groups. They would love to have some input into this legislation. I often wondered if she'd talked to the Tree Growers Association of Northern Ontario with regard to what its input would be on a bill such as this.

What happened to the woodlot management rebate program that was put in place? Is it still effective? Is it part of this bill? Are you going to withdraw any portion of that rebate program? Forest management tax rebates, conservation tax rebates: Are you saying you no longer want to fund these types of programs that have been put in place years ago?

I hope you and the people involved in helping to prepare your bill, Mr McKay and Mr Johnston -- you indicated the input they had -- take a broad look and initiate having this bill sent to committee so that all these groups will have full input into this type of legislation.

1030

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): First, I would like to commend the member for Middlesex for bringing this issue forward. It is very timely. Land trusts in fact are a century-old idea, that land is a sacred trust. We, as a society, are called in a very fundamental way to be stewards of the land. We are now struggling to deal with forces and abuses from the past which have eroded our rural communities, degraded agricultural lands and forests, and even created such things as the wind tunnel at Bay Street and Wellesley.

Land can be exploited; we all know that. Land trusts remove land from the marketplace forces and put it aside for very valuable things such as farming, wildlife habitat, forestry, recreation and even urban housing. Land trusts protect specific pieces of land and also serve to educate the community, the broader public, about the importance of protection.

We in Niagara feel the pressures of change probably in a very significant way compared to the rest of the province. We are a major transportation corridor from the US border, of course, to bring goods into and out of Canada, through the tender fruit lands of Niagara. Individuals and groups are very much concerned about the land. They're concerned in three different ways, and I'd like to explain these to you: first, the degradation of natural resources present there; second, the destruction of the nature and character of communities; and third, the degradation of fragile agricultural lands.

First of all, let's talk about the Niagara Escarpment. It was recognized recently, in the last few years, by the United Nations as being of world significance. The Niagara Escarpment Commission was set up during the 1970s, I believe, in order to protect this natural resource. Over the decades, quarrying had taken place all through the Niagara Escarpment, that is, from the Niagara River up to Tobermory. What has also happened is landfilling into those quarrying spaces, and of course the pressures of targeted urban development along the escarpment.

Second, I'd like to talk about the unique character. For instance, in Niagara we have the very special town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. There are many other beautiful spots across the province which deserve preservation, and that heritage is so important to our economy by way of tourism, certainly, but also to our quality of life.

Third, and most important, are the unique agricultural lands of Niagara. We're talking about tender fruit; we're talking about vineyards. The pressures have been so great. I think of west St Catharines, the urban-rural boundary, and how the pressures during the 1970s forced the expansion of that into the vineyards. There is a group in west St Catharines and across the peninsula called PALS, the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society. They believe, and it's so obviously true, that once agricultural land is paved over, there is no way to get it back into agriculture.

One other example of a land trust that I want to bring to your attention is the Toronto Islands. I happened to be there on August 2, a wonderful summer day, when we were celebrating the end of 35 years of controversy and fight over the future of that community there. If you walked through that community, it was a wonderful experience. There were tiny houses, there were marvellous flower gardens and there were no cars. It is certainly a community worth preserving.

I also want to tell you that probably the most important example of land preservation and the oldest one in all of Ontario is the Niagara Parks Commission. I don't know whether any of you have read the book by Pierre Berton about the history of Niagara. He details what happened there. This is more than a century ago, all through the 1800s up to about 1870. This is what it was like:

"On the American side of the river, every viewpoint was fenced in by greedy entrepreneurs so that there was no place from which the great cataract could be seen without payment." He goes on to tell about what a husband, a wife and their two daughters paid for one day to see the natural sites. It goes on to list 14 different fees that were paid, adding up to $37. In today's costs that would be $530. I thought this was interesting; he says here that they were persuaded to spend this sum by "a plausible, fair-spoken knave who got 25% of every fee." That is what happens, and certainly it can continue to happen today.

I don't have a lot of time left, but I do want to say that the Niagara Parks Commission was set up in 1880 and was opened with much fanfare. The difference that made to Niagara, to its preservation for the last century and a half, is well documented in this book and certainly very obvious when you come to see the beauty of Niagara now.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the member for Middlesex.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I agree with the member for Niagara Falls that Bill 92 is all about land preservation. I fully agree also with the bill to conserve our lands. I think every member of this House is interested in protecting and conserving our wetlands, woodlands and, mostly, agricultural lands.

I find it a little odd this morning that the member for Middlesex would introduce such an important bill, because she was dearly involved in what I call the largest land grab of the province of Ontario when the government approved the expansion of London-Middlesex. Some 80,000 acres of agricultural lands were grabbed by this government to permit the city of London to expand its commercial and industrial capacities. This is what the city of London had been asking for for 10 or 15 years. I know she fought very hard, and I congratulate her for having done so. She wanted to protect the people and she wanted the land grab to be honest, open and reflect the needs of people in London.

Today, we are looking at a very important bill that should go to a committee so that we can hear all the interest groups that pushed the member for Middlesex to introduce such a bill. I believe in it, but at the same time I would like to hear more from these groups, for the simple reason that we have conservation authorities with a lot of powers, and these powers have been increased in the last five or six years to permit conservation authorities to do more work in protecting lands.

I want to remind you that at the same time we're talking about protecting and conserving land, there is a commission in the province of Ontario called the John Sewell commission that is looking at land uses -- very, very important -- and planning as well in the province. This is not the first time a commission has been appointed to look at planning in the province and also to find better ways of protecting our lands.

I'm just wondering if the member -- maybe she can respond to me in her two minutes -- has consulted the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on this very important bill. Are municipalities in favour of this kind of approach? Also, have you consulted with the John Sewell commission? As you know, the final report was tabled, and I think Mr Sewell brings to this House a lot of good thoughts, a lot of good points that should be addressed.

Again, I would like to see this bill go before a committee so that all parties involved, for or against, are listened to and have an opportunity to fully explain the bill. But I will say that I agree with the bill in principle and I will support it if it goes to a committee.

The member from Niagara talked about the NEC, the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I can recall that when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, I had a great deal to do with the NEC, which I respect even today. Since the 1970s, the NEC has tried to do a reasonably good job, I would say, but you can't satisfy everybody. By introducing another bill today that would complicate all our planning and land use issues, I think this bill deserves to be scrutinized a little more closely, and this is why I want to see it before a committee.

1040

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'm very pleased to be able to rise in support of the member for Middlesex. The Land Conservancy Act holds considerable interest for the people in the land trust movement, who have been working on this issue for several years. Some of those people are constituents of mine who have been working out of the Centre for Land and Water Stewardship at the University of Guelph. Professor Stewart Hilts and Peter Mitchell have provided significant input into the discussion of the revision of the Heritage Act. They've also brought together people from all levels of government and the community in workshops designed to bring attention to issues that are crucial in allowing these instruments of land conservancy to become operational.

This private member's bill seeks to support and bring attention to the urgency of addressing specific barriers that land conservancy groups are experiencing before they can even get on with their work.

The one thing that needs to be clarified at the outset is that this debate does not pit environmentalists against the developers. It is not about unfettered development versus absolute protection. It's about measuring development in qualitative terms that enhance the security and the wellbeing of entire communities; terms that seek to conserve, in its true sense, to keep from harm, especially for later use, those natural resources that communities are dependent upon for water, food, affordable housing and sustainable economic activities. The key is community control by individuals who are intimately acquainted with the land and committed to its preservation and maintenance.

It's not difficult to see where the impetus for this movement is coming from. Private land owners and community groups are coming together to address specific problems regarding the use of land in their communities: unmanageable real estate costs, degradation of fragile or agricultural lands, pollution and depletion of ground water reserves, loss of wildlife habitats, and destructive changes to the nature and character of a particular community.

There is an urgency felt by people in these communities to promote the benefits of land stewardship responsibilities and obligations in order to provide long-term security to future generations. It should also be stressed that among those who share these concerns are developers and real estate agents themselves, who also recognize the need for affordable land.

The land conservancy corporations are not being promoted as the panacea to the world's environmental crisis. They do not let governments and industry off the hook, but they do offer the possibility for ordinary citizens to participate actively in preserving the character of their communities.

Land trusts can do a number of things. They can provide public education about the value of protective activities. They can disseminate information through workshops and newsletters about protection techniques. They can inform private land owners of the biophysical significance of the site of which their property is part. They can provide directories of land owner services based on environmentally responsible operations; for example, woodlot management, tree planting, stream enhancement or erosion control.

I believe that this work deserves our support and that the land conservancy organizations should be given the authority they require in order to increase the protection of significant lands. They can act as recipients for donated properties and negotiate conservation easements and covenants.

As I said earlier, I'm very pleased to be able to stand here and support my colleague the member for Middlesex.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm glad to stand in my place this morning and speak briefly in support of the private member's bill as presented by my colleague the member for Middlesex. I think she should be commended. This has been suggested as one of the most important, gripping private members' bills that has come before this Legislature; it's that important.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Gripping?

Mr Mills: Gripping, yes. It really speaks to the matter. I want to talk now, since I have some knowledge of the movement in England, about what happened over there, not proposing or suggesting that I lived in the 1700s, though some of my colleagues may comment about that. It's interesting to note that in feudal times the common lands were regarded in England as the property of the lord of the manor, who claimed the right of enclosure.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Not the lady of the manor?

Mr Mills: No, the lord. They weren't enlightened. The lord was the great master over there.

Between 1700 and 1845, it's estimated that seven million acres in the beautiful English countryside were converted from tilled fields, open lands, meadow and commons into private holdings across the English counties. I think that figure is absolutely astounding. If you go to England now, there are moves afoot, trusts, to protect common areas, the commons where people can even this day tether their cattle. I know the gypsy folks over there look to common land to use for grazing their horses and cattle. The English experience, which has extended over seven centuries, in my opinion well illustrates the practical difficulties and the social disruption attending such a large-scale rearrangement of landholding and property rights.

The hands of the government of the day were not clean. These changes have been authorized --

1050

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Are you talking about your own government?

Mr Mills: No. I could talk about your government at length, but this is private members' time -- Mr Speaker, I'm talking through you -- and I try very hard to speak to the issues and not inject any partisan comments into this, although it's difficult for the member for whatever.

Anyway, these changes were authorized in England under numerous private acts of Parliament. They were usually initiated by the lords of the manor and these high-profile owners who seemed to have control. Enclosure commissioners were appointed to scrutinize the claim, redistribute land and grant compensation. All this had a tremendous impact across England during the 18th and 19th centuries. Now we have the National Trust which has come into being over there, and it's trying to reverse some of these inequities that happened over the last couple or three hundred years.

Private individuals and community groups in Canada and, more importantly, in the province of Ontario are coming together more to address problems regarding the use of land in their communities. We see this every day as members in our own ridings where people come to us about real estate costs, the degradation of fragile or agricultural lands and natural resources and the destructive changes to the nature and character of a community.

In my own riding of Durham East we have an ongoing battle now with a claim to turn a wetland into some sort of cement hole, which my people are very much opposed to. I would like to give credit to the Minister of Natural Resources who is demanding that this incident be thoroughly investigated.

We're running out of time; I've got only a few seconds left.

Mr Ramsay: Thank goodness.

Mr Mills: You say what? Thank goodness? I don't.

Thank you for this opportunity to talk. Again, I want to commend my colleague for what I consider this very important piece of private legislation and I urge all members to support it.

Mr Ramsay: I also will stand in my place today and very briefly give my support to this bill. It's nice to see, in private members' hour especially, that members are supporting institutions such as conservancy associations and groups.

I had a bit of experience with seeing a conservancy land preservation project when I was travelling with my family in Nova Scotia. One day we were driving west on the Digby Spit, which comes from the nice city of Digby where all the great scallops come from. To get right to the end of that spit, you also take little ferries to two islands at the end. The last island is Brier Island. It's a very popular place for people to go and see the whales coming up the east coast of the United States and in the spring coming into the Bay of Fundy. You're sort of halfway out by being on the spit.

A conservancy group in Nova Scotia purchased a lot of the land on Brier Island, so basically what's left are a few homes in a hamlet, where you can get bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Most of that island has been set aside for just that non-consumptive, recreational activity that more and more of us today are involved in.

It's a system that works very well. It harnesses private sector dollars towards conservation and environmental protection. That's a good idea, because as we know and certainly this government has discovered, governments can't do it all today. In fact, we will have to do less and less. Legislation such as this that is permissive, that allows groups to set aside land for non-consumptive recreational activity is a very good idea. It's healthy for the environment and it's very good for tourism.

I applaud the member for bringing forward this bill, and I think she will find that most members in the House will support it today.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, the honourable member for Middlesex has two minutes in response.

Mrs Mathyssen: I've got a lot of ground to cover, so I'll try to get right to it.

I would like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for his support. I would like to assure you that there has indeed been extensive consultation. I myself consulted with ministries of the crown, Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Agriculture and Food, Environment and Energy, Consumer and Commercial Relations, and Municipal Affairs, and extensively with land trust, the legal community, Ronald Reid. I know that Culture, Tourism and Recreation has consulted quite, quite extensively over the past few years in regard to heritage properties with business, the development industry, labour, municipalities, the ethnocultural community, Ontario naturalists; it's been a very wide, extensive consultation, and I'm very proud of that.

In reference to the costs to municipalities in terms of taxes, I would draw the member's attention to a document entitled The Economic Benefits of Open Space, by Stephen Miller, and point out that Mr Miller says:

"In studies of this kind conducted by American Farm Land Trust, every municipality received more from open space than it had to give back in services and in taxes. The magnitude of difference between the revenues and costs was substantial in all cases. Open space pays an average of three and a half times as much as it costs in terms of taxes."

There's a very important and significant argument for trusts.

I chose the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation because that minister administers the Ontario Heritage Act. I would like to point out that this government is the first to put in place the instruments of province-wide land use planning, and the purpose of the Sewell commission was to address the very long-time, questionable and inappropriate land use that's been at work in this province and to resolve those issues.

I'd like to point out to the member for Simcoe West that my bill is not a minor bill. It does address a number of Ontario statutes because it didn't exist before those statutes will be affected. I also point out to the member that the Minister of Natural Resources is currently working with the conservation authorities to help them do the important work they need. I've talked with my local authorities and the progress has been very good; they've had very good dialogue.

I thank the member for Ottawa West, who was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for remembering that I opposed the London-Middlesex Act. I would also like to remind him that the current Minister of Municipal Affairs just this June put in place a regulation that will compel the city of London to protect agricultural land and do extensive planning before it can proceed.

I thank the member for Timiskaming and my colleagues for their very kind support.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for ballot item number 25, the second reading of Bill 92 brought forth by Mrs Mathyssen. It will be further dealt with at 12 noon.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

Mr Morin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 44, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 44, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member has 10 minutes to initiate debate, after which time every recognized party in the Legislature will have 15 minutes in total, maximum, to debate the bill.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): We're discussing today the issue of health cards. Much has been said and written about this topic lately. It has been studied, analysed and debated by a number of health care specialists and professionals. What is increasingly clear, however, is that our health care system is not functioning in an effective, cost-efficient way, and this is well illustrated by the management of Ontario's health cards.

You may recall that a family-based registration system was set up in 1968. In 1986, the former Liberal cabinet approved the move to an individual-based system which was set in motion in 1990. Ontario was by then the last province in Canada to set up an individual-based system in which each eligible individual received a health insurance number for life.

This change was introduced as a first step towards the reform of our health care system. One of its main objectives was, of course, to ensure greater control over the fraudulent and unintentional abuse of health benefits by Ontario residents and non-residents. But most importantly, we believed that a well-organized and accurate registration system would be extremely efficient and would allow for the better use of public funds.

1100

It would be highly unrealistic to expect such an extensive project to be implemented in a short time without any adjustments. Obviously, adjustments have been necessary. Nevertheless, there is no question that the move to an individual-based registration system was necessary and is a positive step in the organization and administration of our health care system. It is no doubt for these reasons and for many other ones that the issue of health cards attracts so much attention and raises so much interest.

Health costs account for about one third of government expenses. We cannot afford inadequate controls and procedures, poor registration practices and an inaccurate database. Taxpayers are correct in their expectations of sound policies and careful planning of limited resources.

Out of concern with the health costs associated with the use of OHIP cards, I introduced in June the private member's bill we are presently debating. Bill 44 proposes a new health card, complete with photo identification and an expiry date. This new card would also contain the cardholder's sex and date of birth, along with the present requirements of name, signature and health insurance number. There is no question that a new health card is necessary. The current card does not meet all of the needs of the health care system, does not provide for regular updates of information and is much too easy to reproduce.

My bill requires that citizens register every four years in order to receive a card. The requirement to provide a photograph will also make it more difficult to obtain a card fraudulently, as the individual will have to present himself or herself in person with supporting pieces of identification. Bill 44 also takes into consideration the situation of individuals who cannot provide, mainly for medical reasons, a photograph of themselves.

The registration process which would accompany the issuance of a new health card will allow the Ministry of Health to weed out the ineligible holders of cards, estimated to number in the thousands. The inability to determine the exact number of ineligible cardholders, coupled with the ministry's own admission that fraud costs the province anywhere between $20 million and $100 million, clearly demonstrates the need for a more accurate and better-monitored database.

The introduction of a new health card will help clear up this confusion while improving the delivery of health care. It simply makes more sense for the government to eliminate fraud and wasteful expenses instead of attacking medical services and essential programs. We must start by improving the accuracy of the database and ensuring that only those people entitled to health services receive them. This is a vital point. A proper registration process will determine the successful result of many Ministry of Health projects.

Efficient long-term planning is only possible with the proper tools and the correct information. This is why an expiry date is so important. It allows the regular update of essential information such as the change of address, which is said to be the cause of the highest inaccuracy of the database. This has been confirmed by many sources, including the Deputy Minister of Health, who says it's "a real problem." The administration of OHIP, as it currently stands, contains no renewal process to allow the updating of information. The ministry can only hope that people will advise it of changes of address.

In this regard, Bill 44 shares the responsibility of the proper management of the OHIP system with the citizens of Ontario. It is based upon the notion that our health care system is a collective responsibility and that, as such, we must all play a role in using it wisely and protecting it against improper use. If we choose to disregard our responsibility, we will all pay the cost in terms of low-quality health care and restricted access to health services.

Under Bill 44, the responsibility for registration and renewal of the card will rest ultimately upon each citizen. A person will never lose his or her entitlement to health services, yet failure to register may mean that a person will be left holding an expired card. No one will be refused health services in Ontario, but we must drive home the fact that access to health care is not to be taken for granted. We all go through the hassle of renewing our driver's licence, yet no one has ever seriously suggested that it isn't worth it. I believe that our health system is worth the same fraction of our time.

Some of my colleagues may be aware that the province of Quebec introduced last October a photo health card. The intention behind this initiative was to tighten control over who is or is not eligible to receive health services. What impressed me was the rapidity with which the issue was dealt: A problem was identified; there was a consensus among the population that something needed to be done; all political parties agreed; a decision was taken and implemented.

By early 1993, some 355,000 registration forms had been mailed out. After three months and two reminder notices, about 60,000 persons had still not responded. This means that 60,000 cards were not issued; 60,000 health cards were not in circulation that would have been otherwise and incurring expenses.

By August 1993, a total of 1.411 million registration forms were mailed out since the introduction of the photo card. Presently, 123,731 persons possess an expired card. These persons have not been issued a new card even though many of them may be entitled to it. In my view, these numbers are significant. The point is that by now 123,731 new cards are not in circulation. This represents important savings.

According to a poll conducted in Quebec in January 1993, 92% of the participants found the process easy. A properly completed form allows one to receive the new card in about 20 days. The feeling is that public funds are better spent. This is a good example of what can be accomplished when the political will exists.

The issue of privacy and confidentiality immediately raises its head. Are we moving towards some kind of new identification card much like the social insurance number has become? The answer is no. Ontario has passed legislation which prohibits the collection of an OHIP number for any purpose other than medical. A photo health card would not -- and I state this emphatically -- become a general ID card. A major concern of many in the field of health care is ensuring that while the efficiency of the system is improved, this does not occur at the expense of individual privacy. The protection of the confidentiality of personal information is and should continue to be an ongoing priority.

I know this bill can be improved and it should be. We don't want to rush anything, yet we also shouldn't wait any longer before tackling this complex and urgent problem.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will have two minutes later in the debate to respond. Further debate.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I appreciate the opportunity to rise for a few short minutes and to express some concerns with respect to Bill 44, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act.

May I say at the beginning that I know the Liberal member who is proposing this bill means well in terms of trying to fix a very badly flawed system that was brought in in 1990 by the Liberal government at that time. The Liberal Party -- and we've seen this time and time again, whether it be taxes or other areas of credibility in government -- is bolder than brass, as my mother used to call us when we were little kids. They get up and, by proposing a bill, they're trying to persuade the people out there in Ontario that their system wasn't so bad and that they're now going to be responsible and try and bring some credibility back to an issue. The people of Ontario know that the Liberals have no credibility when it comes to the health card system.

They brought in a system in 1990 in a hurried fashion prior to the snap election called by Mr Peterson. They had no upfront verification. You simply sent in these blank forms. We have a quote from the Globe and Mail on June 4, 1990, that says, "A dog and cat have been officially registered as human beings in the province of Ontario and have received identification cards entitling them to health insurance benefits under a program designed to eliminate fraud in the health care system."

We have Elinor Caplan, the former Liberal Health minister, saying on June 4, 1990, "This re-registration, which is the largest in North America, was specifically designed to provide speedy assignment of new health numbers to all Ontario residents without causing concern about continued coverage." Good goal. She goes on to say, "We are bringing in the appropriate measures to ensure that fraud is minimized, that people have the numbers they need and that the new system will be in place."

1110

We had last week the Minister of Health, now the NDP minister Ruth Grier, being very frank with this chamber and admitting in response to a question from myself that indeed there were no upfront verification measures or plans put in place when the Liberals brought in the red and white health card system.

It's no coincidence it's a red and white health card system. It's no coincidence that bureaucrats were told to rush out these cards in the six months prior to the calling of the snap election, because the Liberals did nothing about health care reform. Elinor Caplan got up in this House time and time again and simply said she was concerned every time one of our colleagues brought forward some very serious problems in the health care system as the health care crisis began to brew under the Liberal administration in this province. All the minister of that day and that government, and many of them are here today --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): He's obsessed with health cards.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- all they could simply say is they were concerned.

To convince the people, in a cynical way and a cynical plan, that they were doing something about health care reform, they rush out these cards, tell the bureaucrats, "You've got six months before we call this snap election," and the people of Ontario get these red and white health cards in their pocket as quickly as possible before the election is called, to give the impression that the Liberals were doing something about health care reform.

I give some credit to the NDP. They are doing something about health care reform. It's long overdue and they're doing a number of measures; some we agree with, some we don't agree with. The Liberals did nothing in their five years except put out this cynical plan to bring in cards.

My leader, Mr Mike Harris, in Hansard on June 5, 1990, was absolutely right when he said, referring to the Liberal Health minister, "Maybe she just wanted to spend $30 million and get a nice letter out from herself before an election and make a contact with everybody."

In fact, the rumours were rife at that time, and they continue to be rife, that because this red and white health card system did nothing to improve the system at OHIP -- and I'll discuss that in a moment -- with respect to health card numbers, absolutely nothing, the suggestion is that the Liberals simply wanted a campaign list, a list of the people of Ontario, a registration list so they could conduct the 1990 campaign in a cynical way.

I want to talk about one of the problems specifically with Bill 44. I have met, as has the Liberal critic, with officials from Montreal who are introducing photo health cards. We met with the parliamentary assistant to the minister on two occasions in the last three weeks. They indicate that they are able to bring in photo ID health cards in that province because they have a higher degree of confidence in their database.

The problem with bringing in photo ID right now -- and the NDP is grappling with this problem, and I understand that a decision will shortly be taken by the cabinet on this issue -- is that we have such a flawed database over there at OHIP. Because your dog and cat and parrot could register, what's to prevent somebody, for instance an American resident -- and through the committees we've identified several who have health cards who come here regularly to receive health care and don't pay taxes -- or somebody who has either a fraudulent card or a card that doesn't belong to them from lining up and now getting their picture put on it?

The database is so bad that if you've got a fraudulent card, you're simply going to line up and get your picture taken. That will make the fraudulent card even more legitimate in the eyes of the people in the health care community administering this. We know we have hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud in the health care system. The deputy minister tried last February to make up a figure of $20 million. We had him back in committee three weeks ago and he's now up to $24 million, possibly $100 million, $200 million.

The government's most recent published report says there's $256 million of health care fraud that we know of. Our estimates and the government's previous report -- I admit, in worst-case scenarios -- bring that figure up to $697 million, and close to $1 billion in the case of one report. That is the extent of the problem.

I don't think photo ID is the solution. When people have fishing cards, hunting cards and welfare cards and numbers and files -- the government has just spent $72.5 million on a new drug card system and computer system -- I think we have to start looking at, rather than this proliferation of seven or eight plastic cards that seniors and other individuals in this province are carrying around in their purses and wallets, coordinating all this plastic out there, all these numbers, all these databases which are rife. If you're a lawyer and have ever hired a private eye, you can get information out of all these current databases.

I say we need to look at a government-wide access card for services that the people of Ontario are entitled to receive and that are paid for by the government of Ontario. We need to look at that. Since 1986, Management Board has been looking at a government-wide smart card; we managed to get that out in committee.

My own health advisory group that advises the PC Party with respect to health matters has some very high former officials of health care on that group. They tell me it's a fight among fiefdoms, that Management Board can't seem to advance what appears to be good idea in terms of a government-wide card because Health has been a holdout and Community and Social Services has been a holdout. Different deputy ministers have argued over the years, under this government and the previous government, that they needed their own card system in their own ministries. Well, enough of that nonsense. There's enough money being wasted. All of these systems are open to fraud.

We've discussed with the private sector the technology that's available there, and my great fear is that if we move ahead with photo ID cards now, it will cost $50 million to $100 million. It's an interim measure. It cost $30 million to bring in the red and white health cards in the first place, a very flawed system, as all the people of Ontario are well aware. To move ahead with photo ID now with such a flawed database is not the way to go. It may be a $50-million to $100-million waste of money.

However, to end my section of this debate, I say that I will support this legislation because at least it's a private member's bill and it does at least send a signal on behalf of the now-repentant Liberal Party that it is willing to cooperate to try and fix the fraud and abuse that's going on in the system now.

On that note, I will support this bill in principle.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I had not really intended to be here this morning to speak on this bill, so I will be somewhat more scattered in my discussion of the bill. I just want to deal with some of the items that I have some concern about, but I'd like to first of all compliment Gilles Morin, the member for Carleton East, for bringing this bill forward. I think he's done a great deal of work on the matter, and it does address a problem with respect to the perceptions concerning our health card system here in Ontario.

I'd like to deal with the whole question of alleged fraud being a major problem. The reality is that no one knows to what extent fraud is a major problem. There's no information really available or that can be determined to be available about the extent of the problem.

I myself am one of these persons who has a high degree of scepticism with respect to the level of fraud. I'm sure there is some in some of the border communities, but that's something we really have to determine: To what extent is fraud a problem? There's no question that there are other problems with respect to the use of health cards, and that is perhaps the overuse of medical services, the duplication of use. Maybe many of these areas that people consider fraud are really related to the whole question of what I'd call inappropriate use of health cards rather than fraudulent use of health cards. That's the first thing I'd like to say.

It's been said that the province of Quebec has a great database. I just met, along with the member for Simcoe West, with a delegation from the province of Quebec, with their health officials. They indicated they had no idea to what extent there was a fraud problem in the province of Quebec, so even in spite of their supposedly much better database, they have no concept of the extent to which fraud is a problem in their system, and the only way they will, hopefully, be able to get a better handle on that will be after the introduction of their photo ID card. That's the first item I'd like to deal with.

The second item I'd like to deal with is that I think we all agree that the original system that was brought in was very loose with respect to the whole question of registration. It was too easy to register; it was just an invitation for duplicate cards to be issued and for a creation of a major problem. But I think we've made a great stride with respect to correcting that problem.

The allegation was made initially that we have so many health cards floating out there that are fraudulent, but if you look at the facts, the fact is that the number of health cards actually issued today in Ontario is slightly less than the total population of Ontario. If you look at that aspect, how can you say there is a massive number of fraudulent cards out there? There are obviously some, but it certainly destroys the claim that there is a massive number of fraudulent cards floating around.

1120

Third, with respect to the effectiveness of an approach trying to tighten up the system, we've already taken action to tighten up new registrations. I think the next step, which is dealt with in Bill 44 and which I commend the member for, is to tighten up the whole question of re-registration. I think this probably is the best way to clean up the problem: the whole re-registration process. Again, discussing the matter with health officials from the province of Quebec, their opinion was that the most effective way of dealing with the cards that were inappropriately issued was re-registration. That is certainly a very good item of the bill.

With respect to the photograph, I think that is where the concerns were raised with many members who sat on the public accounts committee and heard evidence about the photograph system. Certainly the photograph system makes it easier for the provider to catch obvious cases of fraud, very simple-minded fraudulent people, shall we say, but it certainly doesn't protect against the person who is dedicated to commit a fraud. I don't think any system will ever cover the situation of somebody who has the forethought to go out and try to defraud the system. You'll always have people who will find some way to get around the system, but we want to tighten it as much as possible.

The concern I have about the photograph is the fact that in the province of Quebec the cost of the photograph system is imposed upon the consumer. The cost is approximately $10 to $12 per photograph. When you look at that in terms of the impact on Ontario, with a population of over 10 million persons, that's a situation where over a period of time -- obviously, no government would ever bring in a program that would all happen in a short time frame -- a cost of perhaps $40 million would either being imposed on the treasury of Ontario or on the citizens of Ontario.

That is something I think we have to look at more carefully. We have to look at it on a cost-benefit basis to determine if that is the most appropriate way to deal with the question of trying to reduce the element of fraud. The signature aspect is probably a good idea. I don't see any problem with that.

I'd like to end by saying that I will be supporting the member for Carleton East's bill. I think it deserves support because it does attempt to deal with the problem. I think we all agree in principle that we want to have a more effective health registration system here in this province.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): The most compelling reasons for proceeding now with this bill are set out in the Provincial Auditor's report of 1992. According to the auditor, the ministry relied on inaccurate and incomplete OHIP information to verify eligibility, had not developed a formal process to ensure that registration information was updated for address changes and deaths, and had registered as many as almost a third of a million more people than were estimated by Statistics Canada to live in Ontario; that is a third of a million shadow, non-existent, deceased, visitors and other kinds of non-Ontarians.

A nearly 200-page leaked ministry report highlights some of the ensuing problems. Hospitals and health care providers have no way of determining the validity of an Ontario health card, creating a potential loss of almost one third of $1 billion in fraud, almost $50 million of loss in health care abuse and over $150 million of loss in claims that would more appropriately be attributed to the federal government. Over a quarter of the information in the OHIP database is wrong, and almost half a million cards are in circulation that shouldn't be, to a potential cost of almost $70 million per year.

This leaked ministry report recommends a system less vulnerable to fraud and abuse and a health care card with a photograph and expiry date and electronic scanning of these cards.

To be fair, the ministry has tried to respond to these problems and has agreed with the Ontario Medical Association to introduce a new health card to try to correct these difficulties. But all this is to be announced by the end of December, while taxpayers' dollars are eaten up in fraudulent and other kinds of inappropriate claims.

We need to proceed now. In fact, there are two main reasons to act now: the problem and the solution. The problem is multimillion-dollar losses to the Ministry of Health in fraud, which is continuing while the problem goes unchecked. The solution is an excellent piece of legislation brought forward by the member for Carleton East that would go a long way towards correcting these difficulties.

The bill brought forward by the member for Carleton East will establish a new health card which will include a photograph of the insured person, an expiry date, and of course the insured person's name, sex, date of birth and health insurance number. This bill will establish a much more rigorous identification process to establish the eligibility of patients for care under the plan. It will allow for the regular updating of important information. The photograph and expiry date will help care providers establish the validity of the card. It will be very difficult indeed for someone to use another person's card.

This bill will correct the problem of health card fraud, or at least go a long way towards doing so. No one will be permitted a card who is not legally entitled to be in Canada, making his or her home in Ontario, and living in the province for over six months a year.

This bill is timely, accurate and very appropriate. In the current economic climate, we can ill afford multimillion-dollar fraud and waste. The system that the member for Carleton East proposes will require minimum maintenance and will maintain an accurate database. We cannot wait any longer for health care fraud to be corrected in Ontario. The ministry has promised to announce something or other by the end of December. It is simply not soon enough.

The member for Carleton East is to be commended for seizing the initiative in this matter. I am fully in support and will be happy to vote in favour of his bill, and I urge my legislative colleagues to do the same.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have this chance to provide some comments with regard to private member's Bill 44, an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act.

With this bill, the member for Carleton East is attempting to apply greater restrictions on the issue and use of health card identification by:

-- issuing photographic health insurance identification cards that would expire four years after they were issued;

-- ensuring that only residents of Ontario are issued renewed or replaced cards by applying in person to the Health ministry's general manager and signing them immediately;

-- allowing parents to apply on behalf of their children under the age of 15 and authorized people to apply on behalf of persons with a disability, illness or infirmity or who have difficulty in expressing their wishes;

-- requiring people to notify the general manager if there is a change of information and requiring the return of the card if the person ceases to be a resident of Ontario or if the person is no longer determined to be insured;

-- requiring written notification by an executor, administrator or relative of the death of an insured person and requiring the return of the card;

-- imposing confidentiality on people in possession of information collected from those applying for, renewing or replacing a health insurance identification card;

-- creating offences for making a false signature on a card permitting the use of a card by someone else, using another person's card and altering a card.

I assure the member for Carleton East that I support this bill in principle. I honestly believe legislation that would place greater restrictions on the issue and use of health insurance identification cards should be coming from the Minister of Health, who is clearly responsible for the increased fraudulent use of health cards.

The health card program was introduced by the former government in 1989. This system, which replaced the Ontario health insurance plan numbers, was supposed to curb the amount of abuse of the system by assigning a number to each individual for life. This was supposed to help identify duplication and ineligible cardholders.

The former NDP Health minister admitted under intense questioning from my PC caucus colleague the member for Simcoe West that her government had issued approximately 400,000 more cards than there were Ontario residents. These unaccounted-for cards could cost our health system millions of dollars through fraudulent use. It has been estimated that for every 700 unaccounted-for cards, $1 million could be charged to the health care system, and that could amount to more than $428 million annually.

1130

The current Health minister claims she will introduce measures which will include: a health card with a picture and personal information such as birthdate and gender; so-called swipe reader technology, capable of reading information encoded on the card's magnetic strip, installed in about 100 hospitals in the next two years; requiring proof of identity before replacing cards; a computer link to cancel a health card automatically when a cardholder dies.

There have to be things put in place which would do that, so I welcome these proposed security features and the changes that are being proposed. But I am still concerned that the cards could be used fraudulently because the Health minister is hesitant to prosecute those found to be using the health card fraudulently.

Our party has suggested that as an additional check the minister should implement a system in which all patients sign for treatment and receive a periodic statement showing the medical services that have been charged on their OHIP card. That could be much in the form of a credit card bill; when you go to the physician and get a bill, you would have a copy of it, the doctor would have a copy of it and he would send a copy to OHIP for replacement.

As well, the Health minister should enlist the assistance of banks and credit card companies in the private sector with expertise in eliminating fraud in the systems that use access cards.

There are still many checks and balances to be added to the health cards we have. What has been proposed here today is one step of what we're trying to do. I compliment the member for bringing this bill forward. I believe that the government should initiate some further steps.

When I get somebody coming into my constituency office with a health card that has been issued for the drug plan to the spouse of an individual, a person has been dead for two years, I'm telling you, there's something badly wrong with the system when those things are happening. What the member is trying to do here this morning is to try to stop that. I compliment him for bringing this piece of legislation forward.

I remember when David Reville said in the House: "A ministry official said that sorting cardholders into human and non-human groups could not be done at this time because summer holidays are coming. I'm wondering if the minister will assure us that this is not the much-ballyhooed better system we have been hearing about." That was Mr Reville when he was sitting here in opposition who mentioned something about the health card. I don't hear him saying much about it today. I hope the minister will support this bill. It would be in the right direction.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I very much welcome the chance to participate in this debate. I've listened with great interest to the comments. I appreciate the calm and rational contribution of the member for Simcoe West, much of which I agree with.

Normally, I'm a member of the standing committee on public accounts, and we have been looking at health cards. I think the record of that committee is very helpful, but I don't see that the member proposing this bill refers to the experience in that committee, because it has been very useful having witnesses come.

One of my impressions from that committee is that we are dealing with accountability. The question of fraud is always mentioned, but no one knows, and this is because we have a poorly accountable system; we do not know much about the losses there.

We also know very little about clinical accountability, which to me is of vast importance. This is never mentioned. I have never heard this mentioned in any of the contributions today, but we need to manage people's health. That's surprising to people, maybe, but we are not just a transfer agency; we are concerned with the health of populations. To me, this does require a registration system, so to that extent I totally agree that we need a registration system.

But why do we need cards? We maybe need cards because we are stuck with a fee-for-service system, but let me remind people that there is increasing criticism of a fee-for-service system, which more and more is being said is inappropriate for primary health care in particular. I hear people saying in good faith that everyone must sign, but what do we do with the people who have not registered themselves, the vulnerable? What about street people? I don't hear anything from the members opposite about what you do about street people, vulnerable people, who are permanent residents of this province. They are discounted, and that is really quite shameful.

Let me get back a little bit to the history. I've enjoyed doing some research on this bill. To quote from Elinor Caplan, June 4, 1990, "It would be virtually impossible to detect cases of intentional fraud without some kind of process such as the passport-like application process, and even there we know that where there is intentional fraud, that is very difficult to control." She's quite right, so why aren't we looking at alternatives?

There is indeed an alternative, which I think has been started to be discussed in the public accounts committee. I listened with interest to the member for Simcoe West, who has attended that committee, starting to realize that there may be alternatives. It seems to me that the alternative is a primary care registration system. I have introduced into the public accounts committee a very useful article written by Drs Rosser and Forster of the universities of Toronto and Ottawa respectively, and this makes a cogent case for a primary care registration system which brings about a card-free approach, which is what you have in Britain.

Before I hear any sneers, Britain has a much cheaper system, popular, widely distributed, accessible primary care all over the country, which we should be introducing here. It would get away from the discounted problems of street people and native people and others. I haven't heard any suggestion about what happens to those people without cards when their non-cards expire. What is supposed to happen to them? They will get sick; they actually have a higher risk of getting sick.

We need some serious rethinking on this. I'm really surprised at the lack of understanding, the assumption that this bill in any way addresses real problems of clinical care throughout the province. Illness, I would remind people, is not like deciding to get your hair cut. It is something which strikes unpredictably, anything from the child falling in the school yard -- whatever. Because we have been persuaded that it's all cold visits to physicians' offices, we decide that's what it's all about and we get bills like this which do not address the real problem. I certainly intend to vote against this bill. If it passes, I hope it remains in the public accounts committee, but there is a lot more work to be done on this than this bill suggests.

1140

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Let me start by congratulating the member for Carleton East, who has done, I think, a fabulous job in introducing this bill; arguing for it for many, many months now. Hopefully, we can get some action on this issue. He's a stubborn and resourceful man and has done a great job getting the bit between his teeth and moving this forward.

I want to spend a little bit of my time talking about the comments from the member for Simcoe West, who actually belongs to the progressive amnesia party as opposed to the Conservative Party, I think. Those family cards, which were reformed by the red and white cards, were first introduced in 1968, and by the time the red and white cards were introduced there were 26 million registrants in that system.

There are 22 years in there in which the Conservative Party was the government and did nothing, absolutely nothing, about reforming that system. The Liberal government came in and said, "We need to reform this, we need to get this under control," and quite rightly introduced the red and white cards. To her credit, the then Minister of Health said we would not have done anything differently but introduce the red and white cards. What we really are faced with is a choice between some action to get the system into a sense of accountability, as the member for Scarborough East said, which both the NDP and the Liberal Party have said is what they tried to do with the red and white, and the other option is complete inaction, which is what the Conservative Party did. I guess there was some kind of conversion on the road to Damascus for the member for Simcoe West, but that can happen.

I do want to compliment the member for Simcoe East. As he knows, some of his constituents include my parents, and I think his calm, rational and very analytical comments are a tribute to him and his constituents, including my parents. Also, it's interesting when you think about who was the predecessor to the member for Simcoe West. It was George McCague. I'm not sure everyone remembers him, but he was a fine and wonderful fellow, a fabulous person, and I think at one point he may have been Chair of Management Board, responsible for the administration of public funds to a certain degree in this province. Think, then, about 26 million registrants in the health card system. The member's predecessor in his very seat could have taken up this cudgel but chose not to. I guess maybe the member for Simcoe West is trying to atone for those sins now.

What is proposed here I think is a good first step. There are some things we can look at. Maybe we can use the current photo process for drivers' licence for some people to reduce the administrative costs.

Mr Frankford: What about street people?

Mr Murphy: The member for Scarborough East talks about street people. I appreciate the comment, because I'll tell you, the member for Carleton East was absolutely clear that no one would be refused treatment for lack of having a card. It would not be that difficult to have forms in emergency wards and clinics, which are the primary areas in which street people, for example, have access to health care; not through doctors' offices. I don't think it would be that difficult a system. It may not be perfect, but there are ways to get at it.

I am concerned about the government's agreement with the Ontario Medical Association to remove the version code, because I think that is one of the controls on the abuse of the system that is important to have and the elimination of it is a real problem.

Finally, I think we should look at the potential for some smart card technology in the photo card. I know there are now credit cards that are issued with both a photograph and some smart card technology, and maybe there's something there to be looked at.

But the member for Carleton East has done a good, good first effort. It would be easy enough to look at some of these innovations in committee, and I hope the government and the third party will support our efforts to have a chance to look at this in committee.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am glad to stand in my place today and speak to Bill 44. First of all, I'd like to say the member for Carleton East is a man of great integrity, and as a Deputy Speaker he's chosen this subject to be non-partisan, and I applaud him for that. I take great exception when the member for Simcoe West stands in his place and has the gall and the audacity to suggest that the Liberal government had the health cards printed to get a database for the 1990 election. That is sleazy and I regret that came out in this debate.

I also want to point out to the member for Simcoe West that the figures he based his argument on are completely erroneous. There's no doubt about it: Today, the health cards issued in the province of Ontario are probably equal to, if not less, than the population. I'm sure the member goes to bed with two health cards under his pillow and dreams about coming in here and rattling everybody about health card fraud on out-of-date figures, because that's all he seems to come here for every day. I'm getting sick and tired of this health care fraud. He's got no figures. There's absolutely nothing to substantiate the degree of fraud in this province at all. There have been reports, but they can't be substantiated. It's a myth, and it's a myth that the member continues to perpetrate. He's not here. I wish he were here so he could listen to me. He's bolted.

I want to take up the comments of my colleague the member for Scarborough East. Obviously, there's a lot to do in health care. We have a problem with health cards. I hate to tell it in this House, but at one time I had four. You see, I got one because my second name was spelled wrong, I got another one when I mislaid it and I actually found it, and then I got another one when I was 65. Of course, being a credible member of this Legislature, I've destroyed the three I wasn't entitled to, but there is that air that you could sell them to people.

We've got to do something about health care in general. I like the idea of the member for Scarborough East that maybe we could stop health care fraud if you and I and all the people in Ontario were registered with a doctor, much the same as they are in England. Then, once that registration has taken place, that doctor could become like a shepherd of a flock. He could look through his files and say, "I'm going to weed out all the people who are over 65 and I'm going to send them a letter and say to them, 'Please come in here.'" I am sure that today there are untold thousands and thousands of senior citizens walking around with all kinds of complaints that they don't know about.

I think we as a government, as a health care system, should look into that and take care of those problems. How many people are walking around with diabetes, walking around with high blood pressure or, heaven forbid, walking around with undetected cancers? I think the government and the Health ministry have a role: to call those people in and screen them and prevent the terrible costs we have by preventable measures.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I want to commend the member for bringing this bill forward. The issue of health is obviously a very sacred one to the people of this country, when one looks at the United States literally falling over itself trying to emulate our system.

One can see that in the present federal election the Prime Minister is having difficulty when she says she's not going to reduce the services of health care but then we see a report come out saying that there will be reductions in various safety net programs. It becomes apparent that this is a very sacrosanct and very necessary thing for Canadians. Therefore, when there is abuse or when there is overusage -- we were told it was $20 million, but the auditor's report I believe brought out that something in the neighbourhood of $100 million to $200 million worth of abuse was taking place in our system -- it becomes very necessary to come up with a program, and it has to be a program that is effectively going to keep our system intact. That becomes a non-partisan issue, an issue that all three parties in this House should attempt to deal successfully with.

I have to tell you that in the standing committee on public accounts, when we had before us the then Deputy Minister of Health, Mr Decter -- I'm not sure he is any more -- I drew to his attention the fact that in the application form that previously existed one could list oneself in eight different ways. For instance, I could be B. Callahan, R. Callahan, V. Callahan or Robert Callahan. I said to him that this actually provides an opportunity for a person to fraudulently receive eight cards. Perhaps that's how we got the 25 million cards out there; I don't know.

1150

To his credit and I think to the credit of the public accounts committee, which I feel is in most issues non-partisan, the Deputy Minister of Health came back the next week and said that they had decided to adopt that program to in fact require a person to be listed on one card on the basis of the document that they provided, which could be your passport, your birth certificate or whatever. I have to say that was an opportunity to be non-partisan, and I believe that's the way this House should deal with this issue.

It's an excellent bill. I want to leave time for my other colleagues to get involved in this debate. I think this is a historic event. When it gets to committee, we can in fact make the bill a perfect one.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I want to add a few brief comments inasmuch as one of my colleagues also wants to speak to this matter. There are two things I want to say, essentially; much could be said about this. I think it important to understand that when the red and white card was introduced, concurrent with that was a major technical plan that would have given, over a period of time, an opportunity to update and bring on line a database that would provide information useful for health planning and management purposes. I think it important to note that the current government chose not to proceed with those plans, and much of the fallout -- I don't say this to be critical, but it's the reality that much of the problem is the result of failure to follow through with that initiative and to do it properly and provide the data that were essential.

I want to add one other point. I say this with the greatest respect to my friend the member for Carleton East. I applaud him for his initiative, I applaud him for what he is suggesting to do, but the one caution I would raise is that we need to look at further technological assessment in review of the data and information systems that are available. By way of example, and only by way of example -- not to promote any particular product line or anything of that nature -- there are cards that are known as optical cards, which really are a generation beyond the photo ID card.

With that qualification, and adding that I think the concept the member has brought forward today and much of what has been spoken about -- there's obviously a need to respond to a situation in the health care system wherein we need to deal with fraud, control expenditures and, moreover, build into the system management and planning that can actualize savings far in excess of those savings that are sometimes very shallowly attributed to fraud. Yes, fraud is an issue, but there is much, much more to it.

In that context, I applaud the member. I congratulate him for his efforts and wish him success.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have only a minute and 30 seconds left, so first of all I'd like to congratulate my colleague the member for Carleton East on his bill. I know he's been working on Bill 44 and dreaming, eating, sleeping about it -- you name it. It was a very important bill and he deserves all the credit.

The kind of attitude from my colleague to my left, the member for Simcoe West, who came here on a leash to personally attack people, the former Minister of Health, the present Minister of Health --

Mr McClelland: Uncalled for.

Mr Grandmaître: Uncalled for. We cannot resolve our problems by attacking persons. We have to collectively try and find a solution, not only to this problem but to all of our problems in the province of Ontario, and I think that Bill 44 is the start of better things to come.

As he pointed out in his initial remarks, this is not the end, this is the start, a new bill to provide better services and also to better control the costs of health care. We need the assistance of care givers and we need the assistance of every Ontarian to be registered under their proper name and to respect what's in place.

Again, congratulations to my colleague the member for Carleton East.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Carleton East, Mr Morin, has two minutes in response.

Mr Morin: I would like to bring to your attention the numerous expressions of support that I have received since the introduction of Bill 44. This bill has garnered the enthusiastic support of district health councils from around the province.

Dr Tom Dickson, president of the Ontario Medical Association, has written to me: "Bill 44 is a good starting point. We all have a stake in our health care system."

Dr Gary Johnson, president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, personally supports Bill 44. This is significant, as it is not the college's usual practice to endorse private members' bills.

The Ontario Nurses' Association and the Ontario Association of Optometrists have also been supportive.

I would further add that there is also general acceptance among the citizens of Ontario of such a measure. A recent survey distributed at random among 3,500 residents in my riding revealed an overwhelming support for the introduction of a photo expiry-date card system for health insurance. After culling the results from a 30% response rate, which is extremely high for such a mailing, the survey concluded with 99% approval of such an initiative. These numbers are significant and indicative of the importance that the residents of Ontario place on their health care system.

The many problems associated with the OHIP card are well known. Bill 44 provides the government with a bill that is ready and waiting. All it requires are some amendments which can be brought through the committee process. By investing now in a sound health care system, we will all reap the benefits later. Let's all work together. This issue concerns us all.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House, because it is almost 12 of the clock, that we deal with both private members' motions now? Agreed.

LAND CONSERVANCY CORPORATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PROTECTION DES TERRES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 25 in the name of Mrs Mathyssen. Are there any members opposed to a vote on Mrs Mathyssen's motion? If so, please rise.

Mrs Mathyssen has moved second reading of Bill 92, An Act respecting Land Conservancy Corporations. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall the bill be ordered to committee of the whole House? Agreed.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now proceed with ballot item number 26 standing in the name of Mr Gilles Morin. Are there any members opposed to a vote on this bill? If so, please rise.

Mr Morin has moved second reading of Bill 44, An act to amend the Health Insurance Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading or committee of the whole?

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I would like this bill to be referred to the social development committee.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of sending the bill to the standing committee on social development, please rise.

The bill shall go to committee of the whole.

This completes private members' hour. The House will now stand adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1159.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I want to convey to this government my profound disappointment that it chose not to support Bill 44, the health card bill. This bill had gained the support of many people in the health field, from physicians and nurses to hospital administrators and bureaucrats within the Ministry of Health. It was extremely well received. No one denied that amendments were necessary, but it was agreed that these could be brought through the committee process.

But no. This government, for narrow political reasons, decided not to support Bill 44. Is it preparing to renege on its social contract agreement with the Ontario Medical Association, which states specifically that a new health card would be introduced? At this point, anything is possible.

This is indeed a very sad day for the province of Ontario and for the democratic ideals we're supposed to represent, because this government is saying that hard work and diligence take second place to narrow political advantage. This government prefers to let the problem fester rather than accept a solution from a member of the opposition. This problem must be solved. "Later" costs money, a lot of money. We have all lost.

Earlier today, this government demonstrated to the people of Ontario that it has failed to understand the basic principles of governing.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): As of October 5, the Ministry of Natural Resources has removed another 16,000 hectares of trees from the logging industry, but it says no to 132 jobs in the village of Braeside because of a shortage of trees. This intervention by the Ministry of Natural Resources has halted the purchase of a sawmill in Braeside.

I'm drawing the attention of the minister to what the people of Renfrew county have asked for. If the minister is truly interested in consulting the people, I ask him to listen to the following motion of Renfrew county council:

"Be it resolved that the council of the county of Renfrew demand that the Minister of Natural Resources proceed immediately to provide the required softwood timber allocation of eight million board feet per year for two years in order to allow the completion of the purchase and re-opening of the Braeside mill by Canadian Wood Products Inc."

Neil Mullins, reeve of Braeside, stated the following in this week's Arnprior Chronicle Guide:

"The recent action by MNR in a letter to loggers is nothing short of blackmail. The wood suppliers are very nervous because of this letter.... They feel that if they supply Canadian Wood Products with logs, future renewals of their order-in-council licence will be at risk."

I ask the minister to intervene immediately to allow these 132 jobs to be created in Braeside.

VINELAND THANKSGIVING ARTFEST

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to tell the House about an event that will draw thousands of people to my riding this weekend, the second annual Vineland Thanksgiving Artfest.

Organized as a fund-raiser for the Vineland Public School, this unique outdoor show will highlight the works of approximately 165 artists from across Canada. Also featured will be entertainment, food and onsite demonstrations.

Although no admission will be charged, organizers are hoping visitors will instead donate food or clothing, which will be distributed to the needy by Lincoln Community Care. Also, raffles will be held for various prizes, with the proceeds going to Lincoln Community Care, and there will be a food booth manned by grades 7 and 8 students hoping to raise money towards an upcoming class trip.

I'm sure this year's Artfest, which runs Saturday through Monday, will be a resounding success. I would like to congratulate the Vineland Public School, especially Artfest coordinators Gail Morley and Gesine Rogers, for organizing an event that will benefit the entire community.

I urge the members of this House and their constituents to come down to Vineland Public School this weekend and enjoy the Vineland Thanksgiving Artfest. The school is located on Victoria Avenue not far from the Queen Elizabeth Way.

Don't forget to check out another event that will be taking place just a few kilometres up the road: the 19th annual Balls Falls Thanksgiving Festival Craft Show and Sale.

Don't forget that all roads lead to Vineland this weekend.

REGULATION OF TRADESPEOPLE

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today to condemn once again an action of the New Democratic Party government. They've done this by regulation, not by legislation in this House.

It's a draft regulation under the ozone-depleting substances regulation. What in effect it does is restrict the renewal and issuance of certificates to certified tradespeople only, specifically refrigeration and air-conditioning mechanics, as of January 1, 1996.

Our party supports a measure that will limit ozone depletion, but we strongly disagree with this new section because of the impact it will have on many small businesses. Some 7,500 technicians will be required to return to school. It's something like the elevator situation as well. That means that residential people will be denied access to a proper number of people who can adequately services these units.

I suggest that the New Democratic Party take another look at this, particularly doing it by regulation. It's a sneaky way of not allowing the elected representatives of this Legislature to speak out on behalf of small business people who will face bankruptcy if this regulation is allowed to stand. I suggest that this is just one more opportunity by this government to dash small business by, I suppose, the backdoor method of trying to get those people perhaps in the union occupations, who have not had jobs or who have been laid off, to be able to sneak in through the back door.

RACCOON RABIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Last June I asked the Minister of Natural Resources to press his cabinet colleagues to institute a bait-dropping program to combat the spread of rabies in Grey. Clearly no action has been taken, as there has been a sharp increase in reported cases. Local health officials expect another virus, raccoon rabies, which turn raccoons into carriers, to appear in the area within the next six months to a year.

I cannot understand why this government has taken no action when it is presently spending more than $25 million a year for case investigation, diagnosis of rabies, livestock indemnity and human vaccinations. With the continuing spread, these costs are rising daily.

Rabies is a serious disease which is spread through saliva, usually through an animal bite, and it will kill an infected mammal. It horribly endangers children and pets while creating terrible financial hardships for farmers who lose their breeding cattle. Something must be done to combat this spread.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has had a successful bait-dropping program in effect in southeastern Ontario since 1989. Ministry staff are so pleased with the results that they have asked to have the program expanded to other affected areas such as Grey. Why will the minister not grant their request and the request of thousands of parents and farmers across the province? What more evidence does he need that action must be taken immediately?

LONDON 200 CONFERENCE

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to focus attention on a three-day event which will take place in London commencing October 27. Some of the world's best-known authorities will speak on topics relating to sustainable urban development and share with us their perspectives on development strategies in communities like ours.

As we celebrate London's 200th anniversary, the London 200 Conference, London into the Next Century: An Agenda for the Responsible City, will promote an inclusive vision of the future governed by planning in which ordinary people participate.

World leaders in science, industry and policymaking will share key ideas regarding sustainable development and planning with business leaders, educators, administrators, representatives of governments and environmental activists, students and citizens of all ages.

1340

Resource people and speakers feature David Suzuki; Dean Jacobs of the Native People's Circle on the Environment and Development; Uppsala, Sweden, Mayor Gunnar Hedberg; and Maurice Strong, chair of Ontario Hydro and former secretary-general of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

The findings and recommendations made at the conference will be used in the city of London's Vision '96 process and will be incorporated into its strategic, social and economic plans in the new official plan for London.

I laud the goals and vision of the organizers of this London event.

WATER QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A news report in the St Catharines Standard under the byline of Doug Draper states:

"The Niagara River remains a 'major toxic pollution hot spot' in the Great Lakes basin despite years of effort to clean up the waterway, says a report to the International Joint Commission.

"Concentrations of several highly potent chemicals, flushing into Lake Ontario from pollution sources along the river's shores, continue to exceed water quality guidelines, says the report released by the IJC's Great Lakes science advisory board."

It's obvious from the lack of progress in dealing with the Niagara River that there must be certain measures taken. First of all, a new emphasis must be placed on environmental issues in general and on the cleanup of the Great Lakes basin in general as well.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy must be given the money, the staff, the resources and the clout to carry out its obligations and responsibilities, and not receive the backhand of the cabinet.

All parties which signed the Niagara River cleanup agreement in 1987 must be compelled to deal immediately and comprehensively with their sources of contamination if the agreement is to be worth more than the paper on which it was written and signed.

The environmental watchdogs in the public interest groups, the legislative bodies and the media must renew their efforts to bring environmental matters to public and government attention if indeed we are to succeed in cleaning up the Niagara River and the Great Lakes basin.

JAMES WARDLAW

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to honour a lawyer in my riding of Dufferin-Peel who is being presented with the Law Society Medal on October 21. This medal, presented by the Law Society of Upper Canada, recognizes James Wardlaw QC for his outstanding service within the legal profession.

James Wardlaw has excelled in all areas of the law during his 36 years of practice in the town of Orangeville and surrounding area. Mr Wardlaw began practising law in Orangeville when he was called to the bar in 1956. What began as a small practice with himself and his father, Norman Wardlaw, has expanded to become the largest law firm in Dufferin county.

Jim has always been known for his support of other professionals, as a valuable information source, a teacher and as a well-respected member of the legal profession. While Jim has always given his full commitment to the practise of law, he has also been an active member in his community by serving both as councillor and as reeve for the town of Orangeville and as people's warden for St Mark's Anglican Church, president of the Orangeville Rotary Club and president of the Dufferin County Law Association. He has shared his knowledge by lecturing to groups of the public in local Law Day events, as well as municipal law seminars and business and estate law seminars. He is currently a well-respected bencher with the Law Society of Upper Canada.

I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mr Wardlaw and wish him all the best as he accepts the Law Society Medal on October 21.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Once the fall waters turn chilly and the big rains lift the level of the Red Hill Creek, the robust chinook salmon will again follow their genetic path up the fast-flowing stream in an attempt to lay their pea-sized eggs. Unfortunately, they won't get far. About halfway up the stream the fish will arrive at a concrete channel and small weir that was built as part of the construction of the controversial north-south leg of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Last year the only salmon that cleared the dam were the ones that were lifted over by concerned citizens. Dozens of fish died before they were able to spawn.

This channel and weir was built with absolutely no regard to fish habitat whatsoever. In fact, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources says the design may violate the federal Fisheries Act. This encroachment must be rectified to allow safe passage of migratory fish.

It wasn't too long ago when Liberal leader Lyn McLeod paraded through the area with her entourage of Liberal hopefuls telling local residents to vote for them and they will reinstate funding for the Red Hill Creek Expressway. They called the valley a neglected cesspool. Well, the salmon and even the trout that use that stream don't think so, because they return every year to that very place to complete their life cycle.

I'll tell you, Mrs McLeod, if you are elected, and God help us if that happens, you'd better buy hip waders, because thousands of people who support the preservation of the valley will expect to see you and your Liberal lackeys in that stream, helping the salmon continue their voyage up the stream.

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Recently, MPPs' salaries were reduced by approximately $10,000 a year over the next three years. I think this move has been viewed by the public as a step in the right direction.

The residents of Ontario hold another common view, and that's that members of this Legislative Assembly and the House of Commons in Ottawa are merely a group of self-serving individuals who are more interested in their own good rather than the public good. What really disturbs the public is that members of both Houses are entitled to what can only be described as cash-for-life pension plans upon defeat or retirement.

Many residents of the Kitchener riding question me about why an elected member of this Legislature should be compensated for life after only five years of service. Take anyone who serves in this House continuously from 1985 to 1990. Each and every one of those individuals would be entitled to approximately a quarter of a million dollars for just five years of service. When it comes to MPPs' and MPs' pension plans, the public is enraged, and rightly so, for it sees a benefit that is not even remotely connected to the real world.

Today, I'm calling on the government of Ontario to increase the age of eligibility to 55 years, to put an end to double-dipping and to increase the amounts of premiums individual MPPs pay. I think the public is appealing to the government and all members for leadership on this issue, and I can think of no better way to demonstrate to the public that all of us are really much more concerned with the public interest rather than our own interest.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. It's come to my attention that there is a rather detailed report on corrections in this province that apparently gives the government a bad mark. The report has not been released. As you know, I'm Correctional Services critic. Without the release of that report and the opportunity to see it, I'm deprived of the right to carry out my responsibilities as critic for the official opposition in terms of corrections.

I call upon the minister to release the report. Are they afraid of what's in it? Are they going to bury it just like they did the medical report? I ask you, Mr Speaker, to intervene and to restore my privileges and require them to release the report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member will know that he does not have a point of privilege. However, it does sound as if he is on the question list today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Minister of Housing. You perhaps will be aware that this morning the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario released a second Clayton Research Associates study that looks at the long-term cost of not-for-profit housing construction in comparison to a shelter allowance program. The study shows that by the time the mortgage on a not-for-profit housing project is paid off, the interest alone on that mortgage makes the government-built project much more expensive than an alternative program would be.

I ask you, will you accept this new study as further evidence of the need to review your not-for-profit housing program?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The Ministry of Housing and I as Minister of Housing accept all information available about the housing market, about the choices to be made in public policy between providing shelter allowances, which we do to a very large scale in Ontario, and/or the provision of non-profit, new, affordable housing units, and of course this material will be considered seriously.

I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that it is true for any family household that purchases a home that by far the largest cost involved in a long-term mortgage situation is interest. That's the way the world is in a free, private-market financial situation.

Most of us don't have the money to provide cash up front to buy a home and therefore we take out long-term mortgages. The richer we are, of course, the shorter the mortgage we can afford. In this case, the public of Ontario is guaranteeing mortgages that go over 35 years, and I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that what that gets you is a house that's affordable.

1350

Mrs McLeod: I would suggest to the minister that this question has nothing to do with private home purchases. Private home ownership is not something which figures anywhere in this government's housing policy. What we're talking about is the way in which this government meets the needs for social housing. There is more and more evidence of the sheer inefficiency of the programs that are currently in place, and that's what we draw to this minister's attention.

Surely, the minister will agree that in these very difficult financial times, the dollars that are available for any of our social programs are extremely scarce and that every single dollar has to count. The tax dollars for social housing have got to be well spent, Minister. I take you back to the Provincial Auditor's report, which clearly showed the waste that is in the program. You will surely remember that report showed that the average annual subsidy for new not-for-profit construction is now in the $12,500- to $15,000-a-year range, and that's as much as it costs to rent a luxury apartment on Bay Street these days.

It is so clear to everyone except you that the dollars for affordable housing have simply got to be spent in a more cost-efficient way. In the face of all of this evidence, how can you justify planning to continue with the allocation of funds for 30,000 more units?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't begin to tell you the number of errors that are contained in that so-called question. First of all, our new Jobs Ontario Homes program is for 20,000 units; I repeat, 20,000. What it will provide over the period in which the building is going on is 33,000 full years of work for people in this province. What it will provide when those units are complete is affordable housing which will stay as a public asset in this province. It will stay affordable for 35 years.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about how we are using precious moneys on this very good investment. She wants them all transferred to shelter allowances. Twenty-five per cent of what landlords in the private market -- I repeat, private rental market -- of Ontario receive in rents comes from tax dollars. That is the biggest rental subsidy program going in this country. If she wants to just keep on adding to that instead of making an investment, she needs to rethink housing policy.

Mrs McLeod: Just for the sake of thoroughness, there were 10,000 units originally proposed in 1991 and a further 20,000 units proposed. It was a total of 30,000 units, and they are still in the planning stage.

I am well aware, as the minister cites the numbers of short-term jobs that construction in housing will create, that this government's main response to the need to solve our unemployment problem is to talk about spending more dollars on government projects. I'm also aware that the not-for-profit housing program is this government's sole response to the need for affordable housing.

We are not advocating exclusively an alternative program, whether of shelter allowances or rent subsidies or the abandonment of the not-for-profit housing program. Simply listen to what it is we are raising as an issue of concern, minister: We are arguing for the cost-effective use of the dollars that you have available for affordable housing, and I don't hear you willing to look at any of the evidence of inefficiencies, whether it is an outside-conducted study or whether it is your own Provincial Auditor's report. I don't hear you willing to look at any alternatives.

We have asked you to place a moratorium on the further allocation of not-for-profit units until an immediate review of this program can take place. Will you put that moratorium in place, and will you begin that review of your housing programs immediately?

Interjections.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition is saying to us things which are totally self-contradictory. She says, first of all, that all she wants is a little concern for the facts. That's a mutual kind of feeling, let me assure her; I would like her to have a little concern for the facts. Second, she says this concern should lead to a moratorium. That means, "Let's get concerned, but let's stop in the meantime."

We have a balanced policy to help people who need help and assistance in this province. There have been cases in which housing developments in the non-profit program have been too expensive. They were initiated under your former government.

Let me say that the figures she has cited for the annual subsidy costs in new non-profit are incorrect, and she should get them correct. When she talks about facts for the need for assisted housing in this province, she should think about balance, $2.5 billion that goes out year after year if people are in need and doesn't create a stick of new affordable rental housing, and a modest investment which creates good jobs; since October 1990, 70,000 full-year jobs.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: She needs to rethink this subject.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

Mrs McLeod: Just so the Housing minister knows, I am very well aware that in the not-for-profit housing program, many of the developments there were put in place under the previous government. That does not stop me from saying that the program needs to be reviewed and that we need to use our dollars for housing efficiently. We would be prepared to review it, and so should you.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Chairman of Management Board. I'm sure that the Chairman of Management Board, as a member of the government and the cabinet, is well aware of the very contentious issues that surround Ontario and Quebec construction trade practices and how particularly relevant the concern around those issues is at this time, given his colleague's announcement last week.

Can you tell us, as Chair of Management Board, when the recent policy direction of your colleague to exclude Quebec-based contractors, subcontractors and construction materials from Ontario government projects is to take effect, and can you also tell me whether in current practice and policy of Management Board there are any policies that would give preferential treatment to Quebec companies?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): In response to the first part of the Leader of the Opposition's question, the new policy regarding Quebec construction opportunities in Ontario on projects around which we have direct control, those that we tender ourselves and those that we can influence in our transfers and so on, will take effect essentially immediately, although with some of our transfer partners it will take a little bit longer to implement because we can't directly control their practices, only attempt to influence them.

In that respect, we will be moving very quickly to not only publicize the new policy in terms of the tendering process with the provincial government, but we will also be moving very quickly to issue addenda on some existing tenders that are already out.

1400

Mrs McLeod: I find that a very interesting response, because there's a situation that has just come to our attention that would seem to us to certainly contradict existing tendering policies in the government, but which would also clearly contradict the government's intention to move immediately to restrict Quebec construction companies in doing Ontario government projects.

The situation is a situation in which the Ontario government is building a new psychiatric hospital in Whitby. One of the major parts of this project is a multimillion-dollar tender on the security-grade windows that make up some 70% of the building. There are a number of Ontario companies that have spent the last two years and a great deal of time and money preparing for the tender on the windows, and that tender is to close on October 14. We have now been informed by one of the Ontario companies that is bidding on the project that it was told two weeks ago by Management Board secretariat -- in this case, it was indeed an addendum to the tender that would give a Quebec company the sole right to be the builder of the security windows, clearly a violation of fair tendering procedures and clearly a violation of the government's intention to move immediately on the issue of Ontario-Quebec construction trade practices.

Could the minister confirm that Ontario companies are being shut out of this portion of this bid, and how could such a move possibly be justified?

Hon Mr Charlton: The issue to which the Leader of the Opposition refers is an issue which obviously she does not fully comprehend.

It is a normal practice in the tendering process to set specs. In some instances specs are set by technical specifications; in other instances they are set by the naming of a product, the standard that has to be met. That does not preclude anyone from bidding on that project, but it does help the government, or any other developer, for that matter, to meet a specific standard in its building to be able to set a requirement that in this case refers to security it wants to meet in the new building.

Mrs McLeod: I understand a little bit about tendering policies and I understand a great deal about the English language, and the minister has just said that they are going to, as a part of their specifications, name a product. That clearly is a way of altering the specifications to a point of such narrowness that you are in fact excluding all but a single bidder.

Because I understand the English language, I can also understand the concern of one of the Ontario bidders who certainly understands the tendering process and who has been involved in the past two years in preparing plans to meet the architect's specifications on this project, specifications which were altered about two weeks ago. This particular bidder says that they have been advised by the architect that the Ontario Management Board secretariat has insisted that it will allow only a Quebec window manufacturer to bid on the security windows for this job. They do not understand why the Management Board secretariat, at this late date, September 30, would propose and insist that a Quebec company should supply the security windows and that no Ontario manufacturer will be allowed to bid as equals.

He has written to the Premier to ask for the Premier's assistance to reserve this absolutely unjustifiable policy change. Minister, I ask whether or not you will now reverse the decision to exclude Ontario companies from this bid.

Hon Mr Charlton: The intention is not and never was to exclude any Ontario companies from this bid. Again, I repeat for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition that it is standard practice in the tendering process not to name the product that will be used but to name a product that sets a standard that has to be met. That is a basic general reality across the construction industry in this province.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have with me a copy of the expenditure control plan form which asks social service agencies how much money they are forecasting they will be able to collect over the next five months in new user fees for children's services.

Minister, are you so desperate for cash that you intend to charge over $4 million in the next five months in new user fees to those in our society who can least afford them: parents of vulnerable children requiring services from your ministry?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): The measure that the member refers to is indeed one of the cost containment measures that we have had to bring in to try to make the system that we have in place both more accountable and fair. I can certainly assure the member that as we develop the details -- and the survey that he refers to is exactly to help us to do that -- we will ensure that no one who needs services is denied services because of their income situation.

The point of the exercise is to try to see if there are some areas -- and we believe that there are some -- where in fact some form of parental contribution is acceptable and to determine exactly what range that would be and in what circumstances and for what types of services that would be applied. That is exactly what the purpose of the work we are now doing will help us determine.

Mr Harris: Mr Minister, your own staff has made it very clear to the agencies that they will be expected over this next two-and-a-half-year period, or the expenditure control plan period, to collect $20 million in user fees for the government.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Not user fees? I don't understand.

Mr Harris: It says "user fees" right in the discussion paper the ministry is talking about.

Your government has spent more than $100 million to drive the private sector out of day care for no other reason than ideology. Last year the auditor identified millions of dollars of waste in your own ministry, yet you expect parents of vulnerable children to pony up nearly $20 million in the next two and a half years. I suggest to you, minister, that that is not only unfair; that is unjust. That's without any discussion with the parents involved. It is the height of mismanagement and irresponsibility.

Can you tell all the parents who won't be able to send their children, vulnerable children in our society, to the worthwhile programs because of your cash grab, can you explain to them why you're wasting all this money? Can you explain to them why you haven't cut your own expenditures but now want to charge them $20 million to access children's services programs in the next two and a half years?

Hon Mr Silipo: I hate to bust the member's balloon and bring a bit of reality and fact to the situation, but he is wrong and his information is incorrect when he concludes that there will be $20 million a year in user fees. That just is not the case.

The annualized amount under that particular item -- and this is only when we get to a full year's calculation -- is in the neighbourhood of about $6 million to $7 million a year. The remainder comes from a number of other measures such as ensuring that agencies that are eligible to claim from the federal government the child benefit that they can claim legitimately do that before requiring us to make those payments to them instead. I would think that the leader of the third party, as one who has stood in his place many times and talked to us about accountability and ensuring that we are spending our dollars in the wisest fashion, would actually be supportive of us looking at the most effective ways in which we make the calculation of the fees we pay and the dollars we provide to agencies.

I can also say to him, in conclusion, that we have done this after taking all other steps, including steps to downsize the ministry's operations, where we are taking cuts to a much larger degree than we are suggesting the agencies have to take.

Mr Harris: According to what you've just given the House and your own ministry and your own agency, it's $6.7 million a year, or about $20 million over the life of the social contract, the expenditure control plan. So the amount of user fees you plan to charge is 20 million. You're looking at these fees starting November 1; you've told the agencies that. This is for community living programs for the developmentally handicapped, for mental health treatment, for counselling for abused children, to name a few. These are the programs we are talking about now bringing in up to $20 million in new user fees for. Parents who choose to keep their special-needs children at home already, we know, have far greater costs than many families, and now you want to hit them again. For some, this will be the final straw.

If you believe that these vulnerable children should help pay for your government's mismanagement, who is it that you're planning to charge next, to bring in new user fees to cover up the mismanagement in the spending of your government?

1410

Hon Mr Silipo: Again the leader of the third party fails to mention that in those same guidelines he was reading from we clearly set out that the agencies' budgets for this year have been calculated without taking into account those measures, because we want to be sure, first of all, that we are being realistic in the dollar targets we've set before those are implemented and carried out. I think it's incumbent on him, if he wants to charge on this point, that he put the complete information out in front of people.

We are trying to manage a very difficult situation in the best way we can. We are being very sensitive to the comments that people are making to us around this and other measures and I can certainly assure the member that we will not get to a situation where people will be denied service, under any circumstance, as a result of these measures. The fees we are looking at will assist in legitimate areas where we believe there can be a role for parents and families to play financially, but it is not in any way intended to reduce the level of service or to affect the provision of needed service to young people.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Harris: Parental charges or parental copayments: Are you saying those aren't user fees?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Is this another question?

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Yes, I have a new question, to the Minister of Labour. The former Liberal government brought in legislation that mandates safety training courses for workplaces in Ontario.

I don't see the Minister of Labour here, although I saw him a minute ago. Is he on his way? I'll stand down the question then until he comes back. Oh, here he is.

The former Liberal government brought in legislation that mandates safety training courses for workplaces in Ontario. This is Bill 208. We all agree with the goal of safety; I think everybody would understand that. But it would appear that the courses offered are a joke. For example, the town of Halton Hills informs us it must spend $6,045 to send its staff to a one-week course that, according to a local councillor, teaches them to operate a photocopier, a dishwasher and a fax machine. Councillor Anne Currie says, "I've been operating a dishwasher for many years and, look, I'm still here to talk about it."

How can you defend implementing a law that makes this type of course mandatory?

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: As pleasant as the weather is outdoors, I'm sure all members would rather be here for a little while. I would invite the Minister of Labour to respond.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to make it clear that the courses being offered are not courses with the content described by the leader of the third party across the way. I think he should do a little checking and know a little better when he makes those kind of statements.

Mr Harris: I'm just telling you what the town of Halton Hills is telling me the courses are. Not only would it appear that the courses are useless, but in true NDP-Liberal style the policy is placing undue financial burden on small businesses and municipalities. We're talking now of Ontario workplaces that are already reeling from overtaxation and overregulation, and now you're forcing them to pay a minimum of $535 per person to take a course. That does not include replacement salaries; that does not include transportation; that does not include hotel expenses. For what? A lesson on how to safely operate a dishwasher? How do you expect our small businesses to pay for these types of courses?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm beginning to understand why we never got anywhere in all the years when we were in opposition and trying to push the Tory party into some decent and effective health and safety legislation in the province of Ontario.

I want to say that several hundred workers have been through the courses. We expect to be putting through 100 or 200 a week very shortly, and the reports coming out of the first graduation classes from both management and labour are absolutely excellent.

Mr Harris: You're absolutely right. For 42 years you couldn't push us into making these types of courses. You're quite right: I'm guilty.

This morning, minister, my office contacted a number of small businesses who had written to say they cannot afford to send their staff to these courses but they're afraid to speak up because they know of many small businesses that have been threatened by your civil servants for non-compliance with up to half-a-million-dollar fines or imprisonment. Those are the threats.

Who is setting up these courses? Who is monitoring them? Who is looking at compliance costs? Who is looking at the effectiveness of these courses? I want to ask you this: Is it really necessary to use this big-stick approach to our small businesses that are reeling in this province, our last hope, perhaps, as generators of jobs?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Perhaps it's time the leader of the third party looked back at Ontario's record in health and safety, which was not that good, at the hundreds of thousands of workers injured year and at the hundreds of workers killed each year on the job.

I want to tell the leader of the third party that the project and the courses have been set up by a bipartite board of both management and labour, and they are monitoring them as well.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I can understand why the minister would be somewhat confused by questions from the leader of the third party about user fees being imposed by his government. The leader of the third party says that he supports user fees and then asks questions about why he has to pay for his medical tests, so I understand why the question is confusing.

It is also a fact that the leader of the third party was inaccurate in suggesting to this minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Leader of the Opposition, to whom I apologize for the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: To the Leader of the Opposition: She may wish to begin again.

Mrs McLeod: We know it is not the fact that the minister is looking at retrieving some $20 million in the expenditure control plan through the imposition of user fees for children's services. What we do know is that we have a copy of a memorandum from the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services dated July 19 which indicates that his ministry is looking at imposing user fees in order to retrieve some $4.3 million in expenditure control restraint and $6.7 million next year in expenditure control fees.

1420

This is one of the examples of the way in which this government is just quietly bringing in a whole system of user fees without looking at the impact that these fees are going to have on the services that are provided to people across this province, and I would like to ask this minister to tell us very clearly exactly what children's services these user fees are going to be imposed on and what guidelines his ministry has now put in place in order to establish user fees for such services as counselling abused children, therapy for children with learning disabilities and a host of other services that are needed by children across this province.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): Let me just say that the decision about what types of services this fee will affect has not been made, and that's the point I was trying to get across earlier. The discussions we are having now with the agencies that are affected by and would be therefore responsible for carrying out this measure are exactly intended to help us define what kinds of measures could be put in place so that we are not affecting basic service that needs to be provided. It's the result of those discussions that will let us conclude and answer the question that the Leader of the Opposition has asked.

Mrs McLeod: I really have to say to the minister that this is a policy decision of such enormous consequences in providing services to children with need that it is simply not enough for the minister to say, "We are having broad discussions." The memorandum from the deputy minister indicates that they are going to retrieve, through user fees, some $11 million over the course of the next two years. It is to come from all children and family service categories, including young offender services and including services to children with developmental disabilities.

The agencies were supposed to have been told last Friday how those fees were to be implemented. They do not know what to expect; the families do not know what to expect.

I ask the minister to think about two very specific examples and assure us that this would not be the case when he imposes his user fees: Can you assure us that it will not be the case that a family has to be assessed a user fee before the children's aid society can investigate a complaint of child abuse? Can you assure me that a 14-year-old girl who may well be the victim of incest is not going to have to get money from her parents to come in for counselling before she can get the help she needs?

Can you tell me exactly what you are doing, as the minister responsible, to ensure that no child in this province will be unable to receive the services they need because you are imposing user fees?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Be careful with this one, Tony. There are people on that committee who have already told us. Be careful with this one, Tony.

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South is out of order.

Hon Mr Silipo: I have no trouble whatsoever standing up in this House and telling the Leader of the Opposition that the two specific examples she has given, and others similar to that, are not the kinds of things I would want to see, nor would I ever approve of measures that we would approve as being areas that could be subject to any kind of contribution or user fee, whatever the category we want to make. We are not talking about making the provision of basic services for which children's aid societies or other children's agencies are responsible be ones that would now to be tied to income and ability to pay. That is not what we're talking about.

What we are talking about is that, in the same way we now have a variety of agencies that charge some range of residential fees based on the circumstances of individual families, we can take a look, we believe, at some measures on a comparable basis in non-residential areas. What exactly those will be are not the subject of broad discussions. They're the subject of very specific discussions we are having now with the agencies affected. It's the result of those discussions that will inform us and will assist us in coming to that conclusion. The dollar amounts, quite frankly, will be dependent also on the kind of advice we receive.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): No discussion with parents, just among yourselves, how you're going to gouge them with new user fees.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, last Wednesday I asked you about a $1.3-million government housing project on Waverley Road. First of all, you attempted to wash your hands of any responsibility for this flagrant abuse of tax dollars by blaming it on the Liberals. You said they bought the property and they started this up. When that didn't fly too far because it was you who were in government when most of the incompetence took place, then you blamed the neighbours of Waverley Road for the high costs of your project. You said they objected to this project; they didn't want this kind of housing in their neighbourhood is what you implied.

Minister, I've had phone calls and I've had letters from the people on Waverley Road, who tell me they did not object to the project, to the type of housing or to what you wanted. The only thing they objected to was your coming in with the government lawyers to try and build something counter to the zoning laws that were in place at that time, and that after you went through this process you were told, a year later, spending all that money, that you could do exactly what the neighbours said you could do right at the start. Will you apologize to the people on Waverley Road, who are incensed that you are blaming them for the cost of this project?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The point I tried to make last week was that the opposition which had occurred in the neighbourhood did delay the project and the delay in the project did cause increases in the cost. The leader of the third party will also acknowledge that I said there were very specific problems with the renovation that was done in that project -- I said that -- and in fact, having looked back at what had happened, probably a different decision might have been made about two years into what turned out to be about a four-year process. That much I have said and that much I think is accurate.

Mr Harris: Minister, you acknowledge that if you had known everything now, you probably wouldn't have proceeded. That goes for virtually every one of these projects we've looked at, whether they're yours or the Liberal ones. But on this specific one, you attempted to pass your incompetency on to the taxpayers, to the neighbours, the neighbours surrounding that area. Yes, the delay added a minimal amount to the cost of the project, but the delay was only to stand up for their rights because you tried to steamroller over them, tried to say: "We're the government, The zoning bylaw doesn't apply to us. We can do whatever we want." It turns out that you couldn't. That's pretty normal understanding, you know; what developers face, what builders face, what the private sector faces.

All I am asking you today is, will you apologize to the residents on Waverley Road, who have no objection whatever to that type of housing being in their neighbourhood -- in fact, they welcome it -- and you, in your answer last week, implied that they did?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think there is cause for apology. If I felt there was I would be glad to apologize. I think I acknowledged that the decisions that were made around that project created expenses associated with the high cost of renovation, and that I acknowledge. I'd also point out to the leader of the third party that in fact the only projects among the non-profit housing program that he's looked at are ones which have run into particular difficulties, such as this one.

A further note: If he would care to look now at the number of people who are housed there, the women in transition with children associated, there are the same number of people accommodated as the project --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Come on, you tried to double the density on the residence.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Stockwell: That's what you did. You were trying to double the density, that's what you tried to do.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- originally suggested and it has been just a reconfiguration, which was required by resistance in the neighbourhood, that the delay took place.

Mr Stockwell: You laughed the developer out of the room.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Nothing has changed in terms of the original proposal to provide housing for the women and children who need the particular kind of housing there, and there are 19 people currently living in that project for whom it provides a very good home. It has been provided at a high cost, and I do say that the additional delay that was created by confusion around what the neighbourhood would accept and what the neighbourhood wouldn't accept did add to the costs.

1430

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Last week I held a public meeting in Niagara Falls to explain the new Jobs Ontario Community Action program. It was very well attended, with about 70 people there representing all different segments of the community. The people in Niagara Falls are very excited about this program and the challenge of working together.

This week I received this letter from our local economic development agency asking about the process for submitting a proposal. It seems to be unclear in some places. What they suggest is the following: that city staff list and prioritize projects, then call a community meeting to request comments from interested groups and then ask for their support for the application. Then the proposal would be submitted to the area's community economic development committee and then be referred on. I need to know if this is the appropriate process for them to follow.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member will know that the Jobs Ontario Community Action is attempting to engage the community in a different way in terms of strategic planning for the future of local community economies.

The part of the program that the letter from the Niagara economic development office is referring to is the community capital. It's only one part of the program. There's nothing wrong with the process they have outlined. We will work with them under that kind of process.

Where we hope to get to in the future is that communities come together and do strategic planning overall about the strategic plan for their community, not just on capital projects but on investment attraction, on enhancement and retention of existing industry, using the community loans and the community share corporation vehicle that hopefully will be passed through this Legislature in this fall session. I think we would like to see a more holistic approach in the future, but these are early days and we'll be pleased to work with the member and the municipality and her region, along with other community partners, to try and make this process work in a good way in that community.

Ms Harrington: The other question I have been asked is certainly very important; that is, can you tell us when the decisions will be made? When can we expect decisions about the proposals that are being submitted now?

Hon Ms Lankin: In the past, many of the programs that are now combined under the community capital pool of funds that are available used to have different deadlines and application times and every community had to chase through the different ministries and different departments with different applications. It was like chasing grants. Really, it was communities chasing government priorities rather than government responding to community priorities.

There is no deadline now. This is an ongoing, revolving process. As the applications come in, we will work with those communities. We have regional and core team meetings regularly to approve projects. It depends on the project, the state of readiness that it is in in terms of the application, and we will do our best to help facilitate that in the community, to get the information pulled together to ensure that the community's application is ready for proper consideration.

So there are no deadlines. There is no specific time frame, except to say that this involves jobs and we will move as quickly as we can in all cases.

YOUNG DRIVERS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question for the Attorney General. I'd like to send this over to the Attorney General. We all recognize that if we drive a car with greater than the legal limit of alcohol in our body, it will, on conviction, result in the suspension of our licence for at least one year. As we are also aware, this applies to any person of whatever age. We are also aware that the age to legally drink in this province is 19 years. However, if a person under the age of 19 breaks that law, in other words, has alcohol in his or her body and is driving a vehicle, there is no driving penalty.

I will be introducing a bill today, and I have sent over a copy of the bill, which will prohibit persons under the age of 19 from operating a motor vehicle while having any alcohol in their blood. It prescribes a penalty for contravention, being the suspension of those persons' driver's licence for one year. My question is, will you support this legislation?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member should be well aware that in the new bill we are looking at introducing in terms of graduated licensing, there's zero tolerance of alcohol in young drivers' blood. The member should know that that licensing regime is in place over a two-year period in a phased kind of situation, so in effect the work we've already been doing on graduated licences would have the same effect the member is suggesting.

Mr Offer: I'll ask the page to take over some statistics. You speak of zero tolerance for people under the age of 19. In this province the age for legally drinking is 19; therefore, there is already zero tolerance. The question is why there is no driving penalty for an individual breaking that law. My bill is designed to correct this.

I have sent over to you statistics which have been provided me by the chief coroner of Ontario, Dr James Young, which indicate the number of fatalities of young people where alcohol is a contributing factor. Minister, you, as well as everyone here, know that the numbers do not really represent the anguish and sorrow that is felt.

I have given you those statistics. The "zero tolerance" without a driving penalty are words without teeth. I ask you, in light of the statistics I have provided to you, will you support this legislation?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I believe the more comprehensive measures we are proposing, both in graduated licences and what we expect to introduce in terms of drinking and driving countermeasures, will be more effective. There is a whole policy which is under the auspices of my ministry but is a shared kind of program with the Ministry of Transportation and with the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and it is certainly our intention that the effect of what the member is suggesting would become part of that comprehensive bill. At this present time, the driving penalty he is looking for -- he is quite right -- is not there and that does need to be added, but it needs to be added in a much more comprehensive way than he is suggesting.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Solicitor General. The question concerns the end to the so-called free policing for those smaller municipalities which currently receive OPP protection at no direct cost. Your ministry favours a two-pronged approach to put an end to what some people call free OPP policing. You, we're told, first intend to make municipalities larger than 5,000 in population pay for the policing they receive, then start charging municipalities below 5,000. In all, 598 municipalities stand to be affected, municipalities which currently don't pay for their policing directly. At your ministry's own estimates of a cost of $100 per person per year for OPP services, your ministry stands to save $142 million a year by unloading the cost on to these small municipalities. Minister, has this phasing-in approach begun? Where do your plans to eliminate free OPP policing stand today?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Obviously, the member shares a recognition of the importance of this issue as it applies to policing in Ontario. We have not, as yet, put out to the public the government's preferred course of action. We are working on that. It is a priority, and I expect it will be available to discuss with municipalities, police forces and other interested entities very soon.

Mr Runciman: Hopefully, the minister is aware that there's been a province-wide order from OPP field operations directing district commanders to look for OPP detachments which could be closed or amalgamated in order to save costs. One of those on the chopping block is the Westport OPP detachment in my riding of Leeds-Grenville. I know there are many others, affecting perhaps most rural representatives in this Legislature. At the same time as this OPP directive has gone out, there's also this general initiative emanating from your office to start making all smaller municipalities pay full freight for their policing.

1440

This is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. Why close down detachments without settling the fee-for-service issue first? Until local municipalities get their first bill for policing services, when they may choose to stay with the OPP or may want to buy their policing from a nearby municipal force if it looks like a better deal, how will you know which OPP detachments should be closed down or amalgamated? Will you not agree that the rationalization study should be shelved until your ministry resolves the funding issue of making small municipalities pay for their own OPP policing services?

Hon Mr Christopherson: The issue of merger and amalgamation of detachments is one that has been around for a very long time. As the honourable member knows, none of these decisions are ever taken without broad consultation with any of the communities that might be involved. Clearly, the government continues to seek means to achieve our expenditure control plan goals through ways that do not affect service. In fact, the member will know that indeed some mergers and some amalgamations provide an enhanced service to communities while at the same time saving administrative costs.

We are not at the point of making or in the position to make any decisions. In fact, the member will have my assurance and this government's assurance that long before any such decision would be taken, there would be the kind of consultation with the communities that there needs to be. As I said in my previous answer, the issue of equitable financing in policing is also a matter that will have the opportunity for public input.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, I think you know some of the problems that have plagued my particular community in terms of drugs and crime over the last few years. I am pleased to stand today and tell you that crime related to drugs in some parts of North York, more particularly the Jane-Finch community, has gone down almost 50% over the last couple of years.

While I stand and, I guess, brag to a degree about the drop, I'm also concerned about a drop in funding that has come out of your ministry in one area of Jane and Finch. You will know that over the last little while, there's been a group that has done some pretty good work in and around that area. Not only do they need to be praised in the Legislature, but I think they need to be recognized in terms of funding. The Black Creek Anti-Drug Focus Coalition, which was formed a number of years ago, got about $520,000 to conduct its work in that area, and for the most part it has been positive.

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

Mr Mammoliti: The funding has been dropped. Can you explain why the funding has been dropped recently?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the member that I certainly know of his long-standing interest in this subject generally and the work that he has done for the Ministry of Health, particularly with respect to his own constituency. But I have to say to him that the funding that was provided to the Black Creek group in 1991 was a one-time two-year funding project to allow it to implement prevention and early intervention strategies for reducing alcohol and drug abuse.

He is absolutely right. It was a very effective project, and in recognition of that, far from allowing the mandate to expire in March 1993, we have indicated that we will continue to fund the project for another three years. I grant you that the funding has been somewhat reduced from the initial pilot project, but I'm happy to tell him that along with this continuation of the project, we understand there will be some increased support from the Addiction Research Foundation. I hope to work closely with those groups and make sure that the good work his constituents have done can continue.

Mr Mammoliti: I'm pleased to hear the last part of your response; however, I'm still concerned that the drop in funding might hurt the community in the long run. In terms of the prostitution that was going on two or three years ago in and around the Jane-Finch area and the amount of work these people have done to get prostitution off the streets, in relation to helping the addicts and the prevention and early intervention you talked about, you know as well as I do that you need funding for that sort of intervention. I'm afraid the cut in funding might hurt the community in the long run. Minister, do you think the amount of money you have allocated recently will put a dent in the community and the good work the coalition has done?

Hon Mrs Grier: I share the member's concern that the work of volunteers and of groups will only be effective if it is supported by core funding, and that's why I'm very pleased that it has moved from a two-year, one-time project to something to which core funding is now being provided by the Ministry of Health. Because of that security that has been provided, I think the project has already entered into and has the potential for even more interesting partnerships, and the one with the Addiction Research Foundation is indeed one of them. I can, I think, assure him that the good work that has been begun so effectively will be able to continue.

COURT FACILITY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): My question is to the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet. Mr Minister, you will be aware of your ministry's involvement, through your leasing services branch, in a lease proposal for a new 38,000-square-foot provincial court facility in Brantford. The consortium was awarded the project on August 18 and occupancy is scheduled for April 1994. Commencement of this project is already behind schedule. Yesterday, the media reported that the Ministry of the Attorney General acknowledged that the proposal would be cancelled. Rumour surrounding your government's mismanagement of this proposal call has been circulating for weeks. It appears to be true.

Minister, has the proposal accepted by your ministry been withdrawn, and if so, will you explain how the matter of proposals of lease for this urgently needed provincial court facility in Brantford will now proceed?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, I'm not sure that the member's question accurately reflects the present circumstances. My understanding is that the Attorney General has not suggested at any point that the project will be cancelled. In fact, the project will go ahead. There had been a tendering process and there was a successful bidder. Unfortunately, that successful bidder is now withdrawing from the project. In very short order, hopefully, we will be able to either move down the list of other bidders or retender the project and get on with it as quickly as we can.

Mr Eddy: Mr Minister, I feel that the citizens of Brantford and Brant county have been misled on this issue. They have been unable -- indeed, I have been unable -- to obtain credible answers from the member for Brantford or from officials of your ministry's leasing services branch.

In order to expedite this project with a view to providing urgently needed accommodation in 1994, will the minister consider issuing an addendum to the proposal call to the several qualified bidders that were not accepted but have invested many thousands of dollars?

Hon Mr Charlton: Let me deal first with the part of the member's preamble regarding the member for Brantford and some weeks of rumours, because those weeks of rumours were in fact precisely that: rumours. It was on October 5, just two days ago, that the successful bidder informed this government that they were not going to be able to proceed, so it's only within the last two days that we've had anything concrete from that proponent.

In terms of the latter part of the member's question, we are considering those options and a number of others and we will turn this one around just as quickly as we can so that the delays on the project are as minimal as we can accomplish.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. I wish to draw to the attention of the House and indeed invite all members to welcome to our gallery two visitors who have sat through the question period: the Honourable Alby Schultz, MLA, from the Parliament of New South Wales, Australia, who is joined by his wife, Gloria Schultz. Welcome to our assembly.

1450

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that Mr Mammoliti change places with Mr Klopp in the order of precedence for private members' public business, and that notwithstanding standing order 94(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 28.

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

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition which was given to me to present by the former member for Victoria-Haliburton, Mr Drainville, who quit the NDP. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit" --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There are too many conversations taking place. I encourage you to leave the House if you want to continue them.

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

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

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

I am affixing my signature to this petition because I agree with the sentiments contained in it.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this because I agree with it.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition addressed to Dennis Drainville, who quit the NDP, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's signed by various residents of the city of Windsor, and I affix my signature to this.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single, local point of access for long-term care and support services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating use of commercial providers;

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

I concur with this petition and I have affixed my signature to it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Sutherland from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 8 be ordered for third reading? There's no unanimous consent. The bill is therefore ordered for committee of the whole.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (BLOOD-ALCOHOL), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PRÉSENCE D'ALCOOL DANS LE SANG)

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

Bill 93, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 93, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Mississauga North, would you wish to make a few comments?

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Yes, for just a few moments, Mr Speaker.

This bill will prohibit persons under 19 from operating a motor vehicle while having any alcohol in their blood, and the penalty for contravention is the suspension of the person's driver's licence for one year.

We all recognize that if we drive a car with greater than the legal limit of alcohol in our body, we will, on conviction, have our licence suspended for at least one year, and this applies to any person at whatever age.

We're also aware that the age to legally drink in this province is 19 years. However, if a person under the age of 19 breaks that law, in other words, has alcohol in his or her body and is driving a vehicle, there is currently no driving penalty. This bill is designed to correct that situation and will impose a penalty, on conviction, of suspension for one year.

1500

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Oh, there's the time. For a second, I thought I had nine minutes left. Already I've used up five minutes; I'm down to four.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You're a good speaker. That didn't seem like five minutes.

Mr Elston: It certainly didn't seem like five minutes.

When I was speaking on this bill on Tuesday, I had been making some comments about how this is an interesting precedent for the government to undertake, particularly since it purports to stand in favour of democratic organization of workers in the province, because Bill 80 actually brings the government into a position where not only does it decide unilaterally, through legislation, that its provisions will override agreements that have been reached by the women and men who have organized in the construction industry side of the labour movement but it also says that the provisions in this act, Bill 80, will apply even in cases where the provisions here are contrary to those in the constitution democratically established and founded by the trade-labour movement. That is under section 138.1.

It seems to me that anybody here in this House who has any knowledge of the way the trade union movement has organized would have largely looked at that and said, why in the world would you allow a government, any government, whether it happens to be New Democrat, Grit or Tory, to come into this place and unilaterally re-establish the way that men and women, freely organized, have set their business terms in place?

That speaks a lot to the changes that have occurred in the New Democratic Party movement. I do believe that in its initial phases it was a movement. I do believe that the old CCF and its successor, the NDP, were established, each of them, as a reaction to difficult but very slow progress in ameliorating some of the conditions for working men and women in the country of Canada. They affiliated and joined with other organizations that had fought hard and won some advancements to take care of some of those problems that caused death on some occasions, that caused displacement of injured workers, that caused displacement of workers who retired with virtually nothing to fall back on in terms of support for themselves and their families when they came to the end of their working careers.

But here is a New Democratic Party which has unilaterally decided that the Minister of Labour knows better than anybody else in the trade union movement what the constitutions should read like and what the provisions of the settlement of disputes should be arranged to be. That's not proper, in my view. It ought not to be proper in the view of anybody who looks at the free association of men and women in this province to seek after certain social, cultural and economic justice targets.

I also want to note an issue which is very important in my riding, because I have people who are much concerned by section 138.3. They in fact would probably be negatively affected without 138.3, because there was some movement by an international to establish a particular jurisdiction as of May 30, 1992. I understand that the people in my riding probably would like to see this provision, because it protects them against a provision which they see as bad. But here it is being legislated, contrary to the way that labour unions and labour movements have traditionally worked, by the Minister of Labour in a way which I think really defiles the democratic traditions of the labour movement, and I think that is not good.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Although the member had only four minutes remaining, I want to congratulate him for the entire speech that he made, both today and the other day, and the fact that he points out, rightly so, that the Minister of Labour is clearly interfering in a democratic process.

There is nothing as democratic as well-organized labour unions, where the people who run to lead them and to represent them have to go and talk to them in small groups, have to attend at union halls. I'm sure members opposite know all about it. If there's anything that's more grass-roots than that, I don't know what it is.

When a senior level of government like the provincial government decides to intervene arbitrarily in the workings, decides to change and ignore a constitution -- one of the amendments that we're not allowed to talk about, by the way, actually draws reference to the fact that the OLRB might be forced, if the amendment that we can't talk about carries, when making a decision, to actually take into account the constitution of a local. Can you imagine that? Why do you even have to say that? Should that not be obvious, particularly to members opposite, many of whom, prior to their arrival in this place, worked in small locals and worked with unions that had international parents? You understood the relationship.

Right now, if there's a dispute, either on work or on jurisdiction, it can be settled by the international parent, which has no axe to grind. It can come in and resolve the problem. Under this bill, we're going to have to have a hearing with the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Imagine the increased cost in the bureaucracy. It's absolutely unconscionable. The minister should withdraw this bill immediately.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I must admit that I'm not as familiar as perhaps I should be with the bill, but after listening to the debate, now more than ever, I think I need to sit down and read it inside and out. After speaking to some of my colleagues, even in my own riding, I think I need to do that. We do need to listen to what some people are saying in this chamber, and I think we need to look at perhaps setting a precedent in this particular case. That's the concern I would have, the language around the bill.

The other stuff around the bill, in speaking to others in my riding who are in favour of the bill, I would speak in favour of as well. I think we need to look at the good the bill does as well. I don't think we should dwell on only the negative but perhaps look at the number of workers and the number of representatives who are out there who want this thing to pass, and somehow try and resolve the issue.

At this particular point in time, to be perfectly honest with you, I'm very neutral. I really do need to look at the bill and make up my mind. I can't be more honest than that. In terms of the setting of a precedent, I too am concerned about this. I certainly don't want governments, in particular this government, setting a precedent in the future, or other governments perhaps hurting other unions in the future either.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Elston: Oh, oh, the right-winger.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): The right-winger. I've listened to the comments that were expressed by union halls, and I've been a part of the trade union movement since I was a young lad, through my father, when I understood the international perspective. I also understand the independence of Canadians and the independence we chose back in 1985, leaving our international parent and moving to our autonomy as Canadians, because we had different beliefs and different rights.

One of the unfortunate aspects during that whole thing is that we were locked. We were in the hands of the international.

Mr Elston: I thought you got yourselves out.

1510

Mr Hope: No, we were left in the hands of the international. I listened to the member who says his father was a Steelworker, but I also want to make clear that when we were left in the hands of the international parent, the international parent wasn't particularly interested in the Canadian autonomy that was supposed to be there. So we had the opportunity to do what we needed to do.

I've listened to the people from the construction industry in my area who talk about the need for independence, the need to identify themselves as Canadians and to identify themselves in the labour movement, because they believe that in the labour movement, for some reason, there is an opportunity for change and that the opportunity for change must come.

It's important because when I went through both battles -- I went through the battle with the Canadian Auto Workers in leaving its parent, the United Auto Workers, and I was also a part of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union-CAW dispute in Newfoundland, when I spent some time out there through that dispute. You must understand that through the labour movement there is very dear difficulty in the sister or the local union wanting to leave its international parent. You are in the hands of the international. I believe that the legislation that is provided allows a safe mechanism which will allow transition for people who believe in independence and Canadian autonomy to do so. That's why I support the legislation. I know people have different viewpoints, but I've been through two of them, and I know some of the concerns that are being expressed from the construction end of it.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Bruce has two minutes.

Mr Elston: I understand the points raised by the member for Chatham-Kent, but I can also bring him back to my early remarks in this regard: that the easiest defence for this is to wrap yourself with a flag. But the flag you wrapped yourself in on this occasion, on the occasion of the removal by the CAW of its Canadian members to establish its own national union, was done without this bill being put in place. It was done because there was a strength and a will among the women and the men in the CAW, as it is now known, to do it. It wasn't done easily, and I understand that.

What makes me really concerned is the fact that this legislation now overrides the constitutions freely arrived at by any number of generations of labour movement individuals. I'm also concerned because under section 138.6 there is an automatic successorship given to any local union that moves to get away from its parent and then merges with another union. What this looks like to me is that it will allow some larger group of people to come in and swallow up those small local unions. In fact, that's what this is all about, I think.

I think this is about Bob White and the CLC coming in and making sure they can take over all the hard-won victories of the construction trade union movement. This is all about making sure that Bob White gets his way and gets more members in his CLC. This is in a way, somebody told me the other day, a payback for Bob White staying quiet and loyal with respect to Bob Rae and his group of New Democrats, who have mostly abandoned all the principles for which the movement once stood.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I would like to start off this debate by commending the member for Yorkview for his comments in regard to the debate so far today. The member for Yorkview has really been listening to the debate, and the member for Yorkview, as some people might not realize, is a member on the government side. Actually, I think we had for a minute there a bit of a glimpse at this place really starting to work well. We were actually starting to listen to each other. Instead of government people just supporting bills and opposition members opposing bills, we actually had a government member there for a second who was willing to listen, who was willing to consider some points that were brought up in this discussion. That's why we have institutions such as Parliament.

I know there's a lot of frustration about Parliament and maybe the time that is wasted here, but I think this afternoon was an example where, through listening to some of the points that were being raised by the opposition, at least one government member is willing to consider some of the points that have been brought forward. I think that's very healthy and really what this place should be more about. We should be having more thoughtful discussion, more thoughtful debate rather than just defending legislation on the government side and attacking legislation from the opposition side. I think there may be some hope in Parliament, in this Legislature, yet. I think that was good.

My colleague from Bruce was really starting to hint in his closing remarks that we're not quite sure what the motivation of government is in regard to this particular bill. The reason we aren't sure of what the motivation is is that there's been no adequate explanation from the government side as to why this bill is necessary, and it's doubly puzzling to us when we see union after union, local after local, opposed to this legislation.

In fact, my colleague from Mississauga West, Steve Mahoney, who is our Labour critic, has told me that 85% of the union members involved in this particular piece of legislation, primarily the construction union people, are opposed to this bill.

We are really surprised that a government that is supposed to be consultative and going out there and talking to people and, especially as New Democrats, which this government is, to be talking to labour people, is bringing forward such a bill where there's such opposition to it from the union movement. So we're really not sure and it's a bit puzzling.

What we really believe is going to happen is that, as my colleague has suggested, we're going to start to see some unrest within the union movement caused by the passage of this bill. We're going to start to see some unrest between locals, we're going to see some unrest between parent organizations and locals, and we may start to see some unrest caused by the potential of raiding that now can go on because this bill allows for a 60-day period after the completion of a collective agreement when other unions could come in and try to take over that local.

I'm not sure that this is a healthy environment to start to create here. It would seem to me that some of the stronger Canadian-based unions are going to want to flex their muscles, as we've seen in this past year, going after other unions that have been organized by other parent bodies. That concerns us because we don't need unrest in the Canadian labour movement. We don't need unrest because we don't need any other type of unrest that could add as a detriment to the redevelopment of the economy of this province. That should be the paramount, important item on this government's agenda: How do we redevelop this economy? How do we get this economy moving again, getting women and men back to work?

Yet what we see as one of the top items on this government's agenda is how we facilitate union locals to move to Canadian unions or to become independent. That's one of the top bills on this government's agenda and that's not going to breed some certainty in the labour movement or in the economy of this country. It could be construed as being just one more element of uncertainty that may prevent the investment of dollars into Ontario that could create the badly needed jobs that we so desperately need here in Ontario to get our women and men working in this province.

It's amazing, when you start to look at the list of labour organizations that are against this bill -- I know my colleague from Mississauga West has read out many of the names of these unions. The list is endless here. I have a list of 22 unions in Ontario that are against this particular legislation. I'm going to talk to some of those, but I'd like to get into some of the details from some of these unions who have written in to our Labour critic as to why they are against and to the questions they are asking this government as to why it is so bent on pursuing this Bill 80.

I have a letter here that's been written on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. This comes from the international vice-president, Ken Woods. It's a very long letter and I'll paraphrase some of this, but I'd like to put on the record why this union is against this. You'll get a sense from this letter too of the scope of this union, the size of the membership of this union and how many workers are involved in this particular union:

"Dear Sir,

"This letter is being written on behalf of 14,000" electrical workers "in Ontario, and the entire...memberships in Canada (67,000), to make you aware of the most unprecedented, ill-conceived piece of legislation ever presented in the western world..." This is coming from a labour leader here in Ontario, Bill 80, first reading back in June of last year.

"Never in the history of the free trade-union movement has a government offered such a regressive piece of legislation. Bill 80 is totally biased in that it is directed at only AFL-CIO building trades unions; the industrial unions are not covered by Bill 80. As a member of the opposition you should be asking, why?"

Many of my colleagues have been asking that very question this week and last week, especially the member for Mississauga West, our Labour critic.

"The proponents of Bill 80 speak with a great deal of fervour that the bill will return democracy to the building trades local unions. Notwithstanding the fact that the writer is unaware that democracy had left the building trades local unions, it has to be noted that not one of the proponents of the bill has democratically secured a mandate from their respective local unions to pursue support of Bill 80."

1520

The letter goes on and it's just one example of some of the opposition to this Bill 80. The writer continues: "As a member of the opposition you should be asking why are the AFL-CIO building trades unions, and only those unions, being exposed to a 365-day-a-year reading period, the result of which will only bring chaos and instability to the construction industry.

"As a member of the opposition you should be asking why were not the predominant players in the construction marketplace, ie, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council and the Construction Industry Advisory Board, not consulted prior to the introduction of Bill 80."

Here again is a major union in Ontario, the electrical workers, saying they have not been consulted about this bill and are wondering why the necessity to proceed with this bill.

"As a member of the opposition you should be asking why the necessity of this unprecedented intrusion into the internal affairs of only a certain number of trade unions." I think that's a valid question and a question that's been echoed in this Legislature over the past week of this debate.

The other question here being asked is, "You should also be asking, is the Ontario Labour Relations Board better equipped than trade union leaders with the background of over 100 years of experience handed down from generation to generation to make decisions which should be made internally by those leaders."

What we're talking about here is that, as people well know, trade unions in this country are democratic institutions. The leaders are democratically elected. Their bylaws, the laws that govern their constitutions, are democratically agreed upon. I'm sure the members opposite obviously know that, as many of them -- I was also at one time a member of the auto workers union as I worked on the assembly line at Ford. Those members understand that unions are democratic. We're wondering why there's this intrusion into that democratic function. It would be like the federal government passing a law that would intrude upon the democratic functioning of this institution. We would think that's wrong and I would hope government members, if that ever happened, would agree with us to fight that intrusion into our democratically elected institution.

I have another letter here from the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, the Ontario Provincial Council. This is a copy of a letter to the Premier of this province. This writer says:

"I have had the opportunity to review the letter sent by the 'committee in support of Bill 80' dated November 16, 1992. I must emphatically express to you the concerns I have with the contents of the letter and with the legislation of Bill 80 becoming reality.

"Some local union memberships have expressed publicly support of Bill 80; however, they are unaware of the detrimental impact to them personally and as a membership. The claim that members are reluctant to support Bill 80 is reality as this debate of the bill continues to grow; however, not for reasons stated in the letter, but memberships actually realize the negative effects Bill 80 may have on them, and is not an act of fear from international parents."

Here is another major union, the painters and allied trades, again expressing not only their discomfort but their opposition to this particular bill.

Attached to this letter is a list of other unions that are opposed to Bill 80. They read: the asbestos workers provincial; boilermakers provincial; bricklayers provincial; carpenters Canadian conference; millwrights provincial; ironworkers provincial; plasterers provincial; teamsters provincial; pipefitters provincial; electricians (only two Toronto locals support); labourers (12 out of 15 locals against); painters provincial; elevator constructors provincial; sheet metal (six out of 11 against).

Area councils, opposition to Bill 80: Hamilton, Windsor, London, Ottawa, Kitchener, St Catharines, Toronto (section 138.6), Ontario Provincial Building Trades and Ontario Allied Council.

The list seems to go on, and again we're wondering why we are proceeding with this. Why are we taking such valuable time of the Legislature to be debating a bill that there seems to be so much opposition to? Why is it that this government seems to be ramming this bill down the throats of working men and women in Ontario who are affiliated with the construction trades, and why is this government not pursuing some economic development legislation, some job stimulus legislation?

The Deputy Speaker: I'll interrupt you for a minute, the member from Timiskaming. Stop the clock, please. I just want you to recognize the former Prime Minister of Canada, Mr John Turner.

Mr Mahoney: Now he's going to talk for ever.

Mr Ramsay: Now, Mr Speaker, I will puff up and certainly pay attention to my speaking notes even more so than I was.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): For 15 glorious minutes.

Mr Ramsay: I would certainly like to welcome Mr Turner to our Legislature. It's a pleasure to have him here. He's facing the right way if he's working on the federal campaign, because those are the people over there who need to be converted; and some over here, for sure, the way things are going. But we seem to be doing well and it's nice to see him alive and well and active. It inspires people like us who are still in politics that there's a great life after politics and that's an inspiration to all of us. We wish you well. Thank you very much, Mr Turner, for being here.

I'd like to continue with some of the letters that we have received as the Liberal caucus about why these labour unions are against Bill 80. I have a letter here from the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada. This is a copy of a letter that went to the Minister of Labour, and the letter reads:

"Dear Minister:

"Re Bill 80:

"The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 800, represents 440 plumbers, steamfitters and their apprentices in all sectors of the construction industry in northeastern Ontario and wishes to comment on the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act found in Bill 80. Local 800 is profoundly concerned with both the manner in which the government prepared the bill and the substance of the bill."

I would like to say that there are many workers in my constituency who are members of this local, as this local goes through all of northeastern Ontario from Sudbury and it includes the great riding of Timiskaming, which I'm proud to represent.

"Local 800 and a great many other unions were not given an opportunity to make representations to the government before the bill was introduced in the Legislature. This completely undemocratic action is contrary to the ideals of parliamentary government and the New Democratic Party.

"Even a brief understanding of labour history would show how vital international unionism has been to the betterment of the lives of Canadian workers. This is as true today as it was 100 years ago. Local 800 understands the importance of a strong international and the united association would be devastated without one. For example, if disaffiliation occurred in Ontario, how could our members find work in, say, western Canada by using their travel cards? They could not."

Being a representative from northern Ontario, I'd like to dwell on this point for a minute, because my colleague from Kenora, Frank Miclash, has brought to my attention that many of the workers who work in the construction trade right in Kenora, in the town of Kenora proper, the whole Kenora riding, Dryden, Red Lake and other communities in northwestern Ontario, find much of their work from time to time in the large metropolis of Winnipeg. That is the main city that northwestern Ontarians gravitate towards for cultural events, sometimes shopping or Winnipeg Blue Bombers games, but also for some of the economic work that's essential to keep northwestern Ontario going.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Turner has a cottage there, too.

Mr Ramsay: I understand that too. I wasn't going to say that on the record, but I'm sure you heard that, Mr Speaker, and some of the guests in this Legislature today have frequented Lake of the Woods, I understand, in the Kenora area; a very beautiful part of the world.

If this bill is to go forward and a local in that particular area chose then to disaffiliate itself from the international, those workers who are now part of that local would not be able to work in Winnipeg any longer because they no longer would hold the international card. I'm wondering why the government is pursuing this. If you had, say, a few people on the union executive who were able to convince a few people that this should happen, it could penalize a lot of good men and women working in that particular trade in that particular region of Ontario.

It could penalize them by preventing them from being international in scope, by preventing them from going to work in Minnesota on a construction job, or going over to Manitoba or Saskatchewan or another of the western provinces. Basically this starts to isolate us as a province, much like what has happened in the province of Quebec with its very strict rules in regard to its construction trades, which anger us very much here in Ontario because of the implication it has for Ontario workers going into Quebec.

1530

I don't think we want this. I think we want our men and women to be free to travel the world, if you will, to seek out work, to seek out economic opportunity, not to limit their horizon and their scope by saying basically, "You can only work in Ontario." That's one of the great ramifications of the passage of this bill. I don't know why the government is pursuing this, but it's going to begin to limit the opportunities of many of our working people in Ontario. I think it's wrong and I wish you would go back and talk to these unions and make sure you bring forward a bill that you've got some consensus on, that you've got some agreement on from these unions.

Again, we're very puzzled over here as to why you are pursuing that, and I would hope that you would reconsider, just as the member for Yorkview said earlier today in this debate that he would start to reconsider some of the language in this bill. I would hope he would do that and that he would be able to convince his colleagues of the same.

I have a letter here from the Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council. It says:

"Dear Sir:

"It has come to the attention of the Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council that Bill 80 has been scheduled for second reading during this current session of the Legislature.

"We would like to reiterate our unconditional opposition to Bill 80 in its entirety. This position was arrived at by a democratically moved and seconded motion which carried by a 12-to-1 margin.

"We hope that you and your party will be guided by the vast majority of building trades organizations, councils and locals. We have expressed opposition to this onerous and divisive bill.

"If you require further information or assistance in this matter, please call us."

I know our critic has done that, as he's been in touch with all of these locals of these unions about this to get a further, deeper understanding of this bill.

From the Laborers' International Union of North America:

"We have been notified that there's a possibility that Bill 80, reforming construction labour unions in Ontario, will go to second reading" in October of this year. "Bill 80 interferes with building trade unions' ability to govern themselves democratically." Again, another union is saying that this bill is an intrusion in the democratic workings of labour movements in Ontario.

"Bill 80 interferes with union constitutions and bylaws.

"Section 3 of the bill, which deals with jurisdiction, will impede many unions' ability to successfully administer local unions' jurisdiction. The Ontario Labour Relations Board is already swamped with cases," a very good point indeed, "and it certainly does not need internal local unions' geographic and work jurisdiction disputes as well."

That's true. The Ontario Labour Relations Board is bogged down. It's swamped with all sorts of matters before it that deal primarily with cases between employers and with organized men and women, and we certainly do not need to impose upon that board that is trying to settle those disputes, to burden them now with internal union matters. I don't know why we are referring that to them.

"This bill must be defeated," the letter continues. "This is a very destructive and regressive bill that centres out only construction unions, who have far less problems than the rest."

Again, we don't hear from the government members, and as I'm going to be concluding in a few minutes, I would ask, in the comments on what I have said, for some examples of where the problems are, because we here would like to fix the problems also. We are here willing to work with you --

Mr David Winninger (London South): We certainly have heard enough from you. Even John Turner --

Mr Ramsay: Maybe Mr Turner can speak too, if that's what the members of the government would like to hear. But we would like to hear from you. What are some of the examples and what are some of the problems that have provoked the introduction of this bill? That's what we're asking, because then we could give that consideration, like the member for Yorkview has, and maybe we could then support the bill.

But you haven't given us that ammunition. You haven't given us that evidence for us to give it the consideration that probably the bill deserves. We don't really understand that motivation, so you'll get members, as was previously stated in the House, accusing you of other types of motivations, because we don't have up front what the true reasons for the introduction of this bill are. That's what we want to hear, and I certainly would invite members of the government to instruct me, to inform me and my members as to the motivation for this. What are the reasons? What are the problems? Give us a couple of examples.

I've heard of some examples where people have asked for retribution and have had the situation corrected, that there seem to be the mechanisms in the labour movement itself or by going to the judicial system to have situations corrected. As far as we know, there are no outstanding problems. There are mechanisms in place today to correct all outstanding disputes. Again I'd ask the members to give us some examples that we could maybe give further consideration to as well.

I know there are other members in the House who wish to speak to this bill, so I will give the floor to another member and await comments, possibly, from some of the government members about why they feel this bill is so necessary.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Mahoney: I want to thank the member for his comments. I think he struck on probably the most significant question in this whole debate. It's a very simple question: Why? Why is the government interfering in the duly democratic process that allows trade-labour movements and that allows unions to make decisions that conform with their own constitutions? Why does this government, why does this Labour minister feel that he has to somehow come along and interfere in that process?

We all know, as I said before, that unions are grass-roots. They elect their business managers in the construction trades.

Good examples were given by my colleague about the problems that are going to occur in relationship to cross-border jobs. I used the example the other day of a job work order from an American local in Pittsburgh. Don't shake your head. This was a work order hiring 50 Canadian workers for a construction job in the United States. They will be providing them with green cards, they'll be paying their transportation expenses and they'll be paying them $20 an hour on top of that. You pass this bill and you put that kind of agreement in jeopardy. How can you do that?

I know that you're blindly opposed to free trade, but are you opposed to the people you purport to represent having an opportunity to work in the United States? They're mobile; they have to be able to move across borders. Not only is this an American-Canadian problem, but what about the workers on the pipeline out west? What about the workers in Manitoba? These examples were used.

I just don't understand why you're doing this, and what you're going to say --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): What's your position on free trade?

Mr Mahoney: Why don't you be quiet for a minute? What you're going to see --

Mr Harnick: Tell us about free trade.

Mr Mahoney: I'd be happy to tell you about free trade. What you're going to see is more pressure put on all of you in your constituencies than you've seen since Bill 40, and you're going to regret it.

Mr Hope: I'm glad Bill 40 was brought up as part of the conversation. I believe the Labour critic for the Liberals at that time was talking about the expression of individuals to have the rights, the freedoms that prevail in their local unions or in their workplaces. What this legislation clearly does is to allow the local union to have stronger rights and a stronger say in its workplace. That's exactly what this legislation provides for.

Parents, internationals, and I listened to the members talk about the council trades -- I guess you'd better check whether they're actually elected or appointed business representatives. You'd better check that out to make sure, because let me tell you, you may have misquoted a factual part of an information process that's there.

I think it's very important that what this legislation is doing is allowing a mechanism. It's not saying that all local unions are going to do it, but there are local unions that don't believe what their international is doing is for the justice of their workers. In a local union, you're there to actually represent those workers affected in that workplace. An international represents a total body, but a local union has more responsibility and more accountability to its membership.

You talk about the pulls and the strings that international representatives do, that international representatives somehow put pressures on people. But I think what it does is allow the local union an opportunity, and the opportunity is in the legislation.

Not everybody is going to use it. Some might be happy with their parent, but some might not be happy, and they need to allow that jurisdiction to do it. The jurisdiction will be here, because we also talk about the jurisdiction, the province-wide agreements, the interference with the local trade union, the successor rights, which are very important to a lot of the trade unions, and also the administration of benefit plans, which has directly affected the local unions. It gives the autonomy. I'm not saying they have to use it, but the availability is there for them to use it.

1540

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too want to commend my colleague from our party, the member for Timiskaming, who made an excellent point. One of the things I think this government is caught up with is to bring legislation into the House that is ill-thought-out and not really even properly researched; we have seen that with many bills. The fact is that when they have put it forward and found out that it is not effective, what we have is poor legislation, which is worse than no legislation.

As my colleague has stated, the majority of the people are against this. They do not want this legislation. If you feel you're going to measure your performance at the end of the time by how many bills you have rammed through, if you say that is successful, what you have done is bring about more chaos to the whole process of governing.

As you know, the municipalities, which are in such turmoil now because they cannot get clear directions from the provincial government, are wondering where all this is going. My colleague from Timiskaming has stated it very clearly. We ask those on the government side to explain why it is you are bringing this legislation in. The puny aspect of what the member on the government side has just tried to explain, why we have this legislation, is not sufficient. We feel that as soon as we know the purpose of the legislation, the individuals can proceed in that direction in order to go about administering their jurisdictions.

I want to say again that I commend the member for Timiskaming for bringing forth some clear directions, hoping that they can do better in bringing out legislation in the future.

Mr Stockwell: There appears to be some fly in this ointment. I heard the member from Chatham and I've heard the minister and I've heard some other members of the government caucus speak to this issue. The dilemma you're faced with, as well as myself and I'm sure the member for Yorkview is faced with, is that if this is such a good bill, why is there such widespread opposition to it out there?

I don't pretend to know a lot about the union movement and the union organization, but I've met with some people who speak to me about this piece of legislation. I direct it to the member from Chatham. They tell me that there's 85% opposition to this bill. They tell me there's widespread disenchantment with this bill. I look across the floor at the parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Labour and I don't think they've totally bought into this bill, from the responses and the kind of positions they've put forward.

If this bill is such a good, workable, understandable, acceptable piece of legislation, I ask the member from Chatham, why do the rank and file brothers and sisters not buy into this piece of legislation? The member for Timiskaming was pointing out in very clear terms where the problems lie. The member for Mississauga West and members in our caucus have asked, why is this needed at this time?

We get a lot of flag-waving and a lot of group hugs about Canadianism and parents and internationals, but the rank and file brothers and sisters out there whom you purport to represent are saying to me, to them and I believe to you as well: "We don't want this piece of legislation. We don't need this piece of legislation." Apparently, the only people who want it are the senior labour people, who are getting bought off in some instances, it's said in some circles. To the member for Chatham, who seems to make this argument in the face of all logic, all the preparedness that his union brothers and sisters have brought forward, I say, if this is so good, Mr Hope, why do they all disagree with you?

Interjections.

Mr Hope: Have you been through this before?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Chatham-Kent, order please. The member for Timiskaming.

Mr Ramsay: There's been a bit of a commotion in the House, most of it emanating from the member for Chatham-Kent. The reason is that members here have not been satisfied that you've answered the question I was proposing in my speech, and that is, why? Not only why and what are the motivations for the existence of this piece of legislation, Bill 80, but what are the examples of where the functioning of construction unions in this country and locals in this province are not working? We just don't have those examples. If we had those examples, then we could see the rationale for this legislation. We could work with you on it and come up with some legislation that would improve the situation for working men and women in Ontario. But we have 85% of those people who are going to be affected by this against and we don't have any examples of where it's going wrong, so we're really quite puzzled as to what the motivations are.

That's why you get members making accusations across the floor as to what other motivations there might be, because you haven't given us a reasonable rationale for bringing this forward. You're really opening the door for those sorts of accusations, which is really sad. We would hope that the government would have, as I said before, consulted with the people affected -- and that's all the construction unions and locals in Ontario -- worked with them and given a full and complete explanation as to the motivations and the rationale behind this legislation so that the opposition could be working with you to improve this legislation rather than wanting to block it and oppose it, as we do, because we feel the people that you're trying to help in this don't want this particular help.

I know the member for Chatham-Kent was upset that maybe he didn't have a second chance to answer some questions. I'm sure that after the next speech he could get up in his two-minute session and give us his enlightenment.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's somewhat incredible that we're debating an issue of this nature in this House at a time when the people of Ontario, the people of Canada, basically have no jobs or are losing their jobs and are losing their homes. They're looking to government to try and create an atmosphere in society where we will get out of this recession and they'll be able to get back to earning a livelihood, get back to having their homes and so on. Yet what we're debating here today is another tinkering with the labour relations aspect of this province.

We could understand Bill 40. That was fundamentally and ideologically of the New Democratic Party. We can't understand this one, because what you're doing, essentially, is creating within the family of labour the formula and the recipe for unrest. We can ill afford that at a time when, as I said, the province of Ontario is going through -- people talk about it as a recession. It's not a recession; it's a depression. The reason we're not jumping out of windows is because we have the good fortune as Canadians to have safety nets in place that will take us, hopefully, God willing, through this terrible, disastrous economic downturn.

I really have to try to figure out why the Minister of Labour wants to set the cat among the pigeons at a time when we are in this terrible, disastrous situation, particularly with the construction industry. When you look at some of the measures that have taken place by the government of the day, the New Democratic government, they have been done without a great deal of thought.

Just to deviate for a second from the bill itself, we saw what happened when the Minister of Finance decided, in his budget, to put an 8% tax on insurance. We saw that this one move, without thinking about it and without looking into the issue fully, had the net effect of making the first-time home buyer plan obsolete. I'm sure many of you have read the press on this, the fact that if you're going to be a first-time home buyer and you're putting down $5,000, I think it was, you're going to be have a high-ratio mortgage, which is going to mean that it has to be insured under CMHC regulations. You add the 8% to that insurance fee and you have put people out of the market. You've just driven all those young people who, at a time when interest rates are at their lowest, when the prices are at their lowest, might have had an opportunity to get a house right out of the market.

1550

I suggest to you that you're doing exactly the same thing here. You're bringing in a piece of legislation that is not going to help the construction industry. It's going to cause difficulties within the construction trades. It's going to in fact make the atmosphere for our community and our province somewhat less desirable. It probably will have an impact as well on people who are planning on building, because they'll be concerned about the network and the image of the construction industry in Ontario. We don't need that. What we need to do is sit down and figure out how we are going to create stable environments to attract investment to try to turn around this terrible depression so that we don't have to do as Kim Campbell says: wait until the year 2000 to get jobs for those people out there who are desperately seeking jobs.

I wonder if things like this -- and I'd hate to think that this was the motive behind all this, but we see the present federal Conservative government pushing forward with the Pearson International Airport privatization. They're doing it in the death throes of their government because they know they won't have an opportunity to do it afterwards. I have to ask myself the rhetorical question, is this the payoff time by the Minister of Labour because he feels he'll never have another opportunity to do this again? We recognize the difficulties that your federal colleagues are having in this election, in terms of perhaps being decimated, and perhaps this has something to do with that. Perhaps it's a swan song. Perhaps it's an opportunity to do everything possible to this province that socialistic ideology calls for because you know you'll never get another chance to do it.

Well, I plead with you and I urge you that as elected representatives of this province your first and foremost job should be to ensure that your constituents are going to have an environment in which they can live and work without worrying about their jobs each day and worrying about losing their homes. You're not doing that here, I suggest. The people are looking for leadership and vision to get them through these tough times. Your government ignores that. You ignore the pressing issues of the day and you focus your attention on tinkering with this legislation.

When we look at the question of those who are opposed to it, they're opposed to it because the construction industry is a very different type of operation from the usual small business. It has a different makeup. It means that people may work for a week here, a week there, and then they move someplace else. That was the reason for the legislation dealing with construction unions to be that much different, to give them larger geographical areas to represent.

You know, when you think about it, every day we hear something worse about the economic situation. We hear about jobs being lost. We hear about companies moving out of this province. It would be interesting if we could do an independent survey -- independent of the New Democratic Party, the Liberals or the Conservatives -- by an independent body to determine just why that's happening and then try to address those concerns, plug those leaks and get us back on track.

I'm certainly not going to represent myself as being independent -- I obviously belong to the Liberal Party -- but I would suggest to you that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to believe that at least part of that report, when it was brought back, would say government is interfering too much, government is changing the rules too much, government cannot be trusted in terms of allowing business to be able to carry on in a fashion free and clear of government. They see these things. They see this unrest. They see this instability. It really doesn't do much for those people we're supposed to represent in the final analysis. It may win brownie points for the people of the various political parties in this House and you may think it will win you votes in a future election, but in the final analysis what's happening is you're letting the horses out of the barn or you're letting Rome burn while you fiddle, and I urge you not to do that.

It's difficult to try to understand the minister's reasons for bringing in Bill 80. He hasn't told us, really. He hasn't given us a reason. He hasn't given the people who are opposed to it a reason. He hasn't listened to them. I certainly hope there will be opportunities for people to air their views.

Why is the NDP government bothering with this when it should be focusing, as I said, on getting people back to work? We think it's ideological. We're asking you to scrap it and get back on track in terms of building the economy of this province, which Ontarians want.

You're going to have to study the issue. If you don't do that, then I think all is lost. You've got to find out whether this is really necessary before you go ahead with it, otherwise you'll plow ahead and again we'll have another disaster like the 8%.

That's just one example of the insensitivity. Maybe it's not insensitivity, maybe it's just not being able to run a government. Maybe it's just the neophyte position you've taken over by pure chance that you're not able to understand that for every action there is an equal reaction and you have to look down the pipe in the long run rather than trying to deal with things that ideologically appeal to you, perhaps upsetting other things that are in sync that you throw out of sync.

This bill will mostly benefit Ontario's local union leaders, who gain political and financial control at the expense of the rank and file. That always bothers me. I have a lot of union people who are fine residents of my community. They are sensitive, hard-working people. From time to time you talk to them about things that the union leaders are doing and they say: "Look, I don't agree with that. I don't even agree with having to pay my checkoff to this union." What's happening is that the leadership, these guys who've got the cushy jobs, the people who've got the opportunities to hobnob with the bigwigs, the Bob Whites and so on of the world, they're bringing in and supporting positions that the rank and file don't support one iota.

In fact, that's what you're doing. You're not looking after the rank and file. What you're doing is looking at the question of making a piece of legislation that's going to benefit Ontario local union leaders who are going to gain politically. It's sort of a symbiotic relationship. You believe that by them gaining politically, you gain politically. They're going to gain financial control at the expense of the rank and file, whose individual ability to work in other jurisdictions and to benefit from the protection of a huge international union might be adversely affected.

You're narrowing the scope. Maybe this is in tune with your approach to insularization of this province. Believe it, we can't be insularized. We have to be reaching out. We have to be expanding our trade barriers or we're in deep trouble.

You didn't even bother to consult with the international unions, as far as I know, prior to introducing this legislation. That to me flies right in the face of the entire philosophy that I always thought the New Democratic Party stood for. I thought they stood for consultation. The places when you consult is when you've got an issue that's too hot to handle, an issue you don't want to deal with. You'll send it out for consultation or reports and report it to death. But when consultation is really important and you're bringing legislation into this House that is going to have a significant impact on the people of this province, consultation has to be limited: just your friends, just the people who agree with you, not the people who disagree with you.

I suppose one of the shortcomings of this whole system, the parliamentary system, is the fact that you people over there have a majority government. We can stand here and urge you and try to bring logical arguments to you as to why you shouldn't proceed on a particular social policy or in a particular direction. You can ignore us. In fact, in most cases I would imagine that if I were now to ask members of the government who are in the House, seven members of the government in the House, if they can tell me what I said, they'd probably say, "First of all, we don't want to listen to you, Callahan," but, more importantly, they're doing other things right now. They're reading other documents. They're not interested in this debate. They're here because they're serving their duty in the House.

It really bothers me that our system will allow us to stand up here -- you've heard many members who I think have spoken well on this bill and who are trying to give you ideas and trying to stimulate and get you to move so that the province will not be the one that suffers, yet the system doesn't allow for that. The system allows a majority government to simply go along in its usual way and vote as though they were joined at the hip. "The Minister of Labour has told us that this is good for us and we'll vote for it." When the vote comes, the whip will say, "Stand up," and everybody will stand up. We've seen what happens when you don't stand up. We've had members here who were chairmen of committees, parliamentary assistants, even cabinet ministers, who were defrocked because they didn't toe the party line.

1600

That's unfortunate, and I think the people of this province are getting fed up with this. The people of this province are crying out for change in this antiquated system, this club -- I call it a club. No wonder the people don't like us, no wonder the people distrust us, because they find that their views really don't mean an awful lot. Their views, as expressed by the members of the Legislature that they've elected, don't mean anything. It's just like the voice crying in the wilderness.

I'll be here speaking for the next probably 15 minutes, another member might get up and speak for 15 minutes on this bill, trying to inform the members of the House how they feel this legislation is inadequate, how they feel it's the wrong legislation for this time, and what will happen? It'll be called for third reading after a perfunctory trip out through the province. It may be $300,000 or $400,000 to hear from the so-called public. There won't be anything changed in the bill. It'll come back into the House exactly the same way it went out.

I think the people of this province are catching on that we are throwing their money away and, at the same time, this government is requiring people to cut back from their salaries, to take days off, in order to meet the budgeting deficit that they've created. I just think the people are fed up with that. The people are saying, "Why should I give up money that I require for my family while you travel around the province and spend $300,000 or $400,000 listening to the public, and when the bill comes back into the committee not one essential item is changed?" I think they're fed up with that.

You'd better start listening to the people because I'm afraid that's what is happening to your federal counterparts. They're going the route of the dinosaur because they weren't listening. You're going to go the same route because you're not listening, particularly those people who come from ridings where there's perhaps heavy construction industry. These people are not going to forget what you're doing with this bill and unless the minister listens to them and gets their views and tries to resolve this -- what the construction industry unions are telling you is, "Leave it alone; we can do it within the family; we don't need you." For some reason, the New Democratic Party government has this fixation that: "Nobody else can do it as well we can. Government is the source of all benevolence."

It seems to me that in eastern Europe that attitude prevailed, and even they've gone the route of the dodo bird. I suggest that your ideology is certainly behind the times. If you can't recognize what's happening in eastern Europe, then you've got problems.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It didn't work for David and it won't work for you.

Mr Callahan: I'm not even going to respond to that comment because I'm not even sure you know what this bill is all about, so it really doesn't matter.

In any event, to me, the bill being introduced doesn't even seem to be in line with what I would have expected from this government. You've already turned off many of your union supporters, both on the provincial level and at the federal level. Why try to do more?

I suggest to you that the best thing you could do -- and you'd probably get great accolades for this -- is that you could pull this bill just like you pulled Bill 50. When Bill 50 was before the House, you had the good sense to understand that it was not appropriate to be able to tell people how much medical care they could get or to tell their doctors how many times they could visit the doctor if the doctor felt it was necessary they visit. You were smart enough to realize that was a dumb bill and you pulled Bill 50. I suggest you do the same thing with Bill 80, or at least go back to the drawing board, or at least take some more consultation --

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Bill 50 is proceeding.

Mr Callahan: It was my understanding that 50 was certainly being amended significantly in order to take out the more salient features.

Hon Mr Charlton: That's because we listen.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): It was because you made such a mistake in the first place.

Mr Callahan: What it means is that you screwed up at the start, and after you'd been told about it, you had to then revamp and think about it and redo it. I suggest that you may be in the same boat here.

I hope the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Labour is in the House. Yes, there he is: Mr Cooper, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. I hope you're taking all this down to take back to the minister, because he's missing the boat entirely. You've obviously gotten correspondence from various international construction unions, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, which has participated in a massive letter-writing campaign. Are you just ignoring them?

Mr Hope: What letters? I didn't see any.

Mr Callahan: You didn't, eh? Then I guess they feel it's not worth writing to you people.

Mr Hope: Maybe they'll write to those who know what's going on.

Mr Callahan: The member for Chatham-Kent has always been, as far as I can figure out from his speeches in committee or in the House, strongly union-oriented. Here, in the course of this debate, he's supporting, obviously, Bill 80. He doesn't understand why he shouldn't or what amendments have to be made to this bill. That's why they're not writing to him. Obviously they've written off the member for Chatham-Kent. They've said: "He used to be heavily involved with unionism, but since he got his job in the Legislature and his opportunity to travel around perhaps in chauffeur-driven cars, he's above us. He's no longer on the same level with us."

Mr Stockwell: Bob, they're not worried. They're just going to take him out of the nomination.

Mr Callahan: Yes. But I have to give credit where credit is due. There have been at least one or two people from your party who have had conscience enough to recognize that the things that are being said by the opposition are in fact contrary to your views, your beliefs, be they political beliefs or whatever, and have decided to go and sit independently or have voted against the government.

But that means there are an awful lot of you people over there who just don't care. It's a cushy job, there's no heavy lifting, you're out of the rain, the salary's pretty good and you figure you'll have it for another two years, so that's okay. "We don't have to listen to the people who elected us. That doesn't mean anything. An election is not important. We've had enough time. We may have built up some other type of expertise." I don't know what it is. Perhaps it's voting joined at the hip. That could be a good act if you can perform that outside this place. But it really boggles the mind that you'd bring this in at this time.

I sometimes wonder if the Premier and the four cabinet ministers and the spin doctors down the hall have got a poll that says this is a popular piece of legislation, because that's the way the place works. You know that. It doesn't work on the basis of what's good for the citizens of Ontario; it's what the big wheelers, the spin doctors, who aren't even elected, who are not responsible to anybody, down the hall on the second floor with the polling results are saying, that "Bill 80's a good issue; there are enough people who support us who are going to support this, so we're going to bring it in," never looking at what impact it has on the rest of the people of this province, not caring what impact it has on the rest of the people of this province. In fact it becomes a very centralized or a very centric, authoritarian government.

I really begin to wonder how many people in this province and in this country understand that parliamentary democracy is not democracy at all. It's the height of undemocracy, because it puts in the hands of certain people, a small group, the power to control the lives of the people of this country, of this province: the power to control whether they will have a job or not have a job, the power to control whether they'll keep their house or they won't keep their house, the power to control whether or not they'll take off 14 days this year, next year and the year after even though they've planned their budgets in terms of having to have that money to pay their mortgage, the powers to retroactively do that.

1610

It amazes me. This government has passed so much legislation that has this retroactive arm that goes back three years or two years or a year before the bill has even been thought about. I find that absolutely incredible and I'm surprised somebody hasn't challenged that type of legislation, because it's historically against all of the equitable principles of the common law from which we develop our system of government, our rule of law.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): That sounded like justification for Bill 80.

Mr Callahan: The member says it's justification for Bill 80. As far as I can figure out, there is no justification for Bill 80 except that you want to give payback to the local union leaders.

Forget about the rank and file. It doesn't matter if that has an impact on them that's disastrous. The average rank and file person is not going to understand why this bill is going to hurt him. The construction worker is not necessarily going to understand why it's going to hurt him, but he does know that the NDP government is not listening to his leaders, who are saying, "This will limit your sphere of jobs; it will limit the opportunities you have; it will make you less portable in terms of being able to move from job to job."

It will in fact destroy the very reason that construction workers were given an entirely different approach to unionism, because of the nature of their job, the nature of the work, the geographic positions they worked in. In one swipe of a pen, that's what you're going to do. You don't understand that, though, I don't believe.

This may very well have an impact on whether workers in Canadian locals can work in other jurisdictions. Of course, I guess that doesn't matter because right now you're in a fight with Quebec and you figure: "Well, so what? They can't go into Quebec now because Quebec won't let them in, so let's not worry about it. Manitoba, that's a long way away. There probably isn't any work going on up there, so we won't worry about it. We'll keep everything insularized."

I think the province of Ontario had that luxury probably 10 years ago when the economy was good. We don't have that luxury any more. Ontario is fast becoming one of the have-not provinces. I hate to say that, but a lot of it has to do with the policies that are being brought in by the government in power, the labour laws. I would imagine that probably if you were at Pearson airport you could have heard people getting on the plane and leaving or driving across the border to Buffalo, because that's what you're doing: You're creating an atmosphere which makes life difficult for business; then the jobs go and it just worsens things. I suggest you take a good hard look at that.

I haven't lost my place; I'm just taking a little bit of a pause. Could I have a glass of water, please?

The opportunities for people to be heard on this bill I think will be very interesting. It'll be interesting to see whether the Minister of Labour decides to consider amendments. He dropped a couple of them on the table, as I recall -- I haven't seen them -- five. I'm not the Labour critic, but I understand they're not terribly significant. They don't necessarily alter the objections by the construction industry certainly.

Hon Mr Charlton: That's not what the folks out there are saying.

Mr Callahan: Well, it'll be interesting, because if the construction unions consider that those five amendments are adequate to cover the problems that they've seen, we'll soon hear about that. But I certainly haven't heard that.

I want to close by saying to you that this is the type of bill in which there are logical reasons for amendment, logical reasons for not necessarily just following the vote of the chief Pooh-Bahs. I applaud one of the members. I can't remember which one it was, but he said, after hearing some of the discussions, that he is going to give closer reading to the bill. That's at least a person who is going to make an effort to try to decide what's in this bill that's good and bad for his constituents. That's the type of listening I like to see.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I thought you were going to tell us you were going to read it now.

Mr Callahan: I can't remember Mr Hayes's riding, but I wonder if he's read it.

Mr Hayes: I know more about labour than you'll ever know.

Mr Callahan: I see. Well, not this bill, you haven't. If that's the case, I challenge him to stand up after I'm finished and tell us what the bill means.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Now we have time for questions and/or comments.

Mr Sutherland: I'm pleased to rise and respond. The member from the Brampton area has said, "What are the reasons for this bill?" Let me tell you, there are many reasons. It has been cited many times by members who have spoken.

My colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot cited examples of two locals where the internationals had come in and put them into trusteeship without just cause. Actually, my father was a member of one of those locals at the time.

The member for Brampton says, "Why do we need to do this?" We need to do that so that the individual members of that local who have voted for a certain leadership, who have carried on their activities in a proper and appropriate fashion and have decided the direction of that local, all within their bylaws, all in a very appropriate way -- we need to pass this piece of legislation so that those people and their rights within that local are protected. That's what this piece of legislation is all about, and that's really where the crux of the issue is.

I don't know why several members of the opposition can't seem to realize that, can't seem to understand that those individual members' rights within that local need to be protected. That's what this bill is about, and it provides a balance.

It doesn't say that if they're doing things inappropriately, if there's illegal activity going on, the international can't come in and put them into trusteeship. That would be just cause. That's what the bill's all about: finding a more appropriate balance between what individual members of a local want and, of course, what some people who weren't elected by those local members, based in an international union, may think is in their best interests.

To me, that's a pretty basic, fundamental understanding, and all the justification you need for supporting this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in questions and/or comments?

Mr Hope: The member opposite stood up and said "very few people given all this power." That's why this legislation, because currently in the international sector are a very few people who have a lot of power and who are doing things that are not considered in the Ontario sector as being fair to the membership.

To give you some examples in a letter, one is dealing with the jet of one of the international unions, taking it to New York on New Year's Eve, running up the international's credit card of $7,200, letting a friend use the jet to travel to Europe for a month, and it also being impounded in Spain for narcotics, then going to Japan and being impounded -- for what? Narcotics.

Looking at the consultant fees that are being paid out, and also looking at -- if it wasn't for the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of Labour intervening on some of this stuff, a lot of this information wouldn't be coming out. But also $27 million of per capita tax dollars were collected last year but only $200,000 of it wasn't spent. Shocking: $27 million being allocated or brought in and only $200,000 not being spent. There is something wrong with the jurisdictional aspect.

When you talk and you make the comments about what you want to do, and that what you're fearful this bill will do is allow a few people strong power, what this bill does is allow the autonomy of local unions to understand where their pension dollars are going, where the allocation in the investment aspect is. I was sitting on Bill 40, and some of the construction workers talked about investing back in the province of Ontario. But in this jurisdiction, in the international jurisdiction, they have no say, because it's held by a few individuals who are not addressing the local concerns of local construction workers.

When the member says in his comments about this bill providing power to a small group of people, look what is currently happening where a lot of internationals have a lot of power and local unions are left out without their membership having a say in the jurisdiction that goes on.

1620

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate? I recognize the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Curling: Scarborough North, the wonderful place and the great riding of Scarborough North, Madam Speaker.

My colleague here put the question very well in order to explain why I believe it should be on the table and why we should have legislation in that concern. The member for Chatham-Kent expressed himself, if I heard him right, that with the amount of corruption involved within those areas, we need laws to make sure that the international bodies should be --

Interjections.

Mr Curling: If we talk about people taking jets illegally and all this kind of stuff, anything like that, illegal practices, these are corrupt practices if you don't follow procedures. If I understand the member properly, and we want the legislation to clean up the international unions, which I don't know of; he should be much more familiar with it. The other member sitting beside him, Pat Hayes -- I don't remember his riding -- also said what he had forgotten in unions, I wouldn't even remember. The fact is they're quite familiar with union activities.

I think that unions have served very well nationally and internationally. My colleague asked very explicitly to give some reasons why we have Bill 80. My feeling too is that it's quite unnecessary. Many of the unions are saying they don't want it. You have rifts within your unions. I think much of this consultation could have resolved many of the issues. But again, typical of this government, we must put legislation down to measure their success. Whether it's bad, poorly drafted, ill-defined legislation, they've got to put it forward.

You still have not answered the question. It's not everything that should have legislation. We beseech you, don't start ramming legislation here unless it is properly consulted and properly defined, and still you have not justified the reason for this legislation.

Mr Stockwell: It seems to me that this piece of legislation is, to use a double negative, not not salvageable. I think the member for Scarborough has made a good point, and I think if the government picks up on this, there is some salvageability, if there is such a term, for this piece of legislation.

I don't think the two parties are that far apart, those in opposition to this piece of legislation and those in favour. If you did go to some true consultation and offered up some legitimate amendments, you could get a piece of legislation that would be widely endorsed and uniformly accepted.

The problem is that I honestly think you use the word "consultation," but you don't understand the definition. It's much like "eradicate." I know you use the word "eradicate," but I don't think you know what it means, because you said you would eradicate food banks. That didn't happen. So when you say "consultation," I think you go to meetings and I think people talk, but I don't think you listen and then adopt or try and accept and put into practice what you've heard. You simply go with headstrong attitudes that, "We're right and you're wrong and this is the way it shall be."

If you did truly go to consultation on this piece of legislation, I think you would have widespread support within the unions affected to adopt an acceptable agreement between all parties. This doesn't seem to me like it should be, in the private sector vernacular, a deal-breaker. There's a deal here somewhere, and I think you could get 100% adoption if you just gave a little, if you just agreed a little rather than being so entrenched in a position that's unsaleable -- a little private sector talk.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Brampton South now has two minutes to respond.

Mr Callahan: I'd like to address the member for Oxford's concerns. I wonder if he knows all unions, non-construction, internationals, Canadian unions, public service and the CLC, have the ability to impose trusteeship for a variety of reasons, although Statistics Canada figures show it happens very seldom.

I might add as well, in response to the member for Chatham-Kent, that he has told me today in this Legislature that the reason he wants this legislation is because the union officials heretofore who have had affiliations with unions in Canada are dishonest because they use the funds inappropriately.

Mrs Sullivan: He says they're corrupt.

Mr Callahan: If he says they're corrupt -- I mean, the member for Chatham-Kent should know that they're corrupt; he's been with the union movement for a long time. If that's the case, what does he mean, just simply by bringing in Bill 80 that the people to whom these moneys are going to be transferred aren't going to act in the same fashion? I wonder. I don't see that. People are either honest or they're not honest, and if they're going to use the funds inappropriately, they will.

You've just made a condemnation of all international unions throughout the world, that they're all criminal, unjust. I would want to see you make that statement outside of this House. I would want you outside the House to make that statement, that the reason you want Bill 80 passed is because unions are corrupt and they use the moneys inappropriately. If that's the case, well, then, we have a real problem in this country and in this province and I suggest perhaps maybe we should disband unions if you have no trust in them --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would the member -- thank you. Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: You stood up with 15 or 20 seconds left because there was some unruly activity going on, and then really stopped him from finishing his remarks. I would ask you to allow him to finish his remarks. I just don't quite understand why you stood up and let the time on the clock expire. That seems to be punishing him, and he wasn't engaged in the --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. To clarify for the member, I do appreciate your concern. I believe the member was finished.

Mr Callahan: I sat down, Madam Chair, because I saw you standing up, and I assumed that was the end.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe that when you rise in your chair, the microphones at the desk of the speaker are turned off. As a consequence, the remarks of about 20 to 30 seconds of a two-minute response, one quarter of the response, were therefore not recorded for Hansard nor for the public.

The Acting Speaker: If we have unanimous consent, I believe it was five seconds when I looked at the clock when I stood up.

Mr Stockwell: Unanimous consent for five seconds.

The Acting Speaker: That's right. Okay. Do I have unanimous consent of the House? No, I do not.

Are there any more speakers to this debate? Seeing no more speakers, the Minister of Labour has moved second reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Mr Elston: Madam Speaker, there had been an agreement that this vote would be deferred, and I expected the House leader for the government to have stood and made that point.

Interjections.

Mr Elston: I didn't want her to declare the motion to be carried. We don't have enough people for the deferred vote here.

Interjections.

Mr Elston: Have we got enough? Okay. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that we didn't want you to declare the motion carried. That was the problem.

1630

The Acting Speaker: The procedure is in order. The motion has been carried.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: It is up to the members to have five members stand. I will put the question one more time.

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Call in the members.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: "Pursuant to standing order 28(g), I request that the vote on the motion by the Honourable Bob Mackenzie for second reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Tuesday, 12 October, 1993."

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

Mr Hayes, on behalf of Mr Philip, moved third reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management / Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités en ce qui concerne la gestion des déchets.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I'm very pleased to introduce Bill 7 on behalf of the Honourable Ed Philip, Minister of Municipal Affairs, for third reading, an appropriate bill to help mark Waste Reduction Week in Ontario.

Bill 7 gives municipalities increased powers to develop and operate comprehensive waste management programs, particularly the 3R programs. It also makes clear that there is a continued role for the private sector in waste management. The certainty provided by this bill should encourage economic investment and is part of our plan to put Ontario back to work.

We received valuable input on this bill at the standing committee on general government from a number of interested parties. In particular, I wish to acknowledge the contributions of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Ontario Waste Management Association. They have helped develop our fair and balanced piece of legislation I am bringing forward today.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think we should have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the clerk determine if there is a quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Essex-Kent has the floor.

Mr Hayes: Actually, I'm pleased in a way that the member for Etobicoke West did call for a quorum, because I think this is such an important bill that more people should be here for this great occasion.

This bill is one of many elements of Ontario's waste reduction plan. We believe that not only is it possible for Ontario to hit our target of a 50% reduction in waste by the year 2000, but that it is possible to do it in a way that makes good environmental sense and good economic sense.

I'd also like to thank all the members who were on the committee for their participation and cooperation. Especially, I'd like to thank the opposition critics, Ron Eddy and Bernard Grandmaître, on their efforts in bringing this to where it is today and also the critic of the third party, David Johnson, for his input and cooperation.

I think it's very important that the committee was able to sit down and work together for a common goal. I know we had a fair number of amendments -- I think something like 22 -- to this bill, and it was unanimously passed by the committee to send this for third reading. I certainly appreciate all that and hope that we can get on with passing this bill as soon as possible to continue the cooperation we have on both sides of the House.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments and/or questions? Seeing none, are there are any other speakers who wish to participate in the debate?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have some interest in Bill 7, having lived through in my own community a rather treacherous process leading to the development of a landfill site over a period of years and also having watched our local municipalities as they introduced, with enormous public support, the recycling and reduction programs that have meant so much and have met with popular support in our community.

As you know, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has long called for more powers with respect to waste management. Indeed, I have a news release which was issued on April 21, 1993, by the AMO calling for clear and adequate municipal legislative authority for waste management. The AMO suggests that such authority is critical if municipalities are to respond to the challenges of today's waste management system, which no longer involves just the traditional collection and disposal of waste but also the recycling and composting of materials.

I want to address the issue of the system of waste management, but before I do that I want to walk through some of the experiences we in Halton have had as we've come to terms with looking at waste management as an integrated system and requiring an integrated system.

Some 15 to 20 years ago it became clear that there were not enough landfill sites in our community and work began to establish a new landfill site; 15 to 20 years later, after much consultation in the community, after enormous community splits, after the expenditure of more than $100 million, we finally have reached the point where we have established a new landfill site in that community.

There are still problems associated with that landfill site. There are still complaints with respect to the impact on local property owners, on occurrences. By example, when a cell is being pumped out, are the other local wells in adjoining communities being affected, are the natural springs being interfered with and so on? There certainly is not an end yet to the controversy associated with the location, the cost and the community splits associated with that landfill site.

During the course of that period of time, Halton and our local municipalities were in fact enlightened about looking at other components of waste management. The recycling programs had an early introduction with high popular support in our local municipalities and there was a clear public indication of support for actions that were being taken in Oakville, in Burlington, in Milton, in Halton Hills with respect to the introduction of recycling programs.

1640

Halton was one of the first municipalities to be involved with the recycling committees and the waste management association with respect to introduction of the blue box program and was certainly right there in the forefront when the first blue box grants were made available to municipalities. I want to suggest to you that one of the singular problems with this bill that we have before us is that there is no information or knowledge as to what will happen to those grants, and I will speak to that shortly.

While the landfill site selection was going on and while our municipalities were also being involved in the introduction of recycling programs, we have had an interesting conundrum facing our community as well. Indeed, I was quite delighted to see one aspect of the bill. When the consolidated revenue board made a decision with respect to the site location for the landfill in Halton, it provided two directions to our region. The first was to establish a landfill; the second was to begin work on an energy-from-waste plant.

You will know that the previous Minister of the Environment, through a policy decision that in my view was based on ideological grounds and had nothing to do with environmental reasons, has ensured that the energy-from-waste plants are not proceeding. I was delighted to see that this bill includes energy from waste as part of the options that are now available to municipalities for local decision-making.

The other thing that I was delighted about in connection with this bill is that it looks at an integrated approach to waste management, that landfill isn't separated here and composting here and toxic waste here and reduction here and energy from waste there. In fact, what we are looking at is an integrated system, a managed approach to waste management. I think that is something that has been missing from many of our waste management decisions in the past. We have too frequently approached waste management issues on a one-issue basis, and therefore the integration, by example, of developing markets for recyclables has not been put into the context of overall waste management planning.

The size of the municipality, which will now have the power to organize and manage waste management, may well be itself a problem. I was not a participant in the public hearings and I don't know how much of an issue this became, but one of the problems, as you well know and I think members of the Legislature know, that we have had in ensuring that our recycling programs have been not only useful but effective and cost-effective is in terms of the establishment of the market for the recycled products. One of the things that concerns me and I hope that we will see some benefit with is that some of the municipalities in fact may still not have the critical mass that will indeed ensure a dollar recovery appropriate to the recyclables that are collected in the community.

For my own part, I am very positive, having the opportunity for our local municipalities to, for the first time, offer the same programs. When I do my householder, advising my local constituents and local residents in Halton of what their municipalities include in their blue box programs, I provide one list for Burlington, one list for Milton, one list for Oakville, one list for Halton Hills, because each of the local municipalities currently or in the recent past have been collecting different products for recycling. I think that the option of having Halton-wide consistency in the recyclable collection is a very positive one, and I do believe that it will add to the critical mass and will contribute to the reach into markets in terms of product sales.

The caution I bring is that there may be some municipalities that aren't moving into the regional system, as I expect mine will be, and they will not have the critical mass and therefore will not have the return because they will not be able to find markets for their products.

The question of who pays for all of the waste management issues has been one of continuing concern for many, many years. Whether the question of who pays becomes a question of a public utility, a public service through the tax base, whether the user pays, whether the producer pays, has been a major part of our debate for many years.

We see that this bill will enable a municipality to introduce new fees, akin to a new tax, and there may be several different kinds of approaches that may be taken. There is a pilot project that I believe was completed in Peterborough with respect to a fee per bag placed out. In my community and in several other communities there have been limits placed on the number of bags for residential collection of garbage that can be placed at the curb and an additional charge for bags which exceed that number.

There are packaging protocols, which in fact are federal-provincial, and although I believe this province has been slow in ensuring that those protocols are brought to the fore, I believe that they have had already an effect on the packaging of products and on the producers and industries with respect to the amount of waste that's generated through packaging.

What I think is still to be questioned, particularly since the bill does provide an option, which I also see as a favourable one, of including private sector involvement in the collection and disposal of waste and treatment of waste, whether it's reduction, whether it's reuse, whether it's recycling, whether it's energy from waste, is the cost the municipalities will impose on either the collector, ie, the contractual relationship that's established, or the resident, who will see a new fee, a new cost to his own functioning and home life when other costs are already proceeding to be expanded in an extraordinary way, whether it's hunting licences or drivers' licences or additional costs which will soon be associated with our health card system. Certainly a new cost per household, per resident, is one that I think municipal politicians will have to face some community concern about as that's introduced.

The area that I have some concern with -- and once again, my problem in raising this issue may be because I was involved in another committee when this bill was before committee -- relates to the role of the inspector. I am concerned about the potential for conflict of interest with respect to an inspector who is a municipal inspector and therefore may have a conflict of interest if it is a municipal site to be inspected. Whether the equivalency of demand will be made on the municipal site I think is something I'd like to hear the minister speak to.

1650

I have a situation in my constituency relating to the landfill site where a resident, a farmer, has brought concerns to me and to the regional municipality with respect to his well and how that well is functioning since the landfill site was put into place.

That particular resident has indicated to me and to the region, and I'm certain that the region will respond, that he has had inadequate information from the municipality with respect to operations that are taking place on the municipal site at the landfill. The family's concern, and this is not the first instance where there has been this concern, is that its observations are that the well dries up when cell pumping occurs on the landfill site, that a spring which should have been supplying the well has now been moved away.

With the inspection powers available to the municipality, my question I suppose then to the minister is, would the inspector be just as vociferous in reviewing the municipal site and actions of the municipality as they would be in reviewing the private site? I'm certain that in my own community, these issues will come to a fair conclusion, as they have in the past in other similar circumstances. But I believe it is a question that requires some response and some, I suppose, confidence to residents, to businesses, that there will be a consistency in the inspections and in actions that are taken by the inspectors subsequent to their activity.

One of the issues I see emerging as this bill moves on in its application I think is an interesting one. We have talked for many years about the technology of waste management as being an economic development tool. We have expertise in our province and we have had pilot projects and other activities that have made us a leader in waste management, and frankly, most of that leadership has come from the private sector.

One of the concerns, as we hope to emerge from a recession that has been debilitating for many of our communities, is that we will be able to attract industry and business from other communities and that the way we attract that industry and business is not simply through one municipality competing with another municipality for the inflow of corporate activity from other jurisdictions, but where there is in fact a provincial component involved in that business development work.

If there is an inconsistency that is serious between the rules and the operations that are established by municipalities in terms of their waste management system, I think there can be a deterrent in terms of the very economic development that we wish to see. I can express those deterrents to you in the very cost of some of the initiatives that may be taken. Perhaps a municipality will see a lower tipping fee, by example, as an alternative to a bounty to attract new industry, business and commercial operations into its community.

In my view, we should not be using the cost of waste management as an economic development tool. The incentives associated with waste management should be incentives associated with making the system work: incentives to reduce, incentives to recycle, incentives to ensure that energy from waste and other environmentally sound technologies are put into place, incentives to ensure that there are cost-efficiencies in the collection and separation of product. But there should not be an incentive that would see one community, ie, one region or one municipality, competing against another region or municipality on the basis of lowering the costs associated with waste management or providing breaks associated with waste management simply to attract a business or industry.

I don't raise that issue lightly, because that has been found to be an issue in American jurisdictions where the tipping fee has in fact been used as an incentive for business location, where the cost of recycling is factored into programs or perhaps there's no charge; perhaps ICI waste is given a break in certain areas. I think that is something we do not want to see here.

I'm quite interested and I want to raise the question with respect to the incentives the province has provided to municipalities over a period of years to ensure that those municipalities move forward with 3R programs. I believe there are contracts with most municipalities in Ontario for the 3R programs. Those contracts ran, depending on the community, depending on the municipality, for a maximum of five years in some cases, to a maximum of three years in other cases.

When those incentives were first put into place, they provided subsidies of up to 75% for the first year, then 50% in the second year of most of those contracts, and then have moved to zero in the third year, depending on the nature of the contract. My understanding is that regulations which would have accompanied Bill 143, the Interim Waste Authority bill, with respect to the 3R programs were supposed to have been brought forward last April. They have not been seen to this point; in fact, municipalities do not know what to expect with respect to the further incentives for recycling, and the entire question of who pays once again comes to the fore.

It seems to me that the government should be quite explicit in what its intentions are with respect to subsidies for 3Rs, what kind of financial arrangements it will make with the municipalities, given a new component: a new, no longer contractual relationship but an authority that's being provided to the municipalities to move ahead. Given that the regulations under that bill will require -- and I quite agree that the materials, for instance, that are specified for the blue box are appropriate materials. My communities are already there; other communities have to do catch-up ball.

I think it is extraordinarily important that the minister come clean now, given that the municipalities under this bill will have less than a year, at this point, to implement the requirements of the bill, unless they're in the north, when they will have a further extended period of time to implement those regulations.

I would like to hear from the minister, as this debate goes on, what the provincial government will in fact pay. What will they offer to the municipalities to ensure that there is not such an extraordinary additional burden placed on local residents and the local property tax base that they will have to cease or slow down many of the valuable waste management system programs that have already been put into place?

1700

I think that refrain is one which will be coming back as we proceed with this debate. I do not believe that we can ask that the property tax base continue to be the sole place for the funding of waste diversion, of the 3Rs programs, of landfilling activities, and therefore some of the authority that will now be able to flow to the municipalities will be welcome. None the less, I think we should have the information before us and the municipalities should have the information before them as to where the province is going to be in participating in funding these programs, which are in fact programs that are being put into place for a public good.

The sense of the public utility and the public service should not be lost as the authority for handling these programs is turned to the municipality. My view is that the province still has a role to play, and a proper role to play, in the funding of such programs.

The former Minister of the Environment became well known as the Minister for Garbage, you will recall, and for many years during her tenure the issue of garbage dominated environmental discussions in this chamber and elsewhere. There was certainly much action. One of the things I am uncertain about and that perhaps in responses could be addressed is where the responsibility and authority for those dumps that existed in the past that have been covered up and lost will now lie. What role will the municipality have if it takes over authority, and is there any mechanism which ensures that this bill does not require, as a kind of surprise vehicle, municipalities to have to pick up responsibility for old sites? Is the Ministry of Environment still continually active, first of all, in determining where they are; second, in ensuring that there is reclamation of those sites; and third, in ensuring that there are no additional cost burdens on the local municipalities associated with those sites?

I believe there are several others who wish to speak to this bill. Just on a personal note, the hearings as they occurred with respect to Bill 7 would have been interesting to me, and I regret that I was not able to participate in them. I will be supporting this bill in its current form. I don't believe I could have supported it in its earlier rendition, but with AMO and the waste management organizations having received consideration by the government for their proposals for amendment and the participation of our critics for the opposition party having brought changes to the bill, I think I can put my vote on third reading for the bill.

But this is not only a municipal bill, this is also a waste management bill, and many of the issues that I have raised today, some of which may not have been included in discussion, I think should be on the table.

I thank you for this opportunity and hope that some of the concerns and issues that I have raised will be addressed as the debate continues.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any members who wish to participate in questions and/or comments?

Mr Hayes: There are a couple of points that the member for Halton Centre has raised, very legitimate points. I certainly, and I know many other members in this Legislature, can relate to the member for Halton Centre's concerns dealing with the landfills and selection of landfills and things that have gone on for years and years. I think it's great that we have this type of bill, because the sooner we get on and give the municipalities more authority on the 3Rs, it will certainly reduce the need for as many landfills that use up as much land as they have been doing.

On the one particular issue the member raised dealing with the inspector, I just want to say that we're talking about new sites and site selections, so as far as policing the sites and doing other testing and that on sites that have already existed or are there now is concerned, that responsibility still lies with the Minister of Environment and Energy. On that particular area, this legislation is dealing with future sites, so I hope I was able to answer the question for the member.

Also, the other issue: When you're dealing with the finance, dealing with the 3Rs, that has not been reduced by the expenditure control plan. That is still there and there is still work going on with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, along with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I just want to raise an issue with respect to this bill which is of concern, I think, to areas like mine where searches for waste disposal sites and other things are an ongoing process, a very costly process. In some of my municipalities they have sites which are suitable for use for several years into the future. The concern is being put to me, as the local member, from local ratepayers where a waste disposal site is in existence that they're afraid there will be a movement by the upper-tier government to come in and take over that facility for a nominal cost, leaving the local ratepayers to have footed the bill for the establishment of the facility without really compensating them for the value, I guess it is, that would be established on a location of a suitable site on a free-market basis. It seems to me that their concern is more with the idea that a local municipality may suffer what is virtually an expropriation without a reward at all for some of those local people.

I'm concerned in the sense that sometimes what looks like a good idea in principle really does cause problems for people when it comes down to the money end of it. Right now, what I think we have to do in terms of waste disposal is make sure there is a fair disposition of the costs associated with finding sites that will go a long way into the future.

I know that the member for Halton Centre, whose riding is not dissimilar from mine -- she has a much larger urbanized area than I do -- would run into some of the same types of problems. I wanted to raise this as an item on the side of the comments that she's already made and also bring that item to the attention of the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I've been listening carefully this afternoon and following some of the points from the member for Halton Centre, and some of the points she raises are valid. But I support Bill 7. I think this is rather important on waste management. But related to finance and some of the other issues we've talked about, it's clear that our principles are that we want to make sure we have control of our expenditures and that we do this in the best way we can.

Bill 7 provides the authority to municipalities to provide waste management services so they can reduce, reuse and recycle in a way that is economically sound and provides the municipalities authority to establish their own system for user fees and also to enter property for testing purposes and for health and safety standards. This is important to check. It's to provide the municipalities with a more flexible way of going in there and doing that, and that helps in the long run, for the future. It's good, because as land gets taken up and as we need to take a look at how we deal with our garbage, without the 3Rs the problem would certainly have been much worse than it is.

1710

We need to make sure we control our garbage for the impact on people's health and on municipalities. For example, in East York this is going to be good. This is going to go a long way in East York to help provide for industry and business and all of those things, to help us reduce our garbage. In the future, I know it'll also have better benefits for the environment, a friendlier environment, a healthier environment for all of us. I support this and I think this will go a long way to helping municipalities.

I've been listening to the points raised by the member for Halton Centre and I'm sure her constructive suggestions for this will go a long way.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member for Halton Centre has two minutes to respond.

Mrs Sullivan: I want to respond to the response to my notes about the inspection procedure included in this bill which the parliamentary assistant made. I see that the former Minister of the Environment, now Minister of Health, is in the House now. She will concur, I think, in the view that there has been for many years a sense that there is a conflict between the role of the Ministry of Environment, by example, as being the setter of the rules, the operator frequently of the facility or whatever and then the inspector or policeman associated with the facility. Indeed, my observations were that the same kind of conflict that has been perceived as problematic over many years with respect to the Ministry of Environment will now be transferred to the municipal level, where the municipalities will have the power to make the rules, to operate the system, to inspect the system and police the system and to make decisions then about how to deal with problems that are raised.

There have been strong concerns in the past about actions of the Ministry of Environment in this area. I am not assured that those concerns as they relate to the municipal area have been appropriately addressed by this bill. I think as the bill moves ahead, that should be very much on the table. This is not a new problem. It is one that should be looked at.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any more members who wish to participate in the debate on Bill 7?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'm delighted to rise on this occasion and speak to Bill 7. I've followed Bill 7 through the process, from when it was introduced early in the last session, through the committee stages. I participated fully in those committees and I'm delighted to stand and speak to it at this point.

I might just make one comment right at the top. Perhaps this isn't exactly the way I should have handled it, but the member for Halton Centre did mention that in this particular bill there was some window of opportunity in terms of energy from waste. I concur with her view that this would be a positive consideration for the province of Ontario. This would be a step forward, to look at the possibility of energy from waste, always of course within the context of an environmental assessment and making sure that any way of handling that waste was environmentally sensitive.

However, I think there may be some disappointment, in that reading the bill I don't really believe that's what the ministry intended, that energy from waste would be contemplated. The allusion to energy in the bill is primarily in terms of harnessing energy that is coming out of landfill sites. Out of the landfill sites there is a production of gases. These gases can be harnessed. They can be brought to the top. In many landfill sites you will see them as plumes, I think they call them. The gas is forced through pipes; the gas is set on fire as it escapes so that the gas itself doesn't go into the surrounding community and cause pollution. Rather, the gas is burnt at that particular time.

I can say in the region of which I was formerly a member up until earlier this year, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, that we looked very closely at harnessing this energy coming from the landfill sites, for example, in Brock and in Vaughan. Those two landfill sites were studied extensively, and they're in various stages of having this gas not only harnessed within the landfill site itself by a set of collection tubes, not only brought to the surface, but at that point the gas, rather than simply being burnt off and in a sense being wasted, will be converted into electricity. The gas will be burnt, generators will be fired and the energy will be converted into useful electricity, which the residents of the province of Ontario will have the advantage of. This, as I understand it, is what's contemplated by this particular bill.

It's my understanding that the Ministry of Environment, notwithstanding this bill, is still opposed to consideration of incineration of any form, whether that incineration is simply to dispose of waste or whether that incineration is to create energy. In other words, you can't burn the garbage and create energy. The Ministry of Environment frowns on that and is unprepared to even investigate whether that's an environmentally sensitive alternative to the needs of our waste disposal system.

This bill, though, does provide municipalities with some clear definition of authority for the waste management system: more authority or clarification of authority in terms of collection of waste, in terms of disposal of waste; more authority or clarification of authority in terms of the local municipality role vis-a-vis the role of the upper tiers, the regions and the metropolitan areas.

As we've heard from the previous speaker, the bill also does provide more authority for the municipal inspectors to go into sites that, to quote the bill, "a local municipality considers necessary to meet the requirements of or to obtain an approval under the act relating to the planning, establishment, operation, management, alteration or improvement of a waste disposal site or any other waste management facility, an inspector of the municipality may enter" on to the land and inspect those lands. I think that's a power that will be useful to the municipalities and it's one aspect of the bill that I was very pleased to see.

The bill also raises the possibility of a user-pay fee in the province of Ontario -- I'll speak to that at greater length in a few minutes -- and it also discourages dumping of waste within the province of Ontario. I am extremely supportive that the bill addresses that particular issue, because the dumping of waste in the province of Ontario is becoming an immense problem.

The problem is generated because the cost of handling waste in the province of Ontario today is so high that many of -- I shouldn't say "many," but some of the contractors, some of those who have waste, whether from a construction site or from some other purpose, are finding it too costly for their budget to dispose of waste. Consequently, what they're doing is simply finding wide-open stretches on a highway, in a remote site, and dumping construction materials or other waste, and that is a blight on our environment. It certainly doesn't solve the problem; it simply transfers the problem from them to the owner of the property where the waste is being dumped.

I must say, I've talked to a couple of owners who've had this kind of problem. One person explained to me that he had over 200 tires dumped on his property. Just try to get rid of 200 tires. It's not easy in this day and age. He also had an old fridge. He had shingles and various other construction material.

1720

I can even say, and I think I mentioned this when this bill first came up, that there is a church located around the corner from me. The church has a parking lot and on that parking lot one morning appeared a pile of rubble from a construction site. Somebody desiring to dispose of the rubble felt they couldn't afford to pay the tipping fee at a bona fide landfill site, so instead they dumped it on the parking lot of the church. This is the kind of thing, unfortunately, that's happening and needs to be addressed, not only in Metropolitan Toronto but across the province of Ontario.

The bill does speak to that and does increase the fines for a first offence for an individual and for a corporation; for a corporation up to a $100,000 fine if it's convicted of such an offence. That in itself I think is a good step. I suspect it won't solve the problem, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

I want to get back to some of the main issues that were raised during the debate in the committee on Bill 7, a bill to address waste management in the province of Ontario. Probably the number one issue that was raised at the committee was the issue of flow control. Reference has been made by a number of speakers who have preceded me to the private sector involvement in this bill. I would add to their comments that I was very delighted with the interest and the cooperation and the input from the private sector in terms of addressing the needs of this particular bill.

One of the main concerns that was expressed by the private sector revolves around the concept of flow control. Flow control is the right of a municipality to determine exactly how the waste is handled from the collection process, right through the disposal process. The concern of the private sector was that this bill, in the first instance, would have given the right to a municipality to direct the private sector -- the private sector primarily collects waste for the industrial sector, the commercial sector and the institutional sector. It would have allowed the municipality to direct the private sector where to dispose of that industrial, commercial and institutional waste and at what price.

This would be a very severe system that would have imposed a great deal of hardship, not only on the public sector collecting the waste and disposing of the waste but on the public sector in terms of generation of the waste in the first instance. It would impose a tremendous cost on the private sector and the institutional sector as well. The hospitals, for example, would have suffered, had that been allowed to go through.

The private sector came to us and it said: "We do not think flow control makes sense. If you implement flow control, it is going to have a severe impact on the cost of waste management in the province of Ontario and there are going to be a lot of unhappy businesses: small businesses, large businesses, institutions. There's going to be a problem." The private sector pointed out that there is a partnership that's involved with the management of waste in the province of Ontario, a partnership that involves, of course, the people of the province of Ontario.

The people have been cooperating and I'm sure will cooperate even to a greater degree by reducing, reusing and recycling their garbage to the greatest extent. But the partnership also involves the municipalities -- the local municipalities, the regional municipalities -- the partnership involves the province of Ontario and the partnership involves the private sector. The private sector is an integral part of waste management in the province of Ontario.

I'm particularly delighted with the input of the Ontario Waste Management Association. The Ontario Waste Management Association represents over 300 members in the province of Ontario who are involved in one fashion or another in the waste management system of our province.

For example, the members of the Ontario Waste Management Association handle about 80% of the waste that comes from industry, commerce and institutions. They handle 100% of the hazardous waste in the province of Ontario. All the hazardous waste in the province of Ontario is ultimately handled by members of the Ontario Waste Management Association, and 75% of the municipalities of the province of Ontario have some form of contract or other with the Ontario Waste Management Association or some of its members.

I can say from personal experience in the borough of East York, where I was the mayor up until recently, that the private sector, a member of the Ontario Waste Management Association, collected and disposed of the garbage from all of the large apartment buildings in the borough of East York, and that represented fairly close to half the population of the borough of East York. We were given excellent service and at a tremendous price, a very low price, a very competitive price. So the private sector is serving well.

The private sector also operates material recovery facilities that take in waste, separate out what can be recycled, direct that to the proper source where it can be properly recycled and then sort that out from the waste that must be landfill. The private sector is also involved in composting plants, plants that accept compostable material and over a period of time compost that and then market that material at the other end. So the private sector provides a great service to the people of the province of Ontario.

Their concern about flow control, again, was that the municipalities shouldn't have the authority to direct them at every step of the way. Within the private sector there is a great deal of experience in terms of how to deal with waste in the most efficient way and the least costly way, and having municipalities direct them at every step would be an impediment to their experience and their ability to provide the least-cost service.

I'm pleased to say that, with the government, we agreed on an amendment to deal with this issue, an amendment that gave the municipalities the authority, obviously, to deal with their own stream of waste and deal with it properly, but did not give the municipalities the authority to direct the private sector and allowed for the free enterprise spirit, I suppose, to persist with the private sector.

The precise amendment involved the definition of "waste management system," and it was amended to read that it means a facility, a service, "owned, operated or controlled by a municipality for the management of waste, including the collection, removal, transfer, processing, storage, reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal of the waste." So municipalities would have control over facilities that are controlled by other municipalities but not by the private sector.

That was a great step forward and one of the reasons I'm going to be able today to support Bill 7. With that amendment, the private sector felt that the bill was supportable, and with some other amendments I feel it is as well.

1730

Talking about the private sector, since this is an important bill, since this is a bill that involves one of the most important issues before the people of the province of Ontario today, I think it's an opportunity to comment on some of the studies that have been happening recently and some of the new directions that are becoming more apparent as we deal with this issue of waste management.

I would like specifically to refer to a study that was performed by two professors from the University of Toronto, Professor Dewees and a Professor Trebilcock earlier this year. They studied the waste management system. They studied private sector involvement in the waste sector and they studied the public sector and its delivery of the waste management services. They came to some perhaps surprising conclusions after studying both the private and the public sectors.

One of the conclusions was, "We find that the private sector provides more efficient and economical performance in most areas of waste management" -- that's the private sector -- "and that the quality of the performance is similar to that of the public sector." What these two professors from the University of Toronto are saying is that not only does the private sector deliver a less costly system for the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, but it does so at an equivalent quality.

It says, "Studies of residential mixed waste collection conclusively demonstrate that private sector provision is more efficient, often substantially more efficient, than the public sector provision. A proportion of the cost saving arises from lower wages paid to workers in the private sector, but wages account for less than half, often only a quarter, of the savings."

So the savings result from a number of areas, their study concluding that the private sector can deliver the service at less cost because the wages paid in the private sector are lower than those in the public sector. This will not be a great surprise to many taxpayers in the province of Ontario. The benefits paid in the private sector were lower than in the public sector. This, again, will not be a great surprise to many people. The vacations were lower, the absenteeism was lower, but the hustle was higher. The efficiency, the desire to get the job done was higher.

To be fair, from my experience the private sector also has access in many cases to equipment that may be superior to what is used in the public sector. Sanitation trucks, for example, in the private sector tend to be much bigger and consequently collect more waste, and there are fewer trips to empty the vehicles because they simply collect more material. That is something I'm sure that many municipalities will be looking at, but on small streets it's somewhat difficult to have the huge trucks that some of the private sector companies use. It would be considered unsafe in many municipalities.

They go on to conclude: "The productivity of the private sector operators is generally greater than that of the public sector. More waste is collected per hour per worker, or per truck-hour, in the private sector."

For residential waste, just to give you some sort of idea of the difference in cost, in terms of the operators that they studied, the cost differential was $27 a tonne for the private sector, $50 a tonne for the public sector, over a 75% differential in their study. That's $27 a tonne for the private sector, $50 a tonne for the public operators. That's quite an eye-opener, and it's certainly something that, for the good of the tax dollar, I hope will be investigated in many municipalities across the province of Ontario.

That brings us to another main issue that I would like to focus on at this point, and that is the issue of the user-pay system. Bill 7 introduces the concept of a user-pay system. What that means is that once this bill is passed, local municipalities right across Ontario will have the ability to charge each property owner within their municipality for each bag of garbage that they put out for collection. That kind of system is actually in place in some municipalities in the province of Ontario -- not very many, but there are a few municipalities that already have in place a user-pay system even today.

The concern, I think, that has been rightfully expressed is that while some municipalities are doing this, they may not have the legal authority. There's some question as to whether they have the legal authority to do what they're actually doing today. I don't believe there are any large municipalities that have a user-pay system, but a number of municipalities have investigated and I am aware that in the United States the city of Seattle does have sort of a user-pay system. This bill will legitimize a process that's already in place to some degree.

I must say that there is a good side and a bad side, I think, to the user-pay system. In general, it would be my belief that if you use a system, then you should pay the cost as much as possible. The taxpayer today is just being taxed beyond the ability of the taxpayer to pay. There's no question about that. We're seeing an underground economy. One of the eye-openers that I've experienced since coming here to the province of Ontario is to be involved in discussions on how many businesses are using the underground economy, how many businesses are taking cash, and there's no income tax paid, of course. The reason for this is that taxes are so high in the province of Ontario that people and businesses just consider that they're not reasonable. They can't operate in that kind of environment, and that forces the economy underground. So to the degree that a user-pay system would shift the legitimate burden for the cost away from the taxpayers and taxes could be reduced, I think the user-pay system which charges those who use the system with the cost of that system is legitimate.

However, you just wonder how this system is going to work, particularly in large urban centres. What are we looking at? Are we looking at $1 a bag, so if every week you put out two bags of garbage, that's $2 a week, which amounts to over $100 a year? A hundred dollars a year is a significant amount of money for many people. Is that the kind of system we're looking at? Are we looking at the possibility of having one or two bags free every week and if you put out more bags beyond that then you pay for them? There are a number of variations.

The main purpose either seems to be to collect revenue on the one hand or on the other hand to discourage people from putting out garbage. You can well imagine if you were to be charged $10 for every bag of garbage that you put out at the foot of your laneway, then you would make some very industrious attempts to reduce the number of bags that you were putting out.

1740

My guess is that the main purpose, though, is to generate revenue, is to raise money to pay for the cost of the waste management system throughout the province of Ontario. I think that's the real purpose. In that regard, it might be construed as simply another fee.

In the budget that was implemented in the spring of this year, we had $2 billion worth of extra taxes and fees. We had not only additional taxes but we were looking at the possibility of a permanent corporate registration fee. We looked at retail sales tax on auto insurance and home insurance. We looked at tax on sand and gravel, and on and on and on it goes, more and more fees. Now we have a user fee on garbage so that when you put a bag out you will pay for that bag.

I think there will be resistance. I think there will be a great amount of resistance. It will be up to the local municipalities right across the province of Ontario to determine if this is the way they want to go or not. But I think when you tack fee on fee on tax to the people and the businesses of the province of Ontario, they throw up their hands and say, "I can't take it any more," and that's when the underground economy swings into full force.

The other aspect that I'll come back to a bit later is that as a revenue generator, unless the cost per bag is very high, unless it's perhaps $5 or $10 a bag, the revenue that's generated won't be enough to pay for the cost of waste disposal in the province of Ontario. I honestly don't think anybody has sat down and figured out what the cost is of this whole waste management system that is being proposed in the province of Ontario, right from start to finish. I think we're just chipping away a bit at a time and independently saying, "You must recycle; you must do this; you must collect leaves; you must do this with cardboard" etc, bit by bit, and nobody is working out the full cost and what money will be required to pay the full cost of this system.

On top of that, I'd be very interested to know how a user fee is going to work for apartment buildings. Now, for a single-family home, it's very simple: Whatever is out at the foot of the lane way is what gets charged for the fee. But in an apartment building, how does that work? In the apartment buildings, of course, people simply put their garbage down the chute, it goes into a big bin at the bottom of the chute, and who knows who has put what garbage in there. So how is a user-pay system going to apply to the many apartment buildings that we have in our urban areas?

In the Metropolitan Toronto area, for example, fairly close to half the people who live in Metropolitan Toronto are tenants. The largest proportion of them live in high-rise buildings. How on earth is the user fee going to apply to all of those people, perhaps over a million people, who live in high-rise buildings in Metropolitan Toronto and great numbers of people who live in the cities of Ottawa, Hamilton, London, you name it, in high-rise buildings? There's no guidance in terms of that particular issue. So does that mean the user fee will then simply only apply to home owners but not to tenants? I think there's going to be a problem, and I hope there's some guidance in that regard in the future.

The way this whole system is set up to work, as best I can make of it -- and I don't think it's been fully thought out -- is that the local municipalities are supposed to somehow charge a user fee to their residents.

How that will be administered I don't know. I've already mentioned the apartment buildings; that's even a greater puzzle. But at any rate, somehow they will charge a user fee to their local residents.

The city of Toronto will charge a user fee to the residents living in the city of Toronto; in London, they'll charge a user fee to the local residents living in London. Then the garbage will be turned over to the regional municipalities and it'll be the responsibility of the regional municipalities to dispose of the waste. That's primarily what happens today, but the difference will be that the regional municipalities will then charge the local municipalities a fee based on the weight of the garbage they receive from the local municipalities -- so many dollars per tonne.

That's how the region is going to get its money. The local municipality is going to get its money from the local home owner; the region is going to get its money from the local municipalities. The problem with all that is that beyond the fact that it's going to take more money out of the pockets of every taxpayer, in my estimation it won't raise enough money to pay for all of the costs. I'm going to get into all of those costs in a few moments.

It's been mentioned earlier that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is in support of Bill 7, and that's true, but the association did also make another comment, and that comment pertains to the funding.

To quote the association of municipalities in the province of Ontario, they said: "The current funding system is not sustainable in the long term. The municipal recycling support program only offers funding for the first five years of the program and the private sector support is also not secure. Second, it focuses on recycling instead of on the first 2Rs of the hierarchy: reduce and reuse."

Here's the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, representing all the municipalities in the province of Ontario, saying that the funding system that we have in place today won't work, and I agree with them, and I think that's a very telling point in the whole consideration of Bill 7.

Bill 7 doesn't speak to the funding requirements, so I can't stand here and say that it's in error in terms of what it proposes. It simply doesn't propose anything in that regard other than to raise the possibility of a user-pay system, one small component of the whole funding hierarchy.

I think if there is a major fault in terms of Bill 7, that major fault is that it doesn't identify where the money is going to come from. It doesn't identify the structure that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is requesting. They're saying that the present one won't work and that the province of Ontario needs to set in place another one, one that will carry us through into the future.

Part of that funding formula is Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc. This organization represents a number of businesses involved in the waste stream. It represents the daily and weekly newspapers; it represents the grocery distributors; it represents the manufacturers and suppliers of grocery and related products; the bottlers and distributors of soft drinks; the manufacturers and suppliers of plastic products and packaging. It represents that sort of industry. It's called OMMRI for short.

1750

OMMRI has been very active in the past several years in terms of the whole waste industry, particularly in terms of the recycling component of the waste industry. OMMRI has funded essentially the blue box program, along with the province of Ontario and municipalities. We are delighted that through the efforts of OMMRI, the province of Ontario and the municipalities, three million households have participated and are involved in the recycling program as of the end of last year in Ontario. That represents about 80% of Ontario's current population which is somehow involved in this process.

The involvement by OMMRI, I might say, is again primarily through the funding. They have contributed $35 million over the last few years to the funding of the blue box; $23 million of that has come from the soft drink industry and it has been a major contributor in terms of funding the blue box and equipment to support the blue box system.

The problem is that there's not a bottomless pit in the private sector. They simply can't meet all the needs. There has to be a blueprint for funding of the waste management system. It can't all be put on the backs of the newspaper industry, the bottlers and those in the grocery industry in Ontario. They have contributed $35 million. They have got the blue box system to the point where we now have 80% of the population of Ontario involved. But there are continued requirements and they are very expensive requirements.

At the present time, just in the municipal field in the blue box area itself, there are probably about $5 million of outstanding requirements at this time, as we speak right now, that need to be funded. There is no funding available. There needs to be a plan to meet that requirement, but there is none.

I'll comment a little bit further on the cost of the blue box system, just to give members some idea of the enormous problem we're facing and why this needs to be addressed in the near future.

Here in Metropolitan Toronto, and I assume it's fairly similar in other large urban areas, it costs $223 a tonne to collect the waste from the blue box system; $223 a tonne is the cost to operate the system and to amortize the capital infrastructure involved in the blue box system. The revenue, by comparison: for every tonne of blue box material, there is revenue of $34: $34 in revenue, $223 in cost. There is a disparity of $189, the net cost for every tonne of blue box material picked up.

That points out the need to look at this whole waste management system with a very critical eye. How long can the taxpayers continue to subsidize a system that's costing $189 a tonne, a difference between the cost and the revenue? It just can't happen.

Beyond that, there is revenue support from the province of Ontario. The support from the province of Ontario is 50% of the cost in the first year, 40% of the cost in the second year and 33% of the operating cost of the program in the third year and years beyond. So the province of Ontario will pick up about 33% of the deficit in the program beyond the third year and the municipalities and any other funder that can be involved will have to pick up the rest.

But that funding arrangement, at least here in Metropolitan Toronto, expires on April 1 of next year and there are no commitments to funding beyond that, so the municipalities here in Metropolitan Toronto right now are faced with the prospect of picking up the full tab for a system that's going to cost them in net terms $189 a tonne. That is a very worrisome prospect.

I know that the mayor of the city of North York was before us to discuss Bill 7 and certainly told us in no uncertain terms that he doesn't feel that the citizens of the city of North York are going to be able to foot that particular cost.

We need a blueprint from the province of Ontario to sort out the costs to collect waste, to recycle it, to dispose of it. We need to include the costs of the composting program, the material recovery program. These are very expensive programs. A composting plant by itself can cost in the vicinity of $40 million, a major composting plant, which would be required for Metropolitan Toronto to meet the target of the province of Ontario for a 50% waste reduction by the year 2000, and this is the target that all the municipalities are trying to meet, a 50% reduction in waste by the year 2000.

To accomplish that kind of goal, they will have to construct at least one major compost plant to serve the people of Metropolitan Toronto. That plant will cost in the vicinity of $40 million. Where is that money going to come from? Is that money going to come from the user-pay, in other words, the people who put out the bag, and we're going to charge them $2 a bag, all the residents of Metropolitan Toronto? Is that money going to find its way up then somehow to Metropolitan Toronto to pay for a $40-million compost plant?

Mr Stockwell: I think not.

Mr David Johnson: "I think not," says the member for Etobicoke West, and I think not either. I think, frankly, somebody is going to have to stand back and say: "My goodness, this is a major cost. We can't put this on the backs of the people of the province of Ontario."

I've only talked about a compost plant. To meet the 50% target, Metropolitan Toronto would have to construct at least one, possibly two material recovery plants to separate the waste that can be recycled from the waste that can't be recycled. The cost of these plants runs about $20 million a plant for a first-generation plant. A very simplistic plant would cost in the order of $15 million to $20 million. A more sophisticated plant, which would probably be required, would cost considerably more than that again.

Where is that money going to come from? Again, through the user-pay system? There won't be enough money in Ontario, frankly, to pay for those kinds of plants, not only here in Metropolitan Toronto but scattered across all of the province. Nobody seems to be sitting down and recognizing that and working that out, and that's what disturbs me.

One other way that we've heard through Bill 7, one other way that all of this money is somehow magically going to become available to pay for all the blue boxes, all the trucks that collect the blue boxes, all the compost plants, all the recovery plants that are going to be required, is called product stewardship. Product stewardship means that those who create the waste in the first instance will somehow have to pay for the waste at the end of the day. So if you make a cardboard box and somebody puts razor blades in that cardboard box, then you as the manufacturer of the cardboard box will somehow have to pay a fee because that cardboard box somewhere down the line will have to be disposed of.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): It sounds like the tire tax.

Mr David Johnson: Yes, well the tire tax is another beauty too.

Mr Hayes: Tell us about the tire tax.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Brant-Haldimand may wish he hadn't raised that. Did that come under the former government? Was that instituted under the former government as the result of a bonfire of a large number of tires?

But I'm glad that was raised, because here again is another tax on the people. We think there's no end, that we can put a user-pay for garbage, that we can put a tire tax on, that we can put a tax on home insurance, a tax on car insurance, that we can put a tax on everything and that we can get away with it somehow.

Mr Stockwell: They tax the tax, for heaven's sake.

Mr David Johnson: They tax the tax. We'll probably see that in the near future. That tire tax raised over $100 million across the province of Ontario, and how much of the tire tax was actually spent on research to dispose of --

Mr Stockwell: It was $5 million.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Etobicoke West says $5 million. It was actually perhaps a little bit more than that, but not much. I think $20 million of over $100 million was actually committed to research. Now, thank heavens -- and I give you credit -- you've done away with the tire tax, so that's certainly one good step.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): This might be an appropriate place for the member to break his remarks, and when next this bill comes to the floor of the House, of course he will have the opportunity to resume his address to the House.

Does the government House leader have the business paper for next week?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the week of October 12.

On Tuesday, October 12, we will consider an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mr Harris.

On Wednesday, October 13, we will continue third reading debate on Bill 7, the bill we've just been debating, municipal waste management. When that item is completed, we will give third reading consideration to Bill 17, the Capital Investment Plan Act.

On Thursday, October 14, during private member's public business, we will consider ballot item 27, second reading of Bill 56 standing in the name of Mr Harnick, and ballot item 28, a resolution which will, when tabled, stand in the name of Mr Klopp.

On Thursday afternoon we will consider Bill 40, the Community Economic Development Act.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1802.

October 7, 1993

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAND CONSERVANCY CORPORATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PROTECTION DES TERRES

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

LAND CONSERVANCY CORPORATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PROTECTION DES TERRES

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARDS

FOREST INDUSTRY

VINELAND THANKSGIVING ARTFEST

REGULATION OF TRADESPEOPLE

RACCOON RABIES

LONDON 200 CONFERENCE

WATER QUALITY

JAMES WARDLAW

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

ASSISTED HOUSING

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

YOUNG DRIVERS

POLICE SERVICES

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

COURT FACILITY

VISITORS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

LONG-TERM CARE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (BLOOD-ALCOHOL), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PRÉSENCE D'ALCOOL DANS LE SANG)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE