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

October 21, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MINING INDUSTRY

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES GAINS RÉALISÉS À LA SUITE D'UN ACTE CRIMINEL

MINING INDUSTRY

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES GAINS RÉALISÉS À LA SUITE D'UN ACTE CRIMINEL

CANADIAN FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

TAXATION

THE NORWESTER

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CREDIT UNIONS

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEARNING

LANDFILL

CANCER TREATMENT

ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

WCB PREMIUMS

CANCER TREATMENT

CASINO LEGISLATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

VIOLENCE

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

JOBS ONTARIO

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

TIRE RECYCLING

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

ASSISTED HOUSING

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES À L'ACCÈS À L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Miclash moved private member's notice of motion number 24:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the mining industry is a major contributor to the economy of Ontario through employment, development of new technology, taxes, and the community life of many northern Ontario towns; and

Since Ontario government policies directly affect the economic, social and regulatory climate within the province; and

Since the mining industry is affected by the policies and regulations of the numerous provincial government ministries; and

Since the efforts alone of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines have not been enough to restore confidence within the Ontario mining community;

Therefore, the government of Ontario should co-ordinate its various labour, social, economic, and regulatory policies in order to establish a stable climate in Ontario which will encourage continued mining and exploration in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Let me begin with a statement which is very familiar to anyone who knows the mining industry across this province. This statement has often been referred to and we often look at the mining industry as a pillar of the economy of Ontario.

I must say it is truly unfortunate that a good number of Ontario citizens do not realize the value of this industry and the value it offers to the economic wellbeing of the province, especially northern Ontario, where it is one of the largest non-government employers.

I must say that when we take a look at the crux of this resolution, it indicates that we must get the ministries of the Ontario government to coordinate their various efforts to ensure that mining continues in this province and that it grows.

I must repeat part of the resolution, which indicates policies "which will encourage continued mining and exploration in Ontario."

Throughout my comments this morning, I will be referring to a good number of groups, groups from northern Ontario that have made many suggestions to reinforce what I will be saying, and they've made these suggestions over and over again.

Again, I cannot stress enough the importance of the industry in this province. I would just like to begin as well by touching a little bit on that, noting that the mining industry creates some $5 billion in new annual wealth in the province of Ontario. As well, the municipal, provincial and federal governments receive more than 50% of the wealth generated by the mining industry in Ontario. We must take a look at the taxes paid by the industry. This is especially important in municipalities in northern Ontario, knowing that the taxes to the municipalities alone range in the area of $51 million. One can see why it is such an important industry, especially in northern Ontario.

Employment generated by the industry: Something a lot of people don't realize is that the industry employs some 30,000 people directly and another 70,000 indirectly across this province and in northern Ontario, again very important, provides 10% of the employment and pays more than 20% of the local taxes. Of course, a lot of people will know that mine workers are some of the highest average industrial wage earners across the province; they're earning somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,000 per week, just a little bit of why this industry is especially important. These statistics give a bird's-eye view of its importance in Ontario.

When we talk about the actual spending of this industry in the province, when we take a look at the costs of opening up a mine, just getting a mine under way, in 1950 we looked at a cost of some $15 million, but that cost has increased to over $100 million in 1992 dollars, again a real influx into the economy.

I indicated that various groups have come forward to express concerns about this industry and about the attention it's receiving from government these days.

If I just might quote one of the resolutions that will actually be presented to the Ontario NDP government cabinet on November 3, some three weeks away, what it has indicated is, "That the provincial government critically review all pertinent legislation and regulations affecting the mining industry and derive a coherent and workable set of requirements and incentives to both revitalize and sustain the exploration sector of the Ontario mining industry." I think the stats I have given indicate that they too realize how important the mining industry is to us.

If we take a look at what is happening in terms of the investment -- I spoke a little earlier about the investment of this industry -- and we go back to 1988, where we see that $450 million was spent on exploration in the province of Ontario, if we take a look at the figure in 1991, we find that the figure has decreased to $125 million, and in the most recent figure, 1992, we find out that only $90 million has been spent. If you take a look at that decrease in the amount spent on exploration, you can see that the sky is actually falling on this industry, and it's falling quickly. That's why I bring this resolution forward today.

Mr Speaker, you and many of the other members of the House will be watching today and will probably have a question as to where this industry is going. As I indicated with the figures on exploration, we can see that the exploration is not as involved in this province as it once was, back in earlier years. I must say that during my tour across the province -- I took a tour and visited many of the mines and the associations across the province -- the news was not encouraging. We found out that the industry is not happy with what is happening in terms of what is going on here in government.

Increase in production costs was one of the main areas most industry was concerned about, that most people I talked to on a one-to-one basis were concerned about. I think one of the major areas they were really concerned about was the government-mandated costs; the workers' compensation costs, for one example. They've indicated that as their safety record is improving, the rates are rising to a proportion where they're getting to a point where they cannot handle the rates that are being offered to the mining industry.

I've heard many times, as I've heard from other employers across this province, that we must push for an inquiry, a commission to investigate all the matters pertaining to the Workers' Compensation Board.

Another major area of concern was Ontario Hydro rates. We know that in recent years hydro rates have increased at a rate double or triple the pace of inflation. We also know that this industry is heavily dependent on electricity. The impact of these rates has impaired the competitiveness of the industry within Ontario. I can't express enough how this is affecting a very important industry.

I also heard about the environmental legislation and regulation going on in this government today. As you will know, we have a very important development going on in my riding, in proximity to the first nation of Shoal Lake. I must say they are very concerned with some of the regulations and the legislation from this government that they are being requested to go with.

When we take a look at what was in the budget, the budget indicated that there would be some relief for mining companies across Ontario. In the Ontario budget address they indicated that they were going to support further development of the mining industry, particularly in northern Ontario communities. In order to do that, the Treasurer said he was providing capital tax relief for junior mining companies issuing flow-through shares to individuals.

In addition, he said that he was going to introduce legislation to allow mining companies to deduct immediately their contribution to reclamation funds for the cleanup of mine sites. This measure will preserve our environmental goals while providing a cash-flow benefit, especially for small mining companies.

As I spoke to various organizations across the province, they indicated that they were great words, nice words, but that there's been absolutely no follow-up to this commitment that was made by the Treasurer. Even at the Meet the Miners night, I listened to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines indicate and reassure us that this initiative was going forward. I must indicate nothing has happened.

When I see headlines like "Ontario is Rapidly Becoming a Bad Place to Invest," relating to the mining industry, I think we all have something to get nervous about. I think we must encourage this government to move ahead, not only the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, but all of the ministries to come together to take a close look at what is happening to this and what is happening to what I indicated earlier was truly a pillar in terms of the economic climate in Ontario.

You must realize that, being from the north, I do have a very close interest in what happens, not only in what is going on in the industry today but in its future development. As we know, there is a lot of room for expansion in this industry. There's a lot of room for the much-needed jobs that we need in northern Ontario. But it's certainly going to take the coordination of the various government ministries to ensure that investment comes to Ontario and moves ahead.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak this morning in support of the member for Kenora's resolution on the mining problem.

The resolution is a timely acknowledgement that our mining industry is in dire need of new policies and new plans to ensure its survival. In essence, we need an entire overhaul of government policies affecting mines in Ontario. Without a coherent strategy for mining from both provincial and federal levels of government, Ontario's mining industry may come to a grinding halt in the not-too-distant future.

The resolution, as put forward by the member for Kenora, states that "the mining industry is a major contributor to the economy of Ontario through employment, development of new technology, taxes, and the community life of many northern Ontario towns." The mining industry is not only a major contributor but a crucial component of our entire economy. The health of this industry determines the health of the entire province.

I can illustrate this fact by reminding the government that 30,000 people in Ontario are directly employed by the mining industry. Another 56,000 people are employed in related fields that are entirely dependent upon mining. For the entire nation, 100,000 Canadians are employed in the mining industry, with another 300,000 in directly related sectors. Mine-related jobs in Ontario form a total of 21% of the Canadian mining workforce.

On a national level, mining contributes $18 billion to Canada's balance of trade, of which Ontario accounts for 30% of this activity.

In 1990, the Ontario mining industry paid out $504.5 million in taxes and donations. This breaks down to $280 million to the province of Ontario, $165 million to the federal government, $51 million to municipalities and $8.5 million to charities and community projects. Furthermore, every year the mining industry generates $7 billion in new wealth in Ontario alone.

It should be evident to this government that the mining industry contributes significantly to our economy and high standard of living, yet it appears that the NDP government has failed to grasp the fact that it is its policies that are making mining in Ontario less and less viable. In fact, if the government continues on its current course, it will have managed to squeeze out the mining industry altogether. Their labour laws, their environmental regulations, pay equity, employment equity -- it goes on and on, making it more difficult for the mining industry to survive.

In order to relay the message about the effects of this government's policies, I will read from the following

article published in the Sudbury Star by Don McKinnon. The

article is entitled "Government 'Strangles' Mining Industry." It reads as follows, and I quote from the

article in the Star:

"As one who has made a living in mining for more than 30 years, I am deeply worried about the state of the industry in Ontario.

"The present government, the New Democratic Party regime of Premier Bob Rae, is dedicated to strangling mining.

"The number of mines closing outnumber the ones opening and exploration is declining."

These are hard words against the government, yet it is a message which must be heard. More mines are shutting down than are being opened. We are witnessing a brain drain whereby mining interests are taking their jobs and their skilled workforce to other countries and jurisdictions.

Ontario mining jobs are being driven to the United States, they are being driven to Central and South America and they are being driven to Europe. They are actually being driven out not for a lack of resources -- we have the resources -- but by the harsh regulatory environment created by this government.

I think the members present of this government should surely take note of the seriousness of these regulations and laws that are making it so difficult that we are losing one of the best Ontario industries we have had over the years, especially related to the development of the north.

The primary example of the harsh climate created by this government is evident in its approach to exploration. Without exploration there's no future for the mining industry.

As it stands now, close to 75% of the land in this province is under exploration freeze. Can you imagine that -- 75% of the land in this province is under exploration freeze? Exploration has been brought to a standstill in three quarters of this province due to ongoing negotiations with the natives. This is also the problem that's killing the lumber industry in this province.

I can see no reason why the government would deny access to these resources. There is no reason, unless this government has a hidden agenda to bargain away our resources throughout the course of land claim negotiations. Instead of trying to appease one segment of the population, the government must recognize the immediate need for mining activity that benefits all of Ontario. I suggest they do so by lifting the freeze on mineral exploration wherever possible.

Another factor that has led to the decline in mining is this government's lack of respect for mineral property rights. The Ontario Mining Association has pointed to political decisions on land use designations as an example. These decisions threaten to remove land from further exploration and development even after large investments have been made on exploration and study. You can see how quickly a company loses confidence in the future of development in this province. They've already spent millions of dollars on exploration, and all of a sudden the government, through a regulation, removes this land from exploration. So there you are with the land locked up, and the money is there.

The Ontario Mining Association's message to this government is quite simple: If there is no security of access to resources they have already explored, they will not have the confidence to continue exploration in Ontario. Without exploration and without confidence, the mines will continue to close.

The burden of environmental regulations has become so severe that it can take as long as 10 years -- 10 years -- to open a mine. The Ontario Mining Association reports that these delays are caused by variations between federal and provincial environmental assessment processes, duplication of the processes, indeterminate time frames and a constantly changing regulatory framework. It's quite clear a new process is needed to establish streamlined federal and provincial environmental regulations. Failing that, mining companies will continue to relocate because they cannot afford the time, money and uncertainty of our present government.

On September 23 of this year, the Ontario Mining Association, in conjunction with the national organization, released a plan to deal with the problems we have discussed here today. The report was developed through the Whitehorse initiative, an action driven by the mining association to bring all stakeholders together to find solutions to the problems facing the industry. Through these meetings with federal and provincial mining ministers, the association has developed some of the following recommendations:

-- Minimize upfront environmental costs by introducing a RRSP-type of reclamation and rehabilitation fund. The money, the capital, has to be set aside to reclaim the mine after they finish the mining. So what the mining companies are asking is that that money be tax-exempt. It will be set aside to reclaim the mine, but it will be tax-exempt like a RRSP and it will also provide collateral for them to draw on in exploring further.

-- Establish a process for land use planning to ensure both the protection of Canada's natural heritage and access for mineral resource development.

-- Respect mineral property rights to reduce uncertainty and restore investor confidence.

-- Change the tax laws on mine reclamation funding to encourage new investment in mines.

The mining industry has shown its willingness to stay in Ontario. They have formulated a plan that will enable the industry to continue to prosper and create employment. Now it is up to the government to do its part. Implement the reform measures brought forward by the industry and formulate a coherent plan to enhance mining in Ontario.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It's a pleasure for me to be here today to address the resolution the member for Kenora, Mr Miclash, has brought forward. Two or three different areas that I want to touch on are land use planning, mining in provincial parks, the interim measures agreement and the one-window approach that we have to service.

I must point out the fact that I will not be supporting this resolution, but as the parliamentary assistant I want to cover some of the areas the Ministry of Natural Resources has put forward that I believe do a lot for the mining industry.

On land use planning, we have successfully held meetings on the first public discussion paper that was issued back in December and we received a lot of public input. There's a second public paper that will be put out within the coming month. Mining interests and organizations have been involved right from the beginning: the Ontario Mining Association and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. MNR wants to see how land base use could be used by all stakeholders: mining, forestry and recreation. Public review has been well received by many of the stakeholders.

MNR believes in multiple-use prescriptions for crown land. Each stakeholder wants to use crown land for a specific purpose. It is MNR's responsibility to ensure that the uses are compatible with each other and with the premise of sustainable development.

I might point out that in 1988 the Liberal MNR minister, Vince Kerrio, prohibited mineral exploration and mining activities in provincial parks. We agree with this. We are not going to change this. No mining activities will be allowed in provincial parks.

But I must point out that the resolution that's being brought forward by the Liberal member -- he must be reminded that their government brought forward some restrictions in 1988 by Vince Kerrio, but we agree with those.

The provincial parks system promotes the protection of the environment, compatible recreation, heritage protection, science, education and tourism-related activities. The parks system is doing what it was meant to do, multipurpose use, and the parks system is very good for the whole ecosystem throughout the province.

MNR has been working very closely with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the mining industry before setting aside land as a provincial park, and will continue to do so.

In the limited amount of time I have I just want to touch on the interim measures agreement our government brought forth, which allows for consultation during a 30-year period. It has worked very well. It came into effect in 1991. It's had a 92% success rate over the time it's been there.

In my particular riding, Blue Falcon Mines has used that system for exploration for diamond mining near Attawaspiskat and it's working out very well. That's the second year now that they've been doing exploration there. It's not adding more red tape, as some of them have suggested; it's having everybody involved. We're getting a good feedback from that particular area that we're covering.

MNR, MNDM, Labour and Environment and Energy have all worked together to bring one-stop shopping to apply for land use permits and other processes which under the former Liberal government would take many trips to different ministries to accomplish. We did it on a one-window approach to service and our feeling is that it's working very well. We did this back in 1991 in a direct response to mining industry concerns regarding permits.

I'd just like to point out again that I will not be supporting this particular resolution because I believe we have come a long way to address the concerns of the mining and exploration industry throughout Ontario, and we will continue to work with it in developing and exploring mining throughout the north.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm shocked to learn that the member for Cochrane North isn't going to be supporting a well-thought-out and important resolution that I thought particularly all northerners would choose to support. You would note that this just asks to coordinate the various labour, social, economic and regulatory policies in order to establish a stable climate in Ontario which will encourage continued mining and exploration in Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr Brown: Mr Speaker, I'm having a little difficulty.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): That's because you're not confident enough.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sault Ste Marie, order, please.

Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to remind members of the importance of the mining industry to the province of Ontario. In Ontario, the treasury benefits hugely from the efforts of our mining companies, the employees of our mines, the people who work in our mines -- hugely. There's an estimate that $500 million in taxes comes to this and the federal government from the mining industry each year. The industry also employs about 21,000 people in this province.

Mr Jordan: It's 30,000.

Mr Brown: No, it doesn't employ 30,000. It employed 30,000 in the late 1980s. It employs about 21,000 now.

We have a huge potential for mining in Ontario. We have the deposits, we have the skills, we have the expertise; we have everything it takes to be a leading mining jurisdiction in the world. So what's the problem? Why have we lost about 9,000 jobs? Why have we lost significant revenues to the province of Ontario? Why are northern communities facing a very difficult time in coping with unemployment?

I would cite just a community I represent. In 1989-90, we had 4,000 people working in the mines of Elliot Lake. Today we have less than 600, and some of that is at the doorstep of this government. This government told almost 2,000 miners in Elliot Lake that it couldn't afford to buy their product, that it couldn't afford to buy a product which had provided the energy to provide 30% or 40% of the electricity that is generated in this province and came directly from the uranium that was mined in Elliot Lake.

This government decided, against every principle it had enunciated for years in various election platforms, that no, the miners of Elliot Lake, the families of Elliot Lake would be better out of work than for the province to buy uranium that this party, the New Democratic Party, had over and over again in election campaign after election campaign promised to buy at any price. That is what the Elliot Lake mining community faced.

Mr Wood: Tell them about the millions of dollars you put into Elliot Lake for economic development, Mike.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cochrane North, you had your time.

Mr Brown: I seem to have hit a nerve.

I would like to move on to speak, most importantly, about the report that Mr Miclash, the member for Kenora, has presented. Mr Miclash is known across the north and certainly among my colleagues as one of the leading proponents of mining in the province of Ontario. He served as a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development at the same time I was serving as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Mines. In January of this year, Mr Miclash travelled across the north and presented a report to our caucus outlining the barriers and impediments to increasing mining activity, thus increasing jobs and thus increasing provincial revenue to the people of this province.

And what have we got? This government knows that mining contributes huge revenues to this province, huge wealth, and what has it done? Let's go through some of the highlights of what the mines and mineral

section of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has done to help the mining community develop.

What they've done to help: They cut the administration of the Ministry of Mines by $3.6 million. They cut geoscience research grants by $700,000. They cut the client service branch by $800,000. They closed the Timiskaming testing laboratory and reduced grants, inspections and services to save $5.6 million. The party that railed against the cutting of the federal flow-through shares was pleased to cut OMEP, the Ontario mineral exploration program, by $4 million and to cut OPAP, the Ontario prospectors assistance program, by $2 million, very interesting things for a government --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Mr Brown: Mr Speaker, this is private members' hour. He will have his turn.

The Deputy Speaker: Order; it's on a point of order.

Mr Bisson: I would ask the member across the way to be specific, because he is misleading the House in his assertions on OPAP. It is this government that has advanced that program through the northern Ontario heritage fund.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. Please take your seat.

Mr Brown: Mr Speaker, he accused me of misleading the House.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, I would ask you to apologize and to withdraw your comments.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, I would withdraw the word "misleading."

The Deputy Speaker: I ask you to withdraw your comments and apologize.

Mr Bisson: I will withdraw and apologize, Mr Speaker.

Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When you total this up, that is a cut from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, just the Mines

section budget, of $24.8 million. This is an industry that supplies governments with $500 million in revenue.

Most importantly to me, the member for Cochrane North talked about what this government has done for my miners in Elliot Lake. I want to tell you what they've done recently: They had announced 50 jobs, to do what I think was very important work for the mining community; they were to establish a mining reclamation centre in Elliot Lake. They were to provide that community, which has been devastated by the actions of this government, with 50 jobs. We've lost 3,400 jobs; 50 jobs is what this government was going to provide back. I supported it, I thought that was a great idea, but they cancelled it this spring.

What message does this give to people concerned with the environment about reclamation of mines? What message does it give to mining communities like Elliot Lake, that are being strangled by the policies of this government? I certainly don't believe it's positive. I believe all members therefore have an obligation to support Mr Miclash's very, very reasonable resolution to call for getting the mining industry going.

Mr Martin: It is with great pleasure that I rise today on this motion to put some comments on the record re the attempts by the members across the way to continue to approach challenges that face us in the north in the same old predictable ways that really produce no results and haven't in the past.

The two members from the Liberal Party who have presented today were members of the Liberal government in the late 1980s. I dare say that the difficulties we're experiencing in northern Ontario didn't start in 1990; they started quite a while ago, structurally and in the approach that governments took to the development of the resources of the north.

I want to give credit to the efforts and energy put in by the Save Our North committee in the north as it looks at the challenges that face us today.

It is wonderful that it has taken this challenge on and has begun to work cooperatively with this government to try and put in place those things that will produce the kinds of long-term results we need and expect in northern Ontario if we who live and work there are to have a standard of living, a quality of life we all deserve. But the same old "throw money at it and allow people to come in and high-grade the resources" attitude of the past Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments will no longer work.

I think we've shown examples in a number of different ways of how we will work in the north. We will get the people who live and work in that part of this province to be intimately involved in the ownership and the direction and production of the places where they work. In the end, because we've involved more people, because we've looked at sustainability and long-term results, we will all be better off.

I know that the member from Cochrane, who will speak after me, will speak more specifically about some of those things we've done as a government. I look forward, with you, to hearing him put on the record some of the very exciting things we have begun to do in partnership, in cooperation with those people who now live and work in northern Ontario, because we know that's the only way to go and it's the only thing that's going to produce the kind of results that I know the member across the way wants and in fact will be happy to experience as this government moves forward in the next five to 10 years to make those things actually happen.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I'm pleased to join the debate, in support of my colleague's resolution. I think it's important. Members of the government side have been critical of the statements that have been made by members on this side, saying they are calling for solutions that require throwing money at issues and condemning previous governments for not responding to the concerns of the north.

If you read my colleague's resolution, he says he's calling on the government to coordinate -- he's not asking it to spend money, he's just saying coordinate -- its various labour, social, economic and regulatory policies in order to establish a stable climate in Ontario which will encourage continued mining and exploration in Ontario.

We are truly blessed in Ontario; we are blessed with resources that are the envy of the world, yet we have a situation -- to give you just one example, a headline appeared in the Toronto Sun on Friday, September 24, 1993. It says, "Investors Flocking to Troubled Cuba," and it says that Canada's MacDonald Mines Exploration is about to sign a joint venture agreement in Cuba to try to maximize opportunities there.

If you take a look at other areas that Canadian companies are exploring -- we look at Chile, we look at central Europe, we look at the CIS -- Canadian companies have always been at the forefront of mining exploration anywhere in the world. Yet at our own doorstep we have a situation where there is a perception by the industry that governments -- and I'm not just blaming the government of Ontario; this is governments across Canada -- for some reason have lost their focus on the importance of what this industry has contributed.

The overriding concern of people in the industry is that the increase in government-mandated production costs to their operation is making them uncompetitive, and it has literally forced them to look at other jurisdictions where they feel they have a chance of getting a return for their investors and concluding a successful operation. The industry has identified certain provincial issues to make its point. I want to just talk about a couple of them in the very short time I have.

One of them has to do with workers' compensation rates. The perception generally held is that the Workers' Compensation Board is operating as a social security tool rather than as an agency that oversees the rehabilitation of workers. This has led to an increase in assessment rates that cannot continue to be funded by the industry. Let me give you an example.

The mining industry pays an incredible amount in WCB expenses compared to other industries in Ontario. The average employer in Ontario has a compensation assessment of 3% of payroll and an unfunded liability of about $2,500 per employee. The mining industry has an assessment of 9%, which is three times as much, an unfunded liability of $45,000, which is 15 times as much, and this situation exists despite the fact that the industry has some of the highest safety standards and lower compensable injury claims compared to other large industries in Ontario.

As a matter of fact, according to industry statistics, there are only two industrial workplaces that have a better health and safety record than the mining industry, namely, the pulp and paper industry and hospitals. Yet the mining industry is being asked to pay this very, very large penalty.

Another major issue is hydro rates. Mining operations are heavily dependent on hydro. At one time, industry in Ontario enjoyed a very competitive situation compared to operators in other jurisdictions because of our very favourable hydro rates. Ontario Hydro has raised the cost of power by almost 30% over the past three years, the period from 1991-93. Let me give you a couple of examples of how important this is to the industry.

Kidd Creek, which is a mine: 18% of its operating costs are dedicated to energy. Algoma in Wawa: 17% of its production costs are related to Ontario Hydro. Royal Oak Mines spent $2.5 million last year in hydro costs. There's a whole list of companies that have had their hydro rates go up. To give you an idea, since 1975, Ontario rates have gone up by 428%,

whereas the consumer price index has increased by only 198%.

Because of these things, we have a situation where it is becoming more and more difficult for companies to operate at a profit. When you consider the importance that the mining industry has in the economy of Ontario, and particularly the economy of northern Ontario, it is absolutely critical that this government take a look at all of its regulations, all of its laws that impact on this industry and make sure that they are coordinated in a way that will make it attractive and profitable for these people to operate, because when they succeed, we succeed and the people of northern Ontario succeed.

My very last point that I'd like to make is the fact that we have a situation where there is a critical need to address the whole situation dealing with what happens to the reclamation of mines and the taxation implications. The government has announced in its budget that it was going to do something about it; to date, it has not. I call on the government to bring forward the adequate legislation to make sure that the capital that is being used for this reclamation fund can be utilized now in the same way that a RRSP can be used. Then, as they need the reclamation, they can do something about it.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I thank the member for Lanark-Renfrew, who brought forward this motion on October 19, 1993, and on September 28, 1993. It was good of him to bring this to the attention of the House and again for the Liberals to bring this resolution forward.

The difficulty you're faced with in the mining industry, as in all resource industries, is that during the 1960s, 1970s, even the 1950s and 1980s, resource-based industry in this country was very prosperous, it was very stable, it was a growing industry.

Governments during that time kept an eye on these kinds of growing resource-based industries. They taxed them heavily, they regulated them heavily and they created a whole bureaucratic maze, through environmental processes etc, that these groups would have to hurdle their way through during these --

Mr Martin: Where's your member for the north?

Mr Stockwell: I hear from the member for Sault Ste Marie, who rarely gets up to speak about anything but has a chance to heckle about this.

Mr Martin: Where were you when I spoke?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, with all due respect, I ask you to see if you can control this member, who never have a word to say in this House except heckle.

During those periods of time they became overregulated, overtaxed, and a bureaucratic maze was set up for them.

The difficulty they're faced with is they're in a very competitive market today, and it's a worldwide competitive market. The profitability has gone down, the costs have gone up, yet they're still saddled with very excessive government taxation policies, environment policies, regulated policies. Some of those were touched on, WCB, for instance, Ontario Hydro, and the bureaucratic environmental malaise they must go through.

All these policies have contributed to a once proud resource-based industry, a thriving resource-based industry, being brought to its knees, not by itself and not by the communities that it's in, but by government. Governments have regulated them to death. By regulating them to death, they end up having to bail them out in short-term bailout packages that do nothing but cost the taxpayers money.

On the one hand they bail them out and on the other hand they take more back, then they shock themselves when these industries close up and thousands and thousands of jobs are lost in this province and towns literally shut down.

I think the member for Lanark-Renfrew has offered a very comprehensive review of what needs to be done, and it's not a resource issue. It's not their problem; it's your problem. You have to examine your policies, your regulations, your taxes, and allow them to prosper. I will say, Mr Minister, if we get out of their faces, these resource-based towns and organizations can prosper. Rather than hindering them, we should be helping them.

Mr Bisson: It is with great and infinite pleasure that I have an opportunity to respond to the motion put forward by the Liberal caucus today.

I want to say up front that the body of what they speak of in their motion we could agree with. On paragraphs 1 and 2, which I don't have time to read, we are totally in agreement with the member. I want that to be shown on the record.

Where we fall apart and where we have a disagreement is what's read in paragraph 3. I'll put it on the record just so we know what we're voting on here today.

It talks of recognizing that "the efforts alone of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines have not been enough to restore confidence" within the Ontario mining industry. I'll tell you why.

First of all, to understand what happens in the mining sector, I'd like to back up and go to basically what's happened within the Save Our North group. I would say that about three years ago there was a group that was formed, actually in my riding, the riding of Cochrane South, in Timmins, on the part of people like Steve Parry, Bruce Jeffrey, Dave Meunier, Cid Samson and a number of other people.

They came together in order to be able to say, "Listen, we need to put together a lobby group that can speak to both provincial and federal governments about the problems we're having in the mining industry so that they can address those problems so we can build a mining industry that prospers and that everybody can benefit from."

What this group did was it successfully lobbied the provincial government and worked with the provincial government in order to effect a number of changes that this government has followed through on in order to be able to address the concerns raised within the Save Our North group. I think this is a credit to those people who worked within, and still work within, the Save Our North group.

What they basically did was this. They put forward a number of key proposals or key concerns before the government of Ontario. They said, "If you can respond to these concerns, it will go a long way to meeting the needs of the mining industry so that the mining industry can go ahead and prosper."

The first thing they put forward was, "We want a one-window approach to permitting." That is all about saying we need one window so that when the mining explorationist comes to government, he or she sees a friendly face and we can work through the system, through all of the various ministries -- Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Labour -- all the applications of permitting in regard to exploration.

Under the past system of the Tory and Liberal governments, it was really a complex system of having to go from one ministry to the other, not quite knowing what one ministry was going to do, and it was a fairly complicated process. The Save Our North group said, "If you can provide a one-window approach, it would go a long way to be able to assist programs through the system." This government delivered.

The minister, Shelley Martel, who would have liked to be here to speak this morning, is not able, as a cabinet minister, to speak at private members' bills, and that's why she's not here herself. As her parliamentary assistant, as the rest of the members of this government, we applaud that effort.

It was Shelley Martel, it was the rest of the northern members, the northern caucus, and the Premier who made sure that particular initiative went through. We are now the only jurisdiction in Canada to have that. That's something that this government has done, something that the NDP has done.

The second thing they asked us to do is to amend what is called Bill 220, the Environmental Protection Act, because in 1988, the then Liberal government under Mr Peterson had made changes to the Environmental Protection Act that said we were going to cast the net out and catch all those people who had done damage to the environment on properties that were controlled by them.

What the Liberals tried to do, in all fairness, was the right thing. They tried to say, "Don't allow people to go out and destroy the environment and not be responsible for it." But what ended up happening is that they threw the net out and they caught many other people within that net who really were not intended to be under that legislation.

Again, it was the people within Save Our North, along with the people of the government of Ontario -- Shelley Martel, myself, Len Wood, Tony Martin, Howie Hampton, Bud Wildman, the Treasurer and the Premier -- who worked along with the then Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier, in order to make amendments to the Environmental Protection Act under Bill 220, which says if I'm a mining explorationist and I go on to an existing property that has previously had environmental damage done to it, I will not be held liable.

That was the real key for the mining sector. The Ontario Mining Association lobbied very hard and worked with this government to make that happen. It was tried under the Liberal government; it didn't work. Who delivered? It was a New Democratic government of Ontario that delivered.

The next thing they asked us for, they said, "We want to be able to deliver and put together a system by which we pull together, in electronic format in databases, all of the geological information that the Ministry of Mines has, so the prospector and explorationist can gather the tools necessary to go out and to try to develop and find new mining properties."

The ministry responded to that. What we did was we set aside some $23 million by reallocating dollars within the ministry and also finding new dollars in order to do three very important projects. The first one is the earth resource and land information system; that's about $11 million. It's the geoscience database that the very member for Lanark-Renfrew talked about.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: We did. If you knew what was going on and you took the time to find out what's happening in mining, you would have known that has already been done.

What that does, it basically puts an electronic format of an electronic-type mapping that puts all of the geological information so the explorationist can take a look at a particular piece of land and determine all of the activity that happened within that land to better determine if there's a possibility of finding a mining deposit in that particular property.

The second thing we did was AFRI, the assessment files research imaging program. That's where we take all of the assessment files, some 35,000 of them, and put them into the computer so that people in the mining sector can take a look at that information, again in order to be able to give them the tools to find mining properties.

The other thing we did was the claims client service technology system, which basically allows the prospector and the explorationist to go directly to the mining recorder's office to be able to pull forward all the information and the claims records so that he or she can have a better understanding of what's on a particular claim so they can really hone their skills. Who delivered on that? It was Shelley Martel; it was Gilles Bisson with the Ontario NDP government. It wasn't the Liberals and Tories.

The other thing we did is with regard to the promotion of the importance of mining. I will just touch on that very quickly. They wanted to put together a program by which the province of Ontario basically went to southern Ontario through TV ads to say: "Mining is important. Mining is something that's important to Ontario and to all of us." Again it is Shelley Martel, it is the NDP government that delivered on the response and on the question to Save Our North and the OMA.

The other thing is the question of mining exploration. I have a minute and 14 seconds, Mr Speaker. I can take two hours to speak on this particular issue because there are a number of things that we did. One of them is that we did do what the member for Lanark-Renfrew asked us to do, which is the whole question of the mine reclamation fund. That was done. The capital tax relief flow-through share system with regard to junior mining companies was done and put retroactive to 1985.

But we have a problem. One of the problems is that the Conservative government in Ottawa changed the investment rules in this country that allow the dollars that are made in profits within the mining sector to be taken out of this country and brought to Chile and other South American countries in order to suck the wealth out of this country. It was the Tories that did that. Just the other day, a $600-million investment taken away by Placer Dome of profits made here in Canada went to Chile because of the rules that were changed by the Tories. One of the problems we have is the very existence of what the Tories have done in Ottawa.

I only have 20 seconds, but I would like to speak in recognition of the major contribution made by the mining sector to the province and especially in the north where mining is a lifeblood to many communities. This government is committed to working with our partners in industry and labour during these tough times to ensure a prosperous and sustainable mineral exploration and development industry in Ontario. The initiative speaks volumes about the importance the NDP places on mining.

We continue to coordinate our labour and socioeconomic regulatory policies to maintain a stable climate which refers to all mining exploration in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired. I apologize to the member for Kenora. You still have two minutes.

Mr Miclash: I would truly like to thank the member for Lanark-Renfrew and the member for Etobicoke West as they have supported much of what I said in terms of what the resolution actually draws itself to and that, of course, bringing the various government ministries -- and this is important for the members who are going to be voting against this. I would suggest you re-read the resolution for what it is saying in the actual resolution. Nowhere do I talk about the spending of government or government increasing spending. I cannot believe some of the things I've heard from the government members today.

Nowhere in the resolution does it talk about federal spending, about what the federal government is doing.

I particularly concentrated on what this government, the NDP government, is doing today. For them to get up and suggest that all these great things are going on, I must remind them of the dollars spent on exploration, the actual dollars spent on getting mining going, decreasing from $450 million in 1988 to $90 million in 1992. That itself speaks for what is happening in this industry.

I reinforce the portion of the resolution which asks that these government ministries get together, take a look at this industry and go forth to develop policies that will help the industry get going. I always have to go back to something the member for Wilson Heights, with the expertise he brings to the House, mentions: All we're doing is asking for a coordination of efforts by this government to ensure that we sustain mining development and allow it to go ahead in the province.

I would just like to thank those people who have supported the resolution. I certainly look forward to the way northern members are going to look upon what I've asked for this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES GAINS RÉALISÉS À LA SUITE D'UN ACTE CRIMINEL

Mr Jackson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime / Projet de loi 85, Loi visant à empêcher les personnes de s'enrichir injustement des gains réalisés à la suite d'un acte criminel.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): One of the most important challenges for our criminal justice system today is that of changing the emphasis from the criminal offender to the innocent victims of crime and responding to their suffering.

Private member's Bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, is a practical piece of legislation which addresses these concerns, as it provides an offender- and revenue-based approach to funding victims' services like the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Bill 85, in

summary, would require that moneys that would be payable to an accused, a convicted or an admitted criminal for the sale of his or her recollections or for interviews or public appearances instead would be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The board is required to use these funds that it would receive to satisfy any judgements obtained by victims of crime in Ontario.

Before I proceed further, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House today several family members of crime victims in our province. They are here today to bear witness to our debate and they are here in support of Bill 85. In fact, a petition they assisted with, which has been circulated around the province, around this bill is with me today. We have collected over 25,000 signatures in a very short period of time. It speaks of their level of support.

On behalf of the victims of crime in Ontario, their families and all those who have voiced their support for Bill 85, I would like to ask all members of this House to give serious consideration to this bill, to vote in its favour and to then send it to one of the standing committees of this House so that we can receive public input, through public hearings, from crime victims in this province, as well as the advice we could get from the Attorney General's office.

In 1989, I first introduced and tabled a victims' bill of rights for Ontario. It contained an entire section,

section 7, devoted to preventing criminals from profiting from their crimes. Unfortunately, that bill was defeated in this House. I have subsequently tabled it twice; it's been defeated. I feel badly about that, but I won't give up. I'm convinced that Ontario can be as compassionate as other provinces which have victims' bills of rights, but there's nothing excusing our actions today from not supporting this bill in order that we can be on the leading edge of this kind of reform legislation.

I was pleased that with the support of the PC caucus we were able to convince the standing committee on justice to cause a review of criminal justice issues, victims' issues and how well the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is serving the citizens of Ontario. Those hearings were conducted in May and June. During those hearings the Attorney General, Marion Boyd, stated that her government would refuse to support a crime victims' bill of rights for Ontario. She said: "A victims' bill of rights that cannot deliver on its promises is little more than empty rhetoric. I am much more comfortable with assessing what the government can provide and making those services directly available."

In response to further questioning, the Attorney General admitted that by comparison in Quebec, which has this type of legislation, it was working well but that it was adequately funded and that her concerns were that in these economic times she couldn't fund criminal justice issues to the same extent.

The provincial coordinator for victim/witness assistance, Susan Lee, told the justice committee on May 7, and I'll quote her directly, "The available services to victims are inconsistent, inequitably distributed and underfunded." She went on to say, "We're obviously severely restricted by the financial realities of the province."

In her presentation before the justice committee the chair of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Wendy Calder, discussed the backlog of 6,000 victim applications before the board which result in endless delays while making the board less accessible to victims in Ontario due to its financial constraints. Her board has the right under the law to recover these damages from criminal offenders by civil proceedings with respect to injury or death cases.

In 1990-91, under the NDP government, the province recovered $39,000 from criminals in this way, only $39,000, yet paid out $9.75 million in compensation to victims that year. The record, therefore, of recovering funds is one of the worst in all of Canada and is completely unacceptable to victims of crime, especially when the Attorney General tells us that justice for victims is now a funding issue.

It demonstrates that there must be a political will in place to develop strategies, to recover moneys from the provisions of our current laws and to constantly be seeking out new ways of getting funds out of the criminal perpetrators', and not solely from the taxpayers', pockets. That's how we can help pay for expanding victims' services in this province.

Instead of blaming the federal government, which I'm sure some members are going to do today, our province should be finding ways of deepening its cooperation with Ottawa. Other provinces have succeeded on behalf of their victims. I want to quote directly from a recent submission -- it's been out only a week -- on crime prevention by the Canadian Police Association which was sent to Ottawa. It states: "The justice committee report on crime prevention estimated the money spent annually on our criminal justice system is about $7.7 billion.

A shamefully small portion of that goes to compensate or care for victims of crime because of the provincial practice, in at least Ontario and Alberta, of avoiding the intent behind

section 727.9 of the Criminal Code, diverting moneys received through the victims' surcharge into provincial general revenues."

That's a terrible indictment. We must find positive ways, fairer solutions, more cost-effective means of paying for our criminal justice system. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is essential in this province, but it's not meeting the demand and it's not living up to the needs of this province.

On May 31 before the justice committee, Priscilla de Villiers, representing Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, said: "As victims, we had no persona, we had no face. My daughter Nina's death was sensational at the time, and yet we received little consideration as victims. What consideration, then, can the equally tragic, less publicized cases expect? All the programs, services and vast funding are focused on the defendant. There is little offered to the victim, and the little that is available is haphazard and underfunded."

Debbie Mahaffy, representing Canadians Taking Action Against Violence, after many conversations with families who'd been before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, indicated, "To profit from crime, the murder/violation of another human being, is quite a repulsive reality in Canada." She pleaded with members of the committee not to allow profiting from crime to go on in such a fashion.

Doug and Donna French, who are in the House with us today and who wrote a letter to every single member of this Legislature, said: "Several books are in the process of being written, as well a movie that is in the works. There are also TV shows wanting interviews in regard to these murders."

The fact that people want to profit from someone else's tragedy is disgusting. But the fact that the criminals themselves can profit from crime is an outrage. It exploits victims and their families and in fact promotes crime.

These families have been devastated by their victimization. They seek justice. Will they get justice? You in this House, all members, can find a practical solution and can begin with bills like Bill 85 and others, but there are going to be serious questions raised in the House. Is this bill constitutional? Of course the bill is constitutional if it's tied to sentencing and we give direction to our judges that during sentencing this should occur. This is occurring regularly in the United States. In 1989 they collected $125 million just from recollections, because judges were directed by legislators like us to tie it as part of the sentencing that they cannot profit from their crimes.

Is this our jurisdiction? Of course it's our jurisdiction.

Section 92.14 of the British North America Act gives our province the authority over our criminal justice system. We administer our courts.

Section 92.13 of the act gives us sole responsibility over property and civil rights matters. It is clearly within our jurisdiction.

I want to implore all members of this House to consider the thoughtful arguments, but also to consider what the families have experienced. They come here today seeking justice. They are looking to you to help them find it. I look forward to the debate and will reserve some of my time for

summary comments.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm pleased to rise today to join in the debate on this important matter. It's a long-standing principle of public policy that criminals not profit from their own wrongdoing. The purpose of this bill is a laudable one, and I hope that the questions I may raise around the effectiveness of the bill or the enforceability of the bill or the constitutionality of the bill do not mask my complete sympathy with the spirit of the bill.

No one can fail to sympathize with victims and their families. All fair and civilized human beings would express repugnance that any monetary gain should flow from violating the rights of others or from taking the lives of others.

I would remind the House that Bill 85, put forward by the member for Burlington South, is essentially identical to a bill James Renwick, a much respected member of this House, a member of the NDP, put forward in 1982, in 1983 and again in 1984, under a Conservative government. This private bill, to use Mr Renwick's words, was stimulated by the immunity to prosecution granted Cecil Kirby by Roy McMurtry, the former Conservative Attorney General, but also incidents involving Clifford Olson and others.

In fact, Mr Renwick's legislation, essentially framed in the same terms, flowed out of what's popularly known as the Son of Sam legislation in New York state back in 1977 to bar criminals profiting from the fruits of their crimes.

When Mr Renwick's bill was referred before the justice committee in 1983, Mr Sterling, then I believe parliamentary assistant to the Conservative Attorney General, now chair of the Conservative caucus, appeared to speak at the committee on behalf of the provincial secretariat for justice. This is what he had to say:

"I would like to mention Mr Renwick's comments about the passage of his bill, to which I have already indicated I find a lot of attraction. I have done some work in the past year on that matter, but quite frankly I have not been able to come up with a workable piece of legislation that actually addresses the problem in any real way. It is a difficult one to put into place at the provincial level because you are dealing with cross-border problems and all the rest of it.

"I am not trying to shove it off to the federal scene, but perhaps it should be included with your next item about pornography and what is or is not obscene within the definition included in the Criminal Code. The situation is that I have just not been able to come up with a practical or good model to put it in place in law. I agree with the idea, but I do not know how to do it, nor can anybody advise me."

That was the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General in 1983.

In 1991, the New York law I mentioned, the Son of Sam legislation, was struck down by the US Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press, vouchsafed under the first amendment. One might well question what might be its fate, if we don't take great care with this kind of legislation, if challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have to ask ourselves, will Bill 85 violate freedom of expression under the charter?

We also have to ask such essential questions as, would this legislation deter offenders from educating the public to avoid criminal conduct? Most people agree that it should not.

What about such books as Go Boy, which I believe won a Governor General's award, written by a criminal offender? Would this stifle that kind of important freedom of artistic expression? I don't know that. I'd be anxious to hear the views of the public on this.

We can't deal, for example, with contracts in other provinces, in the United States and elsewhere, so we're somewhat limited as a province in how we enforce such

an act.

What about relatives, friends, witnesses and actual participants in crimes who aren't charged?

Independent authors: How do we deal with them and the fruits of crimes that they tend to capitalize on?

My colleagues are going to have other comments to make about the workability of this legislation and about alternatives such as amending the Criminal Code of Canada or uniform provincial laws. But I would say in conclusion that our government remains committed to the protection of society from serious offenders and to acknowledging and defending the rights of victims and we have proven our commitment and sympathy to victims with the reforms we have initiated already in the form of increased services for victims, expanding the victim/witness assistance program and removal of limitation periods for civil lawsuits, to name a few.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I want to speak in favour of this bill. I was recently elected, and one of the things I wanted to do was to introduce a bill much like this. The member for London North spoke about Jim Renwick, who was the member for Riverdale and who in fact I worked for when he was a member here. During that period of time, he introduced a bill much along the lines of the one introduced here. It's one of the things I wanted to do as part of my work and the member for Burlington South has beaten me to it.

I will support his bill, because I think it gets at a problem that I've seen exist in the criminal justice system as a lawyer practising in that system, that far too often it's a system that revolves around what the accused has done and what the rights of the accused are, and not very often does it revolve around the victims and the victims' families and the pain and suffering that is inflicted on them by the criminal actions, and not just by the criminal actions but by whatever benefit can be obtained by others by those actions, by the accused or the convicted person, who can publish memoirs or sell the story to shows like A Current Affair, for example, that thrive on further victimization.

I think this bill or something like it, depending on what the government is prepared to do in terms of constitutionality -- and we can have arguments over that. I don't want to argue about that, because I think we can do it and I think the member for Burlington South is correct that we do have the jurisdiction to do this and it's the right thing to do.

I spent some time, along with the member for London North and the member for Burlington South, in the standing committee on administration of justice talking about victims' rights and victims' issues. We spent a lot of time in that committee. We haven't completed our report, but what we did was identify many areas which we believe need action to address the rights of victims in the system. I'm glad to see that some of the French family are here. We heard from other people who have been victimized by the criminal justice system, and their stories are sad and unfortunate ones.

It strikes me that one of our primary duties as legislators is to listen to stories of people who have been victimized by the very system and try to make changes to improve it. I think this is one area where we can have a real effect as legislators if we're prepared to work together. I don't believe this is a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue.

The very fact that I, the member for Burlington South, and a previous member for Riverdale, Jim Renwick, were working on the same issue speaks to, I think, an all-party consensus that we can take some steps and move forward and help a group of people who have been somewhat forgotten in the criminal justice system: the victims, their families and friends.

I want to speak in support of this bill. I will vote for it and I urge the government to live up to the commitment that Jim Renwick started so many years ago -- 11, I guess -- and to live up to its party policy and move on this. I think it's, as someone has said, the right thing to do. I thank the member for Burlington South for bringing this forward and I hope I'll be able to work with him on the justice committee to get this bill passed and into law.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker: Before the members from York Mills starts, I'd just like to tell the members in the gallery that you're most welcome here, but you must refrain from applauding.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm pleased to rise today in support of my colleague the member for Burlington South and his private member's bill. I'd like to say I wholeheartedly support the principle behind Bill 85 and applaud the efforts of my colleague in this area, which date back to 1989 and to two attempts to establish a bill of rights for victims of crime. The fist time it was thwarted by the Liberals and the second time by the NDP.

It is really offensive that criminals should profit financially for telling the stories of their heinous acts and fitting that this legislation would allow for those funds to be dedicated to pay for services for victims of crime.

I hope that the Attorney General, who I note is not present today, I regret, and this government will join our caucus and, I gather, the Liberals in support of the victims and their families. We must all work to eradicate violent crimes, but until that noble pursuit is realized this bill is a positive step which will entrench significant protection for victims of crime in Ontario.

It really is beyond belief that victims and their families can be made to suffer a second time as books, films and television programs force them to relive the ordeal. It is a sad comment on the human race that as long as human curiosity exists there will be a market eager for the sensational details of such horrific crimes.

We can't change human nature through legislation, but through this bill we can take an important step towards ensuring that those criminals do not profit financially from the pain and suffering they have inflicted. Let us take responsibility for victims of crime and vote in favour of this bill and its swift passage into law.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I accept and endorse, as I believe does everyone here, the concern that has led the member for Burlington South to present this bill. I have two daughters and three granddaughters and I can at least begin to imagine the nightmare that some of you here today have undergone. Nina de Villiers's uncle is a constituent of mine and someone I know.

The idea that someone can become rich through telling about his or her own horrendous crimes is utterly repugnant. It seems sometimes that society is willing to spend limitless sums catching, trying and incarcerating a criminal who maybe becomes a burden on the taxpayer for life, while victims have been too often set aside and ignored.

However, we do need to look closely at what is being suggested here. In this society we value our democratic freedoms very highly and in real life things do not always come in neat, well-defined categories. We are all only too well aware of the kind of situation that my colleague had in mind when he drafted this bill, but not all cases are so clear. We do value free speech. We do value our right to know rather than to have reality censored. We do value the right of people who spend their time producing something that others wish to buy to be paid.

Too much public morality can damage freedom. Freedom, on the other hand, comes with a price. That price involves the right of individuals to act in ways which offend public opinion and often, indeed, public morality.

Sometimes people outgrow their criminal past. If this bill had passed into law as it now stands, Malcolm X would not have been able to profit from his autobiography, which includes reminiscences of an earlier life of crime.

Most of us would agree that Nelson Mandela was never a criminal in the real sense, but nevertheless he spent many years in a South African prison because technically he had been guilty of criminal activities. Should he not be able to profit from his memoirs, which are, after all, part of the history of his country?

What about environmentalists who have just incurred stiff prison sentences in British Columbia for acting on their own highest principles?

Evelyn Lau might not be able to profit from her bestseller Runaway, in which she tells the story of her life as a street kid and a prostitute, although it would be okay if she had made it all up.

Is violent material okay if it is fictitious? This bill would not prevent rock groups from profiting from lyrics about getting high and getting stoned, or movie directors from getting rich from invented stories about bank robbers, spies, drug addicts and murderers. In fact, stories based on real experiences are more likely than pot-boilers to have educational and artistic merit.

We censor our perception of the world we live in and our children's perception of it at our peril. In fact, some of our greatest literature and works of art have at one time or another been targeted by would-be censors. Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice and Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn come to mind. Many nursery rhymes and fairy stories are violent. So, in part, is the Bible. History, alas, is violent, but we need to know it.

I know the member for Burlington South is not advocating censorship, but realistically, if people are going to spend their time writing, they need to be paid for it. To refuse to allow even reformed criminals to profit from reminiscences about their crime is to cut them off from employment that could well produce works of great social value while allowing them to support themselves. To limit profit would, in effect, limit freedom of expression. And how can we discriminate between the reformed and the unreformed criminal?

This legislation would possibly be regarded as unconstitutional because the wording is too broad to distinguish between the profit earned for reminiscences of educational and artistic merit and those which have no social value and merely exploit the sensational aspects of a criminal act.

The bill poses other constitutional problems in its lack of definition. Would a vaguely fictionalized account of criminal activities be exempted from the law? The Supreme Court ruled in the Zundel case in 1992 that any restricted content must be narrowly defined.

To be effective, this bill needs to be more carefully worded to make it clear that it's directed only at preventing unjust enrichment from the sensationalist exploitation of crime. Ideally, it would be a federal bill or an amendment to the Criminal Code and be enforceable in all of Canada, but even a federal bill, precisely worded, would be difficult to enforce.

I hope the problems presented by this bill in its present form can be overcome, because I do agree with its general import.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is a piece of legislation proposed by the member for Burlington South that I wish I didn't have to speak on today because I wish it wasn't necessary to introduce it. But it obviously is, and it responds in a very meaningful way.

Although there may be some in this House who are going to quibble about the details, and I think they can be sorted out very easily, it responds in a very positive way to the concern that I think the overwhelming majority of the public has about issues of crime, about issues of compensation of victims of crime, and about issues related to matters where those who have committed a criminal act can benefit from it in various ways.

Those of us in the opposition, including the leader of the Liberal Party, Lyn McLeod, Dianne Poole, my colleague the member for Eglinton, and myself, and members of the third party, have raised on numerous occasions issues related to crime, to the rights of victims, in general responding to what the public feels, and I think justifiably so, about the lack of adequate response to the crimes that are committed in our country, and of course we speak about our province.

The member for Burlington South has provided an opportunity for this House, albeit in only an hour today, to discuss these specific issues, but has also provided an opportunity for this to go to an appropriate committee to have input from the public and to make any modifications to this piece of legislation that are necessary to make it work. I think that is an opportunity that all of us in this House should most assuredly seize.

Society is repulsed by the fact that someone who has committed a crime can make a profit from that crime. We have seen so many examples of that on an international basis, and most recently we have had concerns expressed in the case of some very unfortunate murders that have taken place right here in our own province.

It goes along with another issue we have talked about, and all members of this House have been repulsed by this as well, and that is the issue of collector cards now being put out by an American company that glorify and feature in a very public way those who have been involved in crimes which have gained some international publicity. Again, all of us feel revolted by that particular initiative on the part of that company. It's important that we as elected representatives not only speak out about these matters but endeavour to put forward legislation which is going to deal with them in a meaningful way.

Too often, as I think all members recognize, the victims of crime in our society have not had the kind of attention we would like to see given to them. Very often the attention is to those who have committed the crime, ensuring that they are adequately represented in court, ensuring that they have a fair trial.

Well, there are people in the gallery today who have gone through a very difficult experience. I am from St Catharines, as members know, and Donna and Doug French have gone through what none of us would want to go through. They're sitting in the gallery today. They have been part of a community effort to heal the wounds that have resulted from the very tragic death of their daughter. On so many occasions they've been called to play this role and have of their own volition played this role.

I am certain that just as I would prefer not to be speaking on this bill, Donna and Doug today would prefer not to have to be in this gallery. It is an event which has traumatized our community, our province, our country, and even those you talk to beyond our borders. It is the kind of issue that I think transcends partisan considerations. It is the kind of issue which certainly has the overwhelming support of the public in backing members of this assembly and other elected bodies to deal with it.

I can recall when the provincial budget was coming down in this House and we were preoccupied with it that day. Well, that day for the people of my community was an extremely sad day, as it was for members of the family and the many friends, the extended family now, of Kristen French, because that was the day it was announced that Kristen had been found. All of the important items that we had in this House, all of the tax measures, all of the expenditure measures, meant nothing to the people in our community compared to the outpouring of support and sympathy and sadness that we saw on that particular day in St Catharines.

It seems to me that we owe it to the victims of crime, that we owe it to those who have a sense of justice, to bring forward legislation which is going to prevent those who perpetrate crimes from benefiting in a financial sense from that.

I think we recognize as well that there's general support for providing the police forces of this province with the necessary resources to fight crime. There's a recognition that there are other causes of crime as well, but we cannot neglect the fact that we need those resources. The green ribbon team that was put together to deal with the Leslie Mahaffy murder and the Kristen French murder worked extremely hard and I'm sure would like to have had even more resources to deal with those particular crimes. We support them in those efforts, and I think we have to provide our police forces with those necessary resources.

It is one thing to pass a private member's bill, and I would think we would probably have general consensus today to pass the bill proposed by the member for Burlington South, but the real test will be what the government does with that bill; not the fact that we nod our heads in the House today or vote in the House today, but where it goes from here, where it goes from this initiative. I would certainly urge the government to move forward with the bill to ensure that it goes to the committee that the member asks it goes to, to ensure that it is moved along quickly so we can deal with this problem in an expeditious and meaningful manner, as we should.

There's a dissatisfaction out there in the public with the fact that people don't feel they can get to their legislators, that their legislators aren't always dealing with issues that they consider to be important. The public feels helpless because they, of their own volition, of their own initiative, cannot bring about those changes, so they look to us, who represent them in various legislative bodies, to ensure that we bring forward the necessary legislation and regulations to deal with the issues that they consider to be important.

Let's not quibble over the details. Let's not quibble over whether it's constitutional or unconstitutional at this point. Let's develop, let's work with this particular initiative to ensure that it will be constitutional, that it will pass the legal tests and it will achieve what the member for Burlington South and so many of us in this House have hoped it would achieve in the long run.

The member for Mississauga East, who is an independent member, doesn't get an opportunity to speak in this House ordinarily, and I am going to yield some of the time of the Liberal caucus to the member for Mississauga East so that he can participate in this debate as well. I do urge all members of this assembly, for the sake of the victims, for the sake of their families, for the sake of our society, to support this initiative, to work with the member for Burlington South and others to ensure that we deal in a meaningful fashion with this most important bill and with this most important general issue. We owe it to those in our society who have been the victims.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I didn't know the time was yielded yet. Like the previous speaker, I'm not pleased to have to participate in the debate because of the circumstances, but I did want to get on the record. I want first of all to thank the member for Burlington South for bringing this forward.

I'm pleased to speak here today. Yesterday, I introduced a petition with about 1,100 names on it. Those people asked me to speak on behalf of this bill and to support it.

There is no way that criminals should profit from criminal activity. Our task force has gone out across the province. We've heard from numerous people across this province, and they are fearful of what is happening. People out there are saying that this bill should be passed, and I would encourage all members to do that.

It's often been said that victims of crime are victimized twice, once by the criminal and once by the criminal justice system. To those members who say we should look at this as an issue of the Charter of Rights, I say let them decide. We're legislators. If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms strikes it down, so be it. Our job in here is to write legislation and to pass it, and I would encourage you all to do it.

I also believe we should introduce the Victims Bill of Rights Act again. Parts of this I believe are tied to that, as the member said. I also believe we should pass the former Bill 85, which dealt with registration of sexual offenders. I think that should be done.

I spoke about this issue to a group of students in a high school on Friday. I explained the bill to them and they all said to me: "Well, of course you're going to pass this. Why would anybody not want to pass it? Would you go to the Legislature and make sure the members all see that this bill should be passed?"

I say to the members on the opposite side, because I think there's agreement between the Liberals and our caucus, listen to the people. They want this passed. If it gets struck down as a result of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there's nothing we can do anything about it, but we in this Legislature get very few chances to make an impact and make a decision on our own for the betterment of this province, and I believe this is one chance to do it.

Part of my riding, as you know, dips into the Burlington area; of course we were touched by the tragedies there. If you don't believe in doing it for yourself, think of the victims and their families, because they are the ones who are going to suffer if this isn't passed.

If we pass this bill, I believe what will happen is that it will make criminals think twice about doing it. When somebody commits a crime, some of the violent, terrible crimes that have gone on, there is no way that person should profit. What this will do is allow that money to go to the victims.

I think there's agreement on all sides here, Liberals and Conservatives and NDP, that our victim services in this province are woefully inadequate. Similarly to what happens in the United States where they take some of the drug money and put it back into drug prevention, this will take some of the money that would go to the criminals and put it back for the victims. We in this province need to speak on behalf of the victims, for once. We have an opportunity to do that today, and I would encourage all members to do it.

Bill 85 proposes an alternative way of funding these victims' services. We all know we're broke: We don't have much money; there isn't too much money around for anything in this province. This would allow us a way of getting money to the victims. Hopefully, at the end of the day, it will prevent some of the repeats of what's happening, because the victims are going to be victimized twice, once as a result of the act and, secondly, by it being published.

There's not a heck of lot of time here today, but this proposed legislation, if passed with the support of this government -- and we need your support, I say to the members across -- will entrench a significant protection for the victims of crime in Ontario.

It won't be the end of it. It won't be the end of all the problems with victims, and hopefully the Victims Bill of Rights Act will be passed, but it will be a good first start and I'll be able to go back to the high school students who said to me, "Please pass this," and I'll be able to say to the 1,100 people who sent in the petition that indeed the people of this Legislature did listen.

I know you're all here to try to make an impact. I think this is one of the few opportunities to do that and I would encourage you to do it. This would represent an important turning point, I believe a very important turning point, for the rights of victims in the province of Ontario. I'm asking on behalf of the victims, on behalf of all the victims and their families, some of whom have the courage to come here today, please have the courage to support this piece of legislation.

I believe if we do that, we in this Legislature will have made an impact and we will have done something progressive for the people of this province. To the members who may be thinking about it, I would encourage you strongly: Please consider this piece of legislation. I think it's a good one.

Again, on behalf of my caucus and the members of all the Legislature, I want to thank the member for Burlington South, who has brought this to the Legislature today. I will be supporting it and I hope everyone in the Legislature will.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's a pleasure to stand in the House today and speak with respect to Bill 85, introduced by the member for Burlington South. I've got a little over three minutes left. I wish I had 30.

I can bring some unique perspective to this debate today, having been a police officer for over 20 years and having investigated numerous cases of assaults on people, crimes, bodily harm, not only in Canada but in Europe and also in the Middle East, so I can attest to the trauma that folks who have been subjected to this type of thing have gone through. Indeed, I have a great deal of empathy with those folks, having seen how it affects people over my police career.

I think we are elected to come to this House to serve the people. In my honest estimation, I think that although this legislation has some flaws in it -- personally, I wonder if it can survive a charter scrutiny; nevertheless, that's not for me to decide -- we, as elected members of this Legislature, have the onus put upon us by the electors to share their concerns and to do something about things that are wrong.

It's absolutely repugnant to me that anybody should benefit in the least possible way from crime. Therefore, I'm prepared to address those issues, hopefully as this bill goes forward, because we have to come to grips with this terrible problem in Ontario and perhaps across Canada. I remember how I felt, the repugnancy I felt, when there was some suggestion that Clifford Olson was somehow going to profit from those dreadful murders out in British Columbia.

Personally, I'm prepared and always have been, not only to go the extra mile to make this work, but to go the extra five miles to make this work, because I think we have that duty as elected members to represent the public and to get this thing right once and for all.

There will be some valleys and hills in this; I've no doubt about it. It will cause quite a lot of debate about whether it's right. New York's Son of Sam will be an issue there. The principle of victims suing the accused to collect funds held by the board is contrary to the way we do things now. Nevertheless, all these obstacles, I feel, can be overcome with the cooperation of every member in this House.

This isn't a partisan issue, and I refuse to take a partisan stance on that. I'm going to support the member's Bill 85.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I would like to congratulate the member for Burlington South for his initiative, but also at the same time, I'd like to thank the member for St Catharines and the Liberal caucus --

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. You will have three minutes and 34 seconds, I believe, which is remaining. Would you please check the clock? Two minutes, 49 seconds for you, sir, the member for Mississauga East.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: I had the feeling that it was agreed, but obviously it wasn't, and I will ask unanimous consent that the time given by the member for St Catharines be allocated to the member for Mississauga East. Agreed. The member for Mississauga East, you have two minutes and 49 seconds to make your presentation.

Mr Sola: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to congratulate the member for Burlington South for coming up with this initiative, and also the member for St Catharines and the Liberal caucus for giving me the opportunity to speak on this matter.

I must say, though, that I'm a little bit disturbed by the comments of the member for Peterborough. I hope I misunderstood what she said, because the way I understood her remarks was that artistic merit and profit were to be considered at the expense of the victim and family, and that I find unconscionable. I hope I misunderstood you, because I was trying to gather my thoughts for my few remarks.

The importance of Bill 85 is not in the detail; it's in the principle. I would suggest to anybody who has problems with it as it is written, let's iron out the details in committee. But I think the principle of the bill is what is most important.

Since most of the ideas that I was going to say have been stated, I want to concentrate on another aspect of this bill, and that is that this bill may be the first step in changing our mindbent or our mindset about criminals, about the justice system, about the rights of criminals and the rights of victims and the family. That may be the biggest contribution that this bill will have both to this province and to this country.

I think maybe we should start thinking of balancing rights with responsibilities. You know, this bill is very timely because I just went through today's daily papers, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Sun, which are the only ones I've got, and I was reading about the case of the father who went to protect his son when he found out that his son had been molested.

The most disturbing aspect of this case was when I read about the position of the crown attorney. The crown attorney in this case asked that the father, who was defending his son who had been sexually molested, get the same sentence that the offender had received, and that I find unconscionable. The further disturbing fact about this case is that the father, who was doing his duty in protecting his family, is sentenced to get counselling and is forced to pay for his incarceration while the offender gets it at taxpayers' expense.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to my colleague the member for Burlington South. For many years he has devoted much time and a tremendous amount of effort on behalf of the victims of crime. He introduced the private member's Bill 19,

An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime, and now we have here today private member's Bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime. He is to be congratulated for his dedicated efforts to help the individuals who have been impacted by tremendous changes in their lives.

As he has indicated, this bill does change, fortunately, the emphasis on crime in this province. It is time to start to focus on the rights of the victims of crime, victims who for so long have been totally ignored by the justice system. This bill would ensure that criminals do not profit or become millionaires through the sale of their recollections or for interviews or public appearances, but instead that the money would be paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and that that money would be used to assist the victims of crime.

As you know, there has been widespread and very strong community support for this legislation. Indeed, we have introduced petitions this week with thousands and thousands of signatures indicating support. Our PC caucus has a task force and we are hearing from people across this province that it is time to focus on the rights of the victims of crime.

I would encourage the government to support this legislation. I would say to those of you who have indicated this morning that you are not going to do so, your concerns can be addressed. I would remind you that if you take a look at the employment equity legislation, it is in conflict with the human rights legislation and you were able to get around that. I would remind you that this is not about censorship but it is about profiting from crime. If this government is truly committed to the principle of this bill, then all of your concerns can be dealt with.

It is time to remember that horrible crimes are being committed in this province. It is totally unacceptable to continue to celebrate and allow individuals to profit from such brutality. Yet, in the aftermath of these tragedies, at the present time we have one of the most horrific stories of criminal victimization of our time taking place and about to take place.

We know that murderers are going to become millionaires, many times over perhaps, through the sale of their recollections of their crimes. We cannot allow this to happen. We must listen to the citizens in Ontario who are asking us to lead, to pass legislation and to make laws that will protect the victims of crime.

I ask you today to support this legislation because this passage will represent an important turning point for the rights of the victims of crime in this province. I urge you to support its referral to the justice committee for public hearings, where your concerns can be dealt with and we can hear from the public. Please give the public an opportunity for input. We owe it to all the victims of crime and their families who have suffered so much.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to rise for approximately a minute to add my support to this important private member's bill, Bill 85. I want to congratulate the member for Burlington South for bringing this forward. This bill builds upon the work that he has done over the last number of years.

The former member for Wellington, Jack Johnson, also did a private member's resolution, I recall, back in about 1988, which identified the problem of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board not having the resources to in any way adequately redress the victims of crime. He called upon the Liberal government of the day to do something about it. Nothing was done.

It's important that we do not glorify these heinous crimes that have been committed over the last number of years. I must be critical of the news media and certain book publishers who have taken steps to in a way glorify these crimes. It's absolutely appalling that this is done. This bill in an important way -- any of that money that is generated will in fact go back to the victims. I think it's a very, very important step that's been taken by this House and I hope all members will support it. I urge them to do so.

Mr Jackson: First of all, let me say that yesterday I had the opportunity to spend two and a half hours with the Attorney General of this province while we were in committee together. We sat together and we had an opportunity to talk about this bill.

I shared with the minister the personal letters, the concerns expressed, the pain and the misunderstanding the victims in this province have about our criminal justice system. The minister told me that in today's vote this was private members' hour, that the private members in her caucus would decide and that Mr Winninger, the member for London South, would carry the government's arguments for or against this bill.

I wish to thank all those members who spoke positively, who spoke with hope and, most importantly, who spoke with understanding about what this bill will really do. But I must respond to the comments of the member for London South, who apparently is carrying the government's arguments today.

I must say that no jurisdiction on the face of the earth prides freedom of speech more than the United States. The Supreme Court in the United States has tested the Son of Sam legislation that has permeated into several jurisdictions. Our charter will uphold this legislation if we tie it to sentencing.

I implore you and your government to consider the phrase, are criminals truly going to pay their debt to society -- to pay their debt to society -- while they're sentenced, while they're found criminally at fault? That is our system of justice and somehow we have lost our understanding that they must pay their debt to society.

We in the Conservative Party have said we want that expanded so that our justice system understands that they pay their debt to those families and those persons they victimized. That is what's at the core of this.

The member talked about a book that was published by a criminal. The member should know that the proceeds of that book were dedicated to advancing the cause of victims' rights in this country. That is what this is about: taking those revenues that your minister says she doesn't have to help victims in this province.

We have an opportunity today, in a non-partisan way, to build on this bill. I'm asking that it be referred to the standing committee on social development, because quite frankly the standing committee on administration of justice is backed up with a lot of legislation, including Bill 79, which suspends the civil rights of some citizens in this province who are law-abiding.

I'm asking that this bill be referred to the social development committee, wherein it has time so that we can deal with it, to bring the victims' families into committee and to hear from them at first hand, that all of us can hear from them, that we can turn a page in our criminal justice system here in Ontario and make it more sensitive and more responsive and to allow the victims to have more standing in the process. We use the victims to catch criminals, but then we abandon them as soon as the justice system takes over.

I implore all members to support this bill. We have a great opportunity today to demonstrate that we remember those who died violently, unnecessarily and tragically and that we are listening to those families who remain today as their sole voice. I ask you to remember the words of Priscilla de Villiers two months ago in this building, because she warned all of us. She said, "Believe me, everyone is a potential victim in this province."

The Deputy Speaker: The time for private members' business has expired.

MINING INDUSTRY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 29 standing in the name of Mr Miclash. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Miclash has moved private member's resolution 24. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members, a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Miclash has moved private member's resolution number 24. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Curling, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, O'Connor, Rizzo, Sutherland, Wessenger, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 33; the nays are 29. I declare the motion carried.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES GAINS RÉALISÉS À LA SUITE D'UN ACTE CRIMINEL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 30 standing in the name of Mr Jackson. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Jackson has moved second reading of Bill 85,

An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip): Mr Speaker, the standing committee on administration of justice.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Request that it be referred to the standing committee on social development.

Mr David Winninger (London South): It should go to justice.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Justice has got more than it can handle.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): They've got all the other bills. Why not? One more won't hurt them.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, if this government's committed to referring it to the justice committee -- and it will die in the justice committee -- then we on this side of the House would be pleased to work on this bill in the justice committee. I support that motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Which committee?

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Social development.

Interjection: Justice.

Mr Murphy: Justice is full.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr Jackson, you mentioned the justice committee.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, I have to ask your guidance in this matter. Which referral motion are you accepting, that of the government, which you recognized before I was on my feet, or my motion to refer it to the social development committee?

The Deputy Speaker: Make your motion.

Mr Jackson: My motion is that it go to the social development committee, which has the time to deal with this bill and it can become a law in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the social development committee? All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing. Thank you. Please take your seats. A majority of the House being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill stands referred to the social development committee.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1214 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): The Liberal caucus would like to join the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies in recognition of this week as Canadian Foster Family Week.

The goals of the week are to pay tribute to the work of foster families and to draw public awareness to the continuing need for foster families that provide a caring and stable environment for children in need of temporary care.

In Ontario, the children's aid societies provide substitute care to more than 20,000 children throughout any one year. This is made possible by the contribution of nearly 5,000 foster families in Ontario.

In my own riding of Northumberland, we have approximately 45 foster families that provide a safe and caring home to children in need. This week, at the Northumberland Mall, as I'm sure is happening right across the province, an awareness campaign is taking place to tell everyone of the rewards of being a foster parent.

Unfortunately, the need for foster families continues to rise. There is a critical need for all of us to do what we can to maintain and enhance Ontario's invaluable foster care system. Children are our most valuable resource and we cannot do enough to ensure their safety.

Please join me in congratulating all CAS agencies and foster families throughout the province in the work they have done and do to help protect our children. We hope that your campaign to recruit more foster families is a successful one.

TAXATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): The increase in level of new taxes since the NDP socialist government gained power has been well documented. Most people are aware that taxes have been raised by $3 billion a year since 1990, or $663 for the average family. What many people do not know is that the government is taking far more than that from the people of this province, but it is doing it quietly through user fees, rather than through direct taxes.

The police village of Priceville, with a population of fewer than 200 people, is a friendly community which cares about its people and which is proud of its appearance.

Like all socially conscious areas, it declared itself a Neighbourhood Watch community, where families look out for each other and put up signs to that effect.

However, as it turns out, this NDP socialist government, through the Ministry of Transportation, saw an opportunity to make a little money from the people of Priceville and charged them $160 for the privilege of erecting the signs.

Now Priceville wants to place flower boxes on the bridge railings to beautify the village and once again the ministry has demanded another $160 as an encroachment fee.

When a government sinks as low as to tax Neighbourhood Watch signs and village flower boxes, I feel that it has lost any remaining shred of common decency and has shown the true depth of its desperation.

THE NORWESTER

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I rise today to tell the members of the Legislature about the new independent community newspaper called the Norwester. The Norwester is published monthly by the Norwester Community Newspaper of Downsview-Weston, a non-profit corporation. It has a circulation of 4,000.

This newspaper serves the northwest area of North York, an area bounded by Highway 401 to the south, Islington Avenue to the west, Steeles Avenue to the north and Keele Street to the east. This includes my riding of Yorkview.

The purpose of the newspaper is threefold: first, it is to be the voice of the people in our community; second, it is to be the impetus for the social change that is so drastically needed in some areas; and thirdly and finally, the newspaper is here to tell the real story of our community.

I rise today to honour the individuals who have taken the time out of their busy schedules to do this task. I'd like to honour at this point the board members: Mohammed Abid, Gilford Allen, Michele Campanaro, Darlene Clarke, Marie Cemy, Tom Kear as chair, Warren Lee as treasurer, Shirley Sankar, Brent Mackinnon as secretary, Ruth Morris, Peggy Gemmell and of course Dan Hoddinott.

I think it's also very important to tell the members of this Legislature that for this community, Yorkview, this community newspaper will prove to be very positive in not only the near future, but let me tell you that this for me is very important.

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Recently, I asked my staff to get detailed information on the government's much praised Jobs Ontario Community Action program. At the back of the government's fancy advertising brochure for this initiative, there's a 1-800 number to call for further information, just for the purpose that I asked my staff to use.

We called this number. Guess what they said? They said: "Sorry, but we can't help you. The ministry has never sent us any information. We are actually a small business hotline and the government just asked us whether they could use our number, but sorry, we can't help you."

What kind of help is this? You call the government's own 1-800 number and they don't have any information on a program that's supposed to bring back economic prosperity to Ontario.

I think this incident is symptomatic of the bureaucratic mess surrounding the Jobs Ontario initiative. There've been lots of fancy brochures and press releases. In fact, every Friday I get a ream, a stack of faxes on Jobs Ontario, but mostly it's just advertising and very few long-term jobs created.

No wonder the public has lost faith in the NDP government. How can the NDP government revitalize the economy if it can't even set up a 1-800 information line?

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): It is absolutely shocking and totally incomprehensible that the Minister of Transportation has decided not to take any action whatsoever to put median barriers, even temporary barriers, along the Conestoga Parkway in Kitchener-Waterloo until 1996. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Indeed, the minister has never even been courteous enough to respond to my letter of July 19 inviting him to see first hand why this issue is of such importance to the people who use this highway.

Since 1990, this stretch of road has claimed seven lives. Even though a coroner's inquest in 1991 into the death of Laurie Brain recommended that barriers be installed, even though thousands and thousands of people have signed petitions started by the friends of Ryan Short and Derek Fiddler urging the minister to install barriers before one more person dies, even though municipal councils and the Waterloo County Board of Education have asked for the reallocation of the money intended for sound barriers to the immediate installation of barriers, this minister has not listened and has said no.

He says it is because of a shortage of money, and yet he has found $800,000 per kilometre of funds to install sound barriers, the same cost as that for median barriers.

Minister, where are your priorities? How many more people will die before 1996? I urge you to reconsider and take action now.

CREDIT UNIONS

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Today is International Credit Union Day. The theme for today's celebrations is "The Power of Partnership." This is not just a slogan; it is an integral part of the credit union movement. By combining the resources and efforts of millions of people, credit unions help people work together to help each other.

Credit unions have earned their importance by providing the services its members need. Traditionally, they have kept flexible hours and serviced the small communities and remote areas where other institutions were unable or unwilling to meet the needs of the community.

Today, more than 42,000 institutions in 87 countries have a total membership of 89 million and assets of almost $500 billion. It is the largest self-help movement on earth. We can all be proud of the innovations introduced by Canadian credit unions: automatic banking machines, daily interest savings accounts, and of course weekly and biweekly mortgage repayment schedules.

The credit union movement has shown the remarkable potential of people working together in partnership, and I commend them on this today.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the House this morning, something happened that ordinarily doesn't happen, and that is that a piece of legislation proposed for the House has in fact received what was apparently unanimous consent of the House, hearing no words of dissent when the vote was taken.

Members expressed their revulsion at the thought that perpetrators of crime could profit, for instance, from selling their stories to the news media or in other places. The families and supporters of the victims of crime were present in our gallery today to view the debate, to listen to the various arguments put forward and to form an evaluation of this process in their own minds.

If our Legislature is truly to respond to what the average person is saying in this province, we will move forward with this bill. It is easy to give consent in private members' hour. It is easy to give consent to have the bill go to the social development committee.

I urge the government to move further, to ensure that this bill passes with any necessary modifications, and I urge the government to once again look at initiating legislation within the purview of the provincial Legislature to stop the collector cards which feature criminals from entering and being sold in this province. We have the opportunity. Let's move now.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEARNING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement is directed to the Minister of Education and Training. On Monday and Tuesday, October 18 and 19, I attended the Royal Commission on Learning public hearings in London. Since the commission was announced on May 4, I have heard many complaints from my constituents on the inefficiencies of this commission and I'd like to bring them to the attention of the minister.

Those who had requested to make a presentation in London were not notified of their time slot until a few days before, making it more difficult for them to rearrange their schedules. I requested an agenda for the two days so that I would know which of my constituents and which education organizations would be making a submission. My constituency office did not receive the agenda until Monday morning at 10 am, three hours before the hearings were to begin. Most presenters were only allowed 10 minutes -- totally unacceptable if people are really interested in listening.

We had numerous complaints about the behaviour of one of the commissioners and his questioning. According to many presenters, he was unprofessional and disrespectful during his questioning.

In London, the panel was divided into two panels consisting of only two commissioners. Presenters worked very hard to put together their best advice, their real concerns and their desire to be helpful on issues that are of real importance in education. Their presentations were worthy of the time, interest and questions of all commissioners.

We have had five major studies in education since 1986, with 44 councils in the Education and Training ministry alone. The Royal Commission on Learning will cost taxpayers $3 million and will not report until December 1994, just in time for the next provincial election. What a waste of time and money.

LANDFILL

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have recently received several letters from the 10th Dundas Guiding Unit at Knox Presbyterian Church in Dundas. These guiders are working on their second-year "My Community Challenge" badge, and part of that challenge is to write a letter about an important community issue to people they feel can help. They decided to write to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Environment and Energy, and myself as their local MPP about a proposed 200-acre megadump in our community.

Assistant guide leader Allyson Wenzowski, the guiders from 10th Dundas and thousands of area residents are genuinely concerned about the devastating effect this megadump could have on our community.

Ten-year-old guider Jennifer Harmer wrote: "The junk will soak through the land.... It will be in our drinking water and we'll get sick." Jennifer's colleague Anne Michelle Skinner wrote, "I don't want to live in a place where the ground has been contaminated and has ruined a place where it was really beautiful." Elizabeth Young: "If this happens, Dundas, the beautiful valley will be destroyed." Amanda Cain: "Please don't destroy our land.

The drinking water will make people very sick." Julia March, "I just don't want people to get sick." Candace Pellerin and Emma Doyle fear the toxic leachate will "poison the water," and I believe them to be correct. Finally, Jennifer Young wrote, "If a 10-year-old cares this much about the issue, imagine how much grown-ups care."

These young hearts are reaching out to us because they feel we can help. As Nicole Butler wrote in her letter: "Please save our town. We are desperate." I want to make it clear to everyone in this Legislature that Nicole Butler is absolutely correct. Thousands of people in Wentworth North are frightened and desperate.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last Monday, the Minister of Health told the media that she had authorized the recruitment of cancer speciali