The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Ms Poole: This NDP government has promised to provide many things to child care workers and to those who use the child care system. I would like to take this opportunity to revisit those promises.

In January child care workers were promised a pay equity adjustment of $2,000. This was to be delivered in June. It did not arrive. Then it was to be delivered in August. It did not arrive. Then it was to be delivered in October and it still did not arrive. This is just another classic NDP ploy.

I have a message for the NDP government. They acknowledged the low wages of child care workers. They made a commitment, which they later called an achievement, but child care workers have not seen a dime. In addition, they promised the creation of 20,000 child care spaces and committed themselves to a quality child care system that was affordable, yet the subsidy waiting list of eligible families in Metro Toronto is 10,000 long.

Up to now, only 5,000 non-profit spaces have been delivered and, due to this government's policies, we have lost that many spaces in the private sector. Under this government, in the greater Toronto area so-called affordable child care is averaging $200 per week.

On Monday, when members opposite face the child care lobby groups that have been so disappointed by their government, they had better be prepared to tell them when they can see some action and this time give them a promise they will keep.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Stockwell: I have received many calls and letters from my constituents regarding the harmful effects that will result from this government's proposed labour law reform. All have expressed the same concerns that the reform package will cost both jobs and investment in Ontario.

This government is not listening. We know the Minister of Labour intends to travel around this province, hopefully to meet with both labour and business, yet when he drafted his 30-point plan, the business community was not consulted. That really does not surprise me. They are socialists, and we all know they take their direction from the big unions.

Let me just quote from a letter I received from a constituent of mine who does not belong to a union, nor does he own or operate a business. He is just a very concerned and frightened taxpayer. He writes:

"I am writing to express my concerns over the recent proposals from the NDP government to amend the Labour Relations Act. It would seem that the NDP are going out of their way to destroy what we have left of our free market economy" -- hear, hear -- "and the ability of individuals and companies to carry on business."

He goes on to say he believes the government should not be introducing any changes to the Labour Relations Act at a time when the economy is in recession or when there are so many other fundamental social, fiscal and constitutional problems facing us.

I urge the government to scrap this partisan, union-driven agenda and use its energy to create an economic environment that will create jobs and encourage investment.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Mills: I want to draw the House's attention to the continuing problems the citizens of this nation are having in getting leadership from the federal government on the very critical constitutional consultations that are supposed to be happening now. I am addressing the House not to criticize the inability of the federal government to provide effective leadership but out of concern that we must not let this important discussion become mired in problems which will prevent our country from developing a constitutional base that will promote the healthy growth of our nation.

I am not stating this today out of any frustration that any problems exist in our process here in Ontario. In fact, I am pleased with the progress of the constitutional consultations and would like to extend thanks to our friends across the way for the co-operative role they are playing. What is important is that we in Ontario who have taken a leading role in the constitutional development process continue to provide the effective leadership that has been exhibited so far.

Our province needs a Constitution that works in order for us to build a sustainable economy, to know how to work with other governments and to provide the types of services our citizens need. I urge this House to continue to find ways to keep constructive dialogue happening so that the people we all represent can sincerely know that a workable Constitution will be crafted.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Curling: Today many members of the Legislature have had the opportunity to meet with members of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters as they conduct their first Ontario Legislature conference here in Toronto. Some are now sitting in the members' gallery. I believe many members, myself included, will have an opportunity to meet with them at their reception to be held later this afternoon.

Before I discuss one of the important issues facing the firefighters all across Ontario, I would first like to pay tribute to the tremendous bravery and courage these firefighters show on a daily basis. Placing themselves as front-line emergency workers, our firefighters face tremendous danger as they seek to secure the public safety of ourselves, our children and our property. For their courage and dedication in this regard, I believe we must all salute them.

As members may already be aware, Ontario's fire services are primarily regulated by two pieces of legislation, the Fire Departments Act and the Fire Marshals Act. While these pieces of legislation have generally served both the public and the fire services well, we believe it is time to update this legislation to more adequately reflect the reality of firefighting in the 1990s.

In July 1990 the Liberal government formed a consultation committee comprising all affected stakeholders in order to develop a consensus on how the new fire services legislation should look. The committee is bogged down not by the lack of interest of all the stakeholders but by the lack of action on the part of the Solicitor General. It is our understanding that members of the committee have been told that the legislation update required by firefighters is not a priority. Obviously the Solicitor General would rather spend his time dealing with life-saving legislation like Sunday shopping.

We are calling upon the Solicitor General to move ahead --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

1340

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Arnott: I have two positive and constructive suggestions for the Premier. Here are two things the government should be doing to promote rural industrial growth.

First, the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal has been meeting quarterly to chart a course for Ontario's future economic development. The Premier's Council recently established four task forces to deal with specific issues. I call upon the Premier to establish a fifth one to be entitled Rural Industrial Development. This would attract interest and government resources towards generating ideas to facilitate rural industrial growth and stimulate interest in our small communities that are wishing to attract industrial investment.

Second, the Premier should immediately assign the Minister of Financial Institutions to fast-track the establishment of a provincial funding corporation to underwrite and guarantee both industrial and community development bonds, following the model developed in Saskatchewan, which incidentally is light years ahead of Ontario in rural development issues.

Under this program a community group would form a bond corporation and make a proposal which would be received and reviewed by the provincial government. If the proposal were approved, the group could issue bonds which would be backed by the province. Interest on the bonds would be tax-exempt. This would develop a new source of investment capital with people investing in the future of their own communities.

Rural Ontario, and Wellington county in particular, has a great deal to offer industrial investors, including wide-open spaces away from the costly congestion of the city, a stable and loyal workforce, geographical access to a large market, available and affordable industrial land and communities with a high quality of life.

I call upon the Premier to implement these suggestions immediately.

WORLD COUNCIL FOR GLOBAL CO-OPERATION

Mr Hansen: I rise today to give my full support and endorsement to the Toronto appeal for the World Council for Global Co-operation. The World Council for Global Co-operation is an international peace organization headed by 11 Nobel prize winners from 10 different countries around the world. This organization serves a very important purpose. They are pleading for reallocation of funds currently being spent on the military and weapons to be used instead for humanitarian purposes.

According to the council, over $17 trillion have been spent over the past 30 years on arms while three quarters of the world's population lives in poverty. The council believes the reallocation would create a peace dividend that would benefit everyone. They believe global peace is best achieved by all countries working towards a common goal instead of trying to achieve national security on an individual basis.

I believe this lofty goal can be achieved through education and a change of attitudes. If three out of four people in Ontario lived in poverty we would be outraged, yet we choose not to look at the world around us. We must change our attitudes towards the less privileged countries by looking further than our own backyards.

I have handed out information packages on the Toronto appeal to all members of the House and I am urging everyone to support and endorse this worthy cause.

NORTHERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Miclash: There is a growing sense being expressed by many people in the north that the problems of the north are not being addressed by this NDP government. During this time of economic hardship they are looking towards this government for leadership and a sense of direction, and instead they find apathy, confusion and a Premier who is more interested in escaping to Europe than in dealing with the hardships being faced by the people in the north. The people have grown more disillusioned, the business community increasingly more isolated and the government increasingly less effective.

The north must contend with problems that are unique to it not only because of geography but also because of history. In recent years the young people of the region have been leaving the area in large numbers for better opportunities elsewhere. Between 1981 and 1986 an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 young people left the north. This outward-bound migration bodes ill for the future of northern Ontario.

New ideas must be developed to further opportunities of growth and to change this negative trend. Jobs and economic stability will keep our youth in the north. This is where the government can take a leadership role and where it has failed up until now to do so.

There is a huge part to be played by the government in helping to diversify the economic base in the north to lessen its traditional dependence on its resource-based industries. This would not only create new opportunities for northerners but also provide them with a greater level of protection than presently exists from the uncertainties of the world resource markets. Leadership from this government is what is being sought by the people of the north, but unfortunately leadership is not what they are getting.

MOOSE VIDEOS

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns his promotion of unfair competition. In 1983 Andre Allen of Moose Hunter and Outfitters produced on film a two-hour video titled The Moose Hunter. In 1985 Mr Allen produced an updated version to teach hunters the proper techniques for moose calling, tracking, cleaning and dressing. Mr Allen, who has been involved in moose and wildlife conservation for more than 40 years, undertook at considerable expense and with considerable expertise to produce the video and wanted to promote it across Canada and in the United States.

Mr Allen indicates that in 1988 the ministry, without calling for tenders, entered into an agreement with an individual to produce an instructional video on moose hunting titled Moose Hunt: A Guide To Success. The ministry did not put this alternative video out to tender even though the ministry was aware of Mr Allen's video. The ministry has promoted the sale of the new video in pamphlets enclosed with moose validation tags without mentioning the availability of Mr Allen's video. The ministry's endorsement of one video over another promotes unfair competition. The minister has treated Mr Allen extremely shabbily. I would urge him to contact Mr Allen immediately to negotiate monetary restitution for loss of sales and loss of potential future sales.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Mr Kormos: Members know I have a whole lot of real good, hard-working people down in Welland-Thorold, people like Gordon Stuart and his spouse, Edda Critelli. Those people are getting ripped off. Let me tell members how the scam is working. An outfit called JCS Ventures operating out of St Catharines is peddling Filter Queen vacuum cleaners door to door. They are charging people like Gordon and Edda $1,400 for a vacuum cleaner, using the classic, hyperbolic, high-puffed, high-powered, high-pressure sales techniques that are long, long traditions for these types of artists, and they are making them sign contracts with an interest rate of 26.7%.

Of course, these vacuum cleaners do not do what the sales pedlars say they are going to do, so what people like Gordon Stuart and Edda Critelli did was say, "We'll stop making the payments." They were not told the paper was sold to an outfit like Trans Canada Credit Corp. Trans Canada Credit repossesses this $1,400 vacuum cleaner and peddles it to one of its buddies for a mere $214. That is a scam. Then these people find themselves in high-priced lawsuits, under real pressure, having to defend themselves under the most unscrupulous and unconscionable circumstances.

People should not be buying products like Filter Queen as long as Filter Queen and its distributors peddle their garbage like this. I want to hear from people who are listening now who have been ripped off in similar ways, because we had better start doing something about it to protect those good, hard-working people.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I invite members to welcome to the chamber this afternoon Mr Alexander Bey of the German consulate, who is seated in the members' gallery east. Welcome.

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Provincial Auditor, covering audits completed through August 31, 1991.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I would cordially invite the members to welcome, in the Speaker's gallery today, the Provincial Auditor for the province of Ontario, Mr Douglas Archer. As Mr Archer will be retiring at the end of this year, I believe this is a good opportunity to thank him on behalf of the Legislative Assembly for his many fine years of dedicated public service. Thank you.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST INDUSTRY ACTION GROUP

Hon Mr Wildman: As part of the government's commitment to economic renewal, a number of ministries, led by the Ministry of Natural Resources, agreed to form a forest industry action group to address economic challenges in Ontario's forest products industry. The action group's approach will be a co-operative one. It will bring together business, labour and government in an effort to find effective and lasting solutions to the industry's current problems.

I am pleased to announce the appointment of John Valley as assistant deputy minister, forest industry action group. Mr Valley, a native of Thunder Bay, has a broad range of experience in the forest products industry and associated natural resource, mining and energy matters. Since 1982 he has been a vice-president with Boise Cascade Canada Ltd and is currently the company's vice-president, administration and corporate affairs. Prior to joining Boise Cascade, Mr Valley spent six years in management positions with Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Valley will join us in mid-December. His first task will be to consult widely with senior business and labour leaders and come back to me with an action plan as soon as possible.

The forestry industrial sector is a key element in the social and economic fabric of this province. Ontario produces more than $12 billion worth of forest products annually and accounts for about 20% of Canada's exports of wood and wood products.

Our forest products industry generates larger net export earnings than any other part of our economy. It is responsible for more than 160,000 jobs and is the anchor for about 40 communities across the central, eastern and northern parts of the province.

But the forest products industry is a cyclical one and for some time now it has been experiencing a serious downturn. Markets are weak, demand for newsprint is down substantially and pulp prices have fallen by one third in the past year. Lumber prices also are low because of fewer North American housing starts and a soft market overseas.

There are many reasons for this downturn. They include the impact of the recession generally and the high Canadian dollar, trade disputes with the United States over softwood lumber and changing demand in the marketplace. The industry needs to develop a long-term industrial strategy to address these changing variables. It needs to find ways to create stability so that forest products companies and communities which depend on the forest products industry are less vulnerable to the cycles and downturns that have typified the industry in the past.

The government is committed to a strong, healthy, prosperous Ontario forest products industry. We are also committed to sustainable forestry. That involves a redirection of our forest program so that Ontario's forests are managed in a way that ensures the long-term health of forest ecosystems and recognizes a diverse range of forest values.

But sustainable forestry also means a sustainable forest products industry and sustainable forest communities. Sustainable forestry can contribute to Ontario's economic renewal by ensuring the sustainability of our forest resources, making the forest products industry more competitive in the future.

Mr Speaker, as a government we are not alone in our belief that effective and long-lasting solutions to the challenges created by the recession must come through a co-operative approach, with business, labour and government working together to achieve common goals.

Over the past few years, a number of independent reports examining the forest industry have recommended a co-operative approach by business, labour and government. More recently, I hosted a meeting in late October which brought together forest industry representatives, labour leaders and a number of my cabinet colleagues.

The consensus from these discussions was that the pressures of global competition are very serious and that a tripartite approach was essential for meeting the challenges facing the forest products industry. It was also clear that we must act now rather than later. Leadership at this point is essential.

The forest industry action group will have my full support and the full support of this government as it seeks ways to help Ontario's forest industry meet the challenge of the structural and cyclical pressures that it must deal with.

RESPONSES

FOREST INDUSTRY ACTION GROUP

Mr Ramsay: In opposition we have to consider day to day how we approach issues brought forward by the government, and at times it is necessary to be aggressive and tough when the government does things that we over here disagree with. But I must say to the minister that he has got this right, and I will tell him that. This forest industry action group is exactly what is needed. A new strategic look at the industry as a whole is the right thing to do. The timing is right on.

I must say that the choice of John Valley, a key person from the corporate side of forestry, is the right appointment to head this up. I happen to be a personal friend of Mr Valley. I know him and I have worked with him in his dealings as a northerner with issues involving his company. Many of my caucus, and I know others in the House here, have a high regard for John Valley. It is the right appointment. I know Mr Valley is a native northerner who has run operations in the north and now lives in the south, who knows the forestry industry. He knows all the people in the industry and it is my sense that he has the respect of everybody in the industry. To bring somebody from the private sector in to captain this is the right idea and bodes well for the future of the forestry industry.

I know as a northerner, and my colleagues know, that forestry is one of the main resources, one of the main components of the northern economy. That and mining are what the northern economy have been centred on, and by and large will continue to be. As the minister knows, we have to look at forestry in new ways. We have to make sure we have sustainable forestry. We also have to look from an industry standpoint at how we can add value to that resource. That is something I see this group committed to and which my caucus will certainly support.

I have a couple of questions for the minister with regard to this group. He has announced, since being minister, various other consultative groups in the forestry industry, the one on sustainable forestry and, of course, we have the timber environmental assessment that has been ongoing for eons. How is the minister going to co-ordinate all these various activities? It is going to be very important for certainty in the forestry industry that we know there is one voice coming out of the industry for expressing the needs.

I must also reiterate the tremendous need for this right now. We have lists of layoffs in the forestry industry right across the north and they are continuing every day as we speak. In Iroquois Falls, 150 workers laid off; in Kenora, Boise Cascade being shut down for the month of December; with many industries in Thunder Bay, also temporary layoffs. It is very important that this committee get off the ground.

I would also like to say that this government has talked about partnership. Maybe this is an opportunity for the government to put its money where its mouth is because partnership is certainly needed, and this committee is certainly tasked with that challenge. I would say to my friend John, if he is listening, when he heads this group up and sits down with management people he should ask them and union people to doff their institutional hats, to sit down together and once and for all really talk about what is the best thing we can do for this industry.

I would say to management that maybe sometimes we have to take the word "boss" out of our vocabulary. I would say to the unions to put the word "partnership" in their vocabulary so we really start working together and make this industry viable for the north. If it is viable for the north, it is going to be good for all of Ontario. That is going to be very important -- a sustainable forestry industry with value added that will provide jobs for northerners and people in southern Ontario and provide for a viable, sustainable economy for Ontario.

Mr McLean: I commend the minister for initiating this important measure to address issues of concern in the Ontario forestry industry. As the minister notes, the forestry industry is an important sector in this province's economy. More than 160,000 jobs in some 40 communities are dependent on this important industry.

I hope this newly formed industry, the action group, will address the major issues facing all the forestry industry. Ontario is perceived as a highly taxed jurisdiction, and the subsequent high cost of doing business in this province is a concern for potential new investors.

The Ministry of Labour is proposing radical new labour law reforms which will obviously have a major impact on a labour-intensive industry like forestry. Also, the 11.8% increase in hydro rates for 1992 will have a major effect on the forest industry and the pulp and paper mills. They require large supplies of affordable power. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, through the introduction of Bill 118, has failed to address this important requirement.

In summary, I trust the Minister of Natural Resources will provide a wide mandate for this action group so it can study all issues facing the Ontario forestry industry. I have one question for the minister and I would like some time to be able to get an answer. It has to do with this very important Orono nursery, and the Minister of Natural Resources is very well aware of that. It grew six million trees in the last three years. It employs 100 people, with wages amounting to approximately $850,000.

The Orono nursery is one of the most cost-efficient in the province. It is producing trees at $5 per 1,000, which is cheaper than all the other nurseries. The Orono nursery sold 2.8 million trees to private land owners for reforestation projects in southern Ontario last year. The Orono nursery is 1,300 acres in size; 500 acres are used for growing trees and the remaining land is wildlife habitat.

I would like to know if the minister will confirm that he is planning to close down this nursery, as well as nurseries in Dryden and Thessalon, which will result in the reduction of seedling production from 165 million to approximately 120 million. That is a very good issue, when he has this study group studying what has happened with forestry in Ontario and when he is planning on closing down three of these nurseries.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr Mahoney: I notice with some interest that the Treasurer is frantically reading the latest published Provincial Auditor's document. I suggest he wait until the movie comes out; it will be much more entertaining.

My question is to the Premier. In reference to this document, he told the people at some length during the last election campaign and has continued to do so during his year and a half in government that he indeed was going to be different. I looked through the document this morning in the lockup to see if I could find where he could live up to the claim that he indeed was going to be different.

I refer the Premier to page 77 of the report, where we deal with the auditor's examination of expenditures surrounding Surrey Place Centre, as he knows, a non-profit corporation funded primarily by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and servicing handicapped children, adults and their families in the greater Toronto area.

While the Treasurer has been looking for lost hundreds of billions of dollars to try to keep his deficit below the $10-billion mark, the auditor simply found $750,000 that could be saved without affecting the quality of care. I refer the Premier to $200,000 spent on housekeeping, compared to similar agencies that spend $100,000; $210,000 spent on accounting and human resource staff, which is double that of other similar agencies; $60,000 on three full-time staff to handle photocopying and mail delivery and $30,000 for someone to prepare snacks for the staff during their breaks.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: With this kind of report on Surrey Place Centre under his government, will the Premier instruct the minister to investigate this obvious waste, eliminate it, make the savings and continue to provide good service to this client group?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, let me thank the member for his question and wish him well in his travels over the next while, and let me express my appreciation to the auditor again for the public service he has rendered not only to the government but to the people of the province, and to answer with a very simple "yes" the question from the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: We will look forward to the results of that from the minister, seeing how those moneys can be saved. I am sure the Treasurer is delighted that the Premier just found him $750,000 as a result of my question. I am happy to help him with his budgeting any time I can.

To go on to some of the other documentation, the report of the auditor with regard to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario -- perhaps the Premier could take a look at that section; I do not have the page number handy, but he will find it in the index -- we remember that the Premier appointed the chairman, Mr Brandt, who we all know was one of the finest leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party, at least one of the finest it has had lately. I will sort of leave it at that.

There are several questions regarding how the board is spending taxpayers' money. Can the Premier tell us if he is happy with the auditor's findings that taxpayers are funding LCBO retirement dinners, golf days and curling bonspiels? Further, he reports that they are running a private fleet of cars, much of which is for the private use of the staff at the board. Does the Premier condone these types of activities and, further, does he think Chairman Brandt's response to the auditor's charges is sufficient?

Hon Mr Rae: With respect to the comments on the liquor control board, first of all, let me say it is my understanding that the employee in question with respect to the ineligibility of expenses and other irregularities is no longer an employee of the liquor control board as a result of decisions taken by the board.

The Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet has written very clearly to all agencies of government expressing the government's concern about practices with respect to expenses and with respect to their salaries and other issues, so obviously any such report or comments by the auditor trouble me. We expect a satisfactory response from all boards and agencies of the government.

Mr Mahoney: I am delighted that it troubles the Premier, but I have not heard exactly what he intends to do with it. I refer him to the example of $4,000 in ineligible expenses that was discovered some years ago. The report indicates that $50 of that was required to be paid back. What I really think we want to know from the Premier is whether he is satisfied with this kind of response. It was not referred to the committee that is established by the LCBO to deal with these kinds of problems. It was simply dismissed in the response by the chairman of the LCBO, and it clearly is an indication that this kind of waste and insensitivity to spending taxpayers' money is alive and well in this government, I tell the Premier.

What I would like to know is, is he going to call this chairman in? Is he going to sit the chairman down and tell him that the taxpayers have no intention of funding golf days and bonspiels, have no intention of allowing for a private fleet of cars to be made available for the staff, have no intention of allowing for taxpayers' money to be wasted in such a fashion? The Premier said he was going to be different. We want some concrete examples of how he is going to do it.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me repeat what I said to the honourable member, because I do not think the answer sank in. What I said to the honourable member was that the services of the employee in question -- which the member raised in his third supplementary -- have been terminated by the liquor control board, which is determined to get restitution for what it feels is a fair amount with respect to any expenses incurred which are not appropriate. The board is taking responsibility for that.

Let me also say that it is Mr Brandt's clear responsibility as chairman of the board to pay very close attention to the comments made by the Provincial Auditor. It is equally our responsibility to ensure that this happens as well, and we will do so.

Mr Mahoney: As usual, the Premier answers one small part of the question. It is fine that they are looking for restitution, but clearly he did not address all the other issues of waste in that particular agency. Recognizing that I am not going to get a satisfactory answer, I would like to place another question.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Mahoney: Yesterday in this House it was reported by my leader, and it was reported today in the paper, that the Premier announced in a scrum outside this House -- where most government announcements are made these days, I might add -- that he has personally fired the NDP vice-president, Jill Marzetti, from his Consultation Central Co-ordinating Committee, or whatever it is they call that. Will the Premier today confirm for this House that he will be removing all the political appointments? I believe there are some 18 executive assistants who are purely political staff appointed to this particular committee. Will he confirm that he will be removing all political appointments from this committee and tell us what guidelines he will put in place so that this odious practice does not recur?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, let me answer as succinctly as I can. The answer to the member's question is, in a word, no, because surely the member would realize a distinction between staff members who are employed by ministers and who are involved in the responsibility of the government of the day consulting with one another and discussing with one another the work of the government, who are in a different position, I would argue, from the provincial secretary of a political party. This is not a partisan exercise. This is intended to provide information to the public and to give the public a chance to respond to us.

1410

Mr Mahoney: Pardon my reaction, Mr Speaker. To say it is not partisan when the government appoints executive assistants to ministers -- surely the Premier is not suggesting that the personal executive assistant of a minister is not a political appointment. Obviously that person's job expires when the minister's expires. Clearly that person's job is tied to the role of the minister. Government members can shake their heads all they want, but that is very clear. It is equally very clear that these people are political staff.

In the chief government whip's memo it is stated that two meetings of the CCCP have already taken place.

Mr Bradley: Freudian slip.

Mr Mahoney: Is that not what it is called? Am I mistaken? That is what I thought it was called.

Having had two meetings would imply that the committee, including Jill Marzetti, has been together for some time. Recognizing that the Premier has been on the River Thames and he has been in Paris at the opera and he has been travelling around the world, what I would like to know is if the Premier can tell us when he became aware of the committee's existence. Was it indeed yesterday, when my leader asked the question? When and how did he approve the committee's mandate and membership? If he cannot answer that, I would like to know if he has any idea what his staff in his office are doing running around setting up political patronage committees to try to promote the image of the government.

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member, first of all, I did not go to the opera. Second of all, I learned of it yesterday.

Mr Mahoney: I am trying to look for an answer. That kind of flippant response is really not what the people of this province expect.

Now he has to ask the Treasurer what I just said. Let me repeat it. That kind of flippant response is not what the people of this province expect. He should start acting like a Premier and answer the questions that are being put to him, in fairness.

We want to know how and when he put this committee together. The real tragedy in this whole CCCP committee mess is that once again he has taken the germ of a good idea that could have helped further consultation in the public process and he has absolutely butchered it with ideological zealots and partisan flunkies in an inept attempt at NDP political correctness. That is all he has done.

I want the Premier to know that what scares people is his insistence on politicizing everything he touches. I understand rumour has it that he is even abandoning the only real consultative committee he has at his disposal and he is hijacking funds from the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy to pay for the propaganda machine he is setting up with the CCCP committee. How does he justify abandoning the round table and how does he justify establishing a propaganda committee to simply promote all the nonsense his government is trying to perpetrate on the public of this province? He should answer the question this time.

Hon Mr Rae: The member's campaign is obviously taking off. But I want to say in very direct answer to his comment that the allegation he makes in his question with respect to the round table is completely, totally and utterly false. Wrong.

CROWN CORPORATION SPENDING

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier. Since he was off on his tour of Europe, he may not be aware of the audit which was done on his deputy ministers. It revealed many of his deputies were wining and dining at taxpayers' expense. Now we find out that the rot goes much deeper.

The Provincial Auditor has revealed that senior officials in at least two of Ontario's crown corporations are also living the high life. At the Ontario Waste Management Corp, one senior official who lives in Metropolitan Toronto spent an average of $140 per night to stay at a downtown Toronto hotel. He did not do this just once; he billed taxpayers for a night of rest and relaxation 28 times. The corporation, in defence of this practice, thought it was okay. It condoned the practice for a senior official who lived in Toronto and rented a hotel 28 times.

Does the Premier condone this expenditure? If he does not, what does he intend to do about it?

Hon Mr Rae: No, I do not condone this behaviour. I do not think anybody does, particularly at this point in our history when we all realize just what the province is going through. No, I absolutely do not condone it. What we intend to do is follow the auditor's advice with respect to making it crystal clear, as clear as we possibly can, throughout the public service what the expectations of everyone in this House and the public are with respect to the conduct of public servants.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the answer, except that I have been bringing these issues up for the past year and every time I get the answer: "No, we don't condone that. Watch, we are going to stamp that out. You'll never see this again." Yet week after week and month after month we get more examples.

No wonder the Ontario Waste Management Corp is called that. They are certainly wasting taxpayers' dollars. Two senior officials spent $15,000 on entertaining. They took their own employees out for lunch 381 times. There were no outsiders. They were not even getting some free advice for buying these lunches. They took their own employees out for lunch 381 times, for $15,000. There are only 365 days in the year, and these employees, I suggest to the Premier, are the higher-paid employees. They should be able to afford their own lunch. According to the auditor, they are paid salaries significantly higher than comparable government positions.

Crown corporations set their own salaries. I know there is some direction but obviously, from the auditor's report, the direction is not enough. Will the Premier immediately agree to implement strict guidelines for salary levels in Ontario's crown corporations? More important, will he see that these guidelines are followed?

Hon Mr Rae: The member makes a good point. The crown corporation in question was established, at arm's length from the government, by a government of which I believe he was a member. The period in question is one which I think can fairly be said to be shared by all three governments with respect to the problems of overspending which have been clearly documented by the Provincial Auditor. The minister has met with the chairman of the corporation to express the very strong concerns of the government and our profound disagreement with these practices.

With respect to the second point, I can only say to the member that obviously it is something we will consider. I see some practical and legal difficulties with what he is proposing, but his intention and goal with respect to restraint in these corporations are ones we share, and they have been conveyed directly to these corporations by the Chairman of Management Board on behalf of the government.

Mr Harris: The Premier is telling me there is great difficulty. He had no difficulty in politicizing Ontario Hydro, bringing his own NDP person in, setting him up and doubling his salary. He had no difficulty in doing that, so he should not tell me he has difficulty. These are Ontario crown corporations that exist at his leisure.

Hon Mr Rae: That is at my "pleasure."

Mr Harris: Maybe the Premier enjoys it. It is a pleasure for him to see all the waste, but it is not much pleasure for the taxpayers.

The auditor really has not told us anything new. Time and time again, I have brought these issues to the fore. I get the answer: "Oh yes, we agree with you. Thanks for bringing it up. We're going to make sure it isn't going to happen again." Obviously, that type of response to my repeated questions in question period is not enough, because all we get is the rhetoric here in the Legislature. We see example after example.

I am not blaming the Premier for past expenditures, for the waste that took place when my predecessors were in government or when the Liberals -- that is when spending really took off -- were in government.

1420

The Speaker: Will the member place his supplementary, please?

Mr Harris: I am blaming the Premier, though, for still moving 180 degrees in the wrong direction and not doing anything about it. We need direction from the top. What assurance can the Premier give us, other than the rhetoric I get day after day, that he is going to put measures into place to control his own civil service and the crown corporations and that he is not going to tolerate, subject obviously to some penalty, this type of extravagant expenditure?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the member has given a very good expression of my own thoughts on this issue.

Mr Harris: Next week we will be back again, I am quite certain, because I do not sense from the Premier a serious commitment to solving these problems.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Harris: My second question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister has no doubt seen the auditor's report on waste management in her ministry. Would the minister tell us what health hazard is posed by the fact that 17% of hazardous and liquid industrial waste generated in this province appears to be flowing into our sewers and then into our lakes and streams?

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly share the member's concern about the flowing of any waste into our sewers and into our river systems. That is why I am very proud our government has enhanced and increased the strength of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program to make sure we get down to zero discharge of persistent toxic contaminants into the waterways of this province and begin to do something about a problem that has existed for a very long time.

Mr Harris: The minister has done absolutely nothing since she took office to move us forward in any way. We have had rhetoric. She has talked about doing it but she has done nothing. According to the auditor's report released today, the Ministry of the Environment appears to be content to breed a whole generation in Toronto and across Ontario of mutant ninja turtles. That is the only thing I can conclude.

The auditor reports that the Ministry of the Environment failed to ensure that hazardous and liquid industrial waste was actually being shipped and received appropriately. If the minister does not know what is happening to this waste, what assurance can she give this House that it is not in our sewers and it is not a serious health risk for the people of this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: In his first question, the member referred to direct discharges into the waterways. Now he is focusing on the auditor's report. I think that is entirely appropriate. We have this information and I share his concern that the manifest system is obviously showing a number of discrepancies and is not following hazardous waste as it was designed to do. The only reason I have been given for that happening is to some extent the increased volume of generation of hazardous waste. The system in the central region alone was established with 3,000 generators in 1986 and it now has 12,000. What we are doing is reallocating staff and appointing people to make sure the discrepancies and errors the auditor has pinpointed stop happening.

Mr Harris: It is a matter of priorities. The auditor today indicated that government, trying to be all things to all people, is not doing the very basics -- protection of health and welfare, for example -- it should be doing. The government has 10,000 more civil servants than when we left office, 9,000 thanks to the Liberals and another 1,000 thanks to the incumbents. They hiked the cost of the civil service 16% in one year; that was the year-over-year cost. Yet when we come down to these issues they do not seem to know where the waste is going. In fact, they do not know where it is coming from, either. They have done nothing about it.

The Minister of the Environment is responsible for waste management in this province yet she has no control over what is happening. Obviously the ministry has failed, and to date the minister has failed, to improve this situation. I want to know what the minister is going to do and what kind of priority she is going to give with all the new money she is spending to make sure this mess is cleaned up.

Hon Mrs Grier: Cleaning up the messes of the past is a very high priority for my ministry, but let me respond with respect to the auditor's statements that there were discrepancies in the manifest system of hazardous waste, something that concerns me very much. The auditor says there were 3,000 discrepancies occurring each month. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that measures were initiated as soon as we became aware of that, and the figure now is 600 a month.

I regard that as too many and I have assigned somebody specifically to sort out how many of those discrepancies are clerical errors, as some of them are, and which, as the member has indicated, pose threats to the environment or the health of the people of Ontario. Those will be resolved, because that is my responsibility and that is what I intend to do.

CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

Mr Scott: Some of my constituents who watch this performance on television are beginning to complain that it is a farce and that the questions are not answered by ministers of the crown. I am going to use my period in question period to try a little experiment and ask a question of the Minister without Portfolio, the government whip, about this committee, the existence of which was revealed yesterday.

Mr Bradley: Political committee.

Mr Scott: The political committee. I am going to ask three simple questions which I want televiewers to listen to carefully and to see whether we get an answer to them or whether we get a lot of bafflegab. The minister should pay attention, please.

The first question is, who suggested this committee to her in the first place? The second question is, who appointed her to the committee to be its chairman? The third question is, what, including advertising, was in round figures the estimated budget the committee was going to work with? Three simple questions, and I would like answers.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: The question was directed to the chief government whip.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Mr Speaker, I refer to the Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I think it is important that the member should understand that the government has all kinds of internal consultative committees. It is not an unusual thing at all. It is part of the overall work of the government and it is entirely appropriate that the Minister without Portfolio should be involved in this way, as the chief whip and Minister without Portfolio in the government.

Mr Scott: I guess my constituents and the televiewers will have to make their own judgement about whether the minister was able to answer this question, but I think what happened is quite revealing. I frankly believe this cockamamy scheme -- well-intentioned, no doubt -- was devised in the absence of the Premier in Europe. But if there was ever an example of who was responsible for it, it was given to us by the chief whip of the NDP government, who referred all questions connected to it, including its budget, to the Premier. This is his plan to broaden the political base of his party, as the memorandum says, and I would like to know how many millions in advertising budget was allocated to this cockamamy scheme.

Hon Mr Rae: No money has been allocated yet with respect to this overall communications activity of the government. It is an overall communications responsibility. As I said in the House yesterday and as I said outside, and I will say it again, any communication by this government with respect to the consultation process will come out of existing funds for communication and in fact represents a saving to the taxpayers of the province.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Does the member for St George-St David have a point of order?

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to remind my constituents that we are batting zero for three of the questions.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat so that the member for S-D-G & East Grenville can ask his question.

1430

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Food told the Ontario Federation of Agriculture's annual meeting that the NDP government of Ontario had no additional financial assistance for the federation at this time, and certainly left it with the impression that very little money would be forthcoming in addition to what it already has in agriculture. The federal government is giving Ontario farmers more than $118 million in additional dollars and it will be available over the course of the winter. That is about three times as much as the $35.5 million that the government was able to find.

Can the minister explain why, after this emergency aid announcement, Ontario agriculture is receiving a smaller percentage of the budget than it did in 1980-81, which was a very difficult time, or through the drought of the mid-1980s?

Hon Mr Buchanan: First, the member is correct that the message delivered to the OFA banquet by the Treasurer and myself yesterday was that there will probably be no more emergency aid. That is correct. Times are difficult fiscally. At the same time, we did find the $35.5 million in emergency aid to farmers. I would say to the member that I believe, and farmers in this province believe, that the reason we got federal money is that the province took the lead in providing that $35 million up front. It was on that basis that the farmers were able to go to Ottawa and leverage additional money. I think that by the Ontario government taking the lead as it did, we were able to get that extra $118 million for the farmers of Ontario.

Second, we got about $119 million in new money for agriculture in this year's budget spent for farmers in Ontario. That is significant and as much as the federal government put in.

Mr Villeneuve: Ontario farmers not only have the major financing problems facing them imminently because of very low prices; they also have very serious concerns over the structure of the farm tax rebate. The previous government changed that around quite considerably and then brought it back. Right now farmers are wondering what the minister is going to do with the farm tax rebate.

Indeed, taxes are going up continuously because this government is not funding what it mandates municipalities to do. Farmers should not even be paying that tax on farm land and farm buildings. The minister has structured it -- makes him look good -- that he reimburses $154 million, which he is rebating. It should never be paid in the first place. What does the minister intend to do with the farm tax rebate structure?

Hon Mr Buchanan: There are several things. One of the early things we did as a government was to set up the Fair Tax Commission, which is certainly going to look at property tax on farm land and the fact that education tax, which is being paid by farmers and then rebated through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, will have to be examined as to its fairness as a way of collecting taxes to fund education.

In terms of the earlier part of his question, that program is being reviewed by Treasury board. We are looking at a number of programs in this government to see if there is some way of achieving some savings. The member's party is often talking about increased spending and what we should be cutting back. We are now examining a variety of programs across the government to see if savings could be achieved. That program happens to be one of the programs that is under review. We are not intending to change it in any major way, but it is under review to see if we can achieve some savings by looking at that program.

DETROIT INCINERATOR

Mr Lessard: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I know members of this House will be aware that the province of Ontario has been involved in litigation in the state of Michigan as a result of the Detroit incinerator. I was surprised to read this week that the Essex-Windsor waste management committee has released a number of options to deal with waste management at the end of 1992 when the Maidstone landfill is scheduled to close.

I was surprised as well to read that on that list of options was the option of transporting or exporting garbage to the incinerator in Detroit. I would ask what steps the minister is prepared to take to ensure that this option is not explored any further to export Windsor's garbage to the state of Michigan for incineration.

Hon Mrs Grier: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue because I know, and the member has shared with me on a number of occasions, his concerns about the problems faced by the Essex-Windsor waste management committee in dealing with their waste management problems, problems with which they are not alone, but about which our ministry, through the act before this House at present dealing with waste reduction, certainly has a comprehensive policy to attempt to resolve.

I was surprised, as was the member, to find that the series of options released by the Essex-Windsor waste management committee on the ways of solving their problems included the option of exporting to the Detroit incinerator, because I certainly supported my predecessor, now the member for St Catharines, and have continued the suit by the province of Ontario in order to try to get the Detroit incinerator either shut down or operating with safe devices.

I am glad to see that a public meeting is being called for Windsor for December 12 to discuss the options that have been laid out. I am sure the good citizens of Windsor who have expressed on so many occasions their concern about the Detroit incinerator will quickly ensure that this is not an option that is pursued. I would support them in that endeavour.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mrs Sullivan: It is interesting that they are still allowing shipping of waste for incineration in Niagara, but my question is of the Minister of Health.

The Ontario Hospital Association has estimated that some 3,292 hospital beds will be closed in Ontario by March 1992. The Provincial Auditor noted in his report that in 15 hospitals selected for his study, some 770 beds were closed for the 1990 fiscal year and that there was no evidence that the branch team had monitored bed closings in at least 12 of those hospitals.

The ministry policy has been that there should be no change in the number of beds in protected programs -- mental health, emergency, critical care, specialized tertiary programs -- without the prior approval of the ministry. Would the minister confirm to us today that no bed closures in Ontario are being made without the approval of the ministry and monitoring of all the community needs by the ministry?

Hon Ms Lankin: With respect to the comment in the Provincial Auditor's report that 770-odd beds have been closed since 1985 not in accordance with the policy that the ministry should give approval, I want to point out to the members that in 1989 the previous government changed the policy with respect to that. It indicated that hospitals would not have deficits funded and moved to the policy that the member speaks of with respect to protection of certain programs.

The information I have received at the ministry with respect to approval of any beds being closed that are within any of those protected programs is that this is not happening and that it is being reviewed as those suggestions are made. However, I have had meetings with professional associations which have suggested that this may not be the case. I have asked for some work to be done to look into that to ensure that we are getting adequate information and that monitoring is being done.

The member will also know that I have sent a direction both to the hospital association and its members and to the district health councils to hold meetings in districts and regions to look at this very issue.

Mrs Sullivan: People across Ontario are of course very concerned that hospital beds are being closed because of financial pressures placed upon hospitals by the government rather than because of health care needs in their communities. I want the minister to reconfirm to the House that from now on each one of the 3,292 beds that will be closed by the end of this fiscal year will have her blessing and her approval as Minister of Health.

Hon Ms Lankin: I am not going to change policy on the spot in the House. The policy established as of 1989 -- as the member well knows, because she was in the government that established the policy -- is that deficits will not be funded. We continue to put in place and support that policy. What I have done is ask that within each community the district health councils sit down with the members from the hospitals in their communities to look at the effect of whatever budget planning those hospitals are doing this fiscal year and next fiscal year on the delivery of needed services to their community and that these decisions be based on health outcomes and community needs. I hope that will meet some of the concerns the member is raising.

1440

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Labour. There have been two separate studies on the economic impact of the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act. One was done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the other by the firm of Ernst and Young for the All Business Coalition. Both these studies concluded that approximately 500,000 jobs could be lost. The minister has repeatedly denied this and has argued that there will be no job losses as a result of his proposals. Yet he has failed to produce an economic impact study to support his position.

Given that jobs continue to disappear each day in this province, and given that 500,000 jobs are predicted to disappear if the minister goes ahead with the changes to the Labour Relations Act, will the minister tell us today whether this government has conducted an economic impact study on the labour law changes? If not, can he tell us why he refuses to do so when so many potential jobs are threatened?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member is aware that there have been no real studies done to date at all. The studies she is referring to from business are really surveys of their members and not thorough studies of the issues before us.

Mrs Witmer: They have done studies. They have done economic studies. I believe that is extremely important because every day I continue to hear from people throughout this province who indicate to me that they are going to be forced to eliminate jobs as a result of the proposed changes.

I would like to read from two letters. The first is from the owner of Cottingham Tire and Auto Service in Tilbury. His letter was sent to the Premier. "I know in my own place of business that if these laws came into effect that I would be forced to lay off at least two of my 12 employees."

I also know that the Premier recently received a letter from the president of the Superior Tire Group which states that, as a result of the minister's action: "Rather than take expansionary opportunities or even remain stable, we have decided to severely downrisk our overall investments. Our workforce will be reduced by 25% coupled with a reduction of outlets, two companies and various sales areas."

The Speaker: Would the member place her supplementary, please.

Mrs Witmer: These are not isolated incidents of job losses. These people are telling us that jobs will be lost if the minister proceeds. In the absence of an economic impact study and in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, how can the minister be so certain that his proposals will not create further economic hardship for the men, women and children in this province and how can he proceed at this time when the jobs of so many workers are so clearly at risk?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Surely the member can understand that when we have a discussion paper out there which we have not even gone through the process with yet and when we do not have legislation, it is pretty hard to do a study on what the results are going to be of a discussion paper that has not led to the legislation as yet.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Johnson: My question is to the Attorney General. A number of lawyers in my constituency have contacted me with respect to the advisory committee which the minister established in July of this year to make recommendations about screening of criminal charges, disclosure of the crown's case to the defence prior to criminal trial, and resolution or plea discussion. No one disputes that these matters are vital to the administration of criminal justice in Ontario, but it is precisely because these issues are so important that some of the lawyers in my community resent the fact that only the interests of crown lawyers are being represented on this committee.

Does the minister not agree that the criminal justice system is of interest to our entire community? Should we therefore not extend the representation of the committee to include some of these interested parties? Surely the minister will recognize that an advisory committee constituted like this one cannot help but draw one-sided conclusions.

Hon Mr Hampton: I thank the member for the question. My sense is that perhaps his question is related to some articles that recently appeared in the Law Times about the committee which is known as the Martin committee. I want to categorically disagree with the statements made in the Law Times. The committee, which is chaired by former Justice Martin, is a committee which has crown attorney representation on it. It also has defence counsel representation on it. It also has representatives of police associations and police forces on it. It has representatives of the federal Minister of Justice on it.

It is, in fact, a well-balanced committee which is searching for an answer to a problem that has been long-standing and controversial for anyone involved in the criminal justice system.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Ms Poole: My question is to the Minister of Housing on the Provincial Auditor's report. This year over $500 million of the $900 million of the ministry's budget will go to the building and subsidizing of non-profit and co-op housing -- a healthy chunk, members will admit.

The Minister of Housing will be aware that the auditor's report was critical of the fact that those most in need were not necessarily the ones who received placement in non-profit housing. In a time of recession, when the demands for subsidized housing are increasing and when our limited government resources must be targeted to those most in need, the government is not enforcing funding agreements to ensure that tenants in deep need referred from local housing authorities are actually placed.

I would like to ask the minister when she will ensure that people across this province who are referred to non-profit and co-op housing by the local housing authorities actually receive the housing in those units that the province's taxpayers have paid for.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe the member is confusing two questions which the auditor addressed in his report, which I unfortunately have not had an opportunity to read yet. I look forward to reading it. But as I understand it, he addressed the question of the sharing of lists for placement by co-ops and non-profit groups and also the question of whether the core need was being addressed by non-profit and co-op housing developments in Ontario.

As for the latter, about 72% of those who are finding housing in co-ops and non-profit developments in Ontario currently are rent-geared-to-income tenants, which means those developments are meeting a very large need among people who need assisted housing. That is the goal and it is largely being met. We have to decide what levels we want to have in terms of rent-geared-to-income housing within co-ops and non-profits. As the honourable member knows, this question is being addressed in the housing policy framework review.

1450

Ms Poole: I really find it quite ironic that the minister tells me I am confused and then goes on to admit she has not even read the Provincial Auditor's report. I happen to have read it, so I know what is in it. I will quote for her two sections:

"In some cases, referrals by LHAs to non-profits and co-operative housing agencies are not done according to OHC's point system. That is, the most needy are not necessarily referred.

"Conflicts have occurred from non-profits using different selection criteria than the LHAs to place tenants. Non-profit housing corporations prefer to use their own selection criteria and select tenants from their own waiting list."

The minister has just said she is consulting with the housing policy framework report. It seems to me again ironic that she said she is consulting on it but she has already handed them the money. Would she please explain to me how the government can ensure that the people most in need of this housing will be given appropriate priority when she is negotiating the issue after she has already given them the funding?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member knows full well the local housing authorities have a placement system which is entirely separate and different from those that have been used by co-ops and non-profits in this province for years. That was the policy of the previous government. We have indeed asked people in Ontario to give us their opinions on that. I do not know what the member is suggesting. Is she suggesting that in every co-op in this province all placements should be from the local housing authority lists? If she is, that represents a huge change in policy, and I would like her to elaborate on how she thinks that would fit in with neighbourhoods in this province.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. About 10 days ago the minister informed me that if the people in the riding of Lanark-Renfrew did not want to participate in the $7-million lightbulb sale they did not have to; he had another 129 ridings that did. I want to inform the minister that half the people in Lanark-Renfrew have received these bulbs and they wish to return them. The ones who have not received them would like to know how they can be excused from paying their share of the $7 million.

Hon Mr Ferguson: I will try to share with the House what I think is perhaps a much better and brighter idea than has been traditionally used in the past. I am disappointed that half the residents of the member's riding do not want the lightbulbs and the other half do not want to participate in the program. Quite frankly, the program has been well received across Ontario. People are extremely pleased with the program. In fact, on a daily basis my office is getting calls asking for more bulbs. They are asking for six-packs at this point. It all goes to a good cause.

Mr Jordan: The people in Lanark-Renfrew are still going by the minister's statement that they do not have to participate, and naturally will not have to pay their share of the $7 million. My supplementary is, why, with the unemployment situation in Ontario, were these bulbs manufactured in Quebec?

Hon Mr Ferguson: I fail to understand why the member opposite seems to be so dimwitted about this program. I cannot understand it. The reason the bulbs were manufactured in Quebec is because there has been a real failure of past governments to recognize that this is an emerging technology, this is the cutting edge of the future, and this government is committed to ensure that jobs --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, would you succinctly complete your response, please.

Hon Mr Ferguson: In conclusion, I would like to inform the member that Quebec is part of Canada. We buy goods from that province and it buys goods from this province.

1500

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Dadamo: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In light of the financial constraints on the province today, can she assure the citizens of Windsor that the long-term care facility for the city of Windsor which was promised by the past two governments over the many years is on track? The constituents of Windsor-Sandwich are eager to hear her response to this question.

Hon Ms Lankin: I think I have had this question put to me more often than any other. Let me yet again assure the folks in Windsor and all the members for the Windsor area that planning is on track, that the support for the long-term care facility continues and that it will be developed.

I think perhaps some of the concern that has been raised of late is as a result of the report that has gone out to consultation from the district health council and the hospitals in that community that has talked about the number of acute care beds that need to be taken out of the system and the possible amalgamation of hospitals. In fact, in my meeting with that group, the representatives of the hospital --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South, please come to order.

Hon Ms Lankin: In my conversation with the folks from the district health council and the hospitals in the Windsor area, they made it quite clear that the review they had done was premised on the basis that the long-term care redevelopment would continue, and that is in fact our understanding and agreement at this time.

Mr Dadamo: What impact, if any, will the Comprehensive Health System Planning Commission have on the delivery of health care in southwestern Ontario?

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I could not hear all of the question because of some of the noise from across the floor, but I think the member asked for the connection between this and the comprehensive task force planning that had gone on. With respect to that report, which is often referred to as the Orser commission, as many members will know, an interim report has been released and it has gone out for consultation across the community, and we hope we will be receiving the final report in the near future. There is a blueprint for hospital expenditures that will be contained within that for the whole southwestern Ontario region, but how each community relates to that and the way in which those recommendations are embraced or moved on I think will remain to be seen. But I do not expect at all that it will disrupt our plans for the long-term care facility, which I think is the main question.

Mr Miclash: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: On November 5, 1991, I directed a similar question to the Minister of Health with regard to a very important issue on long-term care in the town of Dryden and the establishment of a home there. The minister assured me she would take another look at it and get back to me with an answer. At this time, three weeks later, I have still not heard from the Minister of Health on a similar issue, a very important issue to the people of Dryden, my constituents in the riding of Kenora.

The Speaker: The member for Kenora does not have a point of privilege, although it is obviously a policy question which he may wish to place during question period.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

Mr Cooke moved that standing order 85 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for the considerations of Bills Pr53, Pr81, Pr85, Pr86 and Pr99 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday, November 27, 1991.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs MacKinnon: I wish to present a petition representing members from the riding of Lambton county dealing with the Ontario Nursing Home Association and long-term care.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DISTRICTS OF NIPISSING AND PARRY SOUND ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DISTRICTS DE NIPISSING ET DE PARRY SOUND

Mr Eves moved first reading of Bill 159, An Act respecting the Amalgamation of Municipalities in the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound /Projet de loi159, Loi concernant la fusion des municipalités situées dans les districts de Nipissing et de Parry Sound.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Eves: The purpose of this bill is to prevent the amalgamation of municipalities in the districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound if the municipalities themselves do not consent, where they have organized government or a local services board or, failing that, by the majority of residents in an unorganized municipality. Members may recall that I introduced this bill a couple of weeks ago. It has now been translated and cleaned up by legislative counsel, I might add.

Mr Scott: May I request unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions?

Agreed to.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Scott: Under the rules, I have to give notice of a motion which will be brought tomorrow to ask the House unanimously to reappoint the honourable member for Lincoln as Chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Mr Mammoliti moved first reading of Bill 160, An Act to amend the Worker's Compensation Act/Projet de loi160, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

Mr Mammoliti: Today I would like to introduce my private member's bill, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act. Its purpose is to extend the January 2, 1992, deadline of subsection 5a(9) to facilitate more discussion between labour and employees, something that is truly needed.

Motion agreed to.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act/Projet de loi143, Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

The Speaker: I believe the member for Oriole has the floor.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to be able to continue the debate today. As I said yesterday, I have quite a number of concerns about this particular piece of legislation, Bill 143, and I would like to take some time because I know my constituents in the riding of Oriole have the same concerns as members of the public from right across this province.

One of the big concerns they have is not only for protection of the environment, which is something I think we all share. Every member of this House speaks forcefully and with passion about our commitment individually and our desire collectively to protect the environment for future generations. But we also believe it is extremely important that the people of this province have an opportunity to participate fully in the debates and discussions, that their rights are protected so they can, with confidence, know that what is happening in their communities is environmentally safe, is environmentally sound and is in the public interest and the interest of their community.

Many things have happened over the last 15 months which have caused great concern to me and to my constituents in the riding of Oriole, and I have had a number of people mention this to me. I think it is important that we take a bit of historical perspective on Bill 143 so that we fully understand where we are today and why there is such concern about this piece of legislation.

I said yesterday that this was a piece of legislation that is being tabled not by the Minister of the Environment but by the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. One of the things I said was that the reason I believe this is not being carried by the Minister of the Environment is that any Minister of the Environment would be embarrassed to bring forward a piece of legislation that so removes the rights of citizens of this province, of municipalities, to have a say in what is happening in their backyards, in their communities. Any Minister of the Environment would be really concerned about the precedent-setting nature of this piece of legislation.

Bill 143 is An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act, and it has four distinct sections. I will be spending some time looking at each of those sections individually, but what I would like to do for a minute, just to put it into proper perspective, is to begin by looking backwards, because I think it is important to understand how we arrived at this place and why I have so many concerns about this piece of legislation.

As we know, the government changed in September 1990, and one of the first things the new Minister of the Environment did was to stop an Environmental Protection Act process that was looking at some interim sites. Even before that, during the election campaign of the summer of 1990, the Premier, who is here today, then Leader of the Opposition, went to every potential site for waste disposal, pretty much in every community across this province, and made a very clear commitment. His commitment was that there would be no new sites developed and no expansion of existing sites without a full environmental assessment process.

There is much confusion in the minds of people of this province, given the numbers of different pieces of legislation. Most people do not know the difference between the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. They do not understand that both are designed to provide for environmental protections and environmental assessments.

One of the fundamental differences between the two pieces of legislation is that the Environmental Protection Act allows for a site-specific examination to determine whether that particular site is environmentally sound for the purposes that are being proposed, whether it is landfill or anything else. It permits under that piece of legislation and requires under that legislation a full and complete examination of the environmental impact on that site, and it permits and it requires full, open, public hearings so that the public in the immediate area of that proposed site can come forward to hear the evidence being presented about the suitability of that site for whatever the intended purpose is, whether it is landfill or anything else. If it is a hearing under the Environmental Protection Act, people, ordinary citizens who are interested, groups, municipalities, anyone who wishes, can attend the hearings, hear the evidence that is being presented and then make representation and let those who are making the assessment under the Environmental Protection Act very aware of the community's concerns. That is the Environmental Protection Act.

The difference between that and the Environmental Assessment Act is that the Environmental Assessment Act requires a look at alternatives rather than looking only at that one specific proposal, some would say in isolation of everything else. The Environmental Assessment Act requires a broader examination of all the alternatives, of other alternatives, to determine which would be the most environmentally safe. So the Environmental Assessment Act requires a full examination: a full identification of alternative sites, a full examination of those sites and then a comparison to determine which is the most appropriate, which is the safest, which is the best environmentally. I think everyone would agree that this is a very significant difference from the Environmental Protection Act.

The Environmental Assessment Act also has a requirement for full and open public hearings on each of the alternatives that are being proposed. The Environmental Assessment Act permits individuals, groups, organizations, associations and municipalities to come forward and make their representations and express their concerns, as well as hearing the evidence that is being presented.

I think it is important to explain the difference because, when the minister stands in her place and makes some of the kinds of statements we have heard over the last 15 months, people -- particularly my constituents, but they are no different than other people across this whole province -- become very confused. We know there were sites proposed for an interim landfill that were undergoing public hearings under the Environmental Protection Act.

The minister had neglected to say that. When she says that sites were going to be considered without a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing, she is correct. But the presumption and the assumption and the message she is sending out is quite inaccurate and incorrect, because she knows full well that there were hearings ongoing under the Environmental Protection Act to ensure that those sites met the environmental standards requirement; if they did not, they would not have been permitted.

The action she took shortly after becoming Minister of the Environment stopped that process under the Environmental Protection Act and did not replace it with anything. In November -- only two months, actually, after her appointment, two months after the change of government -- the minister made her first statement in the Legislature. She revealed her consumer action plan. What she really did at that time was restate the policy of the 3Rs, which, as I said yesterday, was the policy of the former government, the policy of the member for St Catharines, of whom she was so critical. The only big change was that she reordered the 3Rs and put reduction, then reuse and then recycle as her priorities.

That was in November 1990. She announced at that time that she would establish a public sector authority that would be finding long-term solutions to the waste management crisis in the GTA, and that the waste management authority was to be set up -- she referred to it as an Interim Waste Authority -- to begin co-ordination of a long-term site search. It was not until October 1991, almost a full year later, eleven months later, that legislation was introduced to give this Interim Waste Authority its mandate.

1520

People have a legitimate concern about what took so long. What was the minister doing during that full year when she could have established the waste authority? In her November 1990 statement, which was a year ago, the minister made statements indicating that there would be no garbage gap in the greater Toronto area because her waste reduction regulations were going to be so effective that she was sure people in the greater Toronto area would be successful in diverting enough waste from landfill so the lifespan of the current landfill sites would be sufficient and adequate until long-term sites were found and approved.

We know today that she does not believe that to be true. However, there are a lot of questions about the capacity that exists within the existing landfill sites. It is not only the success of the 3R programs that were begun by the previous government under the excellent leadership of the member for St Catharines but also, I think, the impact of the recession that has meant less waste going to landfill. Unfortunately, we have seen tremendous cross-border shipping of waste, garbage which is being diverted to the United States, partially because it is lower-cost, but that has also meant less waste going to the existing landfill sites in the greater Toronto area.

Some have questioned the need for this draconian, autocratic approach, and some have suggested there is no urgency to this legislation at all. Some -- the most cynical, and I think they have good reason to be cynical -- have suggested that the timing of this legislation coincided with -- I do not want to use the word --

Hon Mr Rae: Then don't.

Mrs Caplan: The Premier is reading my mind. He knows what I am thinking and he knows that when I am cynical, it is with good cause. Some would say the timing of this legislation coincided deliberately with the elections of the municipal councils. This legislation was tabled a few days before the elections, just before those municipal councils were actually elected and before any of those municipal leaders had an opportunity to be consulted or be fully aware of what was being proposed. Some would suggest that the fact that it was tabled on a Thursday afternoon without a minister's statement in this Legislature, a few days before the municipal elections, was no coincidence at all; that it was designed deliberately to low-bridge one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation to hit this Legislature, I would suggest, in decades.

The precedent-setting nature of this legislation cannot be overlooked. The government had it tabled just before the municipal elections with a demand by the minister that this receive third reading by Christmas. It was tabled on October 24 and the minister has requested that it receive second reading, committee hearings and third reading passage within a matter of weeks. We will be looking at each section of that legislation and the concerns being expressed.

We have municipal councils taking their oath of office on December 1, in the first week of December. To suggest that those councils could properly and adequately respond to public hearings in the first week of December raises the kind of concern and cynicism I have been talking about in this House for a long time. The message it sends to elected representatives at the municipal level and to the people of this province, particularly in the greater Toronto area -- as it becomes known what this is really about, I suggest the government will have concerns from people right across this province.

Back to the historical perspective: In December 1990 the Minister of the Environment announced that a task force would look at the drafting of an environmental bill of rights, despite the fact that she had drafted and introduced a bill while in opposition. I can understand that one's perspective from opposition is a little different than one's perspective when in government. Having experienced both, I think it is very important for members of the public to know that members of the New Democratic Party are finding, I think much to their own chagrin, that the simplistic, easy answers they often proposed while in opposition are not working in government. They are simply not practical and they are not working.

Mr Grandmaître: They are not logical, either.

Mrs Caplan: They are not logical, as my colleague the member for Ottawa East says. I agree with him. The simple, quick, easy answers the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale seemed to have, whether it was an environmental bill of rights or any of the other simple answers to difficult problems and challenges facing our society simply are not practical, are not logical, are not workable and are not supportable. We find many of those still contained in the rhetoric and the doctrinaire response coming from members of this NDP government.

People would like to see an environmental bill of rights. I believe the existing package, this piece of legislation, Bill 143, would have to override any environmental bill of rights, because the content of this legislation, which overrides every piece of environmental and planning legislation in this province, takes away the fundamental rights of the citizens of this province. It runs completely contrary to the principles of an environmental bill of rights or any bill of rights. It runs totally contrary to participatory democracy. It runs totally contrary to the principles enshrined in the Environmental Protection Act, which many had seen as inadequate, particularly many on the NDP front bench when they were in opposition, because it only required an assessment of an individual site.

The Environmental Protection Act did require that it be fully assessed, but it did not require comparison. It did require full and open public hearings. It did require engineering studies to be made public and available for public comment. This piece of legislation requires none of the safeguards of the Environmental Protection Act and overrides the protections of the Environmental Protection Act and every protection that communities have to ensure that what is being done in their community is proper, safe, good planning and environmentally sound. It takes away their right to speak out in a public forum about that which is happening in their own community.

1530

In February 1991, the Minister of the Environment addressed the eastern Ontario mayors, wardens and reeves conference. She announced her waste reduction action plan, which outlined the regulations she would be bringing forward to ensure that Ontario achieved the Liberal government's target of 25% diversion by 1992. We believed that 25% was a reasonable goal and target by 1992.

In opposition, the Minister of the Environment and her colleagues felt this was inadequate, and yet in February 1991, six months after the election, she committed herself to that same Liberal target and goal of 25% diversion, and we applauded that.

We said she was aiming her plan in the right direction. It was aimed at municipalities to encourage them to establish recycling programs and municipal composting facilities. She said these would be mandatory in all municipalities. I am not one who believes everything the government does should be mandatory and should require enforcement, but in this particular case I believe the approach for a waste reduction action plan which included all municipalities and allowed them to develop their plans and mandated that kind of an action plan was appropriate.

But it was from February until October, an additional eight months, until it was finally announced that there was a draft regulation for consultation under the waste reduction action plan. After being so supportive in February, we had to wait until October, and then there was consultation.

The minister also announced in April 1991 that the search for the long-term landfill sites for the GTA would have to be conducted within the boundaries of the regions. That was a very significant announcement and it really paved the way for Bill 143.

When I say it was significant, it was significant because Metropolitan Toronto had been actively seeking a solution. They knew whatever agreement they reached would be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. Members will remember that a few minutes ago I said the Environmental Assessment Act required comparative analysis of numerous sites to determine which approach was the most environmentally sound. That is important because it is different from the Environmental Protection Act, which only requires assessment of a specific single site.

As an option, and I think it is important to stress that it was an option to be considered, Metropolitan Toronto was negotiating with the community of Kirkland Lake in northern Ontario for a plan that would have seen the development of a new industry, turning garbage into jobs and an old abandoned mine shaft into a site for solid waste.

The announcement in April 1991 killed the Kirkland Lake discussions, killed even the opportunity to examine that as an option under a full environmental assessment hearing. We know that during the recent municipal election there was a referendum on the ballot in Kirkland Lake and it was clear.

Nobody was saying: "Are you in favour of having this dump site? Are you in favour of this plan, yes or no?" That is not what the question was. The question was, "Do you support an examination of this as an option and a full Environmental Assessment Act process and hearing on this proposal?" That is what the question was: "Should this be considered?" Some 70% of the people who responded said yes, it should be considered as an option; yes, the studies should be done to determine whether or not this was an appropriate, environmentally safe option and whether this was a better option than any of the other sites and options that were being proposed within the greater Toronto area.

My constituents in the riding of Oriole put their garbage out or put it down the garbage chute, and it is picked up by North York works department and hauled away. My constituents do not know whether that garbage goes to Beare Road, Keele Valley, Britannia; they did not know if it was going to the Commissioners Road incinerator. All they knew is that their garbage is being taken away.

My constituents do not consider their backyard to be Vaughan. They do not consider their backyard to be Mississauga or Scarborough or the city of Toronto and yet, when the minister has made statements that you have to keep your garbage in your own backyard, my constituents scratch their heads and say: "The greater Toronto area is the most densely populated part of our province; 40% of the population of the province lives within the greater Toronto area. Why is the minister insisting that we should have, and be forced to put, garbage sites in the most densely populated part of the province? Why would she not allow a site to be examined under the Environmental Assessment Act and considered in a part of the province where very few people live?

"Surely," they say, "if the minister really is concerned about the best environmental option, the best and most sensitive response, she is not serious that everybody is expected to keep his garbage in his own backyard. She is not suggesting we turn our ravines and our valleys in the major urban areas into garbage sites."

Surely she is not suggesting she will designate where our backyard is. She told Kingston that its backyard was Ottawa. She is telling North York that its backyard is Vaughan. My constituents do not think Vaughan is their backyard. She could convince them Kirkland Lake is their backyard if that was the most environmentally sound and sensitive thing to do or if that was the best environmental option for disposal of solid waste. My constituents want to know what the best answer and best approach are.

1540

The denial of the opportunity to assess that option is seen as arbitrary, doctrinaire and the same kind of simplistic rhetoric we heard when this minister and the New Democratic Party were in opposition. It has been almost a year and a half. In many areas we have seen policy changes and we wonder why the minister will not consider a more environmentally sound approach to finding the best option. It simply does not make sense that she would force and require existing landfill sites to expand without appropriate environmental hearings and that she would force and refuse considerations of options such as Kirkland Lake simply because of ideology -- not after the commitments the Premier made in the summer of 1990 and not after the reputation the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore earned as critic for Environment.

My constituents are telling me they simply do not believe the government is doing this. Part of the discussion on Bill 143 is to alert the public that the government is taking away the environmental protections and the environmental rights to hearings. They are taking them away on two specific sites: Keele Valley and Britannia. They are taking them away in Durham. The implications are that this sets a precedent for every community across this province.

It was in June 1991 that my colleague the member for Halton Centre revealed in this Legislature a copy of a cabinet document on how the government planned to deal with waste management, and in their terms, the waste management crisis they had created by their lack of action in a full year in office. I, for one, was particularly disappointed with the response from the Premier. He permitted the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate how the member for Halton Centre happened to receive this document.

Hon Mr Wildman: That's wrong.

Mrs Caplan: I said he allowed an OPP investigation to continue. The Premier continues today to say he is going to permit the Ontario Provincial Police to interrogate and investigate members if they happen to receive information about the government's intentions. I say to the Premier who is here today that I know he had reacted to similar suggestions of his rights being infringed upon if there had been a suggestion he could not receive documentation, information or communication from a member of the civil service. I can imagine what his reaction would have been as Leader of the Opposition to have the Ontario Provincial Police interrogate him about a leaked document he received. I believe the Minister of the Environment overreacted. I believe, in fact, that she betrayed her own principles in suggesting that somehow and in some way the public did not have a right to know what was being considered by this government.

It was a shameful day that the Premier would not intervene and say, "Members of this Legislature will not be investigated." This is the Premier who promised whistle-blowing legislation that would encourage civil servants to make the public aware. This is the Premier who supported, as I did, freedom-of-information legislation because the public has a right to know.

I was very disappointed with the response when the member for Halton Centre presented this plan. It was in June 1991 that the minister made a statement in this House, in response to the documents the member for Halton Centre made public, that she had a three-part strategy for the greater Toronto area, which I suggest is precedent-setting for every part of this province. The public should be aware and alerted to what is really happening.

The strategy called for lifts on the Britannia and Keele Valley sites so that they would accept additional waste over and above the capacity they were originally approved for. These lifts would be forced on the communities without any public hearings. She also called on Durham to build a transfer site, a transfer station, to prepare for the shipping of its waste to Keele Valley once Brock Road West closes in 1992.

All these actions that were contained in the document the member for Halton Centre presented had been done and all these actions had been implemented, without any consultation whatever with municipal officials. That was in June 1991, almost a full year, or 10 months, after this minister had said: "There's no problem. There's no garbage gap. We can stop the environmental protection hearings on the interim sites that were proposed by the former government." That was almost a year after the now Premier travelled around to every site in this province giving his word, making a commitment that there would be no expansion of existing sites without full environmental assessments. He gave his word, and we wonder why my constituents and the people of this province are cynical, why they do not believe and they do not like any politician very much.

Hon Mr Wildman: You are not cynical, surely.

Mrs Caplan: The Minister of Natural Resources says to me, surely I am not cynical. I will say to the minister, whom I have worked with over the course of the last six years and for whom I have respect that yes, I am cynical. I am cynical when I see a piece of legislation that is a deception, because it says one thing and it does another.

This piece of legislation packages together some of the most draconian measures to deal with a so-called problem. I have to say that I am not sure there is a problem as severe as the Minister of the Environment is suggesting. I am not sure there is that problem. The people I am speaking to in the greater Toronto area are saying that the crisis can be responded to in better ways. The reason is that there is more capacity available in the existing landfill sites than had been predicted.

Because of that information, I would say to the Minister of Natural Resources that I am very concerned about the rush on this piece of legislation. The estimates now for Keele Valley are that it could be 1996 before it reaches capacity. There are suggestions that the Brock Road site and the Britannia landfill site may not reach capacity as originally anticipated. Yet it was in August 1991 that the minister issued her order to Peel region and Metropolitan Toronto to begin the studies required to prepare for the lifts for those two landfill sites.

1550

The rest of this chronology is equally important. In October 1991 the Minister of the Environment announced a second task force to examine the drafting of yet another proposed environmental bill of rights. Many of us questioned the need for yet a second task force, but now I am beginning to understand why the second task force. Can members imagine the embarrassment of a Minister of the Environment to have to table a piece of environmental legislation at the beginning of October and then override it with a piece of legislation at the end of October? That is what would have happened.

So the environmental bill of rights was put off until some time in the future and in its place a piece of legislation, Bill 143, was tabled not by the Minister of the Environment but by the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. That titling suggests that this piece of legislation will only affect the greater Toronto area, but that is not true. We will get to that in a moment.

On October 7, at the Recycling Council of Ontario's annual meeting with the minister, she released her draft waste reduction regulations and said there would be a two-month consultation. On October 24, Bill 143 was tabled in the House, and here we are today.

I felt this history was important because it sets the context for a piece of legislation that has raised concerns right across this province. I am not suggesting there are not problems -- there are. I am not sure they have reached crisis proportions, but if they have it is because of almost 14 months of inaction by this minister, and when she finally does take action it is the kind of action which I believe should cause concerns and ring alarm bells right across this province.

I am going to refer to an editorial that I think sums up very well the box and the bind that we find ourselves in. It is a timely editorial, because it was printed in the Toronto Star just about a month before Bill 143 was tabled. If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, it is very relevant.

The title of the editorial is "Gagging on Garbage."

"A baffling Queen's Park strategy for waste disposal is making Metro's garbage crisis worse, not better.

"High fees and new restrictions at local dumps are forcing companies to send their trash to the United States.

"A growing number of businesses are dumping or burning their waste illegally here at home.

"And now, politicians in Peel region say they will close the Britannia dump this year in defiance of a provincial order that it be kept open on an emergency basis.

"The trouble started last fall when Environment Minister Ruth Grier blocked Metro's plans to open two temporary dumps. Predictably, that put a tighter squeeze on existing ones that are rapidly running out of room.

"Last winter, she nixed Metro's long-term plans to send garbage to northern Ontario, adding to the uncertainty.

"Early this year, Grier admitted that a new long-term dump within the greater Toronto area may not be ready by the time the existing ones are full. But by then, her only option was to order the existing dumps to keep accepting garbage long after they are full -- and without going through proper environmental procedures.

"Peel council's decision Thursday night to defy Grier has only raised the stakes.

"In light of such bungling, it's no wonder Grier has been turning a blind eye to the estimated 500,000 tonnes of local garbage that are being dumped south of the border. And it may explain why she has not beefed up enforcement measures to deter illegal dumping and burning of garbage.

"Meanwhile, the bustling cross-border garbage trade is costing Metro-area municipalities $36 million to $60 million a year in lost disposal revenues.

"Clearly, the minister has painted herself into a corner."

That is the Toronto Star editorial of September 16, 1991. It is very relevant to our discussions on Bill 143, because approximately five weeks after this editorial, this is the piece of legislation that was tabled by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

I mentioned the timing, and I believe that is very important. Yesterday in this House I shared a letter I received from the mayor of Vaughan. I think the response from the representatives of local municipalities and regional governments in the greater Toronto area is a very important one, as well as the response from the people of Kirkland Lake. I think it is very important that I share with the House the reactions.

Let me tell members what the reaction is from the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. For those who do not know, AMO is the umbrella organization which represents municipalities right across this province. While Bill 143 refers to the greater Toronto area, Helen Cooper, who is the mayor of Kingston and president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, is very aware of the precedent-setting nature of this legislation. She wrote to the minister on November 1, 1991. Remember, this legislation was tabled October 24, and within one week, this is the letter and this is the response from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

"Dear Minister:

"The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, and its member municipalities are gravely concerned about the Waste Management Act, 1991, which you introduced in the Ontario Legislature on Thursday, October 24, 1991.

"Although the first sections of the act pertain to municipalities in the greater Toronto area, they have serious implications for other municipalities across the province. The final section of the act has very far-reaching implications for municipal waste management in Ontario's municipalities. Together the various sections of the act have left municipalities across the province extremely concerned about such critical issues as municipal authority, municipal finance and environmental assessment and the manner in which your new act may impact on these municipalities.

"While some sections of the act may be supportable by municipalities, many others need much more detailed consideration and consultation. After considerable consultations with staff members of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment, as well as municipal politicians and staff members across the province, AMO strongly urges you not to proceed with the legislation until extensive consultations on it can take place with municipalities.

"AMO and its member municipalities believe this is very critical in light of the scope of your new act and we urge you to immediately take steps to both halt the legislation and consult with municipalities on its content."

1600

This is signed by Helen Cooper, president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

I know Helen Cooper. She is a reasonable, thoughtful, rational person. She has provided leadership in the municipality of Kingston as the mayor and she has provided leadership within the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. She is highly respected.

What was the response from the Minister of the Environment? What was the response from the Minister of Municipal Affairs? What was the response from the Premier's government to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario? The response was, "We want third reading of this act by Christmas."

I would say to the Minister of Natural Resources, does he wonder why I am cynical? Does he wonder why AMO is cynical? Does he wonder why the people of my riding of Oriole are feeling concerned and cynical and upset? Does he wonder why the people of the greater Toronto area are saying, "What's going on?" Here is an organization of municipalities and their president responding within one week of the tabling of Bill 143 by saying: "Wow, this is not just affecting the greater Toronto area. This is going to have huge implications for municipalities right across this province. You can't hoodwink us. You can't do this without consultation and without discussion. You're taking away our rights. We're concerned about the environmental impacts. We're concerned about the precedents this is setting. We believe this is premature."

The response from the government? "It has to be passed by Christmas." That is an unacceptable response and this government is going to hear that. It is going to hear it from me, as the member for Oriole, and I am so proud to represent my constituents in this House. I think they are going to hear it from the leadership of every municipality across this province because we are going to insist on public hearings and we are going to insist that every section of this bill be fully explored and considered so that its implications are fully understood.

I am not saying there are not some parts of this bill that are supportable. There are. There are some very good parts of this legislation. But it has been bundled together in a way which is confusing, and in its confusion, it is very upsetting to the people of this province when they start to understand what this really means, because this legislation is not what it seems.

The response to this legislation was also very rapid from the community of Kirkland Lake. Here is a letter dated November 22. As I said, this legislation was tabled October 24. Less than one month later, this was the response from the community of Kirkland Lake in a letter from the mayor:

"Dear Mr Premier:

"Re: The Waste Management Act, 1991

"I am disappointed to see that your Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier, is continuing her pursuit of policies that have no regard for the input of the people of Ontario.

"Your government's attempt to fast-track the proposed Waste Management Act, 1991, through the Legislature prior to Christmas is another attempt by Mrs Grier to ignore the people of Metro, Vaughan, Maple, York, Kirkland Lake, Englehart and Larder Lake, as well as associations like FONOM and AMO.

"On November 12, the residents of Kirkland Lake voted 69% in favour of having an environmental assessment carried out on the proposed Adams mine solid waste and recycling project. Our region developed this project with Metropolitan Toronto. Your minister, in an attempt to circumvent any discussion on this project over the past year, is refusing to acknowledge that a superior environmental solution may be available to the greater Toronto area, northern Ontario and the province.

"Mr Premier, this bill must be delayed. It must have hearings, it must be reviewed in committee and your government must listen. To pass this bill as it is written is a violation of the existing intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, which calls for the evaluation of all reasonable alternatives.

"For the first time, north and south are united in a common cause and this issue will not die. I respectfully request that you meet with Kirkland Lake, Englehart, Larder Lake and Metro prior to this bill being passed. Perhaps you will have the courtesy and the concern to review a true provincial partnership which has been created to solve these environmental issues.

"Your minister has ignored this issue for too long, and for your government to pass this bill at this time would be most regrettable."

That is signed by Joe Mavrinac, the mayor of Kirkland Lake.

This letter, as I said, was dated November 22, less than a month after the tabling of this legislation. What was the response of the Premier to the mayor of Kirkland Lake, to his request for a meeting? The response was, "This bill should be passed by December." Exactly the concern and the fast track that was being demanded by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore was the response from the Premier.

Mr Grandmaître: "We'll do it and then we'll consult."

Mrs Caplan: "We'll do it. We're not going to talk about it. We're going to take away your rights. We're just going to do it."

One of the things that came to my attention, and it was interesting because it was on the very same day the mayor of Kirkland Lake sent his letter to the Premier, was an editorial in the Northern Daily News. I think it is important, because again, just as I read the editorial in the Toronto Star, it is important for members of this Legislature and for members of the general public to know what the response has been from across this province.

This is what the Northern Daily News had to say on November 22: "It's Time To Camp On The Doorsteps." That was the headline. I see the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is here in the Legislature, and it quotes her in this article as saying:

"Any proposal with respect to moving garbage from the greater Toronto area to Kirkland Lake or anywhere else in northern Ontario would not be entertained, either by myself or by the Minister of the Environment or by this government."

That is a direct quote from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines reacting to a question in this House. It would not be entertained. It would not be considered. An environmental assessment would not be permitted to determine whether that is a better solution than putting garbage in the middle of the most densely populated part of the province.

The people of Oriole riding do not understand. They do not understand why, if it is okay to transport garbage from Kingston to Ottawa, if it is okay to ship garbage south of the border and if there is a community in northern Ontario saying, "Conduct an environmental assessment, see if this is an environmentally sound solution," it will not even be entertained.

1610

The Minister of the Environment said it is unthinkable. What is unthinkable? If it is a better solution for the environment, why is it unthinkable? Why would she insist on not even considering another alternative that would produce jobs? There is a community in northern Ontario saying it should be considered. My constituents do not understand it. I do not understand this ideological, doctrinaire approach. I agree that no community should be forced to take the garbage from another region or another community. That was the policy of our government. Our government said no community should be forced into that situation; we said that very clearly.

We also said that if there was a proposal that was acceptable to a community, it should be considered as an option and explored under a full Environmental Assessment Act process. I suggest to the Minister of the Environment that this is a reasonable, sound environmental approach. I can say very clearly that to dismiss the Kirkland Lake option without an environmental assessment, in my view, is irresponsible in the extreme. I believe this government will have to start listening because I suggest if that is a safer option and it is more environmentally sound, it should be considered.

Let me read this editorial.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the comments made by the member for Oriole on this very controversial legislation should have at least a quorum in attendance. I do not see a quorum at this time.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is present.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. A quorum is present. The honourable member for Oriole has the floor.

Mrs Caplan: I am referring now to the editorial in the Northern Daily News of November 22. This is what they had to say:

"Open-minded, flexible, in touch with the people, 'Let's use waste as a resource' -- the New Democratic Party used to believe in all these things. The NDP has become a rigid, mainstream, typical political party making arbitrary decisions regardless of the effects on the serfs of Ontario. Instead of sitting down across the table as hated enemies have done in the Middle East, the NDP has decided it will arbitrarily expand two landfills in southern Ontario without an assessment of the effects on the environment. All this is happening because Environment Minister Ruth Grier 'cannot conceive' of shipping garbage to 'remote communities' like Kirkland Lake.

"We can't conceive of such irrational decision-making. We can't conceive of such outright political posturing. We can't conceive of such blatant disregard for the environment. We can't conceive of the NDP doing this to Ontario. We can't conceive that Ruth Grier, Shelley Martel and Premier Bob Rae would ignore virtually everyone else who is responsible for disposing waste. We can't conceive that our provincial leaders aren't willing to sit down and take a look at the effects on the environment through an exhaustive process like the environmental assessment. We can't conceive the NDP is willing to simply dismiss Kirkland Lake's demonstrated willingness, through the results of a recent referendum, to listen to the proposal.

"The NDP's upper crust are obviously taking solace in the fact that it's difficult for Kirkland Lake residents to camp out on their doorstep. Kirkland Lake doesn't have the time to sit and wait out the NDP. It's time to take this issue past meetings in Queen's Park. It's time to embarrass the NDP into listening to us. That tactic has proven successful in the past. It's time someone did camp out on their doorstep."

The bottom line in this editorial asks, "Are you listening, Mayor Mavrinac?"

Here is a northern Ontario daily newspaper, speaking very clearly on behalf of the residents and community of Kirkland Lake, calling for a full environmental assessment of an option that could well be more environmentally safe, appropriate and sound than putting landfill into an area where 44% of the province's population is living.

This editorial is an important and strong message to the New Democratic government. It is clear the government is not listening. It is clear they have been driven by a doctrinaire approach that is not responding to the realities of environmental considerations and the concerns of the people of this province. I believe that when the people of this province examine Bill 143, they will realize the shortsighted nature of the action that has been taken by the Minister of the Environment, who is also the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

The response has been disappointing. I have another letter, dated yesterday. It is a memo from Notre Development Corp and it was sent to me. This is a concern of a business in North Bay to the response of the minister and the government in the tabling of Bill 143. The memo says:

"The Minister of Environment is conducting an 'end run' around the people of the GTA, York region, Metro and the province by 'jamming through her waste management bill before Christmas.' At site search meetings held by the Interim Waste Authority in York and Metro on September 17, 19, 21, 24, 26 and 28, the staff clearly told all participants that it was their schedule to announce the 'long list of sites for new landfills by November.' They also stated that this time frame was necessary in order to meet their schedule."

A schedule of time study was attached to this letter that was sent to me.

1620

"The announcement [of the long list of sites] has now been postponed. The minister is trying to fast-track the waste management bill 'before announcing the sites.' The minister is clearly interfering with the Interim Waste Authority, an organization which is supposed to be independent of Mrs Grier's ministry.

"Mrs Grier is guilty of manipulation and giving misinformation to the public. It is the minister's intent to put into law an act which the residents of Maple, York, Metro, northern Ontario and the entire province will not stand for if the details are made known.

"I attach an overview of the environmental aspects and benefits of the proposed 'rail haul option' to the province, to the GTA and to northern Ontario. These details can all be substantiated in depth.

"This bill must be sent to committee and changed. The minister is manipulating the process of environmental assessment, using the Interim Waste Authority and refusing to evaluate acceptable options for the GTA solid waste.

"Mrs Grier cannot substantiate her position under scrutiny. Your efforts to block this bill from passing before the Legislature adjourns are very important to the province."

This letter is signed by Mr Gordon McGuinty, president of Notre Development Corp. I received this yesterday and I believe it is an important part of this debate, because part of what we are attempting to do is alert the people of this province to the concerns that have been expressed, not just by the people in the greater Toronto area, not just by Mayor McCallion in Peel, who is outraged, not just by Mayor Jackson, whose letter I read yesterday, not just by Gary Herrema, the chairman of Durham region, who I will be quoting in a few minutes, but by people in northern Ontario, eastern Ontario and the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. As more people are alerted to what this legislation really is about, they are not only cynical, they are outraged. They are outraged that this government would have the audacity to table this legislation on October 24 and demand passage, third reading, by Christmas, before the House rises.

The people of northern Ontario have many ways of making known their disappointment -- the letter from the mayor of Kirkland Lake, the editorial in the newspaper -- and I know for a fact they are aware they can contact their MPPs. I know as well that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, a minister from the Sudbury area, and the Treasurer would be influenced if the people of northern Ontario let them know how they were feeling, because part of this democratic process is the opportunity for the public to be heard. Bill 143 takes that right away. It takes away the right of citizens to be heard at environmental hearings. It changes and sets a precedent for environmental protection in the development of new sites that I believe concerns and should concern people in communities right across this province.

I would like, if I could, to just take a look at the bill for a moment and look at it section by section so the people who are watching this debate will know why I am so concerned on behalf of my constituents and why words such as "draconian," "autocratic," "doctrinaire," "precedent-setting" and "bureaucratic" are all being used to describe this legislation by knowledgeable and thoughtful people who have had a chance to scrutinize Bill 143.

I would stress, as I begin looking at this piece of legislation, that what is needed in the greater Toronto area is co-operation, not alienation. This piece of legislation sets a precedent within the greater Toronto area not just in the area of waste management, but in the approach this government will be taking to problem-solving. There are many issues and many problems to be resolved in the greater Toronto area, and the approach they have taken will not foster co-operation. The approach they have taken will not bring all of the municipalities in the greater Toronto area together to work with each other.

Before I begin looking at each part of the bill, there is one other response that I think is very significant, and I would like to share this editorial from the Mississauga News dated November 13, just last week.

The headline says: "NDP Garbage Law 'Back Door' Policy: MPP -- New Legislation Would Allow More Trash Without Hearing." When I say that this legislation will foster alienation, mistrust and cynicism, this editorial speaks louder and clearer than anyone could imagine. It says:

"The Ontario NDP government is practising 'back door politics' in its introduction of new legislation which will allow more garbage to be dumped in the Britannia landfill site without any hearings, says a Mississauga MPP.

"Mississauga North opposition MPP Steven Offer says he was surprised at how Environment minister Ruth Grier introduced her Waste Management Act, 1991, which has major consequences for dealing with the garbage crisis in Peel. Offer was sitting in his Queen's Park office watching proceedings in the House when Grier introduced Bill 143 at the very end of question period.

"If it was unparliamentary to whisper the introduction of bills, then she could have been thrown out,' Offer joked of Grier's announcement. He suggested the low-key approach of the bill 'is just back-door politics at its worst.'

"The Liberal Labour critic claimed Grier 'knows her activities with regard to the Britannia site are wrong' and suggested that is why she has categorically refused to meet with concerned residents. The dump was scheduled to close after 12 years of operation under an agreement between the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel but Grier has ordered it to stay open.

1630

"One of the provisions of the new legislation allows Ontario to 'override' any such legal agreements to provide for additional usage of Britannia." That is extremely important. "The bill also legally establishes the Interim Waste Authority Grier has set up to find a new long-term landfill site for Peel. It requires the body to conform to Grier's earlier announcements banning incineration of garbage or transportation of garbage from the greater Toronto area outside its boundaries for disposal.

"A press release from the ministry says the legislation also addresses the short-term disposal crisis for regions such as Peel by removing any legal impediments to conforming with the minister's orders to dump more garbage at existing landfill sites. Offer says the legislation flies in the face of NDP campaign promises that dumps would not be established or expanded without thorough environmental reviews. The law would not require alternatives to be looked at. 'Other sites may be better environmentally, but they don't have to be considered,' he remarked.

"At their most recent regional council meeting, local politicians sharply criticized Bill 143. 'We might as well declare bankruptcy and get it over with,' remarked ward 2 councillor Pat Mullin. 'We're just a bunch of puppets here.'

"Chief administrative officer Michael Garrett said the bill has very serious implications for the region because Ontario 'can now direct every aspect of waste management' with Peel being forced to pay the bill. 'We're frustrated by the lack of consultation. We are frustrated by the lack of consultation,' said Garrett, who also remarked that those that drafted the legislation may not be aware of the import of some of its language. There is not even a guarantee that the bill will be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature for review, which would at least give Peel a chance to present its views.

"Mayor Hazel McCallion said Ontario wants to control waste management decisions 'and bill us. They'll have complete responsibility but the cost will be in our hands,' she added.

"'Mrs Grier has gotten herself in such a mess, she has to become a dictator,' remarked McCallion. 'We are just being shafted left, right and centre.'" This is the response from Mayor McCallion of Mississauga to this piece of legislation.

Many are very concerned about what this legislation will cost, not only in terms of the environment but also in terms of taxes on municipal property taxpayers. Not only are they concerned about what the cost will be within the greater Toronto area; they are concerned about the implications and the costs, human, financial and economic, right across this province.

Part I of the legislation continues the Interim Waste Authority. What is interesting is that this authority has the power to expropriate land for the purpose of establishing landfill and also is given the power to enter on land and carry out its inspections.

This is one part of the act that I believe is a little deceptive. It is given the name of Interim Waste Authority. However, I predict that once established it will not be interim at all, because this authority is going to have responsibility for the disposal of waste. The prediction is that these sites will be for the next 20 years. Why would the government call a crown corporation "interim" when it knows it is going to be around for the next 20 years?

When I said this bill was deceptive, part I is the first deception. If this government is going to do this, it should at least be honest with the people. They should call it the Waste Authority. If they want to give it a fancy name, they should give it a fancy name, but they should not say it is interim. There is nothing interim about this authority.

Part II of the bill applies to three specific landfill waste disposal sites and it specifies what the environmental assessments respecting each of the sites will require. The explanatory note says:

"One site is to be located in each of the regional municipalities of Peel and Durham and the third is to be located in the regional municipality of York or in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto or partially in both. The primary function of the sites will be the disposal of waste generated in the respective municipalities over a period of at least 20 years. The Interim Waste Authority Ltd, which is responsible for the sites, is required to use certain waste diversion information provided by the Minister of the Environment in estimating the needed landfill capacity."

This is what is the most offensive and I believe the most significant component of part II: "Environmental assessments for the sites will not be required to contain discussion of any alternatives to the landfill waste disposal sites other than certain alternatives involving waste reduction, reuse, recycling and other single sites."

Under part II of this piece of legislation: "Policies may be established for purposes of this part by the minister." It is arbitrary and draconian: "Policies may be established for purposes of this part by the minister. These policies must be considered in preparing assessments and approving the sites." Arbitrarily the minister will make those decisions. That is part II of this bill, and I know that is of grave concern to the people of Peel, York and Durham.

It is of concern to my constituents in the riding of Oriole because Peel, York and Durham are municipalities of the greater Toronto area where a significant population is living. They are very concerned that the expansion of sites in Peel and York without proper environmental assessment breaks faith with the communities where those sites were established some time ago. At the time those sites were established people knew what the rules were. Now with a piece of legislation this minister and this NDP government are saying: "All bets are off. All rules out the window. We will arbitrarily decide what is going to happen."

"Part III of the bill requires the regional municipalities of Durham and Peel and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to implement reports made to the clerks of the municipalities under section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act. This requirement applies even if implementation would require a municipality to do something which would otherwise require the consent of another municipality or which would contravene a municipal bylaw or agreement or a statute or a regulation designated in the regulations. The Environmental Assessment Act does not apply and Ontario Municipal Board approval is not required.

"A certificate of approval for a waste management system or disposal site may be issued or amended without requiring the Environmental Assessment Board to hold a hearing if the activity carried out with respect to the system or site is to enable a municipality to implement a report. The certificate may contain provisions overriding certain municipal agreements or conditions imposed by municipalities under certain statutes."

1640

I do not think members of the government caucus fully understand what part III really does. It says that before a certificate is issued, notice must be given, but:

"Subject to certain exemptions, if a person's land is injuriously affected by a waste management system or disposal site as a result of the implementation...but the land used for the site was not expropriated, the person is entitled to compensation for the injurious affection in the same way as if the municipality had expropriated...."

That is the extent of the protection offered.

I do not believe, as I said, that people are yet fully aware of just how this bill strips away the rights of the people of this province. What is really ironic is that this is the same Minister of the Environment who promised an environmental bill of rights, yet parts II and III of this legislation strip away rights, particularly and specifically from people surrounding Britannia and Keele Valley, at the same time as it sets a precedent for what could happen in other parts of the province.

I will just give members a couple of examples, and I am not exaggerating. As I read this legislation, part II of the bill is very clear when it says that it is absolutely not a requirement to hold a hearing. Under part II, "Waste Disposal Sites," the act requires that the sites be established, and in section 14 of Bill 143 is the following statement:

"(1) An environmental assessment for a landfill waste disposal site referred to in section 12 is not required to contain,

"(a) any description of, or statement of the rationale for, any alternative to the landfill waste disposal site other than" -- reduction, reuse or recycling, or -- "use of other...landfill waste disposal sites in the primary service area."

It is very, very clear in this section and in other sections of this legislation. For example, section 14 goes on to say:

"(2) The environmental assessment is not required to contain any description of or statement of the rationale for, or any description or evaluation of any matter relating to,

"(a) an alternative of waste reduction or reuse or recycling if that alternative would involve incineration of waste or the transportation of waste from the primary service area to any other area."

What that section says is that we cannot even look at the evidence or consider whether an incineration option is more environmentally safe. We cannot even consider or look at the Kirkland Lake option to see if it is better environmentally. This legislation says, "You cannot even consider it."

This legislation is not saying, "Let's find the best environmental solution."

Mr Cousens: Why didn't you guys do something about it? You had lots of time to do something and you did nothing.

Mrs Caplan: In response to my colleague the member for Markham, in fact he is absolutely wrong.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, they did nothing and now they stand up and pontificate about it. That was a real problem. If only they would have some sense of history.

Mrs Caplan: The member for Markham is absolutely wrong. I am not going to dignify his interjections with a response.

Part III of this act says there shall be no hearings. This legislation is the implementation of minister's reports.

Hon Mr Wildman: Is this a filibuster?

Mrs Caplan: The Minister of Natural Resources, who is not in his seat, interjects and asks the question, "Is this a filibuster?" The answer is no. This is serious debate and discussion on a piece of legislation that the Minister of the Environment and the NDP government have tried to rush through this Legislature in a manner which is unbecoming not only of the Minister of Natural Resources but of this government and particularly of the Premier and his colleague the Minister of the Environment.

The reason I say it is unbecoming is that I think one of the reasons my constituents in the riding of Oriole and people around this province are not fully aware of the implications of this legislation is that while in opposition, the Minister of the Environment was quite the defender of environmental rights and environmental protection, and this bill does neither.

It takes away rights and it does not require the best environmental solutions. It does not require examination of the best environmental options. It precludes looking for the best solution. I have read articles and I have read letters into the record today and I can tell members that part of the problem is that the people cannot believe the New Democratic Party is doing this. They cannot believe that a New Democratic government is doing this. I know there are members on the back bench; it is time they woke up and realized what this is really doing and the implications this might have for their very own constituents.

I suggest that while this says this is legislation for the greater Toronto area, it is not. The precedent for this legislation could well affect Ottawa and Kingston. There are agreements there. Just as this legislation overrides the agreements that were made by people in Peel --

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, isn't there a time limit on this?

Mrs Caplan: It is unbecoming for the Attorney General to sit in his seat and interject. I think the reason he is doing this is that he is ashamed of the environmental record and the display of this piece of legislation. He is ashamed. He knows full well that this legislation overrides every piece of environmental legislation and takes away the rights of my constituents. I believe he sees his role as Attorney General as representing all the people of this province, and he should be concerned.

Part III, which deals with the implementation of ministers' reports, uses very strong language. It dictates -- and that is why this bill is seen by some as dictatorial as well as draconian -- to Durham, Peel and Metropolitan Toronto what they shall do. It requires those municipalities to comply. This is subsection 17(4):

"A regional or metropolitan municipality shall comply with this section even if to do so would require that the municipality,

"(a) use, maintain, operate, establish, alter, improve, enlarge or extend a waste management system or waste disposal site located in another municipality; or

"(b) dispose of waste generated in another municipality in a waste management system or waste disposal site that it owns, operates or controls."

"(5) If" -- this is extremely important -- "in order to comply with this section, a regional or a metropolitan municipality is required to do anything for which a consent or other approval under the Municipal Act, the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, the Regional Municipality of York Act or the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act is necessary, that consent or approval shall be deemed to have been given."

1650

In plain language, that means all of those acts I have just mentioned do not matter, that the municipal councils have had the authority taken away from them. The minister has imposed her will, has taken away the responsibility and the authority, yet still requires the municipalities to pay for the results. I know from discussions with, for example, the chairman of the Metro works committee, Councillor Joan King, that there are grave concerns about what the cost of this proposal is going to be.

This legislation, which removes the rights and requires municipalities to do the minister's bidding, also delegates power from the minister to a director. It also says -- and here is one section where we are concerned about individuals' rights:

"(2) A certificate of approval or provisional certificate of approval for a waste management system or waste disposal site issued or amended to enable a municipality to comply with section 17 may contain terms,

"(a) overriding any provision applicable to the system or site that is contained in an agreement made under the Municipal Act, the Planning Act, 1983, the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, the Regional Municipality of York Act, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act or any act designated under clause."

What this legislation does is override any condition applicable to the system or site that is imposed by any piece of legislation, by any regional or municipal government.

I do not believe anyone fully understands the implications of this better than the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, the Minister of the Environment.

What this says as well is that a municipality, including a metropolitan or regional municipality, is not entitled to any compensation under section 19 of this act, which is the one that responds to injurious affection, and that may well have implications for taxpayers.

The part of this act that is probably most offensive is that there is a requirement under this legislation that there be no hearings. There is no requirement for public hearings; there is no requirement for the municipalities to allow the public to have their say -- and it is not even for the municipalities to allow. They want to ensure the public have their say.

Section 18 says:

"Despite section 30 of the Environmental Protection Act, the director appointed for purposes of that section may issue or amend a certificate of approval or provisional certificate of approval for a waste management system or waste disposal site without requiring the Environmental Assessment Board to hold a hearing if the certificate is being issued or amended to enable a municipality to comply with section 17."

I read section 17 earlier.

That requirement, I believe, is one of the most offensive requirements in this act. That the minister would be associated with a piece of legislation that overrides every piece of environmental legislation, every piece of planning legislation and overrides the Ontario Municipal Board I would also suggest overrides every principle the minister ever stood for. I do not say that lightly. I know the present Minister of the Environment was very eloquent when she was in opposition and many of my constituents had very high hopes for the minister when she assumed the portfolio of Minister of the Environment. The level of disappointment, which I share, cannot be overstated. People do not believe the minister is doing this.

Frequently in this Legislature we criticize, we label, we engage in rhetoric, but I cannot stress too strongly that this legislation is not about "not in my backyard." As I said, my constituents in the riding of Oriole know where their backyard is. They know their backyard is not in Mississauga and it is not in Vaughan. They do not understand why the minister would insist on taking away people's rights. They do not understand why she would insist on taking the kind of draconian, autocratic approach that she has brought forward with Bill 143, not after the work she had done in protecting the environment and speaking about protection of the environment when she was in opposition.

I know there are some people who say she has now donned the title of Queen of Garbage or Minister of Waste, Minister of Garbage. I do not think those titles are becoming. I do not think we should really be getting into that kind of rhetoric. These issues are far too serious. They are serious because this debate has been on a level of ideology. This debate has taken us to a point where I think it is important that all members of this Legislature realize just exactly what is happening.

Bill 143 is an amalgam. It is packaged in a way to suggest that this is about enhancement and protection of the environment, when in fact it is exactly the opposite. Part IV of this legislation consists of amendments to the Environmental Protection Act. At the beginning of my remarks, I explained the difference between the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. These amendments to the Environmental Protection Act appear to be tacked on to this piece of legislation because they really bear no relation whatever to parts I, II and III, and as this legislation is being carried by the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, I would argue that while many of the provisions of part IV are eminently supportable, some of them cause grave concern, and part IV of this legislation really should be a separate piece of legislation carried by the Minister of the Environment to respond to those who have legitimate concerns about the impact of part IV. Some parts of part IV could be considered housekeeping, but other parts of part IV are really quite significant.

1700

I believe it would be very proper for the minister to separate out part IV so that we could properly debate amendments to the Environmental Protection Act separate from those sections and parts of this bill which deal with the establishment of landfill sites in Peel and York and a transfer station in Durham. We should be able to deal separately with amendments to the Environmental Protection Act rather than having them tacked on to a part of the bill establishing a waste authority.

I would argue that part I of this bill is a separate piece of legislation. Part II and part III could be separate bills, and certainly part IV bears no relationship whatever to parts I, II and III. These should be four separate bills. That would be a better way of proceeding, because having them all tacked together is really very confusing and does not allow for the proper scrutiny of part IV, which amends the Environmental Protection Act, whereas part III overrides the Environmental Protection Act. How do we make sense out of that in one piece of legislation?

I have said this piece of legislation is not what it seems to be. When I heard what the minister had to say in the statement on April 2, this is not what I expected in November. I listened very closely to what the minister had to say. All four sections of this piece of legislation are separate and distinct, but they are not part of a comprehensive strategy that the Minister of the Environment has spoken about in this House. They are piecemeal: "Put it together, package it up, table it and pass it quickly before anybody notices what you are really doing."

Why was part IV added? I believe it really is a smokescreen to argue that those amendments to the Environmental Protection Act are urgent and should move forward. I think you could make a very good argument that they should move forward, but they should move forward as amendments to the Environmental Protection Act. To suggest to the people in a communication strategy that part IV is in any way related to parts I, II and III borders on the dishonest. I know the Minister of the Environment is not a dishonest person, but when you create a smokescreen you make people cynical. When you tell them a piece of legislation does one thing when it also does something else, that makes people cynical.

The concerns I have about this legislation on behalf of my constituents are very profound. I know the minister will suggest that if this legislation does not move quickly, terrible things are going to happen. I simply do not believe that, and there is no evidence to prove it. No evidence has been presented by this minister that would suggest there is the kind of emergency she has told us there is. Emergencies do not happen overnight, particularly in the middle of a recession. I know the staff at the Ministry of the Environment are highly qualified, very able and very capable. They watch and they monitor. In those almost 15 months of wasted time, effort and energy, I know they would have alerted the minister long before now if there really was a crisis.

When the minister stood up in this House a year ago and announced there was no crisis, there would be no gap and she could cancel the environmental protection hearings on the interim sites that were proposed by the previous government, I know she had to have been advised by the ministry staff as to what the situation really was. I know in the last year the situation has improved, not deteriorated.

In the press release the minister put out at the time this legislation was tabled, she said the ministry officials were monitoring the capacity of the existing sites. We know waste is being shipped across the border. We know we are in the middle of a recession and less waste is being produced. We also know the 3R program begun by the former government under the leadership of the member for St Catharines is working. People are reducing, reusing and especially recycling. My constituents are.

Hon Mr Wildman: That's because they don't want to ship the garbage out to the north.

Mrs Caplan: The Minister of Natural Resources interjects that my constituents do not want to ship the garbage out. I would argue they do. They ship the garbage to their curbs and the garbage truck comes and picks it up. My constituents do not know where that garbage is taken.

Hon Mr Wildman: You mean they don't care?

Mrs Caplan: They do not know if it is taken to Brock Road, they do not know if it is taken to Britannia, they do not know if it is taken --

Hon Mr Wildman: We have more confidence in your constituents than you do.

Mrs Caplan: My constituents know that when they put their garbage out, it is taken away to Keele Valley or Britannia or Brock Road or some other site that is available somewhere in the province. What my constituents want to know, what they are really interested in and what they care about is that the best environmental solution is found. That is what they care about. I am surprised the Minister of Natural Resources would not understand that. He asks, "Don't your constituents care?" Yes, they care. They do care.

Hon Mr Wildman: I think they do care; you don't. You want to ship it out.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There is special time allocated at the end of the debate to ask questions or to make any comments. I hope the member will understand that.

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would have been quite willing to wait till the end to comment, but it seems like that will never come.

The Deputy Speaker: I think the member understands that very clearly. The member for Oriole, I would ask you to address the Chair.

Mrs Caplan: I know the Minister of Natural Resources does not like what I have to say about this piece of legislation. I can understand that. The truth hurts. He knows this piece of legislation is an embarrassment to his colleague the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. He knows this piece of legislation is an embarrassment to the Premier. He knows this piece of legislation is an embarrassment to the NDP. He knows the more public scrutiny there is of this piece of legislation, the more embarrassed he will become.

I understand his interjections and I want to assure him my constituents care that we find the very best environmental solution to our waste management problems in this province. My constituents care that the New Democratic government has said no arbitrarily to the Kirkland Lake option -- arbitrarily, without an environmental assessment to see if it is the best solution. They care that the NDP has said no arbitrarily to energy from waste, sometimes called incineration. I do not know if that is the best solution. I know there are some people who feel very strongly and very passionately about the results of incineration. We know that in the disposing of garbage there is no environmentally perfect solution. Each one creates some concern.

1710

I am dedicated, on behalf of my constituents, to speaking out passionately in support of whatever is the best available solution. I want the facts. I want them tabled in this House. I want to know what is the best technology. If energy from waste is an option, if there are new technologies available that make that environmentally safer, I think we should be able to consider it. This piece of legislation does not allow the consideration.

I am not saying, "Do it." I am saying, "Consider it." I have had a number of discussions with a number of people who would enter the debate and say technology is changing so rapidly that only those who are shortsighted, not willing to listen, doctrinaire, ideologically driven or living in the past would close their mind to considering something which is newly developed. We are living in a world which is changing so rapidly that we cannot afford the luxury of precluding any options which might be a better solution.

There are those who would say that energy from waste and the incineration option should be considered because the best available technologies in 1991 are better than the landfill option, that the environmental protection would be better. I want to know.

Mr Abel: What about that?

Mrs Caplan: The member opposite says, "What about that?" I agree with him. What about it? We should have those facts and we should be able to compare. The Environmental Assessment Act, always referred to around here as the EAA, would allow for that kind of assessment to be done. I am not an expert in environmental matters, I am not an expert on the new technologies that are being developed, but I will say on behalf of my constituents that I am willing to listen and I am willing to learn and I am willing to be convinced by research and facts and data presented by the experts and the people who know.

I want to hear what the best way is to protect the environment for future generations, what the best way is to rid ourselves of our garbage. While I am not an expert on the technology and I am not an engineer, I have the same good commonsense approach that many of my constituents have when they respond to the kind of decision that says: "We will not even consider other alternatives. We will not even consider other options. Do not confuse us with facts." My constituents are upset, and I say rightly so. We have a responsibility as leaders, as elected members of this House, to get all of the information, to make sure that decisions of government are held up to scrutiny and that better alternatives are proposed if they are available.

That is one of the major concerns I have with Bill 143, because it precludes the opportunity to look at alternatives. It says no, as opposed to why. It says no, as opposed to how. I believe that is fundamentally not in the interest of the people of this province. It is not in the interest of the people of Metropolitan Toronto. This takes an ideological, doctrinaire approach to an issue that I believe should not be partisan.

The disposal of waste and how we deal with our garbage should not be a partisan issue, but it has become a partisan issue because the New Democratic Party and the New Democratic government have taken a position which, by the way, is very different than the position they took during the election campaign. During the election campaign, the people of this province believed the Premier when he went around to every proposed site and said: "You don't have to take Toronto's garbage. We would require a full environmental assessment on every new site. We would require an environmental assessment on every expansion of an existing site." They believed he meant what he said. It would not cost him anything to keep that promise. It is going to cost him a lot to break that promise. It is costing him his credibility. It is damaging, very damaging, because it is costing him the trust of the people of this province.

He knew of the sensitivities around this issue, and when faced with a solution where the people of Kirkland Lake said, "Do an environmental assessment; see if this is a good idea; check this one out," the answer was: "No, we will not consider it. It is unthinkable. This does not fit with our ideology. We do not want to even consider this proposal or approach."

Everyone I talk to is still waiting for the answer to the question, "Why not?" Why would the government not even look at a proposal that might be a better environmental solution? Why would this piece of legislation, Bill 143, say that by law you cannot consider that? The law says you cannot consider an option that may prove to be better, more environmentally sound for the people not only of greater Toronto but of this province. My constituents just do not understand it.

When we look at Bill 143 and the four components of the act, we see many things that are very disturbing. I mentioned before that part I calls the waste authority the Interim Waste Authority. Yet it establishes a crown corporation with broad powers and we expect that the waste authority is going to be in place for 20 years. That is very upsetting to people. Why is the government calling it an interim authority if it is going to be there for 20 years? People ask me: "What are they trying to hide? What are they worried about? Why don't they call it what it is?" It is a crown corporation, a scheduled agency at arm's length from the government but controlled by the government.

Part II outlines criteria for the long-term site selection process. What we have heard is a lot of cynicism about when those sites are going to be announced. They want to know: "Why the delay in announcing the potential sites? Why are you waiting? What relationship does that list have with this piece of legislation?" People are very suspicious. They are suspicious because they have been told one thing and yet something else is happening. The Premier said one thing and is doing another. The Minister of the Environment said one thing and is doing another. That makes people very suspicious.

1720

Part I of this bill, as it gives its powers to the Interim Waste Authority, states that the authority has the right to enter to test land. It gives the inspectors such powers in subsection 10(2), to "use such force as is reasonably necessary to execute the warrant and call on police officers to assist in the execution of the warrant."

It was explained to me that before they can call in the police they have to ask permission, but they can only call the police once permission has been denied -- and this is seen as reasonable. The way this is going to work is that if the Interim Waste Authority identifies a piece of land that someone owns and it wants to test it, it will phone the person up and say, "We would like to come on to your land and test your site," who says, "No, I don't want you on my land," and it says, "Well, then we're going to call the police and get a warrant," and it can walk in and test the land. That is what this legislation says.

It says in subsection 11(4) that any person who obstructs an inspector carrying out an inspection is guilty of an offence. We were told it probably would be a fine, perhaps up to $5,000. One would not go to jail. That will be good news to the member for Victoria-Haliburton. If one chains himself to a tree on the property or locks himself to the fence, there is a fine, but not jail.

I would say that the provisions of part I of this bill provide far-reaching powers to government-appointed inspectors from the waste authority. This legislation provides no rights to land owners who do not want to give access to their property. The inspectors are given sweeping powers, enhanced by inspection warrants and police backup, when required to come on to the property to test it against the owner's will. That is what part I of this legislation creates. That is what the NDP government in Ontario is creating: a waste authority with those kinds of powers.

The bill provides land owners with no right of refusal if an inspector wishes access to their land. If a land owner refuses entry, the inspector can obtain a warrant. If the land owner obstructs entry by an inspector who is armed with a warrant, he will be guilty of an offence. The land owner is powerless to prevent access to his property by a ministry inspector.

And they want this -- this is just part I of a four-part bill -- passed by Christmas. I do not believe the government knows what it is doing.

Any supporter of fundamental civil rights would find these measures not only draconian; they have far-reaching implications precedent-setting in their nature, given that government-appointed inspectors will be given legislative authority to do whatever is required to obtain access to private property for the purpose of inspection, for the purpose of waste management.

Imagine: The New Democratic Party in Ontario forms the government and the first thing it does is bring in a piece of legislation within one year which has the kinds of draconian and far-reaching implications that remove the rights of land owners and allow the use of force for the purpose of finding a dump.

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is talking about some very important information here and I think other members would like to be present for it. I do not believe we have a quorum in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the table to advise me on that. Would you please advise me?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is present.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present.

Mrs Caplan: Part II, which states the criteria for the long-term site selection process, has some ambiguity I would like to point out, and I hope this will be clarified and fixed. It might just be an oversight, because we have had the commitment from the Minister of the Environment that the long-term site selection would be subject to a full Environmental Assessment Act process, yet in part II of this act the site selection process states it will be "consistent with the principles of." So one of the questions I have is what that means, "consistent with the principles of." And given the draconian nature of part I and part III, can we take comfort and be assured that the long-term site selection of the yet-unnamed sites will in fact be under the Environmental Assessment Act, which will require an assessment of different sites and their relationship to each other so that the best option can be found?

As I said before, part II does limit some of the options. I think it is important that we point out that this legislation precludes the option of incineration. This also precludes the option of shipping waste to any willing host community. The minister continues to limit options for waste disposal rather than giving the kind of technical and thoughtful consideration to all options. I point that out as a legitimate criticism.

In the time I have available, I would agree once more to having a full debate on all of the options. A thoughtful and a reasonable person would suggest it is not proper to allow pure ideology, pure doctrine, to limit the explorations of finding the very best option. The minister today has not presented any technical rationale for the absolute banning of incineration; neither has she given any technical analysis for prohibiting the shipment to Kirkland Lake. We have not had any technical analysis of why the Kirkland Lake proposal would be unacceptable from an environmental point of view. She said no to the environmental assessment, but she has not given us any information other than pure ideology. It seems to me that to make a decision that is based on ideology and limits options is not only irresponsible, it is irrational in 1991.

I point out that there are tremendous inconsistencies in this legislation as well. I have used the words "ideology" and "doctrinaire" to describe the approach of the minister, but I suggest respectfully that we have not seen even that consistently applied, because the minister has stated that there should not be the transportation of waste at the same time, in Ontario today, that Kingston is shipping its waste to Ottawa and many municipalities and many private businesses are shipping waste out of this country and across the border. So we have seen an inconsistent approach even to shipping of waste.

Hon Mr Hampton: Our contribution to free trade.

1730

Mrs Caplan: The Attorney General says this is his contribution to free trade. I do not find that humorous.

Interjection.

Mrs Caplan: My colleague the member for Kenora asks if the Attorney General knows what he is talking about, and I would have to say that the Attorney General does not. He has not been properly briefed. I do not think he knows what this legislation is, because if he did, I do not think he would support it. He certainly would not have supported it if he was in opposition, and now that he is in government, he has been muzzled. I do not think he really has been properly informed as to what this legislation is.

I suggest to the Attorney General and to others in this House that there are some very serious issues that this piece of legislation raises which have not been properly addressed. Under part IV of this act, which is packaged as amendments to the Environmental Protection Act -- as I said before, some of them are seen as housekeeping but others are really quite significant -- the minister repeals section 29, which gives the minister emergency powers, and then amends section 29, which gives over powers in large part to the director.

In pressing for this bill before Christmas, the minister has said that there will be dire consequences. The knowledge and information I have suggests that under the existing legislation, the Minister of the Environment has all the powers she needs to be able to act in an emergency. The fact that she suggests she must have this legislation by Christmas is simply not telling it as it really is. She does not have to have this in order to act. Section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act is just one of the many powers the minister already has so that if there is a true emergency, she can deal with it.

Section 29 is meant to deal with short-term solutions to waste disposal crises. However, the minister is giving legislative authority to a director to order a municipality to accept from, or ship waste to, another municipality in order to deal with that crisis. At the same time, she is not going to allow the transport of waste to be given any consideration by the Interim Waste Authority in its search for a long-term solution to the management of solid waste in the greater Toronto area. To me, that just does not make sense.

If she has within her emergency powers now the right to look at transportation of waste as a solution, why would she not allow the waste authority to explore that as an option if it is cheaper and more environmentally sound? One of the concerns I have about the approach taken by this minister is that she has precluded a number of options which may be better environmentally, more cost-effective and in the interests of the greater public good, and yet she has precluded those options.

There are a number of sections of this legislation which I think should be discussed. Subsection 13(2) also states that the agency -- that is, the Interim Waste Authority -- in determining required capacity for each landfill site, will use estimates provided by the minister. I suggest that section 13 really will undermine the independence and the expertise of the agency that is being established to determine what the long-term capacity need for the greater Toronto area is going to be.

I suggest that the waste authority, in doing its analysis of the service area to be served, will study the potential population growth and business development in the region to determine the capacity of the disposal area required for the next 20 years. While the government has attempted to distance itself from the process of site selection and determining capacity needs by the establishment of an independent authority to conduct the site selection, it has, by the same token, involved itself by dictating to the authority the capacity that will be required for each of the landfill sites. I think that is an inconsistency in the bill that may seem technical to some but is significant and important. If the minister is going to establish a waste authority, it has to have responsibility for gathering the data and looking at the capacity requirements and not just responding to the beck and call of the minister. She has to give this authority the responsibility to do the job; she has to give it the resources to do the job.

One of the concerns I think some of my constituents and certainly some of the members of Metropolitan Toronto council have is that this waste authority that will be following the orders and acting at the beck and call of the minister will be giving the bill to the municipalities that will have no say. They see this authority potentially as a buffer between them and the minister. They say, "Look, Mrs Grier, you own the garbage problem."

Mr Grandmaître: You created it.

Mrs Caplan: The member for Ottawa East interjects that the Minister of the Environment created the problem. In fact, I agree with him that she did.

The councillors are concerned that this waste authority will create another problem because it will just be a buffer and it will be able to hand the bill to the municipalities rather than showing the kind of leadership and direction and developing the kind of expertise an authority will have to have over the next 20 years to be able to properly manage solid waste in the greater Toronto area.

I think the capacity issue is an important one because the capacity, as it will be dictated by the government, will be based on the ministry's best estimates of the effectiveness of its own 3R program over the next 20 years. This will require the Ministry of the Environment to prejudge the effectiveness of the forthcoming waste reduction regulations. I would say there is a lot of uncertainty about that.

I think it is going to be really important that the Minister of the Environment have an objective appraisal of what is going to be needed. Who could be more objective than an independent authority that has been established for that very purpose? If she gives them the power to go in and take rights away from land owners to test land and the power of expropriation, why would she not give them the power to collect the data and then stand accountable for the information so that they can properly judge capacity? Surely the ministry can give information as well, but it has to be up to the authority to plan for proper capacity.

It does not seem to me that is a reasonable approach. I suggest this situation unfortunately could be very similar to the situation the Minister of the Environment found herself in with the soft drink container issue. We had a situation where she stated her objective was a 30% refillable quota and she requested another agency -- in that case it was the investigations and enforcement branch -- to carry out her order.

Let me tell the members how good the Minister of the Environment's order was. It is now down to 7%. When there was failure of compliance, the minister stood back and said: "It's not my fault. It's the responsibility of the investigations and enforcement branch. I will tell them to keep at it." It is a very unrealistic, very unacceptable and, I would say, very disappointing approach.

In this particular case we are talking about the capacity requirement for long-term disposal sites and the minister could, by miscalculation, set unreasonable diversion targets. When these targets are not met and more waste is calculated as being required in the landfill, the waste authority will have to bear the responsibility. So why not allow the waste authority to judge what the capacity requirement is going to be and plan for it and get on with the job?

1740

One of the questions I have to ask about section 16 of Bill 143 concerns intervenor funding. Is it because the government does not intend to designate the search for long-term landfill sites under the Environmental Assessment Act, or is it because the government does not plan on renewing the Intervenor Funding Project Act when it is sunsetted, that section 15 deals with intervenor funding?

I do not understand. The government has an intervenor funding act and it also has an Environmental Assessment Act. My question really relates to why it has section 16 in this bill, since intervenor funding is dealt with in another and, I would argue, more appropriate way in the intervenor funding act and the Environmental Assessment Act. Those are legitimate questions that should be responded to as this legislation is discussed more fully.

Part III I find, as I said, most offensive. This is the section where the minister gives herself the power to override requirements as outlined in the following pieces of legislation. Let me just list them for the members of the government caucus who are here. I know members of my caucus are very aware of what those legislative requirements are today and what this legislation overrides.

This legislation overrides the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act, the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, the Regional Municipality of York Act and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

All those pieces of legislation were put in place to allow for proper planning, evaluation, environmental assessment, environmental considerations and full and proper public hearings. All those pieces of legislation are trashed by this piece of legislation. Bill 143 trashes the protections in those pieces of legislation. It is there, it is clear. I know a lot of people do not believe that, but it is true.

The minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, who is also Minister of the Environment, the member for Lakeshore-Etobicoke, requires in section 17 the regional municipality of Durham to establish a waste management system which consists of at least one transfer station, and it goes on. It overrides every piece of legislation I listed.

There is no consideration given to what the project will cost the region. According to Durham, the transfer station would cost the region over $49 million in capital costs and $26 million in operating costs. It is estimated that this cost will add between $250 and $300 to each householder's municipal tax bill.

When I say this legislation overrides all those pieces of legislation, it also imposes tremendous cost burdens on the taxpayers in those municipalities that are affected directly by this legislation. That includes, very specifically, my constituents in the riding of Oriole.

The minister's order requires the regional municipality of Peel to extend the Britannia Road landfill site even though there is an agreement that the site would close. Even though there is a legal binding agreement, this legislation overrides that agreement and breaks faith with the people in that community.

It is very unlikely the long-term sites will be identified and approved before 1997. Therefore, Brittania will be forced to accept additional waste for five years longer than was originally agreed to, and Keele Valley will likely have to take wastes for three years longer than was anticipated.

Section 17 of part III orders regional municipalities to comply with the minister's order, even if in doing so it would require contravention of an agreement that is binding on the municipality or of the Planning Act. This section is included for the minister to be able to override a current agreement between the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel and an agreement between the city of Toronto and the town of Vaughan. Those agreements state under what conditions the region will accept waste and that upon the landfill reaching capacity the agreement will terminate.

Not only do these amendments override agreements pertaining to the greater Toronto area, but agreements such as these exist in other parts of the province as well. When I say this is a precedent-setting piece of legislation, I say to the people in Cobourg and Hamilton township, who have a similar agreement: "Beware. This is a precedent that is established and it can affect you." Once the precedent is established here, the next time it will be much easier, because they will be able to say, "There was a precedent established under Bill 143, so what's the problem?" I say to the people of Kingston and Ottawa: "You have an agreement very similar to the agreement between Peel and the region. Beware. This precedent could affect you in the future."

Sections 17 and 18 ensure that there will be no provision in any piece of legislation pertaining to the regions of Peel, York, Durham or Metropolitan Toronto which may restrict the region's ability to carry out a minister's order. That is the complete and absolute override of all the protections that are afforded to the people in those municipalities today, and it establishes a precedent I believe could affect every municipality and community across this province.

Under the NDP's plan to deal with the greater Toronto area garbage gap, there will be no opportunity for public input. There will be no environmental assessment or even hearings under the Environmental Protection Act. This is far-reaching legislation that provides no recourse for residents surrounding the relevant landfill sites, nor any recourse for regions or municipalities affected by the minister's orders.

The minister has only succeeded in alienating herself from people in those regions and from elected officials in choosing this kind of draconian action, and as I said earlier, now is the time for co-operation. Now is the time for a climate of working together to find solutions. What this piece of legislation does is make that kind of co-operation impossible.

By imposing her emergency powers, with no consultation and no consultative process, the minister will succeed in having Britannia and Keele Valley expanded. However, in the long term, she will have done immeasurable damage to herself, her own personal credibility and her reputation, to the reputation of the government and to the reputation of the Premier.

1750

In the long term, the people of this province will not be well served. Expanding a landfill site with no environmental assessment and with no opportunity for public input will not be forgotten. It will not be forgotten by the residents in the particular area affected. It will not be forgotten by the elected municipal and regional officials. It will not be forgotten by those of us who stand witness to this plan being put in place by a government that once defended individual rights, that once defended community rights and that once defended and protected the interests of people who wanted to be heard.

In opposition the NDP was a defender of due process. I suggest that once the people of this province understand what is being perpetrated by this piece of legislation, they will come forward and protest and argue and vent their frustration because they are feeling deceived. It will go beyond disappointment. The minister and the Premier do this at their peril. The people of Oriole expect better of them. They want them to protect the environment. They want them to find the best solutions. They want them to protect and enhance people's rights, not take them away.

This will not be easily forgotten by my constituents or theirs, I say to the members of the NDP government caucus. Those who believed that an NDP government would make great strides towards environmental protection will be wounded and deeply disappointed and will not forget.

Unfortunately, not much time remains, but I would like to put on the record my disappointment that the Minister of the Environment has not been in this House to hear these debates. Because of that, I do not believe she will be able to adequately respond. I urge her to reconsider this shortsighted approach. I urge her to listen to what she is being told.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the community of Kirkland Lake, elected representatives in Peel, Durham, York, Metropolitan Toronto and others around this province are saying that this legislation is inadequate in the extreme, premature at best, simplistic for sure, draconian in its approach, autocratic, bureaucratic, expensive and a terrible precedent. I ask the minister to split the parts of this bill so that they can be dealt with individually as separate pieces of legislation, because that would be appropriate.

I do not think anyone has an objection to the establishment of a waste authority, but let's call it what it is: a waste authority. Let's be able to discuss fully and properly what powers they should have and how, within those powers, people's rights can properly be protected. Let's discuss what is the actual capacity available in existing landfill sites and what the process should be for dealing with a gap should it occur.

Maybe a better option is incineration, and maybe a better option is to ship the garbage out for a short while rather than imposing lifts without an environmental assessment and without an environmental hearing. Let's consider those alternatives. Let's consider part IV of this bill as what it really is, amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, and let's take that opportunity to explain to the people of this province what the Environmental Protection Act is all about, because by including those amendments in this piece of legislation we miss that opportunity to give the people of this province the information they need.

There are some, like my colleague the member for Essex South, who share my concern that this legislation and the speed with which the government is trying to ram it through this House are an attempt to make sure that the people of this province do not know what is going on, do not know what it has planned and do not know the implications for them. The very title of this bill suggests that this is about the greater Toronto area. It is not. This precedent-setting piece of legislation is of concern and of interest to people and communities right across this province, and they deserve to have their say.

The greater Toronto area has almost four million people, four million out of 9.5 million people. People of my riding are part of those four million people. Forty-four per cent of the population of this province lives in the greater Toronto area. They are affected directly by this piece of legislation. Their taxes are going to go up because of this piece of legislation. Their environmental protection may not be enhanced because of this legislation. Their options are going to be limited and their rights are being taken away by this piece of legislation.

I believe this is a very sad day. This is a very sad day because the people of my riding are just starting to realize that not only was the Agenda for People shredded and trashed, but so were the principles that the Minister of the Environment stood for on the day she tabled this legislation and so were the principles of rights for the individual, rights for the community, due process, participation. They were trashed on the day that this piece of legislation was tabled in this Legislature.

I would say to the Minister of the Environment that I will not remain silent and allow her to do this unchallenged.

The House adjourned at 1800.