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

September 30, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LABORATORY SERVICES

SENIOR CITIZENS

TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS / TRADUCTEURS ET INTERPRÈTES

EARTHQUAKE IN INDIA

CORMORANT POPULATION

CELSO BARICHELLO

MINOR HOCKEY

FERRY SERVICE FEES

BALLS FALLS THANKSGIVING EVENTS

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

CASINO GAMBLING

TAX REVENUES

INMATES' ALLOWANCES

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

RETAIL SALES TAX

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CASINO GAMBLING

RETAIL SALES TAX

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

CASINO GAMBLING

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

CASINO GAMBLING

FERRY SERVICE FEES

CASINO GAMBLING

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

CORRECTIONS

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABORATORY SERVICES

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This NDP government does not seem to understand the importance and the role of the private sector in Ontario's economy.

Only with the private sector and public sector working together can the province of Ontario be assured of the best delivery of health and social services.

At this time, the NDP government is trying to shut the private sector out of laboratory services. The NDP believe that the public sector is the only sector that should be providing lab services in the province of Ontario. What they fail to recognize is the importance of the private laboratories.

Private sector laboratories complement the work of the public sector. By servicing different patient populations, all patients' needs are thus met. Private sector laboratories are highly efficient in the services that they provide.

The industry is vital for economic development of the province. They employ over 7,000 highly skilled workers providing a large contribution to the tax base in Ontario. The profits they generate are reinvested into this province.

Private labs in Ontario spend a great deal of money on research and development, and this research has created technology that is being exported internationally.

By eliminating private laboratories the government of Ontario will be crippling the development of lab services in Ontario.

This NDP government and Bob Rae should realize the importance of private sector companies fulfilling their role in our economy. Every effort should be made to create an environment where public and private sectors are able to operate in the same industry to provide the people of Ontario with the best services available.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The United Nations General Assembly has designated October 1 as International Day for the Elderly, which will be observed tomorrow throughout the world.

Today we join in paying tribute to the many contributions of the elderly to our society. We may also reflect on how the needs of Ontario seniors are being met by the NDP. Without warning the NDP recently delisted 134 slow-release drugs, many of which are required by seniors who suffer from a variety of ailments including angina and high blood pressure. The NDP imposed a limit on the air some seniors breathe by capping their monthly oxygen bills at $475 while limiting their mobility by altering the way in which they now receive oxygen.

A new user fee for long-term care in residential facilities came into abrupt effect in July and can be as high as up to 372 additional dollars per month imposed on seniors whose budgets are already overburdened.

The NDP has also switched to multiple-year drivers' licences which require seniors to pay up to six years' fees at once, even though they may not be able to drive for six more years; this, on top of last year's NDP reduction of the seniors' tax grant, probate fee increases and restriction of OHIP coverages for seniors who travel.

On International Day for the Elderly, the minister responsible for seniors' issues did not even stand in the House to make a formal ministerial statement. Why? Because Elaine Ziemba has nothing to tell seniors and nothing to offer them. This NDP no-hope message will not be lost on seniors in this election federally or the next provincial election.

TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS / TRADUCTEURS ET INTERPRÈTES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm pleased to rise today to recognize St Jerome's Day. Named after the patron saint of translators, September 30 has been declared National and International Translation Day by the Canadian Translators and Interpreters Council and the International Federation of Translators.

Here in our province, the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario, or ATIO, has been undertaking the valuable work of translation and interpreting since 1921. This organization, which presently has about 1,000 members, is the oldest translators' association in Canada and the first in the world to obtain legal status for its members, in 1989. The ATIO is able to provide translation and interpreting services in 46 languages.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of the members of the ATIO, some of whom are here today with us in the members' as well as the public galleries. The work these men and women undertake in the public and private sectors is invaluable.

Specifically, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Ms Edna Hussman, vice-president of the ATIO, Ms Magda Match, the director of ATIO's professional standards committee, and Mr Gérard Fortier, member of the ATIO's public relations committee.

Puisqu'un nombre croissant d'immigrants et d'immigrantes venus des quatre coins du monde s'établissent en Ontario et que tout comme les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, ils établissent leurs propres institutions sociales et culturelles, la capacité de communiquer dans de nombreuses langues, tout en respectant le bagage culturel spécifique de chaque personne, représente un facteur essentiel dans les efforts pour atteindre l'harmonie et le développement sociaux dans notre province.

What would our lives be without the benefit of translation and interpreting? This is something we should reflect on as we celebrate St Jerome's Day.

EARTHQUAKE IN INDIA

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I woke up this morning to the jarring news of the devastation caused by the earthquake in India. The first reports, as we all heard, were sketchy, but painted a picture of widespread destruction, injury and loss of life. It now appears that over 6,000 people are dead and several times that number are injured.

For us, it would be like the entire town of Hawkesbury or Leamington or St Marys or Hanover being completely wiped out. I, I'm sure along with many members of the House, have many close friends who have come to Canada from India. I think there's a close relationship between Canada and India and somehow that makes this event all the more tragic for us.

I know I speak on behalf of all the members of the Legislature in expressing to the government of India, the people of India, and particularly the people in that area that has been devastated by this earthquake that I hope the rescue operations proceed well, with good world support. I hope that the rebuilding activity proceeds well, again with the support of the world community. I hope particularly that the people of Ontario will again demonstrate their generosity in assisting in that rebuilding.

CORMORANT POPULATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The fish stocks of Georgian Bay are being depleted due to a significant increase in the population of cormorants, or birds referred to locally as crow-ducks.

According to anglers from Sans Souci on Georgian Bay, the population explosion of cormorants over the past two years has led to a substantial decrease in the number of perch, bass and bait fish in Georgian Bay.

Henry LePage, a commercial fisherman and restaurateur, has told me that these birds have become a menace that is killing his business. In 1991, Mr LePage caught hundreds of pounds of perch per day to provide the most popular dish in his restaurant. In the summer of 1993, his harvest was down to less than 100 pounds a day. By mid-August of this year, Mr LePage was no longer able to serve perch at his restaurant because the cormorant had wiped them out.

Local anglers and cottagers also report that the cormorant are destroying bass stocks and devastating the fishing industry. Furthermore, the cormorant is said to be feeding heavily on bait fish, which are needed to maintain the pike and muskie populations.

Given the reports we have heard from both commercial and sport anglers in Georgian Bay, it appears as though this bird is causing a major imbalance in the ecosystem. So I ask the Minister of Natural Resources to take immediate action by investigating this matter and restoring the ecological balance of Georgian Bay.

CELSO BARICHELLO

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'd like to cite bravery and humanity shown by a friend and constituent and highlight his tenacity and a sheer love of life. I introduce to this Legislature Celso Barichello, husband, father, former truck driver and church usher, who heeded a call on a Windsor city street that many would have avoided.

Amidst the wailing sirens of Windsor fire trucks, heavy vehicle traffic and many people, a caring citizen was getting involved. Celso was ready and willing to provide leadership and sound judgement and set his sights on helping direct traffic as well as pedestrians. In a split second, he was struck by a vehicle and was sent hurling through the air.

Celso spent the next 18 months in Hotel Dieu Hospital with a prognosis that was not promising. During his stay, he captured the hearts of doctors and nurses. They became affectionately attached to a man they would not soon forget.

This past weekend, his family celebrated his birthday, his coming home and his lust for life. My wife, Maria, and I spent time with him this weekend recalling former names of his coworkers with his spelling board.

Celso is paralysed from the neck down and requires round-the-clock supervision. He cannot speak, his heart is strong and he's able to listen and smile, which has become his trademark. I know that he's watching now.

Celso Barichello's life continues. On behalf of his co-workers, from the church parishioners at St Angela Merici Church on Erie Street whom he served so well for so many years, I say, from my family to yours: Good luck, best wishes and keep smiling.

MINOR HOCKEY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I draw once again to the attention of the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation the problem that exists in minor hockey today. We received a letter, as members of the Legislature, informing us of the actions of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association against the players of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association:

"...This action of depriving the OMHA players access to federally funded material for development shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the CAHA...."

The letter goes on to say:

"I would like, today, to bring your attention to another very serious situation imposed on the OMHA players. The CAHA has notified other hockey bodies in Ontario, Canada, USA and Europe that we are no longer affiliated with them (they ejected us from the CAHA), thereby stopping any games they would have played with OMHA teams. By doing this they are denying the youth of the OMHA the right to participate in tournaments and international play. The OMHA has taken

part in these activities for nearly 60 years. I feel the OMHA players are being discriminated against by the CAHA.

"The most serious ramification of this action will be felt in the province of Ontario. Blacklisting the OMHA centres and players will cause a serious economic impact in Ontario. It stops all outside teams from participating in tournaments held by the OMHA....We need your assistance to convince the CAHA to lift the ban on all OMHA players and allow them to continue playing as they have in the past."

I call upon the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to take the appropriate action to bring the two sides together to solve this problem for young people in our province.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I rise today to join residents of eastern Ontario and members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in condemning the NDP government's latest tax grab proposal for the Wolfe Island and Glenora ferries.

It is clear by now that a tax grab is more important to this government than the economies and the residents of Prince Edward county and of Wolfe Island.

It is also clear that a tax grab is more important to this government than an agreement from the Department of Highways back in 1964 to provide ferry service to Wolfe Island free of charge.

It's clear that a tax grab even takes precedence over an economic impact study for the areas affected.

The NDP has failed to consider the impact on tourism. The NDP has failed to consider the impact on agriculture. What will happen to the dairy operations on Wolfe Island, pick-your-own farms in Prince Edward? Has the Minister of Finance even tried to find out?

The NDP has failed to consider the impact on working residents and retirees. The NDP fees work out to a tax of over $800 a year on residents for the sin of having a job in Bob Rae's Ontario. The NDP gives Prince Edward county residents the option of a 70-kilometre detour to get to work in the Kingston area, no doubt providing great joy to the NDP over the extra gas tax revenues.

The NDP expects to extract from Wolfe Island ferry fees almost an equal amount to the entire tax base of Wolfe Island, an absolutely disgusting tax grab.

BALLS FALLS THANKSGIVING EVENTS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to tell the House about an event that will draw more than 25,000 people to my riding next weekend, the 19th Annual Balls Falls Thanksgiving Festival Craft Show and Sale. Sponsored by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, the Balls Falls craft festival has become one of the Niagara region's most popular fall attractions. In fact, it expanded over the years from a two-day to a four-day event.

The festival features high-quality crafts set amidst the beautiful autumn scenery of Balls Falls Historical Park and Conservation Area in the town of Lincoln. More than 100 artisans have been selected from Ontario and outside the province to sell their wares. Also featured will be historical displays and demonstrations, live entertainment, festive foods and refreshments and children's wood-carving workshops. I'm sure this year's festival will bring together the entire community of Lincoln and it will attract visitors from other parts of the Niagara Peninsula, Metropolitan Toronto and the United States.

I would like to congratulate the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, especially festival convener Christine Hayward, for organizing an event that is ranked among the top five craft shows in Ontario. I urge members of this House and their constituents to come down to Lincoln next weekend and join the wonderful outdoor craft festival.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to take this opportunity to update the members of the House on the beer trade issues.

You may have read last month that Canada and the United States resolved their long-standing beer war. On August 5, Canada and the US reached a fair commercial agreement which benefits our domestic brewing industry, its labour force and Ontario consumers. It preserved the government's key principles in beer pricing and distribution. It also maintained employment and investment in the province as well as our right to determine social policies.

As an integral part of this agreement, Ontario maintained its minimum pricing policy in support of the government's commitment to responsible use of alcohol. Based on alcohol content, we established three levels of minimum price so that higher alcohol content beers have a correspondingly higher retail price.

Moreover, our position from the outset was that the environmental levy was not negotiable. It has been maintained. The levy is an important environmental measure and was never imposed as a trade barrier. It is an incentive to manufacturers and consumers to favour refillable containers over recyclable ones and supports our commitment to the 3R hierarchy.

When we put all this together, the bottom line is lower prices and wider product choice for consumers in Ontario. Foreign beer has complete access to our beer retail networks and is now available in beer stores.

As soon as the bilateral agreement was reached, the United States removed the $3-per-case duty imposed, without GATT sanction, on beer brewed or bottled in Ontario. Likewise, Canada removed the equivalent tariff imposed against Stroh and Heileman beer imported into Ontario.

This agreement does not only apply to the United States. Effective today, Ontario is extending the provisions of the bilateral agreement to our other international trading partners, including the European Community. I'm therefore pleased to announce that Ontario has now fulfilled all of our international trade obligations on beer. These stem from the 1991 GATT panel report on provincial beer marketing practices initiated by the United States.

Just as we are fulfilling our obligations under GATT by giving American brewers equal and fair access to our market, we expect the US to fulfil its own GATT obligations and remove the federal and state practices that discriminate against our brewers.

I'd also like to update you on another important aspect of our beer trade, namely, trade with other provinces. Last year, Ontario removed its interprovincial trade barriers on beer by allowing out-of-province beer to be sold in our beer stores. This was done in the context of the intergovernmental agreement signed with other provinces.

As of today, we are improving out-of-province brewers' access to our market. Brewers from other provinces will be given exactly the same treatment as foreign brewers. Thus, all Canadian brewers will benefit from the Canada-US agreement. We have established a level playing field for all brewers wishing to sell in Ontario. We are providing them with fair and open treatment.

Finally, on behalf of the government, I would like to thank all of those who have contributed to Ontario's fulfilment of these obligations. We worked in partnership with the Ontario brewing industry, brewery and LCBO unions, our federal counterparts, my colleagues and their staff in the ministries of Economic Development and Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Environment and Energy, and Finance. Last but not least, I'd like to thank the environmental groups which aided us as well. In particular, I would like to extend my special thanks to the LCBO and my staff in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Ontario committed to meeting a September 30 deadline for the removal of beer trade barriers. We have now achieved those goals.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I want to start off by saying that I would like to stand in my place and congratulate the minister wholeheartedly for her work on this deal. But the problem is that the problems that have been solved or resolved were created in the first place by the lack of action on the part of the minister and this government. We would never be in this predicament had the government not taken us into this hole. Quite frankly, my congratulatory remarks have to deal with the fact that she got out of her own mess; it was self-imposed.

This minister has a lot of other important business to take care of. When I read in the press that she's getting involved in the bidding process for the casino selection, and there are now four possible bidders on this, it seems to me that she should spend her time more valuably doing other things, like looking after consumer protection legislation, which is somewhere there in the bowels of the government.

There seems to be no interest on the part of the government to deal with the private bill that I brought forward. This certainly would help consumers across the province, and yet there's no indication from this minister or from this government that they intend to do anything about consumer protection.

I have to remind the minister that one of the most important roles she fulfils is consumer protection. The piece of legislation that I proposed, that our government had been drafting when we were in government, in those days, is a workable document which I understand this government has no intention of bringing forward, because you want to propose your own legislation.

That's fine, but why haven't we seen any indication of consumer protection measures, some initiative on the part of this government and this minister to indicate to the public that it is a priority of this government? Obviously, it's not. What they're more interested in is casino gambling and imposing an unofficial tax, in the form of casino gambling, on those who can least afford to pay.

I would say to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): So paternalistic.

Mr Cordiano: Well, yes, it is; it's a grab by the Treasurer. He's lusting after those dollars in those casinos. He can't wait to get his hands on them. I've got to say to the Treasurer, you're going to have to wait a little while, but I would say as well, don't get your nose out of joint getting involved in the bidding process, because that is leading to unintended consequences. You're going to hear more about that this afternoon, as I'm sure you're aware.

Quite frankly, it is unacceptable that this government interferes with the bidding process that is now under way. I think that is unacceptable to both us and the public at large. I would say to the minister, you're not pursuing an aboveboard kind of approach to the bidding process. There are problems with it. People are hinting at it. You have to clear the decks with respect to the bidding process.

I would say to the minister, get on with it and not only give the appearance that there's no interference, but have no interference in this process, because quite frankly there are questions circling around in the bowels of the ministry and elsewhere. Rumours are floating madly around this place, and around other places as well, Windsor and other communities, that this government process is one that is unfair and is biased.

Getting back to the other measures, the minister also has another job to do with the registrar general. Get your act going on that one because, and I think all other members would speak to this and confirm what I'm saying, there are still a lot of problems associated with the registrar general. You're not doing what has to be done there properly. The time lines are still quite long for registration of births and registration of deaths. The process there is still at question. The public accounts committee commented on this. There are still problems associated with getting a birth certificate on time. The time it takes is far too long.

I think this minister has to own up to those things. She has to realize that those are priorities in her ministry. The beer dispute settlement is one thing, but it doesn't speak to other responsibilities she has.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'd just like to respond very briefly to the minister and make two very brief points. The first one is that when she goes on at length congratulating herself and patting her government on the back about an environmental levy that was not negotiable, let's be abundantly clear that this is no more an environmental levy than I am. This is a tax and it was meant as a trade barrier. It wasn't put on soft drink cans; it was only put on beer cans, 90% of which are returned anyway. That is a bunch of gobbledegook and the minister knows it. A tax is a tax is a tax.

The other point I'd like to make is that it's a sad day when another province in this country can only get equal treatment because the government is embarrassed into giving them it treatment because it made a deal with the US. Hence, you have to extend the same courtesies to your sister provinces, as you should have been doing all along anyway. It would be very embarrassing if US beer companies got better treatment than other provincial beer companies. Wouldn't that be terrible.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for the provincial revenues. The Finance minister will recall the discussion he and I had on the last day of the summer session -- I think it was August 3 -- when I was raising with him concerns around the impact of illegal cigarettes coming into the province and that impact on provincial revenues.

Minister of Finance, I have in my hand, as it happens, a smuggled carton of cigarettes, and I want, in a very serious way, to ask the Minister of Finance --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Conway: My colleague the member for Cornwall has been drawing to the attention of this House what's been going on at smugglers' alley in the Cornwall area.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Yes, we watched W5.

Mr Conway: The member says that we have been watching national news programs on the same subject.

Is the Minister of Finance for Ontario aware of the fact that police indicate that 50,000 cartons of these cigarettes are coming through smugglers' alley at Cornwall on a daily basis? I repeat: Police reports indicate and police evidence suggests that 50,000 cartons of these illegal cigarettes are coming through smugglers' alley in the Cornwall area on a daily basis, and the cost to the provincial treasury in Ontario of that one daily run is $650,000. Is the Minister of Finance for Ontario aware of those data?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Now he is.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yes, I am now. Actually there's been a lot of work and a lot of studies done on the degree of smuggling, and they certainly bother me as much as they bother the member for Renfrew North, perhaps even more.

I was checking the amount of smuggling that people speculate is going on, not just in Ontario but all across the rest of the country, and it really has grown dramatically in the last few years. We could get into a debate as to why it's grown so much, but I think the fact remains that it is a very substantial amount of money that the Ontario treasury is losing on an annual basis from the smuggling.

That's one reason why the Solicitor General has taken the lead on the enforcement side to work with the federal government, which I gather has acknowledged the fact that it has the lead responsibility. I'm not passing the buck here, because we have a lot at stake in making sure that we do what we can to stop this smuggling. The violent side of it is, of course, terribly serious, but also the revenue lost to the province and the institutionalization of smuggling, which bothers me a great deal as well.

Mr Conway: My friend from Cornwall has pointed out repeatedly and very seriously the concerns around public safety and law enforcement, and I support him, as I know all members do, in those first-order concerns. But there are as well revenue issues, and that's why I ask the Minister of Finance today. In his budget tabled in this House on May 19, he specifically indicated that a number of measures, additional to what had been in place, were going to be undertaken by his government.

I ask him in supplementary terms, in light of the fact that at Cornwall, in that one smuggler's alley alone, we are losing as a province $650,000 a day in lost tobacco tax revenue, what measures has the minister of revenue and finance taken since the budget was introduced in May and since we last discussed this matter on August 3 to make sure that the very considerable revenue loss is being addressed?

Hon Mr Laughren: This is a matter on which I don't think the member for Renfrew North and I would have any disagreement whatsoever, but he asked the specific question of what the government's done. We have put in place the hiring of -- the exact number escapes me but I think about 70 extra auditors to help us in this regard.

Now, the auditing part deals with the end result of the smuggling; it doesn't get at the root cause of the smuggling which is occurring, for example, in the Cornwall area, and that's where the Solicitor General comes in. We're doing the best we can in increasing the number of audits that are done at the retail level and making sure that there are charges laid. As the member knows, I think, we are increasing the penalties for smuggling and the sale of illegal cigarettes. That's the one side, the auditing, the prosecution, investigation and so forth, and the other side is the enforcement, which is in the hands of the Solicitor General.

In the end, the solution has to come from the federal government and the provinces working together, because we have Quebec on our border; we have the federal jurisdiction over trade and over borders and over a great deal of the rules that apply to native reserves, for example. In the end, it's got to be a collaborative approach between the provinces and the federal government, because this is not a problem unique to Ontario.

That doesn't minimize the significance to Ontario or devalue the amount of dollars that the member for Renfrew North refers to in smuggling, and I couldn't agree with him more.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: We are doing what we can on both the auditing, enforcement and laying of charges side and the law enforcement side as well.

Mr Conway: As we talk in this Legislature, the taxpayers of this province lose thousands of dollars. By my calculation, at smuggler's alley in Cornwall, now probably the most notorious smugglers' alley in the country, the province of Ontario is losing about $650,000 a day, or about $220 million a year.

My question to the Minister of Finance is, what can he tell us today about how successful his additional enforcement measures were? When I last looked at the data, for example, the charges laid this year as compared to last year had hardly moved at all, and they were minimal.

People in that part of southeastern Ontario find it incredible, absolutely incredible, that after dark, as activity goes into overdrive on smugglers' alley, the Ontario Provincial Police detachment at Lancaster shuts down. That is a farce.

Will the Minister of Finance indicate what specific additional enforcement measures he is prepared to take to ensure that this laughable, farcical, dangerous and very costly activity around smugglers' alley in Cornwall is stopped?

Hon Mr Laughren: I could have made the same speech that the member for Renfrew North just did, because the enormity of the problem --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Not nearly as well.

Hon Mr Laughren: Not nearly as eloquently; yes, that's right. The enormity of the problem is not difficult to list and to identify. What is much more difficult is to come to a solution, and the solution isn't simply to open up an OPP detachment. It's much more profound than that.

At this point in time, neither the federal government nor any other province has been able to resolve this problem. I am hopeful that as the problem has become so serious and as the various levels of government are working in concert, we will come up with a strategy very shortly that would help us deal with this problem, because I agree with the member for Renfrew North that it's a serious problem and we've simply got to deal with it. It's not just on the revenue side, as he indicates, but also on the law enforcement and public safety side. We are determined, but we can't do it alone.

I think the member for Renfrew North would appreciate that. We cannot resolve it alone, and that's why we're working with the other levels of government.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr Conway: New question, same subject. I understand you can't do it alone, but surely you understand the farcical nature of a situation where you, as a provincial government charged with the responsibility of provincial policing, allow a situation at Lancaster where between 3 am and 7 am, in peak smuggling hours, on a daily basis you send the cops home and shut the detachment down. That's the stuff of a Monty Python movie, and it's costing the province millions and millions and millions of dollars.

Surely, Mr Minister of Finance, we can do that much: We, as the provincial government in charge of the provincial police, can provide enough resources to the minister responsible for the police to ensure that OPP detachments in those kinds of areas, like Cornwall, Ancaster, Charlottenburgh, are not going to be put in the ridiculous situation of having to shut down at night while on a daily basis you lose $650,000 worth of revenue on the tobacco tax side alone. Would you not agree?

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, in view of the rather specific reference to law enforcement, I'll refer that question to the Solicitor General.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I'm pleased to answer the question from the honourable member. Indeed, as I mentioned in earlier responses on this same subject, I have been in discussion with the OPP commissioner and expressed to him that, coming out of my meeting with the community, they specifically would like to see action on the Lancaster detachment hours of operation. I'm pleased today to advise the honourable member that indeed the OPP commissioner has taken the decision that the detachment will be open on a 24-hour-a-day basis.

Mr Conway: I appreciate that. I'm going to pursue supplementary questions that properly belong to the Minister of Finance in the same area, but I do appreciate the last response from the minister responsible for the police, because it is helpful.

I want to, on this smuggling question, turn the attention to another area, because while millions of dollars go up in smoke because of illegal activity on the tobacco side, we are now seeing millions of tax dollars going down the drain and the gullet because the smuggling is quickly moving into the liquor trade. I want to say that the illegal tobacco smugglers opened the highway, and now the traffic is increasing and we're getting more and more indication that the liquor business is increasingly involved.

To the Minister of Finance, is the Minister of Finance aware that according to the latest data from the Association of Canadian Distillers, over two million cases of spirits are now illegally coming into the province of Ontario and that this is costing the provincial treasury a loss of about $240 million annually?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, I believe the member understands that the person who answers the original question must continue to answer the supplementary questions, so although he would prefer that it be responded to by the Minister of Finance, I will answer the question and advise that in my meeting with the federal minister --

Mr Stockwell: Unanimous consent to pass it back.

The Speaker: Just to clarify, yes indeed, when an original question is referred to another minister, the minister can respond. The minister is not prevented, on the supplementary question, of referring it back to the original person to whom it was directed. If that's of any assistance to both sides of the House, the minister may in fact wish to refer the question back to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm seeing from the honourable member who asked the question that he would prefer that it be returned back to the Minister of Finance, and I'm sure that as it's his area of expertise he'll be pleased to take the supplementary.

Hon Mr Laughren: If it requires unanimous consent, you won't get it, Mr Speaker.

The member for Renfrew North is adding on to his tobacco smuggling question the whole issue of alcohol. I assume he's making a link between the tobacco smuggling and alcohol smuggling. That was what I was referring to in my earlier response to him when I said that I was worried about the institutionalization of smuggling, which is, I believe, one reason it has increased so substantially, so I have nothing more to add to what I've said to the member already, other than the fact that we're aware of the problem and in the end I really believe that a couple of things will help us resolve it -- well, several things.

One is more auditing; second, stricter enforcement and tougher laws that deal with smuggling; third, and I appreciate the fact that this is completely out of our hands, the possibility that the United States may very well increase substantially its taxes, particularly on cigarettes, which I believe would act at least partially as a disincentive to smuggling.

Having said that, I don't want to leave the impression with anyone that we are therefore waiting for that to happen. That's simply not the case. We are moving as vigorously as we can to put a lid on and stamp out the smuggling.

Mr Conway: I think it is well-known to all honourable members that the public finances of the province are haemorrhaging. The government is facing more serious budgetary circumstances with every passing day. We heard just a few days ago that revenues are expected to be down over projections by anywhere between $600 million and $900 million. My guess is that before the fiscal year is out, it'll be probably at or above $1 billion.

When I look at these two accounts, our provincial tobacco tax revenues are going to be down in the Cornwall area, apparently, by over $200 million, if we are to credit police statistics; and if we take the data from the Association of Canadian Distillers, the treasury of Ontario this year will lose at least a quarter of a billion dollars in lost revenues because of smuggled booze.

This is quickly becoming a challenge to the legitimacy of the government, and as we in my part of the province tax farmers and individuals and businesses on Wolfe Island, do you know that those smugglers are going to rob you of more revenue in Cornwall in one night than you will raise in a whole year with the taxes on the Wolfe Island ferry?

I ask the Treasurer, as the Minister of Finance, will he not undertake a more rigorous and serious reaction to this crisis in confidence and this frontal attack on his revenues, which are having a very real and negative impact on the public finances of the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: Of course we will, but I would just remind members and the rest of Ontario that the member's rhetoric exceeds by a great amount his solutions, because this is not an easy problem to resolve. If it was, we would resolve it, as would the federal government, as would the province of Quebec. The point is that this is a very complex set of issues and the federal government and the province of Ontario and in particular the province of Quebec are working together to try to resolve this very difficult issue, but simply yelling about it won't solve the problem. We've got to work together with other jurisdictions to see what we can do to resolve it.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, when you were asked about the style of casino that the province wanted to establish in Windsor by the member for Welland-Thorold on June 29, 1992, you said, "We know we don't want the Las Vegas style here." That's your quote. The city of Windsor has also made it very clear from the outset that it didn't want the Las Vegas style here. Why are the final four proponents for the casino all large Las Vegas-style casino operators?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The first thing I'd like to put in perspective on this question and any other questions related to that kind of issue is that I was absolutely determined and this government was absolutely determined from the beginning to put in place a fair and impartial and non-political process for the selection of the casino. That has been put in place and there has been absolutely no political interference.

All I can tell you is that the selection committee put in place a very rigorous and very tight set of criteria and the final selection for the short list was based on a whole series of steps that they went through. They met with the proponents; they studied the proposals from the proponents; they talked to a variety of experts; and they used the criteria which were set up by this government and by themselves to select the final short list, and that was their prerogative to do.

Mr Eves: Minister, I think the reason that there are only four Las Vegas operators on the list is quite obvious. If you read the

article in the Windsor Star today, and if you read from a memo that was provided to me:

"I am a career public servant who's been involved in the review process for bids received under the RFP. I am upset with the bias shown in the selection process towards the big, US, Las Vegas and Atlantic City operators.

"The decision was made to exclude all but the big operators from the 'final' short list because the government was (

a) afraid they wouldn't bid again, thereby making future bidding for the Ontario casinos 'less competitive,' and (b) (as you will see in the attached) that it would undermine the credibility of the selection process."

In fact, when you look through the minutes of your selection committee dated July 20 this year, that is exactly what it says. "If well-known companies are eliminated in stage 1, this could damage the committee's reputation."

Isn't it true that that was the basis upon which your selection committee made its decision, not on the basis of what was the best bid? Why did you encourage all these other proponents to submit bids when you had made up your mind, or your committee had made up its mind, from the start that all you wanted was large US Las Vegas-style casino operators? Those are the only ones you ever had any intention of entertaining from day 1, and why weren't you just upfront and honest about that?

Hon Ms Churley: I certainly hope the honourable member is not questioning the integrity of the deputy ministers who were picked to sit on the selection committee. I certainly hope he isn't doing that. Having said that, I want to tell the honourable member that the minutes to which he is referring, which were leaked to the press, had nothing whatsoever to do with the selection process. Early on in the process, before the members of the selection committee ever got together to begin that process, they sat down and literally talked with dozens of experts from the casino industry. It was their duty to do so.

They heard good information; they heard bad information; they heard all kinds of information. These minutes are from a meeting which took place with the selection committee and the review panel as well and had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual selection process.

Mr Eves: Let me read further from the memo:

"At least one of the 'smaller' bidders' bid was evaluated by the officials as being better than" -- underlined -- "all other bids, but that company was not included in the 'final' short list for the reasons stated above.

"Although the politicians say they are not involved in this bidding process and 'independent' review, they are in total control (Churley, Cooke, Laughren) behind the scenes. This 'manipulation' has caused frequent clashes with officials, including with members of the selection committee."

Who was that smaller bidder? Why were they not included in the final four if your committee thought they were head and shoulders above everybody else?

Hon Ms Churley: As I said in my first answer, categorically, this minister and no other minister had absolutely any role to play in the selection of the short list. I want to make that perfectly clear. I don't know who this unnamed person is. I suggest that perhaps he or she should come forward. But I want to make it very clear that this is not the case.

You're reading, I believe, from minutes that were leaked of an informal meeting which took place in a restaurant long before the selection committee sat down and started to talk to any of the proponents. As you know, they interviewed all of the proponents who had responded to the RFP, but there is nothing in these minutes whatsoever to indicate that there was any unfairness. In fact, I would say just the opposite. The committee sat down with each of the nine proponents and interviewed them one by one.

They went through a process that ensures that the interests of the province and the interests of Windsor are best met. That was the process which was put in place and that was the process which was followed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Eves: To the same minister on the same issue, the Windsor Star today leaked minutes of the same meeting that we're talking about, of July 20, with your Las Vegas consultant, Dr Eadington of the University of Nevada. Surely, you would admit here that Dr Eadington is the chief adviser to your selection review panel. He was the expert you brought in in the meeting I'm talking about. He's the one who was asked the questions. He's the one who provided the answers. I'm sure you have a copy of the minutes of the meeting, as I do.

It is very clear from those minutes that Dr Eadington's advice and direction to the selection team left the team with no choice except for the Las Vegas-style operators. He told them that if they didn't choose one of the big operators, the committee would lose face with the Las Vegas-style community. He outlined each of the bid proponents, and while each of the large Las Vegas-style and eventually successful four proponents received extensive summaries, the smaller proponents are barely even acknowledged -- some by two bullet points. ITT and Sheraton are acknowledged by two bullet points

whereas, for example, Harrah's gets half a page.

Do you not consider it to be somewhat difficult that the expert you're relying upon, that your committee's relying upon, Dr Eadington, is from the University of Nevada, which receives extensive funding from these same Las Vegas casinos?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, I would say that the Windsor casino will eventually be known as the Ontario-style model, because the government will own and set the rules and the regulations for our casino.

In regard to the quote from the minutes from an informal meeting which took place some time before the selection committee sat down and dealt directly with the proponents, let me say again, and I hope the member will hear me clearly this time, that the committee met with, I am told, dozens of advisers from the casino industry. I believe that it would have been irresponsible for that committee to not have met with independent advisers from the industry to glean information.

It was then up to that committee to take all the bits and pieces of the information which they received from many dozens of advisers, go through it and then sit down and figure out how it fits with the criteria which we developed in choosing the best proponents that would come up with the best Ontario-style model for Ontario. That's exactly what they did.

Mr Eves: In the same minutes and documentation that we're both referring to, there is reference made to the fact that the Windsor casino will resemble New Jersey or Atlantic City more than it will Winnipeg.

It also says that you intend to make money by targeting the lower social-economic groups than is done in US casinos, and it also totally trashes the idea of a small casino in Windsor because we're talking in these proposals about huge, entirely self-contained complexes, exactly what you stood in this House and told us time after time after time was not going to happen in the city of Windsor, "We're not going to have a self-contained casino complex; we want people to stay in Windsor, we want people to shop in Windsor, we want people to go to the restaurants in Windsor, we want them to use the hotel rooms," and this is exactly the opposite.

Every one of these bids in the final four is exactly the opposite. How can that be?

Hon Ms Churley: Let me be clear once again. The honourable member is quoting from a document taken from the advice of one casino adviser/expert. He has the minutes from that meeting. There was all kinds of advice from all kinds of experts given to the selection committee before they started the selection process. This is just one piece of advice. I'm sure on the other side there were other pieces of advice. I don't know what it was. As I said, I was not involved in the process and will continue to stay arm's length from that process.

But I can assure the member that what I stood up and said in this House still stands, and in fact we have very strict criteria which I am sure the selection committee is adhering to.

We want a made-in-Ontario-style casino. That doesn't mean it has to be just like the one in Manitoba. We know we don't want it to be like the ones in Las Vegas. However, please don't use the minutes from this document as something written in stone from one meeting which happened with one adviser before the selection process started.

Mr Eves: Minister, it's been speculated in the media since January of this year that right from the initial outset the government had decided that Harrah's indeed would be the successful proponent. I think if you look through the outline provided to the selection committee and enunciated upon by Dr Eadington in the meeting that we talk about on July 20, it is quite obvious, when you look at Caesar's, Circus Circus and Hilton, they take up about five sixths of a page. ITT -- you do know who they are, don't you? -- and Sheraton are not exactly small players themselves.

They get two little dinky bullet points at the bottom of the page. That's all there is to be said about ITT. When you look at Harrah's, they have at least half a page. When you look at Argosy, a Canadian proposal, they have two little dinky bullet points.

Would you not agree that this is a more than slightly biased presentation to your selection committee by Dr Eadington, who just happens to operate out of Las Vegas, who just happens to belong to the University of Nevada, which just happens to receive its funding from the casinos that just happen to be on your short list?

Why won't you do the honourable thing and make all bids public here today so that everybody can decide for themselves whether or not you and your committee have been fair in the final-four selection process?

Hon Ms Churley: Let me say again that I was in no way involved, in any way whatsoever, in the selection process. The press of course has the right to speculate any way they want on any subject, but I want to make it clear that, again, this was one adviser's --

Mr Eves: Why don't you make the bids public?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Parry Sound.

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, there's absolutely no need, to answer his question directly, to release the bids. We have a process in place that is arm's length, fair and impartial, and that process will continue. The information he is referring to has nothing whatsoever to do with the selection process.

TAX REVENUES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I want to return to the issue of the underground economy. Our caucus is very concerned about what we believe is a dramatic growth in the underground economy. We also feel that the Rae government has not come clean with the size of the problem nor have you begun to develop a comprehensive solution to it. We're hearing that the underground economy perhaps has as much as doubled in the last three years.

Perhaps the best indication of that is that you have raised taxes in the last three years by $4 billion, that's a fact, but the tax revenue in those three years has actually dropped. So you've raised taxes by $4 billion, the people who are paying taxes are paying $4 billion more in taxes, but the amount of tax revenue coming into the province has actually dropped in the last three years.

Something dramatic is happening out there, and in our opinion, the government isn't coming clean with the people. We think there may be as much as $6 billion of revenue that the government is not seeing as a result of the underground economy, but we can only guess. You've done studies on it, Minister of Finance. Will you tell the Legislature today the size of the problem that the government sees in the underground economy? How big is it and do you agree with us that there is the need to develop a comprehensive plan to deal with it?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt gives me a lecture on tax increases. Coming from the Liberals, it's like Colonel Sanders giving me a lecture on animal rights.

I can tell the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that if he's talking about some of the specifics such as cigarettes, for example, which is the big one, we have not raised taxes in the last two years on cigarettes. We have the second-lowest taxes on cigarettes in all of Canada, second only to the Yukon. We have not raised taxes on alcohol this year either. So I think to pinpoint the problem as our tax policies is simply to engage in a little rhetorical finger-pointing, which really doesn't get at the problem.

There is a problem with the underground economy. There's a problem with the underground economy in every jurisdiction I know about. In some jurisdictions, it's much more serious than in this one. That doesn't mean we don't have a problem with the underground economy. It doesn't mean that the underground economy is not growing; I believe it is, but if it was easy to pinpoint the exact amount, it would be a lot easier to do something about it as well.

I would simply say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that I agree with him that the underground economy is growing, as it is everywhere. We are doing what we can, both on the auditing side and on the enforcement side, but I'm sure the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, in his remaining supplementary, will indicate just what he thinks the solution is himself.

Mr Phillips: I tried not to make this a partisan thing. I simply said you have raised taxes by $4 billion. The tax revenue has actually dropped. I'm not making a political statement. Those are the facts. What I'm trying to get from you is a commitment to support what we've proposed.

I sent you a letter two months ago saying: "We, the Liberal caucus, want to help to solve the problem. We want an all-party legislative committee to look at this." We're trying to be helpful. I sent a letter to you asking for your support for that. You refused to support it. You say to us, "Be helpful," I send a letter to you asking for your support, and all I get back from you is your saying you cannot comment on it because it's a question for the legislative committee.

One of your senior policy people said, and this is what worries me, "We are worried to talk about this problem, because if we talk about the problem, it will get worse." We in this caucus think it is time to deal with it in a comprehensive way, not by hiring more police and auditors. That will not solve it. We need to do it in a comprehensive way.

Again, I'll ask you: Will you, firstly, confirm to the Legislature the size of the problem so I can get your backbench members on that committee to support an all-party legislative committee, and will you personally support the merit of an all-party legislative committee airing this publicly and looking for some reasonable, practical, long-term solutions rather than playing partisan politics with us?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt understands that it's not possible to be precise on the size of the underground economy. How would it be possible to identify the precise size of the underground economy? There are all sorts of estimates out there as to what it is, but those estimates vary widely as well.

As far as one of the committees of the Legislature dealing with the issue is concerned, and I suppose he was referring to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, I have no objections. It's entirely up to that committee. I chaired a standing committee for a long time, and I remember how I resented it when the government of the day directed us as to what we were to do or not to do. Whether or not the standing committee looks at the issue of smuggling is entirely up to the standing committee. I'm not going to tell them what to do.

INMATES' ALLOWANCES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. Mr Minister, your ministry intends, according to press reports, in any event, to implement a $10 canteen allowance for remand inmates, those inmates denied bail or awaiting trial. Currently, only sentenced inmates serving a minimum 21-day term get the $10 allowance.

Minister, at a time when your deficit wizards are once again at least $500 million short of their mark, this policy will cost taxpayers another $1.1 million a year. The guards in these facilities are still reeling from the social contract cuts that you've taken, and what you're sending out to them in terms of a message is that you're going to squander those savings you stripped from their wages and put them into the pockets of the people they're guarding. Minister, how can you justify this kind of expenditure?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue, given that it's had a fair bit of attention. Given the current government constraint programs, the social contract initiatives and other cost-saving measures, we have decided that the implementation of this particular measure will be indefinitely postponed until such time as we feel the resources are there to allow us to make this move.

Let me say that we're still committed to the concept. However, given the issues that you've raised and those that I have mentioned, I do think it's appropriate that the action we've taken to indefinitely postpone the implementation is the right one.

Mr Runciman: I'm not going to be critical of the minister in the sense that he's doing what he's doing, but I want to say that he's responding to this matter, and to the Lancaster detachment that was raised earlier, when he should have been acting not just on the basis of pressure from the media and politicians within this forum, but certainly with the utilization of some common sense, which seems to be sorely lacking in that government.

I want to suggest that the minister consider extending that even further, extending it to suspending the allowance that you pay out to the more than 7,000 inmates inside institutions, which is costing the ministry close to $4 million a year, close to $12 million over the life of the social contract. We talked about policing problems and we mentioned the Lancaster detachment in the Cornwall area, but right across this province, Minister, you know that the OPP is suffering. Detachments are looking at closures right now, amalgamations, those kinds of things where people, essentially in rural Ontario, are very much concerned about police protection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please?

Mr Runciman: Currently, inmates in provincial institutions are getting free cable television, shampoo, soap, toothbrushes and toothpaste, all postal mailings, books and paperbacks and video rentals three times a week. Those are the kinds of expenditures that are already being directed towards inmates in provincial facilities. You've cut out the fee for crown witnesses who appear in trials. You've cut out the fee for victims.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Runciman: You've cut out the fee for victims, yet you're providing this fee and planning to continue this fee for inmates in provincial institutions. Minister, I ask you, will you consider cutting out that kind of fee considering the difficult economic circumstances we're now in?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm pleased that the merger of the two ministries has taken hold, because clearly the honourable member moves all over on the issues and talks about at least six different things. Let me try and answer at least a couple.

One of the most important things I think the member alleged is that decisions are being made under pressure and in a reactionary mode, and I take exception to that. The decision around the detachment was as a result of the meeting I had with the community leaders where they said to me: "This is a particularly important issue. As much as possible, we'd like to see that moved on as quickly as possible." From there, I had discussions with the OPP commissioner and conveyed upon him the importance of it. That decision was taken because of the importance of the issue and responding to the needs of the community.

The issue of the canteen allowance was also made prior to the question being asked, prior to this House being opened. It was in reaction to, indeed, the decisions we've taken around expenditure control, around the debt problem. On that point, let me say that this third party is very good about talking about debt reduction, talking about bringing expenditures under control, but when they sees a government responding to things in an appropriate fashion, they still continue to believe that they're the only ones that can do it, when in reality this is the party and this is the government that's doing it.

I'm convinced that we're doing it in an appropriate, responsive fashion and we'll continue to do so.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. You and I are well aware of the current strike that is under way in Sarnia-Lambton involving the Lambton County Board of Education and its secondary school teachers.

Minister, you will know that this strike has approximately 6,700 students and nearly 500 teachers out of school. You are aware that this is the third strike in this county in the past 10 years. I'm sure that you realize the level of frustration that is being felt by everyone affected in Lambton county.

My community is frustrated not only by the stress caused by this strike, but by the history of bitter relations that the county has witnessed over many, many years. Many of my constituents are looking to the government to help end this dispute. They want the students back in school, and they want to see legislation from this government to get them there.

My question, minister, is simply this: What can you do to assist in getting the secondary school teachers in Lambton county back to work and students back in schools where they belong?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question from the member, and I certainly know how difficult this whole issue has been on the member for Sarnia as well as the member for Lambton, and I appreciate the constant advice and information the member has shared with me on a daily basis.

But whenever there is a teachers' strike in this province, there are difficulties. Parents and students and taxpayers become very frustrated and concerned, and I want the member to know that I share that frustration and concern.

The solution to this situation is just as it has been in other instances where there have been teachers' strikes in this province, and that is at the bargaining table. The board and the teachers can solve this strike tonight if they want to, if they get back to the bargaining table. The issues in dispute are very clear, and this government encourages the teachers and the board to get back to the bargaining table so that the students can get back into the classroom and the education we all pay for can be provided to those students.

Mr Huget: I appreciate your comments. I know and I'm sure you're well aware that the Education Relations Commission has a role in resolving these kinds of disputes in Ontario. It's that role I want to focus on.

As you may be aware, the Sarnia-Lambton system is a semestered system. What that means, in essence, is that one week is equivalent to two weeks' work, so as we are entering week three in this dispute, we are actually looking at six weeks of lost time.

My question is simply this: Does part of the process that the commission follows in terms of determining when a school year is in jeopardy include taking into account the factor of a semestered system?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member is quite right to raise the Education Relations Commission. The commission has been involved in this dispute, has mediated it, and is available if the parties are willing to get back to serious discussions.

Since Bill 100 came in and the Education Relations Committee has been set up, there have been 72 teachers' strikes, and only six of them have been ended with legislation in this Legislature. That's because most of the strikes are settled at the bargaining table with the assistance of the Education Relations Commission.

I can assure the member that the ERC is monitoring the situation. I am being advised and updated by the ERC. I can also assure the member that when a school system is semestered, that is factored into the ERC's considerations.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Finance. You'll recall that in June, I asked you a question expressing my concern about the impact your new tax on brew-on-premises beer and wine would have on this all-too-rare new business success story. I reminded you that those small businesses had, amazingly, been able to grow and even thrive during a recession. In four short years, investors had sunk over $50 million into 235 stores across the province. The average investment sunk into a store has been $180,000. Over 2,000 people are employed in that business.

Your new tax of 26 cents a litre kicked in on August 1. In real terms, it means it costs $12 more to buy a batch of beer. When I asked you about this before, you said, "I don't believe it's an onerous tax burden." Let me tell you, the numbers are in, and they're pretty grim. The Brew-on-Premises Association of Eastern Ontario reports that the average number of daily batches prepared in Ontario stores used to be 16. In August, after the tax kicked in, in eastern Ontario's 23 stores, it was four. That's a staggering 75% decline in business.

They're only brewing four batches a day; they used to brew 16. But they need 12 to break even. Your new tax is killing them, just as they predicted it would. Stores are on the brink of disaster, and every single operation in eastern Ontario has laid off employees.

Are you now prepared, in light of this new information, to rescind this tax which is squeezing the very lifeblood out of what used to be a thriving industry?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): No. The member raises an interesting point, however, about the increase in tax and the relationship between the increase and the price of a batch prior to the introduction of the tax.

I would remind him that the price of beer in brew-your-own establishments is still only, as I recall, about 60% of the price of beer that you buy in the regular beer stores in the province, so I don't believe it was an onerous tax at all. If you look at the comparison of the price of a case of 12 or 24 as opposed to a batch, I believe a batch, and I stand to be corrected in this regard, is something like seven or eight dozen, so when he's talking about an increased price of $12 for a batch, he's talking about a very large quantity of beer. I wouldn't want anybody to think he was talking about an increase in the price of a case of 12 or 24, because that's simply not the case.

I would like to go a little bit more into this, but I'll wait for the supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Your Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations proudly stood up earlier today and told us how she was going to ensure that all of our international trade obligations were met in so far as beer was concerned, that our obligations vis-à-vis other provinces were going to be now delivered in a fair and open way. The brew-on-premises people are asking for the same kind of treatment.

I've told you about how the tax is hurting business. Now let's see what it's doing for your revenues.

Prior to the tax, monthly revenues from existing provincial sales tax from the brew-on-premises stores were over $1 million a month; in August, they were less than $600,000. So I want to be perfectly clear here: Your new tax, which is designed to raise more money, is actually revenue-negative, actually decreasing the revenue you were already getting. Without the new tax you were getting over $1 million, and with the new tax you're getting less than $600,000.

You projected that an additional $10 million would be raised annually by this tax. If things keep going the way they are, the brew-on-premises people tell me that not only will you not raise an additional cent, you're going to raise $5 million less than you would have without the tax.

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

Mr McGuinty: What you've created here is a unique lose-lose-lose situation. You're killing a small business industry, you're putting people out of work and you're reducing your revenue, all with one fell swoop. That's quite an accomplishment.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr McGuinty: My question, Minister: You say you're in favour of small business, and we know you need more money. Here's your chance to prove it. Will you immediately kill this tax before it kills these small businesses?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't want to be unkind to the member, because I think he is expressing the concerns of the industry, the small businesses that do brew their own. I don't think he's being unfair in that regard.

But simply to put all the blame, at least partially, on the restructuring that's going on in that sector is unfair. Secondly, there are not very many examples I can think of where you reduce a tax and you increase your revenues. Thirdly, there are all sorts of revenues that are down.

We announced a week or so ago that revenues were off almost $1 billion, largely from 1992 income tax revenues. I don't believe you can isolate one tax and say, because there's a decline in some of the premises in the sale of beer, that the entire reason for that is a tax, which I think is not an onerous tax. I believe that a batch, to which he refers, is about six cases of 24, and if the increase is $12, that's still taking the price up to only about 60% of the price of regular beer. I don't think that's unfair at all.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): In the absence of the minister responsible for women's issues and in the absence of the Attorney General, I expect the Minister of Community and Social Services could best respond to this question.

Minister, you will recall, as you were in the House, that I and my party, in June 1991, called for a public inquiry into the Grandview Training School For Girls incident and the residents who had been sexually assaulted and abused.

In spite of the fact that five girls died in that school, that their deaths remain unexplained to this day, that the coroner has been able to get reports, and in spite of the fact that crown wards, when they die while they're in provincial institutions, are entitled to an automatic coroner's inquest, victims have subsequently been denied access to their medical records and other files to assist them with their own pursuit of justice.

Minister, today those survivors are here at Queen's Park. They're here because they believe that your government continues to place roadblocks and that you're dragging your feet on the issues of not only a public inquiry but, for some of them more important, matters dealing with training, with counselling and with compensation. On behalf of those women who are here at Queen's Park today, could you explain to this House why your government is continuing to drag its feet in pursuit of justice for those victims who were crown wards in this province?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, as the member indicated, I think there are other ministers who would be able to give a more precise answer to some of the points the member has asked about, given the responsibilities that they have and that I don't.

But I can say to the member that we, as a government, have taken the issues around Grandview quite seriously and certainly from the very beginning have proceeded on that basis. We have answered in this House before on the issue of the inquiry, and we have been quite categorical in saying that it's important to allow the process of the police investigation to proceed and for that to ensue, that that needs to be done.

We have continued to work with the Grandview Survivors' Support Group with respect to the issue of counselling. I know there is some support that is being provided, some dollars that are being spent by the government to assist that group. That is being coordinated through the Attorney General's office. We've had some involvement on that issue from my ministry and we'll continue to provide that support to those individuals.

Mr Jackson: The minister says he and his government have taken these matters quite seriously. In fact, that is not the truth of what's been going on in this province. The Grandview survivors are here today because they're aware of your government's lack of commitment to women who've been sexually assaulted when in any form of care in a provincial institution.

You yourself, minister, are aware of a series of questions I raised to you in this House in June and July of this year about the coverup of sexual assault and harassment charges at the York Detention Centre. This, I believe, is a question you will be able to answer. The fact is that you dispatched auditors to examine the allegations, along with a series of other allegations, and they've come back in the form of your report.

The Grandview survivors are aware that only one scant reference is made by those male auditors who did the report. They're asking one simple question about the findings of your report, and that is this: Why is it that these auditors undertook an investigation and yet did not interview one woman sexual assault or harassment victim who was brought to your attention and to your ministry staff's attention, and yet they can sanitize this report? Staff in your ministry have been protected and in fact promoted, and we have a report that says there are no examples of a coverup occurring within your ministry. No wonder the Grandview survivors are so angry --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member complete his question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- and why they're here today, when you're doing it within your own ministry with respect to the employees in this province who are employed at the Thistletown Regional Centre and also at York Detention Centre. Minister, why is it that not a single woman victim was interviewed by your government to determine if a coverup existed, or in fact if the sexual assaults and harassment ever even occurred?

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Would the member take his seat.

Hon Mr Silipo: I find this line of questioning a little bizarre, because the member has gone from a question around Grandview to a question around York Detention Centre and tried to make a connection where there is none.

If he's now asking specifically about the operations review at York Detention Centre, let me tell him in direct response to his question that yes, as he himself has said, the conclusions of the report were quite clear that in fact there were no inappropriate actions taken by the management staff. In the interviewing process the review team undertook, my understanding is that they interviewed over 70 different people in about 125 different interviews, so they spoke to individuals more than once. During the course of those interviews, they spoke to any individual whose name was suggested to them as somebody who should be spoken to, and that issue is being pursued.

If the member opposite says not one victim was interviewed, I don't have the information of who exactly was interviewed or not interviewed; that was a point of leaving that to the review team to determine. If the member has any indication of people he feels should have been interviewed who were not interviewed, I think he has the responsibility to pass that information on to me, and we'll deal with it appropriately.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that Mrs Fawcett exchange places with Mr Daigeler in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative." I affix my signature to this.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition related to an issue raised in question period today.

"We, the undersigned, believe that the new tax on brew-on-premise home brew is unfair, unwanted and unreasonable.

"We are concerned that it will eliminate jobs without increasing government revenues.

"This new tax is inspired by big, multinational brewing corporations whose only desire is to keep us from enjoying home brew. Scrap the tax before it begins."

I'm signing this in support of this petition.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): In an ongoing attempt to bring some sanity to the federal government's attitude towards North Pickering land, citizens from all over Ontario are sending petitions to this Legislature so that their voices can be heard even though the Tory party is ignoring them.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Durham West should know that what he is supposed to do is simply read the petition.

Mr Wiseman: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan,

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

I hope they're listening.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition, as I am in agreement with it.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan,

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

I'm appalled that they would close their public information offices in the middle of this process. I affix my signature to it.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll affix my signature to this petition.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition here that's been signed by many people from across the province of Ontario who've had the opportunity to use the Glenora ferry. This petition was one that was placed in the Wagon Wheel restaurant on the Glenora side of the ferry crossing.

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

"

(1) This ferry is part of Highway 33. The question is posed, how can the province charge for part of a highway?

"

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

"

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

"

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

I read this petition into Hansard today on behalf of all the people who are concerned about fees in Glenora and I will file this.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition address to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed to raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

This is signed by a number of constituents and I'm affixing my signature thereto as well.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it read as follows:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board, at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting, decided to loosen the guidelines for films/videos for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening will result in committing some very gross and indecent acts in films/videos; and

"Whereas these acts include: bondage, ejaculation on the face and insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of true human sexual activity, but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviants; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code,

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature to cancel the new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board and dismiss the chairperson, Dorothy Christian, from her position for her lack of sensitivity towards Ontarians and for being more dedicated to represent special interest groups than the taxpayers of Ontario."

I'm happy to support this petition and I will sign it.

CORRECTIONS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to correct my record for Tuesday, September 28, at which time I was speaking to the bill pertaining to environmental rights, Bill 26. During my speech I referred to the Environmental Appeal Board and the Environmental Assessment Board. It was an error for me at two parts of my speech to interchange those terms, and all the way throughout the speech I was meaning to refer to the Environmental Appeal Board. So I'm correcting the two occasions where I, in error, slipped in "Environmental Assessment Board" instead of "Environmental Appeal Board." I appreciate the consideration of the House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member indeed has a point of order, and I appreciate the fact that she rose to correct her own record, not someone else's.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): On a similar point of order, I rise to correct my record. On Monday, September 27, in answer to questions from the Liberal critic for Environment, I inadvertently gave incorrect information to the House in that I indicated that the city of Hamilton officials had been informed by the Ministry of Environment and Energy officials in June and July regarding the storage of potentially hazardous chemicals at the abandoned site in Hamilton.

In fact, there were discussions around security at the site, where a fire or fires had taken place, between officials of the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the city of Hamilton officials, or the fire department, but they did not deal with the question of the chemical lab and the storage of chemicals in that facility.

The Speaker: Again, the member does indeed have a point of order, and I appreciate the fact that he has risen in his place to correct his own record.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 26,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario / Projet de loi 26, Loi concernant les droits environnementaux en Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): When we left off, I believe the honourable member for Wellington had the floor. He may so resume his remarks.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Yes, I did have the floor, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for recognizing me. I think I have about three minutes to conclude my remarks, and I'll try and be brief and get to the points that I had intended to raise.

I think what we've just heard now is interesting. The difference between the Environmental Assessment Board and the Environmental Appeal Board is a confusing matter. They're two different levels of appeal and it creates some degree of confusion. Now with this Environmental Bill of Rights, we've got another mechanism of appeal or review, and one wonders perhaps how necessary it is when we have a number of existing, confusing levels of review and appeal with respect to the environment.

I also wanted to raise the issue of agriculture and how this Environmental Bill of Rights may in fact impact on people in Wellington county.

As you know very well, Mr Speaker, Wellington county is one of the most important agricultural regions in the province of Ontario. A group of agricultural groups known as AgCare over a period of time developed an environmental agenda with which it put forward excellent ideas. Actually, the leader of that group is a gentleman by the name of Jeff Wilson, whom I know very well, who resides in Wellington. They put forward a proactive agenda that I think in many cases far exceeds what the government is expecting of them. They deserve a lot of credit for what they've done and the approach they've taken to the environment.

But I know also that if this bill of rights would in fact make normal farming practices impossible or would create problems in that respect, I wouldn't be able to support it.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Oh, no, there's reference to the Farm Practices Protection Act.

Mr Arnott: The minister indicates that there is reference to the Farm Practices Protection Act. The farm groups indicate apparently that they would like to see some further clarification on that issue. That's my understanding and I hope that might be forthcoming.

When we look at the cost of this new initiative -- the minister has indicated $4.5 million of new bureaucracy that will be created in order to administer this new bill -- and I look at some of the projects that require direct funding to ameliorate existing environmental problems in my riding, in Nichol township, and I hope the minister is listening very closely, there is a serious environmental problem.

Many of the wells have been dug by hand, and as a result have polluted some of the -- the septic tanks close to the dug wells have polluted the wells and we need some support and some assistance. The ministry has received applications from the township for assistance there. The ministry has given a commitment for, I think, 85% of the engineering costs that have to be done and the ministry has approved the project, but the final application, I believe, is with the minister now and hopefully we will see some early response that indicates the support of the ministry to make sure this problem is indeed ameliorated.

I think that when you look at the cost of creating a new bureaucracy, if that in fact means $4.5 million of projects cannot be undertaken that would have a direct impact on improving the environmental situation, then we perhaps have some reason to be concerned.

I leave the House with those thoughts and I'm looking forward to the rest of the debate over the course of this afternoon.

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

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I want to, on one hand, compliment the member for Wellington for the earlier part of the debate, which maybe some of the viewers never caught yesterday, when he did stick very much to the bill. He spoke about the commission, the commissioner, and the fact that it will report to the Legislature which is, I think, a very important thing that has to happen. He didn't mention too much about the public process the ministry has been involved with, but I don't suppose he realizes all of that.

There was a lot of consultation with groups like Pollution Probe, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the business council, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the chamber of commerce. Maybe he didn't realize that all that consultation had taken place, and there's a great deal of support by all of those people. Those are some of the things I guess I'd like to point out.

There has been concern raised around the fact that only two people from the public can raise a concern about this, an environmental concern, and bring it to the commissioner. Something I'd like to point out then is, take a look at my riding in the Goodwood area where there's a soil recycling plant that was going through a process, and there was a call from the community to make this process public.

I think it's really important that the public have a chance to have some input into the process. Go out there, set up public information offices when it's necessary, if that's the appropriate channel, so there is a chance for people to respond. It's not always that everybody catches a little something that happens to go on during a busy council meeting, or whatever point it might be. It's something that we really have to be aware of.

For example, there are a lot of good, positive things that have happened and sometimes we even forget about them. But the point is public information and allowing the public a chance to go to somebody, for example the commissioner, and say, "I've got a concern." I think it's very fundamental and important.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Wellington. Obviously, this particular member has a very full knowledge of what this bill involves and in speaking on behalf of his constituents I think he has done a commendable job.

I'm happy that this afternoon the Minister of Environment and Energy is able to be in the House, and I respect his

schedule when he hasn't been able to be here this week and his parliamentary assistant has been here in his place. But I would like the minister to know that the concerns I have been speaking about this week pertaining to the St Lawrence Cement company --

Hon Mr Wildman: St Lawrence.

Mrs Marland: -- which the minister has just acknowledged he is aware of, are concerns that are not superfluous in any way at all. The minister, since he has taken over his responsibility in this particular ministry, has been corresponding with me.

There is a problem, however, about the content of some of those letters and I think it's very important that I have this opportunity to tell the minister that when his staff talk about emissions regarding St Lawrence Cement, they are talking about a different type of emission than we're concerned about. They're talking about gaseous emissions which go into the ambient air; our concerns are about particulate emissions. It's the particulate matter to which heavy metals adhere themselves and it's the heavy metals that may or may not be a health risk to the community.

That's why we're saying to the minister, please do not allow St Lawrence Cement to continue burning chlorinated waste solvents until we have the test results.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I too would like to congratulate the member for Wellington on his excellent

summary of the bill and his comments with respect to the bill.

One of the topics that he mentioned in his presentation had to do with the statement of environmental values that will be presented by 14 ministries, as are listed, which will hopefully assist the Ministry of Environment and Energy in its policymaking.

The first comment I have with respect to that is that my reading of the bill is that this statement of environmental values, I predict, will be very general because, really, it will have no legal effect whatsoever with respect to the policymaking of the Minister of Environment or indeed of any environmental issues. It will be very general. I don't believe it will assist that much with respect to environmental protection, which of course adds to the next question, the cost to these various 14 ministries to make these presentations. It may be a lot, it may not be very much, but my guess is it'll be very general.

The minister I think has indicated in the past that it won't, which will fortify my submission that it will be of a very general nature.

I would like to hear from other agencies such as Hydro. I would like to hear of such groups as Hydro making its statement of environmental values. It is interesting, for example, that there are other ministries that could comment. For example, there's no comment, unless there are plans in the future, to make the Ministry of Education and Training, the Chair of Management Board, it could be any slew of other ministries -- not a slew but --

Hon Mr Wildman: Are you advocating that?

Mr Tilson: I'm simply asking the rationale for doing all this when it's probably going to be a very meaningless type of purpose to put this statement of environment values when it's not going to have any legal effect. It's going to mean nothing. So it's more waste to the government and more waste to the taxpayer.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Let's hear from the minister. Let's hear a question or comment from the minister.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington has two minutes in response.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank the member for Durham-York for his observation and his question. Perhaps he didn't hear the initial part of my speech yesterday, but I did indeed give the government some credit for the fact that you extensively consulted over approximately a three-year period since the election, in spite of the fact that there was a commitment made in the Agenda for People for an immediate introduction of an environmental bill of rights.

In fact, in the first throne speech that the government presented, there was a commitment for an immediate introduction of a bill of rights. But I felt that you did the right thing by consulting extensively and I would applaud you for that. The question is, perhaps, who did you listen to? But we could get into that at another date.

The member also talked about the issue of opportunities for public input and clearly he's correct in that this is an opportunity for public input if this bill is indeed passed. My observation on that would be that there are significant other opportunities and avenues for public input that already exist. People write to me daily and weekly. They call me on issues of concern with respect to the environment. I bring those forward in the Legislature. That's one example of an opportunity for public input. There are, I would submit to you, dozens of other ways to present public input on the environment.

The member for Mississauga South, thank you very much for your kind comments. You talked about the need to fix existing programs. I find that with this bill one of the things I hear consistently from my constituents is: "We don't need new government programs. Fix the ones you've got."

I think the government is missing an important point there. They're bringing in this new bureaucracy. If the government has the political will to protect the environment, which it claims to do, which it purports to do at all times, it would find that it could protect the environment using its existing legislative mechanisms and the existing regulatory regime.

I want to thank the member for Dufferin-Peel, our critic, who has provided our caucus with great leadership on this issue. His indication concerning the statement of environmental values that all ministries will have to undertake I agree with and concur with entirely.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 26?

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): It's certainly an honour and a pleasure for me today to be able to speak to Bill 26,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, and I say that very sincerely, because in my previous life, that is, the life I had before I was elected to this Legislature, I was an active environmentalist, as active I guess as one could be where I come from.

I was the co-chair of the Quinte Environmental Resources Alliance. The other co-chair was Shirley Langer, who is now the mayor of Belleville, and I think she too will be very happy with this Environmental Bill of Rights. It's something that all of us in the environmental community have asked for and advocated on behalf of for many, many years. Indeed, when Jim Bradley was the Minister of the Environment, we had great hopes that he would bring in an environmental bill of rights. Maybe I should refer to him as the member for St Catharines more appropriately, according to our rules.

However, I really had great expectations from the previous minister in the previous administration, because I felt that within that administration he was one of their shining stars.

However, it's great to know that this Bill 26 has gained wide support by most of the members of this Legislature. We know there was wide consultation. We've heard some comments that we don't know how wide it was or if we consulted widely enough, but I think there was pretty comprehensive consultation, something we should always do when we make decisions like this.

I want to say too, Mr Speaker, to any of my constituents who might be watching right now and wonder what the heck I'm doing talking about the Environmental Bill of Rights when at this time their concern is about fees on the ferry, that I just want to remind them that I can't raise that during this debate, because you would most certainly call me out of order and I would have to return to Bill 26. I say that so that any of my constituents who might be watching understand that we have business to deal with in the Legislature, and today and at this time we're dealing with Bill 26.

When you deal with the environment, you tend to become concerned about environmental issues that take place in your locale, in your area. Certainly, when I talk about the environment I think about things that will affect the people in my constituency. I think it's fair to tell them and to tell the members of this Legislature that prior to my election in 1990, one of the compelling issues in my area was the closing of the beaches.

The beaches were closing because the coliform bacterial count had gone above 100. I think at that point in time, if they had reached 100 then they had to be closed down; if they were lower than that, they were still considered safe. It became an election issue. At that time, I certainly vowed to my constituents -- my potential constituents at that time -- that I would fight to ensure that the environment was cleaned up and that we could look forward to seeing cleaner water in the area.

I know that since I was elected in 1990, yes, the beaches have closed down again. That doesn't mean we are not fighting to improve the quality of the water, but it's something that has deteriorated over a long period of time, and I think it will take some time before we can deal with all the courses and water systems that contribute to the pollution, but we're certainly working towards that.

When we talk about the environment, we often talk about the waste produced within our society. I'd like to say that during this time of economic recession, because of the recession we aren't producing as much waste. As bad as the recession is, environmentalists might say that's good. Because we have less waste going to landfill sites, there seems to be less urgency, although it's a small "less," I might say, to resolve the waste issue.

However, there are those people who are proponents of incineration. Those people would say we should be looking at alternatives to putting waste in holes in the ground.

I remember that during the election the Take No Trash group from Marmora, often referred to as the TNT group, was very concerned because there was an idea at the time that maybe we would fill up the Marmoraton mine site with garbage. There was a great hue and cry from the people in Marmora and the people downstream from the Marmoraton mine who would be affected by the influences of garbage being put into the Marmoraton mine. The people in Marmora were certainly not happy with that, and many other people weren't. This great hue and cry from these people stopped the notion or idea that maybe we could fill up the Marmoraton mine with garbage.

Even though the bill of rights wasn't in place at that time, when there are outstanding issues, as that was, there are ways and means to bring them to the powers that be, to the government, and to create a public interest so we can stop things like the Marmoraton mine from happening. I think that now we have Bill 26, the bill of rights --

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I waited till my colleague had just described a very interesting story. I think there should be more stories like that told, but I don't believe there's a quorum to hear these stories.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check whether we have a quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Paul Johnson: As I was saying, when there is a great hue and cry from the public about a large violation of the environment, then the powers that be come forward and manage the difficulty and resolve it in some way. Bill 26 will allow individuals who have concerns over smaller infractions, maybe some almost insignificant infractions or violations of the environment, to bring them to the attention of the powers that be so that they can be examined more closely.

I've heard it mentioned that the complaints might be deemed or seen to be frivolous. However, let me say that I think it's very important that people have an opportunity to bring forward their complaints and concerns about some of the smaller violations. The bill of rights will allow that to happen. The cumulative effect of many small violations of the environment, of small opportunities to create pollution, can be very disastrous.

When we take a singular issue like the Marmoraton mine, for example, and the consequences of putting garbage in that abandoned mine, it is something we can see very readily, but when we talk about smaller infractions, it doesn't become evident immediately what the consequences of those infractions might be. I think this bill allows that opportunity to happen.

Down in my area, because I can speak to issues that have affected the area, many people are concerned about the environment. Concerns about the environment tend to become more important or less important depending on other circumstances, the economy, for example. I know that in my area there certainly are many environmental issues that maybe aren't seen to be so important today as they were three or four years ago, but that doesn't mean they still aren't important to the people who would be affected by them.

With this bill of rights, whenever there is a change or whenever there is something coming forward that may have a negative impact on the environment, then we have an opportunity for people to make sure their voices are heard.

I really want to applaud the ministry for bringing this forward at this time. It's one of the most significant environmental pieces of legislation introduced in this province in many years. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it was certainly something that most of the members of this Legislature indeed thought was a very good thing.

When I knew I was going to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, I wanted to go back to that time prior to my election so I could examine what it was that I had promised the people in my riding I would do. I actually have a little brochure that I passed around at that time, and foremost in my literature was the fact that I was going to work to improve the environment. Some of my constituents today might tell me I haven't done as good a job as I might have, and I may argue with them that I disagree.

However, as I said earlier, the degradation of the environment is something that has taken place over many years, and to turn it around and to improve it markedly overnight is something we can't ensure or maybe necessarily expect to happen.

But I do think that because we now have Bill 26, the Environmental Bill of Rights, there will be more of an opportunity and occasion to examine things happening in our respective communities, to examine more closely the impact of any changes or any things that might occur in a negative way in terms of the environment. That's certainly very important. The fact that the citizens of the province of Ontario are going to have a greater opportunity for information is also very important.

Another issue that took place many years ago down in the north end of Prince Edward county was the burial of a number of 40-gallon drums -- I'm not sure what it is in metric, but I know they were 40-gallon drums -- and the water in the wells around this burial site was polluted. To have the aquifer polluted when people draw water from underground water sources is terrible and certainly was a disaster for the people affected.

If we had had a bill of rights at that time, people who were concerned would have had an opportunity very early to recognize that something wrong was taking place and bring it to the attention of the powers that be, would have been able to bring it to the attention of the government, to the Ministry of the Environment, so that it could have examined more closely what was happening.

As it turns out, we didn't have a bill of rights many numbers of years ago when these 40-gallon drums of toxic waste were being buried, and as a result of that we found out that the aquifer was polluted. Many people suffered ill health, I might add, as a result of drinking contaminated water. It was very costly for the government to clean up; well, in fact it hasn't cleaned up the actual underground water supply, but what it has done is to supply the people living in the community of Rossmore with water from Belleville, which guarantees the safety of their drinking water.

I think Bill 26, the bill of rights, will allow us many opportunities to ensure the future of the environment in the province of Ontario, that the environment is maintained in as good a quality as we could expect so that future generations will not have to put up with contaminated water supplies, for one, will not have to put up with the inability to deal with circumstances that may be detrimental to their health, and certainly will allow them opportunities to very quickly turn around situations which, until this point in time, haven't been able to be remedied as quickly as they might have liked.

I spoke earlier about the member for St Catharines, previously the Minister of the Environment in the Liberal administration. As environmentalists, we were waiting with a lot of anxiety, I guess you could say, and hope that he would deal with and bring in an Environmental Bill of Rights. It didn't happen. Personally, I don't hold that against him. At the time, there were probably other issues that commanded more of his time than he could afford at that time. His administration ran out of time, I might add. Maybe, had he had those extra couple of years, he would have brought in the bill of rights. He didn't, and as I said, personally I don't hold that against him.

It's good that we have this opportunity now. The people of Ontario want access to the courts, and certainly that's addressed in Bill 26; they want to be able to take issues to the courts. They want to have access to information. Many of these circumstances or problems that they have to deal with right now in terms of environmental issues are addressed in Bill 26. That's certainly something we all want to commend the present minister for. We laud and applaud him for bringing Bill 26 before the Legislature.

The previous Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier -- I guess I'm not supposed to call her Ruth Grier; she's the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore -- was an individual who understood the need for an Environmental Bill of Rights and understood the need for the government to manage better the environment in the province of Ontario.

She was certainly an opponent of incineration. She can probably best explain why incineration should not take place. I've listened to her speeches and her explanations many times, and I certainly couldn't disagree with her. I think incineration would not reduce the amount of waste in the province of Ontario. It may get burned up and we end up with a big pile of ash we have to put some place else, toxic waste, I might add. Certainly the 3Rs cannot be practised as completely as they might be if we use incineration in the province of Ontario.

When we look at our waste problems, we should certainly be reducing the amount of waste we have, and we can do that through the 3Rs by reducing, recycling and reusing; reusing being the best way, recycling being very important and, ultimately, if we just reduce the amount of garbage we create, we're going to have less to put in landfill sites.

That will make a lot of people happy around the province, let me tell you, because the cost to municipalities right now to remove waste and take it to landfill sites that are approved by the province is becoming greater and greater as the years go by. Certainly the taxpayers are concerned about the additional cost for removing this waste. The fact that we practise recycling in the province of Ontario is something we should all give ourselves a pat on the back for. I would be surprised if there were many communities now in the province of Ontario that didn't practise recycling and the 3Rs.

We want to reduce the amount of waste we create, because if we reduce the amount of waste we create, then that reduces the amount we have to put into landfills, it reduces the cost to the municipalities, as they have to truck it off to landfill sites, and certainly it will reduce the notion by those who would support the idea of incineration that we need incineration.

We have basically three things to concern ourselves with when we look at the environment, and these are well-defined in the bill. We speak about air -- air is not air in an enclosed environment but the air that circulates freely outside -- we talk about the earth and the land, and we talk about the water.

When we talk about the air, we don't want to pollute that, and when we talk about incineration, that is another avenue where we would make a large contribution to the amount of pollution we put into our atmosphere. The results of that are widely known and understood by many people to be not the sort of thing we want to endorse.

When we look at our land, there are many ways in which we pollute our land, and we certainly want to reduce that. When we used to put lead in our gasoline, they used to do tests along the major highways in the province of Ontario and we recognized that lead was certainly a pollutant that was increasing in levels that were contributing to poor health of people in some areas. Certainly, if we were to look at the human race, I guess, speaking rather broadly, we didn't want to create a group of people who were toxic lead carriers in future generations. We've dealt with that and we've removed lead from gasoline. I think everyone applauds that idea and thinks that's a very worthwhile thing.

I also think, when we look at how --

Mr Sorbara: Are you taking credit for that? The federal government did that. Are you taking credit for that too?

Mr Paul Johnson: I'm saying that --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has the floor. The member for York Centre can have the floor immediately after if he wishes, but right now the honourable member has it.

Mr Paul Johnson: To respond to the member for York Centre, I'm not taking credit for anything; all I'm saying is that many people and many governments in the past have done things very conscientiously, very deliberately, in order to reduce the amount of pollution that we're putting into the atmosphere. Certainly, that is something we've done.

I want to say that this government was the government that introduced and is dealing with an Environmental Bill of Rights. Bill 26 is certainly something that I think everyone in the province of Ontario will commend. I guess now that I'm a politician -- sometimes I wonder about that. Who wants to be labelled a politician these days? I don't think anyone in this Legislature would.

However, I want to say that, having been an environmentalist in my previous life, as I said when I first started speaking today, I certainly commend and applaud Bill 26. It's something that we in the environmental community have advocated for many, many years and I want to say it's about time, from an environmentalist perspective; it's about time we had an Environmental Bill of Rights in the province of Ontario so that people have more access to information, people have more access to the courts, so that people can actually do something when they see a violation taking place with regard to the environment.

As I said before, not to rehash an old debate that was very recent in my comments, if it's a large issue, certainly the government and public opinion will come forward and it will be something the government will deal with. But in some of the smaller issues in some of the smaller communities where it doesn't get the media, it doesn't get maybe the government's