Hansard Transcript 1993-May-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I hope members will share my view that sound projects of Third World technical, fiscal and medical assistance are not only acts of altruism. Of course, if they are well conceived and do not attempt to force First World attitudes and lifestyle preferences on Third World peoples, they benefit the receiving country directly.

But it is also true that by contributing to fiscal soundness and a better standard of life for all the peoples of the world we build healthier and safer international communities and a more vibrant world economy. That, of course, benefits Canadians as well, as present and future trading partners of Third World developing nations. Our generosity therefore serves a selfish purpose as well.

I'm rising, therefore, to thank several Canadian companies for their generous donations to Third World assistance and to applaud their generosity and foresight. The organizations concerned are Apotex Pharmaceuticals, Canadian Medicine Aid Programme, Genpharm Ltd, Ingram and Bell Inc, Novopharm Ltd, Pharmascience Inc, Speedy Optical Ltd and Taro Pharmaceuticals. Two other companies wished to remain anonymous.

To these Canadian companies for their humanitarian service and outstanding generosity, our sincere appreciation.

MARLAND YOUTH COUNCIL

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Today I rise in the House to welcome the members of the Marland Youth Council to Queen's Park.

The Marland Youth Council was formed in November 1992. This non-partisan council is comprised of student representatives from all seven high schools in my riding of Mississauga South. These students have an excellent understanding of the legislative process and are well informed about current issues. The council meets once a month to discuss provincial legislation or policy changes, and council members take time between meetings to discuss these issues with their school peers. Consequently, the Marland Youth Council has been of great assistance to me in representing the concerns and interests of young people in my community.

I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to all the members of the council, who have been so forthright in their discussions with me. Their insightful comments and advice on a variety of topics, including graduated licensing, destreaming and standardized testing, have been very helpful and thought-provoking.

I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in welcoming the following members of the Marland Youth Council who are here today: Kelly DeLuca, Tom Grzesiak, John Lam, Chris Leikermoser, Tania D'Avanzo, Rima Ramchandani, Matt Lenner, Lisa Smylie, Mellissa Taddeo, Jarrod Overy, Shannon Pountney and Matthias Kredler.

NATIONAL BALLET OF CANADA

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I am pleased to stand today to extend a special welcome to the National Ballet of Canada's concert group for its upcoming performance in my riding of Oxford.

As we know, the National Ballet of Canada has contributed greatly to our national culture. It has strengthened and promoted the development of Canadian culture through performances in various parts of the country and encouraged the growth of Ontario's cultural industries.

This performance also illustrates a strong sense of cooperation among sponsors from the private sector, a national performing arts group -- the National Ballet of Canada -- and the citizens of Norwich, particularly the local husband-and-wife organizing team of Cameron Smillie and Carolyn Clark. The first ballet presentation has generated a great deal of enthusiasm within the community.

This represents a significant opportunity for the citizens of a rural municipality like Norwich to enhance its cultural experience. For many of them, it will be their first opportunity to attend such an event. In fact, all 1,300 tickets for the May 20 performance at the Norwich Community Centre have been sold already.

For the National Ballet of Canada, Norwich, with a population of 2,200, will rank as the smallest community the company has ever performed in. The ballet's exhibition also includes an educational element for the local high school and grade 7.

In closing, I want to again congratulate the local organizers, Cameron Smillie and Carolyn Clark, as well as the National Ballet of Canada for bringing this cultural and educational experience to rural Ontario. I believe that this occasion will set a precedent for other cultural events in rural communities.

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): One year ago, the NDP government replaced the Liberal support and custody orders enforcement program with the family support plan, which mandated automatic wage deductions for parents with child support obligations.

When the family support plan was developed, the Liberal caucus supported it, but we argued that the 25% of fathers who don't default on child support should be exempted from the automatic wage deduction program. But the NDP insisted on making everything mandatory for every parent with a support order, including all the fathers who voluntarily complied, so now we have an overloaded system with insufficient resources. Ironically, look at the NDP's recent restraint plan, and guess what? The family support plan will have its resources cut.

To add insult to injury, at the very same time as the NDP is slashing family support plan resources, it is wasting $500,000 on an expensive, sophisticated television campaign and a glossy coloured poster campaign which tells fathers to honour their support payments. Can you believe it? First the NDP makes wage deductions mandatory by law, which is a good thing, but then it squanders half a million dollars telling fathers to do what the law requires them to do anyway.

It is typical of this government to squander money on unnecessary self-congratulatory advertising instead of spending the money where it really counts: on the children on this province.

1340

ADOPTION

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Earlier today a press conference --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would you stop the clock, please. The member for Durham East, please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Durham East to please come to order. Would you restart the clock, and I recognize the member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: Earlier today a press conference and a rally were held at Queen's Park by the Adoption Reform Coalition concerning the current review of the adoption disclosure program by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Since 1978, a voluntary disclosure system has been in place which permits limited access to adoption information. To match adoptees with birth parents, a mutual registration and match must take place. If there is a match through the register and both parties consent, identifying information can be exchanged and reunions may be arranged after the parties have received mandatory counselling.

In 1987 an amendment to the Child and Family Services Act created a new disclosure and search procedure managed by the Community and Social Services ministry, which makes it easier to access adoption information. However, government bureaucracy has held up the flow of adoption information, resulting in waiting lists for as many as 8,000 adoptees facing a five- to eight-year wait before a search for their biological parents may be completed.

Today the search for one's roots and background is recognized as a crucial component to help us in discovering and affirming our personal identities. An inseparable part of this is the knowledge of one's biological, genetic roots by adoptees who choose to try to discover this hidden side of their earlier lives.

I call on the NDP government to respond to the sincere request made today by the Adoption Reform Coalition and assist Ontario adoptees in helping those who so wish to open the closed doors of their past and allow them to get on with their lives with truth and with dignity.

BREAST-FEEDING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): May is the month in which the World Health Assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization, meets in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1981 it approved a code of marketing of breast milk substitutes in recognition of the importance of breast-feeding for maternal and child health.

There is probably nothing that would make as significant an impact on the promotion of health as breastfeeding. Studies show again and again the advantages for morbidity and mortality. Cost savings can be substantial in both developing and industrial countries like ours. I would like to point out to the Legislature that the code of marketing was supported and voted for by the federal government of the day.

A few weeks ago there was a debate in the federal Parliament on a resolution by Jim Karpoff, an NDP member from British Columbia, on the need to implement the WHO code. It was gratifying to note the constructive speeches by the NDP and Liberal members but disappointing in the extreme that the Conservatives, after all these years, cannot bring themselves to take a small but essential measure for the health of the children of Canada.

I've heard a lot of concern about an agreement that Women's College Hospital recently made with a formula company. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Sun: "BC Hospitals Urged to Drop Formula Deals." I hope that the Ontario Ministry of Health and its counterparts will get together to pressure against this unacceptable lack of action by the federal government.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I want to illustrate the hypocrisy of Bob Rae's government, a government that claims to protect the interests of working persons in this province.

We learned earlier this year of the government's intention to spend $180 million for a 30-storey office building to house new Workers' Compensation Board headquarters at a time when 20% of Toronto's office space is vacant. The initial observation of the plans to build new WCB headquarters echo the NDP's prevalent theme of fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars. But it goes further than that.

While the government may have an extra $180 million kicking around for the construction of more office space in downtown Toronto, it cannot find the money to assist those injured workers who have suffered injuries in the workplace prior to 1974. Prior to that time, WCB pensions were not indexed, which means that those who were injured on the job have experienced real losses in the purchasing power of their pensions. Although legislation indexed WCB pensions in 1985, it was not retroactive. As a result, the pensions of older injured workers continue to fall far from their value when initially compensated.

Meanwhile, Bob Rae is building more office space in downtown Toronto, forgetting about the older injured workers in our province. It is clear where Mr Rae's priorities lie, and unfortunately, they are not with promoting fairness for the injured workers of this province.

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd ask the members of this Legislature to join with me in remembering the eight youths tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident on the Forks of the Credit road in the town of Caledon this past weekend. I don't think anyone can understand what the families of these young people are going through as they try to deal with losing their child or brother or sister or friend in such a tragic accident.

As parents, we should never have to outlive our children. As a parent, this is something you can never be prepared for. I cannot express to you the emotions that I experienced on Sunday morning when I heard about the accident and the feeling of helplessness that goes through you as you realize you can't do anything at that particular moment. All we can do right now is to pray for the young people who have survived and are right now fighting for their lives in the hospital, and for the families of the eight youths taken from us far too soon.

On behalf of the members of this House, I would personally like to offer my condolences to all of the families and friends of the young people involved. The communities of Caledon and Brampton will be hit very hard by this accident, and I am sure that everyone will offer any assistance they can to the families, friends and relatives of the eight young people killed.

When you grow up in a community that is small and primarily rural, you learn at a very early age how important community life is. It will be that same strength of community that will help the people of Caledon and Brampton through this tragedy.

POLICE WEEK

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): The week of May 9 to 15 is Police Week across Canada. This year marks the 23rd annual Police Week and I ask the House to join me in expressing our appreciation to police for their outstanding service to Ontario.

Police Week is an opportunity for everyone in this province to recognize the professionalism and integrity of our police officers. Ontario's police officers are among the finest in the world. The service they provide has remained of the highest standard, despite the demands our society places on them.

During Police Week, the 115 municipal police services and 182 OPP detachments in Ontario will be holding special events to showcase their community policing initiatives. I encourage all members of this House and members of the public to participate in these events. Make the effort to visit your local police service. Get to know your police officers in a positive and informal setting.

In conclusion, I call on all the members of this House to recognize and applaud the achievements of all police services in Ontario and across Canada as we celebrate Police Week. The men and women in blue who put their lives on the line for us on a daily basis deserve our fullest praise and gratitude.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I see on the list that was given to us in terms of those absent from the House that the Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training, the member for Port Arthur, ought to have been here in her place. As the Speaker may be aware, the Minister of Education and Training at noon today in Windsor and the Minister of Housing this morning in Ottawa both made important announcements about government policy that should have been announced in this House and, I would have thought, with this Minister without Portfolio system, could well have been done by that minister here.

It is an important statement that was made in both Windsor and in Ottawa-Carleton. We have to remember that this House has a function, Mr Speaker, and I would like to know why they are not in the House today --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please. The member will know that he does not have a point of order. He will also know that I do encourage all ministers to make statements of important matters here in the House, for this is the seat of government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier. The Finance minister, our Treasurer, keeps saying that the Ontario economy is recovering, take heart, that people of this province are getting back to work. We all saw on Friday that according to the Statistics Canada figures, 24,000 more Ontarians were unemployed in April than in March and that the number of people employed dropped by 13,000 last month. Ontario's unemployment rate for the first three months of 1993 averaged 11%, the same as for the first months of 1992.

I ask the minister, in light of these unemployment figures, who is right about Ontario's recovery, you or Statistics Canada? Or has increasing unemployment become the government's new definition of economic recovery?

1350

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Perhaps the leader of the official opposition would put it in a bit of perspective. We've had, I believe, seven straight months of employment gains in Ontario, and year over year, the employment is up almost 100,000 -- 96,000, I think, to be exact -- from a year ago now.

I realize that the role of opposition is put a negative spin on numbers and on events, but I think to be fair -- I do understand that very well -- I would ask her to put it in perspective. Also, it's not just Ontario that had a drop in employment in April. She's quite right, there was a drop in employment in April, but that was a national figure as well. The employment dropped all across the country. So just to put it in perspective, not to dismiss the seriousness of an employment drop when we're into a recovery that we all recognize as being somewhat fragile, I do hope that the leader of the official opposition would appreciate the fact that there's been positive employment growth for the last year now and that we hope that what we saw in April was more of a blip on the scope than a new trend.

Mrs McLeod: It seems to me that the Treasurer is defending the indefensible, and it truly concerns me that, as you are about to bring out a budget in a week's time, you are still talking about hope, because that's exactly what those 13,000 more Ontarians out of work last month would like to have. They would like to have some hope. They would like to have more than a wish and a prayer from this government to say that there are going to be jobs for them in the future.

Treasurer, I am using the statistics that are seasonally adjusted, which, they tell me, are a real reflection of the numbers of people that are out there without jobs trying to find jobs. I would suggest to you that there is no reason for Ontario's economy not to be strong. We have tremendous strengths to build on, and the reason this economy is not recovering as it should is because of your government's policies. I am concerned that you still don't get it, and that a week before you bring in a budget you are still talking about new taxes that are going to kill even more jobs.

Minister, we have given a number of alternatives to tax hikes. We ask you: Now that you see that the economic recovery is not strong, that we have more and more people out of work, will you not go back and take a hard look at the proposal for new taxes that will put more people out of work? Will you not bring in a budget with no new taxes?

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to make sure I understand the position of the official opposition. I want to be perfectly clear, because I don't want to put words in the mouth of the leader of the official opposition.

I think it's now clear that the Liberal opposition doesn't want us to proceed with the expenditure reductions that we've announced.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No, that's not the case.

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, I'm wrong on that? Am I right that the leader of the official opposition does not want us to proceed with the $2 billion in savings that we're trying to negotiate at the social contract table? That's number two. And number three, she's now saying that we should not have any tax increases whatsoever in the budget.

Therefore, it seems to me that what the leader of the official opposition is saying to us is: "We know that there are problems in this province, but don't worry about the debt or the deficit. Let it rip." Well, this government is not prepared to do that.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, as a point of order before I proceed with my question: If, in response to the Treasurer's answer, I answer his questions, will you allow me that time as well as the time to pursue my role, which is to ask questions of the Treasurer?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wish.

Mrs McLeod: Treasurer, we are asking questions day after day which attempt to get on the table what your government's plans are, and we are more than ready to respond to them and we are more than ready to talk about alternatives.

Today, I want to talk about people who are out of work, more people who are out of work this month than were out of work last month. I want to talk to you about the fact that people need the jobs that businesses will create, and the fact that businesses are leaving this province because it doesn't make sense to do business here anymore. I want you to understand, Treasurer, that plant closures and the job losses are continuing.

Let me give you just three recent examples: Mack trucks announced that it's going to close its Toronto plant; Dofasco saying it's going to set its new mini-mill up in Kentucky rather than in Ontario; Toronto's Norbord Industries saying it's going to open a new plant in the United States.

My question today relates very directly to the fact that jobs and investment are being lost to Ontario because of your anti-business policies, from labour legislation to out-of-control WCB premiums to the new tax hikes you propose. I am talking about your budget, Treasurer, when I say to you, will you make it a priority in your budget to ensure that the steps are taken to put a sound economic recovery plan in place? Will you be prepared to examine every provision of your budget and simply ask the question whether or not this will help or hurt the private sector to create the jobs we need?

Hon Mr Laughren: It would be strange not to have that as automatically part of the process when drafting a budget. I don't mean to dismiss the problem of a drop in employment in the province. That's not a happy event, and I wish it was otherwise, but I would remind the leader of the official opposition that we have had economic growth and employment growth in the last year, and I don't think anybody in this province really blames this government for the recession -- other than those people with a rather narrow, partisan view of the world. I don't mean to get into a series of finger-pointing, but there's lots of evidence that federal government policies over the last five years, everything from the free trade agreement to the GST, did a lot more damage to the Ontario economy than this government would ever, ever be able to do even if we wanted to, and of course that would be ridiculous.

If I might just quote briefly from a letter to the editor from the Wellington area, someone said in a letter to the editor:

"Last night you found fault with the NDP government of Bob Rae without once mentioning the mess the Liberal Party left behind or the problems created by the Conservatives before the Liberals formed the government. You were critical, destructive and negative. Not once did there appear to be any Liberal policy that had any substance, shape or direction."

When is the leader of the official opposition going to come forward with one positive suggestion or alternative? When?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: Right off the top, scrap the Interim Waste Authority, one alternative among a number we keep offering a Treasurer who simply doesn't want to hear the alternatives because this government has made up its mind.

Mrs McLeod: Treasurer, while my second question will be directed to the Minister of Health, I want to say as a direct preamble to that question that we do indeed support the need for restraint, that we do understand that there are very difficult decisions to be made, as we understand how things have to be done differently in this province, but we are seeing more and more effects of what we truly believe to be a last-minute and very poorly-thought-out expenditure control plan presented by this government. It seems to me that if the government had started to deal earlier with the need for cuts, it might have been able to explain to all of us, and particularly to the people affected by the cuts, how and why it made those decisions.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I ask the Minister of Health: It seems that there suddenly appears to be a whole new plan to deal with what has been a very long-standing problem about the distribution of physician services in underserviced areas of this province. Minister, can you explain to us today why none of the five regions suggested by ministry officials as underserviced for the purposes of your plan happens to be in northern Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to clarify that. The regions that were defined as underserviced in the background material that I know the Leader of the Opposition is referring to was on a county basis. I don't think I need to tell anyone in this House that there are towns all across northern Ontario and in fact in other parts of rural Ontario that need doctors, and I can point to members on all sides who have identified that problem. There are indeed a large number of areas of northern Ontario that need family physicians, that need some specialists and that have recognized that the underserviced areas program that has been in place for the last 20 years has not proved particularly effective in meeting those needs. What we are trying to do is to make sure that we have in fact the right professionals in the right place.

1400

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I confess I'm perplexed to know exactly how to frame a supplementary when the answer is completely incomprehensible to me. I'm asking why areas identified as underserviced -- the minister acknowledges there's a need to deal with the problem of medical services in underserviced areas, but none of them is in the north. Talking about counties doesn't answer the question; there are no counties in the north. The question is what's happening in northern Ontario under this new and, we believe, very poorly thought out plan.

I know this is not an issue that's new to the minister because while in opposition the members of the NDP caucus toured the north, and with a great deal of fanfare produced a report called Operation Critical demanding that the Liberal government immediately address the problem of a lack of adequate numbers of physicians in northern Ontario, and now it seems the whole problem has just disappeared.

Interjection: Did you?

Mrs McLeod: The previous Liberal government, in answer to the question from the NDP caucus, did address the problem. We established a program called the northern family practice residency program. It was designed to encourage physicians to complete their training in the north so that they would stay in practice there.

Minister, I met with the graduating members of the first class of that program on Friday and I can tell you that they feel completely and absolutely betrayed. I ask what you say to the 1993 graduating class of the northern family practice residency program who have taken specialized training so that they could stay and provide medical service in communities of northern Ontario and who are now finding out that, thanks to this ill-conceived plan, they are not going to be able to do that.

Hon Mrs Grier: First of all, let me be very clear to the Leader of the Opposition that there are areas of northern Ontario that need physicians. The purpose in putting forward the proposals that we have put before the Ontario Medical Association is to negotiate with the Ontario Medical Association a formula, a way in which we can in fact meet those needs.

Secondly, there are many opportunities for new, young physicians, whom I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition we need to encourage into our system, on other than a fee-for-service basis. There are community health centres, there are HSOs, there are public health units which are anxious to have doctors. Some of them are in the north; some of them are in the south. But if we are to manage the health care system in a way that it has not been managed in this province in the past, then we, as other provinces have begun to do, have got to find a way in which we can ensure that we manage the deployment of those professionals so that we have the doctors where we need them to serve the people who need them.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Madam Minister, I'd also like to ask you in that regard, because I think Metropolitan Toronto is going to be an underserviced area, specifically with respect to AIDS and HIV patients. As you know, I've had a call from an intern, Jonathan Luetkehoelter, who is living in my riding and intended to practise in the city of Toronto to provide care to HIV-positive and AIDS patients, and he's reconsidering that because of your plan.

As you know, the patient lists of more than half of the primary care providers to these people who are HIV-positive and have AIDS are closed and there are not enough new people going in. This plan is going to hurt those people. In the interim, people who are HIV-positive and have AIDS are dying.

I'm asking you what you're going to do to encourage those people to continue practising and make an exemption for HIV-positive and AIDS patients so that we continue to provide doctors' care for them in my riding and in the city of Toronto.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the honourable member that the fact that there is such a desperate shortage of physicians to treat people with AIDS proves the point that our current system isn't working.

I would agree with him. We have to find a way to encourage physicians to meet the needs of people who have very specific and specialized needs. The system that we are putting in place and the discussions that we have had with the AIDS bureau is designed to try and make sure that there are primary care physicians to deal with people who are HIV-infected. That is why the development of some kind of community health centre, some kind of centre where those doctors can be on salary and can be specialized and can meet those needs has been under active discussion for quite some time and is entirely consistent with the proposals that we have put before the Ontario Medical Association.

I share his concern and I want to make sure that his concern is addressed.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the public service's proposal that was tabled last Friday. Certainly, parts of this proposal are totally unacceptable, but other parts that have to do with some of the expenditures that could take place within the whole public spending of the province of Ontario have a great deal of merit. Yet the issue still goes back one step further, and that is that public servants who are going to raise issues of importance that could allow us to find areas we could cut back on would be reluctant to do so, and in fact would hold back their suggestions, for fear of personal reprisals.

If you go back to your own throne speech just after you were elected, you and your government had proposals that would affect this whistle-blowing thing. On page 3 of your throne speech, you said, "We will introduce 'whistle-blowing' guidelines to protect public employees." With that kind of guideline you talked about over two years ago, the fear of recrimination disappears, the reluctance people have is lessened, and people will come forward with suggestions on how to fight this problem of spending and expenditure in the province of Ontario.

The fact is that whistle-blowing doesn't cost us anything. It could save you a great deal of money. Why is it that two and a half years later, you have not brought in your whistle-blowing legislation, that you still haven't kept that promise?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I do not disagree with some of the comments the member has made. Obviously, we will be proceeding with the so-called whistle-blower legislation at the appropriate time; there's no reason not to.

I just want to offer assurances to the member and to other people, people in the public sector, that there would not be reprisals for people who came forward with suggestions. As a matter of fact, we look forward to receiving them. We said over and over again that if people have suggestions for ways in which we can deliver services more efficiently, we would be foolish indeed to ignore them. So we encourage that to happen, and I would just offer the member assurances that we'll do everything we can to make sure there are no reprisals against people who do so.

Mr Cousens: Two years ago you were prepared to bring legislation forward and you should still do it, because it's one way of building the trust which is disappearing very rapidly between yourselves and the unions. It would at least give them some sense that what you say is what you mean.

The unions believe that any kind of dollars you're going to find, if they're going to come from any place, they'll have to be from tax hikes or they'll have to come from expenditure cuts, but they're not going to come out of the public payroll; in other words, that you're going to have to find some other place for the money than in the social contract.

The unions obviously believe you are willing to negotiate $2 billion in payroll cuts, and they've come back with suggestions on how the government can save $2 billion. What I want to know is the option that you're going to follow. Inasmuch as you're going to come up with some savings, are you going to (1) do as the unions hope and cut less from the payroll so you won't have that much into the social contract, or (2) could you just put the money into reducing the deficit, or (3) could you back off on your ludicrous proposal to have tax increases?

Are you in a position where you could come now and say that if you are able to find the $2 billion or a large sum close to it -- we've seen $1.7 billion proposed by the unions in both government waste and health fraud and other areas where there are significant savings.

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

Mr Cousens: Those savings: Could you apply them to some other area than to just the deficit but to not cause tax increases?

Hon Mr Laughren: We tried to be as clear as possible when the social contract talks began, and that was that we were going to achieve and had already made decisions on approximately $4 billion in expenditure reductions, that there were going to be revenue increases, tax increases in the budget on the 19th, but that there was a requirement for another $2 billion at the social contract table to come out of public sector compensation one way or another, so anything that goes beyond the $2 billion that's been targeted at the social contract table could be applied to whatever out there to effect savings or to reduce expenditures.

But I want to make it perfectly clear that we would much rather achieve $2 billion and will insist upon achieving $2 billion at the social contract table, rather than a further $2 billion in expenditure reductions all across the province, which would cause enormous job losses in the public sector. That's the purpose of the social contract: to protect jobs and services in every community all across the province. That's the very purpose of the social contract talks.

1410

Mr Cousens: I'm aware that's the purpose; I'm just afraid of what you and your government are going to do. The bottom line here is that the unions are still not willing to talk payroll cuts. They obviously haven't got your message of public sector restraint. Since I assume you intend to follow up on the $1 billion in reduction in waste and the $700-million saving in health care fraud that the unions have already identified and our leader has identified, that gives you at least $1.7 billion in money saved. Will you state categorically today that any savings, such as this $1.7 billion from waste and health care fraud, will be used to wipe out the tax hike in your forthcoming budget?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, we appreciated very much receiving the information back from the public sector last Friday. We are looking at and will continue to look at all of those proposed savings. Some of the numbers I might quarrel with, as to whether or not those kinds of savings can be achieved and so forth. In many of them, it's going to take a considerable length of time to achieve the savings that are mentioned in their proposals. But that doesn't mean they're not good proposals and not ones that are worth considering.

But to answer your question directly, no, we will be proceeding with tax increases in the budget because we believe that the balanced approach of expenditure reductions, social contract savings and tax increases is the fairest way, so that everybody in this province is making a contribution to the solution.

INMATE SECURITY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Chair of the Management Board. Officials in the Management Board secretariat are aware of potentially dangerous problems with security hardware at the Mimico Detention Centre, the Stratford provincial jail, the provincial courts in Oshawa and Etobicoke, and the OPP buildings in Downsview and Peterborough.

For instance, in the new addition to Mimico, vertical cell bars were installed with soft rather than tool-resisting steel. The bars have been replaced with tool-resisting steel, but they are still the wrong shape. The new bars are round rather than the double-ribbed that are required for security purposes in the project specifications.

That's not all. The locks on the cells can be unlocked without causing the signal light to go on. Some of the locks have been modified since leaving the factory so they no longer contain a full complement of lock tumblers. This means that some keys may unlock doors they shouldn't and it's even possible that some locks can be unlocked without keys.

My question, Minister, is, how and why did these serious security defects occur and what is your ministry doing to correct them?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The defects which the member refers to were detected by staff of my ministry and the Ministry of Correctional Services. Actions are being taken with the contractor responsible. They will all be replaced at the cost of the contractor, not of the public purse. We're proceeding to investigate other installations.

Mrs Marland: On March 18, Global Television interviewed government officials about the situation in Mimico. The Global reporter Robin Smythe was shown the modifications that were being made to the cell bars, but there was no mention of problems with the cell locks. However, I have carefully reviewed a videotape of that news story with a corrections hardware expert. We have been able to discern that the government was aware of the lock problems at that time.

In the video, the new lock boxes are unpainted rather than painted steel and there are other parts that have also been changed. As well, the reporter ended her story stating that inspections of other new government buildings, where the same subcontractor was used, showed that the grill bars do meet government security standards. However, this contradicts information I now have, which is that soft grill bars were installed at the Stratford provincial jail, the provincial courts in Oshawa and Etobicoke and the OPP detachments in Peterborough and Downsview. Minister, it appears that your ministry is trying to cover up a potentially serious security risk. Will you immediately begin an investigation to get to the bottom of this?

Hon Mr Charlton: I guess, to be as brief as is possible to a question like this, the investigation is long since under way.

Mrs Marland: Looking again at Mimico, this building was supposed to be ready in December 1992. The government hired 24 people who are now collecting idle-time salaries while they wait for these security deficiencies to be corrected. The minister should also be aware that clause 816 of the project specifications required that an independent hardware consultant unrelated to the hardware manufacturer and supplier be hired by the contractor. But in the Mimico case the independent hardware consultant was also the project manager for the hardware supplier. Obviously, the Management Board secretariat is not being vigilant in ensuring that contractors follow the government's own specifications for its projects.

Minister, how did this conflict of interest occur, what are you doing to ensure that a similar situation doesn't occur again, and can you assure this House that when people are asked in a public interview on television they in fact tell the truth?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member of the third party takes a very smug approach in the way that she asks her question. Let me just suggest to you two things in response to her question: firstly, that my ministry and the ministry of corrections have been on top of this matter --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The ministry of corrections and my ministry have been on top of this problem for some time now. There has been an extensive investigation pursued by the two ministries. One of the reasons why the member has had leaks of information is because of the extensive investigation which we've conducted. That matter is now in the hands of the Ontario Provincial Police.

RECREATIONAL LICENCES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I wonder if the Treasurer could help me out. Treasurer, we all know that you are trying frantically to raise new revenues and I'm just wondering how far you will go in your desperation. I have it on pretty good authority that you and the Minister of Transportation are seriously considering a $10 to $20 licence fee on every bicycle in this province and also the same kind of $10 to $20 fee on every canoe in this province.

Interjection: Canoe?

Mr Daigeler: On every canoe.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Treasurer, I wonder whether you could put my mind at ease about these new taxes on bicycles and canoes or, if you can't, whether you at least could assure me that you won't bring in taxes on roller-skates and tolls on sidewalks.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I do appreciate the fact that more of the member for Nepean's constituents get to work by canoe and bicycle than mine do. But I wanted to assure the member that any new revenue moves that we take, whether it's on the tax side or what we call non-tax revenues, will be sensitive to the needs of everybody in the province.

Mr Daigeler: Frankly, Mr Treasurer, I don't find that very reassuring at all. In fact, I find it about as reassuring as your answer when I asked you about the elimination of OSAP grants, because when I asked you about that, you sloughed off the question, and guess what? Six months later you cut out the OSAP grants. So Treasurer, what assurance, what guarantee, can you give me that you will not tax bicycles and canoes in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I've forgotten my answer to the question on OSAP, but I wanted to tell you that the assurance I can give you that there will not be licences on bicycles and canoes is my word.

1420

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last Wednesday I asked you if you had any idea of what the additional policing for the Windsor casino is going to cost the province and you said that you did not. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't want to misquote you, so your quote is, "We don't have any projection at this point of the total amount that will be." That is the quote.

I'd also like to read you a quote from the Windsor chief of police. When asked "Have you projected the annual cost of policing and securing the casino project once it is up and running," his answer was, "Yes, I have, and of course, that is part of the report I've just referred to." How do you explain this discrepancy in this report you've had in your possession since January?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I don't have that report which he is referring to. That, I understand, is a report that was completed by the Windsor Police Force and given to the police services board as a recommendation. But that report was completed before the casino site was chosen.

Mr Eves: I don't know what the specific casino site has to do with the fact that the ministry indeed does have the report and has had it in its possession since January. A spokesperson for the Windsor Police Services Board has told us that your ministry did not want this report released before June 30 of this year. In fact, he's further told us that until the Windsor police did their study, the province had done no study of its own as to what this additional police force would cost in connection with the casino, and I understand that your ministry has now hired a consultant to do research so it can review the conclusions and the findings of the Windsor Police Services Board study.

Why are you (a) not permitting that report to be released, and why are your ministry people telling them that, and (b) trying to reinvent the wheel and spending more taxpayers' money to challenge a report that's already been done by the Windsor Police Services Board? Why are you doing this stuff?

Hon Ms Churley: As I said, my understanding of that report was that it was an internal police document that was prepared very early on in the process. In the meantime we have been working with the Windsor police and the OPP together and commissioned a study to come up with reasonable calculations on what kind of extra police are needed for this project. We've come up, in the meantime, with the number of "10" to deal with the opening of the interim casino, but we will be continuing to work with the police and the study to come up with a reasonable number.

GASOLINE HANDLING

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is also to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is this on dumps?

Mr Wiseman: No, Mr Bradley, it's not on dumps; it's on something that you failed to recognize when you were the Minister of the Environment. It has to do with leaking gas tanks. I raised this issue a few months ago in the Legislature, on these commercial gas tanks that are in the ground holding gasoline and tend to leak. I can see now across the province that gas tanks are being replaced.

At that time the response I received was that regulations were pending. I would like to know at this time where in the stage of process we are in terms of heading towards having regulations around in-ground gas storage tanks.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As a member I'm very concerned about the serious environmental problems which can be caused by leaking underground storage tanks, concerned about it because they can cause explosions and fires and can and do contaminate underground water.

The regulations I'm proposing are designed to prevent such incidents by requiring certain upgradings of facilities. We are taking into account the impact of the proposed regulations on all sectors of the industry. Obviously, there would be costs associated with that. The bulk of that consultation has been done and I intend to expedite the decision on this matter as soon as the consultation process has been confirmed.

Mr Wiseman: My question is prompted by the hard reality that even the smallest leak from these tanks can contaminate a wide area, and that will create huge environmental problems and environmental messes.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'm with you on this one, Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman: I'm glad to hear that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Wiseman: I'm just a little nervous now, though.

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

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary has to do with: Do we have any indication of the costs related to the cleanup of these messes? What does it cost the ministry to do this? How long? Can you give me some update on that kind of information?

Hon Ms Churley: The average cost of a cleanup is an alarming $200,000, and sometimes it can go into the millions. Large expenditures on cleanups amount, of course, to an economic strain on the taxpayers of Ontario and they create often unnecessary expenses for business. These are very, very high costs if a leak does happen.

By adopting the proposed regulations, we will be doing our best to protect the environment in this case and at the same time preventing these large expenditures on cleanups. So just to reiterate what I said in the first question, we are hoping to move very quickly at the end of the consultations and move forward with these new regulations.

CLEANUP OF INDUSTRIAL SITE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy and it is on the issue of cleanups. Last month, as part of the minister's finances expenditure cutbacks, your government announced that it would be delaying the cleanup and restoration of various pollution sites throughout the province. We have now been informed that one project that will be delayed due to this announcement is the cleanup of PCBs located in and around the town of Smithville. According to our information, the cleanup on this site was to be started this summer, but has now been delayed indefinitely.

Minister, this is a very important environmental issue to the residents of Smithville and the Niagara Peninsula which demands your full attention. On what basis have you justified the delay in the restoration of this PCB-contaminated site?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I appreciate the member's interest, and I'll take the matter as notice and report back to the House.

Mr Offer: This is why earlier on I have said that the Minister of Environment should be a full-time minister, not sharing the portfolio with other areas of responsibility. The concern we have, Mr Part-Time Minister, is the impact your delay will have in the long-term health and safety of residents in this part of the province. We want your assurance, the health reports you have on hand, that you will table in this Legislature with the residents that there will not be any health and safety concerns to the residents of Smithville, that their health and their safety will not be jeopardized by your delaying the cleanup of this PCB-contaminated site.

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the member's interest in the concern for the health and safety of the residents, and as I said earlier, I will take this as notice and report back. As to his preamble: Balderdash.

1430

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the government House leader and the minister responsible for auto insurance.

The reports on rehabilitation and long-term care which you released last Thursday contained almost 100 recommendations for change to automobile insurance regulations. In your report you said the following:

"The recommendations will be reviewed in a further round of consultation with interested parties before the government implements changes to existing regulations."

My question to the minister is: I'd like to know what your timetable is for this consultation and when exactly you plan to introduce or release the regulations for Bill 164.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The minister responsible for auto insurance.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The member has raised an interesting question, but he should understand something right from the outset: His question would indicate that he doesn't understand whose report it is that's just been released, because it isn't my report. It's the report of a task force that was set up by myself, made up of the insurance industry, a number of consumers' groups and a number of accident victims' groups across the province. The report is theirs, not mine.

The review he refers to, the further consultation, will take a matter of just a few short weeks, and we will be making announcements accordingly.

Mr Tilson: I think that's one of the concerns we've had throughout this entire exercise of Bill 164, because Bill 164, during the public hearings we've had -- we've had extensive hearings, including extensive public hearings, and this was based on the draft regulations you put forward at that time for Bill 164. That was the whole premise of Bill 164: based on those regulations and the benefit packages that arose from those regulations.

During the hearings, you suggested to me and the member for Willowdale that perhaps you would consider doing away with the deductible test and having a verbal threshold test. You now have the review of a task force which is going to have considerable time with respect to the hearings. I'm glad you say there are only two weeks, but that's an extended period of time. You've asked Professor Arthur to advise you as to a new advocacy system. You've done away with the lawyers in this province as far as automobile insurance is concerned -- although Professor Arthur is a lawyer, interestingly enough. You're now doing away with the lawyers and you're going to develop an advocacy system, something you know nothing about, something you have no idea about what it will cost the taxpayers of this province. I will say --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You know what Shakespeare said about lawyers.

Mr Tilson: Yes, I did hear what Shakespeare said, and I think that's the problem with this government.

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

Mr Tilson: My question to the minister is: Will you withdraw Bill 164, with all of these uncertainties you're creating and continue to create, and go back to the drawing board and start all over?

Hon Mr Charlton: Well, the answer to the last part first: No, we will not withdraw Bill 164. The member opposite obviously should take the time to sit down and look at Bill 164 and the task force report he's referring to. The task force report was not only developed by the very groups who made presentations before the public hearings on Bill 164, but the task force report addresses a lot of the cost-pressure problems that they themselves identified during those public hearings.

To use the member's words referring to uncertainty, the task force report has significantly reduced the extent of any uncertainty around Bill 164.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As you know, part of this government's expenditure control program announced last month included $52.9 million within your ministry. One of the measures taken to achieve that reduction within OMAF was the deferral of the exit component of the tobacco sector adjustment strategy, amounting to a savings of $3 million of the $32-million program. This three-year joint federal-provincial initiative was designed to assist farmers to get out of tobacco and into alternative crops.

I understand that the tobacco crop size forecast for this year is larger this year than other years and that the $3-million portion deferred from the exit program was money that may not have been utilized by the tobacco producers this year or in future anyway.

Could the minister tell the House what impact this reduction will likely have on the tobacco industry?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to thank the member for the question. First of all, we do not see this deferral as having a significant impact on the industry and on the tobacco farmers. The member is quite right. There's $3 million taken out of the tobacco adjustment program for this year. This is a federal/provincial-funded program. We are looking at the long-term future of the tobacco farmers and we're working with a group in the tobacco belt to deal with their long-term future.

However, the 1993 crop looks fairly promising. There are a number of export markets available for tobacco and, as the member noted in his question, there isn't the same need for that exit money as there may have been, as we felt, a year or so ago.

We are maintaining a fund there, though; there is money left in such a fund which will help with the second component, which is diversification. We have left $500,000 in that particular fund. We would expect that the federal government will leave at least $500,000 in its side of it, although I would note that Mr Mazankowski, when he did his cutting of expenditures, did not seem to cut back on any spending, so he may leave his full $3 million in there. That would be nice.

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

Hon Mr Buchanan: We will continue to work with the growers and the industry to make sure there is a future. We do not think the cuts we've made here will severely impact the area or the industry.

Mr Jamison: I am encouraged to hear that kind of comment from the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As you know, this particular issue impacts a number of ridings, but mine particularly: Norfolk. It also impacts Elgin and Oxford and surrounding ridings. It's a very important issue.

In many previous discussions with the minister, I had indicated a need to study the impact of the tobacco economy on local communities. I was greatly encouraged to hear last December of the formation of the government-community-industry committee led by your ministry. Their role was to evaluate the role tobacco plays in the region and to suggest how the community could best meet future challenges. Could you please provide me and the House and my constituents with an update on the progress of this particular committee's work?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member is referring to a committee that was set up some time ago. It's a very innovative committee. It has government participation. In fact, there are six ministries from the provincial government, along with the federal government, community-based groups, the municipal politicians, tobacco farmers and the industry people themselves, as well as labour representatives, looking at the importance of tobacco to this region. They're also looking at: What does the future look like? If in fact tobacco is not going to have the same importance in the economy of that region, what else is available? They're looking at alternatives to tobacco in a long-range analysis.

They have had a meeting. It's really gratifying to see the cooperation they're having, and they're having a second meeting coming up. They're going to continue to meet and make sure that this part of the province has a future --

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

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- even if tobacco is not the primary product that's grown in that area.

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, there have been many questions raised in this House and in committee over the sweetheart deal struck between the Workers' Compensation Board through its not-so-arm's-length WCB investment fund, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and Cadillac Fairview to build, own and occupy Simcoe Place, a new 30-storey office tower in Toronto.

Questions have been asked about the deal by me and by others before me. My question however, Minister, goes to the role, proper or improper, of the board itself. Section 64 of the Workers' Compensation Act states, and I quote, "Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the board may purchase or otherwise acquire" -- "otherwise acquire" being key words -- "such real property, as it may consider necessary for its purposes, and may, with the like approval, sell or otherwise dispose of any such property."

Minister, did this decision come to cabinet or to you as the Minister of Labour, and if so, what was the decision? Where is the order in council approving the deal, the acquisition and/or the 20-year lease on Simcoe Place?

1440

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The Workers' Compensation Board did not violate section 64 of the act, for the following reasons: The acquisition of an interest in the ground lease in the Simcoe Place project will be made by a separate legal entity and not by the WCB itself; the acquisition of an interest in a ground lease does not constitute the purchase or acquisition of real property. And I would say as well that I find it very strange that a proposition that was pretty well set by the previous government is now being questioned by the member across the way, when they presented it to us as a good proposition and one where they would have an investment in 75% of the costs of the building.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I'm not allowed to say a member in this House is being misleading, but that was awfully close.

Let me be very clear that our government did not approve this deal. We have a former Minister of Labour sitting in this House who will stand testament to the fact that we did not approve this deal. You did, sir. Your government approved this deal.

My understanding also is that this so-called arm's-length organization, the WCB investment fund, is actually run by a committee of the Workers' Compensation Board and it has very direct input into the decisions that are made. It would appear that a legal opinion was sought to allow the Workers' Compensation Board to get around the requirement of section 64 to avoid the possibility of having to come and embarrass you and this government and ask you to approve this deal.

Minister, somebody is playing games in the construction of Simcoe Place, making sweetheart deals and finding ways to get around the rules. You were asked in committee and you refused to agree. Will you ask the Provincial Auditor to investigate the nonsense that has gone on in the approval of the construction of Simcoe Place and the signing of a lease and the commitment of the Workers' Compensation Board to substantial moneys, $13 million a year, for the next 20 years?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The Provincial Auditor has the right to investigate any matter, and I'm certainly not going to instruct him as to what he has to do in terms of his job.

I would also like to say that the WCB investment of 75% interest in this building is seen it as a very, very good deal.

Just to carry it a little further, I think it's interesting that one of the questions we asked, after almost a fait accompli was presented to us, was, "What kind of study have you done in the city of Toronto?" and Royal LePage was appointed to look at 34 locations across this city and none of them, none of them, met the requirements for the Workers' Compensation Board building.

BUNGEE JUMPING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and it concerns the minister's decision -- or lack of decision -- on the task force report on bungee jumping.

Minister, you have left mobile crane bungee operators dangling long enough. Your task force report came out in February, so I ask you: Will the province's 11 mobile crane bungee establishments be allowed to open this summer, yes or no?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I should be making an announcement on this very issue later on this week.

Mr Jim Wilson: Beach Bungee is located in Wasaga Beach, and it will employ some 20 people on a full-time basis this summer. However, my constituents are about to have their life's savings wiped out because the minister intends to ban bungee jumping from mobile cranes instead of bringing in regulations that would allow mobile crane operators to, first, stay in business, to continue to employ people and, third, to help Ontario communities compete for tourism dollars. These operators would not be forced out of operation if the minister would simply bring in regulations. Minister, why don't you do your job and effectively regulate bungeejumping, rather than driving my constituents out of business?

Hon Ms Churley: I do take the question seriously. After the tragic death last year of a young man who was test-jumping a bungee ride, there was a task force set up with members from my ministry and representatives from the Ministry of Labour and also industry, and they came forward very recently with recommendations. There was a coroner's inquest as well related to this death which just very recently came out. We have taken the recommendations seriously and, as I said, I will be making an announcement later this week on what the ministry intends to do.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question today is for the Minister of Environment and Energy, if he's -- yes, he's there.

Mr Minister, the opposition last week, in their usual doom-and-gloom manner, suggested that in expenditure control measures this government is backing away from its traditional commitment to supporting summer employment opportunities for young people in Ontario.

My question: I want to know, on behalf of the young people in my riding of Durham East, and in fact on behalf of all the young people in the province of Ontario, whether or not the government of Ontario is indeed backing away from this commitment. Specifically, I want to know the status of the Environmental Youth Corps program. Is it on, how much money will be spent and how many positions are you going to open?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The Ministry of Environment and Energy remains committed to youth employment opportunities in the province, particularly as it relates to environmentally oriented projects. The ministry is providing $11.9 million in funding this summer and fall to encourage environmental protection and conservation projects, and it's expected that this funding will create more than 3,600 job opportunities in 900 projects for young people across the province. It works out to approximately 20 or 25 less positions for the Environmental Youth Corps than last year.

Mr Mills: Such a wonderful answer, Mr Speaker, I haven't got a supplementary.

FUEL CONSERVATION TAX

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you to the member for Durham East for that.

My question is to the Treasurer, and I have a suggestion for the Treasurer in my question that I have made to him on many occasions. He has ignored it and you can see the state of the Ontario economy as a result.

My question to the Treasurer is the following -- or the Minister of Finance as they call him now -- would the Minister of Finance assure the House that when he is developing his budget, he intends to remove the tax on the auto workers of this province, that tax being the so-called "gas guzzler tax" that he wishes to try to disguise as an environmental tax? In doing so, by removing this tax, he will stimulate the sales of automobiles in this province and put auto workers back to work, while at the same time encouraging residents of this province to purchase new vehicles and turn in their old clunkers, therefore ensuring that we have better fuel economy and better pollution abatement equipment in our vehicles.

A perfect, positive suggestion for the Treasurer, and I'll be prepared to applaud him if he will finally acquiesce to a very positive and reasonable suggestion.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): It is tempting to comply with the request of the member for St Catharines if I thought he really would applaud me, but I know that he would not, no matter what I did.

I would of course not want to discuss tax policy prior to the budget, other than to say that I continue to be flabbergasted, if not shocked and appalled, that a former Minister of the Environment, who I always put in the category of a crusading minister, would have the audacity to come and propose to this House and to the people of Ontario such an anti-environment message.

However, having said that, having said how surprised I am that he would now take such an anti-environment position, I would not want to tip my hand as to whether or not there will be a change in that tax.

1450

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding any standing order of the House, the House meet in the morning of Wednesday, June 9, 1993, for the consideration of private members' public business, and when the House adjourns that day, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, June 14, 1993, and that Monday, June 14, 1993, be not considered as one of the last eight sessional days in June for the purposes as set out in the standing orders.

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

PETITIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition addressed to:

"The Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers;

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have affixed this petition to which I heartily agree.

GAMBLING

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition from the Church of the Ascension, Anglican Church of Canada, Don Mills parish, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

It is signed by 58 petitioners, and I've added my signature to the list.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1990 the Ontario Ministry of Transportation demonstrated its good intentions by proposing a system of graduated licensing that would require newly licensed drivers to adhere to certain conditions and restrictions which would be removed as the driver gains driving experience; and

"Whereas statistics show new drivers of any age are five times more likely to be involved in road accidents due to lack of experience, death and injury from trafficrelated accidents continues to be the biggest risk facing Canadians between the ages of 16 and 24, and research strongly suggests a graduated licensing program would result in decreased traffic accidents, reduce injuries, save lives and make our roads safer,

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

"To take immediate action to revise the laws, specifically the Highway Traffic Act, to include a graduated licensing program for novice drivers.

"As concerned parents and citizens of Ontario, we believe now is the time to take action to protect our young and novice drivers and, in effect, our very future."

I have 254 signatures and I affix my name.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I am glad to rise in the House again and to increase the number of petitions against casinos by another few to add to the thousands who have written to the government against casino gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I'm very pleased to affix my signature to this very important petition.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

It has some 71 signatures on it.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I too attach my signature to this.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): With the nice weather that we're having now, there are more bicycles, mopeds and motorcycles on the roads, and I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario agreed to the text and spirit of resolution 29, which states, 'That in the opinion of the House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles,'

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proclaim the month of May 1993 as Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature to the petition.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I also have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario agreed to the text and spirit of resolution 29," which was presented by Mike Cooper in 1992, "which states, 'That in the opinion of this House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles,'

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proclaim the month of May as Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month in the province of Ontario."

I have another 40 signatures on this petition and I affix my signature also.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people concerned about casino gambling. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

1500

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

As I'm in agreement with this, I'm affixing my signature to this petition.

LA VIOLENCE

M. Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & Grenville-Est) : J'ai une pétition ici provenant de l'école du Saint-Rosaire à Crysler, Ontario, des étudiants et des parents des élèves qui sont grandement inquiets de la violence dans notre communauté et dans notre domaine. La pétition dit comme suit :

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Nous, soussignés, résidents du Canada et de l'Ontario, nous prévalons maintenant de notre droit ancien et incontesté de présenter un grief commun dans l'assurance certaine que votre Assemblée législative y portera remède.

«Nous déclarons humblement :

«Attendu que les parents et les grands-parents demandent que la mise en marché du jeu Serial Killer Board Game, First Edition, de Tobias Allen de Seattle soit interdite ici au Canada et en Ontario ;

«Deuxièmement, attendu que ce jeu contient une housse mortuaire, 25 bébés et quatre figurines de meurtrier et que l'objet du jeu est de commettre des meurtres et que la personne qui réussit à tuer le plus grand nombre de bébés remporte la partie ;

«Et, troisièmement, attendu que ce jeu va à l'encontre de l'intérêt des enfants et qu'il pourrait être dangereux s'il était mis entre mauvaises mains et qu'il est suggestif pour les jeunes gens, qui se laissent facilement impressionner ;

«À ces causes, vos pétitionnaires demandent humblement à votre parlement ainsi qu'au gouvernement du Canada d'interdire la vente du Serial Killer Board Game, First Edition, et ainsi d'empêcher que de tels jeux ou matériels soient rendus disponibles ici au Canada et en Ontario afin de protéger les enfants vulnérables.»

Il y 46 signatures à cette pétition, et j'y ai apposé la mienne. J'appuie cette pétition fortement.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here that's addressed to the Speaker of the House and the Parliament of Ontario. It's signed by people from Merlin, from Chatham, from Paincourt, from Tilbury, from Mooretown and Petrolia, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, support the voluntary use of bicycle helmets promoted as part of a comprehensive bicycle safety program; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, oppose the province's plan to mandate the use of bicycle helmets as being an exclusive restriction of personal rights to choose for ourselves guaranteed under the Constitution,

"We respectfully submit this petition for your consideration."

They're asking for the repeal of the possible legislation that will make bicycle helmets mandatory in the province of Ontario, and I present the petition forward.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): This petition forms part of a petition that collected well over 15,000 names in support of the future of Bruce A. Among other things, it indicates that:

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

I have affixed my name to the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with a number of signatures from Windsor, Ontario, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

TAXICABS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I too have a petition here. It's from TTOOA, the Toronto Taxicab Owners and Operators Association. It's addressed to the Lieutenant Governor. They're upset at Metro, and I don't blame them.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition sponsored by State Farm Insurance of Strathroy and signed by some 83 of its customers and area residents that asks the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 164.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, as you know, there are 15,000-plus signatures on this petition that I now deliver to you.

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

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

In addition to the 15,600 signatures, this is supported by several groups, representing labour, business, local municipalities, chambers of commerce, school boards and riding associations in our area. These signatures happen to be from the Whitby-Oshawa-Ajax area and accompany the last petition, which originated out of the Essex and Belle River area.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SISTERS OF CHARITY AT OTTAWA ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Grandmaître, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr81, An Act respecting the Sisters of Charity at Ottawa.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management / Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités en ce qui concerne la gestion des déchets.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Continuing the debate, I believe it's on the government side. If not, we'll go to the member for Lawrence.

1510

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm very pleased today to speak on Bill 7, the municipal waste management act, because I think this affords me an opportunity once again to demonstrate how in fact this government has now become identifiable in terms of its modus operandi. It does have one now. I can honestly stand up and say I'm beginning to understand what it is that this government is attempting to accomplish or at least what it thinks it's accomplishing, because up until now it has been very difficult to determine or to understand, as an observer, the direction in which this government was moving.

When you look back on the record, you begin to see a pattern that has emerged, a pattern which suggests that this government throws all of its ideas out the window upon entering into government, all the old ideas which most of us on this side understood were probably inaccurate, misguided and at best as far from practical reality as you could get.

Most of the issues which this government and this party that's in office now advocated during the time it was in opposition we're beginning to understand it has no connection with. It is completely severing itself from its past, attempting to reconstitute itself, attempting to get in touch with reality. Two and a half years after it was elected, it is coming to grips with reality. Those are the statements made by the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, the Premier and others. Of course, getting in touch with what reality? Their reality. I have to say it's at least an attempt by this government to understand that the real world around us is rather different from the world which they saw upon entering government.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): He doesn't know anything about waste management.

Mr Cordiano: The member sitting in his chair -- I believe the member is the parliamentary assistant -- should be a little more patient when other members speak, since when he speaks no one interrupts him.

Mr Wiseman: I'm not the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Cordiano: You know what I say to the member on the opposite side who's interrupting and interjecting? There's plenty of time. I have 27 minutes, and if he would be patient and listen, he might learn something along the way.

I know one thing: We are in opposition for whatever faults we had. I think we paid that price in the last election and I can honestly say that we're willing to learn. We're willing to examine what mistakes we made along the road. We're willing to say, "Look, the world is changing and we're examining all the policies that are being put forth."

Let's get back to the municipal waste management act, because this is instructive to demonstrate the kind of misguided, if you will, or misconstrued policies of this government, comparing that to its policies when it was in opposition, comparing the diametrically opposed position that is now being taken to the party that was the NDP when it was in opposition.

The Interim Waste Authority has been mandated to find new dump sites. A number of designated sites have been brought up to be considered and three will be chosen of those designated sites. No one would have imagined that this government would have approached this question in such a way as it is now -- that is, by central decree determining what waste sites will be used in the future for Metro Toronto garbage and York region garbage. That is to say, they're avoiding all the various proper procedures that have been put in place. A full environmental assessment is going to be bypassed in order to have a fast-track site, if you will, designated; three sites that will be determined.

Nothing could be further from the original intention of this party. Nothing could be more hypocritical, if you will, of the policies of the previous party in opposition. At the every best, it's hypocrisy, because it's a total reversal of what was advocated by this party in opposition. They have done that repeatedly.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole, the member for Durham West. There is one member who is allowed to speak and it's the member for Lawrence.

Mr Cordiano: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What Bill 7 does in the final analysis is it enables municipalities to bring about user fees for the purpose of waste management activities throughout the province. A cynic might say -- and I will say it, because I am cynical about this government -- that this is but the beginning, the beginning of a trend which will see the implementation of user fees for just about everything. Because in the final analysis, this party is so contorted now that it has no real understanding of where it was and where it wants to go, so it's making policy on the fly. They're in fact making policy in a kind of diametrically opposed situation which says, "Well, we believed in this, but it doesn't work, so let's just leave it behind, wash that away, bring on something new, because we've got this problem now and we have to deal with it."

But the advice it ultimately listens to looks so confused, so ill-thought-out. In fact, no one has any real idea whether the trends that are being started today will worsen the situation, deteriorate the system we have in place, deteriorate the services we have in place, making it that much more difficult to recover from in the final analysis, when things do get better -- and they will get better at some point.

But the legacy of this administration will be to have set in motion a number of initiatives which will alter the landscape for ever. It will be unrecognizable, what comes after this: user fees for just about everything, making the user pay, and tolls on our roads. New roads will only be constructed if there are tolls; there's no way to construct new roads, according to this government, unless you make somebody who uses them pay for it.

What I'm afraid of is that something that was held so sacrosanct by all members of this House, and I believe all Canadians, our health care system -- is that next? Is that going to be threatened? In fact, there are a number of things that point to that already in the works, and that's a real fear on the part of many, many people. Why? It's because you have misguided, mismanaged resources on the part of this administration, making that conclusion, of course, the only one that's left.

When you squander resources, you then have to make up for the squandering by instituting heavy burdens on people, the taxpayers. The Treasurer -- the Minister of Finance, pardon me, as he is now called -- has indicated that not only is he cutting back on services, not only is he going to make it difficult for people to have access to the very basic and essential services that they have come to know in this province, but he's going to impose even more onerous taxes, making it that much more expensive for the services that will be left to them, services which I've already pointed out are less than adequate for the people of this province in most areas, making it so that you pay more for less.

That's the arithmetic that this government understands. That's the legacy of this government: We're going to pay more to have less. That's the phrase that I think will be used ultimately to describe the days in which this government was in office: more for less; pay more to have less. I think that comes as a result of squandering resources and mismanaging. Ultimately, it costs taxpayers a lot more than it would have, a lot more.

1520

Bill 7, as I say, does a number of things which I think are very useful and very practical. I think it's quite possible that we may even support this bill, quite possible. On the other hand --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You haven't decided yet?

Mr Cordiano: Well, I've got to talk to the critic, and he'll give us more information as to whether we can. But I think I should say that this bill attempts to do a number of things which I think are quite positive in the whole area of waste management.

The bill, with amendments to the Municipal Act, will allow municipalities to establish and operate facilities for all waste management activities. In many municipalities, that's going to be welcome. It will require source separation of waste and recyclables and establish user fees, as I pointed out, under property.

Now, that's the area that I have most difficulty with, establishing user fees, because you'll get uneven services, again, throughout the province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A tax on the poor.

Mr Cordiano: A tax on the poor. The poorer municipalities, if they want this service, are going to have to impose user fees for that, and that will ultimately lead to higher taxes.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Etobicoke West and the member for Durham West, if you want to carry on a conversation, don't do it in the House. There's a debate going on and everybody's interested in listening to the debate, so I would ask you please to remain quiet. The member for Lawrence.

Mr Cordiano: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My colleague the critic for Environment for our party, the member for Mississauga North, has also pointed out another of our concerns; that is, the upper-tier municipalities vis-à-vis the lower-tier municipalities and what this means in terms of jurisdictional squabbling and the responsibility that an upper-tier municipality will be able to assume over a lower-tier municipality to take on the authority for this area. That leaves municipalities in the kind of situation which could lead to further squabbling among them, and of course that's not very constructive, so I think this is an area that needs to be straightened out by the government before we proceed.

As I say, we could even end up supporting this bill if some of our concerns are laid to rest. I think there's further work that needs to be done. That's why it's essential, as has been pointed out by the critic for our party, that we do have public hearings in this area, that we do have a thorough going over of the concerns, of the problems that result from the amendments to the various acts that we're speaking of. I think it's important that people understand that there are concerns with this piece of legislation and that we do have areas that need more work, areas that need to be exposed with respect to different views so that these concerns can be overcome.

I think with respect to those concerns that it is reasonable for us to assume that the differences between upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities can be resolved, that it's not going to lead to a polarized position between upper- and lower-tier municipalities and that ultimately it will not lead to more conflict, because that's the last thing we need among municipalities. I know in Metro that essentially that is not a problem, but of course, if I listen to the good mayor of North York, he estimates that with the cutbacks that are being imposed in the restraint program, the blue box program in North York is in serious jeopardy. If not that, then it's going to lead to additional tax increases, which no one can support at this time and which no one can bear.

And that is the crux of the various initiatives by this government to deal with the deficit problem, the fact that they're going to rely on a $2.5-billion tax increase once again to bail them out from their own mismanagement woes, rather than over the last two years listen to the good advice of the various members on this side of the House who have repeatedly called for restraint.

Two years ago, when they first came out and said they were going to fight the recession by spending more, crank it up and get it spent -- they've done that in a variety of areas, not the least of which is affordable housing, and as a result of their mismanagement, as a result of their squandering of resources, they have now jeopardized the non-profit housing sector. And I mean jeopardized, because as a result of their mismanagement people now have come to believe that non-profit housing is not a viable alternative. There are many people questioning the viability of government funds being spent on non-profit housing.

They've jeopardized a very good program that had been around long before this administration came to power, programs that had been there under the previous administration and the one before it, both Tories and Liberals who had brought about non-profit housing in a variety of forms. But then this government came along in the midst of a severe recession, in the midst of our crisis economically, and it's allocating projects and units at will in areas where it cannot be determined whether or not there's a need for these housing allocations. They're squandering those units, and now, to our understanding, we find out that there are housing units within those projects which are going wanting, unfilled, vacancies in areas which have pretty large, substantial vacancy rates. That's mismanagement of the worst kind.

As the auditor has pointed out with non-profit housing, $1.2 billion in subsidies will be spent by the year 1995-96. That's unacceptable, totally unacceptable. You need to manage the systems better in order to do that.

It brings me back to this bill, Bill 7. As I say, there is example after example of the kind of administration we're seeing from this government, the kind of squandering of resources which then leads, of course, to things like user fees, which have been suggested and insinuated in Bill 7: Allow municipalities to impose user fees so they can bring about the kind of program, the blue box program and the other waste management systems, which in other parts of the province have become commonplace and people have grown to accept them and expect them.

The uneven level of services throughout the province is something this party, the NDP, spoke against many moons ago, it seems now, when it was a different party. Of course, now they're not in touch with anything. They haven't really got a full understanding of where they're going, and I would say they've lost themselves in the woods. They really haven't quite got a direction in which they're moving that they can all feel comfortable with and can all support, and we see that they're tearing apart at the seams. There are a number of pressures on this party, on this administration, to move in all kinds of directions.

But I say to this government, that's precisely why it's difficult for people out in the public to support an administration or a party such as the one that's in power now, because they never know what direction it's moving in next. You can't really figure it out, because this government --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Sounds Liberal.

Mr Cordiano: I say to the member opposite that if we Liberals were in power, we'd have a clear sense of what we were going to do. We told you two years ago to bring about a full stop in terms of the wasteful spending you had embarked on, and you didn't listen to either ourselves or the Tories, for that matter.

Mr Stockwell: They're listening now.

Mr Cordiano: It's a little too late, I would say to the member, because I'll tell you what: The program you're bringing about with restraint is having such a psychological shocking effect on the people of this province, it's going to result in even further destabilizing in the economy, destabilizing in the way people think, because confidence is simply not there.

What they're doing now, bringing about a full stop, if you will, cutting back to the extent that they are, is having a terrible, traumatic impact on people. They don't know if they're going to lose their jobs in certain areas of the province. There's simply no confidence at all to invest in anything. Anything this administration has done has simply not proven to be a positive step forward to create the kind of confidence that's necessary to get us out of this recession -- simply not there.

After two years of spending wildly, and really that's the only way you can describe it, running up the deficit to more than $10 billion -- probably $12 billion is the real figure; they keep relying on transfer payments that haven't come in from Ottawa, which will probably never come in.

Mr Stockwell: You've been reduced to taking lectures from the Liberals.

Mr Cordiano: I'd remind my friends in the third party, do not forget that in the last 20 years this is the party that brought in a balanced budget and in fact had a surplus. Let's not forget about that.

Interjections.

Mr Cordiano: Yes, sir, and fine, we may have done it by increasing taxes, but we did it at a time when the economy was booming. In fact, those taxes probably brought inflation back somewhat and brought the economy of the province -- despite what these people would have you believe --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cordiano: Despite that, the policies of our government led to a surplus. That's not something the Tories in Ottawa could say, certainly nowhere near it, when they had a booming economy over the period 1985-90. The government in Ottawa failed miserably when it should have brought its expenditures under control, simply didn't do it, and now in Ottawa we're continuing to feel the effects of deficit spending under a Tory administration that simply did not deal with it.

The rhetoric sounded good in those days, but I would say we all have to look at what it is that we're attempting to accomplish, and this administration has to realize that the impact of its cutbacks now, the impact of its restraint program, will have a real shocking effect to the system, a real shock. It's going to traumatize a number of people. Confidence simply isn't there. People feel that they're next to lose their jobs, and that inevitably leads to even more declines in revenues. Your revenues cannot increase in that climate.

We have serious concerns with the way this government is managing the province's revenues, the province's fiscal concerns. As a result, we're concerned that the opposite impact will be felt in this province, that revenues will continue to decline and expenditures will continue to increase. I say to the government: It's a little too late in terms of the kinds of medicine that you're applying to the patient that's ill, a little too late. The medicine simply doesn't go far enough.

I'd say to members opposite and anyone else who's listening today that Bill 7 has received some support out there. AMO's obviously generally supportive of it, and some other interest groups are also supportive, but in the final analysis the concerns we have with respect to Bill 7, that is, the potential conflict that will result from Bill 7 between upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities, needs to be resolved. It simply cannot go forward without looking at that as a major concern and as a major fault in this bill.

In addition, I would also caution the government that in establishing Bill 7, you are creating a precedent with respect to user fees. You're allowing municipalities then to move forward and charge user fees to establish waste management activities and programs, and that, I say to my friends, I hope does not lead to a further usage of user fees in other areas which are very important to the province, and does not further deteriorate the services that people depend on and that people need in this province.

Particularly, I would say to all those members opposite who are sitting -- the backbenchers should listen to this, because you're going to be very concerned about what happens to health services in your ridings, because that's next. When you've got to cut and you're slashing and you're hacking away at budgets, user fees loom large in the picture.

You'd better take care with respect to the initiatives that you're undertaking now and that you're going to support now, because user fees are the next item on the agenda that I think this administration is seriously looking at. I see the Minister of Transportation sitting in the House today, and I would say that as to toll booths on our roads, again, he's proposed this, or his administration is looking at it. I would say to him that's just an example of what I'm suggesting here, user fees you're going to depend on. You're going to start leaning on them very heavily.

You've got to look at where efficiencies can be gained in other areas. You've got to start looking at the problems I pointed out, such as the squandering of resources in affordable housing, the squandering of resources in a variety of other areas which we've pointed out in this House, and furthermore the fact that you have not created an environment for the economy to improve over the long term. It's simply not allowing for job creation to take place in a meaningful way and, as a result, revenues may decline further. I hope you understand that, and I hope you understand that revenues will decline if you don't take care with respect to how you manage the economy and the squandering of resources.

I would say in closing that there are a number of things, as I pointed out, in Bill 7 that are positive initiatives and steps in the right direction to allow for the management of waste in this province to be conducted in a more rational, more efficient way and to allow municipalities to bring about programs which they thus far have not been able to do. But, again, user fees are something that concern me and concern our party generally. So I would say, look carefully at that and look at the alternatives, because that's not something we want to set in motion as a precedent.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I would say that I look forward to comments from other members.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I will say that some of the issues that were raised by the member for Eglinton I think are of interest to us all, specifically the --

Mr Stockwell: Not Eglinton, Lawrence.

Mr Tilson: Did I say his wrong name?

Mr Stockwell: It's Lawrence.

Mr Tilson: The member for Lawrence, I'm sorry. His comments certainly were most useful in some areas, although I was concerned when he started taking shots at previous governments, and particularly our government, specifically --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): No.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'll tell you: Specifically, you looked at the province of Ontario, at what happened to this province when they took over, the most taxed jurisdiction -- at least until you people came along -- in North America. So don't forget that when you're listening to the member for Lawrence's comments.

I will say that he did make some worthwhile comments, specifically on the issue of user fees, and that may be a good or a bad thing.

The area that I am concerned with is when the municipalities are being forced to get into these projects, these plans -- all of which are very good; we must emphasize that, but we don't know what they're going to cost, and I'm going to emphasize that over and over. We're getting into another venture that we have no idea what it's going to cost. The provinces are strapped -- the municipalities are strapped, and the province is strapped as well, so if you're going to get municipalities into something, we must have some vague idea at least as to how we're going to pay for it. He raised one alternative of user fees. That may or may not be a solution, and it gives us great concern, getting into something, getting us into a venture when we have no idea of the area it's going to cost.

The second issue he raised was the jurisdictional issue. There's no question, at least on the way the wording of the sections are phrased now, that there is going to be a jurisdictional war, as it was described, between upper-tier and lower-tier governments, and perhaps even by the lower-tier municipalities themselves.

Hon Mr Pouliot: This is waste management.

Mr Tilson: Well, you say it's waste management, but that's not the way to go about things. The way to go about things is to consult with municipalities, and I'll tell you that AMO isn't supporting it the way the parliamentary assistant has suggested in the past.

1540

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Downsview.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Just in responding very quickly to some of the comments that the member for Lawrence made, Mr Speaker, you sit in this House, and you understand that it's a partisan place, you understand that it divides essentially into three sections -- and now perhaps we're having a fourth grown, an independent caucus, if you will. You understand that a lot of the stuff that is said in here and a lot of the criticisms are laid on a strictly partisan basis, and it's mostly intended to confuse the public out there, because what will happen during this transmission is that there's a good chunk of the Ontario public watching the proceedings today and they rely, essentially, on the members in this place to provide them with information.

While we're in the process of providing information, I'm of the view that if you live in a glass house, you don't throw stones. When I hear Liberals -- and primarily Liberals, because at least I know where the Conservatives stand -- on the issue of user fees, they would introduce user fees with respect to health care. You know what we have. We have a public plan. They would require you to pay on your own until we had a two-tier system: a health care system for the rich and a health care system for the poor. But when I hear the Liberals talk about it -- and they're sort of in the middle and they sit on the fence and they're neither here nor there -- when you look at their record, when you look at five years of Liberal governance and you look at the huge increases in health care, you look at the 10%, 11%, 12%, 13% increases year after year after year, it leads you to think, "Where would they have gone to and how far could they have let that problem go?" They would have let it go until the systems crumbled.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I would like to address the early outpourings from the member for Lawrence, because I would like to just correct some of the misinformation he provided.

It was under the Liberals, the previous administration, that you had the circumventing of the Environmental Assessment Act with the declaration that a landfill site called P1 would be placed in north Pickering. It was under the Liberals that you had the abrogation of the Environmental Assessment Act by saying that the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake would receive waste under the Environmental Protection Act. It was under the Liberals that you had the lift on Keele Valley being placed there under the Environmental Protection Act and not under the Environmental Assessment Act. It was under the Liberals that you had the location of a landfill site in Brampton called site 6B that would be done under the Environmental Protection Act and not under the Environmental Assessment Act. For that member to stand in this place and to accuse this party --

Mr Perruzza: It's not his fault; he doesn't know.

Mr Wiseman: He doesn't know it. Well, it's obvious he doesn't know. He spent half an hour here talking about everything else other than this bill. To say we are misguided and mismanage resources is to understate that he does not understand what this is all about.

The waste management issue is a resources issue if you handle it properly. It can become the feedstock for jobs, as they are at Atlantic Packaging, or as they are in Welland-Thorold, or as they are at Recovery Plastics, or as they are in a whole host of industries in southern Ontario. This member clearly does not understand the waste management issue because he didn't speak to it for half an hour; he only recited the title of the bill twice.

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): Just a couple of comments which have come to my mind as a result of the member for Lawrence speaking. One, I might add, is that I have received correspondence from Laidlaw, which has been involved with waste management in the province of Ontario for some time.

Laidlaw is very concerned about the role and existence of the private sector, which it feels has not been properly addressed under Bill 7. For example, they cite the study that was done by Dr Don Dewees, a professor of law and economics at the University of Toronto. His study has indicated that the private sector is able to deliver the service much more efficiently than the public sector in many areas of waste management and I don't think this has been appropriately addressed.

The member for Lawrence has talked about the financial situation and I think that this should be studied at greater depth at committee. I would hope these committees would take place during the summer and that there would be public consultation.

Laidlaw goes on to indicate that the consultation up to this point in time has been very slight. They indicate that the committee's first meeting with OWMA, the Ontario Waste Management Association, was on April 29 -- just this past April 29 -- and there have been only two other meetings since that time. With respect to each of these meetings, participants were only given one to two hours' notice, clearly not enough time to prepare.

It demonstrates further that this bill has not been properly put forward to not only the people of Ontario but to the private sector, and there needs to be a great deal of public input into this bill before it's passed, and a number of changes to reflect that public input.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lawrence, you have two minutes.

Mr Cordiano: I'm hesitant to respond in a personal way to some of the slights that have been made from across the way, but I would just simply say: There's only one issue that we are really dealing with here at all times and that's really the question of competence, the question of whether or not this administration has the competence, can manage the resources of this province, can manage properly, can manage effectively, with respect to Bill 7 or any other bill.

What I'm pointing out is that this government is completely incompetent, and this bill is really about giving municipalities the opportunity to do the kinds of things that should be done around the province, but the question is: Who's going to pay for it? That is really the issue. The issue is: Who's going to pay for it? Is it another tax on individuals out there by the imposition of user fees?

Once again, this government passes itself off as being defenders of the little guy, defenders of the individual out there, and the smug faces across the way with respect to the way in which you talk about health care in this province when we're seeing incredible reductions, an incredible pullback of services.

We're seeing a dismantling of the health care system in this province because you squandered resources when you first came to office. You spent like there was no tomorrow. You gave doctors in this province, on the one hand, an incredible increase in the OHIP fee schedule and now, on the other hand, they're going to slap them in the face by imposing reductions to interns. This government is nothing but hypocritical with respect to its long-held views -- come into office and do exactly the opposite of whatever they were going to do before.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Wellington.

Mr Hayes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's appropriate that I do get up, as the member for Don Mills referred to a letter that he received from Laidlaw saying that there was no consultation or very little consultation --

The Deputy Speaker: I don't see a point of order there.

Mr Hayes: Have we got a new Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent, I don't see a point of order. Thank you very much.

Mr Hayes: Will you recognize me the next time, Mr Speaker, when we go around and I will refer to that? Thank you.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased and privileged to be here this afternoon on behalf of the people of Wellington to speak to Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management, a very, very important bill, a bill that was introduced for first reading April 21, just three weeks ago or so.

We really haven't had a lot of time to assess the response to this bill in our communities, and that's a concern I would put before the Legislature right off the top. It is difficult to gauge public reaction if we only have a couple of weeks between the initial introduction of the bill and its first reading, and we wonder, I suppose, why, because of the importance of this bill, it's being handled in this way.

Very briefly, this bill does a number of things in changes to the waste management legislation affecting municipalities. It follows the release of two discussion papers in public consultation which the government has undertaken.

1550

In March 1992 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs released a discussion paper called Municipal Waste Management Powers in Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment released a companion paper entitled Waste Management Planning in Ontario, and both papers outlined proposals for waste management reduction strategies, which is a very, very commendable goal on the part of this government. I believe it's a non-political issue at this time. We need to reduce our waste stream, no question about it.

A key component is the need for municipalities to expand their legislative powers to implement and operate effective waste management systems. This is what the government perceives to be a need and it's moving ahead in this direction.

Bill 7 amends the Municipal Act by adding sections 208.1 to 208.11. These new sections give municipalities the explicit power to establish, maintain and operate a waste management system, and a waste management system is defined as "facilities and services for the management of waste, including the collection, removal, transfer, processing, storage, reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal of the waste."

This bill establishes fees for the use of any part of a waste management system and requires individuals generating waste to separate at the point of collection. It prohibits and regulates dumping and disposal at facilities, appoints inspectors to obtain information relating to sites or facilities and markets products from waste material.

One of the most important parts of the bill is that it revises the conditions under which a county may assume waste management responsibility from local municipalities. An amendment to subsection 209(4) of the Municipal Act allows a county to assume any or all waste management functions if a majority vote on county council representing a majority of local municipalities vote in favour. Current legislation requires two thirds of votes on county council to take over responsibility from the local municipalities, and there are other provisions that this bill addresses.

In response to the introduction of this bill back in April, our critic, our member for Don Mills, indicated that our party had some concerns about it, certainly the fact that the bill was silent on the issue of funding. Because of the expense of waste management as a government responsibility, funding is one of the most important issues, and I think one of the key issues that comes forth in this bill is the cost of waste management and who pays.

Another key issue is the accountability of who is responsible for waste management, and that comes as a part of the government's general thrust towards disentanglement of responsibilities. A subissue, maybe, is governance in rural Ontario as to who is responsible at the municipal level, whether it be the upper tier, the county, or the local municipalities directly, which is presently the case in Wellington county. I think the third key issue that this bill demonstrates is the government's plan for waste management legislation. I doubt there'll be another waste management bill this year and yet this bill does not address many of the most important waste management issues facing the province at this time.

When I started on the first issue, I mentioned the cost. We see that waste management is one of the most expensive responsibilities facing the government, and I would argue the growth of the cost of waste management has been very, very significant and probably one of the most significant growths of any government program, certainly with respect to the provincial government, that we have seen in some time.

As an example, in Wellington county we have an outstanding recycling program that was actually initiated back under the Liberal government in 1987, and this program is administered by the county of Wellington's road and engineering department. It collects recyclable material from all 21 municipalities in Wellington county, and there are about 20,000 blue boxes in Wellington county representing most of the households.

The total gross operating cost of the recycling program in Wellington county in 1992 was about $437,000. Of course, that cost is offset by some of the sale of material that is collected through recycling, and that generated about $96,000 worth of revenue for the county. So if you look at it, about one quarter of the total cost of running the program was recouped by the sale of recycled material, resulting in a net operation cost for the county of $340,000.

So it's an expensive program but I believe the public is behind it. It's well worth the expenditure, but we have to look, I think, at ways to improve it, such that we can encourage markets for the recyclable material, so that eventually I think the goal would have to be getting it to the point where it's run on a cost-recovery basis, that it requires no subsidy at all.

We're doing great things, I believe, with respect to recycling in Wellington county due to the work of our county council, the county council's waste management standing committee, Don Taylor, who is the waste reduction coordinator, and Reeve Laverne Harris of Eramosa township, who chairs our waste management committee on county council.

But we see the issue of recycling under attack in some quarters. There was an article in the Toronto Star, April 17, about a month ago, where Mayor Mel Lastman of North York talks about recycling as being an initiative which is very, very expensive, he says, and the quote is, "'I don't know how you unsell it. Nobody wants to admit it's a bust,' said Lastman. 'I don't want to admit it, but it is. The blue box is going to put people in the poorhouse."' So he's very concerned about the cost, and the article indicates that in North York about $5 million of the local property tax bill is needed to subsidize the program. So it is a very expensive program, and there are some concerns there that should be addressed.

With respect to waste management master planning, we find that this bill doesn't get into that particular issue, but certainly we know that across the province many regions and counties, at the encouragement of the provincial government, have undergone major waste management planning exercises, long-term, looking towards managing their waste for the next 25 years in many cases. Again, it's a very expensive process.

In Wellington county we've been at the waste management master plan process for about 10 years in cooperation with the city of Guelph, jointly funded, and it's cost about $4.2 million to date; so a very expensive program once again. We're at the point where the committee had identified a single site in Nickel township, N4, and the county council in Wellington voted to send that site as part of its waste management plan to the Ministry of the Environment for an environment assessment. Of course, the city of Guelph decided not to support that particular initiative, so we're sort of in a situation right now where the whole issue of dump sites in Wellington county is up in the air.

But that's just one waste management planning study in Wellington. Forty-six jurisdictions, counties and regions in Ontario are undergoing these waste management master plan studies right now. I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that in many cases this is consultants' work which is being done in duplication 46 times, and I would call upon the government to take a greater leadership role such that there isn't this duplication of consultancy work. There has to be a lot of commonality in these studies, and I'm absolutely convinced that if the Minister of the Environment were to show more leadership in terms of suggesting a preferred waste management system to municipalities that they could adopt in part or in whole, depending on their circumstances, or that they could tailor to their own specific needs, we'd be saving a lot of money on these waste management master plans.

There's another key component of the waste management planning in our area of the province, in Wellington and Guelph, and that is the city of Guelph's intention to develop and build a wet-dry recycling facility. For those members who aren't aware of this concept, the idea is to source-separate organic versus non-organic materials. You would have two different garbage receptacles in each household, and a garbage truck would come and pick up the receptacles and separate it, keep it separate. The organics would be turned into compost that would be sold, and the non-organics would be recycled to the extent that they could, and the rest would be landfilled.

There's been some controversy surrounding this particular initiative of the city. The cost is significant once again. As I've indicated, most of the waste management component parts are very expensive. Some $36 million is planned for this particular initiative, and it's going to be an expensive proposition.

There have been concerns expressed about the location, the siting of the facility. The plan is to put it near the Guelph Airpark, which is a locally significant airport in our area, and the concern has been expressed that if there are seagulls or birds attracted to the composting facility, it may pose a threat to flight safety at the airport, so that's an issue.

The former Minister of the Environment -- Etobicoke-Lakeshore, I guess, is her riding -- shortly after her election as a member of the government and her appointment as minister, indicated to a group of concerned citizens in that area that there would be a full hearing before the establishment of the wet-dry facility, but it appears now that this hearing will not take place. I've been contacted by these concerned neighbours and have requested that the Minister of Environment and Energy at least meet with them so they can have an opportunity to express their concerns directly now to the new minister from Algoma. It's my understanding that that meeting has not yet taken place.

1600

The second key issue I would see in this bill is the issue of accountability: Who is responsible for waste management? We see that the government has indicated a general thrust of its policy is to promote the concept of disentanglement, meaning that the appropriate level of government that can best deliver the service, that can deliver it most efficiently, should be given the absolute responsibility to deliver that service, so you wouldn't have the duplication of service, two levels of government, each jumping over each other, trying to deliver the service to people.

That, in and of itself, is a very desirable goal. We don't want to be paying for government service twice. I support the government's intention to go ahead on disentanglement. I think the more appropriate place to start would be in terms of cooperation with the federal government, because I think the vast majority of administrative overlap is between the federal government and provincial government, not between the provincial government and the municipalities, although there is some degree of overlap, as I'll get into later. But the Premier could show great leadership in his role as the Premier of the most populous province in Ontario if he were to take an aggressive move towards encouraging the other premiers and the federal government to undertake a number of steps to eliminate the waste and overlap between provincial ministries and federal ministries. In any case, the government's going ahead with disentanglement between provincial government and municipal government.

With respect to this bill, we're seeing a further step towards making it easier for county governments to take over the waste management job from local municipalities. It's my recollection that under the Liberal years, the Minister of the Environment of the day brought in a bill which would make it easier for counties to take over the waste management job from municipalities. At that time, I believe the provincial legislation stated that it would require a unanimous vote of county council to have the county take over the waste management responsibility from municipalities, and then the Liberal government changed that to two-thirds majority to allow for the transfer of responsibility. Now this government is taking it one step further to a simple majority: 50% plus one vote on a county council.

So we're seeing a government that is endeavouring to try to make it easier for counties to take over that responsibility. That's a fairly controversial issue, certainly in my area, with the people I consulted over the last week or so to try and get a feel for what municipal leaders feel about this bill. If you look at a hypothetical example that might exist, a local municipality, say a township in rural Ontario that looks after its own garbage, which has a great deal of excess capacity if it looks at its dump site -- it may have 15 or 20 years if it just continues to use its own local garbage in that dump site -- it's sitting pretty good and has no real problems with waste management in terms of siting a new landfill site. Whereas other municipalities that, for a variety of reasons, may have a landfill site that's nearing its capacity, or large urban municipalities that may be virtually at the limit and in an emergency situation, perhaps applying for an extension of their licence to run the landfill to the Ministry of Environment, they're going to maybe support it.

I'm concerned that some municipalities that are in a difficult situation may get together and almost, so to speak, gang up on some of the ones that have a great deal of capacity in their existing landfill sites. I think, generally speaking, it's desirable to encourage a two-thirds majority on county council on important issues such as this one, because it's important that there is a good deal of consensus before the county council goes ahead on a specific controversial issue. If you only need a 50%-plus-one vote, a simple majority, you don't need as much consensus-building as you would if you needed a two-thirds majority to do something. So I'd lay that concern on the table for the government to consider, and I hope it will.

Of course, we also see that waste management is becoming increasingly complex in the regulatory requirements that the government has brought forward over the last number of years, and rightly so, because of the environmental concern about some existing older landfill sites. We see increasing complexity, and that, I suppose, is an argument in favour of encouraging the upper-tier level of municipal government, the counties, to take over the waste management responsibility. But I think the counter side to that argument is that if the county is taking over responsibility from the local municipalities, you see another step away from the concept of local autonomy, local people directly accountable to their neighbours, really. I think that's an important point to be considered, and that's something that would be lost if the county were to assume responsibility for waste management.

There are a number of other significant problems with respect to waste management that this bill does not address. I raised a number of my own concerns in the House back in December about things the government should be doing to improve the waste management situation in Ontario.

One of the first key issues that the government has not addressed yet is the issue of compensation. I really don't think there is a more emotional issue the government has to deal with than waste management. There are very few, anyway. This is a very emotional issue. If an individual receives a letter in his mailbox that says there's going to be a dump right on the next property behind him within a certain period of time, especially if he's a senior citizen, for example, whose entire net worth may be represented in that property, all of a sudden he fears that his net worth has instantly gone to zero overnight as a result of society's demand to put its garbage some place.

That's a real concern, and I think that in many cases those concerns could be mitigated if the province were to go ahead and develop a suggested compensation policy that municipalities could adopt in part or in whole, or, if they had their own plans that they felt were more suitable to their own area, they could go ahead with those; but at least a suggested waste management compensation policy so that people had some degree of assurance that they weren't going to be bankrupt overnight as a result of the landfill siting situation. I think that would be an important step the government could take.

Secondly, I don't believe there is a high degree of understanding in Ontario, among the general populace, of the purpose and the process of the environmental assessment legislation. The environmental assessment legislation, as I understand it, has been set up to determine the very best and most appropriate waste management -- whether it be a landfill site or a lot of projects -- to ensure that an environmental mistake is not made, such that environmental damage will be avoided.

This is the whole reason we go through these environmental assessment hearings, and it's important that people understand that: that all of the technical facts and the human facts and the economic facts surrounding a waste management proposal will be considered at the environmental assessment hearing. I sense from some of the people I talk to across the province that they don't fully understand that that is the forum for the technical evidence to be presented, and that unless the proponent can prove that this particular alternative -- say, for example, siting a dump, a landfill site -- is the very best spot for a dump, then it won't happen. It's important, and I think the Ministry of Environment has a responsibility to try to explain that to people. I don't think they do that very well.

Thirdly, a major problem I see with respect to this particular government is its willingness to endorse the positions of what I would call the extreme environmental pressure groups and its refusal to look at all the available waste management alternatives. I think a government that does this, that ideologically selects certain particular systems and rules them out arbitrarily, is not serving the environment well. How do we know that some of these new technologies that are coming out are not indeed the best and most environmentally safe modes or ways of dealing with waste management if we don't undertake environmental assessment studies of these new technologies?

Of course, we have a government that doesn't look at it that way and refuses to give even a realistic impartial assessment of some of the technologies that are coming forward, such as energy from waste, which has been a proposal that's been put forward for a number of years; incineration; rail haul of Metro's garbage to Kirkland Lake, which it refused to even look at. These are, in my view, realistic alternatives that should be studied. We don't have that at this time.

The third point we have that is not represented in this bill, which is a very important part of the waste management problem out there, is the lack of leadership by the Minister of Environment. The ministry's total budget is about $429 million. I think it's most important that we look at the ability of the level of government to go ahead and suggest a preferred waste management system, and I think the provincial government is best suited to do that. If the minister were to provide more leadership than she -- than he presently is doing -- I keep thinking of the minister in the past tense. The new minister could gain a lot of credit by proceeding with a preferred waste management system that he could present to municipalities, and they could accept it in whole or in part depending on their specific needs. I would argue once again that the provincial Ministry of Environment and Energy is the only government body that has the resources to undertake that sort of process. Again, that would eliminate the absolute duplication of effort that's going on in some 46 jurisdictions across the province with respect to waste management master planning, to some degree.

1610

I have had a number of constituents in my area who are very, very interested in waste management issues and have been very helpful to me in terms of providing advice as to how I should approach the waste management issues in this House.

I met recently during the break with a gentleman by the name of Stuart Godwin of Elora. Mr Godwin is a former chemistry teacher at the secondary school level and he has given the waste management issue a great deal of study. He makes a very legitimate point in a letter which he has written recently to the Minister of Environment. I'll read it very briefly.

He talks about the environmental advantages of burning scrap tires in cement plants and saving coal from that particular use. "We see in the manufacture of cement in Ontario the necessity of burning some coal," and he has made a number of specific suggestions with respect to this issue, saying that there should be a test burn.

I'll quote again in part:

"I feel that in efforts to upgrade scrap tires, the minister is downgrading coal. We are storing tires where mosquitoes can breed, and guards are necessary to prevent malicious fires. At the same time, more coal must be obtained from under the ground or ravished from the land surface, with environmental consequences.

"I feel that incineration has its place under two very important conditions," and I would urge the government to listen to this, "that the energy is needed for power or steam generation and that the fuel burns as cleanly as the other fuel it is displacing."

So under those conditions, he is arguing, the incineration of waste tires should be considered. I certainly think he's got some good advice there for the minister if the minister has the foresight to take a good, impartial look at it.

The issue of rail haul to the north is still a very, very important issue for the government to look at. I was privileged to have the opportunity to be in Kirkland Lake in the summer of 1991, and I would encourage members this summer to take a bit of time to head up there. Some of them who have been there recently maybe know the situation very well; others in this House may have never been to Kirkland Lake.

The day I was there was a beautiful, sunny day. My wife and I were on the main street and I wanted to drop in and meet with some of the municipal officials to get a good feel for what they were proposing. I found that the level of inactivity in the town was absolutely stunning. There were literally dozens and dozens of people on the street with absolutely nothing to do. I spoke to some of the municipal officials, as I said, and they estimated that the unemployment rate was something in excess of 25%.

So we have a situation in a municipality where the economy is in an absolutely dismal state and it has come forward with a suggested alternative that the government should consider: to accept the waste from Metro, have it rail hauled to that community and store it in an environmentally acceptable place. I can't see why the government refuses to even allow an environmental assessment of that option. I think they're being totally remiss, because this is a legitimate option.

I spoke to the fellow who had actually done most of the work to create the proposal. His name was Don Caveen. He indicated to me that he felt it was just a matter of time. Eventually, the provincial government would come back to the town of Kirkland Lake requesting actually that the town accept Metro's garbage because of the problems that this government and the previous government have had in terms of siting a landfill in Metro Toronto.

About five years ago, there was a document produced by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in cooperation with the University of Guelph called Waste Management for Rural Communities. It's an extensive document, very, very professional, including a number of specific suggestions as to what the government should be doing. I've kept it, because I think it's really, really good, and I would recommend it to all members who are concerned or interested in the issue.

It expresses very poignantly the concern that farmers have about losing their land, good quality farm land, and it being transferred into a garbage dump. I think the farmers have a very legitimate concern in that respect. Certainly, this government in particular has made it increasingly difficult for anyone who wishes to develop agricultural land for residential use, but it has no problem with siting a landfill site on agricultural land. That is a real concern in rural Ontario.

This is an excellent document, which details many of the concerns of the federation of agriculture with respect to waste management. We also see in this document a suggestion that energy from waste should be considered as an alternative to the garbage problem. Again, to reiterate, I believe the government should be taking a good hard look at that.

In response to a question last week that I put to the Minister of Environment and Energy -- who played a very important role in this debate even though he's not the lead minister; it's a Municipal Affairs bill -- the minister gave a speech with respect to the environmental impact of the bill. I asked him a question about whether he felt it was desirable that the waste management responsibility would be transferred from the local municipality to the upper-tier municipality, the counties, with a simple majority instead of a two-thirds vote.

I expressed a concern that there might be in theory and there could be in practice a situation where some municipalities would gang up on a few and that there would be a difficult problem the government would have to deal with in that respect. He indicated at that time that it was an issue that should be dealt with at committee; at that time, I suppose, indicating that the government is prepared to send this bill to a standing committee of the Legislature for further review, discussion and clause-by-clause study.

I think that's absolutely essential. Because of the time line of this bill -- that it was just introduced a couple of weeks ago and already we're into second reading debate -- I don't think the general community out there realizes the importance of this bill and the impact that it will have in many, many ways. Certainly my view would be that it should go to a standing committee of the Legislature for further discussion, and that would be my objective here this afternoon.

I hope the government will listen to what I have said with respect to this bill and give all due consideration to my comments, and I appreciate the attention of the House this afternoon.

Mr Hayes: I want to compliment the member for Wellington, because he actually spoke about the bill, unlike the previous person from the official opposition.

There were a few things the member spoke about with the consultation. The thing is that there has been a considerable amount of consultation for a couple of years; as a matter of fact, for well over a year. There were hearings across the province. I believe it was something like 12 different locations that the Ministry of Environment and also the Ministry of Municipal Affairs went to across the province.

The member also mentioned recycling, about it being very expensive. I don't think anyone really disagrees that it can be fairly expensive. As a matter of fact, that is why we are talking about reduction of waste. I think that's a very important issue here.

About the 50% plus one, I indicated in my opening remarks that we'd certainly be looking at amending that to make it two thirds. So those are a couple of the issues.

I think I'd really be remiss in not addressing a little bit about the previous speaker. He talked about mismanagement.

Mr Stockwell: Come on, he's out of order. This is questions and comments on the member for Wellington.

Mr Hayes: I'm relating to the other one, Mr Speaker. The member that's yapping now never relates to anything, so it's okay. To make it very, very brief, the one thing about this government in which it differs from the Liberal Party is that it does know the difference between a debt and a surplus.

Mr Stockwell: Come on, Pat, wake up, smell the coffee and sit down.

Mr Hayes: Mr Speaker, when you tell me to sit down, I will sit down. I will never sit down for someone like that, okay?

1620

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Thank you. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Dave Johnson: Perhaps in responding to the response, if that's possible, I'm just noting in the Hansard from May 4, 1993, last week during this same debate, and I'm not 100% sure of the context this was made in, but I'm quoting from the minister's statement at that point --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has to relate to the previous speaker who's just given a speech, if you could tie it all in.

Mr Dave Johnson: Right. Tying it all back in, because the member for Wellington has indicated about the participation of the private sector and participation of everyone involved in the program, the minister had indicated: "It's obvious to me that while we've had some participation from the private sector, it has not been as consistent or as widespread as perhaps it should be." This is a direct quote from the minister, noted in Hansard. That's probably why the member for Wellington has discussed participation; that comes from the minister himself.

The member for Wellington has also indicated that there should have been some statement with regard to markets. He used that situation in his speech. I think he's right. When I look, for example, at tires in the province of Ontario, this is one of the major problems we face. There is a huge amount of money being generated through the tire tax, $5 a tire. Some reckoning puts that at well over $100 million that has been raised through the tire tax, yet very little of that money has gone into research. Some $20 million, I think, at most has been committed, and a fraction of that has actually been spent. So here is another problem that has not been addressed in terms of Bill 7. Again, this is why we need further discussion on this whole matter.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just want to briefly make a couple of comments on the member opposite and his deliberations here this afternoon. He, in his presentation, talked about the whole question of the Adams mine proposal out in Kirkland Lake. I just want to put something clear here for the record.

One of the things that was going to happen with that particular proposal, should it have gone ahead -- because the Liberals, yes, would have let it go ahead, and without an environmental assessment, I may add, because it was going to be done another way -- is that it would basically promote an environment in which municipalities would be somewhat rewarded for taking their municipal waste out of their own boundaries and to be brought somewhere else: sort of out of sight, out of mind.

It is not to say that there may not have been some spinoff in doing that. I think everybody recognizes that certainly the ONR, the Ontario Northland Railway people, would have made some money transporting the garbage. There's no question that the municipality of Metro Toronto probably would have benefited somewhat in regard to the tipping fee issue, and also the community of Kirkland Lake probably would have gained something on the tax side. But overall, jobwise, the numbers were somewhat inflated.

But the point I want to make is that this whole legislation goes back to that whole very issue, which is that you need to give municipalities the tools, through legislation, in order to be able to allow them to deal with the question of dealing with waste within their own municipal boundaries. I see this legislation as tied to the previous bill around the Adams mine proposal, in terms of making sure that you deal locally with your municipal waste problem, as a comprehensive policy of saying that if we're going to deal, in the 1990s and the 2000s, with the whole question of municipal waste, we need to make sure that municipalities are well situated vis-à-vis legislation and regulation to have the powers to deal with all of the components around the question of municipal waste and how it is dealt with.

To take the position of advocating that we should have gone ahead with Kirkland Lake in regard to taking Metro's garbage and putting it in a hole somewhere in northern Ontario -- it was an ill-thought-out idea and should have never been started in the beginning, and this is a much better approach.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Stockwell: It's astounding that some members of the government caucus still don't even understand their own legislation, although sometimes it's not very difficult to believe. But they don't understand it.

The previous comment that was just made by the member for Cochrane South suggests that municipalities are rewarded for taking their garbage outside their own boundaries, and he enunciates Kirkland Lake. Well, think about this. Think about your legislation. Where is Metropolitan Toronto's garbage going --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: You see, Mr Speaker, I understand why he doesn't understand. When people are explaining it to him, he's talking.

Where is Metropolitan Toronto's garbage going under your legislation? It's going outside Metropolitan Toronto to the region of York. So in fact, according to this, there is some reward at the end of the day for shipping your garbage to the region of York. The suggestion is that shipping it to York is okay but shipping it to Kirkland Lake isn't, although that's some kind of specific boundary laid down by the temporary government today, that will suggest that Metro's garbage going to a region over is okay, but when you go farther than that, it's not okay.

Further to that, the member stands up, blathering on about the importance of self-contained garbage disposal, and let's be clear that landfill sites, garbage disposal, should be self-contained. The member knows full well -- and if he doesn't, again I'm not really shocked, but the member should know full well that upwards of a million tonnes are being shipped south of the border. So why is that good? It's not good, according to the NDP sandstone-written letters to the law that they suggested in the past about shipping garbage.

So let's get it straight. You can ship it to the neighbouring region, but not Kirkland Lake. You can't ship it down the street, but you can ship it to the United States. You can't landfill, but yes you can landfill. You can't incinerate unless you're shipping to the United States. Their policy is as mixed up as they are, for heaven's sakes.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington has two minutes to respond.

Mr Arnott: I appreciate the additional two minutes to respond to the comments that my colleagues have made in response to my speech. To the member for Essex-Kent, I appreciate his kind comments about my presentation. Then, after complimenting me on sticking to the bill, he went and talked about the other opposition's speaker. But then the irony of that situation and the irony in this place don't surprise me any more.

The member for Don Mills and the member for Etobicoke West have raised important points as well, but the member for Cochrane South talked about the importance of giving municipalities the tools to deal with their waste management problem, the issue of ensuring that they have the tools to do the job. I think you can look at it that way, but you can also look at the need for the provincial government to provide leadership. When we hear this spurious argument from the government that you can't have one municipality's garbage going to another municipality -- and it's already happening routinely, I guess -- you wonder what the motivation is behind that policy. I don't entirely understand it.

I guess they believe that if a local municipality has to look after its own waste, that will be an incentive towards reduction of the waste stream. But I don't think it's just a direct correlation; there's an economic situation that comes into play. If it's more expensive for a municipality to ship it out, that will have an effect on the generation of the waste stream in that local municipality. It's not so much just having in your backyard; it's the actual cost of looking after the waste management responsibility that would have an impact on reducing the waste stream.

So I would encourage the government to really rethink its own thinking on this particular issue and look at it in a more open-minded way, because at the present time there are a number of examples where garbage is already shipped outside of local municipal boundaries, which flies in the face of the government's policy.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Further debate? The honourable member for Brampton North.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I appreciate the opportunity to make a few brief comments, and indeed they will be relatively brief.

At the outset, I want to say, if you'll give me some latitude here, hi to Jim, who's watching, not our member for Durham West but another Jim; and Jim says hi to all his friends, in fact to both of his friends he says hi. Thank you, Mr Speaker. That will oblige him, something on a personal note that I'll tell you in private afterwards.

Bill 7 is a very serious matter because it impacts on something that affects people literally day to day. I just want to make a couple of very brief comments and relate to some of the comments made by other members and particularly some comments made by the parliamentary assistant, Mr Hayes, the member for Essex-Kent, in his opening remarks of 4 May.

As he began to get into the debate with respect to Bill 7, I wanted to draw to the attention of the members of this House and the people of the province of Ontario that the reference made to 50% reduction in waste by the year 2000 is very interesting as it evolves and begins to develop. One of the issues at stake here, and we've tried to phrase this from time to time, is the sense that we have a moving target. I think you'll see where we're coming from thematically on that point of contention, because it seems that the government's target moves from time to time.

1630

When the former Minister of the Environment, Mr Bradley, introduced the objective that we have a 25% reduction by mid-decade and subsequently a 50% reduction by the end of the decade, the view was that we were going to go on base points or a benchmark point from the point of announcement. In fact, what we've done now is we've shifted gears and we're now talking about per capita reduction. The net result is that we're not even coming close to the 50% reduction. I think it's important that we understand that. I think it's very important that we get back on track and tell things as they are, that in fact we're going for 50% reduction and 50% of what. Are we talking per capita or absolute?

Clearly, the intent of the government under Mr Bradley's leadership was to move to 50% absolute reduction. We've slipped from that. That's fine if we revise our goals and revise our plans. All well and good, but let's be forthcoming and deal with that. I just wanted to deal with that as a point of departure and as much as my friend the member for Essex-Kent had mentioned that earlier on.

I'll come back to a second point that the member for Essex-Kent raised as really my concluding comment. One of the things that he raised in his comments as he spoke to the introduction of Bill 7 was the fact he said the government wanted to look at ways of a more appropriate financing so that the shift would move from the taxpayer to those who introduced the disposable products.

One of the concerns I have, and it comes back full circle to the debate we've engaged in over the past couple of years, is the meshing of our government's plans here in Ontario with the plans on a national basis. Indeed, as we compete in a world marketplace you will understand that under the leadership of the then Minister of the Environment from the province of Quebec, Clifford Lincoln, and the leadership of our government with Mr Bradley we moved towards something called the national packaging protocol and had set out a plan that would help us move across this country with legislation that was in harmony jurisdiction to jurisdiction and would also be discussed in the context of North American marketing realities.

My concern is when, in the context of debate in this House, we send signals to people that raise questions that create a little bit of uncertainty. In terms of private sector investment and where we're going with waste management, I think it's important that we have a game plan, that we stick to that game plan and that if we are going to change that game plan in any major way, we do so with all the players involved. I think back again to the national packaging protocol: all ministers of the environment across this country, together with our federal colleagues, working in harmony so that we can do something that doesn't isolate Ontario and so that Ontario takes, and I think appropriately so, a leadership role but that we don't act out of sync, out of harmony with the rest of the country. I wanted to make passing reference to that.

The member for Don Mills, Mr Johnson, who really -- and I noticed in Hansard that the Minister of Environment and Energy made reference to the fact that it was for all intents and purposes his maiden speech and presentation in the House. I might add as well congratulations to a job extremely well done, well researched and well backed up.

The member for Don Mills mentioned, of course, the state of OMMRI and where it's going. To come back to the protocol that has been pending, in the jargon OMMRI II, as it's been referred to within the environmental surplus at the Ministry of Environment, that has sat on the shelf. It's on again, off again and on again. Again, there is the whole concept of uncertainty and leadership so that the people and the 200 industries, 200-plus members, know where they're going, know what the expectations are, know what the funding formulas are, if there will be any funding formulas, so that they can deal with it. This is raised time and time again in debate. I just heard the member for Wellington talk about uncertainty in terms of funding. Uncertainty keeps people in a position where they're not prepared to invest.

Let me say that I've watched with interest and happiness, or at least a sense of, I don't know, satisfaction, for lack of a better word, that the government is beginning to change its tune in some regards with respect to the involvement of the private sector. It wasn't too long ago, in the summer of 1990, in the midst of a campaign, where the NDP said, "We don't believe in the involvement of the private sector," and issued a news release during August 1990. The then critic, the former first Minister of the Environment under the NDP, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, said that in order to "ensure integrity in waste management systems, it was important that it be run in the public sector," words to that effect; to ensure integrity requires the public sector.

I'm delighted that the government has now begun to change its tune, and I notice the member for Essex-Kent said: "We've been talking to the private sector. We're concerned about their involvement and we're listening to them and we want to consult with them and we've talked to the Ontario Waste Management Association and we recognize that they have an important role to play and that they are partners in this." I'm delighted that the government has begun to change its tune and change its direction in that regard. I think it's important that that happen.

Obviously, there are so many areas where the government ought to stay out of the way and let the private sector do the job, and it can be done. The role of the government is appropriately to set the framework, to have the regulatory scheme within which the private sector can operate, and operate with a sense of certainty and the freedom to do that job that it wants to do.

Again I refer to the comments -- and I want to reiterate them because I think they're so very succinctly summed up -- by the member for Don Mills in his first speech in this place. He talked about the essential failings, if you will, or at least question marks. I think "failing" is perhaps too pejorative, because I want to come back to a comment made by the member for Essex-Kent. He said there are some jurisdictional concerns. Indeed there are jurisdictional concerns in terms of the upper-tier, lower-tier governments.

I think of the situation where I live. I know my colleague the critic from Mississauga North has reflected on that particular matter with specific reference to Peel and the makeup of Caledon council, Brampton council and Mississauga council and how those dynamics could perhaps play to the disadvantage of one municipality against another. I thank the member for Essex-Kent, who has recognized that as an issue that needs to be addressed and needs to have some clarity brought to it and has said that they will certainly consider the refining of the legislation and, as it goes to committee or out for further consultation after second reading, that issue will be addressed.

But I want to raise it again and I notice the member for Essex-Kent is acknowledging the fact that he is picking up on that, because it's an area that will potentially -- I don't want to say it "will" impact the community that I represent -- have an impact in the community that I represent, perhaps adversely, perhaps not; one never knows. But I think that to craft the language in such a way as to make it a bit more certain where we have those upper-tier, lower-tier jurisdictional matters on the table will be useful for everybody concerned.

The costing issue keeps being brought up. There's some reference made, and the minister, the Honourable Mr Wildman, made some reference to regulations that were passed just prior to the introduction, I guess, the last -- or brought forward by the government, related to Bill 143 and indicated the interplay of the regulations will be forthcoming under part IV of Bill 143, and Bill 7, as the vehicle that provides municipalities the legislative framework to enact the regs under Bill 143, to have compliance to make the fit, if you will, to enable the municipalities to do their job and to meet the requirements.

Again, I have a concern just from a management point of view, if you will, not to beat this to death but simply to say that those regulations were to have been brought forward a year ago, or near the end of last year; then it was postponed to December of 1992 and then it was January of 1993 and here we are into May, late April, and they're here now in their at least proposed form. I guess the difficulty that I have is this. The private sector is saying, "We're going to have to implement these." Municipalities are saying: "We're going to have to implement them. The legislation for implementing the regulations is coming, giving us the authority to do it, but we're not really sure, in terms of the finality of those regs," in other words, the flow of what's happening, the cart before the horse, if you will.

Let's get our things lined up in a business-like fashion. Here are the regs. Here's what you will be dealing with. Here's the legislation that gives you the tools to deal with the regs. What we have here is the legislation evolving concurrently with the regs and people not knowing exactly how it's going to unfold; hence the issue of costing. It's up in the air and nobody needs to tell any one of the 130 members in this House that the issue of costing and the impact on the tax base is of paramount importance to everything that we do.

Let me come full circle to something I said earlier, implicitly. There are a lot of things that the private sector can do and ought to have the latitude to do because it can do it as well, and in most cases better, than the public sector, and waste management is an area that I say, with the greatest respect to a number of private-public sector initiatives -- I'm proud of some of the things that my friend Mr Bradley did, but in many cases the private sector has been far ahead of us, and I think we have to recognize that.

1640

We have to give them credit where credit is due and let them move ahead and be innovative, be creative, get into the marketplace and seize the environmental opportunities and invest their capital, give the sense of certainty so that they can go to their shareholders and say, "We have a game plan within the legislative framework, the regulatory framework, in the province of Ontario that we can come to you as shareholders and lay out a business plan for investment over the next five, 10 years and make our businesses viable and make them work."

But surely that requires a sense of order, and if we want businesses to operate in that fashion -- and they must operate in that fashion in terms of their accountability -- government has a responsibility to lay out with certainty, in a systematic, well-thought-out fashion what the rules are and the framework within which business must operate.

Let me come full circle, then, to the opening comments of my friend the member for Essex-Kent. He had mentioned early on that there were some considerations that the OWMA had with particular reference to the viability and the certainty of the private sector's involvement and long-term viability.

We had this debate on Bill 143. I might add parenthetically that we brought forward 14 amendments that were brought forward by the private sector, which said that would give them a sense of certainty and would help them overcome some of the misgivings they had at that time. I guess you can understand why they're a little bit leery now, because during the debate of Bill 143 they said, "We want to help you with this where we are in particular agreement with you." There wasn't a whole lot of agreement, to be candid. There certainly wasn't the spirit of general support as there is attached to this particular bill, Bill 7.

In the context of Bill 143, they said: "Okay, we might not be happy with what's happening here, but given that, here are some amendments we need, or we would certainly like to have. Some of them we feel we need, to have that certainty over the long haul, and we'll bring forward 14 of them in the final analysis. There's more that we would like to have, but realistically, there are 14 that we think are good, solid amendments and we're not going to extend our wish list beyond reason." At the end of the day they got not one of those amendments -- not a single one.

They heard the government say in committee and they heard the minister say: "We're beginning to change our tune. We want the private sector's involvement, notwithstanding the fact that previously we had said we don't want them. Now we think that maybe we can use them as partners, and we think we're beginning to understand that maybe they play an important role."

Now the Premier's running around the province saying, "Hey, look, I talk to private sector and business people every day." We're glad you do. Maybe it's too little too late in terms of that recognition, I say to my friends opposite. But the fact of the matter is you've recognized, at least philosophically had a shift, and you said you want at least in some sense, at least if not just simply pay lipservice, in some real sense have some interaction with the private sector.

That tune, I might add, historically began to change in terms of waste management in and around the debate on Bill 143. The government said: "Talk to us. Give us your suggestions. Help us help you." The private sector came and said, "Here are 14 ways with reference to that legislation you could help us," and they got nothing to show for it.

Now we're into Bill 7. The member for Essex-Kent is a genuine, honest individual, a hard-working, dedicated guy. I mean that in all sincerity. He stands on behalf of his caucus and colleagues and his minister and says: "We want to listen. We know there are concerns. We're going to address them."

You can understand why there's a little bit of uncertainty out there because, "We've heard that tune before," say my friends in the private sector, and particularly from the Ontario Waste Management Association.

At the risk of, as I say, flogging a dead horse, I say to my friend from Essex-Kent, Mr Hayes, it's all well and good to say you're going to do it. We're hoping that this time in fact you deliver and come forward, specifically with reference to section 281. You know what we need to do. We need to be a little bit more specific in terms of the definition of what is a waste management system. Let's get the public aspect of that defined very clearly.

On the exemptions in section 209, and he knows of what I speak, get that broadened to allow the facilities that are going to operate under the permit-by-rule regulations to run. They were introduced on April 29, 1993, those regs, and five, six days later we have Bill 7. So we have the draft regs coming April 29, the legislation on May 4, and they're not entirely in harmony in sending the message to the private sector in the certainty that they require. Those are two of the issues that I think are illustrative of the problem that some people have with Bill 7.

I think I speak for most, if not all, of my colleagues on this side of the House, that we are in accord with the spirit and the intent of what you want to do. Nobody takes issue with that as far as I can tell. But the questions that remain unanswered I think need to be addressed, and I think we have to have some concrete answers to them. I don't think in this day and age it's acceptable any more to say, "Trust us, we're going to work it out." To be quite frank, you don't have the latitude financially to do that.

I think, in terms of the dependence, that we need to do the job in partnership with the broad community, with women and men across this province who want to participate in a meaningful way in waste management, with women and men who serve on town councils, on city councils, regional councils and say, "We want to do the job for our taxpayers and, moreover, do it for the environment that we will leave for our children, a responsibility that we accept as people to do the job as best we're able." They need the tools and they need the certainty to be able to do that.

I would simply say in conclusion that as my friend the parliamentary assistant is listening to some of us speak from time to time, I hope he would go to his colleague the minister, to legislative staff, to the staff within the ministry, and say: "Let's nail these things down with a sense of certainty. Here's an opportunity for us to do the job and not only do it, but do it extremely well."

You have an opportunity to close the loop, if you will, to make the words and the music mesh, to send a message with certainty to the private sector: "Yes, not only do you belong but you're welcome here and we're going to give you the tools that you need to be viable, to be certain, to be able to justify your investment and your long-term involvement in the economy in the waste management agenda of all the people of this province."

Mr Speaker, thank you for your indulgence and the opportunity to share for a few moments in this important debate. I look forward to any comments forthcoming from my colleagues.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Dave Johnson: The member for Brampton North has talked about the finances involved with the waste management system, and I might say that's one of the problems we've had with regard to this whole issue. I can tell you that here in Metropolitan Toronto, just for one example, up until the last couple of years Metropolitan Toronto was achieving a great amount of financial revenue from the tipping fees going into the landfill sites. The tipping fees revenue, of course, has gone way down because the waste is going to the south.

It's quite interesting that waste is permitted to go to the United States to places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York. It's permitted to be incinerated and it's permitted to be landfilled at great distances from the province of Ontario, and yet it's not permitted to go to a place like Kirkland Lake. We're not permitted to look at incineration as part of this whole package. Incineration is not on the agenda, Kirkland Lake is not on the agenda, and yet the waste is going to the south.

As a result of the waste going far away to the south, many, many miles, the revenue has come down and Metropolitan Toronto no longer has revenue coming in to pay for the blue box system. As a result, a lot of pressure is being placed on the regional municipality and on the local municipalities, and what is becoming apparent through this whole scheme is that the cost is going to find its way to the local municipalities. I imagine this is the problem that the member for Brampton North is addressing.

The local municipalities, municipalities like North York -- Mayor Lastman of North York is extremely concerned about this whole process because he sees about $5 million to $10 million being put on the taxpayers of the city of North York through this process, and this is something that the municipalities are not going to be able to live with.

1650

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Wellington.

Mr Arnott: I'm pleased to rise and extend a few comments to the member for Brampton North's presentation. I remember the member for Brampton North, while a part of the Liberal government caucus, was the Minister of the Environment's parliamentary assistant. So he brings a considerable degree of experience, I think, as was evident by his presentation, getting into some of the technical issues surrounding this bill.

I think it is important that the government consider the points that he made, certainly the issues surrounding the cost of waste management. This bill brings in a number of changes with respect to recycling. It's a continuing concern as to who will be paying for the cost of the recycling programs in Ontario.

When the bill is silent on those issues and we see the government moving forward with disentanglement and you see that this bill will give all of the responsibility to municipalities for recycling responsibility, in all likelihood we'll be seeing the local property taxpayer again being downloaded upon and picking up the cost of the program.

That's a very, very real concern, especially in a time when we have seen in the last couple of weeks the Treasurer's fiscal statement indicating the cuts in grants to almost every one of the provincial government's partners, especially municipalities, where their unconditional grants will be cut, and we don't know the extent to which other grants may be cut. The Minister of Transportation, I'm sure, will enlighten us at some point in the next few months as to what the situation will be with respect to the possibility of supplementary funding, which is very, very important to rural municipalities.

You have to assume that, again, municipalities are going to be carrying the cost of the provincial government's objectives for waste management, and that is an issue of continuing concern in municipal government and among local taxpayers. It's a real issue, and hopefully the government will consider the points that are being made during the course of this debate, which I think are very, very high-quality presentations from the opposition side.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I found the presentation of the member for Brampton North both interesting and informative. When we realize the mounting costs of recycling, of course, there is great concern by the municipalities, and rightly so, and I was pleased that the member for Brampton North mentioned the national packaging protocol, because, after all, I think that probably the secret to the whole garbage question is to reduce. We need to do a lot more of that in the case, also, of reusing. There needs to be much more reuse, and, indeed, limit recycling only because the materials that we're using can be reused. I think there needs to be a great deal more consideration given to those aspects.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments. If not, the honourable member has two minutes to give a response.

Mr McClelland: I'll just make two points very quickly. One, I want to reiterate the point that I think we need to have certainty. I hope that that certainty will be addressed sooner rather than later so that the private sector, again, has the sense that it can be here, and be here for the long term, and provide the very, very valuable service that it does.

I think it's important to note in the general context of small business, we all understand that the waste management industry is a great example of small business in this province, and all of us in this place know the statistical data that are available that show us the importance of small business in the economic vitality of this province.

The Ontario Waste Management Association membership is no exception to that and in fact has put literally millions and millions of dollars into the economy. We cannot afford to lose them economically; we cannot afford to lose them as good corporate citizens, and in most cases they provide excellent leadership on the environmental agenda.

The community that I represent in Brampton North, like many of its neighbours, is really feeling it in terms of its municipal tax base. We have a growing community. The member for Peterborough isn't here, but my community of Brampton North will this year alone grow by the same number of residents as are in her community. We're growing at about 36,000 per year in the community of Brampton North; 36,000 new individuals.

You can imagine the strain that that's putting on the housing tax base, the residential tax base, in light of the infrastructure requirements in my community. We can ill afford to have a noble and good program shifted down in terms of the financing when we can't afford it, and end up doing something poorly that could be done well, or not doing it at all for lack of the resources to do it.

So, as the member for Wellington has so very well put in the more time that he addressed that, let's deal with the financing issue again. Let's nail that down so we can proceed with certainty and a sense of direction and the resources we need to make it work.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Further debate? The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I take great pleasure in entering into this particular debate on this legislation, Bill 7. I do take great pleasure. I think probably I would have had more pleasure if this piece of legislation were introduced in, oh, September/October 1990, November/December 1990, maybe early in 1991, because at that time we were still of the belief that this government had some principles and integrity and believed in what they said in opposition. Today --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): We know better.

Mr Stockwell: Today we certainly know better. The member for York Mills says it best: "We know better." We're becoming accustomed to the daily retractions, denials, retreats on sundry issues, but not the least of which is landfill sites, waste disposal and the 3Rs: retract, recant and resign.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Garbage, garbage.

Mr Stockwell: Garbage. Garbage and dumps.

What this particular party had in the past was they had the market cornered on the answers to the landfill issue. They had the market cornered because they had all the answers. Of course, when you have all the answers, it's easy to corner the market.

Subsequent to being elected government, it was very apparent, it became very clear, that not only did they not have all the answers; they didn't have any of the answers. They had no idea exactly which way they were heading, in what direction they were moving. And they succeeded where other governments couldn't. They succeeded in upsetting not just local municipalities; they succeeded in upsetting a municipality that wanted a landfill site, which in my opinion was nearly impossible to do, but this government in fact succeeded at that. To the only municipality in all of the province of Ontario which in fact welcomed as a willing host -- I think the Liberals called it a willing host -- the landfill site, this government did the impossible and said no and upset a local municipality which was in favour of receiving a landfill site. So today I think we're a little more cynical, a little more practised in the art of reminding this government of exactly how far it has fallen. And, boy, they have fallen on the landfill.

At first it was the minister from Etobicoke-Lakeshore who gave us the waste authority, and the waste authority was a group of people who got together and succeeded in completely screwing up the entire process. They did this -- not quickly, mind you; it took them about a year -- at the expense of the taxpayers to the tune of $25 million to $40 million.

So they have now probably written off the political career of every member who's ever come out of Durham for the New Democrats. They've probably written off the career of anyone who had any hope of resurrecting theirs in the region of York. And if they had any sitting members in the region of Peel, they would have written their careers off, but since they don't have any, that isn't the case.

They've upset everyone in northern Ontario in the area of Kirkland Lake, although they still insist that they did a recent poll, done by your favourite left-wing-leaning association, that says the people really don't want it regardless of what that private sector poll that was taken said.

They had a noble and probably a prosperous goal for this province. They suggested that in whole numbers we should recycle 50% of the waste. That was a noble goal -- completely impossible to succeed at, but a noble goal. So when it became very apparent to the then minister from Etobicoke-Lakeshore that they were not going to succeed in diverting 50% of landfill sites, what did they do? Did they adjust their future opportunities? Did they realign their policies? Did they re-evaluate the situation? Well, no. What this government did was they changed the rules, and what the rules change meant was that rather than 50% of diversion, or whole numbers, it became 50% per capita, which means significantly less landfill was diverted or reduced. They just changed the numbers so they reach 50%.

So it's much like being in a football game and it's third down and 40 yards to go at the mid-field stripe. Well, it was third down and 40 yards to go at the mid-field stripe, and the minister stood up and said, "Okay, the goalposts now move from the zero yard line to the 35, so we're a lot closer to scoring the touchdown." That's exactly what this government did when it came to recycling, reducing and reusing.

1700

Having said that, we now get to this piece of legislation. This is a really interesting piece of legislation. I recall, as a member of Metropolitan Toronto, the great length this government would go to in explaining to the then Liberal government -- and I don't think they were all wrong; I think even the Liberals to this day would accept some responsibility -- the fact that you can't download on municipalities. It was a good idea.

Municipalities only have one way to collect money and that's through property tax assessment. I'm certain that probably 50% of the members opposite understand that. They can only collect it through property tax. It's a regressive tax. It's not based at all on the ability to pay. It's not based at all on how much money you make or how much money you will make or anything along those lines; it's just based on how much your house is worth -- very regressive.

In opposition I will say that they were very specific in their opposition to the downloading that the then Liberal government was taking. If you read this piece of legislation, Bill 7, they seem to have come to the conclusion that downloading is now a really good idea, because this is all this legislation is. When you come down to the short strokes on Bill 7, when you get down to the bottom line on this piece of legislation, what is it in this piece of legislation that this government wants to see passed? What it wants to see passed is a responsibility for the blue box and the diversion and the recycling, that all that cost be passed off to the municipalities.

Now this government, which in opposition was clear, is leaving the blue box program and the entire recycling program in a very precarious situation. I will say in this House today that I believe that if this piece of legislation is passed, if this legislation is enacted and if this legislation is forced upon regional governments and municipal governments and county governments, the blue box program, the recycling program, will be in major jeopardy of collapsing around itself in two or three years.

Why do I say that? I say that because this is the same government whose social contract is going to pass on reductions of $500 million to municipalities. Local municipalities such as the regional government in Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto, are looking at reductions of $85 million to $100 million in transfer payments. That doesn't even deal with disentanglement, which is going to be even more money. There's not going to be a nickel left over to try to maintain or expand on recycling projects. This doesn't come from just this party; this doesn't come from just the Liberal Party; this comes from the people who have to make ends meet in local government, the local mayors and councils, regional councils and county councils in this province.

This province's recycling program, if this is adopted, is in very serious jeopardy of collapsing around itself. Why? There's not as much money in the landfill issue today as there was two, three and four years ago. I don't think anyone here will even remark when I suggest to you that the moneys available to local councils from moneys they generated from tipping fees is significantly down. Why is it down? For the same reason it's down and they take credit for recycling as being up. It's not up. The same reason that tipping fee is down, because there's a recession and a lot of companies aren't operating today. If companies aren't operating today, they don't produce waste, garbage. There's not that byproduct. They don't have to take that garbage to the dumps, pay the tipping fees to local municipalities, which put it into reserve accounts and spend looking for other landfill sites. That's the first and foremost.

Secondly, because this government has been so hypocritical on the issue of landfill sites and dumps and where you can put them and who can move the garbage that there's a significant amount of revenue leaving this province for the United States. This is not news; this is something that's been happening for the last few years. The member for Don Mills outlined at length the number of landfill sites in the northern United States where the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto and surrounding areas is going. Why is it going there? Because their tipping fees are significantly lower than the municipal tipping fees in the greater Toronto area.

At the same time, where the hypocrisy comes in is that this government will not allow Metropolitan Toronto to pursue and study, through environmental processes, the feasibility of opening up a landfill site in Kirkland Lake, because it doesn't believe regional governments should be shipping their garbage elsewhere except in the boundaries that are confined to their local jurisdiction, except of course if you're the region of York which is right beside Metropolitan Toronto and then you could ship your garbage to the region of York; and except of course if you're going to ship your garbage south to the United States, and that's not okay; and of course except if you're incinerating it. If you ship it to the United States, they incinerate the garbage, the plume goes up in the air and the acid rain comes back towards Canada.

Interjection: Kingston's shipping it to Ottawa.

Mr Stockwell: Kingston's shipping it to Ottawa.

This is a hodgepodge of stupidity. This is a hodgepodge of ill-conceived, poorly planned, badly thought out policy by a government which is caught up in the idea of opposition. So to suggest it's hypocrisy is one thing. I think frankly it's long past hypocrisy. It is bordering on stupidity, their attitude towards landfill, garbage and dumps.

You won't see me get excited today about their particular piece of legislation, Bill 7, because I've come to expect this from this government. I've come to expect legislation that's poorly planned, ill conceived and badly flawed. I've grown to accept it. I've grown to accept the fact that on a usually bi-weekly basis they'll contradict something they said a few short weeks ago. I've grown to accept the fact that they're not going to reach their recycling objectives so they simply change the targets.

I've grown to accept the fact that they consider moving garbage from region to region is not acceptable unless you happen to be Metropolitan Toronto and can move it to the region of York. I've grown to accept the fact that they're going to ignore all the landfill that's going to the United States simply because they choose to ignore it, not for any environmentally sound reason.

I've chosen to accept the fact that they have no idea what they're doing any more when it comes to landfill, dumps, recycling etc.

I've chosen to accept the fact that municipalities are fed up with this government, fed up with its attitude to landfills, fed up with its attitude to dumps, fed up with its social contract, fed up with disentanglement, and they're not going to cooperate any more.

I've grown to accept that fact that every so often they bring in a piece of legislation that they insist on pushing through that insists another body, another group shoulder the responsibilities that they were elected to absorb. Local municipalities are now going to have to shoulder the responsibility of the blue box program. Since they can't, it's going to close up.

There's the old saying that, "The buck stops here." I swear, in every minister's office of this government, there must be a sign on each of the desks, "The buck stops anywhere but here," because there is no responsibility and no reasoned argument as to why this piece of legislation is introduced today.

They have given no reasoned argument to the local municipalities about why they should accept responsibility for the incurred costs -- and they will be dramatic -- of recycling and how they're going to make those ends meet besides hiking taxes to the local taxpayer who can ill afford any kind of tax hike, always in the same breath as telling them they're going to have half a billion dollars in costs for a social contract and additional untold millions, hundreds of millions for disentanglement.

So there's where we're at today. It was a brief description of the history of this government, its flip-flops and so on with respect to this specific issue.

1710

As an alternative party, we've offered our position on a lot of issues, and our position on this issue has also been enunciated in the past and again today. We understand there are some municipalities that are in a crisis when it comes to landfill. They say landfill; I call them dumps. They call it waste; I call it garbage. There are some municipalities that have a garbage crisis today. Maybe it's less of an impact today because of the recession and they're not producing as much garbage, but when and if, under this government, this recession ever ends -- I'm not holding my breath -- they're going to be in the same situation that they were a few short years ago, because they haven't resolved the issue. Metropolitan Toronto still has problems with long-term landfill sites, and it's not just Metropolitan Toronto. I can think of Kingston, Orillia, Ottawa, Guelph, Midland. There's a lot of municipalities out there with some serious landfill issues that they must address, and when this recession ends and garbage soars again, they're going to be in the same situation.

A comprehensive review may be too late, because this government did the worst thing it could have done when it got elected. They simply abolished everything that was done in the past and decided to start over again. So we're no further ahead today than they would have been had they accepted responsibility for what had taken place in September 1990. We've just taken to today to get up to speed. We're still looking for a series of dumps in Metropolitan Toronto and the list is no shorter than the list was in September 1990, except now they've got a whole bunch of communities mad at them because none of those communities want the dump site.

And in September 1990 there was a willing host, and a study was being done to check out the environmental feasibility of opening the Kirkland Lake site. As well as going with the Kirkland Lake site, a significant portion of the money spent by Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers, now being absorbed by provincial taxpayers, was going to be spent on a recycling program, a recycling program that would be self-contained and deal with a lot of the recyclable goods that were being produced not only in Metropolitan Toronto but those goods that were being produced further north in Kirkland Lake itself and so on. It seemed like a natural route to go.

At no time in that period when they were talking about the blue box program did anyone tell the local municipalities, "In some few short years, you'll be thoroughly and totally responsible for all blue box programs and therefore you're going to have to accept the costs." And nobody told them either that the provincial government would come in and threaten to rob their landfill reserve account if it wasn't used up.

So alternatives are clear, in my opinion. The Kirkland Lake site must be addressed. You must address the Kirkland Lake site for two reasons: One, you're going to be into a crisis in a few short years, and two, from a handling point of view and a blue box point of view, it seems to make some reasoned sense. Plus, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the local municipal officials in Kirkland Lake were prepared to make a deal. It was important that that deal be consummated, because the same issue is going to face Kingston, Ottawa, Guelph, Orillia, Midland etc, etc, etc.

Now, how do we deal with the blue box program? Well, my fear is that in a few short years you won't have to deal with the blue box program, because I know that when municipalities like North York and Etobicoke and East York and so on and so on and so on begin to realize the capital costs and the operating costs of paying for a curbside blue box at-source program, they're going to opt out. I think they've pretty much made that clear. In North York, I think the figure was something in the neighbourhood of $10 million, $5 million to $10 million in the city of North York to absorb these costs, according to this piece of legislation that is being passed through. That's $5 million to $10 million additional to the taxpayers of North York if this particular program is adopted. Who can pick up that cost? The regional government? Metropolitan Toronto isn't prepared to pay additional money for recycling. The provincial government? The provincial government's the last state.

So in essence, in my opinion, if this piece of legislation is adopted and passed on to local municipalities, you'll see the municipalities revolt. The local municipalities will say, "We don't want to be a party to this." And I don't care what AMO says, because I don't think AMO really represents the cross-section broad view of local municipalities.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Now, now.

Mr Stockwell: I don't believe it does. I think it's dominated, in some cases, by like-minded hypocrites. When these particular people come forward and tell me categorically that AMO accepts this Bill 7, that it understands this piece of legislation and buys into it, I don't believe that, from a local municipal point of view. I do not believe that.

I also know full well that in one answer to a question the minister here talking about disentanglement said he had a signed contract from AMO. I don't think there's a deal on disentanglement either. If there is, I don't think AMO represents the broad cross-section of views of the local municipalities.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find too many municipal officials who buy into this piece of legislation and are prepared to absorb the costs that go along with it. Now, unless my Liberal friends or government friends can direct me elsewhere, I've not met that municipal official who is going to absorb costs for a recycling program for the local municipality. I've not met that individual elected.

So I think that is a major red herring used by this government to direct debate on this piece of legislation, because I don't believe that fundamental principle you hang on, that fundamental agreement that you believe you have, is a broad cross-section, widely held view within the municipal world.

Again, if it can be proven otherwise, I'll eat my words. But quite frankly, of all the municipalities that I've spoken to, I can't find one in agreement with this piece of legislation, not one, and I'll be shocked if we find one, because the cost is going to be, I think, insurmountable.

In conclusion, I think this government had better rethink its position on this piece of legislation. I think it has to rethink its position on this piece of legislation for not only one reason, but one reason specifically: the financing of the blue box, landfill, recycling programs. I think they're going to have to rethink it, because if they don't, the system will collapse and break down, and no one will be served when that happens. The municipalities won't be served, the regional governments won't be served and the provincial government will not be served. You'll only put forward a piece of legislation that is so onerous and difficult to local municipalities that they will basically buckle underneath the financial cost.

This is nothing new. This is a typical about-face flip-flop by a government on an issue that it claims to hold so dearly to its heart, another flip-flop. It's a flip-flop like auto insurance was a flip-flop. It's a broken promise like Sunday shopping was a broken promise. It's a broken promise like casino gambling was a broken promise. It just fits in perfectly with the endless list of broken promises.

I said as a joke one day in this House that we should have a committee of broken promises, but it would be the busiest committee in this Legislature: Practically every bill would be referred to the committee of broken promises. This one would fit that very nicely, because once again this government has mouthed the platitudes on this side of the House and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt on that side of the House that it is incapable of governing, whether it comes to casino gambling, whether it comes to the finances of this province, when it comes to the landfill issue and the recycling program. This piece of legislation, if adopted, will certainly mean the end of the recycling program and the blue box program within two or three years in this province. Mark my words.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I think my honourable friend the member for Etobicoke West is absolutely right: The cost is number one. The program, Bill 7, might be acceptable to some, but most municipalities, especially with the introduction of the disentanglement program, are asking themselves who will pay for the additional burden of the cost of waste management. I think every municipality in this province wants to cooperate with the provincial government.

Last week I attended FONOM in New Liskeard, and it was the top subject of many mayors and councillors throughout the province of Ontario. When we talk today, 1993, about Bill 7, waste management and the environment, you would think that these two things have recently opened our eyes, recently happened. But this has been a long debate in this House.

I want to tell you that I don't know what previous governments did in the past about waste management, but I can tell you that when this government was in power under the leadership of the former Minister of the Environment -- he just came in the House -- we started these programs with the intention of working with municipalities. This is not happening today. I don't know why the government is consulting with our 834 municipalities, because any time it brings in new legislation, it's upsetting 834 municipalities. Whom are they negotiating with? We have to resolve this.

1720

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Simcoe East.

Mr McLean: I just wanted to comment briefly on the remarks made by the member for Etobicoke West.

The parliamentary assistant to the minister is here today, and I think he has some questions that should be answered -- the answer he has got from the member who just spoke. What I'm looking for from the government are the answers to some of the questions that he asked. I want to know if downloading and the blue boxes turned over to the regions and counties is a fact. Are you going to do that? Is that why the amendments to Bill 208, which is Bill 7, amending it -- is that what that bill is going to do? Is this bill now going to transfer the cost to the local municipalities? If it is, how about telling us?

The other major point that was made had to do with regard to the municipalities where they have only one tax base, as the member so distinctly said -- one tax base only. Are they going to be downloaded on to the counties and regions, as said?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): There's only one taxpayer.

Mr McLean: That's right, but you don't understand the difference between how the municipalities get their tax money and how you do. That's why you're over there, and you have no idea about financing in this province of Ontario, because there's sales tax, gas tax, transportation tax -- as a matter of fact, you collect more taxes for your Ministry of Transportation than the whole ministry spends, more gas tax and fuel tax than you spend on roads. So don't talk to me about whether we know what we're talking about or not.

The member's very clear with what he was saying, because he knows that it's another downloading on to the local municipalities, and it's happening. So there you are.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Essex-Kent.

Mr Hayes: No, the intent of this legislation is not to download on municipalities at all; the intent of this legislation is to give municipalities the powers that they have been long asking for, so they could have their own 3R programs to reduce the amount of waste that is going into landfill sites in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Final participant, the honourable member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I always enjoy the participation of the member for Etobicoke West, who succinctly puts his point in a non-bombastic and quiet way to the House. I would just like to direct a few questions to him, discounting what the polls are saying these days and remembering that the enemy is still on the other side.

I would like to know if he has heard from the environment groups that used to almost daily be speaking to the news media about environmental issues, and particularly waste management issues. I'd like to know if, as the member for Etobicoke West, he has been receiving those representations, whether he's aware of any press conferences that have been held at Queen's Park or elsewhere to denounce the lack of action on the part of this government for such a long period of time dealing with environmental issues.

Second, I would like to know if he has been able to find an environmental writer left in the province of Ontario who actually deals with these issues, or whether he's aware, when any questions have been asked in this Legislature, whether Radio Noon has followed up on these to determine whether something the government is doing is wrong, or whether it has decided that trying to determine the identification of a bird by the noise it makes or what a first prom date was like has taken precedence over the environmental issues.

Third, I would like to know, as a former municipal councillor, just given the preference of two governments -- not his own; he may have a better solution in his mind -- but given the solution offered to the waste management problems of this province by the previous government and minister and by the present governments and ministers, which, if he had to make that tough choice between those two, he would select at this moment in time with the caveat that he can find a further solution himself.

Last, does he well recall the speeches that New Democrats across this province made about environmental issues and the level of anticipation they raised among people concerned about the environment, about what they would do to solve all of the problems of this province, and is he satisfied that indeed they have been solved to this point in time?

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the time allotted for questions and/or comments. The member for Etobicoke West has two minutes in response.

Mr Stockwell: I thank the member for Simcoe for the comments he made. As far as the government member who's offered his conclusion that this was not how it was designed: Better come to earth. This is exactly what's happening. The costs are being passed on. It's called downloading. If you can't understand that, then you've obviously not read the written submissions that have been dealt with.

To the Minister of Transportation, we can't get you to answer a question during question period; why are you so forthcoming now?

To the member for St Catharines, I wrote his questions down because I always find that he is a non-bombastic member and I always like his very unparochial, close-to-the-heart questions he asks that never have anything to do with a hospital or a CAT scan in St Catharines.

So I'll respond in order. No representations from Pollution Probe and so on and so forth: I do find that rather astounding, considering the fact that those particular groups were one of the great forces that felt this government would be the greatest government since sliced bread. It didn't seem to work out that way. I'm constantly astounded that during these announcements, when they back off and reel from particular positions, we don't hear from those groups any more, and gosh, I'm beginning to miss them. I never thought I'd say that.

The next one, about environmental writers: They've left. They've gone to Washington. They're enamoured with Bill Clinton.

Radio Noon is now taking its segue from NDP morning. It's now Radio Noon that follows. They're thinking that the proms etc are more important that environmental concerns, which I also find rather astounding.

Waste management choice; which government would I choose? I think Davis led a fine government on environment. Specifically on the environment, it's rather curious that all the left-wing, social saviours of environment have apparently vacated this province once the NDP was elected -- not a peep out of these people who were saving our souls from the dangers of other governments, and this may be the worst environmental nightmare before my eyes.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I just want to make it clear up front that I'm standing to oppose any dump in my riding. During the by-election, when I canvassed every door in my riding, I must say that I heard no request for a dump in the riding. I just wanted to pass that on to the member for Essex-Kent.

However, I did hear quite a bit about people saying they couldn't understand why this government had taken the position on dumps that it did. They thought Kirkland Lake was a fine solution, one to be considered and couldn't understand why this government wasn't considering it.

I think what we see in this bill and other related issues is that lack of a reasoned and considered way to approach these issues. I think there's a bit of a "catch as catch can" in this bill, and I think the 3Rs are something of course we all support, but I think often it's chanted as a mantra to lull us into a certain stupefaction and to pass pretty well anything that has its imprimatur on it before we consider it fully. That's why I think, in respect of this bill, that we certainly need to hear from the public.

I know that many members of my party have stood up and said that public hearings are necessary. I know there is a commitment to do that and I think that's important, because I think one of the crucial aspects to this piece of legislation is the question of how it's going to be paid for. I don't think there is anything in this that speaks to that, and we're going to have to hear about those plans because I do agree, as much as this chagrins me, with the member for Etobicoke West that this is a question of downloading. I think it is a question of downloading.

We have to hear from the municipalities all across this province as to how it's going to work, how much it's going to cost and how this government is going to have plans to pay for it, because it's going to be a significant cost, I think even more so in the context of the social contract, as it's been called, the NDP social contract, because that is going to involve significant cuts to municipalities, many of which have committed to no tax increases and then find themselves cut even further.

The difficulty of imposing this power and imposing these requirements, both in terms of the regulations and this bill, is going to be a real problem for municipalities, and I think we're going to have to hear about how that's going to be done. I'd like to hear from the government as to how it proposes to do this.

1730

I think what we really need is consideration of a reasoned plan on this bill, and one of the issues that is not very well addressed, although I've heard the member for Essex-Kent talk about consultation with the private sector -- I think that's a good thing and an important development, a development which is a long time coming. It's good to see it's happening, because I think the private sector has a very significant and important role to play in this.

First off, in that regard I would agree with my friend the member for Mississauga North when he commented the other day that one of the concerns is going to be related to the fact that this bill not impact on private waste management people in terms of how they conduct their business, and I think that clarification is going to be an important one.

Also, how the private sector is going to be involved in both the blue box program and waste reduction is going to be an important issue and one that should be addressed. I know that the member who was newly elected the same time I was, the member for Don Mills, made a lengthy speech on the issue of the costs related to this program, specifically the blue box program, and how there appear to be real problems in terms of funding. They're running out of their ability to fund, I believe, a third of the costs through the OMMRI, the Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc, and there was some $4 million in blue box funding that they weren't able to do. I think we're going to have to hear about those in these committees and it's a concern that needs to be addressed more fully.

I will also talk, if I can, about the issue of user fees and I'm concerned that this could be a tax on the poor. In the by-election, when I was canvassing door to door in some of the Metro Toronto Housing facilities and Ontario Housing Corp facilities, I was asked by many people why there was no recycling program in those buildings. To be honest, I was surprised to find out that there were none.

Obviously, this is going to impose that recycling program, but I'd like to know, if I could, from the member for Essex-Kent and the government, how it's proposed that those housing corporations deal with the additional cost. Are they going to be asked to contribute, is the municipality going to assume it, and how is that assessment going to be done? I think it's quite clear in the social contract, which is the latest euphemism for, "You take less and we'll all be happy," that there is a cut coming to those authorities as well and to the people who live in them. I know there are proposed cuts in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, to the people living in those buildings, that concern me greatly. The people are being asked to do with less and yet this bill provides a proposal to tax those people for the garbage they produce and I think, in those circumstances, that would be a significant and real problem, to create a tax on the poor. I want that issue addressed and discussed.

I think the member for Etobicoke West and many others in our party talked about the issue of tipping fees. There's no doubt the municipalities have less money to deal with this issue. Tipping fees have gone up, the revenue has gone down and of course much of that has to do with the recession plaguing this province. Whether and if we get out of it under the reign of this current government, I have grave and serious doubts. It might take the re-election of a Liberal government under the fine leadership of Lyn McLeod to do that, finally to give the new hope this province needs, and I think Lyn McLeod can give that hope.

The context for this bill, as well: I'm a bit concerned about its application in the Metropolitan Toronto area with the two-tier difficulty. As the member for Essex-Kent and the government know, it's proposing that a regional council, directly elected, can pass a bylaw and take over the collection of waste and other waste-related issues. I think there's a concern about that in Metropolitan Toronto. I think there's a lot of possibility for friction between the levels of government, and I think with respect to the kinds of issues in the waste management system that collection is an issue which can be more efficiently and effectively dealt with by the local municipality. I think there are issues that need to be addressed in that regard, and I think we have to be concerned that we don't create a problem where one doesn't exist.

In the context of the goal of the 3Rs, I think my friend the member for Brampton North mentioned quite appropriately the national packaging protocol, which was also picked up on by my friend the member for Brant-Haldimand, another newly elected Liberal. We're winning all these by-elections, Mr Speaker, and slowly chipping away at the majority, one by one. I hope we have a few more resignations and maybe we can get the election a little bit earlier.

Mr Bisson: Bye, bye. Nice seeing you.

Mr Hayes: It's already happening.

Mr Murphy: I appreciate the interventions. The one thing I'm also concerned about is the issue of targets. The question is how we're going to meet these targets in the time frames. I gather there's been a cutting back of these targets and that we're going to try and attempt to achieve the targets -- I gather it's meeting, in 1992, the 1987 target, and by 2000 the 1987 target. We're moving that back and the concern is that there isn't enough money in the system to successfully achieve these targets.

If we're transferring more and more of the authority to municipalities, which cannot afford the programs and policies, then we're going to have a real problem. They're going to be put between a rock and a hard place with legislation that mandates that they do it, without the financial resources to do it, without the tax base to do it. They're going to be forced to increase taxes. To say that somehow downloading is not what this bill is about, well, that's entirely wrong.

It seems to me it's another transfer of the financial responsibility for achieving what is agreed to be a goal that we all think is worth achieving, but is transferring it to municipalities all across the province without a reasoned plan as to how they're going to deal with it.

I think with all due respect that it would have been better if we'd had some sense of that plan first. This is a government that's been rocketing back and forth from one position to another, to establishing an IWA, then getting rid of an IWA. There isn't much sense to it.

I think also of the blue box program, and I'm wondering in the context how the government proposes that municipalities are going to pay for this program, because it's not just a blue box program. You're not just putting blue boxes out there and collecting it. There are specialized trucks which are required. There are source separation facilities.

Then the question is, what are we going to do with what's sorted and what's collected? We're already collecting more than we can effectively use. We're not selling it in a way that's generating sufficient revenue to pay for what's being produced, and yet we're proposing to do more with it. If there is a sensible way to encourage and expand the use of the waste reduction facilities of the blue box program, it's to find an economic and efficient use of the end products of this program, and then we'll have created an incentive in the system for people to do it. We need that financial incentive.

I do not see in this, or in fact in anything, a very effective program for looking at those issues, and they need to be looked at. Again -- and I want to come back to the private sector in this regard -- I think we need to have more and better consultation with the private sector, because I do believe that environmental regulation can be part of an engine of economic growth. I do not believe in the tradeoff between environment and the economy. I think both of them can be pursued in the same context. But it has to be done in the context of a reasoned and sensible plan, of sitting back and saying, "How are we going to achieve this?"

1740

I think we have to look at the end products of recycling, of the blue box program, look at how we can use that efficiently, and then encourage the private sector to be involved, to be innovative. If we can do this, as a province, more effectively and more efficiently, then we have a technology and a process that we can export to other provinces, to other countries.

I haven't heard of a plan to deal with that, and I'd like to hear from the member for Essex-Kent some of his concerns and the government's ideas in terms of dealing with that issue, because it seems to me that if we keep producing recycled material without any end for it, all we're doing is increasing the costs and having no way to regain the funds. They're going to be added to the property tax base and the income tax base and we're just going to end up with an economy -- the only way we're going to end up reducing is to have a recession so bad that no one is creating any waste. That's just not what this party, certainly, is prepared to see happen in this province.

I think we have a proposal to bring this to public hearings, and I think that's an important thing to have happen, because there are other issues that we need to talk about in that context too.

I look at Bill 7 and the concerns that AMO has brought forward. They quite rightly are saying: "How are we going to deal with this at this time? The timing is bad. In the context, it's inappropriate." While they agree with the goal, it's just not the appropriate time. I think they need a bit longer to rethink this. I think maybe the public hearings will provide that opportunity. I hope they will, but if not, I think the government should be prepared to rethink this and come back with a reasoned plan.

Finally, I think we need to look at this bill and the regulations in the context of how it affects my riding. In St George-St David I go through the riding and I see lots of people participating in the blue box program, lots of people who want to participate, lots of people who have goodwill towards the improving of the environment by the 3Rs, by blue box and other programs. I think that's an important public participation that we need to take advantage of and encourage. All three parties in this Legislature need to encourage and move on that. I think, in part, some of the directions of this bill are appropriate in doing that. In general, I think providing some of that authority in municipalities is appropriate and some of what's in here is a helpful way to start doing that, subject to the concerns that I have expressed.

In the end, I think there are appropriate and helpful things in here, but there are issues that haven't been addressed adequately or appropriately and I would very much like to hear from the member for Essex-Kent and from the public during the public hearings on that. I would appreciate any comments from my colleagues.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. One thing about being in this corner of the House: It's hard to catch your eye at times.

I would just like to touch on two of the issues that were raised by the member opposite and see if we can dispel, I guess you can say, some of the myths that have been raised in regard to this bill. The first one is the whole question of downloading, and I think we need to be clear as members here on all sides of the House when we're talking about that.

The argument put forward by both opposition parties is that this particular bill is a downloading of costs on to the municipalities by us somehow cutting funding or something. I think we need to be clear about what this thing is. Bill 7 gives municipalities the ability to be able to manage their waste problems, but at the same time it gives them basically the authority to be able to turn around and to do such things as, for example, setting targets in terms of reduction of waste coming out of a particular plant or whatever.

Put it this way: At present, if a municipality were to say, "I'm telling you as an industrial user that you must do the following in order to be able to cut down on your overall waste," there would be a clear question about who has the authority to do that, and whether a municipality indeed has the authority under present legislation to do that.

What this particular bill does is give the municipality the ability, and clarity under the law, to be able to set those standards. This bill does exactly that: It gives authority.

On the downloading issue, I think we need to be careful, because this is a new program the municipalities are generally in favour of doing and putting in place. I guess the comparison can be made, for example, of when the Liberals were in power and there was a whole question of the court security issue. The Liberal government of the day said to municipalities, "You have to provide those services," much the same way as we're saying under this bill, "You have to provide those services." Was that downloading? No. It was a mandating of program and regulations. Every government deals with this. This is regular legislation that is around, and it's just the way that things are done.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for St George-St David has two minutes in response.

Mr Murphy: In response to the comments from the member for Cochrane South, it's quite clear that this is a downloading. There's no doubt about it. It is a program that is being introduced without any plan for how it's going to be paid for.

This government is saying to the municipalities, in both this act and the regulations: "Here's what you have to do. We're telling you to do this and we're not going to tell you how to pay for it, other than to go tax your municipalities or put a special user fee on occupants or home owners." That's clearly downloading. You are transferring that responsibility to the municipality with no plan for its payment.

I have a great problem with that. Municipalities do, and I have a problem with that. And I have a problem with the tax on individuals. It's going to be a tax on the poor in my riding. People who can't afford it are going to be forced to pay some kind of fee to have the garbage picked up, and that's unacceptable.

There's no provision in here whatsoever of how municipalities are supposed to pay for this. I haven't heard any announcement from the government on how they're supposed to pay for it. I haven't heard this member's idea on how it's supposed to be paid for, and until we have that, we can't have a full and fulsome debate on this issue. I wait to hear the government's ideas about how it's going to be paid for.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to join the debate on Bill 7, which looks like a fairly general piece of largely permissive legislation around a subject, I must say, that occupies an increasing amount of interest in my county, which is Renfrew.

I simply want to bring a local and regional perspective to this and say some things that might offend some people, including my friend St James Bradley, late of the Ministry of the Environment, because I can say that in my area, my county, Renfrew, a very large, probably the largest county in the province, some 36 municipalities, larger even than Glengarry, where we have several municipalities of fewer than 400 and 500 permanent residents, garbage and waste management is the issue of the moment.

I listened with interest to my friend the member for St George-St David talk about the concerns that he has about the impacts in downtown Toronto. I want to say that in terms of rural Ontario -- and certainly I represent a very large slice of it in Renfrew county --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Sorry. Everything's relative. I was thinking of the north. Sorry, with respect, sir.

Mr Conway: There are days I really --

Hon Mr Pouliot: There are many more, on this side, of those days.

Mr Sutherland: He represents a larger constituency.

Mr Conway: Oh, listen. It's like the old British empire: A greater empire has never been than Manitouwadge. I understand that you represent an imperial constituency in the far northwest. I mean, I only represent 3,000 square miles of southeastern Ontario.

The point I want to make --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, make the point. What is it you want to say? You've got 10 minutes. Hurry up.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Renfrew North has the floor. Other members will have opportunities to ask questions or comment when their turn comes.

1750

Hon Mr Pouliot: Ask him to focus. What is it he's talking about? Bill 7. Waste management. That's what we want to hear.

Mr Conway: The issue is garbage, and I won't point to exhibit A. But I just simply want to make the point that in Renfrew county there is a very real concern around this whole issue of waste management, the costs, the processes. I look at this bill and I see much in it that I can certainly support, and I'm sure my friend the former mayor of Manitouwadge could support it as well.

I happened on Saturday night to be with some of the people from the county-city waste management group and some other people who are very much involved in the provincial administration of certain of these policies. I left that meeting angry, depressed, and I'm going to share some of that anger and some of that frustration this afternoon; angry because we've spent a lot of time and we've made, I think, considerable progress in terms of changing attitudes. Younger people, people much younger than myself, have a very different notion of what's appropriate conduct in terms of packaging and throwing things out into "the dump." So volumes are being reduced through a variety of strategies that have been supported, I think, on all sides.

But I'll say this at first instance, that as a ratepayer in the city of Pembroke, as someone who owns a little bit of a rural property out in cottage country --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Do you want an easement?

Mr Conway: No, I don't need an easement, but what I would like to see is a better presentation to individual citizens by their municipal governments as to the actual cost, the per- household cost, of waste management. My impression is that in both my municipalities where I live, in the city of Pembroke and in the township of Brudenell and Lyndoch, where my seasonal residence can be found, the single most --

Mr Bisson: Seasonal residence?

Mr Conway: Cottage, I guess, is what we call it; chalet.

The fastest-growing part of the tax bill is the waste management account, and most of us have no idea. I listened to my friends Saturday night talk about the costs that they're experiencing, and I believe them. But the worry I have is that, as municipal or as provincial politicians, we're a long way from conveying that message to our citizenry. If you're on the Essex county council or if you belong to the Ministry of Environment or if you're a friend of Jim Bradley, you know only too well what the pressures and what the costs are, but the population at large has no idea.

One of the recommendations that I would make is that there should be included in every municipal tax bill an estimate of the per capita cost on an annual basis of waste management. I think there should be a big fluorescent slip in my tax bill saying that in Brudenell township this year, of my $1,000 worth of taxes -- because the school tax is indicated, and when it goes up by five cents or $5, as it does on occasion, or when the local levy goes up, people see it and they are often concerned about it.

But the fastest-rising cost in the whole package is waste management, and there's no broad understanding of that. Until we make people understand that these costs are rising exponentially, we're not going to be able to bring people to an understanding of some of the alternatives that I think the ministry --

Mr Bradley: You're making disparaging remarks about me.

Mr Conway: Well, Bradley is a very generous fellow. He's a friend of mine. But I think of some of the policies that he introduced and that I supported, and in my county they've been beneficial, if only to the consultants and to others. Now, I know my friend Bradley and his colleagues back then intended that this not be a cornucopia for the consultants and others.

Mr Sutherland: That's eco-terrorism.

Mr Conway: The member for Oxford points out that this is some kind of eco-terrorism. One of the criticisms I have about both the current process and the process of the previous administration is that there is the happy assumption that this is ultimately just a process issue; just pour enough money and allow enough time and you're going to --

Hon Mr Pouliot: You're such a fence-sitter. You've never made a decision in your life.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Give the member for Renfrew North the opportunity of participating.

Mr Conway: My point about the process and my point about the policy is that much of this is going to turn on political decisions, and they're not going to be easy and they're not going to be very popular.

Mr Bradley: And they won't be on Radio Noon.

Mr Conway: And they won't be on Radio Noon.

But we are deluding ourselves and we're spending a lot of time and money if we think this is all just about finding a process.

It's 14 years ago now, I guess, that Harry Parrott stood up after the first mess about siting a toxic waste site in the Cayuga area.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You are starting to blend.

Mr Conway: Just hear me out. There was a first decision made about putting that toxic waste dump down in the Grand River valley. We backed off the minute that the problems with that were identified. What did we then do? We went out and we got Donald Chant, an eminent environmentalist, as eminent as they come, and gave him a crown corporation called the Ontario Waste Management Corp. All I know is that 13 years and $125 million later we have one of the world's best processes, but what else have we?

I am not saying that there have not been benefits, but I look at my own county and I look at the debate, and where I think we have failed provincially -- I will say it in our government and I think in this government -- is not being clear enough and firm enough in telling people what the parameters are really going to be.

Mr Bradley: And the cost.

Mr Conway: And the cost as well. I cite the Ontario Waste Management Corp example carefully, because it was 10 or 12 years and I think, at last count, $125 million. I bet you I am understating that. I will say this: We will never build anything at Smithville or Bismarck. It will not be built. Undoubtedly that will be a $125-million exercise that'll have some very significant benefits. We won't do anything there, but we will have had a great debate.

I look at the current situation. We've got in the Pembroke area a waste management study that's going on. It's been going on for a number of years, it's taken a very considerable amount of time and energy and a lot of money, and I'm very hopeful that it's going to produce some finality. I know that when the final recommendations are made there is going to be a firestorm of protest around whatever is decided. There is no consultant and there is no process that is going to obviate that reality.

Mr White: Obviate that reality?

Mr Conway: Or lessen that reality.

Mr Stockwell: Don't worry; it was only Drummond.

Mr White: It is important to use the right language.

Mr Conway: No, no, my friend is right. We're not going to be able to --

Hon Mr Pouliot: We don't know that word, but we don't dare, but when we find out it doesn't even exist --

Mr Conway: You check it out, friend, and come back.

Mr Bradley: Stephen Lewis used to make up words, not Sean Conway.

Mr Conway: You check it out and come back and we'll talk about it. But my point is simply this: I don't think that politicians, whether they're municipal or provincial, should be deluded into thinking that at the end of the day you're going to not have to make some tough choices around relatively unattractive options. I think the environmentalists are good friends of mine; St Bradley is certainly one of them. But a lot of this debate over the years has been focused on highly desirable, very idealistic options. Those are not the ones I expect to be choosing from at the end of the day.

I just simply make the point that I look at my county and I look at what we've put our municipalities through, the hundreds of thousands of bucks, the millions of dollars, a lot of which expenditure was probably necessary, but we're getting to a point --

Mr Stockwell: You are going to need funding.

Mr Conway: Yes, I am just saying that my taxpayers in these rural municipalities are looking at this debate and they are seeing some very worrisome things.

One of the things that I think we've got to address for a lot of the rural counties is what kind of county reorganization is going to be required because of the costs of waste management. The costs for these small townships is enormous and they are clearly not going to be able to manage this cost on their own.

Mr Speaker, as I know you want me to adjourn the debate, let me conclude before I adjourn the debate this afternoon. I think we have to be honest with municipalities, particularly the small rural ones, in what we have for them and what our intentions are, because the costs in rural Renfrew are back-breaking and we know the mood of the taxpayer with respect to these kinds of additional burdens. I want to return to this when we pick up this debate next time. I'm happy to adjourn the debate this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: When we next debate Bill 7, the honourable member for Renfrew North will have the opportunity of completing his time.

It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 11, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.

May 10, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO THIRD WORLD

MARLAND YOUTH COUNCIL

NATIONAL BALLET OF CANADA

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT

ADOPTION

BREAST-FEEDING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

POLICE WEEK

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

HEALTH SERVICES

LABOUR RELATIONS

INMATE SECURITY

RECREATIONAL LICENCES

POLICE SERVICES

GASOLINE HANDLING

CLEANUP OF INDUSTRIAL SITE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

BUNGEE JUMPING

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

FUEL CONSERVATION TAX

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

DRIVERS' LICENCES

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

MOTORCYCLES

GAMBLING

LA VIOLENCE

BICYCLING SAFETY

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

TAXICABS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SISTERS OF CHARITY AT OTTAWA ACT, 1993

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS