Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Miclash: It seems that Santa Claus is not the only one with a list these days. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines has a list and she is checking it twice to find out which doctors have been toeing the New Democratic Party line and which ones have not. Once again the minister has shown terrible judgement and, in doing so, is discouraging doctors who may be thinking of setting up practice in northern Ontario. Does she have something against these people? If so, then why has the Premier made her responsible for attracting doctors to the north?

Northern Ontario residents do not enjoy the same level of health care as those in other parts of the province. Every day we hear about the lack of doctors and specialists in northern Ontario. People across the north are often faced with considerable distances to obtain both routine and specialized medical care. As a part of the former government, I am aware of the many strides we made in attracting doctors to the north. One only has to look at programs such as the northern Ontario resident training program and the underserviced area program. Yes, we know we have much further to go, but this government has done nothing to build upon these programs.

The people of northern Ontario put their trust in the Minister of Northern Development to act in their best interests. Sadly enough, she has betrayed them. In doing so, she has damaged her own credibility. How does she expect to be able to stand in a roomful of doctors and convince them they should practise in northern Ontario? How does she expect to attract doctors to the north with her irresponsible comments?

It is not in my nature to strongly criticize anyone in this House, but in this case it seems that all this minister is concerned with is standing up for the NDP instead of standing up for the north. She has become a liability for northern Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Harnick: The government recently announced its proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act. I would like to take this opportunity to convey to the government the reaction of the people of Willowdale to the proposed changes.

I would first like to inform the minister that I have received more phone calls and more letters on this single issue than on any other two issues combined. In particular, one constituent wrote that the government's actions "significantly undermine the confidence of all stakeholders in Ontario's economic recovery."

The impact of the NDP government's actions will have a profound effect on further economic development. The NDP is not only discouraging foreign investment but forcing Canadian companies to leave Ontario. At a time when Ontario needs to focus its energies on economic recovery, this government is alienating the very means that will drive our economy out of the recession.

In summary, I would like to cite a recent quotation from the chairman of the Ford Motor Co of Canada which I believe illustrates the misgivings of the business community. The chairman stated that "not one NDP policy initiative is aimed at stimulating economic growth and competitiveness within the province. Frankly, entrepreneurs are afraid to invest or expand in Ontario."

ONTARIO STATISTICS

Mr Mills: I have just heard the member for Willowdale bleating about the race of business to relocate in the United States. They claim that we, the New Democrats, are driving people and business out of Ontario.

Canada's quality-of-life ranking has improved from sixth place in 1988 to second in 1990. In addition, life expectancy in Ontario is 75.5 years, while in the neighbouring US states the life expectancy is two years less. Our system of health care and the comparative safety of our cities are justifiably envied by our US neighbours. It would seem to me that we are doing something right in Ontario.

Household income within 400 miles of Toronto is greater than it is for Cleveland, Detroit, Boston or New York. Living costs in Ontario cities are generally lower than they are in the northeastern US cities. For example, the index of average living costs for Ottawa, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, London and Windsor is below that of Buffalo, Cleveland, New York and Boston.

Ontario and Ontarians do not deserve the doom and gloom and despair which the Liberal and Conservative parties constantly express in their desperate attempts to stick it all on us. Their conduct is absolutely disgraceful and diabolical, as well as being damaging to the province and to the people of Ontario.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Chiarelli: Yesterday I made a member's statement highlighting the Premier's failure to honour his commitment to the high level of ethical conduct promised in his throne speech. My statement yesterday was made on an issue not related to the current controversy surrounding the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, of which I was not yet aware.

On this new issue, let's look at the facts. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines accepted an invitation to attend an official function hosted by the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. While a guest of this association, she told other guests of the association, in an ill-tempered manner, that a Sudbury physician who has criticized the New Democrats for limiting doctors' incomes was about to be charged criminally for billing practices.

The minister has now admitted her remarks were without foundation and has apologized. By her conduct, the minister has demeaned an honourable citizen of Ontario, has demeaned the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, has demeaned herself, has demeaned the government and has demeaned the people of Ontario she was representing in her official capacity.

I ask the Premier, is the new rule "anything goes" as long as there is an apology?

1340

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Turnbull: Today I wish to describe the procedure for processing OSAP applications, according to people manning the MPP line in Thunder Bay.

First, the student applies to the financial aid office at the educational institution or through the Toronto downtown OSAP office. This application is sent to Thunder Bay for processing. Usually it takes two to three weeks to sort the applications. Next -- I assure you I am not making this up -- the applications are sent back to Toronto, where an outside contractor keypunches them. Then, on completion, the application goes back to Thunder Bay to be sent to the educational institution.

Several institutions have had to set up emergency fund systems to tide over students whose OSAP award has been delayed through this labyrinth for various reasons. This Rube Goldberg approach to processing OSAP applications may serve the government's goal of providing employment to postal workers, bureaucrats and contractors, but surely the talents and energy of our civil servants should be put to better use.

Only an NDP government could have OSAP really stand for "Ontario's stupid administration process."

LABOUR UNIONS

Mr Morrow: I rise today to respond to the National Citizens' Coalition's most recent campaign against unions. Their self-righteous campaign against big government and big unions is, as always, a very slanted view of the problem of picket line violence.

Without unions and their united approach to issues such as health and safety, collective bargaining and discrimination in the workplace, and real attempts to put rights back into the hands of workers, we might as well be living in the Dirty Thirties.

Of course, the National Citizens' Coalition denies the evidence showing that after Quebec introduced anti-scab legislation, picket line violence was reduced. No, this group is only interested in inflaming people against workers who are trying to negotiate a collective agreement.

I am happy to stand and support the workers of this province and the unions that represent them. I also endorse the discussions that will take place in the new year concerning the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Brown: On Thursday last I attended a meeting in Sudbury. It was a special meeting of the Sudbury Medical Association. The meeting was attended by about 200 people. There were physicians from Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie and North Bay. The presidents of the Canadian Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and the steel unions were there, as were municipal politicians, the Deputy Minister of Health, the MPP for Sudbury, the Conservative critic and myself.

We heard forceful presentations from the physicians describing the effect of the Ontario Medical Association/NDP rationing caps on doctors. We heard forceful representations on this unfair rationing to northern patients. You would be interested to know that this unholy OMA/NDP alliance effectively caps northerners' access to northern medical services at about 75% of what is allocated to southern Ontario.

The Minister of Northern Development was not at the meeting. The Minister of Northern Development was in Thunder Bay slandering a Sudbury physician, who at the very same time was addressing the meeting in Sudbury.

This is the third time this minister has shown bad judgement. This is the third time she has taken an inappropriate and counterproductive position to the people of the north. Three times and you are out.

VITAL STATISTICS REGISTRATION

Mr Tilson: In response to an order paper question asked much earlier this year, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations said that requests to the registrar general's office for certificates would be processed in six weeks from the date of postmark and that by August 9, 1991, requests marked August 1 were to be completed and mailed in an eight-day turnaround.

I do not know what to make of her statements, because I am continuing to receive numerous complaints from constituents about the length of time it takes to receive certificates. I am holding one particular letter in which the person had to wait five months, only to receive the wrong documents.

This is simply unacceptable. On October 30 the minister responded to a question by saying that the cause of the backlog was the previous government and it was not her responsibility. It is her responsibility. Members of the House have been drawing this matter to her attention since she became minister. I suggest that if she is incapable of meeting her responsibility and delivering this service to the people of Ontario in eight days as promised, the Premier should give us a minister who can deliver.

WENDY MURPHY

Mr Malkowski: It is my pleasure to introduce Ms Wendy Murphy, who is sitting in the public gallery today. She is one of my constituents from York East. Wendy won the 1991 National Research Council of Canada award in recognition of outstanding innovativeness in medical device technology. She invented the Weevac evacuation systems and stretchers.

With technical assistance from Ortech International, Ms Murphy developed the Weevac 6, a lightweight evacuation system that permits the transportation of six infants on one stretcher by two nurses. The Weevac 6 has been purchased by many hospitals in Canada and now many hospitals in the United States are interested.

Ortech employs 380 people and provided Ms Murphy with engineering assistance as well as fire testing and other evaluations of the materials in the Weevac 6. The province of Ontario, through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, provides Ortech with funding to invest in new areas of technology and to maintain its comprehensive range of capabilities.

I think Wendy is a good example of great innovativeness.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Members may wish to join me in welcoming to the members' west gallery this afternoon a former member of the House for Scarborough East, and indeed a former minister of the crown, Mr Edward Fulton. Welcome.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, may there be unanimous consent for all-party statements on International Human Rights Day?

The Speaker: Do we have all-party agreement?

Agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Mr Cousens: Today marks the 43rd anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a day to celebrate all the achievements made in human rights and to review all the achievements yet to be realized.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948. It was viewed as the first step in the creation of an international bill of human rights to have legal and moral force. The bill is a reality and provides the foundations to deal with civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

I quote from the declaration:

"This Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of member states themselves and among the people of territories under their jurisdiction."

Even after 43 years the words and meaning of the declaration still ring true. However, after 43 years the world is still struggling to solve all its human rights issues. For example, the Soviet Union, no longer one state but 15, must grapple with the individual and cultural rights of its peoples; the recent activities in Iraq have left the Kurds without protection; in Ireland, Catholics and Protestants, English and Irish, still continue to engage in terrorist activities; Jews in Syria are persecuted for their religious beliefs; South Africa still holds to the apartheid doctrine, and the Lebanese are still in a battle zone.

When do the violations of human rights stop, who stops them and why does it take so long? The United Nations is but one organization and the bill of rights is just the foundation. The call to action in the declaration is for education and teaching. The onus is on us to learn, to understand and appreciate the diverse cultures that make up this world.

Canada is part of this world, and in a recent Angus Reid poll a solid majority of Canadians, 60%, sensed that racism in this country has been increasing in recent years. Most cite a number of factors that contribute to the feeling, including tough economic times with high unemployment, increased immigration levels, failure of ethnic cultures to assimilate into mainstream society, lack of education in our schools regarding racial and cultural tolerance and racial discrimination by the legal system and the police. However, all those surveyed felt that government policies promoting multiculturalism were still one of the most effective ways to reduce racial barriers.

1350

To our credit, Canada has led the way in promoting the cultural mosaic model. This, I believe, is still a valid working model. It is a model that works with full participation not only of Canadians but of people from all cultural backgrounds in this country. Participation in the model must start first with ourselves. A close examination of our own feelings about our culture and that of others will help lay the foundation for tolerance and respect for others.

The education system must also be the breeding ground of tolerance, understanding and respect. Schoolyards must not be the breeding grounds for racial unrest and ill feeling towards minorities. Through education will come the understanding that we are all one people with a common goal, to better our society and grow as a people. As government members, we too must set an example for our constituencies, our province and our country.

Canada is a new country in terms of history. But as a new country we have the opportunity to lay our own foundations for a better understanding of differing cultures. We can also be the country to help mend the hard feelings and animosities that afflict other countries. We can demonstrate to all cultures that this country and this province will do all to help eliminate the old feelings of hate by setting an example of tolerance and respect.

As International Human Rights Week begins, I urge all of us in the Legislature to review our personal feelings and see how we can help increase the level of tolerance, respect and understanding towards all cultural communities. Through our participation, the goals set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be realized.

Hon Ms Ziemba: The United Nations formally adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 43 years ago. It has become a tradition in this place to reaffirm our province's commitment to the ideals found in that declaration. I am pleased to do so again today on behalf of our government.

One of the most significant parts of that declaration is that all persons should have the right to live free of discrimination. Let me quote from the first part of article 2:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

All too frequently events have served to remind us that we are still far from achieving these goals. Actions such as violence against women, the defacing of synagogues as recently as two weeks ago in Ontario and harassment and discrimination based on race, gender and/or sexual orientation are still prevalent in our society. These are all examples of human rights violations.

We should note that this year marks the fifth anniversary of the inclusion of sexual orientation in Ontario's Human Rights Code. The very fact that the Ontario Human Rights Commission continues to receive a high volume of complaints is significant. The fact that this government has to move forward with employment equity legislation, the Advocacy Act and an anti-racism strategy is indicative of how much further we have to go.

Recent reports of racist and sexist comments among elected members at the federal level and comments by elected officials attaching criminal intent to a particular racial or ethnic minority are indications that we, the elected leaders of our communities, still need to examine our own actions and thoughts.

Experience has taught us that during tough economic times racial intolerance grows. We are currently in an economic crisis and it is incumbent on us to ensure that these sensitivities are not harboured, let alone displayed. I urge all my colleagues in the House to lead by example.

Our government has led the country in acknowledging the inherent rights of self-government by the first nations. The statement of political relationship which was signed with the first nations last August is a significant beginning.

Over the past year we have witnessed many changes which are encouraging. There have been some changes in South Africa, as apartheid continues to break down. The Baltic states and other republics, including the Ukraine just recently in the Soviet Union, are reasserting their right to self-determination. Other nations in eastern Europe are embracing democratic ideals. These are all welcome changes.

Today I want to urge all members and indeed all Ontarians to reaffirm our commitment to the goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Each of us can make a difference.

Mr Curling: In 1948 -- just three years after the Second World War, when the world stood witness to its horrors and human degradation -- the member states of the United Nations pledged support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Forty-three years after the signing of that document, oppression continues; the suffering continues.

Today I want to speak about the silent victims, our children. Let me quote briefly from the text of the human rights declaration that we rise to speak of today. Article 25 of that document states, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care." Article 25 goes on to say that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance. "All children...shall enjoy the same social protection."

Ontario, despite the current recession, is still one of the most-well-off jurisdictions in the entire world. Yet thousands upon thousands of our children are living in poverty, often without access to some of the basics of life. More than 400,000 children in this province are on social assistance. There are 150,000 children using food banks. Many children go hungry every day, and child abuse, the physical violation of our most vulnerable, is still very real.

Members of every Legislature in every place on this globe should stand today and look inside themselves and ask themselves if they have personally done enough for the children of their jurisdiction. Our commitment to human rights demands no less.

Finally, let me take this opportunity to acknowledge today the persons with disabilities in their continued fight to win access to bus travel in Ontario. Surely the time has come to address this issue, and each year, as we stand up in Parliament and recognize this day, we know that right here at home we have some of the atrocities that are happening. We have a wonderful and beautiful country and a great province, and I ask us all as parliamentarians to set the example and redress these dire concerns.

1400

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Hon Mr Laughren: I rise to inform the House that we are releasing today the Ontario Economic Outlook document for the coming year. I am also pleased to advise members of the government's plans for consultations on the 1992 provincial budget, for which the Ontario Economic Outlook will provide valuable background information.

Ontario Economic Outlook has been designed to give Ontarians an appreciation of our economy's strengths and the challenges we face, sector by sector, so they can make considered and informed judgements about the priorities to be addressed through our province's fiscal activities. These judgements will be crucial as decisions are made leading to the 1992 budget.

Ontario Economic Outlook makes very clear many of the things the government has been saying for the past several months. It does contain some hopeful news. For example, economic projections for the next few years are for a comparatively moderate recovery. Annual growth is expected to reach 3.6% between 1992 and 1995, compared with the 6% averaged during the 1980s. Consumer spending, which dropped in 1991 due to the recession and the federal goods and services tax, is forecast to rise by 2.8% in 1992, owing to lower interest rates, improved housing and employment growth.

There should be growth in residential construction and in knowledge-based industries such as telecommunications. Growth in these industries is forecast to increase considerably faster than the economy as a whole to meet the rising demands for business modernization. So too will the business services sector, including banks and other financial institutions, finance and insurance companies, legal and accounting services.

However, most of the news is not very good.

We know the recent recession has hit Ontario harder than any other province. Between February 1990 and February 1991, 260,000 jobs were lost. Although Ontario accounts for 38% of the national labour force, the province accounted for roughly 80% of the jobs lost in Canada during this period. Thousands of those jobs are gone for ever because of plant shutdowns.

Over the same 12-month period, total output fell by more than 5% and employment dropped by 5.2%. For 1992, the unemployment rate in Ontario is expected to be approximately 9.3%. The pace of consumption growth in 1992 will be moderate, less than half that recorded in the 1984-86 period. The growth in retail sales will be considerably lower as a result.

Ontario's real trade surplus, which fell by an estimated $2.7 billion in 1991, is likely to decline further in 1992 as imports outpace exports. This is due mainly to the high Canadian dollar and the ongoing weakness of the United States economy. The figures suggest strongly that there will be very little let-up on our fiscal pressures.

I have said in this House and elsewhere that we must manage within an environment of reduced financial flexibility. We must take into account the very real pressures the recession has brought to bear on our economy. I will say at this time that my upcoming announcement of our government's funding plans for our major transfer partners will reflect this.

In these difficult economic and fiscal times, the budget takes on added importance. Revenue and spending decisions must, as always, be cast in light of the need to manage the economy, to help people cope with the after-effects of the recession and to generate the conditions necessary for economic renewal.

No matter how bad things look today, we must never lose sight of that last objective. As I have said many times before, this government's priority is to promote economic renewal through its policy initiatives and its sound fiscal management. That is why in the 1991 budget we laid out a medium-term fiscal plan which outlined the government's fiscal targets for the next three years. There are going to have to be some tough choices made if we are to meet those targets and we want the people of Ontario to help us make those choices.

For many years now the process of writing the Ontario budget has been shrouded in secrecy. There was very little information available to help people understand the challenges governments faced. This severely constrained meaningful consultation and broader public participation on key issues.

When this government was elected it made a commitment to a more open process and to an ongoing dialogue with the people of the province. We believe the discussions on the 1992 budget are an important way in which we can signal that we are honouring that commitment. We want to encourage as much participation as possible in making choices. Our government is committed to fuller, more democratic participation by Ontario citizens in the running of their province.

This year we are taking the first steps in moving away from exclusively one-on-one, closed-door meetings towards more meaningful consultations with entire sectors of the economy and towards providing more information to the public. I will be organizing in the coming months a series of roundtable discussions to bring together representatives of workers, employers and other organizations. In addition to hearing the participants' concerns, I want to hear their views on how the major economic and fiscal challenges facing the province should be managed.

Participants will have the opportunity to meet with both the officials of the individual ministries which administer their spending and also with those from Treasury. I will be joining these meetings as well. This will ensure that they can speak to, and be heard by, those government representatives who can address their needs.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Hon Mr Silipo: I am pleased to formally inform members of the House that the Council of Ministers of Education has agreed to undertake the national school achievement indicators program.

This agreement follows discussions with my colleagues the provincial and territorial ministers of education at a meeting of the Council of Ministers of Education over the last two days. The purpose of the discussions was to resolve Ontario's serious concerns about the proposed design of this program and its approach to evaluating provincial education systems. I am pleased to report that our concerns have been addressed and significant changes to the program have been accepted.

I wish to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the member for London Centre, in outlining Ontario's concerns, as well as the work done by Ministry of Education officials and my staff in arriving at the memorandum of understanding which formed the basis of the ministers' discussions yesterday.

The Council of Ministers of Education has agreed to base the tests on provincial curricula, ensure that the tests are free of cultural and gender bias and stereotyping, allow provinces to choose the test samples in ways that are sensitive to each province's demographic makeup, provide adequate time for provinces to consult with educators and other interested parties about the form and content of the tests, and include some examples of students' best term work as part of the assessment.

It is also important to note that Ontario, along with Quebec and Alberta, will become a member of the consortium that is developing these tests.

As Ontario takes up its role in the development of the national indicators project, I want to reassure all our stakeholders that they will continue to be involved in this process.

Ontario has always set its sights on two goals, accountability and the improvement of programs. An education indicators program only gives us accountability if it gives us clear, undistorted pictures of how we are doing in the crucial areas of reading, writing and mathematics. An educational indicators programs is only useful if it can help us find ways to improve the education we give our children.

We can now look forward to building a better, more accountable education system which I think will help to ensure a brighter future for all our children.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Hon Ms Ziemba: I rise in the House today on International Human Rights Day, the 43rd anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On a day when we remember those who are persecuted and oppressed for exercising their basic rights, we must also remember that progress remains to be made right here in Ontario.

I am pleased to tell my colleagues in the House that this government is moving ahead with the next stage of its plan to ensure the protection of human rights for all Ontarians.

In September, when I announced measures to clear the backlog of cases at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I also gave a firm commitment to review the Ontario Human Rights Code. Clearing the backlog of cases is absolutely critical to providing justice to complainants who have waited far too long. But the backlog is symptomatic of a more fundamental problem: outdated enforcement procedures that cannot respond to the increasing and complex cases of today.

I am therefore pleased to announce the creation of a task force to undertake an independent review of the procedures for the enforcement of human rights in Ontario, and to make recommendations for amendments to the code to ensure a fair and practical enforcement process.

I would like to introduce to the House today, if the opposition would like to meet her, the new task force chairperson, Mary Cornish. I am sure all of us know Mary Cornish as a lawyer, co-founder of Ontario's Equal Pay Coalition and long-standing human rights activist. We are very fortunate to have someone of her expertise and stature to head this review.

I will be announcing the other two members of the task force in the next few weeks. They will have six months to complete their review and provide me with a report of their findings, conclusions and recommendations by June 30, 1992.

1410

Over the last few months I have been consulting informally with a range of individuals and groups across the province on the reform of the Human Rights Code.

The informal process generated a lot of ideas and suggestions, but the top priority is the need for an overhaul of human rights enforcement procedures. There is also agreement that the code review must include consultation and liaison with the Ontario Human Rights Commission itself. In addition, interested sectors including equality-seeking groups, the legal and academic communities, business and labour must have their say.

The government recognizes there is also the need to review the protections guaranteed under the code, so while the task force completes its full procedural review, my ministry will look at certain substantive provisions of the code which may be out of step with the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights. We will also review the harassment provision to address its inconsistent limitations.

Reform of the Ontario Human Rights Code is long overdue. While we are firmly committed to seeking the broadest range of use, we are also mindful of the need to move ahead quickly. I believe we have balanced these needs by setting a short and challenging timeframe for the task force to undertake the review with community input and participation. I remind my colleagues of the other equity measures now under way in the Ontario government: the anti-racism strategy, pay equity, advocacy for vulnerable adults, employment equity, all of which are part of this government's strong commitment to social justice and equality.

Very briefly, I would also like to give the members an update on our plans for eliminating the backlog of our cases at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Staff have been hired to deal with the backlog. They have received intensive training and began their work on December 2, completely on schedule. So as we honour International Human Rights Day, let us also recommit ourselves to improving our own human rights picture right here in Ontario. With that shared sense of commitment, we can all look forward to the task force recommendations on how we can develop a more effective system for the enforcement of human rights in this province.

RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to respond to the Treasurer's announcement. First, a quick comment on the consultation process. Frankly, with all due respect, we are rather cynical about it. The Premier's Consultation Central Co-ordinating Committee four weeks ago announced that this would be a major part of his propaganda proposal, so this comes as no surprise.

In fact, he said on December 9 the Treasurer would be doing exactly what we see in the House today. On the substantive part of the announcement, I would say to the Treasurer that he has substantial fiscal woes. However, if we look at the economic indicators in his budget of April 23, on each of those the economy actually is doing better. It did better in 1991 than he said it would in his budget and every major economic indicator in 1992 says it will do better.

In terms of the fiscal woes he faces, it would be nice to blame it on the economy, but it is his mismanagement of the finances of the province that is causing the fiscal problem. There is no doubt about that if he looks at his budget and at the financial numbers in here.

On every single, major economic indicator the economy is doing better than the Treasurer said it would. There is no doubt we have to do a lot to get the economy rolling a lot better than it is rolling. Again, we would say to the Premier that every one of his economic proposals to get the economy going again that he spelled out for us, none of them take hold for at least six months. We do not think we can wait six months to deal with the unemployment levels. We hoped the Treasurer would announce some economic renewal plans to this House before we adjourn at the end of December.

On his fiscal problems, I will repeat what we said here before. This is not a problem with the economy in terms of his fiscal numbers, because the economy is doing better than he said it would in last year's budget on every single indicator. The problem right now is the Treasurer's inability to manage the finances. When he announces the transfer payments next week, I know he would like to blame the economy and say to all the transfer payment agencies that it is the economy that is to blame here. It is the Treasurer's inability to manage the fiscal scene.

I will look forward to some economic announcement to get the economy rolling. I would say that this is a major disappointment in the economic plan. We need an economic renewal plan before we adjourn the House at the end of December.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION / ÉVALUATION DES PROGRAMMES D'ÉDUCATION

Mr Beer: I rise to welcome, certainly, the decision by the Council of Ministers of Education to go forward with the national indicators program. Having said that, I know the Minister of Education would have to admit that his statement today is really nothing other than a public relations exercise. Indeed, we have lost in this country well over six months because of the intransigence of the present government in not being willing to proceed with this national system of evaluation.

The very issues that have been raised within the minister's statement today were ones that could have been dealt with in the normal process that had been started by the council of ministers. The real tragedy is that we have lost so much time. I would urge the new minister to make sure this process goes forward as quickly as possible so that we can have a national system in place that will provide meaningful assessment and meaningful evaluation.

Je pense qu'il est très important de dire au ministre qu'il est d'une importance primordiale de continuer d'assurer aux parents, aux étudiants, aux enseignants et à tout le monde qu'il y aura un vrai système d'évaluation ici au Canada.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Curling: I would like to tell members that this announcement by the minister is not without merit, but I want to be clearer to members by saying to them that this is not what we have asked for: a full and comprehensive review of the Human Rights Code.

The Ombudsman had written to the minister about the procedures and the backlog and the difficulties she had with regard to the Ontario Human Rights Code. She had to then forward this report to the Premier to get a response. Community groups have met with the minister and have indicated to her that they want a full, comprehensive review of the Human Rights Code. This is a patchwork, and I expect better from the minister. The community expects better from her. Must we now expect that we have to write to the Premier again to say, "Madam Minister, get on with a full, comprehensive review of the Human Rights Code"?

I want also to commend Mary Cornish for the appointment, but do not be bogged down by the frustration of lack of funds and lack of mandate and direction.

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mr Sterling: When we read the Treasurer's statement or hear the Treasurer's statement and he starts talking about the process, we know he is in real trouble. When the Treasurer refuses to confront the real problems and deal with the real numbers and starts talking about the budget process and how we can change that process, we know he is in real trouble.

This week we are going to be dealing with a change in how this Treasurer keeps the books. Not only does a change in the books not satisfy this Treasurer, but he wants to add more smoke and mirrors by producing an educational booklet to explain all his follies to the people of Ontario. So we not only have the normal smoke and mirrors that many new governments do by changing the books, but we have a new wrinkle to it with this Treasurer producing an educational booklet to explain away his deficiencies in taking care of the people of Ontario.

1420

I want to talk about the real numbers. Last year in his budget the Treasurer predicted that real growth in 1992 was going to be 3.4%. According to this document he has given us today, it is going to be 3.8%, 0.4% better than he predicted. Inflation was going to be 3.7%. According to this document, it is going to be 3%. So inflation is going to be lower than he predicted in his 1992 budget. The unemployment rate predicted in his last budget was going to be 9.7% for this province in 1992. Today we learn that his prediction is that it is going to be 9.3%. It is going to be better. There are going to be more people employed in this province.

This is a setup for the fall. What we have here is an admission by the Treasurer -- I am happy for the people of Ontario -- that things are better than he is painting them for the people of Ontario and that we can look forward to some growth and improvement in our economy next year.

First, I hope this statement means that the transfer payments he will announce to the hospitals, the schools and the municipalities will be fair to their needs, because he should have the money to transfer the appropriate amounts. Second, it should mean that he will be able to introduce a budget with no tax increases in 1992. Third, it should mean that we can look forward to a lower deficit than the $8.9 billion he has predicted.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mrs Cunningham: I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education and congratulate him, as I did yesterday in my statement, on his coming around to our position on the national school achievement indicators program. He usually congratulates us when we give him good advice but did not do that today. He is smiling and I accept his congratulations there.

I am very pleased that the teachers' concerns have been realized, because if it is based on the Ontario curriculum to a point -- I think that is a fair and great concern of the teachers -- we are happy that has happened. We are also glad that Ontario will be part of the consortium, along with Quebec and Alberta, developing the test, and so we should be, with the large majority of students in our province.

I am glad he mentioned that the main players, parents, students, school board trustees and teachers, will be involved in developing the instrument. It is very important.

On the last point, accountability is what this is all about. If members have not had a chance, they should look at the federal government's document Living Well, Learning Well, which would approve significantly of what the minister has done today. I bet we find out that we do have a core curriculum on literacy and numeracy skills in this country.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Cousens: What took the minister so long to announce a task force to look at human rights? The minister came out first and spent money on the problem, threw money at the wall, tried to solve it with $6.5 million which she announced on September 24.

I wish Mary Cornish success in this review. It needs a comprehensive review. It is unfortunate this New Democratic government does not stop and think first before it starts spending money. They do it the opposite way round and are just doing it wrong. At last something will happen. Good luck.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I invite members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a former member of the assembly seated in the members' gallery west, Mr David Smith, a former member for Lambton. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Mahoney: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. With regard to yesterday's discussion in this House, can the minister tell the people of Ontario why she accused the doctor in question from Sudbury of conducting criminal activities? Specifically why did she do it?

Hon Miss Martel: As I said yesterday -- I am not sure there is much more I can add, but I will go through it again -- on Thursday night in Thunder Bay I was involved in a very heated private conversation with a small number of people at a reception and during the course of that conversation, which was quite heated, I made some comments with respect to a matter which were not founded in truth.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Miss Martel: I have made every effort possible as an individual to contact those who were involved or affected by it, to speak to them directly about it, to tell them very clearly that the remarks were not founded and to ask them to accept my apologies. All of the people I have talked to personally have accepted my apology.

[Applause]

Mr Mahoney: Maybe we could just take the applause for granted. We were getting the same answer yesterday, and now we are getting it today. I did not ask what happened. I specifically asked why the minister did it. The minister's inability to answer this very straightforward question clearly raises serious doubts about her judgement and her ability to properly perform her duties as a minister.

Yesterday the minister herself admitted in the House that her allegations were, and I quote, "Unfounded, without bias, entirely without foundation and not true." Those were her words. If we accept this confession, can the minister tell us where she got the very specific idea that one doctor in Sudbury had willingly committed criminal acts and that he would be subsequently charged? These are very specific notions, and I ask her where they came from? How were these ideas developed, and does she really expect us to believe she simply fabricated them?

Hon Miss Martel: The remarks that were made were my own. They were not remarks made by anyone else. They were made by me during a very heated private conversation with a small group of people. They were unfounded. I have said that clearly in this House. I have talked to those who were involved in it and I have said that clearly to them. They were my remarks, no one else's remarks. I made them and I have apologized for them.

Mr Mahoney: The incorrect allegation of criminal activity is the most slanderous thing one person can say to another. This Premier would know that more than anyone in this House. For a minister of the crown to do this to a private citizen is even worse. This is a very serious matter and it deserves a very serious response.

Once again I ask the minister, simply and specifically: Where did she get this information and why did she use it?

Hon Miss Martel: I do not think there is anything else I can add. I have said very clearly to the member that the remarks that were made were mine and mine entirely. There is no one else who spoke. I said the words, I made the comments. I have said as clearly as I can to everyone in this House that there was no foundation to these remarks. I have talked to the people who were involved and explained that as clearly as I could to them so that no one else other than myself would be implicated. I made the comments, I accept responsibility for them, I have apologized for them.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Mahoney: I would go to her again, as the minister has suggested, but I am clearly not getting an answer so perhaps I will go to her boss and maybe he can give us an answer.

My question is to the Premier. The facts were obviously not in dispute. The actions of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines clearly show a lack of understanding of the responsibility of a member of cabinet and indeed of all elected officials in this place.

Ministers have a duty to serve and protect the public interest and also to act fairly towards the members of the public --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: If they want to heckle over such a serious matter, why do they not just listen and I will get to the question to the Premier? Maybe they will learn something.

Ministers have a duty to serve and protect the public interest and to act fairly towards all members of the public regardless of whether they agree with them. This minister has betrayed that trust. She has displayed a contempt and a very serious lack of understanding and judgement, and her apologies are simply not sufficient to absolve her of her responsibility for what she has done.

My question to the Premier is, what does he intend to do about this?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member that what has happened is that a minister of the crown, in the course of a private conversation, has said something she regrets. She has made it very clear to everyone she made a mistake. She has clearly indicated that. I say to the honourable member that is what has happened and that is what has taken place. The minister has proffered an apology to the House and an apology to everyone concerned. That is precisely what has taken place, no more and no less. That is what has happened.

1430

Mr Mahoney: The problem I have is I did not ask the Premier to give me a run-down of the events that took place. That is quite obvious. We have it in written documentation to the leader of the third party. It is all over the media, with the newspapers in Sudbury and Toronto and all over this province calling for the resignation of this minister. I do not need the Premier to tell me what happened.

I would like to very briefly read something into the record. "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist." That is from the November 20, 1990, throne speech of this government.

This minister has displayed not only blatant arrogance arising from her office, as referred to in the throne speech,, but has also clearly abused her ministerial power and the public's faith in the exercise of that power. Today the Premier has said the minister simply made a mistake for which she has apologized. Is this how the Premier keeps his promise to guard against arrogance and abuse of power by his government? Will he live up to the standards he personally has established and fire this minister?

Hon Mr Rae: I have also said on a number of occasions -- indeed I said it when the government was sworn in -- that it is important for people to admit to mistakes they have made. I have admitted to them. We have all made mistakes. If there is a member in this House who in the course of a heated exchange with someone else has not said something he or she subsequently regrets, let that member stand up and be as self-righteous as the members opposite are being.

Interjections.

The Speaker: With the co-operation of both sides of the House, the member for Mississauga West can place his final supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: Let me be clear. I was always under the impression in this place that the Premier had a monopoly on self-righteousness. I do not think he should be throwing those kinds of barbs over here. I have a list of quotes here that I do not have the time to read. Let me share one. "Propriety in the conduct of one's affairs at all times must be a characteristic of the actions of any member of cabinet and must be so perceived by the public." That is the now Premier in the May 29, 1989, Hansard. I could go on with those all day.

The Premier's failure to demand this minister's resignation sends a clear message to the public that no matter how his ministers abuse their authority or betray the public trust, their actions will simply be forgiven by him if they apologize.

On December 12, 1990, the Premier said in this House, "It is to be our governing principle that we must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government." His words.

Yesterday in this House a minister of the crown admitted she had lied. She admitted that at a public gathering, not a private meeting, she had made comments about a private citizen which, in her own words, were "unfounded and not based in truth." These comments, carrying the power of a minister, had very serious implications for the reputation and character of a private citizen of this province.

Given what the Premier has said about the importance of integrity and public faith in his government, how can he refuse to fire this minister who has acted with such a serious lack of judgement and integrity? Why did the Premier have a very clear understanding of the appropriate standards of conduct for cabinet ministers when he was in opposition but now sees it quite differently? Will the Premier live up to his own stated principles? Will he at least try to restore to the public some faith in the government and fire this minister?

Hon Mr Rae: The question that was contained in a long litany of argument from the honourable member was, what is the message one can learn? The message one can learn is that when mistakes are made, mistakes are clearly admitted. When he talks about public scrutiny, the scrutiny is here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I would just respond to the honourable member by saying, as I have, that in the course of a conversation the member said something she now regrets. I doubt very much whether there is a member in this House who has not had a conversation with somebody in the course of which he said something he subsequently wished he had not said. If it demonstrates that people are human and make mistakes and then apologize for them, then that seems to me a lesson and an indication one can draw from what has happened.

Mr Harnick: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: The Premier has alleged that in the course of private conversations -- I take it I was one of the people he was directing his answer to -- I have slandered people with whom I had been having a discussion.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member does not have a point of privilege.

Mr Eves: I have a question for the Premier as well. He has just said, in response to a question asked by an honourable member, that the minister in question just made an honest mistake. If the minister had made an honest mistake, we would accept her apology. By the way, that is what happened last June with the same minister. She made an honest mistake. We standing over here did not ask for her resignation at that particular time.

But this was not an honest mistake. A minister of the crown has admitted that she deliberately told a falsehood in order to emphasize a point in a discussion about government policy and in so doing knowingly smeared a physician's reputation. Is that the Premier's definition of an honest mistake?

1440

Hon Mr Rae: Neither the honourable member nor I were at the event in question. I would simply suggest to the member that as I understand it and as the minister has described it to me, there was a heated exchange with respect to a question and the minister said something which she clearly and uncategorically has apologized for.

I repeat my point to the member. People know that the minister is somebody who is doing a good job in the ministry. She has admitted that in the course of this conversation she made a mistake. She is subject to the scrutiny and to the criticism she is receiving in this House. I think it is very clear that the minister in question has shown herself to be somebody who is not afraid to admit when she has made a mistake and has made that apology very clear to people.

Mr Eves: I say to the Premier that I want to come back to the point, "made a mistake." I think it is very clear what happened here. We have a letter from Mrs Dodds which outlines what happened. To my knowledge, the minister has not disputed any of the facts as outlined in that letter. She stood in her place in question period yesterday and in scrums afterwards and confirmed that those are the facts as they are.

The fact of the matter is that the minister has admitted that for whatever reason, she fabricated this story. She has admitted that it was totally unfounded and untrue. She talked about a Sudbury physician and the possibility that he may be criminally charged for information she saw in his file, she said at the time, and now she is admitting that she made the whole thing up, that none of it is true and that she deliberately did that. Is that the Premier's definition of a mistake?

Hon Mr Rae: In the course of an argument: I think it is clear to everyone, and it is certainly clear to the minister -- she has indicated it very clearly in the House -- that she has seen no files and that it is not part of any allegation that has been made. She has seen no particular information and she has very clearly apologized to Mrs Dodds and to others for what she said.

Mr Eves: To the Premier again, because he today and the minister yesterday have talked about a private conversation, I want to make it quite clear to everybody concerned that the minister was acting in an official capacity last Thursday. There were some 80 to 100 people in attendance. As I understand the facts, in the little group in which the minister was discussing, arguing or debating -- whichever terminology you choose to put on it -- there were some four or five people. There was the minister, there was Mrs Dodds, there was Mr Dodds, there was another gentleman and there was an official from the Ministry of Health.

I do not know what the Premier's definition of a private conversation is, but she was at a public reception in her capacity as Minister of Northern Development. There were 80 to 100 people in the room. By her own admission, the discussion became heated and rather loud. At least four other people heard directly what she said, and who knows how many others around her heard what she said. There is nothing private about any of this. She was not having a private conversation. She was acting in her official capacity as a minister of the crown. Why can the Premier not see that and why will he not do the right thing?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member that I would think anybody who is sitting in this place would want to do the right thing. I think it would at least be open to the member to agree, even in the heated atmosphere of this House, that it is possible to have more than one opinion with respect to that question. Surely the member would at least admit the possibility that not all the right is over on that side and that not all the wrong and evil and terrible things are on this side. Surely we can accept the point that there is perhaps room for a difference of opinion.

In my opinion, the minister has indicated to the House that she is clearly sorry for what took place in the course of this conversation with Mrs Dodds. In my judgement, the minister's saying that, clearly indicating that, and her phoning and talking to people, indicate very clearly the kind of response that what has taken place has generated in this House and outside. I think it is fair to say that the minister has taken a lot of heat for this, as we all have. It is also fair to say there is room for a balanced judgement with respect to what happens when a minister of the crown makes a mistake in the course of a private conversation.

Mr Eves: I have a copy of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines in my hands. They are not quite a year old yet. It says under paragraph 4, fundamental principles, "Ministers shall at all times act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny."

The Premier's minister has done one of two things. She has either deliberately concocted a falsehood and smeared a doctor's reputation in the process or she has divulged confidential information that she should not have had access to in the first place. Either way, it would appear to me and to any objective observer that she has breached guideline 4 of the Premier's very own conflict-of-interest guidelines. Would he agree?

Hon Mr Rae: I do not know how much more I can add to what I have said, because it seems to me the --

Mr Harnick: Don't add anything. Answer the question you were asked. Do you agree or disagree?

Hon Mr Rae: I am answering it as clearly as I can. I say to the honourable member that the minister has apologized for what has taken place. She has clearly indicated to the House and to people outside and to everyone concerned that she is very sorry for what took place in the course of that conversation. This indication by the minister, in good faith in this House, in response to all the questions and all the things that have been said outside, is an indication of the scrutiny to which this government is subject.

There is no question about scrutiny. The question is the balance of the judgement that is being exercised on the conduct of a particular minister. The minister has apologized for a mistake she made in the course of a conservation she had with Mrs Dodds last Thursday night. She has made that apology and that is the balanced judgement which she and this government have exercised.

Mr Eves: This issue goes to the very integrity and credibility of government, and cabinet in particular. In his throne speech, the Premier said, "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and the respect of the people of Ontario."

The Minister of Northern Development has admitted she deliberately told a falsehood and an untruth and in the process slandered a physician's reputation. Does the Premier think this is earning the trust and the respect of the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I think admitting a mistake is earning the trust of the people of Ontario. I think admitting and recognizing a mistake has been made and accepting the fact that there are going to be criticisms and comments and that all kinds of things are going to be said is earning the trust of the people of Ontario.

I think being human and admitting that mistakes can happen and admitting them publicly, as the minister has done, is earning that trust, and having to earn it every day. I think that is the way the affairs of the province should be conducted. If the honourable member disagrees, that is fine. I do not besmirch his integrity for having a different opinion than mine on any subject.

Mr Eves: The entire issue here goes to the root of integrity of government. That is what we were talking about in this House yesterday and that is what we are talking about today. Again the Premier insists on categorizing the minister's actions as a mistake. I thought I had asked that question three or four times earlier to which I still have not received a direct answer.

I want to get this straight. A minister of the crown acting in her official capacity at a public reception in a room of 100 people says she deliberately concocted a falsehood about an individual because an argument became heated, said this physician was going to be subject to criminal charges and now admits that all of it was untrue and unfounded. The Premier is telling me this is a simple mistake, that all she has to do is say she is sorry. "That is good enough for me," the Premier says. Is the Premier going to rewrite his guidelines and say that saying "I am sorry" is a new standard of conduct by his cabinet ministers?

1450

Hon Mr Rae: Again the member has a perfect right, in his view, to characterize what happened in the way he does. I am only going to say to the honourable member that what took place, in my view, is that in the course of an argument which the minister was involved in with someone in Thunder Bay, the minister said some things which she now regrets having said, has very clearly apologized for that and has made it very clear she has apologized for that. I think that is a very clear indication of the sense the minister has and of the sense this government has with respect to what happens when you make a mistake.

As I said to the honourable member, and I will say it again, if there is anybody in this House who, in the course of many things, indeed in the course even of heated exchanges in this place, has not said things which he or she later regrets, I would like that honourable member to stand up.

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development. Today and yesterday, the minister's defence and explanation of what happened has emphasized that she made a mistake. She does not seem to understand the difference between a mistake and a deliberate falsehood. What is worse, the Premier has taken up the distinction the minister has given.

A mistake by any definition is something inadvertent or accidental. The minister made a mistake when she accidentally wrote improperly to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The present Minister of Housing made a mistake when, by accident, she released a name. Those people paid the price, and others too. The honourable member for Cambridge did not even actually make the mistake himself, he simply permitted others to make it, but it was a mistake for which he answered.

The minister has admitted --

Hon Mr Rae: You asked for an execution. The grounds for execution get changed, Ian.

Mr Harnick: You have no grounds for execution. You permit lying and slandering in your cabinet. I mean, just get down in the gutter and grovel.

The Speaker: Order. Before continuing, I would ask the member for Willowdale to consider not using intemperate language, and I would ask the co-operation of both sides of the House so that the member for St George-St David can place his question.

Mr Scott: I want to ask the minister if she thinks there is a difference between an inadvertent and accidental mistake and what she admitted yesterday was a deliberate fabrication of a false story. This story was told in the presence of city officials in Thunder Bay about a critic of the government and the implication was clearly that he was going to go to jail.

First of all, does the minister admit that there is a difference between a mistake and a total fabrication of that type, made up of whole cloth, as she conceded yesterday, and if there is, why did she tell it? Was it purely for political purposes?

Hon Miss Martel: As I have said repeatedly in this House, I made the comment. No one else put me up to it, there was no one else to blame but myself. I made the comment during what was a very heated discussion between a small group of people, very much on the outside of a reception, among a small number of people. The conversation was very heated and, in the course of that, I made comments which were not based on fact. I have no one else to blame for that but myself. I made the remarks. I have apologized for them.

Mr Scott: In light of that, I want to ask the minister if she can think of any good reason why anybody would ever believe her again.

Hon Miss Martel: I recognize I have made a mistake. I have done that in the past. Wherever else I may be in this government I may do so again. That is part of human nature. I have accepted responsibility for what I have done. I have apologized to those people. They have accepted my apologies in light of this. I regret the incident but it did happen. I have done everything I can to rectify the situation.

Mr Eves: I have a question to the Minister of Northern Development. She has said on several occasions and again today in the House that this was a private conversation. Would she mind telling us whether she was attending this function in her capacity as a minister of the crown or a private citizen? Who paid for her being there last Thursday, herself or the ministry?

Hon Miss Martel: On Thursday last I was at a number of functions in a ministerial capacity. The function at which this took place was a mining function. It was a reception. I was there with members from the ministry to meet people who are clients of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

Mr Eves: The minister should correct me if I am wrong. She was at a reception. She was there as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. She got into a discussion which became very heated about government policy. She chose to defend the government policy by, if we are to believe her story, which we do, making up a story about a physician. She said that physician may be charged criminally as a result of what she had seen in government files. She is standing in her place today and saying: "This was just a mistake. I'm sorry, I apologize, and that's the end of it."

Is that what she really expects the people of Ontario to accept from her in her capacity as a minister of the crown? All she owes to the trust and integrity of her office is to offer "a mistake" for a deliberate falsehood that she concocted and that slanders an individual's reputation?

Hon Miss Martel: As I said earlier, I made a mistake. I recognize I have done that. I have admitted it. I have made every effort I possibly can to talk to the few people who were directly involved in the conversation or implicated by it. I have made it absolutely clear to them that the remarks I have made were unfounded and not based in fact. I have offered them all my apologies. All of them have accepted that. I have done the best I can to rectify the situation.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Ms Carter: My question is for the Minister of Health. Certain recent media reports have alleged that the Ministry of Health's new policy for payment of out-of-country health services has no status in law. Basically the report suggests that any Ontario resident who does not receive full payment for medical treatment outside of the country can appeal his claim to the health services board and have an excellent chance of winning the appeal.

Can the minister explain to this House how such an allegation can be made and whether it has any basis in fact?

Hon Ms Lankin: I certainly was surprised when I was informed that this kind of a statement had appeared in the press. I should indicate that the individual who made the statement is an ex-employee of the ministry. It surprises me, therefore, that he would be of that opinion. I went back to check with legal officials within the ministry to be sure of the state of affairs. I want people to know that our reading of the legislation and the sections under regulation 452 clearly sets out that when a person receives treatment in a hospital outside Canada, some or all may be paid for as determined by the general manager of the OHIP services.

The regulations set out the amount which can be paid. We believe it is entirely within the legal authority of the government to be able to set this kind of policy, and we think it is unfortunate this kind of remark would have been made public and might lead people to the wrong conclusion.

1500

Ms Carter: I am sure the minister is aware that this allegation may lead some Ontario residents to believe that OHIP will pick up the tab for all health care costs incurred while outside Canada. My constituency of Peterborough has many senior residents, as well as others, who may decide to travel outside Canada this winter. I am worried that some of my constituents may leave the country without adequate insurance coverage. Can the minister again outline for this House the new payment policy for out-of-country care expenditures?

Hon Ms Lankin: I appreciate the opportunity to outline it again for people, because I think it is important that people not be misled or given some sense of comfort by the process of that kind of discussion in the newspaper about whether or not there is a legal basis for this policy. My advice is simply that people must take out their insurance if they want that kind of protection.

The policy that is in place is that if someone is travelling in the United States and requires emergency services, or chooses to have elective services there that do not have prior approval from the Ontario government, the hospital will be reimbursed at the same rate that is paid here in Ontario, a per diem rate that has been established. If someone has a requirement for treatment that is unavailable here in Ontario in a timely fashion, and seeks prior approval and that is granted, then the full treatment will be paid for. But people travelling down to Florida and travelling on holidays are best advised to get health insurance in addition to the OHIP coverage.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Conway: My question is to the Premier. I want the Premier to help me to understand his standards of conduct and how they are being applied to his now 14-month-old government. Over the past number of months, we have seen this Premier fire the members for Fort York, Welland-Thorold, Cambridge and Peterborough from the executive council for a variety of reasons, and in the case of the member for Fort York for what appears to be a very internal reason. We have seen the Premier fire as well the member for Lincoln from the Chairmanship of a legislative committee in recent days apparently because the member for Lincoln dared to vote against a tax bill.

In light of those precedents and in light of the clarion call of his throne speech last November, and the conflict guidelines so eloquently read into this chamber by my friend the member for Parry Sound, my question to the Premier is, how is it that he can sustain in cabinet, and defend in this place, a ministerial colleague who at the very least knowingly went to a public place and in her ministerial capacity impugned the integrity of an Ontario physician?

Hon Mr Rae: Setting aside the totally partisan nature of his introductory comments, which simply have to be set aside, I say to the honourable member in response to his question about the honourable member for Sudbury East, whom he has known and whom I know very well to be a person of ability and integrity -- he knows that perfectly well -- that what happened was that in the course of a conversation the member for Sudbury East, the Minister of Northern Development, said something to someone else which she regrets having said. She said it in the course of a heated exchange. She has subsequently apologized for anything she has said. I think that is a fairer characterization than the one the member has given to what has taken place.

Mr Conway: As a number of previous speakers have rightly observed, the facts of this case are not in dispute. I for one have listened over the last nine and a half years to the now Premier go on at great length in countless opportunities around the fundamental question of public standards, particularly as applied to a cabinet. This Premier has said repeatedly, eloquently and passionately that at the end of the day it is a matter of prime ministerial will and guts.

I put the question again. Having fired the member for Fort York for God knows what, having fired the member for Lincoln for having the backbone to stand up and oppose a tax bill, how is it that in light of his throne speech and in light of these codified conflict-of-interest guidelines, this Premier can continue to sustain in cabinet and defend in this Legislature a ministerial colleague who went to a public place in the discharge of her ministerial responsibilities and admittedly smeared the integrity of an Ontario physician?

Hon Mr Rae: The member says he has listened to me for nine and a half years. The pleasure is entirely reciprocal, I can assure the honourable member, in terms of my having listened to him for nine and a half years as well.

I listened to the question carefully, and all the partisan stuff at the beginning I just set aside. The member is asking me a question about how I characterize what has happened and how I am exercising my judgement. I am giving the honourable member the clearest answer I possibly can. In the course of a heated exchange -- I have heard the honourable member and I have heard others in this House say things. Certainly I have said things I subsequently regretted having said. I suspect others have said them as well. I doubt very much whether a week or a month goes by when most of us do not regret something or other we have said to someone else and say, "Oh, my goodness; I wish I hadn't said that."

I want to say to the honourable member that is what has taken place. The honourable minister has clearly apologized to the House and to the people in question. I think it is fair to say that she has now subjected herself, as inevitably happens, to the scrutiny of the House.

Mr Eves: I have another question for the Minister of Northern Development. How is it that this discussion at this reception took place on Thursday, December 5, if I understand the facts correctly, and she got around to apologizing on Sunday, December 8?

Hon Miss Martel: The discussion certainly took place at a reception I was at. The remarks that were made during a private conversation were made public by the individual the member has been dealing with on Friday afternoon. At that point in time, certainly my staff contacted the woman in question to say very clearly that the remarks I had made were not founded and that the remarks I had made should not be repeated, because they would cause even more trouble in the sense of implicating someone who had no right to be implicated.

On Sunday, when I returned from my tour in northwestern Ontario, I spoke to the woman in question herself and the other parties who were involved or implicated to say to them very clearly two things: that the remarks I made were unfounded and not based on truth and that I would appreciate it if they would not be repeated to a broader, public audience because enough damage had been done.

Mr Eves: I want to quote from Mrs Dodds's letter of December 9, page 2: "On Friday, December 6, I was at a Canadian law and medicine conference in Toronto on the subject of the freedom of information act, and I asked Dr MacMillan of the Ministry of Health how it was that the Minister of Mines had seen a physician's confidential file." In the next paragraph she says: "On Saturday, December 7, Ms Martel's assistant, MaryLou, called me at my home in Thunder Bay to ask me not to repeat the conversation I had had with Ms Martel. I did not agree to remain silent."

Could that be how it is that on December 8 the minister, some three and a half days later, got around to apologizing for, as the Premier describes it, the mistake, as she has admitted, the deliberate slander and falsehood of a physician? Why did she not just apologize right there on the spot? Why did she not apologize the next day? Why did she have her assistant phone on Saturday and try to hush Mrs Dodds up? Why did she not do the right thing, if she thought an apology was appropriate, and do it right then? How is it that it took her three days to get around to realizing that what she said was false and untrue and that she should apologize?

1510

Hon Miss Martel: My assistant called Mrs Dodds for two reasons: First, she called her to inform her very clearly that the remarks I had made in a private conversation with her were not founded in fact. Second, she certainly did ask Mrs Dodds not to repeat the remarks because the remarks were unfounded. Clearly she felt there was nothing to be gained by having unfounded remarks repeated to a larger public audience.

When I returned from my travels -- I had a number of meetings booked and I was travelling a great deal across northwestern Ontario -- on Sunday morning after I flew in from Thunder Bay, I sat down and talked not only to Mrs Dodds but to the others who had been involved or implicated. I assured them the comments I had made were not founded in fact. I also asked them not to repeat it to a broader public audience because it was my feeling at the time that the situation was bad enough and would not get better by having other people involved in that conversation.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Hansen: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister knows, a number of constituents in my riding and in the riding of my colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock are involved in the grape-growing and wine-producing industry. Early indications are that 1991 was an excellent year for the grape growers and for wine production. Can she tell us how Ontario wines are faring in the provincial marketplace today?

Hon Ms Churley: I am pleased to be able to have the opportunity to answer this question. I know it is of importance to the member for Lincoln, as to all members in the House. It is a very important Ontario industry. I think everybody here knows that it has been a great year for the Ontario grape crop. My ministry has worked hard with the industry to promote Ontario wine and I am happy to say that the volume sales of Ontario wine jumped an incredible 11.5% from mid-September to mid-October compared to the same period last year.

Mr Hansen: Overall wine consumption in the province is decreasing. How do these increases in Ontario wines fit in with this overall decrease?

Hon Ms Churley: It is true that imported wine sales have decreased by about 4%, but the sale of Ontario wine has actually increased 1.2% over the past year. This in turn means that Ontario wines are close to capturing half the provincial market at this time. This is indeed very good news for the local grape-growing and wine-making industries and in fact to the people they employ.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Premier. Would he be good enough to tell the House when he or his office first had a report about the remarks made by the Minister of Northern Development, and when he first had occasion to discuss it with her?

Hon Mr Rae: I am going by recollection. In terms of the events of the last two days, it was either Sunday or Monday -- I think it was Sunday -- and the first time I talked about it in any detail with the minister was today, though I had discussed it with her very briefly earlier. Today was the first time I had an opportunity to discuss it with her at any length.

Mr Scott: In the course of that discussion, did the Minister of Northern Development admit to the Premier that she had lied and had slandered this doctor?

Hon Mr Rae: In the course of the discussion the member and I had today, I asked the minister directly about the statements that had been made in the House and elsewhere about the statements she made about a doctor in Sudbury, and whether she had made those statements, and without getting into any of the details, she said that she had responded to some questions about this particular doctor. She indicated that the statements she had made were ill-advised and that she regretted having made them.

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development. Has the minister ever been told by anyone that charges are being considered against a Sudbury physician?

Hon Miss Martel: As I said earlier, the comments I made were not founded in truth. I have accepted that. There was no one who told me anything. There was no one who set me up. There was no one in fact to blame but myself for the comments which I made.

Mr Runciman: This stonewalling effort is going to backfire against this government because we are not going to let go of this. I want to tell them that right now. I am going to repeat the question. Has the minister ever been told by anyone that charges are being considered against a Sudbury physician?

Hon Miss Martel: Again I have made it as clear as I can to the House that the comments I made that are now a matter of public record were unfounded and not based in truth. That is the beginning and the end of what I can say. I made the comments. No one else made them for me. No one else is to blame. I made the comments.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Perruzza: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister is aware that Ingersoll-Rand Canada Inc is closing its Downsview plant at the end of December. This will result in the loss of over 149 jobs in my community. The minister knows the leading-edge technology in paving equipment was developed at the Downsview plant and the closing will mean both the jobs and the technology will be lost to Ontario for ever.

It is less than three years since Ingersoll-Rand, a multinational corporation, bought Allatt Paving, a privately owned Canadian company, and the workers have been unable to get any information from Investment Canada about the understanding entered into with Ingersoll-Rand to protect the jobs and technology.

Keeping this information from the workers and their families seriously undermines the workers' confidence in the federal government. What can the minister do to provide information about that agreement and restore some of the workers' confidence in Brian Mulroney's government?

Hon Mr Philip: That was not one of my objectives, but I can tell the member that my staff have been in contact with Investment Canada in this case. However, the specific terms of the company's agreement with Investment Canada are confidential and cannot be revealed to any other individual or body.

I can tell the member the company states that the current economic conditions in the construction industry, namely, poor sales, have caused losses at this facility. The company also states that this move will help maintain the long-term future of its other operations in Ontario, and that is why it has taken this move.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development. I have to say that the minister's repeating her mantra in an evasive way to the member for Leeds-Grenville threatens to make this situation a good deal worse than it is now. The question we want to ask the minister is, and I believe she has an obligation to answer not only to the House but to the public, was the minister told by anybody that an investigation was under way against a Sudbury doctor that might lead to criminal charges?

Hon Miss Martel: I made it clear to the members in this House, to the public and to the people who were affected or implicated by this action that the comments I made to them on Thursday night during a private conversation were unfounded and were not based in fact.

Mr Scott: The honourable minister is getting herself into very serious trouble if she cannot answer this simple question. Was she told by anybody in government that an investigation was under way against a Sudbury doctor that might lead to criminal charges? The minister has got to answer that question to protect herself and the rest of us.

Hon Miss Martel: I will repeat again, the comments that I made were entirely my own. I made them. I have said very clearly to the people who were involved or implicated that the comments I made myself were my own. They are not based on truth. They were unfounded, but they were my own comments and no one else's.

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Premier. Apparently the Premier told the media yesterday that he would not accept or consider accepting the minister's resignation, but he said in the House a few minutes ago in response to a question that he only talked to the minister at length about this issue today. How could the Premier have made up his mind yesterday when he talked to her about the issue today?

Hon Mr Rae: No information which I heard from the minister today in any sense contradicted what I had been advised earlier. It is as simple as that.

1520

Mr Eves: I really find it hard to comprehend how the Premier could have made up his mind about this issue yesterday and then stand in this House today and tell everybody he just had a lengthy discussion with the minister about this entire matter. I do not see any consistency in that whatsoever.

During the course of the Premier's conversations with the minister, either the extremely brief one he thinks happened on Sunday or his lengthy discussions today, has the minister at any time suggested to him either verbally or in writing that she offer her resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: No, and I did not ask for it.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Ms Haeck: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. There has been some interest expressed in my own riding -- in fact, I believe all Niagara caucus members have received a letter from a St Catharines person -- about the negotiations relating to Piper Aircraft. I would like at this time to ask the minister to apprise the House of how those negotiations are going.

Hon Mr Philip: My staff and I have reviewed the very extensive documentation provided by the company and Mr Eaton. I spoke to Mr Eaton this morning and assured him that both the Premier and I are interested in exploring possible actions that can be taken by this government, if the company is viable, to have it located in Ontario.

Mr Eaton expressed considerable comfort in our conversation and I asked, since we still had a number of questions that arose from the documentation we were studying, if he would be open to my deputy minister, Mr Tim Armstrong, our agent general, Mr Carl Masters, and Mr Peter Tanaka from my staff, visiting with him to see whether some of our outstanding questions could be answered. Arrangements have been made for these people to travel to Cleveland on Friday when we hope some of our questions will be answered.

My role as minister is to ensure that any purchase taken by our government takes into account value for money, and we intend to make sure our purchase is a wise one.

The Speaker: If I could have the attention of the members for a moment: While I recognize that the minister in his lengthy response prevented one of his colleagues from placing a supplementary, at the same time, for the first time, we have had 17 questions in today's question period and that for us is a record.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I would invite all members of the House to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a former member of the House and indeed a former minister of the crown, a former member for Oakville, Mr Jim Snow, seated in the members' west gallery.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1991

Mr Christopherson moved first reading of Bill Pr118, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

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 loi 143, Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

The Speaker: Just a few hours later, we resume with the member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: I recognize that yesterday I first started to speak late in the day -- I think at about 11:30 in the evening -- and had a brief 30 minutes to talk about a matter and an issue which is of extreme importance specifically to the residents in my riding of Mississauga North, but indeed and in fairness to the people of the city of Mississauga and the regional municipality of Peel. I think what is becoming quite evident is that the various aspects contained within Bill 143 are of extreme importance and concern to everyone in this province.

As we recall some of the discussion yesterday, I think on a number of occasions there were allusions made to the landfill site in Britannia. Let me remind everyone that the Britannia landfill site, to which so many members have alluded, is in fact located in my area of Mississauga North. It is in the middle of a growing community. Many thousands and thousands of people live around that area.

Let me talk briefly about some of the history of Britannia, because what we are talking about in Britannia is not something that might happen a few years in the future. We are talking about an issue which is imminent, which is happening right now, as I speak. The Britannia landfill site has been the landfill site for the regional municipality of Peel for a number of years. It has a certain capacity, "capacity" meaning the amount of fill that is able and planned to go into that site.

There was an agreement entered into by the municipalities and the region that when Britannia reached its capacity, the next landfill site would be in the city of Brampton. That was an agreement that had been entered into many years ago. It had been entered into by the municipal politicians. It had been entered into, with full understanding and knowledge, at the very grass-roots level of future planning requirements and of the growth of a very large area. So we had, many years ago, the Britannia landfill site created on the understanding that it would have a certain capacity and that when it reached its capacity, the next regional landfill site would be in the city of Brampton.

1530

To those people who are following this debate both in this Legislature and on TV, that is understandable. That just happens to be an example of a municipality dealing with an issue and a challenge and recognizing what the issue and challenges are going to be, not only of the day but also 10 and 15 years down the line. That is what they did, and I think we all recognize that and that many members would applaud that type of forward thinking.

Here we are closing 1991 and the Britannia landfill is in fact reaching its capacity. It is anticipated that the Britannia landfill site will reach its capacity probably around June or July 1992. So we are talking about, in approximately six months' time, the Britannia landfill site reaching its capacity. To be specific, if the Britannia landfill site were symbolized as a garbage can, it would reach the top of the can in about six months' time.

There was an agreement that when that is filled the next landfill site would be in Brampton. Clearly it was found that before a new long-term site could be located, could be arrived at, Britannia would reach capacity. So there was a dilemma. The dilemma is, what is the government going to do when Britannia reaches its capacity and it does not have yet in place a long-term landfill site?

Hon Mrs Grier: What would you do?

Mr Offer: I am glad I heard the Minister of the Environment say "What would you do?" That is quite interesting, because in fact what was done by the previous government in June, just prior to the calling of an election, was to grant an exemption under the environmental assessment hearing so that the regional municipality of Peel could conduct a hearing for an interim site under the Environmental Protection Act. What would that do? That would allow the regional municipality of Peel, when Britannia reaches capacity, to have another site in place after hearings through the Environmental Protection Act so that the regional municipality of Peel could dispose of its garbage on an interim basis until a long-term site was selected, approved and in place.

That exemption under the Environmental Assessment Act permitting hearings under the Environmental Protection Act was granted in June 1990. In the ensuing election of July and August 1990, the then Leader of the Opposition and the now Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, made a promise to the people of this province. They promised there would be no expansion of any existing landfill sites such as, for example, Britannia, without a full environmental assessment hearing.

They were saying to the people of the province: "Vote for me. Vote for my party and we give you our word. We promise there will be no expansion of any site without a hearing." I think that in some measure people responded to that. They said: "Bob Rae is saying that. Ruth Grier is saying that. Surely they would not" -- I do not know what the parliamentary word for lie is -- "say something that isn't true."

I see the honourable parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour cast some looks and glances my way. The fact of the matter is, I would never use such a word, but I want to know what it means.

Ms S. Murdock: No, but you would imply it.

Mr Offer: Nor would I even imply it, as the parliamentary assistant is suggesting. I was just asking what word could be used when a leader of a party, in the names of the Premier and the Minister of the Environment, says there will not be an expansion of an existing landfill site without a hearing and then an existing landfill site is expanded without a hearing.

I do not know what it means when you say one thing during an election and then, when people have responded to your promise, you do something else. I do not know what the word is that would be parliamentary. I can only think what the word is, but I do not believe in using that type of language in this Legislature.

However, what we have is the Britannia landfill site which is nearing completion. The Minister of the Environment of the previous government gave an exemption under the environmental assessment hearing so that an interim site could be proceeded with, with hearings under the Environmental Protection Act, pending a long-term site selection and having that in place.

The election proceeds and a new government is formed. What does this Minister of the Environment do? Can we imagine? We in the region of Peel have already set down hearings under the Environmental Protection Act to be slated and started in February 1991, almost a year ago. That is when the hearings would be started to approve an interim site.

What does the Minister of the Environment do? The Minister of the Environment takes away that exemption. Basically she says, "There will be no hearings under either the Environmental Assessment Act or the Environmental Protection Act." She stood in her place over a year ago and said: "All hearings in terms of the expansion of the Britannia landfill site and a new interim site are off the table. I know what I promised, but that was during an election."

Now what we are left with is a landfill site filling up, reaching capacity this coming June or July, without any interim site because the Minister of the Environment has stopped that process, without any long-term site because the minister has stopped that process and without any public hearings because the minister has stopped that process. We are left with one thing. We are left with an order by the Minister of the Environment that Britannia will be expanded. For how many years we do not know, but it will be expanded.

The question is, will it be expanded with hearings? Will people who want to input into such a decision be able to input into this decision? Will there be any consultation? The answers to those three questions are all no: no hearings, no input, no consultation. We are left with the heavy hand of the Minister of the Environment and her saying Britannia is going to be expanded.

It does not matter what agreements were entered into by local and regional municipalities. It does not matter what the official plan calls for. It does not matter what the local bylaws call for. It does not matter what the requirements are under the Environmental Assessment Act. It does not matter what the requirements are under the Environmental Protection Act. It does not matter what the requirements are under the Regional Municipality of Peel Act. It does not matter because the minister is saying, "My order, my bill, dictates that this site expand." We are left with actions by the minister which are taking away from local municipalities their responsibility, their right and their obligation to plan.

1540

The people in my area ask the question, "How come? What is it that made her do something when she had promised and the Premier had promised something absolutely opposite in the election? What is it?"

They say: "We have some questions. We have some comments. We want to talk about what it means to our community. We want to talk about some of the concerns we have about how our community is going to grow, about our children. We have some issues that we want to talk to the minister about because it was the minister who made the order. Can we have a meeting with the minister?"

The people viewing this procedure in their homes would say: "It's obvious the minister would of course speak to the people who are going to be directly affected by her actions. Surely she would not refuse to meet with people's concerns about their community and about the extension of the site." In fact the minister has refused.

They talk a mighty stick about consultation. They talk a mighty stick about speaking to people about issues that affect them. The fact of the matter is that when there is an issue that directly affects people, this government just goes into its bunker. The Minister of the Environment could not be pried out of her office to take a little drive or be driven, as the case may be, down the QEW, up Highway 427, across Highway 401, down Highway 10, a total of 15 minutes from her riding, to meet with a couple of concerned people about their area. She could not find the time. Do not ever let anyone in the government talk about how they consult, because it just is not the truth. It is just totally false.

The minister has refused to meet with the people. So delegates from the ratepayers' associations -- and I mention some names: the Steve Gallants, the Ray Skyvingtons, the Natalie Earlys, the Bill Gales of Mississauga -- say: "We will meet with her privately in her constituency office. We even understand the fact that maybe she doesn't want to get before the glare of the media and, God forbid, defend her position. Ho, my goodness gracious. Defend her position? We don't expect she will do that, but will she meet with us privately in her constituency office, because we truly care about our community?"

What does the Minister of the Environment say? She says no. She is not going to meet with them. What do they do? They write a letter to the minister. The people who are directly affected by this write a letter. They receive a response. The response comes from Jim Merritt, the regional director.

Residents, citizens of Ontario, write a letter of deep concern to the Minister of the Environment about an action she has taken, and they receive a letter that starts off, "The Honourable Ruth Grier has asked me to respond to your letter of October 22, 1991, and to the attached petition by area residents regarding the Britannia Road landfill site." A petition, may I add, that included thousands of names.

The people in the area did not want a letter from Jim Merritt. I am sure he is a very capable individual but they did not want a response from him. They did not write the letter to Mr Merritt. They wrote the letter to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of the Environment saw fit to say, "Oh, Britannia landfill site: Mr Merritt, would you please respond to these people?" This is totally unacceptable, totally irresponsible. I would almost use the word "deceitful," but I would not. I know it is not parliamentary.

It goes on to say that "the government had no choice when it announced that the regional municipality of Peel must expand the Britannia Road landfill site as an interim solution to the waste disposal crises facing the region." Let me repeat that: "the government had no choice."

If the government had no choice when it made that announcement over the major regional landfill site in the regional municipality of Peel, do members not think the Minister of the Environment would at least meet with the municipal politicians, the mayor of Mississauga and the chairman of the regional municipality of Peel, to explain why she had no choice but to expand it? There is a difference of opinion that comes from people who have been involved in waste management, I dare say, long before the Minister of the Environment.

These are people who have seen not only the issues of today, but years ago saw where we were going to be today. What did they do? They took action. We have waste management updates from the region of Peel. We have the region of Peel discussing the whole issue of composting: how to make your own composter, how to use it and why you should use it. We have messages by the regional municipality of Peel to the children dealing with the whole issue of the environment. We have waste management issues by Peel region dealing with the stage 1 results of long-term landfill studies many years ago.

They were dealing with the issue. They knew the position they were going to be in today. The Minister of the Environment could not be convinced. Shame on that minister when she said she had no option, because people were telling her last year, and months before that, that she had choices. She did not listen and for that she is saddled with an issue and a crisis of her own making.

We can go on with other areas. We can talk about the work done by the regional municipality of Peel in waste minimization. Does that not sound suspiciously close to the objectives the Minister of the Environment professes to be the author of? She is not the author of waste minimization in this province. She is building upon initiatives started by a great many other people. A lot of those people are found within the Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon and the regional municipality of Peel. For her to think she is high and above those who have devoted their lives to this issue is disgraceful.

Here we are talking about that aspect of Bill 143, part III, which gives the teeth to that ministerial order. It puts the wheels on the truck that runs roughshod over the decisions made by local governments. It runs roughshod over her previous pronouncements of the importance of public consultation. It runs roughshod over the promises made by the Premier in the previous election.

I wish the member for Durham West was in the House today. During last night's debate we should recall that the interim site that was to be selected was known as site 6B in the city of Brampton. During discussion last night, the member for Durham West blurted out as an interjection that the government had received a lobby to get site 6B off the table.

1550

What was that lobby? What was said to the government prior to its making the decision? It was certainly nothing that was shared with members in this Legislature, though the actions of this government in terms of ministerial statements would not be surprising, because it does not make them. But what was the lobby the member for Durham West referred to in interjection, that there was some sort of lobby by some individuals made to the Minister of the Environment to stop the interim proceedings directed to site 6B?

Is that how a Minister of the Environment operates? Is a Minister of the Environment prompted by political considerations or by environmental considerations? We want to know those answers. What we have is a Minister of the Environment who has a bill that she puts on some sort of pedestal as the most far-reaching bill that has ever been devised in the history of Ontario, probably of the universe.

Mr Huget: Absolutely.

Mr Offer: There are members on the government side who say "Absolutely." Let me ask the viewing audience, why then would the Minister of the Environment not stand in her place in this Legislature and make a ministerial statement? Why would she not stand in her place and say, "Mr Speaker, I have a statement today on the environment that is one of the most far-reaching types of initiatives ever conceived in the province"? Does the Minister of the Environment make that statement? She does not. She does not make a statement in this Legislature about this bill. Then how does the bill come before the Legislature?

At the end of routine proceedings -- I know you are well aware of the procedure, Mr Speaker -- after question period and petitions, when members are filing out, there is the call for introduction of bills, a seemingly routine call, and who stands up in her place quietly, without any fanfare? It is the Minister of the Environment, almost whispering the introduction of Bill 143 into this Legislature.

I have said this before and I will say again that if it were unparliamentary to whisper bills into this Legislature, she would have been thrown out. She was afraid to make a ministerial statement. She was afraid to alert the Legislature that she was going to be introducing this bill. She was afraid to talk to us about what this bill contained and what its impact would be, and to this day is afraid. To this day we have only heard from the government: "Why the need for public hearings? Why would people be concerned about talking to a legislative committee on this bill and what it means to them?"

The fact of the matter is that there are people, not just in my area of Mississauga North but across this province, who want to talk about all the aspects of Bill 143. They see problems with all the aspects of Bill 143. They have many concerns with it, and the Minister of the Environment has the gall to stand up and whisper a bill into this Legislature and then say outside the Legislature, with a scripted news release, "This is one of the most far-reaching bills that has ever been introduced in the province of Ontario."

The fact of the matter is that no one believes her. No one believes someone who says in an election, "No expansion of an existing landfill site," and when she has received the votes expands an existing landfill site without any public hearings. No one believes a minister who says: "I think consultation is important, but not with me. I'm not going to meet with those people who are directly affected, even in the confines of my constituency office. I'm not going to do that. What concerns could they possibly have about a landfill site being expanded without any public hearings, without any public consultation, without any knowledge of what it means to their community?" What are we left with? "Trust me. I'm the Minister of the Environment."

Let me tell members something: She is way, way from that. We have just gone through a question period that underscores what is out in the province. People are cynical of governments. People are cynical about politicians. People's cynicism is founded on politicians saying one thing to get a vote and, when they get that vote, doing something else. The Minister of Natural Resources looks up. The fact of the matter is that there are countless examples of the present government feeding and building upon that cynicism. If they do not believe that, I invite them to come out to my riding for 10 minutes.

Hon Mr Wildman: Is everyone as cynical as you are?

Mr Offer: The Minister of Natural Resources asks if everyone is as cynical as I am. I think that question would be answered if a member of the government had the guts and the courage to come out to any area, not just in my riding of Mississauga North but to any area in the regional municipality of Peel, to defend or even to explain the decision of the Minister of the Environment or to explain and defend what Bill 143 is about. To date the doors are open, but no one has walked through.

Last night, when the Minister of the Environment was in her place and there was talk about non-attendance, I heard her say "Send an invitation." How absolutely arrogant, how absolutely incredible, that a minister of the crown would interject by saying "Send an invitation." It is incredible and arrogant for two reasons. The first is, does she actually believe that an invitation is required before she will step down from her throne? Second and of even greater concern is that she has been invited to come out to the regional municipality of Peel. About three or four times that I personally am aware of, there have been invitations cordially extended to her majesty, the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of the Environment says no to all those things. Last night in the Legislature, when the issue is raised, she said, "Send an invitation."

What are we left with? We are left with a piece of legislation which has serious, fundamental flaws. We are left with a piece of legislation which a great many people are seriously concerned about. They have concerns about what this legislation means to them and how it will impact their community.

Do we get public hearings? Just in passing, one would expect that a bill that carries the grand magnitude the Minister of the Environment says it does would at least have the minister stating, "This bill will of course go out for public hearings."

What does the Minister of the Environment do? "What need for public hearings? What need for public input? What need for a legislative committee to do the work for which we have in part been elected to do? What need for that?" This is just a bill that is going to affect potentially everybody in the province. This is just a bill which is going to affect industry within this province; this is just a bill which gives the Minister of the Environment the right to trample on previous agreements entered into between local municipalities, to trample upon the Environmental Assessment Act, to trample over the Environmental Protection Act, to trample over the Ontario Municipal Board Act. What need for public hearings? Who could be concerned?

1600

The fact of the matter is that millions of people are concerned, and they are concerned not only by the bill but by the obvious arrogance of the Minister of the Environment that this bill does not even require public hearings. Obviously the minister and her government minions are saying: "We're going to push this bill through. We have made up our mind. We do not care what the people of Mississauga North, what the people of Mississauga South, Mississauga East, Mississauga West, Brampton North, Brampton South, Dufferin-Peel have to say. We don't have to worry about them. We don't have to worry about what the people in the greater Toronto area have to say or in northern Ontario, east or western Ontario. We are just going to push the bill through no matter what they say. This bill is going to be shoved down the people's throats no matter what it means."

Let me tell members something. People are definitely and fundamentally concerned about the environment and about the process by which they plan for the issues of the future. The actions by the regional municipality of Peel in the past have shown -- and I know there are examples from other local municipalities -- that they are committed, that they are able and have in fact carried out long-term discussions over how to address the issues of waste. They have done that. This bill rams right through the heart of their ability to do so, because it gives to the Minister of the Environment a power which is almost frightening. It gives to the Minister of the Environment a power which will supersede the Planning Act. It will supersede official plans.

For those of us in this Legislature we know what that means, and for those people who are watching, when they take a look at their community and the planning they know it is the local municipality that has the responsibility for that planning of their communities, how they are going to evolve, how they are going to grow, the types of amenities they are going to be providing. They know, those who watch this, that it is the local municipality that does so. They know where to go. They know where to commend. They know where to criticize. The local municipalities have taken that particular onus. It is their responsibility and they have handled it well. This bill rips that away from them in a very real way.

I would bet that if those government members were in opposition, as I expect them to be some day soon, they would be railing over these types of initiatives. They would be falling over their desks talking about draconian measures.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: Now we have the member for Huron making some sort of interjection on this particular bill. It will be interesting to hear if the member for Huron, when the rotation permits, will stand in his place and speak from his seat through these cameras to his constituents as to why he is supporting a bill which shuts his constituents out from inputting and from public consultation.

He will be having to defend that. It will be interesting to see if he will take the challenge. We will even make it a little easier. It will be interesting to see if, when I sit, that member will stand in his place and take part in a two-minute wrapup.

It will be interesting to see if that member takes that challenge, because his constituents are probably quite concerned about where he stands on this bill. His constituents are probably quite concerned as to whether he is just going to follow the orders of the Minister of the Environment when she says: "Member from Huron, stand in your place and vote in favour of the bill. Do not worry; I am the Minister of the Environment. No public consultation is necessary for any of the things I do because, as the Minister of the Environment, as the keeper of the morality, as the holier-than-thou artist of all artists, I can never be wrong."

The fact of the matter is that it would be nice if that Minister of the Environment or the Premier of this province would ever think of coming to, for instance, any area in the regional municipality of Peel to defend the action of expanding the Britannia landfill site, would ever come and talk about defending that aspect of Bill 143. That would be interesting.

Last night we heard the member for Middlesex. She, as the parliamentary assistant, I believe, to the Minister of the Environment, spoke about this bill. I remember what she said. She said that it is socially irresponsible for people to in any way, shape or form transport garbage. It is socially irresponsible.

The fact of the matter is that I hope her constituents were listening, because in her own township where she lives they are transporting garbage out. It will be interesting for her constituents to know that she is now in favour of a landfill site in her area. That is what she said. That is what it meant.

In her area there are two ways in which they dispose of their garbage: through incineration and through exportation. But that member for Middlesex, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, stood in her place last night and said it is socially irresponsible to transport garbage. Well, let the members and the citizens of the good place of Middlesex recognize that their member is in favour of a landfill site where she lives, because that is what it means.

The fact of the matter is that under Bill 143 those good people are not even able to input into a decision. They are not able to even say: "I think you're wrong, Mrs Mathyssen. I think you're wrong. I think the Minister of the Environment is wrong. I want to be able to be part of that decision." Bill 143 says no. Bill 143 says, whatever their opinion is, they recognize that it is the Minister of the Environment who must make that decision. Whatever their position is on any matter dealing with landfill sites, short-term or long-term, it is the Minister of the Environment.

To the mayor of Mississauga the minister is saying, "We don't care about the far-reaching work you have done in your municipality." To the chairman of the regional municipality of Peel she is saying, "We don't care about the far-reaching work you have done for the regional municipality of Peel." The Minister of the Environment is now anointed. She is now the minister of garbage, and she is saying, as that new minister, "I will not be listening to anyone who has any opinion, any thoughts, any concerns."

1610

The problem is that it is the people in the riding of Mississauga North and throughout the city of Mississauga who in fact are the first victims of her actions, because as others speak to landfill sites which are coming to completion in years to come, so in Mississauga and in the regional municipality of Peel we have already received her order. She has already shut the door to us.

The people in the area who work, volunteer their time and are involved in living their lives are saying: "We have concerns. Why do we have to be involved in this landfill issue? Why aren't the hearings under the Environmental Protection Act for site 6B well under way? Why did the minister do what she did? Why did she create this issue? Who lobbied her, as was indicated earlier, to take site 6B off the table? Who did this? Why did the politics of the issue surpass the environmental aspects of the issue? Why?"

We are the first victims of the actions of the Minister of the Environment. We and the people around the Britannia landfill site are reminded every day what her actions mean. They see the site still in operation. They see all the signs of expansion and they say, they repeat and they repeat again: "How is it that a person in opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier, could say, 'No expansion without a hearing,' then after winning an election say, 'We're going to expand the site without a hearing'?" How could he say, "Vote for me and you are guaranteed a hearing before any expansion takes place," and then, after receiving the vote -- one of the most precious things that people own in this democracy -- say, "We're going to expand the site but you don't have any hearing"? People are deeply hurt, they feel very deceived and misled. They are asking some very relevant, tough, hard-hitting questions.

The Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province refused to answer. I believe they are unable to answer because I think we all recognize and remember, during the last election, when the now Premier of the province called the then Premier of the province a liar -- not once, not twice, but five times. He said the Premier of the province was a liar.

I do not condone that type of language. That language is uncalled for and builds into the general populace a growing cynicism. But those words were said and they are going to hang on the Premier for the rest of his days because people, if anything, will remember what he said. That is what he called another honourable member of this Legislature.

There are a lot of members who are here for the first time. You recognize that we differ many times very strongly in our politics, but when you call another member a liar you will live with that and will be remembered for it because it will not go away.

"How could he do that and make the promise that there would be hearings and, when elected, not have hearings?" That is what the people are saying in the regional municipality of Peel, and I believe that is what they are saying across this province.

What is going on over there? Why is the government not listening? Why will they not have public hearings? Why will they not allow people to have input in decisions which affect their very lives? This bill is bad, it is fundamentally flawed, and the actions of the Minister of the Environment are bad and fundamentally flawed.

When the Minister of the Environment cannot justify her decision, when she cannot defend her bill by coming out to the regional municipality of Peel or by speaking to the mayor of the city of Mississauga or by speaking to residents who are directly affected and whose children are directly affected, that is something that is going to hang on everybody here. I stand against this bill.

Mr Tilson: I would like to congratulate the member for Mississauga North on his excellent comments with respect to this subject. He raised a number of concerns but two that struck me: one of cost, and more important, the lack of consultation not only at this stage, but where this bill is going, where this legislation is going. The environmental assessment hearings that will not take place, assessment hearings that in the past were to take a considerable period of time because of the fear of how this whole subject will affect our environment, will be shortened considerably and the whole issue will be left at the sole discretion of the minister.

The other issue of course is raised with respect to the mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion, who has asked the Premier to meet with her and discuss this very important subject. That has been declined for some unearthly reason. He will not meet with her, one of the three main participants in this whole exercise of the three main regions that are involved, where Britannia is located.

The other issue is cost. I will not get into it other than to say that the region of Peel -- the member for Mississauga South referred to this in her address yesterday; Mrs McCallion has provided us all with copies of a legal opinion discussing the whole subject of injurious affection -- as a result of section 19, will be liable not only for damages that might result from the construction of the 15-storey lift that could possibly develop, but also that might result from the use of the lift. That is a genuine concern that has not been addressed, those two issues, the use and the construction. That and Britannia will be the responsibility of the region of Peel.

Hon Mrs Grier: I have not been here for all of the discussion of this bill -- I will not elevate it by calling it a debate -- but I have listened to it; Lord, how I have listened. I have listened to members on that side who have impugned my integrity, who have questioned my intelligence and who have disagreed fundamentally with the solution I have laid before this House with respect to a problem.

What I have not heard is anyone disagreeing that there is a problem. I have heard again extravagant and incredible ascriptions of blame as to what caused the problem and what should have been done, etc, but no denial that we have a problem. In fact, the member who just finished speaking acknowledged that as of April or May of this year the municipality of Peel has a very real problem. What we have not heard in all these speeches is a single constructive suggestion as to what we do now with respect to the problem.

There are those who say that if we only had public hearings on every aspect of the bill, that would solve the problem. There will be public hearings on the bill. There have been public hearings on the criteria for the selection of the long-term site. There will be an environmental assessment process for the determination of the long-term site. There is an ongoing consultation process with respect to the 3Rs. There has not been an environmental assessment on the interim emergency solution for Britannia or Keele, nor can there be. That I acknowledge and that I regret. What I am waiting for is a single constructive contribution to the solution of the problem by any of the members opposite.

Mr Stockwell: That borders on the insane, with all due respect. Eleven months ago the minister did not have a problem. She did not have a garbage gap because her 3Rs resolved it.

1620

The Acting Chair (Mr Villeneuve): I want to remind the honourable member that we are debating the amendment by the member for Mississauga North.

Mr Stockwell: I understand, Mr Speaker. I am speaking to the sage comments offered by the member for Mississauga North. I say that 11 months ago in her speech, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore did not have a problem. There would be no garbage gap according to her. Today, through her hopeless mismanagement of this issue, she has a problem and she is trying to blame previous governments for her problem.

The minister said quite correctly that she is not having an environmental assessment on Keele or in Mississauga. When she sat on this side of the House, she promised that she would have full environmental assessment hearings. I guess the real problem and the really constructive solution to this problem would be for the minister to resign, because when she sat on this side of the House she offered constructive criticism that she cannot carry forward as minister.

When this member suggests to us that we do not offer constructive criticism, we say to her that she should implement what she suggested she would do when she was on this side of the House: Have a full environmental assessment hearing on Keele Valley and have a full environmental assessment hearing on Britannia. If she is not prepared to do that, then she is simply breaking the trust that she asked for from the people of Ontario.

Finally, the problem was created by the Minister of the Environment. It was resolved by the greater Toronto area. They had short-term dump sites and they had a long-term dump site like Kirkland Lake, and the minister pulled them off the table. If the minister is going to be shortsighted and so willy-nilly in her approach to the waste disposal system and then ask us for a solution after she has messed it up, that is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Mr Klopp: I rise to a challenge that was made to me. I would like to make a comment and clarify something about the bill, which maybe says a lot when one is discussing it. The section which affects my county, Middlesex, is setion 4 of the bill, which is to renew, reuse and reduce. Believe me, we in our county very much want to get into the recycling business and get serious about reducing garbage so that we do not have to have landfill sites. That is the section which affects us, and not the part the honourable member referred to.

I did not really want to make a lot of comments, because this is really for the greater Toronto area people. I would wish they had the time, because it affects them dearly. I appreciate comments the honourable member makes, but to infer that the part of this bill that the honourable member is referring to affects Middlesex -- it does not.

I understand section 4 about reusing and reducing, and indeed our county and I think all of Ontario wants to get serious about this so we do not need to use land to put material in. Thank you.

Mr Offer: In response, I would just like to thank the honourable members for Dufferin-Peel and Etobicoke West for their comments.

I would like to devote most of my response to the comments made by the honourable Minister of the Environment. I think the first point I would make is that the minister's response in those two minutes really does speak for itself. They really are a manifestation of the concerns all of us have. When the Minister of the Environment speaks to any member and says, "I begrudgingly stand up to elevate the debate," I think that is exactly it in a nutshell.

The fact of the matter is that the concerns which I brought forward --

Hon Mr Wildman: You're right. They speak for themselves.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Natural Resources agrees with the Minister of the Environment. The problem is that those are the concerns not just of myself but of the people of the area, those who live in the area and those who represent the area as local politicians. Those are their concerns. Those are our concerns.

The Minister of the Environment feels they are unworthy: "My goodness gracious, heaven forbid, consultation, input, talking about how decisions affect the way we are going to live and the area where we are going to live." The Minister of the Environment stopped a hearing for an interim landfill site in the regional municipality of Peel. A hearing had been slated to be commenced in February, 1991. That was a hearing to determine an interim landfill site for site 6B. She stopped it. It is her problem. We are trying to help by indeed offering constructive criticism of the bill and we will continue to do that.

Mr Turnbull: I am not surprised about anything bad which the NDP does, other than on the environment. It is very clear that philosophically I am very much opposed to all of the NDP platform, but I have always felt that on the environment it should transcend any political party's belief because the environment is sacrosanct. Indeed, when we found the surprise results of the 1990 election, the only bright light on the horizon, as far as I was concerned, was that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore would obviously become the Minister of the Environment because she had been very vocal in opposition and was always speaking on behalf of the environment.

I felt that at least we would have one sensible voice. I did not think this could possibly get down to party politics. Unfortunately, this minister is totally incompetent. When we look at this fraudulent document called An Agenda for People, we look under the first section on the environment, "Rights to a Clean Environment." This government was going to pass the environmental bill of rights immediately -- "immediately" maybe has a different connotation to the NDP, but I thought within a matter of weeks. It goes on to say: "The NDP's environmental bill of rights has been before the Legislature since 1986. Three times the Liberals have approved it in principle and three times they have refused to let the bill become the law in Ontario. Citizens want more rights to take action for a cleaner and safer environment when government and industry don't act."

How on earth can we square this statement from the NDP's platform in the last election with the actions of the Minister of the Environment? The environmental bill of rights she had brought into this House as a private member could have been acted upon. Perhaps it needed some fine-tuning, but she could have brought it before the Legislature and brought it before committee and had the scrutiny that was needed.

If we had the environmental bill of rights today, I would suggest that what she is doing here would completely violate that bill of rights. The whole concept of people being able to expect a proper scrutiny of any dump site or anything which impairs our environment is fundamental. I go back to the fact that the Conservative Party in Ontario had the first Ministry of the Environment and nurtured the environment. Every party has moved forward with that process but this NDP government has gone into reverse. I cannot believe that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore should be sending her party backwards. It is the greatest disappointment in this government, and there have been many disappointments.

We know that the truth is a very flexible thing to this government. We know that slander of innocent citizens is acceptable to this government so long as you say "I'm sorry" if you get caught. There is nothing in this document which bears the scrutiny of day. In truth, the people of Ontario deserve an election.

To continue with my discussion of this bill, as somebody who had not been highly involved in politics I had to get up to speed. I spoke to my colleague the member for Etobicoke West at great length about this. Even though I was not in the House last night, I listened to every word he had to say. It is significant that the Minister of the Environment will never meet his eyes. Whenever he says something across the floor, she will never meet his eyes.

1630

The jargon of the environment is very interesting. We are talking about a lift to these temporary dump sites. A lift apparently implies that instead of finishing off the dump site so it is level at the end, we pile it up until it is 15 storeys high. For the people who live anywhere near it, instead of looking out over green fields when it is no longer a dump site, they are going to look at a mountain. Perhaps we will want to develop ski hills in Toronto, but there is very little use for it.

The problem we see is that the existing dump sites that are being extended without any environmental hearings whatsoever are lined with clay, and the amount of clay that was put in the lining was based upon a proposition that these dump sites, when finished, would be level. There is a calculation as to how much weight this will be. It has been suggested that there is at least a 50% chance that the clay liner of these sites, when piled up to 15 storeys high, will in fact break and the runoff from this garbage will start affecting our ground water, the ground water which runs into Lake Ontario that we all drink. I might as well take a glass now while I still can, because I think we are going to have to buy Perrier in future in the House when the water starts getting polluted by these brainless schemes of the Minister of the Environment.

The bill is broken into four parts: Parts I through III relate to the GTA garbage and part IV proposes amendments to the Environmental Protection Act. What an incredible suggestion that the Minister of the Environment, who has been that minister for getting on to a year and a half now -- this very minister had her environmental bill of rights all ready to go; she did not bring it in but instead waited a year and a half -- tells everybody there will be no garbage gap.

For the sake of the people who are watching this on television, apparently a garbage gap means we knew the existing dump sites were being filled up and we knew we needed new long-term sites. There had been an ongoing process that had existed under the Conservatives and then under the Liberals looking for medium-term sites to cover this garbage gap, the period between the existing sites being filled up and the long-term sites being chosen, and having a look at the same time at the environmental impact and suitability of long-term sites. Indeed, Metro Toronto had arrived at a long-term site, that being Kirkland Lake.

The minister, when she became minister, killed the process that looked at any of the short-term solutions. She said: "No. None of the short-term solutions will be acceptable. The long-term solution that had been selected is not appropriate." Now, with her solution, she is going to supersede the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act and the Environmental Protection Act, all of this is in the name of saving us from the garbage gap she told us months ago would not exist. Has she been asleep all this time? We were told that there was no reason to worry about a short-term interim solution, that there would be no garbage gap and that we can reduce, reuse and recycle.

Mr Stockwell: Recant, retract and resign.

Mr Turnbull: My colleague the member for Etobicoke West is saying she ought to recant or resign. I think that would be an excellent idea.

We have a crisis. It is a crisis of this minister's making. She did not create the garbage, but she did not address the fundamental problems that everybody knew existed when she came into office. She said, "No, there will be no garbage gap."

Everybody, I hope, in this Legislature would endorse the idea of the 3Rs. We do need to reduce, reuse and recycle, but it is absolutely inconceivable that in the short-term we could address the garbage gap by that measure. The minister knew it then, if she had any brains, and she should know it now. Why is she bringing this forward? She brought this legislation forward and the first reading was October 24, an awful lot more than a year after she was elected. What has she been doing in the meantime? Has she been asleep? Has she been out with her friends who have been slandering innocent citizens of Ontario? This is absolutely disgraceful.

This minister brings it in through the office of the greater Metro area instead of the Environment ministry and she slides into this document items that impact the whole of the province. She slides it through on a GTA bill. I ask the minister, what on earth are people in the rest of the province supposed to do? Are they going to rummage through GTA bills to find what the law of the province is? That is absolutely outrageous.

The minister has lost any credibility. We know there is a garbage gap. We know she sat on her hands for a year and a half. She did not do anything about it. She told us there would be no garbage gap, but there is a garbage gap.

We have a letter here from the Conservation Council of Ontario with respect to this bill. It says:

"Dear Ms Grier:

"The Conservation Council of Ontario wishes to register extreme disappointment and concern about both the contents of Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act, and the implications the bill has for the future of environmental planning and assessment in the province of Ontario.

"In particular, the council contends that the public input provisions contained in part III, sections 18(3)-18(7), are woefully inadequate to protect the public interest and the environment. At a minimum, the interim waste management measures detailed in the minister's section 29 reports to the regional municipalities of Peel, Durham and York and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto should be subject to full public review and debate, including public hearings, under part IV of the Environmental Protection Act. In addition, council has serious reservations about other provisions of Bill 143, including the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act.

"The council urgently requests the opportunity to present its concerns in detail and in person, either to the legislative committee reviewing Bill 143 or to you yourself."

This is just the beginning. This is a government which is out of control. On every single issue it touches it turns a bad situation into a worse situation. The members opposite are a bunch of incompetents, and I am sorry to say that, but they are totally, utterly incompetent. We have people who will run around the province; they will slander people; they will tell us there is no garbage gap, and then we come back two weeks before the Christmas recess they say, "Oh, we must have this bill now because we have an emergency on our hands." Have they just woken up to the fact that there is an emergency? We are going to have to --

Mrs Mathyssen: If we hadn't wasted all this time last May --

Mr Huget: Talk about a source of garbage.

Mr Turnbull: It is incredible. We have people who are heckling over something as serious as this. The members opposite do not seem to realize that we have the protection of the environment as the prime consideration and they are taking away every chance of the public to have some input into it. The whole idea that --

Hon Mr Wildman: Are you kidding? You guys were in power for 40 years. You did absolutely nothing about the environment.

Mr Turnbull: The Conservative government and then the Liberal government brought in bills to protect the public so that we could have public input --

Interjections.

1640

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order. Interjections of course are out of order, particularly when the members who are interjecting are not in their own seats. I would appreciate it if the honourable member for York Mills would address his comments to the chair.

Mr Turnbull: This is the party that always said we must have public scrutiny, we must have consultation, and in one fell swoop we bring in a bill which takes away any public participation because this bill overrides the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Municipal Board.

Here is the wonderful thing about this bill. They bring in a bill where the minister has all of these dictatorial powers, but guess what? Guess who pays for it? The taxpayers in the municipality. The municipality has no right to deny the minister what she wants, but the taxpayers in the municipality pay for it out of municipal taxes. If there is any liability as a result of leaching of any contaminant from these dump sites where the minister has overruled any public process, the liability is not borne by this government which is mandating it, it is borne by the taxpayers in that municipality.

It is absolutely incredible that a minister who has fought for so many years as the clarion call of the environment is throwing all those things out the window and saying: "It doesn't matter. I know best." That of course is probably the failure of the NDP, that whenever it does something wrong it says: "We wouldn't do anything wrong. We know best." This is paternalism at its worst. This is a government that would never have accepted this from any other government that has gone before, and yet it has a different standard. Boy, do we see what a different standard they have.

I listened very attentively to the people who have great knowledge about this -- my colleagues the member for Oriole and the member for Etobicoke West -- and they made very salient comments. These are people who have watched this process over a long period of years. They know the background. They know the flaws in what is being proposed. Indeed, listening to what they have to say, I think the public should be outraged.

I want to conclude with the fact that I am alarmed that this government is ignoring AMO and its concerns. They are ignoring what the people want, they are ignoring their election platform, and more especially, they are not going to bring in the environmental bill of rights at the moment for fear it might get tangled up with this process. God forbid that citizens would say, "No, the government is wrong."

Hon Mr Wildman: I listened with concern to the comments made by my colleague. I realize he is sincere in his views, and I also realize his views produced a tremendous reaction on this side of the House. The incident I referred to I think all of us in our society have taken responsibility for. It is something we all have to work to ensure we can rectify for the native people who live in that area. No one person or individual was responsible for the poisoning of the English-Wabigoon river system.

Mr Callahan: I know that taxes are always a concern to everyone. In our riding in the region of Peel a lot of tax dollars went into searching for a landfill site. As a result of the actions of this minister -- I should say the inaction I suppose -- that money is literally as good as thrown down the drain. Money is one thing, and in these hard times money is very significant, but more important than that is the fact that over the years since they have been searching for a particular site there has been great uncertainty in my riding. I know of numerous people who planned to either fix their houses or perhaps put in a recreation room and because this process was going on and there were a number of sites which were being examined, these people were left in a tremendous state of indecision.

What this minister has done by her inactivity and her actions is thrust these people right back into that total degree of uncertainty. I think that is unfair. As I say, money is important. Certainly the millions of dollars that were wasted in the region in terms of searching for a site are now flushed down the drain. But the uncertainty of people's lives, particularly in the economic climate we have today, without any clear direction from a minister who when in opposition was leading the charge -- I used to sit over there in awe of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore because she always seemed to be attacking, trying to look after the environment. Something has happened. Either her principles have changed or her tongue is tied by someone in the back office.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to congratulate and commend the member for York Mills on his fine presentation this afternoon on Bill 143. The bill of course, as we all know, deals with the emergency powers the Minister of the Environment is willing to undertake to deal with the waste management emergency in the greater Toronto area. I do not think too many of us in this House dispute that there is an emergency with respect to waste management. Where we differ is how to manage the crisis.

Earlier the minister challenged the opposition members to come forward with some constructive suggestions to deal with the problem of waste management in the GTA. Here is a constructive suggestion for the minister: the Adams mine reclamation project in Kirkland Lake. I had the opportunity this summer to visit Kirkland Lake and to meet with Donald F. Caveen, who is the director of the corporation of the town of Kirkland Lake's development and tourism department. Mr Caveen spent well over a year, I believe, putting together this proposal that the people of Kirkland Lake and myself still believe there is considerable merit in. Frankly, if the minister were more willing to take an open-minded look at this issue perhaps she would not have to be making these incredibly draconian moves.

In my own riding of Wellington we have a considerable waste management problem and we are trying to develop a waste management site. I fear the things we have seen that this minister is prepared to do with respect to the GTA waste management crisis she may be willing to do in my own riding, and that is why I am very concerned about this bill and am speaking against it.

I still believe this Kirkland Lake proposal bears a lot of merit. One of the reasons I was up there was to investigate the possibility of the waste that is generated in my own riding going to a northern location, if the host site was willing to accept it. I ask the minister to take a second look at this proposal because she is asking for constructive suggestions, and we are prepared to give her suggestions from this side.

Mr O'Connor: I want to respond to the comments made by the member for York Mills. He spoke about inaction by the minister. He is clearly way out in left field with that comment. He should take a look: October 15 last year the Minister of the Environment spoke officially as a minister of the crown to the Recycling Council of Ontario about the commitment to recycling; November 21 last year she spoke about the new direction of environmental policies right here in this House; February 21 the minister announced the waste reduction action plan; June 27 she spoke about stronger measures in dealing with Metropolitan Toronto's waste, the GTA waste; April 2 the minister announced that municipalities have to be responsible for their very own garbage in the communities in which it is generated, and April 11 she announced a ban on all future incineration of municipal solid waste.

Clearly this minister has spoken out loud and clear many times on this issue, and in this House there has been quite a bit of debate. In fact, it has been talked about over 16 different times in this House on different occasions within this Legislature, and there has been a lot of debate on this. If the members across the floor do not want to listen to that, that is a shame because I think it is something we clearly need to be talking about. There has been commitment by the government to take this out to public hearings because of the concerns that have been raised. I think that is a clear indication that a commitment has been made by this government. It is kind of tiring to listen to accusations from across the floor that are unfounded and based on nothing.

Mr Turnbull: I certainly seem to have got a reaction from across the floor. It is always very difficult when members have their words on paper and they come back to bite them. The fact is they are not doing what they said in the election they were going to do. Indeed, the Minister of the Environment said there was no garbage gap. We all heard it. Once again, her words are coming back to bite her.

1650

The fundamental question that has to be asked is, why has this minister not released the list of the target sites? I suggest the answer to that question is that she knows there would be an explosion across the province, and particularly around the GTA, if they knew what sites were being targeted, so she tries to creep this bill through before she releases the list. That is very typical of how this government is governing.

If the minister has a commitment that she is going to protect the environment, I fail to see how she is protecting the environment by being a minister for a year and a half and not bringing any bill forward. Then two weeks before the House rises she brings in a bill and says she must have it through. That is exactly what happened.

I am sure the people watching this on TV wonder what on earth our reaction is, because they cannot see or hear all of what is going on on the floor. But this government feels very uncomfortable that it is breaking its election promises and, further, breaking and overriding the law. It is saying, "It doesn't matter what the law says." All the process for examination of these policies is going out the window, and it is saying, "No, the minister knows best." That is fundamentally wrong and it flies in the face of everything our party has ever stood for.

Mr McClelland: This bill has generated a considerable amount of debate. It is important to say at the outset that but for a threat to bring a closure motion by the government of the day, I believe this bill would have engendered considerably more debate. It is very clear the government has found itself in a difficult position. It has been found out, so to speak, and its actions are inconsistent with what it said prior to assuming office, and indeed with what it has said since assuming office.

By way of introduction, at the outset I want to thank my colleagues in this party and the third party for beginning to put forward to the people of Ontario, through the Legislative Assembly, some of the deficiencies and glaring contradictions on the face of Bill 143 with the heretofore stated position of the New Democratic Party and now the New Democratic government.

Today in response to a question the Treasurer and Deputy Premier said, "When this government was elected we made a commitment to a more open process." What is really at the heart of some of the controversy surrounding Bill 143 is the very fact that this government, which stood firm and tall on its commitment to public participation, has done a 180-degree turn and said to the people of Ontario: "Yes, but in this instance we don't want to hear from you. We have made up our mind."

The member for York Mills said very well that the government has adopted an attitude that: "We in all instances know better and it is our way or no way. We are not prepared to listen to the people of this province. We are not prepared in some instances to listen to the duly elected municipal representatives of this province. We are not prepared to listen to organizations that have invested years of time, energy and money in the environmental issues that are at stake in this province. We are, in short, not listening to anybody who doesn't see it our way."

This is the government that said it was committed to listening to people and having public participation. This is the same government -- it has been repeated throughout this debate, by the member for York Centre and the member for Oriole -- whose Premier said there will be no expansion of any existing landfill sites without a full environmental assessment. What does it do? The very first piece of legislation brought forward by the Minister of the Environment does just the opposite. It says: "We will not allow your participation through the process of an environmental assessment hearing. We won't even go so far as to allow it through the process of an Environmental Protection Act hearing."

The minister who stood in her place and day after day chastised the former government for having what she called a watered-down version, the Environmental Protection Act, which looked at all the environmental criteria and the socioeconomic impact, said, "We won't even give you that." That, to me, is the height of hypocrisy, and if nothing else, breeds cynicism for government. It states one thing and does a 180-degree turn and says: "I'm sorry. In this instance we can't live by our word, we can't live by our principles and we can't live by what we said was important to us."

I want to note that this is the first piece of legislation introduced by the Minister of the Environment and it was done without a statement. What does that mean in terms of the parliamentary process? The minister would very quickly say, "There's nothing contained in this bill that I haven't stated elsewhere or stated from time to time in this House on other occasions."

I suggest very plainly -- I leave it to people who are watching to make an objective determination -- that the timing and the method by which this bill was introduced calls very much into question the true motives and, I would say, the manipulation of the process by which this bill was brought forward.

I want to talk about why no statement was made, and then the timing. The minister brought forward this bill in her capacity as minister of the greater Toronto area. It is true there are some aspects of the bill that impact primarily on the greater Toronto area, but there are more far-reaching implications that have an impact on the environment and set up principles and a process in place that ultimately could impact on each and every community across this province.

The minister did not have the forthrightness to enact it in her capacity as Minister of the Environment. She says, in response to a question, "It was a matter of convenience." I suggest it was a matter of convenience indeed; it was a matter of convenience for the Minister of the Environment because she was not prepared to take the heat on this. In the first instance, she did not want to have a statement made in her capacity as Minister of the Environment which could be challenged in terms of Bill 143's consistency with her statements made elsewhere.

It is interesting to note as well that the news release that accompanied this on October 24 stated that this came from the minister of the GTA, but the contact name mentioned was with the waste reduction office. The message clearly is that Bill 143 is a waste reduction bill.

The news release also emphasized other things that I think are important to note. Basically, as an afterthought, we might want to mention that GTA disposal sites are mentioned herein. They were snuck in at the end of the news release and I find that objectionable because that is clearly one of the more contentious issues here. From day one this was contrived with a press spin put on it to minimize the impact and the attention that would be drawn to this bill because the minister, I am sure, knows full well she will stand to be criticized for this and is unable to sufficiently answer much of the criticism brought to her.

I note with interest a report card provided by the now minister in January 1988 to the former government. It was entitled, "Grier hands out environmental report card on the Liberals." She said she thought that the people of Ontario had a right to expect more progress. Not too long ago we heard one of her colleagues, the member for Durham-York, stand up and enumerate all the wonderful things she has done. The fact of the matter is that this is the first piece of legislation. There has been nothing but announcements, platitudes and rhetoric paid to the principles enunciated by the minister. There has been no concrete action of any type prior to the introduction of Bill 143.

I agree with the Minister of the Environment that the people of Ontario have a right to expect more progress. On the basis of her report card I suggest she gets a glaring F, an absolute failure. There has been no progress whatever.

1700

The minister went on to talk about the Environmental Assessment Act in 1988. She said that it desperately needed reforms, that it had to be improved. She went on to talk about all the improvements she would like to see in place. The introduction of Bill 143 on its face is an admission of failure by the Minister of the Environment. She has not in one instance been able to deal with any amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act in any substantive way. There has been little or no progress made on that. It is a glaring admission of failure that she has not been able, in any way shape or form, to get a handle on the waste management issue, not only in the greater Toronto area but indeed across the province.

I think it admits very plainly that her statements, made when my colleague the member for Halton Centre asked a question early on, shortly after she was sworn in as minister, "What is the minister going to do about the garbage gap? What is she going to do when a year from now she is faced with the situation where she has nowhere to put the garbage?" -- the minister at that point said: "There is not going to be any garbage gap. There will be no garbage gap whatsoever because I have the way of handling that. I am going to be able to handle that with my waste management. My 3Rs are going to deal with that." What does she say now? She says now that we have a garbage crisis.

The minister is not here to respond to it and she will have the opportunity to do that in due course. The reality is there is no real major garbage crisis. There is in one area of the province. It is clear. My friend the member for Mississauga North has spoken about that. The situation with respect to Britannia is critical in terms of its timing. We know that in Keele Valley the short projections are that it could extend through to 1996. The long projections are that the present capacity at Keele Valley would extend through until 1999. There is no crisis. It flies totally in the face of what the minister said about having full environmental assessment.

She is totally without justification in moving ahead with the expansion of Keele Valley without allowing the process she championed prior to her election to take place. I think she will be hard pressed to reconcile, not only to the people of Ontario but I would suggest in her own mind, that glaring contradiction.

I thought at one point, I might add parenthetically, that this really was not the Minister of the Environment's bill, that it was being driven out of the Premier's office. I had observed what had taken place when there were a number of people present before the Legislative Assembly building in protest to this legislation. I had a sense that the minister was not herself in the sense that as notes were handed to her, she was clearly upset. She was not happy about the material that was being handed to her. She made some comments, which quite frankly were overheard, about her displeasure at being put in the position of having to respond, and that if people would quit handing her notes, she might be able to deal with it.

That is not the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. That is not the minister who, as my friend the member for Brampton South said a moment ago, stood here and championed the environment day after day, week after month, and indeed year after year. That is a minister who I believe one time was being driven out of somebody else's office, and for whatever reason and for whatever deals that were made, I believe it compromised her position to get something else in terms of her overall agenda in terms of her environmental agenda.

I believe that up until recently -- now I am not so sure, I admit, because I am not sure. I hear her saying things. I hear her responding in the two minutes of response to members' participation in the debate and saying things that just are not consistent with what she used to say. I have to believe now that maybe the Minister of the Environment is behind this bill more than I thought beforehand, recognizing that it is extremely inconsistent with what she said.

I want to look back for a moment to the summer of 1990. I have in my hand a series of press releases, numerous press releases on NDP letterhead, and they are from "Bob Rae, Leader of the Official Opposition" and "Ruth Grier, Environment Critic." Some of them are entitled "Backgrounder," "Information" and "News Release." All of them have contact people to get in touch with and find out about all the terrible things the former government had done and all the wonderful things that are going to happen in Ontario if you vote for the NDP.

Let me for a moment refer to some of the things that were said in those releases. "Only a public garbage system protects the people and environment of Ontario." I understand the bias of the current government. They are seeking, I think, in many ways to drive out private sector involvement. A very important component of a comprehensive waste management plan for Ontario is found within the private sector, working in co-operation with them, benefiting from the expertise they bring, benefiting from the infrastructure and the capital they can bring to bear on solving the problem. But the bias is there, and I recognize it. I recognize that within the socialist mentality, profit is a dirty word, that the private sector is not necessarily welcome and that only the government can do things well and only the government has the answer to all things.

That is the fundamental underlying principle of Bill 143, "We know better and only we can do the job." But recognizing that this is a bias, and we all have our biases -- I have mine too. I happen to think the private sector has a tremendous amount to offer to this province and indeed in the area of waste management.

I will give them their bias for a moment for the purposes of this discussion. They are going to say, "Only a public system provides full opportunity" -- for what? -- "for public participation." We know that to be absolute nonsense. A privately operated system is required to go through the scrutiny of an environmental assessment hearing, just as is a public system. But here is where I find the ultimate insult to the people of Ontario and to members opposite. The government stood and said, "Only a public system provides full opportunity for public participation."

What does Bill 143 say in part? "We will not allow full public participation. We will create a corporation that will go out and on certain criteria determined by the minister and ministry staff make determinations for the siting and/or extension of landfills." I find it offensive that a government that would stand at one time and say that, would then turn around in that manner.

"Only a public agency will have a clear environmental mandate with waste reduction as top priority and landfill as a last resort." Who are we kidding? The private sector is very interested in recycling. It was the private sector that initiated recycling in this province. The government has come into partnership with it, and I take some pride that the former government did a great deal to move along the blue box program in this province. I take some pride in the fact that the former minister, for whom I served as parliamentary assistant, was recognized by the United Nations as being one of the leaders in terms of that initiative, and he accepted that on behalf of the entire province.

Bear in mind that the private sector has made some significant contributions, and it is not only a public agency that has a clear environmental mandate. There are a lot of people who are concerned. In fact, dealing with recycling and reuse in a very positive, forward-thinking way -- I hope members opposite are sitting down because this is the dirty P word -- can provide profit for the private sector, and when there is profit, do the members know what the private sector does? They tend to bring money in and they tend to create programs, and they tend to create infrastructure that serves the purposes of waste reduction.

It is not an all or nothing proposition. There is ample opportunity for leadership, for control, for monitoring and for the government to fulfil those responsibilities.

I have said this in exchange in some of the quips that take place back and forth. The very distinguished Minister of Natural Resources is here today. I applaud him for the fact that he and his colleague the Attorney General have taken time out of their very demanding busy schedules to at least hear out proponents of some private sector issues. Now they may or may not buy into that. That is something they will make in their own course of evaluation, in their judgements and in the critical analysis the Minister of Natural Resources always brings to bear to issues in a most honourable and forthright manner. He does that, and he has a reputation for doing that. I will say this to his credit: At least he had the courtesy and the decency, and I would say the openmindedness, to listen.

I have to ask myself, why is it that the rest of the government, why is it that some of the other leadership of the government within cabinet cannot have the same openmindedness? Why is it they have to say, "We want to put on blinders and we are not prepared to accept alternative ideas."

I suggest that none of us, whoever we are, however wise we may be, whatever body of experience and opportunities in the past we bring to bear in our deliberations here, has all the answers to every problem. We can all learn from hearing from other people and be stimulated by ideas and maybe, just maybe, within the context of some of those deliberations, there will be some good ideas to be gleaned.

I encourage the government to open up its mind a little bit, to be a bit more broad thinking, to look to what opportunities might exist within other avenues than those that it has so very clearly prescribed and seen as the only way. Much has been said about the minister's change of heart and her change of mind. I am concerned about that for a number of reasons. It has been beaten around here I guess for the past few days in many ways.

It has been said just a few moments ago that the reputation that the Minister of the Environment brought to this place was one of dedication, almost a zealousness to her cause, a person whose word was her bond, who was respected not only within her own party but by the opposition and by the public across this province, by environmental groups.

1710

She stood and said time after time after time, and I have referred to it in debate before -- I have referred to it in question period and I have referred to it in what we euphemistically around here call the late show -- about her previous statements and her previous words. The plain fact of the matter is that she has been unable and I suggest unwilling to live up to the principles that were enunciated, as is evidenced by what is contained in Bill 143.

I do not want to be trite in any sense but I cannot help but think of Humpty Dumpty when I think of the Minister of the Environment, for a couple of reasons. Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- nothing more and nothing less." Is that where we have come to in terms of this minister? Is that where we have come to in terms of Bill 143? "The promises heretofore made about full environmental assessment, full participation really don't mean anything. They mean whatever I choose them to mean. They mean whatever I choose them to mean in the context of convenience, the moment and what is transpiring today." Or do we have leadership that says, "What I said holds true and I will to the best of my ability stick to those principles"?

I would suggest that had the minister stood in her place and said: "Look, I have failed. I admit that. I was wrong. I called it wrong. This is going to be very unpalatable for me. I'm not happy to do this." Had she had the courage to come forward with a statement when she introduced this bill and to say, "This bill is an admission of failure in terms of my ability to meet the garbage gap I said I could meet. It is an admission of failure in terms of my commitment to the environmental assessment. But I've got to swallow that bitter pill and accept the fact that I haven't made the grade. Now we are going to have to proceed with that." it might have been a little bit more acceptable to the people in the province of Ontario.

It may have been a bit more acceptable to people in municipalities, in governments that are charged with responsibility to deal with waste management under their respective enabling legislation. I have to ask myself why this bill was introduced at the time it was introduced. The bill has enormous impacts on municipal governments. It has enormous impacts on regional governments.

Potentially the costs associated with the implementation of aspects of Bill 143 that will ultimately be passed through the upper-tier municipal governments down to the taxpayer, to the ratepayer on property taxes, are very broad indeed, broad in terms of the amounts of moneys that may be involved, in terms of the length of commitments that may be forthcoming from implementation of aspects of Bill 143.

We should bear in mind that aspects of Bill 143 stretch for as long as 20 years. Indeed the language says at least 20 years; it may go well beyond. Bill 143 proposes and presumes to set out a scheme that says, "We will call the shots through the Ministry of the Environment, we know better, our policy will dictate, not our legislation, not where we will be accountable in this House," say, to the Minister of Natural Resources, who is one of the people who loves this place, who loves being here and does his job well in this place, does it admirably and who respects the traditions of ministerial accountability and government accountability and thrives on that.

This bill fundamentally undermines that. That concerns me a great deal because there are a couple of principles here that are very, very fundamental. Do we say that because we have policies we are going to wash our hands of public accountability, that we will take a scheme of legislation and pieces of legislation that have developed over the course of time, that have given people rights, that have given people process and say, "In order to implement our policy, we will give heretofore unparalleled powers within a ministry, not necessarily even the minister herself or himself as the case may be. We are willing to devolve some of this power down to bureaucrats to allow them to enact policy." There is no public accountability.

This is a government that is clearly flying in the face of the trends that are taking place literally around the world. Everywhere around the world people are fighting for the right to have a government that is responsive to them, and this government says: "We don't care what you think. We know better." I say to this government: "Wake up. That is not the mood of the people out there. You talk to them about public participation. They expect that. They deserve that. Give it back to them."

There are aspects of Bill 143 that shut people out. It is unacceptable in terms of its fundamental principle. Many of the government members championed that. Many of them ought to be ashamed of the fact. Many of them fought for causes within their unions and their workplaces on the basis that people had a right to be involved. Now they stand here and the first piece of legislation that comes out of one their lead ministers says that is not important enough, that expediency is more important than principle, that pragmatism counts more than promises.

I find that absolutely unacceptable and I find it frustrating to hear that one of the people that I think was well respected would allow herself to be associated with that. This is a person who stood tall on the pedestal of integrity, and might I say a sense of uprightness, and has fallen off that pedestal and has shattered in terms of her credibility in the environmental movement and municipal leadership across this province. I would say to her very plainly that she has a terribly difficult job of rebuilding her credibility because of the aspects of Bill 143 that absolutely ride roughshod over the rights of men and women in this province.

I started to talk about timing a little bit and I want to come back to that. I am going to ask a few questions rhetorically. I do not know that there are any answers. I ask myself first of all why was the bill introduced the way it was, very quietly without statement and without fanfare with a very soft-sell press release. It was sort of a tag-on at the end: "By the way, this has some implications in terms of waste management in the greater Toronto area." There was no direct reference to some of the powers that were being proposed to be handed off to the minister.

This bill was tabled in the Legislature without a statement on October 24, right in the middle of municipal elections and right in the middle of the time when men and women who are serving the public and doing their civic duty as aldermen, councillors and participants in local government were otherwise engaged in the election process.

I have a letter in my hand that was written by council for the region of York. York, as members know, will be significantly impacted by Bill 143. We all know that. We all know that one of the landfill sites that is proposed to be extended by Bill 143 is within the boundaries of York.

Let me tell members what the government wanted in the first instance. They wanted this bill that was tabled on October 24 back with full committee hearings, all wrapped up and put to bed so to speak, by the middle of December. They wanted to have full public participation by the middle of December. That is absolutely absurd. The very people who were going to be impacted by this in some cases were not even constituted as bodies until the middle of December. Some of them -- I note by way of example the council of York -- really broke with tradition and had a briefing session at its very first inaugural meeting on December 3.

Metro council was not constituted legally until December 5. My municipal council back in Brampton was not sworn in until a week ago Monday. Yet these are the people who were asked to contemplate the far-ranging measures of Bill 143, give it their full attention, deliberate on the matter, present before a committee and come back in full report before December 17 and expect that the government would have actually heard their concerns and heard their opportunity.

I wonder how any members in the government can honestly believe in the quietness of their own minds that that was a valid and legitimate request. Can members in good conscience really accept that this was an honest request from municipal councils to participate? If they do, they are dreaming. There is no way that could have happened.

It leads to one conclusion and one conclusion only: that the government is so uncertain about the principles contained in here that recognize its vulnerability, particularly in light of all the rhetoric it has spewed forth in the past, that it wanted this bill through as quickly and as quietly as it could. In fact, they even took it a step further and said, "If we don't get our way, we're going to hold a gun to your head and pull the trigger and we're going to shut you down so that you can't speak," to the members of the opposition.

1720

Hon Mr Hampton: You're driving the opposition out.

Mr McClelland: The Attorney General can jest about it as much as he wants, but I say to him that he is one of the people who has fought long and hard for the right of people to participate, for people in northern Ontario to have a say in what goes on. He is one, of all people, who used to believe in hearing from the citizens of this province. I ask him, where has that principle gone? Has that been put aside by him as well? Only he can answer that. Does he honestly believe, I say to the Attorney General, that it is fair to ask municipal councils, who were elected and who were sworn in within two weeks, to return with full measure their complete and thoughtful consideration on a very wide-ranging piece of legislation? He knows the answer to that and he knows that is absolutely absurd. He much too intelligent a person to think for one minute that that is a reasonable request for his government to have put to municipalities across Ontario.

I heard the member for Oriole use a very interesting turn of phrase when she was describing this bill. She said that this bill was in effect similar to those individuals at the time of the Industrial Revolution who were afraid of any new ideas and any new initiatives. She likened it unto the Luddites. They were the people who of course used to throw tools or whatever they could into machinery to make sure it would break down. The reason she said that is this, and I thought it was a very good analogy, because this bill says: "We don't want to consider alternatives outside of those prescribed by ourselves. Don't confuse us with the facts; our minds are made up. We don't want to hear what other people have to say. We don't want to look at other alternatives."

Let me talk briefly, for a couple of minutes at least, about what is implied therein. The minister has basically said that the environmental assessment process is of really no force and effect. The very concept of Bill 143 flies in the face of it, because what does the environmental assessment process say? It says, "Let's look at all of the alternatives, let's look at them in a framework that invites input, invites a range of opinion, that subjects that opinion to cross-examination and, having done so, make as much as possible an objective evaluation and determination of the facts that have been put before us."

What does Bill 143 says? It says, "Don't look at all the alternatives." It says, "We're not sure that we want to even consider them." In fact, it does not even say, "We're not sure." It says: "We don't want to consider them. We might have some new ideas. God forbid that we should hear something new and different. Twenty years from now there might be some new technology available, five years from now, perhaps even three, and that would make us look bad because we have said that we have all the answers. If we have to look at other people and look at other alternatives, we might be found out to be wrong." I find that extremely interesting that this government says: "Gee, we don't want to hear from others. We have it all laid down."

The environmental assessment process is something that I am not sure is understood by a lot of people. Indeed I am not sure if it is understood by members in this House --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please take your seats.

Mr Turnbull: Leave some time for David, will you?

Mr McClelland: I would be delighted to leave some time for my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel.

The environmental assessment process has as its very roots a fundamental principle, and the fundamental principle is the evaluation and consideration of all alternatives. This bill does not provide that.

After you go through the process, the chosen alternative should be the one which fulfils the proponent's purposes -- in this case, the establishment of waste management sites, garbage dumps -- which has the best environmental balance, has advantages that has the environmental integrity, if you will, to the site. That choice in each case is made by following rigorous scrutiny of supporting evidence, usually by an environmental assessment board, a board comprised of people who bring to it a measure of objectivity and a quasi-judicial determination.

It has been said by others, and I share this opinion, that to dictate projects in the middle of the environmental assessment process is to prejudge the outcome of that process. It also says to every waste management proponent that you are forbidden from even considering the major alternative way of disposing of residual waste in every situation, even if it may be the best solution.

That is one of the greatest concerns I have. Bill 143 does not allow us an opportunity to look at the best possible solution or combination of solutions. It says again, "The government of the day, the New Democratic Party, knows better and has all the answers." I do not buy that for one minute. I do not buy for one minute that any government has all the answers. I do not buy for one minute that those 130 of us in this Legislative Assembly have all the answers.

There are numerous potential solutions out there in Ontario and there are some that have not even been thought of yet. To shut our minds to that is absolute insanity. It is the most regressive attitude that a government can take to say, "We know it all, and we don't want to talk to other people."

What has happened in this legislation is that we have taken political judgement and injected it full-scale into the environmental assessment process, which used to be at arm's length, which used to be at least given the opportunity to consider arguments on their own merits. I think that is going to come back to haunt this party.

I got criticized not too long ago for referring to this as the environmental War Measures Act. The minister said that she took exception to my categorization of that. She stood with the great flair and eloquence she can muster and stood tall with her Irish lilt, which I quite enjoy, and very enthusiastically joined in a little debate and said that it was really unfair to characterize this as draconian legislation of that nature.

It is interesting that I have received a letter from somebody whom I am sure had no idea I had said that. It said, "Bill 143 is legislation of a type citizens should only be asked to accept in wartime." It goes on to say to the ministry, "Your ministry and your personal position has always been to require that a proponent putting something forward that will affect the environment will allow your consultation with the affected parties."

Again I ask, what has happened? This bill is fundamentally flawed in so many ways. To have put it on the table at the time it was put on is, in my view, the height of cynicism. It is unfair. It does things contrary to the way we have always done things in Ontario. It says that there is one set of rules for one group of people, another set of rules for another group of people, and yet another set of rules for another group of people. There is not really any rationalization for that.

It prohibits us, as I have said, from looking at what could be the optimal environmental solution for the garbage disposal situation we have to face. It clearly, as I said in my opening comments, allows the government of the day to interfere in what has clearly been prior to this time municipal authority, municipal power.

There is an argument put forward by the government that this is something absolutely necessary, that each municipality must deal with some garbage. I find it interesting that the parliamentary assistant talked about that last night. She knows full well that the waste from her own community is shipped out of her community. We know full well that considerable tonnage, well over half a million tons of garbage, is shipped out of Toronto every day. We know that waste is shipped from Kingston into Ottawa. We know there is one set of rules, that this very bill says it is okay for Metro Toronto to ship into York but that Peel has to find its own solution and Dufferin has to find its own solution.

1730

It is different in Kingston, it is different in Middlesex and it is different elsewhere in the province. The rules of the day will be whatever the minister's policy is will be brought into effect, and the rules of the day will be that the Environmental Assessment Act, to the extent that it interferes with the policy of the minister, is of no force or effect; that the Environmental Protection Act is of no force and effect; that the Municipal Act is of no force and effect; that the Planning Act is of no force and effect; that the regional municipality acts, those acts that established the regional governments, are of no force and effect.

"Furthermore, if we have forgotten anything, if there is any oversight, we will pass a regulation that says that any other regulation or any other bill that stands in our way will be of no force and effect, just in case we have missed anything. To be absolutely certain of that, if there are any contradictions within the context of this bill in and of itself, we will deem them not to be contradictions, because when we dictate what will be" -- that is the operative word, "dictate" -- "it will be.

"We will not allow any of the rights of the citizens of Ontario to stand in our way." The minister referred to them as impediments. They were impediments that stood in the way of allowing her to deal with Keele Valley and Britannia. We know with respect to Keele Valley that is absolute nonsense. She may very well have as much as seven years or more to deal with that. There is no legal impediment.

Do members know what most people think they are? They do not think they are legal impediments; they think they are legal rights and protections. They think they are things that people have fought hard for. They think they are the types of things that members in this House and members opposite used to push hard for to give people more participation, more rights and more protection. Now the minister sees them as impediments and says: "If they're in the way, let's roll right over them. And just in case I've missed something, I want to have the power, by regulation, to get rid of anything else that might stand in the way."

Do members know what else I find really distressing about this? It is that there comes a time in the implementation of some of this bill that the minister says: "I don't even want to take the heat, so I'm going to pass it on to one of my bureaucrats. I'm going to pass it on to a director and then I don't have to be accountable. I can distance myself from what's taking place." That is the height of abandonment. That is the abandonment of political responsibility. I ask the minister how she, in good conscience, can do that, pass the responsibility that clearly ought to be hers to a delegated authority in her ministry.

This bill wants to move an agency, the Interim Waste Authority, from the Business Corporations Act into the Crown Agency Act. I just want to note for members' consideration some of the difficulties that have ensued with another crown agency that was set up to deal with waste disposal. I think it is worth thinking about. It seems to me that the minister has a scheme where she is passing this on and distancing herself just a little bit further. She said a year ago: "I can solve the problem. There will be no gap; there will be no difficulty." Now things are a little bit different: "I've got a problem. I'm not sure I want to deal with it. I'm sure I don't want to deal with it based on the principles that I enunciated before. Maybe I'll move it into a crown agency."

I just want to draw to people's attention and remembrance some of the difficulties that have been experienced with the Ontario Waste Management Corp. They are doing the best they can, and that is a topic for debate on another day, but there are very clearly some difficulties in terms of accountability.

What did the minister say when I asked her a question a few weeks ago about something that was within her ministry that she did not have direct control of? Let's revisit the issue just for a moment. I will tell members why I want to do that. I want to revisit this issue because it is an issue of accountability.

I asked the minister a question about her investigation of the enforcement branch of her ministry dealing with the issue of refillable containers. There is a regulation that requires a percentage to be sold and so forth, and most of us know that. I put to the minister what is going on in her investigation of the enforcement branch and she said: "Well, I don't deal with them. I don't give them instructions. I let them handle it on their own, because I don't want to get involved. I mean, it's not my position to tell them how to do their job."

I just wonder to what extent that same defence is going to be raised a year from now, two years from now, when we find ourselves sliding down a slope and we cannot stop and we find ourselves in more serious difficulty. I can predict right now that an answer will be something like this: "Well, you know, there is a crown agency and I don't have direct control of it. We set it up by way of legislation. It's their responsibility. We've given them some direction on policy but, after all, I'm not accountable."

The day we start to do that and find every convenient opportunity to slide off our accountability and responsibility, I think we are into some very serious problems.

There are some other aspects that are controversial that I am sure we will discuss as we go clause-by-clause. Among other things, section 7 of this act says that it gives an inspector the authority to enter people's lands where he or she considers it necessary to meet certain requirements or to obtain approvals. Those are very broad powers to give to an inspector. How are those inspectors seized with their power? They are seized by a corporation hiring them. Are they accountable to the minister? No. Are they accountable to any public scrutiny in terms of political accountability? No. They have the power to enter people's individual property.

I note with interest that the member for Welland-Thorold is here. I would like to get his attention. He is reading at the present time. I am sure he is reading something that is of considerable interest to him, but I want to draw this to his attention as a member of the government, as a man who has some obvious flamboyance but also a man who has fought for people's rights, the little guy.

He knows very well that section 7 of this act says that if an inspector wants to go on somebody's land and start to drill, the person is powerless to prevent that. That is contrary to a lot of things the member fought for. That is contrary to some principles he believes in and that I know he believes in. Generally, people would have an opportunity to respond to that. Generally, people would be given adequate notice that they would have an opportunity to make a case in terms of protecting the integrity of their own property.

I find it absolutely inconsistent that the Premier and this cabinet would be discussing and debating in their minds the issue of a property charter, property rights, within the Constitution of this country. They are introducing a piece of legislation where they will say, "It's not all that unusual." I heard the parliamentary assistant say last night, "There are a lot of acts that give authorities the opportunity to move over the edge in terms of the sanctity of one's property." But generally, most pieces of legislation have a scheme that requires an easement to be obtained or an opportunity for a hearing before you start to go on to somebody's property to start to do the type of testing that is envisaged by what is taking place in this act.

This is a fundamental change for the members opposite as a government. I noticed that the member for Welland-Thorold was nodding his head. He recognizes and realizes that when the government starts to shave away the rights of the little guy at the edges, when it starts to shave away the rights of people who may live in Durham Centre, it starts to shave away the rights of people everywhere. I say to the member for Durham Centre who thinks this is a joke, that you cannot begin to cut around the edges of people's rights and say it is okay because it is expedient. You do so at great peril.

1740

There are some very fundamental principles of the integrity of people's rights and of the integrity of private property at stake in this legislation. I say very clearly that the range of authority is much too broad. The discretionary authority given to inspectors, whose only accountability is to their boss in a crown agency, is much too broad. The principle at stake here is too sacred to allow it to be given away by passage of this section of this bill. The people ought to know that is going on. It is contrary to the direction of the rest of the world. The rest of the world is moving in a direction that recognizes that people's rights, people's property rights are fundamental. There are people who have fought long and hard for those rights and this government says, "Expediency is much more important."

I ask -- perhaps this will come up in the course of further debate on this bill -- who determines the appropriate restitution or compensation for somebody whose land is adversely affected by the entry of the crown agency on to his land? Who makes that determination? What rights are present? What rights are given to the individual land owner to have his property restored?

I have raised the issue of entry and one of the attendant elements of this bill that I find very problematic -- I think of one member opposite in particular, who I mentioned earlier has on more than one occasion had a difference of opinion in terms of the authority given to police in this province, who would be very concerned that part of Bill 143 provides the authority that allows police officers to back up and to stand behind those inspectors, who have no other accountability politically, to walk on to people's lands.

I understand the scheme of that. I understand how it is not terribly inconsistent with other provisions that are given. But I think this government has to ask itself some very fundamental questions here. Who has the accountability for that? It has been pushed off to a crown agency. It has been pushed off to yet a further layer, if you will, of insulation between the minister or the government of the day. Is that appropriate? What checks and balances are contained within the legislation?

It comes back to the fundamental principle of this bill. The fundamental principle is, "We know better and our solutions will be the solutions and our ideas will prevail."

In consideration of the time and the fact that the member for Dufferin-Peel wants to make some comments, I have to save a lot of this for third reading debate. Hopefully a lot of it will be addressed over the course of clause-by-clause and as we go to committee hearings.

I want to say that I am distressed we came to a point a few days ago where this government and the Minister of the Environment, whose name appears on this bill, in full complicity with her House leader said: "We are ready to shut you down and you will have no debate on this. We recognize that there are far-reaching implications. We recognize that it will affect people's lives and recognize will affect municipal councils and municipal authorities throughout the province, but we do not care because our ideas are more important than basic fundamental principles."

I started out talking about that, and as I begin to wrap up I want to come back to the fundamental principles that I see as flawed with this. We will have an opportunity to go through clause-by-clause and look at some of the deficiencies in this.

Let me, in conclusion, talk about a couple of things this minister has stood for. We had what we call euphemistically a "late show" and she is here now and maybe we can talk about this a bit more. She will have an opportunity to respond. I put a question to her and the question was this: If she had an environmental bill of rights in place, would the environmental bill of rights have to be overridden by Bill 143? She did not answer the question, nor did I expect she would. She talked at great length about all the wonderful things they had done in terms of waste reduction initiatives.

But the environmental bill of rights she had put in place and tabled some time ago said this in the explanatory note: The environmental bill of rights "provides for public notice and review of certain approvals, permits or other environment-related orders before the approvals, permits or orders come into force." The bill provides for public notice and review. Bill 143 does not do that.

Her environmental bill of rights said: "It is hereby declared that it is in the public interest to provide every person with an adequate remedy to protect and conserve the environment and the public trust therein from contamination and degradation." Those are nice words, but when it comes time to do something they are of no force and effect. Words to the Minister of the Environment mean "whatever I choose them to mean to fit the situation." In Bill 143 she has consistently been at odds with the very principles she laid down in her environmental bill of rights.

Her environmental bill of rights goes on to give all kinds of other rights to the citizens of this province. It even allows for an appeal to Divisional Court and countless remedies. What does the minister say in the case of Bill 143? "No remedies. I know best." I find it offensive in the extreme that the fundamental principles of this bill are: "We know best. We will dictate what the solutions will be. We will not look at alternatives. We will override the legislative protection and process afforded to people in this province."

As we go across the province in the months of January and February, the people will report back to the House what we will hear. I can tell the minister with absolute assurance that men and women, organizations and municipal governments are going to come before that committee and be absolutely outraged that this minister has brought forward this bill. Its very fundamental, underlying principles are unfair. It is draconian, shortsighted, presumptive in the extreme. It says: "The people don't count. The principles can fall by the wayside in terms of pragmatism. The promises aren't important; expediency is more important."

I think the minister will be held accountable for this. I say with great respect to the minister that I believe she is uncomfortable with this bill. She may stand in her place, say that is not the case and talk about what a great thing it is. If that is the case, there has been a dramatic conversion. I do not know when it has taken place, but it is not the same person who stood time and time again for years and fought for people's rights.

Bill 143 is an intrusion on people's rights. It is an intrusion on municipal governments and on some very fundamental, basic principles of free society and democracy. I find it objectionable in the extreme and I will do my utmost to draw to the attention of the people of the province those issues that I think are important, the provisions of the bill that I think are contrary to some very fundamental rights and principles we hold dear in this province and that until not too long ago unfortunately, the Minister of the Environment used to believe in.

I thank members for the opportunity to make some introductory comments on this bill. I say quite candidly that I believe I have enough concerns about this bill to have extended this debate for many hours and I had hoped to go through, in some cases line by line, some of the provisions of this bill that I think are controversial.

I remind people on the government side that their minister, in complicity with their House leader, basically said they were going to use the ultimate weapon at their disposal and be prepared to shut down debate on this. They are prepared not only to shut down debate within this House but to shut it down for the people of Ontario. They expected the people of Ontario to respond in full within four days.

In four days they wanted to get all their material together and come back here. There is no excuse for that. They ought to be ashamed and they will pay a very high political price. What is going to happen now is that I pledge to them that together with my colleagues we will redouble our effort, as we go across this province, to see that every individual, organization and municipality that could be impacted by this will be made aware of the government's attempts to sneak this through, to have introduced it in the most machiavellian way, at the most inopportune time and to limit public participation, will be found out and found wanting. Only the Minister of the Environment, the very one who has made a 180-degree turn, will be able to account for her sudden conversion and her turnaround.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the people of Ontario that the minister has an awful lot of explaining to do. I wait with some anticipation to figure out how this tremendous conversion took place because, quite frankly, it baffles me. I look forward to that. I thank you for the opportunity to express some of my concerns.

1750

Mrs Fawcett: First of all, I want to congratulate the member for Brampton North, who has very eloquently and passionately put forward the concerns of our party, as many of our colleagues here on the Liberal side have done. I just want to add a few remarks.

I feel that many in rural Ontario are wondering just what this bill is going to mean to them. I know the minister is aware. I did see the Minister of Agriculture and Food in a while ago. I hope he remembers some of the promises made in the last election, especially in one area that affects Northumberland, of course, and that is the Marmorton mine site. There were promises made that definitely never would garbage go into the Marmorton mine site. I see the minister nodding, and I really hope I can trust that this will be so. But one wonders, with these new powers, whether all of sudden something might come along and things could change. I sincerely hope that contracts and agreements and promises will be kept.

Certainly in Northumberland we have a garbage crisis. We have our own business to look after. We do not want to have to help in solving the GTA's problems. The underlying concern of many of the constituents is the powers the minister proposes to exercise in the ongoing search to solve the GTA garbage crisis, that this will be precedent-setting and then applied to the rest of the province.

This minister and indeed the government should be reminded and I hope they will remember that we in rural Ontario will no longer stand for their philosophy that the Metro tail should wag the Ontario dog.

Hon Mr Wildman: I listened with great interest to my colleague's remarks, but I must say I found it a little bit tough to take all of his compliments. I know the member probably did not mean them to be gratuitous, but to say that because I was sitting here in this House indicated that I was interested in the bill and that I took the House more seriously than did my colleagues is not acceptable.

Everyone knows that all of us in this House have times when we share the duty time in the House. This happens to be the day I was here on behalf of my government colleagues. I do like this place. I do love this place. I enjoy it. I enjoy the interchange when we have high-level debate, which unfortunately is not often, but I must say that just because I am here does not mean I am more interested in this legislation than other members of the House, whether they be on the government side or the opposition side.

Mr Callahan: I find it passing strange that the Minister of Natural Resources would not say this is an important debate. It is the most important debate to young people in this province. Young people in this province find that the issue of the environment is one of the most important things that is going to affect their future and their children's future.

As I said before, I used to sit in awe listening to the concerns of this minister, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, about the environment. Then we have a bill like Bill 143 brought before us with basically dictatorial powers. The involvement of the community is bypassed. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that people watching this, particularly young people, are going to say to themselves: "What has happened to my Ontario? What has happened in terms of looking after the environment? Is everything based on recycle?"

We are not going to solve the problems with recycle at all. We require a bill. We require leadership from the NDP government. They campaigned on it. I watched the Premier saying before the election, "We won't allow the escarpment to be hurt at all." Yet he was out there last night at the escarpment and he is trying to justify what he is doing in that community to those people.

I have to say the Minister of the Environment carries the most important portfolio in this government. She carries the future of the young people of this province. She carries their aspirations and their beliefs. They believed the New Democratic Party was going to be something like a breath of fresh air through this country.

I suggest this bill in itself demonstrates that when the Minister of the Environment, whom I had great respect for before and hopefully will see that respect rise again, brings forward a bill like Bill 143, she in fact is denying the opportunity for a reasonable future to the children of this province.

Mrs Mathyssen: The members opposite do not seem to understand that the people of the GTA are quite capable of taking responsibility for the waste generated in the GTA. For too long, the solution has been to stuff it into a green garbage bag, truck it off to landfill or send to an incinerator or to the north, and that is simply not the solution.

They ask for leadership. We are giving them leadership in the form of Bill 143. It sets out how that GTA waste problem will be resolved. It is no great mystery.

Part I establishes the Interim Waste Authority. Part II deals with the Interim Waste Authority's search for three landfill sites, one in Peel, one in Durham and one in Metro. It also sets out very clear, strict guidelines for that search so that a choice of landfill sites will be based on sound environmental principles while it still respects the rights of property owners.

Part III permits the Britannia and Keele landfill sites to be extended in the event that they are needed, in the event that those permanent waste disposal sites are not found in time. Part IV includes amendments to the Environmental Protection Act so that the production of waste at the source can be addressed by reducing, reusing and recycling. Members can see it is not a mystery. It is just leadership and good waste management.

Mr McClelland: I say to the member for Middlesex that she is looking at something that is fundamentally important to the people of Ontario. They will not accept a simplistic rundown of what the bill purports to do.

What they are talking about here are some fundamental principles. They are principles, as I said to the Minister of Natural Resources. I appealed to his stature in this House, as a man of integrity who believes in political accountability. This bill does not do that. This bill takes away political accountability. It foists something on the people of Ontario. It allows the minister to hide behind a scheme of setting up a process that she passes off to one of her bureaucrats.

She removes herself from the commitments she has made and the commitments her government has made. She says she is prepared to vitiate agreements made in good faith between municipalities. She says she is prepared to overlook the legislative not impediments but the legislative rights and protections that have been fought for long and hard by the people of this province, I say to the minister.

I say to the member for Middlesex that is what this bill is about. She should not talk about some scheme to set it up. We understand what the scheme is. She should talk about the basic principles in terms of integrity, accountability, responsibility, and they are not within this bill.

This bill undermines them. It rolls over people's rights. It says: "We don't believe in fairness. We don't believe in looking at all opportunities. We want to be closed-minded about it. We've got our minds made up."

If the minister is talking about a comprehensive waste management program, there is a future. There are bright people. There are a lot of resources. There are a lot of solutions. The minister does not have answers to every problem. There are a lot of people who can participate in this. Government members should not close their minds. They should be a little more expansive. They should look at some options and at some alternatives and they should not do it by riding over people's rights.

The minister is sitting there today. I said earlier in my comments when she was not here that she stood tall on a pedestal in terms of fighting for people's rights, and she has rolled over. I do not know who has done it to her, but she has caved in and I want to know why.

[Report continues in volume B]