The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Martin moved resolution 6:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that cross-border shopping is one of the major threats to the economy of our communities, province and country and that an estimated $2 billion in 1991 was spent in the United States by Ontario alone and, further, that cross-border shopping is a significant factor in a more integrated North American economy, the government of Ontario should make the challenge of cross-border shopping a priority by conducting a comprehensive study of its impact on the economy of Ontario. Such a study would be a joint venture of provincial, federal and the affected municipal governments and would examine the unique and combined influences of such factors as the present cross-border shopping initiatives of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the cost of gasoline, the impact of Sunday shopping and the value of the Canadian dollar.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today with great concern about the economy of our province and the challenge that confronts us as a government about an issue that impacts very severely on our ability to continue to keep in place those programs and honour those values we as a province have come to expect, while our ability to collect revenues and pay for them is affected by a number of items that we both do and do not have any control over.

However, there is one issue which, through further study, we can come to some coordinated, more cooperative answers to if we wish. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time this morning going through some of the information that's been gathered that indicates to us that cross-border shopping is a factor facing a lot of the communities many of us represent in this province. I think every chamber of commerce in any of the communities we represent and all of the municipal governments have effectively presented the detail and the data to us in various forms over the last year to year and a half. The question now is what we do about it.

As the standing committee on finance and economic affairs stated in its report to this House not so long ago, the phenomenon of cross-border shopping is one that is rich in anecdotal evidence and thin in statistical data, and that is the reason for my being here this morning and standing before this House with this resolution. Certainly I believe cross-border shopping is not a very simple problem that can be answered by either a municipal government, a provincial government or the federal government alone. It's one that all of us together, in cooperation with the private sector and consumers across this province, must take some ownership of and must ultimately participate in the resolution of.

Our government has taken some significant leadership in this to date. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has met with the Ontario Border Communities Mayors' Task Force on Cross-Border and Sunday Shopping and has participated in a national effort initiated by the private sector to find some answers for this very difficult problem we have in front of us. It has provided many communities, my own included, with the resources to come up with local answers to some of the challenges that affect those communities particularly.

In my own community there's been an effort in place for a couple of months now to make consumers aware of the impact of cross-border shopping on the very fabric of our society and our city. They've begun to take some very significant and important initiatives in the areas of training people in the retail sector and raising consciousness in the business community of the need to provide better service, and have begun to do some very important comparison studies regarding the costs of items on both sides of the river so people have more knowledge about what they are saving by purchasing items in the United States of America.

All of that has shown us there are some things we can do. Certainly the activities of the Partners in Excellence program in my community have already had some significant impact on the number of people going across the river.

1010

There was an article by the chamber in the Sault Ste Marie Star a week or so ago stating that cross-border shopping in Sault Ste Marie has dropped by 6% regarding the statistics that we've looked at for the month of March because of the excellent and important work that is being done by the chamber in cooperation with the labour council and consumers of our community to take some responsibility in front of this challenge. However, I don't think there's anybody in this House who will not agree that this is still not enough, that there still needs to be action taken by all levels of government that will answer more concretely the challenge that is in front of us.

This morning I am focusing on three very important items that have been identified as having some significant influence on the pattern of shopping of people who live close to borders in our province, three items that have been identified most clearly, most effectively and most seriously by the mayors' task force on cross-border shopping and by the chambers of commerce across this province and three items about which there is much discussion and difference of opinion.

I think it is time we developed some statistical information around those, and with that information then began to make some decisions that reflect our real desire to actually combat or at least come to some understanding and control regarding this issue.

Again in the report the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented to this House, a number of issues were raised as being important and having an impact regarding this question: lower prices in the United States; the free trade agreement; the value of the Canadian dollar; interest rates; the goods and services tax; reduced enforcement at the border; non-collection of provincial sales tax at the border; high Canadian taxes and regulatory burden at all levels of government; gasoline prices; supply management; higher Canadian labour costs; higher real estate costs in Canada; levels of customer service and product knowledge; marketing practices of US retailers, such as aggressive advertising; Sunday shopping; US discount malls; the recession, and economic uncertainty.

Certainly a number of those have already begun to be addressed by all levels of government: by the federal government -- the interest rates are now down significantly in this country; by the provincial government through the leadership of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and some of the work it has been doing; and the municipalities, through programs like the Partners in Excellence program in Sault Ste Marie, have begun to grapple with this and take some action.

However, there are still some items left that we haven't begun to address in a way that reflects the seriousness of these issues. These issues, in my mind, will not go away. They will continue to haunt us until we get some statistical information to show us that they either do or do not have an impact on the question, and also some statistical information that will show us as we look at those challenges what we can do that will best address them, that will allow us that competitive edge we are all seeking while at the same time being sensitive to the need for us to be cognizant of our desire to keep in place the fabric of our society and the values we have come to know and expect will be there. Those issues are the cost of gasoline, the impact of Sunday shopping and the value of the Canadian dollar.

I suggest that our government, all parties in this House, bring this resolution forward to whatever forum will take it to do the statistical gathering and information-compiling necessary to come up with that which we will all require to make the important decisions that will need to be made if we're going to have a significant impact regarding this problem. The place I think would perhaps be most effective in looking at this is the National Task Force on Cross-Border Shopping, which is being led at the moment by the private sector but which is being participated in in a very wholesome and fulsome way by both levels of government, federal and provincial. I suggest that our government take these issues to that forum and ask for some study to be done so that we who have to make decisions about those things will have the empirical information at our fingertips to make proper and intelligent decisions.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, as you know, cross-border shopping is not a new issue at all. I cannot believe the member is coming forward to the House today saying, "Let's study it." It tells me a couple of things: The member has no voice in caucus and, even if he has, I think his colleagues are not listening to him. It tells me also that none of the ministers concerned about this issue has ever spoken to this member. If they have spoken to him and recognized him they have, in other words, not listened to him carefully.

It also tells me, which is more serious, that he has not even spoken to the mayor of Sault Ste Marie. The member himself is from Sault Ste Marie, one of the areas that is more impacted than any other by cross-border shopping, and now he's saying, "Let's go study it."

It is a case of wheels spinning in the mud. The government doesn't know what to do. It is inactive; it is incompetent to deal with these issues. We see the impact cross-border shopping has and he's coming forward today asking us to study it. Studying is stalling. The mayor, Joe Fratesi, must be saying, "I don't believe our representative is standing in the House today doing that."

I suggest, my dear colleague, that you wake up and smell the roses. It's a bit late. It's way into the spring now and the roses are about fading. The issue is old and we should not be studying. Government is about making decisions. We are going to study a study again. As you know, there was a study already done on cross-border shopping commissioned by the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce. I am sure Mr Martin is aware of this. If not, maybe I can get my staff, the mayor of Sault Ste Marie or the chamber of commerce there to send you a copy. Why study it any more?

We are in some very serious problems here with a government that doesn't know when to act and how to act. Cross-border shopping has damaged some of our economy. I fully agree with you that it is not an easy topic, an easy issue, but we recognized it a long time ago. The things your government is doing today are doing more harm to the private sector, the way it goes about concentrating on the labour force and people in unions, the bashing of federal government. They should realize that this is a cooperation of all municipalities, and I think this member should wake up and smell the roses.

Of course my party is prepared to support any resolution to deal with this. I commend you for bringing it forward, but it is so late. We've been telling you that for a long time. I hope when you go home to Sault Ste Marie you'll tell them you were forced to bring this forward and that you knew for a long time it was to be dealt with. You must also tell them that your caucus is not listening to you and that your ministers are dragging their feet on this issue and should have been dealing with this a long time ago. Stop studying. Government is about making decisions.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): First, as the chairman for the Progressive Conservative caucus here at Queen's Park, I want to say how upset my caucus and I are about receiving this resolution only yesterday afternoon. Our caucus was unable to give full study and discussion of this private member's resolution. It seems odd that the New Democratic Party, the governing party, has 40 backbenchers who could not get their act together by Tuesday morning of this week to put forward a resolution in this Legislature so that we could properly discuss it and debate it this morning.

Mr David Winninger (London South): He only found out he was doing it late last week.

1020

Mr Sterling: The member for London South says he only found out late last week that he was going to do it. We all have that problem in the Legislature. All the caucuses are cognizant of the fact that it's going to be a rushed case with regard to the first private member's resolution, but somehow the other caucuses manage even with fewer numbers. It just shows not only that this government is in total confusion but that the members of the NDP caucus through their whip's office and through their House leader are in total confusion as well.

I feel sorry for the member for Sault Ste Marie trying to defend this government's record with regard to cross-border shopping. This government has raised gas taxes at a faster rate than any other government in Ontario has ever done.

Mr Winninger: You used to do it every three months.

Mr Sterling: The member for London South insists on interjecting. He says we used to do it every three months. One year we did raise them every three months, but when you raise gas by half a cent a litre or whatever it is, it's not the same thing as whacking the taxpayers with a 30% increase in one year, which is what this government has done in the past year.

This is what the government has done to the member for Sault Ste Marie's constituency. Your government has whacked the Sault Ste Marie gas buyers with an increase of 30% over the last year. I take great offence that you bring forward a resolution to study the problem further when you didn't have the guts to stand up in this Legislature and vote against that increase in gasoline taxes. You can't come here as a representative of the people in border towns and say, "We want to study this further," and not stand up for them in the Legislature when it counts and vote against measures which are encouraging cross-border shopping. The matter of cross-border shopping has been studied, it's been studied more and it's been studied again. We know what the problems are: Gasoline tax is one, tobacco tax is another, and the price of milk is another.

What we did in the Progressive Conservative caucus when the standing committee on finance and economic affairs studied this last year was to put forward some practical solutions that we could take in this Legislature, not blame another government and not say somebody else should do something. We put forward several suggestions about what we would do with regard to cross-border shopping. I want to put them forward again in this Legislature -- it's in the dissenting report -- because the majority of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs is controlled by the New Democratic Party, and what they suggested in the report again was more study. That seems to be something they recommend every time it's time for action. All they did in the report was to recommend more studies.

We saw there were problems and we made four recommendations. The dissenting report of the Progressive Conservative caucus said, "The Ontario government should roll back the gasoline, fuel, alcohol and tobacco tax increases imposed by the 1991 budget." One of those increases was the 30% hike in gasoline taxes by this government over the past year.

Next, "The Ontario government should harmonize its provincial sales tax with the federal goods and services tax," so that both of them could be collected at the border. When people who had gone across to the United States via Port Huron or wherever it was came back to Canada they would have to pay the GST and the PST because they were being collected together and on the same tax basis.

Third, "The Ontario government should use any net revenue gained from harmonization" -- that is, putting the PST and GST -- "to finance rate reductions on other provincial taxes." Currently, it is estimated that harmonization will result in a net revenue gain of some $500 million for the provincial government, which should be used to finance a 4.2-cent-a-litre cut in gasoline taxes. We weren't saying, "Increase the deficit in order to cut the taxes." We were saying: "This is a way you can gain some more revenue, by harmonizing the PST and the GST. Take that off gasoline taxes because that's a big cause of cross-border shopping, particularly in communities like Sault Ste Marie."

Fourth, "The Ontario government should produce and make publicly available an analysis of the effects of any relevant legislation and regulations it proposes to introduce or amend on the competitive position of the Ontario economy, but, where appropriate, on specific sectors."

In other words, if the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, comes forward next week with suggestions as to increases in gasoline taxes -- which I have no doubt he's going to do and he's going to hurt Sault Ste Marie again -- or if he comes forward with new increases on tobacco taxes -- which he's probably going to do and he's again going to hurt the business community of Sault Ste Marie -- then he should come forward with a competitive analysis of what it is going to do to the community of Sault Ste Marie. Is it going to force more of those people who are struggling to maintain retail businesses in the community out of business? We believe you no longer can make taxation policy within Ontario without considering what your neighbours are doing.

The greatest difference -- and I want to summarize in order for my colleagues to have an opportunity to talk about other issues -- in gasoline taxes between the province and a bordering state comes between Ontario and the state of Michigan. Combined, provincial and federal gasoline taxes amount to somewhere around 22 cents per litre in Ontario. Go across the border into Michigan and it's around 8 cents per litre. Mr Speaker, if you were living in the community of Sault Ste Marie and you had to fill up your gasoline tank, I know you wouldn't go across the river and buy gasoline in Michigan, but I'm sure you might be tempted.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I rise to support the resolution of my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie, which calls for an impact study on the cross-border shopping issue, specifically the four factors: the initiatives of MITT, the cost of gasoline, Sunday shopping and the value of the Canadian dollar.

I want to try to reflect the feelings of my constituents and the reality of the city of Niagara Falls. Let me tell you a little bit about the Falls. The city is intimately connected with Niagara Falls, New York, via two very short bridges from our Canadian downtown directly to the US downtown, the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge and the Rainbow Bridge. Local citizens of each side have always been able to take advantage of the best buys on each side. It is an inherent right and a privilege of living so close.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, young people traditionally went across the bridge because the drinking age was lower, and of course US locals loved coming over to our side for the good restaurants. I'm told that specialty meats and cheeses at our downtown deli was a tradition for them as well. I take my daughter across to the US to see plays at the university there. Every weekend my husband still takes his basketball team to the Niagara Falls, New York, boys club. In other words, exchange is a part of life on the border. Unfortunately, of course, it is just so easy to pick up a tank of gas while you're over.

That's the way things traditionally have been, but things have changed; that balance has been upset. It started in 1989 with a notion called "free trade." Since January 1991, the exodus has even further begun. Since the introduction of the GST, it has been a revolt. There is no longer just a friendly exchange. It has become a statement of protest, and unfortunately that can become a habit.

1030

I also must at this point recognize that there are very many people with very low incomes who are very much in need, and they are very much correct in being the most careful shoppers they can be with their limited funds. I certainly will not deny that. At the same time as this revolt is happening, all across North America there is a restructuring and revolution in the retail trade, which really has nothing to do with cross-border shopping. There are new ways of marketing -- discount stores, for instance -- and in this age of the smart shopper we must have smart retailers, and I believe that is what's happening more and more. As one retailer told me -- I think it was at a chamber of commerce do -- "If it ain't broke, break it." It's no longer "just carry on," in the traditions we've always had for retailing in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s and 1980s in Canada.

I want to tell you about the impact of the campaign, with funding from our Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. Locally it's called, "Look both ways before you cross." These huge posters are evident everywhere, on billboards and in the newspaper, and the campaign is working. There are radio spots which describe a grocery basket of, say, 80 comparable items. With taxes and duty included, there is a $30 or more overall saving in Canada.

People are thinking. First of all, there are two important outcomes of this campaign, "Look both ways before you cross." People are realizing that spending routinely and regularly in the US, they may in fact be protesting, but they may not be getting the best buys, that there are now in fact many better deals in Canada. Second, because of this campaign, people are thinking that where they spend their dollars counts. It counts in ways that are important, towards things they value, for instance, their health care and their education.

I talked to one young clerk this past weekend who worked at Foot Locker at the local mall, and he said that when he thanks everyone for shopping in Canada, people are really pleased. They feel good about making that choice. Nurses, teachers, firefighters and municipal employees are all beginning to know that their salaries are paid by that tax base, which is in jeopardy, yet just before Christmas I was in a school in the teachers' staff room and saw a poster with an advertisement for, "Let's all get together and have a shopping trip for the weekend to Buffalo."

I think people have to think a bit more carefully. Yes, it is a difficult issue and it's a very sensitive issue, because it's a free country. People in border communities have always bought gas where it is cheaper, here or there.

To conclude, all of us need to know what the real facts are. People are extremely suspicious of exaggerated claims on both sides of the issue. They ask: "Is it really cheaper here, or is it really cheaper there? Is it really hurting us, or are you just telling us this? Which jobs are we really losing? Is Sunday shopping a factor?" The factors have even changed, I would submit, within the last year. The recession has deepened. Things have substantially changed with regard to the tax base and many other things. Therefore, I believe we do need an unbiased study to look at the combined influences and I think it's very appropriate at this time.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise in this House today to speak about the issue of cross-border shopping. I know the member for Sault Ste Marie well, and I'm concerned that as he has raised this in private members' hour, he may not be aware that the work he is requesting has in fact already been done, and it has been done in his own community of Sault Ste Marie. In October 1990, there was a study done by Ernst and Young for the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce which asked the question, did the analysis and provided the information. The thing that concerns me, and should concern the members opposite who have spoken on this important issue, is that since this report in October 1990 the provincial government has distinguished itself by its lack of leadership in addressing this important issue. Border communities are suffering and consumers are unaware of the impact, I believe, of cross-border shopping.

Let me just share with you some of the results of the work that has already been done. In the October 1990 report for the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce this is what they had to say: 72% of the people had shopped in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, in the last 30 days; 37% of people in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, shop in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, at least weekly; only 16% responded by saying that they rarely or never shop in the United States; the average expenditure in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, by residents of Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, during those 30 days prior and during this survey was $86.40.

What were they buying there? They were going primarily to buy gasoline: 36% per cent of the people who responded to this survey were spending money filling up their tank. Of that $86.40 they had spent in the previous month, 36% -- $31.40 -- was for gasoline.

A mayors' task force was established. I've spoken in this House on numerous occasions of my support for the mayors' task force. These are mayors of border communities. What was their advice to the NDP government? It was a differential gas tax. What have we been recommending in this House now for the last 18 months? Lower the gas tax. Why are the people in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, crossing the border to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan?

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: It's because of the vast differential in the price. I say to the members opposite who are shouting and yelling that they're shouting and yelling because they know their government hasn't done what it could do. They know their government has not done what the mayors recommended to it that it do. They know they have been in government for 18 months and have distinguished themselves by their lack of leadership on the cross-border shopping issue, which is killing jobs in Ontario.

As I look through this very extensive report, what it says about the consumers is that the primary purpose reported by 43% of the people of Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, for their visits to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, was specifically related to the purchase of gasoline and milk: staples, things you need. Twenty per cent said they had gone for a holiday, and 18% went across for a visit to a bar or restaurant, but 43% of the people who crossed the border from Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, did so to fill up their tanks with cheaper gas.

1040

The member for Sault Ste Marie, the member for Niagara Falls and the members in the NDP government caucus who represent those border communities know that what's happening in Sault Ste Marie is happening in Cornwall, Windsor and Niagara Falls. It's happening right along that open border where people are crossing to fill up their tanks with gas. Yet the response from the Treasurer in his last budget was to increase gas taxes; the response from the NDP Treasurer in his last budget was not to lower gas taxes in those communities, as had been recommended by the mayors. So during this private members' hour I support not only the kinds of studies that have been done, but I would say very strongly that I support some action by that NDP government.

The only thing that is misguided about this resolution by the member for Sault Ste Marie is that it's out of touch, it's out of date and it's too late. The studies have been done. The mayors have been working together. Everybody is giving advice to your government on what to do. There's one big problem: Your government is not doing it; it's not listening. They think the solution to the problem is to open casinos, and maybe for some of the communities it is, but next week in the budget the Treasurer will have the opportunity to lower gas taxes and create a gas differential for those communities suffering from cross-border shopping, where people are crossing regularly every week to fill up their tanks with gas.

Do you know what else? This study has been conducted and has been sitting on the shelf where no one's paid any attention to it. Do you know what it says? That 90% of the residents surveyed in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, said that on their last trip to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, they had stayed less than 24 hours. That's the problem. People cross, they fill up their tanks with gas, they spend their money across the border, and this government has done nothing to make them aware of how important it is to spend their money in Canada to support Canadian business, to support Canadian social services, to support Canadian enterprise, to build Ontario and to build Canada.

To do another study, as is being proposed by the member for Sault Ste Marie, well-intentioned as he is, is just going to waste time. The studies have been done in other provinces and in other countries. They have addressed cross-border shopping issues. Look at what they have done in Denmark. Examine what they have done in New Brunswick. Take a look at what is happening in other jurisdictions where they are lowering the tax differentials.

Mr Martin: Good idea; that could be part of the study.

Mrs Caplan: The member opposite says that could be part of the study. Your Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has that information. Your Ministry of Revenue could have it. We have it. I'll give it to you. It's available. We keep trying to help you. We keep giving you advice. We keep giving you information.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Stop it.

Mrs Caplan: And you laugh and you say: "Stop it. Don't help us. Don't give us information."

This study is too late. The studies have been done. I say to my friend from Sault Ste Marie, Ontario -- and he has many friends in his community -- that he does not want to be known as the member for Sault Ste Marie, Michigan. He does not want jobs from Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, to cross the border to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan -- I know that -- and neither do I. It is important that he be aware of not only the studies that have been done; he must also know that as an elected member of this Legislature, he has a responsibility, as does the rest of the NDP caucus, to speak out within his caucus.

Tell the members of your cabinet you have the information available. Let the members of your government know you demand action on behalf of your constituents. They're not listening to us; maybe they'll listen to you. We will give you whatever information and advice we can, both here in the House and in committees, but it is up to the NDP government to show leadership and take action, and to this point in time it has done nothing.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to spend a few moments commenting upon the resolution put forward by the member for Sault Ste Marie concerning cross-border shopping. It's been an interesting debate so far this morning. I would say to the Liberal member for Oriole, who was a member of the Liberal cabinet which raised taxes some 33 times in this province, somewhat over 130% in tax increases during the five years the Liberals were in office, that it's no wonder the NDP members this morning are screaming at her. For once I agree with the NDP, and this is a rare, historic moment in this House indeed.

But I'm a bit critical of the resolution put forward, although I believe the member for Sault Ste Marie is well intentioned. It's a tremendous problem in his own riding. I echo the sentiments and concerns expressed by the members this morning that we really don't need another study, that the library has a number of studies now on the shelves collecting dust. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the border mayors' task force, John Winter Associates Ltd and a number of other groups have put forward studies.

I was Tourism and Recreation critic for my party last year. I had the opportunity to meet with a number of individuals who were compiling studies at that time, and I think rather than another study it would be better to perhaps knock a cent a litre off the gasoline tax. That's something all the studies call for, a reduction in gasoline taxes, particularly in border areas. It's an area the government can take action on; it's within its jurisdiction and it would be better than spending more of the taxpayers' money on studies.

I also suggest members of the NDP grab a backbone and gain an understanding of what this House is intended to be. It's intended that in our democracy you will stick up for your constituents in this Legislature. The NDP member for Lincoln, on second reading I believe, voted against a tobacco tax increase put forward by the NDP government last year. He soon discovered there's a tremendous amount of pressure in the Premier's so-called open government. He lost his chairmanship of one of the Legislative committees, and lo and behold on third reading was forced to vote along the NDP line and to vote with his government.

We had hoped the member for Lincoln would break the tradition of the NDP and break ranks and actually stick up for his constituents, for the people who put him in office, and actually work with democracy and with Parliament the way it was intended to be. We've not seen any members of the NDP vote against their government.

Again I say to the member for Sault Ste Marie, rather than ask for more studies why does he not vote against the number of tax increases that have already been presented by the NDP government, continuing the trend of the former Liberal government, and the tax increases that will inevitably be contained in the budget on April 30? We're told there will be a tremendous new round of tax increases in that budget.

We're overtaxed. We're the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America. The root cause of our high wages and our uncompetitiveness, and something the Ontario government has a significant jurisdiction over, is taxes. It's an area, unfortunately, where this government has not acted, and individual members have not had the backbone to stand up against their Treasurer and their Premier to vote on behalf of their constituents.

In the Ontario PC Party Mike Harris has never, in the 18 months I've been in office and the time he's been leader, told members of his caucus how to vote. In fact, he goes out of his way at our weekly caucus meetings to remind us that we are to vote on behalf of our constituents.

1050

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What about the cheque-cashing private member's bill? You were whipped.

Mr Jim Wilson: The member says, "Well, you have whips." We have whips to make sure we have bodies in the House, but we're not told how to vote. School children often say to me, "But you often seem to vote together." I say, "Yes, well, there're 20 of us and we're like-minded individuals and there're very few times" --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Coincidence.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's the truth. There're very few times we disagree. If you look at the voting pattern, we've voted many different ways on this side of the House because we represent diverse areas of the province. That's the way democracy was meant to run.

Grab a backbone over there. Do what you so sanctimoniously told us you were going to do in opposition. We had to live through a 37-day campaign with the NDP candidates in our riding telling us they were holier than thou, that they would never vote as a bloc and that somehow the Tories and the Liberals over the years never stuck up for their constituents.

In the days of Conservative government in Ontario we had good government, good management. We had a practice and philosophy that said one must always keep competitiveness in mind. Government doesn't create jobs; the private sector creates jobs. I don't know a politician alive today, or one in the past, who ever created a meaningful job other than maybe adding someone to the payroll here at Queen's Park. The private sector creates jobs. The sooner the NDP government learns that lesson of history and that fact of life, the better off all Ontarians would be.

I say to the member for Sault Ste Marie, don't study this issue. Go back to your caucus and cabinet colleagues and express to them your concern and get them to take action. The next opportunity is the budget on April 30.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): As many may know, Sarnia is about a stone's throw away from Port Huron, Michigan. The cross-border traffic between Sarnia and Port Huron has existed for many years. However, there has been something very different in the last few years. The focus has clearly changed from recreational visits to very serious missions to obtain US goods at cheaper prices and at the expense of Canadian retailers. Sarnia's retail industry and its workers are in the battle of their lives to survive this trend. What happened in Sarnia? What happened in Sault Ste Marie to turn fun visits into a war for consumers?

There are a couple of major factors we clearly have to consider. It's common knowledge that the goods and services tax was the last straw for consumers. Any person on the street will tell you that. I ask members of this House to forget the partisan politics of this House and the House in Ottawa and listen to what the public is saying. The general public has said the goods and services tax was their last straw.

The free trade agreement also encourages people to shop in the US. It's something I think we have to pay attention to because it's clearly only going to get worse. The elimination and reduction of tariffs on US goods will continue for the next seven years. We have a major structural problem to deal with in Ontario. There clearly are no quick fixes.

Even if you agree with the goods and services tax and the free trade agreement, which I don't, the fact they were implemented almost simultaneously defies logic. It has been a disaster for the retail industry in Ontario and right across Canada. The federal government had done an impact study prior to the implementation of the free trade agreement that involved the retail sector. The study was never released. It showed there would be serious difficulty in managing the retail industry in Ontario after the implementation of the free trade agreement. That study was kept secret. We had no chance as Ontarians, as Canadians, to develop a strategy to deal with the problems. Consequently there was no federal policy or strategy developed.

In Sarnia the border zone advisory committee, funded by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, in a poll it conducted identified customer service, selection and price as being the major problems retailers had to counteract to keep shoppers at home in Sarnia. Customer service was identified as the number one issue. They have since developed a plan to deal with the customer service issue involving a phantom shopper and awareness campaign, and it will likely involve wide-scale training of retail employees on the importance of customer service.

The Sarnia retailers are working hard to win their customers back from the US and I think they're having some success. There are also plans afoot to do a weekly shopping basket comparison between United States and Canadian goods to point out that clearly not all items are cheaper in the United States.

The issue of gasoline prices often comes up in any discussion about cross-border shopping. The interesting thing in Sarnia is that even though we are the gasoline refining capital of Ontario, if not eastern Canada, we've never had the lowest gas prices in Ontario. Indeed, sometimes the farther you drive away from Sarnia, the better prices are likely to be.

We have a hard time in Sarnia competing on gas prices in Ontario, never mind the US, and that is clearly not a function of taxation. The facts are that if we took every cent of provincial taxes off gasoline, we could not compete with US gasoline prices. The revenue raised from taxes on gasoline helps to pay for a number of important programs that we as Canadians have that our US neighbours do not. Health care and accessible, affordable education come to mind.

While nobody likes taxes, Canada's tax structure provides many services that none of us as a Canadian, as an Ontarian, as a Sarnia resident wants to lose, services that make our quality of life in Sarnia, in Ontario and in Canada much better than our neighbours' in the United States. Having said that, I think it's clear that tax reform is needed right across this country and I'm proud to say that Ontario and our government is taking the lead to examine our tax structure to see what can be done to make taxes fairer for our citizens.

The federal government must take the same action. Ottawa has made it very difficult for all provinces to raise revenue because of the implementation of its infamous consumer tax. Obviously the federal government has to recognize this, which currently I don't think it does, and then work with the provinces to help resolve the problem of cross-border shopping, which is a problem that's Canada-wide.

In closing, I think it's important to have accurate data to help all of us deal with the problem of cross-border shopping. There are many who say that simply opening our stores on Sunday will solve all our problems or that simply cutting gas taxes will stop the flow to the United States. I don't agree. The problems are much more complex than that and will become increasingly more complex in the years ahead as Canada opens its doors to cheaper US goods.

It is critical that we develop a long-term, effective strategy to deal with the cross-border issue, a strategy that must be developed with the participation of the federal government and the municipal governments. I remind this House that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs stated in its report on cross-border shopping that the cross-border phenomenon is rich with anecdotes and slim on statistical data.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm dismayed and I'm discouraged by this resolution being presented to this House this morning. As has just been brought up by a member of the government, two standing committees of this Legislature have taken this matter seriously and have prepared reports, and the recommendations await results.

1100

Mr Martin: It's unfortunate that the opposition took the tack this morning of attacking me personally rather than speaking to the issue.

The standing committee on finance and economic affairs recommended that, "The province of Ontario should participate with the federal government and municipalities in a trilevel task force on cross-border shopping." It also recommended that, "The provincial government should appoint a lead minister to work with all the players in determining and implementing proactive solutions to cross-border shopping."

We've done that. We've done that in spades. The national task force initiated by the private sector chose to focus on research into the role of Canada's distribution systems on price at Canadian retailers, communicating the importance and value of shopping in Canada and providing a clearinghouse of ideas from across the country.

I am saying to the House today that we need to quantify the impact of the present initiatives of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in cooperation with the border zone advisory committees, where we plan to spend upwards of $2 million this year.

I believe we need to quantify the impact of gasoline taxes, because they have been raised as a significant issue in, as some of the members across have rightly said, studies that have been done by communities.

I think we need as well to study the impact of Sunday shopping on this important issue.

We need, in cooperation with the federal government, to look at the impact of things like the free trade agreement, interest rates and particularly, as reflected in this resolution, the impact of the high dollar.

All of these would be most adequately addressed -- because cross-border shopping is a Canadian issue, in my mind -- by the National Task Force on Cross-Border Shopping. I suggest this morning that this House recommend to our government that it take these issues to that body and ask for further quantifying of them so that we might make decisions in the future that will truly have an impact, as some of the things we have already done have, on the challenge of cross-border shopping to all of us in this country.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS

Mr Phillips moved resolution 3:

That, in the opinion of this House, the provincial budget must present a comprehensive picture of Ontario's economic and social situation to include a broad range of social and economic indicators which can be monitored and targeted for progress, including:

1. The number of people living below the poverty line, including the number of children.

2. Social assistance case loads.

3. Social assistance benefit levels expressed in both dollar terms as well as a percentage of the poverty line.

4. Usage of food banks.

5. Housing data, including the average home prices in selected cities required to purchase a home, average rents in selected cities and waiting lists for assisted housing.

6. Distribution of income and wealth in Ontario.

7. Income distribution by gender.

8. Tax burdens faced by different income groups.

9. Number of layoffs and their success rates at securing comparable re-employment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Let me start by indicating to the House why I am proposing this. I have always felt, whether it be here or anywhere else, that establishing targets and goals is important. There is perhaps no more important document than the budget where those goals and targets should be established, because the budget clearly indicates, in very real terms, where a government's priorities are and what it will attempt to achieve. I think it is a good way of operating -- to set yourself some goals and targets.

Second, if I might provide some advice to the government, I think the New Democratic Party will want some benchmarks. I think they'll want to have those targets. They'll want to be able to say to the people of Ontario, "Here is where things have been, here's where things are right now and here's where things are going to be in the future."

I picked this particular resolution, as I'm sure everyone in the House recognizes, because it is word for word a resolution that had been proposed by at least two of the current cabinet ministers. I think the Minister of Labour and the Attorney General, word for word, proposed this resolution. The reason I've repeated it verbatim is to ensure that we speak as one voice here. I think it's an opportunity for the Legislature -- and it's very timely in that the Treasurer will be bringing forth his budget next week -- for all of us to say to the Treasurer that part of the budget should include these numbers.

In the future we may want to add additional ones, but in the interest of getting the entire House's support for it I specifically chose the words that were in a report of two years ago that the current Minister of Labour and the current Attorney General prepared. So I would indicate to the government members in the Legislature that one should feel comfort that it has the blessing certainly of the Premier and I think of prominent members of the cabinet. I think it's timely that we have this resolution before us. I look forward to the weight of the government members in ensuring that the Treasurer does move forward on this.

If I might just comment a little bit on some of the other documents, the Agenda for People, which we're all familiar with, will be a kind of scorecard of the government. I remember, in the months after the election, most if not all members of the government indicating that indeed this would be the basis on which they would want to be evaluated. As you head into the next election, I think Hansard will show that virtually every member of the government at one time or another during the debate on the speech from the throne agreed, "Yes, this is going to be our scorecard." Just as, when we headed into the last election, the then Premier Peterson was held accountable in some very vivid language, I would think as we head into the next election each of the government members who runs again will want to ensure that the Agenda for People has been delivered on.

So it isn't just the opposition that would find this helpful; I think all the government members would find it helpful, because getting into the budget the goals that will deliver on your promises will be extremely important. It's part of my plea to the members opposite for strong support of this resolution that in addition to being good for the people of Ontario it's probably very good for yourselves.

The specific areas we're asking for, or that were asked for by the current Minister of Labour and Attorney General and we're now proposing as a resolution, include the number of layoffs and the success rates at securing comparable re-employment. All of us, as we go to our constituencies, probably see the same thing: the number of people coming to us saying: "Listen, I have been 20 years in a very good job. Suddenly the plant's closed. What in the world am I going to do?" Many of them are extremely tragic. People who never even dreamed they might have to apply for welfare -- it never entered their minds -- are now involved in that.

I reviewed the layoff statistics -- I think most members get these -- the plant closures, the plant downsizing and the partial closures. It is of continuing, major concern. These are the 1991 numbers. We can see 118 plants. Every three days we have a plant closing in Ontario. In the month of March, as the members will recall, we lost over 1,000 jobs a day. Goodness knows we welcome the Ford announcement, but there were more jobs lost in one day in March than the whole Ford announcement. As I say, 118 plants closed in 1991, and these are a broad cross-section. I might add that 85% of the workers affected by these were unionized workers -- 85% unionized workers. That's why I think it's in all our best interests that we have the numbers -- not just the laid-off; we've got that, but what success rate they have secured in getting re-employment.

1110

I could talk at length about the layoffs and the tragedy. As I say, I think each of us in our own constituency sees it every day. We used to be a province that had the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia all have lower rates than we do now, and believe it or not, Quebec is beginning to close the gap.

My own judgement, by the way, is that the unemployment rate in the province is much more like 12.5%, not 10.5%. If you look at the numbers there are about 100,000 to 150,000 people who should be in the workplace who aren't. They've dropped out; they've given up. So the real number, believe me, is more like 12.5% instead of 10.5%.

Another recommendation, which again I don't claim credit for authoring but I certainly support, is the social assistance case loads. We now see well over a million people having to turn to social assistance, and I repeat, I am one who believes there is basically very little abuse of that system. In any system involving a million people there are bound to be some people who abuse it, there's no question of that -- just a million people in any area -- but overwhelmingly the people who are there are there because they have no alternative. I believe that. As I say, I see those people weekly, if not daily.

But if we don't establish how many were there before, how many are there now and are we making any progress -- I suspect the Treasurer's budget next week will have a plan, and the plan will probably be, "If you hire someone who is currently needing welfare we will provide you with a supplement." It probably will be some form of scaling-down thing. But we don't have the criteria to evaluate whether it's working or not. We'll go through a whole year and at the end of that year we won't know whether that was a worthwhile expenditure. So I support very much the need to get the numbers on the social assistance case load and look at the progress that's being made.

The usage of food banks was number 4 here -- and I'm just picking a few, Mr Speaker -- which again is rather timely in that we see, as we speak, the Daily Bread Food Bank in Metropolitan Toronto and similar food banks around the province attempting to cope with a very difficult situation. Again, I know people who use food banks who, if you'd asked them five years ago, would never have dreamed that they would be required to go to a food bank. Some of the statistics are quite shocking in terms of education levels and what not.

In conclusion, I look forward to the debate in the House and I look forward very much to a strong message on this resolution going to the Treasurer, as I say, on a timely basis, so that we will have these pieces of information.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I come to this debate in support of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's resolution, not only for the particulars of the resolution but more for the thrust of the resolution.

I'd like to talk about this resolution in a more esoteric or philosophical mode than in terms of the particulars of the resolution. I've had some experience with information issues, and that's basically what we're talking about here this morning.

In 1981, when I was appointed to the cabinet of Ontario, I was given responsibility for freedom of information under the former Progressive Conservative government. I wrestled with that issue for a period of four or five years as a cabinet minister, unable to have the cabinet of which I was part come to a resolution as to how we would put forward the very noble idea of freedom of information. During that time and subsequent to the time I served in cabinet, I have had, I guess from that perspective, an opportunity to view the information issues which we consider as legislators of Ontario not only from the government benches but also from the opposition benches which I am now graced to sit upon.

It came apparently clear to me, when I was vice-chairman of Management Board -- I can never forget the day when I had asked for some information with regard to the expenditures of the province to be presented to Management Board in a certain fashion. I can't recall the fashion in which I requested that information to be presented, but I do remember getting the results. The other members of the cabinet who sat on Management Board along with myself, and actually the former member for Simcoe West, Mr McCague, looked at it and said, "My God, the last thing in the world we'd ever want the public to see is this information presented in this form." Ever since that day when I sat on Management Board and we basically shoved that piece of paper into our pockets and took it with us but never had it published as we might publish in ads or in brochures or in the budget, I realized that the presentation of information is as important as the information itself. Perhaps the presentation of information is more important than the information itself.

When I went through the debate on freedom of information under the former Liberal government, I tried to impose during that debate -- it was a minority Parliament -- the right of members of the Legislature to ask the government of the day to present information in certain forms or in certain methods or in certain documents and on a timely basis. Unfortunately, at that time I was repudiated by the Liberal government and was not able to obtain the support of the New Democratic Party, which was sitting in third place at that time but was negotiating with the government with regard to other amendments. I don't think it was because the New Democratic Party thought my amendment was unreasonable, but I think it was caught up in the negotiations with regard to other matters.

But until the public, until members of this Legislature and until the cabinet have information which is presented to them in an organized fashion, then we will not be able, in this province, either as legislators within this body or within cabinet, to make reasonable and logical decisions based on the trends which are occurring around our economy and around the programs we create in this body.

What I would dearly love to see is a second phase of freedom of information, because freedom of information in my view has been a tragic failure. That hasn't been because the former Liberal government which brought it in or the present NDP government are trying to do anything with regard to the way the law is written -- in other words, they're not acting against the law as it's written -- but the fact is that in this society of Ontario we have become so involved in the day to day lives of the citizens and our programs have become so large that it is impossible for 20 or 30 men and women who sit in the cabinet of Ontario, who are the government of Ontario, to really know what is happening around them with regard to the moneys they are collecting from the taxpayer and spending. Nor is it possible for a member of the Legislature to sit in opposition and intelligently criticize the spending of the government with regard to any program, because we don't really have the information organized in a fashion, nor do we have the timely reporting of how that money is being spent. That information is never before us in time for us to really take any corrective action.

1120

We have done something in the Legislature about that. We have basically done away with the estimates process, or we have put the estimates process within this Legislature way down on our totem pole of priorities. I think that was the right move in the present circumstances. But when the government of Ontario, be it us or them or the other political party, brings forward a program and says, "We're going to deal with this problem by creating this program," I think it should be incumbent upon the government and the members of this Legislature to go to a legislative committee, have the Provincial Auditor come into that committee, and say: "We've created a new program today. What is a reasonable and fair method of monitoring what we've done? What can we set down in terms of reporting, and how fast can this reporting be done?"

We have had the introduction of computers throughout this government. The number of dollars the taxpayers have spent to equip our government with computers has been phenomenal, but we have not required the government to utilize those computers to produce information to the public on a timely basis.

Surely it is within good, reasonable, logical sense to say to the government that when it creates a program, what we require as well from the government, members of the Legislature in particular, is a method of calculating whether that program is successful. If you are going to try to help one segment of society, then you should be able to say, "We are going to put down these parameters, we're going to put down these conditions that should be met over a period of time, and let's try to measure those so that in two or three years, if we are failing to meet our objectives, we either chop that program or we transfer those funds to another body or we try to address that problem in society another way."

When I was parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General prior to the 1981 election, I was a member of the cabinet committee on justice. There were only a few members of cabinet, four ministers, involved in that cabinet committee. I took on the task of looking into a number of expenditures we had made in government with regard to taking care of people who were on the streets, basically people who had trouble with alcohol. We had set up a number of hostels across urban areas to look into the whole idea of helping out these individuals. At that point -- I think this program had been created around 1976 -- there was an evaluation done on that particular program. It found that the individuals we set this program up for were no longer benefiting from the program; the people who were homeless and on the street were no longer being cared for by the people in these hostel institutions which we had set up for them. What did we as a government do? We created three or four more of them. We went from 14 to 16 to 18 to 19 of these small institutions or homes to take care of these people who were very low on the totem pole in our social order. We set up four more of these when we weren't even meeting the objectives of our program before.

What happens in government, and the reason our government expenditures have exploded, is that we have no real reporting mechanism. We have no real call in terms of asking a government when it creates a program, "Was it successful or was it not successful?" Therefore, I support very much the attempt by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to bring to light some more indicators so we as legislators and the public will have some opportunity to measure and to be able to feel whether our economy is performing and whether or not we should take some alternative action.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to address this resolution. I have to say at the outset that in reviewing the resolution and listening to the opening comments of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I'm rather disappointed. I have the greatest respect for the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, having spent considerable time with him on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, indeed travelling the province on the post-budget discussions, and having seen his commitment and his dedication to this place and the amount of work he brings to issues he tackles. It's in that context I'm disappointed that, in the midst of the worst recession we've had since the Great Depression, the best the critic for Treasury and Economics could come up with was to bring forward an old NDP resolution in a feeble attempt to try and embarrass this government. That was the best he could do. I'm disappointed. I expect he could have done much better.

If we were on the other side and we were the opposition and we had this opportunity, I suspect we'd have made a much clearer point and that indeed we'd have made much better use of the opportunity to talk about the economics during this time, particularly when as opposition, of course, you don't have the responsibilities of government and you have a lot more latitude in which to use a lot of the very depressing and negative indicators that are out there. That's why my opening comment.

Having said that, however, I would like to talk about a couple of the points the member raised. My colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton will talk about some of the specific issues the member raised. He will respond to those. The Agenda for People is constantly used by the opposition members when they want to talk about policies that haven't been followed through and promises not fulfilled etc. Again, I don't blame them. I'm certain that if I were on the other side I'd be doing exactly the same thing.

Let's be fair. Agenda for People was written at a time when the recession was beginning, when we were just starting to see the indicators, and it was done at a time when even the mainstream economists across the country were predicting a certain level of recession for a certain period, which has since been reassessed, and not reassessed just once but a number of times.

That has been done on the national level, not by treasury economists only. It's been done by the economists who came in front of our own standing committee on finance and economic affairs and gave us the projections they saw, the mainstream economists one reads about in the paper and hears on TV and the radio when there are issues of the economy to be discussed. Those very individuals have come before us time and time again and gone before the public and revised their forecasts because no one expected the severity of the recession we're facing, nor the duration. Even now, on the front page of today's Globe and Mail we're seeing another revision. It's a good revision and we're glad to see that one, but it's a revision all the same.

I suggest, with a great deal of humility, that had we implemented Agenda for People word for word and not taken into account the serious economic times, which were not forecast by anyone, we would hear howling from across the House that we were being irresponsible, that we were being dogmatic, that we had no right to govern because all we were interested in was in ensuring that we could say we followed every word on a piece of paper, and that we weren't doing what was in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

1130

On the issue of whether or not we have a plan, to tie back to the resolution that's here, first of all take a look at the first budget the Treasurer presented to this House that contained a five-year fiscal outlook about some targets in terms of deficit and in terms of revenue. It took a lot of guts, especially since the recession. It had to be revised, with the indicators on that. But let's understand that was the first Treasurer in this country to do that. None of the other governments here in Ontario, none of the other governments in any of the provinces or the federal government had the guts to say: "There's where we think we're going to be in five years. There are our targets and goals and they're right out there for you to look at and criticize if we don't achieve them." We did that. This government did that in its first budget, so I take great exception to anyone suggesting that we're not offering the kinds of information one wants or needs to properly assess how we're doing in this province.

While we're talking about information, let's also recognize that in the three economic documents that have been published by the current Treasurer of Ontario, there are facts and figures and formulae in them that have never before been presented to the people of Ontario before a budget, and in some cases not even afterwards. The budget process has been entirely revolutionized in this province in a very short period of time. We'll continue to do that, because we believe in acting on the commitment on providing information and opening government.

I might mention to my friend in the third party, as well as to the mover of the resolution, that we've been here 18 months and you want all this to be done. You were there for five years. Why didn't you do it? If you thought it was such a great idea, why didn't you do it? They were there for 42 years. For five of those years they couldn't even get a freedom of information act -- we just heard that confession from the minister responsible -- and yet here we are and in 18 months we have completely revolutionized the way budget development takes place in this province and we will continue to do so.

I'm going to end by mentioning a couple of points, and allow my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton an opportunity, but I want to say this: In terms of gauging how effective we've been, first of all let's take a look at the things we talk about in the throne speech. Time after time the actions are implemented in the budgets that flow form those throne speeches, and at the end of the day we're prepared to accept the verdict and judgement of the people, because we honestly believe you will see that we had a plan that was very consistent to protect as much as we possibly can the people who are being hurt the most in this recession, and also to build on the recovery that will come, that hopefully we're going to begin seeing in the latter quarters of this year.

Did we as a government ensure that this province was on a strong footing to take advantage of the opportunities of coming out of the recession? I think the answer will be that the people of Ontario will see that we did have a plan, that we implemented that plan, that it was an effective plan and that we will be quite deserving of their support and another opportunity for a second term.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I am pleased to participate in this debate on the resolution by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. As my party's critic for Community and Social Services, I have a grave sense of disappointment in the direction this government is taking Ontario. In particular, the abandonment by the NDP of those people most in need deeply concerns me.

This resolution, as my colleague has stated, is taken directly from the NDP minority report on the 1990 pre-budget hearings, and now, nearly two years into the mandate of this government, where do we stand in terms of the priorities of this NDP government? We don't know.

I wish to look at only two examples from the resolution: the social assistance case loads and the food banks.

The social assistance case load across this province in March 1992 -- this year -- is at a total of 1,164,100 beneficiaries, over one million people who need real and concrete help from this government. This shocking figure represents an increase over last year of 265,000 recipients or 30%.

In the 1990 throne speech this NDP government made the following promise:

"We will provide support for those who find themselves out of work and unable to provide for themselves and their families. We pledge to continue the reform of Ontario's social assistance system and address the shame of child poverty in the midst of affluence."

I regret to say that there is no hope for these people in the throne speech of 1992, whether these people be victims of violence, parents unable to access child care spaces or those in need of long-term care. These people weren't mentioned in throne speech '92. Will they be mentioned in budget '92?

I attended the food drive of the Daily Bread Food Bank here in Toronto on Easter Monday. I found hundreds of committed volunteers working to collect and sort the generous food donations made in this city. Mr Speaker, you and I know that they've extended that food drive by a week because all this commitment and generosity is just not enough. The significant increase in the number of people driven to use the food banks is most tangible evidence of this government's total failure to keep its promises.

A recent report produced by the Daily Bread Food Bank, entitled Nowhere Else to Turn, says this in its conclusion:

"Food banks currently wage a war on poverty which they are ill-equipped to win. The casualty list is already grim: It includes the most vulnerable people, such as children and those in poor health; and it includes those who were previously considered to be a stable workforce and young people embarking on their careers. Ensuring that the poor maintain health, hope and vigour in tough times must be a first priority of all levels of government."

Will that be a part of budget '92? It was not part of throne speech '92. As the official opposition critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I listened carefully and with a sense of deflation to His Honour last week as he read the government's speech on its policies. He stated, "If we do not succeed" -- in managing Ontario's economy efficiently -- "then badly needed reforms in our child care, social assistance and long-term care systems will be unaffordable."

If what we've seen in the past 18 months is any indication of this government's ability to succeed in managing Ontario's economy efficiently, then partners in these vital programs are indeed worried. In short, this government's throne speech does not give consumers confidence to spend their money; it does not give security to financiers to invest in this province, and it gives not one of us reason to believe any promise this government makes.

I bring to your attention this morning's headline in the business section of the Ottawa Citizen: "Tough Ontario Budget Worries Investors." "'With the upcoming Ontario budget we expect to see some selling of the Canadian dollar,'...investor nervousness will build as the April 30 budget date approaches." That's the result of this government's economic policy. A government's major policy statement is its budget. The 1991 budget was changed at least three times. This NDP government's word is meaningless. It can't be trusted to carry out even the major policies it proposes or the major promises it makes.

I close by quoting from an editorial in the April 7, 1992, Toronto Sun, "When Rae first took office, he made a point of saying that when it comes to governing, there comes a time when you have to stop 'polishing your glasses' and act."

I would suggest the time has come. I would urge the Premier and his government to make that decision. The time to act is now. Ontario needs leadership, not platitudes, today; not in 1993, not six months from now, not three months from now, but today.

1140

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise in support of the resolution put forward by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I think it's a very good resolution, even though it's a rehash of previous NDP resolutions. It will be interesting for the public that's watching, and that will be following up in Hansard later, to see whether the NDP members actually vote for this resolution, given the fact it's one of their old resolutions.

I think benchmarks are very important. It is difficult, as a legislator, to determine the effectiveness of government programs. There has been a real trend in the last two governments to expand programs, yet we do not know whether those programs are actually effective. It reminds me of a similar resolution put forward by my party that called upon sunset clauses and mandatory reviews of legislation from time to time, to see whether that legislation, any new legislation, is actually producing the results it was intended to produce.

I would add to the resolution a couple of suggestions. Part 6 of the resolution talks about a benchmark concerning the distribution of income and wealth in Ontario. It always astonishes me that the Liberal Party or the NDP never seem to concern themselves with the creation of wealth. I think we should have a benchmark so we better know who actually creates the wealth in Ontario, who creates the jobs and what type of burdens we are putting on those important sectors of society. It's a debate we seldom have. When we do have it, it's always instigated by members of the Ontario PC Party.

Second, I would think that in part 8, which talks about tax burdens faced by different income groups, we also should include the tremendous pile of deferred taxes that businesses tell us are preventing them from setting up shop in Ontario, and in fact are forcing them out of Ontario. One is reminded of the tremendous deficits we now have in this province year after year, the accumulated debt. One thing that's not often talked about -- at all, really -- by the NDP government is the over $10 million in unfunded liability in the workers' compensation. The deficit, the debt, unfunded liabilities are all deferred taxes.

Businesses that at one time were interested in coming to Ontario -- in particular Collingwood, Ontario, in my area of the province -- are telling me, "No, we're not interested any more, because we not only look at the current tax burden" -- which the Premier will argue is not out of whack with other jurisdictions. It is, but the Premier is trying to argue otherwise. They look at taxes that are on the books now in terms of deferred taxes, because everyone knows the deficit and the debt are simply deferred taxes.

I would also include a benchmark concerning how the province spends the money that's transferred from the federal government. The NDP and the Premier, in his windup remarks to the throne speech, tried to once again -- I noticed CUPE, when it had the MASH tent out front last week or the week before, once again fooled the public by saying the federal government has cut its transfer payments. Regardless of what stripe that government is, the facts are that the federal government has increased transfers for health care, education and social assistance at 5% a year. Those are increases every year. This government got 5% more from the federal government last year. It will get 5% more next year. It got 5% more this year. It's not a cut.

We saw this government transfer only 1% to health care and education and their broader public sector partners. The question is, what did the government do with the 4% in extra cash the federal government gave it to spend it on health care and education? It's an area where we badly need benchmarks because the federal government transfers that money, and always has, in large envelopes. The province puts that into general revenues and does not necessarily spend every cent it's given from the federal government on the purposes it was intended for; that is, health care and education. So I am supportive of the resolution.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm glad to rise in the House and respond to the comments that have been made by various members, particularly the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who has put forth this resolution today.

I want to say that I have a number of objections to the putting forth of this resolution, not least of all because, as I look at these points that he is trying to make, I realize that this information is information that is often shared in this House. I've seen many of these figures brought forward by the Treasurer and by the Minister for Community and Social Services.

Let me say also that in the couple of hours that I took to prepare myself for the resolution today I was able to come up with quite a bit of information from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I'm willing to share this information with the honourable member, but in asking I found out also that any member of this House can get exactly the information that's on this.

In fact, what we see is a less-than-veiled attempt to make the government seem to look bad, but the government doesn't look bad. This information is available. When the members of the opposition have asked for this information, it's been given. Let me give a few of the statistics just to make sure that the honourable member -- I realize he doesn't want to use up the good and valuable time of his research staff, but just to help him along, I'm willing to do this.

In terms of the number of people living below the poverty line, including the number of children, that figure can easily be gotten by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. But in terms of children under the poverty line, it is 287,000.

Social assistance case loads were mentioned by the member for Ottawa-Rideau, but I bring it up again. It's a lamentable figure indeed: 1,164,100, which means that 14% of the population of Ontario are presently receiving benefits. That's totally unacceptable -- unacceptable from this government and unacceptable, I'm sure, in the eyes of every member of this House. I could go further and say that 466,000 of those are children. How awful that 466,000 of our children, who are preparing to begin their lives and become people who are giving forth of their talents and their abilities, are in a situation where they're receiving these kinds of benefits.

On and on. I've even got the phone numbers of the ministries where you can get this information. Glad to share it with the member at any time.

I would like to draw attention to some of the comments that have been made. First, I will admit that the member for Carleton made a very excellent comment when he indicated that there needs to be a mechanism by which we monitor all government programs. He's absolutely right on that score. We need to introduce that and we need to do that soon. I am not at all convinced that, whatever government is in this place, we are able to monitor adequately the kinds of projects and programs that are set forth by the government. We don't do enough monitoring, and therefore we spend money needlessly. That needs to be changed, and I'd like to see that change.

The issue of food banks is one that has been bandied around on all corners of the House, but I'd like to speak to that issue.

It is one thing, as John Locke said, to show that a person is in error. It is quite another thing to put him in possession of the truth. We have heard the error that has been put forward by the members of the opposition. They have indicated that the food bank phenomenon is one that this government has not responded to. Let me talk about that.

I want to say that of all the members in this House I probably have the most pervasive knowledge of this issue. As an executive director of a food bank and multiservice agency in the 1980s, I went across this country and across this province speaking about the issue of hunger and its effects on the people in our province.

Let me tell you a bit of information, and perhaps it's history. On the day the election was called in 1985 I sat with people from across Ontario, all of us speaking to members of the opposition, and -- dare I say it? -- who should be speaking with us that day in committee room 1 in this Legislative Building? None other than the member for Bruce. He sat with us and he commiserated about the food banks; he commiserated about the effects of the recession; he commiserated about how there had to be change. That was in 1985, the day the election was called.

Five years went past, and in that time what did we see? We saw the greatest influx of revenues to any government in Ontario in that period of time, revenues that showed we could take care of these problems. But did we? No, we did not. The government at the time, which was the Liberal government, did nothing to ensure that there was an eradication of these food banks. Now they throw over to us that the New Democratic Party has talked about eradicating food banks. We did say that and we stand by that, but what is the difference? This is 1992. Revenues have never been as low in the province of Ontario as they are right now. In five years they were never as high as under the Liberals; they have never been as low as under this government.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, that our commitment is clear. It takes the will, it takes time and it takes resources. Let me assure this House that the will is here. The government will, in time, if given the opportunity, be able to move on this issue if the resources are there. The resources will have to be there if we are to take this lamentable problem and end it. Our commitment is clear, our will is clear, and this government, if given time and resources, will do it.

1150

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm rising today to compliment my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for bringing forward this very important resolution.

During private members' hour we have an opportunity to speak on behalf of our constituents on issues which affect them and are important. My constituents in the riding of Oriole right now are feeling, I think, quite disappointed in the NDP government. They're cynical, they're angry and they're also fearful. They're disillusioned because they see every day announcements, proposals, ideas and statements which are complete reversals of the policies, principles and ideals that the Premier and the NDP stood for and espoused and talked about at great length with passion while they were in opposition and during the election campaign.

They've heard through question period the kind of heckling of, "That was then and this is now"; they've seen reversals on auto insurance; they've seen reversals on the principles from the NDP government in their approach to gambling in this province; they've seen reversals on a number of major policy initiatives and ideas; they've seen standards that the Premier felt so passionately about while he was in opposition just deteriorate to an all-time low. Members of the public thought that the Premier and his NDP government in fact would live up to the principles and ideals and they believed the rhetoric they heard. That's why they're disillusioned and they're cynical.

The reason they're angry is that they also believe that the NDP has no plan and no idea of what to do. Regularly they say to me, "Elinor, you know, sometimes maybe you could help them," and I say: "We do try to help. We try to help on committee; we try to help during private members' hour with resolutions; we try to give good ideas that hopefully the government will pay attention to." I say to them also: "Some of the things that the NDP said that they wanted to do when they were members of the official opposition are actually do-able. They are things that they could do."

This resolution is an example of the sort of thing that you said you wanted to do when you were in opposition. This wouldn't cost you any money and this would be a way of restoring the faith and reducing the cynicism of the people in my constituency in Oriole and across the province.

This is recent. I don't go back very far. In the pre-budget consultations of 1990 in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs there was a dissent written by the NDP members. The members of that committee included the member for Rainy River, now the Attorney General, and the member for Hamilton East was substituting for him on this committee as well. This was a proposal:

"I for one have always been an advocate that the budget be clearly understood as not only an economic document but the link between the fiscal policy and the social policy of the government, because it is a clear indication of where the priorities of the government are."

What the NDP members of the finance and economic affairs committee pointed out in 1990 is that it is possible within a budget to have a report card of the state of the economy, not just with the hard numbers, the dollars, tax revenues coming in and government expenditures going out, but it also is possible -- and this was an NDP idea -- to include in the budget the social priority checklist, the report card of the state of the province, from the gathering of the statistics, that talks about the people. I would call this the people indicator. That's what they were really asking for.

A budget is about people, about where the government spends those tax dollars and where its priorities are. The proposal by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt gives the New Democrats an opportunity to do what they said they would do if they were in government. They can do it and it won't cost them any money. I'm quite distressed during this private members' hour to hear the reluctance and the rhetoric coming from the other side about why they wouldn't want to do something like this. I believe the member brought this forward in good faith as a suggestion to the New Democrats to do something that they believed in in opposition, that won't cost them any money and that they can do as a part of their budget presentation. It might restore some of the faith of the people of the province, who see in so many cases day after day the New Democrats doing the opposite of what they said they were going to do when they were in opposition and what they said they were going to do in their Agenda for People.

I also have something I want to say to the government members in this House. I've heard whining and complaining. I heard the member for Victoria-Haliburton saying, "Governing is hard because we're in a recession and we don't have any revenues for all the things we could do." The truth is -- and I was there for five years -- governing is very difficult. In buoyant and strong economic times, as revenues are coming in, let me tell you, you cannot possibly meet everyone's expectations. Never once in five years in government did anyone ever say, "You've given us enough." There's always something more that everyone would like to do. That's why how you set your priorities is so very important.

When we look at where you have spent the resources you have -- and we know how precious they are -- we criticize you because we believe your priorities are in the wrong direction. You are supporting the "haves." You are giving money in higher wages to people who have jobs. You have been supporting union leadership in your policy at the expense of the workers. You are misguided.

Governing is about taking responsibility and being accountable for your policies. I would say to you, whether you are in good times, buoyancy, or whether you are in a recession, governing is difficult. It is about making responsible decisions. It is also about doing what you say you're going to do. If you do what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has suggested, that would be a step in the right direction.

1200

Mr Phillips: I would like to spend a moment to urge the entire House to support the resolution.

I will respond to a couple of comments that were made by the member for Hamilton Centre, who said he was disappointed because this is really what the NDP had proposed, not what the official opposition had proposed. I say to the member once again that we knocked ourselves out, the member for Carleton and others, trying to get you to recognize that your budget last year was all wrong. No one listened; we were ignored. If you won't listen to us, listen to yourselves. This is your own resolution, this is what you said. This isn't me. If I can't get you to listen to the official opposition and the third party, I think I can get you to listen to yourselves. So stand up and vote in favour of this resolution.

I was actually quite amazed. I think one of the two members opposite said, "This is a thinly veiled attempt to embarrass us." How could that be? We aren't trying to embarrass you. We're trying to hold up this recommendation that was made by two of your cabinet ministers when they were in the opposition. Surely it was a resolution designed to ensure, as my colleague said, that the people side of the budget is looked after.

Last, I think one of the members suggested: "If they want this information, they can phone around, they can ferret it out. They can get it." The groups watching this, the groups that previously assumed the NDP was speaking for them, will be very interested in that answer: "You can phone for the information; it will not be provided."

I look forward to the vote on the resolution. It is not a thinly veiled attempt to embarrass them. It is an attempt to get the people side of the budget included.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Martin has moved resolution 6. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS

The House divided on Mr Phillips's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 35

Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carter, Curling, Dadamo, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Jordan, Mammoliti, Mancini, Martin, Miclash, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Turnbull, Villeneuve, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

Nays -- 8

Cooper, Christopherson, Drainville, Haeck, Hayes, Huget, Mills, Waters.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 pm.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): The provision of adequate and accessible child care in Ontario is in a state of crisis because of the policies of this government. While the government carries on with a lengthy consultation process about the future, families throughout this province are suffering day to day. For some reason this government has decided that process is more important than dealing with the real, hard issues facing the child care sector. Quite simply, families in this province increasingly cannot afford child care.

In Metropolitan Toronto we have been informed by the Metro Day Care Advisory Committee that six centres will be closing by August, that 7,000 children are on the waiting list for subsidy and that this government has left Metro with a deficit of $13 million because it failed to pay the provincial portion of child care in 1991. This fact was confirmed by an independent analysis done by Coopers and Lybrand that both the province and Metro had requested. Their analysis showed that for 1991 the province failed to provide its 80% of the cost for child care in Metro Toronto.

There is no doubt we all want a quality child care system. What parents across the province are increasingly questioning is the government's child care priorities. At a public meeting in Etobicoke last night, parents expressed great frustration with how the government intends to spend the $75 million fund it announced last fall.

I say again to the minister that there is a crisis of affordability and accessibility. If you have $75 million available for child care, surely a significant percentage should be spent on improving subsidies, fees and spaces. Yet not one penny of this fund is dedicated to those purposes. Minister, will you state clearly your intention to provide Metro with the money it is owed?

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, in February you quietly announced that you had dropped the $3.8-million program to spray for gypsy moths and the spruce budworm. Studies have shown that such factors as drought and tent caterpillar infestations have a great effect on forest health by weakening trees and making them vulnerable to premature death. The head of your ministry's southern Ontario forest unit said, "Gypsy moths might come in and be the straw that broke the camel's back."

Minister, people in the Simcoe county communities of Cumberland Beach, Thunder Beach, Wasaga Beach, to name but a few, believe your decision to cancel the spraying program was premature and will seriously threaten the future of forest management in Ontario.

Your decision to cancel the spraying programs, your decision to close tree nurseries in Midhurst, Thunder Bay, Chapleau and Gogama, and your decision to substantially reduce the number of tree seedlings planted this year prove that you are not committed to good forest management in the province.

When you announced these cutbacks and closures you said the money for these programs would be reallocated to "higher-priority initiatives." Minister, people are angry and they want you, in your capacity as the provincial government trustee of Ontario forests, to tell us what you think is a higher-priority initiative than protecting our trees.

CONSUMER EDUCATION AWARDS

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): April 27 to May 2 is National Consumer Week in Ontario. In honour of this important week the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will today be presenting the 1992 Consumer Educator of the Year awards.

I am very pleased to congratulate Iris Hukezalie of Simcoe, a constituent in my riding of Norfolk who will be receiving the volunteer consumer education award for her outstanding contribution to consumer awareness in Ontario. Ms Hukezalie is being recognized for her work as a volunteer information counsellor at the Haldimand-Norfolk Information Centre and her many years of service in consumer education. During the past six years people in my riding have had the pleasure of her helpful and accommodating responses to countless consumer inquiries. She is also involved in the preparation of a weekly news column, called Ask Us, covering a wide range of consumer issues. She has demonstrated a year-in, year-out dedication to keeping her community informed of consumer issues and to promoting consumer education in Haldimand-Norfolk.

The professional consumer education award goes to Alan Auerbach of Waterloo, who is being recognized for his contributions to consumer education as assistant professor of psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University. His Consumer Watch column in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record has served as an important consumer information and education tool for many years.

I would like to recognize the recipients of the fourth annual consumer education awards of excellence.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): In my four and a half years in this House representing the riding of Brampton North, I've seen and heard things that ranged through the profound, curious and outrageous. Last Wednesday I was angry, in fact disgusted, when the Minister of Health issued a three-page press release and in one brief sentence rejected the proposal for the Chinguacousy health services centre. I'm outraged that many years of effort by many people have been dismissed in one brief sentence in a general press release.

I've been raising this matter with the minister inside and outside of this place since the day she took over the Health portfolio. She is very aware of the importance of this project to the people of Brampton. Notwithstanding her assurances, given both in writing and in responses to questions in this House, the minister to date has not even had the courtesy to provide an explanation for her decision to myself, my colleague the member for Brampton South, or the people of Brampton, for that matter. I'm angered that the Minister of Health feels absolutely no responsibility to explain her decision or her rationale to the people of our community.

The former Liberal government gave this project the green light to proceed, and this project has been in limbo since the NDP took office. The minister has demonstrated contempt for members of the community board. Attempts by that board to get in touch with her have not been acknowledged. She hasn't even had the courtesy to return phone calls. They've been trying to work with her, and I have a stack of letters that have gone unanswered. The board is frustrated about its inability to get even the courtesy of a response from this minister.

The people of Brampton clearly deserve an explanation. I would say the government will be held accountable for its absolute and blatant disregard for the needs of the people of Brampton. They have erred by treating Brampton in this way, with that amount of disrespect. I say in conclusion that the ministry and the Minister of Health have declared war on the people of Brampton.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Today is Public Transit Day. The NDP made promises on public transit to the people of Ontario in the last election. Unfortunately, since then all we've seen is a reannouncement of previously planned programs. Where is the plan for expanding GO Transit service, as promised during the election campaign? Where is the promised increase in the province's share of TTC funding?

The Toronto Transit Commission is one of the least-subsidized rapid transit systems in North America. Today, cutbacks in service and reduced routes and frequency have made public transit less convenient and more difficult to use. We have recently seen two large fare hikes for the TTC at a time when people can least afford it. The lack of integration between the many systems within the GTA means travellers are often inconvenienced. Individuals can and do make a difference in the fight against air pollution, first and foremost by leaving their cars at home and using public transit. But the government has the responsibility to provide a convenient and affordable system.

I call on the government to change its priorities. Use the millions you have planned for public opinion polling and the NDP propaganda phone line for the public transit system where it will benefit the people, not the politicians. Support the environment. Support public transit.

TOWNSHIP OF ZORRA

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's my pleasure to bring to the attention of the House a recent decision by a municipality in my riding to repeal a resolution designating it as English only.

First, let me give you some background. In January 1989, Zorra township was one of the first municipalities to declare itself as an English-only township in protest of Quebec's Bill 101, the controversial law that banned languages other than French on outdoor commercial signs. While I disagreed with the township's action, I certainly appreciated and understood that it did so out of a sense of frustration. Their English-only resolution gained them national media coverage, including an interview on the CBC's nightly news program The Journal.

Recently, two township residents, John and Susan Langlois, approached council and asked them to reconsider the previous council's resolution as a gesture towards national unity. The couple said they felt that on the 125th anniversary of Confederation, in their words, "Maybe we should be doing something significant for Canada." This couple acted on principle, and I believe they deserve recognition and congratulations for their actions. Unfortunately, this repeal did not receive the same type of national media attention, especially considering the current round of constitutional talks.

Here we have a township council in the heartland of Ontario publicly expressing its desire to promote a spirit of openness and national unity. I think that's the message all of us should be spreading across this country.

I hope all members of this House will join me in congratulating Zorra township council for its demonstration of goodwill and encourage other municipalities to rescind their English-only resolutions.

1340

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this afternoon to express my deep concern about the lack of action on the part of this government to allocate funding for municipal employment programs announced in November 1990.

As the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party stated in her question to the Treasurer on Tuesday of this week, this fund "would, in partnership with municipalities, provide training and support to people receiving social assistance to get them back to work." The Treasurer was either unwilling or unable to answer her question about the status of this $54-million fund.

In 1990, 1991, and again in 1992, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has set aside approximately $1.5 million as the local contribution to this program. This money could have been allocated for many other purposes, but it has been consistently set aside for training on the strength of assurances made over and over again over a period of two years by the Minister and the Ministry of Community and Social Services that Ottawa-Carleton's portion of the $54 million would be $1.1 million. The money was forthcoming. It was on its way.

They have 800 people on the waiting list in Ottawa-Carleton. How long is the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton expected to believe that the cheque is in the mail?

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today regarding a matter that is of deep concern to constituents in south Simcoe county.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has failed to respond to repeated requests made by hundreds of former Tecumseth township residents who live west of Highway 27, in an area that was incorporated into the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury by the previous Liberal government. These residents have nothing in common with Bradford West Gwillimbury and they have respectfully requested to be placed where they rightfully belong, in the town of New Tecumseth. While I appreciate that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has listened to their concerns, he has yet to respond specifically to issues raised by myself and local residents when we met with the minister last November.

This April marks the one-year anniversary of a public meeting that was held in the hamlet of Bond Head. At that meeting, an overwhelming 90% of residents expressed their desire to remain in New Tecumseth and that New Tecumseth's easterly boundary should extend to Highway 27. Hundreds of Bond Head and Newton Robinson residents signed a petition so that they might be able to preserve their traditions and their historic ties to the former township of Tecumseth, which is now part of the town of New Tecumseth.

Minister, the people in my riding who reside on the west side of Highway 27 feel neglected by your government. It's time for you to take action to redress a very serious wrongdoing resulting from the forced restructuring imposed by the Liberal government.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Sexual assault is something society doesn't have to tolerate. We must work towards the prevention and elimination of coercive sexual behaviour.

The Sarnia-Lambton Sexual Assault Crisis Centre was founded in 1982 and incorporated as a non-profit charitable foundation in 1986. Recently, the centre changed its name to the Sexual Assault Survivors Centre of Sarnia-Lambton. The change in name emphasizes the need for ongoing support and counselling, sometimes years after the crisis of sexual assault has taken place. Problems stemming from sexual assault aren't always noticed immediately, and for many victims the most pain comes with flashbacks of earlier abuse.

Helping victims of sexual assault was made easier in Sarnia-Lambton with funding from the Solicitor General. The funding helped the centre increase its staff and services and helped it move to better and more accessible quarters. The centre has also increased its manpower by training more volunteers for its crisis line, a grass-roots delivery of services with people helping people.

Sexual assault is a crime of violence, control and humiliation, not a crime of passion. It is clear that we must not only promote reform in attitudes and beliefs about coercive sexual behaviour, but also work towards the prevention of sexual assault and abuse. I therefore commend the Sexual Assault Survivors Centre of Sarnia-Lambton, its board, staff and many volunteers for providing a vital service to our community and the victims of sexual assault.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Where are the ministers?

Interjection: There are no ministers.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): We do have time set aside for statements from the ministers. We know there are many things occurring --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please. There is nothing out of order. It is time for oral questions.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Mr Speaker, I find it rather surprising that we would not have heard today from the Minister of Education with a statement respecting the Ottawa school board situation.

The Speaker: Is this the member's first question?

Mr Beer: I wonder if we might ask you to use your good offices, if you could invite the minister to say a few words on this matter.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member should be aware of the standing orders. There is a time allotted for ministers to make statements. It is hardly the Speaker's responsibility to ensure that ministers make statements. It is time for oral questions.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise under standing order 16 to indicate to you that the standing orders provide that this is a time for questions to be put to the ministers of the crown. We have been told that there will be fully eight people not here, leaving early or arriving late. There is a series of others who are not yet here.

Standing order 16 states that you have the right to adjourn the House when grave disorder occurs. I can only suggest, not that I wish to be outrageously suggestive, but if the Premier in particular, who has found time only to be here one day this week, at which time he arrived in time to leave basically -- he fielded questions for about 40 minutes and then left -- if he cannot find the time to visit us as the opposition to field the questions, then perhaps grave disorder is the only way we can bring enough influence in this place to allow us to ask the questions.

I raise this at this time only because we are fully running up to one of the most important times in the history of Ontario. There is a budget to be given next week. There are questions which are important to the future economically, socially and politically for Ontario. The Premier has strategized to be away from this place. That can only create in my --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, I certainly am aware of the concern he expresses and indeed quite understand that concern. I trust that the member realizes it is not within the Speaker's power to compel anyone's attendance. If there is some three-party understanding that certain ministers would be in attendance, that's an agreement reached among the parties. At this point I have no choice but to continue with the routine proceedings. I cannot compel the attendance of any particular minister, or any members at all. It is time for oral questions.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like to begin today with a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the politics of principle. I'm going to keep this very simple because I think it's a very central point. Over the last couple of days there have been a number of what I think could only be described as authoritative reports that the Rae government is seriously contemplating, and in fact according to the Treasurer in a CKCO interview yesterday has already decided, certain elements of a gaming package, to be announced in next Thursday's budget.

My question to the minister responsible for gaming and lotteries, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, is very simply and very directly this: Two years ago the now Premier said: "The casino plays on greed, the sense of the ultimate chance, the hope against hope that the spin of the wheel or the shoot of the dice will produce instant wealth, instant power, instant gratification." He went on to roar his disapproval, on principle, on high socialist principle.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Conway: My question to the minister responsible for gaming and lotteries is, what's changed? What does the Premier know today that did not inform these comments based on high principle of two years ago?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I think it would be prudent for the member to ask the Premier to answer for himself on that issue.

I would say that in the context of decision-making on casino gambling and other forms of gaming, there has been, as is very clear by now, quite a bit of discussion at the caucus and cabinet table about this, and we are looking at it in the context of the changes that have happened in this economy over the past few years --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Ms Churley: -- particularly upon receiving requests from border towns and areas that have been hurt very much by free trade and the high dollar and the GST and are looking for various remedies to try and cope with the problem.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the minister take her seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Churley: You want a recess over there.

Mr Conway: My supplementary is to the minister responsible for gaming and lotteries in this collectivity that is the NDP government of Ontario. We're talking about the New Democrats, on a matter of high and fundamental principle. Not only did the member for York South roar his disagreement and his disapproval on principle two years ago, but this, the party of Woodsworth and Stephen Lewis and Michele Landsberg, is also the party -- I mean, Stephen Lewis and Michele Landsberg on the subject of gaming and what the NDP would never do?

Let me ask as a supplementary to the New Democratic minister responsible: Two years ago her colleagues the minister of finance and the minister of justice said -- in the first instance the now Treasurer said, "When we reach the point in this province that we've got to rely on casino gambling, you will know that this province is bankrupt," and the Attorney General two years ago said on a matter of principle --

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

Mr Conway: -- that he fundamentally rejected this kind of gaming legislation because it picked the pockets of people whose pockets ought not to be picked. I say to the minister responsible, on a matter of high principle --

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Conway: -- the NDP prophets and the saints in politics, what's changed? What's happened to your principles?

Hon Ms Churley: I say to the member for Renfrew North that it was a fine moral speech he just gave in a preamble to his question. I guess it is his position --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: His position has been made very clear, and I appreciate that at least one of the members from across the way has apparently given his opinion on the subject, because I notice others are basically sitting on the fence, wanting it both ways. I would say to the member that this province --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Has the minister concluded her response?

Hon Ms Churley: In the context of looking at this complex issue, we have looked at and are continuing to look at this in the context of social benefits and social problems and costs that might be associated. We're looking at it in the context of charitable organizations and the horse racing industry. There's an enormous amount of gambling that already goes on in this province that's been accepted for a long time. That's the reality of the situation. We are weighing all of these options and looking at it in a very balanced way.

Mr Conway: I'm having difficulty with this lecture on situational ethics because my question is not about financial exigencies; my question is about high principle. One of the things about having been in this Legislature for 16 1/2 years is having heard from Stephen Lewis, Michele Landsberg, Ross McClellan, the Premier, the Treasurer and a host of other saints and prophets in politics that the NDP is purer and better than the rest, and that one test and one proof of their purity is they would never, ever enter the world of casino gambling, on a matter of high principle. My question remains, what's changed? What's happened to your principles? Is this yet another pathetic example of what we've seen in the last few months, whether it was the Shelley Martel affair or the vote fuss about auto insurance, that the NDP has no principles?

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary.

Mr Conway: They're desperately floundering about in an incompetent way, trying to manage a desperate economic situation, and they have no --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Hon Ms Churley: I think there was a question there somewhere hidden in the lecture. I'm not one of the saints the member mentioned, so I would just like to reiterate again that the context of the economy all across Canada and across North America has changed over the past couple of years. Our government, along with other governments in other provinces and other states, is looking at a variety of revenue-generating policies and options. We are doing that along with Quebec and other areas. I think it would be very foolish of this government not to look at those kinds of options when we're in a deep recession and when other jurisdictions are looking at those kinds of options.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Perhaps my colleague went too far in saying that party has no principles. You might just say it's a party of flex principles these days and things are all over the place. Let me say to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that it's very surprising a government that thought of itself as being for the people, of the people and a part of the people that elected it is now going to bring about fundamental change in this province without at least talking to those very people who elected it, on at least one occasion, to discuss this very fundamental change.

I want to ask the minister if she realizes the impact casino gambling will have on charitable gaming, which generates approximately $1.1 billion in revenues for charitable foundations. Does she understand that this will have a negative impact, as has been cited by many people? If she doesn't understand that, what impact studies has she conducted to tell her what kind of economic problems will be associated with charities if she goes ahead with casino gambling? Have you those impact studies, and are you prepared to release them now?

1400

Hon Ms Churley: I think it would be within the Liberal caucus's best interests to stay quiet when one of its own members is asking a question. It was very difficult indeed for me to hear the question, but I will answer to the best of my ability, considering how little I heard.

The issue the member raised, I believe, was around charitable organizations and the impact that casino gambling and other forms of gambling may have on them. I think it is a very good question and it is something I have expressed time and time again and I have concerns about. That is one of the areas we are indeed looking at, and I can assure the member that there will be no decision made in this whole area without some kind of consultation with those groups built into the process. I can guarantee the member that.

Mr Cordiano: That is fine for the minister to say that, but we want to see those impact studies, because she hasn't realized that Ontario's rural and agricultural communities depend on the horse racing industry for their very survival. The horse racing industry is a $2.2-billion industry which employs about 54,000 people across the province, generating about $85 million to the provincial treasury through racetrack taxes.

Madam Minister, I ask you again, do you have impact studies with specific reference to the horse racing industry, the kind of impact, which is bound to be negative, this will have on it? Can we see those impact studies?

Hon Ms Churley: I would like to start by reminding the member that gambling in Ontario, indeed gambling in general, is not a new issue that just popped up last month. Gambling is a billion-dollar industry in this province, and as the member pointed out, there are horse racing and charitable institutions that depend on charitable gaming. So gambling is not new.

There are all kinds of illegal gambling going on right now, and all that money is going underground, not into helping with our health care system and our social programs. It is happening illegally out there, and one has to look at that. Of course I am aware of the concerns that people in the horse racing industry have pointed out and of course I will be talking to them, but I believe there can be solutions worked out together that would deal with these kinds of problems, and that is what I am in the process of doing right now.

Mr Cordiano: It's obvious that the minister and this government are prepared to roll the dice and to crap out on this whole issue. You haven't got any impact studies or any kind of economic analysis that is going to tell you what is going to be realized from casino gambling. You have no idea what kind of revenues will be generated. We haven't seen those. You have no idea of the kind of impact this is going to have in communities with respect to crime rates rising. In fact, Metro Chief of Detectives Charles Maywood stated yesterday that "the province must ensure that...taxpayers won't be burdened with the (policing) costs" associated with what it is planning to bring forward. "There is no sense in making $190 million and expecting Metro to lose millions in policing costs."

I ask the minister again, what kind of impact studies does she have with respect to rising crime rates? We have seen that occur in places like Atlantic City. We don't want the negative societal impacts that will result in casino gambling if we are not prepared to deal with them. Is the minister prepared to tell us what kind of studies she has conducted, and is she prepared to bring in her plan to this House and not go through some undemocratic process by bringing it through the back door, an order in council to bring about casino gambling in this province? Are you prepared to discuss it and fully debate it in this House, Madam Minister?

Hon Ms Churley: As I think people heard quite a bit yesterday, no final decision has been made on this. I can assure the member that once a decision is made it will be announced in this House. There will be an opportunity for discussion, and there certainly will be ample opportunity for those groups that may be negatively affected, and positively affected, to consult with us.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Treasurer and the Deputy Premier or, as he is becoming known, the Donald Trump of provincial politics. Mr Treasurer, can you give us one good reason why you are considering casino gambling, other than to fill your empty pockets with a few poker chips? Could you give us one reason?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The member for Renfrew North referred to me as a saint and the member for Oakville South referred to me as Donald Trump, so you'll forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I appear to have an identity crisis today.

I should say to the member that I think there's an obligation on government to look at various sources of revenues. We indicated a long time ago that when the Treasury Board was created we would look at a number of non-revenue sources. Not solely that; we're looking at ways to control expenditures and ways to raise revenues. I don't think it would make sense to rule out these kinds of potential non-tax revenues. I would have thought the member opposite would agree with that, and that we have an obligation to at least explore those avenues of revenues.

Mr Carr: What I will do, Mr Treasurer, is offer you another source of revenue. Last year, Dylex alone, in two days, put into the coffers of the provincial government $800,000. Close to $1 million in two Sunday shopping days went into your pocket as Treasurer.

If you are looking at new sources of revenue, if we are to really believe you, and if Dylex can put $800,000 in two short days, will you consider opening up Sunday shopping in the province so we can get these people back to work and get some more prosperity in the province? Will you consider it, if you really mean it?

Hon Mr Laughren: It's truly remarkable to see the opposition united in favour of Sunday shopping. I guess that's the position now of both opposition parties, and that both opposition parties are opposed to casinos and any other form of legalized gambling in the province that's not there now. I would simply hope the opposition members of this assembly consulted with a lot of the border communities, for example, before they came down with their hard-line positions on these matters.

If I could get back to the question that was asked on Sunday shopping, because I think it was a good question, I think the member would appreciate the fact that the whole question of Sunday shopping is one we as a government have monitored very closely. We're very much aware of the change in the attitude of the public vis-à-vis Sunday shopping, but I can tell the member opposite that there has been no change in the position of the government regarding Sunday shopping.

Mr Carr: I sometimes wonder if the Treasurer is playing with a full deck, when on the one hand he says, "We'll listen to the border communities when it comes to casinos," but when it comes to Sunday shopping it's definitely selective listening.

The statistics are that thousands of retail workers are out of jobs in the province. Border communities are desperate for some help. You need cash, as we all know. Mr Treasurer, the question is very simple. All three of those things could be solved by having Sunday shopping.

I'll go over them again. Thousands of retail workers are out of jobs. Border communities are desperate for some help; that's number two. Number three, the bottom line -- this is the most serious one -- is that you need cash. Will you today give a commitment to consider opening up on Sunday, which would solve those three problems and bring back to the province some of the prosperity that we desperately need?

1410

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I don't think the member meant to imply that opening Sunday would solve all those problems.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't believe that even Tories have that simplistic a view of the world. I really don't. I have trouble believing that he thinks opening stores on Sundays would solve our problem of the deficit, of revenues, of expenditures. While I know the member opposite accused me of not playing with a full deck, I really think anyone who would suggest that opening Sunday would solve this province's economic problems is himself not playing with a completely full deck.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I'd like to continue with the questioning we've been raising with respect to the funding in this province by gambling. Madam Minister, you've billed yourself as the voice of caution at the cabinet table, and there and in this House you've said that no final decision has been made with respect to gambling casinos and video lotteries in this province. Blackjack Bob, of course, says the same thing. He says there's no final decision. Yet in an interview with CKCO, Bugsy Floyd says the NDP has made a decision on some aspects of the gambling package. Minister, with two-to-one odds in your favour, the ones we've just listed, can you tell us what your government has decided on so far?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I think the member would have to address what the Treasurer said directly to the Treasurer. I certainly won't answer for him. I will tell you that I don't think it's any news today what the decisions that have been made to date are. They've been in the press, I think, fully exposed. There have been discussions at the cabinet table and at caucus around the options around different varieties of gaming and gambling. We have discussed in some detail various options. No final decision has been made. Some of the issues that have been raised in this House I think are concerns that we in fact have looked at as well, in particular -- I think you raised it last week and it was raised today -- the horse racing industry and the impacts it will have, the charitable organizations and the impacts there. Those kinds of issues --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, I will. Thank you. Those kinds of issues are under discussion right now, and in fact, yes, I do bring caution around these things. We have to look very carefully and closely at the impacts it will have.

Mr Tilson: The roulette wheel continues to turn round and round, whether it's to Bugsy Floyd, whether it's to Blackjack Bob. We don't know what you're doing. You're saying decisions have been made. I don't know what you're talking about, because decisions are being made conflicting members from the members of your cabinet.

As a result of the minister's policies the future of amateur hockey clubs in this province is already in jeopardy because of your position. Charitable organizations and other recreational sports teams will also be losers when you're putting forward your casino policies and your gambling policies as to how you're going to fund this province and how those organizations are going to be affected.

Minister, knowing that, and you've expressed that you know that, can you tell us what assurance you can give these organizations that they won't be left out in the cold as a result of your gambling policies?

Hon Ms Churley: I've already said in answer to another question today that it's certainly our intention to consult with the horse racing industry -- I've already done some of that -- and to consult with the charitable organizations when this decision is made and in the process of making it.

Mr Tilson: We keep waiting for the impact studies. I can tell you that many of the charitable organizations are waiting for you to consult with them and they're very worried as to what you're doing to their organizations and the work they're doing in this province because of your gambling policies.

My final supplementary question is that it's certainly no longer faith, hope and charity in Ontario; it's clearly going to be faith, hope and gambling. Minister, I'll make it as simple as I can. You've got a 50-50 chance, as a result of all the conflicting statements that are being made over there, a 50-50 chance of getting this right. Yes or no? Will revenues from gambling casinos be directed somewhere other than the Treasurer's jackpot?

Hon Ms Churley: I have no comment on the amount of revenue this would bring in to the Treasurer. I would suggest you direct that question to the Treasurer or the Minister of Revenue.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is now responsible for making Ontario the Las Vegas of the north. My question revolves around activities you are prohibiting among those in the volunteer sector while you appear to be moving, as a government, into a very major area of gambling in the province. I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations why she and her ministry are removing licences from Junior B, Junior C, Junior D hockey teams; baseball teams; football teams; soccer teams, and other athletic teams across Ontario that provide young people an opportunity to engage in constructive, good recreational activities and that provide entertainment in cities, towns and villages across this province. Why are you doing this? Why are you penalizing these groups at the very time you're moving into the full field of gambling in Ontario?

Hon Ms Churley: I'm glad the member asks that question because this has been a difficult area. I'd like to remind the ex-minister sitting across the floor, who used to be in government on this side of the floor, that in 1987 your government sent a bulletin to all municipalities describing government policy at that time, interpreting what was charitable under the Criminal Code, and it was your interpretation that did not include those kinds of teams you mention today. It was your government.

When I took over this ministry, there was a state of confusion out there because of a directive from your government, which I have been trying to address. Because of the confusion out there, we sent a follow-up directive, but in the meantime I'm doing something your government didn't do: I'm reviewing the eligibility of those very hockey teams and I have extended the licences that have already been out there.

Mr Bradley: That will be news to the teams in Ontario that have already lost their licences as a result of what's been happening over the past year under your ministry. What you're doing now is engaging in competition with those various teams across Ontario by moving into new areas of endeavour such as blackjack tables and all the things we have in Las Vegas which have been alluded to in the news media in recent days; the trial balloon you've sent up.

Because there have been people who have lost those licences, I'm asking the minister, will she agree today in the House that she will not withdraw any further licences from junior athletic teams across Ontario and will she reinstate those licences which her government has withdrawn over the past several months so those teams can continue to operate next year and once again be the focus of community activity? Will she undertake not to get into direct competition with these people, and then with the money she derives make it appear as though it's a gift from the government instead of something they have raised themselves?

Hon Ms Churley: When this issue came to my attention -- the massive confusion out there because of the interpretation of the Criminal Code -- I sent out a directive. Because of the concerns expressed to me by the teams and by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation on several occasions, I sent a directive to the municipalities asking them to extend those licences until the end of the season so we would have time to review the eligibility of these teams under the Criminal Code. We are now in the process of doing that and we will be giving an answer after that review is complete. We did extend those licences until the end of the season.

1420

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): My question is again to the Minister of Education, concerning the strike at the Ottawa Board of Education and the Carleton Board of Education. Mr Minister, we were given a time in this Legislature, that as of 11 am today the Education Relations Commission would claim there was jeopardy with regard to the Ottawa Board of Education's strike. That time has passed. Are you going to introduce legislation this afternoon to legislate the teachers back?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): No. The negotiations are continuing as we speak and I'm advised that they are at a point that we could describe as being intense. I think it's appropriate to let those negotiations continue.

Mr Sterling: I tell you, the people who are intense are the parents and the students in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I'm sick of this minister coming to this Legislature and making excuses for the failure of the two parties to come to a conclusion. The students in Ottawa-Carleton, the 27,000 of them, are still on the street. Even if this impasse between the Ottawa Board of Education and the teachers is resolved, we still have 15,000 young people on the street in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

I understand, Mr Minister, that later today you're going to travel to Europe. Mr Minister, I would ask you to stay here. We are willing to sit this afternoon to pass this legislation. We are willing to come back tomorrow to pass this legislation. Will you bring legislation not only to take the students off the street in Ottawa, but take the students off the street in the Carleton board area, put them all back to work now, and leave the negotiations after the kids are back in school? Mr Minister, we cannot wait any longer. We need some action right now.

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me just say to the member, as I've already indicated publicly, that whether I leave to represent the government overseas this afternoon or not will depend on what happens in the negotiations. If there isn't a solution reached, I won't be leaving. I've indicated that.

The situation the member has described I think we all understand is there, but I'm sure he would be the first to recognize that if negotiations are at the point they are, the last thing we would want to do is stop that process. I think he would understand that. Beyond the acrimony he chooses to put into his question, I think that's something we could all understand and should all understand.

In terms of the jeopardy issue, the Education Relations Commission has not issued that advice to me. How that process works is also something the member knows quite well. Quite clearly I've indicated and I can reiterate here that the issue of the school year will be looked at very seriously in my approval of the modified school year whenever this issue is resolved.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): My question is to the Minister of Revenue and it's in regard to market value reassessment. As you know, Mr Speaker, Metropolitan Toronto residents pay high and unfair property taxes, depending on where they live and the age of their homes. In my community of Downsview over 90% of residents would benefit from property tax reductions once reassessment is implemented. Madam Minister, can you tell this Parliament and the people of Downsview and of Metro what exactly your ministry, the Ministry of Revenue, is doing with respect to market value reassessment in Metro?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): I'd like to thank the member for the question. As we all know, this question has been around for a long time. I guess I could update the Legislature in telling it that, as you all know, Metro Toronto council passed a resolution asking the Ontario government to take the necessary steps to implement market value assessment in a reassessment plan.

At the Ministry of Revenue, we are presently preparing an impact study that is scheduled to be delivered to Metro council in July 1992. After that impact study is delivered and Metro council has had the opportunity to look at it, to discuss it and all the councillors also have the opportunity to meet with their residents and discuss it, they will then make a decision as to whether or not they want to proceed with reassessment in Toronto.

Mr Perruzza: By way of supplementary, I want to thank the minister for her reassurance that Metro market vale reassessment is on track.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer. In the Ontario Fiscal Outlook document, Treasurer, you indicated that you would be expecting transfer payments from the federal government of $6.4 billion. Since then you've indicated, publicly I think, that you expect another $585 million in fiscal stabilization money this fiscal year, the one we're just entering. I understand also that you've indicated publicly there may be another $600 million in fiscal stabilization programs that are coming to the province. I wonder if the Treasurer could confirm for the House today whether he is expecting the transfer payments from the federal government to include the $585 million, or the $585 million plus the additional $600 million.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): That's an important question. It is quite accurate that the province of Ontario put in its claim under the stabilization program for $585 million. That was for 1990-91. On top of that, for the year 1991-92, because of the decline in economic activity in this province and the subsequent decline in revenues, which is built into the stabilization agreement, we entered as well a further claim for 1991-92, if I recall the exact number, of slightly over $600 million, but the member is basically correct. Since the $585 million did not flow to us as a province in 1991-92, we are now entitled to both the $585 million and the $600 million and change in 1992-93. That's correct.

Mr Phillips: That's an important number, I might add, because in your original fiscal outlook, as you remember, Treasurer, this roughly $1.2 billion was not included. I think $585 million and $600 million is about $1.2 billion. I might parenthetically make the comment that I think that means that from the federal government -- I hate to use the term the Premier uses, "the absconding debtor" -- you're looking at about a 25% increase in your grants, which I welcome. It will be very helpful in the deficit projections.

In addition, as I look at your fiscal plan, you were quite pessimistic, I think, on personal income tax and the corporate tax. The federal budget came out subsequent to your January document and it was considerably more optimistic about revenues from corporate taxes, personal taxes and retail sales tax. Have you also had a chance now to look at that federal number and to upgrade and move up your estimates to a more optimistic number on your revenues from those three sources?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not sure I understand the entire context of the member's question, but in terms of having had a chance now to look at the federal government's budget numbers and its anticipated revenues -- and I don't say this in a partisan way at the federal government -- I really believe its numbers are overly optimistic for the fiscal year 1992-93. We would certainly not adjust our numbers upwards based on the federal budget numbers. I just don't think that's real. I think the recovery is slower than most people anticipated it would be, even slower than the federal government thought it would be. So, no, we have not adjusted our numbers upwards based on that.

1430

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, one year ago you proudly announced in this Legislature that your ministry would be developing and implementing a sustainable forestry program for the province. You stated that new initiatives would involve increased research on forest ecosystems and silviculture and a greater public consultation on forest policy management. How does your recent announcement to eliminate the planting of 45 million tree seedlings fit into your sustainable forestry program?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): The member will know that we have indeed moved ahead on the sustainable forestry program. We have the independent audit panel that is carrying out its work in the boreal forest. It will be reporting this spring in an interim report, and a final report will in be this fall. The independent panel on comprehensive forestry policy for the province is carrying on its consultation work across the province and will be reporting at the end of this year.

We also have instituted an old-growth strategy and we have saved red and white pines from harvest at 10 sites across northeastern Ontario. We have a panel of laypeople from across North America analysing the policy with regard to old growth, with the assistance of a scientific committee. We also, as you indicated, have budgeted a significant amount of money for research into ecosystem management, particularly looking at alternatives to the use of chemicals in the forest for managing the plantations that we have.

The current fiscal situation led us to a position of having to determine whether we should discontinue those efforts in sustainable forestry and move into an ecosystem approach or whether we should allocate funds to that and in the short term have to take away some of the funds we would have liked to have used for increased seedling plantations or maintaining the amounts we have planted in the past. It was a very difficult decision, but one that is a short-term one and we hope will help us to ensure sustainable forestry for the future.

Mr McLean: Mr Speaker, through you to the minister, you cannot tell me or the people of this province that by not planting 45 million trees you're instituting a sustainable forestry program. That's certainly just not so. In your announcement you've cut 770 nursery jobs. There are an additional 1,500 workers on part-time who will lose their jobs; they will not be planting trees. Many of them are students and they need money to go to school in the fall. These people are all losing their jobs.

You're talking about the land that they're now ready to plant. It's not being planted; the 45 million trees are not being planted. You're closing down nurseries and you're telling us you have a sustainable forestry program. I cannot understand. Your Minister of Northern Development doesn't agree with you on this policy.

What are you telling the people of the province you're going to do with those 45 million seedlings that are not being planted and the land that is sitting there not being used?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is quite right that we would prefer to be planting more seedlings as part of the tree planting program. I'm sure when he asks what we are going to do with the seedlings that he's aware of Operation Tree Plant, which has been very successful. We have already allocated 30 million seedlings under that program. We don't have enough seedlings for southern Ontario for the demand.

Land owners, municipalities, first nations and other groups have got involved with the plantation and it's been very successful. We would prefer to be planting the numbers that we planted in the past, the 165 million that we planted last year. We can't do that ourselves and so the public has got involved. We are greening this province as we've never done before and we aren't going to bury those seedlings as previous governments have done.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): My question is to the Minister of Housing. As you know, public awareness has been heightened in the recent past on things like energy conservation and efficiency and water conservation and efficiency. Some of my constituents have approached me with their concerns on the effect of Bill 121 on energy efficiency. Can the minister tell me and the House whether Bill 121 provides any incentives for energy conservation?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'd be pleased to answer that question. Bill 121 in fact does take account of progress that we hope will be made in our existing buildings on energy conservation and it permits a landlord who has 2% within guideline to make renovations without any question, to apply for above-guideline increases in order to undertake energy renovations.

Mr Cooper: As most people are aware, Kitchener is consistently having water problems and there is always a discussion about whether we have enough groundwater or not. One of the things that's been a concern of mine in my riding is we have people going around talking about retrofitting toilets and putting in conservation devices.

What we're getting from the landlords right now is: "What's our incentive to do this? Because we can't pass the cost on. The other thing is, our rents will probably end up being lower because of our lower operating costs." Can the minister tell me, does the landlord get to keep any of these savings in his operating costs?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Specifically on the question of conservation measures undertaken for water, most of the measures that will be undertaken by landlords will fortunately not be expensive ones, and the benefits they reap can be theirs totally, up to the point at which the absolute cost of water on a year-to-year basis would decrease. At that stage there would be a sharing between the landlord and tenant, which we feel will provide an incentive both for landlords to undertake the work and for tenants to help the landlord by water conservation measures undertaken by the tenants personally.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I too have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.This morning I sponsored a media conference with the Ontario Tree Seedling Growers Association and the Ontario Silvicultural Contractors Association to talk about this very issue we've been discussing today.

I'm wondering, in response to the question from the member for Simcoe East, if the minister could explain to me why when we had thousands of trees planted in this province on Earth Day, yesterday -- 1,200, I believe, in Toronto; I saw the Premier out front talking about the greening of Ontario and all the wonderful things -- the minister seems to want to confuse this issue slightly. What we're talking about in gross terms is that, whether the government plants the trees or through Operation Tree Plant they plant the trees, we're still going to be planting 45 million fewer trees. Would you like to square that with your environmental view?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I know the member's commitment to sustainability in the province and so I respect the fact that he sponsored the press conference despite the fact that when his party was in power it buried seedlings in this province. I would like to point out that we are very encouraged by the commitment of the public to planting trees in this province and that many of the trees that were planted on Earth Day were those surplus seedlings that we are helping to ensure are planted this year.

Mr Brown: That's very interesting. The fact is that there were 165 million trees planted last year and about the same number the year before, regardless of what the member says happened to some surplus. What we're talking about is that you suggested, in response to the member for Simcoe East, that budget constraints were stopping you.

I point out that the Treasurer, my friend to the east of my riding, as you are to the west, said in conversation with the member for St Catharines on April 8, "I hope the member opposite, despite the temptations in difficult times, will not succumb to the argument that we should abandon environmental causes in this province simply because times are tough."

I tell you, you are leaving this province not only with a fiscal deficit but with an environmental deficit. We would like the minister to stand up and confirm that he will reinstate the 45 million trees in this province.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member agrees with me that we must make a commitment to ecological rehabilitation in this province, and that's why we are committed to the sustainable forestry. If the member is suggesting that we should've discontinued our funding for the boreal forest audit or that we should've discontinued the work we're doing on the development of a forestry policy for this province, despite the fact that his government and previous governments never developed one in this province after cutting trees for 150 years, I wonder what his commitment really is.

The fact is that we had to make tough choices, choices that we would have preferred not to have had to make. But it's too bad that when the government had the money it could've spent, that you had when you were in government, you didn't do a sustainable forestry program.

1440

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education. In your convoluted statement yesterday where you announced the transitional assistance funding, you stated that your initiatives will address labour adjustment issues such as "the establishment of balanced and affordable contracts between school boards and unions and federations through lower wage settlements in return for enhanced employment security and other negotiated benefits." Those were your words. Is the minister telling the boards that in order to be eligible for a portion of this funding, they must open their collective agreements?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I am glad actually that the question was put as directly as that because it gives me an opportunity to try to be as direct as I can in response on this issue of reopening contracts.

I have said consistently that, believing as I do in the collective bargaining process, I am not going to go around the province saying to people that they should reopen contracts or they shouldn't reopen contracts. That's an issue that, quite frankly, lies as one of a number of possibilities to be resolved at the local level between the boards as employers and the teachers' federation or the support staff unions as employees.

That's one of a number of possibilities there before them. Other possibilities include extending provisions of existing contracts, including a variety of other things that they may do. Very clearly, that decision is a decision that needs to be made by people at the local level, where the collective bargaining relationship exists.

Mrs Cunningham: I still don't know what you're talking about when you say "the establishment of balanced and affordable contracts between school boards and...." I don't know how they can do it without opening their collective agreement. I just don't know how, but I will take the minister's answer saying he will not legislate that or ask them to do it.

Having said that, if he isn't going to do that, then he's got one colossal nerve, because in fact he is interfering in the collective bargaining process. He's telling these school boards that in order to access this funding, if they do on their own accept lower wage settlements, he is saying -- can you believe this? -- "through lower wage settlements in return for enhanced employment security and other negotiated benefits." That's the tradeoff.

I'd like this minister to tell me right now, today, does he not think that that in fact is interfering in the collective bargaining process?

Hon Mr Silipo: No. It's setting out some options for people to consider. It's retaining, however, the principle that the decisions to be made are at the local level, where the collective bargaining relationship exists. It's indicating that in the same way we have managed to reach certain agreements not only with Ontario Public Service Employees Union but with the provincial school teachers along those same kinds of parameters, it's possible for school boards and teachers' federations to do the same if they wish.

In order for the situation to be managed, it is necessary for people to deal with these kinds of things collaboratively through the collective bargaining process, through joint discussions that they can have and should have at the local level. That's what we're saying; that's what I have been saying; that's what I'll continue saying.

FLOODING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): As you know, last year there were a great many floods in Victoria-Haliburton and in other places around the province. I'd like to direct a general question, if I could, to the Minister of Natural Resources. Being concerned about flooding throughout the province and considering the fact that this weekend there will be a significant rainfall, does the minister know of any possibilities where flooding might exist at this point, and could he inform the House as to areas where we need to be ready to respond?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): As the member will know, at this time of year this is always a concern, particularly in some parts of rural and southeastern and northern Ontario, as well as southwest. The Ministry of Natural Resources monitors water levels and has an early warning system to ensure that people are not taken by surprise in the case of high water.

At this time, we don't know of any major flooding. There is some minor flooding north of Sault Ste Marie at this point. We expect that the Goulais River will reach its peak today, but there are possibilities of other areas being a problem if we have heavy rainfall, and I will certainly keep the House advised.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Minister, hard-hit border communities have been pressing the NDP government for some time for assistance in stemming the tide of cross-border shopping. They are aware that your government is considering, without public consultation, permitting casinos. They have recommended through the Ontario Border Communities Mayors' Task Force on Cross-Border and Sunday Shopping other initiatives which you could do right away which would assist those communities. They have recommended, for example, lowering the gas tax or a differential gas tax, and they have recommended allowing municipalities to determine whether they believe it would help them to open up on Sunday as an alternative so their residents could shop at home as opposed to crossing the border.

Just today, mayors, leaders in Metropolitan Toronto, Mayor Rowlands and Mayor Lastman, have said they believe it is nuts, according to Mayor Lastman, mayor of North York, that you would consider casinos at the same time as you would forbid a grocery store to open.

As Minister of Revenue, with the responsibilities that you have to work with the mayors, would you advise me on their behalf if you are advocating to your Treasurer what they have recommended to you to help them with the cross-border shopping issue, namely lowering the gas tax and allowing them to open up on Sunday, rather than just a casino without public consultation?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): I'd like to inform the member across the Legislature that I am in constant contact with the Treasurer, as I also live in a border community, which I think she is aware of. The cross-border shopping issue touches on many different areas and concerns many different people in all those areas. I'd like to inform her that I have spoken to them about lowering gas taxes, about Sunday shopping, about the request for casinos that have come from a lot of those border communities.

The Treasurer has listened to all those ideas, and I think some of his responses will be found in the budget and with continuing working with the border communities across the province.

Mrs Caplan: To the Minister of Revenue: Have I heard you correctly that you are anticipating the budget will remove the prohibition that requires municipalities to go the Ontario Municipal Board and does not permit them to designate and open themselves up on Sunday if they wish, and second, that you're anticipating in the budget that there will be a positive response, a lowering of the tax on gasoline in border communities? Further, do the people of this province have your commitment that before there is a designated site, not only border communities but people in this province will have had their say on how they feel about gambling casinos in the province? Have I heard you correctly? Is that what you anticipate will be in the new budget in your response to those hard-hit communities like Windsor and others who are saying, "We'd like to consider casinos, but we also want to be able to decide for ourselves if we can open and shop on Sunday and we also need to have a lowering of gas taxes to keep our residents shopping at home"?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I'd like to inform the member that she has not heard me correctly.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- I probably will only have the opportunity of one question -- Mr Minister, when can we expect stable funding for the general farm organization? We've been waiting for this for a long time.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): It's a very timely question. The issue of stable funding has been around for many years and has been considered by many ministers of agriculture. We have been proactive in working with the three general farm organizations over the last year and a half, as I'm sure the member knows. I was at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture directors' meeting yesterday and announced at that meeting that it has my full support for a document it's going to consult about with its membership and the farmers across the province. If everything goes well and there's general acceptance -- there is not going to be a vote, but there is going to be consultation and discussions with farm leaders and farmers across the province -- I have every expectation of introducing the necessary legislation some time this fall.

1450

PETITIONS

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition from the Standardbred Breeders and Owners Association of Ontario and it reads, in part:

"Whereas horse racing and breeding represents 54,000 jobs in Ontario;

"Whereas horse racing and breeding has a $400-million economic impact annually;

"Whereas horse racing and breeding is an important form of entertainment;

"Whereas horse racing and breeding is experiencing very difficult economic times;"

It is asking to petition the government to re-evaluate the economic impact, the entertainment value and employment that horse racing and breeding has in Ontario with respect to the government's proposal for casino gambling in this province.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I'm really pleased to see the Treasurer still here to hear it, because it was presented to me this morning by the chairman of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, Albert Bouw; George Gilvesy, the vice-chair; and Hector Verhoeve, the mayor of the town of Norfolk.

The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the present high levels of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas these punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low- and modest-income citizens,

"We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes not be increased in 1992 and further that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

This petition is signed by 1,922 very interested parties and I have affixed my signature to this petition.

NIAGARA DETENTION CENTRE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas since 1988 the Ministry of Correctional Services has failed to adequately supervise and oversee the operations and administration of the Niagara Detention Centre;

"The ministry has failed to put in place a mechanism which would permit concerned citizens to register complaints regarding alleged abuse against inmates and have these complaints competently, independently, formally and thoroughly investigated within the framework of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 (amended); and

"The Niagara Detention Centre has failed to put in place policies and proper controls which would have the effect of maintaining proper records in respect of expenditures, investigations (formally and informally) of alleged abuse against inmates and inquiries from ministerial and interministerial staff,

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

"To direct an appropriate standing committee of the Legislative Assembly (ie, general government) to report on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization and operation of the Ministry of Correctional Services and specifically the Niagara Detention Centre."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I have a petition, you'll be delighted to know. It says:

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs,

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

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act;

"To encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all; and

"To ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Did you affix your signature?

Mr Mahoney: I will affix my signature in a moment. There are about 100 others, and many of them are indeed tenants in this province, who are very concerned about this terrible legislation.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a number of petitions signed by 179 Ontario residents representing both the management and employees of a number of Ontario companies, including Erisan Enterprises, Robertson and Hatchfield Ltd, BOT Construction, Nelles Construction, Dulebka Equipment Rentals, Breckmar Sales and Masters Insurance, which read:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

ACCESS TO PERMANENT HOUSING

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): To the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"As housing is a basic human right and all residents of Ontario have a right to adequate housing, we, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario not to cut funding to the access-to-permanent-housing initiative in the 1992-93 fiscal year."

CONTROL OF SMOKING / CONTRÔLE DU TABAGISME

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition from St Basil elementary Catholic school, and it's titled The World's Longest Petition for a Smoke-Free Planet. I think it may be a little bit of hyperbole. It's bilingual. It says:

"Tobacco free is the way to be. Help us make the world smoke free."

Because it's bilingual, I'd like to read the French version as well.

«La plus longue pétition au monde pour une planète sans fumée:

«Un monde sans fumée, c'est la meilleure façon de vivre.»

It's signed by over 150 students, and I guess they're trying to promote a healthy lifestyle.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here with 38 signatures. It says:

"We, the undersigned members of the Maidstone-Gesto pastoral chapter of the United Church of Canada, wish to go on record as opposing the legalization of gambling casinos in the province of Ontario, particularly in Windsor and Essex county.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings;

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows: to scrap the proposed Rent Control Act, to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all and to ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

This is signed by a number of northern Ontario residents, quite a few from Sudbury, and I'll affix my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA NÉGOTIATION COLLECTIVE ENTRE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES ET ENSEIGNANTS

Mr McGuinty moved first reading of Bill 14, An Act to amend the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la négotiation collective entre conseils scolaires et enseignants.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): In this bill I'm attempting to modify legislation which has governed the collective bargaining process between teachers and school boards for some 17 years. In particular the bill contains provisions which will act to recognize the rights of students to attend school and to balance this right with the rights of teachers to strike and the rights of boards to lock teachers out.

One of the things my bill does is provide for the appointment of a students' interests advocate, a professional advocate to represent students' interests during a strike. In addition, my bill places express limits on how much class time a student can lose because of a strike or lockout and when that class time can be lost.

FAITHWAY BAPTIST COLLEGE OF CANADA ACT, 1992

Mr Wiseman moved first reading of Bill Pr1, An Act respecting Faithway Baptist College of Canada.

Motion agreed to.

1500

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Mr O'Connor, on behalf of Mrs Grier, moved third 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.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I would like to begin by restating something the Minister of the Environment told the standing committee on social development at the beginning of the public hearings on the Waste Management Act. She said:

"We in Ontario have come to a crossroads in how we manage our waste. Our choice is simple. We can continue in the direction that has made us the world's largest generators of waste or we can move in a new direction, towards a conserver society."

The Waste Management Act is a significant step in continuing this government's waste management strategy in the new direction the minister was referring to. This government's comprehensive waste management strategy took an important change in direction when the minister announced our government's conserver action plan back in November 1990. That plan had three major components: first, an aggressive waste reduction program; second, improvements to waste management planning, and third, the introduction of policies and procedures for handling short-term waste problems on an environmentally sound basis.

The focus of that announcement was that the direction of the province's waste management policy was going to be to move Ontario from a consumer society to a conserver society. This is what is at the heart of the Waste Management Act, a greater emphasis on waste reduction and reuse of materials over recycling and waste disposal.

With the passage of the Waste Management Act, we will have clearly established our direction. This legislation will be the guide for the future of waste management in this province. It will be a future where we put the environment first when we are considering how we should deal with our resources. It will be a future where values and actions that promote a conserver society will be the norm and it will be a future where pollution prevention is the guiding principle for deciding what activities are acceptable.

Work on the act began shortly after our government took office some 18 months ago, inheriting one of the biggest challenges this province had to face, its waste crisis. In the 1980s Ontario was a jurisdiction that rated as one of the world leaders in wastefulness. In this province we generate approximately 1.1 metric tonnes of garbage per person per year.

There had been a profound lack of planning and foresight in how we dealt with our resources and waste. The result: mounds of garbage loaded and trucked to landfill sites that were rapidly reaching capacity. Little progress had been made in changing the old attitude of, "Out of sight, out of mind." We continued to throw usable resources into landfills.

Waste management planning was in complete disarray. Landfill sites were reaching capacity and the time to find new, environmentally sound sites was running out. The GTA was a waste management nightmare. About 40% of Ontario's population, living on only 1% of its land, managed to produce half the province's garbage.

To remedy this situation, our government had to come up with a comprehensive plan, a lasting solution to this barrage of problems, and it had to do it fast. We realized that a bold strategy was the only way to remedy generations of wasteful consumption.

We have made the 3Rs -- reduction, reuse, recycling -- the cornerstone of this strategy, with waste reduction topping the list. Reuse and recycling could deal with whatever remained. As well, the very foundation of this strategy, as I have already mentioned, was the transformation of Ontario from a consumer to a conserver society.

Present economic conditions have not put a damper on people's concern for the environment. In fact, it has become an even more important part of their lives. Consumers are becoming more selective, creating a demand for environmentally friendly products.

What all this adds up to is the greening of public attitudes as well as products and the greening of more and more industries. They all want a slice of the pie. The changing of attitudes is one of the most important aspects of the Waste Management Act. It is also one of the most overlooked aspects of this piece of legislation.

The act deals with the problems of long-term and short-term landfill capacity. It changes existing legislation to allow for quicker approvals for 3Rs facilities. But what it will do, as we adjust to the changes it brings about, is change our attitudes towards how we view our waste and our resources. It will change how we define what is waste and what is resource. This type of attitude change is needed, not only to deal with waste problems but also to deal with all the activities affecting the environment.

Never before has Ontario or any other province in Canada sponsored such extensive and important public debate and public hearings on waste management.

The greatest waste burden now falls on the greater Toronto area, which generates close to half the province's total garbage, whose landfill capacity is nearly full. However, the Waste Management Act is the foundation for the implementation of a comprehensive plan to alleviate the situation.

The plan consists of:

1. Effective waste reduction based on the 3Rs. We have been tackling a waste management system that has traditionally favoured disposal over reduction. The act will speed up the approvals for the 3Rs, such as composting and recycling plants.

2. Finding three long-term sites within the GTA through an environmental assessment process.

3. Dealing with short-term needs in an environmentally sound way while we are searching for three long-term sites.

The Waste Management Act establishes the search areas that the Interim Waste Authority will use to find long-term sites within the GTA. These search areas reflect our government's thinking that the GTA, like other municipalities in the province, should look after its own waste. We disagree with the concept of shipping waste created in the GTA to landfill sites anywhere else in the province. The practice of using municipal boundaries to define a search area is standard practice for siting landfills in the rest of the province. By doing so, it encourages local responsibility for dealing with waste generated in the defined area.

The amendments made by the provincial government include changes to address municipal concerns about perceived provincial intrusion into areas of municipal responsibility. Sections relating to municipal financing will be withdrawn so that further discussion can take place with municipalities regarding the financing of waste management.

The act provides for funding to allow the public to participate in early stages of environmental assessment of new sites, as well as at later stages, including formal hearings. This will open the doors to a broader range of public interests, which will specify resources needed to represent their concerns and allow them to contribute their ideas.

As well, an amendment to a section dealing with the minister's emergency powers will impose a five-year limit on a minister's order requiring a municipality to accept wastes from other jurisdictions. In addition, compensation may be provided to the affected municipality.

A section giving power to the minister to order a municipality to prepare a waste management plan in an emergency has been withdrawn. Municipal waste management planning has been addressed in discussion papers recently released for public consultation by the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The act rules out municipal solid waste incineration or the transportation to other landfills outside the greater Toronto area. This will provide further incentive to promote the 3Rs in all sectors.

1510

The proposed changes to the Waste Management Act will facilitate the implementation of the minister's waste reduction action plan announced in February 1991. Part IV of the act contains amendments to the Environmental Protection Act. These amendments are the enabling legislation for the regulatory component of the waste action plan. This enabling legislation allows the provincial government to implement regulations with respect to recycling, waste audits and waste reduction plans.

Our government feels strongly that the new waste management legislation will stimulate greater business opportunities in waste management. The minister has repeatedly said she would like Ontario to become a world leader in waste reduction technology and innovation. This new legislation will help provide the necessary incentive.

Industry representatives are currently involved with a number of strategy groups established by the Ministry of the Environment to develop waste reduction policies that will follow new waste management legislation. In addition to industry, the strategy groups have representatives from municipal, labour and environmental groups.

With this legislation we are beginning to implement an environmental strategy based upon four major policy directions. First, that this is a green government: The environment must be taken into account with all of our policies and programs throughout all ministries and bodies of this province. Second, stewardship: Everyone has a stake in the environment, including the right to enjoy the benefits and a responsibility for its protection. Third, conserving: To create a sustainable environment we must transform ourselves from a consumer society to a conserver society. Fourth, prevention: Our programs have a double focus, to develop strategies to prevent further damage and to clean up existing problems within our environment.

Finally, I'd like to add that this government is committed to consultation with all affected groups long before any regulation goes into place under this act.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Here we stand now at third reading of the infamous Bill 143. For the area I represent, Mississauga North, this bill has caused a great deal of concern not only within the area but indeed throughout the region of Peel. Just to remind you, Mr Speaker, in my area is located the Britannia Road landfill site, which was slated to be closed when it reached capacity. That would probably be within another month or two.

In that respect I remind you, Mr Speaker, as well as all members of the Legislature, of the promise made by the now Premier and the now Minister of the Environment during the last election. It was a simple, straightforward promise made directly to people who had landfill sites in their area. What was that promise? It was that there would be no expansion of an existing landfill site and no creation of a new landfill site without a full environmental assessment hearing. It was a simple, straightforward promise made to people who care about their community, how it is going to grow and in which their children are going to be able to live and play.

Now we hear, in this year of 1992, that the Minister of the Environment, through her order, has expanded the Britannia Road landfill site without any hearing, without any opportunity for consultation and input by the residents of the area, who want to share with the government, with those involved, the impact the expansion of this site will have on their community. A promise made in 1990 that there will not be an expansion without a hearing, and actions taken in 1992 of expansion without a hearing: a clear change in the policy and principles of the Minister of the Environment and the Premier.

In that respect, it is something that will sit with this particular government for the length and life of this government. It is something the people of our area will not forget. They will constantly remind the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of this province that they made a promise directly to the people that this site would not be expanded without the opportunity of consultation, input and hearing, and they backed out on their promise. They stepped back from their word. They told the people in Mississauga North that it didn't matter what they said in the election. When they were elected, this site was going to be expanded and there was going to be no opportunity for consultation.

We had a hearing set down. There was to be a hearing on an interim site located in Brampton, to look after the garbage generated in the regional municipality of Peel. That hearing was stopped by the Minister of the Environment. It wasn't enough that they afforded no hearing on the expansion of the Britannia landfill site; they stopped a hearing on an interim site located in Brampton. Two strikes against this Minister of the Environment, two strikes against the word given by the Premier and the Minister of the Environment in the election of 1990.

The residents and the ratepayers' associations in that area are concerned. In fact, they are angered at this type of action taken by the Minister of the Environment.

Mr O'Connor: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There's something we hadn't agreed upon earlier and I was just wondering if we could get unanimous consent from the House to share the time with all three caucuses and start from 3 o'clock for the debate this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do we have unanimous consent of the House to a time-sharing arrangement beginning at 3 o'clock?

Interjections: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed.

Mr Offer: I believe I used about 15 minutes.

The Acting Speaker: I believe the table officers have the time recorded. The honourable member for Mississauga North may proceed under time allocation to each party.

Mr Offer: With respect to the time allocation, I'll certainly abide by that, but it also brings to mind that this bill is being rammed through this Legislature without an opportunity for full discussion on every section in the bill.

I'm going to direct my comments to that aspect of the bill that is found in part III. This is a section that has impacted and will continue to impact the communities in Mississauga. It will continue to impact the ratepayers' associations and the residents who are located within the riding of Mississauga North.

Development in the area of housing and recreation is stopped because of the expansion of the Britannia Road landfill site. The Minister of the Environment, through her actions, did not give the people of the area the opportunity to share with her what it means to expand this site for their homes and their recreation.

1520

We have a buffer zone that has been ordered by the government where no development is going to be able to take place. When development doesn't take place, houses aren't built; when houses aren't built, communities don't grow, and when communities don't grow, the amenities within those communities -- recreation centres, skating rinks, playgrounds and schools -- aren't in existence. That has been shut out for the people in Mississauga North. That door of consultation has been closed in their face. We have reminded the minister time and time again that her order is going to result in that. She said no, that this wouldn't happen, but in fact it has happened.

Communities are not going to grow in areas they should have grown: in recreation centres, skating rinks, schools, shopping plazas. As an aside, let's not forget the creation of jobs at a time when jobs are not in great supply. Jobs could have been created -- 6,000 homes -- many hundreds of thousands of work hours would have been created in the area of building and construction. That would have had a direct and important impact in the whole city of Mississauga and throughout the regional municipality of Peel.

Recognizing the allocation that has been given in this debate on third reading, I stand vehemently opposed to this legislation and dramatically opposed to the actions taken by the Minister of the Environment, shutting the door, slamming the door in the faces of the residents who want to have some input, some consultation, on what it means to expand the Britannia Road landfill site without a hearing.

I conclude by reminding the minister that it was in the election of 1990 that she and the Premier stood and said, "There shall not be any expansion of an existing landfill site without a full environmental assessment hearing." In this year of 1992, the Britannia Road landfill site, an existing landfill site, is being expanded without a hearing. You have backed away on your promise to the people not only of Mississauga North and the regional municipality of Peel but throughout the province. It is a promise you made. It is a back-away that the people of my area and throughout the province will continue to remind you of. It is a principle which you have eroded. It is one which is of your cause and it's one we will not let you forget.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I have to respond to the eloquent accusations of the member with respect to the plight of the residents in his riding. Let me start by saying to him that I certainly understand his concern and their concern. I concede there has not been a hearing under the Environmental Protection Act, but I did want to set the record straight to make sure he understood very clearly that not only had the concerns of those residents been expressed, as they were expressed to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly dealing with Bill 143, but that I had attended a public meeting called by those ratepayers and by the region of Peel in his community and listened directly to their concerns. I answered them on that occasion, and after that meeting I met in my office with representatives of those ratepayers' groups and began a dialogue with them that addressed their very specific concerns about the issues he has raised.

After that, to my knowledge there have been at least two meetings between staff of my office and officials of the ministry and representatives of the ratepayers' groups in order to try and address their concern. Their concern is that the buffer strip around the Britannia landfill site be narrowed so that new development can occur. As has been said in these debates, a buffer strip is there to protect residents from whatever the effects of a landfill site might be. But we certainly understand that those residents felt the buffer strip would be removed and their communities therefore expanded, but as soon as the technical studies we have ordered Peel to do and which it is now undertaking are completed, we see a very real possibility that that buffer strip can be narrowed, and that the development and the developers, whose interests the member has so very much at heart, can in fact proceed.

The Acting Speaker: Because of time allocation, I believe we will forgo questions and/or comments henceforth. I will now ask for further debate.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I don't take this as a very happy day. It isn't, for the people in York region or Peel or Durham or anywhere in Ontario, when the government, using its majority, will pass Bill 143, the garbage act, this afternoon by 6 o'clock. They will quickly invite the Lieutenant Governor to make it into law, and without too much delay you're going to start to see the power of government being used in a way that abuses and takes away the powers that have through history been given to people in their communities through various other procedures.

Before I begin, I'd like to say that not everything we do in the Legislature is bad. Some good things have come out of the bill. After the period we have gone through, I first of all want to say a very strong thank you to the leader of our party, the member for Nipissing. From the very beginning, when we got into this whole process, it came through to us in caucus and to the people of our party that our leader was very much aware of the balance that's needed to come up with a solution to the problems of waste disposal within the greater Toronto area, in Kingston and in every other community where we have that issue.

Also, the members of my caucus have been just tremendous in committee work and other things. The public at large may not know there're only 20 Tories of 130 people here in the Legislature. Though we're not large in numbers, we are at least strong in spirit and are prepared to do whatever we can to fight for the things we believe in. I'll tell you, nothing, not even the Minister of the Environment and this government, can put down the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. We are here to represent all the people of Ontario and we are here to do it in a balanced and honest way. I have no doubt that this government is not doing it, and over the last several years the Liberals failed miserably in dealing with the issues.

So now we're at a point where I want to pause and say thank you to my colleagues in caucus. I want to go a step further. What I have seen come out of our caucus is a genuine concern about environmental issues. We don't wear green on our arms -- the problem is, the member for London North doesn't look good in green dresses; it just doesn't match her green eyes and the money in her purse -- but there isn't one of us who isn't green in our heart. We believe in it and it applies to every one of our activities. There isn't one person in our caucus who isn't as genuinely concerned about environmental issues as the Minister of the Environment used to be when she was critic for the New Democratic Party.

Now we have trouble accepting the new face of the Minister of the Environment, because what she's become is not the same person we knew before. She used to be lovable and kind and very conciliatory, but I don't see the same person now.

Hon Mrs Grier: You don't know me very well.

Mr Cousens: I know, I'm ruining the good spirit I'm trying to share, but I just want to put on record the support of our caucus and the very strong support we have for environmental matters and the whole subject of the 3Rs and the push that's being made for that. I believe we are supportive of the kinds of initiatives the minister is taking on that. I think for us not to be supportive would be to fail to understand the need for everyone to get involved with the reduction of the use of things you don't need, to reuse them where you can, and the whole recycling process. That's something that should be a given, and let's just say it again and again: Every one of us has to work harder to make sure the 3Rs work. It's part of the plan of this government, and I support its initiative to say let's do something about it. So to that side I say something good is going on.

1530

One of the things that was very interesting and fun was Kirkland Lake. While we were there, a number of things happened, but one of the fun things that happened was that when we were there --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. This is out of order. We cannot bring props in here, particularly recordings. I'm quite sure the honourable member has plenty to say in participation in the debate without bringing in a recording.

Mr Cousens: I'll sing it myself. I just wish I could do it as well, but it was a fun time in Kirkland Lake when we made fun of the minister.

Hey, hey, hey, what about me?

Where will I be by the year 2003?

Hey, hey, hey, Ruth, please set us free,

Now this assessment for our economy.

Workers are we, ready to work,

No longer can we be left in the lurk,

Rally we must against Grier's 143,

Coast to coast, totally it may be.

Cares and troubles as you may clearly see,

As Canadians for a better economy,

We'll fight you, Ruth Grier, and your Bill 143,

It cancels our vote on opportunity.

Hey, hey, hey, what about me?

Where will you be by the year 2003?

No jobs, no assessment, no opportunity,

Just say no to that Bill 143.

Managing waste is where it's at,

Until now in the sidelines we have sat,

Recycling new jobs and new technology,

All around us, it should surely be.

A safer environment for you and for me,

Help us, Ruth, to be all we can be,

Please, Ruth Grier, don't lock us out in the cold,

Your Ontarians are worth more than our gold.

Hey, hey, hey, what about me?

Where will I be by the year 2003?

Ruth, please set us free,

We're going to show you with a community rally,

We'll just say no to that Bill 143.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): All together now.

Mr Cousens: No, not all together. It was one of those situations where the town of Kirkland Lake had built a huge, 20-foot ice sculpture of our Minister of the Environment. It was called Ruthless Grier. They even tried to be authentic by calling, a few days ahead, to see what colour the minister's eyes were. The eyes were blue. It was shaped with a hat that was pointed and on a broom. I know it mocked certain things. It was one of those days. There was a huge crowd of people. It was amazing how people could rally. If we had that kind of rally in Metropolitan Toronto it might have had an effect, but Ruth Grier wasn't around to see it. She might have picked it up on the news clips.

The Acting Speaker: I know on a number of occasions the honourable member has referred to the minister and it's been traditional and quite in order to refer to the honourable member by her title or her riding, so please.

Mr Cousens: I'll soon end my casual part and I accept your intervention. The minister certainly was missed in Kirkland Lake and the people who wanted to speak to her were disappointed that they hadn't a chance to do it. Certain people did who were on the opposing side to the Adams mine site, but others certainly didn't have that chance.

One of the good things that happened, good out of bad -- how can you say that people are going to laugh in the middle of adversity? There was a sense in Kirkland Lake when we went for the hearings that even in spite of the trauma of the whole thing -- the reason we were there, the failure of the government to deal with it as a possible site for landfill -- people involved with it and opposing it had a little fun at the expense of the ministry.

I know the minister has a sense of humour. Maybe it's hard to show all the time but none the less the people there did it with zest, flair and a fun-loving spirit. In spite of the fact they had an issue to make, they did it in such a way that you couldn't help but remember it.

That's another thing that happened. To me, that's the spirit of democracy. In democracy, we're not going to be the way it is in certain countries in Europe that are splitting up, and throughout the world where there is the kind of intolerance to one another being shown. I sense that in spite of the fact that very few people have won the day in the debate over Bill 143, at least the spirit of tolerance and goodwill has persisted. In spite of the fact that I disagree diametrically with the minister on her policy and what she's doing, I have a tremendous amount of respect for her as a person, and to separate the two is part of the problem.

Public hearings were a good thing that happened. I'm really delighted that the Liberals worked with us, and we with them, to have the public hearings. We were able to have four weeks in which the public was able to participate in what was going on with this bill. One week was for clause-by-clause. It was good that we did it because I don't think there is any doubt that the exceptional presentations made by such a large number of people offered a tremendous amount to the thinking process around how we should as a province be dealing with our waste.

I've identified seven of the different presentations. Lily Cups came in with a presentation on what they're doing about packaging. The whole packaging association was able to show us a number of the things they're doing on their own as an industry to improve their systems and their technologies, to recycle things, to put them back into new products. The approach that they're taking is a most responsible one, and we saw an example there of leadership.

We saw it as well with companies such as St Lawrence Cement and Ogden Martin Systems. Many people are not aware, but state-of-the-art incinerators are being shipped from Ontario-based manufacturers to other parts of the world. We saw their presentation as something where, even in a province where we are banning incineration, they were able to show that they are able to take this technology to other countries, other places, and to do something with it.

We saw it with OMMRI. Here we see an organization that's doing a great deal towards recycling and has emphasized the importance of it. Its whole existence is around the blue box program, and more than that, around the whole effort to get industry to work together to encourage consumers to recycle.

With Laidlaw Waste Systems we saw a company that came forward showing how the private sector can get involved with the municipality to save money. If there's anything that comes out of that lesson, it's let the government not always try to do it itself. Be involved with the free enterprise system out there. Work out partnerships with other people so that you can develop ways of doing things. It doesn't always have to be the same old way or the way the government wants to do it. You can say: "Here are the parameters. Let's try to work together." Laidlaw showed that private sector involvement does work to save money, and there are many others like that working within our communities.

I can't overestimate the importance that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has on what goes on here. In representing all those municipalities, over 800 in Ontario, they talked in a very loud and clear way about the need for consultation and how they hadn't been involved in the whole decision-making process around the implementation of Bill 143. I respected what they had to say, and they represented the municipalities very well.

If one person came in and left an impression of compassion for a community and anger at the ministry, it was the mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion. She certainly identified that there isn't a waste crisis. Her presentation was absolutely incredible. What a magnificent statement she was trying to make on behalf of so many of the communities of the greater Toronto area. They were made by other mayors and other municipalities, but she said it well. I've mentioned Kirkland Lake, and certainly its presentation had an awful lot to say about what has gone on.

If I talk about good things that have gone on, the worst part of it is that there have been more bad things that have happened with this bill. I've identified quite a large list of the things that offend our party, our caucus and so many of the people who have made presentations.

I think the one thing that every politician gets tagged with is when anyone is accused of lying. So we've coined a new word in the Legislature called "Martelling," and that becomes a way of saying you didn't tell it as it was. The Martel story of the whole environmental crisis is that before the election on September 6, 1990, the member for York South, the present Premier, was in Vaughan, near the Keele Valley landfill site -- spitting distance in fact -- when he said that site would never be expanded or built on or have anything done with it unless there was a full environmental assessment.

Having said that during the election campaign -- and the people who heard him say they believed him -- now that he is in power with the Minister of the Environment, he is reversing that decision and is removing that promise from those things that he committed to prior to being elected. Why make a statement before you're elected and then have to withdraw it afterwards? It is one of the most offensive things a politician or any person can do. If there is one thing that has lowered the esteem that people hold for politicians, it is that they think every one of us lies.

1540

If anything can take away the purpose we have, the value of what we have to do, the absolute sincerity we've got to have with our jobs, it is that we cannot ever misrepresent what we're doing or are seen to do so. To do that is to give people reason to believe that we're all liars. The fact that we've had the situation with the member for Sudbury East in this Legislature and the fact that I can point to this situation here in Vaughan as it pertains to Keele Valley, if those aren't very serious breaches of the etiquette of a politician, then I don't know what else they are. The fact that it stains every one of us with a smell is something I find offensive and I can't help but react to it.

When I say the bad things that have come out of this bill, the worst thing is the fact that this government has come along now and reversed a position it gave when it was in opposition. For them to do so is abhorrent. It is unacceptable, it is inexcusable -- and don't ever make light of that. We don't.

I will tell you this much: If my leader or people in my caucus ever lie, I will come forward and I will separate myself from them. If I ever lie, I will resign. I will have nothing to do with it. If I misrepresent something because I don't have all the facts, I will apologize and I will explain it. I will not be part of a lie. The people of Ontario are now the recipients of an injustice, and if people think it's funny -- I see my friends on the New Democratic side making light of it -- then I say I will not be part of that joke, because to me it is not humorous.

The people of Ontario expect more of their politicians. It's tragic when politicians come along and say one thing and do another. That's what they're beginning to expect of us and that's what this government has done with Bill 143. For people to come along and think it's a joke, it is not a joke.

So when I say, "What's the bad thing that comes out of this bill?" it is that. There has been a misrepresentation of what has gone on before and after, and it is totally inexcusable. That sits worse than anything that has gone on since then, because where is the integrity of a person or a government when you can say one thing before you're elected and another thing after? I say not even to accept the responsibility for it, not even to admit it is to add to the grievance I have with this government on that issue.

My next point is lack of consultation. When the government came forward and announced its bill -- it was October 24 -- municipal electors were beginning to think of whom they were going to elect on November 11 or 12. Those who were running for political office at that time certainly didn't have an opportunity to look at this bill and to understand its consequences and its implications for their municipalities within the greater Toronto area and around the province.

It is not just a greater Toronto area issue; it affects all of Ontario because of the precedent-setting nature of this legislation. What happened is that this bill was tabled in the House, we didn't get to debating it until later on, in late November or December, and the minister was anxious to see that the bill would be passed prior to the House rising for Christmas vacation so it could be implemented more quickly.

The nature of it was such that we would not allow it to go without public hearings. We could not allow it to happen because there are so many ramifications to this bill, and yet this government was anxious to implement it without change. The fact is that a number of incidental, insignificant amendments were made during the course of the hearings when we did clause-by-clause. That gives some justification to the government, I suppose, for the fact that we did spend a week on clause-by-clause going through the bill. But more than that, it has to be something in which the government is working with the public at large to develop its policies and its platforms.

The next bad thing I see is that I believe this bill can be subjected to a court challenge under the charter, because if it does anything, it takes away rights and freedoms of individuals. It takes them away in the way in which our property can be taken away from us and where all legislation around those matters is removed. It totally removes our rights as it affects expropriation laws and other pieces of legislation. I sincerely hope somebody will challenge this bill under the charter.

The next point I have is the secrecy. It was like a spy movie, because the problem is that we still don't know who the spy is. I know who the bad guy is in this movie. The worst part was that we wanted to see the list of sites being considered as possible landfill sites within the greater Toronto area, and this government would not release it. We've never seen that list of sites. That list of sites was supposed to come from the Interim Waste Authority in December. We hoped to see it. We wanted to see it. We asked to see it. They wouldn't give it out. We've got a concocted, half-baked answer that it's still in process. I'll tell you, ladies and gentlemen and Mr Speaker, we'll see it very quickly once this bill comes into law. Then we'll exactly know what has happened with it.

The secrecy around the whole process -- let there be dialogue, let there be openness, let there be a chance for everybody to participate in the democratic process. Unfortunately, when you get elected you seem to forget about the people until it's time for another election. If there's anything that offends the public, it's that. You call it consultation. It isn't consultation. It's just a one-sided point of view and you do what you wanted to anyway.

Another bad thing about this bill is that it closes off worthwhile options from consideration. Who knows whether there is a site outside the GTA that is suitable for a landfill site? Who knows what that site is? I don't know where it is. I couldn't tell you what community would be a willing host or have the ingredients that would make it correct and very suitable from an economic point of view, from an environmental point of view, from a community point of view.

All those factors would be considered in the choice of a site other than in the GTA, but this bill has said there will be no consideration of sites outside the GTA for landfill. Wrong. This government in its own sweet wisdom allowed Kingston to send its garbage up to Carleton Place because it had a problem. It's happening right now. You've got loads of refuse being sent south of the border to the United States. We're shipping it south of the border right now in great quantities, some of it being incinerated. Who knows what's happening with it? But it's cheaper to ship it down there than it is to put it in Ontario landfill sites within the GTA, Keele Valley particularly. This government has closed the door to any other piece of land for a landfill site outside of the greater Toronto area.

I say a pox on you. If one of those sites happened to be Kirkland Lake and those neighbouring communities which are saying, "We could be interested in it" -- they haven't said it's guaranteed, but let there be an environmental assessment that would determine whether it was worthwhile to look at the Adams mine site or another site. If it worked and was good and had the capacity, and everyone involved along the rail line and at the MacMillan yard in Vaughan and wherever else said, "We're willing to work with the government to have our community considered for a landfill site; we see it as something that can generate economic growth and business and other things," who knows, out of someone else's problem there can be someone else's benefit. That is what I wanted to see. The option for shipping garbage of any kind out of the greater Toronto area is closed for ever according to this bill. I say that's wrong.

This government has also closed the option of incineration. There isn't unanimity in my own caucus on the whole issue of incineration. In fact, during the presentations a number of concerns were raised that make me say there may well be some arguments to those who oppose incineration. I believe those arguments have to be investigated and analysed scientifically. I am not a scientist, but I am capable of saying, "If I don't know, put it through an environmental assessment process so that within that process all the questions and answers that one might have about incineration could be answered."

Don't deal with it arbitrarily from a techno-peasant point of view. Don't deal with it as if it's just closed because your mind is closed. Allow it to go to an environmental assessment process, where those who have something to say from a scientific and every other point of view would be able to table their concerns. They could be looked at, analysed, assessed, and then in good time they could come forward with recommendations that might be worth something.

1550

I don't want to be the one who says I'm for incineration or I'm opposed to it. I'm saying let's at least look at it as an option. This bill says no to it categorically. Now, we'll see it with biological parts, body parts, it'll be there, and there are certain processes where incineration may well be very helpful: energy from waste and other things. But the first question you have to ask is, what are the net impacts on the environment and on our society? As I heard the minister say yesterday, and I agree with the question and her answer, you've got to look at the impact it has on the air, on the water and everything else. It can't be decided whether we're in favour or opposed to the subject of incineration unless you look at all the ramifications. That's all I'm asking for. All I'm asking for is the option to be considered, but one of the bad things about this bill is that they've closed consideration of the whole subject of incineration without any further debate or any further discussion. I say I don't like that.

I don't like one other thing and that is the way the New Democrats used their power and their majority to say to me and the people who wanted to hear and participate in this debate, "We're not going to go to Kirkland Lake." We did everything we could in committee to say let's go to Kirkland Lake. One of the members of the committee at the time, the member for Sault Ste Marie, a New Democratic member, blocked Kirkland Lake as a possible site for us to visit as a committee because he said it was conflict of interest.

I have to say it was essential that in our hearing process we would go to Kirkland Lake. The process in this Legislature prevented us from going there because in committee the New Democrats voted against Kirkland Lake as a site we'd visit. They didn't want to go there. They were willing to go to North Bay or Sudbury or Kingston or Sault Ste Marie, but not Kirkland Lake. Why? What a dumb answer and what a dumb use of power they used on us in committee. That is what really hurts. You're down here to do a job and then the New Democrats use their power to put you down. I've never felt worse than I did in that committee that night when, for the dumb reasons the New Democrats gave, they said, "We won't go to Kirkland Lake."

Who else was really under consideration? Metropolitan Toronto had spent over $10 million looking at that as a viable site. Metropolitan Toronto had been told back in 1991 by the Minister of the Environment that the whole notion of looking at a site outside of Toronto was worthwhile. I have the letter right here to Chairman Tonks from the Minister of the Environment dated January 22, where she says, "Continue to investigate the conceptual design and evaluation of the feasibility of rail haul." She doesn't say Kirkland Lake, but rail haul. If any example came through the Metro analysis, it was that Kirkland Lake was a viable option to be considered. So I got into this committee and the committee said, "Can't go to Kirkland Lake, boys; that's going to be too difficult" -- too difficult because it was going to be too hot for the New Democrats, and that's what makes it sickening when you're here.

If you're in politics and you can't stand the heat of the kitchen, get out. We'll get rid of you in 1,400 or so days from now when the election comes up, and that's what I hope will happen. But I say when you're down here working in this place you've got to work together, you've got to listen to the public, you've got to be involved. It was terrible the way this government came along and tied our hands, closed the doors and just forgot about the truth.

One of the other bad things I see out of this bill is the violation to the national packaging protocol. The first three parts of the bill have to do with garbage in Metropolitan Toronto, but the fourth part of the bill really shouldn't have been part of this bill; it was not part of something the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area should have been involved with, although she happens as well to be the Minister of the Environment.

What they've done through this bill is set Ontario up to become a world leader in packaging guidelines. Now, I like that, I want that -- if we can have incentives so that business and everybody sees a model we can develop that makes us say Ontario's doing it right. But use the carrot approach as well. Don't just institute mandatory regulations and guidelines that could cause business to say: "We won't go to Ontario because in Ontario, well, why even sell our product? We have to do things differently there to do business than in other jurisdictions."

Don't set us apart from the rest of the world. We're part of a great global trading arrangement that's developing. Hopefully when we get out of this recession we will begin to see more trade back and forth among our provinces and south of the border, but don't do what you've done in this bill and set up a set of guidelines where the government is going to overrule and cause other companies to say, "We don't want to be part of this."

One of the other bad things about this bill is that they call it the Interim Waste Authority. There's nothing interim about this waste authority. It's with us; we're stuck. We've got a 20-year plan. Why didn't they change the name and call it something else? It's part of the political game, where we give names to everything and then a way we live with it.

I wish I had more time to go into the Packaging Association of Canada's presentation. They had a lot to say on what part IV of this bill could mean.

Other things that tie in to what the bill is all about: I have three letters in particular I want to refer to quickly. I've talked about Kirkland Lake. I have a letter to the Premier dated April 13 from Mayor Joe Mavrinac of Kirkland Lake. He said: "There is a critical need for our community and the north as a whole to examine and entertain new economic opportunities. This is essential to our long-term survival." They've tried to prevail upon the Minister of Northern Development, the Premier and the Minister of the Environment to look at the whole Rail Cycle North option. It's just been closed right down.

I have in my hands as well a letter that is signed and shared by the region of York, Alan Tonks of Metro Toronto, Durham Chairman Gary Herrema and Vaughan Mayor Lorna Jackson. They make three points: (1) that there is no garbage crisis in the GTA that proper management procedures cannot handle, and (2) the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, including considering a broad range of alternatives, should apply in the search for solutions.

I have to thank the member for Nipissing, who made it very clear in our caucus that a lot of the problems we have with this bill, parts I, II and III as they relate to making Metro Toronto the garbage centre, could be handled if you made changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, and it's confirmed by this letter.

The third point: "The bill allows the province to assume municipal responsibilities and gives appointed provincial officials the authority to tell elected municipal councils what their financial priorities should be." The public at large may not realize what that means, but when you have elected council and they have responsibility for the budget but someone who is a provincial appointee can come along and affect what they're doing, it can be a very, very serious problem to those municipalities.

I have a letter as well from the mayor of Vaughan. I don't want to take thunder away from my friend the member for York Centre, who represents a large part of that area, but it is part of the south York region. Her letter is dated April 14, but that's time for the minister to have read it, because it was addressed to her and copied to myself and many others.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Don't you do your personal correspondence privately?

Mr Cousens: I make it public when it's good and when everybody else is copied. You were copied on this too; they even put your name ahead of mine. What she said in the letter is, "The arbitrary withdrawal of environmental protections is unnecessary and unfair to the residents of the city of Vaughan." I couldn't agree with her more, and that was made very clear by representations before our committee. "While we recognize the significance of this amendment that's going to allow public hearings, we do not believe that it responds in any meaningful way to our concerns."

She went on and made a number of excellent points which show that the government has really failed to understand the importance of dialogue. She said, "This amendment underscores that the responsibility for these decisions is to be withdrawn from the politicians who are directly accountable to the electorate and placed in the hands of a civil servant to deal with, without recourse." So she has the feeling of that one.

I also point, if I may, briefly to the chairman of the region of Durham. The member for Durham West has said so many times that he's doing the right things for his region. I'd like to hear the conversation between the member for Durham West and the chairman of the region of Durham, because the presentation that was made by the chairman says this, and I want to quote it into the record so that those who don't like it at least have to listen to it and read it, and may the constituents in the member for Durham West's area understand that he was diametrically opposed on this issue to what his own chairman had to say.

1600

The chairman said: "Bill 143 represents yet another set of changes in waste management requirements the region must follow. It continues to place waste management outside of the region's control, yet the region is being expected to absorb the financial liabilities that result from these decisions. This is an intolerable situation."

When you have the chairman of the region of Durham calling this an intolerable situation, I say, why is it that the member for Durham West doesn't even listen to it?

He also said in his letter, and I will just read it quickly:

"The minister has also stated that she has committed to a full participatory process. Unfortunately she did not follow through on this commitment with Bill 143. Municipalities were not given a chance to comment on this bill before it entered the Legislature. There was not full consultation. This leads us to question the minister's commitment to full consultation."

So ends that part of the saga.

I only have a few moments left, because I have an honourable friend who wants to continue. I think when we look at it all, the reality is that this government says, "You can't burn it." They have said no to incineration. They've said, "You can't transport it." They have said no to even those who say, "Yes, I'll have it in my backyard."

The reality is, you can't stop it. There is always going to be garbage. The reality is, you can't count on the 3Rs. The 3Rs are becoming too expensive. The whole blue box program could be in jeopardy. Some communities are finding it inordinately expensive to handle and the future of it is a matter of concern.

So what is it that's going to be done with our excess goods we throw away, since we've said no to burning it, no to transporting it, no to really making sure the 3Rs are going to work? What is going to happen then is you're going to bury it. You're going to bury it, which is an outdated technology. It's dangerous, it's messy and you're always going to have people who will stand up and say, "I don't want it in my backyard."

The solution this government has found for Metro's garbage is to inflict a landfill site of 40 million tonnes on an area that is the fastest-growing populated area in Canada. They're going to say, "Somewhere in these areas, in Durham, York and Peel, there'll be a nice site for you to put your garbage, even though there may be sites outside of this area that want it more." I'll tell you, there are always going to be more people down here who don't want it than there are outside who might want it.

In the meantime we have to deal with the whole process this government has not begun to deal with -- environmental assessment -- in a way that could begin to handle it.

We have seen millions of dollars thrown aside. We have seen a public relations campaign by the government that says it's a crisis. We have seen them refuse to listen to businesses, to the opposition, to communities. We've seen a group that is now the government going ahead breaking promises that have been set in stone before -- possibly because these areas are not NDP, but who is to think that?

They have introduced this bill in isolation from reality and in isolation from input from any of the people who really had something to say to it. I don't see any win-win situation for the government on this bill. I see it as a situation where we in Ontario are now losing so much because of the way this bill has been processed and brought forward.

Unfortunately I don't know the answer to it all. If I were to come forward and have a solution to it I would say, "Let us begin immediately to change the environmental assessment process." If the environmental assessment process is taking too long and is just causing extended protractions of time and dithering by government process because of frivolous objections, let us begin to look very seriously at the environmental assessment process so we can take that time, which might now be as long as five years, and bring it down to a much shorter time frame. Yet within that time frame, if you put the disciplines in place where you've got the kind of legal expertise that would come through those who have been in the courts, they could say: "You only have so much time to make your presentation. If you don't have it by that time, we move to the next one." The Supreme Court doesn't give unlimited time to people to make their objections. They limit it, they control it and it comes through.

If we were to bring some of that kind of legal expertise to the environmental assessment process, still giving everyone who needs it an opportunity to have his or her objection heard and understood and made -- if in fact there is a need for more scientific evidence on certain issues, let it be made. Let it be found, let that time be given, and let there be that option open. But instead we are seeing Bill 143 being pushed through this House today by a government --

Mr Sorbara: Rammed through.

Mr Cousens: Rammed through; I agree with the member for York Centre. They are ramming it --

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Why don't you guys sit up there together?

Mr Cousens: I've never agreed with him on everything, but on this bill there isn't another person -- I'll just tell you this: He's one of the people who, if this had been a Liberal government, would've stopped it. He would've done something. Unfortunately he is just as powerless as I am, but vocal he will be, and fight for his community he will. That's what you have to do in this business, because you believe in it.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: Oh, come on. I don't want to give a Liberal a compliment, but if he does the right thing I'll even compliment the member for York Centre.

I'll just tell you this much: The whole process we're involved with is wrong. The government is abusing its majority. They're putting something over on the people of Ontario. Most people don't know about it. Most people are apathetic. I am not apathetic. Our caucus is not apathetic. We will not give up. Though this bill may be passed today, it will spell the end of the New Democrats. It's another nail in their coffin. When you are buried 1,400 days from now, this is just going to be one of those nails and we'll say: "There it is. On the 23rd of April there's that nail, Bill 143." It'll have your name on it. So ends the era 1,400 days or less from now.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's with great pleasure, if I may start off by saying that, that I speak in favour of this bill. As a member from northern Ontario, the area to which Metropolitan garbage was going to be shipped, I am very much pleased to be able to speak in favour of this bill which, quite frankly, stops that from happening.

I would just like to start off by saying one thing. I listened with great intent to the member for Markham talk about his position that when in opposition or in government people should be saying the same things before an election and after an election, all those points. I would like to remind the Conservative caucus and the people of this province that in the summer of 1990, in an election, when visiting the Marmora site -- which, by the way, is another open-pit site -- the member for Nipissing said it only took him 12 to 18 seconds to figure out that you can't put garbage into an open pit. I wonder why all of a sudden they have forgotten. By the way, this is off a Conservative press release. If it's not good for Marmora, excuse me, it is not good for northern Ontario.

On that particular point I would just like to say that I think we sometimes have situations in northern Ontario that are dealt with a little bit differently than in the south because of our geography. One of the things that is very important for a community in northern Ontario is how we deal with the whole question of getting people to understand the north for what it is: an area of Ontario that takes up about three quarters of the province that has a lot of wilderness that has never been touched in any way whatsoever. I think people look at the north and say, "There's a piece of the province that hasn't been decimated to a great extent in regard to environmental disasters."

The problem I had right from the beginning, when the Liberals proposed this whole idea of shipping garbage into Kirkland Lake or anywhere else outside of Metropolitan Toronto, was that it would change the attitude in regard to the way people view northern Ontario, "Northern Ontario is a place where Metropolitan Toronto sends its garbage." I'm very proud to stand here today as a New Democrat and say we shut the Liberal bill down. We said we were not going to allow it to go.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am sure that had he had his wits about him the member for Cochrane South would not have wanted to mislead this House. But it's important for him to have an opportunity to correct the record and inform other members of this House --

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. This is not a point of order. The member may well have a difference of opinion. That's very understandable. You can only correct your own record. The honourable member for Cochrane South does have the floor.

Mr Bisson: To put the record straight, what everybody in this House knows, I would think -- and most people who have really looked at this whole question of what happens with Metropolitan garbage -- is that the Metropolitan area had a problem on its hands. It has now and it had to find a place to get rid of its garbage. What the Liberals were going to allow was Metropolitan garbage going into northern Ontario. That's the effect of what that government was going to do.

1610

Mr Sorbara: My friend is misleading the House.

Mr Bisson: When we came to power, it was obviously --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I believe I heard an honourable member say something to the effect that someone was misleading the House. Would you please withdraw that comment.

Mr Sorbara: I would like to invite the member to correct the record, but if he's not going to do that, then I guess under the circumstances I'll withdraw the comment and hope that he sees the way correctly to correct the record.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. The honourable member has withdrawn the comment. Please proceed and address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Bisson: Anyway, the point I was making is basically this: What was going to happen is that Metropolitan garbage was going to be allowed to be shipped outside the GTA and into another willing host community. What this government did and what we decided at the very beginning is that we didn't want that scenario to happen for a number of reasons.

I don't have the time in this debate to get into the environmental issues in regard to shipping garbage over a 300- to 400-mile area over rail lines going through communities such as North Bay, Temagami and other places -- the danger that this would represent, but also the site itself. I would just bring back again to the attention of the people of the House and the people of Ontario: If it was good enough for the member for Nipissing to not want to put garbage into a pit, I think it's good enough for the people of this province. We would agree within this government, and we take his recommendation quite seriously.

In regard to Bill 143, let's keep in mind what this bill is. This bill is entitled An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area. This is what this bill is all about. One of the things that happens with the opposition -- and I understand, because that's the role of the opposition -- is to cloud sometimes the facts a little bit in regard to how the arguments are put forward. I don't criticize that, but I find it upon me to come and just clarify a couple of points.

Before this act ever came around, no municipality in Ontario had the right to ship garbage outside its boundaries. Metropolitan Toronto did have that right because of the way it is able to deal with the particular regulations. What this act basically says is that Metro Toronto and the GTA will have to deal internally with their own garbage problem and will not have the right to ship garbage around the province in order to get rid of the problem. I think allowing that to happen on the part of this government would really have created a situation where it wouldn't have put any onus on the municipality of Toronto or the GTA or anybody else to really sit down and start dealing with the problem we have with garbage here in Ontario.

We know the problem is not only here in Ontario; other cities across North America and, I would say, in Europe and other places have the same kind of problem. What we need to do as a society is start dealing with the question of garbage. That's exactly what it is. It's garbage. The opposition doesn't like to use that word, but this is what this stuff is. If we allow municipalities to ship their garbage out, what we're doing is taking away any onus they have of really looking at how they can effectively deal with the problem in a managed, long-term type of system.

The first thing we need to do obviously is we should be looking at reducing the amount of garbage that we put into landfill sites. You can do that by a number of mechanisms, with the participation of the private sector, the government. The municipal governments can find ways to reduce garbage so that, in the long run, we don't have to put as much garbage inside a waste disposal site.

The second thing obviously that we should be looking at as part of the 3Rs program is the whole question of reusing, of saying: "Let's look at some of the things that we can do around reusing. I'm going to buy a bottle of pop. Why don't we buy it out of a bottle rather than a can and throwing it in the garbage?" We say it gets recycled, but a lot of it ends up in landfill sites. We take a look at, for example, in Europe what they do in some places. If I want to go buy goods, I bring my own bag, I buy my soybean, I buy whatever, I put it in my own bag and I bring it home. There are ways that we can effectively deal with reducing the amount of garbage going into landfill sites.

The other issue is on the question of packaging. I think the member for Markham raised a point that was very interesting. He's right that one of the things we have to be able to do is encourage the private sector to be able to reduce the amount of packaging so in effect again we can take pressure off our landfill sites.

I only want to point out one thing. I find that interesting, coming from a party of the right such as the Conservatives. They have always preached -- and I have listened from the time I can remember, watching the media and reading the papers -- that the private sector can do it best, and if the government kept its nose out of it, that sector would be able to deal with it. But the member for Markham stood there and said that the only way it can happen is the government has to get involved by creating incentives. I find that somewhat contrary. I'm not saying I disagree with the idea of the incentives, but the whole notion that for some reason they can do it best and for some reason they can do it on their own, when they're the first to come to us and say, "We need an incentive in order to make this happen" -- maybe that's the direction we should take.

In regard to what happened around Kirkland Lake, I'd just like to get into a couple of things. First of all, in Kirkland Lake, under the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee what they had done is they came out with an agreement by which they would allow garbage to go to that particular site, which was the Adams mine. It's a fairly new iron ore mine that just closed down some two years ago. They were going to allow the garbage to go from Metropolitan Toronto into this site.

One of the things that has been expressed from the very beginning of this whole debate, from first reading of Bill 143, is that what had to happen in Kirkland Lake is a full-blown environmental assessment -- that was the charge by the opposition and some of the people in the community of Kirkland Lake -- in order to take a look at that site. I would just like to ask, why do an environmental assessment on something the government has no intention of doing?

We don't want to ship garbage to Kirkland Lake. That is not the solution. To do an environmental assessment and spend the money necessary in order to make that happen would be a bad use of money. Why study something you're not going to do? The point is, we weren't going to do an environmental assessment in Kirkland Lake because we didn't want the garbage going there in the first place.

On the question of the environmental assessment, it has been said by members of the opposition and within the media -- and I would like to set the record straight -- that under Bill 143, when you create a new landfill site, there would not need to be an environmental assessment. According to the regulations, in the creation of a new landfill site, you have to have a full-blown environmental assessment. Certainly the people of Ontario want that and that's what this bill is all about. We want the opportunity for people to have their say. But with regard to doing an EA on the question of the Adams mine site, it made no sense because we were not going there.

With regard to what happened around the committee hearings, the member for Markham said the NDP in some way didn't want to go to Kirkland Lake. I go to Kirkland Lake quite often -- it's a sister riding; it's a beautiful area that had a former NDP member and now has a Liberal member -- and a lot of people have talked to me on this particular issue. Either people have come to my constituency office or I have met with them in Kirkland Lake. Other government members have done the same thing in order to hear the concerns of the people in Kirkland Lake. The majority view I heard coming from the people in that area is that they didn't want this thing to go ahead. That was the majority view.

That brings us to the question of the referendum. The opposition will say the referendum clearly stated that people wanted to go ahead with the project. No. The referendum asked, "Do you want to have an environmental assessment to study if such a site would make any sense and wouldn't harm the environment?" Sure, I'll vote for that, because I'm not voting in favour of the site, I'm voting in favour of having an environmental assessment.

Around the same time as that referendum, there was a referendum held in Chapleau, where they put the question directly to a northern town in Nickel Belt and said, "Are you in favour of shipping Metro's garbage to Chapleau?" and 89% said no. I would guess the majority of people in Kirkland Lake would have said no if it had come down to the final straw of bringing garbage from Metropolitan Toronto into Kirkland Lake.

I find it quite fascinating as a northerner. I was born in northern Ontario and raised in Timmins. I understand the feeling people in northern Ontario have had for years with regard to sometimes feeling alienated from southern Ontario. The one thing I really found very strange in this debate, what we saw happening in the media, what happened here in the Legislature and at Metro council was the whole notion that all of a sudden some people from northern Ontario were going to ally themselves with people from the south in order to bring garbage into the north.

I never thought I'd see that debate going on in a million years, because it's always been the view of the people in the north that what has to happen is that we have to have the money in order to develop our resources, to make sure our resource sector is strong, and then look at secondary industry, but certainly never a question of bringing garbage into the north to create jobs. For me it was quite a strange situation to be in, being a government member, saying, "No, I don't want garbage coming into the north," and listening to some of the debate that was going on within the media. What they were trying to express as a majority view I think was a minority view, saying that somehow we have to allow this to happen. I found that quite a funny debate.

There is an organization in northern Ontario called the northeastern Ontario municipal association which voted in favour of this particular site, but one thing I know from speaking to people on councils across the area that NOMA represents, a lot of them came to me privately and said:

"Your government's doing the right thing. We shouldn't allow garbage to come into the north. We understand that Kirkland Lake is in a situation where it's economically depressed because of what's happened in the metal markets. We know the iron ore mines, the Adams mine and a number of others shut down. Two or three years ago we saw quite a few closures in that area, but for God's sake, we shouldn't allow this thing to happen."

1620

What I think people were trying to support was the ability of the town of Kirkland Lake to find some sort of mechanism by which to have money in order to have people working, in order to develop the jobs that were necessary to keep that community going. I would say as a northerner that is certainly not the way I would want to see it done in regard to garbage. I think we have to do more to support our resource industry and to make sure we have a healthy mining community and healthy pulp and paper and lumber companies. We can take a look after that at the tertiary industries around that and value added as a response for dealing with that, but I certainly don't think garbage is one of them.

I want to keep some time for the other members who are going to speak, but I want to close off by saying a couple of things. I think what we've seen here in regard to the attitude around this whole bill is something that I think can sometimes be described as a NIMBY attitude. Basically, what's happening is that people in Metro say -- and I understand why -- "Listen, we have a garbage problem. Let's dispose of it, but not in my backyard. Put it in somebody else's." I would say that is not a good way of dealing with it.

We do have a garbage crisis in Ontario, as we have across North America. The progressive way of dealing with that and the long-term way of dealing with it is sitting down and dealing with the things we can really do to affect it over the long term. I would say that the 3Rs are a good way to go. We need to reduce the amount of garbage going into landfill sites so that we don't start overutilizing those sites unnecessarily and having to look for more and more as time goes along.

We inherited this situation. I'm not going to point the finger at the Liberals or the Tories and say they're all the ones with the problem. The problem is that over the years, garbage has been an issue that people had not thought about originally. It's only over the past five and 10 years that the environmental movement has really started to draw attention to this particular problem.

I think now the people of Ontario, like the rest of the people across this great country, are starting to realize that there are other ways of dealing with that situation. What we need to do is deal progressively with the idea of diminishing the amount of garbage that goes into landfill sites in the long run so that we're not faced with the decision of having to ship garbage around.

As I said at the beginning, I'm quite proud to stand here as an NDP member and vote in favour of this bill, because what it does basically is put Metropolitan Toronto and the GTA in the same ballpark as everybody else, dealing with its garbage problems internally, within its own boundaries.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: It's fairly interesting what the member -- we always have the wisdom of the opposition going off and heckling here.

The point I'm making is that we need to deal with this question progressively over the long term. We need to find ways of reducing the amount of garbage going into our landfill sites. With great pleasure, I stand in favour of this bill and support it. I think it's the right way to go and in the long run the people of this province will benefit.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): One of the things about this bill that is very important for us to recognize is that it's symptomatic of what happens when a government is strapped by ideology, when it is ideologically bound to follow a certain course. The net result is that all of the options are not open for consideration. As a result, the people of the province could end up paying, and not the government of the day.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable members will have the opportunity to participate in this debate as soon as their party's turn comes up, so I would appreciate if you could allow the honourable member for Ottawa South to participate and then your turns will come.

Mr McGuinty: I'd always thought it was in the public interest to consider all of the options when we're facing a problem, but apparently that's not how this government views how things should be done. An environmental assessment affords an opportunity for an issue to be heard in an impartial, objective manner by a group of experts who consider these matters intelligently, expertly and in a forum devoid of emotion.

What this government is saying is: "We are not going to put a couple of the options that are available to us to the test," those options being incineration and shipping or transporting of garbage. "We know better and we will not permit that to happen." The environmental assessment process, and more specifically the panel, has that wonderful luxury we don't have in this House of considering issues in a forum that is not buffeted by the winds of political expediency. It's not hamstrung by political ideology.

It's where political correctness is not a factor, where political agendas are not a factor. Briefly, simply, it just makes decisions objectively. It has its problems, there's no doubt about that, and those have been brought to our attention in the past, but the fact of the matter is the environmental assessment process and the panels which review the issues that come before it have a great deal of respect in this province. It has acquired an excellent reputation, and people have always understood that if all else fails, at least we can have these issues heard before the environmental assessment panel.

But with one fell swoop, this legislation changes all that. When it comes to the greater Toronto area's garbage, those people will not be entitled to have a full and objective consideration of all the options for dealing with their garbage, because the bill says essentially: "Look, you know that rule that says you've got to look at all the options in order to fully and properly consider what it is we're going to do when we're addressing a particular problem? Well, forget that rule. It doesn't apply in this particular case. What we're going to do is we're going to leave out of consideration this business of incineration and shipping garbage outside the GTA."

If I were a resident in the greater Toronto area, I would be very concerned, and I have concerns, notwithstanding that I'm not a resident, because I believe this bill has implications which stretch far beyond the consideration of the garbage problem within the Toronto area. I'm concerned because what this bill is doing is deliberately and methodically reducing the options for dealing with garbage and it's effectively infringing on the rights of the people in the GTA to a full and fair hearing at an environmental assessment panel. It's often been said, but it's worthy of repetition, that if the rights of any one of us are infringed, then the rights of all of us are infringed. I think all of us have to pay very close attention to what is happening here today and what kind of bill this government intends to put through.

The question of course that begs to be answered is, why is this government telling the people of the GTA that they cannot insist even on a consideration by the environmental assessment panel of the options of shipping and incineration? There's only one answer, of course, and that's because according to the NDP ideology, shipping and incineration are bad things, and anything that is labelled bad, ideologically speaking, cannot even be considered.

The problem of course, as we witnessed only recently in this House, is that what is bad today may not be bad tomorrow, because miraculously something that is bad could become good. I'll just give a couple of examples. In the past the NDP told us that casinos were bad. We've been told recently that they are good. In the past we were told that no-fault insurance was bad. Of late we're being told that it is something that is good. In the past the NDP made a campaign promise to eliminate nuclear generation of electricity in this province; it was bad, but today we are being told it is good. That's the kind of problem we get into when we approach these problems purely from an ideological perspective.

At present, according to the NDP ideology, shipping and incineration are bad, and that's a shame, because that "bad" label of course is not based on empirical data -- the minister, to my knowledge, has not presented any such data -- it's only based on her own and her party's ideological interpretation.

What is this government really saying in Bill 143? I'll tell you what it's saying. It's saying, "We don't really care if people are being denied their right to have the environmental assessment panel hear evidence on the options of shipping and incineration." It's saying: "We don't care if the people of Toronto want to send their garbage north. We don't care if the people of Kirkland Lake wish to receive that garbage. We don't care if the duly elected leaders of both those communities have entered into a lawful agreement to deal with Toronto's garbage. We don't care if that agreement is being made subject to an environmental assessment consideration. We don't care if 69% of the people of Kirkland Lake have voted to at least consider this proposal. We don't care if such an agreement, if it ever came to be, would have dramatic positive economic impacts in terms of employment, infrastructure and promoting a creative approach to dealing with our garbage."

1630

The bill is saying, "We don't care if incinerators can be fueled with carefully selected fuels." In the darn things you can burn organic waste, wood waste and methane which is generated from wasteful sites. It's important to understand that what comes out at the top of these darn things is a function of what you put in at the bottom.

The bill is also saying, "We don't care if incinerators recover the fourth R, the energy." When I make reference to recover, that's the fourth R. Sometimes we get hung up and kneel before the altar of the 3Rs: the holy trinity, the 3Rs. There are other options available to us and we shouldn't lose sight of that fact. One of them is the fourth R, when we can recover energy contained in the waste and convert it into electricity.

The bill is also saying, "We don't care if generating electricity through burning wood waste or methane gas, for instance, is better for the environment than the way Ontario Hydro generates electricity when it burns our traditional fossil fuels: coal, oil and natural gas."

It's interesting to note that when you burn wood it doesn't release sulphur dioxide, which contributes to acid rain, and when you burn wood it doesn't produce as much carbon dioxide. Therefore, it doesn't promote global warming to the same extent that do other traditional fossil fuels.

It's also important to note that two years ago, in an effort to achieve its acid rain limitations, Ontario Hydro purchased electricity from outside the province, from the United States, to comply with the law in existence. What we were doing was having the Americans generate electricity by burning fossil fuels. Of course, as we all well know, the waste that results from burning fossil fuels does not recognize international boundaries, and we eventually shared some of the downside of generating that electricity.

Finally, of course, this bill is saying, "We don't care if there are today two energy-from-waste incinerators operative in this province," both of which happen to have passed a stringent environmental assessment test. There are those, I am sure, who either inadvertently or deliberately will misconstrue what I'm saying here today. They're going to say that I'm pro-incineration or that I'm pro-shipping of garbage; in other words, that I'm saying incineration is necessarily a good thing or that shipping garbage is necessarily a good thing.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that a responsible government which truly has the public interest at heart, not the interest of any particular subgroup of our public, a government that is not held hostage by its own ideology, will require that we consider the six options available to us when we're trying to deal objectively and impartially with a garbage problem. Those six options are: reducing our garbage, reusing and recycling whatever we can from that garbage, placing some of that garbage in a local site, incinerating garbage and shipping it.

It may be that environmental assessment panels in the future could find incineration and shipping to be an integral part of an environmentally sound waste management program, or it could be that they are not. The sad thing is we'll never know. We'll never know because this government is hamstrung by ideology and hardened by arrogance. It's telling us two things: first, "We know best," and second, "No, you the electorate can't have this issue addressed by the environmental assessment panel, an impartial body."

I note that the Environmental Monitor, an environmental polling agency -- and that's the largest of its kind in Canada -- recently found that 59% of Canadians believe incinerators are the safest way to dispose of our residual waste. By residual waste, I'm referring of course to the waste left after an aggressive use of the 3Rs.

There is one other feature of this bill I'm going to make reference to, and that is the fact that through some twisted logic, the minister reserves the right to herself order shipment of garbage outside one community and into another. On behalf of the people of Ottawa-Carleton, I want to indicate how very concerned we are with the implications of that provision. Of course it would wreak havoc on all the plans that have gone into dealing with our local waste problem.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I think the comments made by the previous speaker were very appropriate, accurate and truthful. The member for Markham spoke at length and I thought his comments were equally reasonable and insightful.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): However.

Mr Stockwell: No, there's really no "however" in this debate. There isn't a "however." It really comes down to principle du jour.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Principle of the day. It's on the menu. What's the principle of the day?

Mr Stockwell: Exactly. It's very difficult to follow the progress of this government without a program, because it flip-flops like fish on a beach. Some of them were mentioned. I guess what I find most trying and difficult is putting up with the constant array of speakers from that side of the House who are nothing more than public apologists for what they've said in the past 20 years.

There used to be a time when they would stand in this House, and this bill is a prime example, dripping with sincerity and attacking anyone, be it a Conservative or Liberal, for not using the exact approach they suggested. If they didn't, they didn't care about the poor or they didn't care about the environment or they didn't care about the people.

Sitting here today and listening to the attempts at debate is very difficult for me. What makes it doubly difficult is that, coming from Metropolitan Toronto, I've had to listen to this kind of stuff since I was elected, some nine or 10 years. Finally seeing this party gain power and waffle, vacillate and, in some cases, simply do an about-face without debate on a number of issues that were planks and absolute principles sickens me. That's why I think having third reading on this bill is one of the most difficult things for the Minister of the Environment to put forward.

We can go into the broken promises. Of course we will all recall that they still dripped with sincerity when they called the previous Premier a liar five times before the last election for not fulfilling, among other things, his promise on auto insurance. He was a liar. If that Premier was a liar, what does that make this Premier? We had to watch a cabinet minister slander and libel a doctor, admit to lying, take a lie detector test to prove she lied and then stay in cabinet. It's a list of them as long as your arm. Today we see casino gambling. Nothing but, "Lotteries are a tax on the poor." What is casino gambling?

We're faced with Bill 143 today and we get into the Peel-York region debate and those poor souls who believed them, who bought it. You should be very proud of yourselves. You sucked them in. Isn't that wonderful? That's just wonderful. You should be proud of yourselves for sucking them in and winning government. So much for principles.

1640

At least there is one advantage to this. I will never have to listen to another sanctimonious speech from a member of that party on this side of the House for the rest of my life. I will simply reiterate, "1990-94," and they'll be quiet because they've sold out. While selling out, they sold out York and Peel.

I continue to go back to the NDP agenda for power, and I look into that. Do I see any of the promises made in the NDP agenda for power in this legislation? Do I see any of it? Of course not. It was never meant to be implemented. It was meant to get votes. You were always above getting votes; you were always above breaking promises. In that speech, on the front cover they had the audacity to suggest that people in Ontario are tired of politicians making promises and breaking promises.

I know how the cabinet ministers can do it. There's a lot more at stake for them to break with party right now. I don't know what's with the backbenchers. Surely there must be a spine over there somewhere.

I've known the Minister of the Environment for quite a while. I've known the Minister of the Environment as someone who has fought for the environment, for the public process, for the planning acts across this province. You've usurped every hope that citizens had with this legislation. You've usurped public process, you've usurped the Planning Act and you've said, "Tough on you; we're in charge now." That's awful. That's shameful. That's the socialist way.

Flip through this Agenda for People. It's almost worthless to debate the issue. You have members standing up who clearly don't understand the issue, saying that now it's time for Metropolitan Toronto to start acting like everybody else and keep the garbage within the GTA.

Tell me something, my friends across the floor. What about the half a million tons that are getting shipped to the United States every year? What are they, some kind of Third World nation? It's okay to ship it to the States, and they nod in agreement. Ship it to the States. They incinerate it and it comes back here. That's a tremendous environmental attitude. That wasn't okay when they were in opposition, dripping with sanctimony. My goodness, the soapbox is far to fall from, isn't it? You're still falling. You haven't hit ground yet.

We still hear daily, day in and day out, ministers standing up and defending casino gambling. It's hilarious. It's laughable; it's absolutely laughable. Have you no principles? Have you forgotten everything you stood for?

Now they suggest that it's okay, as part of this legislation, to expand a landfill site with not a minute of public hearing. I was one who often criticized the member for St Catharines when he was the minister. I would take the member for St Catharines in a second over what we have today. I would take the Conservative environmental critic and the Conservative ministers of the past in a second. They protected the people. You were the protectionists. You were the ones who were going to look after us. You were the ones who fought for the environment.

Mrs Caplan: Sold them out.

Mr Stockwell: "Sold them out" are not strong enough words.

This is a personal issue too. It's a personal issue because I sat on Metro Toronto council and I am insulted at the suggestion from the minister who said we did not take our responsibility seriously. That is painfully untrue. We knew what the problems were. We were trying to resolve them.

There is some degree of hope, because you know what's going to happen. The minister will issue her list -- I'm joyful she's coming back in. You will issue your list, Madam Minister. We know what's on your list. All those sites that Metropolitan Toronto was looking at are on your list. We know they're on your list, and you're going to have to go out and explain why they're on your list and why you started studying them all over again at a cost of millions and millions of tax dollars. Explain it.

We didn't hear in the campaign about expansion of Peel and Keele Valley. We didn't hear about the draconian acts they were going to perpetrate on private property when it came to expropriating it for landfill sites. We didn't hear about that. You know what we heard about from these environmentalists? We heard about safe, clean water. Where's that legislation, Madam Minister? We heard about less garbage and returnable pop cans. Where's that legislation? We heard about zero discharge. Where's that legislation?

We heard the dripping, sanctimonious speeches about the environmental bill of rights. Where is that, Mr Speaker? That's in a blue box somewhere. It's a year and a half, Madam Minister. You wrote two pieces of legislation you told governments to pass. Why is it taking you 18 months when you had the legislation drafted?

I know what the people in Kirkland Lake were saying, and I know there were some opposed, but to have a member from the north stand up and suggest that the citizens and the politicians in Metropolitan Toronto are going to have to live by the rules and keep their own garbage -- let me tell the member from northern Ontario something. We have bailed out more regions in southern Ontario than he cares to mention. It's called bailing out. When they did not have landfill sites, we took their garbage and we put it in our landfill site. We bailed them out. We had a conscience; we were doing our best.

You're finding the situation a little more difficult than the glib, one-sentence responses that you gave previous governments and the one-paragraph, cheap political stunts that you put forward in your Agenda for People. This is not a debate about Bill 143; this is not a debate about the environment any more. This is not a debate about casino gambling. This is a debate about the sellout NDP in Ontario. This doesn't even deal with legislation any more. This deals with: How low will they go?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I hardly know where to begin, having listened to some of the rewriting of history that has taken place this afternoon in this House. Where I will begin is perhaps in 1972. This issue goes back that far. Actually, it goes back farther than that, but 1972 is a good place to start because it was just about that time that the residents in my community began to become aware that they would be inundated with the odours and the smells of Metro's garbage even more than they had been for the 13 to 18 previous years when they had to endure the Beare Road landfill site. That's just inside Scarborough but right on the boundary of Pickering and Scarborough, so the prevailing winds would send the odours through to my residents' community.

It's a good place to start because it indicates a number of things. There were a number of things happening in my community at that time. We had the federal Liberals expropriating somewhere in the neighbourhood of 18,000 acres. We had the provincial Tories expropriating 23,000 acres of land for airports and communities, all with no hearings, all with no recourse to the public. In this incubus of turmoil is the beginning of my political awareness and my political career in terms of what it means to have Liberal and Tory rights defended in the political milieu.

Needless to say, the draconian measures to expropriate the land in north Pickering did not come even close to the standards that these two parties now espouse, which is wonderful, because I am happy to see that they have had this conversion on the road to opposition.

Now, the reason this begins is because you have to start looking at Brock West, the landfill that's in Pickering now. It is terribly mismanaged by Metropolitan Toronto. Even their own engineers have condemned it in their records and in their submissions to Metro.

1650

This idea of expropriation and the idea that Metro has the right to expropriate from other communities is something I find a little abhorrent. In Bill 143, which we are debating this afternoon, an element of the expropriation has changed. What has changed is that no land can be expropriated unless a certificate of approval for the landfill site has first been given. For my residents, this is a huge relief. No matter what the opposition says, they've experienced the wrongful expropriation of land in the past. This says to them that no matter how many sites are listed, that land will not be unduly expropriated and then used for something else, as is the case with the north Pickering land assembly and the federal lands, which are just being addressed as a problem today.

Within this bill is the defence of people's rights with respect to expropriation. This is a change that has been made and a change that reduces the rights of the current government to expropriate property under the old rules. It is a contraction of these rights. Let the viewing audience and my fellow members know that my residents are well aware of the draconian powers the government has to expropriate, and in this case this bill has reduced them.

I'd like to talk a little about the Interim Waste Authority and about landfills. There was no Interim Waste Authority, there were no criteria and there was nothing to define what would be a reasonably good place for a landfill site. I use the words "reasonably good" because there is no "good" place. There is no landfill site that will not leak, including the Kirkland Lake pit that was clearly indicated to leak at the rate of 14 inches a year through what was supposed to be impermeable rock. So I use that advisedly: It's reasonably good. There were no criteria, so what happened was that they picked some very bad sites. The Brock West landfill site is right beside Duffins Creek. In fact, some of that landfill site has slipped into Duffins Creek on occasion and has had to be rehabilitated. So there is no good place for a landfill site.

Brock North, which contains 143,000 tonnes of Metro's garbage, just to the northeast of Brock West, leaches thousands of litres per day that have to be taken by tanker truck to a sewage treatment plant. My community is not enough -- Beare Road, Brock West, Brock North -- but Metro came back and wanted it to go to Brock South, sitting right beside Duffins Creek just a bit farther down the road. This was intolerable to the community. They rose up almost as one and said: "No, we're not going to do this. We're not going to accept this."

The history is that we've had enough. My predecessor who held this seat probably regaled that party on an ongoing basis with the horrors of the Brock West landfill sites and the odours and the contamination that the people of Pickering had to experience. But what did they do? They came back and behind closed doors decided they were going to put another landfill site, P1, in the north end of Pickering -- no criteria, no opportunity for it to be compared against other landfill sites to see if it really was the best, no Environmental Assessment Act hearing, abbreviated Environmental Protection Act, and no possibility that it would be rejected, because it was the only site and the only game in town. What's more, it was on government-owned property that had previously been expropriated 20 years earlier by a Tory government that didn't care about people's rights. It's nice that they're the third party now, because they have since changed their position and are much more concerned about people's rights.

My residents know what it means to have their rights taken away at the P1 site. What is also interesting about this debate is that the honourable member from North Bay, the leader of the third party, came to Whitevale and made a really interesting speech.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Yes, I'll bet he did.

Mr Wiseman: Oh, it was. Don't be so cynical. What the member said to the residents of Whitevale was that the Progressive Conservative Party would not support the P1 site without a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing. We applauded that; even I applauded that.

Mr Cousens: Your hands don't come together except over your --

Mr Wiseman: Yes, it was more like this: one-handed applause. If their position has now changed, then the residents of Whitevale would be rather interested. But within the context of naming the P1 site, the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee talked about interim sites, talked about site 6B, talked about M2 and M3 in the Rouge Valley, talked about a lift on Keele Valley, talked about having an Environmental Protection Act hearing on Kirkland Lake, at the same time as running an Environmental Assessment Act hearing on Kirkland Lake for long-term garbage disposal. I don't know how they would manage to do that; one seems to be intimating that the other doesn't really matter.

So we have this problem. The position of this government was that in taking over the office it decided, and I applaud the minister for this, to say that the opening of greenfield sites under the Environmental Protection Act hearings was unacceptable, and therefore put a full environmental assessment on site 6B and P1, at which point both Durham and Peel removed the sites from the table, leaving what appeared to be and is a shortfall in capacity.

I have to say that I have a great deal of compassion and a great deal of sympathy for the residents of Vaughan and Maple because I know what they've gone through, I know what they've had to suffer at the hands of Metro. However, what's interesting is that Keele Valley is a much better-run site. What's interesting is that they say there will be no hearings on any of these sites, but in fact on Britannia the minister's reports specify that studies will have to be done, and these studies make up the essence of an Environmental Protection Act hearing --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Durham West has the floor. He is being provocative, and I am sure all members do not agree, but you will have the opportunity of participating.

Mr Wiseman: I obviously must be grating on them, because they were quiet for a lot of the other speeches and yet they have kept this din up through my entire attempt to reacquaint them with the history as it actually happened. While these are not the most satisfactory situations to be in, they are the best situations that now exist.

I would like to draw to the members' attention that the leachate from the Keele Valley landfill site is taken care of through the Durham-York sewer system, which winds up about a quarter to half a mile away from my front door in the Duffins Creek sewage treatment plant. So it is not without a great deal of concern that I see the involvement of the Keele Valley site. This is not an action that I take easily.

In the interest of fairness, I'm going to terminate my remarks to allow others in my party to have their say. In conclusion, though, I applaud the minister for this, and if the Metropolitan Toronto council had even considered listening to what was said by the Pickering-Ajax Citizens Together and other environmental groups in 1988, we wouldn't be in this position right now, because what we have in this bill is an example of what we said should happen back in 1988. They chose to ignore it.

1700

Mr Sorbara: I would just say to my friend the member for Durham West that we wouldn't be in this situation today had the people not voted the way they did back on September 6, 1990. I'm sorry, but that was the only mistake that was made.

We are now coming to the conclusion, third reading, of the most draconian piece of legislation, the most arbitrary piece of legislation, the most insensitive piece of legislation and the most dictatorial piece of legislation that I have personally seen in the seven years I have sat in this Parliament and in the years before that when I practised law and periodically used to have to look at legislation.

There has been all sorts of debate now, volumes and volumes of Hansard on this bill, but as I listen to third reading debate, not one of the speakers has really addressed the singular issue. There is only one issue in this bill, and it is this, sir: Shall the rights of the people of Ontario to participate and have a say in the difficult decisions about where we dispose of our garbage be withdrawn from the people? In relation to that, shall we have a bill that replaces the process of public hearing and examination of science and study with the arbitrary right of one politician, the Minister of the Environment, to determine where the garbage shall be dumped?

That is all this bill does. It takes away the rights of the people and it places Her Majesty the Czar of the Environment in the place of the people and in the place of the hearing process that we have up until this evening at 6 o'clock, when this will become law. Instead of asking those who understand how best to dispose of garbage to involve themselves in the process, this bill says, "I, Ruth Grier, have determined, on my own accord and after talking with my political cronies, that Metro's garbage is going in York region." That is all it says. It is a simple declaration: The garbage shall go in York region.

It doesn't matter if there is a better site somewhere else in the millions of square miles that make up Ontario. It doesn't matter if the scientists have a better process than dumping it in the ground -- "outhouse technology," as I describe it. None of that matters. This bill is the declaration of one arbitrary demagogue that says: "I shall decide. To hell with democracy. To hell with participation. To hell with the rights of the people. To hell with the science. To hell with the studies. To hell with anything other than my right to decide."

There is only one good thing to say about this bill, and that is that it will bring down a government that is so quickly losing the trust of the people that it sets a new standard in Ontario for the loss of trust. The conflict-of-interest issue and the lying of a minister now become a standard accepted by this Parliament.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. This place does have a code of standard for language, and the honourable member knows that. The word "lying," please.

Mr Sorbara: Just in response, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines took a lie detector test to prove that on an occasion at a cocktail party in Thunder Bay, she lied about a physician in Ontario. I am just reiterating what the minister herself said.

We have new standards of conduct for ministers. We have a Premier who used to preach about greed and about speculation -- we were going to have a speculation tax -- and who now says: "We have to study casinos in Ontario, because they may do it in the US or they may do it in Quebec. We have to study that." There are no principles left here, sir. This government is driven simply by a desire to effect whatever it is that its members, in their private counsels, determine they should do in order to get re-elected.

Bill 143 will stand as a symbol of a government that has lost the trust of the people. In that purely political respect, this is good news, because it will bring down this government. When the czarina of the environment identifies her 50 sites, those communities will rise up and say, "You have no right, notwithstanding your legislation." They will fight, because you don't take away democratic rights with just one bill rammed through on a timetable established by the ministry. Is democracy that feeble? Are the rights of the people that weak? Do you think that just because they are going to be forced to vote for this this afternoon, the people will sit down and say: "Our rights are gone. It doesn't matter now. You can put it there or you can put it there. Wherever Ruth says it should go, that's fine." Is that the estimation of this New Democratic Party? Is this the new democracy? Is this what the people voted for?

When the Premier stood at the edge of the Keele Valley landfill site and said, "No expansion here without a full environmental assessment," did the people not believe him? Some of them there said: "Yes, that's right. We're going to vote for you."

The people will rise up. The people won't tolerate this. In that respect, it doesn't matter what we do here. The power in a democracy to respond to arbitrary, dictatorial measures like this far outweighs what the Minister of the Environment thinks should be done. It's not a question of incineration. It's not a question of Kirkland Lake. It's a question of establishing a process to deal fairly and equitably with difficult issues.

I have no idea why they abandoned it. But it will defeat them, that and the member for Sudbury East, casino gambling and a whole host of other things. Some people want it. Some people wanted a driver-owned automobile system and voted for them. They said yes; our party said, "We're not going to have that." Those who wanted that said, "Yes, we'll vote for them."

After the election: "My goodness, the Liberal plan that David Peterson had -- and we called him a liar about his plan -- actually, I think we'll stick with that." If you do that, you lose the trust of the people.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Really, I have two points of order according to the standing rules. One is that we're debating Bill 143 and not auto insurance. Second, the use of the word "liar" in the member's speech was unparliamentary.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. You may not agree. I've been listening very closely and I have reprimanded the honourable member. I believe he is attempting to stick with parliamentary language. I hope he continues.

Mr Sorbara: We're debating Bill 143, but more than that, I tell my friend, we are debating the state of a province that has a government that has lost the trust of the people, not so much because of what it has done, but because it can no longer be trusted. Holding an elected office is a matter of taking the public trust and acting on behalf of the people. Once you start to pick away at that, the clock is ticking, my friend. This bill will defeat you. This bill will be talked about in every council and every meeting about environmental issues. It sets a standard for arbitrariness. It sets a standard for dictatorial powers. It will bring you down. The very sad news, my friends, I tell all of you, the sad tragedy is that it was unnecessary.

The good news is that it won't work. The people will rise up. The people will not tolerate it, not the people of York region, not the people of Peel, not the people of Durham, not the people of the province. On this sad day when this bill is being rammed through, that is the one piece of good news I would report to the House: This government will die on this bill.

1710

Mr Tilson: I have only a few minutes to comment. The member for Etobicoke West and the member for Markham have expressed the views of our party adequately, but I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to put forward to the House which express the concerns of some of the members of the rural community of the province of Ontario.

Much of this bill, of course, concentrates on the greater Toronto area, but members of the rural community are concerned as to how much it's going to cost the people of Ontario to find sites. They'd like to know where the sites are. Are they in the GTA or are they outside the GTA? Who's going to pay for them? Where are they? Who's going to get the tippage fees? Will the municipalities have any waste management control? All of those matters concern the municipalities outside the GTA.

They're also concerned why the subject of incineration hasn't been debated, not whether they're for or against it, but why won't they even at least consider that subject? Why won't they consider the subject of commuting waste to other parts of the province? Why is that subject not even considered specifically when parts of the province are prepared to take it?

Very briefly I'd like to read a typical letter I have received from a municipality in my riding, from the reeve of the township of Melancthon -- just part of the letter -- which expressed some of his concerns on Bill 143. I think it adequately expresses many of the municipal politicians in my riding.

"Under Bill 143, inspectors would have the right to trespass on private property in the search for possible landfill sites. What has happened to the rights of property owners?

"Bill 143 would allow other municipalities to make carte blanche use of neighbouring municipal landfill sites. After dictating where the landfill would be located, the financial onus would be the responsibility of the receiving township to collect and transport waste from another municipality. Thereafter, limited disposal options would be available as the municipality would be told how waste management systems should be implemented.

"Bill 143, if passed, will be precedent-setting. The NDP government has adopted a thou-shalt approach which cannot be tolerated. Their steamrolling attitude cannot be permitted to extend any further. Taxpayers and voters will not forget the NDP government's newly assumed role as dictator in the next provincial election."

It's signed by the deputy reeve of the township of Melancthon.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It's a privilege to be part of this debate. As a member of the social development committee that had the privilege to visit Kirkland Lake in the middle of February and see the wonderful people who came out on both sides of the question, I might add, it has been a very interesting time for me.

I want to at least take a few minutes to respond to some comments made earlier. One of those people who did speak was the member for Mississauga North. He raised some issues around the buffer zone between the landfill site and the urban environment. I really am very concerned about the kind of development he is proposing. Living in the city, as I do myself, and aware that not very far from me is good agricultural land, I have to concur with not only the minister but a number of members within our caucus about the need to preserve agricultural land and to seriously take into consideration the concerns of that rural community and the urban shadow community about the development that could conceivably take place.

We really have to look at better planning and infilling as options for urban centres, not just unbridled development, as has happened in some areas in and around the GTA. I strongly support any actions taken by this government or any other government, I might add, that really and truly mean better planning for the province. I believe the criteria the Interim Waste Authority will be using will respond to the concerns within Durham, York, Peel and Metro.

Another member raised the issue of incineration. I find it interesting that those members who participated on that committee, the member for Markham being one -- I'm sorry to say that the member for Mississauga South isn't here today because her concerns around incineration really are mine as well. They were reflected by a number of the deputants who came before us. How many of us really and truly want to live underneath that kind of a smokestack?

She so ably represented her constituents when a cement company came forward and made the proposal that fuel derived from waste was the only way to go, because she asked those very same questions: "Each and every day of the year, if an incinerator is in place, do you want to be deluged by lead, mercury, cadmium and a range of other toxic heavy metals which in turn have long, cumulative health effects, which most of the companies like Ogden Martin have been totally dishonest about?"

I think we really have to commend members like the member for Mississauga South who has expressed a very differing view from some members of her caucus. Definitely those of us who are in the government caucus have taken a very strong view, one which may not always be popular with some of the business community, but we have had that principle. Unlike some members here who have said we have not got any principles, in fact those principles are strongly held and they have been maintained despite a very expensive lobby that a number of these companies have definitely engaged in.

When the committee went to Kirkland Lake, we were told there was going to be a very large demonstration. It is my view, as someone who was there, that the newspaper report was somewhat inflated, because there were not 800 citizens out watching the opposition members do their thing. I would say again a selective memory is showing itself.

I would hasten to point out to all those people watching and to remind those people in Kirkland Lake who may be watching this at some point today or this evening that the two Conservative members who were sitting with that panel decided to leave early. In fact, they did not hear all the deputants. They did not hear all the technical data that were presented by those people who were in opposition.

It was very clear that Mayor Mavrinac, the mayor of Kirkland Lake, had a very willing ear, but those people who might have had a different view did not really get their full attention. I really consider that despicable. I understand they had other commitments, but I also feel there was an obligation for all of us, especially with the comments that have been made here, to be giving our full attention.

I think it is also rather interesting that I was given the Ontario Recycling Update in the mail today. I want to allow the minister some time to wrap up, but I think it is really important that we take into account some of the comments made by the recycling industry:

"The city of Toronto is considering a reduction in recycling service, apparently to save money. Bad thinking; false economy. Why not cut garbage collection back to once weekly like almost every other city in North America?

"Incineration of Municipal Waste: Sure, there can be exceptions, but mostly it's clearly 'resource destruction,' not a 1990s solution to waste management problems. Landfill in the sky? We don't need it in Ontario."

I support Bill 143, because I don't want my community to be considered a waste dump for Toronto garbage. I think it's time that Toronto took the responsibility for its own garbage, which it has successfully imposed on the citizens of Ontario time and time again.

1720

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I'll be very brief. There are three points I want to make in this debate, carrying on in part from the comments that were made by my colleague the member for York Centre.

The first one, for those of us who live in the region of York, has to do with the arbitrariness of the decision in terms of where Metro Toronto's garbage is going to go. The gamut of choice is limited to York region, and York region alone. I say that after having examined carefully the fact that where I am and in the areas I come from, undoubtedly there are many prospective sites that are going to be looked at by the government in terms of placing future waste disposal sites there.

I think everybody would agree that if we have a process that is fair, that is equitable, that is able to analyse all of the relevant data, then that is a process at the end of the day where we can say, "Fine, here is the selection that has been made; we can support that." But that is not a principle that we find in this bill. In that case, the arbitrariness of that decision is bad public policy.

The second point I want to make is on what has happened to the relationships between the government and the municipalities in the greater Toronto area around this issue, because I think they've been done tremendous harm. I have in front of me a letter that was sent this week by the regional chairs of Durham, of York, of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and by the mayor of the city of Vaughan setting out the concerns they continue to have about Bill 143 in what I think is a very clear way, in a way which wants to be cooperative, which wants to work with the minister.

They have three principal objections to the bill. First, there is no garbage crisis in the GTA that proper management procedures cannot handle. Second, the Environmental Assessment Act needs to apply and all the various options need to be considered. No one is saying it should be done by incineration; no one is saying the garbage has to go north or to any other place. But what is being said is that there must be a real and meaningful assessment of the options. That does not happen. Finally, under this legislation the province is able to move in, to dictate to municipalities, to ensure that they incur costs wherein they will not have any say in terms of how much they're going to have to pay or how that is going to happen. In terms of the kinds of issues that we see we are going to have to be working with between the province and the municipalities, this introduces again an element in the legislation of arbitrariness, of dictation. It is bad public policy.

The final point I want to make in terms of this bill is this government's apparent all-consuming intent to deal only with process. Whether we're looking at the Minister of Education's statement yesterday in terms of labour-management relations, whether we're looking at the Minister of Community and Social Services trying to take over the day care sector and not use the moneys where the needs are, if we look at the kind of process that is set out here, which runs roughshod over citizens' rights and over proper involvement of municipalities, all of those principles say this is bad public policy that should not go forward. We know it is because they have the votes, but frankly this is one of the most difficult pieces of legislation, and I think one of the poorest, that is being forced through this assembly. I think we're all going to come to regret what this has done.

The Acting Speaker: Under time allocation the Progressive Conservative Party has run out of time. We will continue with the official opposition.

Mr Mahoney: Briefly as well, to ensure that our critic has an opportunity to put forward some very thoughtful comments, I first of all would like to congratulate the member for Brampton North, who I think has done a tremendous job on behalf of this party in leading the debate in following this bill.

I want to respond to the comments of the member for St Catharines-Brock about the planning process and her reference to my colleague the member for Mississauga North and her fears about the kind of development that he sees around the Britannia sanitary landfill site. We call it a dump. It just boggles my mind and frightens me to think that the member for St Catharines-Brock, who I'm sure wouldn't have a clue where the Britannia dump even is, would have the temerity to comment on the planning process in the city of Mississauga, a community that has grown phenomenally over the past 15 to 20 years, with really, quite frankly, excellent planning principles, with citizen involvement --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: You don't know the first thing about it either, member for Durham West -- with citizen involvement in a process through the city council, the current mayor and many members of council, I having been one of them and my wife currently serving in that capacity. For her to have the audacity to suggest that the kind of planning we're talking about in an urban community is wrong -- she simply doesn't know what she's talking about.

Let me tell you that what the people around Britannia are afraid of is you, Madam Minister. They're afraid of you, with the powers that go with this bill, coming in and simply saying to them: "We're going to create" what they refer to as "son of Britannia. We're going to create a new dump site in Mississauga to solve problems elsewhere."

You know, this is really not just a Keele Valley problem or just a problem for Durham or just a problem for Peel. This is a problem we all have to recognize needs a solution and we should be looking within our own communities to solve our own problems.

Mississauga took the responsibility in 1978 of accepting all of Peel's garbage. We did so under an agreement with the citizens around Britannia that it would be for a limited, 12-year period. That time period is being violated. This minister and this government don't care about those commitments that were made by the regional and local councils of the day, and they have simply ignored the fact that Peel regional council was well down the road to going through the process and indeed would be very close to opening a dump site within its own boundaries that would solve its problem.

Mr Wiseman: Bradley cancelled it. Bradley cancelled 6A.

Mr Mahoney: He didn't cancel that. This government has come in with this legislation, and people who get so parochial that they say, "Don't put the problem on my doorstep" -- which is exactly what we're hearing, instead of turning around and saying: "We are prepared to deal with our problems within our communities. We understand that you have to have some kind of process in place that satisfies the needs of the people concerned, all of us concerned about the environment, but also recognizes the fact that we create garbage within our own communities." We had done that in Peel. This government came along, pulled the plug and said it was going to take over.

Now I want to take you a little bit down the road to the meeting this minister goes to to announce the number of sites that have been identified in the region of Peel. Think of the players. One of them will be a lady this minister is very familiar with and will get to know even better if she dares to push her will on the city of Mississauga, and that's our mayor. I want to be there when the current minister --

Interjection: I think you will be.

Mr Mahoney: -- and I think I will be -- attempts to tell the current mayor of the city of Mississauga that you are going to expand Britannia, that you are going to create son of Britannia or that you have decided in your wisdom that the new dump's going in Erin Mills. I want to be there to watch the blood on the walls, and you can rest assured, Minister, it will be your blood that will be on the walls, not Hazel McCallion's and surely not ours, and it is going to be a process of immense interest. You are taking on a responsibility with this bill where, frankly, you know not the severity and the problems you're going to be facing. I don't wish you well, but I do warn you, so that at least forewarned is forearmed, to go into the valley of garbage in Mississauga with great trepidation and great care, Minister, because you will pay the price in spades.

1730

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): In the few minutes we have left one could not begin to canvass the various secondary, if you will, and ancillary issues that are related to the substantive elements of Bill 143. They are many, but the member for York Centre really boiled it down to what I believe. He says there's one central ingredient to this bill, and I believe there happen to be two. He boiled it down to one. He said it was the demonstration of the government's intention to allow the arbitrary removal of the rights of citizens of Ontario that they have come to expect and moreover came to believe and were duped into believing the government of the day, the NDP, would support.

There was so much rhetoric from members opposite when they were in opposition about how they believed in people's rights. The member for York Centre is absolutely correct when he says what Bill 143 is essentially about is a denial and betrayal of the trust that was invested in the government and the Minister of the Environment who used to fight for people and for environmental integrity and who has abandoned that because she wants to do something that's expedient and convenient for her and her government.

That's an essential ingredient in this bill and that is why when the member for Etobicoke West put questions to the minister in committee of the whole and said, "Tell me how it is that you broke your promise and why can you stand in your place and repeat the broken promise time after time?" the minister did one of two things. She chose to walk out of this place and have some little conference with her staff or backbench colleagues and, from time to time, grin and kind of laugh it off or she would just simply sit in her place and refuse to acknowledge the question put to her by the member for Etobicoke West.

The reason is because she can't answer that question with any sense of dignity at all. You cannot stand in your place, Madam Minister, and tell the people of this province how it is you broke the promise given by yourself and by the Premier. You refused to do that and you refused to even acknowledge that those questions were put to you.

I know what will happen in your wrapup speech, when you begin in about seven minutes' time. You will stand in your place and you will talk about a conserver society. You will talk about environmental ideals. You will talk about recycling. You will talk about people taking care of their own problems and beginning to work together on solving them. All of that is well and good, but it is empty rhetoric. It is as empty as the promises that you made and gave and as empty as the promises of your Premier. At the end of the day they're meaningless words.

My friend the member for York Centre has been absolutely correct in identifying one of the central issues, that you have chosen to override fundamental rights that people have fought for long and hard in terms of environmental law in this province.

The other issue I think central to Bill 143 is the matter of integrity. When we were in committee and the minister and I were having our exchange, she got very upset and said she was angered by my playing fast and loose with allegations of broken promises. But it comes down to that, Minister. It comes down to a matter of integrity. You stood on the pedestal of moral uprightness. You were better than everybody else and you had all the answers.

In opposition you provided the quick answers and said that you would at all costs maintain integrity in terms of what you stood for, what your government stands for and in terms of environmental law. And what do you do? You come in here, you become minister and suddenly that goes out the window. It doesn't matter any more because you have to do what is expedient and reserve unto yourself the right to dictate solutions to municipalities across this province.

Mark my words, this is a greater Toronto area bill but the implications will be visited upon every municipality across the province of Ontario because the Minister of the Environment has chosen to take upon herself the position of being a demagogue and saying: "I know what's best. I alone have all the answers and the people of Ontario who want to participate and have a right to participate don't matter any more because now I'm in charge. They used to matter, they used to matter when I wanted to get from over here to over there, but now that I'm over there it does not matter any more and I will do what I believe to be right because I am the possessor of all wisdom."

The fact of the matter is that none of us in here is a repository of all wisdom. The people of Ontario have a right to participate. They will not, as the member for York Centre said, sit down and take this lightly. They will rise up and you will regret the day that you rammed this through and forced this bill on your time allocation motion without consideration of the people of the province of Ontario.

Two-hundred-plus delegations appeared before the committee and dozens more submitted their submissions in writing. The government said that it listened. That was one of the biggest shams. That statement is as hollow and empty as the promises given in the 1990 election. It's as hollow and empty as the promises given by the now minister as to how the cornerstone of her environmental agenda would be in an environmental bill of rights.

Where is it? It's nowhere to be found. Do you know why? Because the environmental bill of rights that was drafted by the minister in opposition, which she could table today or any other day if she wanted to, is diametrically opposed to Bill 143. They are totally irreconcilable and even the minister, who has apparently abandoned all and has no shame left any more, probably can't even screw up enough courage to come forward with an environmental bill of rights at this time because even she would be embarrassed, given the context of what the environmental bill of rights would say, in trying to put that in place with Bill 143 before this Legislative Assembly.

Bill 143 could not stand if the environmental bill of rights did, and the minister knows that. We had a late show here one night. I believe you were sitting in the chair. Did the minister answer the question? No, she didn't. Did she talk about the environmental bill of rights? No, she didn't. She talked about the same thing she's going to spend her next seven minutes talking about: all the nice, honey-dripped rhetoric and platitudes that are as hollow as one could ever imagine. They're as hollow as the promises given.

Madam Minister, you can couch it in any terms you want. You will turn on all your charm in the next seven minutes, as you are very capable of doing, and you will do it as you go from place to place across this province. But you will not, and I challenge you to do it, address two fundamental issues: What happened to the promises you gave and what happened to the promises the Premier gave?

Where have your principles and integrity gone? Where are they now? What happened on making the move from over here, where the member for Oriole now sits, to where you're sitting now? What happened in that little transition? An awful lot seemed to happen. I think the biggest thing that happened was that you forgot why and how you got there. At the end of the day you will be accountable for that. The member for York Centre put it so well, that if there's any good news that can come out of the passage of Bill 143, it is that people will begin to recognize, as it has already been evident, that your word is not worth what we believed it was.

Interjection: The emperor has no clothes.

Mr McClelland: As my friend says, the empress is being seen to be what she is. You stand glaringly exposed for what you are doing here today, which you cannot in any way reconcile with what you've said.

Mr Speaker, I understand that you believe I was going to wrap up. I know the member for Oriole wants to make some closing comments.

Madam Minister, I challenge you to answer those questions in seven minutes if you can. What happened to your promises? Where has your integrity gone?

Mrs Caplan: What we have heard about Bill 143 could fill a book when it comes to rhetoric, but the betrayal of the people of this province has just begun. Some of my constituents have said to me, "Elinor, I believe the NDP are sanctimonious hypocrites." When it comes to Bill 143, the Minister of the Environment has proved that is exactly --

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The words she has used are quite unparliamentary, and I would ask for a retraction.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I was listening carefully and it was a quotation from a constituent. In other words, it was not the member making an accusation of another member. The member has 40 seconds.

Mrs Caplan: After the display of this unfortunate piece of legislation, I certainly can understand how some of my constituents would come to that conclusion. This bill does not find the best environmental solution. This bill takes the principles that we have all held dear under the Environmental Assessment Act, trashes them and sends them to the landfill. It says to the people, "You have no rights." The rhetoric from the minister around this piece of legislation belies all the promises and trashes the integrity, not only of herself, which I'm sorry to say is unfortunate, but of the NDP government when it comes to environmental solutions.

The Speaker: The time allotted to the official opposition has expired.

1740

Hon Mrs Grier: I appreciate the courtesy of the members of the opposition in arranging the rotation so that I did have the opportunity to have six minutes to wrap up what has been an extremely long debate that has now gone on since this legislation was first introduced last fall. It has been an exhaustive debate. It has been on many occasions an exhausting debate, but I think it has been a good debate.

Let me say now, before I am reminded by the opposition, that I think the hearings added very much to the debate and were worth doing. I am glad that the opposition parties, in their negotiations with our House leader, achieved the fact that there would be hearings on this bill, because it has certainly been a helpful contribution to the debate, and what all of us have learned -- whether or not we all learned it, certainly some of us learned during those hearings -- has strengthened the bill because of the amendments we were able to introduce in committee that I think have made the bill a better bill.

Let me also say that the fact that the committee travelled to Kirkland Lake provided an opportunity for members on all sides to hear all sides of the opinions on that particular issue. The fact that it allowed the citizens of Kirkland Lake to ice me in effigy was, I think, a first. Ministers have been burned in effigy, ministers have been trashed in effigy. Only in northern Ontario could a minister be iced in effigy. I take that as perhaps a compliment or whatever.

Let me use the opportunity to thank all members of the standing committee on social development for their contribution to the debate, and let me particularly thank the members on our side, led by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham-York, and others, for their patience, their hard work and their courtesy and civility. I was very proud to have members of the delegations who appeared in opposition to this legislation say to me how much they appreciated the courteous hearing they received from the members on our side of the committee. The fact that our members were there, were consistent in their attendance and participated and questioned intelligently made it a lot better process than might otherwise have occurred, and that they did not indulge in perhaps some of the flights of extreme rhetoric that we've been subjected to in this House this week.

Let me talk very briefly about that, because I was struck by the member for York Centre who said on Tuesday that this was "the worst piece of environmental legislation ever put before a Legislature in the history of Canada and, I suggest, North America." That kind of extremist statement does nothing to add to the debate. Perhaps the best that can be said for it was that at least he didn't describe it as world class, which were the words he used to describe everything when he was in government.

When I hear the flights of rhetoric that we heard from our friends to the far right in the debate today, I want to read to them from an editorial in the Oakville Beaver just this month. It said: "Think how much money Halton taxpayers could have saved over the years if only the Tories had kept their politics out of Halton's search for a landfill site. Their political games easily cost Halton taxpayers over $100 million. We have to agree with Mike Harris that the approval process for landfill sites must be shortened, but we must remind him that the whole mess is his party's fault."

What we have today at the end of Earth Week is the passage into legislation of the most comprehensive piece of waste management legislation that has ever been brought before this Legislature, a piece of legislation that will establish a body within the greater Toronto area to search for landfill sites and to submit those landfill sites to an environmental assessment process. The choice of those sites will be made impartially and on environmental criteria, because I would remind the members of this House that the search for landfill sites has been in the past a political search and that has, in so many instances, led to the failure of the process.

What this government is doing, and what I'm very proud this government is doing, is putting the environment first, making sure that the decisions that are taken are environmental decisions, and that non-environmental solutions such as incineration, such as the long-range transportation of waste, are not on the table any longer. By putting the environment first, you seek solutions that contribute to the improvement and protection of the environment. That is a very important part of this legislation, that we begin to establish the foundation for a conserver society, that we begin to put in place the structures, the institutions and the regulations that will allow reduction, reuse and recycling to govern our management of waste; not, as has happened so often in the past, politics, rhetoric, short-term solutions that have led to the crises that we are in place to solve. I'm sorry the municipalities within the GTA want to persist in short-term solutions and persist in saying there is no crisis. There is a crisis, and this legislation --

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: That's false.

The Speaker: We don't accuse other members of telling falsehoods. Would the member for Oriole please withdraw the remark.

Mrs Caplan: The reality of the situation is that many of the statements are false, clearly false. The people of this province are upset because the statements being made --

The Speaker: I ask the member for Oriole to reflect carefully on --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order.

I would ask the member for Oriole to reflect on what has just occurred. The member will know that we do not accuse other members of telling falsehoods. I would ask that she consider what she has said, and if she would simply withdraw the remark which was, unfortunately, unparliamentary.

Mrs Caplan: It's very difficult in this House to find words to describe the frustration we feel when we know the information is not factual. I will replace the word "false" with "not factual."

The Speaker: That's somewhat helpful. It would really be helpful if on all occasions members would simply say "I withdraw."

The member for Durham-York moved, in the absence of the minister, third reading of Bill 143. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

1756

The House divided on the motion for third reading, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 55

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp;

Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Rae, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 25

Arnott, Beer, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Fawcett, Harnick, Jordan, Mahoney, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, Offer, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sola, Sorbara, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the following week.

On Monday, April 27, we will consider third reading of Bill 28, class proceedings, and Bill 29, the Law Society Amendment Act. We will give committee of the whole House consideration and third reading to Bill 136, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Statute Law Amendment Act.

On Tuesday, April 28, we will consider an opposition motion by Mr Elston.

On Wednesday, April 29, we will give third reading and consideration to Bill 86, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, and Bill 130, the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act.

On Thursday, April 30, in the morning we will deal with private members' public business: ballot item 3 standing in the name of Mr Carr, and ballot item 4 standing in the name of Mr Winninger. In the afternoon we will continue with third reading consideration of Bill 86, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, and Bill 130, the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, followed by reading of the budget at 4 pm.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1801.