Hansard Transcript 1998-Dec-07 vol. A | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Today I rise to pay tribute to the Windsor Goodfellows, who this past weekend had their annual newspaper drive, which is the major fund-raising drive they do throughout the year.

Today we hear more stories about the rising incidence of child poverty. The Windsor Goodfellows started in 1910. It was originally the old newspaper boys. They sell this newspaper throughout our community to raise money, principally for their food bank and for shoes and boots for children in school.

The Goodfellows do remarkable work. At Christmastime alone this year they will distribute more than 5,000 food baskets. Those food baskets are also available throughout the rest of the year.

Many other organizations in our community contribute to help the Goodfellows. More than 700 volunteers help that food bank operate and the food distribution system work at Christmastime and throughout the year. The Canadian Auto Workers and a number of other organizations in our community help make this event a great success every year.

I was pleased again this year to join with the Goodfellows in this important drive. At a time, as I say, when the incidence of child poverty, of hunger and of homelessness, in every community throughout this province, continues to grow, communities like mine in Windsor are truly blessed to have the Windsor Goodfellows organization there to help them throughout the year.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The Toronto Disaster Relief Committee is having a trial tomorrow, and it's the homeless people versus the governments of Ontario and Canada.

"The accused stand charged:

"That they, the said governments of Canada and of Ontario, in Toronto and in Ottawa, between the first day of January, 1993, and the seventh day of December, 1998, inclusive, enacted legislation and adopted policies that resulted in decreased availability of affordable and supportive housing and created increased homelessness, and thereby contravened paragraph 1 of article II of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights.

"And further, that they, the said governments of Canada and of Ontario, in Toronto and in Ottawa, between the first day of January, 1993, and the seventh day of December, 1998, inclusive, failed to take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of the right of everyone to adequate housing, contrary to paragraph 1 of article II of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights....

"And further, that the said government of Ontario, between the first day of January, 1996, and the seventh day of December, 1998, inclusive, cut payments for social assistance to a level below that required to maintain an adequate standard of living, contrary to paragraph 1 of article II of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

Everybody is invited to hear this trial. It will be tomorrow morning at 10 at All Saints Church, 215 Dundas Street East, where they will be talking about remedies, a response plan and an elimination plan. We invite everybody to come.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to once again tell the members of the assembly about the good things happening in the riding of Perth.

The final numbers for the Stratford Festival are in and they confirm that the 46th season, which concluded on November 8, was the most successful season ever. The six-month season, encompassing a total of 585 performances of 12 productions in three theatres, earned a gross box office revenue of $23,591,730, the highest in the festival's history.

Attendance was up nearly 20,000 over last year, with the total attendance for the season being 523,015.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the people who worked so diligently to ensure the festival's success this year. I believe that Antoni, the general manager for the theatre, summed it up nicely when he said of the Director, "Richard Monette has given us one more stellar season, and...we look forward to another enlightening, entertainment and record-breaking season in 1999."

The 1999 season will run from May 4 to November 7, 1999.

There's no better indication that Ontario is once again on the right track than success stories like this from the riding of Perth. As the representative for the riding of Perth, I am happy to be part of a government that made these things possible.

CHILD POVERTY

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Metro Campaign 2000, a Toronto-based group, released some very alarming statistics about children, specifically children in poverty: More than one in three city of Toronto children under the age of 12 are living in poverty, 37% of Toronto's children; the total number of children is 135,735, an increase of 66% since the beginning of the decade; 1,360 children are living in Toronto's homeless shelters.

These statistics are alarming, and what's worse, we have a minister responsible for children in this House who refuses to answer questions that are placed to her regarding children in Ontario. Here we have a minister collecting a cabinet minister's wage and refusing to answer questions about children.

The questions we have for the Ontario government is: Who is looking after Ontario's children? Who is looking after those specifically who are in need?

We want answers from the government. We don't want to see you put off responsibilities to municipalities and blame the feds. Look at programs you used to deliver but you've cut back without looking at the kind of effect that would have on children. Food bank use is astronomical.

We hope these kinds of statistics will make the government realize that children are our number one concern.

1340

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The Sault Ste Marie North Planning Board, which does land use planning and development approvals in the 32 unorganized communities north of Sault Ste Marie to Montreal River harbour for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, will not receive enough funding to remain in operation much beyond the end of 1999. The minister has informed the planning board that provincial funding will not be provided for the board's operations beyond March 2000. The board will have to sunset its operations and wind down, providing severances to staff in 1999.

The Sault North Planning Board was established by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs in the mid-1970s to bring some order to land use planning and development because of the confusion, poor planning and housing and pollution problems in the area north of Sault Ste Marie that had plagued all of the unorganized communities along Highway 17 from Heyden through Goulais River, Batchawana to Montreal River, including Searchmont. The board is responsible to the minister and receives all of its funding for administration from the provincial government.

Apparently the current Conservative government is prepared to see the demise of good planning in the region and let the area revert to the development free-for-all of the 1960s and early 1970s with all the grave housing and environmental problems that resulted at that time. I call on the minister to provide the funding beyond 2000.

PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I rise today on a matter of utmost importance to the residents of Mississauga East: the unbearable noise generated by low-flying airplanes using the north-south runways at Lester B. Pearson airport.

Residents of my riding living east of Dixie, north of Burnhamthorpe in the Rockwood community face daily noise attacks that have been described by some residents as being like living in a war-torn region and by others as living in hell. Their homes vibrate; their alarms go on and off; their TV and electronic equipment breaks down; their property values are in a downward spiral; their babies cry non-stop; their mental and physical health are under extreme stress; their sense of security in their homes is gone.

When will the federal Liberal government learn that it cannot treat taxpayers, homeowners and residents of Mississauga East with such utmost disrespect and disregard for their concerns, and when will the federal Liberal government listen to the appeals of residents and enforce strict restrictions in the use of the north-south runways for use only on an emergency basis?

NURSING STAFF

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Nurses help provide quality to our health care system. Study after study has proven universally that with the involvement of nurses health care is enhanced. The latest US study published in the journal called Image provides us with some very interesting data which I hope the Harris government will listen to and learn from.

It says, first, surgical patients in hospitals with more nurses were less likely to get infections, pneumonia and other complications from their surgery; second, the chances of developing other lung-related problems and blood clots also dropped with extra nurses; third, an extra hour of nursing attention per surgical unit patient each day cut the risk of the patient getting a urinary tract infection by nearly 10% and the risk of pneumonia by 8%.

It is no small wonder that doctors, patients and the public are dismayed and angry at the Harris government for cutting 10,000 nursing jobs. Everyone knows, except the Harris government, that nurses are the front-line workers who provide stability, credibility and professionalism to our health care system.

That is why I am asking the Harris government today to support Bill 84, my private member's bill, which is in fact a bill of rights for nurses. I believe nurses deserve it. With this government, I believe they need it to protect them in order for them to do their jobs.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is about protecting the environment, and I want to take this opportunity to outline my position on shipping Toronto's or other large cities' garbage to the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake. My position and that of the NDP party have never wavered or changed on this issue. We are categorically opposed to using northern Ontario as a dumping ground for Toronto's garbage.

During the 1990 provincial election, I fought against the Liberal government and the Conservative candidate at that time to have Toronto's garbage shipped to Kapuskasing, there to be incinerated or dumped in the landfill. Fortunately, the Liberal plans never saw the light of day.

In government, the NDP delivered on our promise not to use northern Ontario as a dumping ground for Toronto's garbage. You can rest assured it was not popular with everybody in southern Ontario but it was the right thing to do, I believe. We believed then, as we do now, that the garbage issue should be taken care of locally within the municipalities.

There is no guarantee that the garbage site at the Adams mine site won't contaminate local groundwater. I've been told that the rock is so fractured at this site that the pollutants inevitably will leak into the groundwater.

We must not gamble our environment away. The stakes for us, for our children and for generations to come are too high.

There are a lot of other economic development concerns that can be developed out there for each and every community within northern Ontario to create jobs and make sure the environment is protected at the same time that we're developing and creating new jobs in the north.

CHRISTMAS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): This certainly is the season of hope and happiness. I have participated in several community events in my riding of Durham East to recognize the importance of Christmas as a time for everyone to have hope and optimism for the future.

Most recently, I was in the Santa Claus parade in Bowmanville, another Santa Claus parade in Port Perry, and of course there are parades throughout Durham to mark this very special occasion. This past weekend I was very privileged to be involved with the Christmas tree lighting in the town of Whitby and the municipality of Bowmanville.

Fundraising activities are also very much part of the agenda on the weekends, where most members in the House, I'm sure, attend a variety of activities at church bazaars, museum activities, as well as perhaps the charity breakfasts that are being held by many business organizations. Most important, I want to recognize the wonderful work that the Salvation Army does at this time of year, providing food and toys for families in need. Also, the Durham regional police toy drive is currently underway and all members are encouraged to participate in their communities.

With a 30% tax cut and more jobs than ever in the history of this province, I call on all members to be generous to their fellow community members at this time of year, and I extend my best wishes for a wonderful, safe, happy and hopeful Christmas to everyone in this House this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Reports by committees? Introduction of bills? Motions?

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(e)(i), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 12 midnight on December 7, 8 and 10, 1998, for the purpose of conducting government business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): 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.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the notice requirement be waived with respect to private member's ballot item number 40.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to the standing committee on resources development and Bill 71, the Professional Foresters Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the standing committee on resources development be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, outside of its regularly scheduled meeting times, but not during routine proceedings, for the purpose of considering Bill 71, An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of Professional Forestry.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I'd ask for unanimous consent to revert to introduction of bills as one of the members present wanted to introduce a private member's bill but was not here.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

1350

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DISTRIBUTION ÉQUITABLE DES RESSOURCES MÉDICALES

Mr Martiniuk moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 95, An Act to provide for fair distribution of medical resources in Ontario / Projet de loi 95, Loi assurant la distribution équitable des ressources médicales en Ontario.

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

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This bill requires students in a faculty of medicine in Ontario to enter a contract with the crown under which they agree after graduating to practise medicine in an area of Ontario designated by the Minister of Health within a period specified in the contract and for the period specified in the contract. If they default on the contract, the crown would be entitled to recover from them the amount of the cost of their education that the crown has paid or subsidized.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Deputy Premier. There have been concerns raised by the people of Ontario with respect to the proposed settlement for the former Speaker. Your government has offered to settle the case for in excess of $430,000, not including the Legislative Assembly's own costs. The Legislative Assembly's own solicitors know of no case where a third party such as the Legislative Assembly, whose liability in their opinion is extremely remote, would in effect pay the legal costs of all parties involved.

Why would you instruct our lawyers to settle the case on the basis of a payment of $430,000 when they themselves have strongly recommended against such a settlement?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Kingston and The Islands, that question is not properly before the House. Questions before the House can be only government matters. It's a Board of Internal Economy issue. All parties -

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Then why did the government support the settlement?

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold.

All parties are represented on the Board of Internal Economy. It's therefore inappropriate and not properly before the House.

Mr Gerretsen: With all due respect, Speaker, this is a matter that has -

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, member for Perth. Stop the clock, please.

Member for Kingston and The Islands, please sit down. I will entertain points of order on this issue if you'd like me to, but my ruling is that this particular question is out of order.

Mr Gerretsen: I'd like to stand the question down then at this stage.

The Speaker: I'll have to get back on standing it down.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order: Surely, Speaker, if the member were to direct the question to the Treasurer or to the Chair of Management Board, those ministers are responsible for authorizing the expenditure of the funds for the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, you're incorrect. The authorization of those funds comes directly from the Board of Internal Economy. Appropriations are submitted by the Board of Internal Economy, with representation from all parties. It is not a government decision as to how those monies are appropriated; it's a decision of the Board of Internal Economy. It is therefore not properly before this House. It is a legislative matter.

What I'm trying to explain is that the question, as it's worded, is out of order. I don't think you can stand down an out-of-order question. If you want to go on to another question, you're more than welcome to, but you can't stand down a question that's out of order.

Mr Gerretsen: I will ask the question in a different fashion then, Mr Speaker. I will simply ask the Deputy Premier why he would instruct the members of his government on the Board of Internal Economy to settle the case on the payment of $430,000.

The Speaker: It's still out of order. I'm sorry.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is $400,000 of taxpayers' money. The people where I come from were adamant -

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, let me just say this: I am prepared to listen to your point of order.

Mr Kormos: - behind doors, secret deal -

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, come to order. Having a rant at me - I'm not arguing the point with you.

Mr Kormos: The people want to know -

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, come to order. It's not a question of the appropriateness of the expenditure or the appropriateness of the decision-making.

All I'm saying to the members of the opposition is, what is properly before this House is outlined in our standing orders. A government cannot be questioned on expenditures and decisions made for the Legislative Assembly by the Board of Internal Economy because we are all representatives on that board.

I understand the frustration you have, but it doesn't put the question in order.

Member for Kingston and The Islands, first question.

Mr Gerretsen: My question then, is, will you bring this matter to the floor of the Legislature in order for it to be debated by all of us, the representatives of the province -

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, the fact is they have no ability to do that. The government can't bring an issue from the Board of Internal Economy to the House.

I am going to have to ask you to ask a new question or an in-order question, or we're going to have to move on.

Mr Gerretsen: I request unanimous consent that there be a free and open public debate about this issue in the House at this time.

The Speaker: You'd better clarify it for me. You want to just dispense with question period today and have an open debate on this issue?

Mr Gerretsen: After question period.

The Speaker: All right.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Brant-Haldimand, come to order.

I think everyone understands consent. Agreed? No.

First question, the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services and it's with regard to children's mental health services in Ontario, specifically agencies that provide day treatment programs and residential beds for children who are considered severe kids who cannot be in school. Some are suicidal, some are extremely violent.

In Windsor, 600 children are currently on a waiting list to get some kind of service through these children's mental health agencies. In Thunder Bay, the list is 250 children with severe issues that must be addressed.

Last week in Windsor police removed a loaded gun from underneath a 12-year-old boy's bed. Though the children's aid were called, they couldn't take the child into care because his case wasn't as serious as others. This boy's family had been trying to get mental health services for their child long before it reached the crisis. The waiting list, though, 600 kids long, meant that it must become an emergency before it becomes addressed.

Minister, what are you prepared to do to improve -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Children's mental health services are indeed a very important support for families in this province. One of the initiatives we are undertaking through Making Services Work for People is to try to ensure that children's mental health services are part of the children's services envelope; that where we can find ways to find savings on the administration side, we can invest that money back into priority areas, for example, children's mental health, because we know there need to be more financial supports out there for families who are facing circumstances where their child does have a mental health issue.

We've been very pleased that across the province in many of the communities that are undertaking this planning process - and I'd like to stress it is a community planning process - we are identifying not only new dollars that we can reinvest in those priority areas but also better ways to deliver those programs so that families are not caught on waiting lists.

Mrs Pupatello: This past fall, one of the schools in my riding had four children who should have been in one of these day treatment programs but unfortunately found themselves on this waiting list. Three of the four were suicidal. One of the children tried to kill himself by climbing on top of the monkey bars at recess and was sent home where he then tried to hang himself in the family closet. The boy ended up in intensive care - one more example of a child on a waiting list who had to become a crisis before he moved up the list.

Minister, you talk about the community plan in restructuring for children's services, but the truth is that they are beholden to your ministry for inaccurate data to determine the future needs of these children's services. Your current plan now in our area is to cut more beds and cut day treatment programs instead of improving them for the needs that exist in our community. Our area has already lost 80 beds.

1400

Minister, your answer did not answer the question. What will you do for Ontario's children who are severely disturbed?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, the Making Services Work for People initiative, which is, as she knows, a community-based planning process, is not about cutting services and it's not about cutting money. As a matter of fact, no money is being taken out and it has been identified in many communities where we can find new money to reinvest in some of those priority areas.

The other improvement that Making Services Work for People, the community planning process, is going to identify for us, and does in many communities, is that what happens is that families go from agency to agency to try and get the services they need. They get stuck on their waiting lists, they get assessed, they get reassessed and they get reassessed again. That's not a good way to meet those families' needs.

One of two key objectives of this new process is to have one coordinated access point. You get priorities so that those children the honourable member mentions get the priority they need. Second, one assessment is done of that family and that child so they don't keep constantly having to go through some administrative bureaucracy red tape.

Mrs Pupatello: To the minister: There is nothing in your answer that will resolve the issue that currently exists for children on waiting lists who have severe emotional and behavioural issues.

In Thunder Bay today, the current list at the Lakehead Regional Family Centre is 250 children. The region has had a whopping 40% increase in suicidal children over the last several years, but since you took office, a decrease in funding by 12.4%. In fact, the kids in crisis in Thunder Bay end up in a hospital because you cannot allow the intervention because you have cut the services.

Minister, what you are talking about in your answer does nothing to resolve children in crisis who are in crisis today in Ontario. We hope you have a better answer than that next time.

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, the honourable member is quite aware of the problems in children's services, including children's mental health. This was a problem that was in existence before our government came into power. It was a problem they themselves had identified as needing significant reform. They had put out a community planning process. We are actually doing it because they didn't do it when they had the opportunity as government.

There's no question, there are waiting lists, there are families and children who need better services, and rather than sitting here and complaining about it as the honourable member is doing, we are actually taking steps that are going to result in improvements for these families, in taking children off waiting lists.

The other point is, the minister responsible for children, Margaret Marland, is also reviewing with families how we can better improve the services out there, just to mention two initiatives that are actually going to help families have better services.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question again is to the Deputy Premier. Your government has been using taxpayers' dollars very freely, as a matter of fact in excess of some $47 million for blatant political advertising campaigns, yet parents can't get daycare places for their children. In my own community about 2,000 patients are doing without any home care because of the cuts by your government. Emergency departments have been closed.

I would very simply like to ask you, will you instruct your members on the Board of Internal Economy to bring forth a motion so that this matter can be discussed and debated fully in this House?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I can see where the member for Kingston and The Islands is going, but the question is still out of order. I appreciate the fact that you've somehow tied it in with the government, but the question was, "Would you instruct your members of the Board of Internal Economy?" As chair of the Board of Internal Economy, a tripartite board, it's out of order. You just can't get around it.

Start the clock again, please.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Surely to goodness there's nothing wrong in asking in this House that a cabinet minister who deals with the finances of this province give instructions or make a request to the members of his governing party who sit on the Board of Internal Economy in this province. That's all I'm asking him right now, to simply ask your members who sit on the Board of Internal Economy to bring forth a motion so this matter can -

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, the point I'm trying to make to you is that yes, that's not right; it is wrong. The rationale is because the Board of Internal Economy -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Riverside, I don't want to be heckled when I'm up here.

The fact is that it's an internal committee, sat on by all parties of this Legislature. It is not the government's responsibility to answer for that committee. It's just that simple.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate your ruling. Would it be helpful for us to suggest that by unanimous consent of this House, this whole matter and this sizeable expenditure could be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee for discussion and debate at its convenience?

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, unanimous consent is always in order, so if you're seeking that unanimous consent and there is unanimous consent, of course it's in order.

Mr Wildman: So I'm asking for unanimous consent to refer this matter to the Legislative Assembly committee of this House to consider this sizable expenditure of public funds.

The Speaker: Agreed? I heard a "No."

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Point of order, Mr Speaker: Please, $400,000 is a sizable amount of taxpayers' money. How does the public access the decision to spend half a million dollars? Please, Speaker, I'm asking for your guidance. The public wants to know. Surely, there has to be -

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, I appreciate what you're saying, but it's not my role nor my responsibility to advise caucuses on how best to go about doing their business. I only interpret the rules as set down by the rest of us. The rules are fairly clear on this one. If there is no angle around it, there's no angle around it. It's not up to me to find one for you. I wish I could, but I can't.

Mr Kormos: Point of order, Speaker: This is an affront to democracy, that the public has no right to know what went on behind those closed doors that resulted in an expenditure of almost half a million dollars.

The Speaker: You know what? You've entered into debate. It's really not a point of order any more, it's debate.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have two suggestions. Since, as I understand it, there will have to be supplementary estimates to cover this expenditure, would the House agree by unanimous consent to refer this matter to the estimates committee?

The Speaker: I'm not sure that's accurate. I don't know if there will have to be supplementary estimates made. I don't want to tell you how it's going to be funded, because then we're into a debate in this Legislature about the Board of Internal Economy. But I don't want to mislead you into thinking that is the process that has been adopted. At the Board of Internal Economy, if you talk to your own member, she would inform you of the same thing.

Mr Wildman: OK. Then I have another suggestion, Speaker: Will the House give unanimous consent to allow the member for Kingston and The Islands to put the question?

The Speaker: That's always in order. Does the House agree to allow the member for Kingston and The Islands to put his question? I heard a "No."

New question, member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gerretsen: This is a new question, Mr Speaker. We all know that the Conservative Party has used thousands, indeed millions of dollars to defame the leader of my party. Your coffers are filled to the limit. Let me -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hang on.

1410

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to take this opportunity to inform all members that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the Honourable Jose Lello, Secretary of State for the Portuguese Communities Overseas. Please join me in welcoming him here today.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is very simple: Will you use those same Conservative Party dollars that you have available for all sorts of advertising to compensate the people of Ontario for the settlement that is being proposed by your members in the Board of Internal Economy? I'm not talking about government money. I'm talking about money that the PC Party has. We've got better use for our public monies than for these kind of initiatives. Will you be using Conservative Party money to compensate the people of Ontario for the costs of the -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock. You've entered into a different area now. The reason this area is out of order too is because the party, anybody's party, isn't government responsibility. The Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party aren't open for public debate in questions today. You can only ask government about government issues.

Mr Gerretsen: I ask, then, will you recommend to your party here in Ontario that it pay for the damages the people of Ontario will have to pay as a result of the settlement offer that your people have put on the table?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I've sat on the Board of Internal Economy in this place for 10 years. The Board of Internal Economy is a function of the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly has its own budget. It isn't determined by the government; it's determined by the members themselves. The Board of Internal Economy strikes a budget. It is chaired, as you know, by the Speaker of the day. It has representation from all three parties, and it determines how it expends its money. I don't think you would want, quite frankly, not just this government but any government in this place in the 18 years I've been sitting here to determine that for those people. That is why we have a Board of Internal Economy in the first place.

Mr Gerretsen: The people across this province are extremely concerned about how their tax dollars are being spent. I had all sorts of comments over the weekend and undoubtedly other members had comments about this as well.

All I'm asking you is, will you go to your Conservative Party executive members and ask them whether the party itself will be prepared to compensate the government of Ontario for whatever money it has to pay to settle this matter? That's what I'm asking you. Just answer that very simple question: Will you make that recommendation to the executive of the PC Party of Ontario?

The Speaker: You know what? That one's out of order now. You can't ask government members questions about the party. You were on side in the last one, but now it's not a proper question before the House.

Mr Gerretsen: With all due respect, Speaker, I did not ask him about the Conservative Party of Ontario. I asked him to do something so that the people of Ontario can be compensated for the amount they're out as a result of this settlement.

The Speaker: That's in order.

Hon Mr Eves: I have never asked or directed officials from the Ontario PC Party to do anything.

Interjection: Oh, come on.

Hon Mr Eves: I have not, ever, in my almost 18 years as a member of the Legislature, either on that side of the House or on this side of the House, either there, there or here, and I don't know why I would start now. I have never directed another member of the Board of Internal Economy to do anything, whether I was sitting over there or sitting over here. I am not a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I don't know what went on in the Board of Internal Economy, but it is an autonomous body, determining part of the budget of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, chaired by the Speaker.

Mr Gerretsen: Sir, the taxpayers of Ontario are very concerned about how their money is being spent, particularly in a situation like this. They find it very difficult to comprehend that, in addition to our assembly's own legal costs, they will have to pay out another $430,000. The taxpayers are concerned about that and they want to know what this government is prepared to do to rectify that wrong.

I'm asking you a very broad and general final supplementary question: What are you, as the Minister of Finance involved with the finances of this province on a day-to-day basis, prepared to do about the situation in order to rectify what the people of Ontario feel is a great miscarriage of justice?

Hon Mr Eves: There have been many issues and many matters, and presumably other lawsuits and settlements determined by the Board of Internal Economy. I know when I sat on the board for 10 years there certainly were many lawsuits that came before the board by employees and former employees etc. There are no directions given by the government. The board is an independent body. It is responsible to the Legislative Assembly, it is chaired by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and it makes its own decisions as to how it spends its own budget.

As the member over here has stated, if more monies would be needed for any purpose by the Board of Internal Economy, they may well be required to seek a supplementary estimate or a supplementary line item in their budget, but to the best of my understanding - however, I'm not a member of the board - that has not happened and that is not the case in this instance.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Deputy Premier in his role as Deputy Premier. My question is this: Do you support the members of your caucus, people who are responsible to you in your role as Deputy Premier? Do you support the expenditure of at least $400,000 in this way?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I don't know exactly what the Board of Internal Economy decided. I don't know all the issues that were before the board. I'm not a member of the board. However, I was a member of the board for some 10 years and I think every member of the board apprises himself or herself of the issues that are before the board of the day and they make a determination based on their own conscience as to how they vote on any individual matter. It is not for me or anybody else to direct those members as to how they vote and how they expend the budget that is allotted to them by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: I'm glad the Deputy Premier brought up the issue of conscience because I want to ask you about the conscience of your government, about the standards of your government. Does it meet with the standards of your government, with the conscience of your government, that over $400,000 of taxpayers' money should be spent in this way, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: Maybe he knows all the particulars of what went on at the board. I didn't understand that you were a member of the Board of Internal Economy, but maybe you are; I stand to be corrected. I certainly don't know the discussion that went on. I don't know the facts that were presented to the board and I don't know what ultimate decision or recommendation they have or haven't made.

Mr Hampton: It's widely reported in the press, not just in this city but in this province and elsewhere, exactly what is going down. Again I have to ask you, Deputy Premier, does it meet the standards of your government, does it meet the conscience of your government in terms of how taxpayers' money is spent that this approval should be made behind closed doors, in secret, without any public debate, any public discussion?

Don't tell us you don't know what happened. Virtually everybody in Ontario knows by now what happened and will know more about what happened despite your efforts to keep it quiet.

Does this meet the standards of your government, the conscience of your government for the spending of taxpayers' money, that Conservative members would meet in a closed room, in secret, and approve this kind of expenditure?

1420

Hon Mr Eves: I think the leader of the third party is trying to create the impression that somehow the Board of Internal Economy today, in 1998, is operating under different rules than it was between the years 1990 and 1995 when his government was in power, or any time before that, since the board's inception, I might add. Let it be clear that the board is operating under exactly the same rules and principles it always has. There is a procedure for the minutes of the board meeting to be made public at a certain point in time. He quite knows that.

It is an independent board. It is represented by all three parties. It is chaired by the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature. This is not a party issue. This is an issue of an independent body chaired by the independent Speaker of the Ontario Legislature, and it determines how it expends its budget allotted to it.

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

Mr Hampton: I would say to you, Deputy Premier, that this is about the standards of your government. This is about the conscience of your government when it comes to the spending of taxpayers' money.

WORKFARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Deputy Premier again: My second question is about how you treat the poorest citizens of this province. In the last two weeks, everyone from the United Way to the United Nations has condemned the way your government goes after the poorest people in this province.

On Friday the United Nations committee on economic, social and cultural rights released its report on human rights in Canada, and guess what? They singled out Ontario to be condemned. The committee particularly mentioned Bill 22, your law that makes it illegal for workfare participants to join a union. The committee said Bill 22 is a clear violation of article VIII of the particular United Nations covenant.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question?

Mr Hampton: Minister, will you do away with Bill 22 so Ontario can observe and live up to its obligations under -

The Speaker: Deputy Premier.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I refer this question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Research reports from agencies such as the United Nations can be of great help to governments at all levels in addressing serious problems; for example, the problem of child poverty. Those data and that information can be very helpful. Unfortunately, if those data are not correct, it leaves governments at a loss to implement recommendations that they may well be putting forward. As the honourable member is very much aware, there are people on welfare who currently belong to unions. There are people on welfare who have part-time jobs in unionized workplaces. Nothing that we are doing as a government is going to change that.

Mr Hampton: I gather what we're hearing from the minister is that she considers herself above international law, that she can disregard international law, that international human rights sanctioned by the United Nations somehow don't apply to her.

Does the name - oh, I won't mention it, but there is another person in the world right now who says that international law doesn't apply to him.

The reality is that they single Ontario out as attacking poor people. We're used to this. We remember Bill 7, where you went after every working person in the province, where you tried to make it more difficult for them to form a union, and that one was condemned by the International Labour Organization.

What you're really up to in Bill 22 is you're trying to deny the human rights of the poorest people in this province and you're also trying to send them a message. Your message is: "Don't bother trying to organize a union to help yourself. This government will crush you."

It's a matter of international human rights. Will you withdraw Bill 22 and observe -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the concern of the honourable member, but to somehow try and spin that the Ontario government somehow considers international law not appropriate is absolute balderdash. There is nothing this government is doing that is taking away the rights of individuals on welfare. People who are on social assistance today belong to unions; there is nothing wrong with that. People who are on welfare today have part-time jobs in unionized workplaces; there is nothing wrong with that. And there is nothing this government wants to do to take that away. We are not in violation of anything from the United Nations; quite the contrary, the programs we have in place are getting more people off welfare into paid jobs.

The right to work is something the United Nations thinks is very important. They think that actually helps families move themselves out of poverty. Last month, 17,000 more people in Ontario left the welfare roles. They're out there in paid employment. That is 357,000 fewer people trapped on welfare today than there were three and a half years ago. That's people who are -

The Speaker: Final supplementary, member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Minister, one of your prosperous government backbenchers enjoys taxpayer support to the tune of almost half a million dollars, yet you continue to dump on the poor. In fact, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow; your policies are making sure of that. We know that working people organize themselves into unions because the minimum standards that you and your government have established are not enough to bring families out of poverty. This is another thing the UN report said. You should pay close attention to it. "The committee is concerned that the minimum wage is not sufficient for a worker to have an adequate standard of living which also covers his or her family."

Minister, you shouldn't be denying workfare participants the right to organize; you should be telling them how to do it, so that they don't move from social assistance to working poverty but into an adequate standard of living in a unionized job. Bill 22 violates international convention; it tells people on social assistance that they have no rights. Do the right thing: Repeal it. Acknowledge that you are subject to that international law.

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the most significant things in this country that has undermined the incomes of families is increased government taxation. That's something they don't like to mention over there. If you're in a low-income job, the last thing the government should be doing is reaching into your pocket and taking away money. That's why in this province 655,000 fewer -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Chief government whip, you must withdraw that comment.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): I withdraw it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, come to order, please.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Because we believe that people who are in low-income working circumstances need all the help and support they can get from their government, that's why we have removed people in low-income jobs from the Ontario tax rolls; 655,000 fewer folks are paying Ontario income tax. That's very important. Through the national child benefit, those low-income working families are getting over $1,600 per child in additional money, dollars in their pockets, to help strengthen their family. That is on top of the money they can get through the child care supplement for working families in low-income circumstances; that's another $1,000 to those families. I will stack up -

The Speaker: Thank you. Official opposition, member for Fort William.

TEXTBOOKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, one of the constant things about your government is that you're more interested in your public relations message than in actually getting things right. I have here a copy of a letter that's gone out to every small business in Ontario, offering congratulations on the contribution of small business to the economy. This letter happens to have gone to the president of a small Ontario publishing firm that specializes in producing teacher resource materials to match the Ontario curriculum.

Interjection.

1430

Mrs McLeod: The question is for the Minister of Education, I tell the minister responsible for economic development and trade. It's definitely an education question, because the fact is that although the Premier's letter talks about the outstanding contribution of this small company, your ministry is simply shutting this company out. My question is, will you respond to the concerns of this outstanding small Ontario firm and expand your list of approved curriculum materials so that teachers can have the resource materials they need?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): If the question is, through the next purchase of material, will teachers be allowed to purchase the course material - it's rather hard to determine what the question was, but if that is the question, yes, it was announced a month ago that teachers will have the opportunity to buy the curriculum material supporting the textbooks.

I will say, since I've been given the opportunity, this is one of the greatest successes we've had in the province this year, that we have purchased $68 million worth of textbooks for elementary students at a savings of $13 million, for a net cost of $55 million. The next wave of purchase is underway at the present time, and teachers, yes, will have the opportunity to purchase their guideline material through that particular purchase.

Mrs McLeod: The fact is, when you get beyond the public relations campaign, this government didn't allow any teacher resource materials to make the list. The fact is that they turned a decision on the purchase of $75 million worth of textbooks into a total fiasco because they wanted to create a photo opportunity. They rushed into the publication of text, they rushed teachers into making choices, they shut out many Canadian-produced materials, and they botched things up so badly that some of the textbooks that went out actually had erasable text. The problem is, they're doing it again.

I have a letter here from Brian Henderson, the head of the science department at Westdale Secondary School in Hamilton-Wentworth. Mr Henderson is concerned about the fact that his school is being given exactly 10 days - once again, 10 days - to choose new science materials from a new ministry list. He received the notice of his school's funding and the approved list of materials on December 4. The deadline for purchases is December 15 and, Minister, you haven't even released the science curriculum that the materials are being purchased for. Why are you repeating the same mistakes you made last spring? What's the rush this time?

Hon David Johnson: It's a puzzle as to where to start. The curriculum for the elementary schools was released way back last year. The secondary purchase is not yet underway. The materials that are being purchased are at the elementary level.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: In all the caterwauling here, I will say that the member is wrong on a number of different circumstances. One, the Canadian material: All of the books at the elementary level were published by publishers who have been providing textbooks to our schools here in Ontario for at least 15 years and they're all located right here in Canada. All of the books were actually printed right here in Canada except for 11,000 of the 3.3 million books; 11,000, because of some special feature, were not printed in Canada. All the rest were printed right here in Canada. This has been the greatest purchase of material in the history of the province of Ontario, and I'm proud of it.

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Speaker: I will send a copy of the ministry's directives that went out to school boards to show that they are purchasing the secondary school materials by December 15.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, Bill 160 and your funding formula are not finished creating a crisis. We know now that 1,500 children will be evicted from daycare spaces because of your funding formula, because your funding formula doesn't allow for the calculation of child care centres in a school's budget in terms of the maintenance costs and the operating costs. Added to the 1,500 who are already going to be evicted, there's a further 15,000 on the waiting list, and 20,000 more will join once Ontario Works is fully implemented.

Minister, for you, apparently early childhood education is not part of the learning process. Virtually every study and every expert in North America says it is, that early childhood education, early child development, is the most important component in education and in learning. Why is your government going in the opposite direction?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Complete and utter nonsense, as is usual from the leader of the third party. That's why people get so frustrated, because he says things that are incorrect, question after question.

For example, the allegation he's making pertaining to schools in Toronto is pure conjecture. The Toronto school board indeed has indicated through the Toronto Star that they'll be closing no schools before June 2000. At that point in time they may not close any schools, they may close 20 schools, they may close 30 schools. So who would know, who would possibly know? Nobody knows whether that will involve any daycare centres or not.

The fact is that through the Premier's recent announcement, over $50 million will be going to the Toronto school board to support its operating costs, and some of that money, I might say, through unique features that schools have -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon David Johnson: - will be because the Toronto school board has wider hallways and has a higher proportion of daycare centres. That amounts to about a 6% increase for the Toronto school board, partially -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): What a lot of bafflegab. Minister, your funding formula has taken child care centres and put them on the chopping block. You're the ones who are forcing schools to ration their space, and in that priority your Bill 160 has said child care centres don't make the grade, don't make the priority.

I wonder if you can remember back to your throne speech, the one where you appointed Dr Fraser Mustard to conduct a review. He's going to be reporting recommendations this month to the minister responsible for children's issues. Listen to what he has said in the past, "Good, affordable daycare or early childhood education for all sectors of society is key for the future of a learning society."

That child care-school link was developing all across Ontario until your government started to dismantle it. You're the ones who cancelled the funding for new child care centres in schools. Bill 160 formally dissolved that child care-school link that was in place and now your funding formula is going to force eviction of children and child care centres. If Dr Fraser Mustard's recommendation says you're wrong and supports child care, will you change your funding formula, Minister?

Hon David Johnson: I think this government has shown an extreme willingness to listen, if you think of the adjustments this government has made to the funding formula for special education, the support for schools in terms of those who have 7.5 credits for secondary students, in terms of transportation, in terms of retirement gratuity monies, in terms of the $211 million of permanent funding into our schools to support operating costs.

Yes, we're most interested in the Fraser Mustard study. That's why we appointed people such as Mr Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain, specialists in the area of early childhood education, because this government believes that early childhood education is most important.

Yes, we will obviously listen very closely. But having said that, I'll reiterate that in terms of the operating costs, the Toronto school board and other school boards will be getting specific money because of the amount of daycare space they have and the new pupil places. The funding formula does not penalize schools for daycare centres -

The Speaker: New question.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Small businesses provide over 80% of the jobs in this province, as you well know. That's over 350,000 net new jobs that have been created by small businesses since this government came to power in 1995, provided by small business alone.

When we passed the Fair Municipal Finance Act, we gave municipalities some tools to ensure that small businesses, which provide 80% of the jobs, would not suffer debilitating tax increases. We heard from the Canadian federation of small business, however, and from some of our colleagues in the government that only 10% of municipalities used those tools, resulting in disastrous property tax increases for these small businesses, many of those increases being between 50% and 600%. Some of those businesses were located in my riding of Kitchener.

I want to thank you for meeting with the members for York-Mackenzie, Wentworth North, Durham East and myself in September to discuss this problem. Minister, do you have any numbers on how many small businesses were affected by irresponsible municipal actions and by how much?

1440

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, inside the city of Toronto, of course, small business - any type of business, commercial or industrial property - is protected by a 2.5% absolute cap. Outside the city of Toronto, however, after municipalities around the province - and quite frankly, some of them acted very responsibly; some unfortunately did not. Fifty per cent of commercial taxpayers outside the city of Toronto, some 73,000, face tax increases of greater than 10%; 60,000 face tax increases greater than 20%; and 21%, or some 30,000 commercial taxpayers outside of Toronto, face tax increases of 50% or greater. Similarly, with respect to industrial properties, 34%, or some 9,000, face tax increases of greater than 20%.

Therefore the government did respond -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, my riding of Kitchener is located in Waterloo region, which hiked property taxes this year by 5.3% to cover, as they explained it, the costs of downloading. That, in addition to the unacceptably high tax increases that the small businesses in my riding suffered, threatened to bankrupt many of those small businesses. Regional and city of Kitchener officials blamed the provincial government. Now we find that the region has projected a surplus of $2.2 million, and that money is burning a hole in their pockets. The region is trying to determine what to do with the money.

Minister, do you have any advice for the regional municipality of Waterloo?

Hon Mr Eves: Far be it from me to advise municipal representatives what they should do with the money they have collected from their taxpayers. However, municipal representatives should not be raising tax rates to build up a reserve or to build up a surplus. I can see them raising taxes if it's necessary to make ends meet; however, I can't see them doing it to build up a reserve or a surplus.

We did receive submissions from various municipalities as well as AMO to permit municipalities to have the option of lowering a rate for a particular class or classes during any particular year, and we introduced an amendment in committee this morning to accommodate that request.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Ontarians have been aware for some time how your government has denied them access to MRI machines, how they have been forced to go down to the United States and buy the service, how you have created loopholes that have allowed certain hospitals to contract out to athletes, to private insurance companies. You effectively allow people to jump the queue.

Some of the jumping is being done with four feet. In London, it's so bad in terms of the little bit of funding you provide that veterinarians and dogs are having access to the MRI machines. Minister, will you confirm to us today that this arrangement, where dogs can receive an MRI scan, the most advanced diagnostic procedure available, ahead of people in Mike Harris's Ontario, was approved by you as the Minister of Health? Will you stand in the House today and tell us that you approved this arrangement?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): To the member of the opposition party, once again we have some information that isn't quite as the case is in fact. Third-party use of MRI machines is nothing new in this province. In fact, it was the NDP government in 1992 who legalized this practice. It was also the NDP two years later who put in place the funding for the MRI machines.

However, I am very pleased to say that it is our government that is leading the way throughout Canada in ensuring that our population has better access to MRIs than anywhere else in Canada. If we take a look at provincial comparisons regarding MRI machines, we can see that, unlike you, who only made the MRIs available to hospitals in teaching centres, our government is making every effort to ensure that there is equitable access to MRIs throughout this province, whether you live in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Ottawa or Windsor.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, that answer is neither acceptable nor accurate. Section 4.4 of the Public Hospitals Act says you have to approve when buildings and equipment are being leased out or rented. If it's not technically your responsibility, then it sure as heck is morally.

Danielle Rancinan is a 47-year-old woman who had to wait eight months for an MRI under your government. She was too ill to go down to the United States and have it done, as many people have had to do under the Harris government.

You provide the lowest funding in Canada for MRI machines in hospitals. You force hospitals to cannibalize their other services. You go around the province making public relations announcements when in fact you don't even pay one dollar in six for operating those machines, and you make the communities buy them themselves.

Minister, what you should have said and what you still have a chance to stand up and say is that you will not put up with pets and privileged people having access to MRIs ahead of sick people, and that you'll announce today proper and full funding, including the funding you took away, to MRI machines in this province. Minister, do that.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member still does not understand that our government has done more to improve access to MRI machines than any past government in Ontario. It was your government that introduced the MRIs. You made them available only to the teaching centres. We have tripled access to MRIs since we were elected in this province. We presently have approved 31 machines. There are four more machines to be approved. You will have access no matter where you live, whether you live in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Windsor or Ottawa. We have made absolutely no change to the practice where there's third party usage of MRI machines.

Also, I am very pleased to say we have done nothing in regard to the level of funding. However, I will tell you, we have not cut funding. In fact, we are looking to further increase the funding. We have done more than any other government. We are number one in Canada for access to -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, and it's about your new ads in the United States. I hope they're not like your recent ads in the United States, where you told people about our good-quality schools and our highly trained workforce, and then the Premier came home, attacked our teachers and started closing the schools and attacking workers and their unions.

I also hope these new ads aren't like the ads you've been running in some of the Ontario newspapers, talking about jobs. This is one that was in the London Free Press and it talks about new jobs being created at Labatt's. But then the next day Ron Blain, who happens to work at Labatt's in London, writes a letter to the editor and points out - and he should know; he is one of the union stewards there, on the union executive -

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Oh, well, he knows for sure, of course.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Howie's research has gone to new heights.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock. Members, come to order. He only said, "union steward." Come to order, please. It's not a joke. We're out of order all the time now for silly stuff. Member for Scarborough East, would you be helpful? Thank you.

Mr Hampton: I'm sorry, Ron Blain is actually the president of the union there. He points out in his letter that in fact there are fewer jobs at Labatt's now than were there four years ago. He also points out that workers weren't told when they were enlisted for this photograph that it was for the Mike Harris propaganda machine. The workers there are still waiting for an apology.

My question for the minister is: Will you stop trying to spin a propaganda campaign? Your ad in London is false.

1450

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I take it the leader of the third party would like us not to talk about the positive environment we have in Ontario. Since we have formed the government, 462,000 new jobs have been created in Ontario. I think we should be out there making sure that other jurisdictions know what kind of quality product Ontario has. When you take a look at how other states spend their money to get their messages across about their environment: Ohio spends 14% more than Ontario; Virginia, 54% more than Ontario; Iowa, 73%; just to show you that this is a very positive campaign telling our good neighbours what a great province Ontario is.

Mr Hampton: I simply want to get at some of the reality of these ads. This is an ad that appeared in the Sudbury Star, paid for by your government. It brags about the creation of 30 new positions in the past 19 months at the Wabi Iron and Steel plant in New Liskeard. The only trouble is that when you go and talk to the workers at Wabi Iron and Steel in New Liskeard, there aren't 30 new jobs; in fact, they've actually lost jobs in the last 19 months. I can give you others. There's the famous Babcock and Wilcox ad that the government ran.

The point is that your government continues to spend all kinds of taxpayers' money on ads that are false. People know they're false. People know they're phony. People had their picture taken for these ads without being told it was going to be used in a propaganda campaign.

Minister, will you do the right thing, put the money back into health care, into education, and stop putting out these phony ads?

Hon Mr Palladini: Our government is doing the right thing and we're going to continue those things. If the leader of the third party wants to talk about specifics, let's talk about Sterling Trucks. It means an additional 400 jobs in St Thomas. Let's talk about Novartis, an additional 50 jobs in Oshawa. Let's talk about Hammerson Canada, where 4,200 jobs are presently there, and that number is expected to rise to over 5,500.

We are doing what's needed to make sure that the positive economic environment we have in our province will continue. We're going to do everything to make sure that more people get to know what we do have and the quality of product we have in Ontario.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister without Portfolio, responsible for privatization, who is also the government's lead on auto insurance issues. Last week the minister introduced a bill into the Legislature and delivered a statement regarding the government's successes related to auto insurance reform. In fact, it's my understanding that he said that auto insurance premiums are down, on average, by about 11% since our government's reforms took effect in November 1996. I wonder if the minister would inform the House in greater detail as to the nature of the proposed changes and the rationale behind them.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I'd be happy to respond to the honourable member for Wellington's very important question about auto insurance and the reform that we have brought forward to Ontario as it relates to auto insurance.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): They should appoint you to the Board of Internal Economy. Go for the big perks.

Hon Mr Sampson: I hear the member for Welland-Thorold commenting here, buffering about his plan. Of course, we had to take over from an auto insurance plan that was providing Ontario drivers with inadequate coverage, and rates that skyrocketed year after year. That was the legacy that member brought with his government to the people of Ontario. We decided that was unacceptable because the people of Ontario told us that was unacceptable. So two years ago we brought forward a piece of legislation that brought fairness back to the auto insurance system in this province, provided Ontarians with the right and the responsibility to buy the appropriate insurance coverage for their own particular needs and provided stability to the rate structure in this province that no other jurisdiction in this country has been able to match yet.

Mr Arnott: I would like to thank the minister for his response and for the good work he's done on this issue in the last couple of years. I appreciate his explanation.

I wonder if the minister would provide additional details regarding some of the particular provisions contained in Bill 90, the Automobile Insurance Consumer Protection Act, as well as the other results of the two-year review of Ontario's auto insurance system, and would he indicate how children will benefit from the government's planned auto insurance changes.

Hon Mr Sampson: Again to my colleague from Wellington, I'd be happy to speak to the reform that we have brought forward, the fine-tuning, as we have called it, to the auto insurance plan that we have introduced, starting with the legislation I introduced to the House on Thursday of last week and also some statements I made to some stakeholders in the auto insurance industry this morning.

The member is correct: We did fine-tune the legislation to deal with the rights and privileges and benefits available to children involved in serious auto accidents, and we said that we want those children to have better access to the tort system for excess medical expenses. We've provided that in this particular bill.

We said that we would like to make sure that children's needs as they relate to catastrophic impairment are dealt with, to make sure they have the appropriate care and the appropriate attention, and in fact we have done that through the regulations that we intend to bring forward as well.

Indeed, we have reformed this plan to make sure that the children of Ontario do have an auto insurance product that meets their needs and yet is still fair and affordable to the citizens of this province.

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition with over 6,000 names on it in support of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed closure of Niagara's only denominational hospital and the devastating effects that proposal will have on patients and potential patients from across the region.

"We ask that the Health Services Restructuring Commission reassess its recommendations for the Niagara region and ensure quality, accessibility and affordability through a continued role for the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 90 people.

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

ELECTION CALL

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the current provincial government under Mike Harris has destroyed labour relations, gutted the WCB, caused rampant dependence on gambling, has contributed to mass homelessness and poverty while eroding our health care, educational and municipal institutions, we, the people of Chatham-Kent, are demanding that an election be called now, before the province is destroyed, morally, ethically and financially."

I affix my name to it.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my pleasure and privilege to present a petition from my riding of Durham East. This petition was really begun by the member for Durham-York, Julia Munro. I'll read it for the Speaker, if you will. Arguably, it's being presented for Legion branch 178 and Legion branch 419.

"Whereas it is important to honour the courageous memory and sacrifices of Canada's war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our national rights and freedoms;

"Whereas there is a need for succeeding generations of young, school-age Canadians to learn more about the true meaning of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas Ontario veterans' associations have created excellent education materials for use in Ontario schools on the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas a special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in Ontario's education system, developed on the basis of the programs by the Ontario veterans' associations and involving their direct participation, would increase awareness of and appreciation for Canada's wartime sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all Ontario citizens;

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

"That the provincial Ministry of Education and Training ensure that a suitable Remembrance Day learning unit be included in the curriculum of all grades of Ontario's education system."

I'm pleased to put my name on this petition.

1500

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, bowing to the pressure from the electorate, the government of Ontario has delayed the implementation of its funding formula for one year;

"Whereas maintaining and supporting a quality public education is critical to the economic and social future of Ontario;

"Whereas particularly in large, multicultural cities, children in communities have varied needs;

"Whereas in an era of mega-mergers local schools have an extended role as a gathering place and a unifying force in our communities;

"Whereas, given the vital role of education in our society and schools in our communities, the issue of school closings cannot not be reduced to the application of an arbitrary and mechanical economic formula.

"In recognition of the foregoing principles, our community petitions the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"The funding formula must be changed to reflect students and programs, not square feet. School closings should be permitted only after completion of a thorough impact study with community consultation for each school being considered. The impact study must consider the totality of student needs and the school's role in its community. The decision to close a school should only be made after ensuring that the replacement school can deliver equivalent services of an equal or superior nature."

This petition comes signed by hundreds of parents from Weston junior school, C.R. Marchant school, King George -

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you. Further petitions?

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have here a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

After I sign this, I will give it to Mariko Mackasey from York East, who will bring it to the table.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas providing daycare spaces is critical for the families in Toronto that need access to them; and

"Whereas the well-being of children should not be sacrificed to tax cuts; and

"Whereas the provincial government has significantly cut the budgets for the Toronto school boards; and

"Whereas under the provincial government's ill-conceived Bill 160 there is no flexibility for boards to make up for the cuts; and

"Whereas daycare spaces in schools are now threatened by these cuts with the prospect of full-cost recovery arrangements with daycares and the threat of school closures;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 160 immediately, and further be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to restore meaningful and flexible funding to the Toronto school boards to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate our community daycares; and

"Further be it resolved that the Honourable David Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, takes responsibility for his government's funding cuts rather than passing the buck to school boards who have no control over provincial government spending cuts."

I affix my signature.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 18 people.

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

ABORTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

I affix my signature to this.

ADOPTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to present a petition from a number of my constituents in Durham East, but I'd like to mention the names of Linda and Rick Davie and Peter and Wilma Hiemstra. There are a number of constituents here.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario (ARCO) brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;

"Whereas existing adoption secrecy legislation is outdated and unjust;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario;

"Whereas 20% of persons in Ontario are directly or indirectly affected by restricted rights to personal information available to other citizens;

"Whereas the adopted person's right to his or her birth identity is rooted in a basic and fundamental human need;

"Whereas most birth parents did not ask for lifelong confidentiality, it was imposed upon them involuntarily;

"Whereas research shows that not knowing basic personal information has proven harmful to adopted persons, birth parents, adoptive parents and other birth relatives; and

"Whereas research in other countries has shown that unqualified access to information in adoption satisfies the overwhelming majority of the parties involved;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revisions of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:

"Permit unrestricted access to full personal, identifying birth information to adopted persons and adult children of adopted persons and unrestricted access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate to birth parents, birth grandparents, siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted person reaches age 18."

Mr Speaker, this petition goes on, but I will sign my name in support of it.

1510

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the government of Ontario:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology; and

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services; and

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres; and

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a $40-million cut in funding already imposed on Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement with the petition.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is cutting waste and duplication in the education system and refocusing education resources back into the classrooms where they belong; and

"Whereas the new student-focused funding formula defines and protects classroom spending; and

"Whereas the new formula will result in a $583-million increase in spending in classrooms by the year 2000; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has committed to maintaining spending for the next three years on supply teachers, classroom supplies, computers, professionals, paraprofessionals and staff development for the Toronto District School Board. There will be no cuts in the classrooms except for the ones made by the board's trustees themselves; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is increasing spending on classroom teachers and library and guidance services to the TDSB in each of the next three years, by $45 million this year, a further $20 million next year and a further $17 million the year after; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought equity in education funding so that all students, no matter whether they attend a public or separate school, will be treated equally; and

"Whereas the Toronto Catholic District School Board will have $33 million more to spend this year in the classroom, thanks to the Mike Harris government's new education funding formula; and

"Whereas the Toronto District School Board has already announced it will be hiring 400 new teachers this year; and

"Whereas the Toronto Catholic District School Board has announced it will be hiring 340 new teachers this year;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed with fulfilling the commitments made in the Common Sense Revolution and continuing to pursue policies which will make Ontario the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 82, An Act to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement / Projet de loi 82, Loi visant à affermir la protection de l'environnement et les mesures d'exécution à cet égard.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to rise today on this piece of legislation. Let me begin by saying that, like my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and our party, I support this bill.

The Ministry of the Environment needs every tool available to help it crack down on companies and individuals polluting our environment. But as I look at the Minister of the Environment across the way, I must tell you that I envision Napoleon with his hand in his vest, but I envision Napoleon without a horse. Can you imagine our Minister of the Environment getting all of these great new tools to help clean up our environment, yet he doesn't have the horses, he doesn't have the bodies, he doesn't have what he needs to make them work?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): More like Humpty-Dumpty. Doesn't have the king's horses or the king's men.

Mr Duncan: More like Humpty-Dumpty. He's going to fall off the wall and all the king's horses and all the king's men won't put Normie back together again.

I should pause and pay tribute to my colleague from Algoma for his private member's bill, which as I understand it is the precursor to this and is contained almost in its entirety. Like my colleague, I wonder why it's taken the government two years to bring this forward.

By way of background, I'd like to remind you that this bill will amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Pesticides Act and the Highway Traffic Act to provide the ministry with new regulatory tools to track, convict and penalize Ontario polluters.

As I say, the tools will be there in the legislation and in the regulations. I guess the problem we have to debate in the Legislature as part of the debate on this bill is, if you don't have the inspectors, if you don't have the ministry apparatus, how are you going to make it work?

All of us in public life, whether we serve at the municipal level, the provincial level or the federal level, know that all the good laws in the world, all the good pieces of legislation in the world won't work if you don't have the tools, the mechanisms with which to enforce them.

Let's talk about some of the key elements in the bill. It proposes to raise fines and impose jail terms for polluters. It will provide the ministry with more powers to force individuals and companies that organize illegal waste dumping to pay for the cleanup. They will seize licence plates and permits from vehicles used to commit environmental offences, and secure areas and facilities to ensure evidence is protected. It will extend provisions for control of illegal dumping and cleanup for the people who broker illegal waste disposal. They will use more modern investigative techniques such as tracking equipment.

As I say, however, the bill will be useless unless these powers are backed up by an adequate number of Ministry of the Environment inspectors and enforcement staff to enforce tough environmental regulations.

I'd like to spend a few minutes on these issues. I must remind the House that this government's record since taking office has been one of cutting the Ministry of the Environment, by almost two thirds. I'll review some of those statistics and figures with members of the House. I'm going to try to put them in the context of my community, Windsor, where we have continual problems with the environment, problems, by the way, that are intricately linked to health care.

I recall the Conners Creek situation in Detroit last year, and I recall the quality of our water. I recall, for instance, the cuts to our own Ministry of the Environment office in Windsor, which now see us effectively without our own local office and having to rely on Sarnia and other offices to help enforce the provisions of the various acts I spoke about earlier.

In a very real sense, my community, Windsor, has been affected. I'd like to remind members of the House, who I know are taken up with the responsibilities of their own constituencies, of a couple of things. The incidence of lung cancer in my community, Windsor, is higher than elsewhere. There are all kinds of problems associated with our environment that are somewhat unique. We see all kinds of situations that need cleanup, for which funding hasn't been available.

In my community, Windsor, we are faced with special problems related to the environment. When you cut our inspectors, indeed when you cut the monitoring stations - I remind the members of the government that the provincial minister wrote to the federal minister and they wrote to the state officials in Michigan and to the Environmental Protection Agency officials in Washington when Conners Creek was set to re-fire, and everybody wanted action taken. What the minister forgot to remind people of at the time was that our monitoring stations had been closed down in Windsor, so we couldn't monitor the effluent that was coming across the river to Windsor from Detroit.

We have to view Bill 82 in the context of the government's overall record on the environment. I'd like to read some very fascinating quotes that have occurred over the years, then I'd like to review some very basic statistics, and then I'd like to review some of the government's other legislative initiatives that have impacted on the environment.

I'm going to begin by reviewing some quotes. Here's one from Mike Harris. It's taken out of the Toronto Star, dated June 5, 1995. It says: "I don't think you'll find a cent there to cut out of the environment. We were able to find $6 billion in cuts to government spending without cutting the environment." It reminds me of the promise not to close hospitals. I remember very well that in the leader's debate the Premier said, and I'm paraphrasing now, "It's not our plan to close hospitals." Where are we at now? We're at 39 and counting.

Again, in May 1995, "It's not our plan to close hospitals"; in 1998, today, it's 39 and counting. At about that same time, the then leader of the third party, today's Premier Mike Harris, said: "I don't think you'll find a cent there to cut out of the environment. We were able to find $6 billion in cuts to government spending without cutting the environment." Well, that was then and this is now.

1520

I'd like to read another quote, this one from Eva Ligeti, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, in her 1996 annual report to the Legislature. It says: "And if we continue along this path, our right to a healthy environment will be jeopardized.... We cannot afford to focus on short-term savings at the expense of long-term environmental health."

I guess that's part of the difficulty I've had with some of the initiatives of this government, whether it be in education, whether it be in health care, whether it be in environment, this notion of short-term pain for long-term gain. That, I think, is at the root of what the government would like to have us believe. Unfortunately, in my view, they have mismanaged the effort to get a balanced budget. They have mismanaged the provincial treasury. The timing of their tax cut was all wrong. They should have taken a note out of the federal Liberal handbook and balanced the budget first and then looked at tax cuts so we wouldn't have the kinds of cuts to the Ministry of the Environment that we've seen, certainly not to the extent we've seen.

Unfortunately, with the environment, with health care and education, if you make a mistake the first time, you can't get it back, because there are children who are affected in schools and there are patients in hospitals. With respect to our environment, once that environment is polluted, those who have tried to deal with remedial solutions to clean things up know how difficult and expensive that is. So when the government boasts next year, as it will in its budget, that they have achieved a balanced budget, there will be a cost, and the environment is one area where we can directly link problems associated with budget cuts.

I have an interesting quote here from our minister, Mr Sterling, from the Globe and Mail dated October 16, 1996.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is that the Niagara Escarpment Commission?

Mr Duncan: I'm going to have that quote in a few moments, but first, he says, "We lose 1,800 Ontarians (a year) prematurely" as a result of air pollution. Eighteen hundred Ontarians, and then it took them two more years to look at car exhaust, exhaust fumes, and try in a program to reduce those, after lots of good announcements early on. That's what Mr Sterling said.

Then I found a quote from the Provincial Auditor in his 1996 report to the Legislature. In order to properly safeguard the ecosystem and human health, he recommends that the ministry update its standards for air pollutants, improve its monitoring efforts in the areas of air, water and hazardous waste materials, and develop a more proactive and systematic approach to protecting and managing groundwater.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Didn't he say that in 1998 as well?

Mr Duncan: I believe he may have said that again in 1998. The Provincial Auditor is not exactly a tax-and-spend Liberal, is he? He's saying to the government that this is a trust that you have, and you have an obligation to make it work because once that environment is polluted, once it's no longer clean, it's not that easy to get it back.

I have an interesting quote from the Hamilton Spectator dated February 18, 1998. When told that Ontario businesses are flushing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of hazardous waste down municipal sewers, Norm Sterling's response was "What else do you do with this material?" What else do you do with this material? Part of the job of the Minister of the Environment is to figure out what to do with the material in a manner that will minimize the negative impacts that this kind of procedure can have on our environment.

On April 31, 1996, the World Wildlife Fund gave Ontario a grade of F on its efforts to protect ecologically significant areas of the province. Even Alberta received a B.

Bill 82 is another of those famous government bills that's long on rhetoric and makes a lot of commitments to improving the environment and changing regulations, changes frankly we will support as we will support this bill, but we have to continue to remember that for legislation to work, it has to be enforceable.

Let's review a little bit of what this government has done in the area of the environment, first on the staffing level. When this government took office in 1995, the ministry had approximately 2,400 jobs, 2,400 people working within the Ministry of the Environment to help protect the environment, to help enforce the laws of our Ministry of the Environment, to help enforce the regulations of that ministry. What did the government do? It cut 880 of them, 36%. The government will tell you we had a burgeoning bureaucracy and we could be more efficient, but what that translated to was shutting down regional offices in my community, in Windsor for instance, where we all acknowledge there are special problems associated with pollution.

What about the budget for the Ministry of the Environment? There was $286 million in cuts in their operating budget in 1994-95 and a total operating budget cut of 42% since this government took office. Again, government members will stand up and argue that, "We're doing more with less," and that's simply not the case; you're doing less with less. You do not have the means by which you will be able to enforce the provisions of Bill 82, because you had much different priorities. This government can find it in its heart to settle legal settlements of $400,000, but it can't find the money to staff up the Ministry of the Environment. You have $47 million of government money, taxpayers' dollars, for your ads, and all you have for the Ministry of the Environment are 42% cuts.

In addition to the Ministry of the Environment, we've seen 2,100 jobs cut out of the Ministry of Natural Resources. That's a 43% cut. In terms of budget cuts, 31%. The government's record is abysmal. The government has systematically stripped its own ability to enforce the very provisions that are contained in Bill 82 and will become part of the law of the province. They talk a good game, but they don't deliver.

I'd like to spend my remaining time reviewing a few more things this government has done and a few other quotes. Let's take, for instance, NAFTA's Commission for Environmental Co-operation report, Taking Stock, which finds that Ontario produces the third-largest amount of pollution out of all US states and Canadian provinces, more than New York, Michigan or California, and while we're finding this out, we're cutting our ability to enforce our own laws.

It makes it very difficult when we have to fight Conners Creek in Detroit, when we have to look at what we call the toxic hot spots in Michigan, to go with a straight face and ask them to do a better job when we have a provincial government in this province that has done what it has done in cutting our ability to enforce our environmental standards.

I forgot to mention that the compliance and enforcement branch of this ministry was cut by 30% or $15 million, so directly related, here we have a bill that proposes to toughen up our laws, but at the same time we do that, we don't have the means by which to enforce.

The inspection and enforcement cuts have resulted in a drop in charges against polluters: 683 charges were laid against polluters in the first 10 months of 1996 compared with 1,037 in all of 1995, a 21% reduction. Fines dropped 57%. That's taken out of the Globe and Mail, January 10, 1997.

1530

The ministry's ability to prosecute has been reduced from 10 staff in 1990 to four in 1996. So, even if the government had the monitoring equipment to monitor, the inspectors to follow up and then charges laid, it simply does not have the means by which it can prosecute.

The number of water monitoring stations has fallen from 700 in 1991 to just over 200 in 1996. You can't monitor the quality of our water and you can't monitor the quality of our air. Even if you could, you don't have the prosecutors available to take it through court.

There's a 40% reduction in laboratory services. They've eliminated the three regional labs, Thunder Bay, Kingston and London, and there's a reduction of jobs at the lone remaining Toronto lab - a total reduction of 106 jobs. Aside from the obvious consequences to those individuals, what does this mean? It means, again, if you don't have the monitoring stations, you don't have the labs to analyze it, you don't have the inspectors to go out and you don't have the prosecutors, it's no wonder that the charges you lay go down. It's no wonder, and shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, that under this government one very simple message is clear: The environment is getting dirtier, and they've got no way of enforcing the provisions that are contained in Bill 82.

All of these changes have taken the better part of three and a half years. I think all of us are prepared to look at ways of doing things better, of making better use of the resources we have. But you simply cannot expect to have a ministry, a government organization that can enforce meaningful environmental standards when you're cutting to the depth that you see being cut here.

I say to the government, we support the provisions contained in Bill 82. We will vote in favour of the bill. But we have not lost sight of the fact that you do not have the resources to enable yourself to enforce them. That's the sad record of the Harris government.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): In response to the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I think he hit the nail on the head, and I'll address this more in a few minutes when I speak at length to this bill before us today, and that is the issue of the cuts and the deregulation that have taken place in this government, in the Ministry of the Environment and indeed in the Ministry of Natural Resources over the last three years. It has been pointed out by members from the opposition since this bill was introduced and, in truth, since the day the government started to make these massive cuts and deregulation across the province.

It's all very well to bring forward a much-needed bill, and we all agree that this is a good bill, but we want to hear the minister stand up and put, literally in this case, his money where his mouth is and make sure that the money that has been taken out of the area of monitoring and enforcement be put back. Otherwise, this is a great piece of legislation, which incidentally was put forward first by my colleague the member for Algoma when we were in government. All the research and work was done then -

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Did anybody give him any credit?

Ms Churley: Yes, in fact the government has been very fair in giving my colleague the member for Algoma credit for this. I guess the question is, why did it take so long, till the eve of an election almost, to bring it forward?

We're calling on the government today, as my party says, "Yes, we will support this bill," saying that we need to have the commitment that the enforcement is there to make it more than pretty words on a piece of paper. The kinds of activities we have seen taking place in this province since the deregulation, the kinds of things that have come up in this House: We've had a member of the Conservative government appeal to the Minister of the Environment not to enforce some laws because he was going to change it under the Red Tape Commission.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It was most interesting to hear the presentations from the member for Windsor-Walkerville and some of the responses from the member for Riverdale when they talk about money and reduction. Obviously, we can understand why they would talk about money. They're the ones who spent and really didn't worry about anything other than spending, building the debt and letting the deficit go. They've thrown money at literally everything from the environment to education and so on, and what has it accomplished? What it's done for us is a great big debt.

This bill is about improving enforcement without putting a whole lot of people out there to do the monitoring. For example, by putting a tracer either on the vehicle or in the load, they're able to follow where it's going and where it's moving. Before, it would take five or six people to constantly monitor one of these loads, where it's going, what's going to end up happening to it; with this kind of legislation we're going to be able to monitor that kind of movement, particularly of hazardous materials. When you get right down to it, that's what we're concerned about, the hazardous materials - yes, and some of the other, non-hazardous waste which we want to go to the right place, but we're zeroing in on the priority, the really hazardous material. That's what's important and we'll be able to put in, by this legislation, that kind of tracer and follow it.

We're increasing the penalties to ensure that people, especially the polluters, will pay attention. There's something like $10 million on the books that were charged by the previous two governments. Sure, great charges, but they haven't collected it. It's sitting on the books. What good is laying charges if you don't have the teeth to go out and actually collect and make sure you get it?

It's really difficult to follow some of the comments they're making, but I can assure you that with this bill the polluters will be followed and they will pay.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'd first of all like to congratulate the member for Windsor-Walkerville, our critic in this area, on the excellent speech he gave.

Whenever the member for Northumberland gets up, within about two minutes he can literally destroy everything that has been said before that, or he tries to, anyway. He talked about something like enforcement without necessarily having enforcement officers. I don't know how you enforce any kind of rule and regulation if you don't have anybody enforcing it. Does he just feel that all of a sudden the polluters out there, because we have a law, are going to say: "Well, we'd better not do it any more. We know there are no enforcement officers out there, but after all, the province has passed a law"? It doesn't work that way in reality.

In reality, we know that this government has cut $121 million out of the Ministry of the Environment, some 42% of its budget. It has reduced the enforcement or the compliance staff from 97 individuals to 70 people in the province. Let's just hear what some of our own officers who are hired by this Legislative Assembly, by you and me and all the other members, have to say about this. This is the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, which we believe is a very important office. What does she say? She said: "If we continue along this path, our right to a healthy environment will be jeopardized. We cannot afford to focus on short-term savings at the expense of long-term environmental health." She has basically condemned this government for all the negative actions that it's taken in the field of environment.

I say to the member for Northumberland, you cannot possibly have the best law in the world without the necessary enforcement element to make sure people out there, particularly the polluters, adhere to the law.

Mr Wildman: I want to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville for his presentation and also his kind remarks regarding my private member's bill.

I must say that I am more than a little bit concerned by my friend from Northumberland's comments. He seems to be following a sort of Mackenzie King dictum: enforcement if necessary but not necessarily enforcement. Basically what he's saying is that under this bill it'll be possible to monitor by putting a tracker on a truck and monitor where the truck is going, but he doesn't think it necessary, as a matter of fact he's opposed to hiring the staff to go after that truck if it's found that it isn't going where it is supposed to be going. The ministry hasn't got the staff to do it, but the member for Northumberland says, when it's suggested that monitors and enforcement officers be hired, that that is "Spend, spend, spend," and that's not a good idea.

1540

The member for Northumberland is trying, like Mackenzie King, to have it both ways. He's trying to say, "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription." He's trying to say we can have better penalties or enforceable laws, we can prevent illegal dumping, without having the staff to do the work. It's ridiculous. This government has had sort of a Saul-like conversion on the road to Damascus, although I would call this a Norm conversion on the road to the election, in that they are bringing in a bill to say they are going to do something to get tough on polluters, but unless they hire the staff to do the enforcement, it won't mean anything.

The Deputy Speaker: It's my understanding that the comments and questions are to relate to the person who has deliberated in the debate. With that little bit of instruction, I would ask the member for Windsor-Walkerville to respond.

Mr Duncan: To the member for Northumberland, I can only say again, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, "We want better enforcement," and not have the tools by which to do it.

I want to follow up on the conversion on the road to Damascus. Biblical scholars will recall what happens to those who don't have the conversion: They turn to a pillar of salt. That is what the Minister of the Environment is in this mug's game, isn't he? It's a pillar of salt, because it's not really a conversion. He hasn't seen the light. What he has seen, with all due respect, is a cut to the resources of his ministry, a cut to the staff, a cut in his ability to enforce, a cut in his ability to prosecute. Really, while we can support this Bill 82, nothing will happen until there is a change of government that will commit the resources, the time and the energy necessary to make these provisions that are going to be part of the four statutes we talked about earlier in order to have the tools necessary to enforce them.

It's really a sad legacy that this government will leave when it leaves office next year. It's a sad legacy to the environment, and it's another one of those messes that will have to be cleaned up properly. They will leave office next year, and their record and their legacy will be one of increased pollution and decreased enforcement, and one that really takes for granted our natural heritage in this province, whether it be environmental issues or natural resource issues. We look forward to this government's legacy being ended. It will be, and the proper enforcement mechanisms will be put in place.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Churley: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to share my leadoff time with the member for Hamilton Centre.

The Deputy Speaker: That is unnecessary.

Ms Churley: Well, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Centre in that case.

I want to start by reiterating what I believe a couple of members of my caucus, including one of our former ministers of the environment, the member for Algoma, said the other night when this bill was being debated. I want to thank the members for allowing me to give my leadoff speech today, because as the member for Algoma said that night, I was busy playing elf to Santa Claus, who was our esteemed Speaker, for the party. It was a good party, I must say, and we had a lot of fun. In the meantime, I want to thank the members who were here doing their duty and speaking sort of on my behalf that night.

I want to reiterate and say again that my caucus is supporting this bill.Obviously we're supporting the bill. It is not word for word, but most of the ideas in this bill, the research that was done, came from the time when the NDP was in government and it was very clear that this illegal dumping in particular was a problem. At that time, in 1993, our government initiated a crackdown on illegal dumping and started the process. We started a special task force which launched a whole series of investigations into what was happening and started an inspection program for trucks hauling the waste. But it was very clear that the ministry officials did not have the tools they needed under the law to crack down and really enforce.

The legislation was brought forward by the member for Algoma while we were in government, and then, because an election was called before it came into law, he reintroduced the same bill and had all-party support. We kept waiting for the government of the day, the Harris government, to bring that bill forward. They kept saying they didn't need to bring in Mr Wildman's private member's bill because they were going to do it. Well, at long last, here we are debating this bill.

I'm happy to have it before us. I think it's a good bill. I must say, it is not often in this House, in fact it's probably the first time - and I hope not the last time - that I have had the opportunity to stand in this House and tell the government that I think they're doing a good thing.

Mr Marchese: Oh, God, that's hard.

Ms Churley: No, it's not hard. I believe it is our job as opposition to criticize but also to congratulate when the government is doing something right, and in this case they are doing something right. It is my job to let them know that's a fact, and I am very happy to see this legislation come forward.

Mr Marchese: Stealing things.

Ms Churley: Stealing things? If they want to steal good ideas, all the better. Again, I would say it's a good thing. When one government is defeated and some good legislation is left on the books, why start all over again? The issue is that in this case it appeared the government just let it sit there for a long time when it was ready to go, and in the meantime this illegal dumping continued without the government being able to initiate some of the initiatives in this bill because they didn't have the tools. I'm happy that the government is now coming forward with the bill and we will soon have the ability to actually enforce the bill put forward by my colleague from Algoma some time ago.

The problem has been pointed out, and simply must be pointed out again, because, as I said, I consider it my job as the critic for the environment for the NDP caucus to congratulate the government when they do something right and something good for the environment for a change, but also to talk about my concerns.

In this case, unfortunately, I have a great deal of concern, for the same reasons that every member of my party who has spoken to this bill has already mentioned - and by the way, not just the opposition parties in the House. I know the government does not like to listen to the opposition. It's made it very clear it doesn't listen to anybody except its big business friends. However, just for the record, you must be well aware that it's not just the opposition criticizing this government for its pitiful environmental record.

We have had report after report come forward over the past few years telling the government how bad its environmental record is and how it is negatively affecting our environment and our health. There have been reports from the North American Commission for Environmental Co-operation; from CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association; from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation; from the Environmental Commissioner for Ontario; from the OMA, the Ontario Medical Association; from the International Joint Commission; the Acidifying Emissions Task Group of the National Air Issues Coordinating Committee; the North East States for Coordinated Air Use Management; and the University of Toronto. That's to name some of the reports. There's also the Ontario auditor, who has been mentioned in this House. The David Suzuki Foundation recently came out - some of these reports have been quite specific on air pollution and some of them have run the gamut, have gone through in great detail this government's pitiful environmental record.

1550

What they all say and what all of these reports have in common is that the amount of deregulation, the amount of self-regulation and the massive cuts to both the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources have had a really negative effect on the ministry to do what it's supposed to do, that is, to protect the environment, to protect other species, to protect our parks and to protect the health of Ontarians.

It has been well documented by now that this government, unlike any other government for the past 20 or 30 years, has actually done things to harm the environment. Over the years, past governments - and we're going back to Conservative governments, then a Liberal government for one term and then the NDP government - all made improvements to the environmental agenda. This is the first government since the environment ministry came into being that has actually been regressive and has done things that hurt the ability of the Ministry of the Environment to do its job, that is, to protect the environment.

Since this government came into power it has dismantled or watered down 13 laws and over 80 regulations, and they've weakened standards incredibly. The Provincial Auditor, for instance, talked about over 120 air quality standards that need to be upgraded. Two years ago, the minister said that things would be done in 12 months, including the Drive Clean program. Then this year the Provincial Auditor came back and had to say the same thing all over again. It was pointed out in his last report that they still haven't done a thing.

The government, particularly the Minister of the Environment, likes to say when questioned about this: "Why didn't you guys do anything? You were in power all these years. Why didn't you do something about air quality?" I'm going to put it on the record now that in fact we did. We brought in the pilot project for the Drive Clean program, for the vehicle emissions testing, and we were going to make it a mandatory program.

On top of that, and this is widely forgotten in discussions about air quality, we did a massive rewriting of the Planning Act. We had John Sewell and Toby Vigod, then with CELA, and others go out and travel the province. It was, all in all, a two-year process, incredible consultation, and it came up with more or less a consensus on a new Planning Act. How does this Planning Act fit into air quality? It fits in because the whole exercise, or part of the exercise, was to do something about urban sprawl, because the more urban sprawl you have, the more you need -

Mr Galt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if you could extend an invitation to the Liberal Party to have somebody join us in the House. I see all their chairs are empty.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Indeed it's not parliamentary to point out the absence of other members.

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Speaker: Would you please check for a quorum in this place.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check for a quorum.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Riverdale.

Ms Churley: The land use policy relates to air quality, because if it's good land use policy it will discourage urban sprawl. What this government did was immediately repeal the new Planning Act. Not only did they repeal it, they went backwards. They went, not back to the law that was on the books before we brought in the new Planning Act, but way back, and made it even more regressive. This new bill actually encourages urban sprawl. At the same time the government did that, they cut subsidies to public transportation. When you put these two things together, it adds, in a massive way, to air pollution when it comes to automobile usage.

The other thing we did when we were in government was to start the process called green communities. We started the whole process of engaging communities in programs that encouraged energy conservation and energy efficiency. That too is a major component of the problems which cause air pollution. We are terrible wasters of energy in Ontario, and that has been well documented, one of the worst in the world. One of the ways we can clean up our air and air pollution is to have programs in place and encourage communities and business to engage in programs that save energy. What did this government do? They threw those programs out at the same time, so there's nothing left on the books to encourage industry and households to save energy.

Not only that, but they have - had, I should say - an opportunity with the new hydro bill to bring in incentives and make sure that alternative, cleaner forms of energy were brought on stream. There were committee hearings, and I sat on some of them. That was an opportunity - is an opportunity - that may not come our way again for a very long time, but the government completely blew that opportunity. Now the fear is that with more of the privatization of Hydro, more of the private sector being brought in, our air is going to get worse as a result. The government missed a big opportunity to make those necessary changes. I understand that there are still some regulation changes coming and there's a possibility that some of those regulations will be there. There are organizations out there fighting very hard to make sure that happens, and I'm calling on the government to do that today.

As I said earlier, the problem with the bill we have before us is not the wording of the bill itself; it's the fact that the government has cut the ministry to the bone. During 1998-99, the Ministry of the Environment will have lost 45% of its operating budget and - get this - 81% of its capital budget. The government has fired at least 880 staff, and the compliance and enforcement branch has been cut by 30%. That relates directly to the bill we're talking about today.

We already know that with the existing laws, the ones that haven't been completely gutted, the ministry is having trouble monitoring and enforcing these laws. That's why fines are down so much. They don't have the ability to catch people, so they're getting away scot-free. Now we're hearing, after about 13,000 jobs have already been cut in the civil service, that they're musing aloud about cutting another 16,000 jobs.

The cut to the MOE of $121 million is the largest cut, on a percentage basis, of any ministry in this government. Now when we hear about another possible 16,000 jobs out the window, you know what we're very afraid of? That a whole bunch more of those jobs are going to come from the Ministry of the Environment. This government has shown time and time again that it has no interest in protecting the environment, that the interest is to play the game, say the right words and say: "We're doing more with less. The opposition just spent and spent and didn't do anything."

1600

Well, in fact we did do a lot. There's evidence of that all around us these days. I attended a press conference this morning where people were announcing that they're taking the government to court, or at least trying to force the government, on the Lands for Life process, which was a very flawed process - the government did not listen to the people; it's a complete giveaway to industry - to make that process go before a full EA. When I say EA, that means environmental assessment.

I can't mention environmental assessment, though, without mentioning that some time ago one of the other things this government did was gut the environmental assessment process. At least they left it in place, but the heart and soul have been cut right out of it. What made the EA process so important to people and so important to us, to our communities, is that in an environmental process things like alternatives to the undertaking, alternatives to the site, need - all of that had to be looked at. If it was not very relevant, it wouldn't be looked at for very long. But what this government did is change that process, so now at the very front it can be scoped.

We saw that up north with the garbage haul to Kirkland Lake, that whole process of shipping Toronto's garbage to Kirkland Lake, which our government outlawed. We said, and still believe, that as soon as you start shipping your garbage far, far away, then it's out of sight, out of mind. It's irresponsible. It takes away the need to fully engage in the three Rs. This government had a so-called environmental assessment process that left the public out and scoped it down basically to the hole in the ground, in this case this massive mine. It is going to have an impact on the land and the water in that area for a thousand years. The people there don't want it. The environmental assessment is completely flawed now when it can be scoped to just that one issue.

On top of that, they got rid of intervener funding. Not only is the EA process gutted, there is now no longer intervener funding so communities can get involved. Intervener funding was supplied by the Attorney General, or at least the law in place. The money wasn't; that's the interesting thing about this. It was administered by the Attorney General, but it was the industry, the proponent, who would have to pay out certain amounts of money so the community could be involved in protecting their own health in their own communities. So not only is the environmental assessment gutted, but the possibility for communities to be involved in the process is severely limited.

On top of that - and I don't think the public knows a whole lot about this. You may recall that recently Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, was introduced and went to committee. On the whole, people are supporting it, but one of the issues raised by the Canadian Environmental Law Association was that in the definition of "clinic law," environment was left out. It's our understanding that environment was one of the definitions, and there's all kinds of evidence that links environment and poverty.

I come from the community of Riverdale. Years ago in south Riverdale, a very working-class area, was a lead plant. Children were being poisoned by lead. It took years and years to get governments to listen, and finally they did. By that time, for many children it was too late. But there is a direct connection between poverty and environment, and it's really critical that poorer communities, especially without intervener funding now, have access to CELA, those kinds of environmental lawyers and legal firms - who, incidentally, don't make pockets of money; they're on salary and they're there to help those communities. Well, now what has happened, we heard the environment was included in that definition and it has been taken out. We want to know why. Who wanted it out?

Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can tell us later why environment was taken off that list. We want it put back in. We want the government to say it is committed to making sure that for poor communities who need environmental lawyers to assist them in legal processes, that money through the legal aid system is there for them. It's very interesting. It's one more thing on top of the government's charging an arm and a leg to get information through the Freedom of Information Act. It's very difficult now for communities to become involved and know what's going on.

Coming back to some of the things our government did, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, for instance, which came in under our government -

Interjection.

Ms Churley: The member for Dufferin-Peel supports that, I believe. I remember at the time that our leader, Howard Hampton, who was then the Minister of Natural Resources, brought it in. There was some criticism at the time that it might not have any teeth. In fact, that proved to be wrong. There have been several occasions now where environmental groups out there have used that act and have taken the government to court on the basis of that act, have said that the government was contravening the act and won, on more than one occasion. Environmental groups in communities have successfully used the Environmental Bill of Rights to demand and get reviews of environmental initiatives which have been placed on the register to force the government to review it.

Some of these structures that our government put in place thankfully are still there. At least there are some tools the communities can still use to try to keep this government from completely stepping away from its responsibilities to protect the environment. But when you have a situation where standards have been cut or have been watered down and all kinds of laws taken away, and when you have a situation where the member for Lincoln, who was in charge of the Red Tape Commission, goes to the Minister of the Environment - and this is documented - and asks the Minister of the Environment to not charge certain companies with breaking the law because -

Mr Marchese: He wrote a letter?

Ms Churley: Yes, he wrote a letter asking the minister to not do it because "Hey, our Red Tape Commission is recommending that those laws be changed anyway, so don't charge them."

I think that's a scandal. I think that's outrageous. Those are laws, provincial laws, that were being broken. When you have a member of the government who is appointed, who is he accountable to? He was appointed to that position and then asked the Minister of the Environment in a letter to not make - I think it's a scandal. I think it's just incredible that he got away with that.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Come on.

Ms Churley: It's true. He did it. I can assure you that it's out of order.

Mr Galt: It must have been back in the early 1990s.

Ms Churley: This was just very recent. You should look into that, to the member for Northumberland. You should look into that because it's a very serious charge being made here, and I think he shouldn't get away with it.

We have a situation where, for instance, water quality laws are still in place but in 1991 we had 700 water monitoring stations across Ontario and now there are 200. Air quality: 40% of the air monitoring stations are gone, closed. There is going to be - at least, so far the government has made noises about it - deregulation of hazardous waste. That's a whole interesting subject I could spend some time on. Coming back specifically to the bill before us, this mostly deals with waste management and the illegal dumping of waste. There's some real concern about the watering down of hazardous waste laws, which is what this government is proposing.

We have another situation in Hamilton: the Taro landfill. There are lots of investigations going on of serious dumping of very hazardous waste coming in from the United States into a landfill there. That is a severe health hazard. How many other dumps across the province are having the same thing happen? We don't know. Again, the government does not have the people, the front-line workers, any more to do the monitoring, to do the inspections, to do the enforcement.

The reports that have recently come forward - there are pages and pages of documentation of the impacts on our health of deregulation and the cuts across the province. Again in Hamilton - and the member for Hamilton I'm sure will be speaking to this in a few moments - is the Plastimet fire, which is an absolute disgrace. It's unbelievable that the government would not allow an independent investigation of that terrible situation. I would think that the government would want to know if their cuts did have an impact on being able to respond to that situation, that they'd want to know and be able to fix it so it won't happen again. The scary thing, however, is not only that they will not investigate it, but their proposed laws, which would allow more Plastimet fires to happen again. While they're being asked by the fire chief of Hamilton and many others to tighten up the laws in terms of recycling and storing of those kinds of waste, they are loosening the laws, which will make it easier. So we're afraid that down the road there are going to be more Plastimet fires.

1610

What I would ask the government, in our support of the bill today, is that it's not good enough for the minister, whom I believe is sincere and feels very proud of this piece of legislation, as he should - the parliamentary assistant is always outrageous in his response. He stands up and says: "Spend, spend, spend. We're doing more with less." Every report that has come out shows the opposite, that all across this province the deregulation and cuts and the lack of monitoring and enforcement are hurting our environment. The government is not doing more with less; it's doing less with less.

Now we're at a point in our history where we're seeing more and more connection between our health and the environment. We're not talking any more about tree-huggers; we're talking about our very health. We're seeing more and more cancers in the workplace, more and more breast cancer, more and more prostate cancer across this province, indeed across the land. We're seeing more and more the connection between the environment - there are thousands of chemicals in our environment; there are thousands of substances in our environment that there's more and more evidence are causing cancer, which I would consider to be a crisis at this point. I'll bet there isn't a member in this Legislature who has not been in some way touched by cancer.

We can no longer just take the position that we'll spend money on treating cancer after the fact. Of course, we have to do that and we have to do more. It's disgraceful that people are having to wait so long. Can you imagine what it must be like to be diagnosed with cancer and then to have to wait weeks or even months to move on to the next stage and get the treatment started? But what we have to concentrate on and look at is the connection between the environment and cancer.

I had a private member's bill passed by all parties in this House two years ago. That was taking one piece, one aspect of the report on cancer prevention which was undertaken by Ruth Grier, the Minister of Health when we were in government. Experts from the field in all kinds of areas did this tremendous report which is now sitting on the shelf. There are all kinds of good recommendations in it, and it's going nowhere. There is no money for cancer prevention; there is no will to do work on cancer prevention. It's just sitting there. I had just one piece of that large report passed by the House in a resolution, that the government put together a stakeholders' committee to start the process of phasing out or eliminating persistent toxic substances which are suspected or known carcinogens which can lead to cancer.

There was all-party support for that, and it was easy to support that day, but it's going nowhere. Nobody is taking the initiative. I've tried to meet in the past with different ministers of the environment, the ministers of health, and nobody will even meet with me about it. But we cannot keep our heads in the sand for much longer on this issue. The connection between health and the environment now is compelling, and it's something we absolutely have to start dealing with.

When the parliamentary assistant says, "We're doing more with less," that the opposition just talks about, "Spend, spend, spend," and you don't need these people to enforce, unfortunately it isn't that simple. If it were, if they could find a way to seriously do this work to complement the bill we're debating today, I would have no problem. But all the evidence to date, since they have laid off so many staff, points to the fact that there aren't enough staff there to do what's on the books at the moment.

So then you bring in another bill, a comprehensive bill which will deal with a very important problem, and that is mostly dealing with illegal dumping of waste, which has caused tremendous problems for people. You have had situations where somebody has illegally dumped perhaps even hazardous waste, in many cases hazardous waste, on to somebody else's property. That person would then be responsible for cleaning up that waste. We would all agree that is irresponsible and unfair, and this bill indeed does fix that problem, but again, if you do not have the staff, how are you going to enforce it?

What worries me, and I believe other people have pointed this out as well, is that good players, the industries that are good corporate citizens, want good regulation. They want an even playing field, and we all know why: because the bad apples will cause lots of problems. They will go out and undercut the industries playing by the rules and will be able to do things cheaper because they're doing it illegally or under the table. It makes it harder for the good players to get the business. We all know why good industries, good corporate citizens, want a level playing field.

The problem is, when you bring in new laws like this and you're not backing them up with enforcement and monitoring and all of that, it's meaningless. Not only is it meaningless; it's dangerous. It gives the impression that it's OK to flout the law. You've got laws, but when there's nobody enforcing them, why bother?

I think you can make the analogy to people who run red lights and why it's so important that the government finally caved to our demands for red-light cameras so that the people who do that will be aware - they won't all stop, for sure - that now they can be caught. The reason why so many people were running red lights is because they knew they could get away with it.

It's the same thing in any field. When you have environmental laws, just like when you have any other kinds of laws, and you don't have the ability to enforce, to monitor, to keep an eye on it, to charge the fines, to collect the fines, the law becomes meaningless. It makes it very difficult for the good players who are obeying the law and trying to be good corporate citizens and watching others undercut them by ignoring the law because they know they can get away with it.

The good thing about this bill before us today is that it vastly increases the fines. That's great, because the bad apples now can no longer see it as a part of doing business, which is what they used to do. We all know that. It's one of the reasons why my colleague from Algoma recommended vastly increasing the fines. But again, those players who are the bad apples, who have been getting away with that, will continue to get away with it if there's nobody to monitor their activities and know that they are dumping these wastes illegally.

I would like to hear a commitment from the parliamentary assistant today, who is here in the House, that his government will put extra enforcement, will bring back the people they've laid off and assure us that this bill, which the whole House is supporting, can actually be enforced. Without that commitment, it is not worth the piece of paper that it's written on.

My fear, as has been expressed by others, is that this is sort of a dying last gasp by this government, realizing, I'm sure, in its polls - the environment has never been a huge priority for this government. In fact, I don't think it was even mentioned in the Common Sense Revolution document. But I remember Mike Harris promising that they'd cut all this money and give the tax cut and get rid of the deficit but they wouldn't cut a cent from the environment. Remember that? Another promise broken.

Interjection: Did he say that?

Ms Churley: He did say that, and look at all they've cut out of the Ministry of the Environment.

This is an extremely serious issue that we're talking about today, because what we have in front of us -

Mr Froese: You haven't got enough material.

1620

Ms Churley: Oh, no, I could talk for hours about the deregulation. I'm trying to stick to the rules and speak specifically to the bill here, but if the member wants me to, I could speak for at least 24 hours on the deregulation and the cuts this government has made - I have on occasion too - to environmental protection in this province. We have a whole lot of things happening right now that are either on the registry - some people know about it and some don't. They haven't stopped. Just because they have brought in this new bill today doesn't mean that they have stopped the deregulation and the cutting that's going on.

I mentioned the Taro landfill site and the Lands for Life. The interesting thing, for instance, in sulphur and gasoline, is that the minister came out and said he supported the federal government doing something on that. However, Sterling and two of his cabinet colleagues, the economic development minister and Energy Minister Jim Wilson, wrote to the federal environment minister denouncing the proposal just one week before. They said the new standards could mean the closure of two older refineries and not to do it.

Then there's the inert fill issue. I'll bet nobody here even knows about that issue, inert fill. I think we have to find a better header for it because it doesn't sound that interesting, but it too deals with waste management. We're hoping we can stop this. What it would mean is that we would see toxic fill, toxic waste, possibly being dumped in Ontario parks. The recommended changes to the definition of "inert fill" will allow waste contaminated with more than 80 toxins to be dumped in areas designated as sensitive by the Ministry of the Environment.

The new regulation also has little in the way of regulatory controls, monitoring or enforcement. Therefore, that will clear the way for wholesale dumping on environmentally sensitive lands. This is on the books right now and people should be aware of it.

What could happen - a small example - is you could have some hazardous waste sitting on an industrial site in Toronto, and under this, if it goes ahead, that hazardous waste could be moved to an industrial site somewhere outside of Toronto just because it's labelled an industrial site. It may never before have had any hazardous material on it, but it suddenly could become a site for dumping of hazardous waste from the city of Toronto. There could be fill dumped in parks where before, under the existing law, that couldn't happen.

While the government comes forward today with this piece of legislation that we're all supporting, in the meantime they haven't stopped the deregulation and the cutting and the gutting of environmental protection in this province, and people should be aware of that.

I say to the government that bringing forward this bill is not enough. This is the one piece of legislation in all the years we've been here now where I have been able to stand up and say to the government. I support this piece of legislation. It is actually good for the environment. You are doing a good thing for a change. You are not doing something that's going to hurt our environment and perhaps be a hazard to our health, but you're actually doing something right for a change.

All we ask for now is that there be a commitment that the enforcement and monitoring staff be put back in the ministry, that some of the money the government is using for its propaganda to make people believe they're doing all kinds of wonderful things like creating jobs - in fact we find out there are even fewer jobs - that kind of propaganda, that kind of advertising getting ready for the next election, that they take some of that money and put it back into the Ministry of the Environment.

Then we could have some confidence that this bill we're debating today will actually make a difference. As it stands now, it's a nice piece of legislation that you really needed to be able to go into the election and say, "We've actually done something good." That's all you've got, but it's not good enough. You have to put the money back in or it won't be worth the piece of paper it's printed on.

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you check for a quorum again, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you check and see if there is a quorum present.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I urge members of the government, especially the backbenchers, who pretty soon are going to have to go door to door in this province, talking to people about what they've done during the time they've been responsible for the business of this province, to start listening to people like the member for Riverdale and appreciate that they are very vulnerable on the issue of the environment. They're going to have a lot of questions to answer for, particularly from those people who have a lot of knowledge in this area, who've spent virtually decades, dedicated their lives to this issue, and who are going to make a point of publicizing what you have done. The answers you have are going to be all but non-existent in terms of justifying what you've done.

If you think holding up Bill 82 is going to keep you out of the woods, think again. Like our environment critic, the member for Riverdale, I also intend to support this bill, but isn't it ironic that the one bill we feel comfortable supporting is all but word for word taken from one of our own NDP colleagues, the member for Algoma? What does that tell you in terms of this government's ability, Mike Harris's ability, to sit back and decide for themselves what ought to be done for the environment that's good? Virtually nothing else you've done, not a single thing you have done, has been supported by us in the NDP or by any environmentalist across the province who cares deeply about what you're doing.

It makes an awful lot of sense that, as we give credit for the fact that Bill 82 is here - albeit it originally was Bud Wildman's bill. That's fine. We're still prepared to see it here. We give you the credit for making sure it's there. Your motives are rather questionable, but it's here, it's going to pass and that is good.

Let's also scratch under the surface. Much of this talks about increased fines and methods for enforcement. But methods and fines of enforcement mean nothing if the people aren't there to actually do the enforcement. Look what you've done. You've cut the budget of the Ministry of the Environment by 45%. The number of staff you've cut - this is mind-boggling - from the Ministry of the Environment is almost 900. That's 900 fewer people working for 11 million people in terms of monitoring our environment and enforcing the laws that protect our environment.

At the end of the day, you cannot possibly be able to justify that somehow you've done more with less. That's absolutely impossible when you have a 45% cut in the budget and almost 900 fewer people. This involves inspectors, analysts, planners, people who do the monitoring. I can't believe there's one person left in the Ministry of the Environment who in their heart of hearts believes anything other than the fact that this government has totally backed away from environmental protection as any kind of priority. In fact, I'll bet a lot of them are horrified and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them are looking elsewhere because they can't stomach the fact that they are now part of a ministry that seems intent on letting our environment be destroyed.

1630

It's been noted that you've changed and cut and gutted 13 laws; around 13 environmental protection pieces of legislation gutted. Over 80 regulations have either been eliminated or gutted. Think about it: about 13 separate pieces of legislation and over 80 pieces of regulation, all designed to protect our environment. Do you know what this government will do? They'll stand up and say: "We cut red tape. We did a wonderful thing. We cut red tape. We got rid of 80 regulations in the environment area alone." Somehow they want people to believe that that's good for our economy and good for our environment. It's not.

All they are doing is removing protections, as we would call them; barriers, as their colleagues and friends would see them, barriers to maximizing profit. Nothing wrong with profit, but not at the expense of raping our environment; that's not on. I don't believe that most people who are entrepreneurs and those people who are involved in big or small business are prepared to sacrifice our environment in the name of the almighty dollar.

Why? Because you can't escape from these kinds of changes. There's no hiding, not unless you're way, way up there: the gnomes of Zurich-type folks, where you've got yourself and your family secluded in some clean, pristine part of the world and you can make changes and make orders and make money from so far away that you're away from it - but for the vast majority of people, including the business leaders who make the economic decisions that this government is prepared to kow-tow to under any condition.

Look at the stats. The David Suzuki Foundation tells us that there are about 6,000 Ontarians who die prematurely as a result of poor air quality. At the same time, the Environmental Commissioner tells us that this government is behind in upgrading 120 air quality standards; 120 air quality standards should be upgraded, according to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, a position, by the way, created by an NPD government because of the importance we placed on the environment. She stated that 120 air quality standards need to be upgraded. You've done nothing about that. At the same time, the David Suzuki Foundation says, by their calculations, 6,000 Ontarians are dying prematurely because of poor air quality.

A recent study showed that about 300 of those citizens live in my community of Hamilton-Wentworth, and do you know what? It doesn't differentiate between Tories, Liberals, New Democrats and non-aligned. Just because you hold a Tory membership doesn't somehow make you immune from being one of the 6,000 across Ontario or one of the 300 in Hamilton-Wentworth. If you're a Tory and you get cancer because of poor air quality, you die just like everybody else dies. That's why I don't believe, at the end of the day, most business people, captains of industry, entrepreneurs, will support what's happening to our environment, not if they understand the implications of what it means for their children or probably - certainly as important, maybe more important - grandchildren, great-grandchildren.

How much more of a wake-up call do we need that we can't continue to do what we're doing to the environment? We just can't do that. Then you get elected and decimate the laws and the regulations that were already in place, that were already deemed to be woefully inadequate, and somehow we're supposed to rejoice at this prospect. It's frightening. It's frightening that there's a political climate that allows these kinds of things to happen and that there aren't demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people in the street every day. Every time we talk about a particular area of society that you've been given responsibility for, it boggles my mind that we live in a time and in a political climate that allows these kinds of things to happen with, quite frankly, relatively small protest.

The only exception to that is the labour movement that still have the ability to communicate and organize, and there they've put hundreds of thousands of people on the street in communities across the province. But everybody else who has been hurt by you, you've cut all their community action grants, you've eliminated the positions that were funded where there was community action so that you could stifle any kind of opposition.

While I'm talking about the labour movement, let me refer with great pride to United Steelworkers of America, local 1005, in Hamilton, who recently just in the last couple of months held a special day-long conference to talk about the environment. There are so many people, and you're very good at convincing people of this, far too many people, in my opinion, who buy into this myth that every bit of protection for our environment automatically means jobs, that we can't have a clean environment, we can't have clean air, clean water, clean land, and have jobs and have the economic growth that we need.

Local 1005, the leadership there - Warren Smith, John Bulloch - had the courage to hold a day-long conference with their elected representatives in that local and invite the media to talk about the importance of environmental protection to their union, to union members and their families, and why workers shouldn't be afraid of environmental protection. In fact, they make the case that it's quite the opposite, that workers and their families, particularly those who live in those cancer areas where there are high numbers of known carcinogens exposed in the air, why they ought to care about environmental protection.

I give the United Steelworkers of America and local 1005 a great deal of credit for having the courage to do that, because if there's anywhere where the myth of environmental protection means job loss, it's at a place like Stelco. They took that argument head on, because it is a myth, it's not a trade-off. If it's a trade-off of anything it's a trade-off of super-increased economic activity in the very short term for incredible costs to the economy and costs to our health and costs to the lives of our family members down the road.

In Hamilton, if we could go back to the late 1800s and reconsider the initial decisions about what was allowed to be done with our harbour, I guarantee you there would be a whole different approach when we take a look at what our community has lost by seeing one of the most beautiful natural harbours in the world become over the course of the 20th century one of the most polluted bodies of water. Yes, we're beginning to clean it up now and, yes, there are varieties of fish that are returning and, yes, we're optimistic for the future, but at what cost? First, the quality of life to all Hamiltonians and, second, the hundreds of millions and, quite frankly, billions of dollars that it's going to cost us to clean it up, and it's the taxpayer who's footing the majority of the bill.

Why aren't we learning from history? We could have still been Steeltown, we still could have been the biggest provider of quality steel, at one point, in the world. We could have still done that and built in environmental protections for that body of water and for our community. But you could at least argue they didn't know nearly as much then. You could give them that. All history has to be put in the context of its time. What's the excuse now? Greed; taking care of your political friends; bumper-sticker sloganism at election time. That's what's being served now, not the future interests of our community, not for one second.

1640

While I'm talking about the 120 air quality standards that the Environmental Commissioner has said should be upgraded by this government, which you're not doing, at the same time you're doing the same thing to workers in the workplace. Occupational exposure limits, OELs, should have been upgraded also. You haven't done a thing. There was a joint committee of government, business and labour in place to look at the very question of exposure limits and their standards, and you killed it: the Occupational Disease Panel, an internationally renowned body, created to provide independent, arm's-length advice regarding scientific and medical evidence to determine whether exposure to substances in the workplace have a direct causal link to working people who get cancer and die of cancer. You killed it; you killed that panel. Yes, it cost money: $1 million a year. You spent $1 million changing the name of the WCB to the WSIB.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Good plan.

Mr Christopherson: The member for Durham East says, "Good plan." I'd like to see him defend that to the workers in Oshawa when we start talking about metal-working fluids and the fact that you haven't moved the limits there. The auto workers have been standing on that issue, climbing down your throat and that of your Minister of Labour for years, and you've done nothing about it. So let's see you, member for Durham East, who thinks it's so high and mighty to sit there and heckle about "Good plan," go talk to the auto workers in Oshawa who are being exposed to carcinogens in terms of metal-working fluids and don't have to be, but you won't do anything about it. Do you still think it's such a good plan?

You come out with your Drive Clean program - you've got to love this - all over TV, all over the radio, talking about Drive Clean. First of all, it's years behind in terms of when you promised you were going to bring it out. But more important, why did they pick this program? I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't go after any of their corporate pals.

It goes after legitimate pollution, no question, and it's something that should be done, no question. But in terms of all the things this government has done that have hurt the environment and all the things they haven't done that they should do, this becomes a priority. Why? So they can look tough, so they can run the ads, so they can say how wonderful they are about clamping down on environmental pollution, but the reality is that none of their pals are going to be hurt by it. They all drive very late-model cars. They all meet the regulations. But they can say, "We're being tough," and there's nothing here that's going to hurt the profits, the bottom line of their corporate pals, which is of course, in my view, the motivation behind gutting the environmental regulations in the first place. That's why they pick a program like this.

If you really cared about Drive Clean, you would have kept the shared responsibility you had for public transit and you would have made sure there was money there today and in the future to expand public transit. That provides jobs also. It also helps keep our environment and make our environment cleaner. Instead, you downloaded it on to municipalities, who can't afford it as a result of the other downloading you've put on them.

I cannot leave this issue without talking about what's happened with Plastimet. Plastimet was a disaster of international proportion. It was reported worldwide daily. CNN ran it as a headline item. At the end of the day, you refused to give Hamiltonians the public inquiry we're entitled to. How shameful, how disgraceful that you show no interest in finding out what happened, why it happened and how we prevent it from happening again, yes, in Hamilton but in every community across Ontario. Disgraceful.

The Taro landfill: How far does that issue have to go? The member for Wentworth North, to his credit, has been the leading voice on this but not your government. You wouldn't listen to him before. Now, some of us have called for you to bring in the OPP in addition to the review that's being done in the ministry; also, to call a public inquiry into that fiasco, because there are a whole lot of questions that need to be answered. What do we get from your minister? Silence in terms of anything effective.

That's the point. At the end of the day, yes, this bill does good things, it was an NDP bill, but you still aren't changing the fact that you're hurting our environment.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): The opposition takes a holier-than-thou position, that they're the only ones who care about the environment and Conservatives don't care about the environment.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Look at their record, crime commissioner.

Mr Skarica: All right, look at the record. Let's look at it in my area. We had two dump issues in Hamilton-Wentworth. One of them was in my riding. A dump was proposed to be put in in Greensville.

The issue first came up when the Liberals were in power. At that time it was going to be one of the world's largest dumps. The member at that time, who was the Minister of Education, wouldn't take a position on it. He was in cabinet and he felt he couldn't take a position on pretty well the most important environmental issue in our area. The voters rewarded him for that position by not voting for him and he lost the election to an NDP member.

During the NDP regime, we had 140 days of hearings on this dump. To put that in perspective, that's almost as long as the O.J. Simpson trial. At the end of that trial -

Mr Pouliot: But he got off.

Mr Skarica: The NDP didn't get off on this issue, because after 140 days of hearings the environmental board said: "There's no way that this dump should go in. It's too dangerous." So the cabinet decided that dump shouldn't go in and cabinet disapproved the dump. Was it an NDP cabinet? No, it wasn't. It was the Conservative cabinet. Mr Tsubouchi, who is here, was on that cabinet. It was a Conservative cabinet that made that decision. For the members of the House here to say that the Conservatives don't care about the environment is just not true. It's fair to say that we all care about the environment, Conservatives, Liberals maybe and the NDP alike. That's the fair position I suggest.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm proud to be able to say a few comments about the member for Hamilton Centre's talk to the House. The problem with this place is that sometimes we don't listen to what's said. What we'd rather do is pick one or two points and dwell on them. Had we listened to what the member was saying, we would clearly understand, as I'm sure the people of Ontario clearly understood, that there's great room for improvement. The reality is that over the course of the last three years there have been mistakes made by the government with regard to environmental protection. If only we would learn from our mistakes and improve the future because of the mistakes we made in the past, Ontario would be a much better place.

The member for Hamilton Centre mentioned air quality standards. All you have to do is live in a place like Sarnia, Sault Ste Marie, Hamilton or Sudbury to realize the importance of air quality standards on the quality of life that the people in those cities live with and want to live in. The reality is, unless you have those proper standards, our quality of life suffers. This government, because of its inaction or because of its cuts, seriously and severely limited the quality of life of the people who live in industrial cities in this province.

I don't believe, as the member doesn't believe, that this legislation is going to solve the problems. He spoke briefly about workplace carcinoma, disease panels etc. Hopefully I will get a chance later on to spend some time on it, but it would do well for the government to listen carefully to what the member for Hamilton Centre has told us.

1650

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I want to congratulate the member for Riverdale, who led off the debate here this afternoon, as well as the member for Hamilton Centre in pointing out that this was a bill introduced by the member for Algoma, Bud Wildman, back in 1995. At that time, had the government proceeded with that bill to third reading, it would have been a lot better than we are today with the almost identical bill they've brought in. They waited to the point where they were able to cut $150 million out of the Ministry of the Environment budget and lay off over 750 people. The prosecutions have gone down by more than 50%. The bill is only as good as the people you have there to enforce it and make sure we don't have garbage from large cities like Toronto being dumped on northern Ontario.

I travelled through both the ridings of Timiskaming-Cochrane and Timmins-James Bay last week. There was a concern back in 1990 that the government that was thrown out of office at that time had decided they were going to allow garbage from Toronto to go to Kapuskasing to be incinerated or dumped in the north. Now we're seeing that the Conservative government doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with allowing garbage to be put down every abandoned mine in northern Ontario.

So at the same time as we're talking about a bill of this kind, this government is not prepared to hire back the people and put the money back into the Ministry of the Environment budget that is needed to enforce the existing laws, let alone the bill we're talking about here today. If you don't have the dollars there and the people to enforce and inspect what is happening for the 11 million people in the province of Ontario, we're all in trouble.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The members for Hamilton Centre and Riverdale have indicated that their New Democratic caucus is going to support the bill, and they spent all the rest of their time lecturing the government. I must say, as a member who sat while those two members were in cabinet and watched what their environmental policies were during the time they were in office, I found that they had an unbelievable amount of gall. They created the mother of all environmental follies, the superdump. Remember that? They created something called the Interim Waste Authority and they were going to put a superdump in my riding, right outside of Bolton.

Mr Len Wood: So?

Mr Tilson: The member says, "So?" Great. What an attitude. That is the hypocrisy of what the member just said, these two members standing up and talking about how they care for the environment. They were going to put a superdump in my riding. They had absolutely no policies whatsoever. They would not allow municipalities to look at other alternatives. They were completely averse to municipalities looking at energy-from-waste facilities. They were completely averse to municipalities looking at any other alternatives with respect to waste management. Their answer was a superdump.

They also of course were going to put a lift on to Britannia, as they did, without an environmental assessment. It was going to go up into the sky without an environmental assessment. Who knows what effect that is going to have on that environment at Britannia.

It's fine for the members to sit there and lecture our government as to our environmental policies, but the track record of the New Democratic party, their government, their caucus, is an absolute disgrace.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Rosario Marchese): Response, member for Riverdale.

Ms Churley: I'd like to thank all the members who responded and thank the member for Hamilton Centre as well for speaking to this.

To the member for Dufferin-Peel: Everybody is laughing at you. Everybody is laughing at members of your government when you stand up and try to pretend that you actually care about the environment and that you're "doing more with less." I'd just give up that line. It's not going to get you anywhere. It's not just us saying these things about your government; it's everybody else out there.

I listed a number of reports put out by independent bodies over the last three years. Once again, you're not listening to them. Mister Know-It-All, over there, you just won't listen, and everybody is just laughing at you. Let me say again that that's not going to get you anywhere.

On the waste management issue: It was a festering problem, building up for years, which previous governments ignored. Now what does this government do? It continues to ignore it, except that it tries to get all our garbage hauled up north to dump it up there where nobody wants it, and dump it into the United States. Out of sight, out of mind. That's what you're trying to do. You're not dealing with the problem at all. It's a very major problem, a very difficult problem that all governments have had to deal with.

To the member for Wentworth North I say that the Tories would not have cancelled the dump in the Hamilton area if it weren't for the very process that we put in place. In fact, part of the problem with this government is that you don't have processes left any more. You have don't have intervener funding. People no longer have a say. There's more and more self-regulation. Now you're just dumping willy-nilly and nobody has a chance to even have a say.

The member for Sudbury I think was saying that there's such a thing as an environmental deficit, and our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren are going to have to pay for that deficit through their pocketbooks and, even worse, through their health.

The member for Cochrane North makes a good point about why the government took so long to bring in this NDP bill.

Mr Galt: I'm certainly pleased to be able to respond to comments on this bill, Bill 82. It was interesting to hear the perfection of the NDP, what great things they did for the environment. If it was so perfect, I don't know why we would have to do anything. We could just ride along. But we've had to make an awful lot of changes to straighten out the mess they were making.

It's indeed a pleasure to be able to share with the Legislature the improved compliance and enforcement that we're going to have with this coming bill. Ontario has long enjoyed a very high standard of environmental protection, though over the years it has become apparent that there are certain limits on the Ministry of the Environment's effectiveness when it comes to ensuring compliance and enforcing the province's environmental laws.

I want to focus my talk today on some of those limits and how Bill 82 will help the ministry ensure compliance and enforce the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act. These are the three pieces of legislation administered by the ministry. They are strong, but reforms are still needed to ensure that they are able to meet their intended goal of protecting the environment and health in Ontario.

As my colleagues are aware, I had the honour of leading the Ministry of the Environment's comprehensive reform on the rules and regulations that it administers. These reforms are intended to ensure that our environmental protection system is doing the best job possible. The regulatory structure that we set out to reform is more than a quarter-century old.

Mr Len Wood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you check to see if we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, please check for quorum.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The member for Northumberland.

1700

Mr Galt: A number of problems have certainly arisen since.

The situation is similar with respect to the available tools for compliance and enforcement. Changes have been made to update the system but it's been done in a haphazard fashion, and the system remains in need of modernization to make compliance and enforcement tools more workable and therefore more effective.

Right now, we have a system that is inconsistent, with powers and penalties varying under the three pieces of legislation that we administer. There is considerable confusion out there for both the ministry staff who must do their work within the context of our rules and regulations, and the regulated community which must meet our requirements.

Unfortunately, Ontario has lagged behind other Canadian jurisdictions, as well as some of the US jurisdictions, in having available the most modern and up-to-date compliance tools. One example of such a tool is administrative monetary penalties. I'll have more to say about this in just a few minutes.

A result of our problems in the compliance and enforcement area is that we have reached a point where repeat environmental offenders have found ways to play the system. They have been able to continue their polluting ways, secure in the knowledge that it is difficult for the ministry to lay a hand on them. These offenders have realized that the ministry often cannot stop their activities and that the fines the courts have the authority to impose are not prohibitive in all cases. They know that it will be difficult to collect them and that there are various games they can play to avoid paying. I am sure you've heard the figure. Since 1985, there are some $10 million in unpaid fines. Polluters also know that the list of jailable offences is narrow and that prison time isn't a reasonable possibility in the majority of cases. I know that the ministry staff find it incredibly frustrating to deal with some of these repeat environmental offenders. Worst of all is the arrogance displayed by these bad players. All too often, they are able to engage us in cat-and-mouse games, knowing that we're restricted in our ability to deal with them.

The main victim of these bad players is the environment. Environmental law offences damage our air, water and land. This in turn affects the health of Ontarians. The unfortunate thing is that the young and the elderly are the most susceptible to an unhealthy environment.

The good corporate players are also victims. They choose to obey the law for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it's morally right to do so. They want to see a clean environment. They do not want to get ahead by sacrificing our air, water and land and our health. Good corporate players believe that if the rules are fair and equally applied to all, then you should be able to comply with those rules and be able to do well for yourself. The Ontario government shares this belief and we're firmly committed to ensuring that these views prevail.

As the situation now stands, it is difficult to ensure that the rules are applied fairly. Yes, the laws are the same for everyone; but no, certain individuals and companies have not been subject to the same degree. They've found ways to beat the system.

My colleague Bill Saunderson had a lot to say about this issue during the last round of debate on this bill, so I won't have too much to add to that. Suffice it to say that reforms are needed to bring our province in line with other provinces and to make our laws better able to perform their intended purpose: deterring and punishing polluters and protecting our environment.

This need has been recognized by other parties. I particularly want to commend Bud Wildman, a former Minister of the Environment, for his efforts to introduce a private member's bill that is similar in intent to Bill 82. I believe that we've made the act more comprehensive than the private member's bill and that the act would make Ontario's compliance and enforcement powers among the toughest in North America.

In every area addressed by this act, our intention is to increase the ability of ministry staff to deter and punish those who choose short-term and short-sighted gain over their environmental responsibility. Let's not forget that the right to make a good living carries with it important responsibilities to the community of Ontarians, not the least of which is carrying on business in an environmentally responsible way. The goal of the act is to create a fair situation for those operators who respect the law, and to make life much more difficult for those who do not respect environmental laws, because when they do not respect the law, offenders are showing callous disrespect for the environment and for their fellow Ontarians. With this bill, we are trying to create a level playing field where the rules will apply fairly and equally to all.

I'd now like to give you an overview of the contents of the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act.

One of the act's key features is more authority for the courts to impose jail sentences. By this I mean that we are proposing a longer list of offences punishable with jail time. We know that there have been many cases in the past where polluters have resisted attempts to stop their offences, because they knew there was no way they were going to go to jail. They knew that the judges' hands were tied because they can only impose sentences within their authority, and that authority has been limited when it comes to jail time for environmental offences.

This is also frustrating for ministry staff who would like to see their efforts make a difference for the environment. They want to know that their work is having its proper punitive and deterrent effects.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: There are some excellent statistics being mentioned in the House, and I'm wondering, is there a quorum present to learn from these statistics?

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: The longer list of jailable offences should make potential offenders give second thought to any idea of breaking the environmental law. In the case of environmental offences, we're generally not talking about impulsive actions or tough criminals. Those ultimately responsible for environmental offences tend to be more calculating and cunning types who would find the prospect of jail particularly unpalatable, so the realistic possibility of prison time would be an effective deterrent to the breaking of Ontario's environmental laws.

Higher fines will also have a strong deterrent effect if this bill is passed. Fines are not just a cost of doing business, and they shouldn't be seen as such. They must be high enough to perform their intended function, deterrence as well as punishment.

A few moments ago I mentioned $10 million in unpaid fines. Changes proposed under Bill 82 would give courts greater authority to collect fines. For example, a vehicle engaged in the commission of an environmental offence could be seized. Following conviction, the polluter would have to pay all penalties before getting the vehicle back. If the fine is still not paid, the court could require forfeiture. The vehicle would then be sold off and the proceeds would go to the government.

Another new feature of the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act would be the authority for courts to make restitution orders. Current legislation contains no such provision. If someone dumps tires on the property of another person, that other person can be stuck with the costs of cleanup. If the offender is eventually convicted, the innocent property owner has to sue to recover his costs. We propose court authority for restitution orders, whereby convicted polluters can be ordered to repay cleanup costs to such innocent parties.

1710

A longer list of jailable offences, increased fines, more authority to collect fines and restitution orders all involve the ability of courts to deliver environmental justice based on the tools available to them. Bill 82 proposes a series of new tools for ministry staff to be more effective in dealing with pollution offences and getting them to court, where appropriate. One example is the authority to seize licence plates and permits from vehicles used to commit environmental offences. Ministry staff now have the authority, but the conditions for its use have been so restrictive that they haven't been able to make proper use of it.

Our proposals would enable the ministry to make proper use of this authority. It will be a very useful tool because ministry staff will be able, in certain circumstances, to prevent the continuance of certain actions against the environment.

The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act would also streamline the process by which environmental officers issue compliance orders in the field. Our field staff will have more ability to take on-the-spot action to stop polluting activities. This is a great improvement over strict reliance on prosecution. By streamlining the field order process, we'll be able to stop activities that previously wouldn't have made it to the prosecution stage.

We'll be able to achieve the same goal with another of the act's key provisions: the ability of ministry directors to hand out administrative monetary penalties for minor offences. The power is already widely used in other Canadian jurisdictions. The maximum administrative monetary penalty would be $5,000 for every day an offence occurs.

I want to stress that these penalties are not fines. They will cover minor offences that normally wouldn't go to prosecution. I also want to stress that administrative monetary penalties are not a replacement for prosecution. They are a much-needed tool to help us strengthen compliance with Ontario's environmental laws. Ensuring compliance is, after all, the main way we protect Ontario's environment.

One way these penalties will help us protect the environment is by resolving many minor offences that normally wouldn't be resolved. We have other mechanisms for dealing with major offences, but it will help the environment and help level the playing field for the honest operators. If we can get companies to remedy situations that may have continued in the past, the use of administrative monetary penalties is often a more efficient way than through prosecution, which is costly and time consuming. We would also be able to deal with more non-compliance situations than we can at present.

The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act will enable ministry officers to secure areas and facilities to ensure evidence is protected. The lack of ability to do so in the past has been a hindrance to our effectiveness.

Ministry staff will have more modern investigative aids and techniques at their disposal if the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is passed. One of the most labour-intensive parts of investigation is surveillance. It can take as many as five vehicles to do a proper job of keeping track of one illegal operation. These new, more effective and efficient and less labour-intensive techniques would enable the same staff to cover more situations where environmental wrongdoing is suspected.

Under the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act we're proposing the use of high-tech surveillance methods. For example, with a court order we'll be able to put a tracking device on vehicles that we suspect are engaged in offences against the environment. These devices can be tracked in a number of ways. Ministry officers could follow from behind in other vehicle or even follow from the air.

Another surveillance method is the use of substances that can be added to a load of waste to, in effect, give it a fingerprint. We would then be able to determine whether the load at the destination is in fact the same as the load at the starting point. Ministry officers would be freed from having to be physically present during all stages of surveillance. They would be able to track more situations simultaneously. More minor offences would be stopped or prevented.

I know the opposition has had a lot of criticism about the number of investigators. We still have the same number of senior investigators that we had during the NDP government. Yes, some of the other minor or lesser environmental officers have been laid off, but the senior environmental investigators are still there. It's unfortunate that the only thing the opposition can come up with is to spend more money: spend it on more people, get more people more of this, more of that. This method we're using here will accomplish the same thing with less people. For example, with tracers, rather than having five out there chasing, one person can simultaneously follow several loads.

Another change under this bill will be the ability to go after not just those actually involved in the commission of waste offences but also those who are behind the scenes, such as the brokers who make arrangements for illegal dumping and tell transporters of waste where to go. They are just as responsible, if not more responsible, as the people physically committing the crimes and must be brought under the umbrella of justice.

The provision in the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act for orders to remove waste is also applicable to these people who generate and broker illegal waste. Again, the current legislation hasn't been applicable to those on the so-called periphery of waste offences. The threat of jail time will apply to these brokers and waste offence masterminds.

The last point I want to make about the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is that it gives ministry officers authority to hand out summonses to the drivers of vehicles on behalf of the illegal waste hauling companies they are employed by. We have been limited in the past in our ability to get at the owners of out-of-province and out-of-country operations because we could only serve summonses to the person operating the vehicle. Again, this will serve as a deterrent to those outside Ontario who would see our province as a good place to do bad business.

I have outlined a number of the proposals contained in the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. They have one common goal: to be fair to those who comply with Ontario's environmental laws and tough on those who break them. Cleaner air, water and land is a goal for everyone in this House. That's why I believe this bill we are debating today is an excellent piece of legislation and worthy of the support of all three parties. I'm particularly pleased that a member of the opposition brought it forward. Bud Wildman had introduced it as a private member, as it related to waste, but we've extended it to cover the full Environmental Protection Act as well as the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act.

There were several comments made about regulations and the changes of the regulations by our ministry. I can assure you there are no regulations that have been changed to weaken the environment. The regulations were changed with a view towards being clearer, stronger and better. I know that the critic from the NDP was present when the white paper came out, and she came over and actually congratulated us on an excellent job. I was disappointed to hear that critic make comments today about how terrible these regulations were, but I also appreciated the fact that she did compliment us on bringing in this bill. I hope that a few months or a year down the road she will still be supportive of this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments.

Mr Caplan: It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Northumberland in his comments. It's really strange that this particular piece of legislation raises the fines and imposes jail terms for polluters. That's certainly a good idea, but if you look at what has happened in the last three or three and a half years under this government, the number of fines has dropped almost 60%. There is nobody in the Ministry of the Environment to enforce any of the environmental standards that have been built in this province for decades. So I really take the words of the Minister of the Environment as being hollow, because who is going to carry out all of the functions that are supposed to happen under Bill 82?

1720

I would quote to you, Speaker, as I would to all members of this House, the words of our Provincial Auditor. Back in 1992, the auditor said that there had to be an updating of air quality standards in Ontario. Well, six years later, in 1998, the Provincial Auditor points out that not one air quality standard had been updated - not one - in six years. We've had a minister not of environment but of inertia. We've had a government more interested in advertising and selling than in actually having firm, high-quality environmental standards. The real tragedy that's going on here is more rhetoric, more of a sales job.

This government is not committed to environmental standards. In fact, we put in, as an amendment to Bill 55, that environmental standards would be protected. The government members voted against those kinds of amendments, which shows the real commitment of this government when it comes to the environment. It's a sad day.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Marchese: I know the member for Northumberland hates it when the opposition criticizes them, but what you have done, quite appropriately, is to praise the member for Algoma, and our friend from Lake Nipigon too, who was very much connected to all of this as a former minister. We have praised them, and indirectly we praise this government for having taken on some of those ideas that we think are very effective. We've done that. Then we whack them when they deserve to be whacked, and that's what we're doing.

What we're saying is, yes, in terms of prosecution, you've got the right language, we've agreed with that, but what the member for Riverdale points out is that at the level of compliance, you're failing. Are you saying we shouldn't criticize you because you don't have the right compliance methodology or procedures in place to deal with it? Are you saying that's bad? Surely you would want a good measure of compliance to be there. What we're saying in terms of compliance is that you don't have the staff to do it. You have laid off 750 human beings who dealt with issues of compliance. You're saying, "That's OK. `Just spend, spend, spend' is what critics are saying." No. We're saying that if you want compliance for these good measures, you need the people. Put back the people to deal with compliance. You chopped $150 million from that department. It's a bad thing. It means you won't have the staff to deal with matters of compliance, enforcement, monitoring and inspection.

You have contributed to the degradation of our environment and you have, through this dumping of waste in our waters and air, caused our physiology to be deranged and caused countless deaths in our province. We urge you to put the money into compliance, into monitoring, in order for this bill to be effective.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I listened intently to the remarks from the member for Northumberland, as I always do when he speaks. He speaks so eloquently each time he addresses this House, which he doesn't do nearly often enough. He's become so adept at extemporaneous speaking and thinking on his feet that he's actually got it down to a fine science. His remarks this afternoon in particular sounded almost as though they were read straight from a script, so effective is he at thinking on his feet and speaking extemporaneously in this chamber. I admire his talent in that respect. I listened with great interest to his words, which were eloquent, as usual, and I was very encouraged by the message he brought to us and the great step forward that is represented by the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, the bill that is before us this afternoon.

I was particularly encouraged to hear that the bill has the support of the critic from the New Democratic Party. I was somewhat disappointed to learn that that support has been attenuated somewhat and she's backed off to some degree. I don't know why, but it is encouraging to know that the bill has received support from the critic from the third party here in this House. Certainly it deserves to, inasmuch as it does represent a substantial advancement for the cause of environmental protection in this province.

I commend the member for Northumberland for his remarks this afternoon, bringing that message to us all.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bradley: Madam Speaker, as the environment critic for one of the parties, you would know that you can have all the legislation you want put into effect, but if you do not have the staff and the resources to enforce the provisions of that legislation, then it is virtually useless.

What has happened with the Ministry of the Environment since this government came into power is that it has decided it's not a priority. In fact, the budget was slashed drastically, the staff numbers have been slashed drastically. I don't know if you can say it of all ministries, you probably can make an argument in many ministries for this, but if you do not have the resources and you do not have the staff to carry out the responsibilities of the ministry, no matter what legislation you're going to pass, it's going to be somewhat ineffective.

The Premier and the Solicitor General said it was important to have 1,000 police in the province. They would recognize, as I think all people do, that if you have a significant number of police in the province to carry out the provisions of the laws that we pass in this Legislature, that's going to be important. Yet in this ministry they have cut way back, and it's largely because they've received complaints from the kind of people who support them, people who never liked the Ministry of the Environment, people who never liked environmental regulations or legislation. But I think what they'll find is that the good corporate citizens really want a strong Ministry of the Environment and strong legislation.

This bill will receive the approval of members of this House. I'm certain of that. It's the first bill they've had that's really been a progressive bill. Every other bill we've seen, every other regulatory change we've seen by this government has been designed to weaken the environmental effort of the province of Ontario. That's why, as I say, the faint hope comes with this particular bill, but it will not have the people nor the resources to enforce it and bring it into effect.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: Thanks to the member for York East for his very kind comments. His cheque is in the mail.

The member for Oriole made all kinds of references: fines dropped by 60%. I suppose if the number of charges in the RIDE program are down, that means they're not out checking as much. Or does it mean there's less drinking and driving? I think you have to analyze what's going on. The fact that there's $10 million still outstanding in fines from 1985 to 1995 is indicative that there were just no teeth. Maybe you ran out and made the charges, but a lot of good it did. They just thumbed their nose at the government and said, "Go."

When it comes to air standards, they are some 30 years old. Both the two previous governments could have done something about air standards. We're looking at some 70 of them. There are a large number on the Environmental Bill of Rights right now and there's another bunch to go on. Some of them take an awful lot of scientific research to analyze what is a safe level. So I can tell you that the air standards are certainly being well addressed.

I think some of the comments made by all of the opposition are interesting. Again, they're back to talking about spend, spend, spend. I'm glad that's on the record for the upcoming election because I'm sure a lot of people in Ontario will remember the kind of spend, borrow and tax that went on from 1985 to 1995. They'll be pleased to know that's the way people like the member for St Catharines and the member for Fort York want to govern in the future: just spend, tax and borrow.

There were comments made on the regulatory changes. We came out saying they were clearer, better, stronger. I don't think there's any question. I challenge anyone in the opposition to show me one of those regulations that really has been weakened. You have all kinds of rhetoric. I'm still waiting for you to come up with the regulation that has indeed been weakened.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm pleased to stand in my place today and speak. I hope I can continue to speak for the 20 minutes I'm allotted.

Actually, Madam Speaker, you helped inspire my reason to speak today as you mentioned an issue that's near and dear to most of the constituents I represent in the riding of Timiskaming, and that's in regard to the Adams mine waste proposal. It gives me an opportunity to counter a very generous critical package that was sent to all members and copied to the world a few weeks ago about my stand on the issue.

I'll start at the beginning and talk a little bit about the history of the project.

1730

We had a very active iron ore mine - we had two of them, actually - in the riding of Timiskaming. The Adams mine just south of Kirkland Lake shipped iron ore pellets for 20 years to Dofasco in Hamilton. It was decided by the operating company to close it, unfortunately. Between the two mines, it put 750 people out of work in my riding in the late 1980s.

When that happened, a proponent from North Bay made the proposal that the site be used for the delivery basically of all of Toronto's garbage - I mean all the garbage before it's recycled - and that there be a recycling plant on the site. From that there would be spinoff industries on the site to create a lot of industrial jobs in the area. I'm sure all members, when confronted with such a project, have to be open to such a project. Certainly I was through most of the process.

The idea up was that the project be run by the city of Toronto. It was in December 1995 that the city of Toronto finally rejected the idea because of the high capital costs to invest in the construction of this plant. So the project at that time basically was dropped by the city. Shortly thereafter, the proponent, Notre Development of North Bay, decided to bring this forward as a private sector proposal, and proceeded that way. Now the project was to be run by the private company and also was not to have the recycling component. Basically it was just to be a dump. That's when a lot of people in the riding really started to get concerned, started to learn more about the project and started to get a feel for what the potential environmental impact might be.

What we're talking about in this abandoned iron ore mine is a fractured-rock pit - fractured rock not only because of the geological pressures over time that happen in a pit such as that, but also because of all the blasting that had occurred over the 20-year history of the mine to extricate the iron ore from that site. What we have here is a very technically complicated proposal that is going to have to work absolutely perfectly if it is to be environmentally sustainable. This pit is 200 metres deep. This pit sits about 20 miles north of the beginning of the great clay agricultural belt in Timiskaming, where all the towns south of this site, and all the farmers, derive their fresh water needs, both for household use and for farm use, for their livestock. There was a great concern in the farming community with this.

The core of this proposal is a hydraulic containment system, which means that all the water runs from the water table into the pit and therefore it would be possible, according to the proponent, to devise a mechanical system that would collect the leachate, which is the poisonous toxins that are created when water runs through household garbage, especially when you're talking about 20 million tonnes of household garbage in one place. Through a very elaborate system of pipes and pumps, this leachate would be captured and pumped up to a water filtration plant on the surface, where most of the toxins would be taken out, except for the heavy metals. What remained would go into a tailings pond, later to be discharged into the Blanche River system and into Lake Timiskaming.

The problem a lot of people have, myself included, with this particular project is the scale of this project and its dependence upon a mechanical system to keep it environmentally sustainable. We're talking about a million tonnes of garbage over 20 years coming from somewhere in southern Ontario - a contract yet to be agreed upon - to be deposited in this pit.

Even the proponent proposes and admits that this site would have to be actively pumped for 125 years in order to render the leachate safe, and then after that a passive system would have to be employed for another 800 to 900 years. People who are going to come after those of us who live currently in the riding of Timiskaming will have to take care of basically this 20-year project. For 1,000 years we will have to take care, we will have to babysit, basically, 20 years' worth of southern Ontario garbage for up to, along the whole system, about 85 jobs.

This issue is hotly debated at home. I have been criticized as of late for continuing, in this case, to try to find out what my constituents believe about the project, using the normal methods that MPPs avail themselves of: mail-in survey cards to households. But it really boils down to two things: Is this project and the potential environmental risk this project could bring to the area worth the number of jobs for 20 years? It's my opinion, and I believe now I can speak for the vast majority of my constituents, having done a survey which I'll speak about in a little while, that no, it is not worth this.

The other aspect to this is community acceptance. While we're talking about Bill 82, another environmental act here, it was this government that two years ago basically scoped down or shortened the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act that would apply to projects such as this, and that's what this project got caught up in. That brings me to the full socio-economic aspect of this, because while in the early 1990s I was calling for a full environmental assessment, that meant that besides looking at environmental sustainability, the community had to agree upon the acceptance of this and that this project would do no harm to the economy or the culture of our area.

As we saw from a National Post article about three weeks ago now, in the Monday edition three weeks ago, the headline of that was "Canada's Garbage Capital," and it was Kirkland Lake. That is sort of the perspective people now are starting to have about Kirkland Lake. People at home understand that and know that, and I think they intuitively feel that, and that's upsetting. It's counter to the pride that people in northern Ontario have about what we do well. In particular, in Kirkland Lake what we do well and what we have offered the world is that we have contributed more NHL players than any town in Canada over the years. I and people in Timiskaming district and especially in the town of Kirkland Lake are very proud of that.

We're also very proud of our gold-mining heritage, and while this doesn't give us the affluence of an Oakville or a Mississauga, it does give us some boom times, and some bust times. Unfortunately, in the last 10 years we've been in some bust times, and that's why a project like this can be dangled in front of us as a lifeline to our boom-and-bust economy and in some circles does look to be attractive. When you've got money invested in your business, of course you want your business to do well, and a project that promises jobs, as this does, then begins to look attractive.

But we have to also understand who we are and what we're about. While we don't have the steady employment that we'd like to have, I think we have an opportunity in that new economy to find that, that we will have a greater opportunity to diversify as the information age develops and more and more of our young people see that there are other opportunities besides working in the resource industry, which is still the backbone of our economy in northern Ontario. So I think it's important that the people as individuals in our area have a say.

1740

What the proponent has said and been able to accomplish is that three municipal councils over the last couple of terms, within a catchment area of where the majority of the workers who used to work at the Adams mine lived, have agreed that this would be a good project, but on an issue as all-encompassing and having such a potential effect on our area as this, I believe it's important that all the people in the area have a say.

The proponent's lawyer during the EA hearings asked me whether I would accept the verdict of the EA panel and made a big fuss about that when I decided to go ahead and survey all the households in my riding. What I said, if you looked at the transcript of the hearing, is that I would respect the decision of the Environmental Assessment Board, and I respect that process and that the people did their work, but I don't necessarily accept the conclusion that they made.

In fact, that conclusion was inconclusive, in that the board gave a conditional approval based on more testing, and only two commissioners of the three on the board gave it the conditional approval based on further testing. A third commissioner said he did not believe that the project was environmentally sustainable. That testing process is going on now. It involves boreholes underneath this pit to determine whether this pit can hold the leachate that will develop from this project, and that has yet to be decided. The project has yet to receive its certificate of approval from the Ministry of the Environment.

I've always said that there are really two issues here: There is environmental sustainability, but there is also community acceptance. So I went on a few weeks ago to put out a survey in the riding to try to find out once and for all what the views of my constituents were on the project. I started doing that on October 23, and hired an independent direct mail house in Mississauga to have delivered over 16,000 postage-paid reply questionnaires in the riding of Timiskaming so that every household would receive that, asking their opinion about this project.

Also, to ensure the independence of this survey - because of my biased view that I'm actually against this project - I hired a chartered accounting firm in New Liskeard to receive the cards, so that my office would not be tabulating these cards; it would be done by a chartered accountant. I think this upset the proponent, number one, that not only was I going directly to the people over the heads of the municipal councils that had approved of this project to ask them view as families and households, but also ensuring the independence of this by hiring the accounting firm.

The accounting firm that I hired received a letter from the lawyer representing Notre Development basically threatening a lawsuit if they were to continue being engaged in the process of tabulating the survey cards that I had sent out. After talking to the local representative of the chartered accounting firm, we mutually decided that it would probably be easier for both of us for me to find a third, independent party.

I decided to do that, though I must say, the accounting firm's risk management people, as they started to look at this, felt there probably was no case to be made by the proponent that this accounting could not be done by the accounting firm. But it was going to be a complication and a difficulty, so we mutually agreed to cancel the contract and I asked a local United Church minister, the Rev Bob Williams, to supervise the counting of the ballots on the week of November 17.

On November 19, the Thursday morning, we were able to announce the results of the garbage project survey, and 83% of respondents indicated they did not support the shipping of Toronto garbage to the abandoned iron ore site south of Kirkland Lake. The response from this was 32%, which anyone will tell you in any direct mail operation is a very high return rate.

As I've mentioned, the controversy in this was that the proponent certainly didn't like me going over his head and going over the heads of the three municipalities that have endorsed this. By the way, part of the financial arrangement in the town of Kirkland Lake between the proponent and the council and the mayor is that a gag order has been placed on the elected municipal officials. No elected municipal official in Kirkland Lake can speak out against this project. There's a gag order there. I think it is unbelievable in a free society that we live in in Ontario that there's a gag order. There are not too many people of public stature who are able to speak out against this project in my area, and I continue to do so.

A lot of controversy by the proponent was also in regard to the methodology of this survey. I have said from the very beginning this was not a perfect methodology at all. Sending out cards to every household allows for human error, and I know not every household got one. It doesn't allow every person of voting age to have a say, but it's the best I was able to do when the municipalities involved turned down repeated requests to have plebiscites or referendums on this subject. As the member representing the area as a whole, it was the best I could do.

I wish I could do better. I wish I could provide a more accurate method for my constituents to speak their minds on this project. I can't think of one that I can possibly do. The best and only method that I think we all would accept here in a House that is peopled by the ballot box would be a plebiscite or a referendum, so I would ask the towns to do that.

I think the result of this survey certainly gives us a hint that there is quite a bit of opposition to the project in the area. If, as the Premier said in a letter to some of my constituents in the 1990 election at the time when he was leader of the opposition party, there should be community acceptance, then I think the only way to truly find that out would be through a referendum, so I would ask the towns to do that.

The findings of my survey are very consistent with other surveys that were done in the area. In 1995 I did a survey restricting it only to the catchment area of the proponent, and at that time it came back at 73% against. Maybe in my two-minute response wrap-up after the others speak, I will talk about some of the other survey results that have happened.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Len Wood: In the two-minute response to the member for Timiskaming, I'm fully aware of the controversy that he sees himself embroiled in in the Timiskaming area because of the position that the Liberal government took prior to 1990 and then the position that the opposition Liberals took from 1990 to 1995, as a result switching positions in 1995 during the election campaign and supporting the position the NDP government had taken, now the member sees himself in controversy.

1750

The other speakers said this bill is probably a good bill with the exception of the fact that the government has cut 750 jobs out of the Ministry of the Environment and reduced the budget by $150 million. If the government had adopted this bill that the member for Algoma, Bud Wildman, brought in in 1995, before they slashed the budget and laid off that many people, we might have had a bill here that could be enforced and we'd see good environmental laws in Ontario.

Ever since I've been involved in election campaigns, I personally have taken the position that no city, no matter how large, has the right to dump its garbage in other areas. During the election of 1990, the Liberal government had decided they were going to approve garbage from Toronto going to Kapuskasing to be incinerated, and whatever they couldn't incinerate, they would put into landfill sites. The NDP, our caucus and I personally have taken the same position over the last 20 years: that communities deal with their own garbage, and northern Ontario is not a dumping ground for the large cities in southern Ontario.

Mr Galt: It was interesting to listen to the speech. He really didn't talk about Bill 82. I interpret that as a lot of support, and he did indicate support for it. It was great to hear the amount of support that is coming from the other side of the House on this particular issue.

I heard the member for Timiskaming talk about Kirkland Lake and the mine site there. As a matter of fact, it has gone through a full environmental assessment. What the Ministry of the Environment is about, and what happens in situations like that, is to ensure that whatever site is proposed by the proponent is indeed environmentally sound, and that's what the environmental assessment review came up with in the end, that it would work. Now, when it comes to zoning and all the other things, as the member knows, it relates to municipal activity. If you go back a while ago, I understand there was a referendum up there on this, and even the mayor of the day of Kirkland Lake supported it.

I listened to some of the comments that were made in the House. I wasn't here until June 1995, but I really wonder what legislation, what kind of reg reform, what kinds of other things happened in the Ministry of the Environment. I'm aware the EBR went through in the last government, but it seems there was so little done over those 10 years. I'm waiting to hear the wonderful things that must have happened during those 10 years, but I don't hear any member of either of the opposition parties commenting on those wonderful things that happened. It seems to me it was a lot of talk and very little action.

But this government came in and this is the fourth bill we've had on environmental protection. We had a very intense review of the regulations to update them, something that has never been done before. Certainly, as you're quite aware, those regulations are clearer, better and stronger in protecting the environment.

Mr Bartolucci: I'd like to thank the member for Timiskaming for presenting the case with regard to the Adams site and the garbage proposal to the people of Ontario in a very clear and succinct fashion. I have to suggest to you, though, and anyone who thinks there is a conflict of opinion must understand, that this particular proposal has manifested itself in many different ways over the years.

It first started off as a recycling centre, with much spinoff industry attached to the community. Obviously it would have been a good project at that point in time, at least to pursue in study format. Now it's simply a garbage dump, a garbage site. That is not acceptable to the people of Kirkland Lake.

I want to commend the member for doing what we in this House should always do: consult the people we represent. I have to suggest to you as well that when you get 32% of a survey back, that is extremely high. The accuracy level is certainly very important for us to base some type of opinion and decision on. When you get approximately 82% of the people in the community saying "No way" to a proposal, I would suggest that if the member were to stand up here and say anything else except that he's against the proposal, then I think the member isn't doing his job. We are here to represent the people who have elected us to this esteemed chamber, and to do that, we must consult them. The member has done that. He's done that in a very professional way, and I would suggest to you that those municipal councils should listen well to the results of this survey.

I would suggest to you that if environmental laws had been in place from the beginning, we wouldn't have this problem.

Mr Len Wood: On a point of order, Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and comments?

M. Pouliot : C'est avec un intérêt particulier que j'ai écouté les membres du gouvernement responsable pour le dépôt du projet de loi, et aussi l'opposition officielle. La mémoire a commencé à leur faire défaut dès le début de leur présentation. You will recall - and I know that as the environment critic for the New Democratic Party of Ontario you follow every dossier meticulously, you study, you know, you understand every line - what the government is sanctioning is parenting what the New Democratic Party put into effect before we were somewhat rudely interrupted, before we were relegated to being the third party in this House.

Let's hear it for democracy, of course. We respect the opinion of the electorate, but we were just on the verge of striking a co-operative endeavour. The Minister of the Environment and our former Premier, Bob Rae, had asked me to be the Minister of Transportation. We were moving directly to reduce, to make emissions standards higher and therefore reduce emissions. Now the government conveniently takes all the credit. It has a great deal of difficulty saying, "We are just following through on the good deeds of the previous government."

I also listened intently to the possibility of a garbage dump in the riding of Timiskaming. It strikes me, if my memory serves me right, that there were some advocates during the last election saying, "Move the Toronto garbage there," but now that we have a survey that says, "Toronto, keep your garbage because you're the one who generates the garbage and its disposal should be localized." I'm not saying it's a change of mind -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Ramsay: I'm pleased to have the members comment on my speech. I believe my survey is accurate because it basically reflects other referendums and votes that had taken place in the area over the last few years. Back in 1995, Evanturel township, near the town of Englehart, conducted a referendum where 95% of the people said no to Metro Toronto garbage. Hilliard township, south of that, in 1995 polled 149 of its residents and 110 responded. Of those, 106 responded no, which would be over 95% against. In Dymond township, a similar referendum attracted almost half of the electorate and showed 93% were opposed to the project. Similar responses in 1995 were the cases in Dack township, Chamberlain township, Boston and Round Lake. These are areas surrounding and south of the site.

I believe, while anybody can certainly question the methodology of direct mail response cards into homes, and while you're only going to get a response from one person in that household, the response there is very consistent with what other referendums have said. I would say to the government that you should not allow the exportation of garbage from one jurisdiction into another where the residents don't approve. I think that most municipalities in Ontario would want to be assured that there is a willing host region that would receive their waste if that's what the municipality wanted to do. It's my determination that Timiskaming is not a willing host.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock this evening.

The House adjourned at 1801.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

December 7, 1998

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WINDSOR GOODFELLOWS

HOMELESSNESS

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

CHILD POVERTY

LAND USE PLANNING

PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

NURSING STAFF

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

CHRISTMAS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DISTRIBUTION ÉQUITABLE DES RESSOURCES MÉDICALES

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

VISITOR

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

WORKFARE

TEXTBOOKS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

PROPERTY TAXATION

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

PALLIATIVE CARE

ELECTION CALL

REMEMBRANCE DAY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

PALLIATIVE CARE

ABORTION

ADOPTION

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ENVIRONNEMENT