Hansard Transcript 1988-Oct-17 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the first group of legislative pages to serve in the fall session of the 34th Parliament, 1988. They are:

Jeffrey Bakker, St. Catharines; Colin Baryliuk, York North; Elie Basch, Markham; Zia Bismilla, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Carolyn Boyer, Renfrew North; James Campbell, Oxford; Gianpiero Cognoli, Downsview; Darcy DeMarsico, Ottawa South; Stephanie Dunthorne, Durham-York; Shelagh Freedman, Scarborough East; Sherri Gaertner, London North; Matthew Gallinger, York Centre; James Gravelle, Windsor-Sandwich; Christina Gural, High Park-Swansea; Zoe Janzen, Wellington; Katrina Kam, Hamilton West; Andrew Nelson, Mississauga East; Tom Ormiston, Kenora; Maxim Panitch, Fort York; Paul Peer, Sault Ste. Marie; Christine Philpot, Hamilton Mountain; Adrianna Smart, Nepean; Jayshree Soni, York South, and Kyle Wilcox, Brampton North.

Please join me in welcoming our new group of pages.

I have one or two other points of information.

WRIT OF ELECTION

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that during the summer adjournment, a vacancy occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Mel Swart, Esq., as member for the electoral district of Welland-Thorold effective 11:59 p.m., Thursday, June 30, 1988. Accordingly, my warrant has been issued to the chief election officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

Mr. Speaker: I also wish to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the 13th annual report of the Commission on Election Finances for the year 1987.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Speaker: I also wish to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the Clerk Assistant of the Senate of Canada a copy of a resolution to amend the Constitution of Canada adopted by the Senate on April 21, 1988.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CHILD POVERTY

Mr. Allen: As we take up our work in this Legislature, the first thing we need to be reminded of is the appalling evidence of child poverty in David Peterson’s Ontario. Among dependents of working poor families there are close to half a million poor children.

The odds are stacked against them at birth. They are more likely to die as babies, and as children they are more likely to have fatal accidents. They are twice as likely to get leukaemia and twice as likely to die from it. They are far more likely to suffer from pneumonia, anaemia, tooth decay, ear infections, retardation and learning disabilities.

A Hamilton study tells us that boys in welfare families have a 40 per cent rate of psychiatric disorder and girls have a 27.8 per cent poor school performance. Low-income young people drop out of school more often and end up more frequently unemployed or in low-wage, dead-end jobs. Even the bright ones rule out further schooling because they assume they cannot afford it.

Toronto children’s aid society statistics tell us that, by far, the largest part of the intake of children at risk comes from poor families. Child poverty takes an immense toll of persons, and the costs are enormous in social programs and wasted potential.

I challenge this government to tackle child poverty at its root, to begin immediately on George Thomson’s proposal of a children’s benefit and to institute a comprehensive strategy to get all children off to an equal start.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS AUBÉ

M. Pope: C’est avec énormément de regret que j’ai appris le décès de Jean-François Aubé, survenu le 9 octobre dernier. M. Aubé s’est dévoué corps et âme à la cause francophone en Ontario. Il a été l’un des membres fondateurs de l’Association des juristes d’expression française de l’Ontario.

Au moment de son décès, il était membre de la Commission des services en français de l’Ontario. Il fut également conseiller à l’Association canadienne-française de l’Ontario et au Conseil scolaire de Timmins, directeur du Conseil ontarien des conseillers scolaires et conseiller scolaire du Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de Timmins, et il a siégé également au Comité consultatif de langue française de TVOntario, en plus d’être l’hôte de l’émission « C’est ton droit » au réseau de TVOntario.

Le décès de Jean-François touchera bon nombre de personnes. On se souviendra de Jean-François comme étant un pionnier au sein de la communauté francophone.

Au nom de mon parti, et en mon nom personnel, je désire offrir nos plus sincères condoléances à Andrea Aubé, à son père, à ses frères et à sa soeur.

We wish to express our condolences with the passage of Jean-François Aubé, who contributed enormously to the political life of Ontario.

PERSONS DAY

Mrs. Sullivan: Tomorrow is the 59th anniversary of Persons Day, and that is indeed a time for celebration. Persons Day marks a significant milestone in Canadian history, the day women become persons in the eyes of the law.

Six decades ago, not that long a time, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that only men were persons. Magistrate Emily Murphy and four other courageous Canadian women took their case to the judicial committee of the Privy Council in London, England, and on October 18, 1929, Canadian women were given the legal right to be people. Not until then were they eligible for appointments to the Senate.

Persons Day reminds us of the tremendous changes that have taken place in our society since then. The changing role of women is one of the most dramatic social changes witnessed in this century. Women’s achievements have caused us to re-examine the roles each of us, both women and men, play in our society. We are shifting from a sense of personal struggle to a concept of responsibility within the larger community. This government is committed to women’s equal participation in society and to supplying the supports necessary so that each and every Ontario woman can participate to whatever degree she chooses in all functions of society.

Please join me in marking this occasion.

1340

INCO LTD.

Mr. Laughren: A couple of weeks ago, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) rode into Sudbury and handed over a $2.81-million cheque to Inco Ltd. to do some research on mining methods.

At the same time the minister was handing over almost $3 million to Inco, Inco was announcing a $1-billion program to feed back into itself in order to avoid a hostile takeover. The $1 billion that Inco is going to spend on itself would create no jobs, no money for exploration and development, no more money for acid rain improvements, no improvements for health and safety, or wages and benefits or pensions for its ex-employees.

At the same time the minister was handing that $2.81 million to Inco, Inco was getting the word that it had just won a couple of assessment appeals through the province’s assessment review court to the tune of $239,000 for 1987 and $248,000 for 1988, and there is more to come.

This is the same year that Inco is going to net about $500 million, and this minister thinks he has to hand over almost $3 million to it. It is truly remarkable. Surely to goodness that has nothing to do with the free enterprise system. That is simply self-indulgent and incestuous enterprise.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed at the minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) and his colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). I would like to point out one more example of this government’s lack of leadership and the conflicting opinions and views held by many of the government’s ministers.

The Midland Free Press and the Midland Times newspapers carried stories in September about the Minister of Agriculture and Food’s opposition to using site 41 in Tiny township as a new landfill site. This site is also opposed by Tiny township council, neighbouring residents and several tourism facilities, but the same site has the backing of the North Simcoe Waste Management Association and the Ministry of the Environment.

This clearly shows that these two ministers cannot get together and work together to solve an extremely serious problem that is affecting people in North Simcoe and throughout the rest of Ontario. Rather than showing leadership, rather than working together for a common cause and rather than solving a critical problem in this province, these ministers are ducking the issue and they are sweeping the problem under the rug. When is the government going to show some leadership and solve the garbage crisis in this province?

HOSPICE PETERBOROUGH

Mr. Adams: Hospice Peterborough is an independent agency which helps terminally ill people live at home as fully and comfortably as possible until they die. It also provides a support system for the grieving family. It is composed of a board, a part-time director and a dozen trained volunteers.

Hospice Peterborough’s goal is to enhance the quality of life for the terminally ill and their families. The workplace is the client’s home. The agency offers an assessment of the needs of the client and family, emphasizing coping with pain and symptoms of the disease. At the same time, Hospice Peterborough co-ordinates services available in the community. It works with health care professionals, Red Cross homemakers, Meals on Wheels, the Victorian Order of Nurses and other services. Its entire budget is considerably less than the cost of hospitalization of one terminally ill person.

Hospice Peterborough feels that its goal of keeping people at home enjoying a richer and happier life while reducing the burden on health care resources more than justifies its calls for financial assistance. The hospice receives 70 per cent funding from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the remainder from the United Way and donations. There is much to be done. The only paid staff member needs help. Equipment is needed to help the clients. Services must be extended around the clock.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine, for 42 seconds.

HOMES FOR THE AGED AND NURSING HOMES

Ms. Bryden: During the heat wave last summer, it was reported in the press that there had been about 20 deaths in homes for the aged and nursing homes in the Metro area. It was suggested that the heat could have been a contributing factor.

A coroner’s inquest was held to determine the cause of death and to produce recommendations whether the heat had anything to do with it. They recommended last week that the province develop a province-wide emergency plan at homes for the elderly during intense heat waves.

I would like to ask the minister, when will she bring that sort of plan to this Legislature?

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I believe members of this Legislature have had their privileges abused by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith).

The Solicitor General circulated information concerning Sunday shopping to some members, a package that contained an alleged study conducted by Clayton Research Associates of Toronto and entitled The Impact of Sunday Shopping in Alberta.

The clear intention of that package was to discredit arguments against Bill 113 and Bill 114. No such study exists; there is no such study. I ask that the minister apologize to the members of the House and to the public for this obvious deception.

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully to the member rising on a point of privilege. At the end of his statement, the member asked a question. I suggest that he continue and ask that question at the appropriate time.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery, from Barbados, the Minister of Employment, Labour Relations and Community Development, the Honourable Keith Simmons. Please join me in welcoming the minister.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to ask for unanimous consent so the House can observe the passing of our former colleague the member for Durham North, who was the former Minister of Agriculture and Food, and the late Vic Copps, the mayor of Hamilton.

Agreed to.

WILLIAM NEWMAN

Mr. Sterling: It was with deep regret that we learned of the death Wednesday, October 12, of Bill Newman, a former Ontario cabinet minister and former member for Durham North.

Members will know that Bill Newman was first elected to this Legislature in 1967 for the riding of Ontario South. When the electoral boundaries were changed in 1975, he won the seat in the new riding of Durham North. He was appointed Minister of the Environment in 1974, and later that year he warned Metro that it would have to look to alternatives to dumping its garbage in Ajax and Pickering. He was appointed Minister of Agriculture and Food in October 1975.

Advised by his doctor to take things easy after a heart attack in 1979, he did not run in our 1981 general election. Instead, he returned to farming his acreage in Balsam, Ontario, where the pace of living and working was much more relaxed. In 1981, he was appointed to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario on a part-time basis. In 1985, he was named to the committee set up to study the best use of the Pickering airport land.

Before his election to the Legislature he served as a councillor, deputy reeve and reeve of the township of Pickering. At the time Bill was elected as reeve of the township of Pickering, he was the youngest ever to be elected to that position.

Bill was known around this Legislature as being a straight shooter. In fact, Bill was known as being such a straight shooter that he was also known as being one of the poorest card players in all of the Legislature of Ontario. He was unable to bluff any of his opponents and the press gallery soon learned about that.

Bill Newman was a Conservative, and he was proud to be a Conservative. He was a team player and could always be counted on by his colleagues in the Conservative caucus.

1350

Described as bold and blustery by the then leader of the New Democratic Party, Stephen Lewis also recognized that his heart was that of a lamb. Bill Newman cared about people and that was shown by the tremendous turnout of people at a memorial service held this past Saturday in the United Church at Balsam, Ontario.

He was born in Toronto on January 17, 1928, and he was educated at the University of Toronto and the University of Guelph.

Bill enjoyed the last few years of his life around his wife, Molly, his children, Cathy, Carrie, Allan, and especially his three grandchildren, who will miss him in the future.

We extend our sympathy to his family.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is with great sadness that we note the passing of William Newman on Wednesday, October 12, 1988. To all who knew him as the member from Ontario South and Durham North, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, as Minister of the Environment and as Minister of Agriculture and Food, he was a gentleman of integrity who served his constituents and this province well.

Under his guidance as Minister of the Environment, Ontario was given the far-reaching Environmental Assessment Act in 1975, setting the foundation for environmental protection in this province.

During the four years he served as Minister of Agriculture and Food, from 1975 to 1979, at which time I was opposition critic, I gained a deep respect and admiration for Bill. He was a man who withstood the slings and arrows of politics, a man who showed great leadership and who all the while remained steadfast in his commitment to the farmers of this province.

Bill took the farsighted step of introducing the first food land preservation guidelines in Ontario and was heavily involved in some of the early battles to protect and strengthen our supply management systems. His commitment came from an understanding of farming and a deep love of the land. Although he was raised in Toronto, he pursued an agricultural education at the University of Guelph and spoke proudly of his being the only farmer in his family.

After his retirement from provincial politics in 1981, Bill continued to serve this province as a member of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and also as an active participant in land use issues.

With his passing, the people of Ontario have lost a friend and a capable leader. In his own words: “My first concern was the people I represented and served. Then, as cabinet minister, there was the knowledge that I was taking part in major decisions that would affect the future of people in this province.” We must never forget the wisdom of those words.

May I express, on behalf of the members of this party, our sincere condolences to his wife, Margaret, and his children, Catherine, Allan and Carrie.

William Newman will be missed, but his service to Ontario will not be forgotten.

P. MICHAEL DEWAN

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to a former member of the Legislature and a former Minister of Agriculture for Ontario who passed away July 29, 1988.

With the passing of P. Michael Dewan, Minister of Agriculture from 1937 to 1943, we have lost an important link with our history. Mr. Dewan will be remembered as a minister who played a key role in the co-ordination of the rapid expansion of the agricultural industry during the war years, when farmers provided the food needed for the war effort.

Mr. Dewan presided over the Ontario agricultural industry during an important period in which Ontario farms underwent a technological revolution. Many of the policies he brought in helped set agriculture on a successful course for the next 45 years. The success of our agriculture and food industry today is owed, in great part, to P. Michael Dewan.

On behalf of the members of this party, I express condolences to the Dewan family on its loss.

WILLIAM NEWMAN

Mr. Breaugh: For about 30 years, Bill Newman served the people in his area at different levels -- at the local level, at the county level and here in the provincial Legislative Assembly. He served them in a neighbouring riding to mine. He is one of the first people I met who was a provincial cabinet minister.

He was not exactly a smooth talker, but he certainly was a straight talker. He was the kind of man you could respect immensely, and you knew you could enter into a full-fledged political argument and give it as hard as you could because you were about to get it back as hard as he could. He believed in what he was doing very strongly. I think democracy works well when the people who are elected to serve believe in their causes, put them forward in a straightforward manner and, when the debate is through, leave with no hard feelings. That was always my experience with Bill Newman, that he did not give an inch, but at the end of the day, when the argument was settled, he did not hold a grudge either.

Locally, I think his hallmark is that he did what each one of us is supposed to do. He served the people whom he represented individually. His reputation as someone who, in our terms, was a constituency worker is immense. Even after he left public life, he continued to try to help people with various problems.

All of the members here know that each day you are confronted with a wide variety of people who have problems with the bureaucracy of any level of government, personal problems and all of that. That is one of the things Bill Newman did well. He would serve as an excellent example for all members here on how to do this job: to do it ferociously when you have to, to do it steadfastly and never to forget that there are people back in your own constituency who need your help.

Bill Newman was not a political friend, but in every other sense of the word he was a friend. He shared on many occasions the different responsibilities that we all have. He set an example as someone who served very well the people who lived around him for a very long period of time. There are not many people who can survive in politics for 30 years. Bill Newman is one of those. He was one of those people who made a distinguished mark on the life of the people around him and on the political landscape of Ontario.

To his family and to all of his friends, I want to join, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, in expressing our sorrow in the loss of Bill Newman; but to all of us who remain here at Queen’s Park, there is a memory and an example and a mark that has been set by a man who gave as hard as he could every day of his political life. He will be remembered here.

Mrs. Stoner: My community is in mourning, because it was just present at the memorial service for Bill on the weekend and Bill Newman was our representative, as our reeve and our deputy reeve, as a member of council and as our member of this Legislature.

He was seven years on the councils and was elected to this Legislature in 1967 in the first place, and served on a number of legislative appointments at that time and was eventually appointed to be Minister of the Environment and Minister of Agriculture and Food. Those were most appropriate appointments, because he was always close to the land and he was always sensitive to the needs of the land. As a member of the council and as a member of this Legislature, he leaves great, large footsteps for those of us who follow him.

After leaving provincial politics, he was very active in community issues. He was a member of our local police commission. He was on the federally appointed board studying the best land use for the expropriated airport site in Pickering. He was instrumental just recently in forming a rural area ratepayers’ association, and even after he became ill, he still spoke out against Metro Toronto’s plans for a landfill site within the community. He had told Metro as far back as 1974 that this was not appropriate.

Bill’s commitment to his community earned him a great deal of respect and affection. We always knew that his community came first. His friendships crossed all partisan political boundaries. In a report card on cabinet in 1978, Stephen Lewis said of Bill Newman that underneath the howls, the volume and the verbal velocity, there beats the heart of a lamb, and he was absolutely right; he was loved by his community for his honesty and integrity.

Personally, I have lost a good friend and I know that all of you join me in extending our sympathy to Bill’s lovely wife, Molly, and to his children, Cathy, Carrie and Allan, to the grandchildren and also to his three brothers, his sister and 20 nieces and nephews.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to express my condolences on Bill Newman to this Legislature today.

1400

VICTOR COPPS

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The citizens of Hamilton and citizens right across Canada were very sorry indeed to hear of the death of Victor Copps over the weekend. He was never a member of this House but all of us here, as people involved in the community and public life in the province, know of his great energy and activity, his success in leading many causes and the example that he set in municipal affairs in the city of Hamilton.

He will be greatly missed there, although, as members know, he has been seriously ill for a number of years, ever since a stroke felled him as he was taking part in an around-the-bay race. It is typical that he would have the energy and the enthusiasm never to think for a moment that he should not even have participated in that at the time.

He and I had been involved in many political incidents. As a matter of fact, we ran for the leadership of the party back in 1964, as the earth was cooling. I was not successful on that occasion but even before that, when he was just beginning to be directly active in the politics of the municipality of Hamilton, he undertook to run against Lloyd D. Jackson, who happened to be another Liberal and, incidentally, my uncle. I was out working very hard under those circumstances and, once again, let’s put it this way, I did not win.

But Vic and I, over those years, became good friends indeed and along with many people here we were impressed with his enthusiasm, his energy and his ability, his belief in the democratic process and his love for the fight, whether it was political or otherwise. There was never an occasion when things cleared up and the storm clouds rolled away when anything had impeded in any way at all his strong feelings of friendship for people on all sides of the political battle. Surely this more than anything else is an earmark of an intelligent politician, a person who understands the system and, in that respect, Vic was an example to everybody here and those interested in public life elsewhere.

His family, as members know, have been involved in politics as well and he has set a great example for them. His wife, Geraldine, had a stellar career as a citizenship judge and was highly respected in all communities. His daughters are both candidates for election to the Parliament of Canada and, without commenting on their prospects, I am sure all of us wish them and all other candidates who move into this field of public endeavour well.

My own experience is a personal one and I know that Vic was a brave man, a great fighter and almost always successful in his endeavours. He will be missed personally and by the people of his own community.

Mr. Mackenzie: On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus, I want to convey our sympathy to the Copps family and to say a few words about Victor Copps.

Victor Copps was well respected by all of the citizens of Hamilton. Very few municipal politicians have earned the support and love that he achieved in our community. There were occasional differences but they never negated the respect that people had for Vic and for his commitment to the city of Hamilton.

Victor Copps was elected to the board of control in 1962 and two years later became the mayor of Hamilton and served until his untimely accident in 1976. Vic was a promoter of the first order. He was prepared to defy convention occasionally if it was something that he thought was in the interests of the citizens of Hamilton, as some members will remember from this very chamber when he disagreed with the direction we were taking in terms of regional government and grants to the city of Hamilton.

His cause was always the people of the city of Hamilton. In his 1962 run for mayor of the city of Hamilton, he asked for support of the Hamilton and District Labour Council. Such support is not often given to old party supporters but he got it, almost unanimously, at the meeting and I think it is indicative of the respect which workers accorded him.

His relations with my own union, the United Steel Workers, were always most cordial. They respected his honesty and commitment to Hamilton and appreciated the fact that even when involved in a disagreement, Victor Copps had no partisan comebacks. He was always a gentleman and respectful of the views of others, as hard as he might fight on a specific issue.

He marched proudly in every Labour Day parade in the city of Hamilton, not because it was a political thing to do but because he really believed in the pivotal role that labour played in our particular community. To march alongside Vic with the executive of that labour council and see the way the people called out to him, as I had the privilege of doing on two or three occasions, was an awesome experience. His memory, the number of people he could respond to by name as he marched in that parade, made you wonder just how far you had to go to match what he had done in terms of respect from the people in Hamilton.

Victor Copps liked to think of himself as the mayor for all the people, and he came as close, I think, as is possible to achieving that goal.

Mr. Jackson: I wish to state as well, with all members of this House, our deep sadness at the passing of a great Ontario public servant. Victor Copps will be remembered by many. He will be remembered particularly by myself. I remember my days as a young boy growing up in the north end of Hamilton and watching his political career. He is remembered best for his love of his family, his very deep love of his city and, of course, his love for a Canadian game which is played very well in Hamilton, thanks to his devotion and commitment.

People seldom realize how deeply devoted he was to the game of football and how much he believed in its role. He clearly made commitments above and beyond what anyone in public life should ever be called upon to do. Just recently, a story surfaced which indicates that he was known one day to go to city hall, but on the way he took his wife, Geraldine, and stopped by the bank right on James Street in Hamilton. They got out and went inside, and Geraldine found that they were putting their house up as collateral to guarantee a loan to make sure that the Canadian Football Hall of Fame would become a reality in this country and a reality in Hamilton. That was the kind of commitment that Victor Copps gave his entire life.

He helped develop the civic name The Ambitious City, and he provided all the dynamics and the vision to make that a reality. The landscape of that city bears very much his sense of direction and his sense of belief in that city.

He had a very common touch and yet he had the ability to lead both within his political party and on national forums. He was an outstanding public servant who will be sadly missed, and we wish to join with all members of this House in expressing our very deep sympathies to the Copps family at this time.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all members of the assembly, when Hansard, the official record, is printed, I will make certain that a copy is sent to the Newman, Dewan and Copps families so that they are aware of your words of sympathy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRUG ABUSE

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very pleased to table in the Legislature today the report of the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) on illegal drug use in Ontario.

I want to thank the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for his excellent work in writing this report. It is action-oriented and it brings forward a number of key recommendations. More important, it provides us with a strategy for responding to this most serious problem.

Combating the use of illegal drugs is an issue which the government views with the highest priority. I will be taking the member’s report and recommendations to cabinet this week to ensure that action can be initiated immediately. Specific program responses will be announced by the relevant ministers in the very near future.

As both a legislator and as a parent, I understand the depths of concern in our society about this problem, and I would invite the assistance of all members of the Legislature in pursuing the directions that the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay has highlighted in the battle against illegal drug use.

1410

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Hon. Mr. Curling: Today I wish to make a statement regarding apprenticeship funding in Ontario.

Since 1944, the government of Canada has funded the full costs of classroom training and income support for all apprentices. The province has been paying the cost of delivering all apprenticeship programs.

Apprenticeship is the most cost-effective training system delivered by any government in this country. As well, apprenticeship provides highly skilled workers for critical industries in our economy.

As members may be aware, for the first time the federal government has unilaterally capped its funding of apprenticeship training. This year the federal government limited its funding in Ontario to $37 million, a cut from last year’s level of $37.4 million. Increased demand brings the cost of this important training to $42 million.

This does not only leave a shortfall of $5 million but, more important, it leaves 5,000 apprentices and 3,000 employers throughout the province discouraged and frustrated.

Critical trades in construction and industry will be hardest hit, trades in which employers are already experiencing shortages of skilled labour, trades that are vital to our economy at a time when the provincial economy is strong.

The government of Ontario is not prepared to stand by and see the apprenticeship system eroded by the federal government. We cannot allow apprenticeship training, which is based on real labour market demands, to be delayed.

Therefore, the government of Ontario will make up this shortfall. We are committing $5 million to ensure that 5,000 apprentices who were expecting to take in-school training in their chosen trade receive that training. This does not mean that we are assuming responsibility for an area of federal jurisdiction. We will vigorously pursue the federal government to recover these costs.

The labour market adjustment challenge facing Ontario has never been greater. Changing demographics, international markets and technological innovations all have significant implications for labour market policies.

Against this backdrop, the federal government is pursuing policies that will further accelerate these adjustment pressures: Ottawa’s initiative to drastically alter our trading relationship with the United States.

At the same time, the federal government is cutting back its support for labour adjustment programs.

Since 1984-85, federal funding for training and employment development has been reduced by more than $500 million, from $2.2 billion to $1.6 billion in the current year, a drop of 27 per cent. In Ontario, federal funding has dropped from $552 million in 1984-85 to $375 million this year, a 32 per cent decrease.

Apprenticeship is just the most recent victim.

In contrast, Ontario has almost doubled its spending on training from $133 million in 1984-85 to $264 million in 1988-89.

We are working to ensure that apprentices and employers who depend on this program will not be held in a state of uncertainty over government commitments to apprenticeship in the future.

Notwithstanding our current difficulties in this and other areas, we remain committed to building a strong training system in partnership with the federal government. We will continue to negotiate with the federal government to renew its commitment to a growing and flexible apprenticeship system.

A strong apprenticeship system is vital to the Ontario economy as we move into the 1990s and beyond. We face rapid technological change, skills shortages and tough international competition. Apprenticeship is an absolute necessity in meeting this challenge.

We must be sure that Ontario has the skilled workforce it needs to compete successfully in a rapidly changing international marketplace. Apprenticeship training is critical to this success.

1988 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: At the Seoul Summer Olympic Games, 169 young men and women from Ontario competed as part of the Canadian team. I was proud to be there with them, to cheer their efforts, to visit with them at the athletes’ village and to witness their pride on the winners’ stand while our national anthem was played.

During the past few weeks, a great deal of attention has been focused on only part of the Seoul Olympics story. This afternoon, I would like to broaden that focus.

Ontario athletes comprised 45 per cent of the Canadian Olympic team -- a number in excess of Ontario’s percentage of Canadian population. Ontarians won three individual medals and were a part of four team-medal victories.

Lennox Lewis of Kitchener was the first Canadian boxer to win a gold medal in the superheavyweight category. It has been 56 years since a Canadian won a gold medal in boxing, and that was Toronto’s Horace Lefty Gwynne.

Also in boxing, Egerton Marcus of Toronto won the silver medal in the middleweight category -- quite an accomplishment in view of the fact that Mr. Marcus competed with a fracture in his hand.

The other medallists include Victor Davis of Waterloo and Sandy Goss of Toronto, members of the men’s 400-medley relay swimming team, silver medal.

Lori Melien of Whitby, Allison Higson of Brampton and Jane Kerr of Mississauga, members of the women’s 400-medley relay swimming team, bronze medal.

Cynthia Ishoy of King, Eva Marie Pracht of Cedar Valley and Ashley Nicoll of Toronto, members of the equestrian team dressage, bronze medal -- the first medal ever won by Canadians in this event.

Frank McLaughlin and John Millen, both of Toronto, Flying Dutchman event in yachting, bronze medal.

Dave Steen of Burlington, decathlon, bronze medal. Mr. Steen is the first Canadian ever to win a medal in this event.

The athletes I have named make only a partial list. At the ministry, we will be closely following the Seoul Paralympics where some of our province’s finest disabled athletes are competing. Those games officially opened yesterday.

I am proud to say that my ministry helped some of these young people on the road to Seoul through our support of the Ontario amateur sport system. In fact, 21 per cent of the Ontario Olympians benefited from our Best Ever program.

During the Olympics and the Paralympics, many young Ontarians showed, and are showing, the world their courage and determination. They were part of the true Olympic spirit, the kind of spirit shown by their fellow Canadian, Lawrence Lemieux.

As you will recall, he was the sailor from Alberta who, in the middle of a race, saved the life of one of his competitors who had fallen overboard and was in distress. For his selfless heroism, Mr. Lemieux received a special award from the International Olympic Committee. That is the kind of Olympic spirit that should be honoured.

As Minister of Tourism and Recreation for this province, I feel strongly that the Olympic spirit of our Ontario athletes should also be honoured.

As an aside, I would also like to mention to the members of the Ontario Legislature that Robert Marland, the son of Mississauga South MPP Margaret Marland, was one of the Olympic participants in the rowing event. Robert is a real nice young gentleman and it was a pleasure to meet him. He also made Ontario proud. He would make a good young Liberal.

1420

ACID RAIN

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Last April, Ontario filed a petition asking the United States Environmental Protection Agency to begin the necessary legal procedures to force American acid rain polluters to clean up. That petition was filed in the context of an appeal court ruling which stated it could not order the US EPA to force an acid rain cleanup, as Ontario had asked the court to do, until the EPA first took several procedural steps.

Therefore, Ontario petitioned the EPA officially to publish the findings of its former administrator, Douglas Costele, that acid rain generated in the US endangers public health or welfare in Canada and that the US government has been granted a reciprocal right to acquire control of acid rain from Canadian sources.

After considering any submissions, the EPA could then formally act on these findings and require states whose emissions cause international pollution to impose additional pollution controls. The major targets for enforcement are large coal-fired power plants in the midwestern states. These plants are causing much of the acid rain which falls on Ontario and Quebec.

As we know, the US government has all the authority it needs under existing laws to act now to stop acid rain. Our petition was a formal request to the EPA to stop stalling and enforce its laws.

Last Friday evening, the US EPA said that it was “premature to rule” on that petition.

“I do not believe that EPA presently has sufficient information to undertake the regulatory program required,” a US EPA official wrote.

“Identifying the blameworthy states and determining the actions that would be required to eliminate the problem are very complex issues which must be answered before regulatory action would be appropriate.”

The US EPA said it intends to wait for a report due in 1990 before it will consider action.

This reasoning flies in the face of both centuries-old knowledge and sophisticated computer air pollution modelling, which has been verified by testing. As Sir Isaac Newton noted with regard to gravity, what goes up must come down; and as our scientists have conclusively demonstrated, acid rain pollution going up the smokestacks of the Ohio Valley and adjacent US states rains down upon Ontario’s sensitive lakes, forests, streams and cities.

The Reagan administration has an eight-year history of ignoring environmental reality, and as it limps into history, it seems intent on retaining the dubious virtue of being consistently wrong on environmental matters.

My ministry’s lawyers are now examining the US EPA’s denial of Ontario’s request for action with a mind to challenging that denial in court. Even as more sensible people prepare to administer affairs in the United States, our government intends to press our neighbours for relief from their acid rain assault upon us.

RESPONSES

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond to the statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) with respect to the report on drugs by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black).

I think it is important to note that the member has made some very substantive criticisms of his own government. He has said, for example, that there is a shortage of treatment programs for adolescents. He has also said in his report there is a shortage of programs and services in northern Ontario, something, I might add, that my colleagues and I heard very directly about in our recent visits to North Bay and Kirkland Lake and Timmins and Kapuskasing just two weeks ago.

“Finally,” he said, “There is a great need for the development and implementation of program evaluation throughout the intervention and treatment field.”

I know that the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay might not like to present this report as a criticism of the status quo or as a criticism of the government, but I say to the Premier that now that this report is public, all the talk and headline-grabbing will not get him any further. We know what the lack is; we know what the need is; it has been carefully identified, It has been identified by many experts, and now it has finally been identified by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

We say it is time for action. This thing cannot afford to gather dust on the shelves. We expect this government to act in those areas where even its own members are now identifying a serious shortage of programs to deal with this very important problem of drug abuse.

1988 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

Mr. Farnan: I note that the minister was proud to be with our athletes in Seoul. No doubt he enjoyed the visit; I hope he did. I am looking forward to the future when I may attend the Barcelona Olympics in the capacity of minister -- in the same capacity -- to bring back a report.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Farnan: We believe we must continue to support the achievement of athletes through the Best Ever program. I would have liked the report to reflect all the participants, some 80 Ontario participants, perhaps by name. I encourage the minister perhaps to read into the record of the House at some stage all participants who represented Canada at the Olympics who came from Ontario, because we do believe it is not just the winners. We want to recognize the winners -- we are proud of the winners -- but we want to recognize all those who achieved these very high standards, who represented Canada and who came from Ontario.

We would emphasize again that we support the Best Ever program. The emphasis must always remain, we believe, on encouraging participation, particularly in minor sports and recreation facilities, for the broad range of the population of Ontario.

I thank the minister for his report.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just briefly to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling): The $5-million announcement should have been made immediately we knew this default by the federal government was coming. I am glad it is here; I just hope it will be spent, unlike the other money that was supposed to be spent for increasing the number of women in apprenticeship positions or getting the tools for apprentices, which was how many months late? Give us a break.

I am shocked that the Minister of Education Mr. Ward) has not made a statement today. The Supreme Court of Ontario has shown that Bill 125 is unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is part of my response to the Minister of Skills Development; apprenticeship is a kind of education. We already have a very chaotic situation coming up this fall in the elections, and now the French-speaking electorate does not know what to do. It is irresponsible of the minister not come into the House today and tell us what the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Further responses?

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Brandt: I would like to respond to the report released today by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay with respect to the drug problem in Ontario. This is a matter our party did raise before the close of the last session and certainly one in which we can agree with the fundamental and basic findings of the report, which indicate that there is a critical problem with respect to the widespread use of illegal drugs in our society.

1430

Certainly, we cannot disagree with the 29 recommendations which have been made, most of which are directed towards the provincial government in terms of action that should be taken; but we do take some exception to the fact that this government has not taken any steps whatever to attempt to co-ordinate any of the limited number of programs out there now. More particularly, I have been calling on the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) to make the Ontario Provincial Police more co-operative with municipal, local and federal police forces in order to bring at least some limited kind of control to the flow of drugs which is not only coming across our borders but in a transprovincial method of shipment as well.

I think there has to be some very clear commitment on the part of this government to direct its attention, as well as its financial resources, towards a problem which is growing very rapidly in our society, which cannot be taken lightly and I am sure is not being taken lightly by any member of this Legislative Assembly.

In our response to the report of the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, let me simply say that we are looking for the government to respond to some or all of the 29 recommendations. We are looking for a commitment with respect to a coordinated policy to respond to this particular problem. We are looking on the bottom line for some action from the government to show that its true commitment is in trying to come to grips with a very critical and growing problem in our society which has to be dealt with by government.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the statement by the Minister of Skills Development. Actually, for $5 million it is a wonderful opportunity to once again speak to the inadequacies in the delivery system for skills development programs, especially with regard to apprenticeship programs.

I commend the minister for his intent today and I will commend him even much more loudly if he can do anything about program delivery. His ministry underspent by $77 million. His own budget this year was slashed by $47 million. In his own cabinet document which showed plans for the delivery of apprenticeship programs, he did not begin to put in enough money in this province to deliver the programs he promised. I am now talking about some 20,000 potential positions over five years. He cannot begin to do it.

I am very disappointed today that he even bothered to bring this to the attention of the House. I should tell him that in North Bay this summer, he was not even able to transfer money from one department to the other so that students who were already halfway through their apprenticeship programs did not have to drop out. I request that the minister take a look at his delivery system and not worry so much about the money and spend it more efficiently.

ACID RAIN

Mrs. Marland: I want to comment on the statement by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). I think the statement is really an example of deflecting attention from himself and his ministry and redirecting the focus to the United States. What we are doing is copping out on our own responsibilities. We must strengthen our position by demonstration, and one of the demonstrations this minister could make is by reconvening his select committee on the environment, which he has now promised for about two years.

1988 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

Mrs. Marland: I want to take a moment to thank the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) for his kind comments about my son Robert. Our caucus shares in his congratulations to all the athletes of Ontario who competed in the Olympic games. We are indeed proud of those young people. Whether or not they brought home medals, they took with them the pride and glory of this province in their individual personal achievements.

Certainly, the Olympics are still the only worldwide, unifying event that ignores all the ongoing barriers of war, strife, colour and creed. It is a superb example of a nonpolitical, unifying force throughout the countries of the world. We hope that the message of the Olympic games will broaden throughout the world into other areas where it is so needed.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

Mr. Harris: I wonder if I could offer unanimous consent to revert to ministerial statements for one from the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), if he would like to tell us how they are going to deal with --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) this afternoon. I wonder if he might cast his mind back to the last election when, on September 1, 1987, he told the people of Ontario, “The Ontario Liberal government is committed to building a comprehensive child care system to meet the needs of all Ontarians, a system that recognizes child care as a basic public service.”

In the gallery today there are a number of women and their children. They have something in common. They are all either on a waiting list, waiting to get into child care, or else they are in a child care centre that is about to be closed.

I wonder if the Premier can possibly square the promises he made on child care, on behalf of the Liberal Party, to the working men and women of this province with the presence in our gallery today of Janice Thomson, who is 16 years old. She is a sole-support parent; she wants to return to grade 9; she cannot get care for her 15-month-old child, and she is on welfare. I wonder if the Premier would not recognize that is a disgraceful situation and is something that should be addressed right away by this government.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the minister could bring the honourable member up to date on all the programs he has instituted in the last three years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been referred to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would remind the honourable leader of the official opposition that in the three years we have been the government of Ontario, subsidized spaces in the Metro area have increased from approximately 10,000 to 18,000. That is an 80 per cent increase.

I would also remind the honourable member that three years ago we made a commitment to double those subsidized spaces. That commitment has been kept. Ontario’s total number of subsidized spaces in 1985 was approximately 20,000. By the end of this fiscal year, it will be 41,000. That is a doubling, as we committed.

I would remind the honourable member that the Metro area has approximately 20 per cent of the day-care-age children in Ontario but it has 47 per cent of the subsidized spaces. I think this government has treated Metro and Metro citizens fairly.

Mr. B. Rae: Since the Premier is unwilling to answer a question based on a promise and a statement that he made in the last election, I want to again remind the minister what his leader said. Since his leader is not prepared to stand up and respond to questions dealing with this issue and does not have the courage to come forth and debate on the question, I would like to simply say to the minister --

An hon. member: The Brian Mulroney of the provincial House.

Mr. B. Rae: It has been alleged that the Prime Minister of Canada plucks his eyebrows. This is a Premier who plucks his promises. That is what we have, a Premier who is not --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier said: “Schools are a natural focal point for Ontario’s neighbourhoods. We believe that neighbourhood schools must play an active role in the development of a comprehensive, integrated child care system.”

How can the minister possibly square that -- not with respect to whether it is Metro or whether it is Thunder Bay, where there is a waiting list of nearly 600 people, or whether it is his own constituency in Kitchener where there are people who are on waiting lists and cannot get into child care. This is not a Toronto issue. This is not a yuppie issue, as the minister has been telling some people in attempting to divide this province. This is an issue that unites working families across Ontario and they expect a response from the government. That is what they are waiting for.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. B. Rae: How can the minister square that commitment made to neighbourhood schools when in fact there are three schools in my own constituency that are about to be closed because of what the minister has done. How can he square that?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The statement of the Premier and the statements of this minister have been very clear and very precise. With the releasing of the document called New Directions for Child Care, we set very clear time frames, we set very clear dollar amounts, we set very clear numbers of spaces that were going to be provided. We have kept every single one of those commitments in that document.

As a matter of fact, we are ahead of our schedule with respect to every single commitment in that document; every single one. We indicated that we were going to triple the amount of money spent on child care. We have gone from $88 million to $270 million this year. That is a tripling of that amount of money. We said we were going to double the number of subsidized spaces. Those subsidized spaces will be doubled this fiscal year. We indicated that we were going to increase the number of licensed spaces. We are increasing them at the rate of 8,000 every single year.

We indicated that we were going to deal with the wage policy for people working in those day care centres. We have increased, this year alone, the average wage of day care workers by $3,500. We kept those commitments; every one of them.

Mr. Callahan: Do more research, Bob.

Mr. B. Rae: The member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) talks about the numbers. I would like him to simply step outside and talk to the women who are there with their children. That is research. Those are the numbers that are there. Those are the people who are there. That is the reality.

1440

There are nearly 10,000 people who are on a waiting list. There are 10,000 people who are not going to get to work because this government has not been prepared to adequately fund centres. There are staff who are being laid off --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: What is this, a lecture?

Mr. B. Rae: They do not want to hear the truth. There are staff who are being laid off. They do not want to hear about it. There are staff who are being laid off and the government is not prepared to meet the need that is there.

That is the question. The question is whether or not they are prepared to meet the need that is there. It is a need that is growing and --

Mr. Speaker: Is that the question?

Mr. B. Rae: I want to ask the minister: Does he think it right and fair that in this year there should be women 16, 17, 18 years old who are not going to school because his government is not prepared to spend 30-cent dollars on child care subsidized spaces in this province, which is exactly what is happening?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not know where the honourable member gets the 30-cent dollars. I would remind him that the current cost-sharing between the federal government and Ontario is such that the federal government allocates 38 cents and the province picks up the balance.

The other point I would make to the honourable member is that, when he drew to my attention about people going back to school, he would know that Burnhamthorpe school had a proposal before us. That proposal has been met. He will be aware of the fact, and I cannot remember the name, but a school in North York had a proposal before us. That one has been met.

The honourable member referred to three elementary school programs in his own area. I would draw to his attention that the learning enrichment centres have 70 per cent of their spaces subsidized. Metro will advise the honourable member that is the highest rate of subsidization of any organization in the Metro area.

We never said at any time that those centres would be 100 per cent subsidized. We have always said it is in the best interest of the centre, for a broad base of support in those centres, that there should be some subsidization and some full-fee-paying parents.

That is what we have there, but those particular centres the honourable member is referring to are subsidized at the rate of 70 per cent of all of their spaces. That is pretty good.

Mr. B. Rae: What the minister is saying about the learning enrichment centres is that it is too bad the people --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier, if you will allow it.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. B. Rae: t would like to ask the Premier a question, if he is prepared to answer this question. It deals with housing and it deals with the dismissal of Mr. Sewell as the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.

We have seen already the incredible situation with respect to waiting lists for child care. Since his government came to power, the waiting list for Metropolitan Toronto housing has gone up from 4,600 families to over 10,000 families.

Sitting on the desk of his Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) since last year there have been three proposals from Mr. Sewell with respect to redevelopment of existing sites, one of them in Jane-Finch, one of them in Birchmount and one of them in Moss Park.

This government has done nothing with any of these proposals with respect to redevelopment. How can the Premier justify firing Mr. Sewell, and second, failing to act on proposals that are practical and down to earth and that would deal with the problems facing those thousands of families who are waiting for a decent place to live in this city?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my friend opposite, Mr. Sewell was not fired. I say to my honourable friend, I am sure he can understand that is just not the case factually.

On a number of questions he raises with respect to proposals on the minister’s desk, I can tell my honourable friend that a number of very significant initiatives have been undertaken in the city of Toronto and elsewhere. I refer to St. Lawrence East and other places, and I say to my honourable friend that I think he is seeing the minister and the Ministry of Housing wrestle with tough problems in a very aggressive way.

Mr. B. Rae: The waiting list for housing across the province has grown to over 38,000 in July 1988. That is from 27,000, and that represents nearly 60,000 people, The waiting list in Toronto has grown by nearly 73 per cent.

The question I have for the Premier is this: We have from Mr. Sewell, which he has made available -- they are now public documents -- architects’ designs for three sites. One of them, in the Jane-Finch corridor, would deal very directly with the drug problem, with the enforcement problem and with the security problem, which are all issues of enormous importance, and the Premier will be aware of those from comments that he has made publicly.

How can the Premier justify this delay of over a year in dealing with practical proposals that have been made to his government by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, proposals that his government has simply sat on for over a year, and then dismiss Mr. Sewell without so much as a thank you?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister can comment in detail on specific proposals that the honourable member would like to discuss, but I say to him it is somewhat understandable that there is an enormous pressure on housing now with the massive net in-migration into Ontario in the last year, and this year we are anticipating another 120,000 or so. My honourable friend, I am sure, can understand the enormous pressure this puts on the housing system and, in spite of great progress that has been made, the pressure continues.

I say to him that we will continue to be unrelenting in our efforts to try to solve these problems. Massive amounts of money have been put in. The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has put $2 billion into co-operative housing in his last budget. He has seen a number of agreements being signed with municipalities.

So I say to my honourable friend that I do not want to mislead him to think we can meet that enormous demand coming from net in-migration tomorrow morning, but I think any fair assessment will say that progress is being made.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps the Premier could just answer this question: If he is really interested in producing more housing stock, why has he sat on three practical proposals that have been put forward to him by the largest public housing authority in Ontario? I would like to ask him why he has not acted on any of these when the waiting list is expanding, the need is clearly there, the moves for reform have been asked for and he has not moved. Can he explain why that is?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I cannot respond to each specific proposal that has been put forward; there are many. But I can tell him that many have been acted upon. Look at St. Lawrence East, for example, which will house some 10,000 people.

I say to my honourable friend that we are using the limited resources we have in a creative way and going ahead. I can tell him that no sensible proposal that is affordable is turned down. They are all prioritized, and I think a reasonable assessment will say that real progress is being made.

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

Mr. Brandt: Before asking my first question, I would like to pay tribute to the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) and to the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), who happens to be the Speaker, on having served 21 years in this House. I think that is a tribute that deserves mentioning.

I would like to extend the congratulations of my party as well to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), who is now celebrating his 10th year in elected office.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and it relates to what many believe to be the most serious problem, in environmental terms, in this entire province: namely, that of the waste management crisis. I say it has reached crisis levels when one recognizes the number of municipalities that are presently without a waste site, those that are very quickly going to exhaust their present facilities and others that have spent literally millions of dollars in an attempt to solve their problems.

I wonder if the minister was, in fact, quoted correctly when he indicated that the province will not step in to solve waste problems and that he feels it is purely a municipal or local government problem, apart from advice he is prepared to give. Is that his position on this matter of growing consequence?

1450

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, I want to join with the leader of the third party in paying tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, to my friend the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) and to the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) the leader of the New Democratic Party, on their special celebrations today.

To go to the question that the former Environment minister has asked me, I indicated very clearly on a number of occasions that our ministry has been in communication with, had meetings with, has been involved in joint planning with, through our advisory capacity, municipalities across Ontario for some period of time. He will recognize that we have, in fact, provided the kind of leadership -- many of the people who are enlightened in the municipal scene, and he knows there are many of those people who have been looking to the field of recycling, for instance -- that diverts materials that would normally go into a landfill site away from that landfill site.

For instance, that is why this government has changed from the $750,000 a year that the member as Minister of the Environment was providing in his last years of government, to $7.7 million this year on the part of this government, to promote recycling. This is why we will be reaching a point where one million households in Ontario will, in fact, be on the first-class, curbside blue box recycling program in this particular month, as we are here in the Legislature. That is why we have enhanced a number of programs which are designed to assist municipalities in going through the processes --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Brandt: I applaud the minister on enlarging a program that a previous government started with respect to recycling; but let me say to the minister, when the region of Halton has been 14 years in attempting to prepare for a landfill site and has spent some $18 million, and when the people of Halton, in fact, are required to ship their waste to the United States to be incinerated, I think the Minister of the Environment should stand up and take notice and perhaps take some action.

What is he prepared to do about municipalities when he talks about working co-operatively with them, and they do have a recycling program, as the minister is well aware, in that community? What is he prepared to do to reduce the time lines, streamline the process in some fashion, to help regions like Halton bring to a head the problem of their waste landfill sites?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is interesting that the member should bring up problems with waste landfill sites because I can recall, as a member of the opposition, a legacy of mistakes that were made by the previous government because it did not appropriately apply the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act in this province.

The member will recall it was the former government that allowed the Ontario Waste Management Corp. to move forward with this proposal in South Cayuga and exempted it from the Environmental Assessment Act, and it was this government that in fact placed that under the Environmental Assessment Act. It was the former government that allowed the Pauzé landfill site to be poorly located and mismanaged. When it was finally forced to accept the reality that the landfill was leaking, it never shut it down despite promises to do so, and it was this government that kept its promise to shut down the Pauzé landfill. It was the former government that allowed the Smithville polychlorinated biphenyls site to be established and to operate in a rather laissez-faire fashion. It is this government that is going to have to spend millions upon millions of dollars of provincial taxpayers’ money to clean that up --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Brandt: And it is his government that is allowing waste to be shipped to the United States. It is his government that has some 100 municipalities waiting for approvals under the Environmental Assessment Act for new landfill sites. It is his government that has 300 municipalities which, in the short-term future, are going to have to get approval through his ministry to find someplace to put their garbage.

Forget about what happened three years ago. Forget about anyone else’s faults. Why does he not look for a moment at trying to solve the problem himself? He is the minister. What is he going to do about the landfill site crisis in this province?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know the seven blue box programs that were going on when the leader of the third party was in government were a very small start in the program. Of course, everyone in this House will remember that they did not have the intestinal fortitude on the other side to deal with the pop container regulation. It took this government to implement soft drink container legislation which has brought $20 million additional from the private sector to ensure that recycling is going to work in this province.

Members should know that all across the province there are waste management master plans that are being developed by municipalities working together, by municipalities which are gathered together, not working in several different directions but coming together to solve their problems with the advice, the financial support and the technical and scientific support of the Ministry of the Environment.

If the member wishes to fabricate a situation that he thinks exists, if he wishes to go back to the old --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ÉLECTION DE CONSEILLERS SCOLAIRES / TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

M. Pope: J’aimerais poser une question au ministre de l’Éducation. Nous avons eu la décision, ce matin, de la Cour suprême de l’Ontario au sujet de la Loi 125. Il n’y a eu aucune réaction du tout de la part du gouvernement de l’Ontario ni du ministre de l’Éducation. Qu’est-ce qui se passe avec la Loi 125 et les élections des membres de conseils d’éducation dans les communautés touchées par cette décision?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I will refer that question to the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Scott: This morning, Mr. Justice Sirois of the Supreme Court of Ontario gave a short oral judgement with respect to the proceedings that were before him. He indicated that his formal written reasons would be available this afternoon. When they are, the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and I and our staffs will be examining them.

It is interesting to note that he did not declare any of the sections of the bill unconstitutional. What he said orally was that he thought a provision of the bill which determines the proportion of school trustees to represent the majority and minority sectors should not take effect at this time.

In the next 24 hours, the minister and I and our staffs will be looking as to how we can respond to assure that the elections that are presently under way proceed and take place.

Mr. Pope: That is all very nice, but the Minister of Education, who today has washed his hands of this issue, ignored the advice of members of the opposition when this bill was being debated. He ignored the advice of the trustees’ organizations in the province, which sought him out to plead with him not to proceed at the late date immediately prior to these elections with his project, Bill 125, and asked him not to do it because he had left it so late.

He ignored their advice. He ignored private advice he was given in his office by those involved in the education system, and we now have a shambles on our hands that is the making of the Minister of Education. He will not stand up and make a statement and he will not answer questions in the House today. That is what we have, a Minister of Education who is abdicating his responsibility for a problem that he created.

Under what rules will the election go ahead this fall -- under the old law or under the new law? Today is the last date for the filing of nominations. Is the minister going to extend the date for the filing of nominations? Saturday was the last date for revisions to the enumeration list.

Mr. Speaker: I heard a question. Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The one thing I have learned is that when you are dealing with complicated matters in court, it is dangerous to overreact. The sound of the bull moose in heat, of course, is threatening to all of us and there is a natural inclination to be stampeded.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Scott: In all these important agricultural matters, I defer to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As a matter of fact, the honourable members of the official opposition obviously react in the same way I do to the question posed by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope).

1500

The first thing to observe is that Mr. Justice Sirois did not conclude that this provision was unconstitutional. That is the first thing. What he said was that he thought that issue should be decided at some other time and in some other place, but he directed that the representation provision should not go into effect at this time.

It is a very unusual order and I want to assure the honourable members that the Minister of Education and I are working very closely so that we will be able to respond to the House and to the public as soon as possible in a way to ensure that the elections which are already under way will take place.

Mr. Pope: The minister may think that this is a sporting or Natural Resources exercise but we have elections going on across Ontario. Nominations have to close today at five o’clock. There will be some impact from this decision with respect to the number and type of trustees in school board regions across the province. There will be that effect.

There is going to be an impact with respect to what enumeration list you are going to be on and your rights to revision under the new decision that was reached today by the Court of Appeal of Ontario. The minister may want to sit there and study this matter. He has left everything to the last minute throughout this whole exercise on Bill 125. It is the people in different parts of the province who have to suffer the consequences of his negligence and inaction.

What is the minister going to tell prospective candidates for election and the electors of these regions of Ontario when the right to be nominated as a candidate closes today at five o’clock and the right to be placed on a certain selected enumerated roll expired last Saturday? What is the minister going to do to remedy the injustice that the Minister of Education has created across --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If you heard the judgement given this morning -- we hope to read it when it is released later today -- the first thing that is perfectly clear is that the enumeration lists have not been attacked or criticized in any way by the judge. The enumeration that has taken place appears to be satisfactory.

It is also clear that nominations can take place and that persons who have been nominated or may be nominated before the close of the process today will be able to be elected. What we have is no determination by the judge that any provision of the act is unconstitutional.

He deals with one provision, apparently, and says it should not go into effect yet. We propose, over the next few days, to examine that in light of what it may mean in respect of the allocation of the population to the two boards. When we have determined what the appropriate legal, legislative or regulatory response is, the House will be informed in the usual way.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning Bill 162 which will come back into the House on Wednesday. The minister has stated on several occasions that before he introduced this bill he had broad discussions with many groups across this province. In fact, in August he said he had had “very extensive discussions with virtually all the participants, all of the stakeholders in the workers’ compensation system.”

We in this House know that is absolutely untrue and that the only people the minister consulted were the employers and the top brass at the Workers’ Compensation Board, and that in fact the very people who are going to be most affected by the bill -- that is, the workers themselves -- had no participation in this bill.

I want to ask the minister, given the fact that the legal clinics, the trade union movement and the injured workers’ groups are completely opposed to this bill -- and they have read it, I might add -- will he not do the decent thing; that is, throw this bill out, start again, and bring in people who actually know something about the system and actually care about injured workers?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not know what I have to do to prove to the member for Sudbury East that I consulted broadly prior to the drafting of the bill. I could, if she likes, send her over my appointment book and show her the number of times and occasions upon which I have met with representatives of injured workers. Indeed, subsequent to the introduction of the bill, on many occasions during the summer, I met with the injured workers’ community and its representatives.

They said to me over and over again, “We want a system that more fairly provides for those of us who have permanent injuries and we want a system that makes a better commitment to rehabilitation and we want a system that helps us get our jobs back. Besides that, we want a system that provides realistic ceilings on the kinds of earnings that we were making prior to our injuries.”

That is precisely what this bill does. That is precisely the impact of Bill 162, and if my friend the member for Sudbury East would simply take a careful look at the bill, I think she would have to acknowledge that in this House as well.

Miss Martel: I have taken a careful look at it. Why does the minister not read it and find out what it is all about?

If there were injured workers in this province who truly believe this bill was going to make the system more fair, they would not have been demonstrating outside today with the trade union movement, injured workers and the legal clinics across this province and they would not have been demonstrating outside Liberal MPPs’ offices across this province as well.

I want to ask the minister, in view of the fact that there is widespread opposition to this bill, will he now guarantee in this House there will be full public hearings across the province on this bill? He can do that simply by advising the government House leader and the six committee members on the resources development committee that is what he wants. Will he commit --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has asked her question.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Let me just make a comment about the demonstration that was held today. I am not surprised that injured workers are demonstrating. I am not surprised, frankly, for two reasons.

Let me tell the member the first. First, injured workers in this province have been living for many, many years on a system that has been arbitrary and unfair to far too many workers.

But the second reason is this: Some of the misinformation that has been given to injured workers in this province is absolutely shocking. I saw the document that the member and her leader distributed to meetings of injured workers, and I will tell her quite frankly, I have never seen such a distortion of a piece of legislation as I have in the pamphlet that they handed out.

In closing, let me just read a brief, brief, paragraph, if I could --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order.

LANDFILL SITE

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure this minister is well aware of the problems that he has created in Peel with respect to his recent notice of order on the subject of the proposed landfill site and the environmental assessment in Peel.

Thanks to this proposed order, we now have two serious problems. One is a need for a landfill site and the other is the need to free up acceptable land for the construction of housing.

I would like us to put all excuses aside for a moment and look at the reality of the situation. The region of Peel’s present dump site will close in 1990. The minister’s recent decision will delay the construction of a new site by up to five years. It takes only simple math to calculate that Peel will have nowhere to put garbage in two years.

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mrs. Marland: My question to the minister is, how does the minister intend to solve the real problem and why has he refused to meet immediately with Chairman Frank Bean, Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mayor Ken Whillans and Mayor Emil Kolb of Caledon?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To answer the latter part of the question first, I some time ago agreed to meet with some of these individuals. In fact, I agreed to meet with Mayor McCallion. At the same time, I suggested that the other two mayors be present for that. Mrs. McCallion indicated that was not satisfactory to her and that it would be a period later on when I could meet with of all these people that would be useful. I want to clarify that. That offer was made; there was a meeting that was established; I thought it would be appropriate to invite the other two mayors at the same time, and I will be meeting with the entire group in the not-too-distant future.

I want to indicate as well, as the member may know, that in fact the Ministry of the Environment has been indicating its concern about the environmental assessment process in Peel, I think since 1984 at the officials’ level, and that the former Deputy Minister of the Environment, Rod McLeod, directed a letter to the region in June 1987 and personally communicated his concerns and my concerns about the process it was going through at that time.

I think one has to look carefully at many instances where we have to choose what --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

1510

Mrs. Marland: The meeting to which the minister refers is not until October 28. It is significant that it is after the appeal period, and the gamesmanship in this whole matter is really unacceptable to the people of Peel. The region of Peel has now been forced to place a freeze on unregistered land. Each day this delay continues to cost developers, builders, workers and home buyers a great deal of money. The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised the municipality three months ago they would ensure that the government red tape would be cut to provide housing for people at a faster rate and better prices.

Now this ministry comes in at the 11th hour to back up not only the building of new houses but the construction of a Peel dump site. My question is, when will the minister stand up and help resolve this crisis that we are facing? Or will he continue to wash his hands of the whole matter and run and hide and not deal with the issue that his deputy minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has already asked two questions.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is simply misinformed. She does not have the information, and the member should be aware, as I think those who sat in municipal council and as members of the regional government staff and of municipal staffs will know, that the Ministry of the Environment, since 1984, has expressed concern about the environmental assessment process.

This has come as no surprise to anyone in the region of Peel. You see, it is no longer acceptable to say that we will not have a site in this location because the mayor does not want it there, or we will not consider a site in another location because somebody else does not want it there, or it is some municipality’s turn to have it, somebody else’s turn. None of those, of course, puts the environment as the primary consideration.

I put the environment as the primary consideration and that is why our ministry, since 1984, has expressed concerns about the process it has gone through. It is time that people looked at all of the sites from an environmental point of view.

FIRE PREVENTION

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Solicitor General. As the minister is aware, 154 people were killed in fires in Ontario in 1987. To emphasize the significance of this figure, it is greater than the number of Ontarians who died from acquired immune deficiency syndrome last year, and yet people still have that “It won’t happen to me or to my family” attitude.

Public education and awareness could help prevent many of these human tragedies. Can the minister advise this House of any recent initiatives her ministry has taken to deal with this matter and the progress made thus far?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Yes. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere will be very happy to know that the ministry very much concerns itself with the matter of fire deaths, and we recognize that the most important area to be addressed is that of prevention. To this end, in 1987 we started a major initiative on prevention. We appointed a prevention officer, seconded from North York, who has been working extensively with the fire marshal’s office, existing municipalities and especially those areas that do not have fire departments.

We have addressed $500,000 to this, and many initiatives are already coming forth from this. We have a new videotape out, made up of many segments which, in their own right, can be used on TV but which, as a totality, can be set on TV by the public service programs. This has been edited and spoken to by David Suzuki and is an excellent piece, which I recommend to all the members for their own localities. As well as that, we have had Fire Prevention Week this past week and travelled around the province giving out seven awards and drawing attention to the importance of fire prevention in all of these communities.

I think the member can see that we very much stress fire prevention as the most necessary tool for stopping deaths.

Mr. Faubert: I commend the minister for her efforts in the area. However, the minister did indicate earlier that she was contemplating forming an advisory committee of persons who have expertise in the firefighting field. Would the minister advise this House if she has decided to go ahead with this initiative? If so, could the minister provide some details of this advisory committee’s potential mandate and structure?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Once again, the setting up of this committee has been slightly delayed because we find, in looking into the facts behind fire deaths, that we have been putting the wrong emphasis. Indeed, firefighting is not the emphasis we wish, either in the ministry or on this committee. We have such figures as the fact that we address 95 per cent of our funding to fighting fires and only five per cent to prevention.

As a result of this sort of emphasis, we find that we have twice the death rate by fire as they do in Europe -- this figure is true for the whole of North America and not just Canada -- and in fact we have five times the death rate of Switzerland. We know we must address this in a new and creative way and want to put together a committee that can give us the appropriate kind of advice to get into the preventive field in a big thrust. We will be doing this, setting up the committee. We welcome from all the members of the House suggestions on the kind of people and individuals they might like to see on that committee.

RECYCLING

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. We heard earlier this afternoon a recitation by the minister of all the programs on recycling that he had initiated. Will the minister not acknowledge that even with those and even with the million households with blue boxes, only 7.1 per cent of municipal solid waste will be diverted from landfill in 1989?

It is now a year since the minister spoke to the Recycling Council of Ontario and said he hoped to see Ontario recycle 25 per cent of its waste in the near future and eventually recover more than 50 per cent. On that occasion, he went on to say that he would consider legislation to force municipalities to recycle if incentives do not work. “‘We will pull out the stick if the carrot fails,’ Mr. Bradley said.” Will the minister not acknowledge that the carrot has failed and that the stick ought to be pulled out? Will he give us some commitment that he will get all municipalities recycling 50 per cent before the end of this year?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member does not have the faith in certain municipalities which are at the present time embarking upon these kinds of programs. I have been very impressed by the number of municipalities that are now coming on stream with the curbside blue box recycling program. If someone had predicted that a million households would be on this program in late October 1988, a lot of people would have scoffed at that. In fact, we are reaching that point and we are going far beyond that point.

Almost on a daily basis now, municipalities are kicking off their blue box programs. That is as a result of initiatives that have been taken at the local level. There have been citizens’ groups concerned about it, which have asked that they establish these programs and expand them; and of course, the Ministry of the Environment has increased its funding from $750,000 in the last year of the last government to $7.7 million this year; and OMMRI, Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc., as a result of our regulation, has invested some $20 million to encourage it.

I see nothing but a movement upward in this regard. I see municipalities across this province coming on stream very quickly; not only that, but looking at new initiatives, such as Guelph is, for composting, for getting apartments on the recycling program. A lot of people said you cannot have apartments --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Supplementary.

Mrs. Grier: The statistic I quoted to the minister was from the recycling council, and it was for the end of 1989: 7.1 per cent of municipal solid waste to be recycled.

Does the minister not realize that as well as recycling we have to get into reduction of our waste? Does he not realize that the people of this province are way ahead of the government in their desire to really do something meaningful and to have some leadership and some action from the provincial government on little things as well as large?

1520

Mr. Speaker: I thought that was the question.

Mrs. Grier: When I first came to this House, we had china cups outside in the lobby; now we have styrofoam -- styrofoam for the members of the Legislature and for the minister to drink from. Is that a symbol of the kind of commitment we have from this government?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will speak to the Board of Internal Economy, which has representatives of all three parties on it. I am surprised that the board member from the New Democratic Party has not heard about this from the Environment critic, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, previous to this. I know the Board of Internal Economy would want to change this very quickly. Certainly, I support all of the initiatives of the Board of Internal Economy to make those changes in this Ontario Legislature. As we know, this building is governed strictly by the members of this Legislature.

With regard to beyond the blue box program, in fact, we are initiating commercial, industrial and institutional recycling at this time right across Ontario. We have doubled funds in terms of industrial four Rs. We are involved in all of those programs which are designed to recycle, recover and reduce the waste that is produced. We will continue to be involved in those programs, and wherever the member and I see that there are instances where people would vary from that, we can join with others in encouraging them.

Mr. Speaker: Time for a new question.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Harris: When John Sewell was hired, the minister of Housing said the former mayor would bring “a new sensitivity to the day-to-day management of public housing in Metro.” Given that this is what the government wanted, and I would concur, a hands-on, full-time chairman involved in the day-to-day management, could the Minister of Housing tell us why Mr. Sewell was fired for doing exactly as he was asked to do?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The choice of the chair for the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority is extremely important to us, because we want to make sure that the agenda for reform which was begun in 1985 will continue. That is the reason we chose Jean Augustine, a truly outstanding individual, as the new chair for Metro Toronto Housing beginning in November.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Members of the House may not be fully aware of Ms. Augustine’s background. She came to Canada in 1961 as a domestic worker. Against very great odds, she has achieved a level of education and accomplishment that is very significant. At the moment, she has been working as a principal in the Metropolitan Toronto separate school system. She has risen to a position of great prominence against great odds. She has worked in a variety of areas, including children’s aid and various other social areas. Her community credentials and her experience are unassailable.

I am very pleased that she has agreed to take on the position of chairman of Metro Toronto Housing Authority beginning in November to continue on the road to reform. There are many issues that need to be addressed in Metro Toronto Housing, and I believe that Jean Augustine is admirably suited to do that.

Mr. Harris: Given that the question had nothing to do with Ms. Augustine, I sense a great deal of concern on the minister’s part over the appointment and I will have to look a little closer.

Mr. Reville: She is defensive.

Mr. Harris: She is very defensive. Perhaps the minister doth protest too much.

Let me get back to my question, though. The minister will be aware now, among all the other complex problems that are in the housing situation and with the Metro Toronto Housing Authority, of the drug problems and the trafficking problem in the Jane-Finch area. She knows maintenance staff who work there have requested protection because they have been robbed and threatened. They are afraid something worse will happen.

Given the tensions in that area, the problems that have to be overcome, the challenges facing the tenants and the employees, can the minister explain to the House why she made the position of chairperson of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority a part-time position instead of leaving it a full-time position, as it should be, and could she tell this House if Mr. Sewell was offered the new part-time position?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The new chairman of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority will be involved in the housing authority as much as is required. She has made a commitment, an agreement with her board, to have as much time to work on housing issues of Metro Toronto Housing Authority as is required, with all the staff support that is required.

Let me say that at the time the decision was made not to continue to have a new appointment to the end of November of a new chairman of Metro Toronto Housing Authority, the Housing critic of the member’s party suggested that we might appoint a business leader as head of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. We resisted the temptation to appoint Conrad Black and decided instead to appoint someone whose credentials in this area are very strong.

As to the issue of drugs in Metro Toronto Housing Authority and otherwise, all of us in this House deplore the spread of drugs anywhere in this society. I want to say that one of the very important things that we are doing, with the complete support of the tenants in Ontario housing and under the leadership of the Ontario Housing Corp. as well as Metro Toronto Housing Authority, is working with the police to make sure that drug dealing that is happening inside any of those places will be stopped, because we know that the people who live in that housing have every right to be protected and to live safely.

Our commitment to work on that issue is very strong and --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

BREAST CANCER

Ms. Collins: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister is aware that breast cancer is a physically and emotionally debilitating, potentially fatal disease that last year killed 1,600 of the 4,500 Ontario women it affected. The minister will also know that breast cancer can be treated and cured if it is detected in the early stages. Would the minister inform the House of what plans her ministry has to establish a province-wide breast screening program?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to thank the member for the question. I know of her interest not only in this matter but also in other health matters as they relate to both prevention and promotion strategies. She is aware, as I think all members of this House are, of the fact that we are concerned about giving people in this province the information they need so that they can protect themselves and prevent preventable diseases.

At the present time, the Canadian Cancer Society provides educational materials to women and Ontario participated in a Canadian national breast screening program to evaluate the effectiveness of breast screening, both through mammography and self-examination.

Ms. Collins: Many women do not recognize the first stages of this killer disease simply because they do not know the warning signs in their bodies. Given the importance of early detection in the successful treatment of breast cancer, will the minister commit her ministry to undertake a public awareness campaign so that all Ontario women will have the knowledge to combat this deadly disease?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The ministry and myself feel it is extremely important that in our programming, promotion and prevention strategies be a part of our provincial programs. We are at the present time reviewing core programs of public health and we are also at this very moment reviewing a proposal before the ministry from the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation in this area of importance to women in this province.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. As he knows and we all know, winter is rapidly approaching and over a million poor people in Ontario are looking forward to that experience with some dread, while the government maintains a rather icy silence on the Thomson report and its landmark proposals for dealing with their problems.

Three years ago the minister knew the rough proportions of the problem of poverty in Ontario when he appointed that committee. Six months ago he had some notion of the details in which Mr. Thomson was going to be reporting to him. He could then have begun preparing his ground and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) could have begun making some space in the budget to respond, but none of that happened.

Why have we heard nothing; and what, if anything, is the minister going to do to respond in concrete ways to the needs this fall of the growing numbers of poor in Ontario?

1530

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is aware of the fact that during the two-year period of time when George Thomson and his committee of 12 were putting together this Transitions report, this ministry was putting additional resources into the income-assistance part of the program. The honourable member will be aware of the fact that over the past three years we have added $337 million to the income-assistance part of our ministry’s budget. That represents a total of a 23 per cent increase during a point in time when the cost of living went up 13 per cent, so that was not only matching the cost of living but adding a 10 per cent increase above and beyond that.

The member will also be aware of the fact that if we want to pick selected groups -- single parents, disabled people and families of four -- in fact the increase was closer to the neighbourhood of 30 per cent. So it is not correct to say that we have been doing nothing while the report was being drafted. In fact, we were doing something.

The second point the member alludes to is the time of response. He will be well aware of the fact that the report itself very specifically says that it is appropriate and it is desirable for the government to take up to six months to respond to the report in an official capacity. All that having been said, the member will know that the normal procedure would be to make an announcement --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Allen: Whatever they have done, the problem of poverty remains, and it remains a dire experience for those who live in it. No government can rest on its laurels. Even the small amount it has done to date certainly does not match the amount it is going to have to do in years to come.

What really worries this party, I think, is not just that the minister has not made a clear response, to date, to the Thomson report but that, in a number of respects, moves have been made by this government recently that run directly counter to the directions of Mr. Thomson himself; for example, in the last few months, a regressive sales tax increase, failure to pass on the Canada pension plan disability benefits, holding back on literacy grants, cutbacks in the homemakers’ budget --

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Allen: -- refusal to accept the comfort allowance decision for psychological --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Allen: -- funding of community clinics -- all together a major attack not on the problem of poverty but on the poor.

Will the minister not announce now the concrete steps he will take this fall, not after the next budget, to implement year one of the Thomson proposals. I remind him that Mr. Thomson said there were things you could do within the next two months.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would suggest that a more careful reading of the document clearly says that neither this minister nor this government should take bits and pieces out of that and implement them apart from the entire proposal; that it is designed very specifically to be a package proposal and that, in fact, that is what we should do.

I would also remind the honourable member that, in his reference to the CPP disabled pass-through, the entire amount of money flowing through from the federal government was $18 million and the amount of money allocated by this government to the disabled was $54 million -- three times as much. The honourable member also makes a reference with respect to comfort allowances. He will remember that just this past year we increased comfort allowances to the nonelderly from $77 to $100. That was the largest single increase that has ever been put into that program.

He is also aware of the fact that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and myself are at the present time negotiating ways to add that comfort allowance to the psychiatric hospitals, as we now have them for those same people in the general hospitals. That is in process right now.

PETITIONS

PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANT

Mr. Laughren: “To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition for the need for a parliamentary assistant for the constituency of Sudbury.

“In view of the fact that there are 94 Liberal members, surely a city as important as Sudbury should be represented by at least a parliamentary assistant.

“And since the member for Sudbury is a Liberal and is willing to serve, we urge the Premier to erase his recent insult to Sudbury and to its member by removing Sterling Campbell from his back-bench humiliation and reinstate him as a parliamentary assistant.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Stoner: I have a petition with 100 signatures:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“This letter is in protest of removing the Lord’s Prayer and Bible scripture reading from the public schools in Ontario.

“There are children who would benefit from hearing and learning the Lord’s Prayer.”

This is signed by 22.

I also have a similar petition signed by 35.

NAMING OF ROAD

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition that is signed by 28 residents of Algoma riding:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular, the Honourable Ed Fulton, Minister of Transportation:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“That the portion of old Highway 17 north between the Trans-Canada Highway and Trout Lake Road be named MacIntyre Road after the family who originally owned the majority of the land in the area.”

This petition is signed by 100 per cent of the residents along the road in the Heyden area north of Sault Ste. Marie, and I support the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Miss Roberts: I would like to present a petition signed by 28 individuals that reads:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas we strongly oppose the intention of Bill 113 for Sunday opening, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day.”

MADAWASKA TRUST PARK

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition from 168 people which reads:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We oppose the creation of Madawaska Highlands regional trust park.”

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by 95 patients at the Oak Ridge division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the Provincial Auditor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, asking that their concerns be thoroughly investigated and any interest on their money recovered:

“We, the patients of the Oak Ridge division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre ask that you investigate our following concerns:

“(A) It is our belief that during the past several years the Treasurer of Ontario has received, as revenue, interest on patients’ ‘pin money’ contained in the hospital bank accounts; and

“(B) It is our belief that we are entitled to the interest accumulated on our money which is kept in the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre’s bank accounts.”

QUARRY TRUCK ROUTE

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by 324 concerned citizens addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario who are opposed to alternative route 4 in the township of Mara:

The petition reads:

“We, the concerned citizens of the regional municipality of Durham and the county of Simcoe, request the immediate cancellation of plans to construct a quarry truck route as detailed by alternate route 4 in the study by Totten Sims Hubicki and Associates.”

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee’s report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Laughren: Very briefly, I should say that in the throne speech the government suggested this entire matter of mining fatalities be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

Last January and February, the committee went across northern Ontario and some parts of southern Ontario, in the dead of winter I might add, and visited 10 different mine sites. Some of the members on the resources development committee had never even been in northern Ontario, let alone in an underground mine. Nevertheless, they worked extremely hard in familiarizing themselves with the whole question of mining fatalities and accidents in mines.

The members of the committee worked very hard as well on coming up with a unanimous report. There are 22 recommendations in the report, which are unanimous, and there was not a member of the committee, I do not think, who did not work hard to make sure it was unanimous. It is our hope that the government will respond with some substance to the report later this session, and also that there will be a full-fledged debate scheduled by the three House leaders to deal with this report.

1540

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to express on behalf of the committee appreciation for the hard work done by the clerk of the committee, Todd Decker, then at the latter part of the hearings Lynn Mellor, and our research assistant, Lorraine Luski.

As the chairman of that committee I say that I appreciated very much the co-operation of all members of the committee because it was not an easy task, either the tour of the various mine sites in the dead of winter, as I said, or coming up with a unanimous report. The members of the committee worked extremely hard on what I think is in the best interest of people who work in the mines in this province.

On motion by Mr. Laughren, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on public accounts presented the fourth interim report, 1988, and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a brief comment?

Mr. Philip: On February 25, 1988, the standing committee on public accounts reviewed the auditor’s findings of questionable operating practices at the Ontario Housing Corp. The auditor had identified several concerns in the course of his annual audit. These included several of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority’s privately managed projects that experienced significant unauthorized cost overruns and had incurred questionable expenditures, which were subsequently investigated by OHC, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and the Ontario Provincial Police.

There were problems with the maintenance staff. MTHA had a level of workers’ compensation claims in 1986 that was five times as high as the average for janitorial workers and, in fact, exceeded the level among the most hazardous of occupations. Also, one of the three housing authorities visited had awarded most of its 1986 contracts without any public tender.

The committee made a number of recommendations on this and also expects the ministry to report back within 120 days of tabling the committee’s report. We look forward to the ministry’s response in November of this year. With great reluctance, because this is such an excellent report, I would move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Mr. Philip, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on Public accounts presented the fifth interim report, 1988, and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: The member may have a few comments.

Mr. Philip: The Provincial Auditor’s 1987 report, section 3.4, dealt with the ministries’ internal audit operations and pointed out a great number of improvements that were needed.

Section 4.4 pointed out some problems with the Ontario student assistance program in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. This report also deals with the need for improved administration of institutions required by the Ministry of Correctional Services. It also deals with the better management practices needed at the mines and minerals division in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. It also deals with improved budgeting compliance and measures needed in the Futures program in the Ministry of Skills Development.

The report also deals with the Provincial Auditor’s report dealing once again, Mr. Speaker -- and I know this will be a surprise to you -- with the Ontario Provincial Police telecommunications project, the office of the chief coroner and the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

The committee makes a number of recommendations, which I am sure each of these ministries is now probably implementing.

On motion by Mr. Philip, the debate was adjourned.

MOTIONS

INTERNATIONAL OMBUDSMAN CONFERENCE

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that a subcommittee of three members of the standing committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to adjourn to Canberra, Australia, to attend the fourth International Ombudsman Conference to be held there from October 23 to October 27, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that, notwithstanding any previous order of the House, the House authorizes the meetings of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly held at the National Assembly of Quebec on Wednesday, October 5, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mr. Swart be deleted from the order of precedence for private members’ public business, and that all members of the New Democratic Party caucus listed thereafter be advanced by one place in their turn, and that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item numbers 35 and 36.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Brandt moved, pursuant to standing order 37(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that being the waste management crisis in the province and the present government’s mismanagement, total lack of leadership and absence of planning for the future with regard to this matter, resulting in a rapid depletion in the capacity of existing landfill sites, municipality pitted against municipality, exorbitant costs being incurred by those seeking to act responsibly in the disposal of waste materials, the ever-increasing threat to our quality of life, the threat to the health of individuals living in the vicinity of leaking landfill sites and the incremental destruction of our natural environment.

Mr. Speaker: This notice was received in my office at 12:54 p.m. on October 14. Therefore, the motion is in order. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes, as well as representatives from the other two parties.

Mr. Brandt: I truly believe this is a matter of urgent public business in that the crisis -- and I do not use that word lightly -- is certainly mounting in Ontario as it relates to the problem of municipal landfill sites.

As I had the opportunity to tour the province this past summer, I had occasion to discuss with a number of municipal leaders what their number one or most serious problem was. Time and again, in virtually every case where I had an opportunity to meet these municipal leaders, they indicated that the Ministry of the Environment was their most serious problem and, more specifically, the minister’s dealing with their landfill sites.

The minister, in response to my questions in question period earlier today, indicated that there has been a very substantial amount of money spent on recycling programs and the blue box program. I applaud the minister for that action, but I would like to say that his $7 million commitment pales when one looks at the cost of $1 million a month that Halton is paying simply to haul its garbage out of the country, out of the province into a foreign jurisdiction, because there is no place in Ontario where it can dispose of its garbage, right here in its own community and its own area.

1550

I think that is a disgusting situation when we would, in fact, be highly critical if there were garbage being created in the state of New York and shipped into Ontario. I can imagine the hue and cry from many of our citizens, indicating how irresponsible it was of another jurisdiction to expect that we were going to take its waste.

I have heard members in this very House make that comment, so the reverse situation is totally unacceptable to me. It is interesting to note that while the minister takes credit for this increase in spending that he is committing to the recycling program, during the term of his office not one new municipal landfill site has been created. Not one new site has been put in place to help solve one of the most serious problems our society is attempting to come to grips with today.

All he has is three years of applications before him from municipalities that are spending literally multimillions of dollars, and no approvals. I think it is about time the minister came to grips very seriously with the frustration that is being sensed right across this province by both large and small municipalities that no longer can come to grips with the problem of finding a way to dispose of the wastes that are being generated in their own communities.

It is pointed out that with the best of intentions, the recycling program, even for the foreseeable future, perhaps into the next decade, will be a relatively small percentage of the total volume of garbage that is generated by our respective communities.

The fact of the matter is that we have to use a whole host of programs, one of the most important of which is to put in place that vital component in any kind of a waste program, an appropriate landfill site. Yes, I want them to be environmentally safe and I want them to be environmentally sound, but is it not about time that the minister made a decision? Is it not about time that he came forward and said to some municipalities, “Yes, the millions of dollars that you have spent is certainly appropriate, and we can now allow you to go ahead with your municipal landfill site so that you can dispose of your garbage.”

In the municipalities, interestingly enough, of Welland, the Welland-Thorold area, where there has in fact --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Oh, I wonder why we are mentioning that.

Mr. Brandt: Yes, I bring that one up because it is a matter of some interest to the people in that jurisdiction. It is interesting that two municipalities there are prepared to get together on a landfill problem and join forces, but the minister has taken the rather dictatorial attitude that it has got to be a more regional and more comprehensive response to the problem, and that four municipalities or more have got to get together in order to solve the landfill problem.

If Welland and Wainfleet can get together and solve their problem, why not let them do that, because they have indicated they can extend the life expectancy of their landfill by 20 or 25 years if they are allowed to proceed?

The sense of frustration is not appreciated by the minister. He sits rather smugly, expecting this problem to solve itself, when the regions of Peel and Metropolitan Toronto and Durham and the Pickering area, and right across this province, including my own municipality, are fed up with his inaction and are fed up with the lack of response and municipal landfill sites not being created in this province.

Mrs. Grier: We in this party support the resolution that has been put forward by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt). Let me say, at the same time, that we admire the effrontery of those who, while in government for 40 years, allowed the problem to fester for decades, but the failures of past governments are no excuse for the inaction of this government, a government that came to power three years ago with the strongest possible mandate to do something about the environment, a government that came to office with wide public support, public support that has been increasing daily as we have come to witness what the contamination of our environment is doing.

I know the minister will list the steps that have been taken and the money that has been spent, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the magnitude of the problem. The steps this government has taken, the projects it has begun, have been baby steps, not the giant strides that are required if we are really to come to grips with the municipal solid waste problem, the industrial waste problem and the commercial waste problem.

The problem needs to be attacked on three fronts. We need to reduce the volume of the garbage we are producing in this province. The minister will talk about recycling programs. I think 70 municipalities are now participating out of 845 across the province. It may be more than that; it is certainly not a significant number. In the biggest areas, such as Metropolitan Toronto, it is coming, driven perhaps by the municipal elections on November 14 or by the deadline of November I when the refillable containers have to be recycled.

By allowing those refillable containers on to the market in the first place, the minister demonstrated his lack of willingness to really get tough and try to reduce the volume of the garbage in the province. We have seen no action from this government to reduce packaging, no initiatives and no policy. We had a request to the minister earlier this year from environmental groups to ban styrofoam egg cartons, but no response from this minister. Reduction of garbage is obviously not a priority.

The second front the problem has to be tackled on is reducing the toxicity of what goes into landfills so that those people who are faced with the prospect of a landfill in their municipality may be less fearful than they have been because of the horrible examples we can all cite of landfills that have contaminated wells, contaminated waterways, and leaked throughout the province. We have no good program to deal with toxic incinerator ash. We have no meaningful programs to help people get rid of their hazardous household waste.

The third front on which this problem has to be dealt with, and the most signal failure of this government, has been to streamline the environmental assessment process. It is almost two years since the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation submitted a report and recommended amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act. The objectives of their recommendations were to make the act more efficient, more effective and more fair, precisely what municipalities that are faced with the prospect of finding landfill sites have been asking for.

What did the minister do? The minister appointed another committee to examine the Environmental Assessment Act and perhaps to respond and report a year from now or two years from now. The crisis has come upon us. It is no longer good enough to say we have pilot projects, to say we have new programs, to say we have committees studying it. The time has come when there has to be some action and some leadership from this government, and that has to happen now. I support this motion and I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am delighted to have the opportunity to follow two distinguished members, the member for Sarnia and the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), on a matter that they have brought to our attention.

I should say more specifically it is a matter that the leader of the third party has brought to the attention of the House. Of course, as everyone knows, we here have a great deal of affection and regard for the interim leader of the Conservative Party of Ontario. I do, and I pay very great attention to the interim leader of the third party because I think he has served with some colour and some real character over the six or seven years since he was first elected in the spring of 1981.

In fact, when I saw this motion, my first thought was that this would give the House a perfect opportunity to assess the role the member for Sarnia played in those years when he had the responsibility to oversee the Ministry of the Environment. At a certain level, I thought this was a perfectly splendid opportunity to take the honourable member at his word and to look at a lack of leadership that I think can be found much more in the early 1980s than one will find under the stellar leadership provided by my friend the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley).

I always listen to what the member for Sarnia says, and I was many miles from this city on Friday when I heard a report of the presession interview that the interim leader of the Conservative Party held, I think in these precincts, about the upcoming session.

1600

Hon. Mr. Bradley: They want to cut out the estimates.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I think the member for St. Catharines is quite right. I think I heard on the radio late Friday afternoon that the member for Sarnia, not unlike his distinguished seatmate the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who very eloquently argued the case, “We need estimate time,” as recently as last Thursday -- you know, when those people speak, I listen and I try to the very best of my ability to respond. On Thursday, we had the Tory House leader saying, “We must get to estimates.” On Friday, reports emanate from Toronto, at least to my part of the province, that no less a person than the interim leader of the third party says, “We must get to estimates because there is a lot to talk about.”

I say, of course, I agree. That is why today, Orders and Notices puts before my friends in the third party the estimates they want so desperately to get to. What do we have now? They want to begin the fall term with an opposition day.

I have to ask, “What is it?” I know their internal dynamic is riveting these days. Can you imagine what it took to get the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) from over there to down there and to get the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) from over there to up there? I can appreciate how the tensions have been building within the third party.

I am very, very anxious to accommodate, but I have to ask, “What is it?” Is it estimates? On Thursday, the Tory House leader said, “Estimates are a top priority.” On Friday, the interim leader said, “We must get to estimates,” and within moments -- in fact, I worry because this matter of urgent and pressing concern has apparently some 72 hours’ notice. I am not so cynical as to imagine, I say to my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), that while they were demanding estimates, they were writing a motion insisting on something quite to the contrary.

I say to my good friend the member for Sarnia that I want to oblige. I want to assist in these troubled times of internal discord. I want to facilitate in every way that I can the inclusion of a debate about the stewardship of the environmental dossier, because I have to say that on this side we are prepared to put the record and the leadership and the commitment of the member for St. Catharines, as Minister of the Environment in the Peterson government, against any record in the history of this province or anywhere across the country. That record stands very strongly for itself.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Conway: But I have to say to my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville), it is because I am so reasonable and it is because I am so anxious to accommodate the confused messages of the third party that I will say on behalf of the government, that we will allow this opposition day to take place. We will give the Minister of the Environment a chance to show how good he has been, how strong and how forward-looking he has been on behalf of this government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That completes the allotted time under standing order 37(a), (b) and (c), and we now have come to standing order 37(d). I must put the question, shall the debate proceed?

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I remind all members that they may speak up to 10 minutes, until either six o’clock has arrived or we have run out of speakers.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs. Marland: The subject of waste management used to sound like a sophisticated cliché, but now it has become a sound as ominous as a death bell as it tolls across this province. We can look at many regions, all with problems, all unresolved. Metro’s garbage problem is now so well publicized that even the public understands the lack of solution by this Liberal government. Halton has been trucking its garbage to Niagara Falls, New York, for the past four years.

Where the regional governments around this province cannot resolve their garbage problems, it must then be the responsibility of the next level of government to show leadership and responsibility. The provincial government must mediate the crisis situations instead of running and hiding from yet another issue, the way it does on anything that is at all controversial and that it does not want to get itself tainted with. I use the example of Sunday shopping. They ran so far from that that they in fact transferred the responsibility to the local municipalities, just because they could not cope with it where it should be, at the provincial level.

Now, indeed, our government recognized that the Environmental Assessment Act was not working successfully and could benefit from some amendments. It is my understanding that we were interested in expediting the process of the environmental assessment, not in setting it aside.

I think at this point it is very important to correct what this Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is saying about my leader this afternoon when he says that the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) is not in favour of the environmental assessment process and that we should just emplace landfill sites. I think that is grossly unfair, because this minister knows how inaccurate that statement is. My leader is committed to the environmental assessment process and he in fact was meeting with municipalities around this province when he was the minister to try to develop some amendments that would expedite the Environmental Assessment Act and make it work.

The very fact that we were already meeting with municipalities was an indication that there was work to be done. I think what has to be answered by this minister is why nothing else has been done in the last three years. You would think that, with all the practice and all the rehearsals he had as critic for the environment, he might well, when he became minister, be very knowledgeable of what was needed to be done as a remedy. Surely this minister must share the knowledge of what is needed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I wasn’t the Environment critic; I was the Education critic. You have to get your writers to do adequate research.

Mrs. Marland: For the minister’s benefit, I write my own speeches.

But instead, we have a fast-growing crisis from which any minister should not run and hide. I would like to give Peel as a perfect example of a disaster that has now been caused by a lack of direction by this Liberal minister.

The minister said earlier today that our government did not appropriately apply the Environmental Assessment Act. Well, with the situation that is presently in Peel, I would like to ask him if he feels that he is appropriately applying the Environmental Assessment Act. His ministry staff has been a constant part of a technical committee with Peel region staff from the very beginning, and that very beginning was now almost four years ago. Now, at the 11th hour, the minister gives “Notice of proposal to issue an order to require research.”

What seems to be missed by this Minister of the Environment is the fact that the region of Peel has already spent almost $4 million in research. The region of Peel does have a responsible government and it does have responsible staff, and it has prepared all the documentation for the hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act. They agree with the environmental assessment of a future site for garbage. However, nowhere in the Environmental Assessment Act does it say that more than one site must go forward. It says only in subclause 5(3)(b)(ii), “the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking.” It is referring to the undertaking being the application for a hearing. In this case, it so happens that the undertaking is a sanitary landfill site.

I would like to suggest that since it does not say there has to be more than one site, surely alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking, which obviously is what to do with garbage in Peel, would be very clearly and very well addressed during the environmental assessment hearing itself. I would suggest, in fact, that the three Rs would be included in those alternative methods -- perhaps even reduce, reuse, recycle and a fourth, recover.

The situation today in Peel is extremely grave. I happen to be particularly knowledgeable about it because I was involved at the very beginning, when I was a regional councillor in 1984. First of all, and I think this has to be heard, we have a Premier (Mr. Peterson) today and a Minister of the Environment who are refusing to meet with the chairman of the region of Peel and the three area municipality mayors, Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mayor Ken Whillans and Mayor Emil Kolb. We also have a Premier who chooses to ignore correspondence and presentations made to him.

1610

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I appreciate the discussion of technical issues, but that is factually wrong. My office was in discussion with Mayor McCallion.

Mrs. Marland: Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Please, wait until I finish. My office was in discussion with Mayor McCallion. There was a meeting that was offered --

Mrs. Marland: This is my time.

The Deputy Speaker: A point of explanation, thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There was a meeting that was offered to Mayor McCallion and she turned it down when she heard that other mayors would be there.

Mrs. Marland: It is not fair of the minister to use my time. He has his own time to serve a rebuttal later, and we already heard that one little diatribe earlier this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: How can you say something which is not true?

Mrs. Marland: The point is that we have documentation from Rod McLeod, the deputy minister, to the regional chairman of Peel, where he does not, in fact, tell the region of Peel it is going down the wrong track. He does not tell it that it should stop its process. Since the last communication from his ministry in August 1988, because it was not told to stop the process as it was wrong, we have now spent an additional $1.5 million of the taxpayers’ money in the region of Peel. I think this is a totally irresponsible government to allow this to happen.

This Premier -- the Premier of the open government of Ontario, I may add -- met with the mayors of the four regions this summer, the mayors of Durham, York, Peel and Halton, at which time he used Peel as a prime example of progressive planning, including for nonprofit housing. The Premier promised to expedite the process because housing is his government’s number one priority. He said he would cut red tape, he would streamline, he would do anything those mayors needed to get housing on line. The very fact that he will not expedite the environmental assessment process in order to get a landfill site in place so that we can afford to build more houses and manage the garbage in Peel is a very interesting contradiction.

I would suggest that the Premier of this province, along with his minister, is just doing window-dressing. They have thrown a roadblock in the way of the region of Peel.

This government ignores everyone and I would like to suggest that even if it ignores its fellow government members in municipal government, it should not choose to ignore an independent body such as the Toronto Home Builders’ Association. The Toronto Home Builders’ Association, with which this government is pleading to get on with building houses to resolve the housing crisis in this province, is being ignored. In fact, the president of the Toronto Home Builders’ Association, Gordon Thompson, wrote to the Prime Minister on October 6 and has yet to receive a reply. In his letter, he pleads with the Premier to intercede and understand that a development freeze in the region of Peel, which has become necessary because we do not have anywhere to take our garbage as it is after 1990, especially now that the minister has said, “Go back and retest all the sites you haven’t tested,” which we know is adding two to five years in the process.

When the Toronto Home Builders’ Association is asking the Premier to intercede and to resolve this problem, is it not ironic? This is the same Premier who said he wanted to make housing his priority. He allows his Minister of the Environment to impede the process of building houses because he does not understand waste management. He does not understand that you can have safe, thorough environmental assessment if you are fair with everybody all the way along the way.

You do not come in at the 11th hour and say: “No. My staff has been involved for four years. However, we’ve decided now that you’re on the wrong track, region of Peel, and you go back and add two to five years to the process.” That is an example of his knowledge of waste management, and I feel it is unfortunate that this minister does not study the waste management crisis and become aware of it.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.

Mr. McGuigan: It is a pleasure to join today in this debate to provide an Ontario government perspective on recycling and other exciting and challenging waste management initiatives which are changing the way our society deals with its waste.

With respect to waste management and environmental protection, this government is showing leadership by establishing policies and programs which make sustainable development a viable long-term option. Sustainable development requires that we not allow one economic activity and its byproducts and wastes to cut its costs by damaging the resource base of another economic activity.

In order to implement the fundamental change in philosophy from the former government, the Liberal government increased the seniority of the Ministry of the Environment. No longer would it be the training ground for ministers on the rise or the reward for ministers on the decline. This Minister of the Environment is the longest-serving Environment minister this province has ever had. There are no more revolving doors.

The government has changed the approach of the Ministry of the Environment to environmental issues. It is no longer the ministry of environmental excuses but that of environmental protection. It takes a proactive role in environmental protection rather than a reactive one. It follows the old phrase “polluter-pays” principle as it tackles pollution at its source, and it believes that jobs and the environment are mutually beneficial. This Minister of the Environment is the protector of the long-term health of our economy.

As a result of this change in attitude, the province has created an Ontario round table, as recommended by the National Task Force on Environment and Economy, of which the minister was a member. This government has responded with enthusiasm to the potential benefits of sustainable development and is deeply interested in what a conservation strategy can do for this province’s long-term future.

The panel of senior decision-makers representing government, small and large industry, agriculture and environmental organizations, labour and academics has a threefold mandate: to support joint sustainable economic demonstration projects by government, industry, labour, agricultural, environmental and other interests; to commission research on measures to further sustainable economic development and to disseminate this information; and to develop a provincial sustainable economic development strategy.

The round table will have the resources and the status to influence the course of public policy and will be planning and suggesting future government and private actions which will ensure the long-term health of both the environment and our economy.

If we are to move our society towards sustainable development, then we must build systems that reward pioneers and penalize laggards in the field of waste management. Stiffer penalties put in place by this government, including jail terms for serious offenders, will provide real disincentives to those who fail to undertake proper waste management. I will just repeat that: jail terms to offenders. Amendments to Ontario’s three major environmental laws dramatically increased the fines 10-fold, to $100,000 per day, adding jail terms of up to one year. The most dangerous offences could incur fines of up to $500,000 per day.

Courts are permitted to strip polluters of profits gained by polluting and to order abatement measures. Top corporate officials are now held personally liable for pollution. Financial security may now be required for abatement orders by MOE. I really want to put a lot of stress on the fact that the top people are now accountable. It is not enough to appoint someone in middle management and say, “Your job is to take care of pollution measures.” The top people are now responsible.

Local and provincial governments are now brought under the provisions of the law. As well, by the end of 1985, a 63-member investigations and enforcement branch was established and mandated to bring the full force of the law against polluters. That branch has since been increased to a staff of 107. Since June 1985, environmental prosecutions have more than tripled and convictions have more than doubled. In addition, provincial environmental controls and assistance programs are significant forces in encouraging new approaches to waste management.

1620

The Ministry of the Environment provides clear directions on environmentally sound practices and regulator safeguards to ensure that new waste management operations do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Establishing new waste management facilities is more complex and certainly more expensive, but the risks and costs inherent in badly planned or operated facilities are no longer acceptable in our society.

The revised version of regulation 309 came into effect in September 1985 and contained measures which increased regulatory control over hazardous waste and improved the waybill system for waste haulers. I think members who were present a few years ago would know what a joke the waybill system was when it was first brought in.

The revised regulations include registration requirements for generators of hazardous and liquid industrial waste, expansion of existing manifest requirements to cover solid hazardous waste, comprehensive definitions of hazardous waste and liquid industrial waste, and amendments to standards for hazardous waste carriers, including driver-training requirements.

The province recognizes the cost of proper waste management and provides a number of assistance programs to help municipalities do the job right. One of the most significant of these programs provides direct funding for recycling and has resulted in a giant leap in the number of municipalities recycling.

As well, the comprehensive funding program for the first time provides funding for the entire life of a landfill site, as well as additional support for the 4R program, or reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery program. The program includes a new financial assistance program which for the first time provides provincial aid to municipalities to establish landfill sites, transfer stations and processing sites. The eligible costs include technical studies, engineering design, hearings and approvals, public consultation and capital costs for land acquisition, construction and equipment, retrofitting and expansion.

Some municipalities serving a population of 7,500 or less are eligible for assistance totalling 75 per cent of these costs. Groups of municipalities are eligible for 60 per cent assistance. Regional municipalities and individual municipalities serving a population exceeding 7,500 are eligible for 50 per cent provincial assistance under this new program.

The comprehensive funding program often includes initiatives to promote increased use of reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery methods of managing waste more effectively.

Other components of the new program include increased funding for programs to upgrade existing landfills and make long-term waste management plans. There will also be more grants to help industries to develop new technologies for improving their processes and waste treatment systems and an increased emphasis on promoting more waste exchange programs.

The comprehensive funding program for waste management is a long-term commitment, developed in response to the long-standing needs of both industry and the municipalities for provincial assistance to enable them to upgrade their waste management practices.

These new directions in municipal and industrial 4R projects have the potential for making a real dent in Ontario’s garbage production. For example, with the promotion of composting, we have gone beyond recycling and into recovery. I might just say that I missed a great opportunity. My thesis that I did as an undergraduate was on composting. Sometimes my political opponents think that perhaps is an appropriate education for a politician. In any case, I would have made a lot more money going into the composting business than going into farming.

All the 4R solutions can be brought to bear on our various garbage crises -- reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up; I am sorry.

Mrs. Grier: We have heard from the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) a very predictable litany of the initiatives and programs this government has taken, initiatives that are very worth while, initiatives that of course will make some contribution to the reduction of environmental problems in this province, but the point that those of us who pleaded for this emergency debate today want to make is that all of those initiatives and all of those demonstration projects are happening too slowly, on too small a scale, and there is no sense of urgency on the part of this government to really come to grips with the solid waste crisis that municipalities from one end of the province to another are facing and for which they are getting no significant assistance from the province to deal with.

I know the minister and the member for Essex-Kent have emphasized their initiatives on recycling. I want to repeat the figures that I gave earlier in question period. We produce in this province over four million tonnes of municipal solid waste a year. Even under the most optimistic predictions of over 1.5 million blue boxes in place in 1989, we are still going to be diverting only 7.1 per cent of that solid waste. That is better than we were doing last year and better than we were doing the year before but is not enough to come to grips with the crisis.

What we have to do is to begin to take some meaningful steps towards reduction of that waste, and that is where this government has failed most signally. That is where, again, municipalities and citizens are way ahead of the government in their desire and their demand for some action.

Let me remind the Minister of the Environment of the resolution that was adopted by the township of Peel in Wellington county in November 1987. That council passed a resolution which has since been adopted by 330 municipalities. It urged the Premier to enact legislation without delay that would limit, curtail and, in some instances, prohibit the manufacture, use and distribution of bio-unfriendly materials and to enact legislation that will bring about an overall reduction in the volume of domestic, commercial and industrial waste generated through taxation, negative taxation, subsidies or other incentives as it sees fit.

That is a very clear invitation from the municipalities of this province to the Minister of the Environment, to the government, to take some action and to show some leadership. The actions that are required are not new. We know what the technology is. I suspect it was not 10 years ago, maybe not even 20 years ago, that the member for Essex-Kent did his thesis on composting. We know how to compost; we have known for a long time. What we do not have are any meaningful programs in place to assist residents of urban areas who want to compost. It is relatively easy if you live in the country. It is very important.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: What about Guelph?

Mrs. Grier: Guelph is one instance, and that is what I want to say again to the minister: One example at this stage in the game, after three years in office, is not good enough to really demonstrate that he is coming to grips with the problem.

We had the recommendations from the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation about the Environmental Assessment Act. I think it is the frustration that municipalities and the proponents of landfill projects have been feeling with the procedures under that act that have really led to the crisis we have today,

Hon. Mr. Bradley: They don’t agree with those recommendations.

Mrs. Grier: They may not agree with the recommendations, as the minister is saying, but they all agree that the act needs to be redone, that the act needs to be rewritten and that the process needs to be made efficient, effective, fair, clear and simple. The recommendations of that committee are ones that I suspect none of us in this House would disagree with, even if, as the minister says, some municipalities disagree with them.

The conclusions of that report were that the process takes much longer than it needs to; insufficient funding and access is provided for those members of the public wishing to participate in environmental assessments; there is insufficient early planning to determine what will and will not be examined during the environmental assessment; there is insufficient scientific monitoring of projects after they have been approved to allow future improvements to the process; there is insufficient enforcement of the conditions of approval attached to a successful environmental assessment; there needs to be a rigorous, early public process for focusing and setting the boundaries for assessments, and that should be made obligatory; to speed up the process, government and public review should be amalgamated, decisions on acceptance of the assessment document and approval of the actual project should be combined and other steps taken to streamline the process.

1630

If, instead of appointing yet another committee to review those recommendations, the minister had introduced to this Legislature amendments to the legislation, then we could have debated those amendments and those municipalities that disagreed with him could have an opportunity to come in and appear before committee and make their point of view heard. Assuming that the government majority did not overrule any amendments put by the opposition in response to those submissions from interested municipalities, we could have by now come up with a very much improved Environmental Assessment Act, an Environmental Assessment Act that would contribute to solving the problems the minister is faced with, rather than preventing the resolution of those problems.

I do not want to leave the impression the municipalities are blameless in this whole exercise. I entered municipal politics 20 years ago at a time when Metropolitan Toronto was attempting to build an incinerator in what is now part of my riding. In appearing before the Ontario Municipal Board then, I said to Metropolitan Toronto: “You ought to be into a recycling program. You ought to be doing more to reduce garbage.”

The municipalities have been intransigent, they have been blind, they have been stubborn; but that does not excuse the Minister of the Environment from taking the attitude he is now taking, which is a hands-off one; they will look at the issue, they will fight among themselves and then they will make a recommendation to him which he will accept or reject.

What we need is some true leadership from this minister in getting down and sitting with the municipalities and resolving the problems. I know he says they are essentially environmental problems, but they are very much political problems too.

We have a political problem in Acton, for example, where a private project is now considering making an application for approval of a landfill site in a quarry that has twice been rejected by the regional municipality’s process.

What the minister has to do is realize that this is not an academic issue. It is not an issue that can be solved by him sitting in Toronto and saying to the municipalities, “Give me your best proposal and then I will tell you whether I like it or not.”

If we in fact run out of places to put our municipal waste in this province, it is going to be the ordinary citizens and households from one end of the province to another who are going to suffer: people who are going to have nowhere to take their garbage if they live in apartment buildings; municipalities that are going to be paying enormous amounts, even more than they are now paying to try to dispose of it in some safe and environmentally sound way.

We have a crisis, a crisis of our own making, because we all contribute to the production of that garbage -- what is it; six or seven pounds of garbage per person, I think is the figure we get, per week?

Mr. Reville: More for MPPS, I would think.

Mrs. Grier: More for MPPS, because we use Styrofoam cups in our lobbies, though a minister now tells me, since question period, that lo, miraculously, we may get some china ones.

We all contribute to it. We all wish to solve it. What the people of the province want is a minister who will say to them: “I will work with you to help resolve this problem. I will do my best with my funding and with my powers to institute regulations and programs that will make it easy for you to cut down on the amount of waste you generate and to increase the amount of waste that you recycle and reuse.”

Until we get that kind of attitude, the crisis is going to continue, municipalities are going to be pitted one against the other and it is no longer going to be good enough for those in government to say, “Municipalities, you solve the problem first.” That is not what the Minister of the Environment should be saying.

I am glad we are having this debate today. I hope that in his response at the end of the discussion we will hear some meaningful commitments to action, not further promises.

Mr. Cousens: I am indeed pleased that our party has drawn the attention of this House to the most important subject that is facing our province now. We have a major crisis looming. It affects all of us. It affects our children and it affects the future of our whole civilization unless we begin to take it seriously.

There is not any doubt that every person in this Legislature should become far more concerned and far more involved with issues that pertain to the environment than ever before. In fact, if ever any of us can say that we are not environmentalists, then we have failed to understand the future of this country and this province. I am worried, and I think any of us who has seen what is happening within Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding area knows that the problem is getting greater by the day.

Today marks the beginning of recycling in the town of Markham. At last, this community that I represent has taken this significant step forward. I just hope that the community is able to participate wholeheartedly in making it a successful venture. Recycling is certainly part of the issue, but we also have to understand we all have to reduce our garbage. We have to reuse what we can, and recycling has to be promoted.

I happen to live in the region of York, which borders on the town of Vaughan. In the town of Vaughan happens to be the largest landfill site, the Keele Valley landfill site. For the benefit of all members in and around Metro, it is close to the community of Maple, in the town of Vaughan.

It is important to this debate because the Keele Valley dump site is the largest dump site in Canada and the third-largest dump site in North America. One thousand garbage trucks a day roar through the small community in which this site is located. However, the real concern with this site is the manner in which the provincial government has dealt with the proposed study by Metro to expand the site to double its size.

In 1978, the Environmental Assessment Board turned down an application for a larger Keele Valley site and restricted it to a maximum of 245 acres of disposable area, because among other things, the site sits over two major aquifers which feed directly into the Don River, a major source of drinking water for thousands of Metropolitan Toronto, York and surrounding-area residents. As well, a larger site would, to quote the assessment board’s own recommendations, “inflict excessive negative impact on the quality of life of Maple residents.”

While the province has little to say in the deliberations of the proceedings of any quasi-judicial body like the Environmental Assessment Board, the fact is that the province does have a responsibility to deal with the environmental health of this province. Dumping a maximum capacity, which is rated at about 20 million tons, of raw sewage on the aquifers that feed the Don River makes about as much sense as letting children play with matches. Again, I realize that the province has no direct culpability at this point.

What we know today about the garbage crisis is that its ramifications extend far beyond the issue of inconvenience. In fact, since the Keele Valley site was opened, there have been numerous reports of environmentally hazardous and international wastes being dumped at that site. However, in spite of recent moves by Metro to spend $300,000 to study doubling the size and capacity of the current site, the Minister of the Environment has sat back idly, claiming that dump sites are a municipal concern. This attitude ignores the fact that the concern over dump site locations is not about the issue per se, but instead, it is about the environmental ramifications of dump site locations.

In spite of the fact, as the minister is aware, that the power to deal with dump site and waste site management belongs to the municipalities by virtue of provincial legislation which specifically derogates this power from the province to the municipalities, the Minister of the Environment retains the responsibility for the environmental soundness of the site.

It is for this reason that I would like to see that the minister call for a full environmental hearing on this Keele Valley site before any expansion is allowed to take place. This should include all the opportunities possible for submissions made by citizens, environmental experts and other specialists in the waste management field, under the auspices of the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act.

The reality is that for both to take place, the Minister of the Environment will have to approve; if not, nothing can happen. He himself has to approve the process that is going to go through the Environmental Assessment Act. He has to say that this government is not going to allow this site to be doubled without its going through due process. That is the very large concern that I present to this House today. It is part of the growing crisis in our province of communities not knowing how to handle their waste and it is time for this province to give the leadership and to show it is committed to coming up with long-term solutions.

1640

All of us have concerns, as citizens of this province, to protect the future rights of our children. So it is that we should also be concerned about the community of Maple, a community of about 5,000 people. This community has been accepting garbage, less than one per cent of it its own, for about 10 years. Already it has about nine million tons there. It will grow to 20 million tons because that is what was approved. That means this dump site will be filled by 1992 or so. It is in the heart of the community.

I want to quote from one of the documents prepared by one of the community action groups opposed to the dump site being enlarged. This is a well-reasoned presentation and I hope the minister, though he is not listening now, will have a chance to read Hansard and understand the great concern the community is trying to present to him.

It says: “Obviously, no community wants a dump site in its backyard. Hence it is important that policy-makers distribute the bane of landfill sites equitably while considering alternatives to waste disposal, including recycling and incineration, if necessary. The town of Vaughan, and in particular the community of Maple, where the Keele Valley site is located, has borne the brunt of the south-central Ontario garbage crisis over the last decade. The town of Vaughan and the community of Maple have fulfilled all of the social obligations that living near a major metropolitan area offers by way of housing the Keele Valley landfill site.” They feel, understandably, that enough is enough.

I share in the sentiments of the people of this community. The landfill site in this area accepts the garbage not only from Metropolitan Toronto but from York, Durham, Peel and, under recent orders by the Ministry of the Environment, the city of Orangeville and Tiny township and Midland as well. The long and the short of it is that the environmental concerns and issues of equity extend beyond the confines of any regional municipality. They are issues of a global nature and therefore properly belong to the provincial, municipal and federal governments working in concert.

The example I have highlighted here today is without argument. It is symptomatic of the garbage crisis in general. The people of Vaughan have voiced the legitimate concerns of their community and I, for one, have recognized the possibility of environmental peril if the Keele Valley site is expanded.

It is for this reason that I again stand opposed to the expansion of the Keele Valley site without a full hearing of the Environmental Assessment Board for it is with this hearing that the responsibility of the Environment minister begins and belongs.

We are dealing with a community that just thinks that garbage disappears when you load it on the truck. Right now it happens to be ending up in York region, the riding of the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara). It also happens to be a problem that people think they are going to dump on to the Rouge Valley system, and we know the problems that have expanded around there. Thank goodness some sense prevailed, but it took a tremendous response from the whole community saying: “Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Do we want to destroy this environmentally sensitive area known as the Rouge by just causing more dumps?”

What we need to do is start by accepting the responsibility that is really ours. Let’s bring together the regions and metropolitan government so that we can begin to get it done.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: So where should it go? Tell us where it should go. It shouldn’t go to the Rouge, it shouldn’t go to the Keele --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: The minister is abdicating the responsibility of this issue and unless he begins to take it seriously this problem is going to get worse. We are not going to let it get worse without him knowing his full responsibility.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The chair will recognize one person at a time.

Mr. McClelland: All members in this House are very much aware of the magnitude of the municipal waste disposal problem we face in Ontario. Each year, in fact, Ontario alone produces enough household garbage to fill a line of garbage trucks extending from Windsor to Whitehorse. The challenge for all levels of government is to fulfil their responsibilities, to work together to solve this problem and to work with the pressures that are facing municipalities.

We are all aware of those pressures. The traditional waste disposal methods of burning and burying our garbage by themselves are proving to be inadequate, imprudent and wasteful. Landfills risk contaminating ground water with leachate. They often cause odour and traffic problems for nearby residents. As to the garbage itself, we are burying hundreds of tons of valuable resources. Society is realizing now that waste is a resource, and our attitudes are changing. Incinerators risk producing toxic rain which falls upon our crop lands and waterways. They also reduce a variety of resources that could be used repeatedly to one-time use as energy.

Citizens do not want to see landfills or incinerators built in their neighbourhoods. While the amount of garbage we produce continues to grow with every passing new year, available land space does not grow. The cost of disposal has also risen dramatically. Municipalities are now charging as much as much as $65 per ton.

The traditional load-tipping fees in landfills never reflected the true cost of properly locating, operating and decommissioning landfills. Municipalities today are not placing enough priority on planning and forecasting to meet the increasing waste management needs. The result is that planning has been delayed, leaving many municipalities with limited or no capacity as existing facilities are reaching their present capacity.

Often the existing approach to waste management is not sustainable in the long term for a variety of reasons, including reliance on landfill that requires municipalities to replace landfill sites every 20 years or so, and also the fact that landfill sites place increasing strains on lands that could be used more beneficially for agriculture or housing projects.

Municipalities often state that they feel that the provincial government should assume full responsibility for waste management in Ontario, and we have heard that sentiment expressed here today. But the blueprint for waste management issued in 1983 reviewed the status of waste management policies and practices and outlined the respective responsibilities of each level of government. In that blueprint we see broad public support, and it indicated that waste management is one of the rights and responsibilities of the municipalities.

The provincial government will assist municipalities in funding and regulating the approved process. To separate the producers of waste from their responsibilities to properly manage it would remove any incentive for proper waste management planning and recycling. Old practices of poor site selection and management have led to public discomfort with some waste management practices such as landfilling. As a result, the not-in-my-backyard syndrome has blossomed. People have demanded requirements for better planning and environmental protection and they deserve that.

Most demands have been met through the Environmental Assessment Act. One of the requirements is relatively straightforward. Identify your site, give reasons why it is good and reasons why it is better than alternative sites and methods of management.

We have found that one of the greatest delays in the environmental assessment process has been in site selection by the municipalities. The decision on what site to propose to the provincial government for environmental approval appears too often to be based on local political considerations -- for example, whose turn is it? -- rather than where is the soundest and most ecologically and environmentally appropriate site for the location of that landfill.

Delays in solving the waste management problem must be tackled by all of us at every level. The provincial government has already begun to address its responsibilities. Our environmental assessment program improvement project is aimed at making the environmental assessment process more effective and more efficient. We are looking for ways to avoid unnecessary bottlenecks and paper jams which slow up the process. Even as we seek ways to make the act an even better guard of environmentally sound decision-making, we invite everyone to participate in this project.

One promising avenue of environmental assessment improvement is a study we are conducting of generic waste management alternatives. These results will be able to be used by proponents to address a number of questions raised at hearings and required in the EA documents themselves. This will cut duplication or effort and speed up the process without reducing environmental protection. Municipalities will not have to reinvent the wheel each time when planning waste management facilities.

1650

For us the best way for municipal officials to grapple with the difficulties of landfill locating is by recycling to conserve the landfill space they already have. We have heard some talk already today about recycling, but recycling in Ontario is becoming an established practice. It is supported by government, by industry and, most important, by the public of this province. A growing number of municipalities have joined the 10 per cent club, with 10 per cent of their wastes diverted from landfill by their recycling efforts. Some are approaching the 15 per cent diversion level. We are working with municipalities to go beyond the current blue box program.

We also realize that there are special challenges in northern Ontario which have resulted in slower progress. A Recycle North Task Force was formed to address these issues. Mayor Peter Wong of Sudbury was a member of that group and we appreciate his input. The government hopes to come forward soon with some new initiatives to deal with the north’s special circumstances.

One municipality which rightfully should take some pride for the challenge it has taken to heart and met wholeheartedly is the city of Guelph. Many of the latest directions in waste management are already being explored in that city. City-wide recycling in Guelph has been going on since the spring of 1987. They have already achieved a diversion rate of 13.5 per cent of household waste, an achievement that is to be noted and applauded, and I know they will continue to improve on that.

In fact, recently many apartment dwellers in that community expressed their desire to get involved in the Guelph effort. A pilot recycling project involving 2,000 tenants in seven apartment buildings proved to be a success. The Ministry of the Environment is now helping Guelph to extend recycling to every apartment building in the city, and by helping apartment dwellers to recycle, a diversion rate of 20 per cent may very well be feasible in that community.

As a government, we are also supporting a recycling demonstration project in Guelph to evaluate a mechanical sorting machine which will separate steel from aluminum cans, glass and two-litre plastic soft drink containers. The new sorting machine will automatically divide the container recyclables into different material components.

The Ministry of the Environment is also supporting Guelph’s pilot waste recovery project to collect domestic and commercial organic waste material and produce marketable compost. The recovery project will evaluate the feasibility of implementing a full-scale, city-wide organic material recovery and composting system, an improvement which could push the diversion rate up to 30 per cent of the waste stream in that community.

As other Ontario municipalities follow Guelph’s lead, these new directions in municipal 4R projects have the potential for making a real dent in our waste management problem. Through our funding programs, we are challenging municipalities to work with us to recycle at least 15 per cent of their waste in the coming year and up to 50 per cent by the year 2000. That is a goal that is achievable if we all work together co-operatively and put our minds to the task at hand.

The provincial government is developing meaningful ways in which private industry and commercial establishments will contribute to waste management. The soft drink container regulations introduced in December 1985 have resulted in the soft drink industry supporting the growing blue box programs across Ontario. The industrial 4R program is helping to tame waste generation in a broad variety of industries, including newsprint, wood, food processing, cardboard, steel, plastic and electroplating.

With government support, several municipalities are planning to implement recycling programs for commercial establishments. In order to promote the four Rs, a few municipalities, including Peel, the region that I come from and represent, are closing their landfill gates to recyclable wastes such as cardboard and wood. I am proud to say that Peel will be doing that as of January 1, 1989, and other communities will also begin to take those kinds of initiatives as leadership is provided across this province.

The Ministry of the Environment is revising the issue of packaging, a very important area, and its impact on waste. The plastic industry’s sophistication in developing and marketing products far outstrips the performance in developing recycling and recovery systems. Practical solutions are required for dealing with the wastes created by their products.

The minister has announced that he intends to expand the scope of recycling. The advisory committee has monitored the soft drink industry’s compliance with the ministry’s container legislation. The minister will also broaden the mandate of that committee to study waste, to expand the range of materials and packaging beyond those that are now being employed for recycling.

In conclusion, this government has shown considerable leadership in waste management planning, but not only has it shown that kind of leadership, it is also working together with other sectors of society to develop effective waste management strategies. This government will continue to do so, to show leadership, to work together and work in a positive effort to deal with this problem of significant magnitude.

Mr. Mackenzie: One of the reasons we are having this emergency debate here today on waste management is simply because the leadership has not been adequate and there has not been enough done on this problem. We have known it was coming for a long time.

Part of the emergency in terms of waste management is the problem of some of the types of waste, and I am referring specifically to polychlorinated biphenyls in storage around this province. I do not think there are an awful lot more dangerous or potentially dangerous storage sites, and the number of sites should concern all of us. Recent ministry figures show that there are 988 -- there have probably been more added to that since -- PCB storage sites in Ontario, including 308 major sites, defined as a storage site containing 1,000 litres or more of PCB liquid waste.

It really startled me -- I guess I should have expected it -- when I took a look at the list and found that the west-central region, Hamilton, had 62 major sites and 134 minor sites where they were storing PCBS; that is 196. When you think that the central region, Toronto, which is probably five or six times the size in total, has only 404, just about twice what we have in the Hamilton region, that certainly puts us in a high-concentration area.

One of the things that really concerns me is the information that has come out that we have PCBs stored not only at the Woodward Avenue sewage treatment plant, where we have had a lot of problems in terms of workers’ health problems, but also the Woodward Avenue waterworks and the intake. As a matter of fact, we have PCBs stored within 30 or 40 feet of the water intake for the entire city of Hamilton, and that has been an area of some concern for the citizens recently.

I think it was put well in a recent meeting in Hamilton by Ed Herechuk, president of Local 772 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, who represents the workers in the sewage treatment plant, when he said: “It’s a major concern for the safety of the entire population of Hamilton. Large quantities of PCBs are stored within 20 or 30 feet of the one and only waterdraw for the whole city. Think about that. If it doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what will.”

I simply say that with these kinds of storage sites and the locations they are in and the fact that there is the technology to get rid of this now, although it has be incineration, I do not know what this minister is doing and why we have not been moving long before this in terms of the storage of PCB waste in Hamilton.

I was struck by a piece I read recently, which goes as follows: “Incineration is the only method for destroying high-level PCB wastes (over 10,000 parts per million). As you know, although the Ontario Waste Management Corp.’s rotary kiln incineration will handle PCBs when it finally comes on stream, there is no incineration taking place anywhere in Canada except at the Alberta government’s Swan Hills facility. Colin Isaacs of Pollution Probe maintains that the total amount of high-level PCB waste in all of Canada is small enough that, using US equipment (the US EPA has licensed both stationary and mobile PCB incinerators), we could probably destroy it all in about six months.”

There may be some reasons why we have not gone this route; I am not sure. But I do know that I do not like and the citizens of Hamilton do not like the fact that we have PCBs stored within a few feet of the one and only water intake for the entire city.

It is not only myself and it is not only workers at that plant who are concerned about this. I met on Saturday with Margaret Potter, who lives within sight of the plant in the north-end development of my city, and she had a petition of 800 names in that immediate area that was presented to civic officials. People want that material out of there. I am simply saying that part of our problem in terms of waste management is not just the general garbage and the problems we have with that; it is the kind of toxic substances we now have and the tremendous amount of PCBs we have sitting in something like 1,000 storage sites around Ontario.

I simply say to this minister and the members of his caucus that if they think we have done enough in terms of the waste management problem, we have not come near to doing enough. We are putting at threat, and that is a real risk. I think it is almost criminal that we have got those PCBs stored in a facility right at the water intake of a major city like Hamilton. I want to know what the minister is going to do about the PCB problem, as well as the others. Sometimes we get sidetracked from the individuals because we look at the whole issue. It seems to me that there is no justification at all for continued inaction, or at least not much faster action, to resolve the problem of destroying the waste PCBs around Ontario.

1700

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am very pleased to participate in this debate. Members might be interested to know that I attended the official opening of the sewage treatment plant in Palmerston in the county of Wellington. The people there would like to thank the minister for his contribution and would remind him that he is remiss in not providing leadership in this very serious problem that we have for waste disposal.

The reeve of Palmerston, Cathy Keleher, who is the chairperson of the Wellington-Guelph waste management committee, asked me if indeed I would impress on the minister the urgency of leadership that is required from the Minister of the Environment to help to establish a safe site for the disposal of waste there. In Wellington, they have toyed with the idea of an energy-from-waste facility, a landfill site, a combination of the two, or some method of disposing of it.

I think the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland) made mention of the fact that Guelph is a leader in recycling. I do understand that is true and I also congratulate them on taking that effort, but I might point out that there is a problem relating to the recycling. In the Guelph Mercury headlines of Tuesday, June 14, it says: “It is a catch-22 for the waste disposal issue. Wellington and Guelph are very concerned about this problem.” It goes on in this editorial to suggest that, “Closer to home, a program in Peel region for the exchange of industrial waste materials has reduced waste flow by 60 per cent.”

The minister nods his head. I think that is one of the problems we have, that the minister does not know what he is doing. The minister says he agrees with the statement that Peel has reduced waste by 60 per cent by recycling. I contacted the regional chairman, Frank Bean, who is a personal friend. I sent him a copy of the editorial and asked him if indeed they had achieved those results. I will read his letter, at least a paragraph or two. The letter is dated July 28 and it is addressed to “Mr. Johnson”:

“Thank you for your letter dated June 22, 1988, regarding our region’s industrial waste reduction efforts. Let me, first of all, correct our program’s level of success, which is inconsistent to that cited in the newspaper article you sent.

“I would like to be able to say that we have achieved a 60 per cent industrial waste reduction figure as the article says. However, in actuality, the figure is approximately three per cent. We are confident, with the adoption of several new initiatives this year, that we will be able to reach our goal of 13 per cent industrial waste reduction by 1990.”

I am not going to be too critical of the minister not knowing about that, but the problem is that many of the people out in the real world are not aware of the reduction that can be achieved by recycling. It is misleading for articles such as that to appear, saying that they can achieve a 60 per cent reduction when I think the minister knows that is next to impossible, certainly in the foreseeable future. Any of the people I have talked to in the United States or any of the other provinces seem to feel if they can achieve a one-third reduction, it is a commendable goal.

I think it would do us all a lot of good in this Legislature and certainly out in the communities that are concerned with these issues if the minister would provide factual information on the reduction figure that is achieved today and what can be achieved in the foreseeable future; maybe in five-year periods and not using the example of some city such as Munich in Bavaria or some isolated incident. I am talking about a reasonable reduction figure that would apply to Ontario. That is one place the minister could provide some leadership.

Back to Palmerston and the problem with establishing a site. Cathy Keleher, as I mentioned, said the minister has to provide leadership. The warden in the county, Murray Cox, said it is the most frustrating year he has put in on county council, not being able to come up with some meaningful results to many years of study on this issue.

We have 21 municipalities in Wellington that surround the city of Guelph. It is Guelph versus the county, and it is municipal politician against municipal politician. It is not a fair position to place them in.

It is much the same position as we have with the city of Toronto. It is looking at the region of Durham to dispose of its waste, and I do not think it is fair to the region of Durham to have to take that waste. If we allow the city to grow unimpeded, then surely the city should have some responsibility for resolving its garbage problem.

I might make mention of the fact that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) paid tribute to the township of Peel sending a letter to the Premier, outlining proposals to solve some of the problems pertaining to waste. I would like to congratulate that township, as it is in my riding.

I might just mention that I fully support the recycling program. I have attended one opening and intend to attend another a week Friday. It is an initiative that we should be pursuing, but I do hope the minister takes into consideration the comments I made, that people should realize there is a limit to what can be recycled and have a better understanding of the process.

As a matter of fact, while we are on the topic of information, there have been proposals for an energy-from-waste facility in Guelph. Some people support it and some people are very strongly opposed to it. I wish the minister would delve into the problem of energy from waste. Possibly the London hospital plant would be one example of a facility. Either it is safe or it is not; either it has merit or it does not, but surely we should be able to determine if indeed there is any merit in proceeding in that direction.

Many people look at one third recycling, one third burial and one third incineration. Again, instead of having each municipal council in each region or each county trying to determine what is the best method of disposing of the waste, would it not make sense for the minister to try to set up a pilot project? Let’s use Wellington as an example and find the best method possible of disposing of waste in a small county like Wellington, along with the city of Guelph, which make a fairly viable unit. If it is successful there, then it could be used in many other counties and regions of the same size, or it could be upgraded, depending on the population.

I think one of the problems we have in society is the fact that for many years people were simply able to take their garbage out into some back community and dump it. Then it came to having to bury it, which was not all that costly. That day is gone. The people in the country will no longer accept the waste from the city.

Most of the small municipalities will accept their own waste, but the cities are going to have a problem trying to convince the smaller municipalities and townships to take their wastes as well. I think the minister has a real job on his hands in providing the leadership that will solve that problem.

In closing, I would just like to make reference to the resolution that was passed by the waste management committee of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario delegates attending the AMO workshop on waste management and the approval process. They list half a dozen recommendations, and I think the major one is that “legislative duplication now exists to the extent that new landfill sites can require 10 separate approvals.” That creates a lot of expense and a lot of delays.

“The present process fails to assign sole authority to whichever level of municipal government is responsible by statute for providing waste disposal facilities.” One of the problems is that when waste overlaps into another jurisdiction and there are two, three or four municipalities involved, it becomes a very serious problem. That too is something the minister has to address, and certainly Metropolitan Toronto is just an example of that.

1710

Mr. Beer: This is certainly an issue all of us have a great deal of concern about. It is one about which, probably in every riding, in one form or another, we see expressions of concern in our local press and in terms of constituents who come to see us, and it is one that clearly is going to be a major issue over the next number of years.

I think that in looking at the government’s record and the leadership that has been provided by the Minister of the Environment, in point of fact we have been doing everything that we possibly can to move towards a resolution of this matter.

One of the problems we have had in dealing with this issue over the years has been the basic problem that things that ought to have been done previously were not done. We have been left with a number of critical problems in different areas where, frankly, as we all know, it is very difficult to bring everyone together because there has been the tremendous concern that while everyone is in favour of doing something about waste, they would prefer it be done somewhere else. What is really required, then, is to begin to build a consensus among all the players.

In the region of York, for example, I think it is fair to say that anyone who lives near the landfill site, the Keele Valley site, obviously would not want to see that expanded, with all sorts of other things added to it, any more than do the people around other landfill sites.

That part, in a sense, is easy. What is more difficult is building the consensus to develop appropriate sites that can take wastes, that can begin to cope with the problems we have, which I suppose we see most graphically in Metropolitan Toronto, and again today, in reading and hearing more about the waste from the airport.

In recognizing that we have a major problem here, I think that is not to say that the province, by itself, is the sole place where that is all going to be resolved. There are responsibilities that rest with municipalities and with regional municipalities. It has been said often enough that some of the difficulties Metropolitan Toronto finds itself with are ones that ought to have been addressed earlier, but those are there and we are going to have to find ways of dealing not only with the waste that is coming from Metro, but also, increasingly, from the areas around it. Shipping our waste either around the province or out of Ontario to other provinces or to the United States is clearly not something we will be able to do for ever. We have to find other solutions.

In dealing with waste disposal, it seems to me that one of the things we have to concentrate on is not simply waste disposal by itself, but also looking at the total environmental picture and what our overall approach is to that. Clearly, if all we do in trying to deal with the waste problems of the next 25 years is to try to find ever more sites, and if we do not begin to address some of the problems in terms of how we are creating the waste, that is not going to be the answer. There is, if you like, a package of approaches and proposals we have to look at.

In doing that, we have the Environmental Assessment Act. Municipalities have to work within the guidelines of the Environmental Assessment Act. It may well be that there are ways in which we can improve how that process works so that we can deal with some of these problems more quickly, but just because of the issues that have come forward, we cannot simply throw everything overboard and just proceed to develop sites when we are not looking carefully at where they go and how we create them.

Landfill is one way, and it is an important way, of dealing with waste. There have been some tremendous developments in the technology regarding landfill sites. I suppose one of the unfortunate things today, with the fears and concerns people have around landfill sites, is that do not always take into account the improvements in the technology that have been developed over the last number of years in really being able to put together much safer sites, from a technological point of view, than were the case before.

The planning that is going to have to go into how we dispose of our waste is another area where the province and the municipalities, particularly the larger municipal groupings, also become very critical. Here, things such as packaging, which was mentioned earlier by the member for Brampton North, becomes critical.

What kinds of packaging are we going to allow in the future? How do we plan to deal with the question of plastics? Members may be aware that in one of the counties in New York state, the local legislature has taken a number of measures to try to deal with the question of plastic packaging.

The manufacturing and marketing of different kinds of products, consumer awareness and government leadership are all going to be required. If we take but one example of recent date, the number of municipalities that have now introduced meaningful recycling programs, we know that those programs, in and of themselves, are not going to deal with this problem, but they are certainly part of the solution. I think everything we can do as members in working with our own municipalities to develop these recycling programs is something we should do, and increasingly so.

I am aware that a number of the larger municipalities are now looking at that. We can look at the example of a municipality such as Midland as one. In the region of York, a number of municipalities have just started or are about to begin recycling programs in the new year. It is important that we keep putting a lot of emphasis on that while we deal with the question of landfill as well.

I suppose when you come down to it, this issue is one where co-operation is most definitely required. In the jargon of the trade, we are really into a period of 4R -- reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery. That is the context, that is the framework, within which we have to develop our policies. It will be no good if we say only that we must develop a whole series of landfill sites. Those are things we are going to have to do, but unless we do all of the other things together with that and work out a very close working relationship with the municipalities, all of this is going to come to naught.

I think that is the place where leadership is being shown by the minister in terms of his own personal involvement in these matters, in terms of his own personal commitment, in terms of his ability to work together with municipal leaders around these issues.

The other aspect of this is that we are going to have to have the active involvement of the federal government, because that has been another area. At times, it has withdrawn, either in terms of funding or in assisting the provinces and municipalities in being able to deal with these issues and these problems.

We recognize that there are serious problems and serious issues here, but we believe the government is taking forthright action and giving forthright leadership, and through those, we will find our way through this.

1720

Mr. Reville: I think congratulations are in order for the member for York North (Mr. Beer), who I understand was handed the ball only moments ago. He has dazzled us with his broken-field running, but it is too bad that the government of this province could not get a firmer grip on this ball and stop fumbling it all over the field.

It is fair to say, and I think it has been pointed out by others before me, perhaps more eloquently, although that would be unlikely, that in fact no government has done a particularly good job of coming to grips with the problems of waste management. These are not problems that burst full-grown on the scene today or even in 1985 when we experienced a change in government, although we did hope there was going to be fresh air blowing in Ontario. Clearly, the air we are likely to be breathing is going to be fetid indeed as we increasingly have fewer and fewer options about where we dispose of our garbage.

There is a regrettable tendency on the part of engineers, I suppose, to think of burning and burying as the only two engineering solutions to the problem of garbage. Of course, the member for York North got his signals and talked about 4R. There are probably a couple of other Rs he should have mentioned, one of which is responsibility. Then there is the R that is six letters into “leadership,” which we have not seen any of from this province.

I do not have the kind of environmental track record the Environment critic for our party has. It was not until 1980 that I was able to say to elected bodies that we should be reducing and recycling and reusing. I had an opportunity to serve on Toronto council and briefly on Metro council between 1980 and 1985 when the problem was already becoming acute, and the pleas of some of us, urged on by environmental activists, indeed fell on deaf ears, including the stonily deaf ears of the province.

In fact, it should not have come as a surprise to the most recent government that strong leadership had to be taken in the matter of dealing with our growing mountain of waste. Regrettably, for the first few years of this government, what we have seen is a lot of activity around incineration solutions. Regrettably for me as a local politician, two of those incineration options have been proposed for my riding, which already boasted, sadly, one of the dirtiest, filthiest, most disgusting garbage-burning incinerators ever to darken the skies of any community.

Thankfully, community groups said enough is enough and prevailed upon Metro council, with no help from the province, I might add, to close the darned thing this summer. That has had an interesting effect, though. We have just received our blue boxes. You will be pleased to know that I stand over my kitchen sink and wash out the cat-food can and then I put it on the floor and flatten it and then I put it in the blue box. I am waiting impatiently for November 2 so I can rush down to the curb with this box full of crushed cat-food cans and old Liberal pamphlets.

But it is regrettable that even this recycling program, which Metro council has finally been stampeded into -- no thanks to other members of this House who used to serve there -- is missing a lot of the boat, of course. It is not going to deal with apartments. It is not going to deal with industrial waste. It is not going to deal with commercial waste. It is going to deal with my cat-food cans, and that is not enough.

Mr. Faubert: How many cats have you got?

Mr. Reville: I have thousands of cats. None of them vote Liberal; that is, if they want to continue to have a home.

Mr. Faubert: Oh, you’ve got them on the voters’ list.

Mr. Breaugh: No. He said they were not Liberals and they won’t be on the voters’ list.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Reville: They are alive too, so they will not be on the voters’ list.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Their eyes aren’t open yet.

Mr. Breaugh: Something like yours, Jack.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Riverdale has the floor. I would ask all members to refrain from comments until the honourable member has completed his speech.

Mr. Reville: I will have to admit I am provoking some of the members, and it is high time they were provoked.

I understand the target for the Metro recycling program is to get 7.1 per cent of the waste stream by the end of next year, and that is better than the one per cent that has been managed up till now. But when you consider that the closing of the Commissioners Street incinerator means that an additional five per cent of garbage, which used to go up the stack and fall down in our backyards, get into teacups and up our noses, is now going to be in the waste stream again because, fortunately, that approach has been scotched finally, we get a net gain of about one per cent.

I cannot believe this Minister of the Environment, for all his charming skill at reciting the names of itsy-bitsy programs, is really satisfied with a net gain of one per cent in the waste stream that will not be going to landfill for Metro. It is just not good enough.

I think it is also true to say, as my leader said sotto voce, and which I think got its way into a question to the Minister of the Environment today, that our residents are quite prepared to do more. In fact, I am sensing a real enthusiasm for recycling and a real desire on the part of people everywhere in this province to see action by government that will deal with some of the absurd tonnage of packaging that we get surrounding everything we buy.

I do not know. Probably the member for Essex-Kent is urging on the government this neat plastic bag that is made out of old corn cobs. Does the minister know about that neat plastic bag made out of old corn cobs? It is fully biodegradable. You put a little butter on it and you can eat it. It is an interesting idea and it is something that should be investigated.

There is a growing problem, and it will not do for this government to fiddle while we get buried in garbage, while we burn our garbage, while we bury garbage in other people’s backyards. That clearly will not do.

I have a lot of sympathy for the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) -- I guess she is not here right now -- who is trying to protect her community from being the repository for other people’s garbage. Thankfully, I do not think there is any room in my community for a landfill site, but it certainly does feel under serious threat because of the two proposed incinerators and wants to have real access to the environmental assessment.

That brings up the question again of where the intervener funding is that had long been part of promises made by members of this government, another promise that has not been fulfilled, notwithstanding the fact it is repeated over and over and over again.

I am happy to have added a few cents worth to this debate. Perhaps I could observe in closing that this is a good time for the government to get serious about the environment. Even some of the old-guard politicians who are still the scourge of parts of my riding have discovered the environment. They have fallen over it recently and now they too are taking credit for closing the Commissioners Street incinerator.

It is just an amazing thing to find out that when the people raise an issue long enough, even the deafest politicians finally listen, and maybe that could be the case for this government as well.

1730

Mr. Cureatz: It is with great pleasure and privilege that I stand in my honourable place on this wonderful afternoon on the first day of this fall session of 1988 to participate in a particular debate of which I have become very fond --

Mr. Faubert: An expert.

Mr. Cureatz: -- and maybe somewhat of an expert, I say to the honourable member, who is now relegated to a position over on what we affectionately call, and I say to all the people at home listening, the rump of the Liberals over here.

I will not take up my time today, because it is short -- nine minutes and 30 seconds -- to try to relate some things to the minister, whom I have to compliment on being present today, in terms of our discussion about the garbage crisis in the Golden Horseshoe.

I will say that there will come another time during a particular throne speech or budget debate in which we can expound on some other topics of great interest, I know, to all sitting members in the chamber, including the whip, who is in big trouble in his own city over Sunday shopping, I say to the Liberal member; but that is a debate for another time.

Let’s talk about garbage, and let’s talk about what has taken place from the Minister of the Environment and the Liberal government of Ontario, this huge, massive Liberal majority government, of which a third will be gone in 1991, so they might as well enjoy it while they are here, because they are finished.

One of the issues they are finished on is garbage, because they are not facing the issue that is affecting the people in Ontario. Oh, sure, we had a great clamour, “We are going to have openness in government; we are going to take leadership; we are going to take responsibility.” We have not yet seen it from the Minister of the Environment.

I say to my New Democratic Party colleagues, from time to time they have been leaders on this issue. But I have only to remind them we are in third place and maybe one of the reasons we are in third place is because we did not have some foresight to examine some of the issues taking place.

What did the Conservatives do, though, in terms of initiative? I will tell the House -- and the Minister of the Environment has said continually: “Where do you want it? What is the solution?” -- one of the things the Tories did was establish a task force on liquid waste disposal. It was a long, gruelling affair, and I think it evolved that it should be taking place in Lincoln, a riding we lost. That might be one of the reasons we lost that particular riding. But I say to the minister, that should be the kind of approach he should be taking.

I have said in this House time and time again during opening statements and question period that there are municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe that are spending millions of dollars on trying to handle their waste. Durham, my area, is looking at York, York is looking at Durham, they are both looking over in Halton, Halton is looking at Peel, Peel is sending its trash down to the United States to be burned in the incinerator, which I will be talking about in one minute; and he is taking no leadership. I do not understand why he does not call the municipalities together and say: “Folks, we’ve got a problem. Let’s do something.”

How about in my area? Metro Toronto has put my constituents through h-e-l, and I will leave the other “l” off so that I will not have to delegate myself in terms of using unparliamentary language in the assembly.

First they picked the Newtonville area, then they picked Bowmanville, then they picked Courtice, and then they announced they are not going to have any of them in Durham East, in my riding. Now they have come out and said, “No, N-1, the site in Newcastle in the Courtice area, is still going to be closely examined, now that the Rouge Valley site in Scarborough is off.”

I say to the minister, he is swinging my constituents on a pendulum. They are lurching from one end to the other in terms of highs and lows on what Metro is doing with its garbage, and he is taking no leadership.

I have said before in the House, much to the chagrin of my own Conservative members, yes, the minister from time to time has made some positive statements about acid rain, Ontario and his concerns about what the United States is doing. Good for him. He is saying nothing at all about garbage. He is taking no leadership whatsoever, and if I have a minute, I am going to go to some of his press clippings on it.

What do we get today? We get a statement in the House about his concerns about going and petitioning the United States Environmental Protection Agency to begin the necessary legal procedures to force American acid rain polluters to clean up. That is great.

Now let’s remind him -- and I hope someone at home is listening, or someone in the press gallery -- Halton is sending a good portion of its garbage down to Niagara Falls, New York, to, I think, the Hooker Chemicals Corp. They have changed the name to Occidental Chemical because they had such bad press over the other landfill site in the United States.

I will say that I do not have all my investigative processes up to date on this because it is such a large issue and I am critic of other areas, but I am getting phone calls and letters from people across the province, from other areas, giving me some valuable information.

In the minister’s own riding, we had an opportunity of a caucus in St. Catharines. We met with the mayor and visited the landfill site in his own riding. Time and time again, we hear ministry officials say: “Don’t worry about landfill sites. There’re no seagulls.” Someone did not tell the seagulls in the minister’s own riding because the seagulls were there flapping their wings and having a heck of a great time in his constituency.

What is St. Catharines doing with some of its garbage? Does the minister know? This is an interesting thing. It is sending -- so the mayor told us -- some of its garbage down to this incinerator in the United States. He is shaking his head and saying no. Ask the mayor: that is what he indicated to us. I do not think the minister knows what is going on in his own riding.

That incinerator, apparently, is the highest producer of dioxins in North America, and Ontario is sending its garbage down there to be burned. He is talking about acid rain. The stuff goes up in the air. Does the minister think dioxins and smoke stop at the international border? I have news for him. I do not think it does. I think the smoke blows back over into Ontario. He is talking about acid rain when he is as big a culprit in letting the municipalities across the Golden Horseshoe send some of their garbage down to this huge smokestack.

We all know we are not going to find a simple solution about how we are going to dispose of garbage. Recycling, I say to my colleagues, is not the answer. I have been finding that out, too. I have had some consulting companies phone me up. It is not the be-all and end-all because you have to follow the process to its culmination.

When you stamp on the can, as my NDP colleague indicated, and put it in the recycling process, where does it go? It goes back to the blast furnaces of the various steel companies. Who is monitoring what is going up the stack there? Is anybody monitoring those things? Is anybody monitoring what is going up the stacks in the plastic companies in their recycling processes? I do not think they are closely monitoring it.

I think the Ministry of the Environment should be taking a look at that and evaluating the whole recycling process. Maybe we should be thinking about incineration as part of a package deal. The minister is looking questioningly. I have heard that he and his staff are captive of Pollution Probe, that they are dead against incinerators. Why does the minister not do some kind of investigative process to see the kind of monitoring taking place with incinerators and what is going up those stacks as opposed to what is going up the stacks from those industries that are recycling or are purporting to recycle the various substances?

I say the recycling answer is not the full answer, certainly in terms of the percentages that are going to be taken out of the present volume of trash from Metro alone for recycling.

Interestingly enough, in the Brock site, about which I have had a number of phone calls, I am wondering if the minister realizes, as he is dead against incineration, what is taking place out there. From time to time, there are continual concerns about the smell from the landfill site at Brock. They came up with a solution: they are going to dig trenches; the gas is heavier and settles in the trenches; they fan the gas out through the trenches and light it up in a big kind of pipe to burn off the smell of gas.

I want to know if the minister has some studies of what is going up the stack from that flare at the Brock site. I want to see if he has some dioxin studies. I am trying to say that it might be better to have a kaleidoscope of garbage problem-solving ideas, as opposed to the whole landfill site area. It might be worse sending the smoke up that stack at the Brock site and light up the methane gas or whatever is being reduced as opposed to monitoring accurately an efficient, modern thermal plant which is burning waste.

What has the minister said about trying to get some co-operation in the Golden Horseshoe? Not a heck of a lot. The whip for the Liberal Party indicated, and I am going to remind him, that I brought this to the attention of the House a while ago. I just happened to have a camera up in the public gallery so that I could let my constituents know that this large Liberal administration is taking no initiative. Here is what he said back in August of this year: “‘Queen’s Park wants to stay clear of the sticky problem of garbage disposal,’ Environment minister Jim Bradley told a room full of municipal politicians yesterday. ‘Waste disposal is a local responsibility,’ Bradley said, ‘and local politicians will just have to keep on taking the heat for landfill sites and garbage incinerators.’”

I say to the minister that is a heck of an approach, and I can only conclude by saying that he has to take all the alternatives for disposal with the same level of definition.

1740

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. Order. The minister.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I always enjoy the opportunity to listen to my colleagues, with their wonderful suggestions on what should not be done and what should be done. What is interesting to note is the number of different points of view that have emanated from one political party directly opposite, which asked for this particular debate.

I think the fact that each one of the speakers seemed to contradict the other is an indication of the dilemma in which people find themselves in dealing with this issue. But I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue of proper waste management and I am pleased that the third party has finally realized the importance of protecting our environment.

This government will continue to provide leadership on the issues of waste management. It is leadership that is made more difficult because of the legacy of past mistakes of the former government. A case in point is recycling. During the former government’s last year, it spent $750,000 for municipal recycling programs. When we came into office, there were only seven blue box, multimaterial, curbside recycling programs in the province.

Our government’s real support for municipal recycling has been enthusiastically received by a public that demands sound solutions, such as recycling, and that had in the past been starved of environmental leadership. In the past three years, we have increased funding for municipal recycling programs by more than 10-fold, to $7.7 million annually.

Today, we have committed funding to blue box recycling projects in more than 75 municipalities across Ontario. More than 750,000 Ontario households now have regular curbside collection for a variety of recyclable materials. A little later this year we will be presenting a blue box to the one millionth household recycler in Ontario.

Recycling is diverting the disposal of waste from landfill. Last year, communities recycled more than 100,000 tonnes of paper, glass, metals and polyethylene tetrathalate soft drink containers. We expect this to reach 130,000 tonnes this year. We estimate that in 1989, the blue box program will divert 175,000 tonnes of household waste from landfill.

Industry is getting involved, as well. The soft drink industry, through Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc., has contributed $20 million to the capital costs of municipal recycling programs throughout the province. I should point out that this positive industry initiative came only after government acted to establish a soft drink container regulation; more on that in a moment.

But we can and we will do much better than this. Increasing the use of 4R is a top priority, even as we continue to spread the blue box program to towns and cities across Ontario. We are developing ways of moving beyond the blue box program, in addition to that. Apartments must be involved, composting must be encouraged, and industry and commercial establishments must develop a 4R approach to both their products and their wastes.

Members should remember this leadership in recycling was made possible because this government had the determination and political will to solve a problem the former government could not. For years, the former government wrestled with the soft drink container problem. The member for Sarnia went to cabinet with a submission and failed. Mr. Kells and Ms. Fish went to the cabinet with submissions and they failed.

Within three months of assuming office, the government announced a soft drink container policy that set recycling levels for the industry and held the industry responsible for the environmental fate of its containers. As a result, the soft drink industry formed OMMRI and committed $20 million to assist municipalities in recycling. With industry and government support, recycling has become a significant factor in proper waste management.

When this government announced a comprehensive funding program for waste management in June 1987, it marked the first time funding was available to municipalities to address all the different stages of the life cycle of a waste management facility from start to finish. It marked the first time support was available to the private sector for our activities.

As a result of the comprehensive funding program, the waste management master-plan program budget has been enhanced. This program provides funds to groups of municipalities for long-range -- 20 years, for instance -- planning for waste management.

A new financial assistance program to enable municipalities to implement landfills, transfer stations or processing facilities has been developed. Eligible activities include design, hearings and approvals, land purchase, construction and equipment costs.

The waste management improvement program budget has been enhanced. This program provides funds to municipalities for existing sites, to upgrade the sites, close sites properly and for investigative studies and remedial works.

The comprehensive funding program promotes the use of 4R by municipalities: enhancing the existing municipal recycling support program, creating the municipal reduction reuse program which provides grants of up to 50 per cent of promotion costs incurred by municipalities for activities that are aimed at changing consumer attitudes or behaviour with respect to waste generating habits and so on. It goes on and on.

Mrs. Marland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: When I was speaking earlier this afternoon, the Minister of the Environment saw fit to stand and interrupt my speech. My reason for standing to interrupt his is not purely reciprocal, but it is to say that I think it is very unfair to refer to members who are no longer here, as in the example of Mr. Kells and Miss Fish.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Marland: I think the minister should be addressing the issue of waste management. On that point of privilege --

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mrs. Marland: -- on behalf of our former members, I really think this minister should apologize for referring to people who no longer are in a position to defend themselves.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Will the minister proceed, please.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

There is financial assistance to 55 industrial projects with a further 40 currently under consideration. This is the industrial 4R project that we are doubling the funding for.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) raises concerns about the threat to health of individuals living in the vicinity of landfill sites, and I listed a number of these that are litanies of mistakes in the past. On the one hand, one member of the third party gets up and suggests we should not apply the Environmental Assessment Act because it is too stringent. Then someone else gets up on the other side and says, “Of course, you should.” They have to make up their minds.

Everybody on the other side has been able to rise and has been able to ensure they say what should not be done. In fact, we are saying what should be done and these are very positive moves on our part.

Mrs. Marland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is it not in the rules of this House that references made during speeches must be honest? I am asking you, Mr. Speaker. I think when you check Hansard you will find that some of the just-cited words from this minister are, in fact, not factual.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If I may continue within the limits of a 10-minute speech, I recognize that the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) obviously does not want me to be able to list all the things the provincial government is doing to show leadership in the field of waste management. I know it would take an hour to do so.

Nor does she want me to talk about the Upper Ottawa landfill site, the Ridge landfill site, Stouffville, the Pauzé landfill site, the litany of mistakes that were made by the previous government because it did not handle the problem of waste management in the appropriate fashion.

Our government has established, for instance, and enhanced the security fund for the emergency site cleanup of spills and landfill sites that this government and the people of this province were left with. It is a form of -- I suppose you would call it a superfund.

I wonder if my colleagues across the way have really changed their spots regardless of their rhetoric. I see letters from the Leader of the Opposition asking private undertakings -- I believe it was Unitec Disposals Inc.’s proposal for an expanded industrial waste landfill to proceed without designation under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Conservative critic who urges the government to apply the EAA without exception, who holds the act to be followed without fail, was also a councillor of the city of Mississauga when Peel region eliminated several proposed landfill sites due to political considerations and not the primary concern, which should be environmental concern.

This government has a real commitment to environment.

Mrs. Marland: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister just made a statement about me that is inaccurate and I take very strong exception to it. He said that when I was a regional councillor in Peel, I made a decision that was purely political and I ask the minister to withdraw that comment right now.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, when you face a situation where several potential sites are eliminated because in one case a mayor does not like one of the sites and in another case because it is not that municipality’s turn to have the landfill any more, I call that a political decision and I think most objective, independent-minded people would refer to that as a political decision and not an environmental decision.

1750

Mr. Harris: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think when a member who has been around here as long as this member has, and is a minister of the crown, intentionally impugns motives of another member, there is something wrong, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: My friend across the way from Mississauga South is a person I have a great deal of liking for and respect for, and if she feels offended by those comments, I would certainly not want those comments to stand. She makes her decisions based on what she feels are the best decisions.

My observation is that the decision that was made on a council of which she was a member was a political decision. She disagrees with that, and if that is what she says -- it was not, in her mind, her decision -- I certainly accept her contention.

Mr. Charlton: I have been here for 11 years now and it really amazes me how little we have learned in this House. The member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) spoke earlier today. I happen to have been the Environment critic of this caucus for four years while the party that he represents was going through that phase of lacking foresight and I have some damage marks on my forehead as a result of banging my head against that wall.

I think we have come to a stage where we have debated questions of the environment, and specifically questions of waste management, in this House ad nauseam over the last decade. We hear all the rhetoric, all the right words in the debates. We hear people talking about the four Rs and we hear the minister get up and read off, as quickly as he can possibly read it, a prepared statement this afternoon about programs and progress.

What I fail to find in this debate is any real inkling of an understanding of the problems that confront us, and therefore any real understanding of how to approach the solutions. I would like to spend a few minutes giving some examples of that so that perhaps the minister and some of his colleagues can begin, just begin, to come to terms with what it is we face.

We have heard a number of people here this afternoon refer to packaging and the need to deal with the question of packaging. I will just quickly read to you a small excerpt from an election document of the Premier last year on the question of waste management and a reference to the question of packaging.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: What is the document?

Mr. Charlton: The document is a press release dated August 13, 1987. The Ontario Liberal Government Commitment to Recycling was the title of it, but it has three subsections under it. The first one is “Municipal Recycling,” the second one is “Municipal Reduction, Reuse and Recovery.”

“The MRRP helps municipalities, the private sector or others with projects designed to reduce or reuse municipal wastes. For example, MRRP offers help to private sector companies to design new packaging and to individuals using home composting.”

All of that is well and good, but what it reflects is a very, very shallow understanding of the problem of packaging. Since we went to curbside blue box recycling in Hamilton, I have taken the time in my own home to divide my waste into three waste streams. I collect separately the compostable waste that is referred to in this release of last year. Obviously, I have to collect separately the recyclable waste, the blue box waste that is going to be picked up and recycled.

The third waste stream, all of it, 99 or 100 per cent of it, falls into the category of packaging. I challenge the members of the government party and any of the members of the third party to do what I have done: to divide their waste streams into three and to take note each week of the waste that ends up in the packaging waste stream. The packaging category makes up 50 per cent of the total waste stream. After we have recycled our 15 per cent and after we have taken out the compostable waste, 50 per cent of the waste stream is in packaging. I want to say to members of the government party that 70 per cent of that one half of the waste stream is unnecessary.

It is fine to talk about redesigning packaging and looking at how we can make plastics biodegradable and all the rest of those things once we have got rid of the 70 per cent of packaging that is not even necessary in the first place; it is totally wasteful in its very existence. I will support that, but the government must be prepared to pick up the fifth R that my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) suggested, that one called responsibility. That government over there and the minister over there must be prepared to take on the corporate sector in this province and those that import into this province from other jurisdictions on the question of wasteful, unnecessary packaging. It is a political decision, in spite of the fact that some do not like to have the decisions they make referred to as political decisions. This one is a responsibility question, and it is a political decision that has to be made by the government of this province. If we want to get at that waste stream, we have to deal with that issue.

The other thing I want to say, and I am not going to have the opportunity to say all I wanted to say on this one, is that we have heard a number of members this afternoon refer to the not-in-my-backyard syndrome; we have all latched on to that one, but none of us understands it or wants to understand it or wants to deal with it and overcome it.

I am just going to quickly run through with members the Upper Ottawa Street landfill site in my riding. It is a landfill site that was operated, albeit under the former government, under provincial licence as a safe landfill site. They told the residents that the Niagara Escarpment is capped with Lockport dolomite, that it is impervious, impenetrable, that nothing will ever leak out of that site. The site leaks.

We had a government that licensed the site to accept industrial waste. It said: “It’s safe industrial waste. It may be dangerous if you drink it, but it’s not dangerous going into the landfill site.” Now we have a study by a site study committee that says the health of that community was affected while that landfill site was being operated and that a whole range of diseases resulted from the fumes from those toxic wastes. We also have a site study that says that site is leaking like a sieve, when the governments -- the local government, the regional government and the provincial government -- all told the residents of that community that that operation was safe.

The point I am trying to make is that the not-in-my-backyard syndrome is a syndrome that is not based on something mystical. It is based on a failure of performance in this province. It is based on the real examples that real people have to look at and understand. Until we are prepared to, by example, go in and deal with the problems we created in the past when we told them it was safe and in reality it was not, they are not going to believe us that the next round is any safer than the last round.

It is time we stopped running away from the not-in-my-backyard syndrome and started going out there into the communities in this province and dealing with it and bringing the people along with us in the development of our waste management strategies so that they understand and feel comfortable with the answers we ask them to accept.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

October 17, 1988

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

WRIT OF ELECTION

COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CHILD POVERTY

JEAN-FRANÇOIS AUBÉ

PERSONS DAY

INCO LTD.

LANDFILL SITE

HOSPICE PETERBOROUGH

HOMES FOR THE AGED AND NURSING HOMES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

VISITOR

WILLIAM NEWMAN

P. MICHAEL DEWAN

WILLIAM NEWMAN

VICTOR COPPS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRUG ABUSE

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

1988 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

ACID RAIN

RESPONSES

DRUG ABUSE

1988 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

DRUG ABUSE

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

ACID RAIN

1988 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

ÉLECTION DE CONSEILLERS SCOLAIRES / TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

LANDFILL SITE

FIRE PREVENTION

RECYCLING

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

BREAST CANCER

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PETITIONS

PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANT

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

NAMING OF ROAD

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MADAWASKA TRUST PARK

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

QUARRY TRUCK ROUTE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MOTIONS

INTERNATIONAL OMBUDSMAN CONFERENCE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

WASTE MANAGEMENT