role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 15, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L070A - Tue 15 Dec 1998 / Mar 15 Déc 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ADVANCED FUNDING PROGRAM

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

TRILLIUM TRAIL

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

PAY EQUITY

OSHAWA ECONOMY

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

EDUCATION FUNDING

HEALTH CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES (N O 2)

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

DEFERRED VOTES

TAX CREDITS AND REVENUE PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET LA PROTECTION DES RECETTES

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

FIREARMS CONTROL

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

ROUND GOBY

PAY EQUITY

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ELECTION CALL

STEEL INDUSTRY

FAMILIES

PROSTATE CANCER

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

HIGHWAY 407

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PORNOGRAPHY

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ADVANCED FUNDING PROGRAM

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is yet another example of this government's ability to create red tape in deals with the full-time Management Board Chair and part-time Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Chris Hodgson. It's with regard to funding of community groups and charities through the minister's advance funding program.

We have in Sudbury 94 local groups, 24 of which are playground associations, that are waiting for their funding to appear from the ministry.

After the city's cultural grants committee has done all the work, we're simply waiting for the money to flow from the government, yet the government is intent on creating a bureaucracy that can only be deemed as unusual when you consider that it wants these 24 playground associations to provide them with copies of incorporation letters, a copy of notification of charitable registration, initial review pending, a copy of their constitution and bylaws, a copy of financial statements of previous years, a copy of current operating budget, and a copy of the most recent registered charity information return and public information return.

We're talking about the people who get up at 12 o'clock midnight to flood the rink, the ones who get up early in the morning to clean the snow off the rink so their kids will have some place in the community to play. I say to the minister, use your head and your brain and make sure that money flows to the people in Sudbury and across Ontario now.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): We have some very disturbing news coming out of our northern Ontario hospitals as a direct result of gross mismanagement of our health care system by the Harris government.

Without any consultation whatsoever, the Minister of Health has directed the ministry to stop paying for the clerical and nursing support that visiting specialists rely on to treat their patients properly in northern Ontario. This cut in funding will cost Notre Dame Hospital in Hearst $37,000 a year. It's going to cost St Joseph's hospital in Elliot Lake between $60,000 and $70,000 a year. It's going to cost Dryden District General Hospital $38,000 a year.

If the Minister of Health had done her homework, she would have found out that 10,000 patients received care from visiting specialists at St Joseph's hospital in Elliot Lake last year. Another 9,000 received care in Hearst, 3,800 more got care in Kapuskasing, and that's just to name a few. These patients will now have to travel up to six hours each way to get the same services. It is going to actually end up costing us, the taxpayers, a lot more.

It's going to cost us $525,000 more a year to send 10,000 patients from Elliot Lake, Blind River and Little Current to Sudbury. These patients used to be cared for in their hometown by visiting specialists for about $60,000 a year. In my riding, it's going to cost $713,000 a year to send 3,800 patients from Kapuskasing to Timmins.

In one fell swoop, the Conservative government has managed to spend more money and get less service, all the while downloading more of the costs to patients who can't afford it. It doesn't make -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

TRILLIUM TRAIL

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise today on a matter that will affect every member of this House. I recently attended a tourism meeting in my riding of Lanark-Renfrew. Our guest speaker, landscape architect Ken Buck, discussed plans for the 3,500-kilometre Trillium Trail, which will not only link all of Ontario, but will also connect to the TransCanada Trail, joining this country from coast to coast. This millennium project will create a 15,000-kilometre, multi-use shared trail from St John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia, and north from Calgary, Alberta, to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

The trail will be used by hikers and bikers, cross-country skiers and snowmobilers. People are already signing up for a three-month cross-country cycling tour which will officially open the trail in the year 2000. We can all assist by helping to negotiate the necessary right of passage for land use in each of our ridings.

We are a nation of trail builders, and I'm proud to say that the residents in my riding have already begun planning our portion of the Trillium Trail. One of the plans hopefully would be to use the Smiths Fall VIA Rail station as a rest stop and picnic area, with showers and places to change.

I invite all members to join the people of Lanark-Renfrew as we work to unite our province and indeed our entire country in this millennium celebration.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): As we approach Christmas, I'm making a direct appeal to the Minister of Health to recognize the urgent needs of a disabled little boy by the name of Ethan Adams. Ethan has many serious problems that include autism, coordination disorder and epilepsy. Ethan's doctors say he is the most severely disabled little boy they have ever encountered who is able to remain at home. But in spite of this, Ethan has something that many children do not: the loving support of his family.

Against great odds, Janice Adams has kept Ethan at home and saved the taxpayers about $170,000 per year that it would cost to keep him in an institution. Instead of helping Janice so her son can live in dignity in his own loving home, your government makes sure that every spare minute of her time is spent fighting for services for Ethan. She says your slogan "Services working for people" is hogwash; instead, it's people working endlessly to try and get services.

Minister, I have a letter from you telling Janice that a nerve stimulator Ethan needs is a fully insured service, covered through a hospital's global budget. But her specialist says there is no funding. He says people must express their anger to the government. Mike Harris has spent $42 million on propaganda, yet you refuse to pay for a device that would make life better for a sick little boy. You must make good on this letter, Minister. Call Janice Adams and give her the good news for Christmas.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Exactly one year ago today, the Harris government promised to pay $140 million to cover one-time, retroactive pay equity costs. The government was ordered to do this after Judge O'Leary found the Harris government in breach of the Charter of Rights when it tried to cancel proxy pay equity.

One full year later, 100,000 Ontario women have not received a single cent of this money. These are women who provide care to the elderly in nursing homes and homes for the aged, who look after our children in child care centres, who provide important public services to other Ontarians. They are owed this money, and this Harris government has done whatever it can to avoid paying these women what they have been due since this government was elected.

The irony is that while the Harris government has stalled any payments throughout 1998, the government's most recent financial accounting tells a whole different story. In the 1998 economic outlook, the government shows this $140 million as having already been paid out. This is a slap in the face to women who have waited so long for this government to do the right thing.

Worse still, the Harris government has made no commitment for money it owes to these women for 1998 or 1999. This government's treatment of these women is appalling.

On behalf of Anne Callaghan, Anita Giroux, Hugette Laurin, Mary Wilson, Nancy Leduc and other workers at Extendicare York in Sudbury, I urge this government to do the right thing.

OSHAWA ECONOMY

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): More than 461,000 new jobs have been created in Ontario since 1995. I am pleased to rise today to inform this Legislature of the new business investments and job opportunities that have been occurring in my riding of Oshawa.

Recently, Mackie Automotive Systems announced that it will be constructing a new 300,000-square-foot facility to enhance it's just-in-time services to the automotive industry. This $13-million investment in the local economy will house 550 employees at the new facility.

Another local company, General Printers, held an open house to showcase the $5.8 million in recent upgrades to its technology and facilities in south Oshawa. Volumes are up 10% over last year and the company is in the process of hiring more people.

This investment shows commitment to Oshawa's economy and its community. These private sector investments in Oshawa and the development in the north and centre-west of the city demonstrate the growing confidence in Oshawa and Ontario as being excellent locations for growth and expansion.

These two businesses investing locally are just a few of the small and medium businesses in Oshawa that have benefited from the economic policies of this government.

Ontario leads the Great Lakes states in growth in manufacturing and capital investments, like those recently announced in Oshawa, and employment growth in Ontario between October 1997 and October 1998 outstripped that of the United States.

By cutting taxes, eliminating red tape and putting Ontario's economy back on track, business in Oshawa has been able to grow and invest in Oshawa and Ontario's economy.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Every night Ontarians are faced with a barrage of government advertising. The latest we have seen is with regard to the Drive Clean program. We see the cute little cartoon characters on TV, we see the billboards, we see the radio ads, we see the newspaper ads, once again courtesy of the taxpayers of Ontario.

This propaganda is going to cost taxpayers almost $2 million before the program gets off the ground. Let's remember that this is the program you promised two years ago. This is the program that was supposed to start in the spring of 1997. This is the program that got delayed to the spring of 1998. This is the program that was supposed to start in the summer of 1998. Now we're to believe the $2-million ad campaign by Mike Harris and Norm Sterling that this program is going to start in early 1999.

You can't even get your own house in order. By April of next year, of the 7,000 government vehicles, only 2,000 will have been tested. You can't even do your whole fleet before you supposedly kick this off across Ontario.

I think this is another disgraceful example of a waste of tax dollars. Hospitals can't get enough money, schools can't get enough money, you've gutted the environment, but you have up to $50 million to spend on advertising and $2 million that you spent on this Drive Clean program. It is a shame.

Nobody trusts you. Nobody believes you. Again you're going to fail to deliver this program, as you have on other occasions, and you continue to fail taxpayers by spending needlessly on advertising and self-serving propaganda intended to get Mike Harris re-elected.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): We have in the gallery about 30 students who are here from West End Alternative Secondary School, and from Contact School in my riding. They're here to protest the effects of Bill 160 on themselves as students and on their lives in particular.

They have sent a letter to the Minister of Education and I will read part of their very compelling argument against cuts to education.

"Dear Mr Minister:

"Although you believe that Bill 160 and your new funding formula improves the organization and quality of Ontario's education system, you have not listened to or consulted the people who are really being affected by your decisions. Everybody likes changes, but the changes have to be for the better, not just what you think is better for us.

"If you think about the future and all the kids who are going to drop out, please consider our experience as alternative school students. What a lot of people don't understand is that there are many different types of students, not as in good or bad, just different. Many students learn a lot slower than others do. Some students live on their own and have financial problems. A lot of them work and a lot are on welfare. Some students are also parents.

"If you take away all their means of getting financial and other help, support and resources like street workers and schools that meet students' needs, like West End Alternative, many students may end up quitting school and risking their future."

These students need the assurance of the minister that their education is not in jeopardy. They're here today because they're very unsure of their future under Bill 160 and anxiously await -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I rise today to tell you that health care reforms are helping the people in my riding of Simcoe Centre.

Since our government came to power, we have seen tremendous improvements to provision of front-line health care in my riding. Our new Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie is a state-of-the-art facility second to none anywhere. We now have an MRI and a breast screening clinic courtesy of the government's health care reforms. That's putting patients first. This means that thousands of women in my riding now have front-door access to life-saving diagnostics for breast cancer. This will save lives.

We just announced that there will be a full cardiac care centre at Newmarket's York County Hospital. This means that patients in my riding will soon not have to travel to Toronto for this life-saving service.

We are investing $1.2 billion in long-term-care services in Ontario. Barrie will receive 82 new beds in the first wave. That's putting patients first.

The federal Liberals' slash-and-trash approach has cost this province more than $2 billion in health and social transfers. Those are the only cuts there have been in health care in this province: federal cuts. We'll invest $19 billion in health care this year, up from $17.4 billion when we came to power.

I'm proud to say that our government is walking the walk on health care in my riding. We're putting the patient first in Simcoe Centre, and that is good news.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 (No. 2) / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES (n o 2)

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 101,

An Act to reduce red tape, to promote good government through better management of Ministries and agencies and to improve customer service by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting three new Acts / Projet de loi 101, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives, à promouvoir un bon gouvernement par une meilleure gestion des ministères et organismes et à améliorer le service à la clientèle en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant trois nouvelles lois.

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

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): These amendments will reduce requirements that are an unnecessary burden on business, simplify government processes, improve efficiency, and harmonize and modernize some acts.

There was a lot of consultation among ministries and the Red Tape Commission led by Mr Sheehan and the business stakeholders. There are some existing commitments which are being addressed, such as the harmonizing of the cost of credit disclosure rules and rules for direct marketing across federal and provincial jurisdictions, which will provide a consistent protection for consumers across Canada.

There are other provisions dealing with the improvement of customer service, many of which were identified by our hard-working civil service, such as Rudi Wycliffe, to address things such as the Registry Act, which would allow people to do some very reasonable things such as register notarial copies of death certificates now, as opposed to actually registering the originals.

This will allow businesses in Ontario to do what they do best and to grow and prosper.

The Speaker: I just remind members that in introducing bills, the only germane comments are comments that reflect what is in the bill.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to the standing committee on social development.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I move that the standing committee on social development be authorized to meet today beyond its regular hour of adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill 76,

An Act to Establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.

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

DEFERRED VOTES

TAX CREDITS AND REVENUE PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET LA PROTECTION DES RECETTES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 81,

An Act to implement tax credits and revenue protection measures contained in the 1998 Budget, to make amendments to other statutes and to enact a new statute / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre des crédits d'impôt et des mesures de protection des recettes contenues dans le budget de 1998, à modifier d'autres lois et à en édicter une nouvelle loi.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It will be a five-minute bell; call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 58; the nays are 36.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be titled as in the motion.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the Honourable Bruce Atkinson, member of Parliament for Koonung, Melbourne, Victoria. Please join me in welcoming our guest. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. On November 25 at 8 o'clock pm, Lisa Bouffard, a 26-year-old woman who was 25 weeks pregnant and who was experiencing a high-risk pregnancy, left Women's College Hospital at the request of the staff and they put her into an ambulance. She was accompanied by five medical personnel and she was driven to Kingston. Two hours after arriving in Kingston, she gave birth to triplets. It is acknowledged that if those babies had been born en route, they would have died and she would have been in a very critical condition herself.

The reason they had to put her into an ambulance and drive her to Kingston was because there was no room at the inn in Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr McGuinty: In the largest health care centre in the country there was no intensive care bed available. Do you accept responsibility? This is as a result of your cuts and your mismanagement of health care in Ontario.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Our government has not made any cuts to health in Ontario. As the member well knows, the only people who have made cuts are the federal government. In fact, they have made somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2.5 billion that we have lost in social and health transfer payments from the federal government, and I would hope that in the new year the federal government would see fit to listen to people across Canada and put more money into health.

Mr McGuinty: This woman and her three tiny, fragile babies were put at risk because there was no room in any intensive care unit here in Toronto. Furthermore, there were none available in Hamilton. They put her in an ambulance and they drove 300 kilometres. It took four hours. Two hours after she got to Kingston, she delivered the babies.

That mother and those babies were placed at risk because there was no staff available in Toronto as a result of cuts you've made to health care in Ontario to accommodate her needs. Quality health care wasn't there for her where she needed it and when she needed it. Are you now going to assume responsibility for the damage you're causing to health care and for the risk you are putting patients at in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Obviously the Leader of the Opposition didn't hear the fact that the only government that has cut health spending is the federal government. Let me stress that our government has increased health spending from $17.4 billion to $18.9 billion, and that does not include the fact that we have absorbed the $2.5 billion that we have lost in transfer payments for health and social services. In fact, when we were elected, not only did we inherit a budget deficit, but we inherited a health system that no one had had the courage to restructure.

So our government is restructuring the health system in this province in order that we can provide -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - the specific level of services, we can provide more services, more dialysis, more MRIs, more cardiac centres, more cancer centres, more programs for healthy babies, more -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: I wonder if I might impose upon the Minister of Health in Ontario for a moment to think about this patient. This is a 26-year-old mother. It is her first pregnancy. She arrives at the hospital here in Toronto, they admit her, they tell her she's at high risk, that there's a danger connected with this pregnancy. They say: "By the way, there are no beds available here in Toronto and there are none available in Hamilton. We're going to have to put you into an ambulance. We're going to have to spend four hours on the road.

You're going to have to deliver your triplets in a city that's 300 kilometres away, and you're going to have to spend the next 12 to 14 weeks there after those babies are born. And you're going to have to pay for your own hotel accommodation in Kingston."

Do you think that's right, Minister? That's all I'm asking you. Do you think it's right that in Ontario today, if you can't find room at the inn they can ship you 300 kilometres away so you've got to deliver your babies in a strange city, away from your husband and away from your family and away from your friends? That's what I want to know.

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the Leader of the Opposition, when we stand up in the House it's extremely important that we always keep in mind that what we speak about indeed is a reflection of the true facts of each and every situation.

What I would remind you of is that the reason we have undertaken to strengthen the health system in Ontario in order that we can better serve the needs of patients is because these are the types of situations that had been brought to our attention. I'd just like to refer you to a situation at Ottawa General. This was when your government was in charge. "Doctor Garth Dickinson said there's a risk someone may die because" -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again I would remind the Leader of the Opposition it's because of the lack of action on the part of both parties that our government has indicated our desire -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - to strengthen our health system in this province, to increase the level of spending, to bring services closer to home, to respond to the specific need of the -

The Speaker: New question; official opposition.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier. This morning on radio, the Premier made a stunning admission. He was asked by the host of a radio show, "How is it that taxpayers are going to be stuck with the costs of defending Al McLean?" and the Premier answered, "I don't think the taxpayers should."

After the government lawyers said the deal was bad, after your own backbenchers said the deal was bad, after we in the opposition said the deal was bad, after virtually every Ontarian said the deal was bad, finally the Premier decides that the deal is bad, he admits that the deal is bad.

My question to the Deputy Premier is, what arrangements are you now making to reimburse taxpayers $600,000 of their money that your government used to pay off the Al McLean matter?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, the government is not making any arrangements. The Board of Internal Economy may well make an arrangement.

Mr McGuinty: Let's understand what happened here. The taxpayers of Ontario paid $130,000 for the legal fees of your colleague Al McLean. Al McLean was sued for sexual harassment. This in fact was the third complaint, we learned today, of sexual harassment levelled against Mr McLean, a man who you consider to still be most worthy of sitting as a member of your caucus. Al McLean agreed that damages should be paid to Ms Thompson. I think that, in and of itself, speaks volumes.

Yesterday you said in your balanced budget legislation that if the taxpayers are ever ripped off, it's the responsibility of cabinet to pay up. I say taxpayers have been ripped off to the tune of $600,000 in connection with this matter. Will the members of your cabinet, yourself included, Deputy Premier, now agree to make restitution and restore that money to the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Mr Eves: Are you suggesting, for example, that the Board of Internal Economy should not have paid Ms Thompson the settlement that was agreed to by both herself and the solicitors for Mr McLean? Is that what you're suggesting?

With respect to the point about the taxpayer protection and balanced budget legislation, you had an opportunity to vote yesterday on first reading of the bill. Undoubtedly you'll have an opportunity to vote and let the people of Ontario know exactly where you stand on balanced budget legislation and taxpayer protection legislation, which of course, as a member of the David Peterson government, you didn't have the intestinal fortitude to introduce then.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier has finally today acknowledged that he has ripped off taxpayers when he said that $600,000 -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr McGuinty: Mike Harris said this morning on open-line radio that he didn't think the taxpayers should have to pay in this matter. He said this was a bad deal for taxpayers. He said it was wrong for taxpayers to have to come up with this money, especially when the government's own lawyers said that the taxpayers wouldn't be found to be responsible if the matter ever proceeded to court. In fact, yesterday afternoon Ms Thompson herself said she didn't think it was right for taxpayers to pay for Mr McLean's legal fees.

Your own balanced budget legislation provides that if taxpayers are ripped off, it's up to the cabinet to make restitution. Well, you know what? Today the Premier said that he was wrong. He's been caught. He's been found out. I'm now asking you, Deputy Premier, if you and your cabinet are prepared to make restitution to reimburse taxpayers to the tune of $600,000.

Hon Mr Eves: I don't believe the Premier said any such thing. I'm asking the leader of the official opposition, are you suggesting that Ms Thompson should not be paid the settlement money which is part of the $600,000 that you refer to? Is that what you're suggesting? That proposition is absolutely ludicrous.

To address the issue of balanced budget legislation, very simply, once the budget is balanced, which we can't thank you for, or you, from then on members of the executive council will suffer a penalty if they do not behave responsibly in spending taxpayers' money and balancing the budget from one year to the next. If you believe so strongly in it, why didn't you introduce that when you were in government from 1985 to 1990?

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, in her news conference about the Al McLean sexual harassment scandal, Sandi Thompson recounted how she had to endure hounding by private investigators and also had to endure the aggressive campaign to portray her as untruthful. Your members on the Board of Internal Economy, in this package to hush up the Al McLean scandal, voted to pay Mr McLean's legal costs. What did you include under the category "legal costs?" Are the taxpayers of Ontario in fact paying for Al McLean's private investigators to go around and spy on Sandi Thompson?

Hon Mr Eves: I have no idea. He can ask any member of the Board of Internal Economy, including his own member.

Mr Hampton: Deputy Premier, you're supposed to be in charge of the books. You're supposed to be in charge of your government members. Maybe you should ask your colleagues on the Board of Internal Economy, one who sits behind you and two seats over, one who sits over here, one who's the government House leader, maybe you should ask them what was included under the category "legal costs."

I know it's wrong to ask taxpayers to pay this money. It is especially wrong to ask taxpayers to pay for private investigators who go around spying on Sandi Thompson and trying to discredit her. What's your opinion, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: I don't know what the members of the Board of Internal Economy voted on. I'm not a member of the board. He can turn around and ask one behind him if he wants to know what they voted on and what's included and what isn't included. But to suggest that any member of the government is responsible for the budget of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which is about $100 million a year, is totally ridiculous and ludicrous. He's been in this place long enough to know better.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, I'm very happy to tell you, as a member of the Board of Internal Economy -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I need some order, please. I can't hear the question.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): There's got to be a lot more to this story.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Renfrew North and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, both of you come to order.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, I'm happy to tell you. I was at the Board of Internal Economy. We were never given a breakdown of Mr McLean's legal fees at all. We were never given any opportunity to know what the disbursements were for. At no time were we told that the costs incurred by Mr McLean included the payment for a private eye to spy on Ms Thompson. I don't know whether it would have made any difference to your government members in how they voted had they known that, but I think the people of Ontario are shocked to think that they are now paying for an undercover operation to try and attack the credibility of a private person in a private lawsuit. They ought to be incensed by that.

Minister, our question of you is, will you get to the bottom of this? Will you be sure that your government launches an investigation to determine whether or not the taxpayers of Ontario have paid for a private eye to spy on a private citizen?

Hon Ernie L. Eves: I say very directly that I too would be very surprised if indeed people decided to pay for a private investigator. But I do have a question. I would like to know why the voting members of the Board of Internal Economy didn't ask that very question before they voted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mrs Boyd: Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier, the question is, why was it not taxed? The answer is, your members on the Board of Internal Economy wouldn't even countenance that. They were in such an all-fired rush to make sure that Al McLean got his hush money that they would not even allow a taxing of the bill. I asked for that, as the members will tell you, and it was refused.

So the question is, and I ask you again, will you get to the bottom of this? It was your members, the members appointed to the Board of Internal Economy by your Premier, the members appointed to the cabinet and as a parliamentary assistant, who did this on the Board of Internal Economy against the very vigorous objections of myself, the member for Kingston and The Islands, and the Speaker. Again I ask you, will you get to the bottom of this? Will you launch an investigation to see whether taxpayers have paid for a private investigator to hound a private citizen in this province?

Hon Mr Eves: I would be pleased to say very directly to the member that I don't think anything other than reasonable legal expenses should be paid in any circumstance for any particular case of a lawsuit against the province of Ontario or a member, or an employee of the province of Ontario.

Mrs Boyd: As the Minister of Finance responsible for the expenditures of the taxpayers in this province, will you undertake to instruct that these expenditures be docketed fully and that there be a public report about what those fees included?

Hon Mr Eves: We've gone through this discussion about the Board of Internal Economy. It isn't the first time the Board of Internal Economy has paid legal costs in an inquiry or a case that came before it with respect to a wrongful dismissal claim with respect to an employee -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Cochrane North, member for Hamilton Centre.

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member, I believe what I've just said, that the reasonable legal costs should be paid if that was the decision of the Board of Internal Economy, and that's all that should be included: reasonable legal costs. Anybody who has ever been involved in any type of lawsuit knows that either party is entitled to look at the other party's proposed legal expenses, have them taxed before a master, have them determined.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: With respect, Deputy Premier, that's not the question you were asked. We want to know, did your decision by your members on the Board of Internal Economy result in the taxpayers of Ontario having to pay for a private investigator to go around spying on Sandi Thompson, trying to discredit her in Al McLean's private sexual harassment case? That is the question.

The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay any of this, but it is particularly odious if your decisions by your members are putting taxpayers in the position where they are paying for a private investigator to spy on the complainant, Sandi Thompson, in this case. Will you now begin an accounting of Mr McLean's legal costs and make that accounting public so the people of Ontario know what you forced them to pay for?

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the third party, it was not my decision.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You sign the cheques.

Hon Mr Eves: I do not sign the cheques. It was not my decision. I'd have writer's cramp if I signed the cheques, I say to the honourable member opposite. It is not my decision. But I would think it would be entirely appropriate for the members of the Board of Internal Economy to look into exactly what is purported to be covered and what isn't purported to be covered with respect to the expenses the honourable member refers to.

Going one step further, when he talks about $600,000 in hush money, as he puts it, is the leader of the third party saying that Sandi Thompson and her legal fees should not have been paid? That's part of the $600,000 you're talking about. Are you saying that the Legislative Assembly lawyers shouldn't have been paid? That's part of the $600,000 you're talking about.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr McGuinty: I have a question to the Deputy Premier. Minister, this morning at 8:26 am on CFNY, on the Humble and Fred morning show, a question was put to the Premier: "How is it the taxpayers are going to be stuck with the cost of defending Al McLean?"

Here's the answer: "I don't think the taxpayers should. I think the whole thing has been very badly handled and mismanaged." That's what your Premier said this morning on radio.

I'm asking you now, Deputy Premier, do you agree with the Premier that the taxpayers should not have been stuck with this bill and, furthermore, that the whole thing has been very badly handled?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Hold it. Order.

Mr McGuinty: Do you agree with your Premier, who said this morning, "I don't think the taxpayers should" pay for this bill, and, "I think the whole thing has been very badly handled and mismanaged"? Do you agree with your Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: If the leader of the official opposition would continue on with what the Premier said this morning and said on Focus Ontario on Saturday evening, I believe he will find that what the Premier said was that there was no policy to deal with this by the Legislative Assembly, that we don't have a policy to deal with such an issue, nor did the Board of Internal Economy have a policy set out to deal with this type of an issue, but there should be a way of dealing with it, that there's a more appropriate way perhaps of dealing with it in the future than the way it was dealt with by the Board of Internal Economy in this instance. Why didn't you couch your question in those terms?

Mr McGuinty: The government does have a very specific policy on matters of this nature; in fact yesterday in this House the Premier stood up and articulated his policy. He said we must always remember that taxpayers' money "is not our money. It's theirs. It's Ontarians'.... And indeed we have a sacred trust to handle it wisely and to handle it well." I'm asking you now, Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance, do you think that you lived up to your sacred trust to handle the taxpayers' money wisely and to handle it well when you directed that $600,000 be delivered in connection with the Al McLean matter?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I did not direct anybody to pay $600,000. If the member has proof of that, he should bring it forward. Otherwise, he should do the class thing and withdraw that comment.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: Yes, he did. He said in very specific terms, "You directed your members to pay the $600,000." If he has proof of that, he should demonstrate it in the House, or he should do the class thing, which will be rare for you, and withdraw that ridiculous remark.

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

Mr Hampton: I have a question for the Attorney General. We know from your answers last day that you knew a great deal about this. After all, as Attorney General, you were one of the co-defendants. Did you allow a settlement to go through without asking that Al McLean's so-called legal costs be taxed and accounted for? Did you allow Mr McLean in effect to charge the taxpayers of Ontario for the cost of a private eye to go around snooping into the private life of Sandi Thompson, a private citizen in Ontario? Did you do your job? Can you tell us what you saw? Can you tell us what you OK'd?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The Attorney General and the province were made parties to this action, and they were made parties to the action because the counsel for the plaintiff did not know how to name the Legislative Assembly as a party. The statement of defence that was put in by the Ministry of the Attorney General responded only to that aspect of the case. No legal advice was ever sought or given and no involvement by the Ministry of the Attorney General took place in this lawsuit whatsoever.

Mr Hampton: But there has been a settlement, and the settlement causes not only the suit between Mr McLean and Ms Thompson to be settled but all of the other collateral suits, meaning the suit against you as Attorney General. Did you allow a settlement to go through which has the effect that the taxpayers of Ontario are now paying for a private eye, a private snoop to go around spying on Sandi Thompson and trying to discredit a private citizen in Ontario who had the courage to come forward and raise a complaint of sexual harassment? Are you saying you allowed that go through and you didn't question it and, if you did, what are you going to do about it now?

Hon Mr Harnick: I can tell you in an unqualified way that the counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General and the province of Ontario took no

part in any settlement discussions whatsoever.

Mr Hampton: You closed your eyes.

Hon Mr Harnick: We played no role in this. I invite the leader of the third party to read the statement of defence, but there was absolutely no involvement. It was a matter that was dealt with exclusively by the Board of Internal Economy.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My question is for the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services, and it addresses the issue of police resources in Ontario. Earlier this month, the federal Liberal government's Firearms Act took effect across Canada. I have spoken with individuals in my constituency and across the province who are concerned that this federal law directs precious police time and effort away from protecting our communities from criminals. The people in Huron have told me that they want police officers in the communities and not at their desks filling out paperwork.

Minister, can you clarify for this House what role Ontario's police officers will have in administering this computer scheme?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to thank the member for Huron for asking about this important issue. I can assure the member that Ontario's police services will not be diverted from ensuring effective public safety. Like a number of other jurisdictions in Canada, Ontario is participating in the Supreme Court challenge to C-68. We recognize that it could focus police resources away from criminal activity and towards ineffective paperwork. Our law enforcement officials have no operational role in the administration of the federal gun registry.

The upkeep of this expensive, and I believe ultimately futile, registry process is the sole responsibility of the federal registrar.

Mrs Johns: Thank you, Minister, for assuring the House that public safety in Ontario will not be compromised by this misguided computer registry that's going on. I noticed media reports recently that said the federal registry process is in such disarray that people are waiting for hours on the phone to register their guns and that even public inquiries are going unanswered. Since the federal government's costly computer registry won't cut down on criminal activity one iota and doesn't seem to be working anyway, what is Ontario doing to positively protect the public safety?

Hon Mr Runciman: In their rush to look like they're doing something to combat crime in this country, it seems the federal Liberals are not only inconveniencing law-abiding Ontarians, but also punishing small business people whose customers can't wait by the phone for hours on end. I can assure you that criminals are not waiting on the phone to register their guns.

In contrast to this costly fiasco, our government recently announced a $150-million investment into front-line policing. Through the community policing partnership program we're helping to hire 1,000 new front-line police officers. We're putting police officers on the streets, not behind desks. This is how we intend to protect our communities.

If the Liberal government in Ottawa was serious about fighting crime, they'd quit stalling and get on with substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act, if they'd follow through on criminal deportation orders and they'd stop rubber-stamping pardons for sex offenders.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Given the Premier's statement this morning, given Ms Thompson's statement yesterday afternoon when she said she felt it was wrong for taxpayers to have to pick up the tab on the Al McLean matter, do you not think that the right thing to do in the circumstances, the honourable thing to do in these circumstances is for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario to reimburse Ontario taxpayers for the $600,000 they've been required to pay as the result of a decision made by your government in the Al McLean matter? Is the right thing here not for the PC Party of Ontario to pick up this tab?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Quite frankly, I think the only thing that should be at issue here, in my opinion, is the legal fees of Mr McLean. For you to suggest that the amount to be paid to Ms Thompson and her legal fees should not be paid, I think is ridiculous. For you to suggest that the counsel for Legislative Assembly should not be paid, I think is also ridiculous.

Mr McGuinty: I can appreciate that the minister is trying to twist this and distort it. Nobody is arguing against payment being made. The issue is who should be making the payment.

Let's play the minister's game just a little bit. Let's consider the $130,000 bill for Al McLean's lawyers. Given all of the circumstances, given the universal condemnation of this deal, do you not think that at a minimum the appropriate thing to do, the right thing to do is for the PC Party of Ontario to reimburse taxpayers for the bill paid, for the $130,000 paid to Mr McLean's lawyers in defence of Mr McLean?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I would like to read into the record the Premier's entire quote from this morning's interview, which the leader of the official opposition did not read in.

"I don't think taxpayers should. I think it's one of the worst handled situations that has come across. But you do understand that this is a Legislative Assembly. It is not the government. It is at arm's length from government and the whole thing has been very badly handled and mismanaged."

Why didn't the leader of the official opposition -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): Are you accepting the word "distort," Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Member for Mississauga South, could you rise and make your point.

Hon Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, the leader of the official opposition just made the accusation and used the word "distort."

The Speaker: The member for the official opposition, I don't recall. It was very noisy and possibly I didn't hear it. If you'd like to withdraw, you can.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I didn't hear it so I can't really make him withdraw.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe it is appropriate to start blaming staff for anything that happens with respect to the Legislative Assembly. There were three government members who clearly voted in favour on this issue within the Board of Internal Economy -

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. We'll go to the leader of the official opposition -

Interjection.

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

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. We've seen the devastating effects of your centralization of the public school system, trying to take all of the power into Queen's Park and stripping local school boards. We've seen the chaos you've created with your so-called apprenticeship bill. I want to ask you, do you have any plans to centralize control over Ontario's community colleges, those very community colleges that are active in individual communities, that respond to the education and training needs of individual communities?

Do you have any plans to centralize control over them the way you've centralized control over our public school system?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): No, I have no such plans. I suspect the leader of the third party is referring to some pieces of paper from an unknown source which have been brought to my attention this morning. The ministry staff have investigated this matter and assured me these papers have not emanated from within the Ministry of Education. Although I have not had the opportunity to review these papers, apparently they do allude to some centralization or some rearrangement of the college system, but I have no such plans, nor to the best of my ability have I been able to ascertain the source of these particular pieces of paper, as I guess I would describe them.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this is from the Ministry of Education and Training systems and it's called "Our Vision." What it is is a dramatic strategy to centralize control over the community colleges, just as you've done to the public schools in Ontario, in effect to have one board of directors centrally controlled by you, and to take all of the capacity of community colleges to respond to local communities away from them. It also talks in terms of voucher funding for individual students; in other words, changing our community colleges into a voucher-driven system, in effect, privatizing them.

I'm going to send you a copy of this, Minister, and I'm going to ask you say that this has nothing to do with anyone in the Ministry of Education and Training, nothing to do with anyone you've contracted with. I'm going to ask you to deny that anything in this document has anything to do with your vision for community colleges in Ontario.

Hon David Johnson: I've already indicated that we have no plans to go in such direction with the college system. I've already indicated that the ministry staff this morning have assured me that they have no knowledge of this particular document, have no idea where it came from -

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Somebody just made it up.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, it does happen. People do make up things like this.

In addition, in terms of how this topic was introduced, I would say to the leader of the third party that this government has for the first time in over a decade taken steps to improve the elementary and secondary education system in Ontario, to ensure that there is fair funding for each and every student across Ontario, to ensure higher and better standards for elementary and secondary students through province-wide testing, through the improved curriculum -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon David Johnson: - through the report cards. I take umbrage with the way this was introduced. The education system in Ontario will be better for the reforms this government has introduced.

ROUND GOBY

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Lake St Clair and the St Clair River have been exposed to a new intruder that threatens to disrupt the Great Lakes system just like the zebra mussel a number of years ago.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): What's the name? Beaubien?

Mr Beaubien: No, not quite. I'm sure you're going to enjoy that question because as a former minister you might appreciate the question.

That intruder is named the goby, which emigrated from Europe and has taken over the territory and driven out the native fish. Minister, could you reaffirm to the people of Lambton that we are committed to stopping the proliferation of the goby in the Great Lakes system?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Stop the goby.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for Lambton for his question. The member is quite correct in that the round goby is now present in each of the Great Lakes and is continuing to extend its range.

Like any of the many invading species currently in the Great Lakes, the goby has the potential to do considerable damage to the fragile freshwater ecosystem. The Ministry of Natural Resources has spent considerable effort monitoring and attempting to slow the spread of the goby and other exotic species from the Great Lakes to other inland waters.

The ministry, in conjunction with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, runs an invading species hotline at 1-800-563-7711. I would encourage members of the public to call this hotline to give us information about the presence of these exotic species, these invader species, and to request information. Thousands of brochures and fact sheets and other materials are distributed through the hotline every year. Finally, additional funds have been provided from the $10-million fish and wildlife enhancement fund to further educate the public.

This government is committed to doing what it can to protect our Great Lakes from these -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Beaubien: The opposition may find it hilarious, but I'm sure if you were to talk to some of my constituents on the St Clair River, you would find that this is a major problem. Hopefully, you're not going to get it in Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Actually, it was Murdoch who found it funny, not us.

Mr Beaubien: Minister, this problem is disrupting not only the livelihood of some of the commercial fishermen but also some of the sports fishermen. It also needs an awful lot of taxpayers' money to track, to control and to educate the public about this problem. How are we going to deal with this problem in the future and what are we going to do to prevent this from recurring?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I thank the member for Lambton for the question. It's clear that the presence of more than 30 of these species in the Great Lakes, such as the goby, the zebra mussel, the ruffle and the spiny water flea, is due to the dumping of ballast water from ocean-going vessels. Vessels fill their ballast tanks in foreign ports with water that contains these species and then dump those species and the water in the Great Lakes.

The total cost incurred in dealing with exotic species is estimated at over $100 million. This pales in comparison to the cost to the threatened resources in Ontario which contribute $850 million in recreational angling fees to the province of Ontario.

The federal government is responsible for the regulation of shipping and ballast water. Only by their action and commitment can we guarantee the future of our lakes and rivers. I would strongly urge that all members of this House and all members of the public contact a federal Liberal member of Parliament and urge them to take this problem seriously. Their inaction could prove deadly to the Great Lakes.

PAY EQUITY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Two years ago you acted to deny pay equity funding for thousands of Ontario women. A year and a half ago, the court told you that you couldn't do that. You accepted the court decision. You did not appeal it. You committed $140 million in your budget last spring to make the payments that were owed. Eight months later women have still not received the money you promised to pay.

This is money that is owed to community agencies like the Victorian Order of Nurses, Amethyst Women's Addiction Centre, the Association for Community Living, child care centres and non-profit homes for seniors, all of them waiting for desperately needed money.

You apparently are now saying that the cheques will be in the mail some time in the new year. Minister, no one trusts you when you say the cheques will be there soon. Why can't you hand out those cheques today?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The answer is very simple. The latest information the government had was a survey that the previous government had done in 1994. We felt the information had to be updated, to be brought up to date. As she well knows, the years that we're talking about in terms of retroactive pay are 1995, 1996 and 1997.

As a matter of fact, the surveys now disclose that $140 million wouldn't have been the right amount; the right amount would be $150 million. Those surveys are now almost all in the hands of the government, and complete, and the appropriate amounts will be paid to the appropriate agencies and individuals early in the new year.

Mrs McLeod: It's going to be almost a year from the time you committed that money until it actually reaches the women you promised it to. Your government has a rather sorry record when it comes to delivering dollars that go with your promises, whether it's emergency room funding or long-term-care funding or special education funding or indeed pay equity funding. You're able to find the money for a tax cut for the most well-to-do very quickly but you just can't get organized to get payments out to low-income women.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Ernie reminds us you voted against it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre.

Mrs McLeod: The minister is right in that the back payments are owed for 1995, 1996 and 1997, because under the previous government no payments were made until 1995. As a matter of fact, women now are owed an average of $2,300 in back pay. You're right. They are not only owed that in back pay, but because you are a year late in making the payments, they will also be entitled to some $90 million in funding for this past year, and by the time you get the cheques in the mail, they'll be entitled to $90 million for 1999. The $150 million will no longer do it; there's a total of $320 million owing. Are you prepared to pay the whole debt?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, there was no way to pay these individuals because they had to be identified and the agencies had to be identified. We couldn't operate on 1994 data, so we now have up-to-date data.

The member for Hamilton Centre is quite correct. He points out that the honourable member, a member of her party, voted against proxy voting in the first place, and now they want to know where the cheques are for proxy voting that they don't believe in. However, I have told you where they are. They will be forthcoming in the new year.

I say to the honourable member, her party introduced legislation in 1987 that would put off pay equity funding until 1995. The NDP introduced legislation in 1992 that would extend that payment date from 1995 to 1998. We are actually going to pay the money that you two couldn't scrape up to pay.

The Speaker: New question, member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the finance minister. I should say to the finance minister that if we had followed the Liberal position on proxy pay equity, these women wouldn't be getting one red cent today.

Having said that, these women were promised pay equity. These are 100,000 of the lowest -

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Yes, another Liberal flip-flop here; happy to see it today, another one.

Minister, let me say to you today that I'm glad they're onside and I'm glad you are promising these 100,000 of the lowest-paid women in our society, the women who look after our kids and our elderly people, that you are going to pay out this money.

But it's not good enough. We've heard minister after minister in this government say, "The cheque is in the mail." We'd like to see the Premier deliver the cheques personally. We want a guarantee from you today that the money owed not just for back pay but in the coming years will be fully paid out before the new year. There's no excuse not to act any more. Pay it out today.

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, I think I explained in the previous question why the money could not be paid out: because we had 1994 data and they weren't up to date. It had to be brought up to date so the appropriate individuals and the appropriate agencies would get the appropriate amount. That process will be complete by the end of this calendar year and early next year they will get the money that is owed to them.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Deputy Premier, there are some strange contrasts here. It was very easy, very quick for you to find the money for Al McLean, $600,000, with no accounting required, and still you don't want to have an accounting. It was very easy for you to find for Andersen Consulting millions of dollars without them even having to put in receipts. It's very easy for you to find $50 million for a partisan propaganda campaign, again with very little accounting as to what's going on here except that it's supposed to help your partisan political positioning.

It's been a year. You could have paid the $140 million and then done the surveys. What has taken so long? What has taken so long for you to put the money -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: The simple answer is, you couldn't pay it to people because you had to identify who it was you were going to pay it to.

The leader of the third party was a member of a government that in 1992 and 1993 passed a law saying, "We're not going to bring in proxy pay equity in 1995, as the previous government promised to do eight years before that." He voted for delaying it until 1998. How could he stand here and say, "Why didn't you pay it?" Why didn't you pay it in 1993, 1994 and 1995?

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is addressed to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Last Friday you visited Port Hope to assist with the dedication of Walton Street as a heritage conservation district, indeed a very historic event. It was great for you to see Port Hope, what it has to offer, its charming main street, the busy shops and businesses and also the restored Capitol Theatre. Could you tell the House what the government is doing to ensure that Ontario towns such as Port Hope have the opportunity to showcase their heritage?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I thank the member for Northumberland for his question. Certainly heritage plays a very important role in community development right across this province. It helps attract tourists, it creates jobs and it also develops volunteerism in a very big way. That certainly was the case that I saw at Port Hope when I visited the member for Northumberland for the opening and the dedication ceremony of the Walton heritage area, which was very impressive.

There are more than 50 heritage conservation districts in Ontario, including the Walton heritage area. I want to say that this government supports hundreds and hundreds of community museums, provincial heritage organizations and local historical societies. We also administer the cultural strategic development fund -

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It is not enough.

Hon Ms Bassett: - as the member for Kingston obviously knows as he's shouting across. He wants me to point out how helpful that program is to all the communities right across the province.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition signed by over 1,500 people and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by forcing boards of education to close hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children, put others on longer bus routes and close child care facilities; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut $1 billion from our schools and has instituted a funding model that does not work for the Toronto District School Board, resulting in the need to close schools; and

"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and

"Whereas parents in Romney, Toronto, Ottawa, Stratford, Hamilton-Wentworth and many other communities are calling on the government to prevent the closing so many of their schools; and

"Whereas the closure of a school should be based on local decision-making and student population, with enough time to consider all options, not complicated formulas imposed by the province and aimed at quickly reducing education funding; and

"Whereas all of these actions by the provincial government will undermine the quality of public education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature to call on Mike Harris to stop his headlong rush to close local schools."

I agree wholeheartedly with this petition and I will affix my signature to it.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I've got a petition here signed by 300 or 400 people, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas we, the parents and community of St Francis of Assisi school in Toronto, are convinced that our local community schools are essential to the health of our community;

"We, the parents and community of St Francis of Assisi school, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario act as quickly as possible to keep St Francis of Assisi school open and to act now to amend the funding formula in Bill 160 to allow our school to remain open."

I affix my name to this petition.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario and it reads:

"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 educational 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 have hundreds of signatures and I affix my signature in support thereof.

ELECTION CALL

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "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."

This is signed by a number of residents from Tilbury, Blenheim and Chatham, and I affix my name to it.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Asian and Russian economic crises have contributed to a flood of steel imports into Canada at record-low prices; and

"Whereas the value of steel imported from Russia increased by 50% in the first half of 1998 over the first half of 1997; imports from Japan increased by 57%; and imports from Korea increased by over 500% in the first eight months of 1998 alone; and

"Whereas prices for almost every primary steel product have dropped by as much as 25% since the beginning of 1998; and

"Whereas the low-price imported steel threatens the viability of every steel producer in Canada," particularly in Hamilton and Sault Ste Marie; "and

"Whereas the potential impact on our community and its families of the growing steel imports crisis is devastating, threatening thousands of jobs directly and indirectly;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Canadian government to apply Canadian trade law quickly and effectively against this blatantly unfair competition, and further, to consider and explore any other extraordinary measure possibly available to Canada under its various trade agreements to deal with this unacceptable threat to our community's future."

I add my name to the Hamiltonians' who have signed it.

FAMILIES

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

"Whereas we the undersigned, as citizens and members of the Canadian family, hold the following statements to be true:

"The family is an institution ordained by God and rooted in human nature that exists to satisfy the longings of the human heart to give and receive love and to provide a safe and secure environment in which to nurture, teach and love the children; and

"Whereas the family is society's fundamental social unit, sharing a home that serves as the centre for social, education, economic and spiritual life;

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

"That parents bear the ultimate responsibility for all aspects of their children's well-being. Any efforts which would undermine the responsibility are detrimental to the health of the family and therefore to society, and the family is the cradle of life and therefore responsible for the defence of life in all its dimensions."

This has been signed by many people from all over Ontario, by former MPP Bob McKessock, and I submit it to the assembly.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario in 1996; and

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males; and

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, which is prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Ministry of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

I have signed this petition, and I'm handing it to Maggie Pearson, one of our pages, from Peterborough.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): "Whereas nurses in Ontario are often influenced to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical beliefs;

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

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

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

"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."

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;

"Further

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

I am pleased to sign this petition and hand it to Matt - it sounds like it's page day - from Oakville.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Durham region is one of the most rapidly growing areas in the province of Ontario with increasing commercial and private transportation needs and is connected to the greater Toronto area with a single major transportation link; and

"Whereas the transportation and economic needs of the region of Durham are underserviced by the current transportation links to central Ontario; and

"Whereas Highway 407 east has been completed up to McCowan Road; and

"Whereas the extension of Highway 407 east through the Durham region would alleviate traffic congestion in the region and promote economic growth;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to have Highway 407 extended east through the region of Durham."

I affix my signature in agreement.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have about 1,200 names affixed to this petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas current policy of the Ministry of Education requires that the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school board divest itself of surplus space in order to receive capital funding for new schools;

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

"We ask that Parliament require the Ministry of Education and Training to grant the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school board an exemption which recognizes that the adult day schools of the OCCSB, which offer non-credit ESL for adult learners, are indeed occupied and indeed are used;

"We ask that, in accordance with this recognition, Parliament require the Ministry of Education to permit the board to remove the pupil places represented by the four above-named adult schools from its inventory of surplus space. The intent is to ensure that the school board is able to continue operating the adult schools without losing possible funding for new elementary or secondary schools."

I affix my signature to this as well.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I have a petition from Mildmay and the area thereabouts in the riding of Bruce addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas children are exposed to pornography in variety stores and video rental outlets;

"Whereas bylaws vary from city to city and have failed to protect minors from unwanted exposure to pornography;

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

"To enact legislation which will create uniform standards in Ontario to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography in retail establishments; prevent minors from entering establishments which rent or sell pornography; and restrict the location of such establishments to non-residential areas."

I affix my name to the top.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"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;

"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;

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

"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;

"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 medical services;

"We, the undersigned, request the government of Ontario to 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 the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a petition from patients and doctors for a physiotherapy clinic in Fort Erie, Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

"We, the citizens of Fort Erie, require the Fort Erie Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre to be able to provide physiotherapy under OHIP billings as we have no other means of getting proper care in a well-equipped facility;

"Our hospital has three hours a day for outpatient physiotherapy,

whereas Fort Erie Physiotherapy has 12 hours a day for outpatient treatment. Our community is already underserviced with physicians. We do not wish to be underserviced with physiotherapy as well.

"We, as taxpayers, wish for you, the government, to listen to our pleas and provide OHIP coverage for us as a facility."

I sign my signature in support of the petition.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I presented a petition to the clerks in the last round of petitions and they said they couldn't accept it. I was wondering if you could rule on this. I'll send it forward to you, and you could make a ruling later on as to whether or not they should accept it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): OK. Yes, thank you. If you send it via a page to me, I'll take a look at it and rule later.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 82,

An Act to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement, when Bill 82 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That the order for third reading may then immediately be called;

That one hour shall be allocated to the third reading stage of the bill after which time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That no deferral of the second and third reading votes pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Northumberland and the member for Simcoe Centre, and so at this time I will pass the floor to the member for Northumberland.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I certainly welcome this opportunity to add to the discussion that has already taken place with respect to the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. Certainly many good points have been made from all sides of this Legislature, and I think we're having a good, constructive discussion.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I know he wants to get into his debate on this, but would you check to see if we have a quorum in this place, please.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: I think we're having a good, constructive discussion that will yield a strong piece of legislation that will ensure a better protected environment in Ontario.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You are shutting it down.

Mr Galt: I think it's interesting that the member for Hamilton Centre is commenting about shutting it down when in fact, through the debate so far on this particular bill, there has not been one single good objection to the content of the bill. There has been support from all three parties in this House. I think it's wise to get on and have this bill approved prior to the Christmas break.

Mr Christopherson: You just can't help yourself, right? You hate democracy so much.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order, please.

Mr Galt: No doubt we are dealing with an issue that is close to the hearts of everyone in this Legislature and of all Ontarians. The need for a clean environment and for a clean and healthy community is almost universally recognized today. I say "almost" because that's the reason why we have to debate a bill such as the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act.

Despite all the reasons for meeting environmental responsibilities, including meeting the requirements for provincial legislation, we haven't been able to provide enough reasons not to break environmental laws. We have strong laws protecting the environment, but the provisions aren't there to deter all polluters. The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is intended to give us those provisions to ensure the maximum compliance with and enforcement of the laws protecting our environment.

I want to say to my colleagues today that I believe it is highly desirable that this piece of legislation move to third reading during this session. I'm sure the members on the opposite side of the House would agree with that. From all sides of this Legislature, we're hearing general agreement on the provisions we are proposing through the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. As I said a moment ago, good progress has been made, and I think we must build on this progress and push ahead with this act.

The sooner we can have this act in place and its provisions in effect, the sooner the Minister of the Environment will have the powers necessary to ensure compliance with and the enforcement of our environmental laws.

As has been stated time and time again during this debate, we're not increasing the powers of the ministry and the courts for the sake of power alone. We're simply trying to create greater fairness for those who meet environmental laws while being tougher on those who break those environmental laws. With our proposals contained in the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act in place, breaking environmental law will be a less attractive option. We will have a greater ability to prevent pollution offences from taking place. If they do, we'll be in a better position to catch those offenders. If convicted, environmental offenders will be subject to tougher punishment.

During the 10 years from 1985 to 1995, some $10 million worth of fines were levied. How many of those charges have been collected? We have that $10 million sitting on the books, unable to collect it. This bill will ensure that in the future bills and charges such as those will be collected.

I want to deal with each of three areas in more detail: preventing offences, catching offenders, and stronger penalties.

Prevention is a very important concept for the Ministry of the Environment. Pollution prevention informs everything we do. When it comes to, for example, the regulations that protect Ontario waterways, the emphasis is squarely on preventing the creation of pollutants rather than dealing with them after they have been released.

With waste management, the three Rs hierarchy puts reduction first. We reduce the amount of waste we generate, and then we deal with it through reuse and recycling. Each of these, of course, is a pollution prevention measure. They prevent materials from being sent to landfill by putting them to productive use.

Strong enforcement also has a strong prevention element. A greater chance of getting caught, as well as stronger penalties and more jail terms for those who are caught and convicted, is aimed at deterring future offences. This is a good form of prevention, when it is working. I'll discuss the deterrent effects of greater fines and a longer list of jailable offences in just a few moments.

First, I'll deal with the provisions that would enable ministry staff to stop offences from occurring, to stop ongoing offences. These provisions generally relate to the concept of taking the tools of the trade away from those involved in offences against the environment.

How do we take away these tools of the trade? One good way is through the ability to seize the plates and permits of vehicles suspected of being involved in illegal waste activities. If we seize the plate of an illegal waste hauler, we've stopped the activity. In the case of such hauling, we would require that the load of waste be transferred to a licensed hauler before returning the plates and/or permits to the original vehicle.

Presently, we do have some powers in this regard, but they're just too restricting. Seizure can only be done in cases involving liquid hazardous waste or cases where continued operations could lead to adverse environmental effects. As has been commented upon earlier in the debates, environmental effects are difficult to predict and it is difficult to say which illegal acts will harm the environment and which won't.

The seizure authority is potentially a very powerful tool in dealing with dangerous and repetitive environmental offenders. A primary objective of the authority to seize, along with other proposed amendments contained in the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, is the ability to seize the tools of the trade of dangerous or habitual offenders.

The ability to seize vehicles engaged in the commission of an offence would also be of great help in certain circumstances. If you're dealing with a habitual environmental offender, you're talking about someone with a high possibility of reoffending. If such an offender is forced to pay all penalties before getting a vehicle back, that means a tool of the trade, in this case the environmental offences trade, is out of action and not available for more illegal activity.

As an example of the complementarity of the approaches we're suggesting, the tougher penalties following from the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act would act as a deterrent to the offender, who would be less likely to reoffend upon getting the vehicle back. The forfeiture provisions of the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act would also increase the likelihood of collecting upon the fines. Again, it's a case of closing in on offenders from every direction.

In general, and this point has been commented on at length, there is another strong prevention aspect of all of this: prevention of illegal operators from staying in the business. As my colleagues commented upon earlier, those who don't meet the province's environmental laws are less likely to stay in the game when they realize that life won't be as easy as it has been in the past.

The bad players are the ones who are least able to compete on an even playing field. They're like a pitcher who has relied on spitballs and hasn't honed his other pitches. If he keeps getting caught with spitters, he's at a big disadvantage, because the rest of his arsenal won't be up to the level of the other pitchers.

Of course, we're all aware that in baseball many pitchers have been getting away with these things for years. With the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, we'll be increasing the likelihood of catching environmental offenders. Much of the focus and impetus for the introduction of the private member's bill and the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act have been illegal waste operations, so I will use them for examples.

One powerful tool under the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is a provision for the use of modern investigative aids. Right now, the ministry does not have the authority to use such techniques to help in the surveillance of suspected environmental offences.

By investigative aids, the act refers to electronic tracking devices and to tracking substances. An electronic tracking device can be planted on a vehicle suspected of being engaged in illegal waste activities. It will enable ministry staff to track where loads of waste are going and what facilities are involved.

The use of tracking substances involves the planting of a substance in a waste load to identify the load, to give it a distinctive fingerprint. It would enable ministry investigators to determine whether a load of material that leaves point A is the same as the load that arrives at point B. Tracking substances can also tell if waste has been used for an illegal purpose. Another example that I believe was used before was the fingerprinting of CFCs with dyes.

With these investigative aids, ministry staff will be in a better position to catch environmental offenders. They will have a better idea of what illegal activities have gone on and what equipment and facilities have been involved.

Surveillance is a very labour-intensive activity. The ministry must devote several officers as well as substantial resources to each and every case where we suspect that illegal waste activities are happening. I understand that it can take as many as five vehicles, and the inspectors to staff them, to conduct surveillance on just one operation.

Staff obviously can't be in more than one place at a time, with the result being a limitation on the number of surveillance operations that can be carried out at any one time. With the use of modern aids, ministry staff will be able to conduct more surveillances simultaneously. They'll be able to stay on top of more situations and catch more people involved in illegal activities.

Under the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, ministry staff would have to meet very high standards with regard to safeguarding personal rights before obtaining a court order to use tracking aids. They'll need to show a good reason why they believe an offence is being, or is about to be, committed. It bears repeating here that each new or strengthened power proposed under the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act has been developed in the strictest accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Rights.

I think the lawful operators will welcome the use of modern investigative aids because they will have the confidence of knowing that they are operating within the law and will not be concerned that they will be the target of an investigation.

Another way of ensuring that more polluters get caught is through the provisions of the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act which expand upon existing provisions for prohibiting illegal waste deposits. These provisions would include the ability to charge individuals who facilitate, arrange for or broker illegal dumping, and not just the person physically doing the deed.

This is a very important point. Right now, many of the behind-the-scenes types are carrying on with the planning and coordinating of illegal activities, comfortable in the knowledge that there is not much chance they are going to be caught. These are the masterminds, the brokers, the people who come up with the plans but don't actually dirty their hands doing the dirty deed. They're the most insidious types. They become increasingly arrogant and full of their own power because they've been able to, by and large, escape arrest. The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act will send these people a message that their days of easy operating are coming to a close.

With the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act we would also have a much greater chance of prosecuting the owners of companies involved in illegal transportation of waste. The situation we face now is that we can only charge the driver and not the principals of the company. Again, it's this idea that we can only charge the person actually committing the crime that must change. This is an unfortunate situation because the people actually committing the crimes are often much lower in the criminal food chain, so to speak. They're following orders of people who in reality are the most culpable for these offences. All too often they're just the chumps who can be replaced.

Again, the point needs to be made that the rights of all are provided for under the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. Anyone charged with illegal deposition of waste or illegal transportation of waste or any other environmental offence has recourse to all the normal procedural safeguards with which the judicial process protects and ensures the right to a fair trial.

I just want to touch upon the deterrent effects of stronger penalties before turning over the floor.

By now it has become apparent that some polluters see fines as just another cost of doing business. Their profits are high enough that they can take this view. In some cases, even when you add in whatever cleanup offences we actually pin on the polluter, they still come out ahead. I think everyone here agrees that it would be desirable to see higher fines for those who aren't deterred by the current fine structure.

The more callous environmental offenders have also realized that jail wasn't a realistic possibility in the vast majority of cases. The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is proposing to create a much longer list of jailable offences. If there's one thing that will really deter polluters, it's a real possibility of prison time.

I'm going to end my remarks now to give some time to other members to talk about this bill. I want to close by urging all my colleagues to support the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act and to do everything they can to see that it gets third reading during this session.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate with respect to Bill 82, the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. I'd like to point out that what we're talking about here is making sure that the fundamentals with respect to environmental protection are in place. I think we have very good environmental protection laws, but what was lacking were the compliance and enforcement mechanisms, to make sure the teeth necessary to make polluters comply are in fact there.

For a very simple reason, as many have already said, the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is an excellent piece of legislation that will help a strong environmental protection system become stronger. That's the goal, and I believe it's shared by all three parties, in terms of the passage of this environmental statute law. It's a very large step forward, when you analyze the piece of legislation we're dealing with in terms of the measures that can be taken to ensure compliance. It's a very large step forward in the evolution of environmental protection in Ontario.

This government has taken a priority with respect to the environment. I give an example: The ongoing Lands for Life process is the most inclusive discussion on the future of crown lands in the history of the province. The work of the three Lands for Life round tables included 95 public meetings and involved over 15,000 people. Thousands more took part by sending letters, visiting the ministry's Web site and discussing the issue with the MNR officials at ministry offices. After more than 16 months of consultation, we've now entered the next stage of the process: consideration of the feedback received.

At the same time, all interested parties are still welcome to continue to forward their thoughts to us.

No other government has done anything with respect to this Lands for Life process. We're the first government that has taken a position with respect to Lands for Life. There has been extensive consultation and there will continue to be. I'm very proud that at least this government, aside from other governments in this province, has taken a step with respect to the protection of our environment.

Another significant priority of this government has been health care. It's very interesting to note that Prime Minister Chrétien is quoted in the papers today as saying he will only comply with Premier Mike Harris's request for full restoration of the $6 billion in federal cuts to the health and social transfers when we restore all of our so-called cuts to health and social services. The fact of the matter is we haven't cut one cent from health care in this province. We have actually increased health care spending from $17.4 billion to $19 billion.

The only cuts to health care and social services in this province have been from the federal government, which continues to not want to support our health care and social transfer services.

I'd say to the Prime Minister that his request has been fulfilled. Over the last three years, not only have we boosted health spending in the province by over $1.5 billion, but we've also fully offset the over $2 billion in federal Liberal cuts to transfer payments. That's what I would call a tremendous initiative that has been taken by this province with respect to the very serious cuts that have been put forth by the federal Liberal government in health and social transfer payments.

For the federal government to say, "When you restore your cuts," we haven't cut anything, so I would say to the Prime Minister, you put forth the money right now because you owe it to the citizens of this province.

In terms of dealing with the Environmental Protection Act amendments, this province has long enjoyed a very high standard of environmental protection. We've had, and continue to have, strong laws protecting our air, water and land. Unfortunately, as has been realized by all the parties, various weaknesses have entered into this strong environmental protection. These weaknesses have compromised the province's ability to ensure compliance with its environmental laws and to enforce those laws. That's what we're dealing with here: compliance and enforcement.

The problem has also been compounded by the fact that since 1985, convicted polluters have gotten away with $10 million in unpaid fines. It's all well and good for members of the previous governments to talk about the fines levied while they were in office, but the simple fact is they often weren't collected. The $10 million in uncollected fines is an offence both against the environment and our justice system. Obviously more effective mechanisms are needed.

It's the government's intention, through this piece of legislation, to deliver those by ensuring our environment is protected through the most effective and efficient means possible. This legislation will enable staff to administer a fairer, more consistent and efficient system on behalf of all Ontarians. That's what I'm going to talk about in terms of the compliance and enforcement.

As a government we've done much of the work that needs to be done to address the problems with the environmental protection system. We've clarified, in some cases, and are still clarifying, the rules and regulations protecting the environment. In terms of fundamentals, our statutes are sound. There are places where work needs to be done, and that is being done.

I'd like to focus on some of the areas where we're taking steps. Dr Galt has already spoken about how the act will give us greater ability to prevent offences, to catch offenders and to punish those convicted of contravening our environmental laws through investigative processes, but I want to continue on this with some thoughts about the new powers and authorities provided under the act.

They're needed because in the past the courts and the ministry haven't always been able to make life as tough on polluters as they would have liked. When it came time for prosecution, courts applied appropriate penalties, but it seemed that these penalties often weren't enough to deter the polluters. Then there's the problem of collectability. It's true that some environmental offenders have received stiff fines, but these fines haven't always been paid, as I mentioned. Since 1985 there's $10 million in unpaid fines.

The courts have continued to work within the framework of the penalties they have the authority to impose. The ministry and the Ontario government believe these penalties haven't been strong enough and that too many people have gotten away without paying a fine. Even when the fines are paid, there are many cases where the monetary effect has very little impact on the polluter's ability to operate and in terms of deterrence.

In putting this in the past tense, the situation continues and will continue until this Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act is passed. If the act is passed, the ministry and the courts would have the tools they need to ensure compliance and justice for convicted environmental offenders. These tools include some existing powers made more workable and comprehensive.

In the former category, it's the ability to seize plates and permits of vehicles involved in environmental offences. Currently staff have the ability to do such seizures, but it's limited to offences involving hazardous waste and where the operation will cause an adverse effect. There are certainly many other offences that could be stopped by plate and permit seizures. For example, if we have reason to believe a vehicle is involved in carrying used tires to an illegal site, it would be desirable to be able to seize the plates and/or permit for that vehicle.

This isn't allowed under the current power stipulated in the legislation, but would be a powerful tool in our efforts to stop polluting activities.

Another powerful seizure tool would be the ability for ministry officers to seek court orders to seize and forfeit vehicles and equipment used in environmental offences.

The environmental amendment act also contains provision for the forfeiture of seized equipment to the crown. As has been remarked on before on numerous occasions during the debate on this act, taking away the tools of the trade is a very important power. It makes it that much more difficult for polluters to operate, but it makes it easier for environmental officers to basically enforce the act and ensure compliance.

Restitution orders are an important new authority for the courts that we're proposing through the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. Currently there are no such provisions and the only course of action for innocent parties to get repaid for cleanup costs is through suing the offender. This is convoluted, costly and frankly unfair to innocent parties.

Fairness is a big part of the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. We want to be fair to those who abide by the rules and tough on those who don't think it's worthwhile to meet their responsibilities to the environment and to society. We're not proposing carte blanche to get tough on polluters. We're proposing new and often stronger authority for the courts and the ministry, but here too we will be fair. We have taken the precaution to ensure that, by strengthening our abilities to ensure compliance with the law and to enforce it, we are not trampling on anybody's rights, including suspected polluters. They have the rights of fairness too, and we will respect those rights.

For example, if we suspect someone is taking waste and putting it where they shouldn't be, we will be able to use modern investigative aids, but only after we have satisfied the courts that we have reasonable grounds for suspicion. The onus is on us to show why we believe something is happening or is about to happen. But if we do get a court order, using the investigative aids that would be allowed under this act, and do find evidence of wrongdoing, we will be very tough indeed. In fact we will have the evidence to move forward.

The same follows for all provisions of the act. We will apply them fairly, but we will have the authority to get tough when we have reason to do so and the courts will also have greater authority to hand out tougher fines as well as prison sentences for a bigger list of offences.

I see that I still have some time so I'd like to spend a few moments discussing the provision of the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act giving the ministry the authority to make use of administrative monetary penalties. Currently only the courts can impose financial penalties on polluters. With this act, we are proposing to give directors of the Ministry of the Environment the ability to impose financial penalties to enforce compliance with provincial regulations and the requirements set out in ministry instruments such as permits, approvals and orders.

It must be emphasized here that these administrative monetary penalties are not fines and they are not a replacement for prosecution in the courts. Prosecution is still the most valuable tool in environmental cases, but we must realize that it takes time to prosecute and there have to be other measures put in place. It's an even more valuable tool if the act involving higher fines and a longer list of jailable offences is acted upon.

Another thing I want to be very clear about here is that we are not creating any new offences. The same things that are illegal today with respect to Ontario's environment will still be illegal with respect to implementation of the provisions of this act. We'll simply be in a better position to deal with the illegal activities through ensuring compliance and being able to take enforcement mechanisms. Administrative monetary penalties are one of the tools we'll be able to use to better ensure compliance with existing rules, and that's only fair.

In closing -

Mr Len Wood: On a point of order, Speaker: It's an interesting debate we are having, but I don't believe we have a quorum in this place. Would you check to see if we have a quorum, please?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Marion Boyd): Clerk, would you check to see if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Simcoe Centre, please continue.

Mr Tascona: The vast majority of Ontarians who do obey the environmental law will welcome the passage of this act. They'll see it as a reward for being responsible and for caring about the health of their environment and about the health of their fellow citizens. This is why I believe that everyone should support this act. We should reward those who meet the requirements of environmental legislation with better ways to ensure compliance and with tougher enforcement provisions for ministry staff.

I want to conclude by restating what I said at the outset. The fundamentals of the statutes protecting Ontario's environment are strong. It's time to back them up with the ability to ensure compliance and to enforce them more effectively. I call on all members of the Legislature to support this act and see that the act receives third reading during this sitting of the Legislature.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order, Speaker: I've listened to the debate and it seems that members are debating Bill 82. Is it not the case that we are actually debating a time allocation motion this afternoon? I would ask that you ask members to speak to the motion.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Algoma is correct. We are debating a time allocation motion on this bill rather than the bill itself, if members would please keep to the topic of the allocation motion.

Further debate?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I'm pleased to stand today to speak to this resolution. I will be sharing my time with the member for St Catharines and the member for Sudbury, if that's all right with the Chair.

Interjection.

Mr Crozier: And Port Arthur, I'm told.

Mr Wildman: It's OK with us too.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Crozier: Well, the Christmas rush has begun. We're two days away from what at this point in time is our adjournment and, according to my count, we still have 27 or 28 bills to deal with. Under those circumstances I can understand why this government would want to shut down the debate on this particular bill, Bill 82.

The member for Northumberland said he thought it was time that we shut down debate, yet he took almost 20 minutes of the time, which is rather interesting. As well, I might point out that we are going to support this bill, but the member for Northumberland would criticize us for wanting to speak in support of it. So I can't quite understand where he's coming from.

As I've said before when I have spoken to closure motions - and this is the 33rd time, again according to my count, that this government has brought in a closure motion - I've tried to point out that when I was elected to sit in this Legislature I thought part of that responsibility was to bring the comments from Essex South to the Ontario Legislature, yet we get less and less time to do this, notwithstanding the fact that we're in support of the bill to which this resolution applies.

When the bill is next called of course, according to this closure resolution, "the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading."

That means, of course, as we all know, that there will be no public hearings on it. I've heard the government say in committee, just as recently as last week in the justice committee on Bill 53, that no bill is perfect. That is the reason that we have debate in the Legislature. Not every bill is perfect, by the government's own admission, which then means that perhaps some members have comments to make that apply to either their specific riding or their overall concern, and in this case, with an environmental bill.

Speaker, I beg your indulgence. I am speaking to the closure motion, because I'm not happy that we're having debate shut down the way we are. By way of explanation of why I am not happy this government is shutting down debate on this bill, I have a couple of comments to that point.

The Premier said in the Toronto Star on June 5, back in 1995, just prior to the election of this government, and I suppose he was referring to the Common Sense Revolution: "I don't think you'll find a cent there cut out of the environment. We were able to find $6 billion in cuts," to government spending, that is, "without cutting the environment." Well, we all know what happened. That was then, this is now. This is why I feel we should include in our comments on this closure motion the reasons we don't like closure on this particular aspect.

Total MNR staff in 1994-95 was 5,000 people; total staff cuts to the MNR have been 2,170. While the Premier said you won't "find a cent there cut out of the environment," the Ministry of Natural Resources operating budget in 1994-95 was $478 million and the current operating budget in 1997-98 is $331 million. Total operating budget cut: $147 million, or 31%. If that isn't an awful lot of cents, I don't know what is, and I don't know what the Premier now, the leader of the third party at that time, was telling the people of Ontario. I hesitate to say what his intentions were. They can draw their own conclusions from his comments.

In 1996, in the annual report to the Legislature, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 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."

We all know - we've been told in this Legislature and we've been told by people outside the Legislature - that 1,800 Ontarians die prematurely each year as a result of air pollution. I have seen that myself in the area of Essex South. My hobby as a private pilot is of course recreational flying. When you take off from the airport in the city of Windsor and fly east, because to the north, west and south we have the great United States of America, you do your recreational flying out in Essex and what used to be Kent county and beyond.

But when you return, it's an amazing sight. You can be flying on a beautiful clear day and what do you see up ahead over the Detroit River? A great yellow cloud. That's disturbing. It's no wonder that 1,800 people die in Ontario each year because of air pollution. It's disturbing to see that on a beautiful clear day, this yellow-orange, almost sulphurous cloud that hangs over the western part of Essex county and I suppose much of the city of Detroit and the Wyandot area.

There's a lot more this government could do that would be a lot better than cutting $147 million out of the budget, if we're going to do anything about clean air. The Provincial Auditor, in his 1996 report, said, "In order to properly safeguard the ecosystem and human health, we recommend that the ministry," that being the Ministry of Environment and Energy, "update its standards for air pollutants, improve its monitoring efforts in the area of air, water and hazardous waste materials and develop a more proactive and systematic approach to protecting and managing groundwater."

On April 31, 1996, the World Wildlife Fund gave Ontario a failing F on its efforts to protect ecologically significant areas of the province. Even Alberta, the great oil province of the west, had a better record than we.

We've heard from the members across how this bill will improve the environment and will help with the environment and will make our environment better. The reason we're supporting the bill is that for all the gutting they've done of the Ministry of the Environment, for all the damage they've done to our effort to clean up our environment, this at least takes some steps forward. We don't know how many steps we've taken backwards. Only time will tell. Only the devastating results of mistreating our environment will tell in the future.

But we're supporting this bill today because it at least takes one step forward. It raises fines and imposes jail terms for polluters, but that's after the fact.

Mr Wildman: If everyone is agreeing with this, why are they moving time allocation?

Mr Crozier: Exactly, and I'll get to that.

The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Algoma.

Mr Crozier: The member for Algoma says if everybody approves of this, why are they moving time allocation? I agree. We all want to have our comments and to show our support for this meagre step forward that's being taken.

"It provides the ministry with more powers to force individuals and companies that organize illegal waste dumping to pay for the cleanup." The problem is that I suspect that of those 2,170 jobs that have been removed from the ministry, a lot were inspectors. So the law really is only going to have the teeth of the piece of paper it's written on unless proper enforcement will follow.

"Seize licence plates and permits from vehicles used to commit environmental offences": That's great, but if these individuals have chosen to break the law, they'll simply go out and do it again in another way.

The Acting Speaker: There are some members of the Legislature who are having private conversations that are interrupting the debate that's going on. I would ask them to have those conversations outside.

Please continue, member for Essex South.

Mr Crozier: Thank you, Speaker. I'll just have to speak more loudly. I